http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/24/clinton-video/
ZING!
[quote]mazilla wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/24/clinton-video/
ZING!
[/quote]
Holy shit. The transcript for that is better than some books I’ve read. I would love for that to continue with a certain president on the other end of the conversation.
Clinton raises some important issues. There’s a large number of cheerleaders who need to learn to think for themselves and hold BOTH sides to a strict critical analysis.
Unfortunately, that will never happen.
[quote]WALLACE: And all I can say is, I?m asking you this in good faith because it?s on people?s minds, sir. And I wasn?t?
CLINTON: Well, there?s a reason it?s on people?s minds. That?s the point I?m trying to make. There?s a reason it?s on people?s minds: Because there?s been a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression.
This country only has one person who?s worked on this terror. From the terrorist incidents under Reagan to the terrorist incidents from 9/11, only one: Richard Clarke.
And all I can say to anybody is, you want to know what we did wrong or right, or anybody else did? Read his book.
The people on my political right who say I didn?t do enough spent the whole time I was president saying, Why is he so obsessed with bin Laden? That was wag the dog when he tried to kill him.
My Republican secretary of defense ? and I think I?m the only president since World War II to have a secretary of defense of the opposite party ? Richard Clarke and all the intelligence people said that I ordered a vigorous attempt to get bin Laden and came closer, apparently, than anybody has since.
WALLACE: All right.
CLINTON: And you guys try to create the opposite impression, when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke?s findings and you know it?s not true. It?s just not true.
And all this business about Somalia ? the same people who criticized me about Somalia were demanding I leave the next day. The same exact crowd.
WALLACE: One of the?
CLINTON: And so, if you?re going to do this, for God?s sake, follow the same standards for everybody?
WALLACE: I think we do, sir.
CLINTON: ? and be flat ? and fair.
[/quote]
In all honesty, the guy did ask a perfectly fairy question, and didn’t even ask it in a rude or accusatory way, and Clinton went off and got his panties in a wad pretty much out of the blue.
There’s a loooooot of disagreement on whether or not Clinton was as foreward-leaning as he should’ve been against Bin Laden, so take everything you hear (especially from Bill himself, who is trying to defend his legacy) with a massive grain of salt.
My take? In hindsight, he probably wasn’t aggressive enough, and might even have held back on opportunities to get Bin Laden (according to Michael Scheuer, who wrote “Imperial Hubris,” Bill definately flubbed numerous chances), but at the same time, with 9/11 not having happened yet, I can somewhat see how he might not have thought it necessary to put forces at risk and stir up a “hornet’s nest,” if you will. Obviously, though, hindsight is 20/20.
[quote]mazilla wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/24/clinton-video/
ZING!
[/quote]
On fear in politics:
[quote]WALLACE: Let?s talk some politics. In that same New Yorker article, you say that you are tired of Karl Rove?s B.S., although I?m cleaning up what you said.
CLINTON: But I do like the ? but I also say I?m not tired of Karl Rove. I don?t blame Karl Rove. If you?ve got a deal that works, you just keep on doing it.
WALLACE: So what is the B.S.?
CLINTON: Well, every even-numbered year, right before an election, they come up with some security issue.
In 2002, our party supported them in undertaking weapons inspections in Iraq and was 100 percent for what happened in Afghanistan, and they didn?t have any way to make us look like we didn?t care about terror.
And so, they decided they would be for the homeland security bill that they had opposed. And they put a poison pill in it that we wouldn?t pass, like taking the job rights away from 170,000 people, and then say that we were weak on terror if we weren?t for it. They just ran that out.
This year, I think they wanted to make the questions of prisoner treatment and intercepted communications the same sort of issues, until John Warner and John McCain and Lindsey Graham got in there. And, as it turned out, there were some Republicans that believed in the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions and had some of their own ideas about how best to fight terror.
The Democrats ? as long as the American people believe that we take this seriously and we have our own approaches ? and we may have differences over Iraq ? I think we?ll do fine in this election.
But even if they agree with us about the Iraq war, we could be hurt by Karl Rove?s new foray if we just don?t make it clear that we, too, care about the security of the country. But we want to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, which they haven?t for four years. We want to intensify our efforts in Afghanistan against bin Laden. We want to make America more energy-independent.
And then they can all, if they differ on Iraq, they can say whatever they want on Iraq.
But Rove is good. And I honor him. I mean, I will say that. I?ve always been amused about how good he is, in a way.
But on the other hand, this is perfectly predictable: We?re going to win a lot of seats if the American people aren?t afraid. If they?re afraid and we get divided again, then we may only win a few seats.
[/quote]
Clinton should know better than to go on Fox for anything.
[quote]Damici wrote:
In all honesty, the guy did ask a perfectly fairy question, and didn’t even ask it in a rude or accusatory way, and Clinton went off and got his panties in a wad pretty much out of the blue.
