Here’s the key portion of the Fox News Sunday interview with President Clinton. He sets the record straight on his efforts to combat terrorism, the Bush administration’s record and the tactics of Fox News. Watch it:
We fact-check Wallace’s claim that he asked Bush administration officials tough questions about their pre-9/11 efforts to combat terrorism here, here and here.
Transcript here.
OK, if you accept FOX’s evaluation that Osama bin Laden is Clinton’s fault, how does one explain Bush’s failure in Iraq?
September 24th, 2006 at 10:01 amI couldn’t wait to catch this this morning. Wallace is a disgrace. I wonder what his dad thinks of him? Probably not much.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:04 amAmerica’s Least Wanted
Notice how they reordered the questions when they replayed the interview this morning?
September 24th, 2006 at 10:04 amWow. They lead into the interview with a statement that Falwell says Lucifer wouldn’t energize the GOP base as much as H. Clinton in 1998.
Really nice.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:05 amif other dems would just take the goddam hint…
i share pachacutec’s view, but it’s getting harder and harder to keep the ol’ chin up…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
September 24th, 2006 at 10:07 amPriceless. Every time I see or hear Clinton speak (and even #41, to his credit) I’m reminded what a real President should sound like. How do we get one of those again?
September 24th, 2006 at 10:10 amdamn chris got pwned!
September 24th, 2006 at 10:14 amIt’s just nice to see a democrat with a spine, who will simply not accept the tradiotional dress down from FOX.
This was classic Clinton, finger pointing, moving forward and poor ol’ Wallace felt so little he had to revert to nervous laughter.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:15 amThe only thing I can say is:
Kick. Ass.
!
September 24th, 2006 at 10:15 amOMG – I have just witnessed the first half and Clinton was awesome. Going back for the second half. Looks like they did not cut a thing!!!
September 24th, 2006 at 10:19 amClinton needs to do more of this and hold a retreat for the failed Democratic leadership……
The Democratic National Committee called me yesterday to ask for a donation. They called because I have given often in the past. I said, your time is up. You have failed…… and Harry Reid is NO leader. I am outraged and down. Now my taxes have to pay for waterboarding unless I turn my whole life upside down and go to jail for not paying them. We’ve been punked folks.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:19 amThe Democratic elite “leadership” in Washington are suffering from Stockholm syndrome or “save your cushy meal ticket disease” at the expense of the Americans that elected them to represent them. They are also traitors having failed to protect our Constitution. Shame on them and shame on the Americans that voted for our current president and his dispicable cohorts. A country that doesn’t know that torture is wrong, is lost.
Good post, s,……..What we need is to take back one of our houses, put an end to this dreadful cabal in our administration and jail all the wrong doers………Blessings
September 24th, 2006 at 10:32 amWow. Clinton bitch slapped that whiny cretin like a stray dog.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:38 ambeautiful smackdown!
September 24th, 2006 at 10:39 amFormer Pres. Bill Clinton knows how to defend himself, but he has NOT explained WHY he and Hillary help the Bush Regime? And WHY Hillary in particular defends the occupation of Iraq and desires war on Iran to please Israel? My fellow Democrats would be wise to choose someone other than Sen. Hillary Clinton to be the Dem presidential nominee in 2008!
September 24th, 2006 at 10:40 amClinton showed why he won the Presidency twice. He will not take their crap. All Democrats should watch this interview over and over again. Je also tore Wallace a neww one. In the second half of the interview, Wallace acted like a puppy dog at the get of his master.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:41 amWhat an incredible performance.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:43 amDear Democrats:
This is what a politician with a spine looks like. Please attempt to emulate this as much as possible.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:48 amWhere does that twit Wallace get the idea that he can intrerrupt a former president when he’s answering a question?
=
September 24th, 2006 at 10:51 amClinton >> Wallace
September 24th, 2006 at 10:51 amThe report put out by the 9/11 Commission was NOT a non-partisan publication. It first was edited by the White House before being made available to the public. This is the truth and the truth hurts all of us.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:51 amThis thread is running well and reason seems to rule here!
September 24th, 2006 at 10:52 amThough not a “real” Clinton fan, I am MOST APPRECIATIVE of his strength as he once again steps into the breach while the rest of our “so-called DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP” tiptoes somewhere beyond the “fringes of power” afraid to even “spit” in the direction of “CORPORATE AMERICA” and their mercenary fellow travelers!
Give ‘em HELL, Big Dog! You are the biggest and dam near the “onliest” gun us poor folk have got!
Personally, I think that Chris Wallace has to be called on his disrespect in speaking to the Pres. Clinton.
Clinton did a good job, but he has every right to demand that respect, especially from Fox and that whiny Wallace.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:53 amHere we see the clear difference between an intelligent, articulate, informed former president and a sycophantic, ideological, pandering, media whore!
September 24th, 2006 at 10:57 amI can see Wallace getting kudos from his co-workers at Faux. “Good job Chris! Boy you really got Ole Bill antsy!” Faux will spin this as Bill was out of control and confrontational towards poor Chris who is a journalist ask the tough questions “the people” want asked. Chris will probaly get promoted for this…Sort of like Tenet getting the freedom medal!
September 24th, 2006 at 10:58 am…a little off topic, but i just heard McCave on facethenation… he was asked a question about a remark made by fallwell, a comparison of hillary to satan… oh, that was a joke… he was joking…
September 24th, 2006 at 10:58 am…
Whenever my husband called Bill Clinton “Lying Bill” I told him, there would come a time when everybody wished to have Bill Clinton back in office. This time has come right after he has left office, at least over here in Europe. Do Americans really know what they have lost? Someone who worked hard, asked questions, argued points with his staff allegedly for hours to get to the bottom of a problem. Someone who was liked and well respected by political leaders around the world. An intelligent, charming man, whose weaknesses didn’t affect the way he ran the office, but were accentuated out of any proportion by his political foes.
God doesn’t create many men like that. Choose well next time!
September 24th, 2006 at 10:58 amThis was an excellent example of how the FOX mind works, and how it can be shot down by someone who is too intellingent and not afraid to spar with such disgraceful “journalism.”
September 24th, 2006 at 11:01 amChris Wallace is very much like his father, who used to do the same type of sniper attacks on guests when Mike had a live TV talk show in the early 1960s. I remember watching Burt Lancaster walk off the set after telling Mike Wallace, “I thought we agreed not to talk about that….”
Now, of course, most of what we see is pre-recorded so it can be adjusted, if need be, to eliminate or to edit the flow of the interview should it go against what is intended…in this case, to embarrass Mr. Clinton.
The FOX slimers had little choice on this one because there was just too much exposed on the Internet, already, or we may not have seen what we did.
Let’s change that rule about how many times a person can be president in this country, and bring back a real president, sex drive and all. At least he never had a gay male hooker working at the White House, disguised as a journalist.
Did anyone else subject themselves to the “panel” discussion of the interview afterward? I appreciate they should Clinton to be the greatness that he is, but they then attempted to rewrite history by saying that Clinton got upset because he is trying to protect his legacy.
This is why I hate neocons. Clinton is mad because they continuously lie about him. He is mad because they ask questions of him and democrats that they do no ask Bushco. He has a right to be angry. It has nothing to do with a legacy.
Brit Hume went so far as to say that “all Americans” would have been behind Clinton if he continued striking al quaeda after the embassy bombings when he only had one missle strike and then stopped because neocons were shreiking “wag the dog.” It was his party that was shreiking Clinton should stop.
FOX SUCKS!!!!
September 24th, 2006 at 11:04 amLizzy,
You have hit on one of the the essential differences between Clinton & GWB:
Clinton commands respect;
GWB demands respect.
The difference is vast…
September 24th, 2006 at 11:04 amThere is an ass-puckering feral “flight” response to having a very large, very pissed-off former President of the United States stop smiling, come out of his chair and physically lay hands on you while he calls you out for being a lying shill and gives you an unblinking, machine-gun history lecture inches away from your face that I HOPE Chris will re-experience every night before he falls asleep, and every time he faces another seated human being…even if it’s at the local deli.
In fact, I hope he has Clinton’s giant face permanently burned into the insides of his eyelids.
Weak mortals should never summon the Kraken…or tell Cthulu he has a funny name. Chris eff-ed up. I hope he has a little more respect for his Dad, who used to pull that shit with REALLY dangerous people, for better reasons…and with a LOT more class.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:05 amBubba was awesome! And that little whiny rat, Chris Wallace, who’d never done a single honest unbiased interview in his entire life, jut did not know what to do.
As renato pointed out, this was a beautiful smakcdown, and the rest of the Democrats should now follow the leader!
September 24th, 2006 at 11:05 amI’ve set up a blog where you can leave your thank-you’s for President Clinton here.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:10 amWell said, runningdoglackey.
May Chris Wallace forever be doomed to Post Traumatic Bubba Syndrome.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:13 amGod doesn’t create many men like that. Choose well next time!
Comment by old_europe
We will do our best!
Personally, I’ve been so ashamed every time lazy and self-centered GWB shows his face in public.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:18 amClinton again shows how a real leader responds. Bush did nothing for 8 months and that resulted in the worst terrorist attack in history on U.S. soil. 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch and he did nothing to try to stop it.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:21 amRemarkable interview. Chris Wallace learned a lesson or two. It will take him years to recover from this well deserved ‘bitch slapping’!
September 24th, 2006 at 11:21 amFox News on Clinton…
Think Progress has a key excerpt from the Clinton interview on Fox.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:21 amIt makes for interesting watching, and FNC will re-broadcast the interview at 6:00pm ET. The entire thing that Fox News wants its viewers to remember is that Bill Clinton became …….
Pretty sad when a politician has to ask the media to “tell the truth”. Hey Mike, instead of hiding behind “some people say”, how about naming those people “who say”?
Looks like BC is finally waking up to the fact that the RW is looking to scapegoat him for the sins of this administration. Maybe getting Bill onboard to fight these bastards instead of sweet talking triangulation will be a good outcome of this “interview”.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:24 amPresident Clinton tore him up. Too bad Wallace has no clue as to how bad he looks. IN his mind and fox’s mind they don’t have to ask those questions about what Bush did to get Binladen during those first 8 months in office. It’s as if Bush’s presidency did not begin until September 11th, and that anything prior to then is Clinton’s bad or irrelevant.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:24 amWhy fox? Why would Clinton go on fox, of all places? And with chris wallace (I bet mikey wishes he had practiced better family planning now, talk about tarnishing a legacy). While I think Clinton did well let’s not forget, this won’t impact the audience watching all that much. They’ll see the evil president they’ve been conditioned to believe he was and nothing more. murdoch and the CGI aside, Clinton should have told fox to shove it and done his promoting elsewhere. fox is not a legitimate stage for anything serious, chris wallace proves it in this excerpt quit well.
Aside from that, well done to the big dog.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:25 amBy the way, If fox (or any other news outlet) ever had the stones to ask Bush or any of his cronies the hard wurestions, like why no response to the Cole bombing? Or why demote Clarke? Or why no terror initiatives for 8 months? The neocons would just invent something about all they did and the 35% would eat it up as absolutely truthful.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:28 amWhen the president tells his side of the story, every thing then makes sense , Richard Clarke was demoted, and Bill Clinton tried.
George did nothing!
Had enough? vote Democrat in ‘06
September 24th, 2006 at 11:29 amFormer President Clinton defends himself well, but WHY does he never criticize the Bush Regime? We can all praise Bill on here, but he must explain his cozy relationship to the vile Bush clan?!
September 24th, 2006 at 11:30 am[...] Clinton. Awesome. [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 11:31 amJay Randall wrote:
Do you also claim the European wariness of Iran is “to please Israel”?
Do you understand many independent-minded Americans reject the left because you ALWAYS end up showing your begoted obsession with blaming Israel (or the JOOOOOOS) for all the world’s problems?
September 24th, 2006 at 11:40 amWhat a wonderful man!!!!! He is so awesome, so smart. How did these neocons come to run our country? We have to take back the airwaves and demand that only the truth be on the news. What has propaganda by Fox done for us. The Dems work hard and we never hear of it because the corporate media wont show it. The airwaves need to be nationalized and those trying to turn us into a dictatorship prosecuted for trying to overthrow the constitution of the United States.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:41 amWow…I miss Clinton so much. I’d forgotten what a real president should sound like. Oh, if our Democratic Party would only get their act together and find someone out there with the guts and intelligence Clinton had.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:45 amGood Job Bill… Now lets see GWB interview with Solidad O’Brien on CNN. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:47 amMike Wallace is laughing outloud at his dopey son that wants to put Mike in a retirement home….
September 24th, 2006 at 11:47 amThere used to be a little thing called civility and respect between former and current presidents. That was pretty much the norm until BushCo began blaming all their problems on former presidents for the last 25 years. If you want to chalk another “loss” of our identy due to BushCo, that would be a big one. Clinton mentioned it in the interview and he knows as well as us that that time is over.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:48 amBill Clinton’s template can be used to defeat every lying Republican .
September 24th, 2006 at 11:48 amBill Clinton has been the only dem brave enough to fight these lying right wing so called journalists. Man, FIGHT THE POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
September 24th, 2006 at 11:48 amJay Randal
Something quite telling from the transcript, and maybe more important then this clip was Clinton talking about presidency:
This is the basic primordial difference between the two parties, the Democrats take responsibility for events that occur on their watch, the Republicans moan about how no other president ever had so much go wrong as GW Bush.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:49 am#47
In 1946 there was no Israel. In 1946 there was no middle east crisis.
After 1948 there was an Israel. After 1948 there was a middle east crisis.
9/11 came after 1948.
Israel was started by religious fundamentalists.
See the problem with Israel has nothing to do with Jews. It has to do with injustice at the hands of religious fanatics which stirs up the religious fanatics in the arab world which lead DIRECTLY to the deaths of Americans as they jumped out of towers on 9/11.
Jews == People
Israeli Zionists == racists and religious bigots.
Two totally different types of people there.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:50 amLOL post 47 Average > I said nothing about Jews! I mentioned Hillary doing the bidding of Israel by pushing war on Iran! Since you want war on Iran apparently, then join up to fight in that battle, or shut your mouth?!
September 24th, 2006 at 11:51 amClinton was great! I wish more dems would show some indignation at the way they are protrayed in the media. It’s time to be offended that our patriotism is questioned. How dare they! Thanks for an intelligent thread. I needed a shower after reading the comments about this on youtube yesterday. jeeeez.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:51 am#42 perhaps he was in a mood to step into the belly of the beast and talk on their turf. Of course their turf usually menas their terms, however, he was able to turn that one around. That smug self staisfied smirk Wallace had reminds me of Bush’s same look. One wonders if it is a neocon talking point of sorts…no matter what they say smirk and make it look like you don’t believe a word they say. Many of them seem to do it.
#45 I wodner that too. The only thing I can come up with is that perhaps as being the target of many many years of assault from the right, he is trying to do his part to elevate the debate and bring some civility back to the process.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:55 amBiggest difference between Bush and Clinton is, if Bush had been ambushed without his handlers and a script , he would have stuttered and parroted talking points foolishly and ended up looking like the complete moron he is.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:57 amWILD BILL KICKED SOME SERIOUS ASS!!!!
September 24th, 2006 at 11:59 amThis needs to be the new message for the Dems
September 24th, 2006 at 12:00 pmBush NEVER tried to protect us. In fact, he appears to have aided the terrorists by his inaction.
OUTstanding. You go Bill! I’m sure he’ll be roundly criticized — and good for him to bring it on. As for the smarmy Chris Wallace, a few comments on him here.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:00 pmMy letter to FNS. Feel free to use. Apologies for bad spelling and grammar:
FNS@foxnews.com
September 24th, 2006 at 12:01 pmHerr Schmuck Randal:
You have shown no proof whatsoever of any US leader, including Clinton, doing any foreign power’s bidding. Rightly or wrongly, both Bush and Clinton have judged that a nuclear-armed Iran would be inimical to US interests and to world peace. So, apparently, have judged the major European powers.
As I said, the reason the left will lose the argument with Bush and Clinton is that your obvious anti-Semitism pisses off fair-minded, independent Americans like me.
Nor have you any right to tell anyone to “shut your mouth” as you have a fundamental misunderstanding of political debate.
But you do the left a disservice.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:02 pmPost 55 Bruce > I see some mild criticism of Bush policies, by Bill Clinton in the transcript you posted, but former Pres. Jimmy Carter criticizes George Bush frequently! I just want an explanation from Bill WHY he hangs out with Bush Senior and tends to be shy about criticising Bush Junior?!
September 24th, 2006 at 12:02 pmPost 65 Average > you are a complete foolish dunce, so do NOT lecture me or anybody else on TP threads! Take your stupidity and go elsewhere! You are a right-wing fascist, so who cares what you think about anything! Go join up for the war on Iran, or shut up > PERIOD.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:09 pm[...] it here. Permalink| [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 12:11 pmCan someone tell me how I can get this clip on YouTube please??? Some nut-so right-winger only posted a fraction of the interview where it shows Clinton acknowleding how he “failed”. That’s it. It totally misses everything else where he lays out the facts. Please help!
September 24th, 2006 at 12:16 pmI was concerned about Fox and their pre-show spin, but clearly without cause. That was beautiful! Can we get someone to check into doing away with term limits and running Clinton again?
September 24th, 2006 at 12:18 pmIt’s times like this that I am so very thankful for the emerging power of the internet and public video forums like Utube. I was thinking this while watching Brit Hume talk about how all americans would have supported Clinton, had he launched a full scale attack on BL after the WTC attacks under his watch. I would give anything to have an edited sound bite montage of Mr. Humes commentary during that time. I would be willing to bet that it would not be so easy to throw out those flippant remarks if we had these on file.
In the future we will. I cant wait to see these arrogant asses dismantled and discredited bit by bit. Cant wait to see what Jon Stewarts take on this tomorrow night..
September 24th, 2006 at 12:19 pmHerr Schmuck Randal:
You are a regular little Hitler, aren’t you? You forget you do not control all political discourse, no matter how much you wish.
But you do give the impression of wild-eyed foaming at the mouth the moment anyone of any substance challenges your weltanschauung.
Your extreme ranting is not only anti-Semitic but off-putting to the American middle. While that middle has obviously decided Iraq a mistake, it’s not willing to trust coprophages like yourself to determine policy.
Do you want to know why the Bushies have been able to spend 6 years getting away with lies and doing as they will? Just look in the mirror.
Me cago en la leche que te parió.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:23 pmOther dems need to follow Clinton’s lead. Harry Reid is giving it his best shot, but not good enough. A strong chorus of dems slamming hard on the neocon failures and what needs to be done to make America safer. Crank it up!
September 24th, 2006 at 12:28 pmIf they can’t win this one. We need to look elsewhere for leadership.
Jay,
The wingnuts don’t have anything else, so they send in the clowns to change the subject to anti-semitism. *yawn*
September 24th, 2006 at 12:29 pmYour extreme ranting is not only anti-Semitic but off-putting to the American middle. While that middle has obviously decided Iraq a mistake, it’s not willing to trust coprophages like yourself to determine policy.
Do you want to know why the Bushies have been able to spend 6 years getting away with lies and doing as they will? Just look in the mirror.
That is one funny post. You blame the left for the middle being too stupid to see Bush cannot tell the truth? Not that I believe you are the middle, more like a concern troll, but that is an incredible rationalization for being ignorant beyond belief.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:30 pmSee, Jay? What did I tell you…?
September 24th, 2006 at 12:30 pmLOL you non-Average fool > the only Hitler lover on here is yourself! Anyone who defends Israel’s government that drops cluster bombs on children is a FASCIST! You do NOT represent middle America! You are a Bush defender and a dirty fascist, so cut the crap! Go join up to fight Israel’s enemy Iran! I believe you are a Zionist with a big chip on your shoulder! And you do NOT control the content of the discussion on TP!
September 24th, 2006 at 12:31 pm[...] See the video — the Big Dog on Faux Nooz. [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 12:32 pm#73 You sound just like your fearless leader frist this morning. neocons run the wh and both houses of congress and still have the gall to blame the dems of blocking all the good stuff you neocons are trying to do. pathetic. i agree with randall, take your lies somewhere else.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:34 pm[...] Second, he made his temper tantrum and crazed conspiracy mongering the story, rather than the defense of his record. He bizarrely admitted the question was legitimate, but then went on to attack the questioner because he works for FOX News. That’s a line that will play well on the BDS-suffering* Angry Adolescent Left blogs [Link warning: left-wing blogs often contain material unsuitable for children or civilized adults], but not among normal Americans. Mr. Clinton would have defended himself much more effectively by simply answering the question without the red-faced conspiracy-theorizing and ad hominem. *BDS – Bush Derangement Syndrome posted by: The Editors @ 9:36 am September 24, 2006 [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 12:35 pmClinton is so awesome. ‘Nuff said.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:36 pmLook at the sh*t on that pingback @ #81:
[Link warning: left-wing blogs often contain material unsuitable for children or civilized adults]
They don’t even have enough balls to post with their own name, it’s “The Editors.”
Give me a frickin’ break…
September 24th, 2006 at 12:42 pmZooey > yep the Bush lover trolls like to change the subject, by saying any mention of Israel makes one anti semitic > lol.
JPark > Average seems to be a newly hired troll by Karl Rove for TP?!
4peas > thanks for agreement and Average is a goofy nutty fool!
September 24th, 2006 at 12:42 pm#80 4peas4brain: “Your leader” “you neocons”
You are pathetic. You have no idea whatsoever of my overall political position, only that I object to Randal’s anti-Semitism. Yet you immediately classify someone who will not join your loony-left rants as “neo-con”!
Hebetudinous crazies like yourself are the ENEMY of the American left. Until you learn to accept and respect disagreement (and to leave Israel out of every discussion) you will make no progress with the American mainstream.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:43 pmWhat a hack job. This is NOT the full interview. Thinkprogress has no boundaries.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:43 pmI am somewhat appalled by the lack of courtesy shown towards former President Clinton. When Wallace asked the President to let him finish his question, Clinton sat back and let Wallace finish. Yet Wallace interrupted frequently and often would insist in interrupting to prevent Clinton from finishing a statement. Kudos to Clinton for insisting on getting his points across.
What happened to professional journalism? Oh, wait, it’s Fox. That explains it.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:43 pmAverage > you do NOT represent the mainstream of America > thank God!
September 24th, 2006 at 12:48 pmYou are a Bush defender and an Israel apologist! I criticize any nation that acts fascistic, or slaughters children, so get off your high horse!
#85 Right, that is why everything you have posted on this site has been an attack on liberals. You are a joke.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:49 pm# 85 your rant’s speak for themselves. You think my conclusions are uncalled for….do you ever listen to yourself?
September 24th, 2006 at 12:52 pmGod I miss him…
September 24th, 2006 at 12:52 pm#78 Randal.
Leave it to an anti-Semite to turn a Clinton issue into a diatribe against Israel!
http://www.pollingreport.com/israel.htm
Again, you lose the American mainstream, 57% (35%+22%) of whom say Israel used correct or insufficient force:
35% of Americans say Israel used “About Right” force in Lebanon and 22% say “Not Enough”:
“Do you think Israel is using too much force in Lebanon, not using enough force, or is using about the right amount of force?”
Too Much Not Enough About Right Unsure
% % % %
8/3-6/06
32 22 35 11
As for blame, 58% of Americans blame Hezbollah for civilian caualties. In a US election, that would be a landslide for the Israeli side:
“Who do you blame more for the civilian casualties in Lebanon: Hezbollah for locating its fighters and rocket launchers in civilian areas, or Israel for bombing Hezbollah targets in those areas?”
Hezbollah Israel Neither (vol.) Both (vol.) Unsure
% % % % %
8/3-6/06
58 21 2 10 9
You anti-Semitic, loonly-left nuts give progressives a bad name.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:53 pmChris Wallace is not on good terms with his father, Mike Wallace… the legendary CBS reporter who is best known for his work on “60 Minutes,” the ever popular weekly TV newsmagazine.
Wallace is nothing but an educated idiot with a well paid job.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:55 pm[...] God, I miss Clinton. His presidency was the only time in my life that I was able to engage politically, able to understand what the hell was going on. I have no inherent interest in politics myself, but when Clinton was president, I felt like he spoke, and I understood. He organized the barrage of information for me and told me in an organized way what was going on, and why it should matter to me as an American. He never spoke in vague cliches. There were always specific examples, which he pulled right out of the encyclopedia in his head, to help me and everyone else “get it”. Damn, I miss him. Will there ever be such a president again? Watch this now! Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 12:57 pmAverageAmerican,
I have met Average Americans, and you, sir, are no Average American! I’d say you come in somewhere around snail slime and meat puppet….
September 24th, 2006 at 12:57 pmOMG Average, you made me lol. you really think you’re a progressive?
September 24th, 2006 at 12:58 pmChris Wallace is an ugly little rat with a permanent smirk plastered on his face. It is a face which makes me think he spends way too much time hanging out in public rest rooms, taking on anyone who walks in. It is the face of a parasite, spitting on the public, then slouching away dragging a bundle of soiled money and prestige.
Yes, the previous paragraph is an ad hominem attack, but give me some credit. I just had to watch Wallace snivel his way through an ambush interview with a president I respect. I found the whole experience deeply sickening.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:00 pmAverage > stop pretending on here to be an average American, when actually you are a right wing nut! You are the one who has turned this thread into discussion about Isreal! I mentioned Hillary doing the bidding of Israel by promoting war on Iran > thank goodness her husband Bill is way smarter than his wife on that issue! You are a fascist, and everything you post on here proves it, so go to RedState.com where your posts will be appreciated, by other fascistic minded idiots like yourself!
September 24th, 2006 at 1:03 pmAverageAmerican,
Criticising the policies of Israel does not equate to anti-Semitism. Indeed saying one should not criticise them because they are Jews, which seems to be the basis of your argument with Jay, is anti-Semitic because what you are saying is that the same level of behaviour one would expect of a civilised people cannot be expected of the Jews.
Now I support Israel, I believe that most of what they have done is in self defence, and on balance that they have done what they can in order to bring about peace. They have certainly gone further then most nations, and further then there enemies, but I will not sit idle while shits like you, with you sloppy thinking idiocies, make a mockery of that support. Israel does not equal the Jews, it equals Israel a country with firm policies which people are free to disagree with.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:06 pmGood Morning Yenta, I love it when you use that name…No I won’t give you up to the slug’s I’ll just send some more salt for you to sprinkle on their butt’s….Blessings today and alway’s….
September 24th, 2006 at 1:09 pmRandal, je t’encule.
1. You have failed to show any proof Hillary (or Bush) are doing any foreign country’s bidding.
2. You have failed to support your anti-Israeli diatribes.
3. You have immediately degenerated into insistence anyone who disagrees with you must be “fascist.”
4. You have failed to respond to the published polls I cited, showing the majority of Americans strongly supporting the Israelis.
5. You have proved incapable of anything except ad hominem vitriol.
As I said, you are a disgrace to the left. You’d do better to turn things over to those of us in the sane, mainstream left so that we have a chance of prevailing in the next election.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:10 pmNEWSFLASH:
Chris Wallace stood up after this interview and his pants were SOAKED!
September 24th, 2006 at 1:14 pmBruce:
Criticisising Israel DOES equate to anti-Semitism when:
1. A disparate standard (indeed, obsession) is used compared to the far greater violence of other countries and religions.
2. Their enemies (who are also enemies of the USA) continually broadcast their intent to murder all Jewish Israelis and to attack Jews anywhere.
3. Bigots like Randal insist upon dragging “Israel” into every unrelated discussion, as Hillary’s support for the Iraq war.
I’m sorry, but it is often transparent when the real disagreement is not with “Israel’s policies” but with the concept of Jewish self-determination and self-defense.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:15 pmNow look at this. This thread is about Bill Clinton and his formidable stance against unfair media reporting. Don’t even answer the trolls, they are so very much afraid of personalities like Bill Clinton, they just have to ruin this thread. Don’t you see? The blogosphere has achieved so many things lately. They endorsed Lamont, and look what happened. Now they made sure this interview can’t be spun by fox news, because the world knows the true events already. Keep on going, ignore the trolls. They are whining, because they see what is going on. They are losing ground big time!
September 24th, 2006 at 1:15 pm[...] This morning on Fox News, Bill Clinton laid into Fox News for their double standards. [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 1:18 pm“You are pathetic. You have no idea whatsoever of my overall political position, only that I object to Randal’s anti-Semitism. Yet you immediately classify someone who will not join your loony-left rants as ‘neo-con’!”
Anyone who embraces the views of the lunatic fringe of the republican party is considered a Neo-con.
Hebetudinous crazies like yourself are the ENEMY of the American left. Until you learn to accept and respect disagreement (and to leave Israel out of every discussion) you will make no progress with the American mainstream.
Comment by AverageAmerican — September 24, 2006 @ 12:43 pm
Neo-cons who espouse beliefs contradictory to the foundation of this country are the enemies of liberals and all other normal people.
Why should any liberal or any other normal person take seriously the myths espoused by Neo-cons like you?
We are the mainstream; it is Neo-cons like you who are out of the mainstream.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:19 pmI just love Clinton!
September 24th, 2006 at 1:22 pmZooey, I did look. I even posted the following comment:
“First with the “they [the Bush administration] had 8 months” line. The obvious response to that is “you had 8 years, not 8 months.” That comparison is an obvious loser for Clinton.”
The comparison is not so obvious as you claim it to be. Clinton did not have 8 years to investigate the attack on the Cole. He had about 3 months. Bush had 8 months to continue the investigation after taking office and before the events of September, 2001.
“[I]t’s unfair to judge President Bush’s actions in his first 8 months in office based on what we know today…”
Then judge his actions by what was known at the time. Clinton actively pursued bin Laden and left Richard Clarke, the one person with the history and track record through 3 Presidents, to continue the quest. Bush downgraded both Clarke and the hunt for bin Laden. In the context of inheriting an on-going investigation into an attack on a United States Navy ship, that seems rather odd, don’t you think?
“t’s unfair … to judge the invasion of Iraq based on what we know today.”
How is it unfair? More and more information is being brought forth about the invasion of Iraq. Remember the Downing Street Memos? If we are limited to judging the invasion of Iraq solely on the information Bush wanted us to hear in the lead up to war, we pass judgment based on the propaganda machine of the government. Would you judge the actions of a criminal based solely on what was publically known about that person’s crime before he actually committed the crime? If that were the case, prosecutors in this country would never be able to convict anyone.
It is inherently fair to have a full and complete investigation and bring all the facts to light, and then pass judgment. Would you add your voice to call for such an investigation? After all, we are talking about invading a sovereign country and killing tens of thousands of innocent children, women, and men. War is the most serious undertaking of mankind. The loss of life and property is horrendous. Because of this, going to war must be supported by irrefutable evidence and irrebuttable justifications. Anything short of this is mass-murder and wanton destruction of human life and property.
There are enough questions surrounding Bush’s decision to go to war to merit an investigation. There are enough allegations of international war crimes to merit an investigation. Bush has even admitted to committing renditions, an international crime. Yes, it is fair to judge Bush on what we know thus far, and to call for a complete investigation. Whether the results of such an investigation will exhonorate or convict is unknowable at this time. But until such an investigation is made, and made public, there will always be a question over Bush’s War.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:23 pmClinton, “I got closer to killing him than anybody since!”
TOUCHE, CLINTON! TOUCHE!
September 24th, 2006 at 1:23 pmLOL Average > stop claiming to be a moderate average American on here! You are a Bush defender, who also defends Israel aggression, so that makes you a FASCIST! I do NOT comment on bogus polls that claim a majority of Americans believe it’s OK for Israel to slaughter children > we real progressives are against warmongering by any nation including Israel! So take your rants to elsewhere!
September 24th, 2006 at 1:23 pmA.A. open attack’s against other bloggers is not going to win you any vote’s either….For you’re information many on the left I know including myself looked at Israel in a very diffrent light after their total distruction to Lebanon and inocent men, women and children…I am appaled my tax dollars went for bombs from our country to support this continued madness….I never was against the jew’s or Israel before but now I am and lot’s of people I know are and against bull shit bush as well…..This entire mess has been brought on our country by own administration by neglect or design….Diplomacy can not be accomplished by war monging mad dog pit bull’s……
September 24th, 2006 at 1:24 pmPoor, poor Randal. Even his hero, Bill Clinton, sides with the Israelis:
From the New York Times:
Clinton, in Israel, Chides Arafat for Letting Peace Slip Away
By JAMES BENNET
September 24th, 2006 at 1:24 pmPublished: January 21, 2002
As president, Bill Clinton labored to end the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians. Today, he came back here to bask in a warm Israeli welcome, to call on both sides to keep trying, and to place the blame for his peace initiative’s failure squarely on Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader.
AverageAmerican
Actually is doesn’t. None of it does, it means you believe Israel, as a state, is up to no good, or that Hillary Clinton is too pro-Israel to be objective, but it does not mean you are anti-Semitic.
Being anti-Semitic means being anti-Jewish. One can be Anti-Israel without being Anti-Jewish. I am sure if you asked Jay who his choice pick for US president would be, it would be Feingold, a guy with an excellent record for actually reading the legislation that comes before him, one of the few guys to have voted against the Patriot Act, and one of the few to have voted against the war in Iraq, oh yeah, and he is a Jewish Leftwing Democrat.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:25 pmYou libs have a field day on this one. I notice you all flourish when there are no dissenting voices. You are all in denial. That was the most defensive I’ve ever seen anyone in an interview. He tried – oh boo hoo, “I tried, thats more than anyone has done.” Keep dreaming.
Clinton rolled the clock back to Somalia to perform his little rehearsed outrage. How about the first trade tower attack or the Cole? He didn’t say too much about that did he. He also didn’t go into the 3 – wow 3 discrepancies he mentioned about The Path to 9/11. I wonder why? They are probably tiny loopholes that he found – we don’t know because he didn’t talk about them.
He spent more time attacking Wallace than he did explaining his record. Why would he need to do that if he was proud of it?
You losers keep cheering “here! here!” to one another – that’s no replacement for a real idealogy, integrity, policy and the guts to do the hard jobs – but keep it up, it’s who you really are – and that can only help our side.
Jon – “Clinton is awesome. Nuff said.”
Desi – “Can we get someone to check into doing away with term limits and running Clinton again?”
Mark – “Cant wait to see what Jon Stewarts take on this tomorrow night..”
Jay Randal – “You are a right-wing fascist, so who cares what you think about anything! Go join up for the war on Iran, or shut up > PERIOD.”
Quite a high intellect on this board – Desi, we Republicans would just love it if Bill ran again. Mark – if you get your politcal information from Stewart you need help. Jay, who’s the fascist? You’re the one telling someone to shut up – why, because he does not agree with you?
Here! Here! Clinton’s the bawmb!
September 24th, 2006 at 1:25 pmrunningdoglackey at #32: I loved your comment so much, and I think it is PERFECT. Made my whole day….
September 24th, 2006 at 1:27 pm[...] Here’s a great transcript of an interview with Bill Clinton slamming Fox news: LINK. I personally admire Bill Clinton. I don’t care that he lied about getting a blow job. He was still a great president. I honestly feel that he’s one of the few people who truely want to make the world a better place. Bono and Bill Gates are trying also but they’re annoying. I do wish we could declare a state of emergency and reinstate Clinton. Here’s a link to the VIDEO. [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 1:29 pmMy President Bill Clinton, and he is still “MY PRESIDENT”, made Wallace look like what he is,……..a Freakin’ right wing nut job.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:29 pm“Hebetudinous crazies like yourself are the ENEMY of the American left. ”
hebetude = dull.
’nuff said.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:30 pmI agree with old-europe that AverageAmerican is gumming up this thread, so it would be wise for us all to ignore his rants untill he departs in shame!
September 24th, 2006 at 1:32 pmold_europe:
You take yourself for too much. Lieberman still leads in polls, because mainstream America does not judge the entire election upon the Iraq issue.
Again, loony-left ranting which shows hate for all difference of opinion — including Bush, Liebrman, and Hillary — does nothing except alienate the mainstream, even if the mainstream recognises Iraq to have been a mistake.
You’ll need to moderate your rhetoric (both vis-a-vis Democratic moderates like Lieberman, and vis-a-vis Israel) if you wish to carry the average American. Otherwise, you’ll have only yourselves to blame for continued Republican power.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:32 pmI’ve set up a blog where you can leave your thank-you’s for President Clinton here.
Comment by renato — September 24, 2006 @ 11:10 am
Thanks renato for setting up the site.
Everyone needs to go over and post a message thanking President Clinton for giving us hope today.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:36 pmOh man, cut the leash off the BIG DOG! Finally, Faux News in the NO SPIN ZONE. God bless America for sinners as President Clinton. Tell George Bush that repentence means saying, “I screwed up, I’m sorry, please forgive me.” Sorry, haven’t heard that from our (s)ain’t in chief. Bill Clinton makes me proud to be an American. Hillary, eh….
To quote Jesus, “Peace”
September 24th, 2006 at 1:37 pm#113 Gorton.
In other words, Randal accepts a Jew, providing the Jew remains in his place, doesn’t ask for his own nation, doesn’t ask for self-determination, doesn’t object to 1,300 years of Muslim-imposed inferior and semi-apartheid status, …..
QED!
You also ignored #103 and #112: The loony-left’s obsession with subjecting Israel to disparate treatment, with nary a word of criticisim for the violence and genocidal intent of its enemies, is a familiar pattern of bigotry. After all, how often have we heard, “I don’t hate blacks — just Jesse Jackson”?
September 24th, 2006 at 1:37 pmLOL jimma > your silly diatribe is not worthy of anyone’s time on here!
September 24th, 2006 at 1:38 pmLOL Average > stop claiming to be a moderate average American on here! You are a Bush defender, who also defends Israel aggression, so that makes you a FASCIST! I do NOT comment on bogus polls that claim a majority of Americans believe it’s OK for Israel to slaughter children > we real progressives are against warmongering by any nation including Israel! So take your rants to elsewhere!
Comment by Jay+Randal — September 24, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
The poll includes the “nuke all Muslims” crowd and people on the far right who don’t care that Muslims and Jews are killing each another.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:38 pmAs long as you advertise with, and give a portion of your customers money to, FOX News I will never purchase any insurance plan from Nationwide. I am calling, through the multiple blogs in which I participate, for a boycott of your company.
Following is a copy of the post which I am placing on the internet and emailing, as a chain, to my friends and family:
BOYCOTT NATIONWIDE INSURANCE. At this critical time in the history of our nation we, as citizens and consumers, must do everything in our power to preserve our Constitution, the foundation of our democracy. As the majority of us already understand, our Constitution has come under attack from agents within our own government. Those agents are supported and enabled by a relentless program of far right wing propaganda, of which the chief disseminator is FOX NEWS. Therefore, I am calling for a BOYCOTT of all products advertised on the FOX NEWS Channel and its associated website; BOYCOTT NATIONWIDE INSURANCE, BOYCOTT NETFLIX, BOYCOTT ALLSTATE, BOYCOTT BENADRYL (PFIZER), BOYCOTT VONAGE, BOYCOTT ARRID
Nationwide, I urge you to withdraw your support from this biased and irresponsible media outlet. Until you honor the citizens of the nation from which your company has emerged, we the people will repay your treachery in kind.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:39 pmjimmajamma
You are a complete and total idiot. You speak from ignorance because there is nothing there to educate, there is not brain within your skull.
1WTC, ah, what did Clinton do? How about hunting down and capturing every single one of the guys who planned and executed it? The Cole? Listen to the interview you moron.
And if you want to go into the three things in Path to 9/11 directly contradicted by the report? Here we go:
1:
2:
3:
Next time you try and talk a load of bullshit jimmajamma, maybe just maybe you should try looking around the flipping site a bit.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:39 pmClinton made Chris look like a desperate fool! He was shocked that Clinton stood up to him. Everyone should stand up to these little lowlife Fauxbots!
September 24th, 2006 at 1:40 pm[...] Bill Clinton pwnzing fox news [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 1:40 pm114. jimmajamma:
BOTH Clinton and Bush dropped the ball with respect to anti-terrorist efforts.
But your are right in that the crowd here are clearly a batch of loony-left engaging in self-adulation (and anti-Semitism).
Fortunately for you, the louder these fools grow, the more likely you conservatives are to remain in power.
I’m sorry to say that leaves most of us still longing for a competent President.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:42 pmrenato, what’s the blog address?
September 24th, 2006 at 1:42 pmmpower1952 – “Everyone needs to go over and post a message thanking President Clinton for giving us hope today.”
Classic!
“Give us hope! We need hope! Oh great liberal leader, give us hope! What would we do without you?”
September 24th, 2006 at 1:43 pmWhat obsession would that be? I mean, if you’re going to state is as a fact, you should be able to clarify it.
Don’t dissapoint me by downgrading it to ‘a few’ loony-leftists.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:44 pmYou take yourself for too much. Lieberman still leads in polls, because mainstream America does not judge the entire election upon the Iraq issue.
Comment by AverageAmerican — September 24, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
Lieberman will lose the election because you can’t claim you’re a Democrat with members of the lunatic fringe of the republican party (Coulter, Hannity, O’Reilly and Malkin) endorsing you for Congress.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:44 pmDuring 2004 campaign season Joe Biden smacked Wallace down hard too. Wallace was trying to paint Kerry Edwards as “soft on terror” and asking push questions about Kerry’s service. Biden would not let Wallace interrupt him, change the subject, or talk over him. Best of all he wouldn’t let him get away with sideways insinuations. It was complete smack down.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:49 pmyeah we all remember the last time Klinton wagged his finger at us and demanded we believe him . Klinton is still a lying liberal scumbag.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:49 pmBOTH Clinton and Bush dropped the ball with respect to anti-terrorist efforts.
Comment by AverageAmerican — September 24, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
Nah. It was only Bush.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:50 pmPost 123 Average > stop insinuating what you think someone else believes about Israel > I do NOT believe Israel’s government has a right to drop cluster bombs on Lebanese children! NO nation has a right to slaughter civilians!
I have said nothing about Jews on here > Zionists like yourself I mentioned! There is a profound difference between attacking a group of people and a government > Israeli govt. is bad! Sen. Feingold is against the Iraq war, so yes as Bruce suggests I might vote for him, and he is Jewish!
This is my last response to you, because you are a paid Karl Rove troll!
September 24th, 2006 at 1:50 pm#125 Randal & Nat.
I see you are suffering from the psychiatric infrimity known as dissociation from reality.
Specifically, not only the poll I cited, but most, repeatedly show strong mainstream American support for Israel. Dismissing that as “bogus” or having the wrong “crowd” is simply your inability to deal with the reality that mainstream America supports the Israelis.
More of your psychopathology is shown by Randal’s comment “defending Bush’ when I have not done so. I am a mainstream leftist, yet you are unable to hold a rational conversation with me!
Finally, you don’t seem to udnerstand that most of Connecticut doesn’t give a damn whether Lieberman is a “Democrat” or not. The independent vote is sizeable and it is judging by his many years of faithful service (including a generally progressive voting record).
You loonies are harming the left in the view of the average American, and some of us saner progressives hate you for it. YOU are the reason we’ve been losing to the conservatives.
Oh, and by the way, please stick your anti-Semitism where the sun desn’t shine.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:52 pmWallace and FOX are just a tool.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:53 pm# 130
No, only bush dropped the ball, Clinton handed it off.
