Did you see President Bill Clinton on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace? Even the moderate-to-liberal commentators wondered about his hyperventilation to a simple question about his administration's handling of Osama bin Laden. Hit a nerve Bill? His attack on the reporter, with the all-too-familiar squint (for maximum effect) and pointing finger (reminiscent of "I did not have..." fame) was beneath a former president.
Looks like having ABC's (you know, that vast right wing conservative network) “The Path to 9/11” actually spread the blame around to all administrations must really have gotten under his skin.
Joanie said, "with the all-too-familiar squint (for maximum effect) and pointing finger (reminiscent of “I did not have”¦” fame) was beneath a former president."
When it comes to making faces and pointing for maximum effect, it's hard to beat the rich little texas cowboy, "Snarlin' George Bush", the guy who had OBL in his sights and lost him.
I think Clinton showed how he got elected president twice during a Republican, conservative era. He is a formidable man and he makes his points emphatically and clearly.
I was extremely proud of Clinton during that interview. It's about time someone of stature called Fox "News" on its right-wing pandering.
Sounded good to me.
If clearly and forcefully defending oneself against unfounded charges constitutes being "unhinged," then I hope to see more members of the reality-based community becoming unhinged in the future.
> pointing finger (reminiscent of “I did not have”¦” fame)...
His only mistake on that was not saying, "That is none of your damned business, and even if it is true, it has no effect on my effectiveness."
even if it is true, it has no effect on my effectiveness.”ÂÂ
Oh, but it *did* have an effect and you're in denial if you think it didn't.
Clinton was asked a reasonable question by a very polite interviewer. Clinton's reactions was intimidating and overbearing. There is no excuse for his behavior. The fact that he hadn't been asked the same question, in his various other interviews reveals, that the press is blatantly biased, easily intimidated, or simply incompetent.
When Bush was talking with Matt Lauer a while back, he strongly defended his positions without resorting to talking about left-wingers and left-wing media bias, or telling Lauer to get the smirk off of his face, or asking Matt why he doesn't ask tough questions to his political opponents, or telling him to go read a book of one of his supporters.
What was that theory he presented... about Wallace being hard on him to appease Fox News viewers because Murdock gave money to his fund?
I think if Bush responded to Lauer the way Clinton responded to Wallace, the Clinton supporters above wouldn't consider it a strong and compelling defense of his positions.
> Oh, but it *did* have an effect and you're in denial if you think it didn't.
Of course it had an effect, he went through impeachment proceedings! Impeachment because he lied about a personal affair. Why we don't impeach Bush now because of lies about entering Iraq, torture, wiretapping...well, that's the depressing effect of partisan politics.
> Clinton's reactions was intimidating and overbearing.
Ok, so he was overbearing because he *actually answered* a very loaded question in the context of ABC's fictional path to 9/11. If he would have just given a two sentence response and went on to immediately discuss the remarkable Clinton Global Initiative, you would have said he dodged the question.
I don't know what's the big deal. We all know Clinton lied under oath and has fewer morals than a light bulb. Maybe he was just kidding around and didn't mean any of it. Maybe he didn't understand the question. Remember: he doesn't know what the definition of "is" is.
It was good to hear answers, discussion and a definite stand taken by a politician. I so tire of the continous, short, non-sentence, criptic, non-factual speak of GWB.
GWB would never consent to be on with Wallace even if the questions were received and scripted prior.
Well, props to Fox News. They managed to do two very important things.
First, they distracted attention from this article, which outlines in detail how the Iraq War has actually served to increase the threat against our country. Lots of "Liberal Elites" like myself have been saying this for years now. It's good to see it is now part of the political record.
Not that you'd know that from watching Fox, of course.
Second, they managed to make a really big issue out of nothing. Which is great. Chris Wallace comes across as a cross between Jeff Gannon and a guy you see leaving a porn store, while Clinton comes off as a man with passion defending his position. No matter how hard the airheads on Fox tried to spin this, every time they show the clip Americans are reminded what it looks like to stand up to sleeze.
Thank you, Fox News, and Joan Dykstra. We know you only did it for ratings, and to distract from the real news of the day --- but in the end it shows that the Democrats are passionate about the so-called War on Terror.
Ka-ching!
