NCAAbbs

See Bill Get Mad about comments

lmfao

Um Bill, You're still full of crap. You turned down all your real chances to get Bin Laden.

GrayBeard Wrote:See Bill Get Mad about comments

lmfao

Um Bill, You're still full of crap. You turned down all your real chances to get Bin Laden.

lmfao You still believe that crap from that movie on ABC. Very sad.

As for Clinton not being happy with "right wingers", I would have to say, who is happy with the "right wingers"?

RobertN Wrote:lmfao You still believe that crap from that movie on ABC. Very sad.

What are you talking about? He even admitted before that he didn't take the chances that he had. Do some research bub, and quit inhaling anything that Al Franken spits out at you.

I fell sorry for you RobertN, so I did some research for you...

LA Times Article

Washington Post Article

Newsmax Article...blaming the Lewinski stuff.

Wall Street Journal Article

There are plenty more articles...That golden shell you have placed around Billy Boy must be getting a little tarnished. :shhh:

Must be that "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" again? Look around. See any evidence of a VRWC? No? That proves it exists.

GrayBeard Wrote:I fell sorry for you RobertN, so I did some research for you...

leave the poor guy alone. He's just upset at the news bin laden might be dead.

me thinks H.G. Wells FTW.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Must be that "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" again? Look around. See any evidence of a VRWC? No? That proves it exists.

Ooh. You're right! That's eerie!

Funny, how right-wingers are dumb as rocks one minute, but they're ruling the world w/ terrifying efficiency the next.

I watched that interview and I think Chris Wallace peed himself a little bit.

The video, with his wide-eyed protestations of innocence and the fingerpointing, reminds me of the famous (infamous?) "I did not have sex with that young lady....Miss Lewinsky" press conference.

And we all know how that turned out.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:The video, with his wide-eyed protestations of innocence and the fingerpointing, reminds me of the famous (infamous?) "I did not have sex with that young lady....Miss Lewinsky" press conference.

And we all know how that turned out.

He admitted he fell short and didnt get the job done tho.

And I like how everyones trying to spin this interview like he lost control. he was very much in control. theres a difference between that and being assertive. I also like how Wallace couldnt even own up to his own question...and then he has the balls to act like it was Clintons fault the interview went in that direction. It was the 3rd question, and it might as well have been the first.

niuhuskie84 Wrote:I also like how Wallace couldnt even own up to his own question...and then he has the balls to act like it was Clintons fault the interview went in that direction. It was the 3rd question, and it might as well have been the first.

The ground rules Clinton agreed to included Wallace being able to ask anything he wanted to for part of the interview.

Anyone who doesn't think this was planned and rehearsed by Slick Willy is kidding themselves. Clinton had never done an interview on that show in the 10 years it's been around. He knew the question would be asked given the furor over the ABC deal and the 9/11 anniversary. By getting all riled up on Fox, attacking Wallace he could keep the "right wing conspiracy" crap going.

He and his people have been in full blown "legacy" mode since the second GWB was sworn in. That's all this was a part of.

It was good TV and all, but a load of crap otherwise. Here's a good article that outlines why Clinton is a liar, or still I should say.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles....le_id=5888

niuhuskie84 Wrote:It was the 3rd question, and it might as well have been the first.

But it wasn't the first. And if Bill had given it a short, side-stepping answer like most politicians, it likely would have been the last on that subject.

In any case, watching BC lose his temper like that, made me glad he no longer has his finger on the red button.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:In any case, watching BC lose his temper like that, made me glad he no longer has his finger on the red button.

I am about as far from the left as you can get, but that was a pretty crazy statement. Clinton was and is a hell of a lot more laid back that GWB ever has been.

blah Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:In any case, watching BC lose his temper like that, made me glad he no longer has his finger on the red button.

I am about as far from the left as you can get, but that was a pretty crazy statement. Clinton was and is a hell of a lot more laid back that GWB ever has been.

Never seen GWB redfaced, ranting, and out of control like that, even when faced with questions he doesn't like from people with agendas (Helen Thomas, anyone?). I will concede the 99.9% of the time BC is in control. Not at that moment however - unless you agree with Niner that it was all an act. I would expect my 13 year old grandson to have more self control than that, and i surely would not give him the red button.

