Clinton Puts the Smack Down on Fox

[quote]knewsom wrote:
If you want to talk about impeachment for lying, let’s talk about going to war under false pretenses. Whether an oath was made or not, the consequences of that lie have been far greater. If you think Clinton deserved to be impeached for his sins (which I’m certainly not denying - he had plenty), don’t you think Bush should be investigated and impeached for his?[/quote]

Do you even know what the word “lie” means? I wonder why your boys in congress don’t press the issue of Bush lying in any meaningful way. Probably because most of them voted in support of the “lie”? Based on the same intelligence? I wonder why they don’t press impeachment too?

[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Since when is Rush Limbaugh a reliable source of info? We might as well use O’Reilly. Or, hell, isn’t Howard Stern a good source too? I mean, at least he has big titties on his show often instead of simply his own obesity.

The best post yet! pox making fun of someone else for being fat! hahaha
[/quote]

It is hilarious how we never get to see what people who act like you look like. When was the last time you’ve been in a gym…or are you on the “JeffR for Bush HIT once a year training plan”?

No, we won’t be seeing any progress from you, will we? Just more lame attempts at being clever. If I were you, I would quit listening to that boyfriend of yours and get back in high school before it’s too late.

Just some friendly advice from me to you.

[quote]hedo wrote:
If you believe Clinton about Clarke this is what Richard Clarke actually said. Draw your own conclusions.

Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02
Wednesday, March 24, 2004

[/quote]

Hilarious! Why did Clarke spin this yarn?

KING: But the question, Dick, was why did you praise them two years ago?

CLARKE: I didn’t praise them. What you’re referring to is this background briefing that the White House leaked today in violation of the rules on background briefings. When I was a special assistant to the president – here’s what happened.

“TIME” magazine came out with a very explosive story saying, that, in fact, the White House hasn’t done everything it could have done. That in fact, that the administration had been handed a plan by me at the beginning of the administration to deal with al Qaeda and that they ignored it. Remember this, this was the cover story on “TIME” and said they had a plan.

Well, that hurt the White House a lot for obvious reasons. It was true. And they asked me to try to help them out. I was working for the president of the United States at the time. And I said, well, look, I’m not going to lie. And they said, look, can’t you at least emphasize the things that we did do? Emphasize the positive?

Well, you had no other choice at that moment. There are three things you can do. You can resign rather than do it, you can lie and say the administration did all these things it didn’t do. Or, if you want to stay inside the government and try to continue to change it from inside, you can stay on, do what they ask you to do, give a background briefing to the press and emphasize those things which they had done. And I chose to do that.

But, you know, it seems very ironic to me that what the White House is sort of saying is they don’t understand why I, as a special assistant to the president of the United States, didn’t criticize the president to the press. If I had criticized the president to the press as a special assistant, I would have been fired within an hour. They know that. This is part of their whole attempt to get Larry King to ask Dick Clarke this kind of question. So we’re not talking about the major issue.

KING: We’re going to get to that in a minute. But who told you to do that briefing?

CLARKE: The national security adviser, the press secretary, the communication’s director, they all talked to me, asked me to do the briefing and were telling me to spin it in a very positive way.

KING: What do you make of Condoleezza Rice’s actions through this? Her statements about you, the issuing today of an e-mail you sent her four days before 9/11, which seems to back up what she thinks. What’s your overview of that?

CLARKE: They’re scrambling very hard at the White House. They’ve got a lot of people – the vice president, the chief of staff, the national security director, the press secretary, the communication’s director. They have five or six people running around doing talk shows and trying to refute me and trying to besmirch me. Larry, I said in the preface of this book, I knew before I wrote this book that the White House will let loose the dogs to attack me. That’s what they’re doing. That’s what they did to Paul O’Neill when he told the truth and I come back to this point that all of this is to get us, rather than being on this show talking about the failures of the Bush administration, instead talking about the flack that they’re throwing up every day.

KING: Was 9/11 preventable?

