Bill Clinton smacking down Chris Wallace.

[Truthteller]

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.

 

[DorkyFresh]

the truth is...you don't know the whole truth and putting "the truth is" in front of what you THINK is the truth doesn't make it anymore true

 

[Truthteller]

Cute Dorky. Cute. I'm not posting speculation at the moment, so what I "THINK" about the matter isn't an issue.

 

[hitmanyr2k]

A comphrehensive "strategy" that hadn't been updated since '98 even though it was failing. No plan at all was passed. Clinton: failure and liar.

I think Republicans had something to do with that. Clinton tried to pass a good anti-terrorism bill to protect us here but the Republicans weren't having it...

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/15/anti.terrorism/index.html

The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted. U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for "multi-point" tapping of suspected terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities.

Rep. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said technology is giving criminals an advantage. "What the terrorists do is they take one cellular phone, use the number for a few days, throw it out and use a different phone with a different number," he said. "All we are saying is tap the person, not the phone number."

And how did some people feel about Republicans watering down Clinton's anti-terrorism bill?

Congressional Record: August 2, 1996 (House) - Pages H9877-H9886

Charles Schumer (D-NY): Mr. Speaker, if we want to know why people are sick and fed up with Congress, look at this debate. On Sunday the President asked and all the law enforcement people asked for two things, the top two things they needed to fight terrorism. One, taggants. Identifiers in explosives, particularly black power and smokeless; and two, multipoint wiretaps. Neither are in this bill.

Neither are in this bill because the NRA did not want it. Neither are in this bill because forces on the extreme dictated what the Republican Party was going to put forward.

This bill is a sham. It does a few good things, but it does not give law enforcement what they want, plain and simple. We all know that.

All the other provisions are an elaborate smokescreen to hide what everyone in this Chamber knows: that the majority party is not doing what the FBI, the ATF and all the other law enforcement experts have asked for. Mr. Kallstrom, long before this conference, the FBI man in the lead at TWA, said please give us multipoint wiretaps. The majority says no.

Mr. Freeh, the head of the FBI, says please give us taggants so we can trace the kind of pipe bomb that blew up at the Olympics. The majority says no.

And last night, when we had agreement from the President, the Republican leaders of the Senate, the Democratic leaders of the Senate and the Democratic side of the House, only the Republican majority in the House refused to go along.

Members, this bill is what should make us ashamed of our inability to pull together and fight terrorism.

Joe Moakley (D-Mass): Over a year ago President Clinton started the whole process by coming up with an antiterrorism proposal and beginning discussions with Republicans. When negotiations broke down, House Republicans wrote this bill on their own, under cover of night, and they left out one of the most important parts of President Clinton's bill--the provisions granting wiretapping authority.

Because Mr. Speaker, rather than just punishing terrorists, we need to prevent terrorism. And the one thing law enforcement officers have asked for time and again, is wiretapping authority.

But my Republican colleagues refuse to give it to them.

Instead, Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues have decided to make even the issue of terrorism political.

I would at least expect my Republican colleagues to allow us to offer amendments to this bill, but apparently they will not.

Mr. Speaker, as today's Washington Post reports, this important antiterrorism legislation has been slowed down because of conservative Republicans' refusal to allow law enforcement officers the wiretapping capability they ask for and President Clinton and the Democrats are trying to give them.

As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to combating terrorism, we should give law enforcement officers any and every reasonable tool they need, including wiretapping authority.

Nita Lowey (D-NY): Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill, and on behalf of a constituent whose daughter was lost in TWA flight 800, because this bill is an outrage and a disgrace to that family, and an outrage and a disgrace to this body.

This bill should include both taggants and enhanced wiretapping provisions. Instead, it has neither. Law enforcement has repeatedly asked for these critical tools to combat terrorism. Yet this Congress has repeatedly denied them.

When, Mr. Speaker, when are we going to say enough is enough? How many bombs have to go off? How many daughters do we have to lose? How many Americans have to die before the GOP leadership will give us a tough antiterrorism bill?

Once again we had an opportunity today to protect Americans from terrorism, and once again the Republican leadership took its marching orders from the National Rifle Association and gutted the bill. The NRA opposes taggants because it says they will be placed in the types of gunpowder that hunters and marksmen use. Taggants will also be placed in the gunpowder that terrorists use in bombs like the ones that killed and injured more than 100 in Atlanta last weekend.

