2
   

Bill Clinton Takes On Fox News

 
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Sep, 2006 08:32 pm
sumac wrote:
The Hungarians have been in the streets for over a week, because they were lied to, forcing new elections. And what do we do?


The difference is that the Hungarian PM actually admitted that both he and his party had lied shamelessly. Can you picture Dubya doing that?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Sep, 2006 09:12 pm
I'll say it again. The biggest lie Slickkk KKKlintler ever told was "I feel your pain."

A psychopath cannot do that. Moreover, Robert Hare, one of the world's most major experts on psychopaths and what makes them tick, notes ("Without Conscience") that there are other related things which psychopaths cannot do, particularly compute sequences of events and consider consequences. They will go on doing stupid things, such as porking teenage interns on government property during working hours, when the consequences of that would be obvious to most rational people.

The two failings are related. Julian Jaynes refers to the ability to empathise with others as an ability to form a psychic model or image of the other person and, likewise, the ability to deal with consequences is related to an ability to model sequences of events in ones mind.

Slick cannot do any of that well, nor can any other psychopath.

Edith Efron's description of the Slick whitehouse is full of descriptions of just such failings:

http://reason.com/9411/fe.efron.9411.shtml

Efron was a friend of Ayn Rand's and a heavyweight, and her article in Reason was published in 94, and the dems had to have known that Slick had major kinds of psychiatric issues no later than mid 93. They were absolutely obligated to pass the whitehouse to Algor at that time and pack Slick's sorry ass off to St. Elizabeth's Hospital or some such. Going to the wall as they did to keep Slick in power for eight years was positively criminal.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Sep, 2006 09:38 pm
Clinton is very irritated his legacy can be questioned by a measly little reporter. After all, he expects them all to fawn over him as they once did and as some still are naive enough to do. The man is not only a total fraud, but dangerous. Many of us knew it then, and it becomes more evident when you view interviews such as this. Its scary indeed this twisted man in this interview was president once.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Sep, 2006 10:10 pm
Clinton ripped the little turd a new one. Good for him!
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Sep, 2006 10:28 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
Clinton ripped the little turd a new one. Good for him!


Translation into plain english: Slick Klintler might be a lunatic psychopathic serial rapist, pathalogical liar and war criminal (Kosovo), but he's OUR lunatic psychopathic serial rapist, pathalogical liar, and war criminal.....
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Sep, 2006 10:43 pm
gungasnake wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
Clinton ripped the little turd a new one. Good for him!


Translation into plain english: ...


It's truly ironic that you, of all two legged creatures, would be ragging on psychopaths.

Way way way too close. I have to go have a shower.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Sep, 2006 10:49 pm
JTT wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
Clinton ripped the little turd a new one. Good for him!


Translation into plain english: ...


It's truly ironic that you, of all two legged creatures, would be ragging on psychopaths.

Way way way too close. I have to go have a shower.


Gungasnake is two-legged allright.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 05:19 am
Olbermans Comment

Quote:


And

Quote:



Gawd, I love Olberman for saying all of that.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 05:32 am
And from the same article;

Quote:


Yup, that's what our great war president is; a lying coward.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 05:44 am
JTT wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
Clinton ripped the little turd a new one. Good for him!


Translation into plain english: ...


It's truly ironic that you, of all two legged creatures, would be ragging on psychopaths.

Way way way too close. I have to go have a shower.


Note, I am not faulting Slickkk for BEING a psycho, which nobody could help. What I AM faulting is the de-mokkker-rat party for going to the wall to keep that lunatic in the whitehouse for eight years when they knew what they were dealing with. That's criminal. The dem party actually is what hamas makes Israel out to be, i.e. it has no right to exist.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 05:46 am
Roxxxanne wrote:


...Gungasnake is two-legged allright.


What would anybody living in SanFrancisco know about anything like that?

http://www.lanephotography.com/florida/birds/pink%20flamingo%20-%2001.JPG
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 06:25 am
Who wanted to "cut and run" from Somalia?

Quote:
...the accusation voiced this weekend by Chris Wallace in his Fox News interview with President Clinton (a favorite accusation of neoconservatives) that Clinton "emboldened" Al Qaeda when he withdrew American troops from Somalia as soon as we suffered casualties, which (so the neoconservative mythology contends) led Osama bin Laden to believe that we were weak and could be defeated.

President Clinton's response was refreshingly aggressive because the premise of the question is so patently and outrageously false. Clinton responded: "They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in 'Black Hawk down,' and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations."

As I document in the Salon post, that defense, if anything, is a profound understatement, because it was Clinton (along with Senate Democrats like John Kerry) who wanted to stay in Somalia because a precipitous withdrawal would be panicky and weak, but it was primarily conservatives in Congress -- mostly Republican Senators and some conservative Southern Democrats -- who were demanding that American troops be withdrawn immediately, and were even threatening to cut off all funds for our troop deployment.


See link above for statements made at the time (1993) concerning who wanted to "cut and run."
0 Replies
 
Atavistic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 06:35 am
Why do I have the feeling that while you people are ripping each other to shreds over these irrelevant trivialities, both Clinton, Bush, and the rest of them are sitting back laughing their tails off?? What a joke.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 06:40 am
okie wrote:
Clinton is very irritated his legacy can be questioned by a measly little reporter. After all, he expects them all to fawn over him as they once did and as some still are naive enough to do.
As has been evidenced by the whackadoodle comments from his supporters even within this thread...
okie wrote:
The man is not only a total fraud,
Well, I would not say he is a total fraud...close but not quite there. Oddly there is some level of reality lurking in him (much to his horror) however, he is totally incompetent...there's an 8 year track record to prove that.
okie wrote:
... dangerous.
Tragic result of his incompetence.
okie wrote:
Many of us knew it then, and it becomes more evident when you view interviews such as this. Its scary indeed this twisted man in this interview was president once.
Fortunately we have had George W. to help steer the country back into legitimacy and help it regain its strength.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 07:10 am

RICE BOILS OVER AT BUBBA


RIPS 'FLATLY FALSE' CLAIM ON BUSH'S BID
TO GET BIN LADEN


September 25, 2006 -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.

Rice hammered Clinton, who leveled his charges in a contentious weekend interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel, for his claims that the Bush administration "did not try" to kill Osama bin Laden in the eight months they controlled the White House before the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added.

The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton's claim that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice responded during the hourlong session.

Her strong rebuttal was the Bush administration's first response to Clinton's headline-grabbing interview on Fox on Sunday in which he launched into an over-the-top defense of his handling of terrorism - wagging his finger in the air, leaning forward in his chair and getting red-faced, and even attacking Wallace for improper questioning.

The "Fox News Sunday" show had its best ratings since the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003, according to Nielsen Media Research. Two versions of the interview were the two most-watched clips on YouTube yesterday, totaling more than 800,000 views.

After Clinton got angry during the questioning, Wallace said Clinton aide Jay Carson tried to get his producer to stop the interview. Carson said he was concerned that time was running out and that little of the philanthropy efforts of the former president had been addressed.

At The Post, Rice also touched on hot spots around the globe:

* On Iran: "There isn't a particularly good, direct way to neutralize the Iranian threat."
* On Iraq: "You're never going to have a just Sunni-Shia reconciliation if you don't have a political system in which the interests of all can be represented - and that's what Iraq represents."
* On Pakistan: "The future of Pakistan, as [President Pervez] Musharraf and his people fully understand, is to de-radicalize elements of the population."
* On the Middle East conflict: "It would help to have a moderate force in the Palestinian territories and to have the beginnings of rapprochement with Israel and the rest of its neighbors."
* On the Far East: "I would like to see an improvement in Japanese-China relations."

In her pointed rebuttal of Clinton's inflammatory claims about the war on terror, Rice maintained the Bush White House did the best it could to defend against an attack - and expanded on the tools and intelligence it inherited.

