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 around2-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 voice4-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
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
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:
When we announced that you were going to be on "Fox News Sunday," I got a lot of e-mail from viewers. And I've got to say, I was surprised. Most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?There's a new book out, I suspect you've already read, called "The Looming Tower." And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, "I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops." Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the Cole.
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:
I suggested, beginning in January of 2001, that … there was an open issue which should be decided about whether or not the Bush administration should retaliate for the Cole attack [which occurred in October 2000].Unfortunately, there was no interest, no acceptance of that proposition. And I was told on a couple of occasions, "Well, you know, that happened on the Clinton administration’s watch." I didn’t think it made any difference. I thought the Bush administration, now that it had the CIA saying it was al Qaeda, should have responded.
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