Because that’s what happens when you get a change of administrations.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:53 pmThis is unbelievable
September 24th, 2006 at 1:54 pmClinton is excellent. It will be interesting to see the sound bits that the interview produces. The MSM spin is disheartening most of the time.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:55 pmGood job clinton. The day we take back control from the neocons is the day I will be able to sleep again without nightmares.
As for Isreal, they did what we would have done if we were attacked by a foreign government; fought back and defended ones self. Yes there were casualties, but its war and civilian casualties are unavoidable. Last I checked I didn’t see Isreal loading thier rockets with ball bearings and firing them into populated places with the sole purpose of causeing as many civilian casualties as possible, like hamas did hundreds of times a day. Hamas is part of the Lebonese government, and Hamas attacked Isreal from within Lebanon. Isreal retaliated and attacked Lebanon. It’s simple logic, don’t be blinded by ignorance.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:55 pm#130. averageamerican. absolutely right.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:55 pmI wonder if the republican extremists know the more media attention they give Clinton, the more it makes Bush look like an incompetent fool! I say keep up faux!
September 24th, 2006 at 1:56 pm#140 – Why would you think anyone would want to have a rational conversation with someone who claims opinions are facts, and who wraps 2 dollar ad hominums with 10 dollar words?
September 24th, 2006 at 1:59 pm#142 Nonsense. Clinton missed many opportunities to “take care of” bin Laden. He was asleep at the switch for years, while Bush was asleep at the switch for eight months.
I’d like to see the left hold at least one house, but the arguments I’ve seen here won’t win any converts from the mainstream, which still sees the left as anti-American. The crazies here even seem to justify the pro-terrorist label the Republicans try to use.
Why are you loonies so unable to udnerstand that mianstream America is moderate, and that you’re losing elections for us?
September 24th, 2006 at 2:00 pmWhat a man! President Clinton was awesome. This speaks to why Daddy Bush would rather spend time with Clinton than with his own son. Daddy Bush does not have to explain the big words…….
September 24th, 2006 at 2:01 pmClinton is a very smart man. I miss having a smart president. Good job Clinton! Standin up the FOX question framing! Woohoo!
September 24th, 2006 at 2:01 pm#145 Some guy. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell the crazies like Randal. Dragging anti-Israeli rhetoric into Bush-Clinton issues will only succeed in losing votes of the American mainstream.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:02 pmI see you are suffering from the psychiatric infrimity known as dissociation from reality.
Specifically, not only the poll I cited, but most, repeatedly show strong mainstream American support for Israel. Dismissing that as “bogus†or having the wrong “crowd†is simply your inability to deal with the reality that mainstream America supports the Israelis.
Comment by AverageAmerican — September 24, 2006 @ 1:52 pm
=========================
-Again, Liberals are the mainstream of American; you and the Neo-cons are out of the mainstream.
-Connecticut is a solid blue state and they know what is at stake in the coming election. Even though Lieberman has promised to side with the Democrats if he wins, there is know way to know if he is telling the truth.
-And what makes you think that I agree with Randal?
September 24th, 2006 at 2:03 pm#108 – Briseadh na Faire
Great comment! Any feedback that you know of? Or did it get deleted? Dissent is un-American, you know…
You are a fine gentleman.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:04 pmWhat I appreciate is a president who can formulate three sentences without having to repeat himself. Let’s stop blaming Bush for our decision to elect him, at least the second time. There is a real anti-intellectual, “let’s not elect him Pa, he’s too smurt” streak running through our country, and it’s come home to roost in Bush.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:04 pmi’ll keep trying…
September 24th, 2006 at 2:05 pmFox Clinton Interview – Part 1 – Osama bin Laden
…
Update:
John Amato: It makes you wonder why Wallace has never asked any Republican in Bush’s administration why they didn’t catch Osama, doesn’t it? When Wallace tells us that he got emails about it so… he just had to bring it up?. Has he ever mentioned emailers before on his show? Wallace brought the FOX News right-wing agenda to play on this interview. We should email Chris every time he has on anyone from the Bush administration and see if our questions get through.
…
go to crooksandliars.com (TP doesn’t seem to like links, sorry)
…
more good reading there…
AND the video starts at the baginning… you get to see how wallace pulled the “ambush”… pathetic…
…
#100
I’ll just send some more salt for you to sprinkle on their butt’s….Blessings today and alway’s….
Comment by Sharon Cox
Now I’m getting all verklempt, darlingk. *sniff* Such a wise woman, you are Sharon, and such a blessing…
September 24th, 2006 at 2:07 pm#149, See, there again, using misinformation masquarading as fact.
IS that all you’re capable of?
September 24th, 2006 at 2:08 pm#142 Nonsense. Clinton missed many opportunities to “take care of†bin Laden. He was asleep at the switch for years, while Bush was asleep at the switch for eight months.
Comment by AverageAmerican — September 24, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
=========================
9/11 happened while an unelected dimwit was playing president. He was asleep at switch for eight months and the only time he woke up was to go on vacation or promote his taxcut for the rich. Bin Laden never crossed his mind (assuming he has one).
September 24th, 2006 at 2:12 pm#153. Nat confirms his infirmity:
Sorry, the last elections put in place Republican majorities in the administration, the Senate, and the House. And even if Dems do well this November, they will only take back the House. The US electorate remains split liberal/conservative but is far more moderate than crazies of either right or left. Even after the four years 2000-2004, the vote for Bush was 51%/49%. So your claim is delusional.
As for “you and the neo-cons,” you apprently classify anyone defending Israel as “neo-con” as a euphemism for “Jewish” and thereby reveal your bigotry.
Is that why Lieberman leads in the polls? Admit it, you HATE him because he is Jewish.
Loonies of a feather flock together.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:14 pmAs a Canadian, I cannot believe that someone like Chris Wallace is still in the broadcasting business. How can a man who was a respected, Peabody Award-winning journalist for ABC come up with such idiocies that I’m sure he pulled right out of his ass. Where is the investigative analysis of Clinton’s time in office? There was none, just right-wing opinion. I find it hard to believe that Mike Wallace’s boy has stooped so low just to impress the nutjobs who give him his paycheck. Hopefully Rupert Murdoch, now that he’s part of the Clinton Initiative, will finally come to his senses and mould Fox News into a proper conservative forum where the topics are fair and balanced. I don’t see this happening however. By the way, why isn’t Clinton still president. George has made a mockery of US government by making up rules as he goes along, I think it’s time for the American people to just make up a rule themselves and put Clinton back in the White House. When I say Clinton I mean Bill, not Hillary, who knows what she’s going to do when she eventually becomes president.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:18 pm# 150 Thanks for the lol. Sure would be nice to have a president with a brain. I think bush is actually losing brain cells. i’m not sure it’s possible, but he seems to be getting dumber.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:20 pmThat’s what I’ve been trying to tell the crazies like Randal. Dragging anti-Israeli rhetoric into Bush-Clinton issues will only succeed in losing votes of the American mainstream.
Comment by AverageAmerican
Its really funny watching you rightwingers suddenly declaring the virtues of being moderate now that you see the “equal and opposite reaction” coming straight at you.
You are NOT moderates. You are racist far right extremists that make policy based on what you think Osama thinks about America. “He thinks we are weak! So we must invade Iraq to prove our penis really isnt small!”… You are pathetic and 6 years of video has recorded it all for us to see and remember.
Religious Radicalism is unacceptable. It does not matter if it comes from Israel, Saudi Arabia, or America. America is not the enemy. Israel is not the enemy. Even Saudi Arabia is not the enemy. Religious Fundamentalism posing as REASON and LOGIC is the enemy. The Republicans embraced the ENEMY for political gain… remember the picture of Bush holding hands with the Saudis???
September 24th, 2006 at 2:21 pmYes, Wallace’s defence “Well, it’s on everybody’s mind right now” was finally CALLED on the BS that it is.
That’s the point, WHY is it on ‘everybody’s mind’, because the right wing has to find a bad guy for their disasterous reign on the government, so time for diversions, pull up Clinton.
It’s almost a joke, but they actually want “Its all Clintons fault” to stick.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:23 pm[...] Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM Fair and Balanced Think Progress » VIDEO: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News here’s part of the video for those who missed it [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 2:24 pmIs that why Lieberman leads in the polls? Admit it, you HATE him because he is Jewish.
And what makes you think that I agree with Randal?
Loonies of a feather flock together.
Comment by AverageAmerican
What party does the skin head right wing Jew hating, Black hating, Liberal hating types support?
REPUBLICANS.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:24 pmMan, I miss Bill Clinton
September 24th, 2006 at 2:25 pmAverageAmerican
Thinks about this for a moment: We know who Lamont is, because the Democrats voted for him in the primaries. We know who Lieberman is, because the Republican spin machine seems in love with him. Who is the Republican candidate BTB?
You see the Republicans have spent so much time supporting Lieberman, that somehow I don’t think the issue was one of Lieberman being a Jew (Feingold is probably the most admired in government on the left, again he is a Jew.) I think it has to do with the fact that Lieberman more then once proved to be the go-to guy the Republicans needed to push for a major reform, the Democrats didn’t want. I think it has to do with the fact that that 10% of the time he voted against all of the Democrats (To make his 90% he only needed one other Democrat to agree with him) were issues so fundemental to Democrats that they were outright betrayals.
I think it has to do with the fact that Lieberman is pro a unitary executive during a period when the executive has undermined the balance of powers within America’s government. I think it has to do with the fact that Lieberman is pro Iraq, even after everything else we have learned about Iraq.
And yeah, war is a big issue. War is a massive issue, when you have troop shortages, when you have a massive deficit, and when you have people dying because you engaged in one for no apparent reason. The war in Iraq will mean the draft if it expands into Iran, it will mean a war with China, which relies on Iran for 50% of its oil, it is a massively important issue, a issue which trumps one hell of a lot of other issues because, last I checked, most people do not want to be in a war zone.
It is the height of irresponsibility to suggest that a war is not a major issue. It is a definite sign of somebody who should not be voting because they do not understand the consequences of that vote.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:26 pmAs for “you and the neo-cons,†you apprently classify anyone defending Israel as “neo-con†as a euphemism for “Jewish†and thereby reveal your bigotry.
-Neocons are out of the mainstream.
-John Kerry was a weak candidate and he come within a sliver of beating an incumbent war time president.
-The Democrats will take back the House and the senate is a 50/50 tossup.
Lieberman is being funded and endorsed by the lunatic fringe of the republican party. He doesn’t deserve the vote of any American.
This explains why you flock to the lunatic fringe of the republican party.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:28 pmAnyone else notice the “anti-semite” argument coming around a lot right around election time? It seems to just pop right out of thin air. Another emotion-invoking talking-point.
“…“this land is mine, God gave this land to me,” and anybody who dissents from this, you can call it, lunatic version of history is then immediately branded an anti-Semite, and whenever Israel comes under international pressure to settle the conflict diplomatically, or when it is subjected to a public relations debacle, such as it was with the Second Intifada, a campaign is launched claiming there is a new anti-Semitism afoot in the world.
There is no evidence of a new anti-Semitism. If you go through all the literature, as I have, the evidence is actually in Europe, which is Dr. Ben-Ami’s half-home ground, Spain, but throughout Europe, the evidence is, if you look at like the Pew Charitable Trust surveys, anti-Semitism has actually declined since the last time they did the surveys. They did it in 1991 and 2002. They said the evidence is that it’s declined. And the same thing in the United States. What’s called the “new anti-Semitism†is anyone who criticizes any official Israeli policies. In fact, my guess is had people not known who wrote Scars of War, Wounds of Peace, that book would immediately be put on the A.D.L.’s list of verboten books, an example of anti-Semitism, because he says things like the Zionists wanted to transfer the Arabs out. That’s anti-Semitism. It has nothing to do with the real world. It’s a public relations extravaganza production to deflect attention from the facts, from the realities, and I think this afternoon in our exchange, there were some areas of disagreement for sure, but I think a lot of what Dr. Ben-Ami said would not go down well with most of American Jewry, and that’s when they’ll soon be charging him with being an anti-Semite.” ~ Professor Norman Finkelstein, in a Feb, 2006 interview. He’s the author of “Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History”, professor at DePaul University in Chicago.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:33 pmChris wallace is nothing more than a twerp, a mouthpiece of twisted information and propaganda fed through his posterior and out his mouth by the Uber Right machine. His father Mike ought to take him out to the woodshed and smack the living tar out of his body. Otherwise, the only good thing that might be said about Chris is that the best part of the family genes dribbled down his mother’s legs when he was conceived.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:36 pmWallace clearly whupped Clinton’s behind. That will teach the liberal swine a lesson. Yes, anyone who dares question Bush’s God-given Presidency and his Holy War on Iraq is a nut and an opponent of the U.S. Bush’s power comes from on high- he is as infallible as the Pope, except he’s also armed with nukes for when he needs to teach the Mohammedites a lesson in good ol’ fundamentalist Christian manners.
These slimey liberals surely have Bush Derangement Syndrome. None of us righteous conservatives hate that lying, raping, faggot, douchebag, criminal, un-American, assface Clinton like the liberals hate that fine White Christian man, George W. Bush. We conservatives love the man Clinton but hate his sin. And his worse sin is having the audacity to accuse Chris Wallace and Fox News of being any less than fair and balanced. If anything, I think Fox is showing a left-leaning bias by even allowing that smarmy, lying, bullying, crazy Clinton on their network. ‘Nuff said about that.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:38 pm[...] Even when I’ve disagreed with Bill Clinton, or been shocked by his conduct, I’ve always recognized his incredible political skills. He showed it again on Fox News Sunday. He was invited by Chris Wallace in order to be ambushed by the right wing talking points, and Clinton was certainly prepared. Not only did Clinton refute all the false charges, including those raised in The Path to 9/11 recently on ABC, but he also exposed the right wing bias of his interviewer. The video is here and the transcript is below the fold. [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 2:38 pmAverageAmerican! You are afraid! The blogosphere and politicians like Lamont, Feinstein, many others and of course Bill Clinton, who talk straight and fight back scare you. They use their intelligence, that’s really bad for their foes. What have you left? Some smearing about a blue dress and a lie, that each and every married man would have told. Some whining about antisemitism. And what did President Clinton have? Powerful words and powerful emotion against this kind of smearing. We can all stand up against things like this, I’ve learned. There is no reason to be cowering before the combined power of right wing media, corrupt political establishment and the industry. To be true to one’s country one has to stand up and defend it’s values not it’s political leaders. If Democrats stand up and fight back (and I think they will) and speak the truth, the republicans are toast.
The peace rallies of my time with millions flocking together to protest against the nuclear arms race in the 80’s are no more. People don’t take to the streets anymore. But people switch on their computers and open their notebooks everyday. And they will get the news, the truthful information, the demasking of spin, like the truth about this abc disinformercial about 9/11. And they start to write email, and they start to see, and they start to got to the polls.
So, AverageAmerican, my dear, you are very right to be whistling in the woods. There is Democracy lurking round the corner !
September 24th, 2006 at 2:39 pmWhat party does the skin head right wing Jew hating, Black hating, Liberal hating types support?
REPUBLICANS.
Comment by Gerald+Gibson+Jr — September 24, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
============================
When AverageAmerican goes to the next Nazi rally, he should ask them who they voted for in last election because he seems confused.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:39 pmThat will teach the liberal swine a lesson. Yes, anyone who dares question Bush’s God-given Presidency and his Holy War on Iraq is a nut and an opponent of the U.S. Bush’s power comes from on high- he is as infallible as the Pope, except he’s also armed with nukes for when he needs to teach the Mohammedites a lesson in good ol’ fundamentalist Christian manners.
These slimey liberals surely have Bush Derangement Syndrome. None of us righteous conservatives hate that lying, raping, faggot, douchebag, criminal, un-American, assface Clinton like the liberals hate that fine White Christian man, George W. Bush. We conservatives love the man Clinton but hate his sin. And his worse sin is having the audacity to accuse Chris Wallace and Fox News of being any less than fair and balanced. If anything, I think Fox is showing a left-leaning bias by even allowing that smarmy, lying, bullying, crazy Clinton on their network. ‘Nuff said about that.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:40 pmLOL the far-right lunatic AverageAmerican is trying to claim he is a progressive Democrat? Wow the Bush defender trolls are becoming even more goofy > blows my mind!
September 24th, 2006 at 2:43 pmRedleg
Your satire is deadly. Well done!
September 24th, 2006 at 2:50 pmpretty good parody, redleg…
September 24th, 2006 at 2:51 pmyeeesh…
Semite: “a member of any of the peoples speaking a Semitic language, including the Hebrews, Arabs, Assyrians, Phoenicians, etc.” (New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition.)
Zionists are anti-Semites, because they hate Islamic Arabs!
September 24th, 2006 at 2:54 pmBest description of today’s interview:
“It was Bill Clinton’s Tom Cruise moment, though Cruise sounded saner talking about anti-depressants to Matt Lauer. Any Oprah chats scheduled? If I were a Clinton aide, I’d keep him off couches when being interviewed.”
September 24th, 2006 at 2:55 pmGo, go, go, go, go, go, go!
Chris Wallace:
Republicans are always the guys who couldn’t get laid in high school or college. Just look at this guy. This is their revenge. Cynicism and hating on the rest of the world.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:58 pm# 182
I think we all understand your need for continuing your delusions, Ex.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:59 pmBruce and Katy
September 24th, 2006 at 3:01 pmSatire? Surely you mock me. I have learned my conservative trade from none other than Jesus’ General. You wouldn’t dare call his work satirical.
Wow, Chris Wallace is a tool but it looks like Fox didn’t Cut and paste it.
The Right Wing are crazy: The only one Losing it was Chris Wallace. He tried to bail and change the subject at least three times. Clinton was clear, articulate and Chris Wallace was on the defensive, not Clinton.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:02 pmExley,
September 24th, 2006 at 3:02 pmHave you seen the interview? Bush is usually much more petulant and annoyed than Clinton was during the interview. Plus Bush doesn’t make much sense and Clinton is articulate and persuasive.
Just goes to show Demos and Repubs, are taking America down the tubes real fast.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:04 pmI just hope America is tired of the two party system enough to make areal difference in 06 and 08, to return America on the path of greatness.
I do hope Redleg’s post 177 is satire, because otherwise it would be outrageous nonsense > lol.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:04 pmThis is what a strong American president looks like.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:05 pmSmackdown with ideas.
Smackdown with words.
Don’t need cowboy boots.
Clinton’s Smackdown started with blog-fight over ABC movie.
Glad to have been a part of that.
To all Americans:
Join the smackdown
Take our country back!
ELECT DEMOCRATS TO CONGRESS
The two-party system is a mirage.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:06 pmRepublicrat, Democran.
Well unfortunately the right-wing spin machine is already working. On You Tube someone posted the Fox News clip which only shows the end of the interview where the former preseident says he ultimately failed and some right-winger put it undet the heading of “CLINTON FREAKS OUT”. Now it may not seem like a big deal but the shortened clip makes him look unhinged and it has now about 800,000 HITS! The full clip on the other hand has about a couple of hundred. So basically no one has an opportunity to see Clinton in his trouncing fox news glory. I’m not computer savy in the least so PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can someone tell me how to download this clip so I can upload the full on to YouTube?
September 24th, 2006 at 3:14 pmYes I just saw a clip of Clinton’s interview on FOX News, and they are editing it to make him look unhinged frothing at the mouth in anger, so it was unwise for Bill to do the interview on FOX! They planned to cut up his words, and zoom in on his face, to smear him! Democrats are NOT fooled by this, but the Bush loving FOX watchers will get their fix of Clinton hating! I just wish Bill would realize the Bush family are behind the smears of him!
September 24th, 2006 at 3:24 pmWallace got Bitch Slapped! We need Clinton back as President so frickin’ bad!
Take notice Democrats of a REAL leader in your party and how he takes the fight to the Rethuglicans!
September 24th, 2006 at 3:25 pmWell played Mr. Clinton. It is indeed refreshing to see a politician with a freaking backbone. Someone that will will admit mistakes and earnestly try to learn from them.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:25 pmAny other Democrat wouldn’t dare say anything like this nowadays.
It doesn’t matter Shirley, it’s just 800,000 dumb people getting dumber.
Not unlike the braindead here pretending Wallace didn’t have his ass handed to him by Clinton.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:25 pm#187,
Yeah, Redleg, I saw it. Bill comes across as defensive and paranoid. A poor performance by the normally smooth Bill Clinton. Clinton’s meltdown will provide great fodder for late-night talk show hosts.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:27 pmFox Should live in the now! Bill O’Reilly’s interview with Bush was disgusting, I’m suprised he didn’t physically bend down and kiss Bush’s ass. There were no questions, it was just fluff.
Chris can redeem himself by asking Condi and Bush and Rummy the same questions as he asked Bush. Not only asking but going after them with the same zeal as he had with Clinton. Clinton isn’t giving the orders anymore, this administration is the one getting our troops killed in Iraq and Fox won’t even demand a tiny bit of accountability from them.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:28 pm…I have learned my conservative trade from none other than Jesus’ General.
Comment by Redleg — September 24, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
whew… please excuse, mister redleg… you’ve learned well from a master… maybe a little too well?…
September 24th, 2006 at 3:30 pmYeah, Redleg, I saw it. Bill comes across as defensive and paranoid. A poor performance by the normally smooth Bill Clinton. Clinton’s meltdown will provide great fodder for late-night talk show hosts.
Comment by Exley
I would like to see an interview of some of the sailors from the U.S.S Cole that survived the bombing and see what they think about the Republican non Response to that incident? I wonder if they would get a bit red faced and emotional?
“Exley” the supporter of the people that failed America before and after 9/11.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:34 pm# 197 I don’t think anyone is buying your nonsense, Ex.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:38 pmAbsolutely righteous. Just calling bullshit bullshit, already. This is the Clinton version of the rebuke to Senator McCarthy: “Have you left no sense of decency, sir?”
September 24th, 2006 at 3:38 pm#200,
Really, Gerald? And what was Bill Clinton’s response to the Black Hawk down incident? The bombing of Khobar Towers? The bombing of the U.S. embassies in Africa? The bombing of the Cole?
Oh, that’s right…He did a one-time launch of cruise missiles into Afganistan and Sudan, wiped his hands and said, “Well, I tried.” Yeah…That was effective.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:40 pmClinton was GREAT!
Not much to add, other than to say, boy those were the good old days, when we had a REAL PRESIDENT.
Now we have a looney tunes selected “prez” bush, who acts like a school girl whose mother paid for her to be Queen.
Meanwhile, it’s a JOY to see so many cockroaches, I mean TROLLS, come on to liberal/progressive blogs. It means they are running scared, and of course, the professional ones being paid by the CON man Rove, are working 24/7.
But who cares what they write. I just ignore them, but get a thrill just knowing they are pissed off.
Too funny!
September 24th, 2006 at 3:43 pm:-)
Hey, Exley, how are you? Glad to hear that you got to see the game yesterday. I have a question, though. What’s the difference between what you believed to be a defensive and paranoid performance on President Clinton’s side, and the reaction of President Bush to Matt Lauer’s questions in his recent interview? Watching Lauer’s interview, I really got the strong impression that Bush was threatening the safety of Lauer’s family. He (Bush) seemed really pissed off and defensive then. So, what’s the difference?
(and do you know what the score is?) ;-)
September 24th, 2006 at 3:44 pmThe neocon nutbars cry like little girls when one of their show-poodles gets a smackdown. You can set your watch to it.
Clinton lobbed more bombs into Afghanistan prior to 9/11 than Bush did, and STILL accepted responsibility for what he failed to do. Clinton’s DoD gave Bush’s DoD a functional Predator drone, Bush did nothing with it. Clinton had an attack submarine stationed in the gulf awaiting orders for a rapid attack on Bin Laden – Bush removed it. Clinton and Berger gave Bush a detailed functional plan for following up and finishing the job – it collected dust, until after 9/11, when they THEN implemented much of it. Bush and Cheney were too busy cutting Enron’s taxes, and Condi “Not My Job” Rice too busy preparing thinktank speeches on the dangers of ICBM’s, to pay attention to Tenet, Clarke or the PDB.
Bush has lied, bungled and/or sniveled through day of his miserable presidency, accepting responsibility for nothing. He could have hardened every airport in America with about half a month’s Iraq funding, and set the infrastructure in place to check every cargo container with about another 15 days’ worth. Now the intelligence community confirms what we already knew – Bush’s miserable failures have us less safe, made the region more unstable, and made our armed forces less capable of dealing with the terror threat.
But the Bush-supporter gasbags are still yapping about Clinton. Figures.
I applaud Clinton’s performance. Pity that any display of character is a waste of time to the Fox News bunch.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:47 pm#164 Gobson.
Sorry, twit, I’m a leftie — just aleftie who loathes bigotry (including anti-Semitic). And there seem to be far more anti-Semitic bigots these days among the left than the right.
#181 Randal the Anti-Semite descends into rank Arab propaganda.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-semite
September 24th, 2006 at 3:52 pmMain Entry: an·ti-Sem·i·tism
Pronunciation: “an-tE-’se-m&-”ti-z&m, “an-”tI-
Function: noun
: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group
So, what’s the difference?
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — September 24, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
i know! i know!
… bush looked like a drunk…
… clinton was righteous!
eh?
September 24th, 2006 at 3:54 pmHey Jane, How are you?
I have to admit I did not see the Bush/Matt Lauer interview….So, I can’t really comment just yet. I’ll look for it on “YouTube.”
Jets winning. Mets losing. Unfortunately, I can’t see the Jets game….I am stuck watching local NFL coverage. I do think I am getting the Giants game at 4:00, but it’s not the same…
Do me a favor, Jane? Tell Wayne I responded to his questions that he posed yesterday on the thread titled “FULL TRANSCRIPT: Clinton Takes On Fox News.” My posting there is #493.
Have a good day, Jane.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:55 pm[...] This is pretty interesting stuff– from “Think Progress.” It’s worth clicking on the links that “fact check” Wallace after this interview. Regardless of one’s politics, you have to admit it is something to watch Clinton get red in the face mad at this guy. [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 3:55 pm#190.
Won’t help. New York Times article Fri/Sat showed big business has massively increased its giving (and lobbying) to Dems in anticipation of a possible Dem House.
Ay, what fools these lefty-loons be.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:56 pmGives me hope.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:03 pmKaty, that’s correct! And Bush looked like a mean drunk, too, didn’t he? Whereas President Clinton was so, well, Presidential! God, I miss intelligence in the White House!
Oh, crap, is “AverageAmerican” back? Excuse me, AA, will you stop with the anti-Semitism bullshit? If you’re really a leftie, then why can’t someone criticize a particular Israeli policy without being labelled anti-Semite, but we can criticize our own President and his administration’s policies all we want because it’s patriotic to do so? No country is perfect, they all get criticized for one reason or another, so get over it if it’s Israel being criticized! Geez!
Hey, Exley, did I see Zooey calling you sweetie darling or something?!! :-D
September 24th, 2006 at 4:05 pmDecember 26, 1979: Soviet Forces, Lured in by the CIA, Invade Afghanistan
The Soviet Union invades Afghanistan. They will withdraw in 1989 after a brutal 10-year war. It has been commonly believed that the invasion was unprovoked. However, in a 1998 interview, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, will reveal that the CIA began destabilizing the pro-Soviet Afghan government six months earlier in a deliberate attempt to get the Soviets to invade and have their own Vietnam-type costly war (see July 1979). Brzezinski rhetorically asks, “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?†[Le Nouvel Observateur (Paris), 1/1998; Mirror, 1/29/2002]
The US and Saudi Arabia give a huge amount of money (estimates range up to $40 billion total for the war) to support the mujahedeen guerrilla fighters opposing the Russians. Most of the money is managed by the ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence agency. [Nation, 2/15/1999]
1986-1992: CIA and British Recruit and Train Militants Worldwide to Help Fight Afghan War
According to Australian journalist John Pilger, in this year, “CIA Director William Casey [gives] his backing to a plan put forward by Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI, to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. More than 100,000 Islamic militants [are] trained in Pakistan between 1986 and 1992, in camps overseen by the CIA and [the British intelligence agency] MI6, with the [British special forces unit] SAS training future al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters in bomb-making and other black arts. Their leaders [are] trained at a CIA camp in Virginia.†This operation is named Operation Cyclone. While the operation is originally designed to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan, it continues for several years after the Soviets leave Afghanistan in 1989. [Guardian, 9/20/2003]
Eventually, around 35,000 Muslim radicals from 43 Islamic countries will fight with the Afghan mujahedeen. Tens of thousands more will study in the hundreds of new madrassas (Islamic schools) funded by the ISI and CIA in Pakistan. Their main logistical base is in the Pakistani city of Peshawar. [Washington Post, 7/19/1992; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/23/2001]
Ironically, although many are trained, it seems only a small percentage actually take part fight in serious fighting in Afghanistan, so their impact on the war is small. [New Yorker, 9/9/2002]
Richard Murphy, assistant secretary of state for Near East and South Asian relations during the Reagan administration, will later say, “We did spawn a monster in Afghanistan. Once the Soviets were gone [the people trained and/or funded by the US] were looking around for other targets, and Osama bin Laden has settled on the United States as the source of all evil. Irony? Irony is all over the place.†[Associated Press, 8/23/1998]
In the late 1980s, Pakistani President Benazir Bhutto, feeling the mujahedeen network has grown too strong, tells President George H. W. Bush, “You are creating a Frankenstein.†However, the warning goes unheeded. [Newsweek, 10/1/2001]
By 1993, President Bhutto tells Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that Peshawar is under de facto control of the mujahedeen, and unsuccessfully asks for military help in reasserting Pakistani control over the city. Thousands of mujahedeen fighters return to their home countries after the war is over and engage in multiple acts of violence. One Western diplomat notes these thousands would never have been trained or united without US help, and says, “The consequences for all of us are astronomical.†[Atlantic Monthly, 5/1996]
1986: Bin Laden Works with CIA, at Least Indirectly
The CIA, ISI, and bin Laden build the Khost tunnel complex in Afghanistan. This will be a major target of bombing and fighting when the US attacks the Taliban in 2001. [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/23/2001; Hindu, 9/27/2001]
It will be reported in June 2001 that “bin Laden worked closely with Saudi, Pakistani, and US intelligence services to recruit mujahedeen from many Muslim countries,†but this information has not been reported much since 9/11. [United Press International, 4/10/2004]
A CIA spokesperson will later claim, “For the record, you should know that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with bin Laden.†[Ananova, 10/31/2001]
September 1986: CIA Provides Afghan Rebels Stinger Missiles
Worried that the Soviets are winning the war in Afghanistan, the US decides to train and arm the mujahedeen with Stinger missiles. The Soviets are forced to stop using the attack helicopters that were being used to devastating effect. Some claim the Stingers turn the tide of the war and lead directly to Soviet withdrawal. Now the mujahedeen are better trained and armed than ever before. [Coll, 2004, pp. 11, 149-51; Clarke, 2004, pp. 48-50]
On March 21, 1986, President Reagan proclaimed Afghanistan Day, citing the “continuing horror of the Soviet attempt to subjugate Afghanistan, and on March 30, 1986, the Washington Post reported “US sends new arms to rebels; Afghans, Angolans get Stinger missiles in change of policy.†(Lundberg, p. 63). Stinger reached the hands of Afghan rebels in September 1986 and, as expected, they were effective in shooting down Soviet helicopters. One year later, President Gorbachev announced that his government had decided to withdraw all its forces from Afghanistan. The last ground troops quit Afghanistan in February 1989.
Cutting 0ff Aid to the Afghan Resistance
When the Soviets finally withdrew completely in 1989, a new president, George HW Bush, was in office. The Soviets were continuing to pump an estimated $3 billion a year into Afghanistan to prop up the puppet communist government led by Najibullah while the CIA, with Saudi matching funds, continued the massive flow of weapons to the mujahideen, now renamed “feuding warlords.†Wilson made a trip to Russia to beg them to cut off this aid. Andre Kosyrov, the future Russian foreign minister, argued presciently that militant Islam was just as dangerous to America as it was to the Soviet Union.
In 1991, Wilson delivered another $250 million to the CIA (matched by the Saudis) to keep the Afghan program alive in spite of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, which the mujahideen leaders supported. George HW Bush’s Gulf War ensued as the world watched the rise of radical Islam spread like a cancer. Freedom fighters had morphed into monsters who were committing unspeakable atrocities but couldn’t capture Kabul from the communists. Pakistan Ambassador Robert Oakley in (1988-1991) asked “What is a nice group of kids like us doing in a place like this? Without Russians around, did we really want to be giving long-range Stingers, satellite-guided mortars, burst transmitters, and hundreds of million of dollars of ordnance to these men?†(Crile, p. 517) Indeed, Oakley was prepared to say that American policy needed to change when the Soviet 40th Army withdrew. Meanwhile Wilson and the new CIA Director William Webster met about continuing to fund Afghanistan, but the Bush administration wanted out of the program. The CIA attempted to buy back leftover Stingers at twice their original cost, but from 200-400 remained unaccounted for. (Meyer, p. 136) Wilson fought back and, on September 1991, when funding for the flow of weapons was to cease, Wilson pressured his congressional colleagues to fund one more year. From there, things began to fall apart.
In December 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved. In January 1993, a young Pakistani, Mir Aimal Kasi, murdered two CIA officials at the gates of the CIA compound outside of Washington and then disappeared into Pakistan where he was hailed as a hero. In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed, which strongly suggested that a collection of Islamists trained, armed, and hardened in Afghanistan, including Saudi Osama bin Laden, now identified America as their enemy. In September 1994, al Qaeda’s fantastic plan to blow up commercial airliners with bombs (the Bojinka Plot) initially failed, but succeeded on September 2001. (19)
Crile points out that when the US departed Pakistan at the onset of the Gulf War in 1991, the CIA presumed that the jihad would burn itself out. “If the Afghans insisted on killing one another, it would be a shame but not America’s problem,†notes Crile. “Perhaps that policy would have worked out had it been only weapons that we left behind. But the more dangerous legacy of the Afghan war is found in the minds and convictions of Muslims around the world.†(Crile, p. 521) As true believers, to “them the miracle victory over the Soviets was all the work of Allah—not the billions of dollars that America and Saudi Arabia poured into the battle, not the ten-year commitment of the CIA that turned an army of primitive tribesman into techno-holy warriors. The consequence for America of having waged a secret war and never acknowledging or advertising its role was that we set in motion†the false belief among jihadists that taking down superpowers was a piece of cake.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:07 pmAverageAmerican
I have read through Jay’s posts. I don’t agree with him. He is misinformed on several subjects, his arguments tend towards being emotive, and he believes some very strange things about Israel.
He is not however, an anti-Semite. He has not posted a single thing to lead me to believe that he is an anti-Semite.
Meanwhile, you have demoted a human being named Lieberman to being nothing but a Jew. You see by stating that it is his religion and not his policies which Conneticut Democrats, who one must point out elected him to his position in the first place, disagree with, shows that you don’t think of him as anything but Jewish. To you he is a Jew and nothing but.
You have repeatedly claimed that you are a leftwinger, yet I see no sign of it: You have not posted anything in support of any liberal candidate, you have repeatedly misused the buzz word “Anti-Semite” to such a point as to render it meaningless and you have shown not a single point upon which you are a liberal. I am leftwing, very leftwing, I believe in the truth, I believe in freedom of speech and I believe in accuracy in language, and believe me, I am using the words very specifically when I say, I think you are lying.
You are spewing GOP talking points at us, and you expect us to believe you are leftwing?
You have not familiarised yourself with the arguments against Path to 9/11, instead relying on lies to cover you, and you call yourself leftwing?
You demoted war, one of the most important aspects of Government, a life and death issue, to being unimportant, and you call yourself leftwing?
You don’t burn on any issue, you just support the fire. You didn’t contrabute to the argument, you just called Jay a anti-Semite, which you repeat a retarded baby learning its first word.
No, I don’t think you are leftwing. I think you are precisely what everyone claims. You are a sympathy troll, and nothing more.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:10 pmHey, Exley, did I see Zooey calling you sweetie darling or something?!! :-D
Comment by Jane E. Schneider
Hi Jane! How’s it going?
Yes, I was calling Exley “sweetie darling.” When my boys were home and I pulled the “sweetie darling” card, they knew it was time to clear out.
Exley has no gift for sarcasm. :-)
September 24th, 2006 at 4:11 pm* ELECT DEMOCRATS TO CONGRESS *
FOR OVERSIGHT * FOR CHECK & BALANCES * FOR THE CONSTITUTION
OVERWHELMING DEMOCRATIC VOTER TURNOUT
THEY CAN’T STEAL IT IF IT’S NOT CLOSE
WIN FIRST — PURGE LATER
…
pass it on, please…
September 24th, 2006 at 4:12 pmNo problem, Exley, I already printed out your response to take home to him. Do check out the Lauer interview if you can, though. It’s kinda scary! Enjoy the rest of the weekend and (insert the usual sports cheers here)!
September 24th, 2006 at 4:15 pm#213, Jane…
Yeah, Zooey and I are beginning to “bond.” It reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where George meets a woman who cannot stand him:
GEORGE: Jerry… This woman hates me so much. I’m starting to like her.
JERRY: What?
GEORGE: She just dislikes me so much… It’s irresistable.
JERRY: I can see that.
GEORGE: A woman that hates me this much comes along once in a lifetime.
JERRY: You’re a lucky guy.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:18 pmAwesome! This is what all Democrats have to do until November! Come out swinging!
You guys, come on, let’s go, let’s go.
Come on guys, what are we waiting for? Let’s roll. Come on. Let’s go already.
No messing around, boys.
We got no choice, no choice.
Oh, Jesus, let’s go.
Get yourself going. Come on.
Go!
Forward!
Go, go, go!
–from United 93
September 24th, 2006 at 4:18 pmFrom from the masters that control him and Fox news. The same people who are currently trying to deflect criticism from the Bush administration, onto the Clintons.
How is it possible that this country can put up with Clinton being impeached over sex, while we encourage Bush, and the Bush administration, who are responsible for 2,500 American deaths in Iraq – pushing us to the brink of world chaos?
You know something? If we’re unable to realize that this government is a catastrophe, well then there’s little hope.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:19 pmhere! here! bruce gorton!
September 24th, 2006 at 4:20 pmwell said… and i hope the advice is heeded…
…
Zooey, I’m dying to know what you said that got you deleted. Must have been something! Wayne got deleted yesterday, too, ’cause he didn’t bother using an asterisk to ‘disguise’ the f-word. Ah, well, we’ve all been deleted here at one point or another, it’s a nice club to be in!
September 24th, 2006 at 4:22 pmHurray for Clinton! He handled Chris Wallace perfectly and set the record very straight. Would that the Deomocrats had said pushed these propositions earlier and often so that we would not be in the current mess. Would that he were still President.
Virginia Kovel
September 24th, 2006 at 4:25 pmJonathan Weiss
wow, that loooooooooong comment of ren’s sure threw off the rhythm…
September 24th, 2006 at 4:25 pmi prefere links… anyone else?
my soapbox cheer was in response to 211,aa…
“We have a government now which thinks Afghanistan is one-seventh as important as Iraq, and YOU ask ME about being weak on terror?!”
Burn!
People are stupid. Think what you will of Clinton, but nobody, even his enemies, will deny that he’s intelligent and well-spoken. Everyone who has gone against him verbally has gotten smacked for it, yet they still try.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:29 pmI see alot of trolls on here, AMERICAblog, C & L, etc. It shouldn’t be too hard to ignore them. Like Clinton, argue with the facts and come out swinging. Anything the trolls say will be drowned out by our facts. Ignore them because they are a waste of time.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:32 pmI’m a fan of the comment…. “Can someone please give Bush a BJ so we can impeach him?”
September 24th, 2006 at 4:32 pmReally, Gerald? And what was Bill Clinton’s response to the Black Hawk down incident? The bombing of Khobar Towers? The bombing of the U.S. embassies in Africa? The bombing of the Cole?
Oh, that’s right…He did a one-time launch of cruise missiles into Afganistan and Sudan, wiped his hands and said, “Well, I tried.†Yeah…That was effective.
Comment by Exley
Do you have the slightest clue how many times I heard “wag the dog” on the news?
Republicans: “We were against fighting terrorist before we were for it!”
Republicans: “Just give us forever… we will get it right!”
September 24th, 2006 at 4:32 pm#214. Ren.
Your point is not clear.
Most of America will NOT support the idea that all problems in the world are America’s fault, regardless of foreign policy errors.
It will possibly support the idea that American foreign policy has, for a long time, been short-sighted and unrealistic and has grown even more so under Bushido.
Unfortunately, most of America has too short a memory to wonder if it would have been better to leave Mossadeq in power rather than deal with the Islamist backlash 25 years later.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:41 pmwow, that loooooooooong comment of ren’s sure threw off the rhythm…
September 24th, 2006 at 4:42 pmi prefere links… anyone else?Comment by katy — September 24, 2006 @ 4:25 pm
You know something, the reason it seems that you cannot post links to things is, that nobody will bother to go to it to read it. The reason I get that impression is the level of trivial talk at TP. “The Rhythm”, I guess is talking about my compost heap and what I’m making for dinner; at this site. It seems such like a chat-room that one feels that you need to break it up and get back to reality. In this case I was doing a flashback on what Clinton was trying to point out which is, 9/11 had more to do with things outside his presidency and fortunately there wasn’t an attack under his presidency. My apologies for the long post but can we get back to the subject of the blog for Christ sake!
Sorry, Exley: Gerald’s got you on the ‘wag the dog’ tactics. And at least with the Black Hawk down incident, the people who screwed up were canned, not given a medal. I guess that you simply don’t believe President Clinton’s explanation of his options and choices after the Cole bombing, which Bush did nothing about either. Do you not believe Clinton simply because of the one lie he told about the bj? If so, what about all of Bush’s lies–just because he’s squirmed out of testifying under oath (or all alone without holding Cheney’s hand) doesn’t make them NOT lies.
I’m only here for a little while longer–hope to see your response before I leave, but I’ll check back tomorrow anyway.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:46 pmThanks Bill for setting “Shill Wallace” straight.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:49 pmSlightly off topic:
September 24th, 2006 at 4:51 pmDid anyone see Frist on MTP – OMG, what a loser. He wouldn’t answer anything; he seemed nervous and uncomfortable. Republican leadership is a train wreck coming down the tracks.
Sorry, Jane, I tried to answer your question in #223, but it got caught in the filter. I swear I didn’t use the f-word…
September 24th, 2006 at 4:52 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 their are no Dems fit for the world stage.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:52 pmShirley, you can dl this video if you use Firefox and install the UnPlug extension. This will allow you to download the FLV file.
Miss Clinton.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:53 pm#230 What in the Hell are you talking about? Where did I make the premise of my point that this is all America’s fault. To clarify, I was pointing out the history of what led up to the Taliban and al-Qaeda’s established presence to date. We(according to history) have enabled them to build power in the middle east pre 9/11 and some could argue since 9/11 also but that doesn’t make Islamic extremism our fault absolutly. although we have contributed to negitive global views of the United States by our actions. But all things being equal they will find a reason to hate us unless we prove overwhelmingly that we want them to be a partner in peace and we are as invested in that goal. -Capiche
September 24th, 2006 at 4:57 pmClinton is the shit, compared to Bush anyway
September 24th, 2006 at 5:01 pmRightwingers are making a huge deal over Clinton’s demeanor in the interview with Wallace. They seem to overlook that their Monday-morning quarterbacking critique should be compared with their own outrage when Bush is asked a difficult question.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:03 pmCliton is asked to defend himself for the past and he did it very well.
