Clinton Puts the Smack Down on Fox

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
403

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
I watched the interview again. Upon this second viewing, this time not surprised by Clinton’s reaction, one thing occured to me: Bush deals with these types of questions daily and does not react like this.

How often does Bush give a non-rehearsed interview? The closest thing to it that I have seen would be press conferences where he can pick and choose who he calls on. If there are any interviews like that, I would love to see them because I am more than sure there would be much more dead air.

His interview had the exact effect that Clinton wanted. His entire tactic shows thinking ahead of his interviewer. Unlike our current president, no one has ever questioned Clinton’s intelligence. They may question his motives, his impulses, or his actions behind the scenes, but the man isn’t stupid by any means and for you to not be able to realize this shows what level you are working on.

what level am i working on? what does that even mean?

i really do hope you did not read my entire post. i think i stated that - all bullshit aside - i have no problem with cliton, i mentioned that he’s a smart man and deserves respect. yet i get attacked for saying something, ANYTHING critical of clinton? come on.

my main point was that i have a problem with interviewers in general. NOT clinton. i THINK he got blindsided! but that’s what journalists DO. i have some idea. that’s what my degree is in and most of my friends from college are in the profession. i - thankfully - am not.

I don’t think the man was blind-sided at all. I think he expected it and was prepared for it. That is the kind of person he strikes me as. I agree that journalism as a whole has lost any sort of integrity, at least in my opinion. They go after whatever gets more ratings, even if it means announcing that an Olympic athlete had been found GUILTY of drug use…while ignoring her innocence found later completely. It is sickening. What is even more sickening is republicans acting as if it is a “liberal problem” while ignoring the fact that occurs with ALL of them as a whole regardless of political stance.[/quote]

I read this, then found a webcomic that cracked me up: Error

this the kind of ratings thing you are talking about?

404

[quote]Ren wrote:

I read this, then found a webcomic that cracked me up: Error

this the kind of ratings thing you are talking about?[/quote]

Unfortunately, I can’t access that site right now.

405

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I don’t think the man was blind-sided at all. I think he expected it and was prepared for it. That is the kind of person he strikes me as. I agree that journalism as a whole has lost any sort of integrity, at least in my opinion. They go after whatever gets more ratings, even if it means announcing that an Olympic athlete had been found GUILTY of drug use…while ignoring her innocence found later completely. It is sickening. What is even more sickening is republicans acting as if it is a “liberal problem” while ignoring the fact that occurs with ALL of them as a whole regardless of political stance.[/quote]

I think CLinton was going to go off no matter the line of questioning. That’s the reason he agreed to the interview with Wallace: He wanted to go off on Fox News. He could have been asked anything, and he would have found a way to angle it so that he could go off.

This isn’t the first time he’s done that. I’m glad it gave the left something to cheer for, and the right something to laugh at. He’s a fun interview to listen to. But to make anymore out of it than entertainment is to miss the interview.

He sounded like a WWE rassler being interviewed in full costume.

406

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Ren wrote:

I read this, then found a webcomic that cracked me up: Error

this the kind of ratings thing you are talking about?

Unfortunately, I can’t access that site right now.[/quote]

bugger. it basically contains 2 snippets of text, the 1st one going “and coming up next on CNN, America’s top five shiniest objects! They move so fast and sparkle so brightly, can you keep up?” then channel changes and you get “…and coming up next on Fox News, shiny objects, can they kill you while you sleep?”

407

[quote]Professor X wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Unlike our current president, no one has ever questioned Clinton’s intelligence.

They question Bush’s intelligence due to the fact that he is a poor public speaker. Does beig a poor public speaker make someone unintelligent?

They may question his motives, his impulses, or his actions behind the scenes, but the man isn’t stupid by any means and for you to not be able to realize this shows what level you are working on.

I think Clinton is probably a VERY intelligent individual. Crooked, but very intelligent. I wish Bush was half the public communicator that Clinton is.

We don’t disagree on this. Bush is a poor public speaker and his actions while speaking do not usually denote “extreme intelligence”. If the man is secretly a genius, it may just remain a secret.[/quote]

I don’t think anyone is claiming genius status. But the constant inference by many that he is an idiot is simply untrue.

Now Clinton is a very smart man and one of the most manipulative- -calculating ones at that. He was prepared for battle–of that we can agree.

408

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What is even more sickening is republicans acting as if it is a “liberal problem” while ignoring the fact that occurs with ALL of them as a whole regardless of political stance.[/quote]

That’s even more sickening, huh? Too bad it’s dead wrong.

