Clinton on Fox.

[life]

http://www.foxnews.com/fns/ (Click the Clinton headline)

Wow, he is PISSED.

Having done a lot reading on exactly the issue discussed I think its justified anger he shows.

We're giving out A's for effort now? Let's say that Clinton tried his darnedest. What were his successes?

Did he lessen terrorism at all? Did he weaken Al-Qaeda? Did he kill any terrorist leaders? Did he topple the Taliban? Did he break up terrorist networks in the US? Did he discourage Bin Laden? Did he solve the Palestine-Israel problem?

What did he do besides try oh so very hard? Anything?

You know he's lying when he starts wagging that finger.

[KingCharles]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! HA!!

I laugh at your ignorance.

Clinton did a HUGE hackjob on catching Bin Laden. He and Madeline Albright were SO INEPT.

Here's an example: At one point, they KNEW where Bin Laden was, and fired a long-range missile at his hideout. However, they made a bitch move and NOTIFIED THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, who promptly informed Bin Laden to get the fuck out before he got his ass blown to pieces.

[W31RD0]

At 9/25/06 09:20 PM, KingCharles wrote: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! HA!!

I laugh at your ignorance.

I dont think you read his post.

Here's an example: At one point, they KNEW where Bin Laden was, and fired a long-range missile at his hideout. However, they made a bitch move and NOTIFIED THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, who promptly informed Bin Laden to get the fuck out before he got his ass blown to pieces.

Damn them, respecting the rights of other sovereign nations.

[Begoner]

At least he didn't exponentially increase terrorism, nor did he let 3000 American citizens die on his watch.

[KingCharles]

At 9/25/06 09:22 PM, W31RD0 wrote:

I dont think you read his post.

My Bad. But I'm still right.

Damn them, respecting the rights of other sovereign nations.

Sorry, what? Keep in mind that the "sovereign nation" here was ruled by the Taliban at the time. What they did was essentially: "Hey, I'm firing a missile at your boy Bin Laden.... But be sure not to tell him so he can escape!" They might as well have told Osama himself.

[fli]

At 9/25/06 09:30 PM, KingCharles wrote:

At 9/25/06 09:22 PM, W31RD0 wrote:

I dont think you read his post.

My Bad. But I'm still right.

Lissen to him people...
It's right... because he says so.

*eye rollie*

[AMFYOYO]

God I hate fox bullshit.

[Demosthenez]

I think it is kinda gay to ambush Clinton with this shit especially considering the great things he is doing now. Way to go on proving your reputation as a Conservative hack job network.

At 9/25/06 09:22 PM, W31RD0 wrote: Damn them, respecting the rights of other sovereign nations.

FUCKING BASTARDS!!!

[ImmoralLibertarian]

how can a fox excrete bull shit?

funniest. guy. ever.

[AMFYOYO]

Oh yeah, and Bush has done a real good job getting Bin Laden; Attacking a completley innocent country that had nothing to do with him is a good way to get him to come out of hiding.

[W31RD0]

At 9/25/06 09:30 PM, KingCharles wrote:

At 9/25/06 09:22 PM, W31RD0 wrote:

I dont think you read his post.

My Bad. But I'm still right.

No, you are just an idiot.

Damn them, respecting the rights of other sovereign nations.

Sorry, what? Keep in mind that the "sovereign nation" here was ruled by the Taliban at the time. What they did was essentially: "Hey, I'm firing a missile at your boy Bin Laden.... But be sure not to tell him so he can escape!" They might as well have told Osama himself.

And which country would this be? Firing a missle into another country without telling them us grounds for war. One cannot say what Clinton should have done, if you are seeing things in perspective of 9-11. Getting into a serious political battle (perhaps even a war) for a guy that at the time was still a small fish in a big sea, would be idiotic.

At 9/25/06 09:38 PM, ScrewLooseChange wrote: Clinton admitted he failed, but he also make notice that he tried. I think that's a very respectable thing to do.

I think I remember Kerry admitting to his actions during Veitnam, like that it seemed comendable to take what blame you deserved in a time that crazy shit was going down.

