Clinton Puts the Smack Down on Fox

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
243

[quote]Professor X wrote:
deadlifter405 wrote:

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.

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]

Actually, I do believe this was possible. I was/am a member of the Clinton hating right wing who was jumping up and down screaming for action after the USS Cole attack. I backed the Kosovo war effort, and I would have backed a start of a global war on terrorism. So would all of the other right wingers I have spoken to about this.

Hindsight is 20/20, so I will not convict Clinton of not doing enough. Clearly, if he had known 9/11 was coming and could have been averted he would have thrown everything he had at the problem. Unfortunately, as you say, he was tied up in the sex mongering scandal (too bad he was actually guilty as hell) and had very little political capital to spend. That is why a well laid out case, similar to what he did Sunday morning on Fox News, directly to the American people for support of this new global anti-terror initiative would have worked. It could have been a much more limited plan; ala strangle their finances, special forces attacks, allied nation involvement, etc. Personally, I believe he should have been tried, convicted, and possibly executed for crimes of treason (think nuclear weapons technology to China for campaign cash), but I would have supported him in a war effort.

What you fail to comprehend is that although we right wingers are hard core Clinton haters, we’re not completely blinded by our hate either and are willing to put the good of the USA ahead of politics (hint…hint…to you left wingers who are so caught up in Bush hatred you can’t see other evil in the world).

If I’m gullible, then the evidence is my willingness to give Clinton a complete pass for everything he claimed on FoxNews Sunday except for his hands being tied by a lack of FBI/CIA certification on the USS Cole attack. He can’t claim that, and he certainly can’t claim Bush didn’t retaliate either because his hands were as equally tied (or not); you can’t have it both ways!

244

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
deadlifter405 wrote:
sasquatch wrote:

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.

[/quote]

Aren’t they the same?

Other than magnitude how does the USS Cole attack differ in kind/motivation from Pearl Harbor? Al Qaeda throws their best punch at a US warship and the Empire of Japan throws it’s best punch at the entire pacific fleet. Seems like exactly the same behavior on a smaller scale to me.

The Lusitania was deemed sufficient provocation to enter WWI, why didn’t the USS Cole attack warrant a strong military response? Was there any kind of response? I’m not aware of anything done in response.

The only real difference I can see is Al Qaeda is not a nation-state so it’s not easy to declare war against an entity. That doesn’t mean you don’t even try to protect your servicemen and women.

How often has capitulation and appeasement deterred future agressions???

Anybody with an answer other than “NEVER” please speak up.

245

Why hasn’t anyone talked about the substance of what Cliton said instead of talking about how he said it or speculating why he said it?

Besides that, it’s about damn time someone stuck it to Fox News for their blatant political posturing for the right. No one has so much as even asked WTF in regard to invading Iraq over capturing bin Laden in Afghanistan of the current administration. Yet, we get questions put to Clinton about why he didn’t do enough to stop al Quaida before he left office?! Get real!

Can you really blame him for being upset?

Everything Clinton said was true–no one will talk about that though.

246

[quote]vroom wrote:
I think we should start bitching about Reagan and his lack of response to the embassy bombing and subsequent pullout.

What a pussy! Talk about making the enemy think America is dickless! That is where it all began…[/quote]

I like Reagan but I think this was one of the biggest mistakes of his presidency. I have said this before on this forum.

How many left wing posters will step up and say Clinton was mistaken with his response to terrorism?

247

[quote]deadlifter405 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
deadlifter405 wrote:

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.

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.

Actually, I do believe this was possible. I was/am a member of the Clinton hating right wing who was jumping up and down screaming for action after the USS Cole attack. I backed the Kosovo war effort, and I would have backed a start of a global war on terrorism. So would all of the other right wingers I have spoken to about this.

Hindsight is 20/20, so I will not convict Clinton of not doing enough. Clearly, if he had known 9/11 was coming and could have been averted he would have thrown everything he had at the problem. Unfortunately, as you say, he was tied up in the sex mongering scandal (too bad he was actually guilty as hell) and had very little political capital to spend. That is why a well laid out case, similar to what he did Sunday morning on Fox News, directly to the American people for support of this new global anti-terror initiative would have worked. It could have been a much more limited plan; ala strangle their finances, special forces attacks, allied nation involvement, etc. Personally, I believe he should have been tried, convicted, and possibly executed for crimes of treason (think nuclear weapons technology to China for campaign cash), but I would have supported him in a war effort.

What you fail to comprehend is that although we right wingers are hard core Clinton haters, we’re not completely blinded by our hate either and are willing to put the good of the USA ahead of politics (hint…hint…to you left wingers who are so caught up in Bush hatred you can’t see other evil in the world).

