Bill Clinton Takes On Fox News

parados wrote:

More rewriting of history there slk.

There was no known link between the 1993 WTC towers bombing and Al Qaeda until Remsey Yousef was arrested in Pakistan in 1995. Bin Laden was mentioned as an unindicted co-conspirator in his 1997 trial. (Yousef was arrested at a house supposedly owned by Osama.) Clinton turned the 1993 bombing over to the FBI and they arrested and convicted 5 people in the plot, 5 more than have been convicted for the 9/11 attacks.

As for the Somalia in 1993 claim...

Quote:
The U.S. government did not learn of al-Qaeda's role in the attack until 1996, presumably from Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl.2,4

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/black_hawk_down.htm
quoting from the 9/11 report and the book "Black Hawk Down."

Parados...who's rewriting history?...I'd argue Clinton's the one most active in that arena. As I recall, Clinton was still president in 1996 when Al Queda role did come to light, according to your source. Yet Clinton failed to follow up with a forceful response (other than sending in the FBI). His efforts in the war on terror amounted to little more than has been done for decades in the war on druigs.

0 Replies

Quote:

His efforts in the war on terror amounted to little more than has been done for decades in the war on druigs.

And for good reason - you can't fight emotions and concepts. You can only try to convince people that there is a better way. We haven't done any of that, lately, in any of our 'wars' against concepts.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

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.

I have the feeling it's all wishful thinking . . . on both their parts!

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

okie wrote:
By the way, many Americans, including those relatives of people that died in 911, would like to wag their fingers in his face. How dare he wag that pathetic finger in every American's face as he essentially did.

What regular Americans think about who's to blame:

Quote:
Americans Assess Blame for Bin Laden's Actions

How much do you blame Bill Clinton / George W. Bush for the fact that Osama bin Laden has not been captured or killed?

Source: Gallup / USA Today
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,010 American adults, conducted from Sept. 21 to Sept. 24, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

So how many Democrats vs Republicans were in the poll, nimh? Without that information, the poll doesn't tell us much in my opinion.

0 Replies

Why does that matter? You don't conduct a random poll by hand selecting those being polled. Rolling Eyes

Are you just afraid that most of the pollsters were Republican? Laughing

0 Replies

Here is another poll, a very important one taken in Iraq. Not long ago, about 40% of Iraqis wanted us dead. That is now up to 61%. And 75% want us out, most feeling that this should be done over the next year.

Most Iraqis favor withdrawal of US forces soon-poll
27 Sep 2006 21:32:31 GMT
Source: Reuters
Iraq in turmoil
More By David Alexander

WASHINGTON, Sept 27 (Reuters) - About three-quarters of Iraqis believe U.S. forces are provoking more conflict than they are preventing in Iraq and should be withdrawn within a year, a survey released on Wednesday showed.

The poll of 1,150 people, conducted by a policy group at the University of Maryland, also found growing support for attacks against American-led forces, with a majority of Iraqis now favoring them.

The release of the survey came a day after President George W. Bush declassified a national intelligence report saying the Iraq war had become a "cause celebre" that was breeding deep resentment in the Muslim world and helping Islamist militants cultivate supporters.

The findings were similar to those of a State Department study reported in The Washington Post on Wednesday but not released publicly.

That poll found a strong majority of Iraqis wanted American forces to leave immediately. It asked whether people favored U.S. troops leaving immediately, staying until the government asked them to leave or saying until the violence stopped.

The University of Maryland poll, conducted in September by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, found that 78 percent of Iraqis believe the U.S. military presence causes more conflict than it prevents.

Among Iraq's three main communities, only Kurds tended to see the U.S. military presence as a stabilizing force, with 56 percent agreeing with that statement versus 17 percent of Shi'ites and 2 percent of Sunnis.

Ninety-seven percent of Sunnis said they believed the American presence caused more conflict than it prevented, compared with 82 percent of Shi'ites and 41 percent of Kurds.

Most Iraqis -- 71 percent -- said U.S. soldiers should be withdrawn within a year, but only 37 percent favored an American withdrawal in the next six months. Only Sunnis wanted U.S. forces out within six months, and only Kurds favored a longer U.S. presence, as much as two years or more.

