Clinton's seizure during Fox News Sunday interview

[sundevil777 102]

I'm surprised nobody else has brought it up.

He went absolutely ballistic!

He claims that Richard Clarke is the only expert that matters, and that Clarke supports his assertions!

He claims he was obsessed with Bin Laden.

He was not just mistaken, or misled, he lied terribly during the interview. He just made stuff up to insult Chris Matthews and claimed it to be true, as if nobody would check!

He yelled at his staff afterward for getting him in that situation.

He was the one that answered one of the first questions about his 'initiative' by bringing up current events in Iraq/war on terror, so his claim that Chris Matthews didn't honor the agreement was bullshit.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[warpedskydiver 0]

Dishonesty is a highly valued asset for some people.

[billvon 3,116]

>He claims that Richard Clarke is the only expert that matters, and
>that Clarke supports his assertions!

?? Just read the transcript. He didn't say that.

>He claims he was obsessed with Bin Laden.

No, he said that right wingers criticized him for being obsessed with Bin Laden.

>He just made stuff up to insult Chris Matthews and claimed it to
>be true, as if nobody would check!

Indeed! It sucks when you say (or post) something, and a quick bit of research proves it false, eh?

But I do agree he went ballistic.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I'm surprised nobody else has brought it up.

He went absolutely ballistic!

He claims that Richard Clarke is the only expert that matters, and that Clarke supports his assertions!

He claims he was obsessed with Bin Laden.

He was not just mistaken, or misled, he lied terribly during the interview. He just made stuff up to insult Chris Matthews and claimed it to be true, as if nobody would check!

He yelled at his staff afterward for getting him in that situation.

He was the one that answered one of the first questions about his 'initiative' by bringing up current events in Iraq/war on terror, so his claim that Chris Matthews didn't honor the agreement was bullshit.

FOX news? Matthews? I missed that one. I saw this one today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4
I'm interested to hear some folk's response to his assertion that Clinton had battle plans to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and go after bin Laden but the CIA and the FBI wouldn't certify that bin Laden was involved in the attack on Cole.
But I'm probably unrealistic in thinking that the conversation will be about anything other than blow jobs.

[Gawain 0]

You mean the interview with Chris Wallace...

Yes, the president did go overboard, but I think that was intentional. I believe he was trying to open a door so that other Democrats, on Sunday and evening news show interviews may follow his lead, and allow the left appear that they are serious about national security and the war on terror.

It won't work, but I'm positive that's what he was attempting to do. We're going to see all sorts of virtual "big guns" get whipped out here in the closing weeks leading up to the election.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Lefty 0]

Quote

I'm interested to hear some folk's response to his assertion that Clinton had battle plans to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and go after bin Laden

My response: Yeah, suuuuuure he did.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[dorbie 0]

Video:

http://www.break.com/index/purple_faced_rage.html

I have to say that was the most gutless way to ask a question ever "We've had a lot of emails..." The weasel is asking why he didn't go after a suspected terrorist and he doesn't even have the guts to come out and ask a straight question.

I don't think Clinton came off as badly as folks say, he didn't loose it, but I don't think his answers jibed with all the facts. What is is with the phonies in the U.S. always wanting to pretend that the least bit of passion is inappropriate. His response and level of passion/annoyance seemed absolutely appropriate to me.

Clinton evading the question and going on the offensive about what Fox asks his political opposition was just pathetic. The idea that Bush et.al. haven't been grilled on every aspect of the War on terrorism and before is just absurd. He comes of as petulant and silly at the end.

But no big deal, it's about time more questions were asked like this and we got some real reaction out of the leaders in this country. It's all too rare and after this I guess it'll never happen again.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm interested to hear some folk's response to his assertion that Clinton had battle plans to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and go after bin Laden

My response: Yeah, suuuuuure he did.

This shoudl not be new information to you. I believe he did, but it's quite pathetic to draw up plans, not act on them and leave the hot potato for your successor when you've been studiously avoiding it. It reeks of more CYA.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I'm interested to hear some folk's response to his assertion that Clinton had battle plans to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and go after bin Laden ...

