wow, thanks for posting that. Buuba was pissed, I mean how often do you see the interviewee reach over and tap the interviewer's leg each time he makes a point? Clinton needs to wear a longer set of slacks next time he's on fox news.
one more thing. I dug how clinton said if he were in office, they would have bin laden, which stands in stark contrast to this administration. As it stands now, Osama is probably on the Pakistani border, and Bush is relying on Pakistan to get osama if he is there. Meanwhile, Musharaf just signed a peace treaty with the war lords who run that area. Anyone catch that interview where he said that Armitage had threatened to bomb pakistan if tey didnt help? And then at a press conference with Bush a few days later, he was asked about that accusation. He replied that he couldnt talk about it cause his book was coming out. Bush just laughed and said, "buy the book." Isnt Armitage the one who leaked Valerie Plame's name? man these are some shifty mothers. WTF. Anyway:
hilarious when Clinton is comparing one's power as president and one's power as a former-president. in describing the powers of president he smugly lists his greatest achievements, relishing his opportunity to remind the Fox viewers all the stuff he accomplished.
also when he says that when he wakes up in the morning and there is a bad headline he almost says "it's President Bush's fault " but stops himself and says "responsibility."
Does anyone know why Fox News spells it "Usama" and not "Osama"?
Did I miss something?
No, you didn't miss it, you just forgot. Usama is actually his real name. Immediately after the 9/11 attacks every media outlet in the country was talking about Usama bin Laden's involvement. The problem was that the name 'Usama' starts with the letters U-S-A, so at some point shortly after 9/11 the media stopped referring to him as Usama, and started calling him Osama. I'm not sure whether the pressure to make the change came from above or from the force of popular opinion, but the switch was made swiftly and smoothly. The shift was no secret either, most major news outlets openly discussed it. What's crazy is that nowadays I doubt your average American would even remember the shift, or be able to tell you the correct spelling of Osama's name. If the media can alter reality so effortlessly with their cards on the table, just think of what they can do with their cards held close and aces up both sleeves. I distinctly recall my jaw dropping last year when this all came back to me while reading a foreign publication that used his real name. Scary, huh?
Here's a link to Usama's page on the FBI's ten most wanted fugitives site:
hilarious when Clinton is comparing one's power as president and one's power as a former-president. in describing the powers of president he smugly lists his greatest achievements, relishing his opportunity to remind the Fox viewers all the stuff he accomplished.
Apparently the biggest benefit of being an ex[/b] president is being able to say what you actually want to.
Does anyone know why Fox News spells it "Usama" and not "Osama"?
Did I miss something?
I know of one right-winger who insists on spelling Muslim as "Moslem" because spelling it with a U is to capitulate to the mandates of political correctness. Yeah.
also when he says that when he wakes up in the morning and there is a bad headline he almost says "it's President Bush's fault " but stops himself and says "responsibility."
wondered if that was just me. i heard "f-responsibility"
No one can say that Bill Clilnton doesn't have a big set of balls. In that interview with Chris Wallace, Bubba claimed he did more than Bush to fight terrorism. Certainly, every president from the present day back to Jimmy Carter--especially Jimmy Carter--can be faulted for not responding to Islamic fascists. Carter watched Iranian extremists take over our embassy and hold our diplomats hostage--an act of war--and did nothing. Reagan was so focused on his effort to bring down the Soviet Union that when more than 200 Marines were killed by Hezbollah in Lebanon, he pulled out. Bush 41 confronted Saddam when Kuwait was invaded, but, bowing to the pressure of the "international community," let him off the hook. But during Clinton's eight years--versus Bush's eight months--we saw Mogadishu, the first World Trade Center bombing, the attack on the U.S. barracks in Saudi Arabia that killed 19, two U.S. embassies in Africa blown up, and the USS Cole attacked with the loss of 17 lives. And Clinton did nothing. Bush can certainly be faulted for the many failures of his responses to Islamic terror, but at least he responded.
But Clinton is right in objecting to claims by some conservatives and the far right that he deliberately did nothing; that's unacceptable. Like every president, Clinton was committed to live up to his responsibility to defend the nation, and to suggest otherwise is despicable. Clinton's problem--like Carter's--was not one of intent, but one of policy. Both were surrounded by people who disdained the military and the intelligence community, and who believed that Islamic terror was, to some extent, the result of what America did, and that diplomacy and negotiation were the proper approach. These people were certainly sincere, but they were also naive--even Hitler wasn't as crazily fanatical as the Islamic jihadists, and we weren't able to negotiate with him.