Bush is asked to defend his actions of the present and he can’t do it, except for meaningless slogans, repeated several times, which Bush apparently thinks constitutes an answer.
Clinton was irritated, no doubt — this was his first time on FOX ever and it was his opportunity for a first person defense after years of criticism.
Does anyone remember Bush’s recent press conferences? He can’t even answer one hard question, much less do a one hour interview on the issues.
He barely makes it through a puff piece interview without an embarrassing gaffe.
The rightwing reaction is laughable. They show themselves for the fools they are.
how do we get him reelected?
September 24th, 2006 at 5:04 pmOK. So far, your pr-Clinton, con-Criminals comments have been fun. Unfortunately, you only make up 0.001 of the electorate, so get OUT THERE and SPREAD THE MESSAGE
September 24th, 2006 at 5:04 pm(And in the mean time, don’t forget to read Greg Palast’s “Armed Madhouse” – if it is for sale at your local, and only IF it hasn’t been burned yet by the Men Clad In Brown)
#238.
You said,
Your whole formulation truns blame from Afghanis and Soviets — all adults, to my knowledge — to “the CIA.”
Again, you manage to transfer the blame to the USA. You do not even consider the possibility that religious fanatics will hate the USA anyway, regardless of what it does.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:08 pmGo Slick Willy. At least that man put a handsome, articulate face on globalism.
The left\right paradigm is a sham.
For those that quote pro-Israel polls, wake up. Our media and government are in Israel’s pocket; is it any wonder the sheeple are convinced they’re in the right?
http://www.infowars.com
Wake up, Neo. The New World Order has you.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:08 pm#232, Sorry, Jane…But the “wag the dog” defense does not work for several reasons:
1) The “wag the dog” charge (which was not nearly as widespread as some of you folks make it out to be) could not be levied until the Lewinsky scandal in 1998, five and half years into his presidency…What was Clinton’s excuse for doing next to nothing against Al Qaeda from 1993 to 1998????
2) What difference should it have made to Clinton even IF there were numerous “wag the dog” charges? He was the President of the United States, charged with protecting the nation’s security. If he thought it was in the best interests of national security to go after Al Qaeda full-throttle, he should have done so, criticism from the opposition be damned! To argue that Clinton did not go after Al Qaeda as hard as he should have because he was scared of “wag the dog” criticism does not put him in a very good light at all! He wouldn’t go after what he believed was a national security threat because he didn’t want to be criticized????? What kind of leader is that? If that is his excuse, that is downright pathetic (But definitely in keeping with Clinton’s reputation for wanting to be liked and popular more than wanting to do the right thing, no matter how difficult it might be)….President Bush has been excoriated by the media and the Democrats for his actions in Iraq. He has taken a hit in the polls…But he has continued to pursue the policy because he believes it is in the best interest of the nation’s security, all the while knowing that it is subjecting him to intense criticism.
For you and Gerald to argue that Clinton really, really wanted to go after Al Qaeda but couldn’t because some congressional Republicans may have accused him of “wagging the dog” is to argue that Clinton was unwilling to take the political heat for doing what he believed was best for national security…Is that REALLY the best defense you want to offer for Clinton’s insufficient actions against Al Qaeda?
September 24th, 2006 at 5:09 pm#242 could you clear up your point a bit?
September 24th, 2006 at 5:09 pmquite impressive, bill turned the tables!
September 24th, 2006 at 5:10 pm…….He barely makes it through a puff piece interview without an embarrassing gaffe.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:13 pmThe rightwing reaction is laughable. They show themselves for the fools they are.
Comment by Marie — September 24, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
I’ll do you one better….Remember when he was with Prime Minister Mercal and they asked him a serious question and he out of the blue says for the third time, “I thought you were going to ask me about the pig?” What an ass….
I thank you for your point….
ALLEN: We are interrupting that story because we have now on the phone with us Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Speaker Gingrich, your reaction to the U.S. attacks today on Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network.
REP. NEWT GINGRICH (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do.
We have not yet gotten assessments of the damage, but I hope that it’s been very decisive. And I think it’s very important that we send a signal to countries like Sudan and Afghanistan that if you house a terrorist, you become a target. And if you want to get rid of the target, you’ve got to get rid of the terrorist.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:14 pm#229, 232,
Gerald and Jane,
As I said before, this claim that Republicans were all accusing Clinton of “wagging the dog” when he launched the cruise missile attack against Afghanistan and Sudan is a myth that the left has created as a way of defending Clinton for his insufficient response to Al Qaeda’s attacks against U.S. interests in 1998.
Here is an excerpt of Speaker Newt Gingrich on “CNN” on August 28, 1998 following the attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan:
ALLEN: We are interrupting that story because we have now on the phone with us Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Speaker Gingrich, your reaction to the U.S. attacks today on Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network.
REP. NEWT GINGRICH (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do.
We have not yet gotten assessments of the damage, but I hope that it’s been very decisive. And I think it’s very important that we send a signal to countries like Sudan and Afghanistan that if you house a terrorist, you become a target. And if you want to get rid of the target, you’ve got to get rid of the terrorist.
I think based on what I know, it was the right thing to do at the right time. And I think that it — I’ve been involved in briefings for the last two weeks, and I think it’s been done in a methodical, professional way. And I strongly support the United States government having acted that way.”
Where is that alleged “wag the dog” criticism there, Gerald and Jane?
September 24th, 2006 at 5:20 pm#246. ren. Kaj is saying that here everyone is preaching to the choir and should somehow take the message to the wider American public.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:20 pm#249 meanwhile the rest of the republicans denounced the strike as “Wag the Dog” get it right…..
September 24th, 2006 at 5:20 pmDemocratic leaders are all about talk, all about appearences, all about nuanced positions and pointless political opposition. They tell us how they are strong on defense, but we watched as they gutted defense spending at every opportunity for 40 years in control of congress. They talk about being tough on terrorism, but we watched as the Clinton administration did nothing to thwart a growing international threat, and we watched as they gave nuclear technology to China, who in turn gave it to North Korea and possibly Iran.
Only a complete fool could interpret the Democrats current offensives against CIA, NSA, FBI, and Military efforts to defend America by tracking, capturing, interrogating, prosecuting or killing terrorists who openly threaten further harm to innocent civilians all over the free world, as some nuanced defense plan.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:20 pmKARMA KARMA KARMA COMING TO AMERICA
September 24th, 2006 at 5:24 pmSoulless arogant worms like FOX and EL DIABLOCO will get what is true justice,but only eventually,unless they kill everyone with a different opinion,it would take a littile longer then but KARMA will prevail.
Mr. Clinton is a Genius when compared to EL DIABLO,more like a retarded monkey with BOMBS. Great ,thank you, america for letting this happen to the world’s innocent,shows what you can accomplish if you don’t pay attention or are just ignorant and fooled by propaganda.
[...] Think Progress has the complete video. I suspect others will have it up soon as well. Take ten minutes and watch the whole thing. [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 5:24 pmRegardless, I will bet the Republicans keep both houses and the presidency during the next 2 years. America is too drugged up and dumbed down to keep up with someone like Clinton. I hate to tell the right, who fears world government that it is already here. Ask GE why the merger with Honeywell didn’t go through. For those from the right reading this board-the EC struck it down as anti-competitive. Probably should explain what EC stands for but I am tired.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:25 pm#229, 232
By the way, Gerald and Jane, after Clinton launched the cruise missile attacks against Afghanistan and Sudan in August 1998, do you know who ran THIS “headline?????”:
“Operation Desert Shield Me from Impeachment.”
National Review?????
The Weekly Standard?????
NOPE! That was from Comedy Central’s liberal-leaning “The Daily Show!”
So, again this myth that there was this overwhelming GOP cry of Wag the Dog in August 1998 is an exceedinly weak and disingenuous attempt to deflect criticism of Clinton’s insufficient response to Al Qaeda’s attacks.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:27 pmDemocrat and Republican politicians rallied behind the President. Newt Gingrich, the House Speaker, called it “the right thing to do”. Mr Clinton telephoned Tony Blair and several congressional leaders before the strikes, among them Mr Gingrich and the Senate Republican leader Trent Lott.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:28 pmWith suspicions aroused that the attacks were timed to distract public attention from the grand jury’s questioning of Miss Lewinsky, Mr Cohen was asked to respond to suggestions that the action bore a remarkable resemblance to a recently released film. Wag The Dog, starring Robert de Niro and Dustin Hoffman, concerns an American president who is caught fondling a teenage girl while she was touring the White House. As a diversion, his spin doctors invent a war with Albania.
So Repugnantcans had nothing to do with the Wag the Dog attacks Exley
#229, 232…One more thing, Gerald and Jane…Here is the lede of the National Review editorial from September 14, 1998 on Clinton’s strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan:
“COMEDY Central’s The Daily Show called it “Operation Desert Shield Me from Impeachment.” Funny, but too cynical. The U.S. missile strikes against terrorist facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan were a response to a real threat: They targeted the operations of Osama bin Laden, the terrorist mastermind who, according to U.S. intelligence, was responsible for the brutal bombing of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and was plotting further attacks on Americans.”
Where’s the “wag the dog” criticism from the conservative movement’s premier opinion publication??????
As I said, Gerald and Jane, this “wag the dog” defense of Clinton does not hold water.
I look forward to your responses.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:32 pmExley, it wasn’t just about Monica, what about Whitewater? Paula Jones? Geraldine Flowers? Republicans and the media certainly seemed a lot more interested in those topics at the time. But, I have to say that I’m surprised to hear the possibly one and only time that Newt praised Clinton!
I have to run, see you all tomorrow. Exley, I’m not ‘cutting and running’, I haven’t seen the whole interview yet, I have to get home to catch the 6:00 showing.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:35 pmExley,
You and the rest of your neo-con friends just can’t stand it when a Dem calls bullshit and fights back against your lies and disinformation. Your kind has called Al Gore, Howard Dean, and Bill Clinton “crazy” because they are passionate when they discuss their policies and actions and defend their records.
Your kind always makes false appeals for “civility” when a Dem or liberal/progressive stands up and fights back yet remain silent when the likes of Darth Cheney and Rummy the Dummy blames Dems for the debacle in Iraq and for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. What Bill Clinton said to Chris Wallace pales in comparison to the almost daily foulness emanating from Cheney, Rummy, Bushy, Tony Snow, and all their mouthpieces like Ann Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.
You rethugs are real good at creating this mock outrage- just like a bunch of friggin’ drama queens. It’s time you all faced up to the fact that your control over all branches of the government has lead us into some serious problems and that blaming the Democrats only works for the kind of idiots who would vote for Bush in the first place. Now be a big boy and finish your Kool Aid for Uncle Karl.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:35 pmThe difference here between Mike and Chris is that Mike actually knew his shit. Mike could afford to be forceful and unfair, cause he often had the knowledge and facts to back up what he was saying. Chris Wallace just hides behind the gravitas of the network and hopes that can hide the fact that he doesn’t know enough to actually debate Clinton on the specifics of things like Somalia or the Cole. Notice they don’t advertise the interview as Clinton gets it wrong, but as Clinton goes out of control.
Well of course he did. You were feeding him a bunch of bull that any common sense person who doesn’t worship Fox would know.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:38 pm258. 259. Good points. Good luck convincing the loony-left haters here to think rationally.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:39 pmCalahan,
September 24th, 2006 at 5:39 pmYou sound like a real bedwetter. If you believe that Bush has made us safer, you must be living in a bubble. As we’re finding out in Iraq, the projection of US military might only works so far. All you neo-con badasses need to start realizing that launching un-necessary wars (i.e., in Iraq) saps our military, our treasury, and takes our attention off stopping the terrorists. I hope that you live long enough to realize what damage Bush has really done to this country.
Hey Exley….
“Look at the movie ‘Wag the Dog.’ I think this has all the elements of that movie,” Rep. Jim Gibbons said. “Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems.”
Massachusetts acting Gov. Paul Cellucci, a Republican and a movie buff, said: “It popped into my mind, but I do hope that that’s not the situation and I trust that it isn’t.”
September 24th, 2006 at 5:42 pmOh sure you dont….
If you accept Clinton’s assertion that his actions were acceptable on the authority of the FBI and CIA who refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible for the Cole attacks you also support Bush’s actions in Iraq certified by the CIA (Director George Tenet [yes, the same that Clinton says here worked for him] claimed WMD in Iraq was a “slam dunk” according to Bob Woodward, yeah the same guy that broke Watergate).
“It would have shown the weakness [of the United States] if we left [Somalia] right away!” ~Clinton
… but we wouldn’t show weakness by leaving Iraq right away?
Clinton also goes on to say we hired mercenaries to kill bin Laden while he was in office. What a great return we got for our money. I wonder how many people those mercenaries tortured to try to find bin Laden…
Evading questions angrilly and saying the other party isn’t answering either means absolutely nothing. This isn’t newsworthy other than to prove that Clinton’s the same as Bush.
And if Clinton’s so interested in everyone being asked the same questions, why did he never ask any other news source why they use these same tactics on Republicans?
Open your eyes, see both sides, realize they’re both wrong. But also realize that it’s your fault for forcing exactly 2 sides. We need to vote for intelligent people rather than popular people.
The best ideas usually are unpopular.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:43 pmexley, if conservatives hadn’t called wag the dog back then when clinton issued the strikes, then why are we having this conversation today?
why is chris wallace supposedly getting myriad e-mails asking why clinton didn’t do enough?
September 24th, 2006 at 5:44 pmIt’s tough to argue that he doesn’t deserve this. But Republicans ought to be careful about going too far in dismissing Clinton. When Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., questioned Clinton’s motives in launching the attacks — “Why did he wait until now?” — reporters at a press conference (which Coats opportunistically called minutes after the news broke) harshly cross-examined the senator. Didn’t he take Bill Cohen, an ex-senator and Republican with whom Coats served, at his word? Coats had to pause before continuing his anti-Clinton spin.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., also rushed before television cameras to suggest that Clinton may have had more than national security on his mind in deciding to bomb. Oddly, two days ago, the president’s critics were arguing that his scandalous behavior rendered it difficult for him to act decisively. Then when he did move forcefully, that aggravated his antagonists.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:48 pmSomeone needs to make a t-shirt for Chris Wallace that says, “I interviewed Bill Clinton and all I got was a new asshole.”
Go, Bill, go!
September 24th, 2006 at 5:48 pmSteven – the difference here is Clinton is willing to admit his mistakes.
Bush and company were still pretending that everything was hunky-dorey WAY after the rest of the country realized it wasn’t. Their entire approach to this situation is political.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:48 pm266. Steven. Excellent!
You’re absolutely right; US leadership has been incompetent through BOT administrations.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:48 pmI hope so too, redleg, “that because you keep pissing your pants”. Have a nice life hiding in your hole.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:51 pmClinton refused to meet with CIA director James Woolsey for almost 3 years. This is well documented and Woolsey is on record stating this numerous times during interviews. If Clinton was serious about getting bin Laden, why did he refuse to meet with his own CIA director?
September 24th, 2006 at 5:53 pm“As the Constitution makes clear, the President of the United States does have the authority to take defensive action against an aggressor nation, but he has no authority whatsoever to make war against a country which has neither attacked the United States or posed to do so.” -Robert Novak (The Washington Post, 12/21/98, p. A29)
“As president, Bill Clinton has…squandered $5.5 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars on containing the Iraqi threat…” -Joe Farah (Between the Lines, 12/18/98)
“Saddam Hussein is not threatening our national security. This is a concocted scheme to pursue bombing for oil interests and other reasons, but it has nothing to do with national security.” -Representative Ron Paul (R-Tex) (Congressional Record, 12/17/98, pp. H11722, H11729)
“A President who uses his duties as Commander in Chief to bomb foreign countries every time he wants to change the subject ought to be removed with alacrity,” -Ann Coulter (Human Events, 12/25/98, p. 6)
September 24th, 2006 at 5:55 pmAverageAmerican is hopefully not really an average American because if he/she/ is, Americans are a pretty damned dumb group of people. I like how AverageAmerican claims to be a liberal yet says things that could be straight out of Free Republic or Michelle Malkin’s mouth: “Good luck convincing the loony-left haters here to think rationally.”
Seems to me that anyone who can defend Bush’s decision-making process regarding the Iraq war must be much less than rational since Bush exhibited so many of the classic decision-making defects that we behavioral scientists like to write about.
Of course Herb Simon won a Nobel prize for thinking and writing about bounded rationality, so anyone who claims to be truly “rational” in decision-making is surely deluded.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:58 pm#273 Woolsey is a Neocon asshole… that’s why he didn’t meet with him perhaps?
September 24th, 2006 at 5:58 pmTo all you “progressives”:
Keep attempting to drive the Democrat Party as far to the left as possible.
I’m fully and completely with you in this cause.
The more you diligently work to achieve this goal, the better off America will be, as the left, once actually acting as true leftists, will become more and more repulsive to “normal” people.
An easily distinguishable “left” is a great thing.
PLEASE keep up the good work…!
-Iakeo
September 24th, 2006 at 6:01 pm[...] Think Progress » VIDEO: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 6:03 pm[...] Clinton just tears up the reporter for Fox news. After Chris Wallace asks the former president a pretty politically biased question on whether he did enought to stop Bin-Laden, Clinton gets fed up and just lets it go. -VIDEO: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 6:03 pmOtto,
Nice name. Do you admire the real Skorzeny? Your choice of names is not surprising given your obvious pro-Bush, pro-failure point of view. You right-wingers always were suckers for Nazis.
Woolsey is another of those neo-con clowns, like Richard Pearl, Wolfowitz, Feith, Ledeen, who would do anything to keep war going in the Middle East. Woolsey is the kind of idiot who thought Iraq was behind Al Quaida.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:04 pm#260 Good night, Jane….Look forward to discussing this further tomorrow,
September 24th, 2006 at 6:05 pm#260 Good night, Jane….Look forward to discussing this further tomorrow,
September 24th, 2006 at 6:05 pmThe Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, “threat meetings” were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.
Clinton’s dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous “wag the dog” tactics. The news networks actually broadcast clips of the movie “Wag the Dog” while reporting on his warnings, to accentuate the idea that everything the administration said was contrived fakery.
In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.
Specifically, Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton’s bill dealing with this matter, calling them “totalitarian.”
In fact, Gramm was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders. It should also be noted that Gramm’s wife, Wendy, sat on the Enron Board of Directors.
Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al-Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:05 pm#258, Ren….You answered your own question:
“Democrat and Republican politicians rallied behind the President. Newt Gingrich, the House Speaker, called it “the right thing to doâ€. “
September 24th, 2006 at 6:07 pm270. I have 11 words for you: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman: miss Lewinsky”
Clinton, like Bush, will not admit a mistake until the politically opportune moment.
Both Clinton and Bush are politicians, so both Clinton’s and Bush’s approaches to EVERYTHING are political.
And whoever’s in White House, the vast majority of our government remains the same below director positions. If Clinton was really so interested in killing or capturing bin Laden, he wouldn’t have injected his legacy into the beauracracy by cutting our military so drastically that literally right before his presidency, with half a million soldiers in the Persian Gulf, we were still ready to fight a full out nuclear end to the Cold War, but right after his presidency, one-eighth of a million soldiers displaced to the same area stretches our military so thin as to limit military options to world problems.
People are willing to forgive historical action for current emotion. All a politician has to do is get fired up and his support comes roaring back.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:09 pm#273 your a retard… The goals the”left” have are very centrist goals. Wake up, your so far to the right you make the left….center
September 24th, 2006 at 6:09 pm#258, Ren….You answered your own question:
September 24th, 2006 at 6:11 pm“Democrat and Republican politicians rallied behind the President. Newt Gingrich, the House Speaker, called it “the right thing to doâ€. “
Comment by Exley — September 24, 2006 @ 6:07 pm
Thats all you got out of all that I posted, Man you are lame and you suck the bush’s largest ass cheak. Read the rest and come back and talk, you stupid people just dont get it…
#171. Crystal.
No less a leftist icon as Dersh has pointed out Finkelstein’s lunacy (and yours):
https://israel.indymedia.org/newswire/display/5313/index.php
September 24th, 2006 at 6:33 pm#275 Redleg the Dumb.
Amazing how you loony-left twits cannot help but try to place words into the mouths of the rest of us.
Of course, I have said nothing defensive of Bushido and have obliquely spoken contemptuously of him more than once.
But the loony-left twits here are intent upon giving the rest of progressive America a bad name.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:36 pmRen, Your other “examples” are so weak as to be laughable (almost as laughable as your atrocious spelling).
Let’s see, you have a quote from Robert Novak, a newspaper columnist, not a Republican official, who opposed both Gulf Wars. Okay, so that is irrelevant (Never mind that Novak’s quote has nothing to do with a wag the dog theory).
A quote from Joe Farah (WHO?) and Ann Coulter — Again, two columnists who are not Republican government or congressional officials. Again, irrelevant.
A quote from an obscure Republican Congress Ron Paul, which addresses the Clinton administration’s policy towards Iraq and which has absolutely nothing to do with the August 1998 cruise missile strikes against Al Qaeda, which is the subject we are discussing. And, of course, there is the fact that Paul’s comments have absolutely nothing to do with a Wag the Dog accusation (Actually, Paul’s comments sound a lot like many ThinkProgress comments). Again, irrelevant and off-point.
A quote from a Republican governor which actually undercuts your argument. TThus, irrlevant.
A quote from the very liberal Arlen Specter (and which he later took back)….So, you have one quote from a liberal, not a conservative. Could be called irrelevant, but I feel bad for you, Ren, so I will grant you half a point…You’re welcome.
And finally, one quote from one GOP congressman named Jim Gibbons.
So, in short, Ren has managed to produce exactly one quote from one obscure congressman to back up the discredited “wag the dog” theory.
Very weak, Ren…Very weak. Try again.
Oh, by the way, Ren….Here is yet another GOPer who supported Clinton’s August 1998 strike against Al Qaeda in Afghanistand and Iraq:
MARK SHIELDS: The credibility wasn’t helped this week, and there’s a skepticism, there’s a cynicism in our national life, which is nothing new, and this certainly is reinforced. So I think that the end of the “Wag the Dog” scenario was, quite frankly, applied by Speaker Gingrich and by the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms, both of whom backed the president’s action and sort of shot down the-and Arlen Specter did change his position and tune today, as well, from Pennsylvania. PBS Newshour
September 24th, 2006 at 6:37 pmThis is what a president looks like? NOT! He is a disgrace he embarrassed this country and emboldened our enemies.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:40 pmI just watched the full interview (after having read the transcript yesterday), and Clinton did give Wallace a smack down.
I find it curious now in watching the FOX “analysts” discuss this and call to mind the number of times the book by Richard Clarke was noted. I read the Clarke book and found it very informative.
Clarke’s book was not altogether flattering to Clinton, but I believe he was honest. The matter seems to be that Clinton is willing and able to accept less than 100% criticism for his responsibilities as president, whereas, neither Bush nor his minions in the White House or on FOX news are incapable of recognizing their failings, much less accepting criticism.
One more point, insofar as there was a “wag the dog” hesitation to strike,
September 24th, 2006 at 6:40 pmI ask who is responsible for making the Lewinsky deal larger than life? I grant Clinton no absolution there, but it was the Republican congress, the Republican attack dog, Ken Starr, and the Republican-dominated media that kept the Lewinsky affair on the front pages for months and months, going so far as impeachment. If the media were focused on important issues rather than personal peccadilloes and an extramarital affair, the important matters would have been paid more attention.
And finally, here is conservative columnist Paul Gigot being asked by Margaret Warner on NewsHour about the idea that Clinton was “wagging the dog:”
PAUL GIGOT: It was only a handful. I think that-I mean, Arlen Specter-frankly, he’s a lethal weapon on his way to a TV camera. I think you’ve got to take that with a grain of salt. But I thought when Dan Coats says something, I usually listen, because he’s a serious guy; he’s not a grandstander, and I took that as a sign that-of how much credibility the president has lost on Capitol Hill. I think Dan Coats was wrong. He got a briefing today and issued a somewhat more moderate statement, although still not full-fledged support. But the timing-the thing that struck Coats when listening to him was not that the president was necessarily diverting attention from the Lewinsky case. It was why was the action so precipitant this time when it hadn’t been over the first six years of his presidency-that was the striking thing to a lot of Republicans, and even John McCain said something like that-why did it-the last seven months had been about delay, and I think that’s the critical-and about ignoring some of these problems-and that’s the bigger problem for the president more than just the “Wag the Dog” speculation, which is frivolous.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:42 pmHOT DAMN!!! Finally a Dem with balls who FINALLY bitch-slapped Faux news.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Big Dog gave the smackdown Chris Wallace deserved. What a disgrace to journalism Wallace is. Wallace deserved a smack acrosss his smirking face and I bet Clinton had to wish he could do it. Friggin’ Fox News doing a typical hatchet job but not asking the Rethugs what they’ve done to capture Bin Laden.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:51 pmYet more for Gerald, Ren, and my good friend and fellow Mets fan Jane:
Newsday, August 21, 1998:
Washington – Congressional leaders strongly supported President Bill Clinton’s decision to strike targets in Sudan and Afghanistan yesterday, although a Republican senator raised questions about the timing and the motive of the attack.
Some of Clinton’s most consistent critics endorsed the decision to retaliate for the Aug. 7 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 200 people, including 12 Americans.
House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.Ca.), who had been alerted by the White House before the attack, praised the operation.
“I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow terrorist groups to attack embassies and do nothing,” Gingrich said.
Lott called the action “appropriate and just.”
Helms struck a rare bipartisan chord: “Sooner or later, terrorists will realize that America’s differences end at the water’s edge and that the United States political leadership always has, and always will, stand united in the face of international terrorism.”
Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who has called for Clinton’s resignation in light of his admission of an improper relationship with a White House intern, said the “timing is certainly suspect.”
“I believe, given the extraordinary situation we’re now in, these are the questions that are on the minds of the American people,” Coats said. “I’m raising questions . . . on what was the president’s role on this, and whether the president was in a position to make a sound judgment call in light of the speculation that would arise worldwide and the consequences of that in calling for this strike . . . a day and a half after his speech,” a reference to Monday’s televised speech on the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
But Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who has been aggressively investigating Clinton’s campaign-funding practices, took the opposite view. “I take the action for what it was – to stop the terrorists and to make them pay for what they did,” Burton said. “And that was the right thing to do. That’s coming from one of the president’s severest critics.”
As I said, the myth of widespread charges by the GOP leadership of “wag the dog” are just that…a myth….Once concocted by Democrats and liberals desperate to deflect criticism of Clinton’s ineffectual response to all Qaeda’s attacks against U.S. interests during the 1990s.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:53 pmClinton is a beast. can you imagine GW in a interview like that..
September 24th, 2006 at 7:03 pm“I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow terrorist groups to attack embassies and do nothing,†Gingrich said.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:04 pmyou already said that dumbass..
Most perplexing quote from Bill (in an interview FULL of them):
“And if I were still president, we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him.”
Errrr, Bill? You were president for eight years….So, why didn’t you place “more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him”????
September 24th, 2006 at 7:06 pmOf all the stupid things to blame on Clinton, not catching Osama bin Laden?? Clinton’s efforts opposed were by Republicans, the FBI and the CIA. Bush shuts down anti-terror efforts of Clarke et al., on vacation the entire month of August, while memo sat on his desk saying Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S. 9/11 occurs on his watch. Then he has 5 YEARS to do that one thing, with total agreement, no domestic opposition whatsoever, and now he says what? OBL’s not very important. How is that Clinton’s fault again?
September 24th, 2006 at 7:08 pmNice to hear both sides of the story!
ONLY ON FOX do you get the whole news, not just the Republican or Democatic spin.
Why has no one else given Clinton the forum to defend his record?
Other networks, take note.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:10 pm[...] Bill Clinton was on FOX News Sunday, where he defended himself against charges that he didn’t do enough to catch bin Laden when he was in office. He’s forceful and amazingly coherent, obviously leaving Chris Wallace on the defensive. Check out the footage. [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 7:12 pmOf all the things you could try to stick Clinton with, not killing Osama Bin Laden? Fox is a bunch of morons. Clinton tries, gets opposition from Republicans, CIA and FBI. Bush comes in, shuts down Clarke et al.’s antiterror efforts, goes on vacation while a memo stating “Bin Laden determined to Strike in U.S.” sits on his chair, 9/11 occurs on his watch, then, 5 years after he says, wanted, dead or alive, with no domestic opposition, economic or military restraint whatsoever, what’s the result? Bush saying he wasn’t so important after all. How is that Clinton’s fault?
September 24th, 2006 at 7:13 pmMost perplexing quote from Bill (in an interview FULL of them):
September 24th, 2006 at 7:19 pm“And if I were still president, we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him.â€
Errrr, Bill? You were president for eight years….So, why didn’t you place “more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him�???
Comment by Exley — September 24, 2006 @ 7:06 pm
He meant after 911 you total moron!
I have read most of the back and forth banter for and against this subject but I have seen no one mention the excellent background to this whole mess expessed in comment #214. My bet is not many people bothered to read it, which is unfortunately typical as no one wants to do the leg work for the truth, it’s all out takes, 30 second sound bites that distort, destroy and demonise decent people on both sides of the fence. I expect that is what will happen on this Fox interview. What is sad, is you are destroying yourselves and ultimately giving the enemies ranged against you the very thing they want and you don’t know you are doing it.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:19 pmClinton was lying in that interview. Using the same technique he used to claim he never slep with “that woman”. First of all, Clinton has admitted in the past that he passed on taking Osama from the Sudanese on TWO occasions because, in his words, “we didn’t have a place to hold him”. How weak is that?
Secondly, he lamely tries to pass the buck to Bush. At least Bush tried. All clinton did since 1993 when the first World Trade Center bombing happened, was fire some cruise missiles during the Lewinsky trial to try to divert the nations attention.
And here you have people in this thread claiming we need more leaders like that. Ha! No wonder the Dems are practically exinct as a party.
BTW: Clinton made a fool of himself to anyone not blindsided by Bush hatred. Wallace is a Democrat not a Republican. Yet Clinton tried to paint him as one. The guy is off his rocker.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:19 pmNo, Exley, why doesn’t BUSH have more than 20,000 there trying to kill him. He turned the hunt over to the warlords who promptly let OBL escape. You just cannot admit Bush does anything wrong can you.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:21 pmClinton admits his failures and that is a sign of a leader. Bush admits nothing, he lies very easily, and you think he is a leader. He is a total failure. Total.
I love the term “smack down” and “bitch slap”…. not thats some terms Osama would understand. Gnight ladies.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:23 pmAs I said, the myth of widespread charges by the GOP leadership of “wag the dog†are just that…a myth….Once concocted by Democrats and liberals desperate to deflect criticism of Clinton’s ineffectual response to all Qaeda’s attacks against U.S. interests during the 1990s.
Comment by Exley
Sorry Exley. It is NOT a myth. I heard it with my own ears on TV from the mouths of the very people you sited. You like all the rest of us KNOW that when these people go on certain shows they act moderate. THEN when they are on the floor of the house or senate or go on stations like FOX they show their true colors.
You cannot trick us into thinking something didnt happen when we heard them with our own ears. Dan Burton from Indiana in particular. I live in Indiana and that scum bag (that abandoned his illegitimate child) has a big mouth and was always blaring it off about Clinton.
Rewriting history is not going to happen this time. Keep trying though. The Nazism failed at it also. You are no different.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:28 pmGood job Bill. Wish you were there.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:31 pmBitch slapped!
September 24th, 2006 at 7:31 pmFor you and Gerald to argue that Clinton really, really wanted to go after Al Qaeda but couldn’t because some congressional Republicans may have accused him of “wagging the dog†is to argue that Clinton was unwilling to take the political heat for doing what he believed was best for national security…Is that REALLY the best defense you want to offer for Clinton’s insufficient actions against Al Qaeda?
Comment by Exley
That is NOT what I said. I said that Clinton DID go after Bin Laden and the Republicans bitched about it the whole time. Clinton simply didnt listen to them and told his people not to listen to them. THAT is recorded in the 911 commision report. The Republican NeoCons were that whole time wanted Clinton to IGNORE Bin Laden and launch a full scale invasion of IRAQ just as is spelled out on the NEOCON PNAC website.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:31 pmDumbass, because we hadn’t invaded Afghanistan.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:37 pm[...] link [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 7:41 pmliberals are anti America – they want to change our country from a strong cohesive people united under an originalist Constitution, to a weak fractured people under a “living†Constitution that changes with the whims of the liberal elite who manipulate popular opinion through the media.
liberals are against America. Nothing would make them happier than to see America transformed into a European-like nation – weak, morally bankrupted, anti-religion, and a society that is generally decaying and self-destructive.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:44 pmAt least Bush tried.
Comment by James Hudnall
Bush did nothing. Bush totally ignored all the warnings about Bin Laden because…
1) Bin Laden was a family friend.
2) Bin Ladens family in Saudi Arabia wouldnt take kindly to one of their business partners (the Bush family) killing one of Saudi Arabis favorite heros.
3) The agenda had already been set to invade Iraq long before Bush got in the White House as admited on the PNACs own website.
How do we know this?
People that were on the Bush team have said so… look up Paul O’Neill
Many people have come forward to recount incidents that happened such as ..
Attorney General John Ashcroft told FBI officials to stop briefing him about CIA warnings of an al Qaeda attack because he already had that information.
Also we all know that Bush personally was given the now infamous PDB that clearly spelled out the looming danger… and Bush went on vacation.
Bush did NOTHING. Even AFTER 9/11 he only made a token gesture at getting Osama and then invaded Iraq for no apparent reason.
…
Clinton on the other hand attacked… and attacked…. and attacked… unilaterally blowing up places like that factory in Khartoum … for which he was attacked by the republicans… for WAG THE DOG….
September 24th, 2006 at 7:44 pmBill Clinton rules. He is one of the reasons why the rest of the world hasn’t completely written America off.
Ann Coulter is a man by the way. http:///www.annisaman.com
September 24th, 2006 at 7:45 pm127 – your clarification makes my point for me, thank you very much.
BTW, the personal attacks don’t work, you don’t know who I am, my intellect or education – your comments to that effect say more about you than they do about me.
#1 – Since Clinton said to ignore his problems means that he was not distracted by the Lewinsky scandal?
#2 – Since Berger is depicted as slamming the phone down that is somehow a glaring factual contradiction?
#3 – Thats the closest thing you’ve got to a factual misrepresentation and the problem was created by combining characters – Albright and the VC of the JCoS. They clearly stated that characters were combined – and it makes sense as otherwise viewers would have been deluged with countless players involved.
Funny how if this were such a travesty of misrepresentation they couldnt find a better one. Those sound like loopholes to me. And if thats the worste of it, they did a pretty damn good job.
Also, as an aside, on the “drama depicts scenes that never happened”, there were quite a few scenes such as the one with the informant leaving his home, that might not have been completely or at all reported in the report that were added to give the viewer continuity that had nothing to do with affecting the factual accuracy – the libs just love exploiting this as if there were out and out lies.
Also, I did look around this site, and all I saw was a bunch of self congratulating liberals slapping each other on the ass. The typical response to dissent is “shut up, go away.” Don’t let me break up your daisychain.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:46 pmWow. All I can say is the left must truly be getting desperate to ramble on this long in awe of Slick doing nothing more than looking like a distracted old man having a tantrum. Folks, he didn’t smack anyone down, he just went off out of, apparently, guilt.
But hey, as long as you can all stick together and not see how most people are laughing about this, and at the left in general, you’ll be ok I suppose. That whole head-in-the-sand tactic has kept the left doddering along so far…
September 24th, 2006 at 7:48 pmjimma, do you just not remember the 1990s?
Whenever Clinton tried to do *anything* about terrorism and the like, the right claimed he was trying to distract people from whatever scandal the right had come up with at the time.
The people in power *now* were the ones stopping anti-terrorism efforts *then*.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:51 pmI strongly suggest reading this site by conservatives that were trying to smear Clinton. READ it… it makes the republicans look like total hippocrites…
http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm
just a couple copy pastes…
DID CLINTON LIE OR ABUSE POWER IN ORCHESTRATING RATIONALE FOR PRE-IMPEACHMENT WAR?
Robert Novak points out that (The Washington Post, 12/21/98, p. A29) “As Clinton took Palestinian applause in Gaza last Monday [December 14], secret plans were underway for an air strike coinciding with the House impeachment vote. The president had time to consult with Congress and the U.N. Security Council but took no step that might stay his hand.
Said John Hillen, an analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, ‘You know this is a “Wag the Dog”.’ He was referring to the movie about a fictitious U.S. president who stages a war in the Balkans to divert attention from a sex scandal.
WHO WILL SPEAK FOR THE CONSTITUTION?
As the Constitution makes clear, the President of the United States does have the authority to take defensive action against an aggressor nation, but he has no authority whatsoever to make war against a country which has neither attacked the United States or posed to do so.
LOTT, McCAIN, LUGAR, WARNER, AND HELMS BACK CLINTON’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL INITIATION OF WAR ON IRAQ
The New York Times (12/18/98, p. A20) reported that “Under criticism from both parties, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the majority leader, backed away from his charge that the strikes were linked to impeachment. After overnight reflection, he said, ‘I am satisfied this was a military decision.’…
“A parade of Republican Senators — including John McCain of Arizona, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, John W. Warner of Virginia and Jesse Helms of North Carolina — voiced support for the President’s decision to strike now. All are prominent party spokesmen on defense and foreign policy matters.”
CLINTON AND CONGRESS HAVE COMPROMISED U.S. DEFENSE ARSENAL MAKING WAR AGAINST A REGIME FAR LESS THREATENING THAN CHINA, RUSSIA, CUBA, OR KOREA
Joe Farah points out in his Between the Lines (12/18/98) that “As president, Bill Clinton has…squandered $5.5 billion (HOW MANY HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS HAS BUSH SQUANDERED?) in U.S. taxpayer dollars on containing the Iraqi threat — and that’s before the costly Desert Fox operation launched Wednesday. On Wednesday alone, some 200 cruise missiles were fired by the Navy at Iraqi targets. Each one of those high-tech bombs cost about $1 million. that’s $200 million right there, just on ordnance, in one day….”
September 24th, 2006 at 7:57 pmNick, its funny that Bush didn’t let the liberals bashing of him stop him. Are you saying Bill didn’t have the power to do anything, or he didn’t have the political will?
September 24th, 2006 at 8:02 pm# 309, “I heard it with my own ears on TV from the mouths of the very people you sited [sic]”
Oh, well…As long as Gerald “heard it with [his] own ears,” then I guess that settles it…
Hey, everybody, Gerald heard it with his own ears! Pleas disregard the numerous news accounts of the day from sources like CNN, PBS, and Newsday that completely contradict him!
Again, Gerald heard it with his own ears! So, that settles it!
September 24th, 2006 at 8:07 pm#321, Gerald,
I can only imagine that in posting this report from The New York Times in 1998, you are conceding that I was correct and you were wrong:
“A parade of Republican Senators — including John McCain of Arizona, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, John W. Warner of Virginia and Jesse Helms of North Carolina — voiced support for the President’s decision to strike now. All are prominent party spokesmen on defense and foreign policy matters.â€
It takes a big man to admit he was wrong, Gerald. Well done.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:12 pmAgain, Gerald heard it with his own ears! So, that settles it!
Comment by Exley
Heheh that was TERRIBLE timing on your part… I hate to rub it in … but look at my post just a couple posts above yours….
WE ALL HEARD IT WITH OUR EARS EVERY STINKING DAY FROM THE REPUBLICANS.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:13 pm#322, Well put, jimjamma. I raised the same point in posting #245:
2) What difference should it have made to Clinton even IF there were numerous “wag the dog†charges? He was the President of the United States, charged with protecting the nation’s security. If he thought it was in the best interests of national security to go after Al Qaeda full-throttle, he should have done so, criticism from the opposition be damned! To argue that Clinton did not go after Al Qaeda as hard as he should have because he was scared of “wag the dog†criticism does not put him in a very good light at all! He wouldn’t go after what he believed was a national security threat because he didn’t want to be criticized????? What kind of leader is that? If that is his excuse, that is downright pathetic (But definitely in keeping with Clinton’s reputation for wanting to be liked and popular more than wanting to do the right thing, no matter how difficult it might be)….President Bush has been excoriated by the media and the Democrats for his actions in Iraq. He has taken a hit in the polls…But he has continued to pursue the policy because he believes it is in the best interest of the nation’s security, all the while knowing that it is subjecting him to intense criticism.
For you and Gerald to argue that Clinton really, really wanted to go after Al Qaeda but couldn’t because some congressional Republicans may have accused him of “wagging the dog†is to argue that Clinton was unwilling to take the political heat for doing what he believed was best for national security…Is that REALLY the best defense you want to offer for Clinton’s insufficient actions against Al Qaeda?
September 24th, 2006 at 8:15 pm“A parade of Republican Senators — including John McCain of Arizona, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, John W. Warner of Virginia and Jesse Helms of North Carolina — voiced support for the President’s decision to strike now. All are prominent party spokesmen on defense and foreign policy matters.â€
It takes a big man to admit he was wrong, Gerald. Well done.
Comment by Exley
Try taking it out of context all you want… EVERYONE else can read it for themselves and see that TRENT LOTT, NOVAK, John Hillen (Council on Foreign Relations), Dan Burton, Arlen Spector, and many more WERE claiming WAG THE DOG….
Dont you EVER get sick of making yourself look like a fool?
I dont EVER have to make up anything… all I have to do is copy and paste the words that came our of your fool mouths.
Republicans == EMBARRASSMENT Todays Republican party makes a mockery out of Abraham Lincoln…
Thier OWN words condem their actions today. Read that link I left above….
September 24th, 2006 at 8:21 pm#325, Errrrr, Gerald, you feeling okay? Here is what you sent:
“A parade of Republican Senators — including John McCain of Arizona, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, John W. Warner of Virginia and Jesse Helms of North Carolina — voiced support for the President’s decision to strike now. All are prominent party spokesmen on defense and foreign policy matters.â€
Moreover, Gerald, I hate to kick a man when he’s down, the information contained in your posting deals with Clinton’s decision to launch Operation Desert Fox against Iraq and its WMDs facilities, which took place in December 1998….They do NOT address President Clinton’s cruise missile strike against Al Qaeda targets in Sudan and Afghanistan, which took place in August 1998.
You have confused two separate incidents.
Try again.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:21 pmAverageAmerican – I feel your pain – and I don’t mean that as sarcasm. Its nice to know that there are thinking people on the other side. You’d never be able to tell from 90% of the posts here.
Obviously there are unmovable opinions and thick heads on both sides, I think the most interesting discussion happens in the middle when people have an open mind – and I don’t mean the center, but that would be close enough.
What I really don’t understand is the motivation behind posters with personal attacks, curses, or the value that anyone derives from posting things as pointless as “Clinton rules.” I guess the internet appeals to that lowest common denominator to get their 2 cents in, or in this case their fractional cents. I think it also may appeal to the people who have a hard time communicating in the real world – thats probably more the cullprit.
Finally, I am definitely someone who believes in 2 stong parties that keep each other in check, and I don’t mean the ratios in the house and senate where that translates to inaction, I mean in the national pool of ideas where each side can learn from the other. Unfortunately both parties have double standards, both use sleazy tactics, both are primarily corrupt – what happened to the patriots?