It's pretty obvious that Clinton is carrying around a lot of guilt about missing OBL that he hasn't properly dealt with. Bush is probably carrying a similar burden. Handymom was correct in pointing out that in the past the MSM has not posed direct questions to Clinton about his terrorism efforts, that combined with the beating the Clinton administration took in the ABC movie set him off. Yes it was unhinged. The claim that Chris Wallace was "pandering to the right-wing" or that his question about not connecting the dots constituted "unfounded charges" proves that Clinton's defenders have never seen Chris Wallace before or are just Clinton apologists trying to rationalize an irrational response. Clinton even chewed out his own staff afterwards. If the interviewer was Sean Hannity, then they would have point, but that wasn't the case. Not even close. Even Andrea Mitchel from NBC was defending Chris Wallace from the liberal attacks on Imus this morning. Its ironic that Democrats complain that Bush isn't being asked the tough questions, but when their last President gets one tough question, he flips out with conspiracy theories and then the Democrats try to spin a defense based on personal attacks and not on substance.
If this is the defense of the Democratic record fighting terrorism, then on this issue they have no chance against Bush and the Republicans.
Pinky just proved my point. The defense of Democratic terrorism record is heavy on personal attacks while lacking on substance. Thanks!
Being in Iraq may increase the "threat", but so do Muhammad cartoons. In fact, anything short of forced conversion will increase the "threat" by certain followers of the religion of peace.
ILvoter said
**Its ironic that Democrats complain that Bush isn't being asked the tough questions, but when their last President gets one tough question, he flips out with conspiracy theories and then the Democrats try to spin a defense based on personal attacks and not on substance.**
1. That is not "irony"-- that is the wrong word. I am glad Chris Wallace decided to ask Clinton tough questions. BUT the press STILL doesn't ask the current president tough questions. It doesn't do us much good to ask a PAST president the tough questions. In 10 years, maybe the press will have the guts to plainly ask GWB why he started a war based on lies and misinformation, but that doesn't help us now.
2. I would like to think that any human being, when asked to defend himself and his decisions, would do just that. Clinton was asked to explain himself, and he passionately did so. I think any of us would do that. GWB tries to do that, even with softball questions, and mumbles his way through an "answer. I don't think he is capable of a passionate, clear answer. We're just not used to seeing a poitician take someone on anymore.
"Chris Wallace comes across as a cross between Jeff Gannon and a guy you see leaving a porn store, while Clinton comes off as a man with passion defending his position."
Wow! Pinky-Wink, it's amazing how two people can watch the same interview and see them completely opposite. And, I would guess you didn't watch Fox News Sunday because they led with the leak from the classified National Intelligence Estimate report from April. It's convienient that the NYT chose to disclose the cherry-picked details on the same day as Clinton's damaging interview. Remember, the interview was pre-recorded, and I'm sure Clinton knew before it was done that he needed damage control. The NIE report was from April and the NYT was probably waiting to release it. Clinton needed the distraction, and the NYT delivered.
I watched a commentator today who said that Clinton doesn't want to answer these questions, hence, he attacks the interviewer and tried to make this subject off-limits to Wallace and to future interviewers.
I'm no fan of Clinton's, but I found something distasteful in the way the interview was conducted. Wallace could have just asked if Clinton could've done more to get bin Laden. Instead, he constructed this laundry list to make it seem as if there were numerous opportunities to capture him. He wanted to provoke a response, and he got it.
What was gained by this interview? Did it help the public discourse on terrorism? We don't need a Fox News interview to know that mistakes were made. Yet we seem more interested in placing blame than fixing the problem. Partisan bickering over 9/11 would have been unthinkable 5 years ago.
clintonlove,
There's a difference between passionate and threatening. The body language of Wallace and Clinton says as much about the interview as the words. It was clear that Wallace was intimidated by Clinton. Wallace stands his ground but avoids looking at Clinton while asking some of the questions. Clinton sits up in his seat and gets right in Wallace's face. Starts the finger pointing. It's a good thing there were a few cameras there to keep Clinton contained. I would not want to be alone in a room with Clinton.
A few short observations:
1. I'm glad to see what I imagine was to Joan Dykstra a somewhat unexpected response to her post here -- that being the numerous replies supporting or defending Clinton to go along with the expected Republican show of support.
