Fox on The Defensive, Promos Interview As ‘Clinton Gets Crazed’
By on Sep 23rd, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Fox on The Defensive, Promos Interview As ‘Clinton Gets Crazed’
During his interview with Bill Clinton, Wallace insisted it was conducted in “good faith.” Well, here’s how the Fox News website is promoting the interview, scheduled to be aired tomorrow:
Clinton simply told the truth about Fox News, his record on terrorism and the Bush administration’s record on terrorism. Apparently, Fox News is threatened by that.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
yep… as i said in an earlier thread, this lead in to the promo clip will make you dizzy!
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:00 pm…
That’s right. And when Democrats guest on FOX they propagate these ideas.
FOX is successful because of Democrats. Without Democrats FOX would be a Country Club for Neocons.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:01 pmFAUX sNooz is always threatened by the truth. As Jack Nicholson said in “A Few Good Men”: You Can’t Handle The Truth!”
He could have been talking to Murdock, et.al.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:05 pmI can’t imagine that this interview is going to be shown in its entirety, nor without significant twisted editing.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:06 pmClinton…Crazed? That’s rich. These are the same people who got apoplectic when Reagan was called senile.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:07 pmi’m curious, maybe confused, by what you mean OB/GYN…
i understand the chances dems take when venturing into the fox lair, but on the other hand, if they don’t speak on those shows then they don’t get heard… and they are rarely asked to speak at all…
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:09 pm…
Now it’s changed: “Strong Reaction.”
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:09 pmWhen the going gets tough the right attack Clinton. November must be coming soon.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:10 pmShameful.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:10 pmWallace is a pencil dicked whiny ass titty baby, and a liar too. His dad should dsiown him.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:11 pmIt’s been changed: “Strong Reaction.”
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:11 pmThose bozos do not deal in reality.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:12 pmClinton said he tried to catch Bin Ladin. Sudan fgave him that chance and he passed.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:13 pmIts ok that he says this now because he also said:
I never inhaled and:
I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
I’m sure he is telling the truth.
#5 – Yeah. Clinton is emphatically NOT crazy or crazed or any such thing. But Reagan DID have senile dementia.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:13 pm#5 – Yeah. Clinton emphatically is NOT crazy or crazed or any such thing. But Reagan DID have senile dementia. And yet look at the Faux fools and Repugs. I would love to slap that crapulous smirk right off Wallace’s face.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:15 pmfrom my earlier comment:
…what clinton said in that clip, chosen for it’s most in-your-face moment (YAY!!!), i’m sure… no doubt what dubya tried to portray with lauer but mostly looked like a drunk…
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:17 pm…
so, when they are done with this interview, all chopped and rearranged, who knows what will happen to it…
…
Hey, Steve, remember the time that Bush admitted his own failure to catch OBL?
Right. Neither do I.
Clinton admits it, and he didn’t even have the advantage of a world drawn together because of the horrific attack of 9/11, the advantage of the members of the other party vowing to HELP him.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:18 pmIf Clinton is crazed, angry or upset then hallejulah…the progressive message is starting to permeat the politics of this once great country. Yes, it is time to get angry….we can sink not lower!!!
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:18 pm#13 Go crawl back under the rock, troll, from which you slithered forth. If any of these words are too big for you to understand let me know. Being a Bushcovite, as you are, no doubt you suffer from the same delusions and fumblitis that your master suffers from. I am sure there are enough neoncon websites where you can hang out with the rest of the brainwashed deadheads, and dittoheads.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:24 pmFaux “news” is up to their old dirty tricks but this time the viewers will see right through them. I think the public is tired of Faux “news” treating them like they can’t do any critical thinking. No wonder their ratings are plummeting.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:25 pmI never inhaled and:
I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
I’m sure he is telling the truth.
Comment by Steve
Give me a break, Steve. You cannot be serious!
I WISH that was all GWB ever did.
Get a clue…
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:25 pmSteve –
awol
cocaine use
multiple drunk driving arrests
lying to Americans about Iraq and WMD
lying to Americans about links between Hussein and OBL
killing Americans by going into war with Iraq
spying on Americans
AMONG OTHERS!!!!!
I would believe Clinton before Shrub ANYTIME, even if I were married to the man!!!
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:26 pmwhatever your opinion of bill clinton, calling him “crazed” simply does not fit… what his interview shows is just how lame propaganda is when stacked up against someone who is razor-sharp intellectually and has the advantage of first-hand knowledge… wallace made a serious, serious tactical error in picking clinton to go up against, and, now that both fox and wallace have been caught with their pants down, fox has to try to save face somehow… too bad, it’s too late…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:28 pmOnly an absolute moron would take any information from Fox News seriously. Only a moron would actually accept right wing talking points without a critical analysis of all available evidence. Only a moron would attempt to promote the right wing agenda, which imposes absolutism on the free people of the US under the name of security. Everybody in the right wing is a brain dead zombie MORON! Only a moron would get upset when an opponent of Dear Great Leader makes unflattering remarks about him. Only a moron….at least one third of the country are Morons. If you don’t accept Evolution, you are a moron. If you don’t accept Global Warming, you are a moron. If you believe we are liberating the people of Iraq, you are a moron.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:28 pmthey make Clinton’s point for him.
Bush insists he tried to catch Bin Laden. When does HE get grilled by Fox about it? never.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:28 pmI would love to slap that crapulous smirk right off Wallace’s face.
Comment by Montague
He’s a wussy looking dipshit. I’d like to knock his dick stiff.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:29 pmkaty – I’m with Ob/Gyn on this one. No matter how much a network claims to be “fair and balanced,” its ability to argue for that claim is dependent on the Ben Nelsons and Joe Liebermans going on there and providing the “Democrats POV.”
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:29 pmClinton can handle fox ‘entertainment’ any time, a masterful job he did to baby wallace. You bet they’ll twist the vid…count on it. They just want the ratings that have been falling for a long time. On nixon’s books the people said: ‘Don’t by books by crooks’…the same applys to o’lielys lies.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:30 pmApparently Wallace blindsided Clinton because so many viewers wanted him to ask the question. perhaps liberals should be asking for ask questions to conservatives…
If 10,000 people e-mailed in to find out why Bush didn’t do more BEFORE 9/11 do you think he would ask, say, Condi that question?
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:30 pm#19 Once again you so materfully rebut. If naming calling is an art form you are close to perfecting it.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:31 pmI can understand you only want people on this blog to agree with every idea you hold as true. It makes you feel better.
Misleading statements about a personal affair or smoking a joint is not the same as lying about the immediate need for a war where hundreds of thousands of people get killed. Get your priorities straight!
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:33 pm#22 I wasn’t comparing Clinton to anyone. I simply stated why I’m not apt to trust him. I don’t blindly trust any politician.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:34 pm“Clinton said he tried to catch Bin Ladin. Sudan fgave him that chance and he passed.”
In 1996, when they made that offer, Bin Laden wasn’t known for anything. He was no more important than hundreds of other radicals in the middle east. It’s odd that Clinton would ignore an offer of information like that on any terrorist, but at that time UBL wasn’t an important figure.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:34 pmI would believe Clinton before Shrub ANYTIME, even if I were married to the man!!!
Comment by Jules
Wow! What a woman, Jules. Yeah, I probably would, too. Clinton is the kind of guy whose hand you always have to hold — so you know where it is…
:)
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:35 pmAm readying an e-mail to Wallace asking if his staff is busy digging for the interview in which he asked Rice about the Cole and why Richard Clarke was fired. Would be interested to see Wallace follow up on this.
If he can, that is.
Anyway, a visit to the site shows the above caption, “Clinton Crazed,” has now been changed to:
Strong Reaction
Catch complete Clinton interview on FOX News Sunday
Hahahaha!
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:37 pmRe-posting under an altered name in case the first does not show up.
Anyone know why TP is still having problems posting????
————————–
Am readying an e-mail to Wallace asking if his staff is busy digging for the interview in which he asked Rice about the Cole and why Richard Clarke was fired. Would be interested to see Wallace follow up on this.
If he can, that is.
Anyway, a visit to the site shows the above caption, “Clinton Crazed,” has now been changed to:
Strong Reaction
Catch complete Clinton interview on FOX News Sunday
Hahahaha!
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:38 pmRonald Reagan gets crazed: “I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green!”
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:38 pmOK…first one showed up. Sorry for the double post.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:39 pmI don’t blindly trust any politician.
Comment by Steve
Ah, so we have found common ground…
Are you apt to trust GWB? If so, please explain your reasoning.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:39 pmApparently, Fox News is threatened by that.
These neocons are such cowards they must fight dirty on every level of everything. They are unable to confront the truth without some wild spin and pontless melodrama.
It will be their own downfall – as they already are beginning to crack from within…
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:40 pmZooey – Clinton’s a dawg, but he is not a criminal.
Dang….I left off the detaining and torturig of INNOCENT people!!!
How big of an asshole do you have to be to do that?
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:41 pm…that claim is dependent on the Ben Nelsons and Joe Liebermans going on there and providing the “Democrats POV.â€
Comment by Ken Houghton — September 23, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
well, you see, ken – i was talking about REAL dems…
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:42 pmbut i know what you’re saying too…
…
Clinton says in the interview” “All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office.” We all know the devastating effects of the stubborness of the current administration that refused to have a single meeting about Bin Laden before 9/11, and in fact threatened to fire anyone who brought it up. There’s no way Republicans can deny this fact or cover it up with their spin.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:45 pmNow remember righties, no double standards, okay? Innocent until proven guilty. We can all do a lot of smears on each other’s President. There’s more than enough unproven allegations to go around. Let’s please just look at objective things, okay? Is that fair?
Here are some objective facts:
Body count:
Clinton: 244 Americans dead on his watch, 76 due to alleged incompetence in Waco.
Bush: 7,300 Americans dead and counting rapidly.
Fiscal health:
Clinton: turned from deficits under Bush I (the largest in history at the time) to a budget surplus
Bush: spent Clinton’s surplus in no time and broke his father’s record for largest budget deficits in history (in fact already has racked up more debt than every other President in our American history combined)
Scandal:
Clinton: not one conviction in his Administration. Impeached along partisan lines over a sex scandal by a Republican controlled House and the charge was rejected as he was vindicated by the Senate.
Bush: already got his Chief Procurement Officer behind bars. Libby is under indictment. Republican leadership in both Houses is under indictment (Tom “The Hammer†Delay – already had to resign as Speaker) or investigation (Bill Frist for insider trading). Lots of other senior Republican leadership are convicted felons, like Bob “The Velvet Hammer†Ney or Duke Cunningham.
Fairness:
Clinton: everyone does well economically
Bush: super rich do great, upper middle class do fine, bottom half stagnates despite their productivity gains
Unity:
Clinton: great approval ratings
Bush: historically low approval ratings for a second term President. Blames everyone else.
Foreign policy:
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:47 pmClinton: stalls North Korea nuclear program. Keeps Iraq in check. Bosnian war turns out well to the point where the region is doing well. Over Republican objections, goes after bin Ladin BEFORE 9/11. American standing in the world is high (foreigners scratch their heads at Republicans failed attempt to get rid of Clinton over an extra-marital affair).
Bush: fails to stabilize Afghanistan, invades Iraq in error and fails to stabilize the Nation, North Korea quadruples its nuclear weapons program and starts lobbing missiles in the direction of the U.S. Ignores bin Ladin before 9/11 even in the face of a memo warning of an imminent attack by al Qaeda, and after 9/11 fails to capture bin Ladin despite the urgency of 9/11. America’s standing in the world declines dramatically as many Nations fail to join our ever shrinking “coalition of the willing†to invade Iraq.
This behavior is a reason Bill Clinton has always angered me. What did he expect? Just because he a good friend with Bush Senior, visits the family in Maine, and his surrogate meets with Rupert Murdoch, he is not one of them. Bill Clinton was the best Republican President we’ve had in my life of 57 years, I’ve believed that since he and Al Gore fronted/supervised the passing ot NAFTA. What we have in the White House/Congress now is not Republican but Radical Right.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:51 pmClinton gets crazed? Damn right he did, as well he should have!
The guy has repeatedly said that he regrets not having captured bin Laden, he’s never tried to avoid the issue or claim infallibility, a la George W. Bush, but he expects the news media to address the facts. That’s all. Criticize him all you want, so long as you’re willing to acknowledge that he did, in fact, make efforts to catch bin Laden, address the extremist threat, and pass along detailed information to the next administration to aid their efforts to get bin Laden.
It’s too bad more politicians, left and right, don’t have the temerity to “get crazed” when the media simply parrots the opposition’s talking points.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:53 pmThe point the Big Fog emphasized which is a really good riposte is, when the trolls slam Clinton for not dealing with the USS Cole, one should ask ‘And why didn’t Bush?’
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:54 pmThey go on about the Khobar Towers and so on–as if that’s a horrible flaw–but how much can it be when Bush did nothing about them either?
Of course, they probably believe the first eight months of Bush’s presidency simply don’t exist.