See there IS a liberal bias. I know because I was surrounded by it for 8 years (between school and in my former field). It’s not a bias in that it’s part of a grand conspiricy to bring down republicans. It’s a PERSONAL bias. It’s due to the fact that an overwhelming majority of journalists and journalism students bring a liberal ideology to everything they do. And that influences their work. So for that group it’s not a bias. For them, it’s normal.

The attitude is their from the professors right down to the first year students. There is NORMAL (liberal) and there is abnormal (conservative).

It’s folly to pretend that the mainstream media is not slanted left. It is. Fox News may in fact be slanted right. But it’s not slanted as far right as you and your fellow liberals like to believe. It just looks that way in comparison to what ELSE is out there.

I’ve been ridiculed for saying out loud in a journalism class that I am anti-abortion. Jeered by the Prof. Heckled by fellow students. Similar reactions came when I stated an opposition to gun-control and my support for Conservative government (i.e. fewer social programs).

What happens when this group becomes part of the journalistic establishement? Do they suddenly check these sensibilities at the door?

No. I worked in it and it was pretty much the same deal. I expressed my views more frequently once I started working because I know the most they could do was fire me and I was pretty sure I didn’t want to be a part of the business anymore. I didn’t get fired but it was made very uncomfortable for me. I was regarded as “provincial” and “unenlightened” even though I have a master’s degree from an Ivy League school.

So yeah. You believe what you want. You’d know.

409

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Unlike our current president, no one has ever questioned Clinton’s intelligence.

They question Bush’s intelligence due to the fact that he is a poor public speaker. Does beig a poor public speaker make someone unintelligent?

They may question his motives, his impulses, or his actions behind the scenes, but the man isn’t stupid by any means and for you to not be able to realize this shows what level you are working on.

I think Clinton is probably a VERY intelligent individual. Crooked, but very intelligent. I wish Bush was half the public communicator that Clinton is.

We don’t disagree on this. Bush is a poor public speaker and his actions while speaking do not usually denote “extreme intelligence”. If the man is secretly a genius, it may just remain a secret.

I don’t think anyone is claiming genius status. But the constant inference by many that he is an idiot is simply untrue.

Now Clinton is a very smart man and one of the most manipulative- -calculating ones at that. He was prepared for battle–of that we can agree.[/quote]

I don’t think Bush is dumb. I think that he just doesn’t give a fuck and is lazy in his approach. When you have that attitude, you tend to be much less concerned about public appearance and whether you sound intelligent or not. It can explain a great deal about his antics in the public eye.

410

[quote]tme wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
tme wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush pardoned bin Laden?

Pretty much.

You are irrational.

Me? Or the guy who refused to send in support troops when bin Laden was cornered at Tora Bora? The guy who pulled resources away from finding bin Laden to go and satisfy a personal ego trip in Iraq? The guy who said:

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”

  • G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

“I am truly not that concerned about him.”

  • G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts,
    3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Sounds as good as a “pardon” to me.

[/quote]

Try reading a book about Tora Bora. Bush did not refuse to send troops.

A decision was made to use Afghanis rather than Americans as a blocking force. Unfortunately rather than the fine Northern Alliance fighters they used a different group and they did not do their job properly.

Using Afghanis to liberate their own country was a brilliant decision, has saved countless American soldiers lives and has kept the entire country from turning against us.

411

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
I watched the interview again. Upon this second viewing, this time not surprised by Clinton’s reaction, one thing occured to me: Bush deals with these types of questions daily and does not react like this.

How often does Bush give a non-rehearsed interview? The closest thing to it that I have seen would be press conferences where he can pick and choose who he calls on. If there are any interviews like that, I would love to see them because I am more than sure there would be much more dead air.

His interview had the exact effect that Clinton wanted. His entire tactic shows thinking ahead of his interviewer. Unlike our current president, no one has ever questioned Clinton’s intelligence. They may question his motives, his impulses, or his actions behind the scenes, but the man isn’t stupid by any means and for you to not be able to realize this shows what level you are working on.[/quote]

Very true. Clinton is very smart and a true politician. The definition of a true politician is one who deep down has no core values of their own, they just read the polls and do and say what they people want to hear and make it seem sincere. Clinton is the master at this.

Bush, has his own set of values that he follows regardless of the polls and is not as skilled at following with the tide as Bill. It also appears that Bush cannot think on his feet as well as Clinton either.

412

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Unlike our current president, no one has ever questioned Clinton’s intelligence.

They question Bush’s intelligence due to the fact that he is a poor public speaker. Does beig a poor public speaker make someone unintelligent?

They may question his motives, his impulses, or his actions behind the scenes, but the man isn’t stupid by any means and for you to not be able to realize this shows what level you are working on.

