Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I liked how Clinton didn't take any shit and immediately put Wallace in his place whenever he pulled that accusation crap on him.

I wasn't surprised Chris Wallace did that, after all, it is FOX News.

Go Willie!

saw a part of the interview on dutch TV. It was what I've come to expect from Fox

Thanks for the link, it was a fascinating interview.

Watching Clinton speak intelligently and concisely in comparison to bumbling Bush's bleeting shows how low the US presidency has fallen since George Dubya took over.

I'm actually a little surprised that Fox aired it considering how much their obvious intentions are ridiculed by Clinton.

although it was a clear backfire/beatdown on wallace/fox news/ the carl rove campaign of lies and history revision...im not happy to see it. i have no urge to post a celebratory "OWNED" or anything of the sort

it angers me to watch that. it angers me to hear people, including on this forum, repeat the lies spun out by the administration's propaganda machine, when they themselves have lived through the widely publicised events in question (clinton's 'suspicious obsession' with bin laden/'wag the dog' etc). we live in a nation of 50%+ retards. i feel ashamed and angry to have to consider myself one of their peers.

I only saw part of it. It's not fair to criticize Clinton for not getting OBL. It was a different world then, he did not know what was going to happen.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I only saw part of it. It's not fair to criticize Clinton for not getting OBL. It was a different world then, he did not know what was going to happen.

you watched, but you just didnt pay attention, did you?

At least Willie has the balls to say "I tried and I failed to get bin Laden". Tells you a lot about a persons character when they can admit failure.

Originally posted by PVS
you watched, but you just didnt pay attention, did you?

You have no idea what you are talking about. Keep your shit to yourself.

willful ignorance and accepting of lies makes you an exceptional human being. but im glad you dont blame clinton, since he didnt know any better

Bill Clinton is far to much of an intelligent and articulate individual for most of the "people" (Red-Necks, country bumpkins/Republicans) who watch FOX News.

Anyone who takes FOX News as a serious, objective news media outlet is kidding themselves.

Originally posted by PVS
willful ignorance and accepting of lies makes you an exceptional human being. but im glad you dont blame clinton, since he didnt know any better

You do not know anything about what I believe other then what I just said. Hind sight is 20/20 and finger pointing is a useless endeavor.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You do not know anything about what I believe other then what I just said. Hind sight is 20/20 and finger pointing is a useless endeavor.

wonderful

only you payed no attention to what was said, but that didnt stop you from posting, did it? you saw "clinton" and "bin laden" and went with that. you failed to acknowledge what was discussed...at all.

...........deleted

Originally posted by PVS
wonderful

only you payed no attention to what was said, but that didnt stop you from posting, did it? you saw "clinton" and "bin laden" and went with that. you failed to acknowledge what was discussed...at all.

OK, enlighten me on what, in the world, you are getting at. It might be good for a laugh.

what i am getting at is the perpetuated lie that you refuse to acknowledge:
the lie that clinton was responsible for 9-11 (even if unknowingly as you ever so forgivingly grant him) by refusing to go after bin laden. this was the whole basis of the interview, one which you either avoided or just never bothered paying attention to.

Originally posted by Soleran
...........deleted

you have to copy and paste the link to your browser. for some odd reason it wont work when you just click the link

Originally posted by PVS
what i am getting at is the perpetuated lie that you refuse to acknowledge:
the lie that clinton was responsible for 9-11 (even if unknowingly as you ever so forgivingly grant him) by refusing to go after bin laden. this was the whole basis of the interview, one which you either avoided or just never bothered paying attention to.

You must be talking to someone else. I never blamed Clinton for 9-11. Please show me were I said that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It's not fair to criticize Clinton for not getting OBL. It was a different world then, he did not know what was going to happen.

continuing to place blame on clinton, and disacknowledging the fact: the notion that clinton was bent on not getting binladen was a bold faced lie. shall we go on with this?

Originally posted by PVS
continuing to place blame on clinton, and disacknowledging the fact: the notion that clinton was bent on not getting binladen was a bold faced lie. shall we go on with this?

You are a nut. I had no such intention. Go troll somewhere else.

(edit- :nice edit job. "how is that blaming clinton?" was the deleted question. and so...)

how is it not? your implication was that while it's his fault for not getting bin laden, we shouldnt criticise him because he didnt know better. well thats just great. forgiveness based on a lie. and still you have not watched the interview. how do you have the audacity to continue posting at me in a thread in which you dont know the topic? maybe you think clinton was full of shit for what he said? nope, i know you dont, since you have no frikin clue what he nor wallace said.

Originally posted by PVS
(edit- :nice edit job. "how is that blaming clinton?" was the deleted question. and so...)

how is it not? your implication was that while it's his fault for not getting bin laden, we shouldnt criticise him because he didnt know better. well thats just great. forgiveness based on a lie. and still you have not watched the interview. how do you have the audacity to continue posting at me in a thread in which you dont know the topic? maybe you think clinton was full of shit for what he said? nope, i know you dont, since you have no frikin clue what he nor wallace said.


If you set there and continue to add fiction into what I said even after I told you that your interpretation was wrong, you are simply trolling.

no it is not trolling. you posted proof of willful ignorance in the face of fact on the decisions of the clinton administration in response to attacks conducted by bin laden...which is the very essense of the topic. i guess you were hoping to seem well informed by dancing around the topic, but that went belly up, so then you went for the report function with the hope that someone would bail you out, didnt you?

and yet you still have not watched the interview.

