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.
It was not that your boy was combative, Peter, it was the content of his responses that was evidence of derangement.
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.
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!
exactly. Youve developed(or more probably aquired) an animus for 'bushitler' which prevents you from thinking cogently about anything he does. An aggressive demeanour in an interview doesnt really suggest all that much about anything. Something you are well aware of when you arent foaming at the mouth.
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?
Clinton was great in this interview and, while most democrats who are seekeing re-election have been biting their tongues, it is great to see him and Gore say what most of the country is feeling...outrage. Remember, the media has enabled Bush to get away with lies and cover-ups. If the "no-spin" news was actually covered, there is no way the American Public would have re-elected Bush.
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!
exactly. Youve developed(or more probably aquired) an animus for 'bushitler' which prevents you from thinking cogently about anything he does. An aggressive demeanour in an interview doesnt really suggest all that much about anything. Something you are well aware of when you arent foaming at the mouth.
shut the fuck up and buy a record, and maybe listen to it, and maybe talk about it before you give us another goddamned judgement about some of the folks on here and their politcal leanings and/or opinions....at least sabadoodoo talks about his little bossa nova records on here before he gives George a reach around. This is a record board first and foremost and you only pop up when a politcal thread is created...no one gives a shit about what you say, you are not a part of this community, go away.
shut the fuck up and buy a record, and maybe listen to it, and maybe talk about it before you give us another goddamned judgement about some of the folks on here and their politcal leanings and/or opinions....at least sabadoodoo talks about his little bossa nova records on here before he gives George a reach around. This is a record board first and foremost and you only pop up when a politcal thread is created...no one gives a shit about what you say, you are not a part of this community, go away.
Really, this dude is a terd that needs to be flushed down the toilet.
shut the fuck up and buy a record, and maybe listen to it, and maybe talk about it before you give us another goddamned judgement about some of the folks on here and their politcal leanings and/or opinions....at least sabadoodoo talks about his little bossa nova records on here before he gives George a reach around. This is a record board first and foremost and you only pop up when a politcal thread is created...no one gives a shit about what you say, you are not a part of this community, go away.
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!
exactly. Youve developed(or more probably aquired) an animus for 'bushitler' which prevents you from thinking cogently about anything he does. An aggressive demeanour in an interview doesnt really suggest all that much about anything. Something you are well aware of when you arent foaming at the mouth.
Hey, I am simply saying that this administration CAN'T GOVERN. I ain't the one foaming at the mouth...that's YOUR imagination, and YOU'RE the one equating Bush and Hitler, not moi.
But, hey, you are the brilliant political mind here.....
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?
First...
I said it was "Deanish" It wasn't any where near that over the top yell. But how Bill acted in that interview, I'm sorry to say is very below him. If you believe that interview is a good representation of the former President, you would have me think of you as a simpleton. Bill Clinton has always given a very intelligent image as well as a man who acts very presidential. That interview was not fitting of a former respected President. It was almost bringing himself down to that "Fox News" level. If you would like to champion it, go ahead and get down with ur bad self...
2nd,
No matter what anyone says, Lewinsky is always going to be in Clintons legacy. I'm guessing he would much rather prefer to have all his achievements as well as his mistakes used in the public, than anything to have to do with his former mistress. I'm almost positive he would brag about every mistake he ever made as president, to have the lewinsky matter struck from history.
PS- I've already stated that I think Clinton will always be a better president that Bush could ever be. It's just too bad his policies didn't reach as far as maybe they should have.
I think right now Clinton is doing anything he can to make people forget about the whole lewinsky deal.[/b] Even if that means saying he made a couple of major mistakes as far as policy goes.
No matter what anyone says, Lewinsky is always going to be in Clintons legacy. I'm guessing he would much rather prefer to have all his achievements as well as his mistakes used in the public, than anything to have to do with his former mistress. I'm almost positive he would brag about every mistake he ever made as president, to have the lewinsky matter struck from history.
You don't really believe Monica Lewinsky's knob-slobbering self ran across Clinton's mind during that interview, do you?
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!
exactly. Youve developed(or more probably aquired) an animus for 'bushitler' which prevents you from thinking cogently about anything he does. An aggressive demeanour in an interview doesnt really suggest all that much about anything. Something you are well aware of when you arent foaming at the mouth.
shut the fuck up and buy a record, and maybe listen to it, and maybe talk about it before you give us another goddamned judgement about some of the folks on here and their politcal leanings and/or opinions....at least sabadoodoo talks about his little bossa nova records on here before he gives George a reach around. This is a record board first and foremost and you only pop up when a politcal thread is created...no one gives a shit about what you say, you are not a part of this community, go away.
