2
   

Bill Clinton Takes On Fox News

 
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 01:17 pm
okie, BS. Clinton is far from my favorite Politician but still credit should be given where it's due. He did try to take measures on bin Laden that were thwarted by Republicans in Congress. Also the FBI and CIA were reluctant to even tie bin Laden in with attacks on the Embassy and the Cole. You cant revise that history just as Condi cant revise the history of warnings from Clinton and Sandy Berger. She has lied again as the link on the memo I posted shows. Also you say "About the only thing he ever accomplished in office that amounted to a hill of beans was welfare reform", which is absurd. His success in Northern Ireland may not mean much to you but it was a great achievement and very important. He succeeded with Arafat and bin Laden and only the assassination of Rabin prevented a huge gain there. He reunited Korean families who had been seperated for 50 years and Bushie smashed those gains to smitherines with his heavy handed bully approach. Clinton left a surplus and that too has been destroyed. Basically most Americans know they were very much better off in pre-Bushie World. It's your denials of reality and history that dont amount to a hill of beans. As Bushie himself said he felt "no sense of urgency" about bin Laden and al qaeda before 911 and with all the warnings he received including those from Clinton Bushie is at least guilty of criminal negligence.
0 Replies
 
Atavistic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 01:46 pm
Well, now that Wallace has crossed Billy, he just might end up being found with a "self-inflicted" gunshot wound. It's been known to happen to people who get in Clinton's way.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 01:50 pm
as opposed to those who get in bushs' sights , who end up dead in the desert and shipped home in a box.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 02:03 pm
Bill's little frothing at the mouth episode is perfect ammo to get more R's elected in November.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 02:05 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Bill's little frothing at the mouth episode is perfect ammo to get more R's elected in November.

There is no issue of getting more R's elected in november, the only open issue is how many R's will lose seats.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 02:13 pm
Really? And what planet did you say you live on?
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 02:14 pm
Funny how conservatives pride themselves for "standing up" to any threat that comes their way, but when a former president stands up for himself, his presidency and his record, the same conservatives excoriate him.
Clinton was in a lose lose with Wallace.
Stand up and be accused of frothing at the mouth, appear defenseless and allow a partisan newsboy to have the upper hand.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 02:16 pm
Clinton is a natural born loser-loser so that's fitting.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 02:18 pm
Intrepid wrote:
okie wrote:
Advocate wrote:
It is amusing that Fox is now spinning the interview with Clinton so as to portray Wallace as a victim.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609260002?src=other


Wallace asked a simple question, and Clinton set about to attack Fox and right wingers instead of answering the question. Clinton showed himself for what he is, a loser.


Did you see the same interview that I saw???

Wanna know what I would like to see? I would like to see a debate, about anything, between George Bush and Bill Clinton.


Why would you want to see that? It would be a much more fair debate if you pitted Bush against his equal...like maybe a block of wood, or a baboon or something.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 02:22 pm
Give Bush the questions in advance and it would still be no contest.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 02:39 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Clinton is a natural born loser-loser so that's fitting.


You obviously put a lot of thought into that.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 02:45 pm
Let's post the entire commentary, instead of just pieces.

" MSNBC.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A textbook definition of cowardice
Keith Olbermann comments on Bill Clinton's Fox News interview
SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
MSNBC


Updated: 9:01 a.m. ET Sept 26, 2006

The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong.

It is not essential that a past president, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.

It is not important that the current President's portable public chorus has described his predecessor's tone as "crazed."

Our tone should be crazed. The nation's freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as al Qaida; the nation's marketplace of ideas is being poisoned by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would've quit.

Nonetheless. The headline is this:

Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done in five years.

He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.

"At least I tried," he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. "That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried."

Thus in his supposed emeritus years has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as liberating, as any, by any one, in these last five long years.

The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama bin Laden before 9/11.

The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors.

The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."

The Bush Administration did not try.

Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks, the current administration, and in particular the President, has been given the greatest "pass" for incompetence and malfeasance in American history!

President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs?-some of them, 17 years old?-before Pearl Harbor.

President Hoover was correctly blamed for?-if not the Great Depression itself?-then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the Stock Market Crash.

Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War?-though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.

But not this president.

To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been president on September 11th, 2001 -- or the nearly eight months that preceded it.

That hardly reflects the honesty nor manliness we expect of the executive.


But if his own fitness to serve is of no true concern to him, perhaps we should simply sigh and keep our fingers crossed, until a grown-up takes the job three Januarys from now.

Except for this.

After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts?-that he was president on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to make the responsibility, entirely Mr. Clinton's.

Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly.

As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him, by proxy.

Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News Friday afternoon.

