Bill Clinton Takes On Fox News

gungasnake wrote:

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.

Are you volunteering to go to Iraq, Gunga?

He hasn't answered me either, JTT

Clinton responded with vigor and the truth.... .

chiso wrote:

...however, his extreme defensive posture and personal attack on a journalist for asking a question is a different story. One that will be around for a while.

Only with the Bush lovers. The rest of us don't care.

Clinton responded with vigor and the truth.... .

Really? Remember, terrorism did not begin with 911, and some of our people had arranged it so that OBL was ready for the taking, all Clinton had to do was give the okay, but he nixed it. I think there is a good chance that someone like Bush would have done it.

Finn's article wrote:

After the article appeared, National Review talked to Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss, who was then a member of the House, chairing the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. Chambliss was perplexed. "I've had Dick Clarke testify before our committee several times, and we've invited Samuel Berger several times," Chambliss told NR, "and this is the first I've ever heard of that plan." If it was such a big deal, Chambliss wondered, why didn't anyone mention it?

Sources at the White House were just as baffled. At the time, they were carefully avoiding picking public fights with the previous administration over the terrorism issue. But privately, they told NR that the Time report was way off base. "There was no new plan to topple al Qaeda," one source said flatly. "No new plan." When asked if there was, perhaps, an old plan to topple al Qaeda, which might have been confused in the Time story, the source said simply, "No."

The 9/11 report wrote:

As the Clinton administration drew to a close, Clarke and his staff devel=oped a policy paper of their own,the first such comprehensive effort since the Delenda plan of 1998.The resulting paper, entitled "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al Qida: Status and Prospects," reviewed the threat and the record to date, incorporated the CIA's new ideas from the Blue Sky memo, and posed several near-term policy options.
Clarke and his staff proposed a goal to "roll back" al Qaeda over a period of three to five years. Over time, the policy should try to weaken and elimi=nate the network's infrastructure in order to reduce it to a "rump group" like other formerly feared but now largely defunct terrorist organizations of the 1980s."Continued anti-al Qida operations at the current level will prevent some attacks,"Clarke's office wrote,"but will not seriously attrit their ability to plan and conduct attacks." The paper backed covert aid to the Northern Alliance, covert aid to Uzbekistan, and renewed Predator flights in March 2001.A sentence called for military action to destroy al Qaeda command-and-control targets and infrastructure andTaliban military and command assets.The paper also expressed concern about the presence of al Qaeda operatives in the United States.155

The 9/11 report wrote:

Clarke submitted an elaborate memorandum on January 25, 2001. He attached to it his 1998 Delenda Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper."We urgently need ...a Principals level review on the al Qida network," Clarke wrote.172

The 9/11 report wrote:

Rice and Hadley asked Clarke and his staff to draw up the new presiden=tial directive. On June 7, Hadley circulated the first draft, describing it as "an admittedly ambitious" program for confronting al Qaeda.200 The draft NSPD's goal was to "eliminate the al Qida network of terrorist groups as a
FROM THREAT TO THREAT 205
threat to the United States and to friendly governments." It called for a multi-year effort involving diplomacy, covert action, economic measures, law enforcement, public diplomacy, and if necessary military efforts. The State Department was to work with other governments to end all al Qaeda sanctu=aries, and also to work with the Treasury Department to disrupt terrorist financing.The CIA was to develop an expanded covert action program includ=ing significant additional funding and aid to anti-Taliban groups.The draft also tasked OMB with ensuring that sufficient funds to support this program were found in U.S. budgets from fiscal years 2002 to 2006.201
Rice viewed this draft directive as the embodiment of a comprehensive new strategy employing all instruments of national power to eliminate the al Qaeda threat.Clarke,however,regarded the new draft as essentially similar to the pro=posal he had developed in December 2000 and put forward to the new admin=istration in January 2001.202

source

So if Time was confused, maybe it was because they read the 9/11 report.

Really? Remember, terrorism did not begin with 911, and some of our people had arranged it so that OBL was ready for the taking, all Clinton had to do was give the okay, but he nixed it. I think there is a good chance that someone like Bush would have done it. Nobody knows for sure but I think the chances were much better than 50/50 Bush would have either captured or killed him. Then Bush would have promptly been blamed by the Democrats for creating more terrorists for martyring him.

I'm not Fox,but here is one reutation right off the top of my head.

He said "Now, I've never criticized President Bush" and that is an outright lie.

Here are a few examples of him criticizing Bush...

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/9/4581

http://www.buzztracker.org/2004/05/22/cache/203229.html

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/011712.php

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091905I.shtml

There are more examples,but these will do for a start.
Now,how do these examples jibe with his "I've never criticized President Bush"?

They don't its clear he must have forgotten or lied about his previous critisim of Bush.

Now,since Clinton is on record as saying that he didnt accept Sudans offer to turn Bin Laden over to us because we had no legal reason to hold him,then what legal reason was there for Clinton to order his murder?

Quote:

CLINTON: No, no. I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him.

You are getting confused, MM. He tried to kill Bin Laden in 1998 after the African Embassy bombing. In 1996, Bin Laden had not committed any crimes against the United States but he wanted to so Clinton asked the Sudan government to hold him before Bin Laden went to Afghanistan. They refused because they said it was too big of a hot potato.
transcript here

Now,lets look at this quote from the intrview...
Quote:
I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn't do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush's neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn't have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn't do enough said that I did too much.


Is this true?

Lets look at what the repubs actually said about it...

Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) said the following on August 20, 1998:

Quote:

Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do.