Originally posted by PVS
no it is not trolling. you posted proof of willful ignorance in the face of fact on the decisions of the clinton administration in response to attacks conducted by bin laden...which is the very essense of the topic. i guess you were hoping to seem well informed by dancing around the topic, but that went belly up, so then you went for the report function with the hope that someone would bail you out, didnt you?

and yet you still have not watched the ineterview.

You are not the boss of this thread, and you have a history of being a troll and a bully. I made one comment that it was unfair to blame Clinton and you jumped on the opportunity to give me hell. You are the one off topic, by focusing on me; I'm not the topic. The fundamental truth is I don't care about your opinion; you are a troll and a bully.

So let me make this clear, before 9-11 OBL was an outlaw and the government did what was appropriate as a police action. I believe that Clinton did all that he could considering the circumstances. Therefore, it is unfair to blame Clinton for not getting OBL.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are not the boss of this thread, and you have a history of being a troll and a bully. I made one comment that it was unfair to blame Clinton and you jumped on the opportunity to give me hell. You are the one off topic, by focusing on me; I'm not the topic. The fundamental truth is I don't care about your opinion; you are a troll and a bully.

funny since there is only one person in this thread calling names and avoiding the point/topic. maybe i should report you?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So let me make this clear, before 9-11 OBL was an outlaw and the government did what was appropriate as a police action. I believe that Clinton did all that he could considering the circumstances. Therefore, it is unfair to blame Clinton for not getting OBL.

thats just it. he didnt. he allowed himself to buckle under the pressure from neocons and liberals accusing him of obsessing over bin laden simply to divert attention from a certain intern with a semen-stained dress. thus why he declared that he tried and failed. he ordered air strikes on suspected terrorist sites and tried to convince congress that the immediate overthrow of the taliban and the killing of bin laden was priority #1 for national security and he failed. he could have committed career suicide and followed through (considering illegal wars have become all too common), but didnt. in a last ditch effort, he strongly advised the next administration of the threat and was ignored. thats history. recent history.

Originally posted by PVS
funny since there is only one person in this thread calling names and avoiding the point/topic. nopity



thats just it. he didnt. he allowed himself to buckle under the pressure from neocons and liberals accusing him of obsessing over bin laden simply to divert attention from a certain intern with a semen-stained dress. thus why he declared that he tried and failed. he ordered air strikes on suspected terrorist sites and tried to convince congress that the immediate overthrow of the taliban and the killing of bin laden was priority #1 for national security and he failed. he could have committed career suicide and followed through (considering illegal wars have become all too common), but didnt. in a last ditch effort, he strongly advised the next administration of the threat and was ignored. thats history. recent history.

I have to admit that he did put himself in a compromised position, and should have resigned. At that same time conservatives were screaming wag the dog. So, both side were wrong and screwed up. I still believe that the mind set before 9-11 is what allowed OBL to get away.

BTW if you change the way you react to me, I will change the way I react to you. We can find a place in the middle.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
BTW if you change the way you react to me, I will change the way I react to you. We can find a place in the middle.

how about you just dont post something meaningless and point dodging like:

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I only saw part of it. It's not fair to criticize Clinton for not getting OBL. It was a different world then, he did not know what was going to happen.

and i wont have to feel obligated to react negatively to it?

deal?

Originally posted by PVS
how about you just dont post something meaningless and point dodging like:



and i wont have to feel obligated to react negatively to it?

deal?

This is in the wrong thread. This is a stupid debating tactic.

I did not post something meaningless and I never dodged your points.

*sigh* whatever. dropped.

It DOES make me wonder why Clinton was so angry and defensive about it. Guy just asked a question. If Clinton had nothing to worry about, he wouldn't have gotten all foamy at the mouth...

Originally posted by Draco69
It DOES make me wonder why Clinton was so angry and defensive about it. Guy just asked a question. If Clinton had nothing to worry about, he wouldn't have gotten all foamy at the mouth...

1-the smear campaign launched months ago to place blame of 9-11 on clinton, backed by lies in which he ignored the bin laden threat while neocons urged him of the threat, when it was the other way around

2-the wording of that question, which suggests that the stated lie is true and then structured so that clinton should explain his view on how he was responsible for what happened (same as the word game seen earlier in this thread)

3-the fact that that prick wallace was interrupting him and smirking at him. this guy was president of the united states and he's being talked over like some common shmuck on the oreilly factor. as much as i detest bush, when he's out of office i expect anyone interviewing him to show respect and let him finish a single answer to a question without having to raise his voice

4-the fact that the whole interview was arranged for, as he put it, a hit job on his track record, which was a very stupid move if they thought he would be stupid enough to follow along

5-the fact that this interview comes only a week after a blatant lie of a documentary aired courtesy of abc, disney, and presumably carl rove, dealing with the exact same false claim (claiming to be based on the 9-11 commision report, but later tagged with a subtle disclaimer that it may or may not be true after much pressure)

just to name a few
many reasons why he would be upset

I didn't see it myself. However I am surprised that there aren't more conservative posts in this thread since the interview was on Fox. Where are the Fox Fans?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I liked how Clinton didn't take any shit and immediately put Wallace in his place whenever he pulled that accusation crap on him.

I wasn't surprised Chris Wallace did that, after all, it is FOX News.

Go Willie!

Exactly. Its nice to hear Bill speak again.