Consider the timing: the very weekend the National Intelligence Estimate would be released and show the Iraq war to be the fraudulent failure it is?-not a check on terror, but fertilizer for it.


The kind of proof of incompetence, for which the administration and its hyenas at Fox need to find a diversion, in a scapegoat.

It was the kind of cheap trick which would get a journalist fired?-but a propagandist, promoted:

Promise to talk of charity and generosity; but instead launch into the lies and distortions with which the Authoritarians among us attack the virtuous and reward the useless.

And don't even be professional enough to assume the responsibility for the slanders yourself; blame your audience for "e-mailing" you the question.

Mr. Clinton responded as you have seen.

He told the great truth untold about this administration's negligence, perhaps criminal negligence, about bin Laden.

He was brave.

Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I in one moment surrendered all my credibility as a journalist, and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail.

The smearing by proxy, of course, did not begin Friday afternoon.

Disney was first to sell-out its corporate reputation, with "The Path to 9/11." Of that company's crimes against truth one needs to say little. Simply put: someone there enabled an Authoritarian zealot to belch out Mr. Bush's new and improved history.

The basic plot-line was this: because he was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9/11.

The most curious and in some ways the most infuriating aspect of this slapdash theory, is that the Right Wingers who have advocated it?-who try to sneak it into our collective consciousness through entertainment, or who sandbag Mr. Clinton with it at news interviews?-have simply skipped past its most glaring flaw.

Had it been true that Clinton had been distracted from the hunt for bin Laden in 1998 because of the Monica Lewinsky nonsense, why did these same people not applaud him for having bombed bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan and Sudan on Aug. 20, of that year? For mentioning bin Laden by name as he did so?

That day, Republican Senator Grams of Minnesota invoked the movie "Wag The Dog."

Republican Senator Coats of Indiana questioned Mr. Clinton's judgment.

Republican Senator Ashcroft of Missouri?-the future attorney general?-echoed Coats.

Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioned the timing.

And of course, were it true Clinton had been "distracted" by the Lewinsky witch-hunt, who on earth conducted the Lewinsky witch-hunt?

Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two years?

Who corrupted the political media?

Who made it impossible for us to even bring back on the air, the counter-terrorism analysts like Dr. Richard Haass, and James Dunegan, who had warned, at this very hour, on this very network, in early 1998, of cells from the Middle East who sought to attack us, here?

Who preempted them in order to strangle us with the trivia that was, "All Monica All The Time"?

Who distracted whom?

This is, of course, where?-as is inevitable?-Mr. Bush and his henchmen prove not quite as smart as they think they are.

The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three administrations, possibly four.

But, Mr. Bush, if you are now trying to convince us by proxy that it's all about the distractions of 1998 and 1999, then you will have to face a startling fact that your minions may have hidden from you.

The distractions of 1998 and 1999, Mr. Bush, were carefully manufactured, and lovingly executed, not by Bill Clinton, but by the same people who got you elected President.

Thus, instead of some commendable acknowledgment that you were even in office on 9/11 and the lost months before it, we have your sleazy and sloppy rewriting of history, designed by somebody who evidently read the Orwell playbook too quickly.

Thus, instead of some explanation for the inertia of your first eight months in office, we are told that you have kept us "safe" ever since?-a statement that might range anywhere from zero, to 100 percent, true.

We have nothing but your word, and your word has long since ceased to mean anything.

And, of course, the one time you have ever given us specifics about what you have kept us safe from, Mr. Bush, you got the name of the supposedly targeted Tower in Los Angeles wrong.


Thus was it left for the previous president to say what so many of us have felt; what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack:

You did not try.

You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor.

You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people.

Then, you blamed your predecessor.

That would be a textbook definition, Mr. Bush, of cowardice.

To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past.

That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair?-writing as George Orwell?-gave us in the book "1984."

The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as familiar to you, as it has lately begun to sound familiar to me.

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power...

"Power is not a means; it is an end.

"One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.

"The object of persecution, is persecution. The object of torture, is torture. The object of powerÂ… is power."

Earlier last Friday afternoon, before the Fox ambush, speaking in the far different context of the closing session of his remarkable Global Initiative, Mr. Clinton quoted Abraham Lincoln's State of the Union address from 1862.

"We must disenthrall ourselves."

Mr. Clinton did not quote the rest of Mr. Lincoln's sentence.

He might well have.

"We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country."

And so has Mr. Clinton helped us to disenthrall ourselves, and perhaps enabled us, even at this late and bleak date, to save our country.

The "free pass" has been withdrawn, Mr. Bush.

You did not act to prevent 9/11.

We do not know what you have done to prevent another 9/11.

You have failed us?-then leveraged that failure, to justify a purposeless war in Iraq which will have, all too soon, claimed more American lives than did 9/11.