In response

Quote:

Revisiting GOP attacks on President Clinton

The Internet makes it much more difficult than ever before to fabricate history because virtually everything is recorded and so easily discovered. Those developments, however, did not deter Jonah Goldberg from writing this demonstrably false historical claim in National Review: "The notion that conservatives opposed Clinton as Commander-in-Chief in the pre-war on terror or in other military ventures is simply unfair ... Sure, there were some wag the dog voices -- like noted rightwing trogs [sic] Arlen Specter and Christopher Hitchens -- but generally even the most partisan Republicans supported Clinton."

It is hard to overstate how false Goldberg's claim is, as even Byron York reported, in Goldberg's own magazine, National Review (emphasis added): "Instead of striking a strong blow against terrorism, the action [launching cruise missiles at Osama bin Laden] set off a howling debate about Clinton's motives. The president ordered the action three days after appearing before the grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair, and Clinton's critics accused him of using military action to change the subject from the sex-and-perjury scandal -- the so-called 'wag the dog' strategy."

Leading GOP political figures and pundits repeatedly voiced such criticisms against Clinton:

Rep. Dick Armey, GOP majority leader: "The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."
Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.: "It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it," Solomon said in an interview with CNN. Asked if he was accusing Clinton of playing with American lives for political expediency, Solomon said, "Whether he knows it or not, that's exactly what he's doing."
GOP Sen. Dan Coats: Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack [on bin Laden] and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action."

Sen. Larry Craig, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee: "The foregoing, the premise of the recent film 'Wag the Dog,' might once have seemed farfetched. Yet it can hardly escape comment that on the very day, August 17, that President Bill Clinton is scheduled to testify before a federal grand jury to explain his possibly criminal behavior, Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton has ordered U.S. Marines and air crews to commence several days of ground and air exercises in, yes, Albania as a warning of possible NATO intervention in next-door Kosovo ...
"Not too many years ago, it would not have entered the mind of even the worst of cynics to speculate whether any American president, whatever his political difficulties, would even consider sending U.S. military personnel into harm's way to serve his own, personal needs. But in an era when pundits openly weigh the question of whether President Clinton will (or should) tell the truth under oath not because he has a simple obligation to do so but because of the possible impact on his political 'viability' -- is it self-evident that military decisions are not affected by similar considerations? Under the circumstances, it is fair to ask to what extent the Clinton Administration has forfeited the benefit of the doubt as to the motives behind its actions."

GOP activist Paul Weyrich: "Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton's decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote 'is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress.'"

Wall Street Journal editorial: "It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment."

Sen. Trent Lott, GOP majority leader: "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."

Rep. Gerald Solomon: "'Never underestimate a desperate president,' said a furious House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.). 'What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?'"
Rep. Tillie Folwer: "'It [the bombing of Iraq] is certainly rather suspicious timing,' said Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Florida). 'I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office.'"

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: "First, it [intervention in Kosovo] is a 'wag the dog' public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the 'life is truer than fiction' movie 'Wag the Dog.' The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to 'move on' from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command."

Jim Hoagland, Washington Post: "President Clinton has indelibly associated a justified military response ... with his own wrongdoing ... Clinton has now injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy, and vice versa."

Wall Street Journal editorial: "Perceptions that the American president is less interested in the global consequences than in taking any action that will enable him to hold onto power [are] a further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in conducting the nation's affairs, and should be impeached."

Leading GOP senators, representatives, editorial boards, organizations and pundits repeatedly called into question Clinton's motives in taking military action, and thus attacked the commander in chief at exactly the time when troops were still in harm's way. The notion that such accusations were made only by a handful of isolated figures -- which Goldberg has the audacity to suggest were actually liberal -- and that the GOP largely supported Clinton's military deployments and refrained from criticizing his motives is just false. That is a fact that Goldberg would have discovered had he undertaken the most minimal amount of research before making those claims.

It is true that some Republican political figures supported some of Clinton's military decisions in Yugoslavia and the Middle East, but efforts to undermine those actions (as well as earlier ones) came from virtually every significant Republican precinct of influence throughout Clinton's presidency. That includes, most prominently, actions Clinton took against Iraq and Osama bin Laden, which were routinely attacked by Republicans as unnecessary.

The claim that Clinton paid insufficient attention to terrorism was one that virtually no Republicans made during the Clinton presidency. To the contrary, terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism were barely on their radar screen, and when they were, it was most prominently to use those issues as a weapon to attack Clinton politically and to suggest that he was deploying the military not for any legitimate reason (such as the terrorist threat) but only to distract the country's attention from the far more pressing sex scandal engulfing our government.

source

You can read more refutations of what Clinton said here...

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

Already asnwered.

So,as you can see,refuting what Clinton said is actually fairly easy. not

can I assume Bill Clinton had an orgasim in the WhiteHouse? could there be a worse sin?

JFK outdid him many times over. He had two women in the typing pool whose main job was taking a daily "swim" with JFK. And then there was the mafia babe and ....

Advocate wrote:

JFK outdid him many times over. He had two women in the typing pool whose main job was taking a daily "swim" with JFK. And then there was the mafia babe and ....

when JFK was there they should have called it comelot

Advocate wrote:

JFK outdid him many times over. He had two women in the typing pool whose main job was taking a daily "swim" with JFK. And then there was the mafia babe and ....

when JFK was there they should have called it comelot

Advocate wrote:

JFK outdid him many times over. He had two women in the typing pool whose main job was taking a daily "swim" with JFK. And then there was the mafia babe and ....

when JFK was there they should have called it comelot