Originally posted by docb77
I didn't see it myself. However I am surprised that there aren't more conservative posts in this thread since the interview was on Fox. Where are the Fox Fans?


it requires that they view it, and formulate an opinion, as opposed to regurgitating canned talking points. thus the drought

what i dont like about clinton is he seems too desperate to maintain political ties with the current administration (its known that him and bush sr. are quite buddy/buddy and notice how quickly hillary jumped on the iraq bandwagon) that he dances around the question that he should have asked. "how come you never asked bush this question, of why he never "connected the dots" (a stupid phrase since the past administration already connected the dots when the next one came in and ignored it) and why he also put his career ahead of national security.

i find it slightly more important since one is the leader on the "war on terror" and realistically leader of the free world, while the other can only hope to advise at best at this point. he alluded to the question but wasnt specific. he didnt forget, mind you. he consciously left the names 'bush' 'rumsfeld' and 'cheney' out of the discussion of "woulda coulda shoulda". notice that?

"We tried and we failed".

Wow, it's really refreshing to hear honesty like that from a political figure.

Anyways, very interesting interview, it was nice to see Clinton speaking again.

Originally posted by Draco69
It DOES make me wonder why Clinton was so angry and defensive about it. Guy just asked a question. If Clinton had nothing to worry about, he wouldn't have gotten all foamy at the mouth...

Guy just asked a question? Do you honestly no get what was going on there?

Originally posted by FeceMan


say it

Originally posted by PVS
say it
Nope. What I originally said wasn't particularly inflammatory, but I'd have to dig through a bunch old threads.

EDIT: WHAT THE HELL. There's like a 10-year-old non-retard on TV who drooled.

why would you need to dig through old threads?

An alternative viewpoint to bring balance (to the force) to the discussion:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5888

As far as I'm concerned it isn't really important what Clinton OR Bush knew pre-9/11. We have a problem NOW. Let's solve it and worry about blame once we've won this war.

Originally posted by docb77
An alternative viewpoint to bring balance (to the force) to the discussion:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5888

As far as I'm concerned it isn't really important what Clinton OR Bush knew pre-9/11. We have a problem NOW. Let's solve it and worry about blame once we've won this war.

A voice of reason.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A voice of treason.
OH SNAP

Originally posted by docb77
I didn't see it myself. However I am surprised that there aren't more conservative posts in this thread since the interview was on Fox. Where are the Fox Fans?

I'll inch in one thing

Is 100(I think less, but whatever, good concervative statement) Cruise Missiles, most of which didn't hit ANYTHING, the others hitting useless crap, really trying? Al Quada got very strong between 1993-2001, I personally think Clinton should have done more, but we need to finish this war, and not back away as several people want to do =/

well we're busy in iraq now....cause...see....saddam was an evil man who tortured iraqis, and we need to torture iraqis to keep that from happening again...because...see....we were attacked on 911...and although that has absolutley no connection to pre-war iraq, its important because we were attacked. bin lada who?

Originally posted by PVS
well we're busy in iraq now....cause...see....saddam was an evil man who tortured iraqis, and we need to torture iraqis to keep that from happening again...because...see....we were attacked on 911...and although that has absolutley no connection to pre-war iraq, its important because we were attacked. bin lada who?

no beer

K, thanks for butchering that

Originally posted by FeceMan
OH SNAP

Where did the 't' come from.

well, forgive the sarcasm, and forgive me if i place blame on tbe current administration for compromising our national security at present by KNOWINGLY LYING to bring us to war with a country with no ties whatsoever with the attacks on 911, creating the shithole that was once iraq, and keeping our resources out of afghanistan while we pick a fight with iran and taunt n. korea while thumbing our noses at the u.n...but i do. "you cant play the blame game"yes i can and i did.

rather than attack the enemy, they chose to play god and bring democracy to half a continent at gunpoint. oh, you still think democracy will catch like a 'wildfire'? still buying that rhetoric? the only end to such a grand experiment, the only way to "stay the course" is to dictate over every nation dominated by fundamentalist muslems in the middle east*




**except to the nation WITH ties to the attacks on 9/11....it was all just a mistake, they were duped, no need to look into it...

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
I'll inch in one thing

Is 100(I think less, but whatever, good concervative statement) Cruise Missiles, most of which didn't hit ANYTHING, the others hitting useless crap, really trying? Al Quada got very strong between 1993-2001, I personally think Clinton should have done more, but we need to finish this war, and not back away as several people want to do =/

Thank you for both completely missing the point, and failing to comprehend what transpired during that interview.

Originally posted by PVS
well, forgive the sarcasm, and forgive me if i place blame on tbe current administration for compromising our national security at present by KNOWINGLY LYING to bring us to war with a country with no ties whatsoever with the attacks on 911, creating the shithole that was once iraq, and keeping our resources out of afghanistan while we pick a fight with iran and taunt n. korea while thumbing our noses at the u.n...but i do. "you cant play the blame game"yes i can and i did.

rather than attack the enemy, they chose to play god and bring democracy to half a continent at gunpoint. oh, you still think democracy will catch like a 'wildfire'? still buying that rhetoric? the only end to such a grand experiment, the only way to "stay the course" is to dictate over every nation dominated by fundamentalist muslems in the middle east*




**except to the nation WITH ties to the attacks on 9/11....it was all just a mistake, they were duped, no need to look into it...

Still using Sarcasm, I can't tell, it sounds honest enough?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Thank you for both completely missing the point, and failing to comprehend what transpired during that interview.

Isn't it funny how some people can actually fail to grasp even the simplest things that occur right before their very eyes and ears? I guess it's not funny-haha, but it's certainly 'funny'.

