Clinton on Fox

12467

Comments

  • jsandjsand Posts: 646
    To be fair, it was campaign season. He had to make sure to let the American people know who they should and shouldn't be scared of.

    "I don't think about Osama Bin Laden that much."

    Translation:

    "We can't find that lanky fucker for the life of us, so let's not talk about it. Vote Bush."

    Definitely.
  • jsand wrote:
    Again, it's all subjective. You can definitely argue the same point about Russert's interview (making sure he got the lefty cred).

    I'm not sure you can characterize Russert as being lefty, and if he is, he's sure as hell not as far left as Wallace is to the right.
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • jsandjsand Posts: 646
    RainDog wrote:
    I just realized that you're the same person I was responding to in another thread. I'm not stalking you, I swear.

    I'm just saying, it sounded like a Southern accent to me. And it sounded like he admitted that he failed. I don't know, maybe I misheard.

    One of the primary Republican tactics this election season is "let's dump the blame for this war on Clinton." It's an incorrect assessment, for one, and it needs to be countered directly. Better Clinton do it than anyone else. It's his character on the line, after all.

    If that's the way he is going about countering the attacks, I don't think it was effective at all.

    Re: the southern accent - Like I said, I've heard Clinton speak countless times, and his accent has never been that pronounced. That's why I accentuated the word "tried."
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    I was responding to what's-his-face's remark, "since when is it about winning and losing?".


    its ok, you can refer to me as jlew24asu, master, sir, whatever you like. maybe I should have phrased that remark different. wallace tried to "score" points but he is more of just interviewing and asking the questions as opposed to someone like Bill O'Reilly who is looking to win the arugment.
  • OpenOpen Posts: 792
    jsand wrote:
    Clinton is an incredible communicator. I would never argue that. In this instance, however, he came across as desperate and pathetic.

    Kind of like you are right now?
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Open wrote:
    Kind of like you are right now?


    is this necessary?
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    its ok, you can refer to me as jlew24asu, master, sir, whatever you like. maybe I should have phrased that remark different. wallace tried to "score" points but he is more of just interviewing and asking the questions as opposed to someone like Bill O'Reilly who is looking to win the arugment.

    Wallace's style was even more dumbassed than O'Reilly's, if that's possible. He was asking the questions, then attempting to move directly to the next one without really paying attention to the answers, and when President Clinton realized this, he snapped.
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • jsandjsand Posts: 646
    Open wrote:
    Kind of like you are right now?

    And the debate gets dragged down into mindless attacks. Nice job.
  • jsandjsand Posts: 646
    I'm not sure you can characterize Russert as being lefty, and if he is, he's sure as hell not as far left as Wallace is to the right.

    Absouletly correct- I was not trying to classify Russert as a lefty - his job is to be in the center, which he has done very well. My point was simply that his interview of Cheney communicated a lot of the left's arguments against the administration.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Wallace's style was even more dumbassed than O'Reilly's, if that's possible. He was asking the questions, then attempting to move directly to the next one without really paying attention to the answers, and when President Clinton realized this, he snapped.


    thats becuase its not his job to debate the answers, he just asks the questions. O'Reilly debates
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    thats becuase its not his job to debate the answers, he just asks the questions. O'Reilly debates

    The point of his job isn't just to ask the questions, but to give time for a response. He asked a very in depth question, and expected a one line answer. That's just dumb
  • jsand wrote:
    Absouletly correct- I was not trying to classify Russert as a lefty - his job is to be in the center, which he has done very well. My point was simply that his interview of Cheney communicated a lot of the left's arguments against the administration.

    I'd agree with that, but the arguement against the war isn't coming just from the left anymore, according to recent polls.
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/26/rice-clinton-plan/

    Rice Falsely Claims Clinton Administration Did Not Leave A ‘Strategy To Fight Al Qaeda’

    In her interview with the New York Post, Condoleezza Rice claims that the Clinton Administration did not develop a strategy to fight al Qaeda:

    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.

    Here’s what the 9/11 Commission Report has to say about it:

    As the Clinton administration drew to a close, Clarke and his staff developed a policy paper of their own [which] 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 …[including] 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 and Taliban military and command assets. The paper also expressed concern about the presence of al Qaeda operatives in the United States.” [p. 197]

    Clarke, who also worked for the Bush administration, wrote Condoleezza Rice a memo as soon as the Bush administration took office, stating, “[W]e urgently need…a Principals level review of the al Qida network.” His request was denied.
  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    Why do so many people equate being a good debater and speaker with being a good president?

    In some ways Clinton was too smart for his own good as president. He seemed to think he had all the answers and didn't listen to expert advise. That seems pretty unpresidential to me.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    surferdude wrote:
    Why do so many people equate being a good debater and speaker with being a good president?