Clinton seemed like he stopped short of blaming Bush for 9/11. Not like a conspiracy, just incompetancy, which is distinctly different.

He is a politician. Losing his cool and shooting off his mouth would just further the fire of who was responsible. Clintons objective was to tell his side of the story, if he would have gotten draged down into bickering, he would have failed.

[SolInvictus]

At 9/25/06 09:30 PM, KingCharles wrote: Sorry, what? Keep in mind that the "sovereign nation" here was ruled by the Taliban at the time.

and they were the leaders of this nation (though of course many countries refused to acknowledge this).

[AMFYOYO]

Wow I watched this a second time, and the interviewer thinks he is so fucking superior. He has that little smirk, and as far as I can see, Clinton comes through as a pretty honest guy, who can see right through this blind-side bullshit attack.

[fli]

At 9/25/06 09:44 PM, W31RD0 wrote: He is a politician. Losing his cool and shooting off his mouth would just further the fire of who was responsible. Clintons objective was to tell his side of the story, if he would have gotten draged down into bickering, he would have failed.

Thing is...
Clinton very rarely gets angry, and if he's angry... then it's something real. Very serious.

Whereas current President Bush, he frequently looks frustrated, and we take this normal. I really had to listen for a while what Clinton said because... well... it's like Alan Greenspan on Economics.

If he speaks something then you better damn well listen what's being said.

[W31RD0]

At 9/25/06 10:08 PM, fli wrote:

At 9/25/06 09:44 PM, W31RD0 wrote: He is a politician. Losing his cool and shooting off his mouth would just further the fire of who was responsible. Clintons objective was to tell his side of the story, if he would have gotten dragged down into bickering, he would have failed.

Thing is...
Clinton very rarely gets angry, and if he's angry... then it's something real. Very serious.

I am sure this issue has been festering in him. Then when you take into account the host baiting him, I’m surprised he didn’t just shout "Impeach me now bitch!" and shove his cock into the hosts mouth.

Whereas current President Bush, he frequently looks frustrated, and we take this normal.

I think it is less that Bush is getting angry and more like him thinking:
"Crap! They actully asked me an unscripted question! If I have to keep talking my own words, I’m going to slip up and say turban-head!"

[Memorize]

haha, Clinton truely is a jackass.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 9/25/06 09:23 PM, Begoner wrote: At least he didn't exponentially increase terrorism, nor did he let 3000 American citizens die on his watch.

Bush isn't blameless, by all means. But to accuse him of the majority of failures that led to 9/11 is ignorant and stupid, not to mention unrealistic—expecting Bush to do in nine months what Clinton didn't even do in 8 years?
C'mon.

[fli]

But Clinton did outline a plan before he left offfice for Bush to follow up on his progress... and Bush decided ignore it altogether.

It wasn't like Bush didn't have the 8 years of work that Clinton already put in before Clinton left.

[Demosthenez]

At 9/25/06 11:59 PM, fli wrote: But Clinton did outline a plan before he left offfice for Bush to follow up on his progress... and Bush decided ignore it altogether.

Reminds me of the Iraq invasion plan Bush and his neo-con buds just completly ignored. I believe it was called Operation Desert Crossing, it took a bunch of years to complete and Bush and his boys just ignored it to make their own bullshit plan (or lack thereof is a better way to put it) and just make shit up and fire all the dissenters or chop their legs off from under them. Yes, Bush is awesome.

At 9/25/06 11:23 PM, TimeTrials wrote: haha, Clinton truely is a jackass.

Another insanely nuanced opinion from TimeFrame. How could I have guessed?

[AMFYOYO]

At 9/25/06 11:23 PM, TimeTrials wrote: haha, Clinton truely is a jackass.

Your intelligence always amazes me. Luckily he wasn't unfairly attacked on national T.V. or anything...

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 9/25/06 11:59 PM, fli wrote:

It wasn't like Bush didn't have the 8 years of work that Clinton already put in before Clinton left.

Yeah, but if Clinton approved several missions, Osama would have been killed off ages ago.

Like the earlier post, both sides are to blame, to tab it to one person is foolish.