A pretty grand assertion considering his actual response was to throw some Tomahawks over there and forget it.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Channman 2]

> It won't work, but I'm positive that's what he was attempting to do. We're going to see all sorts of virtual "big guns" get whipped out here in the closing weeks leading up to the election.

With the ability to look back, I'm sure many had wish they never excepted the interview. A soft ball question, to a former Commander and Chief, who responded in a childish manner will not help in the up coming elections.

As a former CIA officer tasked with tracking and killing OBL said, in a follow up interview on ABC, Clinton had 8 to 10 opportunities to authorize the killing of OBL but failed to do so after repeated attempts to get the order from field officers in harms way ready to pull the trigger.

Bush had one oppertunity to possibly get OBL in Tora Bora, in which at least he had boots on the ground but failed to press the matter with more troops in hopes to block and kill him.

The November elections will be enteresting, but I believe the Voting American public, not those who give us all lip serves and then stay at home know the Dems are not enterested in fighting the war on terror. The one thing we can count on from the Dems is a swift retreat of our troops within our own boarders in hopes they will leave us all alone.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

yup, its along the lines of: We know exactly where those WMDs are.

[billvon 3,116]

>but I believe the Voting American public, not those who give us all lip
> serves and then stay at home know the Dems are not enterested in
> fighting the war on terror.

Funny - several of the democrats running in this election are recently returned Iraq and Afghanistan vets. It would be interesting to hear the ensuing conversation if you told them they were not interested in fighting the war on terror.

>The one thing we can count on from the Dems is a swift retreat of
> our troops within our own boarders in hopes they will leave us all
> alone.

The one thing we _know_ we can count on from republicans is a lot more coffins. When that's your default, any new option starts to sound better.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Bush had one oppertunity to possibly get OBL in Tora Bora, in which at least he had boots on the ground but failed to press the matter with more troops in hopes to block and kill him.

Actually, we deferred to some locals to try and handle that situation, it resulted in a "cease fire" which allowed them to slip out the back door. My buddies that were there were pretty f**k**g pissed, as the boots on the ground were ready to march and take them.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[TheAnvil 0]

I just watched the entire interview. A few random points from Vinny the Anvil - keep in mind that I do lean quite far to the right on most issues:

- Remember the Rather-Bush controversy a few years ago? Bush got ticked off at Dan Rather in an interview. Not one time did he insult Rather as Clinton insulted Wallace. I think this a bit indicative of Mr. Clinton's frustration with the issue and of the sheer and utter hatred the left has of FoxNews. Clinton is a far more polished speaker than Bush Sr. and knew what he was saying.

- I don't think Clinton was doing anything other than reacting to the question. Though I don't like the guy, a dummy he most definitely is not. Granted, with all of the conjecture that's gone on since 9/11 about who did what, when, and where to get us there, the second the question was posed was far from the first time Bubba Clinton had thought about the matter, but in all likelihood he was not prepped for the question when it was popped. His answer, given that assumption, was pretty astute and eloquent - indicative of his intellectual ability and eloquence as a speaker.

- Clinton referred to the question as a Fox hit job of sorts I believe (don't remember his exact quote). I wonder how Bush Sr felt with Rather, or GWB when given the pop-quiz on the leaders of several key world countries? Probably the same way, though they didn't react similarly.

- I don't think Wallace meant the question as an attack or a hit job. The topic has been around for quite some time and it's likely many people did email about it.

- Clinton's ending comments about the political environment were pretty clever. He laid out a good strategy the dems would be wise to follow, though I disagree with him about Americans being afraid being necessary for a Republican victory in '06.

- THis focus on the GWOT and El Jefe Clintonista's temper tantrum are not good things. I think the GWOT important, but I believe our domestic problems here at home are the greatest threat to our way of life. The unsustainable rate of discretionary spending, the impending mandatory spending avalanche that's upon us, the horrid state of education in the US and problems with our health care system are the real alligators closing in our boat that require attention. Little focus seems to be upon those issues and that's precisely where it needs to be. I would LOVE to have an election where the political discourse was on such things rather than things that will affect a relatively few amount of voters directly yet stir such intense emotions amongst the electorate - affirmative action and abortion for instance.