The poll also found growing support for attacks on American forces, with 61 percent of the respondents saying they approved, compared with 47 percent in January.

Support for the attacks was strongest among Sunnis, at 92 percent. But support among Shi'ites rose from 41 percent in January to 62 percent in September. Only 16 percent of Kurds favored attacks on U.S. troops.

The poll found that most Iraqis -- 53 percent -- believed the Iraqi government would be strengthened by a commitment from Washington to withdraw within a fixed timetable.

It also found growing confidence in the Iraqi security forces and a high level of suspicion the United States intends to maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq.

The State Department poll found strong support for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, the Post said. In Baghdad, for example, 65 percent favored an immediate withdrawal, while in Mosul and Kirkuk 60 percent favored an immediate withdrawal. Only Kurdish areas favored a continued American presence.

A U.S. official who has seen the State Department poll confirmed the numbers cited in the Washington Post were accurate.

He said they did not try to get a more national figure because it is impossible to get a representative sampling due to the lack of census data and other difficulties.

The poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, which was conducted for WorldPublicOpinion.org, used face-to-face interviews and a complicated methodology to try to get a representative sample. (Additional reporting by Arshad Mohammed)

0 Replies

Things just keep getting better and better in Iraq.

Well anyway, that's what Bush says.

0 Replies

I wonder if anyone has cross referenced the American disapproval rating abroad with the bush approval rating domestically.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

nimh wrote:
How much do you blame Bill Clinton / George W. Bush for the fact that Osama bin Laden has not been captured or killed?

Source: Gallup / USA Today
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,010 American adults, conducted from Sept. 21 to Sept. 24, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

So how many Democrats vs Republicans were in the poll, nimh? Without that information, the poll doesn't tell us much in my opinion.

Same as with any other poll, Okie.

(Funny how you never hear them ask about the partisan breakdown of a poll if its results are favourable for them..)

That is to say: all polls choose a random sample of adults. They make sure that their sample represents a geographical cross-section of the US population.

Often poll results are weighted for age, gender, race or the like so the sample will provide a representative reflection of the US population as a whole.

Some pollsters also weight their results by partisan affiliation. Others do not, arguing that by doing so you run the risk of missing a trend where partisan identification actually changes over time.

Either which way, with this kind of sample and the means in place to ensure a representative reflection of the population in terms of age, region, urban/rural and the like, you can be sure that a poll wont suddenly have 45% Republicans or 45% Democrats - there's never that kind of slant.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

nimh wrote:
How much do you blame Bill Clinton / George W. Bush for the fact that Osama bin Laden has not been captured or killed?

Source: Gallup / USA Today
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,010 American adults, conducted from Sept. 21 to Sept. 24, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

So how many Democrats vs Republicans were in the poll, nimh? Without that information, the poll doesn't tell us much in my opinion.

Do you know how come the poll shows more Americans blaming Bush than Clinton, Okie?

I found some more information; but you have to watch an ad (or wait for it to finish) to get there: here at galluppoll.com.

The answer is: because Independents side with the Democrats on this, Okie.

Apart from the question above, the poll also specifically asks: Who do you blame more for the fact that Osama bin Laden has not been captured: George W. Bush (or) Bill Clinton?

Results here:

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr060927ci.gif

In case the image doesnt show up:

53% Bush
36% Clinton
11% No opinion

How come? Dems and Reps keep each other in balance:

Quote:

Republicans and Democrats are largely divided into opposing camps on the question of who is more to blame for bin Laden's ability to evade capture: 71% of Republicans say Clinton is more to blame while 83% of Democrats hold Bush more responsible.

But Independents blame Bush far more than Clinton:

Quote:

Clinton's strong advantage among the general public on this question comes more from the fact that political independents are closer to the Democratic side in their attitudes, with a solid majority blaming Bush more than Clinton (58% vs. 31%).

Here's the graph (if it shows up):

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr060927ciii.gif

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

parados wrote:
More rewriting of history there slk.