[JMHX]

Because, you know, the President could stop Bin Laden if he decided to.

[fli]

At 9/26/06 12:10 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Yeah, but if Clinton approved several missions, Osama would have been killed off ages ago.

Like the earlier post, both sides are to blame, to tab it to one person is foolish.

Hence... Clinton's lashing...
Everyone wants to pin this on Clinton, yet if one had to choose a lesser of two sins (Bush and Clinton)... It will definely be Clinton.

It's understandable why he would lash out... FOX wouldn't ask loaded questions to Bush or any other similar Republicans, and yet it's like he's getting the blunt of all blame when clearly, Clinton has been WAY closer at killing Bin Ladin than Bush. Nobody places equal blame.

Instead, what were people doing?
What were people more focused on during the late 90s? Especially FOX?

Cum stains on a blue dress--
Funny how FOX used to say so many years ago that Clinton's attempt to kill Bin Ladin was just a mere attempt to divert people's attention to something else in a Wag-the-Dog-esque type of fashion.

And now they're like, "Well, you shoulda killed him years ago!"

[Nylo]

First of all, great link!

Second of all, sounds like too many emotions are running high here.

I applaud the Fox News Interviewer. You don't have to like the guy, it's not like you're gonna fuck him. Like you guys defending Clinton wouldn't want hard-hitting questions on George Bush. But that's not the point, it's great that he asked those questions because it gave Clinton a chance to speak his mind in the hot-seat.

I loathed Clinton's demand to censor The Path to 9/11. I thought it was crappy attempt at censorship; people should be allowed to make up their own minds. However after hearing Clinton speak in this interview, doesn't matter if you agree with him or not, I love to see a guy get fired up like that.

George Bush comes nowhere close to Clinton's oritory and leadership ability, love him or hate him. It was a great watch.

[WolvenBear]

At 9/25/06 09:23 PM, Begoner wrote: At least he didn't exponentially increase terrorism, nor did he let 3000 American citizens die on his watch.

Nope, he just fled from Mogadishu, allowed the USS Cole bombing to take place, took no real action against the first WTC bombing, and erected the "wall of seperation between church and state...I mean CIA and FBI. Among other things of course.

Shut up Begoner. Only an idiot would say Clinton isn't partially responsible.
And he's got a good deal of blame to shoulder.

While that doesn't excuse Bush's lack of action pre-9/11, let's put it in context. 8 months of Bush inaction vs 6 years of Clinton.

And let's not forget Bush I, Reagan and Carter's blunders.

At 9/25/06 09:34 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: I think it is kinda gay to ambush Clinton with this shit especially considering the great things he is doing now. Way to go on proving your reputation as a Conservative hack job network.

Yawn.
HOW DARE THEY AMBUSH HIM WITH A QUESTION ABOUT HIS PRESIDENCY (considering he went on to talk about his love of puppies) AND SAY HE DIDN'T CATCH BIN LADIN?

The man's an ex-president. There are two things people are going to ask him about:
1. What he did during his presidency.
2. What he thinks about the current President.

Being that...NO ONE CARES.

To expect anything else is stupid, and to expect them to NOT ask him about his part in a relevant issue of today is equally moronic.

And Clinton's not doing anything of value now...unless you consider the talk show circuit to boost Democrat seats in the Senate to be of value.

At 9/25/06 09:35 PM, AMFYOYO wrote: Oh yeah, and Bush has done a real good job getting Bin Laden; Attacking a completley innocent country that had nothing to do with him is a good way to get him to come out of hiding.

I assume you mean Iraq. Under that assumption I will proceed.

Whether or not Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 is irreleavnt:
1. We are allowed to attack any and all nations that pose a threat to us.
2. Iraq violated UN sanctions and was therefore subject to invasion.
3. Neither OBL nor his al Quida allies or our only threat.

Under those three simple observations, your assertion is pointless.

At 9/25/06 09:44 PM, W31RD0 wrote: And which country would this be? Firing a missle into another country without telling them us grounds for war.

Clinton did it more than once.

