http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/56194/Bill_Clinton_vs_Fox_News.html
feel free to put whatever neo con spin on it you like.
feel free to put whatever neo con spin on it you like.
yo luckydog. good video for ya.
- Thread starter smackyo
- Start date
saw it live - Clinton unleashed - a thing of beauty! Ya think Wallace didn't expect such a vigorous response? - smackdown!
As the Republicans attempt to re-write history, on so many levels, it was most refreshing to see Clinton counter it... he's been hit with the Somalia accusations, time and time again, with the "wag the dog" spin, over and over...
Through it all, through the time of Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and the Shrub, there was one consistent player - Richard Clarke. Clarke's 9/11 Commission testimony and his book "Against All Enemies" offer up a comprehensive, systematic accounting... but it's not one the Republicans like to acknowledge as it clearly highlights all the failings of past and present U.S. presidential administrations in handling the "war on terror" - but particularly critical of the Shrub's admin.
(by the by - interesting to note that Fox has forced YouTube to take down all videos of the interview, uhhh, for copyright infringement... but just that interview as scores of other Fox originated videos, today, remain up on YouTube. Go figure... seems Clinton has charged up the democratic base with this interview, just a tad! )
Speaking of unleashed – MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann has particularly come hard the last couple of months! Passionate/accurate in his analysis of the Clinton/Wallace interview…
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4KgkrApJ5PE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4KgkrApJ5PE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
As the Republicans attempt to re-write history, on so many levels, it was most refreshing to see Clinton counter it... he's been hit with the Somalia accusations, time and time again, with the "wag the dog" spin, over and over...
Through it all, through the time of Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and the Shrub, there was one consistent player - Richard Clarke. Clarke's 9/11 Commission testimony and his book "Against All Enemies" offer up a comprehensive, systematic accounting... but it's not one the Republicans like to acknowledge as it clearly highlights all the failings of past and present U.S. presidential administrations in handling the "war on terror" - but particularly critical of the Shrub's admin.
(by the by - interesting to note that Fox has forced YouTube to take down all videos of the interview, uhhh, for copyright infringement... but just that interview as scores of other Fox originated videos, today, remain up on YouTube. Go figure... seems Clinton has charged up the democratic base with this interview, just a tad! )
Speaking of unleashed – MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann has particularly come hard the last couple of months! Passionate/accurate in his analysis of the Clinton/Wallace interview…
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4KgkrApJ5PE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4KgkrApJ5PE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
In short the bushwhacker got bushwhacked. Either Fox News didn't expect Clinton to be so vigourous or they figured that the anchor would have handled Clinton.
Take note to early in the clip that the anchor (Wallace? I don't watch Fox News Sunday) "justified" his asking Clinton of Al Qaeda by citing some apparent influx of emails from the viewers. It was like he was trying to distance Fox from the question as if he was running away from responsibility. Then he lost total control of the interview. IMO, the format to ask Clinton about his Clinton Global Intiative in the second part of the interview was a blatant means to wiggle out of trouble.
Recently in the media it was reported that Clinton did order a number of assination attempts on Osama bin Laden. However the possibility of civilians getting killed always led to the attempt being cancelled.
And let's keep in mind to that far less money was spent on the 9/11 Commission than what was spent on the impeachment of Clinton.
Anyhow as manipulative as Fox News can be, they were out manipulated by a master manipulator. That or Slick Willie was just shilling for Richard Clark's book!
Take note to early in the clip that the anchor (Wallace? I don't watch Fox News Sunday) "justified" his asking Clinton of Al Qaeda by citing some apparent influx of emails from the viewers. It was like he was trying to distance Fox from the question as if he was running away from responsibility. Then he lost total control of the interview. IMO, the format to ask Clinton about his Clinton Global Intiative in the second part of the interview was a blatant means to wiggle out of trouble.
Recently in the media it was reported that Clinton did order a number of assination attempts on Osama bin Laden. However the possibility of civilians getting killed always led to the attempt being cancelled.
And let's keep in mind to that far less money was spent on the 9/11 Commission than what was spent on the impeachment of Clinton.
Anyhow as manipulative as Fox News can be, they were out manipulated by a master manipulator. That or Slick Willie was just shilling for Richard Clark's book!
[
The republicans are no different then the democrats when it comes to the revision of history, waffling on legislation and the issues and when not in power are very vocal about how the other party sucks and will spell the end of all that american's hold dear to their heart. Thats simply the reality of our democratic system.
being a libertarian first and neo-con second I thought the horndog's reply was great.....the reporter asked a series of fairly stupid and predictable questions and clinton provided a fair and vigorous replysmackyo said:
Blah blah blah blah.......thank you for the expected replyOTBn said:
The republicans are no different then the democrats when it comes to the revision of history, waffling on legislation and the issues and when not in power are very vocal about how the other party sucks and will spell the end of all that american's hold dear to their heart. Thats simply the reality of our democratic system.