There’s a loooooot of disagreement on whether or not Clinton was as foreward-leaning as he should’ve been against Bin Laden, so take everything you hear (especially from Bill himself, who is trying to defend his legacy) with a massive grain of salt.
My take? In hindsight, he probably wasn’t aggressive enough, and might even have held back on opportunities to get Bin Laden (according to Michael Sheurer (SP)?, who wrote “Imperial Hubris,” Bill definately flubbed numerous chances), but at the same time, with 9/11 not having happened yet, I can somewhat see how he might not have thought it necessary to put forces at risk and stir up a “hornet’s nest,” if you will. Obviously, though, hindsight is 20/20.[/quote]
The GOP congress should carry as much of the blame as Clinton did if not more because they critized him for trying to bomb Bin Laden.
I thought he was wagging the dog at the time.
It is too bad that he did not drop more bombs.
The cheerleaders are certainly here.
His anger seems VERY calculated and is used to divert attention from the questions.
He knew the questions were coming, and it appears he planned to get pissed so his anger would be the story rather than his failures to defend the U.S. from Bin Laden.
To not even realize the heavy politics behind the questioning is more illustrative of your own blindness to issues of import than anything else…
Fox is incredibly blatant with asking questions that end up creating a political stance or impression. The daily show did a pretty funny piece on it just recently.
Your media groups are really letting you down with respect to providing professional journalism – as opposed to political posturing.
[quote]doogie wrote:
The cheerleaders are certainly here.
His anger seems VERY calculated and is used to divert attention from the questions.
He knew the questions were coming, and it appears he planned to get pissed so his anger would be the story rather than his failures to defend the U.S. from Bin Laden.[/quote]
You act like he didn’t answer the questions…in detail. He did. He didn’t say what you wanted him to?
[quote]WALLACE: And the White House, the Republicans want to make the American people afraid?
CLINTON: Of course they do. Of course they do. They want us to be ? they want another homeland security deal. And they want to make it about ? not about Iraq but about some other security issue, where, if we disagree with them, we are, by definition, imperiling the security of the country.
And it’s a big load of hooey. We’ve got nine Iraq war veterans running for the House seats. We’ve got President Reagan’s secretary of the navy as the Democratic candidate for the Senate in Virginia. A three-star admiral, who was on my National Security Council staff, who also fought terror, by the way, is running for the seat of Kurt Weldon in Pennsylvania.
We’ve got a huge military presence here in this campaign. And we just can’t let them have some rhetorical device that puts us in a box we don’t belong in.
That’s their job. Their job is to beat us. I like that about Rove. But our job is not to let them get away with it. And if they don’t, then we’ll do fine.
[/quote]
[quote]doogie wrote:
The cheerleaders are certainly here.
His anger seems VERY calculated and is used to divert attention from the questions.
He knew the questions were coming, and it appears he planned to get pissed so his anger would be the story rather than his failures to defend the U.S. from Bin Laden.[/quote]
Are you saying that unless I hate Clinton as much as you do then I am a cheerleader?
[quote]doogie wrote:
The cheerleaders are certainly here.
His anger seems VERY calculated and is used to divert attention from the questions.
He knew the questions were coming, and it appears he planned to get pissed so his anger would be the story rather than his failures to defend the U.S. from Bin Laden.[/quote]
He said he was pissed because such question would never be posed to a member of the Bush administration, especially not in that way and not by Fox news.
That would be highly unlikely anyway since Bush does not do “free speech” with his 145 IQ, his Yale diploma and his decade of experience in public office.
Yay Clinton, he officially nailed him.
He’s still old Slick Willy.
Democrats must have finally realized they needed a better mouthpiece than douchebags Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi.
“I was tough on terrorism. And I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
It’s a riot watching all the Kool Aid drinking lefties get as moist as schoolgirls whenever he speaks. Must be some serious arousal going on for all of you.
Maybe if you ask real nice, Tim Patterson will allow you all to have a picture of him in the Powerful Images frame. Give you something to look at when you’re Spanking the Monkey.
Talk about cheerleaders. Hilarious.
Perhaps so.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Damici wrote:
In all honesty, the guy did ask a perfectly fairy question, and didn’t even ask it in a rude or accusatory way, and Clinton went off and got his panties in a wad pretty much out of the blue.
There’s a loooooot of disagreement on whether or not Clinton was as foreward-leaning as he should’ve been against Bin Laden, so take everything you hear (especially from Bill himself, who is trying to defend his legacy) with a massive grain of salt.
My take? In hindsight, he probably wasn’t aggressive enough, and might even have held back on opportunities to get Bin Laden (according to Michael Sheurer (SP)?, who wrote “Imperial Hubris,” Bill definately flubbed numerous chances), but at the same time, with 9/11 not having happened yet, I can somewhat see how he might not have thought it necessary to put forces at risk and stir up a “hornet’s nest,” if you will. Obviously, though, hindsight is 20/20.
