Bill Clinton Takes On Fox News

okie wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

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

Yes, and does history record one of his women to be a German spy, which should amply demonstrate the logic of having decent people in office that do not compromise 300 million American lives because they care more about themselves than the country that elected them.

Please do prove Inge Arvad (if I spell her correctly) was a german spy.

FreeDuck wrote:

Bush can't possibly be sleeping with Condi. I know for a fact that if he was, his nose would grow into a penis.

Penises come in all shapes and sizes. Maybe his nose is a penis.

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.

So, you are fine with using only that graph as an ecnomic indicator then?

I just want to know so that when I demonstrate the economy is doing fine according to that chart no one comes back with other indicators that the economy is doing horribly.

BWWAAAAAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaa aaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa......

The point is such activity has potential to compromise the country.

nimh wrote:

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.

What "all kinds of claims" did I make?

You are claiming that

- Partisan Dem reporters do [the same thing] on a regular basis to Republicans (and one has to be out of one's **** mind to think otherwise)

- When that Irish reporter interviewed Bush and Dan "yelled at Bush I", it was the "same thing"

- Couric e.a have done "the same thing" to Republicans

- Clinton just yelped and thats only how this was made to look much worse than when it happens to other people

But you havent actually seen the interview?

Personal emotion should also be logical shouldn't it? .

BYRON YORK AND CONDI RICE V. THE TRUTH:

Jonathan Chait points me to a sweet, sweet Byron York column on the Rice/Clarke/Clinton fracas that makes makes my point handily. Let's get into it.

York's thesis is that Rice is telling the truth and Clinton and Clarke are full of it. To take a quick and irresistible detour first, he quotes Saxby Chambliss as telling him about Clarke's 2000 plan: "I've had Dick Clarke testify before our committee several times, and we've invited Samuel Berger several times, and this is the first I've ever heard of that plan." Um, Saxby? Did you read the 9/11 Commission report? You know, the one that cites Clarke's plan again and again? Start on page 196 and continue to page 214. It's helpful!

OK, York's turn. He has two pieces of evidence to dispute Clinton. First, an unnamed administration official told him in 2002 that Clinton and Clarke turned over no new plan. It's possible that official didn't know what he was talking about, but he or she may have straight-up lied to Byron, as the 9/11 Commission report and the 2005 declassification of Clarke's plan suggest. York, however, repeats this nonsense in his column today. No excuse for that. [..]

CONDI RICE V. RICHARD CLARKE, BILL CLINTON, AND THE TRUTH:

OK, Condi: Stop lying about the plans your administration inherited. Or rather, declassify NSPD-9 so everyone can know whether you're telling the truth. Let me explain.

Bill Clinton pounced on Chris Wallace on Sunday for implying that he didn't do enough to take out Al Qaeda. In his response, he singled out plans that then-counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and the CIA drew up at the end of the Clinton administration for attacking the jihadis in Afghanistan. Those plans, which the Bush administration inherited, were never acted upon before 9/11, despite Clarke's and CIA Director George Tenet's sense of urgency. Instead, the Bush administration sat on them through an interagency process of refinement that Clarke considered pitiful. That process resulted in a classified document called NSPD-9 that went for Bush's signature a few days before 9/11.

In an interview with the New York Post yesterday, Rice insisted, "We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda." This has been her strategy since Clarke first went public in early 2004: to quibble over the meaning of "comprehensive." The problem with that strategy is that, whatever the Bush administration was contemplating doing before September 11 about Al Qaeda, Clarke--who worked for the National Security Council--was its primary author and driving bureaucratic force. Attack Clarke and Rice attacks her own plan. So the only option she sees is to suggest, again and again, that NSPD-9 is significantly different from Clarke's 2000 plan. (Read about that here and here.)

NSPD-9 has never been released. Jamie Gorelick, the 9/11 Commission member, hinted during testimony that Rice's characterization of it is incorrect, and Richard Armitage agreed with her. (I was one of very, very few reporters in the room when this happened.) But because NSPD-9 is classified, she couldn't go into detail. Last year, Clarke's 2000 plan, the genesis of NSPD-9, was declassified in full. If Condi made one phone call, she could have Bush declassify NSPD-9 and then this whole dispute would be settled. Clinton and Clarke would be exposed as liars, right, Condi? So how about it?

OMG, Bush is sleeping with Condi Rice. Don't you think that threatens the US?

I don't have time to research it but I have seen the headlines at the supermarket.

Parados may have something about the relationship. Some time ago, Condi was in a meeting and referred to Bush as her husband. She quickly corrected herself, but the slip is interesting.

It seems to me quite OK to be mean and insulting (Bob Novak IS a douchebag) but making or passing on claims which we do not have any good reason to believe are true is not what we ought to be doing. Truth is important.

parados wrote:

OMG, Bush is sleeping with Condi Rice. Don't you think that threatens the US?

I don't have time to research it but I have seen the headlines at the supermarket.

No wonder your opinions are whacko if you get your news from tabloids. Parados, now I understand you better.

I think we all understand you better now.