I think right now Clinton is doing anything he can to make people forget about the whole lewinsky deal.[/b] Even if that means saying he made a couple of major mistakes as far as policy goes.
No matter what anyone says, Lewinsky is always going to be in Clintons legacy. I'm guessing he would much rather prefer to have all his achievements as well as his mistakes used in the public, than anything to have to do with his former mistress. I'm almost positive he would brag about every mistake he ever made as president, to have the lewinsky matter struck from history.
You don't really believe Monica Lewinsky's knob-slobbering self ran across Clinton's mind during that interview, do you?
EIGHT years later.
I'm not saying he was thinking about it right then or there. I'm just saying that no matter what (Goto any forum where this is being talked about) Lewinsky always comes up (Almost always by righties with an agenda). I'm guessing that (maybe subconsciously, maybe not) Clinton would much rather his legacy be anything other than that whole mess. Including mistakes made on his part.
Also, sure Clinton comes off in this interview as saying whats really on his mind. But if any of you really believe that if he ever did an interview like that when he was President, he wouldn't have taken some major hit points, ur crazy.
the right wing dredging of clinton from whitewater to jones etc. and onto his tapping that bitch and then wagging his finger at us while newt was wagging his finger at clinton while tapping his own side stock was an embarrassing time for this country that we'd ALL like to put behind us. it would be hard for partisan politics to get any lower. but alas, they have! and on serious matters of life and death that are a fucking million times more relevant that who poopooed on some white bitch.
You don't really believe Monica Lewinsky's knob-slobbering self ran across Clinton's mind during that interview, do you?
EIGHT years later.
They say the average man thinks about sex every 7 seconds and almost every man always remembers the best sex or oral they ever got.
So, yes... I do believe it's possible that he thought about it for a second...
Also...
Let me just add. Clintons answers were very good (Bush dreams of being able to reply as such). But it was his demeanor to which (IMO) brings him down. The finger pointing, the taping of Wallace leg, etc...
That is not what Clinton is known for. It was totally beneath him IMO.
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...
Did we watch the same interview? Sorry, but when you admit to your mistakes, you don't have a complete kaniption fit by calling out the next man in the very same breath and say, 'well they fucked up too!' That is not[/b] what I call manning up. Clinton could never in a million years simply admit his failure without trying to spread more guilt to the next administration as thick as he possibly can. Valid or not, it's a bitch ass, classless move. Ultimate
that's from the transcript, dude. so it don't matter if "we watched the same interview".
read it out loud. you might get it then. listen for the words "failed" and "mistakes". those are the kind of words people use when they fess up. sorry that's not "manning up" enough for you
that's from the transcript, dude. so it don't matter if "we watched the same interview".
read it out loud. you might get it then. listen for the words "failed" and "mistakes". those are the kind of words people use when they fess up. sorry that's not "manning up" enough for you
Yes, let's read the transcript, dude. And not in conveniently cut n' paste sections...
WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?
CLINTON: No, because I didn???t get him.
WALLACE: Right???
CLINTON: BUT[/b] at least I tried. That???s the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn???t???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??? So you did FOX???s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me.
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. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending special forces into Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise???We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. Until I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that???s strange.[/b]
Perhaps you don't "get it", but that sounds like a fucking 8 year-old "fessing up" to me.
Did we watch the same interview? Sorry, but when you admit to your mistakes, you don't have a complete kaniption fit by calling out the next man in the very same breath and say, 'well they fucked up too!' That is not[/b] what I call manning up. Clinton could never in a million years simply admit his failure without trying to spread more guilt to the next administration as thick as he possibly can. Valid or not, it's a bitch ass, classless move. Ultimate
First --- Do you think you could sit still while some paid republican spokesperson (disguised as a neutral newscaster) implied that you were to blame for the deaths of several thousand people on 9-11????
Second, how can you judge what should have been done without comparing his efforts to other administrations?? Fox news and other republican propaganda pushers have ignored Bush's disregard for the White House Memo and other crucial errors, while placing the blame on Clinton, who they suggest was pre-occupied with Lewinsky to even notice Bin Laden. I respect Clinton for "manning up" by trying to clear his name, while at the same time "manning up" by looking back and openly regretting and apologizing for the things he could have done....even though it appears he was fully engaged in trying to hunt down Bin Laden. That is Clinton's MO and why I respect him so much.
Here is a little something I was working on over the weekend. And by that, I mean reading it and pasting it into this post. I might have changed some words around or maybe not, but its full of "facts" that I'm sure come from some "generally reputable sources". If you dont agree with these facts, than I expect you to contest each one because I have meticulously researched them all, and by that I mean I agree with them and I cut and pasted them into this post.