September 24th, 2006 at 8:22 pmPlease realize that, no matter what you think of the Democrats (Harry, Nancy or Hillary, et. al.) if you don’t support them you will get more of the same old Bush & Co. incompetence and more outrageous wars, killings, bombings of Iran, the draft because our troops are strentched too thin, more national debt, more fraud and waste. The Democrats aren’t nice guys, either, but if we can elect them, we can restore for a time some sanity and balance. I refer here to all of the people who are disgusted with the Democrats for all the right reasons; but no vote for them will not change the status quo and will only get us more of it. So this time around vote Democratic, get your friends to vote Democratic, donate to the Democrats and at least restore them to the majority for a while.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:23 pmFor you and Gerald to argue that Clinton really, really wanted to go after Al Qaeda but couldn’t because some congressional Republicans may have accused him of “wagging the dog†is to argue that Clinton was unwilling to take the political heat for doing what he believed was best for national security…Is that REALLY the best defense you want to offer for Clinton’s insufficient actions against Al Qaeda?
Comment by Exley
Once again I didnt say that Clinton held back because of the little bitches the republicans… Clinton IGNORED THEM.
The reason Clinton failed is because he would have had to out right violate the U.S. Constitution to launch a preemptive war against a foreign nation. It is ILLEGAL for a president to do so and for very good reason. Clinton decided that there is NOTHING more important than the U.S. Constitution. Without the Constitution there is no AMERICA.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:26 pmI was a little to young to be paying a lot of attention when Clinton was president – was he always this good? Bush made an ass of himself in the Rose Garden the other day, but Clinton knows how to handle himself.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:27 pm[...] Then Sunday morning Bill Clinton took Chris Wallace and FOX News to task over attempts to rewrite history and put the onus of Sept. 11 on Clinton’s shoulders. If you haven’t seen it, it’s worth a few minutes, given how rare it is to see a politician – past or present – actually show some real emotion. [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 8:28 pmYou have confused two separate incidents.
Try again.
Comment by Exley
I confused nothing. WAG THE DOG is the title of the web page… it is in BOLD at the top in the center… it is also the name of the page itself.
Once again. How do you not feel embarrassed?
September 24th, 2006 at 8:28 pm#277 Iakeo. I’ve been trying to tell them the same; the loony-left extremism shown here is the greatest enemy of progressives.
#329 jimmajamma. Right on!
September 24th, 2006 at 8:29 pm#328
September 24th, 2006 at 8:42 pm#325, Errrrr, Gerald, you feeling okay? Here is what you sent:“A parade of Republican Senators — including John McCain of Arizona, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, John W. Warner of Virginia and Jesse Helms of North Carolina — voiced support for the President’s decision to strike now. All are prominent party spokesmen on defense and foreign policy matters.â€
It takes a big man to admit he was wrong, Gerald. Well done.
Comment by Exley
No, moron that’s what you posted, how very, very sad; but its understandable
It doesn’t matter what any of you trolls, alleged leftists, pompous gasbags, and assholierthanthou dudes say —
Bill Clinton kicked ass, and you just can’t stand it.
Not one thing you might say in response to this will change it. :-D
September 24th, 2006 at 8:43 pmComment by AverageAmerican
Keep shouting looney left! looney left! All you want. Maybe someone will believe you…. any day now… no not yet… better get LOUDER!. LOONEY LEFT! LOONEY LEFT!!! THEY GOT FACTS DONT LISTEN TO THEM! BECAUSE THEY ARE LOOOOOOOONEY!!!!
Mean while everyone can see for themselves on video and the Internet that the republicans…
1) Created the terrorists.
2) Armed and funded the terrorists
3) Complained when Clinton tried to destroy the terrorists
4) Wanted to invade Iraq instead
5) Was more concerned with a blow job than Bin Laden
6) Did NOTHING about the USS Cole
7) Did NOTHING about Al Qeada despites all the experts warning them all the way up to 9/11
8) Made only a token response to Al Qeada after 9/11 and then waged their pet war against Saddam
9) Support Pakistan and Saudi Arabia the SOURCE of the Al Qeada terrorists that attacked America on 9/11
The WHOLE world can see this for themselves… it has all been recorded and no one is going to let you rewrite history….
YOU LOSE.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:44 pmOh, Gerald…Poor little Gerald…You are reeling.
As I already explained, you have a quote from Robert Novak, a newspaper columnist, not a Republican official, who opposed both Gulf Wars. Okay, so that is irrelevant (Never mind that Novak’s quote has nothing to do with a wag the dog theory and is addressing the Dec. 1998 attacks against Iraq and its WMD facilities, not the strikes against Al Qaeda in August, 1998…Again, you arehopelessly (but very amusingly) confused.
Moreover, you dishonestly pretend that you did not read the August 1998 Newsday article in which Dan Burton is quoted as saying: But Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who has been aggressively investigating Clinton’s campaign-funding practices, took the opposite view. “I take the action for what it was – to stop the terrorists and to make them pay for what they did,†Burton said. “And that was the right thing to do. That’s coming from one of the president’s severest critics.â€
Oh, and Gerald, with regard to Trent Lott, AGAIN you are (rather embarassingly for you) confusing two separate events on two separate dates….The Trent Lott info you provide dealt with the 1998 Clinton-Blair attack against Iraq in December 1998. It does NOT apply to the AUGUST 1998 cruise missile attack against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan….
In fact, I have ALREADY provided in post 296 a Trent Lott quote from AUGUST 1998 in which Lott and other GOP congressional leaders commented on Clinton’s cruise missile strike against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan:
House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.Ca.), who had been alerted by the White House before the attack, praised the operation.
“I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow terrorist groups to attack embassies and do nothing,†Gingrich said.
Lott called the action “appropriate and just.â€
Newsay-August, 1998
So, please Gerald, stop embarassing yourself and get your dates and military strikes straight. We are discussing the August 1998 cruise missile strike against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistand and Sudan.
You are being blatantly dishonest (or hopelessly confused) in posting of information about Operation Desert Fox against Iraq’s WMD program four months later in December 1998 …
Try again, junior.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:49 pm#336, AHAHAHHAHAAHA, Oh, Ren, Once again you humiliate yourself. No, no, my poor little friend, I posted a NEWSDAY article in posting #296.
It was Gerald who posted the quote from THE NEW YORK TIMES in posting 321….
Y’see Ren, NEWSDAY and THE NEW YORK TIMES are two separate and distinct newspapers….So, your remarks in posting 336 is painfully (but to me VERY amusingly) wrong.
Say “Good night,” Ren…You are embarassing yourself. Heh!
September 24th, 2006 at 8:57 pmPresident Clinton rocked Chris Wallace and Fox News. Brilliant. Why can’t the Democrats put forward someone like him? Is there no one else in the party with his abilities? No one? Please…..
September 24th, 2006 at 8:58 pmTry again, junior.
Comment by Exley
I have nothing else to say to you on this… I suggest everyone go read the link I provided and to research for THEMSELVES not what I say nor Exley. Both I and Exley could disappear from this earth as if we never existed and all the truths still stand… go look them up for yourself. ALL the qoutes Exley provides by the republicans came AFTER they had a meeting after Clinton took action and they decided for the sake of their political careers they better go back out infront of the camera and RETRACT their earlier statements and say NOW we support Clinton (They were against him before they were for him) …
Nice try… and good night Exley… Once again I suggest every one read it for themselves and not take other peoples word for it… that way the truth gets out…
September 24th, 2006 at 9:03 pmSo, please Gerald, stop embarassing yourself and get your dates and military strikes straight. We are discussing the August 1998 cruise missile strike against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistand and Sudan.
Comment by Exley
Actually one more thing then I am off…
We are NOT discussing any particular date… show how in ANY WAY we are talking about some particular attack Clinton did….
We ARE talking about WAG THE DOG and how YOU EXLEY said it was a “Leftwing MYTH” …. it is no “myth” and to prove it all I had to do was qoute the neocons own words….
September 24th, 2006 at 9:05 pmSomeone wrote, “Priceless. Every time I see or hear Clinton speak (and even #41, to his credit) I’m reminded what a real President should sound like. How do we get one of those again?”
Here is another priceless quote, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”
September 24th, 2006 at 9:06 pm[...] I’m not a political expert. Not even close. but i am a big fan of Bill Clinton. The guys got balls and he did a lot for the American people but was unfortunately overshadowed by scandal. Check out the smack he gives Fox News. [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 9:08 pm#334, Heh! Gerald, you CONTINUE to confuse two separate events and military actions….We are discussing what President Clinton, in part, talked about today…His strikes against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in August, 1998 and his (and your) claim that he was criticized for that strikes with allegations of “wag the dog” by Republicans
For some bizarre and unfathomable reason, you provided a link from an obscure conservative Web site that is discussing Operation Desert Fox against Iraq in December 1998.
Once again, he is the title of the irrelevant post that Gerald tried to pass off as pertaining to the AUGUST 1998 strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan.:
Wag the Dog?
U.S. Policy on Iraq
The Conservative Caucus
10 reasons to oppose war on Iraq
Dated December 31, 1998
Do you understand your confusion yet, junior??????
Keep on trying, Gerald…I am enjoying watching you get hopelessly confused!
September 24th, 2006 at 9:08 pmSomeone wrote, “Priceless. Every time I see or hear Clinton speak (and even #41, to his credit) I’m reminded what a real President should sound like. How do we get one of those again?”
Here is another priceless quote, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky”.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:08 pmThank you, jeezus, for Bill! At last, at last, someone who could afford to and did cut one of these kneejerk mouthpieces a new one!
September 24th, 2006 at 9:15 pm#343, No, Gerald, sorry, you don’t get off that easy….We were discussing your (and Clinton’s) inane claim that it was accusations that Clinton was “wagging the dog” in AUGUST 1998 when he launched his cruise missile strikes against AL QAEDA targets in AFGHANISTAN and SUDAN that prevented him from pursuing more vigorous efforts against Osama Bin Laden. As I proved by posting articles from AUGUST and SEPTEMBER 1998, Republican congressional and mainstream conservative publications SUPPORTED that August 1998 strike against Afghanistan and Sudan.
But then you got confused and started posting (irrelevant) information talking about Operation Desert Fox launched against IRAQ and its WMD facilities in December 1998, which has completely NOTHING to do with the August 1998 strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan.
Okay, now that we have got your confusion cleared up, you may go away. But try and do a better job in keeping your history straight next times…Okay, skippy????
September 24th, 2006 at 9:17 pm#349As I proved by posting articles from AUGUST and SEPTEMBER 1998, Republican congressional and mainstream conservative publications SUPPORTED that August 1998 strike against Afghanistan and Sudan.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:25 pmBut then you got confused and started posting (irrelevant) informationComment by Exley — September 24, 2006 @ 9:17 pm
You suck the worst..according to you everything is irrelevant, what a chump. I quoted to you Novak and other repugnatcan reporters and they are “irrelevant”;your worthless…
Techmom
Oh Come on! Chavez said more in one hour about Bush than all the Dems, Clintons, Gores have said in going on 6 years. Chavez outdid the dems and so they attack Chavez for calling Bush El Diablo.
Well he is the devil. And the devil is in the details.
But the Clintons and the Dems want to ignore the details too.
Another thing Chavez did was to publicize Chomsky’s book “Hegemony or Survival”, which caused CSPAN Book talk to replay a 2004 speech by Chomsky. It is a treasure. And in response to a question about Nation States.. a long response… Chomsky talks briefly about NAFTA and Clinton. And he says to paraphrase “… in 1994 after NAFTA was signed, Clinton militarized the Mexican American Border in Operation Gatekeeper. The militarization was intended to stop the flow of people while allowing the flow of capital.”
And so witness today – the pear trees in California are dropping their fruit to the ground unpicked because the Mexican workers are staying in Mexico in droves in fear of the immigration debacle.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:28 pmx
September 24th, 2006 at 9:31 pmxx
September 24th, 2006 at 9:31 pmcomments are not being posted
September 24th, 2006 at 9:32 pmcomments are not being posted again
September 24th, 2006 at 9:32 pmThe leader of the 93 Towers attack was captured during the Clinton during the Clinton administration. Hes Ramzi Youself
September 24th, 2006 at 9:50 pmClinton was my hero when he was in office is so still. That is a good man and I knew there would be a time when we would go to bed praying for those times again.
We are in hell now.
Anyone who says there is no double standard between Republicans and Dems is out right lying or stupid. Look at weight Republican lies: =Nixon and Watergate; Regan and Iran contra; GW Bush and Iraq. But when Clinton wants to cover up a blow job, you’d think the world was coming unhinged. Shameful.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:53 pmCan you imagine Bush referring to Matt Lauer with a little smirk on his face or lunging at him poking at him?
Nope, because Bush has class.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:54 pm[...] Video of Bill Clinton’s interview on FOX Sunday Morning with Chris Wallace. [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 10:01 pmNope, because Bush has class.
Comment by Mr. Big — September 24, 2006 @ 9:54 pm
OHHHHH MYYYYY GODDDDDD!!!!!!! LOARD HELP US ALL!!!!!!!!!!!
September 24th, 2006 at 10:03 pmMr Big,
Have you even seen GWB lately? He has a smirk for everyone!
Clinton has more class than GWB ever even heard of. Look up the definition, if you doubt me.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:05 pmCan you imagine Bush referring to Matt Lauer with a little smirk on his face or lunging at him poking at him?
Nope, because Bush has class.
Comment by Mr. Big
AWWWWWW Did the big bad Clinton make your conservative hit man look like a woman by putting his hand on his knee over and over as Clinton lorded over him???
Clinton is Mr. Big. And you conservatives are only suits with puffed out chests… get over it. Ned Flanders.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:07 pmLOARD HELP US ALL!!!!!!!!!!
September 24th, 2006 at 10:09 pmOOOP’s I meant Lord….
NOPE, BECAUSE bUSH HAS CLASS
LORD HELP US ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By the way a fart could blow away the fog of “patriotism” around this classy president.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:11 pmJust my 2 cents:
GWB has “little man” syndrome.
Clinton doesn’t have to prove a thing. ;)
(little Sunday snark for you)
September 24th, 2006 at 10:15 pm[...] I don’t always agree with Bill Clinton, but he sure cheered me up today. I was starting to think he’d completely lost his mind, hanging about with the Bushes. CLINTON: Now, I will answer all those things on the merits, but first I want to talk about the context in which this arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network. ABC just had a right- wing conservative run in their little “Pathway to 9/11,” falsely claiming it was based on the 9/11 Commission report, with three things asserted against me directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report. And I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn’t do enough said I did too much — same people. They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in “Black Hawk down,” and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations. OK, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Usama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of ‘93. … Now, if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: After the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would’ve had to send a few hundred Special Forces in helicopters and refuel at night. Even the 9/11 Commission didn’t do that. Now, the 9/11 Commission was a political document, too. All I’m asking is, anybody who wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted. So you did Fox’s bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me. What I want to know is … how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, “Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole?” I want to know how many you asked, “Why did you fire Dick Clarke?” I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get Bin Laden. I regret it but I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending special forces into Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise…We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. Until I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that’s strange. [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 10:17 pm[...] President Bill Clinton was interviewed on Fox News about his terrorism record, which he sets straight. Having read Richard Clarke’s Against All Enemies, I think it’s awesome that Clinton himself got a chance on America’s most conservative popular news network to debunk the things that the conservative spinsters have been saying about his administration since 9/11. Once again, shame on Fox. They’re hurting America. del.icio.us this! [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 10:26 pmDer, tureen, I know that logic is not one of the right-wing’s strong suits…just wait a few minutes.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:30 pmWhat a beautiful thing; Chris was left smirking in the dust.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:31 pmDems take notice: this is how the right wing needs to be
handled. Intellect and the facts must always surface over
the lies and misinformation this administration spews.
[...] So, finally, Bill Clinton has his say, and he has it on Fox News, where it tells Chris Wallace to “sit there with that smug look on your face”. (By the way, there is a point where Bill Clinton asks Chris Wallace why he has never asked a Bush administration representative the same questions he is asking him, to which Wallace replies that he has and Clinton basically calls him a liar. Think Progress has done fact checking, and it looks like Clinton wins this round. Wallace in fact has had at least three opporunities to ask the same questions surrounding the 9/11 attacks and has never done so.) [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 10:33 pmFox news is the trashiest stationt hat existed under moon, and this reporter is epitomy of scum. This is disgrace to tv and news in general. Get your facts straight you uneducated moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
September 24th, 2006 at 10:54 pmThis is a complete sham! How does anyone expect me to believe this garbage? I couldn’t see any transmitter in the back of Clinton’s suit. Clinton didn’t have a notebook to read from. As far as I could tell, there were no teleprompters. Do you left wing nuts expect me to believe a President of the United States could speak honestly, sincerely, and intelligently about such a topic after being taken so off guard? This is BS, I believe Fox is now going over to the dark left side.
From now on, I’m only watching the Falwell network, where I KNOW I’ll only hear God’s word. I thought Fox was God’s mouthpiece, but after watching this disgraceful ass-whooping of Chris Wallace I’m ashamed to be a neocone. Please people, let us set our sites upon the “NEW WORLD ORDER”!
Just kidding, Way To Go Big Dog! God I miss you! For we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Due to Your amazing grace, we are allowed to when we realize our weakness and ask Your forgiveness. Bill Clinton has been granted forgiveness. George Bush has never asked!
To quote Jesus, “Peace”.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:59 pmHere is another priceless quote, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinskyâ€.
Comment by BAXtard — September
My favorite has always been Reagan: “”A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that is true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.”
September 24th, 2006 at 11:04 pmIt’s Clinton, he can lie his way out of anything.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:13 pmUninspiring. Same old clinton spin and self-promotion.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:16 pmIt’s Clinton, he can lie his way out of anything.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:18 pmComment by Roman — September 24, 2006 @ 11:13 pm
Your an asshole, you can believe anything…
Clinton ripped right through Fox News Bullshit! I hope the rest of the Democrats running for office are taking notes.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:18 pmFor this Republican controlled congress
LIES about a BLOWJOB = impeachment
An INTELLIGENCE SNOWJOB = so far not one person has been held accountable.
These are the priorties of this twisted and sick Republican controlled congress.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:23 pmFrank Zappa
Broadway the Hardway (1988)
When The Lie’s So Big
They got lies so big
They don’t make a noise
They tell ‘em so well
Like a secret disease
That makes you go numb
With a big ol’ lie
And a flag and a pie
And a mom and a bible
Most folks are just liable
To buy any line
Any place, any time
When the lie’s so big
As in Robertson’s case,
(That sinister face
Behind all the Jesus hurrah)
Could result in the end
To a worrisome trend
In which every American
Not ‘born again’
Could be punished in cruel and unusual ways
By this treacherous cretin
Who tells everyone
That he’s Jesus’ best friend
When the lie’s so big
And the fog gets so thick
And the facts disappear
The Republican Trick
Can be played out again
People, please tell me when
We’ll be rid of these men!
Just who do they really
Suppose that they are?
And how did they manage to travel as far
As they seem to have come?
Were we really that dumb?
People, wake up
Figure it out
Religious fanatics
Around and about
The Court House, The State House,
The Congress, The White House
Criminal saints
With a ‘Heavenly Mission’ –
A nation enraptured
By pure superstition
When the lie’s so big
September 24th, 2006 at 11:26 pmAnd the fog gets so thick
And the facts disappear
The Republican Trick
Can be played out again
People, please tell me when
We’ll be rid of these men!
James Hudnall,
September 24th, 2006 at 11:26 pmAre you really as stupid as you sound? Several of the terrorists involved in the 93 WTC bombing were convicted and imprisoned under Clinton’s watch. Bush invaded Iraq and has made us less safe in doing so. You come here and spew your boilerplate anti-Clinton lines like we never heard those lies before. Wake the f@ck up. 9-11 happened on your hero, George W. Bush’s watch. He was asleep at the switch.
This is why we shouldn’t back down and ignore “Path to 9/11″ as a movie that past. Its typical of the problems with the democratic party.
There is no single voice or place to go to that organizes a movement to say that broadcasting a slanderous propaganda campaign movie is NOT acceptable. And that broadcasting such as film carries consequences. Where are the boycotts? Where is the petition to revoke ABC’s FCC license?
Instead the democratic party just move on to another topic confusing people who can’t remember much.
I’m ecstatic to see President Clinton stand up and defend himself and point the finger at the conservatives who keep rewriting history and namecalling without anyone complaining.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:27 pmI’m amazed at people that are so upset that Clinton lied about a blowjob…
Yet Bush lies repeatedly and still does and kills 2700 of our men and women, injures 20,000, kills countless Iraqies, trashes America’s reputation in the world and insights 1 billion people or more to dislike the US… yet Bush is a great president? And no one complains about what he does????
This includes at least the 42% who still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
What are these people smoking? Can someone explain to me who is controlling the puppet stings on the conservative propaganda machine?
September 24th, 2006 at 11:31 pmFantastic job on Clinton’s part. Great man.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:32 pmOk…so Bill Clinton yelled back…I dont think that the Dems should use him as a model for anything except maybe a cheerleader or inspirational speaker.
Forget the blowjob crap…history records many a President with extramarital affairs AND its between he and his Wife anyway.
When he left office he let fly with pardons of some of the worst fricking people around…so bad that they were living offshore in a country where they would not be expodited from and they were financial friends of his or he was indebted to them in some way. He basically waited until he was almost out the exit door and pulled some cowardly thing like that. To get all comfortable and snuggly with him because he reared up on his hind legs should not lead to electing his wife as President.
We get the Government we deserve.
I will admit that to watch FOX get it back was good feeling and its time we demanded real news from them and NOT a popularity contest in which “News” centers are propoganda machines.
.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:33 pmBush was worse than asleep at the switch. They’d like to you to believe that.
He went out of his way to turn off the switch. He ignored Al Qaida. From day one he just cared about Iraq and going after Hussein who had threatened his daddy.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:34 pmIt’s Bush, he can lie his way INTO anything…
September 24th, 2006 at 11:40 pmThis is from 1996 WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.”We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue,” Clinton said during a White House news conference.
But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.
One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives “a phony issue.”
Taggants value disputed
Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.
“What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don’t let it overcome the areas of agreement,” he said.
The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would help move the legislation along. The president stressed it’s important to get the legislation out before the weekend’s recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.
“The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out — that they give us as much help as they can,” he said.
Hatch blasts ‘phony’ issues
Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for about an hour in response to the president’s call for “the very best ideas” for fighting terrorism.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, “These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they’re not going to get.”
Hatch called Clinton’s proposed study of taggants — chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists — “a phony issue.”
“If they want to, they can study the thing” already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president’s proposals to expand wiretapping.
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:41 pmhttp://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
Clinton is a liar. He lied while in office. And now he’s a whiny liar.
It’s a legitimate question which he went off on. He could have simply answered the question, which he never did. As usual.
“Why didn’t you do more and connect the dots?” He never answers that but to say that no one would support him to go after Bin Laden. Umm… excuse me… you were President. You could have landed a large military force if you wanted to… It’s not like you would have been attacking a large military force and needed a huge beach head to come in on to establish a foot hold. A few MOAB bombs would clear a nice little path.
Bush has been asked the question on Bin Laden a few hundred times by the media. Once again, Clinton is off his rocker just like his wife is off hers.
I stupidly voted for that guy twice just because there was no one who was a better candidate at the time. He wasn’t a great choice, but
September 24th, 2006 at 11:43 pm[...] And since jet lag does not seem to be a prob, I will unfortunately go back to work tomorrow. Uhhh, what I meant to say was that I am so looking forward to going to work tomorrow so I can read 3 weeks worth of emails. Yeah, that’s better. Should I mention that I am already thinking about what it would take to move to china at the end of summer 2007? And for those that did not see it today, Faux’s Chris Wallace had an interview with Bill Clinton that aired this morning that was not the normal political interview – Clinton admitted his short-comings, defended his record and slamed the fox media establishment for lying to him about what the subject matter of the interview. I watched the video and read some of the transcripts on Think Progress. It will be interesting to see the fallout of this over the next couple of days. I am quite sure that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report will have some interesting things to say. September 24th, 2006 at 8:47 pm [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 11:45 pmFrom day one he just cared about Iraq and going after Hussein who had threatened his daddy.
Comment by d+m
You’re probably right dm, but I think GWB went after Saddam because he just had to prove to his daddy that he has bigger balls — can out do daddy.
My reasoning comes from a statement GWB made before the Iraq War, where a reporter asked GWB if he’d talked to his dad about going into Iraq, and he said something like, no, I talked to god — something like that — completely disrespecting Bush 41.
That struck me wrong, and it was one of the first indicators from GWB’s own mouth, that going into Iraq was going to be a massive clusterf*ck.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:47 pmd+m
you are ridiculous with that thought about bush. Iraq was and still is an important part of the middle east agenda.
You establish a democratic foothold in the region and you threaten Iran’s ability to control their citizens as well as an insertion point to attack them from if they were ever to attack Israel.
Stop listening to the talking points you get from the democratic party. Start using that grey matter between your ears.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:47 pmIt’s about time somebody dressed down Wallace. Now can we please get Clinton or someone else to dress down O’Reilly, Hannity, Cavuto and the rest of the Crox news goofballs?!
September 24th, 2006 at 11:49 pmUh, Clinton’s pardons? These pardons are of no concern to us. pResident GHWBush pardoned Ollie North, John Negroponte, and other criminals which are enjoying popularity as “experts”. God, please save us?
September 24th, 2006 at 11:55 pmBubba,
Have you ever lied before? If so, does that make you a “liar?”
It always goes back to Monica Lewinski for you idiots, doesn’t it? “If Clinton lied about sex, he’d lie about everything, right?”
Dammit- Bush has been President since 2001. 9-11 happened on Bush’s watch. Bin Laden still roams the country side. Al Quaida is planning new mischief. Afghanistan is re-infested with Taliban types. Iraq is spinning into a civil war based on secular differences. There is more tension in the middle east now then in recent memory.
Domestically things aren’t much better. Health care costs are still soaring. Wages are still stagnating. College tuitions are skyrocketing. The national debt is gigantic.
What has Bush done? Think about it. Think about why most Americans think Bush is doing a rotten job. Think about why you’re fixated on attacking Clinton and defending Bush. Perhaps you should start using that grey matter between your ears.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:56 pmDress down Wallace? Clinton made a fool of himself. He wouldn’t get back on his own subject because he’s too emotional about a question Clinton could have simply answered, ” I think my earlier statement has addressed those issues.” (For those who don’t get the reference… listen to Clinton’s deposition on the Lewinsky stuff.)
It’s the job of a journalist to ask questions, and not throw softball questions up for the subject so they can get their message across. Clinton agreed to allow this type of quesitoning, as Wallace states prior to the airing of the interview.
It’s Clinton who looks bad here because he couldn’t control himself. (Gee… sounds familiar.)
September 25th, 2006 at 12:02 amIt’s Clinton who looks bad here because he couldn’t control himself. (Gee… sounds familiar.)
Comment by Bubba — September 25, 2006 @ 12:02 am
Oh come on. Don’t you ever get tired of telling the same lies? We saw the interview. An objective viewer couldn’t only conclude that Wallaces ham fisted ambush blew up in his face.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:34 amMind you, Kudos to FOX for airing the whole thing.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:34 amGood for Bill! I hate right-winger shits like Wallace that think they’re so smart. Nice set up and nice try Fox.
Clinton speaks the truth. Bush is sketchy as hell. Americans should vote Bill back in office. The fact of the matter is is that 9/11 occured when Bush was in power, not Clinton. So what if rumour has it that Bill got blowed by an intern; Bush is sending troops to get blown away – much worse.
I hope one day Bill gets voted back in – at least he was an honest and nice guy.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:40 amI vote for politicians from both parties. I simply can not identify with either party completely; but I feel safer with the Republicans than I do with the Democrats. Get me to my warm fuzzy place again and I will probably vote Democrat again, but not until then. Read on to see why.
It seems to be commonly accepted that 9/11 was an Intelligence failure. What no one seems to be looking into is how such a failure could have happened. Could it be that Clinton reduced the funding to all of the intelligence agencies by 30 to 35% during his administration? Yes! In the Clinton administration review of the need for Security P.L. 103-359 “Finally, the post-Cold War period, for the near-term, is apt to be marked by a continued decIine ih real federal spending. During the Cold War, few intelligence capabilities seemed “too costly if national security interests were at stake. This has change d in the post-Cold War environment, and intelligence capabilities which are not productive, efficient or responsive to the needs of Government need to be trimmed or eliminated. New systems will be assessed not simply for what they can do but for whether they are “affordable.” In light of the continuing need to reduce the federal budget deficit, this trend is likely to continue.”
Key to this is the NSA that is tasked with intercepting and gathering intelligence from the telecommunications and keeping our telecommunications safe. Imagine a 35% cut while the industry you are suppose to keep on top of is growing to a multibillion dollar industry and for the first time in history truly going global with the internet and the seemingly endless creation of new encryption software.
Clinton had this idea that the world was safe so security can be relaxed. Clinton E.O. 12958, Aptil 17, 1995 “Protecting information critical to our Nation’s security remains a priority. In recent years, however, dramatic changes have altered, although not eliminated, the national security threats that we confront. These changes provide a greater opportunity to emphasize our commitment to open Government.” This demonstrates to me that he did not have a real grasp on the state of the world. He also passed E.O. 12978, 13129 … basically saying we could not get foreign intelligence from ‘dirty’ sources; drug dealers, taliban, … just the kind of people that know what the ‘dirt’ is.
In considerastion of all of this you might think Clinton was completely out of touch, but was he? In E.O. 13129, July 4, 1999 he states “I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of the Taliban in Afghanistan, in allowing territory under its control in Afghanistan to be used as a safe haven and base of operations for Usama bin Ladin and the Al-Qaida organization who have committed and threaten to continue to commit acts of violence against the United States and its nationals, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.” That National Emergency was not a part of any of his major speaches, such as the State of the Union. On those occassions everything was reported to be wonderful.
In January 1993 Clinton takes office as the President of the U.S.
Result: Clinton starts cutting military and intelligence budgets. An Executive Order eliminates human intelligence gathering, the most direct and reliable source of information gathering.
In 1993 Al Qaeda with a Somali warlord brings down a U.S. Blackhawk helicopter leading to the killing of several U.S. military personnel.
Result: The U.S. is shown to be vulnerable. Evidence of Al Qaeda’s involvement is not provided to the U.S. public. Clinton pulls the U.S. military out of Somalia. The U.S. military is embarrassed, and the U.S. is shown to have very little resolve in the face of adversity.
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which kills six and injures
1,000; Clinton promises that those responsible will be hunted down and punished.
Result: Al Qaeda is identified as the attacker. A hand full of terrorists lead by a blind cleric are arrested and jailed. Osama Bin Laden is identified as a co-conspirator. Al Qaeda proves they can attack U.S. soil with some success.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which kills five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promises that those responsible will be hunted down and punished.
Result: Al Qaeda is identified as the attacker. A hand full of terrorists are arrested and jailed in Saudia Arabia. Al Qaeda proves they can now attack off duty U.S. military overseas successfully.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which kills 19 and injures 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promises that those responsible will be hunted down and punished.
Result: Al Qaeda is identified as the attacker. One terrorist cell is arrested and jailed in Saudia Arabia. Al Qaeda proves they can successfully attack the U.S. military where they live overseas.
In 1998 Osama Bin Laden calls for Arabs to kill Americans everywhere. After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which kills 224 and injures 5,000; Clinton promises that those responsible will be hunted down and punished. Iraq is suspected of involvement. Clinton calls for an Iraqi regime change.
Result: No action is taken to effect a regime change in Iraq. Al Qaeda is identified as the attacker. The under funded intelligence agencies do not have current intelligence information. The U.S. bombs one Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, but key Al Qaeda leaders are not anywhere near the site. Al Qaeda proves they are bold enough to attack the U.S. diplomatic leaders overseas successfully, with minimal retaliation from the U.S.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which kills 17 and injures 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promises that those responsible will be hunted down and punished.
Result: Again Al Qaeda is identified as the attacker. Al Qaeda is now organized well enough to successfully attack the U.S. military at their overseas duty stations.
Al Qaeda is the attacker each time and each time they become bolder. Through out it all Clinton withholds any significant response while he cuts Intelligence and Military spending budgets.
In January 2001 George W. Bush takes office as the President of the U.S. Just nine months later, on September 11, 2001; airliners crash into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania farm field as the result of a failed mission presumably against the White House; resulting in over 3,000 dead and over 20,000 injured.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:41 amResult: Al Qaeda is identified as the attacker and Osama Bin Laden as the master mind behind the attack, supported by the Taliban government in Afghanistan. This proves they can attack U.S. soil with major impact, including financial centers, military headquarters, and an apparent attempt on our seat of government. President George W. Bush starts fulfilling Clinton’s promises ‘that those responsible will be hunted down and punished.’ President George W. Bush declares war on terrorism and rebuilds the Intelligence and Military spending budgets. Bush attacks Al Qaeda on their soil, overseas, where they live, their financing, their terrorist training sites, and their leadership. The Taliban regime is eliminated and a new government established in Afghanistan. The Al Qaeda leadership is on the run and in hiding. The Iraqi regime is toppled and a new government is being set up. The U.S. has now gotten bolder; finally.
Tell the truth, Chris. Tell the truth, Chris….
-
September 25th, 2006 at 12:46 amI can forgive the blowjob and envy the guy…
But what about all the deaths that surrounded the Clinton White House?
The guy that could have sealed his fate, McDougle, passes away in prison. Ron Brown killed in a plane crash and Clinton faking a tear at his funeral. And then members of his administration taking classified papers out of buildings in their socks…
Clinton got the economy hopping…but he was a dishonest philandering womanizer who couldn’t tell the truth unless he was caught in a lie. If we could have only caught him in more before the bodies started piling up in Washington and Arkansas.
And no…Bush is no Saint. He took us to Iraq without finishing the job in Afganistan but probably because he was unsure of a second term. We now have to finish both jobs or face an even more unstable Middle East.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:48 am“Think about why you’re fixated on attacking Clinton and defending Bush. Perhaps you should start using that grey matter between your ears”
Redieg-
Um… read the stuff here. Some people here may be fixated on attacking Bush W, Bush H and Reagan. and about how much they lie.
I personally don’t feel the war in Iraq or Afghanistan are going as they should. I’m willing to say it’s been handled badly, especially recently. But if you listen to the democrats the way it is going is exactly the way they want. Now they’ve got the “smart” idea to pull out all the troops because soldiers are dying… I hate to tell people… soldiers die… it’s part of war. And I’d rather have that war somewhere else than in my city.
As for the “War on Terrorism” or the “War on Islamic Fundamentalism” or the “War on Yellow Cakey Yummy Yummy.”… Afghanistan and Iraq are both going to have to learn to fend for themselves. Acutally I heard on the news that somethin like 27 out of 31 Afghan leaders met and agreed to kick out the taliban. Sounds like they are finally taking responsibilty for their own country. The US can’t support them forever. They have to develop and grow. There will always be people who hate America… and there isn’t any reason to appease everyone all the time.
As for this country and where we are… are you smokin’ something? The economy is doing good. The percentage of people without jobs is below 6%. If you want a job… you can get it. If you want to accept a job that pays you too little… you can. If you want to work to better yourself and your place in life.. you can. If you want to work hard and pay for college… you can. Wages aren’t stagnating. They are higher than they were last year or the year before that or the year bofore that. Health care costs aren’t soaring… get a job with beniefits. Better yet… get a union job so you don’t even have to work to get those benifits.
And as for lying… yes if you lie repeatedly… you are a liar. It sort of defines it. I love people who defend that with the excuse that if you lie once then you aren’t a liar. I’m not stuck on Clinton and Lewinsky. But it wasn’t like he just said it one time. As I said, i voted for the guy twice. I was an idiot and have learned the errors of my ways.
I’understand who actually wants to help America now. That isn’t Republicans. Nor is it Democrats. They are both in it for the power. The American people have to pull themselves out of the crap they themselves create or are dealt by life.
As for what has Bush done domestically…Bush stimualted an economy that was slowing as Clinton left office. Bush took charge of terrorism by not just sitting back and saying, “Hey that aint fair.”
Bush did some things right… he’s done some things wrong. He trusted the CIA and other countries intelligence agencies to give him good intel. He also saw an opportunity to go into Iraq, free a few million people from an overlord dictator and his evil sons, and give Iran something else to think about. He took the war to the middle east.. instead of in our streets.
He isn’t the best President. He’s made mistakes. But he’s better than either of the alternatives we had at the time.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:49 amClinton defended himself well and reminded everybody he’s no idiot.
Since I am way way past the ignorance of the majority of America, I will simply ask this: If you voted for the fool in office, what are you complaining about?
September 25th, 2006 at 12:55 am“An objective viewer couldn’t only conclude that Wallaces ham fisted ambush blew up in his face.”
Brian
Perhaps you need to see the unedited portion… This one is edited at the beginning.
And you are right… an objective viewer “couldn’t only conclude” Clinton was way too emotional about the subject and felt ambushed because he had to answer a legitimate question about his presidency. And something that is a legitimate quesiton in the current climate. It’s not like recent events haven’t brought up terrorism and Bin Laden.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:56 amI’m not Chris. They did not use the handle I provided “
September 25th, 2006 at 12:56 amYo anon…..
The US has not gotten bolder, they have made IRAN extremists stronger.
Honestly, I don’t care if you ever vote again for either Repub or Democrat because your reasoning is simplisitc at best. Neither goverments in Afghanistan or Iraq will be stable without an economic basis. Otherwise the extremist ideologies are fueled by discontent.
Right now the extremists are winning.
You can’t just blow roots of extremism away with good intent.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:59 amZooey, #154, I did receive some feedback, and posted the following reply:
“We were referring to the resposne (sic) to terrorism generally, not specifically to the Cole attack.”
So, Clinton was referencing the Cole attack and you come back with a non-sequitor. At any rate, Clinton created an anti-terrorism policy where none had existed before. If you’re going to throw out insinuations, please have your research ready and include links to back up your assertions.
“We are all for full investigation, but not for partisan witch hunts by Democrats who agreed with the president and the international consensus before the invasion that Iraq was a threat, had WMD, and was a state sponsor of terrorism.”
Yet the information the Democrats had available to them was incomplete, cherry-picked propaganda, designed to influence the march to war. “The facts were being fixed around the policy.” Have you not read the Downing Street Memo? If so, then your citing Democratic agreement with the President is knowlingly presenting a fallacious argument. Bush began dropping bombs on Iraq the day before the IAEA report was due to be released. A report which showed Iraq had not been able to do anything under the UN sanctions.
What sort of investigation would not be cast as a partisan witch-hunt? Would you support a Democratic Congress holding an impeachment inquiry? Would you support a special prosecutor with a $40 million budget? Would you support an International Tribunal for War Crimes?
“U.S. action has not killed tens of thousands, it the insurgents who are doing that. ”
Here’s an article from before the insurgency began in earnest:
At least 20,000 civilians were injured in the Iraq war: Why are the occupiers ignoring their suffering and their needs? August 7th 2003 http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial_aug0703.php
And in a story about the Lancet article:
“Iraq death toll ’soared post-war’
Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a “climate of violence” have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim.Violent deaths were mainly attributed to coalition forces – and most individuals reportedly killed were women and children. Friday, 29 October, 2004″ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm
Now, do you have any support for your assertion that the insurgents caused these deaths?
“Such allegations [of international war crimes] are made only by nuts and opponents of the U.S.”
Then you dismiss me either as a nut and an opponent of the U.S.? I have studied International Law, including a course in Fundamental Rights taught by a Supreme Court Justice. I have been to on-site seminars in the Peace Palace in the Hague, the Council of Europe, and the European Court of Human Rights. I was one of 5 members of my law school’s International Law Competition Team. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Bush’s treatment of detainees violates international law. Rendition, torture and secret prisons are all international crimes which Bush has already publically admitted.
If the regime in control of the United States condones torture, condones renditions to secret prisons, condones holding a person without a hearing nor charges for years, condones cluster bombs in civilian populated areas, condones white phosphorous in civilian areas, places itself above international law and human rights, and initiates a war of agression against a sovereign country based on pretext, then I will oppose such a regime.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:04 amAnonymous lol I see why you post under that screen-name as a GOP attack dog troll!
September 25th, 2006 at 1:19 amSeptember 25th, 2006 at 1:22 am
Exley, you seem incapable of doing even the most rudimentary internet searches.
“Wag the Dog” “Clinton”
http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm
September 25th, 2006 at 1:23 amDecember 31, 1998
This is fascinating, from The Conservative Caucus
February 15, 1998
A little historical perspective:
There are at least ten reasons why America should not now make war on Iraq, even if it were certain that such an effort would be “successful”:
1) President William J. Clinton lacks the moral authority to function properly as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States.
2) The Number One business of the nation at this time should be the removal from office of William J. Clinton.
3) It is unconstitutional for America to go to war without a Congressional declaration of war.
4) Given the present set of facts, there is no Constitutional predicate on the basis of which Congress has the authority to initiate war, even with a declaration of war.
[Bush took care of this. "The facts were fixed around the policy [of going to war].” Downing Street Memo.]
5) Wars of defense are morally appropriate. Foreign wars for purposes other than national defense are not.
6) In war, there is no substitute for victory. Victory, as commonly understood, with respect to an assault on Iraq, has not been defined, let alone declared to be the objective of any such attack.
7) The Federal government’s ability to provide for the common defense (of the United States) is substantially diminished in consequence of resources expended during President Bush’s “Operation Desert Storm”. Not only have America’s arsenal and battle-ready personnel resources not been fully restored, they have, in fact, been radically depleted since Desert Storm, in consequence of massive reductions in Congressionally authorized spending for the defense of the United States (even as expenditures for U.N. intervention operations and other “social policy objective” activities have risen). Defense analyst Peter Schweizer, now at the Hoover Institution, who favors air strikes, nonetheless observes that “[t]hanks to military cutbacks, we don’t have anything close to the force that won Desert Storm. In 1991, the U.S. Air Force had 24 fighter wings to draw from. Today it only has 13. That means fewer planes and (even more importantly) pilots. Desert Storm was fought with two Marine divisions, seven active Army divisions, and combat brigades of two additional divisions. Now, that commitment alone would exhaust all of the Army’s 10 active divisions.” (Source: USA Today, 2/18/98, p. 15A)
[Rumsfeld, "You don't go to war with the army you want, you go to war with the army you have."]
8) The strategic position of the United States in the world may be diminished, rather than enhanced, by an attack on Iraq. Many regimes friendly to the United States will be placed at severe risk if they are seen to assist, or even favor, the U.S. attack.
9) If we “succeed”, what have we gained? If we don’t begin a war, what have we lost?
10) War has consequences which are often unintended and almost always beyond comprehensive anticipation. If we and our “allies” join to attack Iraq, Iraq and its allies may combine to attack us in ways which cannot be fully foreseen. How many planes will crash? How many water supplies will be polluted? How many nuclear weapons will be detonated? How many civilian targets will be made subject to terrorist assault? Will chemical weapons be deployed?
The fundamental issue is whether Bill Clinton’s military action against Iraq is important enough to die for. I am prepared to die in defense of God, family, and country—but I don’t believe that this preemptive strike against Iraq is worth dying for. Ask yourself: is it worth your life, or that of your spouse, your child, your parent, or your neighbor?