There was no known link between the 1993 WTC towers bombing and Al Qaeda until Remsey Yousef was arrested in Pakistan in 1995. Bin Laden was mentioned as an unindicted co-conspirator in his 1997 trial. (Yousef was arrested at a house supposedly owned by Osama.) Clinton turned the 1993 bombing over to the FBI and they arrested and convicted 5 people in the plot, 5 more than have been convicted for the 9/11 attacks.

As for the Somalia in 1993 claim...

Quote:
The U.S. government did not learn of al-Qaeda's role in the attack until 1996, presumably from Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl.2,4

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/black_hawk_down.htm
quoting from the 9/11 report and the book "Black Hawk Down."

Parados...who's rewriting history?...I'd argue Clinton's the one most active in that arena. As I recall, Clinton was still president in 1996 when Al Queda role did come to light, according to your source. Yet Clinton failed to follow up with a forceful response (other than sending in the FBI). His efforts in the war on terror amounted to little more than has been done for decades in the war on druigs.

In 1996 the US was no longer in Somalia so who was involved in the raid wasn't about to lead to action. There was no real tie to Osama just to Al Qaeda in 1996. Your question does lead me to wonder why you don't feel the same way about Bush when the responsibility for the Cole was declared on Jan 19th, 2001. That declaration wasn't vague. If one should have responded forcefully to the information why shouldn't the other have the same requirements?

What do you think the cruise missile strikes were in 1998? I didn't realize the FBI had cruise missiles or that we used cruise missiles against drug dealers. You are the one rewriting history now slk.

0 Replies

It is usually silly to poll people on factual matters. I don't think physical scientists conduct polls in solving, e.g., medical research issues. The facts clearly show that Bush did nothing before 9/11, despite strong warnings. Clinton did what he could, but failed.

0 Replies

At least nimh's poll shows Republicans are more informed than Democrats concerning who is more to blame for not getting OBL.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

In 1996 the US was no longer in Somalia so who was involved in the raid wasn't about to lead to action. There was no real tie to Osama just to Al Qaeda in 1996. Your question does lead me to wonder why you don't feel the same way about Bush when the responsibility for the Cole was declared on Jan 19th, 2001. That declaration wasn't vague. If one should have responded forcefully to the information why shouldn't the other have the same requirements?

What do you think the cruise missile strikes were in 1998? I didn't realize the FBI had cruise missiles or that we used cruise missiles against drug dealers. You are the one rewriting history now slk.

[/quote]

I've never argued that Bush was any more active against terrorism before 9-11 than Clinton. However, Clinton and a lot of his democratic supporters are making the claim that he was very active in pursuing Bin Ladin, had a vibrant anti-terror campaign, but simply failed to get Bin Ladin. He continues that he left this strong anti-terror infrastructure in place but Bush neglectfully fired the director and allowed it to fall in disrepair.

That's just a flat-out lie on Clinton's part.

0 Replies

" In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Specifically, Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."

In fact, Gramm was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders. It should also be noted that Gramm's wife, Wendy, sat on the Enron Board of Directors."
source

0 Replies

Re: Bill Clinton Takes On Fox News

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

FULL TRANSCRIPT: Clinton Takes On Fox News
Today, President Bill Clinton taped an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, which is scheduled to be aired Sunday. He was told the interview would focus on his nonpartisan efforts to raise over $7 billion to combat the world's biggest problems.

Early in the interview, Wallace attempted to smear Clinton with the same kind of misinformation contained in ABC's Path to 9/11. Clinton was having none of it.

ThinkProgress has obtained a transcript of the interview. Here are some highlights -

Wallace repeats Path to 9/11 misinformation, Clinton fights back:

WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on Fox News Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I 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 which I suspect you've 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 US troops." Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole.

CLINTON: OK..

WALLACE: may I just finish the question sir. And after the attack, the book says, Bin Laden separated his leaders because he expected an attack and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is 20/20.

CLINTON: No let's talk about

WALLACE: but the question is why didn't you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

CLINTON: OK, let's talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits but I want to talk about the context of which this arises. I'm being asked this on the FOX networkABC just had a right wing conservative on the Path to 9/11 falsely claim that it was based on the 9/11 Commission report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report. 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. Same people.