Former President Bill Clinton, never one to let truth stand in the way of a good line, has decided to reincarnate himself as our tough, anti-terror President. The man who ran away from military service and displayed striking contempt for our armed forces has now announced that he did more - and would do more - to combat Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda than anyone else. In his view, he should be recognized as the best man to fight that enemy.
Speaking to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Clinton made a bevy of startlingly anti-factual remarks. He announced, for instance, that conservatives had criticized him for obsessing about bin Laden during his presidency - rather than the truth that he was roundly condemned for doing next to nothing about this serious threat to American security. Clinton blamed the Bush Administration for failing to stop the al-Qaeda terrorists before 9/11, saying that the Administration had eight months to get bin Laden and didn't. That conveniently overlooks that Clinton's Administration had eight years to do that job, with al-Qaeda using the last two of those years to plan 9/11.
One of Clinton's bigger whoppers was this declaration about the fight against bin Laden: "I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have 20,000 more troops [in Afghanistan] trying to kill him."
The man who was in the Soviet Union demonstrating against the American military during Vietnam, who as President left our armed forces short on so many fronts, now is - in his own 20/20 hindsight - The Defense President. Now he criticizes the Bush Administration for not doing enough, proclaims himself the champion of effective military action, and implies none too subtly that the fight against terrorism would go better if we had a Clinton in the White House instead of a Bush.
This isn't mere spin. It's full-scale invention.
**********
Before anyone starts taking our most recent ex-President too seriously, let's review the bidding. Clinton wasn't the President who ordered the armed forces to go after bin Laden without reservation, to get him "dead or alive." He wasn't the one who sent thousands of troops after al-Qaeda and nations that harbor and support terrorists
Instead, President Clinton responded to attacks on our troops in Somalia by withdrawing, and responded to attacks by al-Qaeda on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya by bombing the aspirin factory of an innocent pharmaceutical firm in Sudan. He reacted to al-Qaeda's bombing of the USS Cole by lobbing a few cruise missiles at empty tents in the desert. He turned down Sudanese offers to cooperate in tracking down and capturing bin Laden.
The bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded that - far from doing more than anyone to kill the brutal murderer who now is the international face of terrorism - President Clinton had flatly refused to allow the military or CIA to kill Osama bin Laden. Clinton's instructions were that bin Laden should be taken, if at all, alive not dead. CIA officials reported that this instruction cut the chance of success in half.
That is not to say that the Clinton Administration wasn't in a better position to eliminate bin Laden. Evidence before the Commission showed that the Clinton Administration had live footage of Osama bin Laden at a camp in Afghanistan in the Fall of 2000, a year before the 9/11 attacks, but didn't act. NBC's Tom Brokaw, playing the tape on-air in 2004, noted rightly that this was an enormous opportunity lost. Having gotten bin Laden in your sights isn't something to brag about if you weren't willing to pull the trigger.
Clinton, like all presidents, had some top-notch advisers, including some thoughtful advisers on military and foreign affairs. But he is quintessentially a temporizer, one who always has had difficulty reaching a conclusion and sticking to it, and not someone who was terribly interested in either preserving our military power or using it effectively in world affairs. He'd much rather talk one on one with world leaders, persuaded he could convince them to do what he wanted by the concerted application of charm.
Talk and compromise - not clear moral principles and the will to do whatever is needed to support them - were the hallmarks of the Clinton Administration, reflecting the person at the top. Nothing Clinton says now can change that, though he still evinces conviction that he can talk us into anything - just as he thought he could when he denied point blank having had anything to do with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton always has been the one who, caught in a compromising position, would disarmingly ask, as the parody has it, "what are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" His instinct for lying, even under oath, earned him the second presidential impeachment in American history.
Contrast Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Consider, for example, their different approaches to Yasser Arafat.
The Clintons cozy relationship with the Arafats was symbolized by Mrs. Clinton's embrace of Mrs. Arafat - on stage immediately after a speech by Mrs. Arafat condemning Israel. President Clinton's relationship, though less picturesque, was no less close. Arafat was the world leader Clinton met with most often. Clinton was certain he could talk Arafat into making peace in the Middle East - and secure Clinton's legacy. Clinton invited Arafat and Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak to the now infamous Camp David summit meeting of 2000. He pressured Barak to offer heroic compromises, only to have Arafat at the last minute turn to Intifada to try to get more. In the end, Clinton's charm wasn't enough.
President Bush, in sharp distinction, saw Arafat as a terrorist and refused to meet with him unless he renounced the destruction of Israel as a goal and terror against civilians as a means. Bush, not Clinton, assured Israel of our full support against terrorism - and meant it.