CLARKE: Well, we’ll never know. But let me compare 9/11 and the period immediately before it to the millennium rollover and the period immediately before that. In December, 1999, we received intelligence reports that there were going to be major al Qaeda attacks. President Clinton asked his national security adviser Sandy Berger to hold daily meetings with the attorney general, the FBI director, the CIA director and stop the attacks. And every day they went back from the White House to the FBI, to the Justice Department, to the CIA and they shook the trees to find out if there was any information. You know, when you know the United States is going to be attacked, the top people in the United States government ought to be working hands-on to prevent it and working together.

Now, contrast that with what happened in the summer of 2001, when we even had more clear indications that there was going to be an attack. Did the president ask for daily meetings of his team to try to stop the attack? Did Condi Rice hold meetings of her counterparts to try to stop the attack? No."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/24/lkl.00.html

Nice try Hedo.

Clinton said incredibly true things so of course the right must try to besmirch him. This smackdown only reminded us of one thing…our president and his supporters are timid little cowards.

Your response…post the transcript of the efforts of your admins efforts to hide their non-efforts by begging Clarke to just please say something nice about us.

Yes draw your own conclusion…
Bush did nothing. Of course!

[quote]doogie wrote:
It’s funny that there are two non-Americans and two Republic of California citizens defending Clinton.

knewsom wrote:
I’m sorry, are you trying to assert that I’m less than a US Citizen??[/quote]

Actually, when anyone classifies my as a Republic of California citizen, I take it as a compliment; most of my foreign friends do that anyway, since they seem to think California is not really the same as the rest of the US.

[quote]knewsom wrote:
Believe you men, if Cali could leave this mess, I’d be all for it.[/quote]

I’ll second that.

[quote]knewsom wrote:
…you fuckers would be crippled without California.[/quote]

Believe it or not, that’s a scenario assignment I’ve given students before in one of my courses. After doing it for three years running, it ceased to be challenging and I stopped it; they invariably reached the exact same results, even if we changed the variables (barring something really silly, like the rest of the US taking back CA by force).

Trust me, many of my students tried really hard to reach another conclusion, but it invariably resulted it was actually in California’s best economic self-interest. Among other technicalities, basically the US’ budget would collapse due to the lack of our Federal Taxes (we contribute almost $100bn more than we get back each year).

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But I will throw out two current political figures - Senator John McCain and Senatorial candidate Jim Webb of Virginia.[/quote]

John McCain? His lack of balls in following through with his anti-torture beliefs shows he clearly has given his balls in a platter to Rove. It was a sad moment – he was clearly distraught as he talked to the press about the “compromise” – but the fact is that he did betray his own principles, and an Alpha Male never, ever, does that.

With regards to Jim Webb – maybe. I have yet to form an opinion of him; his platform is extremely vague: although he does seem to have his head screwed in on some issues (starting with his clear disdain for Bush), he tends to cop-out on the details. If he wins (which wouldn’t be that bad, I guess), maybe we’ll be able to see if he is truly an Alpha Male, or simply another sock puppet.

Am I being cynical? Well, both Arnold and McCain burned me; although initially appearing to be moderates and men of principle, they will roll over and play nice the moment Rove waves his magic wand. Definitely not T-Man behavior.

[quote]pookie wrote:
It’s “pwned” dammit.[/quote]

That’s the Canadian French spelling…

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Since when is Rush Limbaugh a reliable source of info? We might as well use O’Reilly. Or, hell, isn’t Howard Stern a good source too? I mean, at least he has big titties on his show often instead of simply his own obesity.

ChuckyT wrote:
The best post yet! pox making fun of someone else for being fat! hahaha
[/quote]

ChuckyT:

You must be confused. This is not the Crossfit site. Run along now, nothing here for you.

[quote]hspder wrote:
pookie wrote:
It’s “pwned” dammit.

That’s the Canadian French spelling…

[/quote]

i though it was French Canadian.?