I think Clintons anger stems from the fact he is on lockdown until the Presidential election. Until then this is the only booty the man will get...



I would be pissed as well.

this pretty much sums up how i feel
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/25...-american/

I disagree with Olbermann's characterization of Chris Wallace. But his rant is pretty much on target. His comments at the 2:30-3:00 mark ring especially true.

GrayBeard Wrote:See Bill Get Mad about comments

lmfao

Um Bill, You're still full of crap. You turned down all your real chances to get Bin Laden.

Bush hasn't captured him either.

Czabe's thoughts

http://czabe.com/daily/archives/2006/09/...omp_c.html

[quote]Hey, how

CZabe gets it...

Olbermann? He gets his best ratings (which are horrid) when he attacks Fox News. He did so earlier against O'Reilly and now the interview of Clinton.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/tel...1002878703

Lastly there is this:

The answers heading into 2006 looked like this:

-The audience for cable news was still growing, but not by much and not across the board.

-One channel, Fox News, continued to drive the growth, while its principal rivals, MSNBC and CNN, continued to suffer ratings declines.

-CNN still leads in the number of different people who watch it over the course of the month, allowing it to maintain its claim to be a rival to Fox News.

-CNN

Crew:

Appeal to popularity?

Olberman is an asshat. However I'm sure he'd be please to see that 90% of his audience posted in this thread.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Olberman is an asshat. However I'm sure he'd be please to see that 90% of his audience posted in this thread.

He should go back to ESPN. At least then, someone would see him on TV.

GrayBeard Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Olberman is an asshat. However I'm sure he'd be please to see that 90% of his audience posted in this thread.

He should go back to ESPN. At least then, someone would see him on TV.

+1

His most useful hour of the day is the hour he spends with Dan on the Big Show.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Crew:

Appeal to popularity?

I think Olbermann is appealing to popularity (drawing viewers from FOX to see what his rants are about); and thus getting higher ratings.

If your question is whether or nor FOX appeals to popularity (and thus high ratings) I do not think so. Agree or disagree FOX has a unique perspective. I feel like I can flip to ABC, CBS, NBC, et. al. and catch the same news... Fox says they are 'fair and balanced' but I know they tend to be more right wing/conservative in their views. I also think the left wing/liberal talent they bring in for counterpoints aren't the best.

But overall FOX does a better job IMO of reporting the news.

I remember prior to watching FOX I actually thought Chris Matthews "Hard Ball" was somewhat conservative and he was a speech writer for a democratic president... which shows me just how left most news media outlets are.

Crewdogz Wrote:I remember prior to watching FOX I actually thought Chris Matthews "Hard Ball" was somewhat conservative and he was a speech writer for a democratic president... which shows me just how left most news media outlets are.

:shhh: You can't say that stuff around here. It throws some people into all out tantrums.

[quote="Crewdogz"]CZabe gets it...

Olbermann? He gets his best ratings (which are horrid) when he attacks Fox News. He did so earlier against O'Reilly and now the interview of Clinton.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/tel...1002878703

Lastly there is this:

The answers heading into 2006 looked like this:

-The audience for cable news was still growing, but not by much and not across the board.

-One channel, Fox News, continued to drive the growth, while its principal rivals, MSNBC and CNN, continued to suffer ratings declines.

-CNN still leads in the number of different people who watch it over the course of the month, allowing it to maintain its claim to be a rival to Fox News.

-CNN

[quote="niuhuskie84"][quote="Crewdogz"]CZabe gets it...

Olbermann? He gets his best ratings (which are horrid) when he attacks Fox News. He did so earlier against O'Reilly and now the interview of Clinton.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/tel...1002878703

Lastly there is this:

The answers heading into 2006 looked like this:

-The audience for cable news was still growing, but not by much and not across the board.

-One channel, Fox News, continued to drive the growth, while its principal rivals, MSNBC and CNN, continued to suffer ratings declines.

-CNN still leads in the number of different people who watch it over the course of the month, allowing it to maintain its claim to be a rival to Fox News.

-CNN

Crewdogz Wrote:I think Olbermann is appealing to popularity (drawing viewers from FOX to see what his rants are about); and thus getting higher ratings.