"I would just suggest that you go back and read the 9/11 commission report on the efforts of the Bush administration in the eight months - things like working to get an armed Predator [drone] that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important," Rice added.

She also said Clinton's claims that Richard Clarke - the White House anti-terror guru hyped by Clinton as the country's "best guy" - had been demoted by Bush were bogus.

"Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened. And he left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security, some several months later," she said.

Rice noted that the world changed after 9/11.

"I would make the divide Sept. 11, 2001, when the attack on this country mobilized us to fight the war on terror in a very different way," Rice said.

Rice cited the final 9/11 commission report to substantiate her claims, while Clinton relied on Clarke's book as the basis for many of his rehashing the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I think this is not a very fruitful discussion. We've been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said," she added.

Transitioning to the global war on terror, an animated Rice questioned, "When are we going to stop blaming ourselves for the rise of terrorism?"

Asked about recently leaked internal U.S. intelligence estimates that claimed the Iraq war was fueling terrorist recruiting, Rice said: "Now that we're fighting back, of course they are fighting back, too."

"I find it just extraordinary that the argument is, all right, so they're using the fact they're being challenged in the Middle East and challenged in Iraq to recruit, therefore you've made the war on terrorism worse.

"It's as if we were in a good place on Sept. 11. Clearly, we weren't," she added.

"These are people who want to fight against us, and they're going to find a reason. And yes, they will recruit, but it doesn't mean you stop pursuing strategies that are ultimately going to stop them," Rice said.

She insisted U.S. forces must finish the job in Iraq and the wider Middle East to wipe out the "root cause" of violent extremism - not just the terror thugs who carry out the attacks.

"It's a longer-term strategy, and it may even have some short-term down side, but if you don't look at the longer term, you're just leaving the problem to somebody else," she said.

She also said Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have a "major educational reform" effort under way to root out propaganda literature and extremist brainwashing.

In Latin America, home to outrageous Venezuelan bomb thrower Hugo Chavez, Rice said the U.S. approach is to "spend as little time possible in talking about Chavez and more time talking about our positive agenda in Latin America," including several trade agreements.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 07:25 am
Perhaps we should have congressional hearings to find out what Clinton left for the Bush administration concerning terrorism, a full and open investigation which I am sure the Bush administration would be more than willing to cooperate with. (<---- irony )
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 07:32 am
One basic reality people overlook is that W. did not have the usual four month transition period which incoming presidents usually have because of the attempted coup d'etat by Algor, and it likely took them a month and a half to two months to get the whitehouse itself back into usable condition after it was trashed by the outgoing KKKlintonistas. Earliest a Bush whitehouse could have been operational at all was March 01. That leaves six months tops till 9-11 and, during those six months, the agencies which should have been there to prevent 9/11 were still being run by dug-in KKKlintonistas and, in particular, the Jamie Gorilla "WALL" was still in place to prevent the FBI and CIA talking to eachother; that had been set up to prevent the FBI looking into chinagate which amounted to the sale of national assets to the chicoms for DNC cash.

Then the dems insisted that Jamie Gorilla sit on the 9/11 commission. I mean, when you look at it, we're lucky to be alive.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 08:12 am
gungasnake wrote:
Moreover, Robert Hare, one of the world's most major experts on psychopaths and what makes them tick, notes ("Without Conscience") that there are other related things which psychopaths cannot do, particularly compute sequences of events and consider consequences.

Care to quote the passage?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 08:20 am
McGentrix wrote:

RICE BOILS OVER AT BUBBA


RIPS 'FLATLY FALSE' CLAIM ON BUSH'S BID
TO GET BIN LADEN


September 25, 2006 -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.

Rice hammered Clinton, who leveled his charges in a contentious weekend interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel, for his claims that the Bush administration "did not try" to kill Osama bin Laden in the eight months they controlled the White House before the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added.

The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton's claim that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice responded during the hourlong session.

Her strong rebuttal was the Bush administration's first response to Clinton's headline-grabbing interview on Fox on Sunday in which he launched into an over-the-top defense of his handling of terrorism - wagging his finger in the air, leaning forward in his chair and getting red-faced, and even attacking Wallace for improper questioning.