2. I am not surprised at Clinton's frustration, but his loss of composure was unexpected. Perhaps it speaks to the depths of his frustration with the current GOP strategy to blame their failure in dealing effectively with terrorism -- in fact, according to the government's own intelligence reports, exacerbating that threat -- on the Clinton administration. Folks, the Bush administration is halfway through its SECOND term. Isn't it time to stop blaming the predecessors and take responsibility for your own activities, be they successes or failures?
3. Although I was surprised, I was not disappointed to see the former president react angrily. I found it refreshing compared to the typical responses from either side -- either tangential to the question, or greasy-slick with high spin, or just plain dumb.
4. Dems and Republicans alike -- please review what Clinton had to say about OBL and al-Zawahiri and the influence they exert over radical Islam. Also review the part where he accepts the blame for having tried and failed to take OBL out. At least he had a clear, defensible grasp on how to attack the problem, and he acknowledged his failure in achieving that objective. It would be refreshing to EVER get such a response out of the current administration.
... he flips out with conspiracy theories and then the Democrats try to spin a defense based on personal attacks and not on substance.
Hmmm. Conspiracy theories, eh ...
Clinton needed the distraction, and the NYT delivered.
Right. So, the NIE shows conclusively that the War in Iraq is making us dramatically less safe. On the same day this news breaks, IP leads with the Clinton story, including a nice jaw-clenching picture. Shortly thereafter Democrats are attacked for using "personal attacks" as a defense of their actions in the so-called War on Terror, and someone suggests the NYT editors are chatting with the Clintons about when to leak the spy story. :roll:
Did we just step through the looking glass?
oh, ps - in case your missed it: the ENTIRE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY believes the War on Iraq is making us less safe. Yeesh.
"I'm glad to see what I imagine was to Joan Dykstra a somewhat unexpected response to her post here"
Are you kidding? The great thing about Illinipundit is that all sides are represented and unafraid to logically (hopefully) defend their position.
"I am not surprised at Clinton's frustration, but his loss of composure was unexpected."
Yes, it was. For whatever you think about his pre 9/11 role, it *is* important to assess, for historical accuracy and learning from our mistakes/missteps/lost opportunities.
Question for Clinton advocates: If Bush expressed his frustrations to criticism in that manner, would you defend him? Nope, and neither would I. It was unprofessional and unstatesmanlike. Period.
Foleyma,
Why the change to Pinky Wink and what does it mean?
John
Handymom, I've seen tiny female sideline reporters get tougher answers from 350-pound linebackers and fire right back with a follow-up. Even the administration stenographers at Fox News have to be prepared for the possibility that occasionally a Democrat might do something other than politely concur with their GOP talking points. If Wallace can't stand having his questions answered, maybe he should stick to interviewing Alan Colmes.
As for your not wanting to be alone in a room with Bill Clinton, that's probably wise. Especially oval rooms. :)
What I'd like to know is what conservatives Clinton is accusing of saying he did too much as opposed to too little? This is nothing but typical Clintonian misdirection and more lies. Clinton is a pathological liar. What do you expect from a guy who when questioned under oath says he can't remember or recall about 150 times, but he seems to remember every detail about his hunt for OBL. Richard Clarke's book is generally supportive, but even he concedes that Clinton could have done more, but chose not to. If you go the dictionary you'll see a picture Clinton next to the word liar.
Joan, you are aware that several key scenes in "The Path to 9/11" were completely made up, right? It's nice that ABC "spread the blame around to all administrations," as you put it, but it would be even nicer if they had blamed the various administrations based on things they'd actually done, not things that a friend of Rush Limbaugh (writer) and an avowedly pro-GOP evangelical activist (producer) fantasized that they'd done. 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben Veniste was on CNN this morning and quite unequivocally confirmed the factual basis for Clinton's answers to Wallace. You may not like how Clinton said what he said, but what he said was factually accurate.
If ABC ran a movie about the JFK assassination "based on the Warren Commission report" which showed you sitting on the Grassy Knoll with a rifle, you might find that it "hit a nerve" in you as well.
We get to see Bush "express his frustrations with critisims in that (Clinton) mannor" almost weekly in his news conferences early in his administration. The GOP always quickly defends him and places the blame on MSM. Lately Bush has done somewhat better since the reporters are now GOP screened.
