[quote]hedo wrote:
If you believe Clinton about Clarke this is what Richar Clarke actually says. Draw your own conclusions.[/quote]
Well, apparently what Clarke said in 02 is completely different from what he wrote in the book. “Maybe” it has something to do with that “even year” thing?
Which one should we believe?
Anyway, Clinton pointed specifically at the book… And the book supports his statements.
[quote]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. [/quote]
I also listened to Rush and what I heard was pure rhetoric. If you believe he “destroyed Clinton’s answers”, feel free to share with us the transcript and show us how. Also, apparently there are two versions of the book, one that Rush and other conservatives read, and another for everybody else…
If you can get me a copy of the first version (I have the latter), it’d be much appreciated for research purposes.
[quote]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. [/quote]
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?
[quote]Damici wrote:
Wallace and Fox News might be, but that doesn’t make the QUESTION, or the way it was asked, remotely unfair or blowup-worthy, nor did it justify his almost (quite) personal attack on that interviewer.
It was kind of shitty on Clinton’s part, really.[/quote]
Why? Seriously. I mean, Bush CONSTANTLY explodes and shows tremendous anger and resentment every time he is asked a question he doesn’t like, and starts blabbering inconsistent, sometimes offensive stuff. Everybody on the right seems OK with it. But when Clinton ONCE goes on a calculated explosion, containing pretty smart and poignant remarks and it’s suddenly “shitty”?
Grow up!
[quote]JeffR wrote:
He is heroic!!! I remember him being called for duty and showing up manfully.[/quote]
You REALLY want to go that route, considering the records of basically everyone left in this administration?
[quote]JeffR wrote:
hspder wrote:
You can accuse Bill of anything, but NOT of being a pansy.
[/quote]
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]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?[/quote]
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.
Dude,
First of all, don’t fucking tell me to “grow up.” This was a perfectly civil debate we were having without personal animosity. I had none towards you until you threw out that little zinger. Let’s keep it civil.
Secondly, I have seen Bush act like a petulant, stuttering, sweat-beads-forming-on-the-brow child during interivews (he’s fucking horrid in interviews), but I have never seem him blow up to NEARLY the degree Clinton did with Wallace, nor attack the interviewer in such a direct and personal way as Clinton did. Maybe I’m wrong, as I certainly don’t remember every interview Bush has done, but I cannot remember anything remotely like this.
I’m not here to defend Bush or the Right, or to attack Clinton or the Left. I’m calling it like I see it, and Clinton was out of line, and was likely using the pulpit of this interview to draw headlines for his and his wife’s political benefit. He did it in a fashion, however, that happened to be pretty un-called-for and rude to the interviewer, who happened to be doing his job in a perfectly rational, polite and justifiable manner. That’s all.
[quote]Damici wrote:
Secondly, I have seen Bush act like a petulant, stuttering, sweat-beads-forming-on-the-brow child during interivews (he’s fucking horrid in interviews), but I have never seem him blow up to NEARLY the degree Clinton did with Wallace, nor to attack the interviewer in such a direct and personal way as Clinton did. Maybe I’m wrong, as I certainly don’t remember every interview Bush has done, but I cannot remember anything remotely like this.[/quote]
I just happen to believe that being a passive-aggressive, “petulant, stuttering, sweat-beads-forming-on-the-brow child during interviews” (pretty good description, by the way) is MUCH worse than being a T-Man and actually taking the offensive.
Clinton simply showed the American people what an Alpha Male is. After 6 years of Bush rule, we all seem to have forgotten what those look like.
[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]
Look, that’s a cheerleader right there.
Why don’t you go stand under a “mission accomplished” banner?
[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]
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Effr0 makes more sence when he’s trying to be sarcastic, than when he’s trying to be serious.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I wouldn’t think Clinton would want to draw so much attention to Richard Clarke’s book – it was obviously a major source for that ABC “docu-drama” that upset him so much (and Clarke was a consultant on that project, if I’m not mistaken).
hspder wrote:
If you had actually both read the book and seen the mockumentary without any bias you’d realize that the spin was completely different – Clarke’s book portrays things in a completely different way, and puts the blame, to a very large extent, on his own shoulders (Clarke’s).[/quote]
I definitely didn’t watch the docu-drama.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Speaking of which, that docu-drama, which no one would have paid any attention to without the hissy fit surrounding it, pretty much made the question Wallace asked newsworthy and relevant.
hspder wrote:
That is an extremely naive statement. First of all, ABC had a lot going on that show, so obviously if they hadn’t had free publicity they would have found other ways to make sure a lot of people saw it; by creating a pre-conceived notion that it was not accurate, the “hissy-fit” did hamper a lot of its effect – not all of it, I know, but a lot of it.[/quote]
Do you think more people watched it than would have watched it without the hissy fit? Significantly more? I sure do.