Oh, and the 9/11 commission found the story about Sudan offering Bin Laden to Clinton as untrue.
http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing8/staff_statement_5.pdf
now we see why rupert murdoch was helping clinton on the global initiative project.
create some good feelings, some sense of debt, agree to go on fox,and then purposely blindside him on that interview.
they forgot one important factor. to paraphrase johnny depps character in “pirates of the caribbean”. …”he’s bill clinton”
a wee bit faster on the uptake than dubya or anyone at faux news.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:55 pm# 33 maybe this will go a long way into debunking your statement.
December 29, 1992 A bomb explodes in a hotel in Aden, Yemen, where US troops had been staying while en route to a humanitarian mission in Somalia. The bomb killed two Austrian tourists; the U.S. soldiers had already left. Two Yemeni Muslim militants, trained in Afghanistan and injured in the blast, are later arrested. US intelligence agencies allege that this was the first terrorist attack involving bin Laden and his associates (Source: New York Times 8/21/98).
1993 Sudan is placed on State Department’s list of countries that sponsor terrorist activities (Source: Washington Post 8/23/98).
According to US government charges, bin Laden’s followers try to obtain components of nuclear weapons and begin to work with Sudan’s NIF to develop chemical arms (Source: US News and World Report 10/5/98).
February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
October 3 & 4th, 1993 Eighteen US troops are killed in an urban attack in Mogadishu, Somalia. American law enforcement, intelligence and national security officials are divided as to whether, as a federal indictment charges, bin Laden and his adherents helped train and arm the men who killed the US troops (Source: New York Times 2/8/99).
January 1994 According to US intelligence analysts, by January 1994, bin Laden was financing at least three terrorist training camps in North Sudan, where rebels from a half-dozen nations received training. (Source: New York Times 8/14/96)
April 9, 1994 The Saudi government revokes bin Laden’s citizenship and moves to freeze his assets in Saudi Arabia because of his support for Muslim fundamentalist movements. (Source: New York Times 4/10/94)
1995 According to U.S. intelligence sources, bin Laden establishes extensive training and housing operations for foreign guerillas in northern Yemen near Saudi border. (Source: Washington Post 8/23/98)
February/March 1995 Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, is captured in Pakistan and extradited to the United States. A search of his former residences leads investigators to believe he is financially linked to bin Laden. Also, he had stayed at a bin Laden financed guest house while in Pakistan.
June 1995 Unsuccessful assassination attempt on the life of the President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, in Addis Ababa. U.S. intelligence sources believe bin Laden was somehow linked.
August, 1995 Bin Laden wrote an open letter to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia calling for a campaign of guerrilla attacks in order to drive U.S forces out of the kingdom.
November 13, 1995 Five Americans and two Indians are killed in the truck bombing of a US-operated Saudi National Guard training center in Riyadh. Bin Laden denies involvement but praises the attack (Source: Washington Post 8/23/98).
Looks like to me he was an important figure before 1996.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:59 pmPersonally, I think of Bill Clinton as the vast majority of US presidents: murderers protecting big business interest. He bombed Kosovo for “humanitarian reasons”, yeah. Thats what Gandhi did. However, he is far more charming, eloquent, intelligent, funny, sharp than anyother US president Ive known. I read the full transcript, he did well.
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:01 pmAnyone going to brave enough to watch it tomorrow to see what actually gets on air?
Faux makes my eyes bleed, so I can’t… :)
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:02 pmBullies don’t like it when you stand up to them. Keep it up, Mr. President!
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:05 pmAmerica’s Least Wanted
Stevie – you might want to look up a couple of posts. Once again poking a pointy stick into the soft underbelly of today’s reichwing!!!
Dontcha just love Rachel Maddow!!!
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:10 pmAnyone going to brave enough to watch it tomorrow to see what actually gets on air?
Comment by unbelievable
I will, unbelievable. Not because I am brave but because I would like to hear Clinton tell that smirky buttplug off. Even if I have to miss some of the Seahawks/Giants game.
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:18 pmthere wasn’t an “offer” made, stevie boy.
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:18 pm#49 So why would the US have anything to do or say about any of the points you have raised? And by what law would the US be right in killing bin Laden before he had been convicted of any crimes against the US? By your “logic”, George W. Bush should have been imprisoned for war crimes in 1980.
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:19 pmThere’s no winning with them.
If you speak in a normal tone and do not yell, they say you have no balls, and/or they shout over you or cut you off.
If you do call them out and light into them, you’re “crazed” or a “moonbat.”
Keep shouting over and over again all the things they’re doing wrong. That’s what they do (albeit often with made-up facts). It works.
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:19 pmThe best part of Chris Wallace ran down the crack of his mother’s ass. Same goes for Hannity, O’Reilly, Gibson, Cavuto, and Horowitz.
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:22 pmThe Bush administration attacks and occupies Iraq (who had no ties to 9-11) then let’s bin Laden (who killed Americans on US soil) have a pass and Clinton is crazed? The Bush administration deals with one Constitutional crisis after another and debates the virtues of torture in Congress and Clinton is crazed? The Bush administration reveals the identity of a CIA officer for revenge and Clinton is crazed? The Bush administration vacations as one of our largest cities drowns and Clinton’s crazed?
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:28 pmWell, Steve, consider that the bulk of your quotes come “after the fact” in their reporting. That’s frequently referred to as “hindsight” (which, as we all know, is always 20/20). I would point out that it was Ronald Reagan (and the Republican leadership of the era) who created Osama bin Laden through the US “covert” involvement with the anti-Soviet Afghani “freedom fighters”, and former members of the CIA have admitted that they were well aware (at the time) that many in the Afghan resistance were so adamantly anti-American that their American-provided weapons had to be “funneled” through Pakistan, just to “ease” the consciences of those strident anti-American (read, pre-Taliban) forces.
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:28 pmThe fact that bin Laden’s assistance in terrorist activities may have been “known” before any certain date does not equal his being “important”–unless you’re willing to acknowledge the Reagan administration’s “importance” in funding the terror activities of the Nicaraguan contras and Saddam Hussein (and, let’s not forget, that our current Secretary of Defense enthusiastically met with Saddam and shook his hand–with apparent glee when one looks at the photo).
Um, it’s been 5 years since 9/11. Why hasn’t BUSH captured Osama bin Laden?
I mean, he’s ignoring the Constitution, wiretapping Americans without warrants, and torturing people.
Even with breaking the law, Bush can’t catch him.
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:29 pmKaty,
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:29 pmFOX is a righty network. For a very long time Democrats have been using the line that they have to defend themselves on FOX. This is a lie. Democrats grovel for votes on FOX.
Democrats legitimize FOX. Juan Williams. Carl Levin. Alan Colmes. Traitors.
Al Franken asked Alan Colmes once why he didn’t call Hannity out when he KNOWS Hannity is lying. Colmes responded by saying it would take too much time.
When I see a Democrat on FOX I see someone who would do anything to keep their job. On my local FOX affiliate in Dallas lastnight they did a long segment about Hannity and Colmes doing their show live from SMU campus. They interviewed Hannity only and he got in a plug praising Dallas for giving the world George Bush.
I will, unbelievable. Not because I am brave but because I would like to hear Clinton tell that smirky buttplug off. Even if I have to miss some of the Seahawks/Giants game.
Comment by Joe+Sixpack — September 23, 2006 @ 2:18 pm
You are still a brave man Joe : )
Keep us posted as to what actually gets aired.
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:29 pmHow ’bout an interview like this?
Plug in the “neocon” of your choice.
Bush. Cheney. Rove. Wolfowitz. Rumsfeld. Rice.
Chris Wallace: FBI agent Harry Samit testified under cross-examination at Moussaoui’s trial that FBI headquarters’ refusal to follow up “prevented a serious opportunity to stop the 9/11 attacks†that killed nearly 3,000 people. One key FBI person, who cut off these “serious opportunities” with very strange decisions, was Dave Frasca. He received many warnings from various FBI agents and their reports on the very suspicious behaviour of various people they had under surviellance. Do you think Dave Frasca let down America? Was 9/11 Frasca’s fault?
Neocon of Your Choice: ….. ( Silence ) ….
Wallace: There are many people who support the Bush administration who enjoy making attempts to place the blame on Clinton. But is this fair – given the urgent attempts by vaious FBI agents to urgently walk this up the ladder many different times and many different ways? I understand that Mr.Samit himself tried to alert his superiors 70 different times. I think he even tried to contact the FAA. Add to this agent Cathleen Rowley and the attempts by other agents and you have a lot of “push” on this. Probably an unprecedented level of “push.” Yet it was shut down by their superiors.
Have you isolated all those involved who blocked/ignored these warnings and reprimanded them – or at least – have you made it an urgent priority to retrain them so that they can recognize and heed urgent warnings and act appropriately?
Neocon of Your Choice: ….. ( More Silence ) ….
Wallace: Are you silent because the rumors that Frasca got promoted are actually true?
I would think that the entire cadre of agents who ignored the warnings should be singled out as a case study for how not to win “the battle for civilization.” By promoting an agent who did not heed urgent requests to aggressively pursue people learning how to crash planes – aren’t you actually undermining our chances to win the “battle for civilization?”
Neocon of Your Choice: ….. ( Squirmy Silence ) ….
Wallace: You are starting to creep me out, man. Seriously.
Your silence on this makes me think that there have been no serious improvements to prevent another domestic attack. Britian signed onto the “fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” doctrine promoted by the Bush admin. But – since then they have had one bombing and have alledgedly thwarted at least one major terrorist attempt. If it is the opposite – we will have to fight them here because we are fighting them there – shouldn’t it be a priority that a Frasca-type fiasco doesn’t happen again? Is the Bush administration’s attention so wrapped up in the Iraq War that no real “homeland security” improvements – improvements that can actually protect the citizens of the U.S. – have been made?
Neocon of Your Choice: ….. Shsssshh !!!!!
Wallace: SH#T !!! This is not good !!!
And why am I working for this pro-neocon media outlet anyway ? I quit.
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:29 pmWhere was the ALL Republican Congress in the 1990’s? Were they ringing alarm bells and screaming about nothing was being done about the “terrorist threats” from the Middle East?
Well, let’s just say that if Osama Bin Laden had been a semen stain on a dress, the Republican Congress in the 1990’s would have tracked him down.
-GSD
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:30 pmhere,let me help you with thoes ‘headline’ fox liers…
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:32 pmCLINTON BITCH SLAPS WALLACE AND EXPOSES OUR RIGHTWING BIAS!
i’m gonna make an easy guess that one won’t have to tune in to faux tv to catch this interview… thanks to those amazing tubes on the internets…
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:33 pm…
why dosnt clinton mention inside job
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:34 pmhttp://thumbsnap.com/v/5GJpB2ET.jpg
obviose this building is imploding
Uh , Steve ,Reagan and Bush I SUPPLIED AND ARMED Bin Laden. Perhaps that’s why he wasn’t seen as a threat. Clinton may have believed he was still an ally. Bottom line, threat or not Clinton did TRY TO KILL HIM. There was no major attack on US soil in order for him to take this action. Again, what is Bush’s excuse? Pakistan has admitted Bin Laden is there. Clinton had to guess where he (Bin Laden) was. Yet, even though our ally Pakistan admits Bin Laden is there Bush has a new excuse. He’ll only invade if the government asks him to invade. Funny, that didn’t stop him in Iraq.
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:36 pmand he thought going on fox news was going to be beneficial in what way ??
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:41 pmOh yeah Steve, it’s funny how Bin Laden, according to REPUBLICANS in the 90s was “wag the dog“. Now you’re all changing your story to “he was a threat then”. Make up your minds. Or better yet, stop lying.
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:41 pmSteve (No. 49), here’s what the 9/11 commission said about the so-called “offer” by Sudan to hand over bin Laden:
“In late 1995, when Bin Ladin was still in Sudan, the State Department and the CIA learned that Sudanese officials were discussing with the Saudi government the possibility of expelling Bin Ladin. U.S. Ambassador Timothy Carney encouraged the Sudanese to pursue this course. The Saudis, however, did not want Bin Ladin, giving as their reason their revocation of his citizenship.
“Sudan’s minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. Ambassador Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel Bin Ladin. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask for more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment out-standing.”
Here’s the link: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm.
So, I’m less than convinced by your argument.
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:44 pmThe GOP meme…
Balanced budget, surplus, stock market boom, low interest rates, prosperity, low unemployment, international respect for America under Clinton due to heroic GOP congress/luck.
9//11 under Bush due to Clinton.
Torture under Bush due to a few bad apples.
Debt under Bush due to 9/11.
Katrina debacle under Bush due to Democrats.
Iraq debacle under Bush due to liberal media.
Bin Laden free for five years after 9/11 under Bush due to Clinton.
America distrusted by the world under Bush due to jealousy/hating freedom.
Allies moving away from US due to hating freedom.
Bush reviled around world due to hating freedom.
…. and on it goes.
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:56 pmWell, let’s just say that if Osama Bin Laden had been a semen stain on a dress, the Republican Congress in the 1990’s would have tracked him down.
-GSD
Comment by GSD — September 23, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
That comment is rankly unfair. The GOP would have ignored the semen stain.
If it was the on the dress of Henry Hyde’s married gf, or Bob Livingstone’s mistress, or Dan Burton’s paramour, or…you see how you’re being unfair?
September 23rd, 2006 at 3:05 pmBush acts like a rabid dog almost every time he has to answer a tough question and Fox somehow sees that behavior as legitimate and noble. What do you expect from Murdoch and Ailes?