Hey bitches:

FOX is wiping the interview off of youtube, citing copyright infringement. Which is, of course, their right, but it just goes to show you the effect the interview had on the public. Here’s a link to a fox-hater (I’m not one, I think ALL TV is pretty much about selling stuff and not much else, so I could give a crap if some news stations lie/spin/etc.):

http://www.hanlonsrazor.org/2006/09/25/fox-and-the-clinton-interview/

[quote]doogie wrote:
Breaking your marriage vows and humiliating your wife and daughter to get your dick sucked by a FAT chick is the biggest example of being a pussy I can think of.[/quote]

What? Don’t look at Bill Clinton like that. Fat chicks need love, too…"

[quote]hspder wrote:
Rice, well, Rice I know all too well, and I wouldn’t trust her with my car keys, much less my life and my family’s.[/quote]

Explain then how Sec. Rice has managed to be so successful in life, if she cannot be trusted with your car keys.

[quote]hspder wrote:

John McCain? His lack of balls in following through with his anti-torture beliefs shows he clearly has given his balls in a platter to Rove. It was a sad moment – he was clearly distraught as he talked to the press about the “compromise” – but the fact is that he did betray his own principles, and an Alpha Male never, ever, does that.[/quote]

You honestly think that McCain is somehow beholden to Karl Rove?

I expected as much - any definition of an Alpha Male will have to be measured through the sharp partisan lens of Bay Area dogma.

But there is your problem again - you want to screen his ideology as the criterion. There are tons of things I disagree with Webb on - but I don’t consider him an ‘Alpha Male’ because he marches in lockstep with me politically, I consider him an AM because of his character.

Face it - you are too much of a zealot to measure anyone who isn’t some version of your politics.

In your New Testament, is Karl Rove the Serpent in the Garden? He seems to control the behavior of nearly every Republican Gone Bad for you. If some conservative somewhere looked like he might support a policy you like, and he winds up not doing it, it is the sinister influence of Karl Rove at work.

Hilarious.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Hey bitches:

FOX is wiping the interview off of youtube, citing copyright infringement. Which is, of course, their right, but it just goes to show you the effect the interview had on the public. Here’s a link to a fox-hater (I’m not one, I think ALL TV is pretty much about selling stuff and not much else, so I could give a crap if some news stations lie/spin/etc.):

http://www.hanlonsrazor.org/2006/09/25/fox-and-the-clinton-interview/[/quote]

Like I said at the start, “holy shit”.

[quote]There are only two reasons for a news organization to want that video taken down, because they plan on selling it or because they don’t want people to see it. I doubt heavily that this interview will ever be sold because of how bad it makes them look. Can I assume that they want it down so no one will see how much of a smackdown Clinton gave Wallace? The transcript is there, but it’s different in text than in video.

Curiously, digging around on FOX’s site itself doesn’t yield the full interview either. You can get bits and pieces, but not the full thing. It’s gone AWOL. And the one bit you can get starts right off with Clinton on the offense, forgetting the full lead-in.

You can search for the video on YouTube yourself. Click on any of the results, you?ll see the same message. FOX hasn?t done this with the O’Reilly clips, none of the other bits from FOX that litter YouTube. They went through and reported every single instance of this video being circulated. It’s as if they’re trying to erase the actuality of it in order to facilitate their talking heads’ distorting it.

[/quote]

Anyone pretending that Clinton didn’t hand Wallace his ass on that debate is a raving lunatic with a fetish for humping all things conservative no matter whether they are right or wrong.

Even if his temperment was completely made up, he was effective, obviously much more than they ever expected. It should also be proof of how biased FOX news is because why else would NEWS be removed from the public the way they are going about it?

I’m glad I grabbed most of the transcript before they pull that too.

[quote]doogie wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
doogie wrote:
I got to listen to Rush Limbaugh today for 2 hours. Point by point by point he destroyed Clinton’s answers. Many of them were outright lies (completely mistating what Clark’s book said). Jesus, Clinton is still a pathological liar.

Limbaugh is not a source.

He just reads directly from Drudge during his entire radio show.