Hell I admit I didn't even watch the thing, I heard it was Clinton idolizing himself, trying to sound smart, don't listen to him. The only thing Clinton "tried" was shoot some Missiles, rather than doing what Bush did, but this thread needed some Fox News Protection, the fact being they arn't Concervative

Originally posted by docb77
An alternative viewpoint to bring balance (to the force) to the discussion:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5888

As far as I'm concerned it isn't really important what Clinton OR Bush knew pre-9/11. We have a problem NOW. Let's solve it and worry about blame once we've won this war.

Balanced? With articles such as:


The Fairy Tale Democrats - September 25th, 2006

Bill Clinton, Bin Laden, and Hysterical Revisions - September 25th, 2006

Iraq's Role in Terrorism - September 23rd, 2006

The UN's Hollow Words and Bolton's Meaningful Warning - September 22nd, 2006

The Democratic Party and the Jews - September 21st, 2006

The American thinker exposes itself as the trash that it is.

You should be embarrassed to post a link to such a partisan site and claim to post it in order to achieve some sense of balance.

Propaganda like The American Thinker and the fools at FOX have no place in any discussion where intelligence or common sense is required.

The latest KMC example of 'ignorance' is brought to us by Darth Kreiger:

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Hell I admit I didn't even watch the thing, I heard it was Clinton idolizing himself, trying to sound smart, don't listen to him. The only thing Clinton "tried" was shoot some Missiles, rather than doing what Bush did, but this thread needed some Fox News Protection, the fact being they arn't Concervative

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Hell I admit I didn't even watch the thing, I heard it was Clinton idolizing himself, trying to sound smart, don't listen to him. The only thing Clinton "tried" was shoot some Missiles, rather than doing what Bush did, but this thread needed some Fox News Protection, the fact being they arn't Concervative

You didn't watch it, but felt as though you could intelligently comment about it? You dear sir, are a fool at best and an idiot at worst.

FOX not conservative? Let me through naive into the mix as well.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
The latest KMC example of 'ignorance' is brought to us by Darth Kreiger:


K? Do I get a Prize? I'm not being that serious right now, I'm not going to try and relay anything to 10 Liberals, Numbers matter.

Anycraps, to Kharma, Fox has Concervative Programs, and Liberal Programs, as well as sides from both. They're fairer

Originally posted by KharmaDog
You didn't watch it, but felt as though you could intelligently comment about it? You dear sir, are a fool at best and an idiot at worst.

FOX not conservative? Let me through naive into the mix as well.

Actually I didn't mention the Program in my first post, I was just talking about Clinton/Fox

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Anycraps, to Kharma, Fox has Concervative Programs, and Liberal Programs, as well as sides from both. They're fairer

Please list the Liberal content in FOX News. FOx is not fair. Look at the guy who owns it. If you cannot see this simple fact, than discussion with you is pointless.

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Actually I didn't mention the Program in my first post, I was just talking about Clinton/Fox

To talk about Clinton/FOX in this thread and not watch the link provided (and the main thrust of the thread) is either willful ignorance or just plain stupidity.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Please list the Liberal content in FOX News. FOx is not fair. Look at the guy who owns it. If you cannot see this simple fact, than discussion with you is pointless.



To talk about Clinton/FOX in this thread and not watch the link provided (and the main thrust of the thread) is either willful ignorance or just plain stupidity.

Many of the anchors are Liberal, not to mention they show both sides of stories. "Guy who owns it" has no effect, he just wants money, CNN, the most Liberal news, lets Glenn Beck have a show on it, how odd


If you look at who I quoted in my first post, you will see why, please stop making an ass of yourself beer

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
"Guy who owns it" has no effect,





Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
please stop making an ass of yourself

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Hell I admit I didn't even watch the thing

oh how appropriate

Yet, not reading anything now, instead of looking at the post I quoted, you bring out personal insults, what fun, I wasn't talking about the Program, and you attack me for having lack of knowledge of it

thats the second time in this thread i was accused of personal insults. now quote the insult so that i may be publicly scrutinised.
i'll be waiting...forever

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Where did the 't' come from.
Yours truly, of course .
Originally posted by PVS
thats the second time in this thread i was accused of personal insults. now quote the insult so that i may be publicly scrutinised.
i'll be waiting...forever
Originally posted by PVS
lol poop in u face

yeah, why not. would be just about as effective.

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
K? Do I get a Prize? I'm not being that serious right now, I'm not going to try and relay anything to 10 Liberals, Numbers matter.

Anycraps, to Kharma, Fox has Concervative Programs, and Liberal Programs, as well as sides from both. They're fairer

In that case, bub-bye, Bubba.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Balanced? With articles such as:


The Fairy Tale Democrats - September 25th, 2006

Bill Clinton, Bin Laden, and Hysterical Revisions - September 25th, 2006

Iraq's Role in Terrorism - September 23rd, 2006

The UN's Hollow Words and Bolton's Meaningful Warning - September 22nd, 2006

The Democratic Party and the Jews - September 21st, 2006

The American thinker exposes itself as the trash that it is.

You should be embarrassed to post a link to such a partisan site and claim to post it in order to achieve some sense of balance.

Propaganda like The American Thinker and the fools at FOX have no place in any discussion where intelligence or common sense is required.

Did I say the site was balanced? I could have sworn I said I was trying to balance the thread itself. And I don't really see where you have a leg to stand on using crooksandliars as your source, that's just as far left as any of the right wing sites are to the right. Don't criticize bias other sources when your own source's bias is so blatant.

You might try reading the article instead of strawmanning the source.

So if you want to leave propaganda out of the discussion we'll leave out crooksandliars, moveon.org and the like, along with most of the commentary from cnn and the "mainstream" media.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. In fact it may be idiocy to think that they are. It's probably just a blind refusal to see the other side of the story though.