That's the key right there. Unless he's railing on Fox for the 50th time in a given episode no one watches him. I don't think he's ever broken the 500k mark for viewers.

niuhuskie84 Wrote:this pretty much sums up how i feel
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/25...-american/

If this is what passes for fair and balanced for you, no wonder you think Fox is biased. A steady diet of this stuff, if taken as the norm, would certainly make fair reporting seem biased. I think far too many people say "Fox is obviously biased. Why they just did an entire report without once mentioning that GWB is the most evil person on earth."

Some quotes from KH:

"of course he (Bush) is not honest enough to do that directly"

"our worst presidency since James Buchanan"

"the administration and its hyenas at Fox"

"instead launch into the lies and distortions with which the Authoritarians among us attack the virtuous and reward the useless."

He (Bill Clinton) has spoken the truth about 9/11 and the current Presididential administration." lmfao

"Thus...has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty" lmfao

All this on a site called "Crooks and Liars" - yes, indeed, a very unbiased look at the matter.l

Anyone want to hold this up as an example of unbiased reporting?

BC and KH talk of the eight months that Bush had, in which he did no more and no less than BC - but BC had eight years. The was the Cole, the first WTC, the Embassy attacks. They accuse GWB and the right wing of trying to put it all on BC's shoulders, but it seems to me that they are doing just the opposite - trying to put it all on GWB's shoulders and hold BC blameless.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:this pretty much sums up how i feel
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/25...-american/

If this is what passes for fair and balanced for you, no wonder you think Fox is biased. A steady diet of this stuff, if taken as the norm, would certainly make fair reporting seem biased. I think far too many people say "Fox is obviously biased. Why they just did an entire report without once mentioning that GWB is the most evil person on earth."

Some quotes from KH:

"of course he (Bush) is not honest enough to do that directly"

"our worst presidency since James Buchanan"

"the administration and its hyenas at Fox"

"instead launch into the lies and distortions with which the Authoritarians among us attack the virtuous and reward the useless."

He (Bill Clinton) has spoken the truth about 9/11 and the current Presididential administration." lmfao

"Thus...has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty" lmfao

All this on a site called "Crooks and Liars" - yes, indeed, a very unbiased look at the matter.l

Anyone want to hold this up as an example of unbiased reporting?

BC and KH talk of the eight months that Bush had, in which he did no more and no less than BC - but BC had eight years. The was the Cole, the first WTC, the Embassy attacks. They accuse GWB and the right wing of trying to put it all on BC's shoulders, but it seems to me that they are doing just the opposite - trying to put it all on GWB's shoulders and hold BC blameless.

Just so we're clear, in general I think Olbermann is an arrogant blowhard too. Hes the OReilly of the left. Unbiased? Absolutely not. I think the best point he made was that the blame for where we are now probably falls on at least 4 administrations. I guess I shouldnt have said its summed up how I feel...there were a lot of things he said I disagreed with. Again, I do NOT consider editorial pieces "fair and balanced". Obviously, they take one side of an issue. But do I think the Bush presidency is one of the worst our country has ever seen though? Yes.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:BC and KH talk of the eight months that Bush had, in which he did no more and no less than BC - but BC had eight years. The was the Cole, the first WTC, the Embassy attacks. They accuse GWB and the right wing of trying to put it all on BC's shoulders, but it seems to me that they are doing just the opposite - trying to put it all on GWB's shoulders and hold BC blameless.

Duh. It's almost Nov 2006. That means 2 years to the next presidential election...that means (to quote the immortal Sting) it's GO TIME! The campaigning has begun.

niuhuskie84 Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:this pretty much sums up how i feel
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/25...-american/

If this is what passes for fair and balanced for you, no wonder you think Fox is biased. A steady diet of this stuff, if taken as the norm, would certainly make fair reporting seem biased. I think far too many people say "Fox is obviously biased. Why they just did an entire report without once mentioning that GWB is the most evil person on earth."

Some quotes from KH:

"of course he (Bush) is not honest enough to do that directly"

"our worst presidency since James Buchanan"

"the administration and its hyenas at Fox"

"instead launch into the lies and distortions with which the Authoritarians among us attack the virtuous and reward the useless."

