Clinton on Fox

12357

Comments

  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    hippiemom wrote:
    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.
    I guess the question that wasn't asked is "Would Clinton have gotten an Afghanistan endevour to be a multi-country NATO mission like Bush did or another illegal mission like Kosovo?"
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • as i remember; bush declared world war; saying we will hunt the enemy no matter where they go. every country was put on notice. iraq's giving money to the hijackers families was a slap in the face and a challenge which said "i'm going to support terrorism; what are you going to do about it". so we showed them.
  • jeffbr wrote:
    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.

    Okay smartass click on this link
    http://youtube.com/results?search_query=clinton+fox+interview
    click on the first result

    It says:
    "This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner Fox News Network, LLC because its content was used without permission "

    I guess they may have taken it down so youtube isn't stealing traffic that could be going to thier site, but you can see that it was Fox that requested the clips be taken down
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    jsand wrote:
    You and Clinton have something in common - displaced anger. Congrats.
    Well congrats to you as well for living life with blinders on!
  • jeffbrjeffbr Posts: 7,177
    Okay smartass

    You're cute when you're angry. Do you turn purple like Clinton?

    My response acknowledged that subsequent posters provided you youtube links. My post was to dispute your erroneous claim that Fox was embarrassed, which they clearly aren't.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • jeffbrjeffbr Posts: 7,177
    hippiemom wrote:
    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.

    This is what I've said a few times here. People (on both sides) have trouble separating the two conflicts. I think Afghanistan was totally justified, and if we hadn't lost focus due to Iraq we would have been successful. Iraq did nothing but take away focus, destabalize a region, and bring al Qaida into Iraq. It was ill-advised to begin with and it went downhill from there.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    we are at war in afganistan. and fighting al quida in iraq. an enemy is an enemy no matter where they sleep.
    I see. Invite the enemy to sleep in someone else's bed then burn that bed to the ground. Can't understand why someone would be upset. I mean, all we did was invite criminals into their home and then use said criminals as justification for busting down their front door and never leaving.
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    hippiemom wrote:
    The war in IRAQ is Bush's fault. Clinton was talking about Osama in AFGHANISTAN. Let's keep our countries straight here.
    Exactly!!!!
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    jlew24asu wrote:
    well spoken? he could have done much better then that
    Oh dude, compared to the current president, President Clinton in a phenomenal speaker even when he's pissed. If and when GW is in the same situation, 6 years removed from office and defending himself on an opposing News Network, getting pissed he won’t even be able to form an original thought.
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    we are at war in afganistan. and fighting al quida in iraq. an enemy is an enemy no matter where they sleep.
    Yes, but let’s realize and not forget why Iraq is the current breeding ground for terrorism....that, without a doubt is Bush's fault...100%!!! His decision to go to war in Iraq when at that time they had nothing to do with the war on terror is George W. Bush's fault all the way!!!
  • as i remember; bush declared world war; saying we will hunt the enemy no matter where they go. every country was put on notice. iraq's giving money to the hijackers families was a slap in the face and a challenge which said "i'm going to support terrorism; what are you going to do about it". so we showed them.

    Yeah, we're really showing them... I bet they're shaking in their sandals over there in Iraq.

    By the way, did you see the story about that new National Intelligence Estimate that says that the War on Terror and the Iraq War in in particular has probably created a whole new generation of terrorists?
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • jsandjsand Posts: 646
    aNiMaL wrote:
    Yes, but let’s realize and not forget why Iraq is the current breeding ground for terrorism....that, without a doubt is Bush's fault...100%!!! His decision to go to war in Iraq when at that time they had nothing to do with the war on terror is George W. Bush's fault all the way!!!

    Yeah!!! It's all Bush's fault!! He obviously created the hatred between the Sunni and Shiia Muslims, and he obviously forced those poor people to strap bombs on themselves!!! 100%!!!!!!
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    jsand wrote:
    Yeah!!! It's all Bush's fault!!
    The fact that Bush lost focus on the war on terror (that is to give him a little credit that he ever was focused on the war on terror) and instead attacked a country that had nothing to do with the war on terror, is GW Bush's fault.

    I never said 9/11 was all Bush's fault....quite the contrary. At least Clinton admits where he failed in his presidency...but as he also says, at least he tried by being PROactive. Unlike the hapless Bush who only REacted.
  • jsand wrote:
    There certainly have been remarks made by GW that are impressive and powerful. Does Clinton have more charisma, and is he more eloquent? Absolutely. But to describe what he did in that interview as impressive or powerful is ridiculous.