While forceful, at least Clinton responded with an intelligent, creditable answer.
The little tidbit from the leaked, classified NEI report from April, states that Al Queda is using the Iraq war as a recruiting tool for more militant, jihadist wackos. I'm sure they are, but imagine if we had backed down in Iraq, they would have been as emboldend, if not more. If not Iraq, they would be using Afganistan, Israel, Western Culture, etc., etc., etc.....
Hey handymom, I like to imagine us not going into Iraq and finishing al Queda in Afganistan as well as Bin Ladin but then that did not happen because of the leadership in this country.
The same Ben Veniste that defended Clinton during Whitewater.
The same Ben Veniste that stated is was normal for White House lawyers to remove documents from Vince Foster's office after his death and then say nothing of interest was removed.
The same Ben Veniste who managed to get McAuliffe off the hook for the campaign finance scandal that netted convictions for a number of other Clinton associates.
The same Ben Veniste that was subsequently named DNC counsel.
The same Ben Veniste who is frequently questioned regarding his ethics.
Oh yeah, that Ben Veniste. A paragon of non-partisanianship and objectivity.
"You may not like how Clinton said what he said, but what he said was factually accurate."
- What were the facts in his response, exactly?
"at least Clinton responded with an intelligent, creditable answer."
- Excuses, personal attacks, and conspiracy theories: the new Democratic definition of intelligence and credibility.
Are some of you actually saying that Bill Clinton's administration is blameless in stopping bin Laden in all those 8 years? If so, I have a cigar for you to smoke.
.....While forceful, at least Clinton responded with an intelligent, creditable answer.....
You must not have seen the whole segment. He was red in the face and TOUCHING the reporter! And wagging you finger at someone? Nice touch.
It must really be tough...
to be an Illini fan
to be a Cubs fan
to be a local Republican
All you have is...
wait 'til next year
wait for 4 years
JBT is losing, and it looks like so is Myers
So,
bash the coach
bash the AD
bash the Democrats and the MSM
Optimism flows from being on the positive side.
Must be tough to always be on the negative side.
I love the optimism coming from the Dems nationally...
None of the previous administrations did enough or the right thing with bin Laden all the way back to Reagan's policy of arming him.
However, only GWB is responsible for diverting military efforts away from bin Laden and the terrorists to conduct the invasion of Iraq, whose government we now know had nothing to do with 9/11.
So, the NIE shows conclusively that the War in Iraq is making us dramatically less safe
the ENTIRE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY believes the War on Iraq is making us less safe. Yeesh
Well, since none of us here have seen the report, we can't say for sure what's in it. All we know is that some individuals who are willing to leak classified intelligence information (or make it up) are claiming that the report says that war in Iraq is encouraging more followers of the religion of peace to become involved in terrorism. There is no safety meeter that can give us today's safety level.
It is common sense that when one attacks the enemy, the enemy will not like it. To me, this shows that so-called moderate Muslims who can be easily persuaded to take up arms against civilization have decided to align themselves with the terrorists and should be considered the enemy.
The left loves to get into the "spiral of violence" game, but you have to look at why we went into Iraq. Saddam was not complying with UN resolutions and the US and some other countries decided to hold him accountable.
As I said before, if we are primarily concerned with making Muslims happy with the US, well, the Quran spells out our options, but I won't list them here because I don't want to be accused of making Muslims seem intolerant.
LV,
OBL was an ineffective field commander in the war against the Soviets, and other Afghanis used to joke about him and his followers they were the band that couldn't shoot straight. What Reagan gave the mujahaddin to fight the Soviets trickled its way down to OBL. Reagan did not speciafically arm OBL, and he wasn't on anyone's radar at that point. OBL declared war on the US in 1998, and still Clinton couldn't manage the chutzpah to off him. There was nearly always a reason why Clinton did not take him out.
Listen up. NO ONE in this administration said Saddam was involved in 9/11.
Incredible. Why do you intentionally try to misrepresent the truth?
"If ABC ran a movie about the JFK assassination “based on the Warren Commission report” which showed you sitting on the Grassy Knoll with a rifle, you might find that it “hit a nerve” in you as well.""
Slow down, Lazlo. Not to get off-topic, but....