He (Bill Clinton) has spoken the truth about 9/11 and the current Presididential administration." lmfao

"Thus...has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty" lmfao

All this on a site called "Crooks and Liars" - yes, indeed, a very unbiased look at the matter.l

Anyone want to hold this up as an example of unbiased reporting?

BC and KH talk of the eight months that Bush had, in which he did no more and no less than BC - but BC had eight years. The was the Cole, the first WTC, the Embassy attacks. They accuse GWB and the right wing of trying to put it all on BC's shoulders, but it seems to me that they are doing just the opposite - trying to put it all on GWB's shoulders and hold BC blameless.

Just so we're clear, in general I think Olbermann is an arrogant blowhard too. Hes the OReilly of the left. Unbiased? Absolutely not. I think the best point he made was that the blame for where we are now probably falls on at least 4 administrations. I guess I shouldnt have said its summed up how I feel...there were a lot of things he said I disagreed with. Again, I do NOT consider editorial pieces "fair and balanced". Obviously, they take one side of an issue. But do I think the Bush presidency is one of the worst our country has ever seen though? Yes.

Fair enough. We will just have to agree to disagree there. My candidate for the worst presidency is Carter. Gas was much more expensive then (adjusted for inflation) and you had to plan ahead for the gas lines. Three hours to get a fill-up, if they didn't run out by the time you got to the head of the line. Inflation and unemployment were way up, both in the 9-12% range. I was paying 21.5% at the bank for short term money for my business, and the Iranians took our guys hostage for 444 days. He did a couple of good things, but overall those were bad years. It seems odd now that JC has sanitized himself by building some houses. I don't even think he is the best EX-president we have ever had. Heck, I would put even BC ahead of him. And i don't put BC first.

^^
True, Carter had his problems. Perhaps the biggest one (maybe not problem, but weakness) was that he was an idealist. But I think he truly believed in those things. Unfortunately he failed. But I wouldnt go so far as to say he was one of the worst. Go far back in our history, and we've got some pretty tough competition for that spot.

Crewdogz Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Crew:

Appeal to popularity?

I think Olbermann is appealing to popularity (drawing viewers from FOX to see what his rants are about); and thus getting higher ratings.

If your question is whether or nor FOX appeals to popularity (and thus high ratings) I do not think so.

I was referring to the argument that Olbermann is wrong because of popular opinion. That's what I though you were arguing.

I don't usualy watch Olbermann, I caught his rant last night while flipping through channels.

I don't watch him for news, I get mine from reading a variety of internet sources, and I primarily watch CNN (which isn't much better than any of the other stations during the regular news). Olbermann is entertainment, just like a lot of other evening "newscasters." I do catch him occasionally (read: once a month for a few minutes at a time, maybe), and I do enjoy watching him rip up O'Reilly (who is another entertainer, IMHO).

My argument is just that one cannot use rating as an effective measure of who is right or wrong. If that were the case, I guess "Dancing with the Stars" should be making foriegn policy decisions for the US. If you were not arguing that point, my apologies.

Actually, while on this subject, I find it sad that the traditional cable news outlets feel the need to compete with the Daily Show. Also the cable news seems more apt to editorialize on the news without making distinction. It used to be that you'd see that "Editorial" or Special Comment" at the bottom of the screen when this was happening. Now it just seems like editorial comments are spread throughout each and every broadcast, with a few exceptions.

niuhuskie84 Wrote:^^
True, Carter had his problems. Perhaps the biggest one (maybe not problem, but weakness) was that he was an idealist. But I think he truly believed in those things. Unfortunately he failed. But I wouldnt go so far as to say he was one of the worst. Go far back in our history, and we've got some pretty tough competition for that spot.

Looking back, i see that i didn't type all of what i was thinking. I meant he was the worst in memory. Eisenhower is the earliest president i can remember. I know little of Fillmore, Buchanan, or Tyler, and could not begin to compare them

I feel that Carter's handling of the hostage situation is the genesis of the notion that the U.S. will back down, that we are big hat, no cattle. Clinton's withdrawal from Somalia just added substance to that impression, but it wasn't the beginning. OTOH, Kennedy made a strong stand in the Cuban Missile Crisis. That gave us some "street cred" - at least until Iran.

The weird thing here is that I supported Carter. Mea culpa.