**********
Clinton realizes that history's judgments often are shaped as much by what is written in the aftermath of an event as they are by the facts of the event. The Kennedy family relentlessly spun the myth of Camelot to turn a failed presidency into the fantasy of an American Renaissance. Having long modeled himself after JFK (minus the fashionable, universally admired, classy wife), Clinton now seeks to redefine his presidency - and pave the way for his ultimate revenge: Hillary in office for "Clinton, Act Three."
Presidents often find it hard to leave the stage. The day of Bush's first inauguration, Clinton lingered for hours at Andrews Air Force base trying to hang on to the attention he had so enjoyed as President. He still seeks the limelight.
But desperation to be noticed after leaving office, to have the respect and affection Clinton craves, isn't a substitute for doing the right thing when in office - any more than lies are a substitute for honesty, or indecision a suitable alternative to moral courage.
On the golf course, Bill Clinton is known for his dislike of playing his ball where it lies, scoring honestly, and taking his lumps as the rest of us duffers must. He makes his own score, always a good deal better than the real number.
Someone else should be trusted to do the scoring when it comes to Clinton's time in office. In the history books, he deserves to be counted as the President who did not protect us against al-Qaeda, who left the impression they could attack us without
penalty, whose wasted opportunities contributed to the travesty of 9/11.
Tough talk now should not be allowed to obscure that fact. Lies now should not go unanswered.
Did we watch the same interview? Sorry, but when you admit to your mistakes, you don't have a complete kaniption fit by calling out the next man in the very same breath and say, 'well they fucked up too!' That is not[/b] what I call manning up. Clinton could never in a million years simply admit his failure without trying to spread more guilt to the next administration as thick as he possibly can. Valid or not, it's a bitch ass, classless move. Ultimate
First --- Do you think you could sit still while some paid republican spokesperson (disguised as a neutral newscaster) implied that you were to blame for the deaths of several thousand people on 9-11????
Second, how can you judge what should have been done without comparing his efforts to other administrations?? Fox news and other republican propaganda pushers have ignored Bush's disregard for the White House Memo and other crucial errors, while placing the blame on Clinton, who they suggest was pre-occupied with Lewinsky to even notice Bin Laden. I respect Clinton for "manning up" by trying to clear his name, while at the same time "manning up" by looking back and openly regretting and apologizing for the things he could have done....even though it appears he was fully engaged in trying to hunt down Bin Laden. That is Clinton's MO and why I respect him so much.
Right. And I'm not a Clinton apologist. It's refreshing to hear a politician even approaching candor. Mind you, his wife is still in office and possibly running for 08 Prez (hope not, but that's another story). So he does have something to loose.
Nobody will ever be able to determined who fucked up the most and "let 911 happen". Never. It's a stupid discussion and a waste of time.
the right wing dredging of clinton from whitewater to jones etc. and onto his tapping that bitch and then wagging his finger at us while newt was wagging his finger at clinton while tapping his own side stock was an embarrassing time for this country that we'd ALL like to put behind us. it would be hard for partisan politics to get any lower. but alas, they have! and on serious matters of life and death that are a fucking million times more relevant that who poopooed on some white bitch.
Sorry, but when you admit to your mistakes, you don't have a complete kaniption fit by calling out the next man in the very same breath and say, 'well they fucked up too!' That is not[/b] what I call manning up. Clinton could never in a million years simply admit his failure without trying to spread more guilt to the next administration as thick as he possibly can. Valid or not, it's a bitch ass, classless move.
OK but let's not take what Clinton said out of context. He framed his apology in this way because he has been called out by the Republicans recently for not doing enough on terror (an obvious smokescreen for the current admin's failings). So, at the risk of sounding petty, they started it. For him to respond to his vindictive Republican atttackers by simply saying "you're right; I didn't do enough" would surely have been faaaaaar more bitchmade.
the right wing dredging of clinton from whitewater to jones etc. and onto his tapping that bitch and then wagging his finger at us while newt was wagging his finger at clinton while tapping his own side stock was an embarrassing time for this country that we'd ALL like to put behind us. it would be hard for partisan politics to get any lower. but alas, they have! and on serious matters of life and death that are a fucking million times more relevant that who poopooed on some white bitch.
While I agree that there are serious matter the world is facing that are far more important. History is a great tool to use when trying to find a future path. I don't fault anyone who makes a mistake. I just fault them if they don't learn from said mistake. In a way, thats why I believe we are put on this earth.
Anyways...