One cannot say what Clinton should have done, if you are seeing things in perspective of 9-11. Getting into a serious political battle (perhaps even a war) for a guy that at the time was still a small fish in a big sea, would be idiotic.

People can say what Clinton should have done all they want. Considering that people have written books doing just that (and to the converse, both Bushes and Reagan), this is just "don't bash my guy...he didn't know what he was doing". And long before Clitnon left office, OBL was on the FBI's top ten. This is a MAJOR failing of both him and BUSH Jr. in not getting him.

At 9/25/06 09:51 PM, AMFYOYO wrote: Wow I watched this a second time, and the interviewer thinks he is so fucking superior. He has that little smirk, and as far as I can see, Clinton comes through as a pretty honest guy, who can see right through this blind-side bullshit attack.

The interviewer has the right to feel superior. He's not complicit in thousands of deaths like Mr. Clinton.

And by the way, anyone who thinks an admitted perjurer comes across as honest shouldn't vote.

At 9/25/06 10:08 PM, fli wrote: Thing is...
Clinton very rarely gets angry, and if he's angry... then it's something real. Very serious.

Like being accused of perjury...or sleeping with an intern...

Whereas current President Bush, he frequently looks frustrated, and we take this normal. I really had to listen for a while what Clinton said because... well... it's like Alan Greenspan on Economics.

I can see that. He DID debate the meaning of the word is.

If he speaks something then you better damn well listen what's being said.

And just like the street hustler...you better be on guard, cause you're about to be had.

[WolvenBear]

At 9/25/06 10:15 PM, W31RD0 wrote: I am sure this issue has been festering in him. Then when you take into account the host baiting him, I’m surprised he didn’t just shout "Impeach me now bitch!" and shove his cock into the hosts mouth.

The biggest issue of our day is terrorism. Any PRESIDENT that didn't expect to be questioned on terrorism (especially after having 300 books published on his failings) on a conservative network is an idiot who has proven that he was unfit to govern this country.

I think it is less that Bush is getting angry and more like him thinking:
"Crap! They actully asked me an unscripted question! If I have to keep talking my own words, I’m going to slip up and say turban-head!"

As opposed to Clinton, who never should've expected the obvious question (that was also asked of him on CNN and all other networks he was on btw).

There's also the idea that stupid people like McCain and Hillary Clinton (to name others) are grating on his nerves and his pateince is waning thin.

At 9/25/06 11:59 PM, fli wrote: But Clinton did outline a plan before he left offfice for Bush to follow up on his progress... and Bush decided ignore it altogether.

It wasn't like Bush didn't have the 8 years of work that Clinton already put in before Clinton left.

Hell, even Clarke reputed this. There was an idea. And why did Clarke say it wasn't implemented? Because Clinton didn't want to leave the next guy with a war...nonsense.

At 9/26/06 12:07 AM, AMFYOYO wrote:

At 9/25/06 11:23 PM, TimeTrials wrote: haha, Clinton truely is a jackass.

Your intelligence always amazes me. Luckily he wasn't unfairly attacked on national T.V. or anything...

Yawn, he wasn't.
He was asked the only question that interests people these days.
"But they should've asked him the color socks he was wearing...."
The stupidity of people these days.

At 9/26/06 12:35 AM, fli wrote:

At 9/26/06 12:10 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Yeah, but if Clinton approved several missions, Osama would have been killed off ages ago.

Like the earlier post, both sides are to blame, to tab it to one person is foolish.

Hence... Clinton's lashing...
Everyone wants to pin this on Clinton, yet if one had to choose a lesser of two sins (Bush and Clinton)... It will definely be Clinton.

No, it'd be Bush. However, Carter Bush Sr. and Reagan all had their hands into it.
But to blame Bush more than Clinton is naive and partisan.

It's understandable why he would lash out... FOX wouldn't ask loaded questions to Bush or any other similar Republicans, and yet it's like he's getting the blunt of all blame when clearly, Clinton has been WAY closer at killing Bin Ladin than Bush. Nobody places equal blame.