The GOP congress should carry as much of the blame as Clinton did if not more because they critized him for trying to bomb Bin Laden.
I thought he was wagging the dog at the time.
It is too bad that he did not drop more bombs.[/quote]
pox, mazilla,
What a man!!! What a tough stance against the press!!!
He really showed “faux” news who was the boss!!!
He wasn’t defensive. There weren’t any right wing conspiracy theories thrown out.
Pure logic.
He deserves none of the blame for bin laden. Remember, he had battle plans ready to go. It was the intelligence services that stopped him.
It wasn’t like he could override them. Hell, I’m sure he wasn’t even thinking about the aspirin factory bombing.
I LOVED how tough he was on murdoch. Remember people, murdoch is the evil genius who only stumps for Republicans. He is the guy who tells the “faux” news people what to say.
Finally, I want you all to remember that Wallace has never worked at a liberal leaning institution. He hasn’t been in the business for 30 years. There is NO WAY he should quote a liberal author who contends that bill clinton didn’t do enough during his 8 years in office to go after bin laden.
It’s out of bounds to even think about questioning bill clinton about not connecting the dots between the WTC, the Cole, and the African embassy bombings.
Only “faux news” and murdoch in particular would think about questioning bill clinton about those things.
No one else even thinks that bill clinton deserves most of the blame for his many failures.
It’s the vast right wing conspiracy out to divert attention from Iraq!!!
It’s almost November, people!!!
That’s it, after that interview, I’ve decided that al gore won in 2000 and john kerry was robbed in ohio.
I’m turning in my “faux news/halliburton” card and becoming a full-fledged member of moveon.org.
JeffR
Totally agreed in general, however in the case of this specific line of questioning, I thought the interviewer was asking completely fair questions.
[quote]vroom wrote:
To not even realize the heavy politics behind the questioning is more illustrative of your own blindness to issues of import than anything else…
Fox is incredibly blatant with asking questions that end up creating a political stance or impression. The daily show did a pretty funny piece on it just recently.
Your media groups are really letting you down with respect to providing professional journalism – as opposed to political posturing.[/quote]
[quote]NE2000 wrote:
He’s still old Slick Willy.
Democrats must have finally realized they needed a better mouthpiece than douchebags Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi.
“I was tough on terrorism. And I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
It’s a riot watching all the Kool Aid drinking lefties get as moist as schoolgirls whenever he speaks. Must be some serious arousal going on for all of you.
Maybe if you ask real nice, Tim Patterson will allow you all to have a picture of him in the Powerful Images frame. Give you something to look at when you’re Spanking the Monkey.
Talk about cheerleaders. Hilarious.[/quote]
At least he admits to making mistakes…
[quote]NE2000 wrote:
He’s still old Slick Willy.
Democrats must have finally realized they needed a better mouthpiece than douchebags Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi.
“I was tough on terrorism. And I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
It’s a riot watching all the Kool Aid drinking lefties get as moist as schoolgirls whenever he speaks. Must be some serious arousal going on for all of you.
Maybe if you ask real nice, Tim Patterson will allow you all to have a picture of him in the Powerful Images frame. Give you something to look at when you’re Spanking the Monkey.
Talk about cheerleaders. Hilarious.[/quote]
I do not consider myself a “lefty” but if my life depended on the decisions of Clinton or Bush I knew who I`d choose and you would choose the same.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
pox, mazilla,
What a man!!! What a tough stance against the press!!!
He really showed “faux” news who was the boss!!!
He wasn’t defensive. There weren’t any right wing conspiracy theories thrown out.
Pure logic.
He deserves none of the blame for bin laden. Remember, he had battle plans ready to go. It was the intelligence services that stopped him.
It wasn’t like he could override them. Hell, I’m sure he wasn’t even thinking about the aspirin factory bombing.
I LOVED how tough he was on murdoch. Remember people, murdoch is the evil genius who only stumps for Republicans. He is the guy who tells the “faux” news people what to say.
Finally, I want you all to remember that Wallace has never worked at a liberal leaning institution. He hasn’t been in the business for 30 years. There is NO WAY he should quote a liberal author who contends that bill clinton didn’t do enough during his 8 years in office to go after bin laden.
It’s out of bounds to even think about questioning bill clinton about not connecting the dots between the WTC, the Cole, and the African embassy bombings.
Only “faux news” and murdoch in particular would think about questioning bill clinton about those things.
No one else even thinks that bill clinton deserves most of the blame for his many failures.
It’s the vast right wing conspiracy out to divert attention from Iraq!!!
It’s almost November, people!!!
That’s it, after that interview, I’ve decided that al gore won in 2000 and john kerry was robbed in ohio.
I’m turning in my “faux news/halliburton” card and becoming a full-fledged member of moveon.org.
JeffR[/quote]
Not one of you yet has actually taken on what was specifically said in that interview and most of the transcript has been posted right here.
Why?