Originally posted by PVS
thats the second time in this thread i was accused of personal insults. now quote the insult so that i may be publicly scrutinised.
i'll be waiting...forever

You wern't the only one posting.....hang

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I liked how Clinton didn't take any shit and immediately put Wallace in his place whenever he pulled that accusation crap on him.

I wasn't surprised Chris Wallace did that, after all, it is FOX News.

Go Willie!
Yeah I agree.


You know it's funny how the right wingers want to place Clinton in this damned if he did and damned if he didn't role.

So, he launches an attack against the Tali Ban, I'll be it mostly by cruise missile although he also says he contracted CIA agents to kill Bin Laden, no real reason not to believe him and I see no real motivation for him to lie at this pt. besides I'd believe him over Bush any day, and everyone screams out 'Wag the Dog'. Oh this Bin laden guy he's no real threat it's just to divert away from the true story..'the President getting blown in the oval office' or as the right would like to phrase it 'committing perjury.'

That was the reaction at the time and now the reaction is they don't feel he did enough, why didn't he do more? It's just another pathetic attempt at sharing the blame and deflecting it from the current administration.

The funny thing is how stupid of an argument and position they've decided to take on this. I think they would have at least somewhat of a basis for argument if they were to twist it and say that 911 was Clinton's fault because of the fact that he was so hell bent on getting Bin Laden in essence provoking him into attacking the US on the magnitude in which the Tali Ban did but No, now they say he didn't do enough..lol..they're not even sure how to spin this crap anymore at this pt.

I think if we were to really hold anyone responsible for 911 and all the crap that's goin on it's the media propaganda machine that regards things like The Pres. getting blown and the Vice Pres. shooting someone or gays getting married as more important news than terrorism, the war in Iraq and the lives of hurricane victims. It really does disgust me, I could go on but this really isn't the thread for it.

Btw, did anyone notice how he couldn't even look Willie in the eye when he was asking him those questions. What a nice little lap dog Wallace is. He did his master's bidding...good boy.

Originally posted by RZA
Yeah I agree.


You know it's funny how the right wingers want to place Clinton in this damned if he did and damned if he didn't role.

So, he launches an attack against the Tali Ban, I'll be it mostly by cruise missile although he also says he contracted CIA agents to kill Bin Laden, no real reason not to believe him and I see no real motivation for him to lie at this pt. besides I'd believe him over Bush any day, and everyone screams out 'Wag the Dog'. Oh this Bin laden guy he's no real threat it's just to divert away from the true story..'the President getting blown in the oval office' or as the right would like to phrase it 'committing perjury.'

That was the reaction at the time and now the reaction is they don't feel he did enough, why didn't he do more? It's just another pathetic attempt at sharing the blame and deflecting it from the current administration.

The funny thing is how stupid of an argument and position they've decided to take on this. I think they would have at least somewhat of a basis for argument if they were to twist it and say that 911 was Clinton's fault because of the fact that he was so hell bent on getting Bin Laden in essence provoking him into attacking the US on the magnitude in which the Tali Ban did but No, now they say he didn't do enough..lol..they're not even sure how to spin this crap anymore at this pt.

I think if we were to really hold anyone responsible for 911 and all the crap that's goin on it's the media propaganda machine that regards things like The Pres. getting blown and the Vice Pres. shooting someone or gays getting married as more important news than terrorism, the war in Iraq and the lives of hurricane victims. It really does disgust me, I could go on but this really isn't the thread for it.

Btw, did anyone notice how he couldn't even look Willie in the eye when he was asking him those questions. What a nice little lap dog Wallace is. He did his master's bidding...good boy.

no

1.)Presidents do NOT have affairs, EVER, disgrace galore for our country.
2.)The "Screwups" made by this Administration? Al Quada has their tail between their Legs now, they can't do crap, and we have 2 growing Democracys in the region, Iraq wasn't that great an idea, but it can end up very well. If Clinton had done what Bush did, I would be all for him. Presidents need to know when to use their Military, Clinton didn't which is why I don't like him(and a few other things, but that's beside the point)

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
no

1.)Presidents do NOT have affairs, EVER, disgrace galore for our country.

Please, spare me the morality lecture. I'm not sure what childlike fantasy you currently live in but the fact is men in positions of power tend to do things like that all the time. You'll find this out as you get older. He wasn't the first nor the only one to do it, he just got caught. Not condoning it, just saying that's reality. Of course, that was more of a disgrace than anything Bush has done to the country so far and on a global scale mind you. (btw incase you can't tell I'm being sarcastic here).

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
2.)The "Screwups" made by this Administration? Al Quada has their tail between their Legs now, they can't do crap, and we have 2 growing Democracys in the region, Iraq wasn't that great an idea, but it can end up very well.

Whatever you need to tell yourself or convince yourself of in order to sleep at night, by all means please go right ahead.

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
If Clinton had done what Bush did, I would be all for him. Presidents need to know when to use their Military, Clinton didn't which is why I don't like him(and a few other things, but that's beside the point)

Well, if you had watched the interview according to him he did try and do more but wasn't allowed to, which I already stated in my previous post as well.

Anyway, that's all you'll get from me on this.

Originally posted by RZA
Please, spare me the morality lecture. I'm not sure what childlike fantasy you currently live in but the fact is men in positions of power tend to do things like that all the time. You'll find this out as you get older. He wasn't the first nor the only one to do it, he just got caught. Not condoning it, just saying that's reality. Of course, that was more of a disgrace than anything Bush has done to the country so far and on a global scale mind you. (btw incase you can't tell I'm being sarcastic here).



