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.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
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 pm