So, Conservatives focused upon impeaching Bill Clinton above all else.
Then, with Bush in office, they somehow managed to forget all of their own warnings.
Ask yourself: is it worth your life, or that of your spouse, your child, your parent, or your neighbor?
September 25th, 2006 at 1:31 amFox New’s is nothing but a grand deception campaign. Their statement: “FAIR AND BALANCED REPORTING” should somehow be illegal. Shouldn’t it? I remember the days when if a news program offered a strong opinion, they had to give equal time to a rebuttal. But Congress struck that law down during the Reagon era. WE NEED TO REIGN IN THESE HEAVILY OPINIONED “NEWS” PROGRAMS THAT CLAIM TO BE WALKING A NEUTRAL POSITION!!!! Or at the very least, we need a law requiring a clear DISCLAIMER, –like info-mercials…(!) …”This broadcast is the opinion (bought & paid for) of the Republican party….” So that people realize what they are watching. Otherwise they get misled, — it is deception. We need to be protected from these kinds of lies…, it should be illegal. \ What happened to real journalism? Yes, Clinton was great.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:38 amFaire > did you notice all the posts by AverageAmerican on all the TP threads today? He seems to be the GOP replacement troll for Seixon! He calls everyone anti-Semitic and then claims he is a real leftist > lol. He also tries to get us all to fight each other, so watch out for him on TP!
September 25th, 2006 at 1:40 amChris Wallace did ask the Bush Administration’s SECRETARY of DEFENSE
DONALD RUMSFELD the SAME question:
http://patterico.com/2006/09/24/5187/chris-wallace-has-indeed-grilled-bush-officials-about-failing-to-get-osama-before-911/
September 25th, 2006 at 1:54 amBriseadhnaFaire, thanks for the quotes from the CC. Man that was one serious can of STFU Ass Whoopin.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:59 amI see alot of Clinton/GW Bush, who was ‘worse’ or ‘better’ arguing going on.
Yes, Bush may have re-stimulated the economy. At the cost of an enormously large deficit, a complete corporatization of certain sections of our economy (especially the press, and energy companies), relaxed restrictions on environmental laws, and a huge war which has changed the face of the planet. (Yes, 9/11 surely shifted the paradigm, but the Iraq war has shifted the paradigm ALOT more. Don’t even try to argue this one. We invaded a sovereign nation, toppled its government without the support of its people, and are now the official babysitters for a civil war. BTW Afghanistan was, except for the air strikes, largely led by the tribal warlords, with US Military support.)
Worth it?
Clinton got a blowjob. Maybe he was a womanizer. Who cares! He actually worked towards anti-terrorism using covert intelligence and surgical strikes, gave our economy its first surplus in years (and quite a large one), managed to improve foreign relations, ushured in the full bloom of the information age, encouraged social programs that actually worked (I’m sorry but abstinence-only classes and standardized testing as a form of reliable education is ludicrous. I’m a product of it and it does NOT indicate a person’s intelligence).
Bush has created Big Government.
He’s violating privacy laws and encouraging an ‘anti-intellectual’ approach towards things.
The last time I checked, when people choose to ignore factual information, its called ignorance.
Ignorance leads to stupidity.
They go HAND in HAND.
We need an educated president. For the love of God.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:00 amWhy is it that when an ex-President who has the guts to stand up to a smirking idiot like Wallace gets labeled as ‘angry’ or ‘crazed’. If you listen to what Clinton is actually saying, it makes perfect sense. Anyway, what ever happened to treating an ex-President with some respect? I don’t think Wallace would talk to Bush that way. Once again, Fox ambushes a Democrat. Let’s just hope this is a turning point for Democrats or any other party to speak the truth. Clinton spoke the truth tonight. And the FOX spin doctors are already spinning the truth out of it.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:36 am[...] And then Clinton destroys him. [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 4:27 amSo nice to see a lucid, intelligent, decent man open up a can of whoop-ass on a sniveling Fox toadie.
The contrast with the gibbering, incoherent, selfish and soulless little prick now squatting in the White House is undeniable.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:51 amWallace looks to his left when lying or doing RNC talking points, and looks to his right when speaking truth. Check it out in his follow-ups about this interview also.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:42 amNobody bothers to note that Osama himself said he felt emboldened to attack us because of our lack of response to 200 of our troops being killed in Lebanon. Who’s administration was the one that did nothing about this? Reagan’s!!!
September 25th, 2006 at 5:50 am#417. Randal spreads his bigotry everwhere.
If the left wishes to return to power, it will need to rid itself of anti-Semitic bigots like Randal.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:58 am#426. That is correct — but only partially. Your partisan approach will not wash with the average American, who by now realises that both Republicans and Democrats have made disastrous mistakes in dealing with terror.
So long as the left here remains so extremely partisan, it will be undercutting its own attempts to return to power.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:00 am#415. Briseadh na Faire. Your citation is interesting, but please give the link and author, which would not only give your citation more credibility but would support those of us who think it valuable enough to forward.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:18 amHe did, however, ask the Bush administration the exact same questions that he asked Bill Clinton….
September 25th, 2006 at 6:40 am#411. Briseadh.
If you are as well-informed as you claim, then you undoubtedly know the methodology of the Lancet article has been heavily criticised. Why didn’t you mention that?
You sound very impresed with yourself. But the general public is not so stupid as to fail to understand that “the law” can be easily manipulated; witness the acquittal of OJ Simpson, or more dramatically the Nazi construction of concentration camps in complete consistency with German law.
That means the US public will simply not accept “international law” as a reason to reject security measures. A more effective argument would be (for example) that such measures undermine Americans’ own civil rights or invite retaliation in foreign environments.
Rightly or wrongly, “international law” has failed to impress America, which remains deeply sceptical — on both sides of the political aisle — of international juridical bodies.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:49 amClinton was so busy “skirt chasing” and tasting “exotic cigars” that he did not have time for anything else!
September 25th, 2006 at 7:13 am#426 evermind.
You are not entirely correct. Reagan indeed approved a strike against Iranian/Hezbollah sites in the Bekaa, but Weinberger aborted the mission just minutes before its execution:
http://experts.about.com/e/0/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing.htm
This certainly did give Islamic extremists the impression that the USA is a paper tiger. But it’s still a problem for the left, because Weinberger’s logic is entirely the left’s logic: “Don’t do anything which offends Muslim or international opinion.”
Thus, the Reagan administration’s fault springs back against the left.
The problem extends to the current debate. The right’s logic has been bombastic and jingoist and not necessarily competent in containing terrorism — but the left’s logic proposes no solution either, save appeasement.
Leaving the average American highly disenchanted with both sides.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:30 amSeveral points to consider:
Repeated interviews and surveys of network news anchors have shown that they describe themselves as liberals to the tune of 70 to 90%. The footnote on these broadcasts, as one comment implied, should read “Brought to you from the usual Liberal perspective.”
The paradigm that the laws of the world are based on is one of nations. Al Qaeda is a nation-less entity. The laws never anticipated such a situation. The paradigm and the laws need to change. While someone is actively trying to kill you the first order of business has to be to survive or else you do not get to participate in the interesting and intellectually stimulating exercise of discussing what laws need changed and how.
As for Clinton’s economy what a laugh; remember him asking us ‘Huh huh huh; what’s all the funk about? The basics of the economy are still sound.’ At the same time Greenspan was warning us about unbridled exuberance. If you listened to Clinton you probably lost your retirement to his advice and if you listened to Greenspan you got out in time. BTW Presidents of companies that lied about the state of their company finances to keep things afloat were hauled off to jail. Clinton did it to keep the economy afloat prior to the elections or so someone can claim that his policies created a great economy, LOL. Before some one pulls out Enron and labels it with a Republican label look at WorldCom which was only the second biggest and would have to have had a Democratic label on it. Politicians are equally poor at being stewards of the public trust no matter which party they come from. We need to watch both parties like a hawk.
I frequently vote for both parties because those are the only choices we have. And the two party system seems to give us more and more bad choices to choose from. Why all of the negative campaign ads besides the fact that they seem to work? I surmise that no one has anything good to say about their own campaigns so they are left with attacking the other individual.
Got to go to work to earn enough to make a living plus enough for the politicians to waste. I find it hard to do both.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:59 am[...] VIDEO: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 8:05 amBarbell
Okay, lets see; so you believe civil rights (All brought in through Amendments) should not be included in the US Constitution. This includes your beloved right to bear arms. You believe women shouldn’t get the vote, and nor should black people. Slavery, should be perfectly legal. The law should not change to accomadate the fact that it can be wrong.
Meanwhile you ignore the fact that the constitution, in the original document, lays out the mechanisms for amendment because the founding fathers realised that it would have to change and grow as circumstances changed and America moved into the future.
Yeah. Sure.
jimmajamma
So what you are saying is…
It is okay to make shit up, out of whole cloth, say you based it on an official report which says that did not happen? Oh yeah, I forgot you are a retard who likes being lied to. Each of those scenes are directly contradicted in the report, I am not going to do your homework for you, go read up on it yourself. That is, if you are capable of that, after all, thus far you have shown zero regard for factual evidence.
Average
You are a wuss, a liar (you are no liberal) and a troll. You came onto this site, and instantly started calling Jay and anti-Semite, with no regard to the arguments at hand. You then went on to ignore any attempts to argue your points, you just keep on restating them. You are without a doubt one of the dumber Americans I have ever seen.
Now, you have accused the Democrats of Conneticut of voting against Lieberman for being a Jew right? Now here is my question to you, how did Lieberman end up as the incumbent Democrat if the Democrats don’t like the fact that he is Jewish? It is not something that changed over his term in office. I mean doesn’t the fact that the Democrats were the party that elected him in the first place, kind of, make you like a retard for making his religion the crux of why he lost their votes? I want an answer on this one because it seems to me you use the word Anti-Semite the way a nazi would use the word “Leftist.”
Then again, you might just be a retard who has just learned a new word.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:19 amRon
People call you Mo a lot don’t they? Clinton’s economy= Record Surplus, more new jobs, oil prices that were not this high.
Bush’s economy= Record Deficit (Even Adjusted for infation it takes 1943 and 1945 to beat 2004.) A huge loss of jobs early in his career, job growth that has not kept up with population growth since. Oil prices that have only strangely come down a bit, in light of the next elections (and tell me, what other factors changed?)
September 25th, 2006 at 8:28 amClinton was so busy “skirt chasing†and tasting “exotic cigars†that he did not have time for anything else!
Comment by Ron
Doesn’t it just piss you off that Bill is so much more popular and likeable than Georgie Boy?
Also, your post in #434 that you vote for both parties is so lame crap. Your biased posts expose you as one who is full of Republican bullshit.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:04 am417 – Jay, I noticed. Hendler’s been conspicuous by his absence, too. I’ve pretty much ignored AA’s posts.
419 – Flyman, you’re welcome.
429 – the link is in 414. Or you can Google. You do know how to Google, don’t you? By the way, can you post a link that documents your assertion that people on the left are anti-Semites?
September 25th, 2006 at 9:04 am[...] Go check out Bill Clinton ripping Fox’s Chris Wallace a new one. [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 9:11 am#439. Briseadh: Je t’emmerde.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:17 am430 – the Lancet article has been peer reviewed and mentioned the limitations as to its methodology, as well as the ramifications of the limitations. Criticism has come from those who disliked its findings. However, whether or not the Lancet article has been criticized is a diversion from the main point; that the United States has killed tens of thousands of innocent children, women, and men. While the current insurgency/civil war is killing more Iraqis now than the U.S. is, indiscriminate bombing during the initial stages of the war caused countless civilian casualties.
It’s interesting you bring up German Concentration camps being built in accordance with German Law. Bush claims authority as Commander in Chief under the Constitution to render people to secret prisons around the world. Bush seeks a change in U.S. law to allow torture, suspension of many provisions of the Bill of Rights, and to deprive the individual from claiming the Geneva Convention as a source of rights.
In the course of the debate surrounding Bush’s call for Military Commissions and the right to torture, more Americans are learning about some aspects of international law, and coming to realize that these so-called “security measures” will, in fact, jeopardize our own women and men around the globe.
Some two hundred years ago, a small group of independent countries decided to give up some of their sovereign rights and create a federal level of government and formed the United States. Back in those days, a State was another name for a Country.
Today, the European Union is working through the issues in order to form a federal layer of government over several diverse countries.
The idea behind a federal government is interesting: more layers of government in order to have more individual rights protected. At some point in the future, the countries of the world will realize that a global level of government is desireable to protect human rights around the globe.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:26 am#436 Gordo the Coprophage.
1. Sorry, but YOU don’t get to determine who is or isn’t liberal.
2. Randal’s obsessive determination to vilify the Israelis — and to drag the Israelis into every complaint of his, such as lbaming them for Hillary’s Iraq stance — is indeed anti-Semitism.
3. As for “dumb,” my credentials and IQ likely exceed your own by far. But to your mind, characterising anyone who disagrees with you as “dumb” is apparently normal procedure.
4. “Now, you have accused the Democrats of Conneticut of voting against Lieberman for being a Jew right?” No, you show your intellectual dishonesty by fabricating a strawman and trying to place words in the mouth of an opponent. I have, rather, pointed out that the substantial anti-Semitic coterie within the loony-left ignored Liebrman’s solid liberal record and instead used his sole “non-liberal” position (in favour of Bushido’s Iraq war) as a pretext to vetn its Jew-hatred.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:29 amhttp://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/hateful_move_vs__joe_nationalnews_maggie_haberman.htm
Clinton was and is a disgrace … Ofcourse it’s his fault, they could’ve killed Osama several times but he did not have the balls to take a decision on the intel.
Monica was playing with his balls during all that time.
He’s at least as big a loser as GWB!
Clinton’s economy= Record Surplus, more new jobs, oil prices that were not this high.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:34 amCorrect…and how do you think he did that? Use your brains, he reaped what others before him sowed!
Briseadh na Faire
Africa is slowly trying to do the same with the African Union, though it is slow going right now.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:34 amWay to go Bill. Cant he run again? He would mop the floor with these lying cynical chickenhawks. I wish Kerry had found some nuts. The facts are plain for anyone willing to look at them. These renazicans care nothing for the truth. I hope the mainstream republicans wake up t what is going on.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:40 amI suspect we’ll see more and more about the bushco coverup of their 911 fumbling. I remember Clark saying he was told at NSC meeting to sit down and shut up. ” I dont want to hear any more about Al Quaida” evil chimp. they were obsessed with how to get America into war in Iraq, long before 911.
Average:
1: Okay Average, tell me, do you go further then what you have heard on Fox News to find out what is really going on? Do you know the precise reasons why most Liberals do not trust Fox News? Do you actually have any familiarity as to why social security is a good thing?
What is it that makes you think you are a liberal? Because so far I have seen you do nothing to argue that you are liberal, if you are going to claim to be a liberal, tell me, what makes you liberal?
2: No, it is anti-Israel, and a lot of people are, some are even legitimately so. When somebody then goes on to say you can’t trust someone because they are Jewish, that is anti-Semitism, when somebody is against a state because it has a history of:
a: Spying on America.
b: Using torture.
c: Blowing up villages and the means to get away from those villages in an attempt to get to what is percieved as a minority view within that country (Lebanon.)
3: Your IQ? Mine last officially tested at 155, a prime reason why I don’t believe in IQ tests. People bring up IQ like it equals brains, all it equals is being good at taking tests.
4: Oh, really? How about:
Your quote.
You came onto this site and instantly started calling people names, you use terms like the “Loony Left” which are buzz words in much the same vein as “Anti-Semitism” you have repeatedly bashed Jay through no fault of his own, and you have constantly, constantly acted like we are the ones who are being unreasonable treating you like shit. Frankly, you get what you give.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:00 amawesome, must see, two thumbs up, WOW
yes seeing an american who can discuss things clearly is a change
“Clintons fault” is just one of a 1000 excuses that bushs regime uses to build himself up
WW2 the goal was not to liberate any country, it was to KILL Hitler, everyone knew that (yes there were other reasons) so in history this date would be 1950 and Hitler would still be alive, thats because a new president came into the war, not realizing they were in one, Bin Laden was not a Clinton problem, he was a American/World problem, the ONLY person who tried to kill him was Clinton, and when he did it EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE was YELLING “WAG THE DOG” “WAG THE DOG” do a search on how much money was used to try to persucute Clinton, its at around $120 million, a lot of money for oral sex, no? now lets take another event, 9/11 how much was spent on investigating that killed 3000, $200 million, nope, 150,100,75,50,25 NOPE $20 million spent on the report
and look at Bush then and now
DIDNT HAVE 1 MEETING about terrorism, cut the funding sep 10th, wouldnt testify under oath in commision, also wouldnt TALK without Cheney there, ya big tough guy
how about his statement “honestly I dont think about Bin Laden” also might explain why the Bin Laden task force was fired, yep thats right, NO-ONE in the US government is looking specifically for him
if 911 was Clintons fault, I have have never heard anyone say that 93 WTC was BUSH SRs fault, he was the president when it was planned, and another thing about BUSH SR, Bin Laden “DECLARED WAR ON THE USA” only after american soldiers landed in Saudi Arabia, the same WAR that BUSH SR was responsible for, and then he DIDNT KILL/CAPTURE SADDAM, sounds rather framiliar
“I HAVE THE POWER TO KILL/CAPTURE A BAD PERSON” oh well, it will be someone else problem, let them deal with it, FATHER LIKE SON
BUSH is tapping your phone, “THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM” so BUSH will take it away, good plan
also, NO PHONE TAP WILL EVER REVEAL THIS JUICY TIDBIT “BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE THE US, INVOLVING AIRLINERS” hmm, that sounds framiliar, oh ya its the EXACT WORDING IN WRITING HE RECEIVED, YET DID NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING about, oh sorry, actually he cut up some trees in his back yard
BUSH AND HIS DAD DID NOTHING THEN and do NOTHING NOW, except use a childs response, BLAME IT ON SOMEONE ELSE
September 25th, 2006 at 10:03 am447, point 2 should have ended with “That is being anti the actions of that state.”
As a further point of contention:
From your source Average
So tell me, does this sound like Liberals, or like internet trolls who are aiming to be offensive towards the posters on that site? Hmm, I wonder?
September 25th, 2006 at 10:08 am[...] I’d like to share a few thoughts about the recent dustup between former president Bill Clinton and Fox News “journalist” Chris Wallace. You can read a transcript here and watch the video of the interview here. [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 10:14 am[...] But really, I love the guy because he’s fed up with, and willing to discuss his anger with, all the bullshit that our current Administration has been spoon-feeding us for the last 6 years. And if you do one thing today, watch him hand Chris Wallace of Fox News his ass. It’s a small victory, but made larger considering who it’s coming from. [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 10:15 amAverage American,
I read through both left leaning, centrist and right leaning threads simply with an eye on educating/informing myself. I happened to come across this one. It just so happens that I am hispanic and bi-lingual. It seems to me that if you’re going to toss out such a disgusting insult as you did at the end of #73 you’d do so in english so that the target of the insult can defend him or herself. This is not matter of politics. It is a matter of common courtesy.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:15 am#414, Briseadh+na+Faire …You seem incapable doing even the most rudimentary reading of this thread….Check out posting # 346.
I accept your apology.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:17 amOn the day before his interview with Bill Clinton, Chris Wallace, seated in a quiet, out-of-the-way restaurant, receives his order from a smiling waitress. Underneath the plate is a small tape recorder and a photograph. Wallace takes them out and, looking all around to make sure he is not being observed, presses the PLAY button on the recorder. A voice begins speaking:
“Good morning, Mr. Wallace. You are scheduled to conduct an interview on FOX News tomorrow with this man, former president Bill Clinton. The CEO of FOX News has determined that Bill Clinton was entirely responsible for the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Your mission, Chris, should you decide to accept it, will be to cajole Bill Clinton into admitting on the air that he was indeed solely and completely at fault for the 9/11 attacks. As always, should you or any of your FOX News associates be embarrassed or humiliated, the CEO will disavow any knowledge of your intentions. This tape will self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck, Chris.”
Wallace places the tape recorder on the seat beside him. A small plume of smoke emerges from the instrument. Moments later, Wallace pays his bill and walks out.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:26 am1. Fox News? Are you ultra-lefties so weak intellectually that you know of only one mode of discussion? I don’t watch Fox News, and neither do many Americans who nevertheless reject your Fox-like extremism.
2. Frankly, your idea of trying to oblige someone to “prove” liberalism is somewhat McCarthyite.
3. IQ? Mine is over 200.
4. ”
Is that why Lieberman leads in the polls? Admit it, you HATE him because he is Jewish.” The comment was addressed to Nat, not you. Yes, those who rant about the evil of Israel and “neo-cons” really mean “JOOOOOOOOOS.”
5. “Torture” Strange that you have no comment upon Israelis beheaded by Hez (billboard on Leb border) or paralysed surgically (Ron Arad) but instead complain about Israel’s far less “invasive” techniques. Indeed, I have yet to see here any comment upon Muslim campaigns of murder against Christian Leb in Shouf, at Damour, …
6. “Spying”? Minnesota Sen Durenberger revealed that US spied upon Israel, and in fact most Western countries “spy” upon the others in their own strange game of one-upmanship. But you only care about what you can hang on the Israelis because thy’re JOOOOOOOOOOOOS.
7. “Villages” Sorry, your bigoted assumptions notwithstanding, the Israelis were too kind in giving up surprise advantage by leafletting villages in advance. Their targets remained the means for Hez to move men and arms. Time for Arabs to assume responsibility for their country’s actions.
8. Unfortunately for you ultra-loonies here, the polls show the Israelis retain strong support among the American public. The more you show your hatred of them, as your hatred of Bush, the less able you will be to return to power. (The public has indeed concluded the Iraq war a mistake, but yur hatred sturn them off.)
September 25th, 2006 at 10:32 am#452. ¿Entonces por qué no traduces?
September 25th, 2006 at 10:35 amClinton Ducks Blame for September 11 in Interview…
Clinton responded angrily when he was asked why he didn’t prevent the September 11 attacks. Clinton admitted that he “tried” to get Osama Bin Laden and “failed,” and then tried to deflect attention from his failure by pointing fingers at the Bush …
September 25th, 2006 at 10:39 amExpanding upon point #8 in #456:
The Dems have a good shot at the House; the Repubs have simply screwed up too many matters, from Iraq to Katrina.
But the public was slow to come to that conclusion, apparently still disposed to think the Repubs better on security.
The rank hatred here for any disagreement thus does not correspond at all to the public’s mood; it wants change, but in moderation.
Hatred of Bush (and of Israelis/Jews) is an albatross about your neck; it will lose you votes of the middle.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:42 am[...] Bill Clinton had quite the interview on Fox News this past Sunday. I don’t normally like to post about politics, I feel there are much better resources for that, but this is really good. [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 10:52 am[...] Ever since yesterday, everyone who is anyone in the blogosphere has been on the Clinton-Wallace “battle royale“. Thanks to YouTube, those who were doing better things yesterday can catch a glimpse of the interview. [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 10:54 amAverageAmerican your first post on this thread:
Do you also claim the European wariness of Iran is “to please Israel�
Do you understand many independent-minded Americans reject the left because you ALWAYS end up showing your begoted obsession with blaming Israel (or the JOOOOOOS) for all the world’s problems?
Comment by Average American — September 24, 2006 @ 11:40 am
Hey I disagree with Jay too, but looky here, you are immediately accusing him of being a bigot, when he disagrees with your views. Gee I wonder what your next post was?
Huh? Wow calling him a schmuck and implying that he is a nazi. All because he disagrees with you!
Wow, now you are calling him Hitler, because he disagrees with you! Wow you have really impressed me here man! And here I was going to mention that bloody log in your eye.
Want me to go on going through all of your posts? Or can we just your whine about how nasty I am being towards you is the product of the fact that you are a complete and total wuss?
September 25th, 2006 at 11:00 amI would sure love to see other Democrats call these right-wing news readers on their crap. Clinton was very good but I would say to him that if the adoption papers haven’t yet been signed by Poppy and Babs the Bitch then maybe he should rethink his relationship with them.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:09 amWhat many of the Clinton loving (and Bush loving) saps have NOT figured out yet is that Clinton is now an official member of the Bush crime family which means their arsenal of weapons are now at his disposal. Note, this happened WAY BEFORE the cooperation between poppy Bush and Bill after the tsunami. The media was reporting on the “chumminess” of the Bush and Clinton families back to the unveiling of the Clinton library, which was several months before the tsunami.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/14/politics/main623087.shtml
Now poppy Bush calls himself the “father Bill Clinton never had”.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/04/12/clinton_finds_his_surrogate_family/
The latest in the saga is the fact that Rupert Murdoch is fundraising for Hillary Clinton. Is it any surprise then that Murdoch’s “Faux News” tossed some softball questions to Bill Clinton that he could use to deflect growing criticism over his handling of terrorism? And note, this isn’t a knock on JUST Clinton. Those who are HONESTLY looking at pre 9/11 intelligence are critical of BOTH the Clinton AND the Bush administrations.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#clinton
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html
September 25th, 2006 at 11:09 amLizzy,
You have got to be kidding right? Clinton had great foreign policy and he really smacked down on the interview, but how could you think Clinton “commands” respect? How do you abuse the power of the highest office in the world and yet “command” respect? Screwing Lewinski and lying under oath? The Rich pardon? How come behavior like this is always ignored, forgotten, or outright defended?
September 25th, 2006 at 11:20 amAt least Clinton will actually speak freely about his actions in office. Everytime I hear Bush it sounds like the same speech. He uses catch phrases and speeks generally. Clinton actually comes off like he is thinking and coming up with independent thoughts. Bush is an inarticulate puppet and that’s scary to have as the ruler of the free world.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:23 am[...] Bill Clinton telling Chris Wallace at Fox News to fuck off. [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 11:24 am“At least Clinton will actually speak freely about his actions in office”
See what I mean? Actions being defended, daveg. And NO WAY would he “speak freely” about the subjects I just posted!
September 25th, 2006 at 11:33 amTwo things to consider for all you lovers and haters of the former President and our current President:
Did you vote in the last presidential election?
Will you vote in the upcoming presidential election?
If you answer “no” to either of these questions, please keep your thoughts to yourself, unless of course you were not or will not be old enough to vote in the elections.
Odds are at least half of the people commenting on this subject thread have never voted for a U.S. President and it’s not due to age.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:37 amOh and one last thing Average:
I am against Islamic governments as a whole. I will speak out against people who stone women in front of roaring crowds for adultery and call that civilised, I am firmly against the new Iraqi Constitution which bases itself on Sharia law with the only exception being in that it recognises freedom of religion (Not too good if you are female) I personally view the kidnapping of that soldier in Gaza as having been an act of dishonour, and you know what, I don’t like anybody torturing anybody, and I don’t care what religion they adhere to.
But guess what, that point of view is frequently expressed, it is expressed whenever you hear of terrorism, hell terrorism has even gone from being something extremists of every stripe do, to being purely Muslim. Yeah like the KKK never blew up a Church, or the IRA never existed, or the ANC never blew up a bar. Fascism? Now the big issue is Islamo-Fascism, yeah because it is perfectly acceptable for Robert Mugabe to bulldoze people’s homes and arrest residents in order to torture them, so long as he doesn’t convert to Islam.
We see plenty of arguments anti Islam, many of them with every bit the same venom and hatred as are levelled against Israel by Islam. We hear people objecting to women wearing Burkas even if that woman chose to wear the burka. Hell one woman I worked with went devout over winter because it kept her ears warm.
We hear this constant groan of “Islamic people are the enemy, they are all evil, and out to kill us” yet whenever there is any criticism of Israel, what do you get? “Well why aren’t you talking about Islam, why aren’t you talking about what somebody who isn’t Israel is doing.” Maybe we are just sick and tired of the double standard to which we are supposed to submit. Maybe, just maybe, we are sick of having to hate one group, and love another, both unconditionally.
And maybe, just maybe, much as our own behaviour reflects on ourselves, just maybe we think exactly the same of Israel and its neighbours. Maybe it is because ultimately, we don’t care about Israel being Jewish, we just think torture really is wrong. Maybe we think war is wrong. Maybe, just maybe, we think that there should have been a better solution to having 2 soldiers kidnapped, than blowing up infrastructure and homes in Lebanon. Personally I think the last was a blunder, morally defensible, but ultimately it has handed Hezbollah Lebanon in the next round of elections. Of course, this would class as anti-Semitism to you.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:42 am#465, JHM, “How do you abuse the power of the highest office in the world and yet “command†respect? Screwing Lewinski and lying under oath? The Rich pardon? How come behavior like this is always ignored, forgotten, or outright defended?” To answer the actual question, maybe because lying about an affair is considered to be normal, human behavior. None of us condone it, but it is understandable and, again, human.
Compare that to Bush’s lying in every speech he makes, lying to get us into war, lying before he ever got elected in the first place (”nation-building is NOT the job of the military”), etc., etc. Just because Bush hasn’t allowed himself to be under oath, what about the Oath of Office that he took, what did that oath say, hmmm, “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”, oh that “goddam piece of paper”? Talk about abusing the power of the highest office in the world, Bush is coopting it! And you’re comparing this dictator to a man who lied about a bj!?? Get real.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:46 am#471….Hi Jane…Still fighting the good fight, huh????
How are you? How’s Wayne?
P.S., I responded to your Posting 232 at Posting 245….
P.P.S., We need to win our last seven games for 100 wins!
September 25th, 2006 at 11:53 am[...] The big news from this weekend was of the first ever appearance of President Bill Clinton on Fox News Sunday. Wallace asked a standard Fox News question – one in which it’s loaded with right-leaning commentary – a couple minutes into the interview that was set up ostensibly to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative. You can check out the video of the key portions at ThinkProgress. [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 11:58 am#470, Bruce, I’ll repeat my earlier comment to “AverageAmerican” as well, since he did not respond to it:
“Excuse me, AA, will you stop with the anti-Semitism bullshit? If you’re really a leftie, then why can’t someone criticize a particular Israeli policy without being labelled anti-Semite, but we can criticize our own President and his administration’s policies all we want because it’s patriotic to do so? No country is perfect, they all get criticized for one reason or another, so get over it if it’s Israel being criticized! Geez!”
While nowhere near as eloquent as your posts, Bruce, I’d like to hear a response from AA, too.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:59 amBetween the ABC “Path to 9/11″ and the Chris Wallace interview, don’t conservatives find it just a bit odd that they should now be demanding an accounting from Clinton as to why he “didn’t do enough” to apprehend bin Laden when their own immaculate hero, in his March 2002 press conference, said — by way of excusing himself for not having captured or killed bin Laden in Afghanistan — “the idea of focusing on one person indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission.”?
The “scope of the mission,” of course, was never to apprehend bin Laden but to tie some kind of foreign policy success to the Republican domestic agenda, smoothing their path to re-election.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:02 pmDoYourPart
Well for me it isn’t due to age. I am a South African, I can’t vote in US elections even though who the American President is can have a huge impact on my country and me. If America goes Republican it could mean a depression, or WWIII, which for a delicate developing country with ties to all three sides of the conflict would mean absolute ruin. South Africa needs worldwide stability if it is to reverse the trend set by the rest of Africa.
Also we are getting hit by global warming with our wildlife, average rainfall and the sheer screwy-ness of the seasons. We need a strong government in America more then we need aid from America, and I don’t think the Republicans are it, or even capable of it.
You see the Republicans have already had 1 president resign over corruption and abuses of power. Richard Nixon on his own was not enough to kill the Republican Party, if GW Bush ever got impeached, chances are just based on the law as it stands he would be found guilty. The Republicans know what that would mean, it would mean the party ending. They won’t do it for the same reasons that they wanted to do it when Clinton lied about having an affair with Monica Lewinsky. They don’t need to be the only party with 2 criminal presidents on their record.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:04 pmHey, Ex! Wayne’s fine, I’m sure you’ll be hearing from him later. Re:PPS, the way they’re playing, I’m not sanguine about it, but here’s hoping!
September 25th, 2006 at 12:04 pm[...] ThinkProgress fact-checked Wallace’s claim that he asked Bush administration officials tough questions about their pre-9/11 efforts to combat terrorism here, here and here. Media Matters debunks Wallace here. [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 12:06 pmJane,
Had you read my original response to a previous post, you would see that I am in no way defending GWB. I merely responded to a post that stated that Bubba “commanded” respect, which is highly circumspect.
And lying about and/or having an affair? That is normal and understandable in your eyes? And I need to get real? Please…
September 25th, 2006 at 12:08 pm“Power to the People”. Thanks Dear President Clinton. It’s about time somebody, anybody finally stands up to this regime. They do not rate the right to be called OUR administration. For all of you bushies that are infiltrating our praises let’s face facts. The real terrorists we are fighting live right here in the whitehouse. They have not only oppressed the Entire World they have also oppressed many Americans by just erasing our freedoms at their own whim.Why is it O.K. for Jerry Falwell (the false prophet) to call Hillary Satan but when Chavez call Bush the devil it was O.K. when the later is definately true. Why does our media consistently speak for us. Why are they all saying how we feel about things. Has anyone called you lately to see how you feel about what is going on in the world or what kind of job do you think FGWB is doing. If the majority of the Americans think like #253 Calahan, be afraid, very afraid or call on our hero Pres. Clinton to kick their ass.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:08 pmLet all the GWB (antichrist) follow this evil man right to hell.
Media starting representing the real people and stop promoting your own thoughts. Give us facts and STOP giving us your opinion. I can assure you that more of us disagree than agree with you tactics in reporting. This is exactly what I am talking about. The neocons and wanna be neocons have caused dissention between all Americans. It is time to stand for peace not torture which is another one of the current admins evil schemes. These are people that will steal from the poor who already have been raped. In the old days they would have been tarred and feather.
Let’s give our country back to the people!
Fed up with all the BS from these power hungry Republicans. We want a government for the people like the Clinton administration created. The rep. were so busy duping the American Public about Clinton’s private life to divert our attention to all the Good things Clinton did for us. Of course this is the best they could come up with but I must say I am astonished at how many stupid people jumped on their bandwagon What happened to our surplus? Ask george the chickenhearted.
Stop perverting Bill’s politics while consistently looking at what is in his pants. We don’t care who he had relations with, after all he is a man. We do care about how our lives changed when he was in office. I know mine did. For the first time I was able to buy a little land and build a house. Now I am struggling to keep my land and my house. Gas was never $3.00 a gallon (ironically it is going down right before the mid-term elections)
September 25th, 2006 at 12:17 pmDuh! As our eloquent president trys to recite metaphors here is one for him
Fool us once shame on us.
Fool us twice shame on you.
Impeach this fool and everyone wins.
“Peace in the Middle East”
“We don’t care who he had relations with, after all he is a man.”
That’s just about the most ignorant comment I have ever heard in defence of a philanderer…. President or not.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:25 pm[...] In one universe, according to left-wing blogs, Clinton ably and thoughtfully defended himself against a question aimed at smearing his reputation. And in a completely different universe, right-wing blogs report screaming and finger-wagging, his face pulsing with a photoshopped furious red. [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 12:27 pmIf you people thing that the rest of the country thinks Clinton did a good job … you all need help…. he got asked one tough question and went all
HOWARD DEAN ON TV for all to see… 8 years 8-10 chances to kill BLK and his best answer is he tried and failed and what about Bush ?? Nov is coming and it will be all of Rove’s fault and all the votes must have not have been counted, the people are stupid and wait till ‘08….
Once again thank u MoonBats for making our day….
GOOD NEWS FOR AMERICA BAD NEWS FOR THE DEMS/LIBS
September 25th, 2006 at 12:30 pmJHM
With Clinton, he got respect because the world saw him as being fair. It is the same with Mandela, when our leaders spoke to Clinton we felt we were getting a fair hearing. It wasn’t a matter of him being any brighter then anybody, or even any more moral, it was that feeling of “He will listen to what we have to say.”
The real difference between the two is that with Bush, we kind of feel that he isn’t interested in what the rest of the world thinks, he doesn’t care enough. He comes across as being the sort of guy who will do something stupid, and then blame the people who told him it was a stupid idea in the first place, for wishing ill on his endeavors.
Clinton was respected, Bush is not. That is the difference.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:32 pmJHM, what Denise and I are saying is that Clinton committed a human error that anyone could commit, president or not; while Bush TOOK ADVANTAGE of his office. Boy, are you THAT unforgiving about human weaknesses?
September 25th, 2006 at 12:33 pmBoy, are you THAT unforgiving about human weaknesses?
No Jane, not really. However “human weaknesses” I would consider along the lines of, say, eating too much, drinking, smoking, etc….
Lying and/or philandering is more along the lines of a serious character flaw, not weakness.
And ONCE AGAIN, I AM NOT defending DUH!bya, probably every modern president in office has taken advantage of the powers of the oval office.
My original post was in defence of the word “respect”, maybe I should have made it clear that my response included both the current and former presisdent.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:47 pmJHM Get your head out of your ass and tell this crap to your right wing cronies. Let’s talk politics and leave sex out of it. We are talking about having a president that cares about us opposed to one that is oppressing the entire world and taking away our freedoms. This is a man that stated our constitutions was just a goddamn piece of paper. This is a power hungry war monger and will stop at nothing to obtain world power. So what if innocent people including our military are brutally being killed for his own gain. Let’s not forget their is mucho oil involved. Let’s also remember the Iran Contra Crisis. The CIA trained and supplied weapons to terrorists. As far as I have seen Bush was never looking for Osama. Bill may not have killed him but he was constantly looking and yes at least he tried. You need to go to a website that has idiots with your same viewpoint. You sound just like GWB trying to bully others with insults and ignorance
September 25th, 2006 at 12:53 pmBe Blessed
Bubba, can you or anyone answer my question?
Who is controlling the puppet stings on the conservative propaganda machine?
How is it that this country is experiencing such a disciplined blanketing sweep of republican/conservative messages from the media? How is doing this?
The democrats are amazingly unorganized. They’re afraid of going after Bush. They should challenge him on his MANY lies which have killed americans. Instead they swing to the far left and make unpopular proposals.
I can see that Americans were severely wounded in the attacks of 9/11. And American’s had the need to seek revenge. We had to go bomb somebody, kill somebody somewhere to get back at them for our attack. Its very painful the anger we all hold.
Unfortunately it didn’t matter who we killed or attacked. Iraq seemed like a fine target and everyone has been afraid to ever contradict the dictatorial Bush regime.
Bush’s last claim on the reason for war in Iraq is democracy. What does a dictator do? Control the media to allow only his propaganda, not allow disenting voices to be heard, rally the country around a simple nationalistic message so that they can arrest and torture people who dissagree. Dictators can wiretap, evesdrop on the public. Put people who agree with them in power to enforce their control.
Bush has taken this country farther into the world of dicatorship than I ever thought would be possible. Scariest to me is how half the country is blinded by their message and will blindly follow Bush.
Most of the non-Bush people see to be lucid, seem to be awake and can talk about good and bad things about previous administrations. Yet Bush followers are blinded. I’d be impressed if Bubba could admit that Bush has done any thing wrong, name one thing that he’s really messed up.
I don’t see ANYTHING that Bush has EVER accomplished that ANY self respecting conservative would agree to. Look at the deficit?! Nation building…. anyone notice Iraq? Immigration policy?
Oh help me Landru
September 25th, 2006 at 12:53 pmBruce+Gorton,
I agree with you wholeheartedly, I just feel that there is too much liberal use of the word “respect”.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:54 pm[...] Here’s the key portion of the Fox News Sunday interview with President Clinton. He sets the record straight on his efforts to combat terrorism, the Bush administration’s record and the tactics of Fox News. Watch it or Read the Transcript! [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 12:56 pm“JHM Get your head out of your ass and tell this crap to your right wing cronies.”
Denise,
Sorry but you can’t so easily define my political views. Maybe you would like to label everyone so conveniently, but that just shows your ignorance yet again.
And “get your head out of your ass”? THAT’S the most intelligent rebutal to my opinion that you can make? If so, get an education and respond more appropriately…
September 25th, 2006 at 1:04 pmJHM
September 25th, 2006 at 1:04 pmIt’s ironic that you equate lying and philandering to the past administration.
Lying is what this whole administration is based on. This also includes the right wing media who report the news according to their own or their stations opinions. Why don’t they have a show with Americans and find out how we really feel? It’s funny you mention respect after your hateful and juvenile comment above #482.
As for #484 it seems that you and all your right-wing friends are trying to run for cover and hide from the truth. Unfortunately most Americans are trying to survive the war waged upon us. Speak for yourself and not all Americans
JHM
I feel the same way sometimes. It is like there is no longer a middle ground between respect, and disrespect and it muddies the issue a bit. There are people in this world who I neither respect nor disrespect, but there just isn’t a word for that state.
In some ways “Respect” has become like “Hero” – A power word misused to the point where it no longer carries the same weight as it used to, hence depriving us of some of our best emotive language.
That said I feel Clinton, despite his private life on balance is a man worthy of respect. He did a good job with the worst job in the world, and that takes some doing.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:08 pmDenise,
“Speak for yourself and not all Americans” Ditto to you….
September 25th, 2006 at 1:09 pm[...] Think Progress: VIDEO: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 1:11 pmDenise Calhoun
Calm down a second, you don’t want to turn out like I do sometimes, and go over-combative with someone who is simply trying to give an honest viewpoint. JHM is not saying that Clinton was a bad person; just that he doesn’t like the over-use of the word “Respect.”
He is probably Beak on the grand scheme of things anyway.
(You have four basic political alignments: Leftwing, Rightwing, Beak and Tail. Leftwing and Rightwing are primarily concerned with where the bird is going; Beak is primarily concerned with feeding the bird and giving it the ability to chirp about whatever it pleases. Tail just talks crap.)
September 25th, 2006 at 1:15 pm….AND DENSIE….
“It’s funny you mention respect after your hateful and juvenile comment above #482.”
My post was”hateful and juvenile ” while your response of “Get your head out of your ass and tell this crap to your right wing cronies.†was?
Do you even read what you are posting?
September 25th, 2006 at 1:17 pmBruce+Gorton,
“In some ways “Respect†has become like “Hero†– A power word misused to the point where it no longer carries the same weight as it used to, hence depriving us of some of our best emotive language.”
You are absolutely right and I appreciate your understanding in what I’m trying to say.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:19 pmRichard’s Clarke’s own book says that HE requested the demotion. Clinton asked us to read this book and I did. Clark himself says that the Bush administration didn’t demote him, he asked for it. Seems like Clinton is a lier once again.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:21 pmLOL Bruce!
“(You have four basic political alignments: Leftwing, Rightwing, Beak and Tail. Leftwing and Rightwing are primarily concerned with where the bird is going; Beak is primarily concerned with feeding the bird and giving it the ability to chirp about whatever it pleases. Tail just talks crap.)”
That was great – never heard it before!
September 25th, 2006 at 1:21 pm8 years 8-10 chances to kill BLK
Comment by Peter Mac — September 25, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
Whose BLK? Is that the dude in the Burger King commercials superimposed and tackling Torry Holt? I’m just asking!