Apparently they didn’t feel the need to pull their super-secret marketing plan out of the box – although one wonders why, if it would have been in addition to all the free publicity from the hissy fit, and they had so much riding on it…
Of course, this is aside from the main point of my statement, which is that the mockumentary, and more particularly the hissy fit, made it so Wallace’s question was newsworthy today.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Also, regarding Clarke’s book, it argues that after Clinton left office, the counterterrorism focus - to the extent that there was one in his estimation - shifted from al Qaeda to state sponsorship of terrorism. The new administration believed that the Clinton administration had focused too much on bin Laden and not enough on the rogue states (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, etc.) that were making it possible for bin Laden to operate.
hspder wrote:
… and? That’s taking a part of the book out of context. Clinton has admitted he failed in getting Bin Laden. He is not arguing against that. What he is arguing against is him being the scapegoat; many, many people failed and generally screwed up and the book shows that clearly.[/quote]
I think the point President Clinton was attempting to make was that he was criticized for paying too much attention to bin Laden by all those “right wingers.” However, that wasn’t the point of the actual criticism – it was that the Bush administration, upon taking office, thought his focus was too much on bin Laden and not enough on the rogue states.
This also is not good evidence for the idea that “right wingers” attacked him while he was President for going after bin Laden.
As I recall it, the “wag the dog” stuff related to two incidents: 1) missles at the Sudanese aspirin factory; and 2) missles at Iraq.
Not really – one of his main points was that the “right wingers” had criticized him for being “bin Laden obsessed” while he was going after bin Laden during his Presidency. But there’s no evidence this is true.
[quote]NE2000 wrote:
orion wrote:
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.
Don’t be so sure. Agreed, Bush isn’t, by himself the end-all/be-all. But when you look at his staff including Rice and Rumsfeld, I’d take Bush with them anyday over Clinton with Albright and Cohen, if I needed someone to keep me alive.
And I think you would, too.
[/quote]
Where’s Darwin when you need him?
[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]
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?
[quote]hspder wrote:
hedo wrote:
If you believe Clinton about Clarke this is what Richar Clarke actually says. Draw your own conclusions.
Well, apparently what Clarke said in 02 is completely different from what he wrote in the book. “Maybe” it has something to do with that “even year” thing?
Which one should we believe?
Anyway, Clinton pointed specifically at the book… And the book supports his statements.
[/quote]
List a reference then. Your opinion on what you claim he said is irrelevant.
[quote]Damici wrote:
Chris Wallace is a right wing hack – true. But Christiane Amanpour, for example, is a left wing hack – also completely true. Members of both parties get interviewed by press members from both sides of the political spectrum (Fox types, CNN types, etc.). You don’t just blow up midstream through an interview during what was a COMPLETELY fair question and start going off on how the guy is a right wing hack for a right wing news organization.
He MAY WELL BE a right wing hack, and Clinton certainly new before he sat down for the interview that it was with a right wing news organization. That makes his little “blow-up,” or taking “offense” at a COMPLETELY fair question, which I would be suprised if any interviewer (from CNN, ABC, etc.) didn’t ask, to seem just a bit premeditated and transparent.
Can anyone tell me – specifically – what was wrong or unfair about the question that was asked which “caused” Clinton to blow up? Seriously?
[/quote]
Clinton didn’t blow up. You keep saying he blew up. He didn’t.
He waa asked a fair question. He gave a factual response and kicked butt.
But now you go all sissy on us with that “he blew up ! ! ! he blew up ! ! !” shit.
BTW, was he right in claiming Wallace is soft on Bush officials? Do you have any links to him asking them tough questions?
[quote]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. [/quote]
You get your information from the Vulgar Pig Boy?
God, if Darwin doesn’t take care of you soon, I’ll put you out of your misery myself.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Damici wrote:
Secondly, I have seen Bush act like a petulant, stuttering, sweat-beads-forming-on-the-brow child during interivews (he’s fucking horrid in interviews), but I have never seem him blow up to NEARLY the degree Clinton did with Wallace, nor to attack the interviewer in such a direct and personal way as Clinton did. Maybe I’m wrong, as I certainly don’t remember every interview Bush has done, but I cannot remember anything remotely like this.
I just happen to believe that being a passive-aggressive, “petulant, stuttering, sweat-beads-forming-on-the-brow child during interviews” (pretty good description, by the way) is MUCH worse than being a T-Man and actually taking the offensive.
Clinton simply showed the American people what an Alpha Male is. After 6 years of Bush rule, we all seem to have forgotten what those look like.
[/quote]
Clinton an Alpha Male, T-Man…
You have low standards.
[quote]Damici wrote:
It was kind of shitty on Clinton’s part, really.
[/quote]
Yes, it’s not fair to ambush the ambusher.
Totally unfair.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
hspder wrote:
You can accuse Bill of anything, but NOT of being a pansy.
He is heroic!!! I remember him being called for duty and showing up manfully. Didn’t he fly jets? I remember him lying under oath like a man. I remember his forceful and effective responses to domestic and international terrorism.
I just cannot get over his toughness!!!
JeffR
[/quote]
Hey Effr0, your coward went AWOL remember?
He only found his cohones when he was sitting in the white house.