Whatever you need to tell yourself or convince yourself of in order to sleep at night, by all means please go right ahead.



Well, if you had watched the interview according to him he did try and do more but wasn't allowed to, which I already stated in my previous post as well.

Anyway, that's all you'll get from me on this.

Presidents may have done it before, back in the day, I don't like that either, the only reason Bush is seen as doing anything embarressing because everyone thinks him a "War-Mongering Moronic *******"(I have actually heard people say that). People are just too deep inside their shell in this country to realise what he is doing has to be done, I don't support it all, but if you back out, everything WILL have been a waste

Again, I stand by the same thing, stop talking like Deano

He wasn't ALLOWED to? Remember how Bush wasn't "Allowed" to go to war? He did anyway, and thank God for it, Al Quada isn't someone you let be, again, when it is time to use our Army, we should use it, Peace Talks are useless these days, as is the Geneva Convention(it has since the start, another issue, for another day) when dealing with Nutjobs and Terrorists. Presidents lead this country, no one tells them what to do, a sad thing the UN wants the world to believe.

Actually, the republican congress at the time was supportive of the actions Clinton took (the missile strikes, not the lewinsky thing).

Originally posted by docb77
Actually, the republican congress at the time was supportive of the actions Clinton took (the missile strikes, not the lewinsky thing).

And? I'm not Republican.....

The Missile Strikes wern't enough, no matter Liberal or Concervative, if you don't go after these people, you arn't trying

Originally posted by PVS
3-the fact that that prick wallace was interrupting him and smirking at him. this guy was president of the united states and he's being talked over like some common shmuck on the oreilly factor. as much as i detest bush, when he's out of office i expect anyone interviewing him to show respect and let him finish a single answer to a question without having to raise his voice


That's one thing that I really noticed and disliked about the interview. For 8 months that man was the most powerful person in the World, and responsible for protecting the lives of every American including Wallace. And then that nobody who rode his daddy's coattails has the nerve to talk down to him as though he was scolding a child. I don't blame Clinton at ALL for getting in that fool's face.

I choose to give both of them the benefit of the doubt - Wallace sincerely thought it was a legitimate question, and Clinton was already primed to go off at anything similar to that after the abc thing and all. It was a miscommunication. Not the "crazed Clinton" that the right points at, and not the "smirking wallace" that the left points at. Both were well intentioned.

Originally posted by docb77
I choose to give both of them the benefit of the doubt - Wallace sincerely thought it was a legitimate question, and Clinton was already primed to go off at anything similar to that after the abc thing and all. It was a miscommunication. Not the "crazed Clinton" that the right points at, and not the "smirking wallace" that the left points at. Both were well intentioned.

The thing that gets me is the fact that almost every media outlet is talking about Clinton's meltdown rather then the information he spoke about....He fessed up. He said he failed on tv for all to hear; if that's not some form of humility I don't know what is.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
The thing that gets me is the fact that almost every media outlet is talking about Clinton's meltdown rather then the information he spoke about....He fessed up. He said he failed on tv for all to hear; if that's not some form of humility I don't know what is.

Your right, both sides are trying to spin it into something bad for the other side. No one is talking about the validity of Clinton's comments or their implications.

It's things like this that make me wonder what happened to the middle ground.

-edit-

of course he didn't really admit fault. He said he failed, but also said it wasn't his fault.

The middle ground doesn't sell newspapers, increase ratings, or get hits. Sensationalism is all it's about, which is why you have to be very careful when you go to any site or read any newspaper.

Originally posted by Kinneary
The middle ground doesn't sell newspapers, increase ratings, or get hits. Sensationalism is all it's about, which is why you have to be very careful when you go to any site or read any newspaper.

Yep, in the absence of a real middle ground, read both sides with an open, but discerning mind. That's one reason I kind of like shows like Hannity and Colms or Crossfire, you get both sides. (unfortunately I don't watch them often, because I think they're boring)

Originally posted by docb77
I choose to give both of them the benefit of the doubt - Wallace sincerely thought it was a legitimate question, and Clinton was already primed to go off at anything similar to that after the abc thing and all. It was a miscommunication. Not the "crazed Clinton" that the right points at, and not the "smirking wallace" that the left points at. Both were well intentioned.

That's your choice, but from the interview I saw, and the background of everything Fox-related, I think it's an obviously incorrect view-point. As Clinton stated, Wallace chose to pretty much lead into that line of questioning from the start. It was an obvious set-up, and it's naive to think otherwise.

Originally posted by docb77
I choose to give both of them the benefit of the doubt - Wallace sincerely thought it was a legitimate question, and Clinton was already primed to go off at anything similar to that after the abc thing and all. It was a miscommunication. Not the "crazed Clinton" that the right points at, and not the "smirking wallace" that the left points at. Both were well intentioned.

Please, the only reason that FOX/Wallace wanted to talk to him was to diss him and accuse him of inactivity in regards to Al-Qaeda. The "Global Initiative" bullshit was nothing but a front and Clinton called him out on it. Clinton wasn't crazed, however Wallace was smirking.

"There is not a living soul in the world who had any idea that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down. Or even knew Al-Qaeda was a growing concern in October of '93." is absolutely right. But those Republicans who keep trying to blame Bush's shit on Clinton just can't seem to own up to the fact that Bush shot himself in the foot and totally ****ed up.

Originally posted by docb77
Did I say the site was balanced? I could have sworn I said I was trying to balance the thread itself. And I don't really see where you have a leg to stand on using crooksandliars as your source, that's just as far left as any of the right wing sites are to the right. Don't criticize bias other sources when your own source's bias is so blatant.