The taggants in these bombs will lead us to the terrorists who planted them. Today, this Congress has hoisted the white flag of surrender in the fight against terrorism. It is a repeat of the last time we considered terrorism legislation, when the Republican leadership talked tough and acted weak. Those responsible for weakening this bill yet again should be ashamed of themselves, because they have put Americans at risk.

This was basically the Patriot Act 10 years ago but guess who was blocking it? The same guys patting Bush on the back for the Patriot Act today. Think wiretapping suspected terrorists could have made a difference back then?

 

[Truthteller]

Heck yeah it could have made a difference. And it should have been done. Special interest politics can really screw things up. You quoted three Ds, I'd like to hear what an R had to say at the time.

 

[War Lord]

the truth is...you don't know the whole truth and putting "the truth is" in front of what you THINK is the truth doesn't make it anymore true

I can tell you, after studying the science of lying, that pointing fingers and going on attacks after being asked questions is, while very convincing, are standard techniques of well practiced liars.

 

[Truthteller]

Exactly. And for Clinton the finger wagging has become iconic after he did it for the Lewinski denial.

 

[War Lord]

I think Republicans had something to do with that. Clinton tried to pass a good anti-terrorism bill to protect us here but the Republicans weren't having it...

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/15/anti.terrorism/index.html



And how did some people feel about Republicans watering down Clinton's anti-terrorism bill?

Congressional Record: August 2, 1996 (House) - Pages H9877-H9886








This was basically the Patriot Act 10 years ago but guess who was blocking it? The same guys patting Bush on the back for the Patriot Act today. Think wiretapping suspected terrorists could have made a difference back then?

I find it interesting that the Dems are complaining about Republican efforts to wire tap suspects, since they had the same tools available to them that the Republicans have in terms of national security.

 

[Darthphere]

Haha, thats great.

"Oh snap, you wagged your finger, youre lying!"

 

[War Lord]

Exactly. And for Clinton the finger wagging has become iconic after he did it for the Lewinski denial.

You'd think that finger would have stretched a few inches by now because of all the wagging.

 

[sinewave]

it's like jon stewart said, everyone's making a big deal about clinton's behavior, but no one pays attention to the facts that he brought up.

 

[War Lord]

Haha, thats great.

"Oh snap, you wagged your finger, youre lying!"

When it's accompanying a verbal attack, you should always be suspicious.

People who are telling the truth tend to not attack on accusatory questions because they are laying the facts out, whereas liars need to convince you of their "facts".

 

[Darthphere]

Bizarro Logic. Hes automatically a liar because he got angry and wagged his finger, but the facts he stated get thrown out the window.

 

[PeeNN]

Lol. You people are hilarious. I love how Clinton becoming firm about a very serious subject in an interview turns into "red faced outrage" and him "lashing out". Jesus, you folks watch far too much of your own bull****, theatrical news.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Cute Dorky. Cute. I'm not posting speculation at the moment, so what I "THINK" about the matter isn't an issue.

Ummm actually in order to prove something is "fact" you have to prove it not just say "the truth is..." in front of every sentence. Sorry you missed that day in school

In order to prove someone is lying you have to prove what they say is a lie. You, as Jon Stewart noted, are ignoring the actual work that goes into verifying a claim and simply seeing things "with your eyes". Facial analysis sounds great on paper, but then when I got all red faced and pissed at my roomate (because after 6 weeks) he still owed me money it did not suddenly invalidate that claim. Before I had calmly and nicely explainned my position, later I cussed him out. But the truth of the situation never changed.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

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.

this thread has proven that this is not so.

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

you know, that the 9-11 and richard clarke would disagree

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

the truth is the page before this one details his statement, and his statement is corroborated by Richard Clarke

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

no, he was, because I read about it in 1997 before it was even a fad to talk about terrorism and the USS cole hadn't even happened yet. there was several articles in US weekly, CNN reported about it (though rather sparsely, as scandals where a brewing by 1998) and even one in GQ about how Bin laden was a top priority , I insist this is back in 1997, if you're going to criticize Clinton, do so for his awful environmental policies or NAFTA and it's use as a corporate moneymaking tool, but not this.
I don't expect you to know this, because a lot of people didn't, and to this day don't.

but chris wallace has NO EXCUSE.

