Bill Clinton smacking down Chris Wallace.

[tomahawk53]

oh my bad...

I'll go back and check out the replies.

Sorry I didn't feel like going through all 15 pages to see if it was posted.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

oh my bad...

I'll go back and check out the replies.

Sorry I didn't feel like going through all 15 pages to see if it was posted.

s'alright. You just threw it out there, I think it's only the second time we've had that one anyways.

 

[Superman]

Are you trying to make it sound like the Republicans were all against it? Simply not true. Some were skeptical but how can you blame them? Well I should say I can see why there was distrust of his actions instead of how can you blame them. I mean the truth of Lewinsky-gate was just coming out.


http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/082198attack-us.html

From that article...

But while the Republican leadership rallied to support the raids, some members of Congress reacted suspiciously, noting that the action followed by three days Clinton's acknowledgment to the public and a grand jury of his relationship with former intern Monica Lewinsky.

...more

Congressional leaders were briefed about the planned raid Wednesday night and Thursday morning. For the most part, Republican leaders praised Clinton's decision and urged more aggressive action against terrorism.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich expressed firm support, and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, said, "Our response appears to be appropriate and just."

Others were more critical. Accusing Clinton of "lies and deceit and manipulations and deceptions," Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., said the president's record "raises into doubt everything he does and everything he says, and maybe even everything he doesn't do and doesn't say."


So, the two Republican leaders in the Congress praised and supported Clinton's action. And one Republican senator said that he was suspicious of everything Clinton does and doesn't do.

I'm not trying to say anything. Like I said, "Make of it what you will". I just thought it was interesting.

 

[sinewave]

From the first link:

"Threat Magnitude: Do the Principals agree that the al Qida network poses a first order threat to US interests in number or regions, or is this analysis a "chicken little" over reaching and can we proceed without major new initiatives and by handling this issue in a more routine manner?"

Yes, I did find it interesting. However, it's a memo which poses a QUESTION - not a recommendation. It sounds like the last administration (Clinton) also wasn't sure how *seriously* to pursue the "al qida" network, and this memo was simply pointing out that this is an issue that sits on the table for consideration.

No one, Clinton or Bush administration, could have predicted what would happen on 9/11. So for ANYONE to sit here and criticize EITHER of them for a lack of action which could have prevented 9/11, it's purely political and partisan.

You do realize that by doing this and citing these erroneous "short comings" of the Bush administration, you're only doing the same thing that republicans are doing to Clinton, right?

As for the second link: Politics as usual. Both sides do this.

good post.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

From the first link:

"Threat Magnitude: Do the Principals agree that the al Qida network poses a first order threat to US interests in number or regions, or is this analysis a "chicken little" over reaching and can we proceed without major new initiatives and by handling this issue in a more routine manner?"

Yes, I did find it interesting. However, it's a memo which poses a QUESTION - not a recommendation. It sounds like the last administration (Clinton) also wasn't sure how *seriously* to pursue the "al qida" network, and this memo was simply pointing out that this is an issue that sits on the table for consideration.

No one, Clinton or Bush administration, could have predicted what would happen on 9/11. So for ANYONE to sit here and criticize EITHER of them for a lack of action which could have prevented 9/11, it's purely political and partisan.

You do realize that by doing this and citing these erroneous "short comings" of the Bush administration, you're only doing the same thing that republicans are doing to Clinton, right?

As for the second link: Politics as usual. Both sides do this.

Well, someone who actually analyzed the facts for themselves. While I may not have come to that conclusion myself I applaud the work.

 

[Spider-Bite]

I enjoyed watching Bill Clinton own the girly Chris Wallace! He kicked his ass!

 

[Spider-Bite]

Originally Posted by lazur
From the first link:

"Threat Magnitude: Do the Principals agree that the al Qida network poses a first order threat to US interests in number or regions, or is this analysis a "chicken little" over reaching and can we proceed without major new initiatives and by handling this issue in a more routine manner?"

Yes, I did find it interesting. However, it's a memo which poses a QUESTION - not a recommendation. It sounds like the last administration (Clinton) also wasn't sure how *seriously* to pursue the "al qida" network, and this memo was simply pointing out that this is an issue that sits on the table for consideration.