    Absolutely correct. Look, I mean I don't think you can really just pin it all on Clinton, but this was nothing more than Clinton being a bully and trying to intimidate rather than answer the questions at hand. Wallace brought it up and Clinton could have made it clear that he did not want to go there, or chosen to just state his case. Instead, we get the hot-faced, baby crap with the tough guy finger pointing and lean-in towards the interviewer's face.
    I think he should be embarrassed that someone of his stature was even drawn into such a response.

    Did Wallace hit a sore point there....Slick Willie?
    I'll keep taking punches
    Untill their will grows tired
  • 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.


    Tell me your joking

    If Russert put as much energy into grilling Democrats as he does Republicans, he'd be the # 1 guy in the world - hands down - he's smart, he's good, but he's biased as hell
    I'll keep taking punches
    Untill their will grows tired
  • hippiemom wrote:
    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.

    Actually in a book by Tommy Franks, he is emphatic that the troop levels at the start of the Iraq war were the same in Afghanistan as they were before the Iraqi build-up
    I'll keep taking punches
    Untill their will grows tired
  • DCGARDEN wrote:
    Absolutely correct. Look, I mean I don't think you can really just pin it all on Clinton, but this was nothing more than Clinton being a bully and trying to intimidate rather than answer the questions at hand. Wallace brought it up and Clinton could have made it clear that he did not want to go there, or chosen to just state his case. Instead, we get the hot-faced, baby crap with the tough guy finger pointing and lean-in towards the interviewer's face.
    I think he should be embarrassed that someone of his stature was even drawn into such a response.

    Did Wallace hit a sore point there....Slick Willie?

    Wrong. Wallace's only purpose in asking the question was to ask it, ignore the answer, and move on. He really didn't seem interested in hearing President Clinton's explanation. Clinton realized that and then decided to make sure he made his point. It might have been a bit over the top, but from what I've seen of the "journalists" on Fox News, yelling over them might be the only way to get them to shut the fuck up so you can answer their questions.
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    DCGARDEN wrote:
    Did Wallace hit a sore point there....Slick Willie?
    So, you are saying that if a large, vocal group of people continually kept trying to falsely portray you to the public that you wouldn’t get upset? Are you not human?
  • aNiMaL wrote:
    So, you are saying that if a large, vocal group of people continually kept trying to falsely portray you to the public that you wouldn’t get upset? Are you not human?

    Falsify what exactly? Falsely portray what? Clinton finger pointing and getting mad does not mean that he was telling the truth. That man put his penis first and the enemy second. Believe it. Say what you will about Bush, we got hit, he hit back. BJ Clinton developed a very disturbing pattern of handling this shit, and now he wants to re-write history. Does'nt work that way. He did a lot of good things, was a great speaker, but don't confuse what you want a president to be with what the man actually was -
    I'll keep taking punches
    Untill their will grows tired
  • Wrong. Wallace's only purpose in asking the question was to ask it, ignore the answer, and move on. He really didn't seem interested in hearing President Clinton's explanation. Clinton realized that and then decided to make sure he made his point. It might have been a bit over the top, but from what I've seen of the "journalists" on Fox News, yelling over them might be the only way to get them to shut the fuck up so you can answer their questions.


    Wallace's only purpose huh? You speak to him recently?

    Didn't seem intersted in hearing the explanation? There was no explanation. There was a very powerful and angry man pointing at him and getting bent out of shape - exactly how is an interviewer supposed to complete the interview in that type of fashion - be fair

    If Clinton truly did'nt know he was going to be asked about that stuff, if you really believe that, you are naive. That man is the most politically conscious man alive - he knew what was coming - and he was far from presidential in his response - sorry
    I'll keep taking punches
    Untill their will grows tired
  • people need to wake up.

    we are witnessing an attempt by the Right to re-write history...and right before our very eyes.

    same tactic the used to justify the war. Have the blowhards on the right talk up a sadaam/ al queda connection. next thing you know, it becomes mainstream fodder. Some believe that to be fact.

    if we do not confront the right on this issue, 20 years from now, 9/11 will be Clinton's fault.
    those undecided, needn't have faith to be free
  • bryanfury wrote:

    if we do not confront the right on this issue, 20 years from now, 9/11 will be Clinton's fault.