The "Fox News Sunday" show had its best ratings since the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003, according to Nielsen Media Research. Two versions of the interview were the two most-watched clips on YouTube yesterday, totaling more than 800,000 views.

After Clinton got angry during the questioning, Wallace said Clinton aide Jay Carson tried to get his producer to stop the interview. Carson said he was concerned that time was running out and that little of the philanthropy efforts of the former president had been addressed.

At The Post, Rice also touched on hot spots around the globe:

* On Iran: "There isn't a particularly good, direct way to neutralize the Iranian threat."
* On Iraq: "You're never going to have a just Sunni-Shia reconciliation if you don't have a political system in which the interests of all can be represented - and that's what Iraq represents."
* On Pakistan: "The future of Pakistan, as [President Pervez] Musharraf and his people fully understand, is to de-radicalize elements of the population."
* On the Middle East conflict: "It would help to have a moderate force in the Palestinian territories and to have the beginnings of rapprochement with Israel and the rest of its neighbors."
* On the Far East: "I would like to see an improvement in Japanese-China relations."

In her pointed rebuttal of Clinton's inflammatory claims about the war on terror, Rice maintained the Bush White House did the best it could to defend against an attack - and expanded on the tools and intelligence it inherited.

"I would just suggest that you go back and read the 9/11 commission report on the efforts of the Bush administration in the eight months - things like working to get an armed Predator [drone] that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important," Rice added.

She also said Clinton's claims that Richard Clarke - the White House anti-terror guru hyped by Clinton as the country's "best guy" - had been demoted by Bush were bogus.

"Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened. And he left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security, some several months later," she said.

Rice noted that the world changed after 9/11.

"I would make the divide Sept. 11, 2001, when the attack on this country mobilized us to fight the war on terror in a very different way," Rice said.

Rice cited the final 9/11 commission report to substantiate her claims, while Clinton relied on Clarke's book as the basis for many of his rehashing the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I think this is not a very fruitful discussion. We've been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said," she added.

Transitioning to the global war on terror, an animated Rice questioned, "When are we going to stop blaming ourselves for the rise of terrorism?"

Asked about recently leaked internal U.S. intelligence estimates that claimed the Iraq war was fueling terrorist recruiting, Rice said: "Now that we're fighting back, of course they are fighting back, too."

"I find it just extraordinary that the argument is, all right, so they're using the fact they're being challenged in the Middle East and challenged in Iraq to recruit, therefore you've made the war on terrorism worse.

"It's as if we were in a good place on Sept. 11. Clearly, we weren't," she added.

"These are people who want to fight against us, and they're going to find a reason. And yes, they will recruit, but it doesn't mean you stop pursuing strategies that are ultimately going to stop them," Rice said.

She insisted U.S. forces must finish the job in Iraq and the wider Middle East to wipe out the "root cause" of violent extremism - not just the terror thugs who carry out the attacks.

"It's a longer-term strategy, and it may even have some short-term down side, but if you don't look at the longer term, you're just leaving the problem to somebody else," she said.

She also said Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have a "major educational reform" effort under way to root out propaganda literature and extremist brainwashing.

In Latin America, home to outrageous Venezuelan bomb thrower Hugo Chavez, Rice said the U.S. approach is to "spend as little time possible in talking about Chavez and more time talking about our positive agenda in Latin America," including several trade agreements.


If I were part of an administration that had been calling Clinton a pussy basiclally for all these years I believe I'd use different terminology than "we did at least as much as him" I guess that means thery're at least as tough as a pussy. Laughing
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 08:35 am
Quote:
Rice noted that the world changed after 9/11.


Yup, before 9/11 Rice and Powell said Iraq was not a threat. After 9/11 Iraq was suddenly a threat and miraculously acquired 500 tons of WMD.

Quote:
"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added.


Oh really. How many attacks were made on Al Qaeda in those eight months? Anyone know? I'm curious to know.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 09:11:55