September 23rd, 2006 at 3:07 pmBush sure seemed “crazed” when he responded to David Gregory in the presser last week.
-GSD
September 23rd, 2006 at 3:14 pmMemo to Keith Olbermann (my hero):
If Fux News so much as touches up (slashes and burns) this millions-upon-millions worldwide read transcript, please could you possibly STRETCH your commentary section out on Monday’s show? We will truly have become AmeriKa if they would disregard a former president’s intelligent and cohesive knowledge of past history.
I e-mailed Keith. I would suggest everyone else should, too. I will be getting ahold of Fux today also. Boy, are they in a sh*t pile. I bet everyone at the station (if you could call it that) is sweating bullets today. So nice to know. Touche. Whoever let the “Big Dog” out…thank you from the very bottom of my heart. Love WJC and miss him.
September 23rd, 2006 at 3:29 pmAnd the headline has been changed in typical fox fashion.
September 23rd, 2006 at 3:30 pmFox News is a joke, a really pathetic joke.
Cate,
Keith will be all over this one, rest assured. He’s true American hero, and damn, do we ever need him.
September 23rd, 2006 at 3:44 pmThe better be careful. Clinton pointedly mentions he has not criticized the President. I think that’s an implicit threat, that if they choose to villainize him further, considering that they are an arm of the administration, the gloves will come off for good.
September 23rd, 2006 at 3:47 pmLet’s just stop the crap. Bush allowed 3000 Americans to get killed because of his incompetence. Don’t play the neocon game to “redefine” the question. The answer to crap like this is “Bush got 3000 Americans killed and hasn’t caught Osama” period.
September 23rd, 2006 at 3:49 pmPlease don’t watch this interview on FOX News. Instead, please rely on the blog or video service of your choice as there will be certainly be a large number that plan to carry the interview in its entirety.
There is no reason to boost FOX News’ ratings for any reason. Please remember that whether you view FOX News as a supportive viewer or in opposition, you watch it nonetheless and are recorded as a positive number in Mr. Ailes’ market share.
Just give it a few hours and you’ll help out your blog of choice instead of FOX News.
Lastly, while I understand WJC’s decision to appear on FOX News, it should be said that appearing on this network does no service to one’s cause. That is, unless one is aligned with this horrid administration and the scourge of neoconservativeism.
Thanks!
:::
September 23rd, 2006 at 3:52 pm[...] It is now a "Strong Reaction". Fortunately Think Progress took a screenshot of the original title, which was "Clinton Gets Crazed": [...]
September 23rd, 2006 at 3:59 pmandrew, i’ll have to disagree with that last point and repeat myself with this, from above:
September 23rd, 2006 at 4:03 pmi understand the chances dems take when venturing into the fox lair, but on the other hand, if they don’t speak on those shows then they don’t get heard… and they are rarely asked to speak at all…
…
as long as that dem would show the backbone and be as resolute as clinton was here, of course… can’t stand to see any of them wuss out…
…
this will be a hard act to follow, but there are some who could do it…
…
katy,
I can dig what you are saying; however, I feel strongly that there should be an overt and unanimous abandonment of this network by both prodominent Democrats and Democratic viewers alike.
Honestly, I don’t even know what channel it is on where I live, and beside seeing snippets on various blogs, I feel that my family’s well developed avoidance of this network has made our lives much better.
:)
September 23rd, 2006 at 4:11 pm:::
The mere fact that Fox is promoting the interview is a clear indication that it will be drastically edited–not that there was ever a snowball’s chance in hell of it being aired as is.
September 23rd, 2006 at 4:13 pmBy the way, wasn’t purging and discrediting one’s predecessor a Soviet tactic? We’re getting closer and closer!
September 23rd, 2006 at 4:15 pmI feel that my family’s well developed avoidance of this network has made our lives much better.
Comment by Andrew — September 23, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
oh, hell yah! i NEVER turn on the news channel… too bad i enjoy an occasional show from the entertainment division… :-]
my argument if geared towards those that do have faux news on 24/7…
September 23rd, 2006 at 4:26 pmit can’t hurt to get a truthful blurb in as much as possible… some of those people are open to suggestion, if not actually catching on…
every little bit helps…
…
Watch Robert Greenwalds
“OUTFOXED, RUPERT MURDOCKS WAR ON THE MEDIA”
out on DVD – NOW. Also new one, “Iraq for Sale”.
If you have ANY DOUBTS or need to “show” Repug family/friends the REAL TRUTH…
Just rent, buy this DVD.
Propaganda is alive and well in Amerika today.
HAD ENOUGH?
September 23rd, 2006 at 4:29 pmPropaganda is alive and well in Amerika today.
HAD ENOUGH?
Comment by Aeon
Actually its government sponsored and approved [NSD 77]. ALL Americans should turn off the TV for a few weeks,only then will you see a change in this psy-ops and psy-ops blowback. -ION
September 23rd, 2006 at 4:43 pmBill Clinton, the living straw-man. This has all been orchestrated to allow republicans to run against Bill Clinton. The path to 9/11 was designed to poison the well of public consciousness by starting a false debate. Forget Iraq, torture, global warming, the economy, corruption… the campaign is back on the winning turf of the Right vs. the Clenis. Nice move Rove.
September 23rd, 2006 at 4:44 pm#72
I don’t take the 911 Commision report as gosspel. How many of you knew this?
Why? Why would the 9/11 Commission fail to mention Abdul Rahman Yasin, who admitted his role in the first World Trade Center attack, which killed 6 people, injured more than 1,000, and blew a hole seven stories deep in the North Tower? It’s an odd omission, especially since the commission named no fewer than five of his accomplices.
Why would the 9/11 Commission neglect Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, a man who was photographed assisting a 9/11 hijacker and attended perhaps the most important 9/11 planning meeting?
And why would the 9/11 Commission fail to mention the overlap between the two successful plots to attack the World Trade Center?
The answer is simple: The Iraqi link didn’t fit the commission’s narrative.
The 911 report was designed to not blame or offend anyone. Hard to get to the truth when you go in with that agenda.
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:07 pm[...] Fox on The Defensive, Promos Interview As ‘Clinton Gets Crazed’ [...]
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:08 pmOh I forgot to add the part about those men being Iraqis.
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:09 pmThis may be the first political gaff by the otherwise smooth Bubba. I was shocked to hear him frantically insisting that he tried to catch OBL and admitting that he failed. He made a political career out of never apologizing for anything, now this could be the first in a litany of regrets that Bubba may be voicing – stay tuned.
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:48 pmI’ve asked this question since 2003 and i’ve yet to get an answer from anyone willing to take it on. Just how many years of not catching Bin Laden in a post 9/11 world does it take to trump not catching him in 8 years of a pre 9/11 world? Especially when during most of those 8 years pre 9/11 Bin Laden was a nobody in the eyes of the world.
Come on, righties, Let’s hear it. How many years?
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:56 pmTerrorist Attacks Bill Clinton Stopped
Little primer for any idiot troll out there…..
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:58 pmMaybe I’m the one living in an alternate reality, but I seem to recall President Clinton aplogizing for misleading people about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, even while he was in office. If my memory is correct, then to say that he”made a political career out of never apologizing for anything” would be factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest.
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:07 pmSteve (No. 92) – Fair enough. You don’t have to take the 9/11 Commission’s word for it. However, since you don’t, where is the evidence that Sudan did, in fact, offer to turn bin Laden over and Clinton turned down the offer. I’m not saying it didn’t happen (though the 9/11 Commission says it didn’t), but I’d like to know what you base the assertion on.
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:10 pmOh, but Wayne (No. 98), to conservatives it wasn’t an adequate apology. You see, he said stuff like “I sincerely regret …” but he didn’t say “I’m sorry.” You know how those conservatives are sticklers for semantics. Just like they’re always saying, “depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is …”
Oh, wait. That’s right. Still, Clinton’s “expression of regret” wasn’t a true apology, because … um … because Rush Limbaugh said so …
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:12 pmIf my memory is correct, then to say that heâ€made a political career out of never apologizing for anything†would be factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
Wayne, you are a true diplomat…
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:35 pmSays Jason Hendler, who thinks Stanford is an Ivy League school… Jason, you have no credibility here, and if you keep spouting nonsense like this, you never will.
Clinton is clearly quite credible, however, as he’s managed to get $7.3 billion dollars committed to global causes that SAVE lives, not take them like Bubble Boy Bush. I’d like to see you independently raise 1/100th of that much money (without an act of a corruptand weak Congress) to continue the war in Iraq. $7.3 billion says you can’t…
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:35 pm#98, Wayne,
True, but it required the FBI performing DNA tests on semen stains on Monica’s blue dress to “evoke” that admission / apology.
#102, unbee,
I posted once before, but the moderators deleted it, but giving money to a bunch of propellor heads is not going to produce a viable solution, but the good news in this, is that all that money is going to something other than Democratic campaigns, so there is an upside.
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:44 pmMort Kondracke, on the Beltway Boys, just reported that the top 5 conservative blogs get nearly twice as many hits as the top 5 liberal blogs, so I guess the extreme left doesn’t dominate any communications media, except maybe bongos …
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:46 pm#98, Wayne,
True, but it required the FBI performing DNA tests on semen stains on Monica’s blue dress to “evoke†that admission / apology.
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler
See? That’s all I wanted. An admission that what you wrote was not factually correct. Now, if you had said that he made a career out of rarely apologizing for anything, then I couldn’t have found a simple example that refuted your statement. Of course, I do not recall EVER hearing President Bush aplogize for anything. And yes, he has plenty to apologize for (including, but not limited to, telling us that it might be “unacceptable to think” something.)
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:13 pmI posted once before, but the moderators deleted it, but giving money to a bunch of propellor heads is not going to produce a viable solution,
You consider yourself a propellor head? Must be why you’re so popular with the ladies….
Well, at least you admit that people giving you money for an illegal war won’t do any good. But, we could have told youbefore the do-nothing congress spent $00 billion attacking Iraq.
Though, in all seriousness, you, Capitialistic glutton that you are are actually saying money won’t fix anything? Did you have to cross your fingers while you typed that?
but the good news in this, is that all that money is going to something other than Democratic campaigns, so there is an upside.
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler — September 23, 2006 @ 6:44 pm
Actually, short-sighted perspective that you have, you seem to be missing that every good thing accomplished by Clinton IS an endorsement for the Democratic Party.
Funny, but you neocons always say that you do the better job of charity. Clearly not…
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:28 pmMort Kondracke, on the Beltway Boys, just reported that the top 5 conservative blogs get nearly twice as many hits as the top 5 liberal blogs
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler — September 23, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
Probably not true, like the stuff you posted that Wayne just busted you on…
However, if true, it just proves you neocons are the computer geeks who have no life… that or you are so inept at working a keyboard that you lockup your computer and have to reboot 40 or 50 times, therefore making your repeat hits just a number…
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:30 pmSteve -
awol- Oh, you must mean the b.s. storie CBS made up about Bush’s service record…..
cocaine use- Left wing b.s. Bush’s records are public unlike either of the Clinton’s
multiple drunk driving arrests- You need to learn to count past 1….. ‘Nuff said there…..
lying to Americans about Iraq and WMD- What do you call gassing his own people? We know he had them, so where are the now? Mustard gas, and Serin gas both have been found. And not just traces.
lying to Americans about links between Hussein and OBL- You need to listen louder. There is no dispute about it.
killing Americans by going into war with Iraq- I don’t like seeing our troops die any more than you, but it happens in war. Clinton killed a few of them too. Do I need to list the many conflicts for you?
spying on Americans- What was the Clinton big brother program called again? “Carnavuor” I think it was.
AMONG OTHERS!!!!!- Keep them coming! If youl’d pay attention, instead of just hating, you might just learn something.
I’m stunned at how the whole country was with Bush after 9/11, then Michal More made that movie that was total b.s. and everyone on the left turned their back on the rest of us. Nice to know we can count on you to help protect us…..
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:15 pmYour ideas have lost there meaning.
c4logic is a moron
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:36 pmKapt’n Jack’s on crack:
Oh, you must mean the b.s. storie CBS made up about Bush’s service record…..
It wasn’t disproved, no matter how hard you wish otherwise.l
ying to Americans about Iraq and WMD- What do you call gassing his own people? We know he had them, so where are the now? Mustard gas, and Serin gas both have been found. And not just traces.
No, INERT weapons. The stuff under your sink is more dangerous.
lying to Americans about links between Hussein and OBL- You need to listen louder. There is no dispute about it.
“Listen louder?” Good Crack!
“No operational connection,” pipe-head.
don’t like seeing our troops die any more than you, but it happens in war. Clinton killed a few of them too. Do I need to list the many conflicts for you?
Kosovo? Try again.
Somalia? Bush senior left him holding the bag.
Now you’re flailing.
spying on Americans- What was the Clinton big brother program called again? “Carnavuor†I think it was.
Carnivore, to the literate. And overseen by a judge – unlike King George’s illegal spying program.
Keep them coming! If youl’d pay attention, instead of just hating, you might just learn something.
That you’re semi-literate? Sorry but I’ve always hated laziness.