Of course HW not finishing the job in Iraq the first time has no bearing on our current situation...

uhmump95 Wrote:Of course HW not finishing the job in Iraq the first time has no bearing on our current situation...

Actually, it does. I was one of those who wanted him to press on to baghdad and take Saddam Hussein. You know, one of those right wingers who just loves killing people. (insert stereotype of your choice here). Funny how a lot fo the people who pressured Bush 41 to stop are the same ones now blaming him for not finishing the job. Maybe not you Mump, but a lot of people. Of course, back then there were a lot of people who said the goal was to liberate Kuwait, not depose Saddam, and so the US should stop there. Who were those people? Nasty warmongering right-wingers?

We will never know if Kennedy would have blinked, since the Soviets blinked first. LBJ got us in a war but did not fight it to win. Carter blinked before the staring contest even started. Clinton couldn't stand the heat in somalia. - should have avoided it if he wasn't going to stay.

In a twist, I wanted Bush to send the troops right up the Husseins door and kick his a$$. I felt that the majority of Americans wanted this as well. Just a case where what the people wanted was deterred by a few.

Clinton does make a good point though in that Bush had time to make terrorism a priority before 9/11 and he didn't.

uhmump95 Wrote:Clinton does make a good point though in that Bush had time to make terrorism a priority before 9/11 and he didn't.

And vice versa, X 12.

edit: Which brings us back to Clinton's "blow-up" and fingerpointing accusuations.

We had a guest commentator from the left, now one from the right. But this one quotes references.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Childish Clinton Caught with His Socks Down
September 25, 2006



BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: All right, now, back to Clinton. I'm going to try to get through this (laughing) without stopping the tape, Mike. Chris Wallace says, "Do you think you did enough, sir?"

CLINTON: No, because I didn't get him.

WALLACE: Right.

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridicule me for trying. [sic] They had eight months to try, they did not try. I tried, so I tried and failed.

RUSH: Stop the tape. Now, that was the segment that people have seen where he just lost it. I mean, if you saw that segment, that's where he lost it. That's when that finger was jabbing Chris Wallace's papers -- a long finger, by the way, just inches away from his nose, leading up on the front edge of the chair. Something else I noticed, I'm sure some of you did, too, somebody needs -- and I'm serious. We're talking about a former president. It's really bad form to wear socks that are too short when you're sitting down and your slacks are a little high on your calf up there, and you've got pasty white ankles and thighs, don't even have a golf tan under there, it's distracting. Some people actually thought Clinton was wearing white socks, in the e-mail, and I had to write 'em back, "No, not socks. He was wearing black socks. They're just too short."

What you saw there was Clinton showing a little leg. Who knows who he thought was in the audience? This was the portion where he just lost it, and this is when we knew, this is when it was confirmed that the movie got to him and that the truth is undermining his lie and his alternative reality that his entire legacy and existence has been built on. I think President Clinton runs around telling himself lies and has done so for so long, he really believes this stuff, folks. He really thinks that he was the only one who really made a serious effort to get bin Laden, nobody else has. He came so close, and the country owes him a debt of gratitude, and he didn't understand the neocons and the right-wingers are out there ridiculing him, or trying. Nobody's ridiculing you, sir, for "trying." We're ridiculing you for lying about it.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to keep the rhythm going because we put this together in sort of a timeline fashion in order to reply to the elements of Clinton's comments as they occurred. We're going to go back here to the previous sound bite. I did not get through the whole thing because I had to stop it. Chris Wallace here with the question,"Do you think you did enough sir?"

CLINTON: No, because I didn't get him.

WALLACE: Right.
CLINTON: But at least I tried, that's the difference in me and some including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridicule me for trying, they had eight months to try, they did not try. I tried, so I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy, and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted.

RUSH: Stop the tape. He did not get demoted. We've quoted Clarke's own book, he requested a change to the new cyberdivision, it didn't even happen 'til after 9/11. Clarke was still at the National Security Council staff before 9/11 happen, he wasn't demoted, he wasn't fired. Clinton lying, sadly, again.

CLINTON: So you did Fox's bidding on this show, you did your nice little conservative hit job on me.