There's a HUGE moral difference between pulling the trigger and allowing the trigger to be pulled. For me, the jury's still out on how much Clinton had to do with "letting" OBL get away, but Clinton certainly didn't pull the trigger.
Since my "overall jury" is still out, I think that's all I'll say for now...
"The left loves to get into the “spiral of violence” game, but you have to look at why we went into Iraq."
AND THE RIGHT LOVES TO PLAY THE FEARS GAME.
Saddam was not complying with UN resolutions and the US and some other countries decided to hold him accountable.
AND THAT ACCOUNTABILITY HAD COSTS US 19,773 US MILITARY WOUNDED AND 2,698 DEAD, NOT COUNTING THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
The only time I truly saw a politician come "unhinged" was when Joan saw the redrawn county board map.
Okay, to completely contradict my statement above, I'm going to jump into the fray.
24k dead or wounded. Of us. Of *MY* brethren. Some of which support the war, some of which don't - but that's all Jus Ad Bellum.
US soldiers fight within the context of Jus In Bello - Justice *IN* War; the political context of the war is irrelivent. No soldier wants to die, no soldier wants to see the men (don't get PC on me...) next to him die. No soldier on earth, US or otherwise, thinks about anything but the men to his left and right when under fire (suicide bombers notwithstanding).
When soldiers volunteer for duty - and they do volunteer in the US - they do so with the full knowledge that THEY MIGHT DIE in defense of the nation.
But they volunteer under the legally and personally assumed premise that political and strategic leaders will do the "overall" right thing - Jus Ad Bellum.
NO soldier has ever been vilified by his countrymen for standing up for the US - regardless of the circumstances of his demise - except for those with a political end (can you say: "AWARE?")
Those soldiers are legal "property," in a sense, of the US government: not the individual, not the community, and certainly not the Urbana City Council.
But to even think for a minute that a SINGLE ONE of those lives (or limbs) were lost in vain is to suppose that the intent for which they were sent in was "dumb." Those troops were carrying out missions that were planned and executed by other soldiers, with a singularity of purpose in mind: "Mission First, People Always." Strategy assumes some losses - tactics expect them. And the tactics are planned by small unit leaders - from the COL down to the lowly E-5 team leader.
Do you really believe that any US president is as soulless as to send troops to die for a vendetta? Do you really believe that a sitting US president would allow any action to kill US civilians by a foreign entity? Have you really sunk to the level of believing that the last soul to die for a lost cause is worthless?
Are you so callous, are you so skeptical, that any leader of the free world would allow the death of his own countrymen for a vendetta?
Green Guy,
Unfortunately, Dem leaders like Gore, Dean, Pelosi on down to bloggers like Pinky Wink/foleyma/WOW, religious left, etc believe that the answer to your question is yes.
Others like Local Voter actually believe Clinton when he's lying right to their face.
www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/bill_clinton_play_it_as_it_lie.html
Hey GreenGuy---where did you get the word 'vendetta'?
My comment was on GWB's mistake at going into Iraq, taking resources away from the mission in Afganistan.
Your 'rant' might be of interest to some but was not applicable.
Clinton is great at re-writing history
Clinton claimed that Richard Clarke had been demoted and then later said he was fired. On page 234 of "Against All Enemies," Clarke writes:
"I had completed the review of the organizational options for homeland defense and critical infrastructure protection that Rice had asked me to conduct. There was agreement to create a separate, senior White House position for Critical Infrastructure Protection and Cyber Security, outside of the NSC Staff. Condi Rice and Steve Hadley assumed that I would continue on the NSC focusing on terrorism and asked whom I had in mind for the new job that would be created outside the NSC. I requested that I be given that assignment, to the apparent surprise of Condi Rice and Steve Hadley."
If Clarke was demoted, he requested the demotion.
Clinton also seems to imply that Clarke was "demoted" prior to 9/11. However, on page 239 of Against All Enemies, Clarke writes the following:
"Roger Cressey, my deputy at the NSC Staff, came to me in early October, after the time that I had intended to switch from the terrorism job to Critical Infrastructure Protection and Cyber Security. The switch had been delayed by September 11."
In other words, the Bush administration kept Clarke at NSC beyond the period Clarke had planned on being there.