Why did you find it necessary to use the term "white" ? Or even "bitch" for that matter?
simply put fox news are the biggest pussies in all of media...
lets see, Bush's cronies have been on Fox news dozens and dozens times since the USS Cole Bombing and not one of them asked ANY of them "How Come Bin Laden hasnt been caught"...not a one...That little smirky joke of a journalist asks 'ol Bill damn near right off the bat.
Pussies...journalists AFRAID of the truth. What a fuckin Joke.
Liked the gist of your response. I would only add that Bush I's response to Saddam in the 1991 Gulf War had nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism. Saddam was a secular dictator who was against Islamists.
That being said, I think the reason why the American people are not hugely united against Islamists is because none of our presidents have called on the people to do this. Even after 9/11 when Bush had the whole country at his fingertips he didn't ask for any sacrifices from the American people.
One of the FEW things the Bush administration has actually been good at with regards to foreign policy was to unleash the CIA immediatley after 9/11 and go after Al Qaeda. Most people say that 66-75% of the Al Qaeda leadership has been arrested or killed. I'm not sure they can launch any kind of major attack against America any time soon.
That being said, Al Qaeda is now an inspiration to Islamists all over the world and has fundamentally changed their world view. Before the Islamist movement was focused upon what they called the "near enemy" the local governments that Islamists saw as corrupt and needed to be ovethrown in an Islamic revolution, Al Qaeda added the "far enemy," America and the West as the main supporter of these governments, as targets as well. As the bombings in the U.K. and Spain prove, homegrown Islamists who find inspiration from the words of bin Laden and the like, but are not actual members of any organized movement, are the real threat facing the West.
The battle therefore has turned into one for hearts and minds and over ideology, rather than just a military campaign where we can find people and get rid of them one way or another. This is where the current administration has no policy. They are completely focused upon the military campaign. The whole neoconservative argument about spreading democracy around the Muslim world to fight against Islamism never materialized as the U.S. continues to support the same authoritarian governments around the world from Egypt to Saudi Arabia to Pakistan. No one wants to copy the example of Iraq, and the U.S. basically walked away from Afghanistan after the invasion. The State Dept. set up this special division to focus upon propaganda and culture in the Middle East, but it's been a complete flop.
The new vogue is to call Islamists, Islamo-facists, but I think that's a bad comparison. Islamists are more like communists. They have a revolutionary ideology, want to spread it around parts of the world, and create dictatorships when they come to power. When the U.S. was fighting the Cold War it wasn't just an arms race, deterrence, overthrowing governments with the CIA, etc. It was also a real ideological battle. Think of all the foreign aid that was given such as Kennedy's Alliance For Progress in Latin America as a response to Cuba's revolution, or the creation of the Voice of America, or student exchanges set up to bring people from the Third World to America to learn about our country. A lot of time and effort was put into these uses of "soft" power to win the ideological battle with communism, and I think a similar plan is needed to counter Islamism. I don't see the U.S. doing that at all. Hell, the Pope is doing more on that front right now after his recent speech then the U.S. has done.
simply put fox news are the biggest pussies in all of media...
lets see, Bush's cronies have been on Fox news dozens and dozens times since the USS Cole Bombing and not one of them asked ANY of them "How Come Bin Laden hasnt been caught"...not a one...That little smirky joke of a journalist asks 'ol Bill damn near right off the bat.
Pussies...journalists AFRAID of the truth. What a fuckin Joke.
chris wallace even sounds like his dick is small. you know that sound.
Comments
It was not that your boy was combative, Peter, it was the content of his responses that was evidence of derangement.
Go read your Shakespears.
Excellently put.
exactly. Youve developed(or more probably aquired) an animus for 'bushitler' which prevents you from thinking cogently about anything he does. An aggressive demeanour in an interview doesnt really suggest all that much about anything. Something you are well aware of when you arent foaming at the mouth.
Clinton was great in this interview and, while most democrats who are seekeing re-election have been biting their tongues, it is great to see him and Gore say what most of the country is feeling...outrage. Remember, the media has enabled Bush to get away with lies and cover-ups. If the "no-spin" news was actually covered, there is no way the American Public would have re-elected Bush.
shut the fuck up and buy a record, and maybe listen to it, and maybe talk about it before you give us another goddamned judgement about some of the folks on here and their politcal leanings and/or opinions....at least sabadoodoo talks about his little bossa nova records on here before he gives George a reach around. This is a record board first and foremost and you only pop up when a politcal thread is created...no one gives a shit about what you say, you are not a part of this community, go away.
Really, this dude is a terd that needs to be flushed down the toilet.
OMG. Hilarious. It's gonna be a good week.
Hey, I am simply saying that this administration CAN'T GOVERN. I ain't the one foaming at the mouth...that's YOUR imagination, and YOU'RE the one equating Bush and Hitler, not moi.