Nice to know we can count on you to help protect us…..
“Help protect us?” I’d just as soon fake patriots like you went in the first wave. At least you might stop a bullet intended for someone of real value, as the big yellow streak down your back would be hard to miss.
Your ideas have lost there meaning.
Comment by Kapt’n Jack
Yours never had any to start with – unless clawling under your bed and squeaking like a frightened rabbit qualifies as an idea.
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:52 pmBottom line. While Clinton was pursuing Bin Laden, republicans were criticizing Clinton for pursuing Bin Laden.
When Bush took office, he ignored Bin Laden. The preventable 9/11 attacks happened. Instead of going after Bin Laden + the terrorists, Bush used the 9/11 tragedy for war profiteering and Armageddonist crusading.
Who is unamerican? Who is unpatriotic? Who hates the troops? Yes George W Bush and his GOP buddies.
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:53 pmhttp://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm Ok maybe it took this time. If not here is the address:
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:19 pmhttp://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
You see, Bill, when you stick up for yourself against Republicans, people RESPECT you. When you kiss their ass and send your wife to fundraisers with Rupert Murdoch, they SHIT on you. Have you learned your lesson yet, dumbass?
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:30 pmIts not at all what Clintons intentions were at his time in question , But what is in question that deserves attention too its intention
what i mean is Clinton mean to piont out not only Fox attempting to Label Him but it was Not Mention or review By CIA and Or FBI during His last days in 2000 during the Cloe Bombing, Its was after that The CIA desided too piont out Its Bin Ladens Fault, But that was not All
September 24th, 2006 at 12:12 amClinton stated He Hunted Bin Forgotten and Falled And your Attention should Be :”?? Bin laden was being hunted by Clinton Before the Cole was even Bombed, altho he would not want to Piont That out , One might See that as some sort of Tooting of Ones Horn so too speek> so why not people seem to think Clinton was week, Ohh and A lyer, well That is not true He did not lye {Proff}, he was Not Impeached , Ohh yes they Had Impeachment trials, But he won on His Honesty alone>>>>.???
full of More propaganda charactor attacks good Its well deserved you get it shown too you what you look like for those type of Childish Political GaMES. fox YOU WONDER WHY YOU ARE hATED by over 60% of your adience its because you Hire Hypocrate and EX Nazi war criminal, and there chideren> Research Family trees on staffers its kinda a hoppy . lets me know who to Look out for.
He made a political career out of never apologizing for anything, now this could be the first in a litany of regrets that Bubba may be voicing – stay tuned.
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler
Yeah; nowadays, he’s sounding almost Reaganish. But Clinton’s apology was for not doing more against the terrorists – not suppling them with weapons, ala St. Ronny.
Were the weapons that Reagan sold to the Iranian islamofascists responsible for some of the dead Iraqis we later unearthed and blamed on Hussein?
Reagan, supplying both sides during the Iran/Iraq war – a terrorist regime with Iran/Contra weapons sales, and Saddam with weapons and technical expertise – and republicans now trying to capitalize on killings for which they were originally responsible. That’s chutzpah.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:44 am#105, Wayne,
ONE example of an apology that Bubba couldn’t avoid, because the FBI literally caught him with his pants down is NOT a example of a sincere apology / admission of failure / guilt. Bubba was IMPEACHED because he would never concede fault / blame for ANY of his actions, always preferring to spin a situation instead of facing it like a man. He could have settled the endless series of lawsuits that eventually culminated in his purjury and / or subourning purgery. It is in that vein that I state that he has made a career of never admitting failure and apologizing, but thanks for debating without name calling, you are a rare prog that doesn’t need to resort to those tactics.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:49 am#106, unbee,
Whenever Dems “tie” themselves to technology, it conjures up two images:
1) Al Gore inventing the internet
2) John Kerry wearing the bunny suit climbing out of a NASA space station module
Please, keep those associations alive, it keeps me smiling (especially the Boston Globe caption for John Kerry that said: Boston, we have a problem.).
September 24th, 2006 at 12:53 am#115, barfly,
… so are you saying that Bubba sounds like he has Alzheimer’s Syndrome? Interesting theory, I will have to watch the interview and look for the signs.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:54 amUm… excuse me, jmh #118,
Since Morty and his “Boys” seem to know where others like you assemble, why doncha join them? Your foolish posts just clog up the discussion here.
I doubt you’ll stick out as much which is evidently your reason to exist. However I’m confident the ego, sarcasm, misinformation and arrogance exuded on the right wing blogs would sustain you just fine and those of us over here wouldn’t have to skip over so many of your smarmy, uninformed posts.
Bonne Chance and au revoir
September 24th, 2006 at 2:56 amso are you saying that Bubba sounds like he has Alzheimer’s Syndrome? Interesting theory, I will have to watch the interview and look for the signs.
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler
No, I’m saying Clinton sounded remorseful for not having done more – much as Reagan sounded when he apologised to the American people for having lied to them about selling weapons to islamofascists.
I see you didn’t touch my larger point about republicans profitting off the dead they themselves were responsible for killing. I guess it was too real for you, and so you ignored it. Understandable. The truth hurts.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:10 amHaving seen Bubba speak a couple of times this week, I was reminded of his ability to communicate vs. the current “plain spoken” style of George.
The American people are ultimately responsible for allowing this current disgrace to exist. 2000 maybe they can be given the benefit of the doubt but 2004 come on! The evidence was available and the only people who should have voted for George were the sheep of the American Taliban cult(25 million did). They can be forgiven because of their brainwashing. All others have blood on their hands.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:15 amWhenever Dems “tie†themselves to technology, it conjures up two images:
1) Al Gore inventing the internet
2) John Kerry wearing the bunny suit climbing out of a NASA space station module
Please, keep those associations alive, it keeps me smiling (especially the Boston Globe caption for John Kerry that said: Boston, we have a problem.).
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler
And let’s not forget republicans’ ineptness at technology.
Like Senator “The internet is just a bunch of tubes” Stevens, and George Bush senior’s “senior moment” at the store checkstand – not knowing what a bar code scanner was for. That lost him the election by showing how out of touch with the concerns of normal everyday Americans he (and republicans) are. Well, that and J. Danforth Quayle . . .
Come to think about it , having Quayle as his running mate typified the state of the party at that time. “Mr. Potatoe” -head showed how silly and muddled republicans were at the time – just as “Capt. Nukular” shows how craven and corrupt they are today.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:28 amAnd if you think this point I made is going to magically fade, Hendler old chap, well I’m just going to have to make you confront your party’s disgraceful past every time I see you post. Better now than later, with everyone watching. Admit that your party is responsible for arming BOTH sides of the Iran/Iraq conflict, and as such has no credibility when speaking about Saddam’s atrocities, as they are your own. Do this, and I will leave you alone – for a while.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:39 am#123, barfly,
Understanding that we were in the Cold War, in which middle eastern skirmishes were actually a front in communism’s unabated spread, yes, understandably, the US took sides with many ethnic groups within “countries” whose borders were established by European powers. The US armed ethnic groups who opposed the Soviet incursions into their lands, so it is far too simplistic to state that we “armed both sides” – it is far more accurate to state the we armed our sympathizers. When the Cold War ended, alignments shifted, and yes, ethnic groups who were trained and armed by the US to fight the Soviets in the Cold War later turned against the US, viewing us as the interlopers once the Soviets were gone, not realizing our presence kept the Soviets or other European powers from coming back.
Barfly, I will take on any topic you’ve got, so what else you got?
September 24th, 2006 at 8:57 am#122, barfly,
What is seldom stated when bringing up Dan Quayle’s spelling of potato, is that the INCORRECT spelling of potato was on a flash card that he was provided by someone intending to make him look stupid – in other words, he was set up, but he allowed the press to skip over that fact and pound him relentlessly, which IS Quayle’s fault for not fighting back. Republicans have since learned, and are now well served by Limbaugh, Coulter, O’Reilly, Hannity, Malkin and others who don’t hesitate to hit back and hit back hard.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:01 am#125
Hendler !!!
What B#llshit !!!!
Even if you are right about this “set-up” ( Can you provide some evidence of this? Preferably not from Faux News? ) – THE KID TRIED TO CORRECT QUAYLE AND QUAYLE ARGUED WITH THE KID !!!!
I guess Quayle was “hitting back and hitting back hard…” as you would say. Inspiring future ineptness from Coulter, O’Rielly, Malkin, Limpboy and Hannity.
Or was “ARGUE WITH THE KID” on this so-called card, too?
Go feed your gerbils – Hendler. And don’t abuse them this time.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:33 amComing to this story late, but exactly why again was Bill Clinton even appearing on Fox News? He knows that no matter what he says or does the editors can always edit out the good stuff and make him look like a drooling slob.
He has to know this right?
Otherwise what in the world was he thinking going on that show? It’s like going on Bill O’reilly’s whorefest. Anyone who goes on has to realize that the egomaniacle Oreilly is never going to let the guest, no matter how important, get his or her own side in enough to convince people of thier points. You can tell when this is happening. When the guest starts to get rolling and the truth becomes too obvious, the host, either Oreilly or someone else on Fox news, starts to become edgy and impatient, even going so far as to cut them off towards the end and blaming it on the need for a commercial break.
We’ve seen it before a thousand times in the last several years so why is someone, anyone the likes of Bill Clinton appearing on that show?
Why bother? Why not appear on Countdown where you will get a fair shake and probably help it earn higher ratings as a result? Why help Fox news get more viewers?
Honestly I thought president Clinton was smarter than this when it came to the conspiracy against him. I guess I was wronge.
MYOB’
September 24th, 2006 at 11:19 am.
It is disgusting to see the flag burning FOX newspeople disrespect President Bill Clinton, one of Our great American leaders.
They just had on Bob Kerrey (from the 911 commison), and he basically said Clinton was 100% right in this interview, and he had a right to be angry at all the distortions that the media have presented.
The Fox interviewer, a no-nothing blonde, made some errors in interpretting the English langugage about what the 911 commission said, and suggested that we knew about Bin Laden in 1993, of which Kerrey immediately corrected. He also noted that in 1998, Congress had other things on their mind.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:27 amAl Gore never claimed he invented the Internet.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:36 amThis is another case of the lack of English skills by the flag burning right wing.
YOU GUYS ON FOX ARE PRETTY SNEAKY I THINK THE WHOLE BUNCH OF YOU ARE WORKING FOR BUSH AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.BEFORE 9-11 BUSH HAD ALL KINDS OF WARNINGS ABOUT WHAT ALQUIEDA WAS DOING ,BUT HE SAID THEY POSED NO THREAT HE SURE WAS NOT AFTER BIN LADEN,AND THEN YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR SLICK REPORTERS CHRIS WALLACE TALK TO PRES.CLINTON AND SNEAK HIS WAY INTO TALKING ABOUT KILLING BIN LADEN.I KNOW MR CLINTON TRIED TO KILL THAT ACEHOLE IF HE WOULD HAVE HAD THE INTELLIGENCE TO ENABLE HIM TO DO JUST THAT SO DON’T TRY TO MAKE MR.CLINTON LOOK BAD BECAUSE MOST OF US KNOW HE DID A PRETTY GOOD DAM JOB WAS HE WAS PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.A.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:28 pmso it is far too simplistic to state that we “armed both sides†– it is far more accurate to state the we armed our sympathizers.
So the Iranians were “our sympathisers” – after having held Americans hostage? Pathetic.
Your reasoning is weak, as usual.
Understanding that we were in the Cold War, in which middle eastern skirmishes were actually a front in communism’s unabated spread,
That was the best one yet – the communists were a failed ideology by the time Reagan took office. A threat the intellegence agencies built up to justify their budgets – as shown by how utterly wrong they were about the Soviets. They were caught completely off-guard by the break-up of the Soviet Union; they hadn’t produced anything that showed the true state of affairs in the USSR. So your cold war excuse is kaput. What else you got?
Since I don’t regard your laughable answer to be anything more than an uninformed kid’s parroted talking point, you’ll have to do better. Or admit the truth.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:53 pmWe can thank Jimmy Carter for the breakup of the Soviet empire. The first major crack was Lech Welesa’s Solidarity in Poland, which occured on the Carter/Brzezinski watch.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:02 pmOk, Jason, I’ll give Reagan the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he thought that he was combatting communism by arming both the Iraqis and the Iranians – but the effects of his actions were as I have described – dead Iraqis killed by Iran/contra weapons sold by Reagan to the terrorists (and by that time he knew who he was dealing with – the same faction that had held Americans hostage), and dead Iranians, killed by Reagan supplied weapons and technology. Don’t you think it hypocritical of republicans even talking about how many people Saddam killed – when they supplied him (and the Iranians) the weapons?
September 24th, 2006 at 1:13 pmI agree, John.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:14 pmclinton snaps when he is subjected to questions from the press bush gets every week. on my gawd, we don’t have a monopoly on the press any more.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:10 pmon my gawd, we don’t have a monopoly on the press any more.
Comment by paul
Never did, you sadly misinformed little man.
Too bad Paul hasn’t the guts to enlist, and see first hand what his syncophancy has wrought. Crawl back under your bed Paul, it’s probably dry by now.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:09 pmMr. Clinton had the ability to control everything he chose to say in response to a question. What silliness that because you don’t really like a question, it therefore lacks credibility. Obviously from Clinton’s response, the question touched a high priority nerve.