No one, Clinton or Bush administration, could have predicted what would happen on 9/11. So for ANYONE to sit here and criticize EITHER of them for a lack of action which could have prevented 9/11, it's purely political and partisan.

You do realize that by doing this and citing these erroneous "short comings" of the Bush administration, you're only doing the same thing that republicans are doing to Clinton, right?

As for the second link: Politics as usual. Both sides do this.

good post. I don't know if it's your intention to blame clinton though of being partisan on this issue, because he merely said, "you guys ridicule me now, but back when I was trying to get Osama you opposed getting him and accused me of trying to take the voters attentin off of getting my dick wet"

and that really happened.

 

[7Hells]

I remember when all that was happening. Listening to hours/days of info on the news about Clinton and Lewinski and then seeing a 3 min update on what was going on overseas and what Clinton was doing about it.

I remember wondering whose decision it was to make the president getting a bj more important than a war we were involved in.
And now, years later, I see the answer to my question.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

FoX News Chief calls Clinton response 'An Assault on all Journalists'​

​

NEW YORK Sep 27, 2006 (AP)— Fox News chief Roger Ailes says former President Clinton's response to Chris Wallace's question about going after Osama bin Laden represents "an assault on all journalists."
Ailes said Clinton had a "wild overreaction" in the interview, broadcast on "Fox News Sunday." Hundreds of thousands of people subsequently watched clips over the Internet, with Fox foes rallying behind Clinton.
"If you can't sit there and answer a question from a professional, mild-mannered, respectful reporter like Chris Wallace, then the hatred for journalists is showing," Ailes said in an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday. "All journalists need to raise their eyebrows and say, `hold on a second.'"
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=2499532

 

[Superman]

Fox news is an assault on journalism.

 

[kainedamo]

I think what most people with common sense will raise their eyebrows about is the over-reaction of Fox.

Who cares if Clinton's response was heated?? Newsnight, Question Time, any number of political shows have heated responses from guests. Do you ever, EVER see the BBC news say "such and such a guest on Newsnight gave a heated response! We don't like him very much!!".

Seriously, what the hell is all of this nonsense? I pity people that can't see right through Fox.

 

[Man-Thing]

Much to the suprise of my fellow humans, Bill Clinton only has two teeth. But these teeth disguise themselves as all the teeth you are supposed to have. He also has many other medical condition that I just can't get into to, because of my training in the field of espyinage. (<-----that's really how it's supposed to be spelt, the "correct way" as you common folk call it is really just a diversion to throw you off in your undying quest of things).

Anyway, he has fire breating capablities.

Oh and a lollypop has been lodged in his throat since his "knights of the golden dawn era".

 

[sinewave]

Much to the suprise of my fellow humans, Bill Clinton only has two teeth. But these teeth disguise themselves as all the teeth you are supposed to have. He also has many other medical condition that I just can't get into to, because of my training in the field of espyinage. (<-----that's really how it's supposed to be spelt, the "correct way" as you common folk call it is really just a diversion to throw you off in your undying quest of things).

Anyway, he has fire breating capablities.

Oh and a lollypop has been lodged in his throat since his "knights of the golden dawn era".

stay off the goofballs, kids.

 

[jaguarr]

FoX News Chief calls Clinton response 'An Assault on all Journalists'​

​

Heh! Chris Wallace is a jackass and he got what he deserved. I find it entertaining that his boss is whining about it.

jag​

 

[Calvin]

Truthteller in response to your attack on me "insulting posters" I'll say this. I have every right to insult you if you think because your name is big bold red letters you can come in here and be the end all be all of a discussion without posting a single thing to validate your claims. I may be arrogant, I may act like I know a lot, but that is because I work very hard. If I make a claim, even a small one, I make sure to fact check said claim.

Coming in here and saying "the truth is" before every errant thought you type is not only insulting, it's demeaning. At the very least I can say most neo-conservatives and conservatives like cass actually posted things off conservative website to attempt to validate their claims.

You on the other hand sat their smuggly for a page and a half, calling a poster who called you on your bullsh** "cute". Then when you were asked to prove your point you convienently shifted the burden of proof to everyone else but yourself.

