Clinton's Anger

That's clearly a biased reading on your part. The question was straightforward. It could have and probably should have been worded differently, but it was a fine question and people want to know. I want to know, and others do as well.

Clinton came off looking like a buffoon, a childish grade-schooler in a playyard spat, rather than an ex-president. He yet again demeaned the office by his unwilllingness to control his temper. Whether planned or not, it was simply bad.

Uh ... No. Both were responsible ... Clinton for eight years and Bush for eight months. The truth is that Clinton didn't do everything he could have, and gave no explanation for why. That was all the question was: Why didn't you do more?

He could have appealed to numerous things in his defense, which would have been good points to make on his behalf. But he didn't. He sounded like Hillary and the "vast right wing conspiracy" for which she was incorrect. I could make a better case for him than he did for himself.

Both could have done more.

There's nothing reasonable about it. Bush had eight months, in which he developed the predator drone with missile capability, and tracked terrorist groups in hte US. Clinton had eight years, and did little more than that. He did not respond to WTC 1, the Khobar Towers, the Embassy bombings, Somalia, the Cole, etc.

The American peoople don't blame Bush. That is your bias talking. The 9/11 report showed clear areas where Clinton and Bush could have done things differently, but in the end, it is the terrorists who are to blame.

You are as bad about defending Clinton as some of the sycophants are about Bush. You would have greatly helped your credibility by simply saying "Clinton messed up. He got angry and shouldn't have." But you didn't. You defend what was perhaps the least presidential moment in ex-presidential history. It was embarrassing for Clinton. It was embarrassing for our country.

but you didn't answer the question: Would you call it smear and sleaze if Bush was asked "Why did you do more to prevent it?"

Daisy hasn't answered it yet either, but perhaps she has a life and hasn't been on here today.

 

I'm sorry but I don't see a Clinton rampage here. Peter Jennings tried to goad him into that but Clinton remained calm. I don't see how you can interpret this interview in such a biased way. Well, maybe I can.

 

Barbarian on Wallace's ambush interview attempt:
Wallace was trying to word his question, as to make it impossible for Clinton to answer without accepting the republican spin that "everything is Clinton's fault."

Nope. You're just in denial about how the interview went.


Barbarian observes:
Clinton obviously anticipated that smear, and made Wallace eat it.

The polls so far indicate just the opposite.


Barbarian observes:
And the polls seem to indicate that it was a popular move with Americans. They blame Bush, not Clinton for letting down our guard on terror.

Yep, it's true. See below.


Barbarian observes:
For good reason. Clinton was tracking Islamic radicals, watching their financial dealings, and treating Osama as a danger. Bush dismantled those protections and his people scoffed at Bin Laden as a danger.

If Bush had just kept up the defenses Clinton had in place, 9/11 might never have happened. He dropped the ball.


Barbarian observes:
It's in the 9/11 findings. Americans know what happened. And they quite reasonably blame Bush for it.

It's very reasonable. Clinton had implemented a secret program to monitor the financial doings of Al Qaeda. Bush killed it. Clinton was tracking radical Islamic groups in the US. Bush protected them. So much so that the FBI agent in charge of the program quit in protest. Clinton actively pursued Bin Laden, who had to keep running instead of setting up attacks on the US. Bush stopped the pursuit. One FBI agent testified to the 9/11 commission that he almost fell off his chair when he realized that the Bush administration didn't consider terrorism a priority.

Asked whether they blame the Bush administration for the attacks, 45 percent said either a "great deal" or a "moderate amount," up from 32 percent in a June 2002 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.:tonofbricks:

 

Anyone who thinks that Chris Wallace was attempting to smear Clinton is not dealing with reality. I have listened to Wallace over the years and I have found him to be pretty much as evenhanded in doing interviews as Brian Lamb at C-SPAN.

 

The reality is that Clinton came across as being churlish. Wallance didn't try to outslick anybody as he is one of the most evenhanded interviewers in the media. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either badly misinformed or can't deal with reality.

 

Yep. Newt whipped Clinto pretty badly in 1994. He ripped the Congress right out of his groping hands.

 

:laugh: I had to read that again. I thought you were accidentally telling the truth about Clinton. :tongue3:

 

Originally Posted by The Galatian
Ask Newt about the consequences of messing with Clinton.

And yet, Newt ended up rolling over for Clinton on the budget, welfare reform and a host of other things. And Newt left office in disgrace and failure, while Clinton ended up with the respect and admiration of the American people. Only Reagan has had better numbers.

And yet, it did Newt no good at all. When it came to a confrontation on the budget, Newt caved and took the deal Clinton told him to take.

On welfare reform, Clinton set the agenda and the terms on which it would be done.

 

Surely you are joking. Clinton left office being thought of as a low life.

Over time people's memories fade in the background. That's why Clinton's numbers have risen since he ignominiously left office.

 

I hope one day soon, Galatian, that you come back to live in reality instead of the alternate universe you are evidently living in.

 

No Ken H;
I agree totally with The Galatian. If it were not true how come Clinton is so popular today. All the news programs cover him as much as Bush. Who else gets the coverage that Clinton gets from all the news organizations?

 

Howard Dean: Chris Wallace 'Tough But Fair'

Two weeks ago DNC Chief Howard Dean told Wallace he was "tough but fair." This is an entertaining contrast to Dean's current statement characterizing Fox News as part of the right-wing propaganda machine.

Wallace said that two weeks ago, he got lots of emails from conservatives raging about how he could be so harsh in his questioning of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. Dean followed Rice in a separate appearance, and according to Wallace, Dean told him "I can't believe you questioned her that tough." After his segment, Dean signed the guestbook with the comment Tough but fair.

That was then, this is now

link

 

That is funny, Niteshift.

I didn't see either interview. In fact, I have seen very little with Chris Wallace. I did see clips of it, and read some of it.

Just goes to show you how biased people really are, and they don't expect to get caught. But somehow, it always pops up, at the most inopportune moments.

 

As I wrote, people's memories fade.

 

Yes, it's all about the politics

 

(emphasis mine)

That's a big MIGHT. 9/11 might have happened anyway. There's no way to know. That's like saying "If Bach had never written the B-minor Mass, Edwin Jacobs might never have come to Christ." How do you know? It's one administration's word against another, and since you weren't a fly on the wall for any of that 8 years + 8 months, you have no idea if either side is accurate or truthful. Everything is speculation and a guess.

(ducks)

 

Paris Hilton is awfully popular with the people right now. She must be the most talented entertainer we have today. :tongue3:

Broad is the way that.....?
Narrow is the way that.....?

I don't use popularity to measure someone or somethings value. Sheeple are not always exercising their best judgement.

 

:applause: HAHA Blammo! Paris Hilton... yecch!

 

What's wrong with Paris Hilton? I thought that was a decent place to stay when visiting France.

 

Did I say Paris Hilton?

I meant... uh... Britney Spears, yeah that's the ticket. :smilewinkgrin: