Bill Clinton smacking down Chris Wallace.

[JLBats]

Hacking away, PARTISAN!

lol

 

[kainedamo]

Uh, yes she was on Cavuto's show.

I love how you take one thing from my posts, and ignore everything else.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

You know anyone can gather clips of various quotes gathered over the years, a lot taken out of context, to make a point: see Michael Moore.

It's amazing that considering the various left-slanted newspapers and news channels, when one network appears to give voice to the other side, liberals moan and complain about bias. But don't pay attention to the NYT, Washington Post, MSNBC, Keith Olbermann, Dan Rather, etc.

You're right, you can take quote out of context.

But you cannot take stuff like this out of context.

67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS).
33% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR/PBS)
35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)

And even Bush has no recanted on this idea.

Here is this from Political Science Quarterly.
http://www.psqonline.org/cgi-bin/99_article.cgi?byear=2003&bmonth=winter&a=02free&format=view

TABLE 4​

Frequency of Misperceptions per Respondent: WMD Found, Evidence of
al Qaeda Link, and World Majority Support for War
(percentages)​

Number of
misperceptions​

per respondent Fox CBS ABC CNN NBC Print Media NPR/PBS​

None of the three 20 30 39 45 45 53 77

One or more
misperception 80 71 61 55 55 47 23
​

​

​

​

http://www.fair.org/activism/fox-ballots.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0613-23.htm

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601200009 Watch the Video

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507080002

 

[JLBats]

Um, clearly they watch it for the unbiased, no nonsense coverage.

Duuuuh.

 

[KingOfDreams]

I guess you could say that if you're a moron.

I'm not a moron. I took AP classes.

 

[kainedamo]

Hey cass, here's another one for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuYDRrmIH2w

Cass, you can be a republican and believe that Fox is horribly biased, more so than most other if not all American news channels.

The evidence is ****ing unbelievable.

Why do you continue to deny it? The more you deny it, the more you say to us that you're ignorant and thick headed. You have a very childish "us vs them" mentality. Why do you ALWAYS think of things in terms of liberals vs you?

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Um, clearly they watch it for the unbiased, no nonsense coverage.

Duuuuh.

I love how the Pew Research center found that 80% of Fox Viewers had one or more of political misconceptions asked.

 

[Spider-Bite]

But Faux News is just as partisen. Look at the people they employ. And then look at Colmes, who is supposed to be the liberal balance. Not true. Colmes is really just a moderate...and a non-confrontational one at that.

he never really makes that good of an argument either when arguing. It's like man shut up and let me talk for you.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Don't you just wish Clinton could be president again? you know if Hillary wins, I'm sure bill will be very influential. it would kind of be like having Bill as president again.

man, for the first time I'm actually excited at the thought of president hillary

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Don't you just wish Clinton could be president again? you know if Hillary wins, I'm sure bill will be very influential. it would kind of be like having Bill as president again.

man, for the first time I'm actually excited at the thought of president hillary

Yes it would be

If Hilary becomes President in '08 we will see the birth of Clinton Prime and Clinton-Girl Prime. Together him and his daughter will knock down the retcon wall with her emo punches negating the Bush Administration from existence. Meanwhile Al Gore's Project OMAC will fall into the hands of Donald Rumsfeld who will reprogram it to destroy all Liberal's. Earth Neocon will be attempted to be reformed by Dick Chenney and in the end Lieberman will come out of his independent party, sacrificing himself to save us all.

 

[cass]

Here's a fact check on Clinton's claim that Fox was doing a right wing hit job, and never asked the Bush administration the question.

http://patterico.com/2006/09/24/5187/chris-wallace-has-indeed-grilled-bush-officials-about-failing-to-get-osama-before-911/

 

[Rayne]

Listen, people, paint whatever picture you want, but Clinton could've killed bin Laden TWICE and didn't have the balls to do it. He could've prevented this whole thing by pissing off a few savages, but he didn't have the seeds. He just embarrassed himself on television for being as defensive as he was. Typical liberal loosing his composure and rerouting the blame towards Conservatives, even going so far as to actually use the term "neo-con". Yeah, way to unite'em, Slick Willy. I'm sorry the man couldn't just answer the question with class, but I'm not surprised, and I don't at all think he got the upper hand in this interview. He came out looking like an classless, bitter old man.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Here's a fact check on Clinton's claim that Fox was doing a right wing hit job, and never asked the Bush administration the question.

http://patterico.com/2006/09/24/5187/chris-wallace-has-indeed-grilled-bush-officials-about-failing-to-get-osama-before-911/

Ah semantics. It's a nice article if you already have a bias against the interview. What is real interesting about that article is that they do not once show what the questions actually were.

MR. WALLACE: I think a lot of people in Washington are trying to figure out, to understand, Richard Clarke; to make sense of what he has said and of apparent contradictions in his story. Is he telling the truth or is he pushing an agenda? What do you make of his basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?

*Cough* Begging the Question *Cough*

MR. WALLACE: -- pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, we were thinking about what to do about al Qaeda. Any suggestion that the administration was not would just be incorrect. Now, as I think it was Rich Armitage said, were we able to stop that attack? The answer is no. Were we ahead of those particular terrorists and what they were doing? Obviously not. George Tenet put it well, I thought, when he said, "Look" -- they said, "Why did it happen?" He said, "Because we didn't have a source inside that particular terrorist cell."