I would love to hear Richard Miniter (Losing bin Laden) ask Clinton a few questions about Clinton's treatment of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center -- an attack that Clinton shrugged off in a few paragraphs of his subsequent Saturday morning radio talk, never to return to the subject.
How about this as an interview question:
Mr. Clinton, why were you disbarred?
Could it have been for..............................lying? .
.....................................................under oath?
“I did not have sexual relations with that Arab”¦ Mr. Bin Laden.”ÂÂ
Clinton doing this psychotic Tom Cruise-like impersonation takes the cake.
Veritas said...
Clinton is a pathological liar. What do you expect from a guy who when questioned under oath says he can't remember or recall about 150 times, but he seems to remember every detail about his hunt for OBL. Richard Clarke's book is generally supportive, but even he concedes that Clinton could have done more, but chose not to. If you go the dictionary you'll see a picture Clinton next to the word liar.
Well, I sure hope the publishers left some room for a picture of Ronald Reagan next to Clinton!
"The only honest answer is to state that try as I might, I cannot recall anything whatsoever about whether I approved an Israeli sale in advance or whether I approved replenishment of Israeli stocks around August of 1985. My answer therefore and the simple truth is, "I don't remember, period." -Ronald Reagan, 1987
Tee hee. You know what I'd love? I'd love to see someone, anyone in the so-called MSM ask Rumsfeld about the Saddam shake. "Do you regret supplying a dictatorial madman with weapons of mass destruction, Mr. Psycho?"
I'm sure that answer would be the epitome of clarity and reason.
Did Clinton do enough? Probably not. Was he distracted for 20 hours a day trying to defend himself against the impeachment? Sure. Which makes ya wonder why the Republicans, who are supposed to be so brave and courageous in the face of "terror", would drag the president (who holds the office they so dearly respect) through that kind of ordeal over a lie about a blowjob.
But of course we know the answer. Republicans are really a large group of slime sucking morons.
One can only imagine the kind of frustration it must bring to Clinton haters to not have had 9/11 happen on his watch. What a missed opportunity for the psychos! They could have written countless words detailing why he needed to be impeached for negligence. They could have come out to Ground Zero to boo him when he showed up for moral support. They could have blamed the whole thing on Clinton.
Man, it's just too bad it was Bush.
It is common sense that when one attacks the enemy, the enemy will not like it. To me, this shows that so-called moderate Muslims who can be easily persuaded to take up arms against civilization have decided to align themselves with the terrorists and should be considered the enemy.
Not any common sense I've ever known. If this is the case, one should ALWAYS attack someone they disagree wtih.
In this case, people, myself included have been saying FOR YEARS that OBL and other Muslim militants have been trying to instigate a war along religious lines.
The fact that you and your disdain for all-Muslims, including the actual moderate ones who do not want a holy war ALSO want a holy war suggests to me that you have a lot in common with OBL and his cronies, at least similar goals.
OBL wanted a holy war and he knew GWB and his supporters were the ones to deliver it.
I suppose it's also common sense that when you deliver what someone wants to them, they don't normally like it?
Why the change to Pinky Wink and what does it mean?
Man. No matter what I do, I cannot post a comment without being outed on this thread. John, I am TRYING to not have my identity out there every day, but just my ideas. It is clear that anyone who has followed this blog for a while knows who I am. I would like those who aren't following the blog, or who will follow it in the future, to not know who I am.
Why? Because there are people who post on here who are genuinely scary. Note VVL above, who still believes I posted as "Wow!" last week. I know the guy who did, and we got a good chuckle out of it, but this is insane - he literally CAN'T let it go.
So, uh, better to just try to be "anonymous" I guess. No question that I'll receive flack for that from the Moral Compasses in the room, but it's better than worrying about someone calling your house at 3:00 a.m. to tell you you're crazy (it's happened).
Could I legitimately ask that people stop using my old screen names? I could easily post the names of several posters on here who would like to be known as just "VVL" or "LocalVoter" or whatever. It's uncool, and something I would never do. I'd appreciate it if peopl would stop doing it to me.
You folks do that for me, and I'll only post as Pinky-Wink in the future. Promise.
Finally, Pinky Winky is the nickname of my daughter. I'd like to protect her from the venom, if possible, though one figures that someone will post her name and our address on here before the night is through.
*Sigh*
Tough question? Embarrassing question? Sure. Maybe so. But its the reaction to the question. Bill Clinton.........Trish Avery.