Clinton chose his methods for response, and there they are for all to see. You can draw conclusions about smirkiness or wingedness, but in the end, Clinton’s response was Clinton’s response, and his anger was evident for all to see. His blanket attacks on people he disagreed with were distractions from the point of the question and the most points of his argument.
Clinton could have done much better by being more persuasive. He can’t handle a simple neocon question?
September 24th, 2006 at 4:14 pmPaul
When has Bush been exposed to a similar vein of questioning? Honestly.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:14 pmclinton snaps when he is subjected to questions from the press bush gets every week.
Fried baloney. Bush pouts, and acts like a small, spoiled, child of priviledge whenever he gets an uncomfortable question – and he answers with non-sequiturs, never a straight answer.
It will be enjoyable watching him squirm when the Dems take the House and force him to testify under oath – without Daddy Dick to coach him.
Ironic, that Clinton’s testimony set the precedent that will force Bush to testify, and then he’ll have his “Reagan Moment,” admitting he lied to the American people. And not about consensual sex with an adult.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:19 pmClinton could have done much better by being more persuasive. He can’t handle a simple neocon question?
Comment by islestar
On Fox news? You fight fire with fire – or be labeled a waffler. Fox’s viewers aren’t Clinton fans, and so persuasion isn’t achievable. To set the record straight was more important. And please explain what a “simple neocon question” looks like. They are stilted, and based upon false premises – and anyone who attempts to “persuade” at this rhetorical level of discourse without first dispelling neocon spin is doomed to failure.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:27 pmMaureen Dowd’s ” hissy fit” remark seems apropos to Clinton this time around.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:31 pmNo. 137 – I don’t understand your question. Seems to me, Clinton “handled” the question alright. He was justifiably pissed at the question and he let that little jerk have it.
Since when is anyone obligated to be “nice” to a journalist, especially one with an axe to grind like Chris Wallace. This little punk called his own father senile because the old man was critical of the war in Iraq. What kind of a low life scumbag would do that?
As far as Clinton’s reaction goes, we could all benefit from a little more righteous indignation from the left now and again.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:35 pmBarfly, that’s silly. Skilled diplomacy depends on taking the meat of the qustion and answering it with what you want and need to say, taking control of the situation, and being persuasive.
If you think the audience is a pile of Luddites, then isn’t it smart to speak so they can understand what you’re saying?
This doesn’t mean you don’t convey your content, but you don’t fall prey to playing into the Luddite’s hands.
How is it that a skilled guy like Clinton fell into a trap set from the accepted truth that Fox’s questions are mindless, but devilishly clever and deceiptful?
September 24th, 2006 at 4:36 pmIn Fox’s program, Wallace fact checks Bubba’s claims of how vigilent Bubba was to find OBL, and Bubba’s self-described “praiser†actually claims Bubba couldn’t stand the heat from anti-war advocates after Bubba fired missles into Afghanistan, because of the “wag the dog†inferrence.
Taking a step back, Bubba seemed out of control and lost his smooth, calm demeanor that was key to his popularity. I know progs love when someone “screams hatefully†to power, but to the 60 – 70 percent of the rest of the nation, we were revolted, and now worry that there are no Dems fit for the world stage.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:58 pm#132, John,
There is no need to make up foreign policy achievements for Carter, his peace treaty between Egypt and Israel is quite remarkable. To give Carter any credit for Lech Walesa’s courage is an insult to him and the Polish, who had to bravely face down Soviet pressure.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:01 pmBrit Hume was right, Bubba is overly obsessive about his legacy, and just digs himself a deeper hole whenever he tries to spin history in his favor.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm[...] Wallace rattled off a list of specific canonical right-wing allegations about Clinton’s alleged inaction, ranging from Somalia in 1993 to the USS Cole attack in 2000. Clinton responded vigorously — passionately to the point of clear emotional agitation (in Fox parlance, “crazed“) but incredibly articulately and confidently. He wasn’t spinning history or expressing a philosophical or political opinion, he just said things that everyone with a brain already knows: That the GOP wanted the USA to unilaterally pull out (cut and run?) from Somalia in 1993. That almost nobody even knew who Al Qaeda was back then, and that Somalia had nothing to do with bin Laden. That when we attacked bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998, the GOP ridiculed Clinton for his obsession with Al Qaeda. That we didn’t know for sure that Al Qaeda was behind the USS Cole attack until after Bush became President, and that in the 8 months between then and 9/11 the Bush Administration did nothing whatsoever to go after bin Laden, even though Clinton left behind attack plans — that in fact they even demoted Richard Clarke, the man actually in charge of going after Al Qaeda. All true facts, but somehow all forgotten under the right’s aggressive rationalization for Bush’s ineffectiveness against Islamic extremism (they’re basically arguing that Bush wouldn’t even have an Al Qaeda problem if not for Clinton’s inaction). [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 5:28 pm“That we didn’t know for sure that Al Qaeda was behind the USS Cole attack until after Bush became President, and that in the 8 months between then and 9/11 the Bush Administration did nothing whatsoever to go after bin Laden, even though Clinton left behind attack plans….”
This is a myth. There were no attack plans. Think about it. If the Clinton administration actually had this brilliant plan to go after bin Laden, wouldn’t they have employed it?
September 24th, 2006 at 5:48 pmBrit Hume was right, Bubba is overly obsessive about his legacy, and just digs himself a deeper hole whenever he tries to spin history in his favor.
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler
Brit Hume? There’s an objective opinion!
Whatever the outcome, Clinton’s legacy won’t match Reagan’s for outright duplicity, and let’s not forget arming both sides in the Iran/Iraq war, as the republicans did, and then crying about Saddam’s brutality, like their hands were clean. What’s the matter Hendler, can’t stomach the fact your side armed terrorist islamofascists and brutal distators? Don’t whine about Clinton, ’cause it was all St. Ronny’s fault!
September 24th, 2006 at 6:26 pm“That the GOP wanted the USA to unilaterally pull out (cut and run?) from Somalia in 1993″
Don’t forget. It’s useful to get the facts straight: (From the record).
H.RES.227
Title: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that United States Armed Forces should be withdrawn from Somalia as expeditiously as possible.
Sponsor: Rep Brown, Sherrod [OH-13] (introduced 7/27/1993) Cosponsors (8)
Latest Major Action: 10/19/1993 Motion to Discharge Committee filed by Mr. Weldon. Petition No: 103-9.
Mr. Brown is a Democrat. The cosponsors are a mix of dems and repubs. Mr. Byrd led a spirited effort for removal of troops in the Senate. CONGRESS wanted a withdrawal, both DEMS and REPUBS.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:31 pmIf you think the audience is a pile of Luddites, then isn’t it smart to speak so they can understand what you’re saying?
This doesn’t mean you don’t convey your content, but you don’t fall prey to playing into the Luddite’s hands.
How is it that a skilled guy like Clinton fell into a trap set from the accepted truth that Fox’s questions are mindless, but devilishly clever and deceiptful?
Comment by islestar
What are you talking about? Did you even watch the interview? He stated his case clearly and effectively, and if you weren’t persuaded, perhaps its because you’ve got a little Luddite in you as well. The only “trap” I see is the one you fell into, believing Fox’s “crazed” spin.
Who said “mindless?” Reread my post a little closer.
I said they are stilted, and based upon false premises.
And pray tell how a question can be both “mindless,” and “devilishly clever and deceiptful” at the same time? Aren’t the two mutually exclusive?
Sounds like another Bush-sequitor.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:38 pmIf the Bush administration actually had this brilliant plan to win in Iraq, wouldn’t they have employed it?
Comment by Arminius
I fixed your post, to reflect current crises.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:42 pmDon’t forget. It’s useful to get the facts straight:
That’s all I’m trying to do, pointing out republicans’ were responsible for deaths that occurred in the Iran/Iraq war, as they armed both sides.
I’m with you on getting the facts straight.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:46 pmLiberty…You’re right, Gore Didn’t Invent the Internet… He “took the initiative to create it”.
“But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I’ve traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.”
Gore, 3/9/99
September 24th, 2006 at 6:52 pmThe beauty of the world, barfly, is that some people, perhaps even you, are so easily provoked.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:54 pm[...] [link][more] [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 7:58 pmThe headline on the FoxNews website states “Clinton Gets Defensive,” not “linton Getts Crazd.” Go to the actual website and look you bunch of lemmings.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:30 pmThe headline on the FoxNews website states “Clinton Gets Defensive,†not “linton Getts Crazd.†Go to the actual website and look you bunch of lemmings.
Comment by Chris the Cop
They changed it, you clod.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:38 pmThe beauty of the world, barfly, is that some people, perhaps even you, are so easily provoked.
Comment by islestar —
Is this in line with your previous non-sequitor? It also makes no sense.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:40 pmThe beauty of the world, barfly, is that some people, perhaps even you, are so easily provoked.
Comment by islestar
With a name like barfly, what did you expect of me? Patience? Tact? No, that’s not me. I call them as I see them, period.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:45 pmfor Chris the Cop, et al:
FOX News Saying “Clinton Gets Crazedâ€
September 24th, 2006 at 9:52 pmhttp://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/23/fox-news-saying-clinton-gets-crazed/
(Update below the fold)
After writing this, I have noticed that FOX has changed the video caption to this:
…
Wallace: Arrogant grin.
Clinton: Kicks butt with right foot.
Wallace: Lopsided grin.
Clinton: Kicks butt with left foot.
Wallace: Crosseyed lopsided grin.
Clinton: Right cross to the jaw.
Wallace: Loses grin, blood runs from mouth.
Clinton: Grabs Wallace by the hair and knees him in the nose.
Wallace: Blood gushes from nose.
Clinton: Twists Wallace head around 180 degrees.
Wallace: Starts falling to the ground.
Clinton: Drop-kicks Wallace between the uprights for a fieldgoal.
Wallace: Loses consciousness.
Clinton: Kicks Wallace like a soccer ball all the way to the morgue.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:12 pmWell, if you blindside a former President like that, don’t expect not to get bitchslapped by said former President. It was a typical FOX bait-and-switch tactic and they got called on their partisanship by someone to whom the nation still listens.
So this sleazy, tabloid response (WHEN PRESIDENTS ATTACK!) is nothing surprising.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:51 pmThe reason neocons can never address the issue at hand is because they are wrong and distraction is all they have.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:23 pm[...] [Update] Fox is apparently advertising the above video as Clinton Gets Crazed. Need I say more. del.icio.us this! [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 11:24 pmThe left/right will have the same opionion before/after this interview.
The swing voters will see someone not in control and overly defensive.
In the greater scheme of things who cares — He is an EX-president….
September 25th, 2006 at 2:18 amWooooow!!!!!!
Was that great or was that great!!!!!!!!!!
It was huge!!
Ahsante sana Bw. clinton. Tunakupenda na Mungu akubariki.
THat is Kiswahili for Ahsante (thank you) sana (very/so much) Bwana (Mister) clinton. Tunakupenda (We love you) na (and) Mungu (God) akubariki (bless you).
I watched it today at about 9.00 a.m. (I amnot sure what time Chris Wallace comes on on Channel 45 (DirectTV) coz I hardly watch fox. I also watched the 6.00 p.m. re run on fox news (channel 360 Direct TV and then I recorded the 1.00 a.m. re rerun for my library. I have over ten tapes on Clinton interviews during the DNC (John Kerry’s), Various Larry king shows, Today’s Tim Russert interview e.t.c.
I adore this guy. Meeeeen ain’t he brilliant.
He can break down complex global issues (which he so much understands) into simple layman’s language without breaking a sweat. No “mmmhhs” and “Aahhs” like Bush the discombobulated buffoon.
I loved his reference to Mike Wallace’s smirk that makes him think he is so clever.
I loved his reference to Mike’s smart little conservative attack job.
I loved his explanation of Karl rove’s B.S. where Rove and the White House create a security deal that they lace with some unacceptable clauses with the sole intention of having the democrats vote against it in order for them to get a chance to label the Dems as weak on terror and defence. Clinton called it a bunch of hooey.
I loved the way he filibustered Mike so as to make his point. If you ever watch O’Reilley factor or Hannity and Colmes show, Hannity and O’reilley never let guests give a complete answer before drowning them out with their ’smart little conservative attack jobs” and attack lines. Clinton kep ttalking over this guy until he made his point. He refused to go to the main issue – the CGI and dwelt on this terror business to SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT.
Way to go Bill.
Al Gore should be the next guest on Faux News. I love him when he says “he (with reference to Bush) betrayed his country!!!!!!!!!”
God bless Bill Clinton. God bless the Democrats.
Ahsante na Kwaheri. Mungu awabariki.
Thank you and Good bye. God bless you all.
Native Son.
Kenyan living in Silver Spring, MD.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:40 am
Wooooow!!!!!!
Was that great or was that great!!!!!!!!!!
It was huge!!
Ahsante sana Bw. clinton. Tunakupenda na Mungu akubariki.
THat is Kiswahili for Ahsante (thank you) sana (very/so much) Bwana (Mister) clinton. Tunakupenda (We love you) na (and) Mungu (God) akubariki (bless you).