If I’m gullible, then the evidence is my willingness to give Clinton a complete pass for everything he claimed on FoxNews Sunday except for his hands being tied by a lack of FBI/CIA certification on the USS Cole attack. He can’t claim that, and he certainly can’t claim Bush didn’t retaliate either because his hands were as equally tied (or not); you can’t have it both ways!
[/quote]

Yah, all the wingers were ready and willing for war. That is simply bs. Or are you saying that your recent discussions now say that you would have gone to war then if only Clinton had done something about it? Again, your hindsight arguments are impeccable.

Actually he did claim that and I’m quite certain that, except for you, most political experts agree with his assertion. Once again you are comparing two different scenarios, two different times and equating them. As tidy as you want to make it, that doesn’t make it so.

248

[quote]lucasa wrote:
…

Not defending Clinton, but Wallace was definitely on a mission.[/quote]

Absolutely. It is the same crappy form of journalism that we see everyday.

Too much of the media is based on provoking reactions from people.

249

[quote]

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:
www.justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/09/bill_clinton_po.html

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.

BostonBarrister wrote:

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…

Professor X wrote:
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.[/quote]

Just out of curiousity then, why do you two bother even quoting my post if you’re not going to address this issues it raises and then go off on some other tangent?

250

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

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.

lucasa wrote:
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]

He may have been on a mission to get him to address that question, which was newsworthy because of the brouhaha generated by the “docudrama.” I’m not defending his tone, or saying he had a good reaction to Clinton’s anger – all I’m saying is that the topic was newsworthy currently.

In other words, he wasn’t asking Clinton about stained blue dresses – he was asking him a question about a topic that was discussed at length on this very forum in the last several weeks. And giving Clinton the ability to answer, and airing it in its entirety.

Hardly the cut-and-paste TV interview you often see that is designed to make the guest appear a certain way, or surprising the guest with a question out of left field.

251

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lucasa wrote:
…

Not defending Clinton, but Wallace was definitely on a mission.

Absolutely. It is the same crappy form of journalism that we see everyday.

Too much of the media is based on provoking reactions from people.[/quote]

Well, he got a reaction. It sure as hell didn’t look like he was ready for it though.

252

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Just out of curiousity then, why do you two bother even quoting my post if you’re not going to address this issues it raises and then go off on some other tangent?[/quote]

I was quoting VROOM. VROOM quoted YOU. Considering JeffR just learned how to use the freaking quote feature at all this year, you are hopping mad because I didn’t take the time to erase your post from Vroom’s? Get serious.

253

[quote]deadlifter405 wrote:
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.

Aren’t they the same?

Other than magnitude how does the USS Cole attack differ in kind/motivation from Pearl Harbor? Al Qaeda throws their best punch at a US warship and the Empire of Japan throws it’s best punch at the entire pacific fleet. Seems like exactly the same behavior on a smaller scale to me.

[/quote]
The difference is that Japan had expansionist intentions and al Qaeda does not. Al Qaeda is only politically motivated.

The other difference is that post Vietnam we are leery about entering into a war that does not have victory clearly defined nor do we see the expense of entering into war worthwhile–when if considered the Cole lost 17 men and a war started over it would have taken many more–as witnessed by our current situation.

Another difference is that politicians are more cautious of public opinion now than ever before because they are watched and criticized for any actions taken–they are even criticized when they take no action.

In response to your last statement, there is nothing that can be done to stop terrorism–you cannot fight it–aggression begets aggression. Why is it do you think they do what they do?

254

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Just out of curiousity then, why do you two bother even quoting my post if you’re not going to address this issues it raises and then go off on some other tangent?

Professor X wrote:
I was quoting VROOM. VROOM quoted YOU. Considering JeffR just learned how to use the freaking quote feature at all this year, you are hopping mad because I didn’t take the time to erase your post from Vroom’s? Get serious.[/quote]

I’m not hoppin’ mad – just pointing out something that would be good for clarity, particularly from people who are historically sensitive about having people misattribute things to them.

Thanks for letting me know you need time to catch up on the learning curve.

As for vroom, I guess he just likes tangents.

255

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…Everything Clinton said was true–no one will talk about that though.[/quote]

Perhaps you missed Doogie’s posts debunking Clinton’s statements?

Do you seriously believe the Republicans thought he was too obsessed with bin Laden?

The Republicans thought he was obsessed with his sex life.

If you think everything he said in that interview was true I have a bridge for you!