Anyone else see the parrallel?
"Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaida out of business when you were president?"
An extremely combative question.
The question could have been, "Do you believe you could have done more to put bin Laden and Al Qaida out of business when you were president?"
But that wouldn't please the sponsors or the fanatics that take Foks News seriously and help make them feel self righteous. Slanted news like Foks spews is unfair to impressionable youth, and is as unconscionable as dealing drugs across the street from the middle school.
"...unfair to impressionable youth," Oh Please!! Shall we talk about the message that was sent to our "impressionable youth" by Bill Clinton? Ask those impressionable youth what they learned about lying, personal behavior, accepting responsibility etc.
Pinky Wink- "It is clear that anyone who has followed this blog for a while knows who I am."
A couple things: First, I don't have a clue who you are and I daresay few others do either. Nor do we care. And no offense, but I've seen your blog and you seem just as scary as the next guy.
"You folks do that for me, and I'll only post as Pinky-Wink in the future.... Pinky Winky is the nickname of my daughter. I'd like to protect her from the venom, if possible, though one figures that someone will post her name and our address on here before the night is through."
Then why the heck do you use your daughter's nickname? Bizarre.
Let's stay on topic folks.
I think kids may have learned that the president is actually a human, something that many of us as youths were shielded from with several of our former presidents. Kids know from sex. They don't know from politics.
And so I maintain, slanted junk like Foks spews is as unconscionable as dealing drugs across the street from the middle school.
A human of the bullying type.
As anon pointed out, the question posed to Clinton was a loaded one. It presumes that Clinton could have done more to put bin Laden and al-Qaeda out of business when he was president. When you make such a strong claim, the reporter better have some compelling evidence to back that question up.
Considering that a lot of people who are criticizing Clinton in this post often complain about the liberal slant in the MSM, it's hard to see why they do not see that questions like "Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and al-Qaeda out of business when you were president?" are inherently biased.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Ralph Langenhbeim
The interview was rather passe until that question that really got under Clinton's skin. The way Wallace framed the question was to ask Clinton how he would respond to those who say he did not do enough to eliminate Bin Laden. Wallace framed it as such. For someone as politically experienced as Clinton he took the question and ran with it farther than Wallace wanted to. And I don't think Wallace expected the personal attack by Clinton that he was being underhanded and serving other masters. That interview will go down as Clinton's Cruise moment.
One other thing Clinton did show us. In light of some of Clarke's statements, the 9/11 Report, and other available information that other posters have provided Clinton definitely has a problem with being viewed in a bad light and apparently will say anything to cast that light somewhere else even if it means playing a little fast with the truth. Isn't that the way it was with him. Its the way he sees it just as what his definition of 'is' is. If the man is obssessed about something it's his legacy.
>A human of the bullying type.
Sorry. When I said human, I should have excepted the current chief, whose mannerisms at times seem vaguely simian.
Joan, your response is hardly fair. You may not care, but a lot of people seem insistent on caring about the identity of the posters rather than the content of their posts. The site says that people are able to post anonymously, and to continue to try to identify and attack posters is against the very spirit of that directive.
This from someone who has NEVER posted anonymously on this site and yet still has been accused by VVL of being some random poster when he has run out of things to say.
JBT is losing, and it looks like so is Myers
Even better, I read an internal poll where No Candidate Filed (D-Onarga) is in a dead heat with Shawn Cultra.
First, I don't have a clue who you are and I daresay few others do either. Nor do we care.
Well, I hope that's true. But, in my defense, I've only answered a queston that was posed to me. My motivation is only to clarfy the name change and ask that people respect it. Read this thread, or others I hace posted to, and you'll see that my former logins come up almost every time.
I've seen your blog and you seem just as scary as the next guy.
Really? Coming from the woman who decided to kick off the week with a personal attack on Clinton, I take this as a compliment.
Then why the heck do you use your daughter's nickname? Bizarre.
Uh ... we don't have some sort of internet listing personal nicknames for 5 month olds, do we? I assume using a *nickname* is safe. Is there something I should know, or is this just an attempt to make me look like a bad parent without thinking the whole thing through?
But I appreciate your concern, Madam Moderator. Yeesh.
xian, I have no idea who you are and I have no interest in finding out.