I watched it today at about 9.00 a.m. (I amnot sure what time Chris Wallace comes on on Channel 45 (DirectTV) coz I hardly watch fox. I also watched the 6.00 p.m. re run on fox news (channel 360 Direct TV and then I recorded the 1.00 a.m. re rerun for my library. I have over ten tapes on Clinton interviews during the DNC (John Kerry’s), Various Larry king shows, Today’s Tim Russert interview e.t.c.
I adore this guy. Meeeeen ain’t he brilliant.
He can break down complex global issues (which he so much understands) into simple layman’s language without breaking a sweat. No “mmmhhs” and “Aahhs” like Bush the discombobulated buffoon.
I loved his reference to Mike Wallace’s smirk that makes him think he is so clever.
I loved his reference to Mike’s smart little conservative attack job.
I loved his explanation of Karl rove’s B.S. where Rove and the White House create a security deal that they lace with some unacceptable clauses with the sole intention of having the democrats vote against it in order for them to get a chance to label the Dems as weak on terror and defence. Clinton called it a bunch of hooey.
I loved the way he filibustered Mike so as to make his point. If you ever watch O’Reilley factor or Hannity and Colmes show, Hannity and O’reilley never let guests give a complete answer before drowning them out with their ’smart little conservative attack jobs” and attack lines. Clinton kep ttalking over this guy until he made his point. He refused to go to the main issue – the CGI and dwelt on this terror business to SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT.
Way to go Bill.
Al Gore should be the next guest on Faux News. I love him when he says “he (with reference to Bush) betrayed his country!!!!!!!!!”
God bless Bill Clinton. God bless the Democrats.
Ahsante na Kwaheri. Mungu awabariki.
Thank you and Good bye. God bless you all.
Native Son.
Kenyan living in Silver Spring, MD.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:41 amHerb: The swing voters will see someone not in control and overly defensive.
Well, Herb, maybe some swing voters will see Chris Wallace as “someone not in control and overly defensive,” but others will see him only as a pitiful sack of spit.
And yes, I agree that Bill Clinton is an EX[TREMELY]-powerful president with a legacy like George Washington’s.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:18 amBeing a republican and a republican campaign volunteer, I wasn’t surprused of FOX’s exposed deliberate bias and “unbalanced” views. The bit Fox did on clinton reapears Daily against Muslims and Arabs who love America and the American people. Fox needs to understand that we can win more people over by being persuasive and objective and not by encouriging division and hate-mongering.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:27 amFirst-time poster–Fox’s promotion of the interview was weak. Curious as to why anyone here is surprised though; after all, it is Fox. Probably more curious as to the extremes everyone seems to have.
This forum has many well-informed people who can articulate thoughts pretty thoroughly. Why then do so many of them/us fall into the PR/MEDIA/TALKING POINTS “label trap”–if you support even some of the war on terror or some of Bush’s policies, then you’re a war-mongering right-winger. If you oppose the “war” and call for an organized withdrawal of troops, then you’re a weak on terror lefty who hangs out with Cindy Sheehan. ENOUGH! We’ve got a country to protect, so why not debate the best way to do that instead of shots across the bow of the people you disagree with? What does Bush and cocaine and Clinton and Lewinsky have to do with American men and women dying in Afghanistan?
Bottom line–Clinton sure as heck could have done more to fight OBL and terrorism before 9/11 and Bush sure as heck could do a lot more post-9/11.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:52 am[...] Here is how Fox News plugs the story on thier web site: (source: ThinkProgress) [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 12:20 pm[...] Clinton sets it straight on Fox » and Fox is promoting it as “Clinton Gets Crazed”, transcript [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 12:25 pmI nevered voted for Bill Clinton and voted once, just once for W. I would never make that mistake again. Wallace is a crazy is he can’t recognize that there is a hit squad, yet today, out to get Clinton. They spent double digit millions on Whitewater and found nothing but Clinton’s sexual mistakes and continued to try impeachment for it. Regardless, Wallace poised two token CGI questions and then a W rebuilding Clinton blaming Bin Laden question. Wallace knew Clinton would spend much time defending his rightful actions. Wallace never let Clinton fully answer his Bin Laden question. He poised the question trying to blame Clinton, let Clinton try to answer, and when Clinton try to answer, Wallace never once intended to do anything but try to scapegoat Bushes terrorism failings on Clinton. Bush has tried to recover on his father’s failings by using Bin Laden as a excuse to invade Iraq when Iraq had NOTHING to do with Bin Laden. Iraq was a mistake pure and simple. Clark agrees. The world agrees. The majority of the U.S. public and congress agrees. Bush has sunk us into an impotent position on Bin Laden and made a huge mistake trying to focus us on Iraq. In fact W Bush has created more terror than eliminated. George W Bush has created more terror and terror threat against that US than Bin Laden ever tried to do. Perhaps we should focus more on removing Bush and his agenda from office than trying to blame Bin Laden on Clinton. Give me a break! Wallace and George W Bush both go by the same “name” W. Wallace is simple “W” Bush’s puppet. An W is trying to scapegoat his failings on Clinton. Shame on Wallace for letting Bush run him and Shame on Bush. I disagreed with Clinton on some things, but not on the Bin Laden and terror topic. I truly believe that if Clinton had remained strong, not undercut by the Whitewater and conservevative agenda, he would have prevented 911 and eliminated Bin Laden before the US public even knew Bin Laden existed. Kudos to Clinton on trying to deflect the Bush scapegoating.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:28 pmWhadda ya mean, Ethan, that “Wallace … can’t recognize that there is a hit squad, yet today, out to get Clinton”? Wallace IS the “hit squad.”
September 25th, 2006 at 1:42 pmthe title is far for Fox news.. I think since B.C. insulted them they have a right to be upset. just like it isn’t fair for to assume bill has done something wrong, I think its wrong to claim that fox has an agenda, when wallace stated a question that wasn’t supposed to take up an entire segment. that was Bills fault. and he says he wants to talk about it.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:27 pmthe title is fair for Fox news.. I think since B.C. insulted them they have a right to be upset. just like it isn’t fair for to assume bill has done something wrong, I think its wrong to claim that fox has an agenda, when wallace stated a question that wasn’t supposed to take up an entire segment. that was Bills fault. and he says he wants to talk about it.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:28 pmClinton insulted Fox? Bwahahahaha! Fox insulted Clinton — by its usual bait-n-switch tactics: Assuring Clinton beforehand Wallace was going to talk about Clinton’s global warming initiative, but then trying to sneak a knife into him on 9/11 — classic. But Clinton outfoxed Fox. He did not roll over and play dead. Instead he kicked Fox butt right on up through the uprights for a fieldgoal. And more power to him! To claim that Fox doesn’t have an agenda is like claiming a rattlesnake doesn’t have venom! Fox News is and has always been “unfair and unbalanced.” Time to smell the coffee, America, and wake up!
September 25th, 2006 at 2:55 pm[...] Former President of the United States Bill Clinton lets FOXNEWS "journalist" Chris Wallace have it. Full transcript here. Take note that FOXNEWS promotes is as "Clinton gets Crazed". Part one of the video here. [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 2:59 pmim saying its not right to assume that they do have an agenda. they have just as much of an agenda as anyone bill did. bill did not score a basket ball or whatever, he defended a question that was supposed to only take up a minute of time and HE stretched it. and wrong, wallace stated that they had prior agreements to talk primarily about his overseas work and anyother questions fox had Clinton would answer. it was just not a mature “answer” in my opinion. how does someone getting defensive and admitting he did not catch OBL getting treated like a hero for standing up to fox news?
September 25th, 2006 at 3:33 pmHey #178,
September 25th, 2006 at 4:59 pmYou need to WAKE UP because your in a dream world.
All Wallace did was ask Clinton one question and it bothered him, so much
that he tried to tell Wallace it was a setup and that he was smirking?
Clinton lost it, pal.
To all the Liberal folks out there that think Fox News is “Unfair and Unbalanced”.
What about the rest of the Liberal media on every other single channel?
The Media and Mr. Moore have been having a field day on Bush since he
won the election.
I did not vote for Clinton, but I stood behind him because he was our President at the time.
We all need to stand behind any President that we have at the moment
to fight the Terrorists that are trying to kill all Americans.
Hey Dave:
If you think I’m in a dream world, have I ever got some Pacific ocean front property in Kansas to sell you — cheap! So all Wallace did was to ask Clinton one question and it bothered him, huh? Well, I’m going to ask YOU one question: When are you going to stop doing that crack-cocaine? Huh? Huh? The fact that Fox News IS unfair and unbalanced is the reason that folks think it is unfair and unbalanced. And the Administration-controlled, corporate-controlled reich-wing media is becoming more and more fascist by the week. If a progressive or liberal reporter were to report anything other than the Bushivek party line, he would lose his job, because the owners of the media, GOP contributors almost all, would not stand for it. This is the real reason why the media are not liberal at all, but right-wing almost to a person. Chris Matthews, for instance. If Hitler were president, would you stand behind him? Well, yes, I believe you would.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:43 pmNobody has to assume that Fox has an agenda, they have PROVEN they have an agenda over years of time. Clinton did not defend any question, he answered a question that wasn’t a fair question. Here’s a question: When are you going to stop molesting little children? Now answer that question! That is the kind of presumptive question that Wallace asked Clinton. And Clinton’s mature, well-articulated answer was excellent, a field goal, a touchdown, a game-winning basked — you pick the sport. He essentially turned the tables on the reich-wing Wallace. And Clinton’s a hero for standing up to Fox news. May more and more people begin to do so.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:52 pmClinton got cornered by a just question, but his typical repsonse started by pissing up paritsan media telephone polls. He labelled Fox News… then proced in his typical “Teflon Don” rhetoric — never addressing the question, period. Wallace was right to be direct, that is what he is paid to do it. Oh, wait — sorry, I forgot when you Clintonista’s do it…. it’s cutting edge but when a more balanced voice does it, it’s “biased” hypocrits.
-That Darn Republican
ww.centerswitch.squarespace.com
September 25th, 2006 at 6:49 pm”Well, I’m going to ask YOU one question: When are you going to stop doing that crack-cocaine? Huh? Huh? The fact that Fox News IS unfair and unbalanced is”
LOL…Boy that’s a really educated question.
“If Hitler were president, would you stand behind him? Well, yes, I believe you would. ”
I’m not even going to answer that..Give me a break. Your starting to sound like your buddy Bill…lol.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:59 pmHey Darn,
If Clinton got cornered by “just a question,” then “just a few” U.S. Marines got cornered on Iwo Jima by “just a few” Japanese soldiers! They blew their way up the hill and planted “old glory” just like Clinton blew away the smirking reich-wing Wallace! I watched it live and just couldn’t stop laughing. Finally! Somebody is standing up to the reich-wing fascist media in this country! Here’s the exact question Wallace put to Clinton:
“Why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaida out of business when you were president?”
Now, even a Darn GOPper ought to be able to see that this question falsely ASSUMES that Clinton didn’t do all he could to put Al Quaida out of business. It was a PRESUMPTIVE question, the kind that wouldn’t be allowed in a court of law.
Wallace is a schooled and seasoned journalist. He knows better. In case you’re having trouble understanding what a presumptive question is, here’s one for you:
“Why didn’t you do more to stop the child molester from raping your little girl when you were on the scene?”
And if you don’t understand why that question is presumptive and therefore inappropriate, here’s another:
“When are you going to stop raping your own little daughter?”
And if that doesn’t do it for you, you’re sadly beyond hope and redemption.
Wallace’s question PRESUMED that President Clinton was failing to do something he was not failing to do. And if Fox wasn’t such an unfair and unbalanced reich-wing chunk of the media, he would have lost his job for violating some of the most basic rules of journalism.
Back to your playpen!
September 25th, 2006 at 7:27 pmQuestion: “If Hitler were president, would you stand behind him?”
Response: “I’m not even going to answer that.”
Reason: Because you can’t. It hits too close to home.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:29 pmReich Wingnut,
Clinton was out of his element since he’s used to getting softball questions for the likes of The NY Times or haveing the lib’s on the Alphabet networks suck up to him.
A few tough questions and he looked like he was about to pop a rivet.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:08 pmHey Marge’s squeeze,
The rivet Clinton popped was Chris Wallace’s pop-top. Just watching the fizz ooze out gave me such an adrenalin rush that I’m still feeling.
Whoo-hoo!
September 25th, 2006 at 8:19 pmQuestion: “If Hitler were president, would you stand behind him?â€
Response: “I’m not even going to answer that.â€
Reason: Because you can’t. It hits too close to home.
Mr. Winger
September 25th, 2006 at 8:46 pmNo, the reason I won’t won’t answer that is because it was a rediculous question.
Hitler was a Jew Killing Maniac, of course I wouldn’t stand behind someone like that.
And it doesn’t hit close to home other than the fact that some of the people that he tortured were from a distant part of my family.
Anyway, thanks for playing and have a nice day.
And I quote,
“We all need to stand behind any President that we have at the moment
to fight the Terrorists that are trying to kill all Americans.” —Comment by Dave
Now, “any” is YOUR word, not mine, and “any” would include Hitler.
Not my prob, pal, it’s yours: your word, your prob.