But, hey, you are the brilliant political mind here.....
LOL
First...
I said it was "Deanish" It wasn't any where near that over the top yell. But how Bill acted in that interview, I'm sorry to say is very below him. If you believe that interview is a good representation of the former President, you would have me think of you as a simpleton. Bill Clinton has always given a very intelligent image as well as a man who acts very presidential. That interview was not fitting of a former respected President. It was almost bringing himself down to that "Fox News" level. If you would like to champion it, go ahead and get down with ur bad self...
2nd,
No matter what anyone says, Lewinsky is always going to be in Clintons legacy. I'm guessing he would much rather prefer to have all his achievements as well as his mistakes used in the public, than anything to have to do with his former mistress. I'm almost positive he would brag about every mistake he ever made as president, to have the lewinsky matter struck from history.
PS- I've already stated that I think Clinton will always be a better president that Bush could ever be. It's just too bad his policies didn't reach as far as maybe they should have.
You don't really believe Monica Lewinsky's knob-slobbering self ran across Clinton's mind during that interview, do you?
EIGHT years later.
youre deranged and have something to hide.
I'm not saying he was thinking about it right then or there. I'm just saying that no matter what (Goto any forum where this is being talked about) Lewinsky always comes up (Almost always by righties with an agenda). I'm guessing that (maybe subconsciously, maybe not) Clinton would much rather his legacy be anything other than that whole mess. Including mistakes made on his part.
Also, sure Clinton comes off in this interview as saying whats really on his mind. But if any of you really believe that if he ever did an interview like that when he was President, he wouldn't have taken some major hit points, ur crazy.
They say the average man thinks about sex every 7 seconds and almost every man always remembers the best sex or oral they ever got.
So, yes... I do believe it's possible that he thought about it for a second...
Also...
Let me just add. Clintons answers were very good (Bush dreams of being able to reply as such). But it was his demeanor to which (IMO) brings him down. The finger pointing, the taping of Wallace leg, etc...
That is not what Clinton is known for. It was totally beneath him IMO.
Did we watch the same interview?
Sorry, but when you admit to your mistakes, you don't have a complete kaniption fit by calling out the next man in the very same breath and say, 'well they fucked up too!' That is not[/b] what I call manning up.
Clinton could never in a million years simply admit his failure without trying to spread more guilt to the next administration as thick as he possibly can.
Valid or not, it's a bitch ass, classless move.
Ultimate
read it out loud. you might get it then. listen for the words "failed" and "mistakes". those are the kind of words people use when they fess up. sorry that's not "manning up" enough for you
Do these words even exist in the lexicon of the Bush Administration?
Serious question.
Yes, let's read the transcript, dude.
And not in conveniently cut n' paste sections...
WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?
CLINTON: No, because I didn???t get him.
WALLACE: Right???
CLINTON: BUT[/b] at least I tried. That???s the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn???t???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??? So you did FOX???s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me.
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. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending special forces into Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise???We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. Until I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that???s strange.[/b]
Perhaps you don't "get it", but that sounds like a fucking 8 year-old "fessing up" to me.
First --- Do you think you could sit still while some paid republican spokesperson (disguised as a neutral newscaster) implied that you were to blame for the deaths of several thousand people on 9-11????
Second, how can you judge what should have been done without comparing his efforts to other administrations?? Fox news and other republican propaganda pushers have ignored Bush's disregard for the White House Memo and other crucial errors, while placing the blame on Clinton, who they suggest was pre-occupied with Lewinsky to even notice Bin Laden. I respect Clinton for "manning up" by trying to clear his name, while at the same time "manning up" by looking back and openly regretting and apologizing for the things he could have done....even though it appears he was fully engaged in trying to hunt down Bin Laden. That is Clinton's MO and why I respect him so much.
Former President Bill Clinton, never one to let truth stand in the way of a good line, has decided to reincarnate himself as our tough, anti-terror President. The man who ran away from military service and displayed striking contempt for our armed forces has now announced that he did more - and would do more - to combat Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda than anyone else. In his view, he should be recognized as the best man to fight that enemy.
Speaking to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Clinton made a bevy of startlingly anti-factual remarks. He announced, for instance, that conservatives had criticized him for obsessing about bin Laden during his presidency - rather than the truth that he was roundly condemned for doing next to nothing about this serious threat to American security. Clinton blamed the Bush Administration for failing to stop the al-Qaeda terrorists before 9/11, saying that the Administration had eight months to get bin Laden and didn't. That conveniently overlooks that Clinton's Administration had eight years to do that job, with al-Qaeda using the last two of those years to plan 9/11.