Clarke's book is on my list of reads and will hold my response to your view his focus on Bush redux.OTBn said:
pull your head out of your ass....there are still, and will continue to be, numerous versions of the Clinton video on youtube......the big bad republicians haven't subverted the system to take control over the media so you can safely take off your tinfoil hat and don't worry about the black heliopoters picking you up.OTBn said:
CNN's "In the Footsteps of Bin Laden" talked about that and there were two opportunities where the likelihood of civilian deaths called for the operation to be canceled and then another, still during the Clinton administration, where there was evidence of the Saudi royal family being in attendance meant the operation was scrubbed. Just goes to show that the democrats are no different then the republicans when it comes to looking after its friendly middle east assets.dirtydan said:
Last edited:
see why can't americans see shit like these videos? why do they have to be so fucking brainwashed? no doubt there will be some kind of neo con spin on both these videos though, well the clinton interview has already had some.OTBn said:
I saw a re-run of the Clinton interview, Sunday night on TV. Clinton was fuming mad and I think a reason to be, because FOX only was showing one side and not the other side the Republicans. I am not a Clinton support and I never will be. However, Clinton was railroad/ambushed on this interview on FOX.
When Keith Olbermann worked in "the toy department" (i.e. sports on ESPN), he was an incredibly insightful and outspoken commentator who excelled at making pompous, pampered athletes cringe uncomfortably when their sense of self-importance had gotten a little too over the top. But he's found his true calling as a political commentator.
Listening to him eviscerate Fox News, Chris Wallace and that shameful and shameless excuse for a president that now presides over the United States made my heart jump for joy. Oh dear ... maybe I'm not a man after all. Would a real man say such a thing as "made my heart jump for joy"? Sorry, couldn't resist tweaking the various bozos on this site who know what a "man" would or wouldn't say.
Listening to him eviscerate Fox News, Chris Wallace and that shameful and shameless excuse for a president that now presides over the United States made my heart jump for joy. Oh dear ... maybe I'm not a man after all. Would a real man say such a thing as "made my heart jump for joy"? Sorry, couldn't resist tweaking the various bozos on this site who know what a "man" would or wouldn't say.
H
Hardatwork
JustAGuy,
Thanks for letting me know about the Keith Olbermann video. Here it is for those of you interested in seeing it...
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/56316/Olbermann_on_the_Clinton_Interview.html
Thanks for letting me know about the Keith Olbermann video. Here it is for those of you interested in seeing it...
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/56316/Olbermann_on_the_Clinton_Interview.html
"selling seeds................(pause for effect)........by mail" That's classic! -somewhere around the 4 minute 20 second mark mark. Have to jot that one down for future use. Other than that - he kinda goes over the top. Passionate about his statement at least.
Huh - the videos are still there otbn!!OTBn said:
You're sounding a bit anti-republican aren't you??
I did see some of the interview.....in replay not live....
I think Bill did a good job....he aggressively defended himself....
I only wish he was as aggressive when it was his turn to defend the USA against the terrorists.
WTC 1
Cole
2 embassy bombing
Somalia
We were attached many times and he never fought back.
Where was that aggressive stand when we needed it most?
I think Bill did a good job....he aggressively defended himself....
I only wish he was as aggressive when it was his turn to defend the USA against the terrorists.
WTC 1
Cole
2 embassy bombing
Somalia
We were attached many times and he never fought back.
Where was that aggressive stand when we needed it most?
Wrong again LD. If you had listened to what Slick Willie had to say then the last part of your post simply would have been there. Clinton repeated several times that he was being heavily criticized by the Republicans for spending too much time on fighting against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. One case in point, remember all of those cruise missile Clinton had launched to Somalia?luckydog71 said:
So tell me LD, where were the Republicans when it came to WTC 1, Cole, 2 embassey bombings and Somalia?
LOL – your sweeping generalization has some basis; although today’s Republican Shrub admin is making a concerted effort to attach full/complete responsibility for 9/11 to Clinton… to deflect any suggestion that they have any culpability in the failings associated with terror preparedness… as I said, re-writing history. Just cause it’s the expected reply you don’t want to read…OTBn said:
Yup, as I stated, YouTube removed the actual videos – an attempt to view the video resulted in receiving the pop-up message,"This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner Fox News Network, LLC because its content was used without permission." Here’s a summary link that speaks to it:OTBn said:
Oh wait, seems that linked story has a Tuesday afternoon update placed at its end; as it states, “UPDATE: It seems that on Tuesday afternoon, either the folks at Fox News changed their stance, or they just can`t keep up with all the copies of this popular video floating around YouTube. Because this video had not been removed and a few other clips were also up there.” So… there was such a “buzz” across the “blogosphere” over the initial move by Fox News to remove the video… incredible criticism everywhere. So I expect Fox relented… backed down!
