[quote]vroom wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Also, I made this point earlier, but Tom Maguire makes it more fully – for those who think Clinton’s genius was more at work than his temper:
Oh please.
It’s easy to find hatchet jobs of either stripe if you are willing to scour the blogosphere.
You are making me laugh posting all this bullshit like it actually contains facts instead of pure opinion. It’s perhaps half a misstep above the level of the Rush job done by Rush.[/quote]
Exactly. Just like only showing clips of that interview as if Clinton started on the offensive instead of the entire discussion. I have no doubt this is only the beginning. FOX’s scramble to get rid of the WHOLE interview is just the start to a rush for saving face from the potential damage.
Exactly. Just like only showing clips of that interview as if Clinton started on the offensive instead of the entire discussion. I have no doubt this is only the beginning. FOX’s scramble to get rid of the WHOLE interview is just the start to a rush for saving face from the potential damage.
[/quote]
Actually, the reference text clearly stated the clip was an illustration of the Clinton finger wag – obviously a sneaky way to dupe people into thinking that short clip was the whole interview. Especially when it’s followed by a link to the entire transcript. Sneaky bastards…
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
I don’t get it! Who cares what action was or wasn’t taken 6-8-10-12 years ago. This is still no predictor of what has since ocurred.[/quote]
Clinton cares about his legacy. Nothing means more to him than being remembered as a great president. Not fat chicks, not hamburgers, not vacations away from Hilary. Nothing is more important to him. That’s why he reacted like he did.
That’s why he got angry. That’s why he went after the current administration.
[quote]doogie wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
I don’t get it! Who cares what action was or wasn’t taken 6-8-10-12 years ago. This is still no predictor of what has since ocurred.
Clinton cares about his legacy. Nothing means more to him than being remembered as a great president. Not fat chicks, not hamburgers, not vacations away from Hilary. Nothing is more important to him. That’s why he reacted like he did.
That’s why he got angry. That’s why he went after the current administration.
[quote]doogie wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
I don’t get it! Who cares what action was or wasn’t taken 6-8-10-12 years ago. This is still no predictor of what has since ocurred.
Clinton cares about his legacy. Nothing means more to him than being remembered as a great president. Not fat chicks, not hamburgers, not vacations away from Hilary. Nothing is more important to him. That’s why he reacted like he did.
That’s why he got angry. That’s why he went after the current administration.
[/quote]
doogie,
Wouldn’t you love to be a fly on the wall when 41 and 42 sit down for a discussion.
I would truly love to hear the banter.
I’d love it even more if they had very private discussions where they ripped off numbers, facts, and names that wouldn’t be public knowledge.
I’d love to know if, in hindsight, there are things either of these men would have done differently. I’ll bet they’ve done a ton of soul searching.
[quote]doogie wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
I don’t get it! Who cares what action was or wasn’t taken 6-8-10-12 years ago. This is still no predictor of what has since ocurred.
Clinton cares about his legacy. Nothing means more to him than being remembered as a great president. Not fat chicks, not hamburgers, not vacations away from Hilary. Nothing is more important to him. That’s why he reacted like he did.
That’s why he got angry. That’s why he went after the current administration.
[/quote]
We all care about our legacy doogie.
The current administration deserves being gone after. This is a mess and should be called a mess. What’s wrong with that. For anyone to suggest that the course taken and all the actions since were and are appropriate is a fool.
For Clinton to, what I saw as, back up his actions/nonactions, with fact based responses was ok. Was he lieing when he said he approved az plan to kill Bin Ladden but was rebuffed because the CIA/FBI wouldn’t certify this as a terorist threat? I don’t know. But I do know that if I was being asked questions about why I failed to protect my family from a known predator, when in fact I had done as much as I could, my back hairs would get up as well.
For all those barking about Bush’s rush to war, how can you also hack on someone for following the ‘rules?’
Wouldn’t you love to be a fly on the wall when 41 and 42 sit down for a discussion.
[/quote]
No way. That’s when they take off their human suits and lounge around as the alien lizards they are. Bill’s 6 foot reptile tongue would slurp you off the wall as a snack before you even saw the secret illuminati handshake.
Was he lieing when he said he approved az plan to kill Bin Ladden but was rebuffed because the CIA/FBI wouldn’t certify this as a terorist threat? I don’t know. [/quote]
Regarding the attack on the USS Cole and Bill Clinton’s subsequent inaction as far as we could tell; I’ve looked it up and Franklin Delano Roosevelt did NOT require a law enforcement agency certification of the Pearl Harbor attack before he went to Congress to declare war on the Empire of Japan which he got to thunderous applause.
I believe the Command and Chief should have forcibly responded to the USS Cole attack; it was a US Navy warship and that attack was clearly an act of war.
Clinton could have easily announced a prime time press conference where he laid out a war plan to get back at Bin Laden et al for the 1993 WTC attack, Khobar towers, African Embassies, USS Cole, etc before terrorism got out of hand and he would have gotten full support from the American people as well as both political parties. Too bad he didn’t try.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
I don’t get it! Who cares what action was or wasn’t taken 6-8-10-12 years ago. [/quote]
What’s the statute of limitations on treason, or at the very least, dereliction of presidential duties to protect the people?
I think the families of those killed while Clinton was asleep at the switch might want some answers. Those left behind by the events of 9/11 might want to know who let this scum into the country, who seperated information gathering and cut budgets (all to look good with a ‘surplus’).