PinkyWink, ditto. But, maybe it's time for another posting name.
It's your ideas and take on current events that interests me. Period.
Pinky Wink and Joan, don't you get enough of this kind of thing at work?
Blogging, at least this kind of blogging where comments are allowed, is just a chance for grown ups to do what they used to do in school, gossip. Whether hiding behind screen names, or anonymously (like me), it's just passing notes. "Suzie loves Jimmy!" or "Mr. Clinton told a lie!".
Who cares about screen names? So what if Gordy is Gordy, or Pinky is Mark, or Joan is Joan, or vvl is some high school kid or some inmate in an asylum, IT'S ALL gossip, or opinion, it's made up out of whole cloth, or it's just plain BS.
It's as if you all think it really matters what you say. Ha.
ÂÂ
You did not do much to change your site when you changed the name. You pretty much still identify yourself as a local schoolteacher in Urbana and places you like to shop. You blogged under your old screen name for long time here and keep the same home page and only changed the name. Just a hint, my friend, but maybe if you changed some details it would have helped, but I suspect you enjoy the back and forth with other posters here concerning your ID and playing some sort of victim. You said last week that you would stop posting because you were in fear. It would appear you really aren't in fear. Maybe you should give up blogging as you seem to have a particularly thin skin. To use your words.....Yeesh.
hey anonymous, then stay off the blog or contribute something worthwhile. Yeesh.
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Ralph L., This is a post about a former president's actions, a perfectly legit back and forth. Although it is interesting that you use the Bible.
Pinky,
Dude, "I could easily post the names of several posters on here who would like to be known as just “VVL” or “LocalVoter” or whatever. It's uncool, and something I would never do."
Not that I hide it, but feel free to name me.
Additionally, "Note VVL above, who still believes I posted as “Wow!” last week."
Are you now saying you've never posted as wow?
Back on topic. I think its pretty clear from a number of posters that Clinton is very concerned about his legacy and that has caused him to try and shut down 'The Path to 9/11', and respond to a reporter in a confrontational way. He has guilt from his time as President that he knows he could have done more, and I echo anonymous comments and would like to see Clinton answer some questions from not only Richard Miniter, but also Robert Patterson.
This once interesting thread has degenerated into stupidness.
Here's another perspective on Clinton's "brilliant hissy fit".
http://www.slate.com/id/2150335/?nav=tap3
Let's stipulate that Slate's perspective is significantly different than that offered up by Fox News, thereby avoiding more non-productive berating of journalistic sources.
The wealth of material on this topic is growing and growing on both sides.
Barbara Boxer on Fox today:
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/26/video-boxer-gets-snotty-with-skinner-on-fox-news/
and Olbermann on MSNBC calls Chris Wallace a “monkey posing as a newscaster”ÂÂ
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/25/video-olbermann-calls-chris-wallace-a-monkey-posing-as-a-newscaster/
Thank goodness for Fox News Channel!
"O the depravity of my people! They are without order and without mercy." Moroni 9:18
Which is it? On one hand, the liberals on this site claim that all of our intelligence community says the war in Iraq is making us less safe. But they also say that our government (and in particularly the intelligence bureaus) is at fault for 9/11. On one hand, the CIA is incompetant, and on the other, it knows we are now at a higher risk of Islamic terrorism. Which is it? See my blog, Aristotelian Moments, and in particular my recent blog, Paradise Lost
Which is it??!??! Estase says that liberals are inconsistent and my mother says they are pretty cool. Which is it?!?!?!?
Our wait, I forgot, Estase is not responsible for what my mother says, just as labelling someone a "liberal" does not magically make them responsible for what everyone else labelled as a liberal has said
Furthermore, I find it baffling that people cannot fathom that the same person can be competent in one action and incompetent in another. Chris Webber was a great basketball player, but that doesn't make it inconsistent to say that it was not a good play for him to call timeout with no timeouts left.
I'm a liberal and I don't think the intelligence bureaus were at fault for 9/11. I think the terrorists were at fault. I also think it has been pretty well established as fact that the Bush Administration used 9/11 as a political tool to accomplish goals that had nothing to do with 9/11, such as invading Iraq, a goal the administration had before 9/11 ever happened, and that to further that goal, the Administration misused the intelligence they did have.