- Vinny needs tequila.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[jenfly00 0]

A most thoughtful reply. Thank you. I take exception with:

Quote

though I disagree with him about Americans being afraid being necessary for a Republican victory in '06.

Feeding and maintaining fear is what Republican victory is all about. It's really not so much an issue as the issue for the Reps.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[TheAnvil 0]

I wonder why you think this to be the case. I don't see leftists sending the electorate many messages other than 'Bush is bad' in very many places. Even the CA gov's race has the left bashing GWB and Iraq. They're offering few if any new ideas and relying on their affirmative action and abortion stalwarts coming to the polls in addition to the anti-war crowd to make a showing. I just don't see making national security the key issue as being critical to the GOP. They've too many other strong points.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

I wonder why you think this to be the case. I don't see leftists sending the electorate many messages other than 'Bush is bad' in very many places. Even the CA gov's race has the left bashing GWB and Iraq. They're offering few if any new ideas and relying on their affirmative action and abortion stalwarts coming to the polls in addition to the anti-war crowd to make a showing. I just don't see making national security the key issue as being critical to the GOP. They've too many other strong points.

The 'left' not having their shit together (they don't) has nothing to do with what any clear headed observer can see the neo-cons doing ..selling fear and raking in the votes. The message always boils down to 'Terrorists will kill you, your family, your dog and destroy our country if you do not vote for us'.

Historically proven to be very effective.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[TheAnvil 0]

I don't see that at all. Perhaps you could elaborate a little bit. i'm not sure what history you're referring to and have never understood exactly what anyone means by neo-con.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

i'm not sure what history you're referring to and have never understood exactly what anyone means by neo-con.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

DUDE.. check out a mirror

[Lefty 0]

Quote

i'm not sure what history you're referring to and have never understood exactly what anyone means by neo-con.

Well, sometimes people just throw that word out there to make themselves feel smart. It is hard to pin the definition down since it has become a crutch (or just a filler word like profanity) for people who can't put their thoughts into coherent sentences and must rely on political pop-phrases like "neo-con" to express their feelings.
I think, though, a neo-con could best be described as a conservative who abandons their conservative roots in favor of getting support while still claiming to be conservative. Sort of like Bush and the steel tariffs, Bush and domestic spending increases, etc. On the other hand, the same people who should be happy about these deviations from the conservative ideology are the same ones who use the term neo-con in a derogatory manner, so I'm at a loss.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

The one thing we can count on from the Dems is a swift retreat of
> our troops within our own boarders in hopes they will leave us all
> alone.

The one thing we _know_ we can count on from republicans is a lot more coffins. When that's your default, any new option starts to sound better.

Yeah Bill.........I'd much rather YOU be fighting terrorists at the mall in your home town than our soldiers doing it 7000 miles OUTSIDE the US.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

I don't see that at all. Perhaps you could elaborate a little bit. i'm not sure what history you're referring to and have never understood exactly what anyone means by neo-con.

Neocon can and does mean many things. For some, it describes former liberals new to conservative politics. Others use it as a way to distinguish the ultra conservative from those more moderately conservative.

For me, it is those that have lost track of what America stands for. Either their ideology or lust for power and profit have obfuscated the principles of freedom and liberty that made this country like no other. Perhaps they sincerely believe essential freedoms and liberty must be abridged (temporarily???) in order for us, as a people, to survive. Perhaps they just don't give two shits as long as it serves their purposes.

As far as history showing governments using fear to control it's citizens and increase govt powers over those citizens ...dude, I don't know what to say. Have you ever taken any sort of history class?

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

The message always boils down to 'Terrorists will kill you, your family, your dog and destroy our country if you do not vote for us'.

Historically proven to be very effective.

Yep..........and unfortunately it's true at the moment.

[TheAnvil 0]

So it's a pejorative with no set definition by those who use it. Interesting. By your definition of 'neo-con' many democrats and republicans both could be classified as such, yet I never hear the term used to describe leftists.

I've taken many history classes and am quite well read, thank you. I thought it obvious I was referring directly to your comment about the fear of terrorism in particular and its use being historically effective. I don't see it. Please elaborate.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

yet I never hear the term used to describe leftists

I'll take "Would that be 'neo-coms'" for $1000, Alex

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706