The truth is...just because you put "Truthteller" in big red letters does not give you any right to go around claiming what you know is the truth.

Hell yes.

 

[Superman]

Much to the suprise of my fellow humans, Bill Clinton only has two teeth. But these teeth disguise themselves as all the teeth you are supposed to have. He also has many other medical condition that I just can't get into to, because of my training in the field of espyinage. (<-----that's really how it's supposed to be spelt, the "correct way" as you common folk call it is really just a diversion to throw you off in your undying quest of things).

Anyway, he has fire breating capablities.

Oh and a lollypop has been lodged in his throat since his "knights of the golden dawn era".

What the hell are you talking about? I think you better lay off that moonshine, It's starting to burn your brain cells.

 

[Truthteller]

Truthteller, I think you need to be a little more critical with your fact checking since the author of said article...

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.”

 

[Truthteller]

Truthteller in response to your attack on me "insulting posters" I'll say this. I have every right to insult you if you think because your name is big bold red letters you can come in here and be the end all be all of a discussion ...

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?

I have a right, just like you do, to post whatever I please thats within the SHH rules.

... You on the other hand sat their smuggly for a page and a half, calling a poster who called you on your bullsh** "cute". Then when you were asked to prove your point you convienently shifted the burden of proof to everyone else but yourself...

I do not have to "prove" Jack Crap to you or anyone else. As I have pointed out, you have not proved a thing in this thread other than your distain for anyone with an opinion counter to your own.

My post was about Bill Clinton. It was my only post in the thread up to that point. I did not say a thing to or about any other poster. My only comments were about Bill Clinton.

You on the other hand, thought it was "OK" to attack me personally for my opinions. You should learn better manners. And I'll be happy to teach them to you right now.

The truth is...just because you put "Truthteller" in big red letters does not give you any right to go around claiming what you know is the truth.

Bull! I have every right to claim the truth! You can not take that freedom from me. I certainly do not trust you and your half-baked sophomoric notions to provide it.

I did not put my screen name in red letters. You are wrong, again. It sure seems like you have quite a bit of prejudice against people who have a red letter screen name. I suggest you get over it.

 

[War Lord]

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?

I have a right, just like you do, to post whatever I please thats within the SHH rules.

I do not have to "prove" Jack Crap to you or anyone else. As I have pointed out, you have not proved a thing in this thread other than your distain for anyone with an opinion counter to your own.

My post was about Bill Clinton. It was my only post in the thread up to that point. I did not say a thing to or about any other poster. My only comments were about Bill Clinton.

You on the other hand, thought it was "OK" to attack me personally for my opinions. You should learn better manners. And I'll be happy to teach them to you right now.

Bull! I have every right to claim the truth! You can not take that freedom from me. I certainly do not trust you and your half-baked sophomoric notions to provide it.

I did not put my screen name in red letters. You are wrong, again. It sure seems like you have quite a bit of prejudice against people who have a red letter screen name. I suggest you get over it.

Your name looks more like a dark, deep pink to me.

 

[sinewave]

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?

I have a right, just like you do, to post whatever I please thats within the SHH rules.

I do not have to "prove" Jack Crap to you or anyone else. As I have pointed out, you have not proved a thing in this thread other than your distain for anyone with an opinion counter to your own.

My post was about Bill Clinton. It was my only post in the thread up to that point. I did not say a thing to or about any other poster. My only comments were about Bill Clinton.

You on the other hand, thought it was "OK" to attack me personally for my opinions. You should learn better manners. And I'll be happy to teach them to you right now.

Bull! I have every right to claim the truth! You can not take that freedom from me. I certainly do not trust you and your half-baked sophomoric notions to provide it.

I did not put my screen name in red letters. You are wrong, again. It sure seems like you have quite a bit of prejudice against people who have a red letter screen name. I suggest you get over it.

if i may butt in here, i think what sb was trying to say is that you claiming something is the truth doesn't make it so. he backed up his assertions, you did not. you're also coming off as kind of arrogant by claiming something is the truth, even though there's no basis for those claims and many people see it quite differently. like it or not, you being a mod and making silly claims about what's the truth and what isn't can be construed as authoritarianism. plus, your spelling stinks.