Clinton could have easily announced a prime time press conference where he laid out a war plan to get back at Bin Laden et al for the 1993 WTC attack, Khobar towers, African Embassies, USS Cole, etc before terrorism got out of hand and he would have gotten full support from the American people as well as both political parties. Too bad he didn’t try.[/quote]
You don’t honestly believe this, do you? You had an entire party focused on Clinton’s sex life. There was so much crap flowing around due to the massive witch hunt for semen stains that there is no way he could have gained public support when the country perceived no threat worth the effort. People would have gladly sent their sons and husbands off to war for a “possible” threat?
Hind sight is 20/20. Apparently, gullibility just runs into you from your blind spot.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
I don’t get it! Who cares what action was or wasn’t taken 6-8-10-12 years ago.
What’s the statute of limitations on treason, or at the very least, dereliction of presidential duties to protect the people?
I think the families of those killed while Clinton was asleep at the switch might want some answers. Those left behind by the events of 9/11 might want to know who let this scum into the country, who seperated information gathering and cut budgets (all to look good with a ‘surplus’).
Maybe they care? I know I do.
[/quote]
Great speech.
When you can show me that one action or inaction led to any other action or inaction I will then worry about your what if scenario.
Are you accusing Clinton of treason? Or are you just throwing that out as fodder? Who was willing to step up at that time and was rebuffed by the pres?
Clinton explained his responses the other day–do you have proof of his lies? He explained each incident and his response thereafter. I don’t know if it was garbage or not, but nor do I know what is being spewed now is garbage or not.
Was he lieing when he said he approved az plan to kill Bin Ladden but was rebuffed because the CIA/FBI wouldn’t certify this as a terorist threat? I don’t know.
Regarding the attack on the USS Cole and Bill Clinton’s subsequent inaction as far as we could tell; I’ve looked it up and Franklin Delano Roosevelt did NOT require a law enforcement agency certification of the Pearl Harbor attack before he went to Congress to declare war on the Empire of Japan which he got to thunderous applause.
I believe the Command and Chief should have forcibly responded to the USS Cole attack; it was a US Navy warship and that attack was clearly an act of war.
Clinton could have easily announced a prime time press conference where he laid out a war plan to get back at Bin Laden et al for the 1993 WTC attack, Khobar towers, African Embassies, USS Cole, etc before terrorism got out of hand and he would have gotten full support from the American people as well as both political parties. Too bad he didn’t try.[/quote]
The 2 acts are not the same when determination of war is your criteria. I’m quite sure Clinton, his advisors, his cabinet, his party and anyone else associated with the times were well aware of what they needed to go to war.
Could he have done more? It seems like it, but that is easy to say now.
Really – so he wasn’t echoing your response to my post, which linked exactly one clip of Clinton? Sorry, I must have been terribly confused by the fact that he said “Exactly” after your post, which, while not particularly relevent to my point, at least quoted the link in my post…
BostonBarrister wrote:
Also, I made this point earlier, but Tom Maguire makes it more fully – for those who think Clinton’s genius was more at work than his temper:
vroom wrote:
Oh please.
It’s easy to find hatchet jobs of either stripe if you are willing to scour the blogosphere.
You are making me laugh posting all this bullshit like it actually contains facts instead of pure opinion. It’s perhaps half a misstep above the level of the Rush job done by Rush.
Professor X wrote:
Exactly. Just like only showing clips of that interview as if Clinton started on the offensive instead of the entire discussion. I have no doubt this is only the beginning. FOX’s scramble to get rid of the WHOLE interview is just the start to a rush for saving face from the potential damage.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Actually, the reference text clearly stated the clip was an illustration of the Clinton finger wag – obviously a sneaky way to dupe people into thinking that short clip was the whole interview. Especially when it’s followed by a link to the entire transcript. Sneaky bastards…
vroom wrote:
The two of you are discussing different items… hello.
Really – so he wasn’t echoing your response to my post, which linked exactly one clip of Clinton? Sorry, I must have been terribly confused by the fact that he said “Exactly” after your post, which, while not particularly relevent to my point, at least quoted the link in my post…[/quote]
I was not speaking of the exact same event but of the fact that FOX is pulling this debate from any other source in its full form. I have quoted other sources in this thread about that.
I was making that point in response to people claiming that Wallace was simply out there baiting Clinton and trying to do a right-wing hit piece.[/quote]
The exchange about ‘The Looming Tower’ and the question ‘Why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaida out of business when you were president?’ was pretty underhanded and, if not baiting, at least agitating.
Would you think it appropriate to ask a former president a question? But, when you ask a question and proceed through a litany of errs and assertions, I wouldn’t consider it an interruption if the former president interjected in your litany to answer the question, and then ask them to let you finish at which point you just kind of trail off without really summing up what the point you were trying to make after you asked the question was what you originally posed.
Not defending Clinton, but Wallace was definitely on a mission.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
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.
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.
Temporary blackout? I’m a teacher, dude. What should I do on Monday afternoons, go and bag groceries at a supermarket? LOL!![/quote]
Right wingnuts don’t like Clark. That is not news.
Limbaugh (if you’d bother to read) was USING Clark’s words against Clinton.[/quote]
The fact is right wingnuts don’t like Clark because he said that the Bush administration did not have any meeting about Al Queda or Bin Laden before 9/11.