So Clinton is certainly open to criticism for his failures during the eight years leading up to 9/11, and he should stop posturing and own up to it (although with his ego, that's understandably tough). But he alone isn't to blame for the mess we're in right now. That's been 30 years in the making, and it's time for the partisan bullshit to stop and the country to start pulling together, as we did against Hitler. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening...
the switch was made swiftly and smoothly. The shift was no secret either, most major news outlets openly discussed it. What's crazy is that nowadays I doubt your average American would even remember the shift, or be able to tell you the correct spelling of Osama's name. If the media can alter reality so effortlessly with their cards on the table, just think of what they can do with their cards held close and aces up both sleeves.[/b]
Bush 41 confronted Saddam when Kuwait was invaded, but, bowing to the pressure of the "international community," let him off the hook.
Well, it wasn't just the "international community" that convinced Bush 41 to not overthrow Saddam; some of his top advisors, including Brent Scowcroft, told him to boot Iraq out of Kuwait and leave it at that. Their reasoning, which I agree with, obviously, was that to pursue Saddam and overthrow him would leave us in the situation we find ourselves in now: a clusterfuck. We'd have to take the war all the way from Kuwait to Baghdad, kill or capture Saddam, and then engage in a very extended bout of nation building in a nation that may not be too thrilled with having American forces there fighting a war.
I do agree, though, that no president is blameless here. I think part of the problem is that they are looking for a magic bullet, so to speak. "If we just do X, then we'll defeat terrorism." It just doesn't work that way because there isn't a single root cause to terrorism.
i like how they are trying to spin "clinton crazy" already
Reminds me of the Chavez speech earlier this week at the UN. I was watching it live on CNN before I left for work and was quite amused to watch the bottom info bar sumarize only negative and personal/non-issue/callingbushsatan things. When he mentioned year meetings and long documents not being enough while talking about the UN's effectivness, the bar read something like "thinks UN not effective. useful for long documents."
Seeing the spinning live was interesting... I don't watch a lot of live politics.
Does anyone know why Fox News spells it "Usama" and not "Osama"?
Did I miss something?
No, you didn't miss it, you just forgot. Usama is actually his real name. Immediately after the 9/11 attacks every media outlet in the country was talking about Usama bin Laden's involvement. The problem was that the name 'Usama' starts with the letters U-S-A, so at some point shortly after 9/11 the media stopped referring to him as Usama, and started calling him Osama. I'm not sure whether the pressure to make the change came from above or from the force of popular opinion, but the switch was made swiftly and smoothly. The shift was no secret either, most major news outlets openly discussed it. What's crazy is that nowadays I doubt your average American would even remember the shift, or be able to tell you the correct spelling of Osama's name. If the media can alter reality so effortlessly with their cards on the table, just think of what they can do with their cards held close and aces up both sleeves. I distinctly recall my jaw dropping last year when this all came back to me while reading a foreign publication that used his real name. Scary, huh?
Here's a link to Usama's page on the FBI's ten most wanted fugitives site:
I don't remember this at all. I am sceptical that the above is the whole story. Bin Laden spells it neither way of course. He spells it in Arabic. When listening to pundits, we hear all kinds of Arabic words pronounced all kinds of ways; Al Keyeda, Al Kayda, Al Kiiada, Bin, Ben and so on. None are right or wrong, since they are all an Americanisation of the Arabic.
Seeing the spinning live was interesting... I don't watch a lot of live politics.
You should peep the British parliament on CSPAN sometime (possibly while stoned). That shit gets off-the-hook crazy. I sort of wish we had somethng like that in America. Like when Tony Blair has to go down there and confront his opposition and defend himself in real time, that shit is dope, and I wish US presidents had to do the same thing.
No one can say that Bill Clilnton doesn't have a big set of balls. In that interview with Chris Wallace, Bubba claimed he did more than Bush to fight terrorism.
He meant more than Bush pre 9/11. I am sure he would agree with you that invading Afganisthan was more than he did. To say that he did nothing after the various attacks you detail is an overreach. He caught and successfully prosecuted the first WTT bombers, he went after OBL, and he sent missiles here and there from time to time. But as he said, he failed. Something you will never hear the current president say.
I do agree with your point, and so does he, that he did not do enough, and he did not do it successfully. Perhaps if Congress had backed our troops and his attempts to do something about terrorism things would have been different.
I clearly remember the US Embassy bombings. What I remember most was the big yawn it received in the media and in Congress. Embassies are US soil, so the bombings were an attack on US soil. I was outraged, and puzzled by the lack of outrage from the rest of America. I think congress was too busy with impeachment hearings to care about attacks on America. The media was having too much fun with Monica too bother with a little bombing in Africa.