RUSH: All right, stop the tape. Now, this is where it really began to get interesting to me. All this other stuff is typical Clinton, and so is this. Fox's bidding on this show. This man is a former president, but he has been reduced here to a sniveling, whining baby who thinks that he has been set up. He's a former president. He tried to broker Mideast peace, he was obsessed with bin Laden, he was dealing with some of the world's biggest hooligans, and he's allowed himself to get set up by Fox, by Chris Wallace and Fox News Sunday, and this is a conservative hit job on him that goes to what I've been saying. These people never get... These weren't even hard questions, folks. That's the thing about it. These are questions that he doesn't get anywhere else. He's protected, as are all the Democrats. They are protected. They're not smeared by the mainstream media. They are protected. They are amplified. They are resurrected when they plummet. They are promoted. They are considered the smartest people in the world, the most accomplished, the most valuable. If it weren't for these people fawning Clinton's legacy wouldn't have a chance anyway.

CLINTON: -- set this meeting up because you're going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch supported my work on climate change.

RUSH: Stop the tape. Now, this is juvenile. This is just juvenile. "You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Murdoch supported my work on climate change." How many of you have stopped watching Fox News because Rupert Murdoch had a little fund-raising breakfast for Hillary? How many of you have stopped watching Fox because Rupert goes to Clinton's little circle you-know-what here to raise and fleece money for hunger around the world. "We have all these domestic problems here in this country and I gotta feed the people of the world." It's just childish, folks, it is just literally, literally childish. You set this meeting, you agree to come on, sir. They extended an invitation. You agreed to come on. Set this meeting up because you're going to get a lot of criticism from your network? What informs Bill Clinton on this? He is as much a kook fringe lib as everybody else out there in their blogosphere is what this means. He's not this triangulator. I told you from the get-go, folks. He and Hillary are a team. He has to be the one to get the votes, so he tried to make himself out to be a moderate while Hillary was the hard-core leftist, but they both are, and they always have been, and Clinton is demonstrating that again.

CLINTON: Came here under false pretenses and said that you'd spend half the time talking about -- you said you'd spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion plus in three days from 215 different commitments. And you don't care. You falsely accused me of giving aid and comfort to bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia.

RUSH: Was there false accusation that aid and comfort was given to bin Laden? He's running around with a guilt complex, I'm telling you, he's got a lot of guilt and shame over this and he's lying to himself about it and the last thing somebody who is lying can be confronted with is the truth, particularly pathological liar. You came here under false pretenses? (doing impression) "You told me that you were going to give me a softball interview and make me look good in the eyes of the world for raising all this money and caring about a bunch of damn poor people, and now you're confronting me with this business about bin Laden." This is just... Well, it's beneath anybody who's held the office of the presidency. Wallace then said, "But did they know in '96 when he declared war in the US? Did they know in '98 when he bombed these two countries? Did they know in 2000 when he hit the USS Cole?"
CLINTON: What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized to find him, for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody's gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now, I've never criticized President Bush.

RUSH: Stop the tape. I can't let this one go by. Never criticized the president? What, you mean, "on Sunday"? What about the previous five years? What about when you travel abroad and undermine the Iraq war policy? What about when you criticize the way the war on terror is being prosecuted? You're doing it here. If I were still president, we'd have 20,000 troops down there somewhere. I issued a presidential finding for the CIA to kill him. They don't think so. CIA doesn't think so. FBI doesn't think so. They never got the word to go forward from you, sir. This is actually sort of pitiful and pathetic. We're watching a 60-year-old man here behave as an eight-year-old caught in a sandbox with the neighbor's little daughter. Well, we are. I'm minding my own business here. I was just, you know, exploring my nudity, and she walked in on her own. What I was I supposed to do? All right, here's the rest of this.

CLINTON: I don't think this is useful. But you know, we do have a government that thinks that Afghanistan is only one-seventh as important as Iraq, and you ask me about terror and Al-Qaeda with that sort of dismissive thing, and you've got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever. But I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it. But I did try, and I did everything I thought I responsibly could.

RUSH: Tried to do a lot: tried to cut taxes, tried to do this, tried to that. "Never worked harder" on all these things. You tried and tried and tried. Get that smirk off your face, look at that smirk. You think you're so clever because you're nailing me and so forth. That's intimidating; that is threatening. I know it's funny. It's hilarious but it's instructive here. This is a former president doing this stuff! Wallace tries to move on to the Clinton Global Initiative, says, "Can I ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative?"

