Printable View
Clinton interview with Chris Wallace:
Part One (comes in about 4 minutes into the actual interview, the first 4 are about Clinton's accomplishments as an ex-president)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0xjH...elated&search=
Part Two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErrdLvWjm8o
whoops, one more part:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUcEM...elated&search=
:yourock: :yourock: :yourock:
Interesting to see him talk so frankly about taking out a contract on Bin Laden's life. That interviewer was a slimey little man, though.
edg
Last link doesnt6 work but the first 2 are really funny. That slimly little man got eaten alive.
I'd vote for him again in a flash. Only person in the party with his kind of intellegent rage is Dean, and he obviously doesn't know how to present it to the cameras. Even wifey Hillary is just another 2 faced liberal who is about as exciting and engaging as a Greenwich tea party.
that was great!
can you imagine bush in an interview like that without pre-written answers? uh uh uh
actually, he pwned himself.
Among other things. Clinton gets the full fact checking here:Quote:
Byron York takes Clinton’s advice and reads Richard Clarke’s book.
Money:
It’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince — as opposed to, say, order — U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up.
Clinton did not give up in the sense of an executive who gives an order and then moves on to other things, thinking the order is being carried out when in fact it is being ignored. Instead, Clinton knew at the time that his top military and intelligence officials were dragging their feet on going after bin Laden and al Qaeda. He gave up rather than use his authority to force them into action.
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/2...ox-news-sunday
"Hotair - Welcome to the world’s first full-service conservative Internet broadcast network!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripzalot
That'll be an objective viewpoint then. :rolleyes:
not pretending to objective. it's about as objective as clinton's comments. :rolleyes2Quote:
Originally Posted by bad_roo
so where in their fact checking do they get it wrong? hmmmm?
Apt name, though.
He sure does stir easily. Anyway, he says it himself, "he failed".
It's been over two years, by the CIA's own admission this past Friday, since they have had any idea where OBL is. So let's talk about failure, shall we?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cono Este
Ripz - Have you taken the time to read Against All Enemies? I'm certain you'd find that rather illuminating.
nope. it still does nothing to validate or deny clinton's comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by bad_roo
why not read thru the fact checking? looks like ol slick willy's got a lot of splaining to do. LOL
Both sides will resort to hyperbole and cant to defend their arguments. Is one inherently more truthful than the other? Probably not.
What is beyond any mature and reasoned argument is that the Clinton administration had a better handle on the realpolitik of the day than the Bush regime has ever maintained.
History will be a harsh judge on the current Bush presidency. It's tough to believe that some can't grasp this simple fact.
well, that was a conveniently uncritical look at the fact checking. your partisanship is showing.Quote:
Originally Posted by bad_roo
here we have proof that clinton lied about one of his major points to wallace:
http://patterico.com/2006/09/24/5187...ma-before-911/Quote:
In 2004, Wallace asked almost the exact same question of Donald Rumsfeld that he asked Clinton today.
Here’s what Wallace asked Clinton today:
[H]indsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?
And here is what Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:
I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?
. . . .
What do you make of his [Richard Clarke’s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?
. . . .
Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.
I don't need to waste time in my day to establish that politicans distort the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripzalot
Well, we're not CNN so partisanship can flourish here and frequently does...that said, I agree that it is crazy to see Clinton talking so casually about putting a hit out on bin Laden...really above the law kind of stuff.
Let's put a hit out on Vail Addict. Or at least a jihad.
And...for the record...I am down with Bad Roo.
:mad: Stop asking hard questions waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
I'm not an expert in this area by any means, but isn't it illegal for the president to put out a hit on someone (unless we're officially at war)?Quote:
It’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince — as opposed to, say, order — U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up.
Clinton did not give up in the sense of an executive who gives an order and then moves on to other things, thinking the order is being carried out when in fact it is being ignored. Instead, Clinton knew at the time that his top military and intelligence officials were dragging their feet on going after bin Laden and al Qaeda. He gave up rather than use his authority to force them into action.
The notion of legality almost appears quaint.
Was the US ever at war with Cuba?
The real story people seem to be missing is that this interview was scheduled to be on Climate Change and Clinton's fundraising/initiatives (of which very little was discussed). Instead, the reporter goes full throttle with unscripted questions blaming Clinton for 9/11 and accusing him and the Democrats of doing nothing in the so called "war on terror"
It's just another low blow that demonstrates how Fox News is not truly "Fair and Balanced" and remains nothing more than a spokesmouth for the Neocons fo the Republican party. It was nothing more than a blatent attempt to get Clinton to agree to an interview, then try to ambush him with off topic questions to place him on the defensive.
Then this morning, they have the audacity to say that Clinton has an "anger problem" and air psychiatrists opinions on Clinton to further a character assisination when the whole thing was started as an offensive against Clinton (off subject, might I add) by Fox News Journalists. If Fox had any balls to stick up to their "fair and balanced" tagline, they'd be asking these same questions and being critical of Bush- but that won't ever happen.
Fox has once again sunk even lower by redefining the lines between journalistic integrety and "yellow journalism"
Incidents like this are why I'm thankful we have outlets such as NPR.
Or for that mattter, VietNam?
yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plakespear
In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford outlawed political assassination: Section 5(g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/...nation.policy/