Author Topic: Did you catch Clinton on Fox News? (Read 3364 times)

midnight Target · « **Reply #15 on:** September 25, 2006, 10:14:10 AM »

Wow... Did you guys read that? What exactly did he dodge? Sounds like he gave Wallace a slap down. And he answered every question.

john9001 · « **Reply #16 on:** September 25, 2006, 10:30:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Wow... Did you guys read that? What exactly did he dodge? Sounds like he gave Wallace a slap down. And he answered every question.

yes, and he used the same finger and talked the same as when he said "i never had sex with that women, not one time".

judge people not by what they say, but by what they do.

JB88 · « **Reply #17 on:** September 25, 2006, 10:34:46 AM »

okay. he got a hummer and he tried to stop bin laden.

judgement done.

Rameusb5 · « **Reply #18 on:** September 25, 2006, 10:56:29 AM »

What pisses me off the most about this is that the same people who critisized the ex-Pres (and still do) are the same ones who claim that those who critisize the current President are "siding with the Terrorists."

Get some friggen perspective already.

Sure, "Slick" Willy failed in stopping the terrorists. EXACTLY like the current administration did.

Of course, Clinton also got a BJ and then lied about it under oath. Our current president simply lied to the American People in order to start a war where thousands (of Americans) have died and will probably go on for a decade at least, and that's if it doesn't escalate (Hi Iran).

Which is worse?

Makes you wonder if Bush had gotten a BJ from a fat chick we'd even be in this situation...

deSelys · « **Reply #19 on:** September 25, 2006, 11:19:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by JB88
okay. he got a hummer and he tried to stop bin laden.

judgement done.

Same as Bush, plus a hummer.

I just saw that Rameus was saying basically the same. Anyway, it bears repeating.

Yeager · « **Reply #20 on:** September 25, 2006, 01:12:15 PM »

Our current president simply lied to the American People in order to start a war
====
where is the evidence of this lie? Locate for me the definitive indisputable evidence that implicates anyone associated with lying to start a war with Iraq.

Prefer something that can be used as evidece of lying in court of law please.

Or are you just framing your response above to a "gut feeling" based on massive reams of political spin?

Thanks in advance.

BTW · « **Reply #21 on:** September 25, 2006, 01:44:44 PM »

I don't like Clinton, but I know someone doing what Chris Wallace was doing should never label themselves a journalist.

And no, I did not see Clinton dodge a question. I do think he has a different take on events then most do. A lot like Rumsfeld- he still believes we are being welcomed as liberators in Iraq and insurgents are messing up the celebration. As weird and out of touch with reality that is, I do think Rumsfeld believes that. I also believe Clinton thinks he did all that was possible to kill OBL.

I can understand how people enjoy this little game CW played on Clinton. Its out of frustration in the left wing media. But it doesn't fix anything, and it doesn't balance anything. Its just more crap on the pile.

SMIDSY · « **Reply #22 on:** September 25, 2006, 02:14:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rameusb5
Makes you wonder if Bush had gotten a BJ from a fat chick we'd even be in this situation...

anyone who HASNT gotten a BJ from a "fat chick" raise your hand. (i have, and im not ashamed of it, fat chicks try harder:p ).

Rameusb5 · « **Reply #23 on:** September 25, 2006, 02:35:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
Our current president simply lied to the American People in order to start a war
====
where is the evidence of this lie? Locate for me the definitive indisputable evidence that implicates anyone associated with lying to start a war with Iraq.

Prefer something that can be used as evidece of lying in court of law please.

Or are you just framing your response above to a "gut feeling" based on massive reams of political spin?

Thanks in advance.

Where is the evidence that he told the truth? Where are the WMDs? Where are the links to Al Quida (sp)?

Either the President was grossly misinformed by the people who work for him, or he lied to us outright.

Which is worse? I'd prefer that he lied, because it frightens me to the core of my being that the intelligence capabilities of our country (arguably the most powerful country the world has ever seen) is that incompetant.

To be frank, I think what has happened here is that several people who work for the current administration (not necessary Bush himself) really really really wanted to go to war in Iraq for a variety of reasons. So they tried to come up with ANY evidence at all to support their agenda and then used it to sell their plans to the American people (who ate it up with a spoon). Whether or not the "evidence" was actually correct or not was probably not scrutinized, since they WANTED it to be true.