 

[Superman]

if i may butt in here, i think what sb was trying to say is that you claiming something is the truth doesn't make it so. he backed up his assertions, you did not. you're also coming off as kind of arrogant by claiming something is the truth, even though there's no basis for those claims and many people see it quite differently. like it or not, you being a mod and making silly claims about what's the truth and what isn't can be construed as authoritarianism. plus, your spelling stinks.

Well said.

 

[terry78]

They're moonbats, I tell ya. Moonbats, all of 'em. Pardon my french, but what the **** is a moonbat?

 

[Truthteller]

if i may butt in here, i think what sb was trying to say is that you claiming something is the truth doesn't make it so. he backed up his assertions, you did not. you're also coming off as kind of arrogant by claiming something is the truth, even though there's no basis for those claims and many people see it quite differently. like it or not, you being a mod and making silly claims about what's the truth and what isn't can be construed as authoritarianism. plus, your spelling stinks.

Well said.

I think you are both just flat out wrong. And I'm not saying that because I'm upset at either of you (because I'm not) - I'm saying it because there is no reason to the assertation.

Forgive me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think both of you are heavily attached to the Democrat political party. And I think that allegiance colors everything you say or even that you think that you believe.

See as I have told you before, I have no political party affiliation. I don't care for either. However, I do participate in elections and I do keep informed on the issues. I am conservative in many respects, I am libertarian in some and even liberal in others. Above all, I am an independent thinker.

if i may butt in here, i think what sb was trying to say is that you claiming something is the truth doesn't make it so. he backed up his assertions, you did not.

Thats simply not ture. He has not backed up his assertions. I did backup the story about no "detailed anti-terror plan" being left by the Clinton administration.

you're also coming off as kind of arrogant by claiming something is the truth, even though there's no basis for those claims and many people see it quite differently.

I'll grant you the arrogant claim. But the notion that there is no basis for my statements is certainly not true.

I don't doubt that I see things differently than many people, but I don't think we mean the same thing when we say that. I think most people look at things with great prejudice rather than reason - moreso than is generally realized. It is important to acknowledge that tendency and adjust for it.
Now lets look closer at what I said and what you have said that there is no basis for (I'll spare us all the admittedly lurid pic):

Red faced Clinton, lying again.

Waving that finger around (again) like some horrible pseudo Freudian phallic symbol. Pointing it at Chris Wallace as though it were a death dagger wielded by a murderous thug. He is desperate to explain. Desperate to secure his precious legacy and to change it into something it is not.

He's had plenty of help with that legacy from the willing media, for years and years and years. Pausing only for that little sexual trist. But oh, thats not a big thing, in fact most of the followers of the Cult of Bill Clinton think that it was cool and only serves to aggrandize him in their eyes.

When he left the interview with Chris Wallace, reports are that he was still seething. Threatening to fire his staff for booking on an honest show that does not cowtow to his mighty majesty.

The truth is that Clinton was lying throughout the entire interview.

The truth is that there was no detailed terrorist plan left for the next administration.

The truth is that he was never obsessed by binLaden, but it sounds good now.

The truth is that Clinton could have arrested binLaden several times, but he did not have the will to do it.

The truth is that he promised tax cuts for the middle class, but he never delivered them.

But never let the truth get in the way of Bill Clinton. He's much too smart and handsome and charming for that. Much too much sexual energy to consider truth, honor and integrity.

Granted I used poetic license to spice up the post, but there really is nothing in that post that is very controversial. I'm sorry if it offends you, really I am. That was not my intent. But if you need links to support any of those things, then you must be listening only to the far left point of view.

I am not trying to convience you of my opinions, but rather to merely state them.

I did not start the attack on any other poster, but I am defending myself against libel.

 

[bored]

You really don't get it, do you, TT? You can't just go starting a post with "Red faced Clinton, lying again.", then say 'the truth is yadayada...' without annoying some people. The phrasing is completely loaded, and if you can't see that, you shouldn't expect us to agree with you.

 

[Truthteller]

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.