I think Clinton is probably a VERY intelligent individual. Crooked, but very intelligent. I wish Bush was half the public communicator that Clinton is.

We don’t disagree on this. Bush is a poor public speaker and his actions while speaking do not usually denote “extreme intelligence”. If the man is secretly a genius, it may just remain a secret.

I don’t think anyone is claiming genius status. But the constant inference by many that he is an idiot is simply untrue.

Now Clinton is a very smart man and one of the most manipulative- -calculating ones at that. He was prepared for battle–of that we can agree.

I don’t think Bush is dumb. I think that he just doesn’t give a fuck and is lazy in his approach. When you have that attitude, you tend to be much less concerned about public appearance and whether you sound intelligent or not. It can explain a great deal about his antics in the public eye.[/quote]

Al,

I agree completely. He has done himself a disservice by allowing others to run the public agenda. He has a genuine dislike for the press. It is obvious.

I’ve always been angry at his laziness with regard to communication.

It’s well known that I think billy boy was a joke. However, he did a fairly effective job at driving the agenda. You can hear his talking points being regurgitated verbatim to this day.

It stuns some that billy boy often lies or is misleading.

Again, Bush could have either destroyed the disaster that is the democratic party or forced it to reform.

I blame him for not driving hard enough.

JeffR

413

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
tme wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
tme wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush pardoned bin Laden?

Pretty much.

You are irrational.

Me? Or the guy who refused to send in support troops when bin Laden was cornered at Tora Bora? The guy who pulled resources away from finding bin Laden to go and satisfy a personal ego trip in Iraq? The guy who said:

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”

  • G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

“I am truly not that concerned about him.”

  • G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts,
    3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Sounds as good as a “pardon” to me.

Try reading a book about Tora Bora. Bush did not refuse to send troops.

A decision was made to use Afghanis rather than Americans as a blocking force. Unfortunately rather than the fine Northern Alliance fighters they used a different group and they did not do their job properly.

Using Afghanis to liberate their own country was a brilliant decision, has saved countless American soldiers lives and has kept the entire country from turning against us. [/quote]

Sorry Zap,

This doesn’t fit with the “Bush had a personal agenda against Iraq. Had he “kept his eye on the ball” bin laden was there for the taking” talking point.

Shame on you,

JeffR

414

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
tme wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
tme wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush pardoned bin Laden?

Pretty much.

You are irrational.

Me? Or the guy who refused to send in support troops when bin Laden was cornered at Tora Bora? The guy who pulled resources away from finding bin Laden to go and satisfy a personal ego trip in Iraq? The guy who said:

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”

  • G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

“I am truly not that concerned about him.”

  • G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts,
    3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Sounds as good as a “pardon” to me.

Try reading a book about Tora Bora. Bush did not refuse to send troops.

A decision was made to use Afghanis rather than Americans as a blocking force. Unfortunately rather than the fine Northern Alliance fighters they used a different group and they did not do their job properly.

Using Afghanis to liberate their own country was a brilliant decision, has saved countless American soldiers lives and has kept the entire country from turning against us. [/quote]

Maybe you should read. in Jawbreaker
GARY BERNTSEN specifically says he requested a batallion of rangers. He was in Tora bora with maybe 6-8 men trying to call in airstrikes and instead got 40 delta force.

In Suskind’s book The One Percent Doctrine:

"With [Vice President Dick] Cheney looking on, Crumpton – relying on detailed, urgent reports from CIA teams in Afghanistan – showed the President the terrain around Tora Bora, where bin Laden and about a thousand fighters had settled.

He laid out the array of problems. The White Mountains, where the caves were located, were filled with tunnels and escape routes, Crumpton said. Bush asked about the passage to Pakistan. [Pakistani President Pervez] Musharraf had assured the administration, in a deal that involved U.S. aid of nearly a billion dollars, that his troops would seal off the passages into Pakistan, the most logical escape route. Crumpton, using his map, showed how the border between the two countries was misleading, that the area on the Pakistani side of the line was a lawless, tribal region that Musharraf had little control over. In any event, satellite images showed that Musharraf’s promised troops hadn’t arrived, and seemed unlikely to appear soon.

What’s more, Crumpton added, the Afghan forces were “tired and cold and, many of them are far from home.” They were battered from fighting in the south against Taliban forces, and “they’re just not invested in getting bin Laden.”