Perhaps Bush didn't lie outright (he believed his statements to be at least partially true), but he didn't go out of his way to scrutinize the facts either.

I'm sorry, but when it comes to fighting a war, the "oops, we were wrong" excuse doesn't fly with me. They haven't even bothered to admit that they were wrong, either.

And no, I really didn't believe that Iraq was developing WMD's or was harboring terrorists when the current administration said they were. Not that that makes me special or something. I just wasn't willing to take their word for it, and they failed to provide ANY reasonable evidence to back up their claims. At the same time, there were members of the Administration who have historically shown a desire to invade Iraq. So I just didn't buy it. My final reservation was due to the fact that NOBODY seemed willing to talk about what was going to happen AFTER the attack. It was obvious that we were going to win the initial confrontation, but nobody seemed to say anything about what the plan was once Saddam was deposed. And here we are, 3 years later, still there, with no clear goals and with no clear pullout planned.

So while I will conceed that perhaps he didn't lie about it, he sure as hell didn't tell the truth, did he?

john9001 · « **Reply #24 on:** September 25, 2006, 02:40:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rameusb5
And no, I really didn't believe that Iraq was developing WMD's

developing? he had them and used them, ask the Kurds.

Debonair · « **Reply #25 on:** September 25, 2006, 02:43:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SMIDSY
anyone who HASNT gotten a BJ from a "fat chick" raise your hand. (i have, and im not ashamed of it, fat chicks try harder:p ).

yeah, they want it more - they're hungrier rofl:t

, but no, not me:noid

68Hawk · « **Reply #26 on:** September 25, 2006, 03:17:48 PM »

That was actually a fair assertion by Clinton. Not that he's a saint, or even a great person, but he did try more than the current administration. He suggested that people read Richard Clarke's book, as do I. It's very insightful.

If George Bush really wanted to find bin laden, he never would have invaded Iraq. Least not till he found him. There were more police guarding the RNC convention at madison square garden than there were looking for bin laden. That's a joke of an effort and a slap in the face to Americans.

I think it's fair for Clinton to say that he tried and failed. He did try. Lots of right wingers have tried to shift blame to him. Very convenient. If they tried to get things done as much as they tried to appologise for the failures and inadequacies of the Bush administration, the war on terror would be won by now....

Mightytboy · « **Reply #27 on:** September 25, 2006, 03:19:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rameusb5
So while I will conceed that perhaps he didn't lie about it, he sure as hell didn't tell the truth, did he?

You can't have it both ways.

He either lied or he didn't. You nor anyone else has any credible evidence that he lied.

As far as the evidence against Saddam it became clear after the invasion that the intelligence was wrong. Not just ours but many other countries.

Does that mean Bush lied?

No!

Eagler · « **Reply #28 on:** September 25, 2006, 03:19:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
Our current president simply lied to the American People in order to start a war
====
where is the evidence of this lie? Locate for me the definitive indisputable evidence that implicates anyone associated with lying to start a war with Iraq.

Prefer something that can be used as evidece of lying in court of law please.

Or are you just framing your response above to a "gut feeling" based on massive reams of political spin?

Thanks in advance.

what he said

the "lie" was over 10 years old by the time Bush Jr spun it to the masses

slick screwed the pooch and he knows it, you can see it on his face during the interview. I bet he'll make a great used car salesman in his next life LOL

Mightytboy · « **Reply #29 on:** September 25, 2006, 03:23:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 68Hawk
That was actually a fair assertion by Clinton. Not that he's a saint, or even a great person, but he did try more than the current administration. He suggested that people read Richard Clarke's book, as do I. It's very insightful.

If George Bush really wanted to find bin laden, he never would have invaded Iraq. Least not till he found him. There were more police guarding the RNC convention at madison square garden than there were looking for bin laden. That's a joke of an effort and a slap in the face to Americans.

I think it's fair for Clinton to say that he tried and failed. He did try. Lots of right wingers have tried to shift blame to him. Very convenient. If they tried to get things done as much as they tried to appologise for the failures and inadequacies of the Bush administration, the war on terror would be won by now....

Clinton good Bush bad. Got it.

next!