You have failed us anew in Afghanistan.

And you have now tried to hide your failures, by blaming your predecessor.

And now you exploit your failure, to rationalize brazen torture which doesn't work anyway; which only condemns our soldiers to water-boarding; which only humiliates our country further in the world; and which no true American would ever condone, let alone advocate.

And there it is, Mr. Bush:

Are yours the actions of a true American?"


URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15004160/page/2/
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 02:46 pm
Bear, that was a great reply. You must be a trial lawyer.

Regarding the debate, maybe Rove could again equip Bush with a device strapped to his back.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 02:58 pm
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
I never voted for Bill Clinton but you have to admit he was a better president than Bush could ever pretend to be.

BBB
No, people definitely do not have to admit such an absurdity. In fact nobody with even a twingering of intelligence would believe such nonsense. Clinton was and is a disgrace and an unmitigated failure. He has continued to make a full and total mockery of democracy and the Presidency. His recent words: "...smirk on your face and you think you're so clever" was just further evidence that he is a disgrace. For a former President to behave and speak in such a childish and arrogant manner should make every last person take a few steps back and realize Clinton for the horror he is, has been, and sadly, most likely always will be.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 03:09 pm
Re: BBB
Sturgis wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
I never voted for Bill Clinton but you have to admit he was a better president than Bush could ever pretend to be.

BBB
No, people definitely do not have to admit such an absurdity. In fact nobody with even a twingering of intelligence would believe such nonsense. Clinton was and is a disgrace and an unmitigated failure. He has continued to make a full and total mockery of democracy and the Presidency. His recent words: "...smirk on your face and you think you're so clever" was just further evidence that he is a disgrace. For a former President to behave and speak in such a childish and arrogant manner should make every last person take a few steps back and realize Clinton for the horror he is, has been, and sadly, most likely always will be.

Yes, quite right, I never voted for Clinton because I was sick and tired of republicans in the WhiteHouse.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 03:14 pm
Re: BBB
Sturgis wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
I never voted for Bill Clinton but you have to admit he was a better president than Bush could ever pretend to be.

BBB
No, people definitely do not have to admit such an absurdity. In fact nobody with even a twingering of intelligence would believe such nonsense.


Why is it nonsense? You never say, really, using facts or actual events from his administration.

Quote:
Clinton was and is a disgrace and an unmitigated failure.


What did he fail at, specifically? It seems that he was re-elected and enjoyed a very high approval rating throughout his presidency.

Quote:
He has continued to make a full and total mockery of democracy and the Presidency.


How has he mocked democracy? Even more so, how has he done so more than Bush, who actively works to remove aspects of our democracy in the name of 'protecting us?'

How has he mocked the presidency? Specifically.

Quote:
His recent words: "...smirk on your face and you think you're so clever" was just further evidence that he is a disgrace. For a former President to behave and speak in such a childish and arrogant manner should make every last person take a few steps back and realize Clinton for the horror he is, has been, and sadly, most likely always will be.


You're calling Clinton 'childish and arrogant' in comparison to Bush???@!!?

Are you out of your mind? Bush is far more arrogant than Clinton ever was, and his speech is far more childish - he can barely speak english at all.

The other day, I heard Bush say that OBL will never give up his 'war against Infidelity.' And you're telling me that Bush is less childish and arrogant than Clinton?

You have nothing but assertions, really.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 03:52 pm
I'd be very interested to see if Sturgis could be any more substantive than "he was a disgrace" and "he made a mockery of democracy".
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 03:53 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
as opposed to those who get in bushs' sights , who end up dead in the desert and shipped home in a box.



It'w worth repeating. Many of our soldiers are from heavily demokkkrat-infested areas like Baltimore, Detroit, and LA. They're statistically safer in Iraq than they would be at home. The one thing which correlates most strongly with danger level in American cities is demokkkrat infestation.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 04:08 pm
Lash wrote:
I felt comfortable responding to the theme of reporters ambushing politicians and making aggressive, accusatory statements. Do you claim it was somehow worse that the other instances I describe?

I dont claim anything, because I havent actually seen the interview.

You havent seen the interview either, yet that doesnt apparently stop you from making all kinds of claims about how exactly it compared to other interviews.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 04:08 pm
gungasnake said:

Quote:
It'w worth repeating. Many of our soldiers are from heavily demokkkrat-infested areas like Baltimore, Detroit, and LA. They're statistically safer in Iraq than they would be at home. The one thing which correlates most strongly with danger level in American cities is demokkkrat infestation


I would like to believe that you are not serious here.

Poverty and lack of opportunity drives some people into the Armed Forces. The same may incline some to vote Democratic, for obvious reasons.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/04/2026 at 12:02:12