Clinton never did anything to kill bin Ladin. Ger real.
And I say again, if Clinton was too stupid to anticipate a conservative host asking him about his failures pre-9/11 (hen liberals had asked him before) then he was obviously unfit to lead the country. CNN asks more loaded questions to Reps than Dems...I have yet to hear you condemn that. Moving on...

Instead, what were people doing?
What were people more focused on during the late 90s? Especially FOX?

Cum stains on a blue dress--

Perjury, obstruction of justice. You're done...

Funny how FOX used to say so many years ago that Clinton's attempt to kill Bin Ladin was just a mere attempt to divert people's attention to something else in a Wag-the-Dog-esque type of fashion.

When Clinton attacked years back...the GOP (except for a few nobodies) supported him. Newt Gingrich stood behind him and said it WAS NOT a publicity stunt. Try again.

And now they're like, "Well, you shoulda killed him years ago!"

He should've.

At 9/26/06 02:16 AM, Nylo wrote: First of all, great link!

Second of all, sounds like too many emotions are running high here.

I applaud the Fox News Interviewer. You don't have to like the guy, it's not like you're gonna fuck him. Like you guys defending Clinton wouldn't want hard-hitting questions on George Bush. But that's not the point, it's great that he asked those questions because it gave Clinton a chance to speak his mind in the hot-seat.

Exactly.

I loathed Clinton's demand to censor The Path to 9/11. I thought it was crappy attempt at censorship; people should be allowed to make up their own minds. However after hearing Clinton speak in this interview, doesn't matter if you agree with him or not, I love to see a guy get fired up like that.

That in and of itself speaks volumns about what Clinton failed to do. Even though the documentary was mostly anti-Bush, were there are massive media blockades? No. Just Clinton. Lovely.

[LazyDrunk]

Clinton should stick to worrying about his wife's future.

His is done.

[AMFYOYO]

At 9/26/06 05:50 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 9/25/06 09:51 PM, AMFYOYO wrote: Wow I watched this a second time, and the interviewer thinks he is so fucking superior. He has that little smirk, and as far as I can see, Clinton comes through as a pretty honest guy, who can see right through this blind-side bullshit attack.

The interviewer has the right to feel superior. He's not complicit in thousands of deaths like Mr. Clinton.

Wait, you're kidding right. Haha, I love hipocracy. Cause Iraq and all those WMDs were getting really dangerous.

[Jizzlebang]

I love the way the interviewer had to say "This is NOT edtied".
It's like saying "This time we are NOT lying! =D"

[fli]

At 9/26/06 06:03 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Clinton never did anything to kill bin Ladin. Ger real.

Yes, it has to be true... because a Made-for-TV-Movie said so...
*eye rollie*

Clinton even outlined a plan for Bush to deal with Bin Ladin.
And Bush ignored it till it was way too late. Purposefully ignored it.

Choosing the lesser evil... I have to say it's Clinton.

And I say again, if Clinton was too stupid to anticipate a conservative host asking him about his failures pre-9/11 (hen liberals had asked him before) then he was obviously unfit to lead the country. CNN asks more loaded questions to Reps than Dems...I have yet to hear you condemn that. Moving on...

Can't really say anything about CNN because I don't like to watch Lou Doubs and the likes... Mostly watch the news part and sorta change channels when they comment on the news.

But I've definetly seen FOX, and I swear to you... No wonder people run scared.
It's like you're gonna die the way to they present their news in their context...

Instead, what were people doing?
What were people more focused on during the late 90s? Especially FOX?

Cum stains on a blue dress--

Perjury, obstruction of justice. You're done...

Funny how FOX used to say so many years ago that Clinton's attempt to kill Bin Ladin was just a mere attempt to divert people's attention to something else in a Wag-the-Dog-esque type of fashion.

When Clinton attacked years back...the GOP (except for a few nobodies) supported him. Newt Gingrich stood behind him and said it WAS NOT a publicity stunt. Try again.

And now they're like, "Well, you shoulda killed him years ago!"

He should've.

*eye rollie*
like what I said, when Clinton was busy trying to do something about Bin Ladin, the GOP were wagging their heads saying, "Let's get to more important news... cum stains, LOL."