    In some ways Clinton was too smart for his own good as president. He seemed to think he had all the answers and didn't listen to expert advise. That seems pretty unpresidential to me.
    Oh yeah, like GW has listened to experts....hahahahahaha

    President Clinton did way more for the better of this country and the world than GW can even imagine doing.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    surferdude wrote:
    Why do so many people equate being a good debater and speaker with being a good president?

    In some ways Clinton was too smart for his own good as president. He seemed to think he had all the answers and didn't listen to expert advise. That seems pretty unpresidential to me.
    I never said he was a great president, I didn't even vote for him (although compared to what we've got now, he's a regular Thomas Jefferson). I just thought he made Chris Matthews look like an even bigger twit than usual and I enjoyed watching it.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    jsand wrote:
    I guess that explains Clinton's embarrasing episode on Fox.
    Embarrasing; how...and for whom?

    I couldn't have been more proud of him and of what he said.
  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    aNiMaL wrote:
    Oh yeah, like GW has listened to experts....hahahahahaha

    President Clinton did way more for the better of this country and the world than GW can even imagine doing.
    Well, I never compared Clinton to Bush in any way. Thanks for the insightful comparison.

    One often overlooked Clinton trait is his Foreign Affairs policies were pretty much straight out of the neo-con playbook. Including illegal bombings of Kosovo.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • jeffbrjeffbr Posts: 7,177
    It was sleazy of Fox to bring Clinton on to talk about his current work raising money and instead hit him with the Osama stuff.

    On the other hand, the only other time Clinton go so defensive with a reporter was during the Lewinsky thing. Clinton didn't looked dignified and presidential. He looked pissed, overly-sensitive, and quite defensive about having dropped the ball.

    Both sides of that interview came out looking bad from where I'm sitting.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    jsand wrote:
    How this tiradecould be described as "impressive" and "powerful" is beyond me.
    Let’s see; it was well thought out, well spoken, and factual.....albeit a tad angry ...but rightfully so. I would say that, without a doubt that qualifies as "impressive and powerful."
  • jeffbrjeffbr Posts: 7,177
    lame, looks like fox had all the youtube links taken down in an effort to not further thier embarassment

    Wrong, as has been mentioned.

    But also wrong on the embarassment claim. Fox has it as their top video on foxnews.com right on their front page.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    jsand wrote:
    Clinton is an incredible communicator. I would never argue that. In this instance, however, he came across as desperate and pathetic.
    Hardly...that better describes how GW has come across his entire presidency.
  • nice song and dance in the usual clinton fasion. interesting how he repeated that he tried to have another person assassinated. don't bother declaring war against an attack; assassinate everyone you THINK needs to be dead.
    and he had plans drawn up to go to war. i thought the war was bush's fault. at least clinton stuck to his DO NOTHING policy.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    nice song and dance in the usual clinton fasion. interesting how he repeated that he tried to have another person assassinated. don't bother declaring war against an attack; assassinate everyone you THINK needs to be dead.
    and he had plans drawn up to go to war. i thought the war was bush's fault. at least clinton stuck to his DO NOTHING policy.
    The war in IRAQ is Bush's fault. Clinton was talking about Osama in AFGHANISTAN. Let's keep our countries straight here.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    aNiMaL wrote:
    Let’s see; it was well thought out, well spoken, and factual.....albeit a tad angry ...but rightfully so. I would say that, without a doubt that qualifies as "impressive and powerful."


    well spoken? he could have done much better then that
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    jsand wrote:
    He sounded like a moron to me - "I traaad, I traaad but I failed." Great.
    No seriously.....if you are trying that weak ass card here.....GW doesn't even have the reading or public speaking skills of a 2nd grader.
  • hippiemom wrote:
    The war in IRAQ is Bush's fault. Clinton was talking about Osama in AFGHANISTAN. Let's keep our countries straight here.

    we are at war in afganistan. and fighting al quida in iraq. an enemy is an enemy no matter where they sleep.
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    well spoken? he could have done much better then that

    a monkey could have done better. he was falling all over himself and trying to censor the questions.
    boo hoo you didn't ask the other side those questions.
  • jsandjsand Posts: 646
    aNiMaL wrote:
    No seriously.....if you are trying that weak ass card here.....GW doesn't even have the reading or public speaking skills of a 2nd grader.

    You and Clinton have something in common - displaced anger. Congrats.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    we are at war in afganistan. and fighting al quida in iraq. an enemy is an enemy no matter where they sleep.
    People aren't criticizing Bush because he went into Afghanistan ... on the contrary, many think that the biggest problem with the war in Iraq was that it distracted us from our mission in Afghanistan. Clinton had plans to invade Afghanistan, not Iraq. So, you see, there is no contradiction.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Sign In or Register to comment.