This is contradiction with several statements made by Richard Clarke

MR. WALLACE: Clarke makes one other specific charge that I'd like to give you the opportunity to respond to here today.

Notice the phrasing of that, not "This charge was made against you. I'd like to give you the opportunity to respond to..." Clinton was asked "Why did you not do more to stop Bin Laden?" As if to make a direct accusation.

He says that on September 12th, the day after the attack, that when all the evidence was pointing to al Qaeda that you wanted to hit Iraq. Let's look at this.

MR. CLARKE: Rumsfeld said "There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan, and there are lots of good targets in Iraq." I said, "Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it."

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Secretary, true or false?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, I don't know the context that he said that. I said publicly at one stage during our effort in Afghanistan, which was, of course, a highly successful effort to deal with the al Qaeda there and run them out and deny them that haven, that Afghanistan had run out of targets. That is a correct quote. It's out of context here, but it is a correct quote.

If you think about it, the United States government made a decision to go into Afghanistan, not into Iraq, after 9/11. So the implication of what he is saying obviously misunderstands what actually took place.

Wow the article writer takes that question way out of context since it had nothing to do with Pre-9/11 response.

MR. WALLACE: Let me follow up on that [the first question I addressed], if I can, sir, because you talked to the 9/11 Commission in private before you talked to them in public, and in your public testimony this week, and according to the Commission, the staff, this is what you told them in private. Let's put it up here, if we can --

"He [Rumsfeld] did not recall any particular counterterrorism issue that engaged his attention before 9/11 other than the development of the Predator unmanned aircraft system for possible use against bin Laden. He said the DOD," the Department of Defense, "before 9/11 was not organized or trained adequately to deal with asymmetric threats."

Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.

Firstly he doesn't ask Rumsfeld if fighting terrorism was not a top priority for HIM (like he did with Clinton "Why did YOU). He pointed out that Rumsfeld was not aware of any intelligence or issue dealing with counterterrorism.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, Chris, if you look at how our government is organized historically, the Department of Justice has the responsibility for law enforcement in the United States. The Department of Defense is, in fact, by law, under the posse comitatus law, prohibited from the engaging in frontline law enforcement, police-type activities.

So really he asked Rumsfeld jack....nice try.

 

[cass]

Keep up the denial there!

 

[hippie_hunter]

Post Crisis Clinton t:
Who would be Clinton Prime?

Emoton Prime

 

[hippie_hunter]

Seriously after reading this story I was going "Boy, Clinton kicks ass!"

 

[KingOfDreams]

Typical liberal loosing his composure and rerouting the blame towards Conservatives

He may have lost his composure a bit but I cannot tell you how many times conservatives bash Clinton for, well, everything. You guys don't have the upper hand here.

 

[Docker2.0]

Listen, people, paint whatever picture you want, but Clinton could've killed bin Laden TWICE and didn't have the balls to do it. He could've prevented this whole thing by pissing off a few savages, but he didn't have the seeds. He just embarrassed himself on television for being as defensive as he was. Typical liberal loosing his composure and rerouting the blame towards Conservatives, even going so far as to actually use the term "neo-con". Yeah, way to unite'em, Slick Willy. I'm sorry the man couldn't just answer the question with class, but I'm not surprised, and I don't at all think he got the upper hand in this interview. He came out looking like an classless, bitter old man.

What the hell are you smoking? Clinton came out like a pimp! I applaud the man and if Hilary runs in 08, she'll damn sure get my vote! Truth is, Clinton is right and despite everything dude did, he only gets negative press from old rednecks who only in it for themselves.

 

[KingOfDreams]

Unfortunately, Clinton's legacy with many will only be the sex scandal. I'm not condoning what he did but ultimately, that had no bearing on anything actually important.

 

[The Riddler]

wallace's anus was intruded upon.

 

[bored]

Rather was in the industry for nearly 30 years, Olbermann is continually cited by moonbats, MSNBC has a conservative so they're not biased, wow, see Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Alan Colmes, Greta van Susterann, etc so obviously Fox can't be biased! I read the Times, they way they present their articles and mislead them is obviously biased.

And in those thirty years, his only real misstep was a story that he did little more than narrate on "60 Minutes". Olbermann being cited by 'moonbats' is irrelevant, as the 'moonbats' are the only ones who care about what he says when he isn't talking about sports. Of all of them the people on FOX you listed, the only one I've ever seen even try to appear liberal is Colmes, and he does a poor job of it. And I read the Times as well, and I don't see how their presentation of the news itself is anything like you claim it is. Explain that to me, and try to give examples.

 

[Cyclops]

How is it an example? He brought up a simple question. Clinton went on a wild eyed crazy rant, talking about the "right wing conspiracy". Wallace wanted to discuss the Clinton Global Iniative. Clinton wanted to keep ranting. How is it biased to ask a question?

Sorry. Unlike Jon Stewart tossing softball questions, Wallace is an actual journalist. It's not biased. It's actual journalism.

That wasn't journalism. That was trying to blame him for the problems we're facing today.

Tell me something. Do you think Fox News would dare have president Bush on and ask him why he hasn't caught Bin Laden yet?

 

[Ben Urich]

I'd like to thank bored for his signature. I now know to disregard anything and everything Rayne has ever said.
Thanks.

 

[bored]

If it hasn't been locked yet, check out the thread it's from, where he tries to defend it.

 

[Outsiderzedge]

this thread = zzz...

Clinton attended Yale Law School and was a career politician.

Not a surprise that he knows how to debate...