That would be as bad as a left wingnut saying Franken proved all of Clinton’s assertions on his show today.

You can stop being a tool anytime you want.

How the hell do you have time to listen to Limbaugh when you are suppose to be working?

Clark’s book was the source. That and interviews that Clark gave. Clinton is and always has been a liar.

My students where at a play for 3 hours of glorious quiet today.
[/quote]

Right wingnuts don’t like Clark. That is not news.

What grade do you teach?

[quote]doogie wrote:
I’m pretty sure I’ve out-bred you already. The dream lives another generation!
[/quote]

That is hilarious!

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Monday is a half day for me and I listen to Limbaugh (of course) on the drive home. He shredded Clinton thoroughly. He points out so many contradictions in Clinton’s actions and his words today, it appear Clinton is pathological. The constant attempt to shift the blame, for ex, for everything from himself to the CIA and FBI is almost childish. (Bush NEVER blames subordinates, btw, for anything.)

Many of you gents laugh or ridicule Rush, but when he uncovers lie after lie, contradiction after contradiction, you have to put that aside and open your ears.[/quote]

If you have a lot of time to listen to Limbaugh and you wonder why you don’t make enough money then you need a reality check.

Neither Clinton nor Bush are Alpha Males in the T-Nation definition so stop using that label for either one of them.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
hspder wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
That said - Clinton, without question, is the quintessential pansy. A manipulator and someone who wants to duck responsibility at every turn, he is the classic sensitive emasculated male who thinks a word like ‘honor’ is situational.

Wow. So what is Bush? Uber-pansy? I mean, doesn’t Bush fit that description absolutely and utterly perfectly?

Maybe it’s just a case of Bush having lowered the bar so much that Clinton just seems like a wonder compared to him… I’ve talked to many people who said that seeing Bush in action made them see Clinton in a much, much better light than they did before.

So thank you GWB for making Clinton look so good!

Remind me again how many jets clinton flew?

JeffR

[/quote]

Less than Bush crashed.

*You set yourself up for that one.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
knewsom wrote:
JeffR wrote:
hspder wrote:
doogie wrote:
Breaking your marriage vows and humiliating your wife and daughter to get your dick sucked by a FAT chick is the biggest example of being a pussy I can think of.

The fact that you, as many conservatives, seem to still be focusing on that just goes to show how much you lack any real arguments.

I know you’re Mr. Saint around here (your posts in the Sex and the Male Animal forum show that well), but you really need to get some perspective. Bush isn’t a saint either, and, honestly, having done coke is far worse, far more damaging and far more telling of his character than what Clinton did, irrespective of when. Stick to things that are really relevant and stop grasping at straws, OK?

You do realize that sexual harrassment and hints of far worse are out there, don’t you?

Now what’s worse to you? Think about a significant female in your life (even if it’s your mother).

JeffR

I challenge you to think about Arnold Schwarzenegger for a moment, and then make the same statement.

My friend, if Arnold did that, then my response would be exactly the same.

AT THE VERY LEAST, the woman should have had her day in court.

Now, I don’t remember bill being disbarred for his “dick.”

It was lying under oath. He was also obstructing justice.

I know it’s a defense mechanism to change the subject from one of diabolical intent and something you would be adamatly be against if it was your wife, to one of “Hey, he’s one of the guys.” There is FAR more to it than that.

If bill clinton had your wife brought up to his office by State Troopers (or worse), then hid behind lawyers, his office, and just “doing the business of the American People” IMAGINE how your perspective changes.

JeffR

[/quote]

Clinton is a piece of crap.

That really has nothing to do with 9/11.

[quote]hspder wrote:
Actually, when anyone classifies my as a Republic of California citizen, I take it as a compliment; most of my foreign friends do that anyway, since they seem to think California is not really the same as the rest of the US.

[/quote]

Californians have more in common with Europeans — wanting an effect without a cause. They want good healthcare, provided by ________. They want lots of jobs, provided by ____________. They want clean air and clean water, provided by ________________.

Yup, gotta love those rational Californians.