CLINTON: You can.

WALLACE: I always intended to, sir.

CLINTON: No. You intended though to move your bones by doing this first, which is perfectly fine. But I don't mind people asking me -- I actually talked to the 9/11 Commission for four hours, Chris, and I told them the mistakes I thought I made, and I urged them to make those mistakes public. Because none of us had been perfect. But instead of anybody talking about those things, I always get these clever little political deals where they ask me one set of questions and the other guys another set, and it always comes from one source.
RUSH: Always comes from one source. I wonder who? Who is that one source? Probably the Mister Big on the vast right-wing conspiracy. Who is the Mister Big? He went on to say that they never ask these questions of the other guy. You've gotta be in utter denial. Never ask these questions to the other side? How many press conferences have there been where the Drive-By Media has demanded Bush admit he made mistakes in virtually every aspect of the war on terror and the war on Iraq? Never gets asked these questions. He gets asked constantly, "Why haven't you gotten bin Laden? You've failed to get bin Laden. What are you doing to get bin Laden? The Democrats say the fact that you haven't got bin Laden means the war on terror is a failure," and he thinks the other side's never asked this stuff!

By the way, we looked that up, too. Here's Chris Wallace talking to Donald Rumsfeld, March 28th, 2004. Quote: "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?" So there's Chris Wallace criticizing Rumsfeld for not doing anything pre-9/11. "What do you make of Richard Clarke's basic charge that pre-9/11, 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."

Now, you may not remember any of those interviews in 2004 with Secretary Rumsfeld by Chris Wallace and that's because Rumsfeld didn't blow a gasket and act like a little kid when he answered the questions. But to say that Chris Wallace has never asked these questions before is absurd. Now, Bob Beckel was on Fox today, and he's trying to make the most of this, and I don't blame him, I feel a little sorry for him, too. He said what Clinton was doing here was giving Democrats a road map on how to deal with these silly charges Democrats are soft on terror. Bill Clinton was telling them how to go out there and do it.

Ladies and gentlemen, Chris Wallace reports that Clinton walked out of there in a rage and threatened to fire his staff if they set him up like this ever again and if they goofed up. I'm telling you, this was not a planned strategy. If you think this was sort of some grand liberal Democrat strategy that's outsmarted everybody. You have got it wrong. You're being too smart by half. This was the Bill Clinton, real Bill Clinton, and this was unmasking, this is taking the camouflage off, this was getting rid of the mask. There was nothing staged about this, there was nothing programmed or rehearsed about it. This was not a message to Democrats, because Bill Clinton, in those minutes of the interview yesterday, couldn't have cared less about the Democrat Party or anybody but himself.
END TRANSCRIPT

As usual the GOP has nothing original to whine about so they go with old faithful.

What a PITIFUL party.

CLINTON!!!!! CLINTON!!!!! CLINTON!!!!!!

Quote:I was referring to the argument that Olbermann is wrong because of popular opinion. That's what I though you were arguing.

I believe popular opinion only determines "truth" or what's "right" when it's put to a vote in a true democracy.

;-)

We have had posted here Clinton, Olberman, and Limbaugh. Although I did not care for some iof his characterizations, Limbaugh was the only one to use analysis as opposed to slogans. He also offered some facts in refutation of the claims of the others.

lets recap the positions:

Democratic position: Under Clinton, all that could be done was done. Under Bush for 8 months, nothing was done. (This implies that anti-terrorism efforts went from 100% to 0% on Inauguration Day, 2001.)

Republican position: Clinton had opportunites to get bin Laden, failed to take advantage of them.

Hmm. Which sounds more reasonable to you?


One more thing: Clinton claims it was a set-up, that he was trapped. I really hope our presidents in the future are not so easily bamboozled. I thought more highly of Clinton ten days ago, both as a president and as an ex-president. Contrary to the view of the anti-Bushies, I don't have a knee-jerk reaction that whatever Clinton does must be wrong. He is not the Devil, the AntiChrist, or the most evil man in the world. He had (has) his good points. But I am more happy now than ten days ago that he is out. JMHO

In the media today, it is no longer WHAT you say, but HOW you say it.