    9/11 was a failure and a shared responsibility by both Administrations that resulted from not being able to connect the dots. If you can put your politics aside for a second, take the word of the 9/11 commission on this -

    Both presidents fucked up
    I'll keep taking punches
    Untill their will grows tired
  • DCGARDEN wrote:
    9/11 was a failure and a shared responsibility by both Administrations that resulted from not being able to connect the dots. If you can put your politics aside for a second, take the word of the 9/11 commission on this -

    Both presidents fucked up

    honestly, i could care less about Clinton. And the Right isn;t saying this is a shared responsibility. they are saying it was clinton's fault, and that Dubya inherited his mistakes.

    But if we want to start going back, let's look at who made osama the hero he is to muslims.

    It was during the Reagan years (and we all know who his VP was) that Bin Laden really established himself as a leader. no George Bush Sr. (both as CIA director and VP), no bin laden.
    those undecided, needn't have faith to be free
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    aNiMaL wrote:
    Oh dude, compared to the current president, President Clinton in a phenomenal speaker even when he's pissed. If and when GW is in the same situation, 6 years removed from office and defending himself on an opposing News Network, getting pissed he won’t even be able to form an original thought.

    im not debating that. clinton looked like an ass is all im saying. i wouldnt have said he was well spoken that day
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    jlew24asu wrote:
    clinton looked like an ass is all im saying.
    Hey, guess what; I've got an ass hole too! ;)
  • aNiMaL wrote:
    Hey, guess what; I've got an ass hole too! ;)

    yes, thanks to the editing of FOX news (ala the Dean Scream), they chop the interview up to make Clinton seem like an ogre.

    if that little fucker kept smirking at me the way he was, i'd have pimp slapped him.
    those undecided, needn't have faith to be free
  • DCGARDEN wrote:
    Wallace's only purpose huh? You speak to him recently?

    Didn't seem intersted in hearing the explanation? There was no explanation. There was a very powerful and angry man pointing at him and getting bent out of shape - exactly how is an interviewer supposed to complete the interview in that type of fashion - be fair

    If Clinton truly did'nt know he was going to be asked about that stuff, if you really believe that, you are naive. That man is the most politically conscious man alive - he knew what was coming - and he was far from presidential in his response - sorry

    Oh Jesus Christ, come on. Since when is fingerpointing and yelling a problem on Fox News?

    I'm sure he did know that the Bin Laden question was coming, and he definitely could have answered it in a more "presidential" manner. I'm also sure that after 14 years of vicious personal attacks on myself and my family by the right wing media, I might get pretty pissed off, too.
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    DCGARDEN wrote:
    Falsify what exactly? Falsely portray what? Clinton finger pointing and getting mad does not mean that he was telling the truth. That man put his penis first and the enemy second. Believe it. Say what you will about Bush, we got hit, he hit back. BJ Clinton developed a very disturbing pattern of handling this shit, and now he wants to re-write history. Does'nt work that way. He did a lot of good things, was a great speaker, but don't confuse what you want a president to be with what the man actually was -
    So, you are against a president having sex of any kind, huh? That's all you got from the GOP is that? Sorry getting a blow job is against your religious morals....but Clinton did way more for this country and for the better of this country than Bush has ever even thought about. Bush was way too focused on finishing his daddy's war in Iraq to ever try and find Bin laden or get the terrorist who attacked us.
  • enharmonicenharmonic Posts: 1,917
    DCGARDEN wrote:
    Falsify what exactly? Falsely portray what? Clinton finger pointing and getting mad does not mean that he was telling the truth. That man put his penis first and the enemy second. Believe it. Say what you will about Bush, we got hit, he hit back. BJ Clinton developed a very disturbing pattern of handling this shit, and now he wants to re-write history. Does'nt work that way. He did a lot of good things, was a great speaker, but don't confuse what you want a president to be with what the man actually was -

    This is a complete lie, but you certainly have your talking points down. Clinton is absolutely right...the same people who stopped him from focusing on Bin Ladin are now trying to paint him as incompetent when it came to defending our country from terror. Prior to Clinton, we had Bush Sr., a man perhaps more single handedly responsible for terrorism thoughout the world than any other power broker since the Roman Empire.

    Hate to break it to you, but 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and was facilitated by the Republican's obsession with Clinton's penis. Even still...Bush had the full power of the US government at his disposal for 8 months before 9/11, and was powerless to stop what happened.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    aNiMaL wrote:
    So, you are against a president having sex of any kind, huh? That's all you got from the GOP is that? Sorry getting a blow job is against your religious morals....but Clinton did way more for this country and for the better of this country than Bush has ever even thought about. Bush was way too focused on finishing his daddy's war in Iraq to ever try and find Bin laden or get the terrorist who attacked us.


    well thats not entirely true. el queda is in iraq hence the name "el queda in iraq"
Sign In or Register to comment.