One of Clinton's bigger whoppers was this declaration about the fight against bin Laden: "I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have 20,000 more troops [in Afghanistan] trying to kill him."
The man who was in the Soviet Union demonstrating against the American military during Vietnam, who as President left our armed forces short on so many fronts, now is - in his own 20/20 hindsight - The Defense President. Now he criticizes the Bush Administration for not doing enough, proclaims himself the champion of effective military action, and implies none too subtly that the fight against terrorism would go better if we had a Clinton in the White House instead of a Bush.
This isn't mere spin. It's full-scale invention.
**********
Before anyone starts taking our most recent ex-President too seriously, let's review the bidding. Clinton wasn't the President who ordered the armed forces to go after bin Laden without reservation, to get him "dead or alive." He wasn't the one who sent thousands of troops after al-Qaeda and nations that harbor and support terrorists
Instead, President Clinton responded to attacks on our troops in Somalia by withdrawing, and responded to attacks by al-Qaeda on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya by bombing the aspirin factory of an innocent pharmaceutical firm in Sudan. He reacted to al-Qaeda's bombing of the USS Cole by lobbing a few cruise missiles at empty tents in the desert. He turned down Sudanese offers to cooperate in tracking down and capturing bin Laden.
The bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded that - far from doing more than anyone to kill the brutal murderer who now is the international face of terrorism - President Clinton had flatly refused to allow the military or CIA to kill Osama bin Laden. Clinton's instructions were that bin Laden should be taken, if at all, alive not dead. CIA officials reported that this instruction cut the chance of success in half.
That is not to say that the Clinton Administration wasn't in a better position to eliminate bin Laden. Evidence before the Commission showed that the Clinton Administration had live footage of Osama bin Laden at a camp in Afghanistan in the Fall of 2000, a year before the 9/11 attacks, but didn't act. NBC's Tom Brokaw, playing the tape on-air in 2004, noted rightly that this was an enormous opportunity lost. Having gotten bin Laden in your sights isn't something to brag about if you weren't willing to pull the trigger.
Clinton, like all presidents, had some top-notch advisers, including some thoughtful advisers on military and foreign affairs. But he is quintessentially a temporizer, one who always has had difficulty reaching a conclusion and sticking to it, and not someone who was terribly interested in either preserving our military power or using it effectively in world affairs. He'd much rather talk one on one with world leaders, persuaded he could convince them to do what he wanted by the concerted application of charm.
Talk and compromise - not clear moral principles and the will to do whatever is needed to support them - were the hallmarks of the Clinton Administration, reflecting the person at the top. Nothing Clinton says now can change that, though he still evinces conviction that he can talk us into anything - just as he thought he could when he denied point blank having had anything to do with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton always has been the one who, caught in a compromising position, would disarmingly ask, as the parody has it, "what are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" His instinct for lying, even under oath, earned him the second presidential impeachment in American history.
Contrast Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Consider, for example, their different approaches to Yasser Arafat.
The Clintons cozy relationship with the Arafats was symbolized by Mrs. Clinton's embrace of Mrs. Arafat - on stage immediately after a speech by Mrs. Arafat condemning Israel. President Clinton's relationship, though less picturesque, was no less close. Arafat was the world leader Clinton met with most often. Clinton was certain he could talk Arafat into making peace in the Middle East - and secure Clinton's legacy. Clinton invited Arafat and Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak to the now infamous Camp David summit meeting of 2000. He pressured Barak to offer heroic compromises, only to have Arafat at the last minute turn to Intifada to try to get more. In the end, Clinton's charm wasn't enough.
President Bush, in sharp distinction, saw Arafat as a terrorist and refused to meet with him unless he renounced the destruction of Israel as a goal and terror against civilians as a means. Bush, not Clinton, assured Israel of our full support against terrorism - and meant it.
**********
Clinton realizes that history's judgments often are shaped as much by what is written in the aftermath of an event as they are by the facts of the event. The Kennedy family relentlessly spun the myth of Camelot to turn a failed presidency into the fantasy of an American Renaissance. Having long modeled himself after JFK (minus the fashionable, universally admired, classy wife), Clinton now seeks to redefine his presidency - and pave the way for his ultimate revenge: Hillary in office for "Clinton, Act Three."
Presidents often find it hard to leave the stage. The day of Bush's first inauguration, Clinton lingered for hours at Andrews Air Force base trying to hang on to the attention he had so enjoyed as President. He still seeks the limelight.
But desperation to be noticed after leaving office, to have the respect and affection Clinton craves, isn't a substitute for doing the right thing when in office - any more than lies are a substitute for honesty, or indecision a suitable alternative to moral courage.
