Clinton on Fox

surferdude

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?"

onelongsong

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.

fragileblake

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

aNiMaL

jsand wrote:

You and Clinton have something in common - displaced anger. Congrats.

Well congrats to you as well for living life with blinders on!

jeffbr

fragileblake wrote:

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.

jeffbr

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.

RainDog

onelongsong wrote:

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.

aNiMaL

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!!!!

aNiMaL

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.

aNiMaL

onelongsong wrote:

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!!!

Milhouse VanHouten

onelongsong wrote:

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?

jsand

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%!!!!!!

aNiMaL

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.

DCGARDEN

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?

DCGARDEN

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

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

DCGARDEN

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

Milhouse VanHouten

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.

aNiMaL

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?

DCGARDEN

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 -

DCGARDEN

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

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