I used crooksandliars only as a source for the video. There is no biased to it as the dispute in question is what is shown. There is no writer's bias or influence given as it is directly from the sources mouth.

Surely you can see that?

Originally posted by docb77
Not everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. In fact it may be idiocy to think that they are.

I agree completely. In fact, there are members on this forum who I often disagree with, but respect their opinons and how they relate them. Sometimes their efforts even give me pause to rethink my position on further inspection. This however, is not one of those cases.

Originally posted by docb77
It's probably just a blind refusal to see the other side of the story though.

The problem is I do see the other side of the story, and it's full of lies, misrepresentation, deceit and for lack of a better term, bullsh*t.

Originally posted by docb77
Your right, both sides are trying to spin it into something bad for the other side. No one is talking about the validity of Clinton's comments or their implications.


EXACTLY.

Originally posted by docb77
It's things like this that make me wonder what happened to the middle ground.

A wedge was intentionally driven into it, at least that's my take.



Originally posted by docb77
Yep, in the absence of a real middle ground, read both sides with an open, but discerning mind. That's one reason I kind of like shows like Hannity and Colms or Crossfire, you get both sides. (unfortunately I don't watch them often, because I think they're boring)

Those shows, once again, lean pretty far to the right. I have never seen balance in either of those shows.

A forum where intelligent people from both sides given equal footing to discuss issues would be interesting, but that will never happen. Both sides would be too afraid to particpate.

Originally posted by docb77
Did I say the site was balanced? I could have sworn I said I was trying to balance the thread itself. And I don't really see where you have a leg to stand on using crooksandliars as your source, that's just as far left as any of the right wing sites are to the right. Don't criticize bias other sources when your own source's bias is so blatant.

i wish people would stop doing this. i understand when someone quotes an partisan site for fact references, i find that annoying that they cant research and trace those facts to a reputable source. HOWEVER:
he gave a link to a video. unless you accuse that site of somehow editing and digitally altering the video clip?

as for the article you posted, clinton expressed that the very conservatives who hounded him for obsessing over bin laden are the ones who today hound him for not doing enough. so you see, it wasnt a generalised comment toward republicans and conservatives. (read/watch it again, see for yourself). the article you posted spins that and makes believe he said that about all republicans. thats the point where i stopped reading it.

im not insinuating that you have or haven't any belief in that posted article, but rather that the thread was 'fair and balanced' because the article was posted as is, leaving us to interpret it. i guess you could consider the posted AP translation of events as a slightly left interpretation (why, i dont know, but for the sake of argument), but what you added to the table spins it off into far right wacky land.

Originally posted by KharmaDog

A wedge was intentionally driven into it, at least that's my take.


thats the reality of it: divide and conquer

Clinton isn't to blame for 9/11.

I believe that he did take steps, and while they fell short (as he admits) of killing OBL or destroying Al-quieda, it isn't his fault for CIA, FBI, and other intelligence f*ckups.

The Clinton Administration did well with what they had, not knowing the future, and being constrained by red-tape and politics.

I actually blame the Republicans of those days, for trying to impeach him.

They were so caught up in partisanship (much as many Democrats are today) that they would stop at nothing to attack the President.

Which in effect, cut his balls off from doing what he and Richard Clarke and others wanted to do.

"Now all moral questions aside, if he hadn't taken his dick out of his pants then he'd have still had his balls." (thats an official Sithsaber quote)

Funny how one little choice can lead to a much bigger problem later on, one that nobody could have anticipated.


Seriously, I don't care about his affair, nor do I think it was any reason to question him, let alone impeach him.

A man's affair has to do with him and his wife, no one else.

We looked a little foolish as a country, the Euro's laughed a little, big flippin' deal.

The Republicans were out for blood, and their witch-hunt screwed up any chances of getting Bin Laden.

All chances before were un-coordinated or in-effective responses, also not Clinton's fault.



As for the interview itself, I don't mind Clinton being agitated and defending himself against the little pissant, but lets not kid anybody here.

Willie's a big boy, he's been through this shit before.

I seriously doubt a smirk is enough to set him on his ass.



You would get exactly the same, if not worse, if any far-left Democrat (Wallace obviously being a far-right Republican) were to interview George W.

you made perfect sense up till this point:

Originally posted by sithsaber408
As for the interview itself, I don't mind Clinton being agitated and defending himself against the little pissant, but lets not kid anybody here.

Willie's a big boy, he's been through this shit before.

not really. he never had to deal with distortion and lies which label him to blame for the deaths of thousands of americans. what if the sky really was falling, and once it did everyone blamed chicken little?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I seriously doubt a smirk is enough to set him on his ass.