On the golf course, Bill Clinton is known for his dislike of playing his ball where it lies, scoring honestly, and taking his lumps as the rest of us duffers must. He makes his own score, always a good deal better than the real number.
Someone else should be trusted to do the scoring when it comes to Clinton's time in office. In the history books, he deserves to be counted as the President who did not protect us against al-Qaeda, who left the impression they could attack us without penalty, whose wasted opportunities contributed to the travesty of 9/11.
Tough talk now should not be allowed to obscure that fact. Lies now should not go unanswered.
you work for the RNC?
nice backhanded jab at Hilary btw.
---
Right. And I'm not a Clinton apologist. It's refreshing to hear a politician even approaching candor. Mind you, his wife is still in office and possibly running for 08 Prez (hope not, but that's another story). So he does have something to loose.
Nobody will ever be able to determined who fucked up the most and "let 911 happen". Never. It's a stupid discussion and a waste of time.
OK but let's not take what Clinton said out of context. He framed his apology in this way because he has been called out by the Republicans recently for not doing enough on terror (an obvious smokescreen for the current admin's failings). So, at the risk of sounding petty, they started it. For him to respond to his vindictive Republican atttackers by simply saying "you're right; I didn't do enough" would surely have been faaaaaar more bitchmade.
While I agree that there are serious matter the world is facing that are far more important. History is a great tool to use when trying to find a future path. I don't fault anyone who makes a mistake. I just fault them if they don't learn from said mistake. In a way, thats why I believe we are put on this earth.
Anyways...
Why did you find it necessary to use the term "white" ? Or even "bitch" for that matter?
lets see, Bush's cronies have been on Fox news dozens and dozens times since the USS Cole Bombing and not one of them asked ANY of them "How Come Bin Laden hasnt been caught"...not a one...That little smirky joke of a journalist asks 'ol Bill damn near right off the bat.
Pussies...journalists AFRAID of the truth. What a fuckin Joke.
Liked the gist of your response. I would only add that Bush I's response to Saddam in the 1991 Gulf War had nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism. Saddam was a secular dictator who was against Islamists.
That being said, I think the reason why the American people are not hugely united against Islamists is because none of our presidents have called on the people to do this. Even after 9/11 when Bush had the whole country at his fingertips he didn't ask for any sacrifices from the American people.
One of the FEW things the Bush administration has actually been good at with regards to foreign policy was to unleash the CIA immediatley after 9/11 and go after Al Qaeda. Most people say that 66-75% of the Al Qaeda leadership has been arrested or killed. I'm not sure they can launch any kind of major attack against America any time soon.
That being said, Al Qaeda is now an inspiration to Islamists all over the world and has fundamentally changed their world view. Before the Islamist movement was focused upon what they called the "near enemy" the local governments that Islamists saw as corrupt and needed to be ovethrown in an Islamic revolution, Al Qaeda added the "far enemy," America and the West as the main supporter of these governments, as targets as well. As the bombings in the U.K. and Spain prove, homegrown Islamists who find inspiration from the words of bin Laden and the like, but are not actual members of any organized movement, are the real threat facing the West.
The battle therefore has turned into one for hearts and minds and over ideology, rather than just a military campaign where we can find people and get rid of them one way or another. This is where the current administration has no policy. They are completely focused upon the military campaign. The whole neoconservative argument about spreading democracy around the Muslim world to fight against Islamism never materialized as the U.S. continues to support the same authoritarian governments around the world from Egypt to Saudi Arabia to Pakistan. No one wants to copy the example of Iraq, and the U.S. basically walked away from Afghanistan after the invasion. The State Dept. set up this special division to focus upon propaganda and culture in the Middle East, but it's been a complete flop.
The new vogue is to call Islamists, Islamo-facists, but I think that's a bad comparison. Islamists are more like communists. They have a revolutionary ideology, want to spread it around parts of the world, and create dictatorships when they come to power. When the U.S. was fighting the Cold War it wasn't just an arms race, deterrence, overthrowing governments with the CIA, etc. It was also a real ideological battle. Think of all the foreign aid that was given such as Kennedy's Alliance For Progress in Latin America as a response to Cuba's revolution, or the creation of the Voice of America, or student exchanges set up to bring people from the Third World to America to learn about our country. A lot of time and effort was put into these uses of "soft" power to win the ideological battle with communism, and I think a similar plan is needed to counter Islamism. I don't see the U.S. doing that at all. Hell, the Pope is doing more on that front right now after his recent speech then the U.S. has done.
Do I need to footnote this????
good question. you don't think it adds comic relief? maybe street connectedness? i don't know. white bitch.
chris wallace even sounds like his dick is small. you know that sound.
poor mike.