256

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

I like Reagan but I think this was one of the biggest mistakes of his presidency. I have said this before on this forum.[/quote]

Completely agreed - Reagan had a fantastic opportunity to demonstrate strength when Islamism was in its infancy. He didn’t and it was a mistake. Given his rhetoric - absolutely correct rhetoric - about the Soviet Union and the Evil Empire, I am surprised he did what he did.

Good question.

257

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The difference is that Japan had expansionist intentions and al Qaeda does not. Al Qaeda is only politically motivated.

[/quote]

I would consider al Qaeda’s vision of a modern day caliphate expansionist.

They want to rule the Muslim world.

258

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
Just out of curiousity then, why do you two bother even quoting my post if you’re not going to address this issues it raises and then go off on some other tangent?

Professor X wrote:
I was quoting VROOM. VROOM quoted YOU. Considering JeffR just learned how to use the freaking quote feature at all this year, you are hopping mad because I didn’t take the time to erase your post from Vroom’s? Get serious.

I’m not hoppin’ mad – just pointint out something that would be good for clarity, particularly from people who are historically sensitive about having people misattribute things to them.

Thanks for letting me know you need time to catch up on the learning curve.

As for vroom, I guess he just likes tangents.[/quote]

Did BB just try to make a personal insult? First, I am impressed and proud of you. You have come so far over the years. I think I even saw you give your OWN opinion on a matter in another thread today. I don’t know what that wife of yours is doing, but tell her to keep it up.

Tip from me to you: That warming jelly works. Soon, you just might dig down and call someone a dumbass and it will truly all be over.

259

Apparently there was another item on which Clinton was mistaken as he was shaking his finger.

Wallace has asked Bush folks questions on why they haven’t done more – in fact, he asked Rumsfeld, who didn’t have a tantrum:

Some Wallace quotes:

"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. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?"

. . . .

"What do you make of his [Richard Clarke?s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?"

. . . .

"Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority."
260

Condi’s defense that Clarke’s plan did not include working with Pakistan is false.

She forgets that Clarke’s memo was declassified 4/7/04. The day before she was to testify to the 9/11 commision.

Left wingnut site shows the damning pages 11-13 that details Clarke’s outline for working with Pakistan.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/2001_memo_to_Rice_contradicts_statements_0926.html

This whole interview is starting to look like something Clinton planned from the very beginning as Chris Wallace and Condi look to have been setup.

261

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
deadlifter405 wrote:

The difference is that Japan had expansionist intentions and al Qaeda does not. Al Qaeda is only politically motivated.

The other difference is that post Vietnam we are leery about entering into a war that does not have victory clearly defined nor do we see the expense of entering into war worthwhile–when if considered the Cole lost 17 men and a war started over it would have taken many more–as witnessed by our current situation.

Another difference is that politicians are more cautious of public opinion now than ever before because they are watched and criticized for any actions taken–they are even criticized when they take no action.

In response to your last statement, there is nothing that can be done to stop terrorism–you cannot fight it–aggression begets aggression. Why is it do you think they do what they do? [/quote]

Your point about Japan being expansionist and Al Qaeda merely being political doesn’t help the appeasement/non-engagement argument. Japan never had intentions of bringing down the USA, Al Qaeda may or may not but they are definitely a threat.

Your other counterpoints are excellent and well informed. I enjoy engaging in reasoned discussions like this as I do learn a lot from them and help to increase my worldview a bit. Thank you.

However, I do not believe the terrorists are acting the way they do because of US agressive policies. You might be right; if we pulled out of the mideast and beat our swords into plowshares they might leave us alone. I just doubt it! And it’s far too great of a risk to take if it’s an incorrect assumption.

I doubt it because they are still attacking nations of appeasement like France and Spain who are more than happy to provide public financing to any radical Muslim based organization who asks for it; yet they still attack. Why? Perhaps they really do hope to usher in the return of the Mahdi and establish a worldwide Caliphate? Just like they say they are. Surely, that has to be opposed? I’m sure I don’t want to be under Islamic law.

262

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The difference is that Japan had expansionist intentions and al Qaeda does not. Al Qaeda is only politically motivated.

I would consider al Qaeda’s vision of a modern day caliphate expansionist.

They want to rule the Muslim world.[/quote]

Under the caliphate non-muslims are treated as equal citizens (dhimmi–or person of contract) so I would say al Qaeda does not fit this description becasue they are breaking shariah law by going against Muhammad.

The Prophet Muhammad said: “Whoever harms a dhimmi has harmed me.”

Besides that, al Qeada’s intentions are not that clear. They are angry for some reason and that is all we really know.