Nuf sed.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:57 pmHow do you sheep, i mean republicans sleep at night? Defending this news agency simply because it tells YOU what YOU WANT to hear, and never the truth. Then when they get caught with their d*cks hanging out you still defend them. A wise man once said doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is a sign of insanity.
You people watch these talking heads like wallace, hannity, o’reiley, (check out o’reiley on the smoking gun dot com) knowing they are intentionally twisting the truth and sometimes down right lying to entertain you just to tell YOU what YOU WANT to hear, NOT THE TRUTH and you know this but you still defend them.
You people are shameful and despecable.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:59 pmOhhhhh, ha, ha, ha!
I LOVE to watch President Clinton kick ass and take names! “Smarmy” Chris Wallace sho’ had to pick himself up off the floor after that interview!
And how refreshing it is to see an articulate, intelligent politician on television!
You go, Bill!
LMAO
September 25th, 2006 at 10:13 pmHmm, all I see is Clinton being melodramatic and even lieing (like he does best) to raise his popularity points a few notches. Which is crucial if he ever wants to get his wife into office so he can tell her what to do for his next 8 years in the whitehouse and his honorary seat at the pimp’s ball in LA for having the title “The First Man”.
Gimmie a f*cking break here. You tools are only after GWB because you’re just a bunch a media driven fanboys. You hate “the dubya” because Greenday tells you to do and because you’re all a bunch of puppets.
Don’t get me wrong here, I’m a democrat. I disagree with many of Bush’s policies but I also havent become obsessed jockhangers like most of you assclowns. I actually have reasons for the individual policies if I disagree or if I agree rather than just jumping on the left-wing bandwagon and basing my opinion around whatever the other side doesn’t want.
F*ck you all very much, now go die in a fire.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:42 pmFox have gone crazy themselves today. This interview is there endless top story with them now illuding to post interview dummy spit by clinton at his own staff and fox telling themselves they have done nothing wrong.
Chris wallace is saying he didnt set clinton up. As far as I can see clinton came in to talk about the global warning initiative fund and the money they have raised and that Rupert Murdoch has contributed to it, only to get this complete spam question fired at him. Wallace and fox got everything they deserved from clinton. Its interesting to compare the articulate presidency that was clinton with the dribbling village idiot that inhabits the white house now. Truely a refreshing wind from the past.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:17 pmIf you’d clean the brown spit off your glasses, Evacke, then maybe you could see past the end of your nose.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:44 pmWhat have the American political wings done to the once honorable and revered peofession of a national media reporter? Putting Fox aside, there are no longer ‘reporters’ in the media world. Now it is populated by a punch of wrestling promoters and agitators. Men who got picked on as children because of their size or lack thereof, and are now yelling out and provoking people who were alpha-males on the playground and are now leading the world for the betterment of all. Being Canadian, I admire Mr. Clinton for the work he did and though I questioned his judgement, one thing he never did was lie to the people’s faces about their national security and possibility of war. If the Republicans do get reelected in 2006 and ‘08 it is just a testament to me how dumb and gullible the Americans really are and why things like Fox News, people like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are successful in that wasteland of a culture there.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:09 amDear Mr. Andrew Modray,
Anybody who would call America, my beloved country, a “wasteland of a culture” is either inane or insane or both. You write, “If the Republicans do get reelected in 2006 and ‘08 it is just a testament to me how dumb and gullible the Americans really are ….” This “analysis” is not even “ignorant”; it’s “ignert” (look it up). I would never call Canada, my respected neighbor to the north, a “wasteland of a culture,” because I know there aren’t that many “inanatics” and “insanatics” like you up there.
Now get back to your litter box.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:34 amY’know what, evacke?
Didn’t think so
Give ME a f***in’ break. I am not uncritical of Mr. Clinton, but would far rather have him in the Oval Office than BullyBoy BushieBoy. Clinton only fooled around with one female intern. Bush is fooling around with the leading nation in the free world.
But don’t worry! We won’t be the leading nation for long!
Once China finishes buying up all the debt we’re in, thanks to BushieBoy, THEY’ll be the leading world power.
Bush has f****d this whole country, man. Bush is petulant, mean, and smug. That’s just his attitude toward reporters. Magnify those adjectives, and you have his attitude toward the whole world.
BTW, I didn’t hear it from Green Day. I’ve witnessed it with my own eyes, with which I READ, and my own MIND, with which I analyze.
Try it sometime
September 26th, 2006 at 12:36 amDear Reich Winger,
I doubt you’ve been out of your state, or even the continental united states so it may surprise you that most of the world, including most of the inhabitants of your so called allies, have a very sad opinion of you, your country and your president.
For me, I would rather live in a world with gentle american leadership, with force as a last but viable resort as in the clinton years. I’ve spent a lot of time in china and have nightmares about the point in 2012 when it surpasses the united states, as that regime is sick and twisted.
But thanks to GWB’s obsession with a non-entity (saddam) that is precisely what has been allowed to happen, and with the idiotic and arrogant foreign policies his administration has spouted, the US now has almost less diplomatic clout than china.
I thank GWB for wrecking the present and deeply threating the future and I thank blinkered and ignorant US voters such as you mr reich for making that entirely possible. Twice.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:02 am[...] Fox Promos Clinton Interview As ‘Clinton Gets Crazed’ (tags: dumbass neocon) Related Posts Net Crap (5/15) Cute Overload: …and, Happy Step-mom/adoptive mom’s day too “Holy MUFFLEPUFF!” Net Crap (4/30) Rush Limbaugh got his butt thrown in jail. Hee hee. Net Crap (5/6) Wikipedia: Eutheism, dystheism, and maltheism I have never read about maltheism before. I don’t believe that I’m a maltheist — a belief that seemingly canEarly Blogger &mdash 10/29 11:20 PMSome days, I want to call up my college’s alumni association, and say, “Hi. Yes. You know how you send me about twentyHowdy, Boing BoingersHey, I got on Boing Boing, for, of course, tying in a Simpsons reference to a news story. Ah, Simpsons, what would I do Search [...]
September 26th, 2006 at 1:16 amBill Clinton appeared on Fox with the understanding that the interview would be concerned with his fund raising efforts and global warming. He was right to be angry for this cheap attempt by FAUX news to try to make him the scapegoat for 9/11. Will you CONservatives never tire of mud-slinging and dishonesty? SHEEESH
And this on the heals of the disgusting propaganda that the corporate media aired recently “The Path to 9/11″.
We progressives are sick of being kicked in the nuts be right wing hypocrites, chickenhawks who say WE are weak on defense, defecit spenders who claim that they handle the economy better, idiots like Anne Coulter who is an evolution deniar, and the whole stinking circus of right wing wack jobs that are out of touch with reality.
America is waking up. Your dismal failures are now to plain for you to hide from, from your supply side voodoo economic sell out to the mega rich, to your denial of science and disregard for church state separation. Unless you figure out some new way to cheat in this next election, I truly hope that reason takes back the government of this country and the democrats take back congress.
And I wish I could vote for Bill Clinton in 2008.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:26 amCyanobacteria have lived in China far longer than you have, Rossco. Is this the reason they make far fewer mistakes, flawed assumptions, an non sequiturs than you do? Dream on, eucaryote.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:32 am[...] Think Progress » Fox on The Defensive, Promos Interview As ‘Clinton Gets Crazed’ (tags: fox inaccurate distortion media rightwing bias) [...]
September 26th, 2006 at 7:02 am…..Given that every thing Clinton said was true and need to be said…..Is is not good that Wallace asked the question?………
September 26th, 2006 at 9:29 am#192
“You people are shameful and despecable.”
Comment by Republicant — September 25, 2006 @ 9:59 pm
Us Republicans are shameful and Dispicable?
September 26th, 2006 at 9:43 amAfter your Billy Boy got Oral Sex in the Oval Office?
Lot’s of children look up to the President of the U.S.,
and there was a night were many parents had to explain to there
little children what oral sex was.
One day when you grow up..why don’t you try to write something that makes sense intead of using the F word all the time and writting sloppy posts.
“After your Billy Boy got Oral Sex in the Oval Office?” —Comment by Dave
Aren’t you the graduate from Whatsamatta U? Jealous?
September 26th, 2006 at 11:52 am“…..Given that every thing Clinton said was true and need to be said…..Is is not good that Wallace asked the question?………” —Comment by Greg
“Good” from whose point of view? Yours? Certainly not Wallace’s! He got his brain cell excised.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:55 amOh no the “real Bill” comes out. What happened to the good ole boy we all know and love. The Bill Clinton who is an easy going guy that has lulled the world into his camp. You got to see “Wild Bill”. He wasnt upset because he was lulled there on false pretences but the fact he was asked at all. Does anyone else recall anyone ever asking him “the question” without his being prepared by his press handlers before? No, I cannot and neither can you. His reaction says volumes about what he did and didn’t know. If you read the 9/11 Commission’s Report (actually read it yourself) then you’ll see where he is “editing his presidency”. They may have agreed to certain questions beforehand but it is something which needed to be asked in that context.
Having said that, I have a question. Why is it people idolize Clinton? Did he do anything grand during his administration? NO. You cannot give him credit for the economy since he did nothing to create that economy. If anyone you can thank the computer engineers in the 1960’s and 70’s. The love of Clinton due to the economy is like saying, “I really like the adulturer next door because he gave me $5.” So I am at a loss for the reasoning people develop to confirm their love for Clinton. Can anyone help me with this?
September 26th, 2006 at 1:14 pm“Oh no the ‘real Bill’ comes out.”
He’s been there all along, but only for those who, in Jesus’ words, “have eyes to see and ears to hear.”
“What happened to the good ole boy we all know and love.”
Don’t know about you, but I loved “good ole boy” Clinton all the more watching him squash that sneaky little weasel Wallace like the slimy slug that he really is.
“The Bill Clinton who is an easy going guy that has lulled the world into his camp.”
You’re giving away your personal agenda here. Probably unwittingly.
“You got to see ‘Wild Bill’.”
The Bill those of us who do have “eyes to see” have been seeing all along.
“He wasnt upset because he was lulled there on false pretences but the fact he was asked at all.”
Are you ever naive! Bill was never really upset. He knew exactly what he was doing — faking out an reich-wing ambush, based on prior knowledge (and perhaps a mole).
“Does anyone else recall anyone ever asking him ‘the question’ without his being prepared by his press handlers before?
Methinks you’re thinking of George W. Bush here, not William J. Clinton.
“No, I cannot and neither can you.”
I just love mindreaders, ’cause they’re so always wrong!
“His reaction says volumes about what he did and didn’t know.”
Well, he obviously fooled you!
“If you read the 9/11 Commission’s Report (actually read it yourself) then you’ll see where he is ‘editing his presidency.’ They may have agreed to certain questions beforehand but it is something which needed to be asked in that context.”
I also love conspiracy theorists, ’cause they commit so many Freudian slipups.
“Having said that, I have a question. Why is it people idolize Clinton?”
‘Cause they’re more perspicacious than you are?
“Did he do anything grand during his administration? NO.”
Erased the deficit?
“You cannot give him credit for the economy since he did nothing to create that economy.”
Methinks you’re confusing the economy with fiscal responsibility.
“If anyone you can thank the computer engineers in the 1960’s and 70’s.”
Is that ’cause you’re a computer engineer, perchance?
“The love of Clinton due to the economy is like saying, ‘I really like the adulturer next door because he gave me $5.â€
Just can’t keep your nose out of Clinton’s underware, can you?
“So I am at a loss for the reasoning people develop to confirm their love for Clinton.”
Figures.
“Can anyone help me with this?”
First try your shrink. If he can’t help, see your priest. If that fails, you can always try scoring something on the street.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:36 pmHey Riech Winger, You an annoying little dork that makes stupid, brainless statements.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:43 pmDo us all a favor and go crawl back in your crib…Thanks.
“Hey Riech Winger, You an annoying little dork that makes stupid, brainless statements. Do us all a favor and go crawl back in your crib…Thanks.” —Comment by Gun Freak
Here, take these little white capsules, and sooon, veeery sooon, eeeverything will be all right.
September 26th, 2006 at 4:09 pm“Here, take these little white capsules, and sooon, veeery sooon, eeeverything will be all right. ”
Comment by Reich Winger — September 26, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
It obviously will never end, ok, we’ll just ignore you.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:10 pmHere we go again…
Remember when Howard Dean’s voice broke during that empassioned speech, and THAT (yes, his freakin’ voice) was all the dumbasses talked about for months.
NOW, Clinton gets upset for being blamed for 9/11, when ALL of the evidence says Bush and his criminal clowns totally ignored terrorism for the first 8 months of his “presidency”, caring more about making rich people richer at the expense of everyone else.
And THAT’s what these superficial morons will pretend to care about in the next two elections… whether a guy can keep his cool and never raise his voice, or get angry when lied about to his face….
But wait! If a guy is that cool… he’s “wooden”… remember Al Gore?
September 26th, 2006 at 5:48 pmTrying to satisfy (R)eptiles is truly maddening…. maybe that’s the plan…
“It obviously will never end, ok, we’ll just ignore you.”
Don’t blame you.