You would get exactly the same, if not worse, if any far-left Democrat (Wallace obviously being a far-right Republican) were to interview George W.

although i would love to see dubya backed into a corner, there is a respectable way to present a valid question, rather than a presupposed loaded question based on nothing but "people want me to ask" or whatever the hell his segway was for perpetuating a lie on whats supposed to be a news network. but fine, the smirk was superficial, so i correct:

Originally posted by PVS
1-the smear campaign launched months ago to place blame of 9-11 on clinton, backed by lies in which he ignored the bin laden threat while neocons urged him of the threat, when it was the other way around

2-the wording of that question, which suggests that the stated lie is true and then structured so that clinton should explain his view on how he was responsible for what happened (same as the word game seen earlier in this thread)

3-the fact that that prick wallace was interrupting him and smirking at him. this guy was president of the united states and he's being talked over like some common shmuck on the oreilly factor. as much as i detest bush, when he's out of office i expect anyone interviewing him to show respect and let him finish a single answer to a question without having to raise his voice

4-the fact that the whole interview was arranged for, as he put it, a hit job on his track record, which was a very stupid move if they thought he would be stupid enough to follow along

5-the fact that this interview comes only a week after a blatant lie of a documentary aired courtesy of abc, disney, and presumably carl rove, dealing with the exact same false claim (claiming to be based on the 9-11 commision report, but later tagged with a subtle disclaimer that it may or may not be true after much pressure)

just to name a few
many reasons why he would be upset

That interview was great

One must keep in mind that clinton was pretty busy trying to keep from being impeached at the time. The men from the Cole did deserve retribution for their murder.

its great. now im watching these bobbleheads on the networks try to spin this as clinton kicking up dust and attacking the bush administration.
logic: clinton should have confirmed the lies and said "you're right its all my fault" and folded, or else he's instigating and finger pointing.

they spin this shit as if people are so lazy and stupid as to debate the issue yet not even watch the topic interview..........wait a minute.......i guess they're on to something

And the left's spin machine isn't working overtime on it too? give me a break. both sides are trying desperately to make it look good for their guys. In reality it was just a guy who got fed up with all the criticism. Be it just or unjust.

Originally posted by docb77
And the left's spin machine isn't working overtime on it too? give me a break. both sides are trying desperately to make it look good for their guys. In reality it was just a guy who got fed up with all the criticism. Be it just or unjust.

Of course both sides are trying to make themselves look good. I guess you have to ask yourself two questions though. Which side is lying and decieving the people the most to protect their ass.

And why are you focussing on the efforts of the spin machine instead of the issue that has been brought up by all of this?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Of course both sides are trying to make themselves look good. I guess you have to ask yourself two questions though. Which side is lying and decieving the people the most to protect their ass.

And why are you focussing on the efforts of the spin machine instead of the issue that has been brought up by all of this?


I thought the spin was the issue. Which issue are we supposed to be discussing? Bush lied? Clinton lied? I don't really care on either point. All I want is a solution to the terrorism problem.

Originally posted by docb77
I thought the spin was the issue. Which issue are we supposed to be discussing? Bush lied? Clinton lied? I don't really care on either point. All I want is a solution to the terrorism problem.

the spin campaign was started by a neoconservative propaganda campaign. clinton kept his lips sealed on bush/cheney/rumsfeld's reklessness and negligence. for 5 years him and his ***** of a sellout wife supported his policies and kept their mouths shut.

clinton retaliated out of defense, not assault. the implication which you conveniently ignore, and the reason bill clinton was forced to play that hand, was that he was negligent during his term in regards to osama bin laden while cheney and his clique just wanted to rush in and bomb the shit out of him. this is why he had to state the entire course of events including after his term. in order to declare the contrary and the truth of the matter, he had to bring up the track record on the very people who tried throwing him under the bus. then once he makes a valid point its "bah i dont want to hear about it, who cares".

the spin tactic we see so many times in the media.
its like if i snuck up and kicked you in the ass, you swung around and charged me ready to rip my head off, and i said "oh fighting over nothing is so childish....you're like a rabid wacko...all you care about is violence...instigator....etc"

Originally posted by PVS
the spin campaign was started by a neoconservative propaganda campaign. clinton kept his lips sealed on bush/cheney/rumsfeld's reklessness and negligence. for 5 years him and his ***** of a sellout wife supported his policies and kept their mouths shut.

clinton retaliated out of defense, not assault. the implication which you conveniently ignore, and the reason bill clinton was forced to play that hand, was that he was negligent during his term in regards to osama bin laden while cheney and his clique just wanted to rush in and bomb the shit out of him. this is why he had to state the entire course of events including after his term. in order to declare the contrary and the truth of the matter, he had to bring up the track record on the very people who tried throwing him under the bus. then once he makes a valid point its "bah i dont want to hear about it, who cares".

the spin tactic we see so many times in the media.
its like if i snuck up and kicked you in the ass, you swung around and charged me ready to rip my head off, and i said "oh fighting over nothing is so childish....you're like a rabid wacko...all you care about is violence...instigator....etc"

Have you done any research outside of left wing websites? The rebublican leadership was solidly behind pres. Clinton regarding the hunt for UBL. Nobody "insinuated" that He was negligent. Try a lexusnexus, or just google. Wallace asked him a question. To paraphrase, Do you think you did enough?, Or in hindsight what would you have done differently.

Clinton has his own view of history. Even this guy calls him on it. And he ain't exactly pro-bush.

Yeah maybe someone is trying to twist history, but I don't think its who you think it is.

no, i did my 'research' during the events i lived through by paying attention to the media's refection on attitudes in washington when events unfolded. nice attempt at trying to belittle someones opinion without any reason other than a blind assumption. but please, dont go backing your claim with a point.

also its so cute how you "paraphrase" the question instead of QUOTING it. i know, it means having to pay attention to detail. let me help:



clinton pulled out troops> al qaeda saw it as a sign of weakness and decided on that to attack. thats the implication clear as day. you can choose to be blatantly obtuse and ignore it, but its right there and you look like foolish for playing pretend.

let foxnews or even cnn ask a question beginning with "Why didn't you do more..." to bush about anything.

quote wesley clark:



why has nobody asked bush? "fair and balanced"..."liberal bias"..."spin" yes, please, feed it too me, im so used to it i almost hunger for it

That video just made me laugh, good stuff.