I seem to remember a US bombing of a car full terrorists in Africa somewhere, I can't remember if that was a direct response or something that happened much later.
I don't remember this at all. I am sceptical that the above is the whole story. Bin Laden spells it neither way of course. He spells it in Arabic. When listening to pundits, we hear all kinds of Arabic words pronounced all kinds of ways; Al Keyeda, Al Kayda, Al Kiiada, Bin, Ben and so on. None are right or wrong, since they are all an Americanisation of the Arabic.
You're right, I should have clarified. Prior to 9/11 Osama bin Laden was known as Usama bin Laden (and there's an undeniable difference in pronunciation) insofar as he was referred to by the media, military, and intelligence agencies. The spelling 'Usama' is, I presume, the closest transliteral approximation of the way his name is written/pronounced in Arabic, and in the first couple of days after 9/11 most media outlets that I can remember referred to him as such. But, and I remember this distinctly, there was some sort of outcry about the letters U-S-A appearing in Usama's name, so the media collectively decided to change the spelling in future broadcasts. At the time, I recall thinking it was all incredibly petty and lame, but I forgot about it soon enough, and didn't remember again until years later. Curious I think.
It's getting on midnight right now, and I have my first class of graduate school tomorrow, so I'm not going to troll the internet for supporting docs, but a cursory examination returned this: "http://www.eyeranian.net/2003/11/02,470.shtml" (copy and paste the link), which is enough, at least for me, to assure that I'm not making this up completely.
In a recent interview g-dub responded in a combative but far more composed manner than clinton did here and all you idiots were muttering about how it proved he was deranged and had something to hide.
So Clinton is certainly open to criticism for his failures during the eight years leading up to 9/11, and he should stop posturing and own up to it (although with his ego, that's understandably tough).
OK, what do you call this?
WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?
CLINTON: No, because I didn???t get him
and this?
CLINTON: 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.
or this?
CLINTON: ...I actually talked o the 9/11 commission for four hours and I told them the mistakes I thought I made. And I urged them to make those mistakes public because I thought none of us had been perfect...
In a recent interview g-dub responded in a combative but far more composed manner than clinton did here and all you idiots were muttering about how it proved he was deranged and had something to hide.
That's probably because most 'idiots' in this forum actually think 'g-dub' is deranged and has something to hide and simply can't govern. I would have to side with the idiots on this one. And I don't mean 'g-dub'.
And please, don't refer to a thread without proper footnotes!
So Clinton is certainly open to criticism for his failures during the eight years leading up to 9/11, and he should stop posturing and own up to it (although with his ego, that's understandably tough).
OK, what do you call this?
WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?
CLINTON: No, because I didn???t get him
and this?
CLINTON: 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.
or this?
CLINTON: ...I actually talked o the 9/11 commission for four hours and I told them the mistakes I thought I made. And I urged them to make those mistakes public because I thought none of us had been perfect...
In a recent interview g-dub responded in a combative but far more composed manner than clinton did here and all you idiots were muttering about how it proved he was deranged and had something to hide.
That's because nary a word escapes his suckhole without making him sound like a cross between a bug-eyed millenialist street-corner preacher and a petulant six year old.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
So Clinton is certainly open to criticism for his failures during the eight years leading up to 9/11, and he should stop posturing and own up to it (although with his ego, that's understandably tough).
OK, what do you call this?
WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?
CLINTON: No, because I didn???t get him
and this?
CLINTON: 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.
or this?
CLINTON: ...I actually talked o the 9/11 commission for four hours and I told them the mistakes I thought I made. And I urged them to make those mistakes public because I thought none of us had been perfect...
I have no idea what to think when I see this video.
On one hand I'm thinking that Clinton was a better prez than Bush has turned out to be.
And one the other hand, I don't know how you guyz think Clinton doesn't come off and someone who is letting his anger & resentment get the better of him. It's almost yelling Deanish of sorts.
I think right now Clinton is doing anything he can to make people forget about the whole lewinsky deal. Even if that means saying he made a couple of major mistakes as far as policy goes.
But god love the guy. He's far more interesting to watch than 99% of the politicians out there.
I have no idea what to think when I see this video.
On one hand I'm thinking that Clinton was a better prez than Bush has turned out to be.
And one the other hand, I don't know how you guyz think Clinton doesn't come off and someone who is letting his anger & resentment get the better of him. It's almost yelling Deanish of sorts.
I think right now Clinton is doing anything he can to make people forget about the whole lewinsky deal. Even if that means saying he made a couple of major mistakes as far as policy goes.
But god love the guy. He's far more interesting to watch than 99% of the politicians out there.
Ridiculous.