September 25th, 2006 at 1:22 pm[...] [many] : http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/24/clinton-video/ “Think Progress” [options] : http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002 “Media Matters” [watch] : http://www.salon.com/ent/videodog/politics/2006/09/25/clintonon_fox/index.html “Youtube via Salon Video Dog” [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 1:25 pmRemember when we had a president with a high IQ? Oh, how I miss those days. Two years left with the arrogant moron. 2008 can’t get here soon enough.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:42 pm“However “human weaknesses†I would consider along the lines of, say, eating too much, drinking, smoking, etc….”
Hmmm, I’d probably call those “excesses” rather than weaknesses, but that’s because I’m still a “weak” smoker :-)
“Lying and/or philandering is more along the lines of a serious character flaw, not weakness.”
I would consider ‘lying about philandering’ as separate from a tendency towards “lying” in general.
“And ONCE AGAIN, I AM NOT defending DUH!bya, probably every modern president in office has taken advantage of the powers of the oval office.”
I disagree that ANY president, modern or otherwise, has had such disrespect for his own office and the Constitution which gives his office its power. Bush wants ALL the power alloted to the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and the Congress.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:49 pmHurray For President Bill Clinton 9/24/06
It is about time that someone set that little beady-eyed prevaricator Brit Hume straight. He has the most biased news cast on TV. The only reason we watched today was because President Bill Clinton was going to be on. Otherwise we do not watch any of their right winged news shows. Brit Hume and the rest of Fox News twists and fudges the news beyond the point of being dishonest. Prevaricator’s!
September 25th, 2006 at 1:51 pmWhat a bunch of hooey. Clinton showed what a blow-hard liar he is. Wagging his finger just like he did when he lied about Monica. Notice how no prominent Democrat besides Howard “the scream” Dean is defending him. Oh how proud you all must be.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:14 pm[...] Think Progress » Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News. boy does clinton manhandle that fool. via funkaoshi. [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 2:20 pmChris Wallace later said that “I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me.” Why is Wallace surprised that asking a former president of the United States if he could have done more to prevent 9/11 would make him upset????
You can read Wallace’s comments here:
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/networks/wallace_i_felt_as_if_a_mountain_was_coming_down_in_front_of_me__44380.asp
Wallace makes the claim that he was physically intimidated by Clinton. Recently Matt Lauer interviewed Bush in the oval office and asked him about the torture of detainees. I recall Bush getting pretty close to Lauerer but you don’t here Lauerer complaining. Maybe Matt doesn’t want to get audited.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:22 pmJHM
September 25th, 2006 at 2:31 pmI guess I am learning how to react from the best. Read many other entries with real educated views such as #507 What a blow-hard liar he is. That sounds like someone with a masters degree. I do not need to argue with you about mt education. Your insults humor me. Why don’t we try this:
Maybe we could stop concentrating on the reaction of President Clinton and instead listen to the message.
Also I never claimed to speak for all Americans the point I was making was let all Americans speak. Different completely.
Sincerely uneducated
Damn right he was asking the questions people want asked.
He just asked the wrong president.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:35 pmTo all the criminal Bushite junta’s aiders and abettors:
On the day he swore the oath of office…
Did George W. Bush NOT have knowldge of the Khobar Towers, USS Cole, US marine deaths in Lebannon (under ‘Raygun’)…
…and ALL of the other “terrorist attacks” you’re so fond of throwing in former President Clinton’s face?
…if so, then WHY don’t Chris Wallace, Scum Hann(job)ity, Pus Limphog, or Bill O’Liely…
…ask their god Bushiva…
…WHY it took 9/11 for HIM to take action some 9 months into his first term?
…I wonder what REACTION they’d get from him…
…but they can’t do that…
…because in order to do so…
…they’d all have to take Bush and Cheney’s lower “members” out of their mouths…
September 25th, 2006 at 2:38 pmSlick Willie Hero Of The Left…
W Hero Of The Country…
What a difference…
Here Comes November… It Is All Rove’s Fault… Machines Failed …
Bad Weather … Bin Lad…. Racism … Right Wing Brown Shirts…
Supreme Court… Global Warming…. The Voters Are Dumb…
Am I Missing Anything…
Oh !! Your Ideas And Leaders…
Good News For America – Bad News For The Left
September 25th, 2006 at 2:38 pmMichael Scheuer, the senior intelligence analyst who created and advised a secret CIA unit for tracking and eliminating bin Laden since 1996 and vociferous critic of President Bush and the Iraq War was on CBS News this morning.
He was asked his reaction to President Clinton’s interview:
“No, sir, I don’t think so. The president seems to be able, the former president seems to be able to deny facts with impugnity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That’s the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men and women who risk their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden.”
Scheuer acknowledged that there is plenty of blame to go around for not getting bin Laden, but asserted that Clinton bears most of it:
“Oh, I think there’s plenty of blame to go around, sir, but the fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration had one chance that they botched, and the Clinton Administration had eight to ten chances that they refused to try…”
OUCH! Sorry, Bill and Clinton-supporters! But Scheuer’s critique is simply devastating…
September 25th, 2006 at 2:41 pm#507 – “Oh how proud you all must be.”
Just as proud as you when you hear Pres. Bush blame everyone else for his own failures and refuses to take personal responsibility.
Just as proud as you feel when there are still NO WMD’s found in Iraq. (That was the original reason for the Iraq war, in case you’ve forgotten.)
Just as proud as you are that Pres. Bush and the Republican party have brought about bloated government spending, deficits higher than a crack whore, and history breaking massive debt. (Borrow and squander!)
Oh yeah, you must be REAL proud yourself of all the Republican failures!
September 25th, 2006 at 2:42 pmWhat can we say?… Here in europe we never understood why did you elect and re-elect George W. Bush when your standards were so high with this great and fantastic President, that once you all called a “liar”.
Now you miss him?
September 25th, 2006 at 2:43 pmFunny how Clinton kept saying read Richard Clarke’s book.
Quote from Larry King interview with Richard Clarke:
“You know, the Clinton administration failed to bomb the camps that were in Afghanistan that we knew were there. They bombed them once, Clinton bombed them once, the public reaction was negative to that. Remember, wag the dog, everyone said Clinton is just bombing Afghanistan to divert attention from the Monica business. And so he didn’t bomb them again.”
So in other words Clinton was more concerned about what people would say rather than the security of the US.
That is not leadership.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:52 pmOh man, there’s a set-up for a retort if ever there was one.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:59 pmJust a quick question: has anybody who’s been bashing Richard Clarke’s book on here ever even read it? I mean cover to cover, with an open mind, not as a Republican or Democrat, but simply a concerned American. Because, if so, and you stand behind the deragotory comments posted here, you are either a) delusional or b) so partisan that you can’t see past your own face. That’s all I’m going to say because I gave up a long time ago on arguing with fanatics. It’s an exercise in futility.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:03 pmRE: 519
September 25th, 2006 at 3:07 pmArguing with fanatics? The exercise in futility would probably be justifying your name… smartblonde?
BTW I did read the book, I love the part where he calims that on Sept. 12th he already knew who perpetrated 9/11 (al-qaeda). Funny how he knew that quick, but no one else did. He then had the nerve to criticize the president for saying he wanted all avenues explored, and if there was any link to Saddam.Hypocrite
September 25th, 2006 at 3:12 pm#514. Yes, he confirms that BOTH administrations dropped the ball.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:13 pm#516, Spip…”Now you miss him?”
No, no we don’t. Not at all.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:17 pmMoonBats Read The Book & Cry…
Your Hero Exposed as a Liar Once Again…
I’am Shocked To Find Gamling Here Rick… Louie Here Is Your
September 25th, 2006 at 3:19 pmWinnings, Oh Thanks Rick…. Round Up The Usually Suspects…
Fox … Chris Wallace …. Clark et al …. and of course ROVE,…
Rush… Sean…. Dick Morris…. on and on and on… everyone but
himself…. Sad so sad…. now talk in your group think hole and digg out !!
#522, AverageAmerican,
True…But remember what Scheuer — who again is a strong critic of the Bush administration and author of “Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror” — said on CBS today:
“Oh, I think there’s plenty of blame to go around, sir, but the fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration had one chance that they botched, and the Clinton Administration had eight to ten chances that they refused to try…â€
September 25th, 2006 at 3:21 pmHELL YEAH!
September 25th, 2006 at 3:37 pmI have written to Faux News challenging them to post this ENTIRE interview, without cuts or edits (They of course love to play the line “I tried to kill Bin Laden and I failed.” And stop it right there.)
I hope everyone who posts on this board will write to Faux News and give them this challenge. I truly doubt that they will have the guts to do so, but at least they will have failed yet another challenge.
Send your challenge to:
September 25th, 2006 at 3:40 pmfns@foxnews.com
AND
Feedback@foxnews.com
We are all beginning to sound like mud-slinging politicians before the elections. We cannot go forward by looking behind us. Sometimes we spend so much time looking behind us that we can’t see what is happening right in front of our eyes. This dissention is exactly why we are where we are today. Let’s all stop passing the blame around and try to figure out what we can do from now on.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:41 pmIs there a website that deals with facts and what we can do to change this.
As we all can see everyone makes mistakes, but why can’t we learn from them?
Peace
ALL WALLACE HAS TO DO IS SHOW TAPES OF FOX ASKING BUSH THE SAME QUESTION. BET THEY WON’T. BET THEY CAN’T.
NOW IT’S BUSH’S TURN TO DO A TOUGH INTERVIEW WITH…SAY…CHRIS MATTHEWS.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:41 pmNEVER HAPPEN.
NOW BUSH WILL BE INTERVIEW BY CHRIS.
CHRIS MATTHEWS.
NEVER HAPPEN!
September 25th, 2006 at 3:43 pm“I said that I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman, and I stand by the truth of that statement,”
September 25th, 2006 at 3:44 pmHerr Schmuck Groton:
It’s interesting to see how impressed with yourself you are. You have failed to refute my contentions; you have simply repeated my posts stating your disagreement. No wonder libs have lost the country for the past dozen years!
In fact, your have always diverted from the core point of Randal’s obvious scapegoating. Specifically, he tried to blame his problems (Hillary’s pro-Iraq-war position) on Israel.
So, let’s take it ab inizio:
Randal said:
1. Why “to please Israel”? Has Hillary ever said this? No.
2. Does Hillary have a hidden reason, such as investments in Israel? Not to our knowledge.
3. Did Randal mean “to please Jewish voters”? Then why didn’t he say so? (He knows it would have given away his bigotry.)
4. If Hillary’s pro-war stance is to please Jewish voters, why hasn’t she said so? If she has determined her policy specifically to attract that voting group, then why would she not tell them in order to complete that objective?
5. Even though articles show Jews think Dems more pro-Palestinian than Repubs, they nevertheless vote 75% or more Dem through strong liberal allegiance. So, Hillary knows she has their vote no matter what. So, why would she have to support Iraq for them?
6. Finally, it’s not even clear that Jewish voters support the Iraq war. I know of no clear stats, but the fact that 75% voted Dem (against Bush) makes it doubtful they’ve a homogeneous view in favour of the war. Why, then, would Hillary bother to change her foreign policy position on THE major issue of the day to support a Jewish viewpoint when that viepoint is not even clear? (Not even Repubs claim Hil incompetent.)
Can you say “scapegoat”? Quite simply, Randal is dissatisfied with Hillary’s stance, so he scapegoats the Jews as warmongers. It’s reminiscent of Coughlin and Streicher.
Now, for your vacuous “debate” of my posts, a single example serves to give you the lie:
Randal wrote:
I responded that he sounded like a little Hitler — an ENTIRELY merited response to one who tells an opponent to “shut up.” Or, don’t you understand the words, “shut up”? Or, if you do, will you now quibble that I should have termed him a “little Napoleon” instead?
Now, take a good look at the “liberal” attitude towards Israel, a democracy:
Sheehan couldn’t manage to run a simple anti-war, anti-Bush campaign without dragging Israel into it.
TP cannot manage to discuss Bushido’s errors without dragging Israel into it.
Moveon.org may have suppressed its anti-Semitic posts, but that doesn’t indicate the constituency to have disappeared.
Most “liberal” publications like the Nation and Counterpunch are incapable of putting out a single issue without an Israel-bashing article, conspicuously NOT balanced by any articles dedicated to the bloodthirstiness of Israel’s enemies, the charters promising Israel’s elimination, the thousands in Tehran (and some Palestinians in US demonstrations) chanting “Death to the Jews.” Even Arab-American comentators have lately been more balanced than have libs:
http://www.nysun.com/article/35606
http://www.ArabsForIsrael.com
Even more telling is the fact that my defense here of Israel and the Jews garners as much vitriol as would a defense of George Wallace.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:49 pmCLINTON IMPLODES IN FRONT OF NATIONAL AUDIENCE. MAKES TOTAL AND UTTER FOOL OF HIMSELF. TURNS INTO A QUIVERING, SNIVELING, BLABBERING IDIOT. WALLACE COMES OFF SMELLING LIKE A ROSE.
You left-wingers can try to spin this anyway you want. But it ain’t gonna help. I suspect most of you didn’t see it, because even a brain-dead lib would have seen Clinton crying like a baby. It was really pretty pathetic. You almost felt sorry for him…………naaahhhhh!
September 25th, 2006 at 3:51 pmSomebody above commented that he wants Fox to show the whole interview again, and not just a clip.
Believe me, if you’re a Clinton lover, you don’t want them to show that again. Not unless you like to see a quivering, blabbering, sniveling, finger pointing, “I did not have sex with that woman Miss Bin Laden” again.
You’re better off letting it die.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:57 pmIt’s comments like #531 that prove my point about what is important and what isn’t.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:58 pmLet’s stop arguing and find solutions. Isn’t that an novel idea.
Peace out
Not one to have the time or inclination to wade through 520 of 532 “we- hate-conservatives smack downs” I will simply note, having watched the former President enumerate how many times he tried to kill Osama – and the inability of the CIA and the FBI to certify- GO BACK and look at the most incapable, inept President we’ve endured, Mr. Jimmeh. As I noted on another thread a few days ago, I would not be against digging up Frank Church and trying that traitor. But our former President could have done without the finger wagging and “vast right wing conspiracy” rant….I couldn’t help but laugh……
September 25th, 2006 at 4:00 pm… “We are all beginning to sound like mud-slinging politicians
… before the elections.”
Denise, you are so right. This is exactly what the Administration and the Republicans want, is to divide America and polarize (as well as frighten) the people. We are falling into Carl Rove’s trap. We must remember that name-calling, questioning Americans’ patriotism and courage (as have many top Administration officials), might help us feel better or help a political campaign, but it is only destructive to America and its ideals.
As for looking back, though, we must. We can only judge the future by the past. This is EXACTLY what the Administration says: “Past is past, and we’re looking to the future.” How many times have we heard them say “We won’t play the ‘blame game’” or accuse anyone who wants to hold them accountable of living in the past. They must be held accountable for their actions and policies, or nothing will change.
Having said that, you are very correct that we must look to the future (as well) and try to find solutions to our Nation’s problems. But we must do so while taking into consideration the Administration and its rubber-stamp legislature that we have to work with.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:13 pm#532: One more time, AA, WHAT IS YOUR FREAKING PROBLEM? If anyone here even mentions Israel, you label them anti-Semetic. And you consider that anyone who tells you to “Shut up” is equal to Hitler?! (I’ll bet that you just LOVE Bill O’Reilly, though!) Anyone here who is telling you to shut up is doing so because you’re way the hell off-topic. Your accusations stem from your own mind, not from any comments here. You’re setting up a straw man, which has already been knocked down, so just go away!
September 25th, 2006 at 4:13 pmEnough about President Carter, Aphrodite. Regardless of the events of his presidency, he was still a better president than W could even dream of being, plus he does so much humanitarian work even now. He is a trusted and highly-respected human being, something Bush is not, and his legacy will last longer than Bush’s “comma.”
September 25th, 2006 at 4:21 pmJohnsom wrote “Believe me, if you’re a Clinton lover, you don’t want them to show that again. Not unless you like to see a quivering, blabbering, sniveling, finger pointing, “I did not have sex with that woman Miss Bin Laden†again.”
I try to remain dignified, but I have to say that that’s a lot of crap, and you know it, Johnsom. I hope they do show the entire interview, uncut & unedited, but I doubt they have the guts to do so.
Your post is a perfect example of the divisive and counter-productive flap that does nothing for America but drive its citizens further apart. While such vitriol is admittedly displayed by both sides, it is a shame the Administration (particularly Cheney) and so many of its followers use it to divide Americans.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:22 pmAll I want to say is “that’s my ex-President!!” Boy, do I miss him.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:28 pmAll I want to say is “that’s my ex-President!!” Boy, do I miss him.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:28 pm#470 Crotton said: We see plenty of arguments anti Islam, many of them with every bit the same venom and hatred as are levelled against Israel by Islam.
Your capacity for analysis is somewhat limited, isn’t it?
The Israelis have never had the objective of eliminating every Muslim, much less stated it in written charters or chanted it by the thousands in the streets. In fact, the Israeli MP who even suggested “transfer” was put out.
Muslim societies, however, have a 13-century-long history of treatment of their Jewish minority in semi-apartheid and periodic mass murder. And “death to the Jews” remains the consistent, genocidal refrain, from early 20th-century riots to modern Tehran to Palestinian demonstrators in San Francisco.
So, spare us the homilies about moral equivalence. The Israelis have a dozen Arab MP’s, an Arab member of their Supreme Court, and affirmative action programmes for Beduin — even as the half-century-long Muslim siege of annihilation continues. Israeli society may be TOO liberal. Were any Arab society so civilised, the wars would have been over long ago. (Even Israeli Arabs objected when Barak suggested Israel cede their areas to Palestine!)
As for the Lebanon “blunder,” it’s curious that all you armchair Gods know so confidently how to resolve the Lebanese morass. Have you ever been there? Do you speak any of its languages? Are you so sure of Hezbullah “popularity”? Could a Lebanese publicly condemn Hezbullah and live? What IS certain is that (as was seen in the 1950’s) Israeli concession to hit-and-run tactics only encourages more of the same, while Nasrallah has publicly admitted he wouldn’t have started his nonsense had he anticipated the response.
But thank you for confirming for me that the far-left’s response is always “blame Israel first.” Yet another issue on which you’re out of touch with America:
http://www.pollingreport.com/israel.htm
September 25th, 2006 at 4:37 pm“Do you think Israel is using too much force in Lebanon, not using enough force, or is using about the right amount of force?”
Too Much: 32
Not Enough: 22
About Right: 35
Unsure : 11
Thanks Don
September 25th, 2006 at 4:39 pmYour comment is very eloquent. It’s nice that we can agree to disagree as well as consider each others perspective calmly. I don’t believe I stated that we need to ignore the past. I stated that if we didn’t spend ALL of our time looking at the past maybe we could create a more positive future. That will never happen when we have an administration that thrives on self interests and spliting our country in half. I never want to be equated with thinking like this admin. I as 1 American just want to relay how things can get so out of hand so quickly. Why don’t we try to listen to each other instead of hollering about who’s right and whose wrong all the time. This is what I meant about taking a step forward to finding a solution.
Need I say more
#539. Schneider. Ta gueule.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:42 pmDear Jane – Sounds like you’ve had a tad toooooo much caffeine today….
We’ll just have to agree to disagree – Mr. Jimmeh should have limited his public service endeavors to “Habitat for Humanity” I think his weak, indecisive stance on all issues, foreign and domestic, was pitiful, pathetic and an excellent example of the Peter Principle, “”In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.”
On a baseball note, gotta love those Padres!!!!
September 25th, 2006 at 4:48 pmWallace had his ass handed to him and if anyone doesn’t think so count how many times he interrupts Clinton with “Let me finish the question” and then how many times he tries to interrupt Clinton’s answer to each of his points and then how he tries to completely change the subject to the Initiative efforts.
Wallace had a right to ask the question, I agree. But some one also does have the obligation to ask the questions of Bush:
1) Why did you not pursue the Cole after Clinton left office and was unable to after his limited time?
2) Why did you demote Clarke?
3) Why did you cut the budget to fight terror?
4) Why did your security adviser insist China was our most viable military threat almost immediately prior to 9/11?
5) What did you do, specifically, to continue to organize the US against terrorism between January 20th and September 11 of 2001?
But we know, Bush can’t even admit ever making a mistake. We’ve seen him say that publicly, we’ve seen that in his “hard work” in Iraq. We’ve seen that in his constant manipulation of laws through signing statements and other methods.
Clinton got pissed, and given they’re trying to lay this entire thing on him, he probably has a right to be pissed and defensive on the topic.
Bush, on the other hand, would cry and stomp about like a child if anyone dared ask him a tough question.
Clinton said he didn’t do enough. He can admit that. We all know it. But is also right in the fact that he tried. Sometimes he didn’t go far enough, often times it was his republican opposition screaming “wag the dog” because a blow job was certainly more important the defending our country.
So if Clinton didn’t do enough – what has Bush done?
September 25th, 2006 at 4:53 pmI really think we ought to start having serious discussions about splitting this country up. I just feel absolutely no common ground with the right wing zealots who run things, and most people in my part of the country (northeast) feel the same way.
Obviously, the feeling is mutual on the other side.
I’m sick of watching the right borrow-and-spend us into financial hell; I’m tired of listening to their protofascist rants; I don’t trust them and their armed forces; and I hate footing the bill for all their misadventures.
The only area where we DO agree is that the country is so big, and so dominated by special interests (I think corporate, they think poor black people, but whatever), that the average citizen effectively has no political power.
I simply don’t see why we need them or they need us. And maybe smaller, weaker countries would be better off. We would probably get along better as neighboring sovereign states, or a network of them, than as one big superpower. just divvy up the nukes evenly and call it a day.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:58 pmAphrodite, try reading the 400+ earlier posts, and see how many times “AverageAmerican” goes off on the anti-Israeli crap on this President Clinton thread. You read each and every one of those posts before you comment on mine. Besides, your Carter-bashing is getting old–we all get the point, you can’t stand him, enough. And, for your info, I drink decaf, and I don’t ‘gotta love’ the Pods.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:02 pm#540 Don, since you took the dignified path, let me explain. Obviously, I was joking about the Bin Laden comment, but not about the rest of it. He really was wagging his finger, quivering, poking Chris’ papers, blabbering, etc. He was acting exactly like he did when he said that about Miss Lewinsky.
We watched the whole thing twice, and I’m here to tell you, “he doth protest too much.” It hit home, because the bottom line is that he was way too soft on terrorism. And Bin Laden really did say what Wallace said he said about how after the Cole that “the Americans were weak.”
Clinton was too worried about his legacy, and he didn’t want to take on state sponsorship. And that is the simple truth. If he was president on 9/11, he wouldn’t have done anything there either. That’s why he was so pissed off that he was actually trembling.
If you really want to find out just how bad the Clinton/Reno team was, read Stephen Jones’ (McVeigh’s lawyer) book, “Others Unknown”, or Jayna Davis’ “The Third Terrorist: The Middle Eastern Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing.”
When Ramsey Yousef was captured in the Phillipines, they got his laptop. That’s how they broke the “Bojinka” plot to down 10 airplanes all at once (a prelude to 9/11). Another piece of intel they picked up at the time, was that a “secondary target after Bojinka was ‘a Federal Building in the American Heartland’”. McVeigh was merely the “lily white” patsy.
So goes the “Clinton Legacy”.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:05 pmKC,
You’re living in fantasy land. Clinton “went off on a rant”. There’s no other way to describe it. Wallace just sat back most of the time, and let him bury himself. I don’t think you saw the interview, because the only time Wallace said “let me finish the question” was BEFORE Clinton turned into a raving lunatic.
I hope Don get’s a chance to see it. He sounds like a reasonable guy. Let’s see what he thinks.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:09 pm#546/#549 Aphrodite/Jane. What JejuneJane omits is the obvious: Every post of mine on the “Israel” topic is mere response to post(s) by those here (particularly Randal, DonB, Crotton) themselves introducing extraneous Israel-bashing into a Clinton thread.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:14 pmScarpy wrote: “I really think we ought to start having serious discussions about splitting this country up.”
Yes, I agree. We’ll keep all the Republican money, and you keep all the Democrat money. You guys pay your bills, and we’ll pay ours. Think about it, just about every single person in this country WITHOUT A JOB is a Democrat, so you would be responsible for paying for them.
And yes, we’ll keep the Military. HA!
September 25th, 2006 at 5:18 pmWhat I witnessed in this video was a former president who lost his temper and went on an irate diatribe over a question about his administration’s record on counter-terrorism. In my opinion, he was rude and childish.
It was anything but a hit job, although I think that Mr. Clinton is used to having the media pander to him, so compared to his normal kids-glove treatment that he receives from reporters and interviewers, I guess this was a shock to his system.
If I were a Clinton fan, I would be embarrassed…
September 25th, 2006 at 5:26 pmClinton just needs to go away. His time has come and gone. Forget about him and move on.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:26 pm552: Bullshit. You started at post #47, with:
Jay Randall wrote:
And WHY Hillary in particular defends the occupation of Iraq and desires war on Iran to please Israel?
Do you also claim the European wariness of Iran is “to please Israel�
Do you understand many independent-minded Americans reject the left because you ALWAYS end up showing your begoted obsession with blaming Israel (or the JOOOOOOS) for all the world’s problems?
Comment by Average American — September 24, 2006 @ 11:40 am
…and every time anyone tried to explain the difference between criticizing and being Anti-Semetic, you simply re-accused them. Liberals do NOT “blame Israel” for all of the world’s problems. Straw Man argument. Period.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:32 pmClinton proved he is superior to these right wing hacks that infest the media like roaches. Roaches only come out at night. They thrive in darkness. But shine some light on them, they go scurrying off to the darkness. Fox News channel. A network by and for roaches.
President Clinton nailed Wallace on the points about Somalia, the points about him not asking the same questions of the Bush adminstration. This has been documented by hard facts, can be proven by anybody with a Lexus-Nexus account who understands the basic principles of research.
President Clinton = Great American
September 25th, 2006 at 5:39 pmWallace = common cockroach flushed down the toilet by President Clinton
First I must say, I am not one that needs convincing about the neocon agenda and the several decades long plot, which the American people themselves have allowed, to take over our government and establish a fascist regime. But it is pathetically obvious that FAUX “news” is playing to the “It-was-always-all-Clinton’s-fault” crowd. The true believers all probably still have the Jerry Falwell tape that was made back when they started dissing him (long discredited, but truth and fact mean nothing to them). I doubt very much that Wallace, with his limited capacities had anticipated the response he got and deserved every minute of it (squirming and wishing it would end, “You seem upset, sir.” was the best he could come up with).
One thing always jumps out at me when I hear this type of malarkey is that everything WE bring into discussions is provable and factual or and we are willing to adjust our thinking if new issues come to light. THEY on the other hand, always repeat whatever they have always said parrotting the party misconceptions and lies totally unwilling to make any new assessments in any area. As Gore Vidal said “They never have any ideas that they didn’t already have.”
For the sake of wishful phantasy however, wouldn’t it be fun if it turned out that their handy friend Mr. Bin Laden had been dead for quite a while and when they pull him out to spook the “base” it is just as if they haul him out of cold storage like an oddity in a carnival for their use. The “newly discovered tapes” that always seem to arrive when it has the chance of doing them the most good would be obviously bogus. But I doubt even that would cause the hard core Clinton baiters to adjust.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:50 pmResponse to Johnsom’s comment #550
… I was joking about the Bin Laden comment
Okay, poor joke but I’ll let you off on that one.
…He really was wagging his finger, quivering, poking Chris’ papers,
…blabbering, etc.
Do you really think that a man who has stood up with (and in many people’s opinion, stood up to) world leaders, who’s coolly faced the pressures & accusations that EVERY President has to face, would quiver in anger because he’s accused yet again by a “news” anchor of being soft on terrorism? He was angry, rightly so, and he said so. But few lawyers, let alone the President, “quivers” because he’s asked tough questions. And he distinctly was NOT “blabbering” any more than Wallace was while trying repeatedly to interrupt the ex-President of the United States and keep him from making his case.
. >I’m here to tell you, “he doth protest too much.†It hit home,
. because the bottom line is that he was way too soft on terrorism.
Just how tough was Bush on terrorism before 9/11? He demoted then fired the anti-terrorism chief who had served under 4 Presidents of both parties, including his own father, ignored the intelligence gathered by the CIA and under the Clinton administration, ignored his own Presidential Daily Briefings, held NO meetings regarding Bin Laden, and cut funding for anti-terrorist measures.
…And Bin Laden really did say what Wallace said he said about how
…after the Cole that “the Americans were weak.â€
Bin Laden is not the first military leader who has said that his enemy was weak. If he had not said that, THEN it would have been remarkable because he’d be just about the only military leader who hadn’t.
…Clinton was too worried about his legacy … and that is the simple
…truth.
That’s what Faux News and the recent, admittedly fallacious CBS documentary says. You should not accept everything that conservatives say as fact. And unlike the Administration, you should try listening to other opinions as well as those that simply support your own, and reconsider things with an open mind.
…If he was president on 9/11, he wouldn’t have done anything there
…either.
Do you really, really believe that if Clinton had been President he would have – could have – just ignored 9/11? Does any thinking person really believe that? Mickey Mouse himself could have been President and America would have taken action and survived 9/11.
It’s true that Bill Clinton probably wouldn’t have fought Al Queda and the Talliban by invading Iraq and getting tens of thousands of people killed, including more US troops than those who died on 9/11.
It has been truly said that invading Iraq because of 9/11 would be like avenging Pearl Harbor by invading Mexico.
…That’s why he was so pissed off that he was actually trembling.
Again with the imagined trembling…
…If you really want to find out just how bad the Clinton/Reno team
…was, read Stephen Jones’ (McVeigh’s lawyer) book… or Jayna
…Davis’ [book]
I don’t get my understanding and opinions of a President from someone who would willingly defend someone like Timothy McVeigh or from a woman who makes money writing books about alleged conspiracy theories – just as I wouldn’t get my opion of President Bush from Al Franken, author of “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.”
…When Ramsey Yousef was captured in the Phillipines, they got his
September 25th, 2006 at 6:02 pm…laptop. That’s how they [discovered that] McVeigh was merely the
…“lily white†patsy.
So you believe the conspiracy theories that the FBI, CIA, and Military Intelligence have all discounted. Okay, whatever. That says nothing about Clinton, but everything about why you believe the things you do.
[...] from YouTube and other places; however, you can still see the interview here. posted in rant | permo link | 83470060924603079 [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 6:03 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqdpAQFQlHQ&NR,
September 25th, 2006 at 6:08 pmklintoon admits then he did nothing, now he is backtracking.. if you read his book, “MY LIES”, then you will see he was not obsessed with bin laden, like he now says he was.
Clinton is trying to save his legacy when everyone knows he did little to nothing to stop the terrorists threats. He shot off a few missles, watched his poll numbers dip more and gave up on any other preventative measures even though there where over a dozen attacks on US interests by the terrorists. They got bolder w/ each one knowing there was no hell to pay.
No he has the balls to blame Bush for 9-11. Let’s see. he had 8 years vrs the 8 months of the Bush admin prior to 9-11.
He got a more than a little whiney……..
September 25th, 2006 at 6:19 pm#551
Thanks for the complement, Johnsom, and for asking for my opinion of how the interview went.
Regardless of the subject matter, who’s right & who’s wrong, this is what I observed:
1. Wallace secured the interview under false pretenses. His stated intent was to talk about Clinton’s (very honorable) Global Initiative, but the first thing he did was attack the ex-President.
2. I observed an interviewer with an obvious agenda attacking an ex-President of the United States and denying him the respect and dignity that any person, particularly an ex-President, is entitled to (including Bush after he leaves office).
Wallace’s FIFTH QUESTION, his first after a bit of small talk, was (this is directly from the transcript on the Fox News website: “Why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?”
In other words, Wallace immediately set up what’s called a “Straw Man” argument – making (arguably) a false statement, then asking Clinton to defend himself against the accusation. It’s like asking “Why is Johnsom such an evil person?”. The question in itself is disrespectful and offensive.
3. I saw a President who stuck to his guns and demanded to be heard despite Wallace’s repeated interruptions and finally his attempt, before Clinton was finished, to change the subject to the Initiative he’d promised to talk about in the first place. Watching the interview, it appears to me that it was Wallace, not Clinton, who waffled and tried to change the subject. And reading the transcript, it’s clear that that was the case.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:21 pm#549 – “Aphrodite, try reading the 400+ earlier posts, and see how many times “AverageAmerican†goes off on the anti-Israeli crap on this President Clinton thread. You read each and every one of those posts before you comment on mine. Besides, your Carter-bashing is getting old–we all get the point, you can’t stand him, enough. And, for your info, I drink decaf, and I don’t ‘gotta love’ the Pods.”
Comment by JaneESchneider
******Dear Jane – I have neither the time nor inclination to read 400+ posts. Might I suggest Midol or Pamprin – you seem just a little edgy today….. Your Bush bashing is getting old but I don’t tell you to put a muzzle on it. Can you imagine how upset Wayne would get???? (An aside to ABOVE Average American: Let me guess – - MANY of the Israel comments had to do with the “UNFAIR(!!!)” favourtism Israel receives from the US – (bucket of tears should accompany foot stomping now…))
I hope you feel better, Jane….
September 25th, 2006 at 6:26 pm#553: Johnsom wrote (re splitting up the country):
…Yes, I agree. We’ll keep all the Republican money, and you keep all
…the Democrat money. You guys pay your bills, and we’ll pay ours.
Let me remind you that it was a Democratic President and Congress which finally balanced the budget and created a record surplus. It was a Republican President and Congress that ran this country into record deficits with tax cuts for the wealthy, extravagant spending, documented mismanagement, and corporate give-aways.
…Think about it, just about every single person in this country
…WITHOUT A JOB is a Democrat, so you would be responsible for
…paying for them.
And it was under the current President and Administration, and their rubber-stamp Congress, that all those people, of BOTH parties, lost their jobs in the first place!
September 25th, 2006 at 6:27 pmAphrodite, don’t bother guessing what set AA off, I quoted it. If you don’t have the time or the inclination to read the posts, then don’t comment on them.
Mr. Carter is no longer president, and hasn’t been for about 30 years. By your own standards, then, Bush-bashing won’t get old until 2036-ish.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:36 pmScarpy, I LOVE your idea of splitting the country. I propose the Progressive States of America include all the states and territories East of the Mississippi plus Minnesota and Iowa. The Conservative States of America would be the remainder of the Mid-West and West. Progs living in Western Blue States could be subsidized in their move to the East. We could have our tax, spend and defend system and progs could have theirs. I think we could have friendly foreign relations – I would probably think of you Easterners the way I do of so many Canadians….very sweet.
Please understand that we will be asking for photo ID cards in Conservative elections so as to thwart illegal aliens who want to vote in OUR elections….
Again Scarpy, I LOVE the idea!!!!
September 25th, 2006 at 6:40 pmDear Don- Why did JFK LOWER tax rates????? What was the result??? Was more or less money turned into the federal government AFTER Reagan’s tax cuts went through???
P.S. When YOU understand the difference between tax rates AND revenue…come on back, we’d love to hear from you!!!!!
September 25th, 2006 at 6:44 pmHey Don,
Clinton wnet kicking & screaming to sign the Balanced Budget Amendment as well as the Welfale reform act. It was the REPUBLINAC Senate & REPUBLICA house that put those on his desk.
Get you facts straight…….
September 25th, 2006 at 6:44 pmSad. It does look like Rove has won. America is divided. Conversation has degenerated into typical name calling. We lost much more than two towers on 9/11, I wonder if we’ll ever regain it.
I still wish someone would explain to me who is controlling the puppet stings on the conservative propaganda machine?
September 25th, 2006 at 6:51 pmHomer+Simson,
Excuse me? You’re complaining about Clinton regarding balancing the budget? Have you seen what Bush has done to the budget surplus?
I have no idea what conservative or republican principles are anymore. Seems like its whatever Bush does, which is borrow and spend.
As far as I can tell the republican/conservative position is to:
- Spend as much as we possibly can and just borrow the difference
- Invade countries that haven’t done anything to us, install our puppet governments and “nation build (Iraq).
- Saber rattle and insult countries which really are a threat but then turn and run acting too chicken to really confront any serious threat (Korean, Iran).
- Allow illegal immigrates to come into the country
- Grow a large central government which controls everything people are allowed to do or not do, including forcing them to undergo treatment in hospitals and telling them when they can die or not.
Sounds very different to me from what Reagan said he was trying todo.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:57 pmI am so glad to see him stand up for himself like that. Can’t we just write him in as President in 2008? Seriously.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:02 pm“You did your nice little conservative hit job on me.”
And then President Clinton let Chris Wallace have it. Smirky coward.
Please God let this be the first shot of a counter-reformation against the Bush-Sanctioned freako right wing media. Stand with President Clinton and shoot these demagoges down with facts and reason.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:07 pmany one know where i can dl a hard copy.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:09 pmi want to be able for others to preview the interview
Bully boy Billy was a disaster waiting to happen…………..and I loved every minute of it.
Sort of like watching a train wreck.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:15 pmOn one hand its horrible and on the other it’s frightening.
This psycho had his hand on the button for 8 years.
Don said: “I don’t get my understanding and opinions of a President from someone who would willingly defend someone like Timothy McVeigh or from a woman who makes money writing books about alleged conspiracy theories ”
Don, I’m dissappointed in you. That’s one of the oldest fallacies going. When you can’t defeat an argument, attack the person.
First, Stephen Jones is one of the most respected lawyers in the country. He didn’t want the case, the judge in charge “asked” (as in told) him to take it. He is very honest, and believable. His book is quite factual, and I’ve never heard anyone say one thing bad about him.
Second, Jayna Davis was an investigative reporter for a local ABC affiliate, hardly the bastion of the right wing. She arrived at the scene one half hour after the bomb exploded. Her boss gave her the following instruction: Find out who did this.
For ten years, she worked doggedly, following leads, investigating the locals, and accumulating sworn affidavits. She’s as American as apple pie, and totally without an axe to grind.
You really have to read these things before passing judgement on them
Regarding the Clinton interview, you can’t tell he was quivering by readiing the transcript. But I’m here to tell you HE LOST IT big time. He was quivering, blustering, poking. He was really quite embarrassing. All Wallace did was ask him a question, and then sit back and let him rant. Clinton was pissed because he got asked something that reminded him of the recent docudrama that ABC put on (liberal ABC, that is).
You have to see it to appreciate it. I know what a “Strawman” argument is, and this wasn’t it. Clinton did virtually nothing to fight state terrorism.
Here’s a quote from former CIA Director James Woolsey (under Clinton) about Jayna Davis:
“When the full stories of these two incidents (1993 WTC Center bombing and 1995 Oklahoma City bombing) are finally told, those who permitted the investigations to stop short will owe big explanations to these two brave women (Middle East expert Laurie Mylroie and journalist Jayna Davis). And the nation will owe them a debt of gratitude.”
- Former CIA Director James Woolsey,
Wall Street Journal, September 5, 2002
Original story link – “The Iraq Connection”
Laurie Myrolie (another respected Middle East expert under Clinton) pretty much proves the Iraqi Connection to World Trade I. Jayna Davis proves it to Okbomb.
You can say these things ain’t true, if it makes you feel better, but if you read it yourself, instead of falling back on the old arguements, you might see why it’s so believable.
This is the context that I view Clinton in, and then everything else has a whole nuther look to it. That’s why he was so pissed at Wallace and ABC. He doesn’t want anybody to find out.
In fairness though, I’m pissed at Bush too for not following up on the OKBomb story. According to Ms Davis, the reason why he didn’t was because her lawyers gave him information about John Doe II going to Logan Airport BEFORE 9/11. After years, she managed to supoena JDoe II’s pscyhiatrists records, where Doe II says, “if anything happens at Logan, there going to think I had something to do with it.” There is a direct nexus between WTI, Bojinka, Okbomb, and WTII (9/11).
But, I understand, some of these things we’re better off not knowing, because it pisses you off so much, that you almost wish you didn’t know.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:17 pm…Dear Don- Why did JFK LOWER tax rates????? What was the
…result??? Was more or less money turned into the federal
…government AFTER Reagan’s tax cuts went through???
In both instances, that was a much different time. And as for the effect of Reagan’s tax cuts, as much as I respect the man and his memory, he ran up the second largest deficit in history (which included two world wars, the dust bowl and the depression).
…P.S. When YOU understand the difference between tax rates AND
…revenue…come on back, we’d love to hear from you!!!!!
Thanks for the insult, that is just so productive! But I can’t “come on back” because I haven’t gone anywhere.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:20 pmContard bushwipes crack me up.
They’re always talking trash like their tough or something, and then when somebody like Bill sits up and smacks the crap out of them, he’s suddenly “crazy” or “freakin out”. What a bunch of wussies these contard bushwipes are, I tell ya, they’re all big talkers, while the drunken awol cheerleader does NOTHING to secure our borders, ignored the warnings that Clarke gave them, Ignored the August memo saying Bin Laden is planning to strike the US, and instead went on a monthlong vacation, but that’s ok. Even though repugnicons were too busy sniffing his crotch, and blocking every effort to GET Bin Laden, with their cries of “wag the dog”, he didn’t do “enough”.
It’s plain to see in this interview that Bill Clinton kept his cool, and didn’t beat the crap out of the faux news wuss like he wanted to.
He instead beat him down with his superior intellect, and made him look foolish.
Yes I’ve watched it several times, and I think it’s better each time.
My hand shakes like that too, when I’m ready to beat the crap out of somebody. So it seemed perfectly normal, and it seemed to me that after Bill said what he had to say, HE sat back, smiled, and let the smirking retard stammer out the rest of his “interview”.
Contard bushwipes crack me up.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:20 pmI thought this thread of emails was supposed to be discussing the Chris Wallace interview of ex-president Bill Clinton.
Looks more like just another Bush-bashing forum for those who care more about their political standing than our country “standing.” For those arrogant persons who feel compelled to slander and impede our president while he is doing everything he can to protect and lead us, your last candiate’s IQ was less than W’s, so apparently that was not a big issue with you in 2004.
Back to the subject at hand, Clinton acted like the spoiled child that he is and treated us to another temper tantrum. Nothing new there, either.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:23 pmre#571 by Homer + Simpson:
…Sad. It does look like Rove has won. America is divided.
…Conversation has degenerated into typical name calling. We lost
…much more than two towers on 9/11, I wonder if we’ll ever regain it.
What a wonderful and profound thing to say. Thanks so much for such an enlightened comment!
September 25th, 2006 at 7:23 pmObviously some of you long-winded dems are not no-spinner’s, or you would know to keep your comments “pithy!”
Good grief! How many characters does it take for you to say “I don’t like Bush!? We get it, already.
This is supposed to be a commentary re the Wallace/Clinton interview.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:27 pmFOX you dirty little monkeys!
Has anyone noticed on Youtube that the LARGER files of the Clinton Interview have been pulled from the site by their “users” and also
“This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner Fox News Network, LLC because its content was used without permission
Now the shorter files seem to all be up… You know the ones that are taken out of context and make clinton look angry and petty
If they can control youtube and myspace video….
What forum do we have left on the internet for people who don’t take the time to read?
WHat???? Underground videos on usenet that suppress THE TRUTH which should be seen on the networks to begin with?
It’s not just fox news…. all news organizations residing in the US are controll by 5 GIANT parent companies who control them to the T
If you want my advice watch C span 1 and 2 to get your real news
that and BBC news/ Sky News
Im out
September 25th, 2006 at 7:32 pmI LOVE U BILL My god! George Bush take note that is how a real President does it! Tell is straight bill!
