You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Clinton Meltdown On Fox News
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
Quote from hapaboy:
Uh yeah, the script where you, being intellectually dishonest, have refused to define what a "poodle" is to you in the political context you keep referring to, despite the fact that I explained what a moonbat is to you.
Same old same old...
hap, you're giving ratgirl waaaaaaay too much credit. She has no idea what she's talking about, or what 'poodle' means. Remember, this is the same chicky-poo who claimed that President Bush and his daughters planned and carried out the attacks on the WTC.
Nothing more needs to be said.
Re: Clinton's blowup... yes, he'll probably regret it, but Fox-boy was clearly baiting him and when the President asked him whether he asked these same question of the right, he had no answer. President Clinton kept hammering him and he just went 'Uhhh, uhhh, well I...errr, uhhh'. The smirk on his face was clear for everyone to see and shows that he doesn't have the chops to conduct an interview with a former President. Claiming that he wasn't smirking is kind of weird - after all, there is the small matter of the tape.
The best part is Wallace's characterization of his question as 'non-confrontational'. Errr....
Asking only the President whether he felt he did enough, in light of what we now know about the warnings of terrorist attacks using airplanes as bombs which were received by the White House in the weeks before 9/11 and the fact that the FBI had two of the 9/11 bombers on their watch lists but these same two guys were able to board the planes under their own names, is partisan at best.
Neither the right nor the left has any monopoly on the intelligence/tactical errors that resulted in our inability to prevent 9/11.
_______________________________
Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade
iustus ignarus troll
Yeah, you're probably right. It's just that I have faith in the human race, and keep hoping ratgirl will reach puberty and mature, but perhaps she's just stuck in pre-adolescence, much like the resident troll.Quote from traderNik:
hap, you're giving ratgirl waaaaaaay too much credit. Se has no idea what she's talking about. Remember, this is the same chicky-poo who claimed that President Bush and his daughters planned and carried out the attacks on the WTC.
Nothing more needs to be said.
Well Nik, I disagree that he was baiting Clinton. He asked the question, a legitimate question, one that has not been asked during this liberal media love fest tour he's been on, and then Slick Willy went ballistic. Wallace was, as he said, stunned at Willy's reaction. And you know whenever he starts to wag that finger....well....where have we seen that before?Re: Clinton's blowup... yes, he'll probably regret it, but Fox-boy was clearly baiting him and when the President asked him whether he asked these same question of the right, he had no answer. President Clinton kept hammering him and he just went 'Uhhh, uhhh, well I...errr, uhhh'.
I agree that there were failures on both sides, particularly the "wall" that prevented the agencies from communicating with each other and FBI HQ's unwillingness to further pursue the reports from the agent about the flight schools. The problem of course with Clinton is that he makes it sound like he was Mr. Joe Prez On the Trail of Bin Laden, when in fact he had the opportunity - more than once - to get him, and he did not. His statements were pathetically contradictory to the historical timeline, statements he himself made in the past, and the words of Richard Clarke himself who Clinton kept referring to while he went apeshit.Asking only the President whether he felt he did enough, in light of what we now know about the warnings of terrorist attacks using airplanes as bombs which were received by the White House in the weeks before 9/11 and the fact that the FBI had two of the 9/11 bombers on their watch lists but these same two guys were able to board the planes under their own names, is partisan at best.
Neither the right nor the left has any monopoly on the intelligence/tactical errors that resulted in our inability to prevent 9/11.
Personally I thought it was great that Willy again exposed what a liar he is. It's a good reminder to the American people about what's in store for us if his wife-in-name-only ever accedes to the Oval Office.
Not a bad way to be, hap, regardless of what the skeptics say.Quote from hapaboy:
Yeah, you're probably right. It's just that I have faith in the human race
Quote from hapaboy:
Well Nik, I disagree that he was baiting Clinton. He asked the question, a legitimate question, one that has not been asked during this liberal media love fest tour he's been on, and then Slick Willy went ballistic. Wallace was, as he said, stunned at Willy's reaction. And you know whenever he starts to wag that finger....well....where have we seen that before?
lol... you mean when he said "I did not have sex with.... that... woman"?
I got the impression that his blow-up was a result of bad preparation. Look, he's getting interviewed by a group of people who think he's a total f**k-up. He has to be anticipating some heat. Then when it comes he loses it. That was a mistake, no doubt about it.
Well hap, he did say at least twice (and more, I think) that he 'failed' in his efforts to get OBL. I'm sure that this admission seemed to some to be at odds with the overall tone of his statements, essentially a throwaway. He may have said some other things that were known contradictions, I'm not sure.Quote from hapaboy:
The problem of course with Clinton is that he makes it sound like he was Mr. Joe Prez On the Trail of Bin Laden, when in fact he had the opportunity - more than once - to get him, and he did not. His statements were pathetically contradictory to the historical timeline
With regard to anyone's ability to 'get' OBL... you have to admit that if the US was unable to get him after 9/11, when the entire might of the US Army was available for the task and the public was calling for his head and would have supported any mission, then he seems to be a hard guy to get. Is the idea that he would have been easier to get pre-9/11, when Clinton had his chance? Maybe.
You know, in writing this, it occurs to me that Clinton probably feels pretty keenly the unspoken charge implicit in some of these questions; that is, that he was in some small way responsible for 9/11 in the sense that he didn't get OBL when he could have. That's a heavy charge. Of course it's no lighter when levelled at the current President.