September 26th, 2006 at 6:01 pmI can’t help but think everyone has been eating retard sandwiches. I hear both Dems and GOP’ers fighting for their men when they both have done more to disrespect the office than all other presidents combined. It is obvious that fox is right leaning. It is also quite obvious that all other networks are left leaning. Both sides using fear tactics and fight for their side when both have lost touch with what the public wants out of their DEMOCRATIC leaders.
Woooo…Clinton is great.
Woooo…Bush is great.
Bush is a retard who needs public speech classes. Clinton needs obedience classes. Both need a lie detector monitor attatched 24/7.
Could anyone be serious when they ask why Bush is not asked any of the same type questions as Clinton in this interview? Dems have asked the same questions with the same “smirks” for the last 7 years. And yes, he answers like a typical politician ( but dumber). Both presidents have been involved in major contraversies and both opposing parties have started the same rumors and conspiracy theories to discredit the other. The only difference being the mentally challenged left actually believes their conspiracies.
Both parties suck and are void of common sense and integrity.
September 26th, 2006 at 7:25 pmPresident Clinton has grown very tired of all of the crap that the right has thrown at him for 10 friggin years now. His response to punkass wallace was very restrained in my opinion.
Let’s look carefully at an important part of the interview:
Clinton asked wallace if Fox “news” asked the same tough questions of Bush’s administration’s officials the two dozen or so times they were on the show.
Wallace answers with something like “you don’t watch Foxnews do you?”
Clinton keeps asking “did you?” “did you?” “Tell the truth”
Wallace is now busted…. he cannot say yes because that would be a flat out lie. Apparantly Clinton did his homework or guessed perfectly correctly. Either way he is a damn genius, and was well prepared for the little fox game. I bet they won’t be f’ing with him any more. Maybe Bush has lulled them into thinking all presidents are stupid. Most are not. One certainly is, and it is not the GREAT William Jefferson Clinton!
Mr. Clinton is hated by fools and morons because he makes them become uncomfortably aware that they are fools and morons. Ignorant people hate intelligent people. That’s why we have Bush as “president”…. the ignorant finally got “their” president (twice). We cannot let this happen again… EVER!
When I joined the military in 1975 I swore to defend America from all enemies foreign and domestic. So… I will do all I can to defeat the Reptilian party until I die, and then my children and grand kids will take over. Hopefully, the republicans will go the way of the Taliban.
Ignorance and fear are the tools of evil. Take your country back from the bloodthirsty, racist, ignorant, selfish, hateful, fearful, dangerous (to humanity and the Earth) reptilian party. Peace…
September 26th, 2006 at 7:39 pm“It is obvious that fox is right leaning. It is also quite obvious that all other networks are left leaning.” (retardsandwich)
Fox is more than just right-leaning. Fox is far-right-leaning, close to fascist. And it is just as obvious that all other other (MSM) networks are not left-leaning at all. Their not even middle-of-the-road. They right right-leaning, CNN, for instance, who tried to get Rush “Sieg Heil” Limbaugh on board (I’ll bet you don’t remember that). Bottom line: the MSM are following Fox into fascism just as fast as their goose-stepping jackboots will take them.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:05 pm“Both parties suck and are void of common sense and integrity.” —Comment by retardsandwich
What sucks and is void of common sense and integrity is your statement.
Both parties have intelligent, good, and honest people of integrity in them. And both parties have dummies, bad folks, and dishonest people in them. You need to take a university-level course in socio-political science, retardsandwich. Most Americans, wherever they may be, are good and decent people. As St. Paul wrote, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ephesians 6:12).
September 26th, 2006 at 8:20 pmTo Steve
Yeah Clinton did lied about that relationship…who don’t. He is just human afraid to be busted by his wife. Any man would lied to save the marriage…(beside its private life)…leave it. Unlike Prez BUSH….lied about pretty mush everything since elected doubted the first election is even truth!!! think about it stevie. WAR in IRAQ haha you kidding me right……sound a bit like Vietnam war….Bin Laden still not capture the main person that causes 9/11, Uss Cole among others…NOT Saddam. In Fact OBL don’t even like Saddam….WAR in Iraq is about OIL!!!! More for Texaco or the Bush family.. Good on B. Clinton to expose FOX and Wallace on air…now thats the truth.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:55 amDid anyone know that the president can send any military operation anywhere in the world for 90 days? Hmmm an operational time to use it was when he KNEW where Bin laden was going to be at. Did I mention he diddnt NEED Congresses permission to send troops anywhere for a quick operation for 90 days? …. And Clintons innocent…. ?!?
September 27th, 2006 at 3:06 amYeah, Vint Le,
He was gonna send ‘em in COVERED WAGONS, you idiot!
September 27th, 2006 at 3:32 amThere sure are a lot of people that know (think) Clinton is perfect and GW is bad.
Clinton was being impeached, had the chance to prevent 9/11, but the polls showed that it would “appear” that he was wagging the dog instead of doing his job (as President of the US).
He was getting a hummer for 8 years – we had a “Peace dividend” that he cashed in. 9/11 happens – our troops are streamlined, why? Who was running things for 8 years prior to 9/11.
Or did the bad guys wait and pull all this off in the mere 9 months that Bush took over.
Wake up people, pull your heads out of your ass and smell the coffee
September 27th, 2006 at 9:36 amWhat is being smelled, mnin, isn’t coffee, it’s your theory. Better luck next time.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:41 pmSomeone mentioned Abdul Rahman Yasin as an Iraqi tie to the first Trade Center attack, somehow carelessly failing to mention that Abdul Rahman Yasin was an American. Also failing to mention that he ratted out all his buddies for an immunity deal which saw him deported to Iraq. Maybe the authorities assumed he would be offed in Iraq because he was rat. And maybe Saddam didn’t want to fall into the trap of killing an American citizen.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:59 pm#223/Mnin – I don’t think anybody think that Clinton is perfect. But I do think he was a good, or better yet, one of the best presidents this country has ever had. About Bush being a bad president, I do know lots of people think so. Let me put it this way, for me, he’s not a good president.
And you indirectly blaming Clinton for 9/11 , grow up buddy! Ask yourself, if you were Clinton what would you have done? And if you’re Bush what will you do? Will you be dealing it the way he’s dealing it now? Think about it very carefully.
Lastly, I really wish Bush has a son because I don’t think he will attack Iraq as much he’s attacking them now. I would really love to see a headline – “GWB’s SON FIGHTING IN IRAQ” – That will be very interesting!
September 27th, 2006 at 1:08 pmYadni,
I think your comment is insightful, except for one minor point.
We have an all-volunteer force in Iraq and no draft. Therefore, Bush’s daughters are no different in this respect, if they had been sons. And Bush’s putative son, assuming he’s born in 2007, will be 18 years old in 2025. Let’s suppose we’re still at war in Iraq in 2025. This is a distinct possibility unless America — including Hillary and the rest of the pro-war Democrats in Congress — wakes up and smells the coffee.
Now, it’s 2025, and Bush’s son enlists? How likely is this scenario?
September 27th, 2006 at 1:48 pmI’m sorry, but I can’t let the “Clinton ran a surplus” lie go. There was never a true surplus in the Clinton administration. They used HORRIBLE accounting practices to basically rob Social Security without recognizing any kind of liability. Also, the sites commonly used to “prove” that Clinton ran a surplus use the budget or unaudited financials. I don’t trust any corporation that doesn’t show unaudited financials, and I definitely don’t trust the government. And a budget is merely a guideline, not hard-and-fast numbers. From USA Today:
“The Clinton administration reported a surplus of $559 billion in its final four budget years. The audited numbers showed a deficit of $484 billion.”
Why? Because the federal accounting guidelines (which would be VERY illegal for any corporation in America to use) basically ignore such things as retirement benefits for civil servants and military retirees.
Basically, this country hasn’t run a true budget surplus since before the Depression, and anybody that tries to tell you any differently is either ignorant of fact or blowing smoke.
Okay, the rant’s over, carry on.
September 28th, 2006 at 1:57 amSorry NightStryker,
But to convince anybody with more than one brain cell, you’ve got to do better than just calling Clinton’s fiscal triumph a “lie.” The real lie is saying they robbed Social Security. Unfortunately, you’ve apparently been victimized by Karl Rove’s talking points, and that has caused you to mistake William J. Clinton for George W. Bush, the real robber of the Social Security national trust fund.
You “definitely don’t trust the government,” but by quoting so credulously from, you show that you do trust that reich-wing fascist propaganda sheet masquerading as a legitimate newspaper — USA Today! Bwahahahaha! Whatta hoot!
And, incidentally, have I ever got a deal for you! Prime Pacific-ocean-front property in northeastern Nebraska!
Cheap!
September 28th, 2006 at 4:48 am# 227 – Reich+Winger
I do understand re: draft and no draft. What I mean by wishing Bush having a son is – If he had a son, most likely people will ask him – why not send your son to Iraq if you really believe this war is really worth fighting for. And let’s just say, he will be sending his son/s to Iraq, and say, his son is one of the unfortunate ones who came back in a body bag, meaning dead – Do you think he will still be that aggressive about Irag. I really don’t think so. Really, as of now, I feel sorry for the troops over there. I do support them. But the war, I think, it’s about time to think of exit strategy and focus more on capturing Osama.
Also FYI, I don’t know if anybody heard of YES program, Youth for Exchange Study. This is an exchange program by the government in which foreign high school students come here for FREE (fare, insurance, you name it) with monthly stipend with the purpose of educating American (in general) or raise awareness re: Islam. Say, for example from Indonesia, if they have 100 students and say USA spend $5,000 for each of these students, it’ll cost us $500,000 per year, multiply that by how many countries, that’s a lot of money. We are hosting a student right now. I really believe it for a good cause. But thinking that it’s our tax dollar that pay for it – I always tell our student, you are lucky and try to learn as much as you can (about life in general).
Any comments on this?
September 28th, 2006 at 1:51 pmOk.. Riech [totally appropirate... as you are projecting, rather than accepting]
Apparently you you ultra-lefties muct have been out to lunch when Clinton used a similar tool to jar the concience of the American public when you got just as boisterous, and agitated and denied having sexual contact with Monica Lewinski, or where you out having a reich moment?
There was not breach of journalistic protocol in asking Mr. Clinton question asked by viewers about his lack of involvement in pursuing Al Queda, it was a just question to ask. Consindering that “nutter” diatribe we all got an earfull from Keith Obermann, who truly is suited better for JV games, more than anything. Hypocrit — want to say Mary Mapes was in the bounds of journalistic “integrity”… or do you want to bend with the reeds on that? Admit it… the NIE report and the ABC special didn’t err on your side of what you would try to call reality. What they released of the NIE was intentionally exerpted… and misread. But I would expect nothing more the the left. Look.. the left cannot make a point without blatantly misrepresenting the material facts, and for you rebel bastard’s… we call that lying. The Iraq efforts are [now.. thank God] far more effective than we hoped. Hamid Karzi put some you you lefty reporters in line when he spoke of the net effects of having American stay there and allow for the safe establishment of a representative for of goverment to be established… Hmmm; seems to me you’d be better off not blogging and maybe investing in you time into the development of “sit and spins” for adult refuters of reality. Either that or stop watching the Matrix…
-That Darn Republican
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:20 pmThere is one very critical point here which deserves mention. In 1996, the Clinton administration pressured the Sudanese to expel Osama Bin Laden. The Sudanese cautioned with an incredulous tone and ferver that this was an unwise move. The Sudanese contended that this would simply drive him off the grid (so to speak), and into a familiar and more clandestine support and supply network. They argued that it would be wiser to do as Honest Abe would have reasoned expedient (keep ones enemies within ones cabinet, or within range of a watchful eye). Needless to say, this advice was disregarded, and the enemies intent and determination was clearly given no due respect or proper consideration (despite an ever rising profile and confirmed kill tally). Now, I say these events and these exchanges occured in “1996″. Osama was forced from the Sudan in 1996. Now, do these facts not make the 1998 bombings (of a lugitimate pharmecutical plant) even more dubious and distasteful than previously (and already momentously) self achieved ? Clinton refuses to act, or to act responsibly with ample opportunity allotted. Then, after events take a predictable course, and Osama is long and deeply driven away into the bad and inaccesible land, Clinton now suddenly decides (on the eve of his own impeachment vote), that he must immediately and forcefully listen to an advice package which had long past it’s expiration date. Dispicable and transparent to all but the most assinine !!! Never the less, I was willing to let it all pass as being within the framework of an old mindset to which we were all culpible to collective inaction. However, after seeing a bit of the Clintons most recent re enactement of the right war rational (you know, the vast right wing consiracy dagger to which Hillary so memorably once before grasped as armament to defend the indefensible, and please lets not refer to lying to a Grand Jury as no more than sexual, unless he was trying to get it on with the Grand Jury?). You Clinton applogists have been trying to get away with that one forever, and as you have so much help with the same hip media that tried to airbrush Gore a cock (remember?), you almost do get away with it. Not this time though. Even with all your help, Clinton still feels the obvious heat of need to protest too much.
October 5th, 2006 at 3:01 am[...] if the Fox Network (laughably) characterizes Clinton’s appearance as “crazed“, how on Earth would they describe the more combative behavior of their own hosts? Is Bill [...]
April 8th, 2008 at 1:38 pm