From a Canadian point of you! Bill you could come up to Canada and run for Priminister of Canada! PLEASE
September 25th, 2006 at 7:38 pmWell, I watched Fox News, today, curious if they could save their journalist from Clinton’s accusations by running the tough questions Wallace defensively claimed he’d asked, even as our former president called him a liar. So easy to prove, if Wallace had been telling the truth, wasn’t it?
Instead they attempted to use mockery of our ex-president as a diversionary device while the silence left even me embarrassed for them and especially for Wallace.
I don’t believe their tricks are working so well as they once did. I used to think Wallace was a good journalist before he moved to Fox. I never would have thought he’d sell out to push propaganda instead of news. The other P.R. guys on that network don’t have a clue. But Wallace knows better. And that makes his case especially pitiful.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:49 pmI find it interesting that President Clinton got so defensive on the subject. All he had to say was that he did all that he felt that he could do and it would have ended there. He claimed that he was brought on under false pretenses to the fox network, however, it appeared he had an agenda from step 1 of the interview. Maybe if Wallace would have asked him about his program first it would have gone differently. I really felt watching the interview that he was in a direct attempt to cloud the facts of the matter by throwing out all of his propaganda about what he did/didn’t do. In reply to the last post why would Clinton look anything but Angry and Petty? I’ve seen the ENTIRE video and trust me he looks Angry and Petty throughout the whole thing. You won’t trust me though, liberals have a problem with trust these days and I don’t blame you. I can’t watch network news anymore because of the bias (left or right) in the media. This country has a HUGE problem with propaganda and its only hurting our fight in the war on terrorism.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:50 pmI watched Clinton on Meet The Press and commented to my friends that he gave a very thoughtful and persuasive interview, even though I did not agree with him on the points he made, he made them well.
Then I caught the Fox interview. I COULDN’T BELIEVE MY EYES. He became completely unglued and defensive. He misquoted facts i.e. Richard Clarke was demoted. (He asked to be transfered, check pages 234 and 239 of Clarke’s book) He acted very vindictive and childrish and completely lost his composure. I guess he was worried about his legacy. He talked of the tail wagging the dog, which was brought on with his Lewinksy affair. He also talked of a right-wing conspiracy saying Republicans claimed he was obsessed with Bin Laden (not true, Gringrich, Trent Lott and many other Republicans wrote editorials and urged him on after his attempts on Bin Laden. I can’t believe he was the same person I saw earlier on Meet The Press!!!
September 25th, 2006 at 7:57 pmFox has just made YouTube.com pull all the videos on the interview because they were not ‘approved’ by them.
Thanks for the transcript, man!
September 25th, 2006 at 7:58 pm#576: Johnsom wrote:
…Don, I’m dissappointed in you. That’s one of the oldest fallacies
…going. When you can’t defeat an argument, attack the person.
You are right, Johnsom, and I stand corrected. On reflection I agree that I did attack the evidence without having enough knowledge about it. I have not read those books, nor am I likely to. So with apologies I retract my comments re the Oklahoma City bombing.
As for Clinton “quivering” I’ll bow out of that argument. Of course he was angry over having been set up, and over Wallace’s attempts to prevent him from making his case, indeed from answering Wallace’s question. I really doubt, however, that any former President of the United States can be intimidated by a news anchor, even when the anchor is on the attack.
You have quoted sources that say Clinton did nothing, and believe them. I can quote sources that say he was strong against terrorism and when I do you will reject their opinions and maintain your own viewpoint. That’s human nature, particularly when Americans have been so divided by the Administration. To borrow from Walter Cronkite, “That’s just the way it is”.
As for Iraq’s alleged involvement in 9/11, almost everyone in America on both sides of the issue agrees that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. President Bush himself even admitted that during a press conference. About the only holdout is Cheney, but then he lives in a world of his own anyway.
As for the strawman argument presented by Wallace to Clinton, it was indeed, and by definition, a strawman argument. It made the assumption (untrue) that Clinton did little about terrorism during his administration, and stated as much as fact. It is exactly the same as I said as if I asked you why are you a terrible conservative person? The fallacy is that you most likely are NOT a terrible conservative person (conservative, maybe :). The fallacy in Wallace’s question/attack was that Clinton had done little or nothing about terrorism during his administration.
As you have demonstrated, there are people who will argue on both sides of that question, and neither is likely to change their mind. Two people can see the same evidence and come away with different conclusions. Again, “that’s just the way it is”.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:03 pm#564 Aphrodite. Your perspicacity is impressive.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:06 pm#566 JejuneJane. Aphrodite pegged you exactly — and you didn’t even understand!
#556 JejuneJane. Je t’emmerde.
Well, I watched Fox News, today, curious if they could save their journalist from Clinton’s accusations by running the tough questions Wallace defensively had claimed he’d asked Bush and subordinates, previously, even as our former president called him a liar. So easy to prove, if Wallace had been telling the truth, wasn’t it?
But Fox, rather, attempted to use mockery of our ex-president as a diversionary device while the silence left even me embarrassed for them and especially for Wallace. Not even one clip of Wallace asking any of the tough questions Clinton had claimed he’d never asked.
I don’t believe their tricks are working so well as they once did. I used to think Wallace was a good journalist before he moved to Fox. I never would have thought he’d sell out to push propaganda instead of news. The other P.R. guys on that network don’t have a clue. But Wallace knows better. And that makes his case especially pitiful.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:17 pmClinton, you are awesome. You laid the smackdown, and I only hope all Democrats follow suit when coerced and weaseled by FOX NEWS. Clinton’s Global Initiative is the opposite of Bush’s Iraq War. Which one would you rather be a part of?
99% of people of the War proponents don’t know a single Iraqi Muslim. Know thine enemy? Yeah, right. We’re losing because we’re stupid.
That’s a fact.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:18 pmJack Kennedy would be really proud.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:23 pmway to sock it to them Mr.Clinton
Heh. You guys are calling this ‘Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News’? I get it. You are reality based, but you don’t live here.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:27 pmGO TO YOUTUBE.COM and
search “clinton fox news” and see that EVERY person that uploaded this video had it removed by FOX NEWS, LLC. except rj0995 and bhubs789 (who both spun the clips in a negative way towards Clinton). That means that rj0995 and bhubs789 MUST BE FOX NEWS. why else would they demand that EVERYONE remove the video except for these two? They each have brand new profiles (just joined this weekend), both empty profiles except this video, and both with video titles that are NEGATIVE toward Clinton. The all other videos of this interview in its entirety (talking about the Global Initiative), and videos that had titles in Clinton’s favor were removed by FOX NEWS.
And out of ALL of the people that posted this video on YouTube, the two versions that FOX NEWS, LLC just “happened” to not remove (sly like a “what”?) received over 930,000 views. The videos that showed Clinton speaking about the Global Initiative were ALL removed by FOX NEWS, LLC before they were able to receive even 15 views.
We are witnessing Right Wing Propaganda as we speak.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:28 pmDear Don- A fact is a fact is a fact…. Fact is, MORE money was raised in the national coffers, and Reagan was combatting the neglect of the military that took place under the idiot/traitor Mr. Jimmeh. In addition….Reagan should have NEVER compromised with Tip O’Neil – That old drunk had a hard time keeping his stories straight – kind of like Ted the Swimmer…
Gotta run – It’s been fun….
September 25th, 2006 at 8:32 pmMust be some uber conspiracy tim :)
September 25th, 2006 at 8:34 pmWhy couldnt we have just made Clinton ‘Emperor for Life’? I yearn for another President like him.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:35 pmyou libs saw a different interview than I did–I saw a man who was afraid to answer the questions, and responded with anger rather than tact. Clinton is still the disgrace that he was while shaming our country with his immoral acts in the oval office. Why don’t all of you take the time to look up the facts for yourselves–clinton has shown in a very public fashion his propensity to lie.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:39 pmI love all the revisionist history being expounded on all sides! Clinton, in other interviews, admits letting OBL slip away because “we had nothing we could hold him on.” Then, many of the RW want to say it’s all Clinton’s fault! Remember the hostage situation under Carter? Then Reagan, as much as lots of folks liked him, didn’t do much to curb any terrorist activity either! GHWB, likewise, didn’t do much in that category. I think we’ve got a long history of fault on both sides.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:42 pmI can’t believe Bill let his temper show like that. It was beneath him, we all know he porked Monica and didn’t do diddly against Al-Qaeda but it’s time to let it go into history. His legacy will never reach it’s potential as long as little twerps like Wallace keep bringing up Bill’s shortcomings. The neo-cons are laughing at us – I can’t stand it!!
September 25th, 2006 at 8:43 pmBill Clinton is a failure and did nothing to stop bin laden. He is a liar, and he admits he is a failure. That is the Democratic party, a failure. And so what about Fox news, tell me a news agency that is not a bunch of liberal weiners. Honestly, Bush has made mistakes, but he understands the threat to the U.S. were Clinton, a supreme liberal, has no clue and only cares about the hot intern he can take to his office when Hilary is not around. This video just goes to show you what a psycho, wuss, can’t handle the pressure, liberal Democrats.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:01 pmFox News, you’ve just had your ass handed to you! Would you like a bag with that?
September 25th, 2006 at 9:08 pmOn YouTube.com The fox news interview has been removed. an edited portion of the interview remains. Has the power of Fox News reached a point of total media domination? Maybe, But as long as you know what their intentions are … you shall overcome
September 25th, 2006 at 9:10 pmBoy, Clinton really shook his finger at Chris Wallace. Kindof reminds me of the last time he shook his finger…”I did not have sexuall relations…”
September 25th, 2006 at 9:32 pmTHANK YOU BILL CLINTON ! Keep fighting the Good Fight. I will vote Democratic and I hope your wife is on the Presidential ballot. I also hope no one riggs the voting machines! And thank you thinkprogress.org for holding on to the truth and keeping the video clip going. I have sent all of my friends this link and the transcript.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:34 pmIts a real pleasure to hear Bill Clinton talk. In contrast the George Bush wont be able to hold up to a debate like this for two minutes. Clinton is so articulate and intelligent. What a contrast with the current president. G. Bush is a disgrace to our country. People around the world make fun us when they ask us if this was the best guy we could find to run this country
September 25th, 2006 at 9:34 pmAmazing the total denial the right-wingers live in. Bush IS the worst president in my lifetime next to Nixon and you continue to support him. You whine about the attacks on Bush but stood and clapped when they happened to Clinton, hypocrites! He has gotton more american worriors killed then we lost in the WTC attacks.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:34 pmIf you truly want to improve our country, stop supporting a PUKE like Bush and find someone in the republican party who is HUMAN. These past 5 1/2 years have been hell on many and it’s okay to those who are benifiting from Bush’s lost agenda. I’m looking forward to November when we can kick those sheep out of office and hold Bush accountable for the target he has made America! There is no arguing the fact that he has made us more hated in the world than ever before. I hope Hilary runs and wins in 08′ just to piss off the neo-cons! I’m positive she would be better than Bush-2!
#603 Augustus wrote:
…”Has the power of Fox News reached a point of total media
…domination?”
It might get there one day. After all, they’re in the President’s pocket.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:35 pmWhy couldnt we have just made Clinton ‘Emperor for Life’? I yearn for another President like him. = Comment by Kulish — September 25, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
Bad news Comrade Kulish
September 25th, 2006 at 9:35 pmMr. Clinton cannot be President again.
Sen Hillary will not make it either, because of the great divide in the pathetic Democrat Party. The last democrat worth a dime was John F Kennedy. Frank is right, It but it is not the neo-cons laughing, it is most Americans who see Mr. Bill Clinton trying so hard to save his failed legacy.
Whenever Mr. Clinton waves his finger he is lying, just compare this to the Monica speech.
#609: JR wrote:
…”Whenever Mr. Clinton waves his finger he is lying, just compare this
….to the Monica speech.”
Better to have a President who lies about a blow job than one who lies about WMD, Iraq/Al Queda links, destroys America’s credibility in the world and gets tens of thousands of people killed by his lies, including more brave Americans in Iraq than victims on 9/11. Whenever Mr. Bush (or Mr. Cheney) open their mouths they are lying. Just compare this to the last time they opened their mouths.
So you are ALREADY calling people “Comrade”?! Just an indication of where this country is headed under the current regime.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:41 pmBill-
September 25th, 2006 at 9:42 pmWe miss you.
We NEED you.
Dems, please get a clue.
Spine is fine.
I want mine.
Hill, can you fill the bill?
Bill, can elect Hill?
Can we get another thrill?
More, more, more BILL!!!!!!
Bill-
September 25th, 2006 at 9:42 pmWe miss you.
We NEED you.
Dems, please get a clue.
Spine is fine.
I want mine.
Hill, can you fill the bill?
Bill, can elect Hill?
Can we get another thrill?
More, more, more BILL!!!!!!
Unbelievably refreshing to see Bill Clinton back and in fighting form! I miss the honesty and hard-hitting conversations. He’s one politician who can analyze a situation and give an answer that we can trust. Several of the bloggers have commented that if Bush had been in the “hot seat”, it would have been a total joke. Of course, Bush would never allow an unscripted interview. Hell, he won’t even allow unscripted questions from the press corp. It would have been nothing more than a smirk-fest between Bush and Wallace (assuming of course that Wallace would have asked him such questions, which won’t happen in this life time). I love the fact that once Wallace made the mistake of asking the question, Clinton would not let him backtrack and move to safer ground. He must have been furiously signalling his producers to give him some tips in his ear-bud… Apparently they were too shocked to think also. Bottom line — Bill’s back and it’s good! He has handled the slander that commenced with ABC’s 9/11 lying documentary with grace and aplomb, but when asked the hot question, he finally was able to respond. Can we have more, please?
September 25th, 2006 at 9:42 pmCoulda … Shoulda … Woulda …. It’s funny how he keeps telling everyone to read someone else’s book to find the truth. He was the PRES … The guy who is supposed to know everything and lead the pack to victory no matter right or wrong. I think Clinton was a joke when he was in office. I was in the Marines when he was in office and no one thought he was worth his salt. He didn’t do anything because his wife has his balls in her purse. Of course he comes out now and says I did this and that, but you know what?….Bottom line was he was weak and he didn’t have the backbone to take the fight to them. I think Bush is a great war-time Pres and until the battle is over I think he should stay in office because he is the only one who seems to have the guts to take the bully’s lunch money.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:43 pmHey, William. Bush can’t even find the bully.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:48 pmDon said:
“As for Iraq’s alleged involvement in 9/11, almost everyone in America on both sides of the issue agrees that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11″
Ok, this is crucial. This is an example of “The Big Lie”. I’ll leave you with a quote:
====================================
Dr. Laurie Mylroie, one of the foremost American scholars on Iraq and Saddam Hussein. In her book Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein´s Unfinished War against America, Dr. Mylroie provided substantial evidence implicating Saddam’s involvement in four terrorist attacks: the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing; the 1995 bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the 1996 attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and the 1998 bombings of two African embassies. She is also the author of Bush vs. the Beltway: How the CIA and the State Department Tried to Stop the War on Terror;
=================================
Jayna Davis covers: The Oklahoma City Bombing.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:49 pmSeveral people on this message board, on both sides of the issue, have said “Just go look at the video!”
Too bad Faux News has had it pulled from YouTube and other places it was posted. They don’t pull their other stories like that. Wonder why that could be? Embarrassment? Shame? Something to hide? An attempt to save Wallace’s career?
September 25th, 2006 at 9:49 pmFixergood said: “So it seemed perfectly normal, and it seemed to me that after Bill said what he had to say, HE sat back, smiled, and let the smirking retard stammer out the rest of his “interviewâ€.”
Yeah, I’m sure that’s what Clinton was hoping for, but to the civilized world it looked like he was a 10 year old. He looked silly. What did he say about Wallace’s “bones”.
That may play in Arkansas, but it doesn’t anywhere else. Actually, I doubt if it plays anywhere for anyone over the age of 17.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:55 pm#614: William wrote:
I agree that Bush should stay in office for the remaining two years. God save the (self-proclaimed) King!
Think about it. If anything – anything – including an impeachment should take Bush out of office, DICK CHENEY would become President!
We would become The United States of Halliburton and our money would read “In Oil We Trust”
God Bless Mr. Bush! And for God’s sake, keep him healthy!!
September 25th, 2006 at 9:56 pm#
>
I’m not a leftist. I’m not american. I’m a simple CANADIAN, and I agree totally with his comment on Israel. Israel is the most disgusting state ever to have seen the day, racist, criminal, financed beyond imagination by the USA and at the very source of MOST of the problems in the arab world. Israel dictates american politics, and it’s certainly not the other way around.
As for Clinton, bravo, but even if I have 100% more respect for him than for the Bushes and their death toll of more than 400,000 civilian iraqis dead (UN Figures), I still have no respect for Clinton because he’s responsible for the bombing of a factory in Sudan that produced drugs for 100,000 patients. Even though the US said it was a mistake, and they took the plant for a chemical weapons factory by error, they NEVER apologized, they NEVER paid for the rebuilding and it caused the indirect death of approximately 40,000 people, most of them KIDS.
This is the goddam Clinton you all seem to praise high and high. Now don’t start me on Bush, or on Bin Laden, or on most world leaders. What they are is summarized in a few letters: SCUM, all of them, power-hungry SCUM.
Cheers,
September 25th, 2006 at 9:58 pmMaldoror
Clinton got punked haha…… He lost it! Wow what a beating
September 25th, 2006 at 10:05 pmDon,
I was not the one who wanted Mr.Clinton ‘Emperor for Life’, that was one of your fellow Democrats.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:09 pmPlease engage me with something better than Chris Matthews talking points. My point was the fact that Mr. Clinton cannot be President again.
No matter how much you wish for it. You will have to come up with a candidate who can actually defend the country. I thought the last one you had was JFK. Do you have a person in mind, in your party who can be strong on national defense?
#621 Danny wrote:
Yeah. He’s dumb like a fox.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:13 pmDon said: “An attempt to save Wallace’s career? ”
Yeah, that’s a laugh. Wallace just got tenure. He ruled. Any objective observer I’ve seen so far said that Wallace came off smelling like a rose. He remained calm, composed, and saw how funny it was in real time.
Wallace scored big time.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:22 pmfox should be embarrassed.
and to #614- I was in the Marines and I know what it means to have a backbone. You, on the otherhand, should be a bit less impressed with Bush and even more so, embarrassed of your knack for confusing those who exemplify strength and honor with those who are bullheaded and blind. You and Bush belong in the same place- a big white room with nothing but “how-to” books to keep you busy and off the streets.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:25 pmPresident Clinton evoked my passion for politics…. G Dumbya Bush evoked my passionate hatred for the Republican party. I’ve learned Democrats argue for truth…. Repukes argue to win.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:30 pmYou can tell when Clinton is lying, his lips move…..
September 25th, 2006 at 10:31 pmEven liberal NPR guy Juan Williams said that Wallace came off looking very good.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:31 pm#622 JR wrote:
I didn’t mean to suggest that you did. It’s obvious that that the last thing you would want is for Clinton to be in office (either one). For the record, I think it’s ludicrous to suggest anyone, either party, be “emporer for life” and I suspect it was said tongue-in-cheek. This is America, after all.
Please engage me in something better that FAUX News talking points.
I wouldn’t have it any other way.
You’re right that JFK was strong on defense, and probably the last Democratic President (with the possible exception of Clinton) who was. JFK’s strongest point was that he tried to avert war (Cuban missle crisis) using the strength of America without bullying and alienating the rest of the world. It is too bad he didn’t have more time, or Viet Nam (my war) would certainly have turned out much differently.
Viet Nam, by the way, was started by a Republican administration (Eisenhower) and tragically and ineptly escalated under L.B.J. (Johnson), a Democratic President.
Korea Viet Nam showed us how disasterous an ineptly managed war could be, particularly if it is unjustified (both were). All the more disasterous to mishandle national defense when the war has been brought to our own shores.
Bush responded to terrorism by attacking Iraq, which the record shows he had begun planning shortly after taking office, long before 9/11, if not before. Thank goodness FDR didn’t respond to Pearl Harbor by invading Canada. Or worse yet, attack Canada preemptively to protect us from it.
Many potential Democratic candidates could get us out of the mess Bush has created for us (and admittedly some would make it worse… Competence is not a function of political party). Given that we are at war, I would hope that whoever is elected, from either party, is a real war veteran, not a make-believe veteran like Bush. And I would hope that neither party’s smear/slander campaign would be as successful as Rove’s was in 2004.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:43 pmClinton didn’t get punked, FOX got Punked. They were trying to not let him finish cause they knew he was right and basically made them look like an ass.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:43 pmI think that Bubba did put up a great fight that Chris Wallace was not quite looking to pick. No religious undertones intended, I see it as one question about Christianity being answered by reading half the bible. His questions were not as intricate to worthy Clinton’s answers. I think that Clinton unleashed political ammunition, and did a good job, in an inappropriate manor. I am a staunch conservative that generally liked Bill Clinton with the exception of hearing my kids tell me cigar jokes at 8 years old. I think his lash out would be quite less powerful when debating someone who was at least slightly expecting it.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:45 pmbeautiful bill. eat s*** fox…or i should say FAUX news.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:45 pmWho the hell is Juan Williams, and what were you, a good conservative, doing listening to him? :) Is he even American, or does he broadcast from Mexico City? (Apolgies to our legal Mexican immigrants)
September 25th, 2006 at 10:47 pmWallace asked Rumsfeld about pre-9/11 failures in March of 2004, around the time of the 9/11 commision report. A transcript can be found on the DOD site here: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040328-secdef0568.html
MR. WALLACE: But looking back, sir, and I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Plus, you could see that Clinton’s mouth got dry, like when you know you’re losing, and you hate it. He made one of those funny mouth smacking movements, that made you know he was a beatin’ man.
It was very obvious.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:47 pmClinton set the record straight…? He embarassed himself. To me, he demonstrated the very lack of impulse control that mired his presidency. I think thou dost protest too much.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:54 pmGoFig wrote:
I’m on your side on this one, but Truth, Justice and the American Way (freedom, liberty) cannot be restored with vitriolic hateful barbs.
I urge all Democrats, and all Republicans who want to restore integrity, strength and security to America, not to fall into the Carl Rove trap of hatred and bitterness, which only works for George Bush (not for the Republican Party or for America).
The people on this message board and most Republicans and conservatives in this country are NOT our enemies, they are fellow Americans. We need to work together to fix this country, protect it, and restore it to the place of honor it once held. As the Civil War proved, the only way to do that is together.
(The Republicans are dumb idiots, but we gotta work with ‘em – JUST KIDDING!!)
September 25th, 2006 at 10:57 pmI wonder what a democrat with a brain would look like? Clinton is a womanizing slut! The last time he wagged his finger he was LYING! That’s all the shagging bass turd can do.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:00 pm#635 Johnsom wrote:
I think more of us than will admit it are “beatin’ men” – and it has nothing to do with lip-smacking (quite the contrary!) but not necessarily beaten men. :) Gotcha!!
September 25th, 2006 at 11:01 pmDon said: “(The Republicans are dumb idiots, but we gotta work with ‘em – JUST KIDDING!!) ”
Don’t worry, we understand that all too well. When we try to understand how so many people could watch Katie Couric and not get nauseas, we think the same thing: it’s because most people who think Katie is normal, are just idiots. We must have some compasion.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:02 pm[...] As another blogosphere wag says, “Where can we get one like that?” http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/24/clinton-video/ [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 11:17 pmWhat a long and (mostly) interesting message board. But alas I must leave, at least for awhile. Try to play nice, folks – on the board and in real life. This is the future of America, our precious nation, that we’re talking about, not a Jerry Springer show.
Johnsom, thanks for a good give and take. It’s been enjoyable. Best wishes.
Now I gotta go get some work done. I’m fine now, but maybe I’ll be a beatin’ man later. :)
Regards all…
September 25th, 2006 at 11:18 pmYou have to visualize the Leader of the FreeWorld pounding his finger on Chris’ papers. It was one for the ages.
That picture that this topic has at the beginning of it was the only 1/100th of a second clip where Clinton looked sane. It was all downhill after that!
September 25th, 2006 at 11:24 pmDon,
Thank you for your service to our country.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:29 pmI was looking for a Name of a Democrat candidate that you thought
could be strong on national defense. Just one of the many you were thinking of.
If you do not mind, what was your opinion of John Kerry since you served in Vietnam.
#598: in re: “immoral acts while in [presidential] office”
= Lying to the American people: “Saddam has weapons of mass destruction;”
= Invading a country with no provocation;
= Allowing one’s cronies to profit massively on no-bid contracts for an unjustified war;
= Indebting American taxpayers to the tune of trillllllllions of dollars for that same unjustified war;
= Killing tens of thousands of unarmed civilians in an unjust war;
= Killing nearly 2,700 American troops in same;
= Devoting federal resources to interfere in a private family crisis (Terri Schaivo);
= Confusing fetal tissue from fertility clinics–which discard the tissue not successfully implanted–with living human beings;
= Allowing children in poverty to die of preventable illnesses because they have no access to health care;
= Sending National Guard troops with old equipment into harm’s way;
= Not providing said National Guard troops with armor plating and proper body armor and sending them in harm’s way;
= Allowing the Coalition Provisional Authority to take millions of dollars intended to rebuild Iraq (or did the money just … de-materialize …?);
= Accusing President Clinton when one has only oneself to blame for the success of the terrorists on 9/11;
= Lying to Americans, saying that they are safer now that one has started and unsuccessfully prosecuted a “war on terror”, when, really, one has incited far more people to join the jihad;
= Lying about one’s military record and pillorying someone who actually served in Viet Nam while all the war “hawks” in one’s administration had “other priorities” during wartime;
= Giving tax breaks to the richest 1% of people in this country while one allows one’s supporters [big corporations] to cry off paying a living wage to working people;
= Permitting one’s supporters [big corp.s] to hire illegal immigrants while, instead of challenging and fining the corporations, one pillories the illegal immigrants;
= Permitting big business to pollute and NOT pay into SuperFund;
= Raping our national parklands;
= Lowering EPA standards for fuel emissions when one could have reversed so much damage! But, why, after all, if one’s pals and big corporate supporters will profit vastly from allowing selfish people and corporations to pollute our air and water?
= Allowing HMOs to turn down necessary medical procedures for people who always paid their insurance premiums but now may die because the procedure is “experimental” or “not permitted;”
= Allowing thousands of people in Mississippi and Louisiana to remain homeless after a national disaster — a YEAR AFTER the national disaster;
= Allowing big corporations and visual media such as television advertisers and gaming corporations to inhabit the minds of the young, who “mysteriously” would rather buy stuff they can’t afford and play e-games than learn about civic responsibility;
= Allowing China and other rich countries to buy our national debt at $5 billion per week to finance one’s unjustified war and rich folks’ tax breaks;
= Knocking the legs out from under Social Security and Veteran’s Affairs, so those who served may not get the benefits they were PROMISED;
= Telling Americans they are safer when one has not done doodley-squat to better care for the security of our ports, major cities and so on;
= Telling Americans one supports better education while doing everything in one’s power to decimate public education;
= Allowing Christian Right Wing “right-to-life” [I always want to know, WHOSE life] organizations to masquerade as family planning clinics, in which they intimidate young women into remaining pregnant with lies and false statistics;
= Allowing the Christian Right to accept federal dollars to fund these sorts of “faith-based” initiatives;
= Allowing Christian right-wing churches to pass out recommended voting lists and campaign literature in their churches while one sends the IRS in pursuit of ONE liberal church that discussed ISSUES — NOT candidates — before the 2004 election;
= Selling one’s lies via excellent advertising campaigns and finestkind propaganda to the American people in order to frighten them into voting for one’s party;
= And my personal “favorite,” allowing big Republican supporters (often the GOP Chairs) to infect electronic voting machines to reflect the results one WANTS, not the results one DESERVES or actually gets (in reality, not in hacked-computer land) …
Et cetera.
DON’T get me started, bud, I could go all night.
W.J. CLINTON ROCKS!!!! ALL Democrats/Progressives should review footage of Bill taking Chris Wallace to the woodshed and giving him a well-deserved spanking! We must stop being kind and meek and tolerant, because when it comes to bullshit, if we don’t call it as we see it, we’ll just get buried way-y-y deeper in it than we have been in the last 6 years. Witness Kerry versus the Swift-boat Veterans for Damned Lies. Defending yourself is respectable when you have a record to stand on, unlike some Republicans I could name.
How ironic that the party which was started to limit the spread of the horrible institution of slavery now dooms so many people to living in poverty, working for poverty wages, etc.
The last good Republican was Abraham Lincoln.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:32 pmDon, thanks to you to. I’ll probably be moving on also. I hope we find some common ground BEFORE a nuke goes off.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:38 pmMaya
You already DID go all night.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:47 pmIt must be tough drinking that much KoolAid
De-ear JR,
I suppose when you say I “drank too much Kool-Aid” you are referring to my list of legitimate charges against George DUH-bya Bush, the guy who never met a fuel executive he didn’t like.
I suppose you think I am a “deluded” Liberal.
FYI, I am a retired member of the U.S. military who served during the Carter, Reagan-Bush, and Clinton administrations.
I once voted Republican, but after witnessing what several years of Reagan had wrought, I voted Democratic. Under Democratic presidents, chances were good that I wouldn’t get handsome pay raises, and I might have to pay a little more in taxes, but at least I could hold my head up in pride in my country.
Can’t do that any more, except to have pride in my fellow dissidents, lefties, progressives, Democrats, Greens, and other THINKING persons.
If supporters of W. Bush could think, they wouldn’t.
(The joke is meant in two ways: If they could THINK, they wouldn’t support Bush …. but even if they thought and still supported Bush, that would proved they’d rather not think!)
Bush supporters live in DENIAL. For more on denial, please see comment # 607.
And start analyzing and thinking, fer pete’s sake. You do our nation no good by just going with Bush’s hype.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:13 amPS, J.R.,
It must be tough trying to defend the indefensible, which must be why you prefer attack the poster rather than address the charges laid against your boy in the White House.
And I mean it, W. acts more like a bully “boy” than a President, and thus has endangered our country.
Feel SAFER yet??
He literally makes me cringe in embarrassment.
But, hey, since he’s never been legitimately elected, I can’t carp about how stupid Americans are! Only the ones who say, “My Georgie, right or wrong.”
September 26th, 2006 at 12:23 amI hope that President Clinton’s courage to stand up to the Fox news propaganda distortion machine will inspire American’s everywhere to not let the republican/conservative mind altering machine continue to run its course unchecked.
We need more people like President Clinton in government, folks who will challenge the media or others when they speak falsehoods.
Republicans no nothing other than how to come up with catchy insulting phrases. Its sad that they’re lowered the argument to that of elementary school kids.
Its your fault, no its yours, oh yea, its double yours.
I love some of their tactics.
You lied, you killed my mother!
Oh yea! Well you lied about what you ate for lunch!
See… both sides are lying, we’re even, must be politics as usual.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:35 amChris Wallace asked the following question,
“Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and Al Quaida out of business while you were President?”
He does not have the right to an answer to such a profoundly absurd and journalistically unethical question. That is a what you call a hatchet job, similar to, “why do you hate America” when discussing people who disagree with the Bush administration.
This is why President Clinton got pissed. It was a stupid ass question, and he let Wallace walk into and have to take his lumps. It was piss poor journalism (can we expect any thing else?) and now the FREEPERS all have their nickers in a twist because Clinton ate Wallace’s lunch and took his milk money.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:35 amClinton is awesome!!!
Chris is a piece of shit.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:57 amIt is a president like Clinton who still gives people hopes…
September 26th, 2006 at 12:58 amLet us prey, prey that we will have someone like him.
I heard nothing about Al Queda during the period time Clinton referred to. The government seemed so hell bent on nailing the President for Whitewater and the Monica Lewinsky scandal, they could have snuck 5 or 6 9/11 attacks right under our noses. IMPEACHMENT was the call of the day. At least that’s all I read about. Tearing into Afghanistan with full force to get Al Queda and the Taliban the right way (instead of side stepping into Iraq) was Clinton’s initiative that was shot down. The full scale civil war that is on the verge of exploding in the Middle East was not solely a result of Clinton’s failure to kill Bin Laden. As Mr. Clinton and Mr. Clarke’s book stated, there was so much more going on.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:29 amThat’s what I like. Finally a Democrat with balls! Our democrat elected officials should always be as assertive, confident, and well informed to defend his position, and take offense aswell, as Clinton did today. Especially since the right-wingers are always at the twisted offense.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:32 amWhat a great piece of entertainment. But please…..Clinton is out of office. He is a Master Politician who now has little to lose. He can come out of his chair on Fox because there is no downside. Put the guy back in office and he’d be back to his whimpish slippery self. HE IS A POLITICIAN.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:36 am#644: JR wrote:
Thanks, JR. I appreciate your gratitude. I was just doing my duty. It’s the guys in Iraq & Afghanistan who are the real heros.
I appreciate your asking. My opinion won’t be popular with many on this board, but this is it:
Believe what you will about Kerry’s political qualities. But John Kerry is a decorated combat veteran, who engaged in combat for his country in Viet Nam, was wounded, and was awarded three purple hearts for his trouble. Some say they were small wounds. You don’t get small wounds in heated combat in the jungle. Every wound is deadly.
It is despicable that Carl Rove orchestrated and allegedly secretly financed the slander of this American hero by the “Swiftboat Veterans”. Shame on him, and shame on them for slandering such a man. They would just as likely smear and slander John McCain if he were a Democrat. And neither Carl Rove nor George Bush have a clue what it’s like to be fired upon.
Would Kerry be a good President? I don’t know, because he fell into the Democratic Party’s pattern of attacking each other rather than Rove political machine, and criticizing the Bush agenda without offering a viable alternative. The Democrats are finally coming around though. Or maybe it’s just that the current Administration has screwed things up so badly, and made such a blatant power grab. Either way, I think the elections will go favorably for the Dem’s this fall and they will finally be able to reign in Bush’s arrogance and abuses.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:41 amThe right wing is very scary. If we are not careful they will turn back the hands of time and destroy all of childerns lives. we must have separation of church and state, or we are all doomed.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:46 amChris Wallace was -perfect-. Shows what a bunch of shits Fox News are. Clinton had more class in one grey hair than that Cheney wannabe Wallace. Total Hatchet job. Where’s the accountability in the present pile-of-shit administration?
September 26th, 2006 at 1:48 amI wish the Dems had somebody half as good as Clinton. Perhaps someday. Doubt I’ll see it. We just need this quick slide into totalitarianism to end! War on Drugs! War on Terrorism! War on Kiddie Porn! War! War!
Hello, Mr Orwell? You were off by 20 years!
656: Cristo wrote:
And Carl Rove, Bush, Cheney et. al. are not slippery politicians?
If Clinton stands up strongly to opposition, like on Faux News, you call him a raving angry man. If he practices any restraint at all, you call him a “whimpish” coward. For some people, nothing he does can be right because their minds are poisoned against him by Rove’s political machine.
But Bill Clinton is old news now. It’s time for the Democrats to regain some power to get the runaway abuse and incompetence in check. As long as the neo-cons concentrate on Clinton, it will keep them from making unwarranted attacks on those running for office. So keep up your bitchin’, folks!
September 26th, 2006 at 1:48 amIn some way, I do regret Bill Clinton even bothering with Fox News. It’s unfortunate that this gave Fox News and Chris Wallace so much publicity. They don’t deserve to be taken seriously anymore than their idiot mousepiece Hannity. We’re never going to reform Fox News into ever doing any kind of honest journalism. The worst thing that could happen to any news program is to be considered insignificant. So let’s just keep left them behind as the right-wing rag that they are. Don’t bother watching or caring about what they say – they aren’t credible so who cares.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:58 amThanks Chris Wallace for stimulating Pres. Clinton to give such a great showing of hope to American people.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:01 amThis is what an American President sounds like even though many Americans have forgotten. Listen to Clinton’s logic, his intelligence and then go watch an interview with Bush and puke.
Lets get our security back, vote responsibly in the midterm elections.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:20 amLOL. I TRIED….I should be judged on TRYING. Let me use that one tomorrow on my test. Hey, I TRIED. That’s what counts right? TRYING?
Pfft.
So 8 months = 8 years?
Did his TRYING STOP the U.S.S. Cole bombing?
How about the first bombing of the World Trade Center?
I have no respect for the man. He did nothing and wants credit for being the best president ever. Go read the book by the football handlers. For those who don’t know the football is the briefcase with the nuclear codes which is kept by an officer in the armed forces by the president at all times.
There were 5 men responsible for this job during the Clinton administration.
How responsible is it to look at caller ID…see it’s the Head of the CIA calling and refuse to answer.
Yeah. Clinton did that. A lot. He wouldn’t do a thing without conducting a “poll” to see what America thought.
And the only thing that makes him blow up is people thinking what he doesn’t want them too. Forget the truth. Forget history.
And before you knock me I don’t think Bush is all that great either. But hey…He’s TRYING…right? I mean….Bush is TRYING!
September 26th, 2006 at 2:30 amBill Clinton, with all his wrongs, showed he has the balls the Democratic Party lacks.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:47 amBill speaks the truth! It’s been a long time since I’ver heard it.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:49 am#661 Just watch the video clip of what Keith Olbermann of MNBC had to say on his 9/25 show and you will not be sorry anymore that Clinton and Wallace faced off on Fox! Thank you, Bill Clinton! I always loved you! You were and still are the greatest we will probably ever see in our lifetimes!
September 26th, 2006 at 3:18 amHey guys wanted to first off thank the person who ever did put this site together, this is great I’m glad there are few Americans that still want to talk about these issues most people today don’t care or just talk “oh yeah terrorist’s bad yes, get them” but they wont do shit to protect their liberty/freedom.
ok back to the interview.. Is… bill responsible for not catching and killing Osama yes, he was our president he had knowledge of where Osama was, CIA were watching him but I guess by my knowledge of reading is that we weren’t prepared to assassinate this man.. this is where confusion comes to mind, I don’t understand why… why .. On earth wouldn’t we grant permission to the president of the United States of America to kill a terrorist leader, when we knew that he was part of the 1993 bombing on NEW YORK trade center? I came to the conclusion that the UNITED STATES has been left in the dark about most things as if the Government will take care of everything , “HELLO WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT” well that’s what I thought at least..
Please comment back post talk … feel free to email me
robbiiedumitrescu@yahoo.com
September 26th, 2006 at 3:29 am[...] Think Progress: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News I don’t know the first thing about US politics, but it’s always nice to see politicians question and criticize journalists. [...]
September 26th, 2006 at 3:30 amhey – it appears the arguing here is rather pointless. the only motivation for blaming a past administration for the present-day situation is to defend the current administration & it’s actions. the current administration (and it’s actions) needs to be judged on it’s own merits.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:31 am#620 Maldoror.
1. You’re not Canadian; you’re Arab. You give yourself away by the characteristic nonsense that all your proiblems are the fault of the Israelis (Jews).
2. Iraqi Muslims are murdering each other at the rate of 3,000 per month. Is that the fault of the Jews?
3. Algerians murdered over 150,000 of each other since 1990. Is that the fault of the Jews?
4. Minority Copts in Egypt, Baluchis and Azeris in Iran, Kabyle in Algeria — is Muslim repression of these minorities the fault of the Jews?
5. The ossified social structure, the massive poverty, all exacerbated by Muslim theocracy in almost every state except Turkey — is that the fault of the Jews?
6. The Arab/Muslim world’s alternation between chaos (Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine) and brutal authoritarianism (Egypt, Iran) — is that the fault of the Jews?
You’re no Canadian.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:32 amHell yeah for someone spaeking up for us!!!
September 26th, 2006 at 3:35 amRegarding the comment made that “even Juan Williams the NPR guy said that Wallace came off well.” You clearly don’t listen to NPR that much…or at least bother to analyze it….Juan Williams has consistently shied away from confronting controversial issues, and he tends to be quite centrist. That he is affiliated with NPR says nothing. Historically NPR has been extremely welcoming of a diverse range of opinions. More recently, I would argue NPR has been a massive disappointment as they move progressively (in terms of the spectrum of views they represent) to the center-right.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:38 amAverage American: Yep, I’d agree. You’re pretty average in your understanding of the Muslim world. You have succesfully and admirably been able to ignore the long history politics in Islam to understand why the current conflicts are actually occuring (part of the answer is colonialism … and part of the answer why Israel exists..through the history of the British Mandate…is also colonialism). No doubt you’ll go out and find a couple facts that will prove me wrong in your mind — but please, take the long, complex view and stop focusing on the soundbites.
Very average, my American friend.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:43 am#645 Maya. Your points are largely correct, but the source — Bushido — is not up for re-election. Of those up for re-election, the Senate seems destined to remain Republican.
In other words, you have a problem — convincing middle America that the gross blunders you cite are inherently a Republican problem, not just Bush’s.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:46 am#616. Don. Mylroie’s credibility is nil.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html
September 26th, 2006 at 3:52 am
#674. Neil, you’re a bit ignorant. Have you ever met an Arab or Israeli? Travelled or lived in the area?
1. Far from a “colonial venture,” Jewish ambitions for self-determination in the area were OPPOSED WITH FORCE by the Brit colonial power. Cf. ships Struma, Exodus, etc.
2. Those Jewish ambitions began in mid-late 1800’s, long before Britain assumed the Mandate and well before any formal Zionist movement existed.
3. That movement had little to do with any colonial power and everything to do with the same pattern of ational liberation/self-determination which gave rise to liberation movements worldwide, from Italy’s to India’s.
Try learning something rather than spouting propaganda.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:59 am#677. Spelling corrected:
3. That movement had little to do with any colonial power and everything to do with the same pattern of national liberation/self-determination which gave rise to liberation movements worldwide, from Italy’s to India’s.
September 26th, 2006 at 4:08 amTo JRI
September 26th, 2006 at 5:52 amyou have either never learned or have totally forgotten. Respect for others is earned. Wet Willie didn’t earn any respect while he was pres. he earned an empty nutsack on Monica’s dress. We should give respect and honor to this idiot who cums on national tv and with the same beady accusatory glints in his eyes and waggy finger pointing and yup, sure nuff, a spout full of LYING says the same thing. I didn’t do Osama, I mean Ms Lewinski, I mean I’m shaking my finger and glinting at you aren’t you filled with fear and respect for me? How dare you accuse me of what I did? Now shut up and let me lie some more Chris! jri he never answered shit! He pissed all over himself. It was the funniest crybaby I’ve seen since I kicked my brother ass when we were 10 & 11. He was the older bully but the truth(ME) smacked him down. He was a coward just like Bill IS
It is fantastic to see Clinton completely crush this Fox news reporter with the truth. Truth always wins in the end, the problem is what happens before
people start to understand about it.
The last comment in here by Jeff is very speaking for how reality is treated in US media and obviously by lots of americans; political “reality” is not interesting, what affects the whole world and the US is not important, the truth about how american presidents has led America is not important, how Bush vs Clinton has actually tried to egt to Bin laden is not important.
What´s important is how to degrade politicians you don´t like.
It´s more important to talk about a sexual affair that Clinton had than facing the truth about his serious efforts to chase down and kill Bin Laden WHEN THE REPUBLICANS DIDN`T WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT.