Mentioning the Dean scream is so fucking stupid. Like him or not, the way he was played by the dunces in the media for trying to rally his supporters is beyond stupid. And to repeat it is even worse.
And, for fuck's sake, Clinton is doing these interviews to promote his foundation. Where have you been? Lewinsky? Get the fuck out of here.
Furthermore, after the ABC docu-series fiasco, I'm sure he felt compelled to address the issue directly. What better place than Fox News? And mind you, he did all that shit off the cuff. Could you imagine Bush doing that?
Fatback
6,746 Posts
Comments
Former Senator Dan Coats (Now Ambassador to Germany)
wag the dog 1998
Wow, this shit was crazy!
I do like that about Clinton, how he'll just go off -
"you can sit there with that little smirk on your face..."
Clinton needs to wear a longer set of slacks next time he's on fox news.
As it stands now, Osama is probably on the Pakistani border, and Bush is relying on Pakistan to get osama if he is there. Meanwhile, Musharaf just signed a peace treaty with the war lords who run that area. Anyone catch that interview where he said that Armitage had threatened to bomb pakistan if tey didnt help? And then at a press conference with Bush a few days later, he was asked about that accusation. He replied that he couldnt talk about it cause his book was coming out. Bush just laughed and said, "buy the book." Isnt Armitage the one who leaked Valerie Plame's name? man these are some shifty mothers. WTF. Anyway:
Does anyone know why Fox News spells it "Usama" and not "Osama"?
Did I miss something?
also when he says that when he wakes up in the morning and there is a bad headline he almost says "it's President Bush's fault " but stops himself and says "responsibility."
No, you didn't miss it, you just forgot. Usama is actually his real name. Immediately after the 9/11 attacks every media outlet in the country was talking about Usama bin Laden's involvement. The problem was that the name 'Usama' starts with the letters U-S-A, so at some point shortly after 9/11 the media stopped referring to him as Usama, and started calling him Osama. I'm not sure whether the pressure to make the change came from above or from the force of popular opinion, but the switch was made swiftly and smoothly. The shift was no secret either, most major news outlets openly discussed it. What's crazy is that nowadays I doubt your average American would even remember the shift, or be able to tell you the correct spelling of Osama's name. If the media can alter reality so effortlessly with their cards on the table, just think of what they can do with their cards held close and aces up both sleeves. I distinctly recall my jaw dropping last year when this all came back to me while reading a foreign publication that used his real name. Scary, huh?
Here's a link to Usama's page on the FBI's ten most wanted fugitives site:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
And here I thought I was well-informed. Thanks Breakself...
Apparently the biggest benefit of being an ex[/b] president is being able to say what you actually want to.
I know of one right-winger who insists on spelling Muslim as "Moslem" because spelling it with a U is to capitulate to the mandates of political correctness. Yeah.
wondered if that was just me. i heard "f-responsibility"
But Clinton is right in objecting to claims by some conservatives and the far right that he deliberately did nothing; that's unacceptable. Like every president, Clinton was committed to live up to his responsibility to defend the nation, and to suggest otherwise is despicable. Clinton's problem--like Carter's--was not one of intent, but one of policy. Both were surrounded by people who disdained the military and the intelligence community, and who believed that Islamic terror was, to some extent, the result of what America did, and that diplomacy and negotiation were the proper approach. These people were certainly sincere, but they were also naive--even Hitler wasn't as crazily fanatical as the Islamic jihadists, and we weren't able to negotiate with him.
So Clinton is certainly open to criticism for his failures during the eight years leading up to 9/11, and he should stop posturing and own up to it (although with his ego, that's understandably tough). But he alone isn't to blame for the mess we're in right now. That's been 30 years in the making, and it's time for the partisan bullshit to stop and the country to start pulling together, as we did against Hitler. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening...
Well, it wasn't just the "international community" that convinced Bush 41 to not overthrow Saddam; some of his top advisors, including Brent Scowcroft, told him to boot Iraq out of Kuwait and leave it at that. Their reasoning, which I agree with, obviously, was that to pursue Saddam and overthrow him would leave us in the situation we find ourselves in now: a clusterfuck. We'd have to take the war all the way from Kuwait to Baghdad, kill or capture Saddam, and then engage in a very extended bout of nation building in a nation that may not be too thrilled with having American forces there fighting a war.
I do agree, though, that no president is blameless here. I think part of the problem is that they are looking for a magic bullet, so to speak. "If we just do X, then we'll defeat terrorism." It just doesn't work that way because there isn't a single root cause to terrorism.