Clinton takes on Fox News bias:

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?

CLINTON: No, because I didn't get him.

WALLACE: Right

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn'tI tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke So you did FOX's bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..

WALLACE: Now wait a minute sir

CLINTON:

WALLACE: I asked a question. You don't think that's a legitimate question?

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked: Why didn't you do anything about the Cole? I want to know how many you asked: Why did you fire Dick Clarke? I want to know

WALLACE: We asked

CLINTON:

WALLACE: Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday sir?

CLINTON: I don't believe you ask them that.

WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of

CLINTON: You didn't ask that did you? Tell the truth.

WALLACE: About the USS Cole?

CLINTON: Tell the truth.

WALLACE: Iwith Iraq and Afghanistan there's plenty of stuff to ask.

CLINTON: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on climate change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you'd spend half the time talking about

WALLACE: [laughs]

CLINTON: You said you'd spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion dollars plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don't care.

Clinton on his priorities and the Bush administration priorities:

CLINTON: What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now I never criticized President Bush and I don't think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke's book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you've got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you're so clever

WALLACE: [Laughs]

CLINTON: I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get Bin Laden. I regret it but I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending special forces into Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwiseWe could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. Until I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that's strange.

The full transcript here: http://thinkprogress.org/clinton-interview

Thank you for posting the full interview. I wasn't able to watch as I was involved in a meeting with a veterans organization, from 9:00AM - 1:00PM. There was no way for me to see the interview. I am the Legislative chairman for Veterans affairs in the state of NJ. I write to officials from the POTUS, down to local politicians. They say "all politics is local" and they're right! Clinton, showed any politician who plans to run for office, how to handle him/herself! Bush couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag, much less, defend himself, the way Clinton CAN and DID! What happened to the politicians, Democrat or Republican? They've lost their spine! They cave in to the whims of the dictatorial despots, we now have in office. They've stopped representing the "people" and cater ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY to Big Business! I plan on leaving the Democrats and becoming an Independant like Jeffords, so no politician can feel like I'm in their back pocket! We need more forceful individuals who stand by the people! Cool

0 Replies

What people on A2K need is a clue. What we have here are a bunch of uninformed euro-trash barely old enough to change their own diapers.

It was 1987. A witness was being drilled by a senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?"

He replied, "Yes, I did, Sir."

The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't that just a little excessive?"

"No, sir," continued the witness.

"No? And why not?" the senator asked.

"Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir."

"Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.

"By a terrorist, sir" he answered.

"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"

"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir" he replied.

At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. . Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked.

"Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of".

"And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator.

"Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."

The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.

By the way, that senator was Al Gore! The witness was Ollie North.

Those of this board who support the liberal agenda over anti-terrorism efforts should be ashamed.

0 Replies

Who helped you write such a long posting?

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Who helped you write such a long posting?

High fives, JTT!

0 Replies

Lash was whining about the "attack" on Bush I on CBS. What a load of crap!

Quote:

Was it an assault?

Fox News Chief Roger Ailes is up in arms over the now famous clash between former President Bill Clinton and Fox's Chris Wallace. He says Clinton had a "wild overreaction" and his "attack" on Wallace was "an assault on all journalists."

How supremely ironic that Roger Ailes would be saying this. On January 25th, 1988, it was Ailes who, sitting five feet away from then Vice President George H.W. Bush in his Senate office in the Capitol building, literally used cue cards to help orchestrate the now-famous Bush confrontation with Dan Rather over the Iran/Contra affair.

But the slam at Rather occurred only after Bush feigned surprise at his tough questioning. We know it was feigned because in an interview with ABC's Sam Donaldson in 2000, Bush himself, admitted that the GOP had a mole on the inside at CBS who gave them advance word of the questions Rather was going to ask.

And those of us who worked at CBS at the time also recall the Ailes-orchestrated telephone campaign from viewers "outraged" over Rather's show of "disrespect" to the Vice President. The phone calling onslaught was so effective it brought the CBS-New York switchboard to a grinding halt for nearly three days.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2006/09/was_it_an_assau.html

0 Replies

Bill Clinton Takes On Fox News

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know