It´s not pathetic, it´s way beyong pathetic and more than anything scary,
September 26th, 2006 at 6:27 amthe fact that america under the neocon´s rule has changed it´s political morals to something that looks more like fascism than anything else is very very very scary. And the nightmare has just begun
I’ve never been prouder of an elected official. Ever.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:37 amPlease Fact Check This:
Clinton – once again lied – with full knowledge he was doing so.
Sorry folks, there’s nobody I would rather have a beer with than Bill, but the man would lie even if the truth would serve him better.
Clinton Statement(lie): “When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy”
Truth: Regardless of a much touted Time Magazine article stating Richard Clark left such a strategy…Richard Clark himself war forced to admit no such strategy was left behind.
Also, Clark appeared before the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, and a plan was NEVER mentioned.
Hie boss, Sandy Bergler (that ‘ol Sandy was always stuffing articles down his pants) made a decision NOT to pass along a war plan to the new administration…not will ill intent…just made the decision it was not necessary.
Clinton was in rare form and I’m happy it energized you folks. Spend your energy trying to find someone as smart as Clinton to run for President…but someone who can keep from rewriting history to suit their legacy.
Callaway
September 26th, 2006 at 8:54 amI have watched and read several of the posts here and was stunned at how most of you seem to think Bill Clinton is a hero. The question that was asked of Mr. Clinton was fair and many people in this country have the same question on thier minds. In my opinion the former president shoud be embarassed that he lost his temper from the very start of the interview. It is clear that all of the last three administrations have made mistakes and had short comings but Mr. Clinton claims he did everything possible which is a joke. The current president is trying to pick up the mess left behind and is doing something as opposed to the last administration which did very little to protect our country.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:10 amGive’em Hell, Bill!!!!!
September 26th, 2006 at 9:17 amAverageAmerican, go f*ck yourself. If you want to insult me, please do so in English, you chicken.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:28 amAmazing comment section. I saw an unhinged sociopath, flailing away, spouting off whatever popped into his head, and overflowing with bile. I can assure you a real man wouldn’t do that. Also, what Chris Wallace did was basic journalism. When a man is destroying himself, step out of the way and let it roll. Here’s the best part. There will be no change in the house or senate this election. Thinking people were horrified at what they saw, realize he’s a pathological liar, and are thankful he did it just before an election.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:43 amYou guys are idiots……Clinton just finally showed what an ass he really is. 8 years of Billy Boy and GW was supposed to prevent 9/11 in 8 short months? Just shows your sense of reality boys and girls……
September 26th, 2006 at 9:56 amWhat a surprise that FOXNEWS would attack President Clinton and pass the buck on our current problems! Here’s an idea, maybe if the so called conservatives cared more about this country than trying to depose a Democrat president we could have dealt with Bin Laden in the 90’s. I’m not surpised though, Wallace is a disgrace and we all know that the Fox network is the Republican’s little lapdog. President Bush has done nothing in the war against terrorism except create more terrorist and point them directly at us and yet no one says anything about that.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:59 amI’m only going to make this one post, so I won’t reply to anything else. I don’t wish to argue (my guess is, you’ll just resort to name calling anyways–which is why I have already named myself for you ;) ). I just had a few things to say.
By the way, I’m a conservative. I don’t agree with everything elected Republicans do (spending for instance), but I do support most of them. This is not out of denial or stupidity, it’s because I believe they will do a better job moving the country in a direction that *I* want–most likely contrary to the direction you would want. Although, I probably believe in a lot of the same things you guys do, I just don’t think it’s the government’s job to “fix” everything. I want the government out of my wallet, and out of my bedroom.
In any case, I watched the (entire) Clinton, Wallace interview and was curious what the left side of the spectrum was saying about it.
What I thought:
It’s simple. Clinton got asked a tough question, which he never gets asked anywhere else. He wasn’t used to it and got angry. The result is: he acted like he was in third grade and did not portray the kind of tact and civility that I believe a president should have. His true colors came out and the only people who think that he did a good thing, are liberal bloggers like yourselves. Even he knew he made a mistake, he accused Wallace of setting him up.
Most of you on this thread, think, “YEAH!! Go Clinton…Democrats, Clinton is the model of how to act!!!” etc.
This thinking, I believe, will lead to another democrat defeat.
The sandbox mentality that most liberals have is astounding. In third grade if someone said something to you that offended you, what did you do? You resorted to name calling, for instance, “poopy face,” or “stupid head.” We all did it. It’s just a part of growing up.
All of the hate bush crowd reminds me of this 3rd grade mentality. You can’t beat Bush, so you resort to name calling. “Bush is Hitler”, is one of my favorites. Several people on this thread have already been called a facist–even someone who claims to be on your side. “Republicans are stupid” is another favorite of mine, reminds me of “stupid head” lol I could cite other examples, but whatever. /shrug
If you democrats want to win in November, you’ve got to come up with a CLEAR platform. You’ve got to stand for something that not just your liberal friends stand for. All you are doing is rallying your base. You can’t win UNLESS you change minds. Convince some of the other side to join you, because the liberal base is not enough to win.
And believe me, your actions (Clinton’s actions in that interview) are just strengthening the conservative base. You are essentially convincing the conservative base that they are on the right side. We LOVE to see Clinton like that. It shows that we are winning, contrary to what you may believe. We are all thrilled about that interview. I didn’t need anybody to spin it for me either as some of you might assume. I saw it for what it was and I immediately (in great excitement) started to foward the link, lol.
The 3rd grade sandbox mentality will NOT change minds. It’s only going to make the red-staters dislike you even more. You are isolating your cause, if you even had one to begin with, besides “Bush sucks.”
What do you stand for? I don’t even know, all I hear is, “Bush Sucks!!!11!!” I might be a liberal deep down inside, but you haven’t convinced me, because all I hear is name calling. Ideas, debate, that’s what I value.
How would you have handled 9-11? What do YOU propose we do about terrorists? How would you improve a booming economy with an already low 4.7% unemployment rate? You say the country is going to crap, right? Well what are you going to do about it? Convince me!!
I don’t EVER hear the answers to those questions. All I hear is:
“Bush sucks!, Bush lied, damn republicans!!”
The closest thing I have heard to a plan is (quoting Kerry) “We’ve got to do it smarter.” What does that even mean? That’s not a plan. What EXACTLY are you planning on doing? Give me details. I have never heard an answer to those questions that satisfies me.
The Bush administration has made mistakes (and admitted them). But what would you guys do differently?? If you have a message, it’s not getting out there. What would you do??
Can I give you guys some advice?
First of all, resorting to name calling will result in another democrat defeat. But if you are going to name call regardless of the outcome, why name call someone who cannot get re-elected?? It’s almost as if you believe that Bush is up for another term. lol You aren’t running against Bush anymore. Consider him a lame duck and move on.
It would seem to me if you put all of your energy in planning for a win, instead of staying in that same old sandbox mentality, you might stand a chance in November and in 2008 and beyond.
If you believe strongly in your positions, tell US what they are, not just your friends. If you truly believe conservatives are in denial and are stupid, go rescue them, lol. Reach out across the great divide and try to convince conservatives that your positions are the ones that will lead the country to a better place, if that’s what you believe.
We all want a good life. That at least we can all agree on. Although, I already think we have a good life. We have it better than the rest of the world, and all you guys can say is that we’ve got it soooo bad. Ever visited another country??
Anyways, if you continue with your strategy, i.e. name calling and preaching to the choir (shouting amongst your own liberal selves that things are bad), you are going to lose.
So keep name calling, by all means, please. I hope more liberal politicians act like Clinton. You see him as a brilliant leader, with a pair of cojones, right?. We see him as an ex-president who is trying to hold onto a legacy that he never had in the first place, acting like a 3rd grader. That was no ex-president, that was a bitter man letting his anger get the best of him. It was very unbecoming, imo.
Keep at it guys, and soon you will lose and blame it on computer hacking again. And the real reasons you lose will be hidden from your eyes again.
/sigh, so the cycle continues…
I did my best to be civil on your forum. Call me all the names you want. I’m pretty secure in my beliefs and myself. Tell me to leave, don’t worry, I’m not coming back.
As to what I put as my name, it’s funny. Conservatives get called these names ALL the time!!!
Me: I am in an inter-racial marriage. I speak her language fluently. I have LOTS of gay friends. I respect everyone, unless they mean me harm. I want freedom and justice, government rule and especially not facism, lol. I believe in self reliance and personal responsibility. I believe that anyone can succeed in the USA and it’s proven all the time. And I feel very confident about November.
I am an American.
Peace, cheers, etc.
:D
September 26th, 2006 at 10:04 amLet’s face it. Clinton would have had no support if he had tried to launch a military campaign in Afganistan to get Osama bin Laden. People would have said “Where the heck is Afganistan? Osama bin who? Were not sending our boys there!”
I think even the most hard core Republican knows, deep down, this is absolutely true. Clinton tried everything he could. Bush ignored the problem. Then, when Bush acted, he attacked the wrong country! How can you defend that! Our great great grandkids will be paying for the mistake of Iraq. If Iraq was an honest mistake, that would be one thing. But it is hard to make that arguement when the rest of the world was screaming at the U.S. “DON’T DO THIS! THERE ARE NO WMD OR AL QAEDA THERE! DON’T DO THIS!” throughout the planning process. Now we don’t have the resources to have an effective war on terror. In fact, we are stirring up more terrorism. Thank you Bush.
With Clinton we had a president that was respected by the world. The only respect Bush gets is that of a dangerous idiot. Like that all-powerful boy on that old Twilight Zone. “That’s a good thing you did, George. A REAL good thing…”
September 26th, 2006 at 10:08 amfinally, a Democrat stands up for himself. They have let the right wing set the talking points for far too long. And not only does Clarke’s book back up what Bill Clinton says but so does the Republican 9/11 commission report. When I hear FOX News lies coming out of people’s mouths I always tell them to read those books. Also, the Looming Towers lays far more blame on 9/11 on the Bush Admin saying that when Clinton Administration officials warned the incoming administration about 9/11 they were basically blown off. And if Republicans are so good at defending our nation against terror why haven’t they caught the actual perpetrators of 9/11?
September 26th, 2006 at 10:13 amIt was a fair question that Wallace asked in the strictest sense, but it was also worded so that there was no right answer. “Why didn’t you do more?” is the kind of questin your mother asks you when your room looks messy. It’s a loaded question designed to get the subject to stammer and say something that they do not want to. Wallace should have known that a cute little trick like that wouldn’t play with a debater of Clinton’s ability. God, I miss having a leader who could inspire through more than cheap demogoguery!
685. Yeah, AverageAmerican, you shouldn’t use words with more than three sylables so that the extra-chromasome crowd can follow along. As a side note, isn’t it amusing how the same people who maintain just enough of a vocabulary to be able to claim that they are fluent are also the people who passionately argue that immigrants should all speak English?
September 26th, 2006 at 10:21 amWow — talk about a total meltdown!
Ya, think Bill is holding a grudge from Fox News’ coverage on the whole “Monica” issue?!
September 26th, 2006 at 10:33 am#685. JejuneJane.
JejuneJane said:
So, JejuneJane doesn’t have the least idea of what was said to her, but still permits herself a nasty response. Thank you, Jejune, for taking off your mask; henceforth we all know that your motivating impulse is HATRED.
By the way, je te chie à la gueule.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:38 amWE LOVE YOU BILL CLINTON YOU ARE OUR HERO
September 26th, 2006 at 10:46 amWallace, you are a tool. Bill, you are the man! I hope more democrats fight instead of laying down and taking it in the rear by republicans. If bush was a democrat, he would of been impeached by now. Neo Cons say Bill lashed out on poor Wallace. Cheney shoots a guy, but it was just a harmless accident.(I am sure he didn’t mean it, but it sure was downplayed.) Cheney uses the F word, but hes only human. Bush lashes out in the 04 debate, but he only defended himself. The Bush adminstration made a hell of a mess! Only stand up man in that adminstration left, Colin Powell. Good work fellas!
September 26th, 2006 at 11:14 amNotice how the conservatives in this thread are all parroting the lines that the Fox clowns parroted yesterday.
They can’t think for themselves.
The Daily Show was funny. He showed clips of the Fox clowns piling on President Clinton. After one know nothing blonde smirks “I was taken aback”, Stewart said, “Who the f*ck are you?”
President Clinton showed balls, and the Fox crew are a bunch of crybabies.
President Clinton: simply a better president than the current one.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:18 am#693 Darth said:
Thanks for the advice!
So, JejuneJane has an extra chromosome? That would indeed explain it.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:32 amSorry Scotty-boy, you should’ve known you’re not smart enough on your best day to beat Clinton on his worst. Every time I hear Clinton speak, I remember how awesome it was to have a president who was smarter than I was. If only we had a candidate for aught 8 with this kind of smarts and backbone and strength of belief…
September 26th, 2006 at 11:37 amcould it be that the neocons hate the clintons because the clintons will try to kill the oil barons when they become the power again?
September 26th, 2006 at 11:41 amI think it’s all so easy for all of us Americans to critize the current President and the former President. I wouldn’t want to be in either one of their shoes for all the money in the world. Yes there are some terrible things that have happen in Iraq to those people but you have to remember just like in Vietinam they haven’t exactly made it easy for us either. They are bombing our people and killing our soldiers at every turn. If I was president I have no idea what I would of done but I know I would of had to stop the terrorism at all cost what happen on 9/11 should not of happened and I wouldn’t want something like that to happen every again it runined many peoples lives. So before you get on your high horse and tell everyone what a horrible President we have or had remember what it is he has to work w/ at this time. Think what you would do to stop terrorism and Bin Laden and all the horrible people out there that just want Americans to die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
September 26th, 2006 at 11:54 amwallace looks awkward and dumb – he lost control of the interview, and is the classic archetype of a fox news loser.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:03 pmi agree with #698 – Bill is the man. and we should be proud that we had a president with brains and balls to stand up for what he believes is right and true (and not just RIGHT and LEFT).
Lol, the Racist-fascist guy up here has really swallowed the bait.
Duh, you love the Republicans, you do not want the truth about what the Bush administration has failed these past years. You ignore the fact that Democrats get bashed each and every day on FOX news, now even Clinton, even though this Bush administration is one of the worst ever.
I doesnt surprise me that you still think the Republicans are the ones to vote for, i dont think anyone in here is surprised about that. You have made up your mind, long ago, and even though the Bush administration has lied to all Americans, over and over again – this has no effect on you. Wow, could you get a better example than that.
Republicans fail – blame it on the last democratic administration – huh?
Clinton knows what he’s saying, Al Qaeda barely existed back then, how could he have stopped them? Bush had years and years after that to stop them, and even so, Bush didn’t do shit in Afghanistan, instead he went after weapons that didnt existed. He followed an Al Qaeda trail into Iraq that also was false. BUSH has done nothing right, a part from angering a lot of INNOCENT civilians all over the world.
And yeah, “i wont come back here to view your answers”. That my friend, is childish behaviour. Clintons behaviour is a general opinion, that lots of people all over america would like to express to Fox news biased newsreporters and to the horrible Bush administration.
There.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:08 pmIt’s funny…Dems clamor to Clinton like Repubs clamor to Reagan. Each parties shining icon of progress and victory in America while we all lose more rights, pay more tax’s and spend less time with our families because it takes more money to make a living.
Wake up…America needs a revolution, not more of the same ol’ same ol’ poltical mud slinging which only seeks to seperate all of us into groups that they can then preach to about what we should or should not believe in.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:25 pmO.K.
#554 If I were a Clinton fan, I would be embarrassed…
That’s really funny since Bush is the most embarrasing president in history. You should really be proud of all his diplomatic skills. Get a life and see if you can say anything a little more intelligence.
#579 Bush Bashing
I think you need to re-read ALL these entries and weigh the bashing. You right-wingers have learned how to bash others from the best. YOUR president
G Dubya Bush. It’s ironic you call yourself “reality” because you really need a reality check.
#638I wonder what a democrat with a brain would look like? Clinton is a womanizing slut! The last time he wagged his finger he was LYING! That’s all the shagging bass turd can do.
From this statement it sounds like you are the one missing a brain.
Hey fellow Clinton supporters
September 26th, 2006 at 12:33 pmLooks like we have them on the run. If Bill hadn’t won this battle all these conservatives wouldn’t be carrying on so. There reaction about “truth” is something they are not familiar with. Seems to be the same reaction we get from this administration. If you don’t like it we will just change the law.
Power to the People and God Bless Bill and Hillary. It is hard fighting these dark satonic forces, but remember the light always wins.
#689. Neo-con said:
Translation: “I got mine, screw anybody who hasn’t.”
Neo-con said:
Yes! Babe Ruth had a batting average of .342, so if you cannot, you’re just plain lazy!
September 26th, 2006 at 12:37 pmDave,
What about Clinton do you not remember his lies? They all lie!!!!!!!! It’s just a matter of how much! I’m not a republican or democrate I usually vote for the lesser of the two evils. Out of Kerry and Bush, Bush was the lesser of two evils. What could you do that is right and are they really so innocent when they are bombing our soldiers. All Sadam Hussim things did to his people he was not INNOCENT he torture his people and once he killed them he put them on display. So who are you kidding by saying INNOCENT people. Clinton was not an innocent himself he lied w/ the best of them. So before you start tooting his horn remember he did it on National TV.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:39 pmClinton can get as angry and defensive as he wants, but it’s never going to change the fact that he failed to kill or capture Osama bin Laden in the late 1990s. Consider the position of Michael Scheuer–the CIA analyst that headed up Alec Station, a unit specifically created to target bin Laden. Scheuer has repeatedly stated that the U.S. had multiple opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden, but Richard Clarke, Sandy Berger (a convicted felon, mind you), and Bill Clinton never gave the go ahead. Scheuer is hardly biased either. He has also condemned the Bush administration for not going after Zarqawi when we had the chance before the Iraq war started (we knew exactly where he was) and he has repeatedly argued against a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. My advice: get the facts from the people on the ground, don’t ask leaders who have developed the process of CYA into an art form.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:48 pmBill’s bull?
Ex-advisers: Clinton had no plan to overthrow Taliban,
kill Osama
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK and KENNETH R. BAZINET
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Former advisers of Bill Clinton deny he had plan to wipe out Taliban.
WASHINGTON – Former advisers ridiculed ex-President Bill Clinton yesterday for saying he had a plan to invade Afghanistan, topple the Taliban and kill Osama Bin Laden after jihadists nearly sank the destroyer Cole.
“The only order we got from [Clinton] after the Cole was to put together a target list for air attacks,” said Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA’s hunt for Osama Bin Laden under Clinton.
“What I was involved in could in no way be called a full-fledged plan to attack and overthrow the Taliban,” he said.
In his fiery interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Clinton claimed he did more than President Bush to get Bin Laden before 9/11, disclosing that he had a secret plan to invade Afghanistan and wipe out the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Clinton insisted he never ordered that invasion because the CIA and FBI could not “certify” that Bin Laden was involved in the Oct. 12, 2000, attack on the Cole in a Yemeni harbor.
Scheuer, who wrote the book “Imperial Hubris,” said he met every 10 days with top members of Clinton’s anti-terror team and plans for an invasion were never presented or discussed.
He also lashed out at Clinton for blaming subordinates for the failure to get Bin Laden, saying they had 10 chances to kill or capture the terror kingpin before 9/11.
“I was responsible for sending men and women into harm’s way to get information he didn’t use,” Scheuer added.
Fran Townsend, a former top intelligence adviser in Clinton’s Justice Department and now Bush’s anti-terror czar, rolled her eyes when asked about Clinton’s invasion plan.
“There were lots of things that seemed new” in Clinton’s recollections on Fox, Townsend said.
Still, Team Clinton stood by its story. “A plan existed, but the ability to act on it was not corroborated by intelligence until after President Clinton left office,” said Clinton spokesman Jay Carson.
P.J. Crowley, spokesman for Clinton’s National Security Council and a retired Air Force officer with a security clearance, said many contingency plans existed at the Pentagon.
“It wasn’t that there was a lack of plans, it’s that there was a lack of actionable intelligence,” Crowley said.
Scheuer and a retired senior FBI official agreed that they knew almost immediately that Al Qaeda was behind the Cole bombing. “We all said this was definitely Bin Laden,” the ex-FBI official said. “But we couldn’t take it to court and get an indictment.”
Two sources that Clinton repeatedly cited in the Fox interview – the 9/11 commission report and Richard Clarke’s book, “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror” – never mention plans to invade Afghanistan.
Originally published on September 26, 2006
September 26th, 2006 at 12:56 pmI finally got a chance to watch this video. And, I loved every second. Clinton is SOOOO GOOD. He is so good at remaining calm under pressure and making the other guy look like a drunken idiot (probably not that hard to do…)
He is absolutely right about the Right. They fail and then blame it on others. Back in the late ’90s, these same people were the ones who claimed Clinton’s efforts in Afghanistan were “wag-the-dog” efforts. The nation was consumed with his affair with Lewinsky, thanks to these people. And, it was these same Rightwingers who criticized and tried to stop Clinton’s every tactical effort. Now, in hindsight, they claim he didn’t DO ENOUGH. Who are these morons, anyway??????????
Oh yeah, I’m getting Richard Clark’s book.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:13 pmBill Clinton seems a bit defensive. I wonder why? I guess he doesn’t want this to tarnish his stellar legacy of banging interns. Oh sure, he is quite the wordsmith… but who cares if he speaks eloquently if you can’t believe a damn thing he says?!
September 26th, 2006 at 1:15 pmClinton and his handlers know they lost BIG TIME!
Chris Wallace, in an interview on the O’Reilly Factor reported that during the interview Clinton’s handlers kept screaming, “Cut, cut!” to the producers, to try and shut down the interview. But the producers said no way, they knew they had a big story.
Then after the interview, Clinton didn’t want to get out of the chair, he just sat there glaring at Chris Wallace. When they finally left, Clinton was screaming at his people for “letting that happen.”
Apparently, everybody knows Clinton took a spanking, with the exception of all those far left blatherers on this site, who surely didn’t even watch it, since it was on Fox.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:22 pmHey Tami, if you think Clinton was “calm”, you may be drinking too much coffee.
Just some friendly advice.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:31 pmAll I can say is…….wow. Thank you.
I am reading all these responses and I see all of our falling “right” off the boat friends have had time to scramble “facts” together, this that and blog blog blog, but you all need to go home and ice down your you know whats.
Say what you want, but the man is unbelievably brilliant, and I doubt Dubya would leave office and be able to accomplish one half of one percent of what this man has. He cares about people, and is using his vast knowledge and God-given ability and charm to do something for the world – rather than pulling a Dubya and trying to charm the rest of the country into thinking he’s a regular guy.
Okay, let’s use this as a rally. I no longer live in the States but was back last week watching our pathetic excuse for news, and was really discouraged. I am @#!&*@! sick of it. I am sick and tired of having to say I am Canadien over here!!
Thank you sir, from the bottom of our hearts
September 26th, 2006 at 1:35 pmto #714: so what.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:36 pmClinton kicked Wallaces ass.
Everybody knows that, except the America-hating right wing who are too deluded to see reality.
GO BILL!!!! LOVE IT!!!!!
September 26th, 2006 at 1:41 pmI am not surprised they were yelling cut. Every candidate the democrats has had in the last 20 years has been so poked prodded and remolded down to nothing robots to try and defend themselves from Karl Rove and his pack of dogs, what makes you think his handlers would have been any different.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:43 pmWhat we need are people who will not take it anymore and just be themselves, not some spun scripted version.
Right/Left rantings aside, what I consider most amazing is that people can watch the exact same video and see completely different things. When I read the left wing descriptions of this interview, it’s clear you guys saw something completely different from what I saw. Go figure.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:49 pm“Clinton kicked Wallaces ass.
Everybody knows that, except the America-hating right wing who are too deluded to see reality”.
Comment by Jack+Oiler — September 26, 2006 @ 1:36 pm
You wish, maybe one day you’ll wake up from your dream state.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:56 pmFirst I would like to say that Clinton had every right to get bother by Wallace’s question of whether he did enough to kill Bin Laden. Clinton signed up for the interview to talk about his initiative on Clinton Global Initiative but instead Wallace felt compelled to bring up the issue of Bin Laden. Clinton has been out of office now for about six years now but he is still made to carry the burden of not getting Bin Laden. In all honesty every member of congress should bears that burden, specially now. Did Clinton do enough? I don’t know for sure. Did Bush do enough? I don’t know. I do know one thing for sure and that is that Bin laden is responsible for 9-11 not Clinton and not Bush. So instead of having this in-fighting we should all work together to get the man responsible for 9-11. United we stand and Divided we fall.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:58 pmFirst I would like to say that Clinton had every right to get bother by Wallace’s question of whether he did enough to kill Bin Laden. Clinton signed up for the interview to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative but instead Wallace felt compelled to bring up the issue of Bin Laden. Clinton has been out of office now for about six years now but he is still made to carry the burden of not getting Bin Laden. In all honesty every member of congress should bears that burden, specially now. Did Clinton do enough? I don’t know for sure. Did Bush do enough? I don’t know. I do know one thing for sure and that is that Bin laden is responsible for 9-11 not Clinton and not Bush. So instead of having this in-fighting we should all work together to get the man responsible for 9-11. United we stand and Divided we fall.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:59 pmFirst I would like to say that Clinton had every right to get bother by Wallace’s question of whether he did enough to kill Bin Laden. Clinton signed up for the interview to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative but instead Wallace felt compelled to bring up the issue of Bin Laden. Clinton has been out of office now for about six years now but he is still made to carry the burden of not getting Bin Laden. In all honesty every member of congress should bears that burden, specially now. Did Clinton do enough? I don’t know for sure. Did Bush do enough? I don’t know. I do know one thing for sure and that is that Bin laden is responsible for 9-11 not Clinton and not Bush. So instead of having this in-fighting we should all work together to get the man responsible for 9-11. United we stand and Divided we fall.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:59 pmMeg+Tomlinson
My god, what are you on about, did you really think i was referring to Saddam when i said innocent people, did you think i was referring to the Al Qaeda caught in action? Get real.
Clinton’s lies has got nothing to do with this. This is just Republicans (you) trying to turn the focus on to the Clinton administration. Clinton is asked question by the most biased “free-world” media company in the world.
Of course he’s upset, of course he wonders why they never confront president Bush about his (thousand times worse) lies.
Bush ’s War is illegal, there were no weapons of mass destruction. There were’nt even any evidence to begin with, and when confronted with this, Bush blamed someone else, instead of taking the fall – and you, Meg, are comparing that to cheating a wife and lying about it. Once again, get real.
and to the fella’ talking about Wallce, yeah, like he’s going to admit his defeat to O’Reilly, who is even more biased …yeah.
Next.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:09 pmUnbelievable what universe are you people from. Clinton showed his A$$. It was a fair question, within the agreed to terms. Its Clinton who wouldn’t let it go. To call Chris Wallace a “conservative” is just wrong, he is part of your libel media.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:16 pmLast time I saw Bill Clinton pointing his finger like that and getting upset/defensive he was telling us he did not have relations with that Monica gal. Why do I feel like I just got the finger all over again?
September 26th, 2006 at 2:18 pmHell, if “W” had been in the same hotseat and asked the exact same question, he would’ve sounded like a lobster in a bowl of boiling turnips. He couldn’t have been able to string two cogent sentences together if his life depended on it. Clinton may have lost his temper–and who can blame him?–but at least he managed to set the record straight. Clarke’s book is the real deal, principally because he’s the only man to be fully supported by both Dems and Rep’s during his tenure as terrorist chaser. Who else can say that? No one. Read his book. You’ll see that Clinton is right. Yes, he made mistakes, which he admits to. But they aren’t the mistakes that Chris Wallace was alluding to. Apparently the litter of puppies over at the “Fox” network are spending too much time suckling on the teats of that bitch Murdock.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:22 pmNull
Yeah. Chris Wallace likes the Clinton administration, and hates the Bush administration. Or is it the other way around, hmm. Tricky one this.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:25 pm#645 Maya
September 26th, 2006 at 2:25 pmright on! Thanks for doing your homework. Of course the haters don’t want to hear facts because that makes them look bad. They operate on lies and oppression. These are the type of people that Bush** has created. They are his monstors. They only know how to lie and cheat to get whatever they want or believe what they believe to be true. They are also the one’s that think homeless people here in the U.S. want to be homeless.
Ex:
Barbara Bush’s quote after Katrina
Most of these people ened up better off, after they left these poor people to die in the streets, superdome and in their own homes. They wouldn’t even throw down bottles of water. I know this is a little off the track but this is the type of mentality these neocon’s and WANNA BE neocon’s have.
hey Ed #722,#723,and #724 was this worth repeating 3X
September 26th, 2006 at 2:32 pm“Last time I saw Bill Clinton pointing his finger like that and getting upset/defensive he was telling us he did not have relations with that Monica gal. Why do I feel like I just got the finger all over again?
Comment by Andrew Vale — September 26, 2006 @ 2:18 pm”
Well, the reason to why this is you latest “bright” moment since Clinton lied to us is because you have been swallowing all the lies from Bush about Iraq, where Bin Laden is, and so on. The difference is that he refuses to comment on HIS (Bush) faults, and continue blaming it on bad intel, even though it is his own intel (Candy Rice also keeps whining, blaming someone else, hmm and now Wallce blaming Clinton for not capturing Bin Laden…).
Bush, if he had been in Clinton’s seat, would have been quite cool, since he’s got nothing smart to say or do, just like “that day” when he stayed in his chair listening to children telling stories. Or in that other video, when he laughs, right as he’s talking about 3000 ppl getting killed.
President Bush is not very bright.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:34 pmI cannot understand why so many people like Clinton. After lying to the country on national Tv, letting our embassies get bombed, USS Cole and Blackhawk Down that people still like him. Bush has done everything right. He is someone that will step up and take the fight to the enemy instead of having UN talks. I can’t stand liberals and I wish we could kick them all out of our country. Rep party will win again in 08 so don’t get your hopes up.
CC
September 26th, 2006 at 2:50 pmUSMC
Righties are going to have a field day fact-checking him. He showed leadership by not pulling out of Somalia while the bodies were still warm. A class-act, he is.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:55 pmGo President Clinton! Thank your for exposing the right wing’s lies.
Did you see Condi just said that they were just as agressive during their first 8 months as President Clinton was. Oh really, what would a concreate example of that be, Ms. Rice?
**** insert sound of crickets *********
OTOH, people that worked with Clinton on terrorism that were held over in the Bush administration are virtually unanomous in stating that they did nothing. The is a fact.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:56 pmIt’s so funny to listen to all these people blinded by they ignorance. One of you praises Clinton for finally having a Democrat with a spine. What he says is true…Clinton has a spine and the rest of the Democratic Party doesn’t (except for Lieberman). Clinton said he tried to get Bin Laden. How many times did he pass the chance to get him? 5? 8? 10? Clinton made so many excuses not to get Bin Laden EVEN after Bin Laden threatened and declared war on America on T.V. in 1996.
If the Democrats take control of our country, the first people to be throwing a party are the people who want to attack Amerca.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:58 pm700: “So, JejuneJane has an extra chromosome? That would indeed explain it.”
According to Lee Atwater, anyway.
703: “Think what you would do to stop terrorism and Bin Laden and all the horrible people out there that just want Americans to die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Hm, what would I do? Maybe it would involve…oh, I don’t know….tightening port security, properly funding first responders, buying modern equipment for the TSAs, increasing funding for our intelligence agencies, and perhaps even sending enough soldiers to Afghanistan to actually shut down Al Qaeda. All that would sure cost a lot of money, though. We’re kind of cash-strapped at the moment, what with the $317 Billion and counting we have invested in Iraq. I mean, it’s not as though we have any costly and utterly useless programs that we could cut! Gosh, this is hard.
709: Of course he lied, but there is a big difference between Clinton’s lies and Bush’s lies–nobody ever died because Bill Clinton lied. Thousands….let that sink on for a moment….thousands DIED, and are still dying, for Bush’s lie.
And while we’re on the subject, I have a question for all the adult males here. How many of you have not at one point in your life lied about getting head? No, you don’t actually have to answer. I realize that your wives may read this.
711: Interesting, but I tend to believe Richard Clarke’s version of the story. It tends to jive better with the reality of neo-cons’ complaints at the time that Clinton was obsessed with Bin Laden. Also, Scheuer has a lot to say about a lot of things, and none of it gets said with too much subtlty. My personal impression of him from his interviews on CNN and his quotes in newspapers is that he is more interested in delivering soud bytes to sell his books than in opening people’s eyes to the truth that is out there. But who knows; we weren’t there.
714: Did you just site The O’Reilley Factor? Haha! And speaking of lies and the lying liars who tell them…..
September 26th, 2006 at 3:00 pmWhy don’t the right-hotheads not want to mention Bush’s family connections to Bin Laden’s. He and his family have had business deals with them for a very long time in oil $$. I love how you conservatives keep pointing out how little Clinton did to catch Bin Laden but it’s been 5 years now and I don’t see Bin Laden captured yet. That’s because Bush is not looking for him. Maybe this is because he stated himself that his priority even before he got into office,was to go after Sadaam (because he spanked his daddy). He even tried to get the Ameican people to believe Sadaam was responsible for 9/11. All the honorable men and women who wanted to catch the people who had done this to our country, and joined the military for this purpose were duped into this man’s personal war in Iraq. Bin Laden is not in Iraq. Then Bush decided let’s stir up Lebanon by going after Hezbolla, again not alqueda. Lot’s of blood shed including once again innocent men, women and children. This a perfect exampe of a greedy man that wants to control the world at any cost, including American’s lives. Where I come from N.H. our state motto is “Live free or Die”. this is what real people stand for. Fighting for OUR rights and spotting a man who has turned America into the most hated country in the WORLD, as he is continually oppressing his own people! We just want the rest of the world to know that it’s Bush and people like you bushies that they need to be looking for. We don’t like Bush either.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:02 pmWe Want our REAL America Back!
How can anybody praise Clinton? The World Trade Center was attacked for the first time, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked, the USS Cole was attacked and CLINTON NEVER TOOK THE WAR TO TERRORISTS OR BIN LADEN! He let Al-Qaeda finish the job they started on the World Trade Center!
He lied to America while he was president and he lied in the FOX interview. He said he went after Bin Laden. Funny. Almost everyone who worked during his office says different.
The blind praise Clinton for being a Democrat with a spine….because that is something that is very rare.
If the Democrats take control of our country, the first people to be throwing a party are the people who want to attack America and kill ALL AMERICANS!!!
September 26th, 2006 at 3:09 pmRighties are going to have a field day fact-checking him. He showed leadership by not pulling out of Somalia while the bodies were still warm. A class-act, he is….
September 26th, 2006 at 3:16 pmFor those who continue to say Bush lied, go do a little research and see what both the Clintons, Kerry, Gore, Kennedy and many of the jack-asses (donkeys) in America said about Hussein having WMDs.
Bush has Bin Laden hading in caves. If Clinton really did go after Bin Laden like he said, how come he wasn’t in hiding? How come Bin Laden was able to give a TV interview? Because he wasn’t scared of Clinton! Clinton did nothing to but send a few missiles to an aspirin factor!
September 26th, 2006 at 3:17 pmWe need to take a lesson from the Right. The fact that they can latch onto one of the most self-righteous idiots ever to be “elected” president and unfailingly defend him in light of his illegal actions with the war in Iraq, his offenses to the Constitution and the Geneva Convention and the trillions of dollars of deficit he has created , I am impressed at the rights loyalty. Maybe our problem as Dems is we are spoiled with intelligent, charismatic, philanthropic, passionate presidents like Bill Clinton. Maybe if we lower our expectations for our Democrats and just blindly follow whoever we are told to follow the way Republicans do, we too can live in the bliss of ignorance in a world that is comprised only of repeated sound bites, black and white issues, and good vs. evil. It’s so simple to be a republican……. time for a lobotomy so I too can support the right. Thanks Republicans for showing me how to be an American.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:18 pm“You have hit on one of the the essential differences between Clinton & GWB:Clinton commands respect;GWB demands respect.”
Fool, the difference is that GWB demand the same respect he gives others. Clintoon Commands the respect he refuses to give anybody else, because everybody else is BENEATH HIM.
And yes, the difference is vast…
September 26th, 2006 at 3:21 pmso why should we believe that clinton didnt just tell another bunch of lies?
September 26th, 2006 at 3:23 pmtoo bad nobody asked Clintoon what Sandy Berger stole from the archives for him.
You idiots who whine about bush “rewriting history” have no problem with rewriting history when the historical documents are stolen and destroyed to protect your beloved rapist -in-chief.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:25 pmThis is the only opportunity to see the most of the interview with President Bill Clinton. And you know one point still stands out… Wallace has never asked the Bush administration the hard questions such as:
What does Ben Laden have to do with Iraq? The Tala Ban which was Ben Laden’s organization was in Afgahnistan. What about these weapons of mass distruction that apparently didn’t exist? If they didn’t exist why didn’t Bush listen to he UN advisors and observers that told him they didn’t have them? Why did the hunt for Ben Laden get pushed to the curb in favor of Hussein? Why not put the effort to find Hussein into finding Ben Laden? Now that we’re in Iraq how much is too much before Bush and the Republican Conservatives figure we should leave? How many lives will be the cut off point to realize we can’t win this? How many more people will be tortured in the name of national security? Wallace did look smug. And why did Wallace ask this question first rather than Clinton’s humanitarian efforts? And what does the war on terror have to do with what Clinton did or didn’t do while he was president some 6 years ago?
I think Clinton is right and he was set up for a hatchet job that just may backfire on the Republican right. In fact now that this has happened I think that more democrats will finally get off their hind quarters and do what should have been done when Bush started this insane war on Iraq that was merely an attempt to control the middle east and its oil rights… and publically question and hopefully run someone better than Kerry in the next elections.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:28 pm728: Yeah, remember what he looked like durring Stephen Colbert’s monologue?
730: The neo-cons didn’t create them. They just unleashed them in much the same way that Jeffereson Davis did.
Oh and wasn’t that Barbara Bush quote just great? Marie Antoinette couldn’t have said it better! Read Al Franken’s “I’m through with you!” story for more insight into the character of the former first lady.
For those of you who failed history (I’m looking at you neo-cons!), Marie Antoinette was the Paris Hilton of the Eighteenth Century who famously coined the phrase “Let them eat cake!”
733: “Take the fight to the enemy”? Do you mean Saddam? What could Clinton have done to prevent the attack on the Cole or the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar Es Saalam? We didn’t even know Bin Laden was a serious threat until after the Cole. And what exactly do you think Bill did wrong in Somalia? Do you think he should have kept the military there, turned a humanitarian mission into and occupation, and tore up Mogadishu looking for Aidid? Or maybe you think he should have never gone in there in the first place and left the Somalis starving and in anarchy?
734: “Righties are going to have a field day fact-checking him.”
You know, people keep saying that, but I have yet to see anything that he said actually get refuted by a reliable source. Neo-cons always talk about fact-checking so-called liberal arguments but never seem to offer up thier findings. Perhaps it’s because they aren’t part of the “fact-based community.”
September 26th, 2006 at 3:42 pmWell, the last time I pointed my finger in an interview I lied about my affairs with Monica Lewinski…..therefore I’ll point my finger again to lie about how I did everything I could to stop Osama Bin Laden. Road to 9/11 that aired in a two part series clearly explains why Clinton didn’t personally give the order to kill him when they had him cornered, but said “I’ll support your decision, but it’s on your hands not mine.” One, the monica affair, two he didn’t want to take blame if something went wrong. Did anyone watch blackhawk down? Clinton ordered not to save our soldiers in that helicopter and leave them for dead, the survivors that is. They dragged our soldiers body around like achillies did to hector to shame america. Maybe he didn’t want to make the same mistake.
Look, there will always be problems with every president that is elected for eternity…..Just like Bush, We all know he wanted IRAQ b/c of the bounty on his dad’s head that Saddam ordered, let alone the stock he has in oil, but he was a nasty tyrant, with his son raping women at will and beating them for joy. So now that his regime is gone, why are we still there? Regardless, how do we go about creating world peace? First let’s save mother earth, make oil and gas a thing of the past, and help the less fortunate in our own country first, then the world. Let’s teach 3rd world countries how to put a soccer ball, basketball, sports related items in their childrens hands first other than automatic rifles bottom line.
How can we make earth, close to heaven as possilbe? Let’s talk about how we can achieve this rather than bashing presidents and who is at fault, or who is facist, leftwing, rightwing, radical etc. etc.
BIll
September 26th, 2006 at 3:44 pmWallace got Bitch Slapped. Clinton was the Big Dog on Fox. Wallace should ask the “Hard Questions” of Bushites. Remember weapons of ‘mass destruction? Remember the hunt for Hussein who had nothing to do with Ben Laden? Remember the tortures and illegal detention for the sake of “National Security on people who had nothing to do with the “Axis of Terror”. What about the 9 months before the attack.. what did Bush do about an already clear threat with the prior bombings on US soil as well as US military instillations abroad and our embassys… didn’t they think someone might just try one here?… Clinton for President 2008! Hilliary and the rest of the Democratic whimps should take a lesson from the Man with the plan. Oh and Wallace.. you can Kiss my a…..!@
September 26th, 2006 at 3:44 pmWhy don’t the right-hotheads not want to mention Bush’s family connections to Bin Laden’s. He and his family have had business deals with them for a very long time in oil $$. I love how you conservatives keep pointing out how little Clinton did to catch Bin Laden but it’s been 5 years now and I don’t see Bush even close or looking. May this is because he stated himself that his priority even before he got into office,was to go after Sadam (because he spanked his daddy). He even tried to get the Ameican people to believe this and all the honorable men and women who jumped to join the military were fooled into this man’s personal war in Iraq. Bin Laden is not in Iraq. Then Bush decided let’s stir up Lebanon by going after Hezbolla, again not alqueda. Lot’s of blood shed including once again innocent children. This a perfect exampe of a greedy man that wants to control the world at any cost, including American’s lives. Where I come from N.H. our state motto is “Live free or Die”. this is what real people stand for. Fighting for OUR rights and spotting a man who has turned America as the most hated country in the WORLD! We just want the rest of the world to know that it’s Bush and people like you bushies that they need to be looking for. We don’t like Bush either.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:45 pmWe Want our REAL America and our American values Back!
Think about how long the people that flew the planes had been in the country some for at least two years. That will show you the blame for 911.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:52 pmDo people pay attention or do they have short attention spans? Still, the anti-American/Bush crowd spews that there were never WMDs in Iraq. Look up “Chemical Massacre”. Look how many people Hussein killed with chemical weapons…which are WMDs.
Right after the attacks on 9-11, Bush said we are not only going after terrorists, but also after anybody who gives them aid. Zarqowi (who was part of Al-Qaeda) was in Afghanistan when we first stared the war on terror. When he was wounded, where did he go? IRAQ! Why did he end up there? He didn’t have family or a wife there. He knew he would be safe there.
For those who still have their head in the sand and continue to think that Bush went to war in Iraq for oil….it’s time to pull your head out of the sand and see the real world. We STILL haven’t taken any oil from Iraq.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:52 pmIts amazing so many people,even though democrats would believe a lying piece of shit like Bill Clinton and that bunch of losers you call leaders.What does it take to wake you people to this liar who “never had sex with that woman”.He fired a couple missles into the desert with no consequence and no follow up.He did nothing about any of our embassies being attacked.he even decided to do nothing about the world trade center being attacked in 1993.He did however give the Chinese our latest multi-warhead missle technology.He did find