A few days before, on November 26, a force of about 1,200 marines – by far the largest U.S. force in the country – had settled around Kandahar, three hundred miles east of Tora Bora. Crumpton, in constant contact with the military’s CENTCOM center in Tampa, Florida, had told General Tommy Franks over the past week of the concerns of the CIA’s managing operatives in Afghanistan that “the back door was open.” He strongly urged Franks to move the marines to the cave complex. Franks responded that the momentum of the CIA’s effort to chase and corner bin Laden could be lost waiting for the troops to arrive; and there was concern marines would be mired in the snowy mountains.

As Crumpton briefed the President – and it became clear that the Pentagon had not voiced the CIA’s concerns to Bush – he pushed beyond his pay grade. He told Bush that “we’re going to lose our prey if we’re not careful,” and strongly recommended the marines, or other troops in the region, get to Tora Bora immediately. Cheney said nothing.

Bush, seeming surprised, pressed him for more information. “How bad off are these Afghani forces, really? Are they up to the job?”

“Definitely not, Mr. President,” Crumpton said. “Definitely not.”

The requested troops were obviously not sent with predictable results.

Just part of the long history that this admin has with not listening to intel or military and their softness(pillow-like) on terror.

415

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
tme wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
tme wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush pardoned bin Laden?

Pretty much.

You are irrational.

Me? Or the guy who refused to send in support troops when bin Laden was cornered at Tora Bora? The guy who pulled resources away from finding bin Laden to go and satisfy a personal ego trip in Iraq? The guy who said:

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”

  • G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

“I am truly not that concerned about him.”

  • G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts,
    3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Sounds as good as a “pardon” to me.

Try reading a book about Tora Bora. Bush did not refuse to send troops.

A decision was made to use Afghanis rather than Americans as a blocking force. Unfortunately rather than the fine Northern Alliance fighters they used a different group and they did not do their job properly.

Using Afghanis to liberate their own country was a brilliant decision, has saved countless American soldiers lives and has kept the entire country from turning against us.

Sorry Zap,

This doesn’t fit with the “Bush had a personal agenda against Iraq. Had he “kept his eye on the ball” bin laden was there for the taking” talking point.

Shame on you,

JeffR

[/quote]

Military and Intelligence talking points? I doubt it.

416

Further evidence of Bush admin’s soft on terror ways…

Chance at Osama pre 9/11, sez book

CIA Director George Tenet and his counterterrorism head Cofer Black sought an urgent meeting with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001, writes Bob Woodward in his new book “State of Denial.”

They went over top-secret intelligence pointing to an impending attack and “sounded the loudest warning” to the White House of a likely attack on the U.S. by Bin Laden.

Woodward writes that Rice was polite, but, “They felt the brushoff.”

Tenet and Black were both frustrated.

Black later calculated that all he needed was $500 million of covert action funds and reasonable authorization from President Bush to go kill Bin Laden and “he might be able to bring Bin Laden’s head back in a box,” Woodward writes.

Black claims the CIA had about “100 sources and subsources” in Afghanistan who could have helped carry out the hit.

and

Black, looking back at the July 10, 2001, meeting with Rice, concludes, “The only thing we didn’t do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her [Rice’s] head.”

Woodward says that Tenet described the meeting as a “tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the 9/11 attacks.”

Tenet also claims that his alarm over Bin Laden was downplayed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who asked, “Could all this be a grand deception?”

The book claims that two weeks before the July meeting with Rice, Tenet told Richard Clarke, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism director, of his gut feeling about a likely attack.

“It’s my sixth sense, but I feel it coming. This is going to be the big one,” the book quotes Tenet as telling Clarke.

417

[quote]JeffR wrote:

…

Al,

I agree completely. He has done himself a disservice by allowing others to run the public agenda. He has a genuine dislike for the press. It is obvious.

I’ve always been angry at his laziness with regard to communication.

It’s well known that I think billy boy was a joke. However, he did a fairly effective job at driving the agenda. You can hear his talking points being regurgitated verbatim to this day.

It stuns some that billy boy often lies or is misleading.

Again, Bush could have either destroyed the disaster that is the democratic party or forced it to reform.

I blame him for not driving hard enough.

JeffR
[/quote]

Bush is doing a very good job at destroying the disaster that is the republican party. He’s destroying the US and the world also, but that is a small price to pay.

I too blame him for not driving hard enough.

418

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Try reading a book about Tora Bora. Bush did not refuse to send troops.

A decision was made to use Afghanis rather than Americans as a blocking force. Unfortunately rather than the fine Northern Alliance fighters they used a different group and they did not do their job properly.

Using Afghanis to liberate their own country was a brilliant decision, has saved countless American soldiers lives and has kept the entire country from turning against us. [/quote]

A brilliant decision? Why wasn’t this repeated in Iraq then?
Also, try reading a newspaper. They might have something to say about the current situation in Afghanistan.