Anyhow, yes, he blew up and again, he will probably regret it in the morning. I wonder what Hilary will have to say about it...
_______________________________
Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade
iustus ignarus troll
Nik, do some research on the opportunities Clinton had to "get" OBL. Possibly the only thing Clinton said in the Fox interview that was true - other than he failed - was that he came closer than anyone else had to getting bin Laden.Quote from traderNik:
With regard to anyone's ability to 'get' OBL... you have to admit that if the US was unable to get him after 9/11, when the entire might of the US Army was available for the task and the public was calling for his head and would have supported any mission, then he seems to be a hard guy to get. Is the idea that he would have been easier to get pre-9/11, when Clinton had his chance? Maybe.
He did.
Check it out; I think you'll find it very interesting.
Peace,
H
___________________________
Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade
Iustus ignarus troll
Quote from hapaboy:
Nik, do some research on the opportunities Clinton had to "get" OBL.
Check it out; I think you'll find it very interesting.
___________________________
Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade
Iustus ignarus troll
Ok hap, I'll check it out. I need to understand exactly when he switched from being a mujahideen (fighting the Soviets) to declaring war on America, but I thought it was somewhere around 1996, which would make it 1/2 way through Clinton's presidency. I'm not an OBL expert by any means.
________________________________
Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade
Iustus ignarus troll
so what?
its fun to watch u guys wallowing in denial like the average neocon but... OBL was nowhere near a major threat, even less a world-famous public figure, in clinton years... he only became that under the most aggressive and antagonistic administration in decades... cld there be a connection?... maybe not... but point is he elevated himself by giving bush and the neocons the finger for 5 years... how cld he do that? because he's got SUPPORT, sthg bush & the neocons don't and will never have, beyond lip service of course... capice morons?
but trying to shift the blame away is plain pathetic... doesn't surprise me to see hapa promoting such concepts though...
its fun to watch u guys wallowing in denial like the average neocon but... OBL was nowhere near a major threat, even less a world-famous public figure, in clinton years... he only became that under the most aggressive and antagonistic administration in decades... cld there be a connection?... maybe not... but point is he elevated himself by giving bush and the neocons the finger for 5 years... how cld he do that? because he's got SUPPORT, sthg bush & the neocons don't and will never have, beyond lip service of course... capice morons?
but trying to shift the blame away is plain pathetic... doesn't surprise me to see hapa promoting such concepts though...
Fukuyama, April 9, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...yama9apr09,1,2307957.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
"What has infuriated many people is President Bush's unwillingness to admit that he made any mistakes whatsoever in the whole Iraq adventure. On the other hand, critics who assert that they knew with certainty before the war that it would be a disaster are, for the most part, speaking with a retrospective wisdom to which they are not entitled.
Many people have noted the ever-increasing polarization of American politics, reflected in news channels and talk shows that cater to narrowly ideological audiences, and in a House of Representatives that has redistricted itself into homogeneous constituencies in which few members have to appeal to voters with diverse opinions. This polarization has been vastly amplified by Iraq: Much of the left now considers the war not a tragic policy mistake but a deliberate criminal conspiracy, and the right attacks the patriotism of those who question the war.
This kind of polarization affects a range of other complex issues as well: You can't be a good Republican if you think there may be something to global warming, or a good Democrat if you support school choice or private Social Security accounts. Political debate has become a spectator sport in which people root for their team and cheer when it scores points, without asking whether they chose the right side. Instead of trying to defend sharply polarized positions taken more than three years ago, it would be far better if people could actually take aboard new information and think about how their earlier commitments, honestly undertaken, actually jibe with reality â even if this does on occasion require changing your mind. "
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...yama9apr09,1,2307957.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
"What has infuriated many people is President Bush's unwillingness to admit that he made any mistakes whatsoever in the whole Iraq adventure. On the other hand, critics who assert that they knew with certainty before the war that it would be a disaster are, for the most part, speaking with a retrospective wisdom to which they are not entitled.
Many people have noted the ever-increasing polarization of American politics, reflected in news channels and talk shows that cater to narrowly ideological audiences, and in a House of Representatives that has redistricted itself into homogeneous constituencies in which few members have to appeal to voters with diverse opinions. This polarization has been vastly amplified by Iraq: Much of the left now considers the war not a tragic policy mistake but a deliberate criminal conspiracy, and the right attacks the patriotism of those who question the war.
This kind of polarization affects a range of other complex issues as well: You can't be a good Republican if you think there may be something to global warming, or a good Democrat if you support school choice or private Social Security accounts. Political debate has become a spectator sport in which people root for their team and cheer when it scores points, without asking whether they chose the right side. Instead of trying to defend sharply polarized positions taken more than three years ago, it would be far better if people could actually take aboard new information and think about how their earlier commitments, honestly undertaken, actually jibe with reality â even if this does on occasion require changing your mind. "
Quote from hapaboy:
Uh yeah, the script where you, being intellectually dishonest, have refused to define what a "poodle" is to you in the political context you keep referring to, despite the fact that I explained what a moonbat is to you.
Same old same old...
i never asked what a moonbat was... get your facts straight. you kept referring to me inaccurately and i corrected you.