Bill Clinton smacking down Chris Wallace.

[maxwell's demon]

What a rediculous and ignorant thing to say. Why would you think that? Maybe because you are prejudiced against me because my name is red?

dude did he jsut call you a communist ?

 

[bored]

I can see that. And its a good point, but my question then is; Why do you care that I think Clinton is lying?

The phrasing is loaded, I was trying to make it so. I was trying to make a comment about the thread topic. If one bothers to say anything should it not be memorable?

Your point makes sense if I thought you were a devoted follower of Bill Clinton. But why would I think that?

OK, I look at the thread anew. I was thinking it was a disscusion of the Wallace-Clinton interview. But now as I look again, Superman started it as maybe a glorification of Clinton. I was offering an opposing view. Maybe that is wrong.

So, Superman, I apologize if I messed up the thread. I will remove my posts if you like.

What you think doesn't bother me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's how you presented it that bothered people. You don't need to jump in and go right on the offensive if you think people are putting too much into glorifying someone. A simple 'what makes you say that?' would work, and it wouldn't piss people off.

 

[sinewave]

What you think doesn't bother me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's how you presented it that bothered people. You don't need to jump in and go right on the offensive if you think people are putting too much into glorifying someone. A simple 'what makes you say that?' would work, and it wouldn't piss people off.

very well put. i know many people don't like clinton and believe everything that truthteller claimed about him to be true, so i have no problem with that viewpoint. i don't happen to agree with most of it, but i know people see things differently. however, truthteller, whether you see things as objectively as you say, you must realize that, while some of those things may actually have some truth to them, your analyzation of what sparked clinton's behavior in that interview seems single-minded and overtly anti-clinton. who's to say he hadn't just had enough with the endless attacks on himself and his legacy by fox news over the years. he's had plenty of critics, like bush, who've made many false claims about him in an attempt to slander him. maybe he legitimately saw that loaded question as an attack and that was the final straw. to enter a debate and, as bored said, go on the offensive by making questionable claims about the truth regarding complex historical data, while being an authority figure on these boards, comes off as hostile. i'm sure that's not what you intended, but can you see that others might read it that way? still, i admire your cool head and ability to handle critique in an open and rational manner.

 

[jaguarr]

Truthteller doesn't care about black people!

jag

 

[Mr Sparkle]

It is you who should be more critical of your fact checking rather than so critical and insulting of your fellow posters. Your next post to me is a piece of trash and I shall respond shortly.

As for the York article - He was QUOTING Richard Clarke. Do you not believe Clarke said these things? I myself do not put much stock into what Clarke says, but to you it seems like gospel:

A reporter asked: “Were all of those issues part of an alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to — ”

“There was never a plan, Andrea,” Clarke answered. “What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.”

“So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

“There was no new plan.”

“No new strategy? I mean, I mean, I don’t want to get into a semantics — “

“Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.”

“Had those issues evolved at all from October of ‘98 until December of 2000?”

“Had they evolved? Not appreciably.”

Isn't this just saying that there was nothing new? "evolved"? that's completely inmaterial.
Clinton didn't claim he had left a plan penned in december 1999 he said he left a comprehensive strategy (which he did) how is this dialogue proof of anything? seriously?