Reminds me of the Chavez speech earlier this week at the UN. I was watching it live on CNN before I left for work and was quite amused to watch the bottom info bar sumarize only negative and personal/non-issue/callingbushsatan things. When he mentioned year meetings and long documents not being enough while talking about the UN's effectivness, the bar read something like "thinks UN not effective. useful for long documents."
Seeing the spinning live was interesting... I don't watch a lot of live politics.
I don't remember this at all. I am sceptical that the above is the whole story. Bin Laden spells it neither way of course. He spells it in Arabic. When listening to pundits, we hear all kinds of Arabic words pronounced all kinds of ways; Al Keyeda, Al Kayda, Al Kiiada, Bin, Ben and so on. None are right or wrong, since they are all an Americanisation of the Arabic.
You should peep the British parliament on CSPAN sometime (possibly while stoned). That shit gets off-the-hook crazy. I sort of wish we had somethng like that in America. Like when Tony Blair has to go down there and confront his opposition and defend himself in real time, that shit is dope, and I wish US presidents had to do the same thing.
He meant more than Bush pre 9/11. I am sure he would agree with you that invading Afganisthan was more than he did. To say that he did nothing after the various attacks you detail is an overreach. He caught and successfully prosecuted the first WTT bombers, he went after OBL, and he sent missiles here and there from time to time. But as he said, he failed. Something you will never hear the current president say.
I do agree with your point, and so does he, that he did not do enough, and he did not do it successfully. Perhaps if Congress had backed our troops and his attempts to do something about terrorism things would have been different.
I clearly remember the US Embassy bombings. What I remember most was the big yawn it received in the media and in Congress. Embassies are US soil, so the bombings were an attack on US soil. I was outraged, and puzzled by the lack of outrage from the rest of America. I think congress was too busy with impeachment hearings to care about attacks on America. The media was having too much fun with Monica too bother with a little bombing in Africa.
I seem to remember a US bombing of a car full terrorists in Africa somewhere, I can't remember if that was a direct response or something that happened much later.
You're right, I should have clarified. Prior to 9/11 Osama bin Laden was known as Usama bin Laden (and there's an undeniable difference in pronunciation) insofar as he was referred to by the media, military, and intelligence agencies. The spelling 'Usama' is, I presume, the closest transliteral approximation of the way his name is written/pronounced in Arabic, and in the first couple of days after 9/11 most media outlets that I can remember referred to him as such. But, and I remember this distinctly, there was some sort of outcry about the letters U-S-A appearing in Usama's name, so the media collectively decided to change the spelling in future broadcasts. At the time, I recall thinking it was all incredibly petty and lame, but I forgot about it soon enough, and didn't remember again until years later. Curious I think.
It's getting on midnight right now, and I have my first class of graduate school tomorrow, so I'm not going to troll the internet for supporting docs, but a cursory examination returned this: "http://www.eyeranian.net/2003/11/02,470.shtml" (copy and paste the link), which is enough, at least for me, to assure that I'm not making this up completely.
OK, what do you call this?
WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?
CLINTON: No, because I didn???t get him
and this?
CLINTON: 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.
or this?
CLINTON: ...I actually talked o the 9/11 commission for four hours and I told them the mistakes I thought I made. And I urged them to make those mistakes public because I thought none of us had been perfect...
That's probably because most 'idiots' in this forum actually think 'g-dub' is deranged and has something to hide and simply can't govern. I would have to side with the idiots on this one. And I don't mean 'g-dub'.
And please, don't refer to a thread without proper footnotes!
Where is there a text version of this?
That's because nary a word escapes his suckhole without making him sound like a cross between a bug-eyed millenialist street-corner preacher and a petulant six year old.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/22/clinton-fox/
On one hand I'm thinking that Clinton was a better prez than Bush has turned out to be.
And one the other hand, I don't know how you guyz think Clinton doesn't come off and someone who is letting his anger & resentment get the better of him. It's almost yelling Deanish of sorts.
I think right now Clinton is doing anything he can to make people forget about the whole lewinsky deal. Even if that means saying he made a couple of major mistakes as far as policy goes.
But god love the guy. He's far more interesting to watch than 99% of the politicians out there.
www.msunderestimated.com
Ridiculous.
Mentioning the Dean scream is so fucking stupid. Like him or not, the way he was played by the dunces in the media for trying to rally his supporters is beyond stupid. And to repeat it is even worse.
And, for fuck's sake, Clinton is doing these interviews to promote his foundation. Where have you been? Lewinsky? Get the fuck out of here.
Furthermore, after the ABC docu-series fiasco, I'm sure he felt compelled to address the issue directly. What better place than Fox News? And mind you, he did all that shit off the cuff. Could you imagine Bush doing that?