Bill Clinton smacking down Chris Wallace.

[Mr Sparkle]

God, this is so totally irrelevent.

Really, will it make any difference to the political future?

LOL of course it would, of course it is relevant.
be frustrated and full of ennui all you want, that doesn't make this as irrelevant as you might feel.
political figures should be held to higher standards of honesty. therefore, a lie that has been the basis of Bush's reign for the last 6 years is completely relevant.

 

[DorkyFresh]

i think it's funny how all these people are getting on Clinton for lashing out, getting a bj, and failing to capture Osama...

...when Bush let 9/11 happen, waged a war on terrorism that for some strange reason lead him to Iraq (same country his father had a war with) where there were no weapons of mass destruction like they claimed, made minimal effort to prepare for Katrina and he STILL hasn't caught Bin Laden.

why did we goto Iraq if Bin Laden was the one responsible for 9/11?

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Not my logic. Superman's.

I've showed that Clinton's admitted to not doing what he could to get bin Laden, and that Fox has asked the same questions to the Bush administration. No ad hominem, and finger pointing there. Want ad hominem, see Olbermann's "special comment".

You're right when that question was asked of the Bush team it was not ad hominem, that was "begging the question". When you phrase your questions to begin by statement that there are "apparent contradictions" and "an agenda" in what Richard Clarke claims about Donald Rumsfeld (your guest) you're simply asking Donald Rumsfeld to reply by re-enforcing an opinion you apparently already came to. The fact that you need the difference between accusations and begged questions explained to you shows how partisan and blind you are by preconceived notions.

 

[Maximum Carnage]

i think it's funny how all these people are getting on Clinton for lashing out, getting a bj, and failing to capture Osama...

...when Bush let 9/11 happen, waged a war on terrorism that for some strange reason lead him to Iraq (same country his father had a war with) where there were no weapons of mass destruction like they claimed, made minimal effort to prepare for Katrina and he STILL hasn't caught Bin Laden.

why did we goto Iraq if Bin Laden was the one responsible for 9/11?

Exactly. Those topics are much more important than this.

 

[lazur]

i think it's funny how all these people are getting on Clinton for lashing out, getting a bj, and failing to capture Osama...

...when Bush let 9/11 happen, waged a war on terrorism that for some strange reason lead him to Iraq (same country his father had a war with) where there were no weapons of mass destruction like they claimed, made minimal effort to prepare for Katrina and he STILL hasn't caught Bin Laden.

why did we goto Iraq if Bin Laden was the one responsible for 9/11?

I'm sorry, but how did Bush - only being in office for a measly 8 months - "let" 9/11 happen again? I must have missed the evidence you've shown that demonstrates this, particularly in the face of Clinton being the one who was in office during many terrorist attacks by Bin Laden.

Are you seriously saying that if Clinton had been in office on September 11, 2001, that 9/11 would NOT have happened? Are you *really* saying that?

 

[Mr Sparkle]

I'm sorry, but how did Bush - only being in office for a measly 8 months - "let" 9/11 happen again? I must have missed the evidence you've shown that demonstrates this, particularly in the face of Clinton being the one who was in office during many terrorist attacks by Bin Laden.

Are you seriously saying that if Clinton had been in office on September 11, 2001, that 9/11 would NOT have happened? Are you *really* saying that?

didn't he de-prioritize Bin Laden? and switch fund to the missile defense shield? didn't Clarke say somethign about being ignored?

 

[Darthphere]

didn't he de-prioritize Bin Laden? and switch fund to the missile defense shield? didn't Clarke say somethign about being ignored?

Yes he did my mexican friend.

 

[sinewave]

I'm sorry, but how did Bush - only being in office for a measly 8 months - "let" 9/11 happen again? I must have missed the evidence you've shown that demonstrates this, particularly in the face of Clinton being the one who was in office during many terrorist attacks by Bin Laden.

Are you seriously saying that if Clinton had been in office on September 11, 2001, that 9/11 would NOT have happened? Are you *really* saying that?

both presidesnts *should* have captured him. clinton tried and was rebuked by the intelligence agencies and was probably distracted by his witch-hunt. bush ignored him until it was too late and has failed to follow through on his word to capture or kill him.

 

[DorkyFresh]

I'm sorry, but how did Bush - only being in office for a measly 8 months - "let" 9/11 happen again?

um...it happened, didn't it? hehe

but seriously, i think, by now (unless you actually believe everything the government tells you), a good number of intelligent Americans know that the government knew about 9/11 before it happened and possibly had it's fair share of responsibility for much of the destruction caused on that dreadful day.

Are you seriously saying that if Clinton had been in office on September 11, 2001, that 9/11 would NOT have happened? Are you *really* saying that?

we'll never know since Bush was president, but 9/11 didn't happen during Clinton's run did it?

 

[War Lord]

um...it happened, didn't it? hehe

but seriously, i think, by now (unless you actually believe everything the government tells you), a good number of self-hating Americans know that the government knew about 9/11 before it happened and is actively at war with it's own people and possibly had it's fair share of responsibility for much of the destruction caused on that dreadful day.


we'll never know since Bush was president, but 9/11 didn't happen during Clinton's run did it?

Corrected.

 

[Darthphere]

War Lord, the non-american, takes offense.

 

[War Lord]

War Lord, the non-american, takes offense.

I haven't taken offense. I just like to keep things accurate.

 

[Immortalfire]

Why is Clinton picking on a mere Hypester?

 

[lazur]

didn't he de-prioritize Bin Laden? and switch fund to the missile defense shield? didn't Clarke say somethign about being ignored?

Sorry, but I don't fault either President for not "getting" Bin Laden in time, or for knowing ahead of time about 9/11 and doing nothing about it.

It wasn't the fault of a President. It was the fault of the complacent nature of all Americans. "That can't happen to us." The fact is that NO ONE could have predicted the level of destruction that would befall us on 9/11. For you or anyone else to sit here and point fingers AFTER THE FACT just shows how painfully corrupt your political motives are.

 

[lazur]

Sorry, but I don't fault either President for not "getting" Bin Laden in time, or for knowing ahead of time about 9/11 and doing nothing about it.

It wasn't the fault of a President. It was the fault of the complacent nature of all Americans. "That can't happen to us." The fact is that NO ONE could have predicted the level of destruction that would befall us on 9/11. For you or anyone else to sit here and point fingers AFTER THE FACT just shows how painfully corrupt your political motives are.

And this is also precisely WHY we will never get rid of this lame two party system. Because people are constantly positioning for one side or the other instead of TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION without taking a side.

You want reform? Go with a third MODERATE party. Leave your allegiances to the democrats or republicans at the door when you sit down at the table to "debate the issues".

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Sorry, but I don't fault either President for not "getting" Bin Laden in time, or for knowing ahead of time about 9/11 and doing nothing about it.

It wasn't the fault of a President. It was the fault of the complacent nature of all Americans. "That can't happen to us." The fact is that NO ONE could have predicted the level of destruction that would befall us on 9/11. For you or anyone else to sit here and point fingers AFTER THE FACT just shows how painfully corrupt your political motives are.

no, I don't fault him for not getting bin laden at all, I fault him for putting anti-terrorism in the back burner in favor of a missile defense shield that made millions if not billions for his defense contractor buddies.
it's not however, the fault of the American citizen, to this day most of your country thinks that you got attacked because some people hate your freedoms. I think if anything the 9-11 attacks have made the US citizen more delussional than ever before.
pointing fingers after the fact? that's what the current president of your country has been doing for the last 5 YEARS. pushing wars that had nothing to do with 911 trying to connect them, if not in reality in the fearful civillian population that, for no small ammount due to this, reelected a man that has been a proven failure of a president.
now that IS PAINFULLY CORRUPT.

 

[cass]

both presidesnts *should* have captured him. clinton tried and was rebuked by the intelligence agencies and was probably distracted by his witch-hunt. bush ignored him until it was too late and has failed to follow through on his word to capture or kill him.

Clinton's the damn boss over the intel agencies, how is that an excuse?

 

[War Lord]

And this is also precisely WHY we will never get rid of this lame two party system. Because people are constantly positioning for one side or the other instead of TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION without taking a side.

You want reform? Go with a third MODERATE party. Leave your allegiances to the democrats or republicans at the door when you sit down at the table to "debate the issues".

The problem with the third party is that all parties end up sounding almost the same on any issue. In Canada, there wasn't any significant differences between the part platforms between the NDP (a left-leaning party), the Liberals ( a supposedly centre party, but was only slightly more to the right of the NDP, and the Progressive Conservatives (supposedly right centre, but really still to the left of the Democratic party in the states).

It took the introduction of a fourth party, the Reform, to really get any debates going in my country.

 

[War Lord]

Clinton's the damn boss over the intel agencies, how is that an excuse?

I'm not defending Clinton by any means, but there is only so much a president can do when he's only got four years between elections, which only really leaves about 1 1/2 years for productive work, and he's up against a well-entrenched beareaucracy that's been around for 50 years.

 

[lazur]

no, I don't fault him for not getting bin laden at all, I fault him for putting anti-terrorism in the back burner in favor of a missile defense shield that made millions if not billions for his defense contractor buddies.
it's not however, the fault of the American citizen, to this day most of your country thinks that you got attacked because some people hate your freedoms. I think if anything the 9-11 attacks have made the US citizen more delussional than ever before.
pointing fingers after the fact? that's what the current president of your country has been doing for the last 5 YEARS. pushing wars that had nothing to do with 911 trying to connect them, if not in reality in the fearful civillian population that, for no small ammount due to this, reelected a man that has been a proven failure of a president.
now that IS PAINFULLY CORRUPT.

Yeah, yeah, every president is accused of being PAINFULLY CORRUPT. Yet no evidence is ever provided. Just blind partisan accusations and wild unfounded speculation.

Republicans did that to Clinton and Carter, and democrats did that to Reagan, Bush Sr and now Bush Jr.

As to where he put his focus, as I said - NO ONE COULD HAVE PREDICTED 9/11 OR THE LEVEL OF DEVASTATION IT CAUSED, PERIOD.

As to the whole focus on terrorism, Clinton was just as guilty for not taking it seriously enough. Clinton had EIGHT YEARS to take it seriously. Bush had only EIGHT MONTHS.

 

[DorkyFresh]

when all is said and done...there was no good reason for Fox to even ask why Clinton failed to catch Bin Laden other than to try to make him look bad. considering all that's happened since Bush took over, i don't see why Fox felt like they needed to ask "why did you fail?" unless they have a grudge. they would never ask Bush why he's failing as of this moment. a more fair, appropriate question would be "why hasn't AMERICA been able to catch him?"

the past is the past, Fox should know that...they should've talked about what can be done to better the PRESENT and the FUTURE, not why things weren't done in the past. i'm surprised they didn't bring back up the Monica Lewinski issue...

 

[sinewave]

Clinton's the damn boss over the intel agencies, how is that an excuse?

ummm, no, he's not. they couldn't prove that bin laden was responsible for those attacks, so they fought clinton on it.

 

[lazur]

when all is said and done...there was no good reason for Fox to even ask why Clinton failed to catch Bin Laden other than to try to make him look bad. considering all that's happened since Bush took over, i don't see why Fox felt like they needed to ask "why did you fail?" unless they have a grudge. they would never ask Bush why he's failing as of this moment. a more fair, appropriate question would be "why hasn't AMERICA been able to catch him?"

the past is the past, Fox should know that...they should've talked about what can be done to better the PRESENT and the FUTURE, not why things weren't done in the past. i'm surprised they didn't bring back up the Monica Lewinski issue...

They asked him that because it's a question on the minds of a lot of conservatives. That doesn't make it right, but that does mean they're simply serving their audience by asking the questions to which they want answers.

CNN does it, too, except, ya know, they take a slightly opposite approach and only ask republicans the really hard questions .

 

[cass]

ummm, no, he's not.

Then who is????

 

[lazur]

ummm, no, he's not. they couldn't prove that bin laden was responsible for those attacks, so they fought clinton on it.

Yeah, George Tenet, appointed by Clinton, the same guy who said there were, without question, WMDs in Iraq?

Now I remember.

Funny how Tenet's voice is only paramount when we're talking about bailing Clinton out, but not Bush .