gravitas, how does your head up your ass… uhhh, feel? Tinfoil hat, black helicopters, blah, blah, blah
Randy, et tu? A fan club – wahoo! If you want to chirp in… start over here – still waiting for your comments
haha, yeah dirtydan, game, set and match. haha, fuck man i don't know what it is. its like some con's just don't hear it. they listen but they choose to hear what they want to hear. its really weird to me.dirtydan said:
i'll tell ya luckydog where clinton was. in addition to trying to fight the terrorist threat that the cons thought was of no concern, he was busy not only sending missles to training camps in afganistan and such, but also having to fight tooth and nail to try to get house approval on these things, having to constantly fight the house controlled by the gop over any move he tried to make against terrorism.
also having to fight and defend against getting a fucking blowjob which the conservatives thought was more important then osama. thats where he was luckydog.
oh one more thing. where was good'ol george during the 9 months before 9 - 11? wasn't he on vacation every fucking other week. workin like a good'ol boy on the ranch and out fishin? tell me sir, what did george do.
also a good satire on the interview from the daily show.
enjoy
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/56313/The_Daily_Show_Clinton_vs_GOP_News.html
Last edited:
DD / Smakyo - you obviously share Pres. Clinton's view of history.
I do not.
There is enough blame to go around, we all were lulled into this false sense that it could never happen here. Except for WCT1, we had not been attacked since Dec 7, 1941.
For Clinton to wag his finger and say he did everything he could to "kill" OBL is just another out right lie. He did not. Neither did the rest of the DEMS or the GOP. Neither did the rest of America.
All I can say is Americans were asleep and we were sucker punched. We woke up.
I do not.
There is enough blame to go around, we all were lulled into this false sense that it could never happen here. Except for WCT1, we had not been attacked since Dec 7, 1941.
For Clinton to wag his finger and say he did everything he could to "kill" OBL is just another out right lie. He did not. Neither did the rest of the DEMS or the GOP. Neither did the rest of America.
All I can say is Americans were asleep and we were sucker punched. We woke up.
While you were sleep-walking, you mistakenly woke-up in Iraq.luckydog71 said:
The specific steps that Clinton took are well documented - you shouldn't dismiss them, outright... since they account for a hell of a lot more than anything the Shrub admin has done.
Yet, Clinton himself states he didn't do enough, he failed... because he didn't get Bin Laden. That's a far cry from the Shrub's attempts to blame it all on Clinton, to distance himself from any suggestion of inadequacy in spite of, the also well documented and very specific/precise (mis)steps the Shrub admin took (or didn't take), right from Jan-2001 on through to 9/11.
LD, you're wrong again
The narrow view created by Republican types. It is truly amazing how quickly other events are forgotten and ignorant people can become. I suggest LD that terrorism in the US is far more than Muslim extremists coming from elsewhere in the world. With that said I'll give sometime to ponder that.
I've never been a trumpet for Democratic policies, or Republican policies for that matter. I'm no fan of Clinton, never have been, never will be. Really LD, you're just seeing something that simply ain't there.luckydog71 said:
luckydog71 said:
The narrow view created by Republican types. It is truly amazing how quickly other events are forgotten and ignorant people can become. I suggest LD that terrorism in the US is far more than Muslim extremists coming from elsewhere in the world. With that said I'll give sometime to ponder that.
Wrong again LD. The record is the US during Clinton's presidency did try to kill bin Laden. There is no doubt from that clip that Clinton somewhat embellished his record in comparing that to that of either Bush presidency. Nevertheless there was an active campaign to hunt down OBL and kill him. News reports have stated that 3 or 4 times OBL was found but because of the high risk of collateral damage, specifically the killing of civilians, those asassination attempts were cancelled.luckydog71 said:
Wrong again LD. The US intelligence services were well aware of OBL and Al Qaeda. The shortfall of these services was their lack of ability to infiltrate Al Qaeda and other such terrorist groups.luckydog71 said:
I'll President BJ credit for pointing out something and that is the US has something like 130,000 troops in Iraq and a quarter of that number in Afghanistan. So that leads to these points:OTBn said:
A) Osama bin Laden was deemed 4-5 years ago by President George W. Bush to be his top priority.
B) None of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi nationals.
C) There never were cooperative relations between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda.
D) Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.
The common belief seems to be OBL is in Pakistan not Afghanistan.dirtydan said:
If the US was about to invade Pakistan looking for OBL then I could see the logic for more US troops in Afghanistan. Are you advocating the US have a military build up and go after OBL where ever he is? I can hear the screaming now from the RoW. Pakistan had nothing to do with 9/11 why is the US invading?
I stop far short of saying Clinton caused 9/11. I think he was a contributor, just like GWB is a contributor. Another contributor is the ACLU. If you feel it is important to apportion blame on some sort of scale, have at it.
On Sept 10, 2001 the mind set in America would never have tolerated an aggressive approach to stopping 9/11. Could you just imagine the out cry from the ACLU for arresting 19 ME young men in 3 sperate airports just because they had box cutters with them? Racial profiling!!!!! Racial discrimination!!!!!
The FBI had information as did the military intelligence. They were prevented by US policy from sharing that knowledge with the CIA.