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

seriously..... this seems a lot more like opinion than fact.

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

I don't doubt this, though seriously the economy did better under Clinton that it had ever done, but Bush sr's. sane economic policies are partly to thank for that.

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.

again, though you're entitled to it. I just figured you where a bit more balanced.

 

[Truthteller]

Ummm actually in order to prove something is "fact" you have to prove it not just say "the truth is..." in front of every sentence. Sorry you missed that day in school

Actually, no. Thats just the way I choose to write it. If you care so much about it, why don't you try to prove your "facts" eh?

 

[bulok]

it's like jon stewart said, everyone's making a big deal about clinton's behavior, but no one pays attention to the facts that he brought up.

Let's take a look shall we?

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked why didn’t you do anything about the Cole. I want to know how many you asked why did you fire Dick Clarke.

In 2004, Wallace asked almost the exact same question of Donald Rumsfeld that he asked Clinton today.
Here’s what Wallace asked Clinton today:

[H]indsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?
​

And here is what Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the [URL="http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040328-secdef0568.html"]March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:[/url]

I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?
. . . .
What do you make of his [Richard Clarke’s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?
. . . .
Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.
​

P.S. Clinton said:

They had eight months to try and they didn’t….. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke.
​

Let me remind you what [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html"]Dick Clarke once said [/url]about what Clinton left behind, and whether the Bush Administration tried to do anything in eight months:

[T]here was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
​

Let the finger wagging begin, and say it with me now, "I did not have sexual relations with that one"

Read the rest for yourselves:

http://patterico.com/2006/09/24/518...icials-about-failing-to-get-osama-before-911/

 

[Darthphere]

We already discussed that dude, and its clear to anyone with half a brain that the tone and objective of the question is different.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

it's like jon stewart said, everyone's making a big deal about clinton's behavior, but no one pays attention to the facts that he brought up.

yeah, how dare he get outraged at an obvious misrepresentation of the truth.
really the nerve. it's just that he's not a war President like Bush, OMG remember his awesome leadership after 9-11? everyone knows a Democrat would've just cried and handed the US over to Al-qaeda, that's why my Bush love knows no bounds.

 

[Truthteller]

The Cult of Bill Clinton. Its amazing that people still fall under the spell of this Svengali

 

[PeeNN]

yeah, how dare he get outraged at an obvious misrepresentation of the truth.
really the nerve. it's just that he's not a war President like Bush, OMG remember his awesome leadership after 9-11? everyone knows a Democrat would've just cried and handed the US over to Al-qaeda, that's why my Bush love knows no bounds.

"I love how we treat Bush like he just won 3rd place in the Special Olympics just because he bombed Afghanistan after 9/11. Anyone would have done that, ****ing Nader would have done it. I don't blow my load on the guy at Starbucks when he gets my order right, he's just doing his job." - David Cross

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Let's take a look shall we?


In 2004, Wallace asked almost the exact same question of Donald Rumsfeld that he asked Clinton today.
Here’s what Wallace asked Clinton today:

[H]indsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?
​

And here is what Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:

I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?
. . . .
What do you make of his [Richard Clarke’s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?
. . . .
Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.
​

P.S. Clinton said:

They had eight months to try and they didn’t….. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke.
​

Let me remind you what Dick Clarke once said about what Clinton left behind, and whether the Bush Administration tried to do anything in eight months:

[T]here was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
​

Let the finger wagging begin, and say it with me now, "I did not have sexual relations with that one"

Read the rest for yourselves:

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

gawd seriously ...it's like TWO PAGES BACK....bother reading at least that much of the thread

 

[Darthphere]

Lets look at it this way. If your parents were murdered while you were playing your PS2 in the next room and had two interviews with two different reporters and were asked these questions.


Why didnt you do more to save your parents?

Looking back, do you think you couldve done more to save your parents?


Which is the nicer question?

 

[Mr Sparkle]

"I love how we treat Bush like he just won 3rd place in the Special Olympics just because he bombed Afghanistan after 9/11. Anyone would have done that, ****ing Nader would have done it. I don't blow my load on the guy at Starbucks when he gets my order right, he's just doing his job." - David Cross

seriously one of the funniest and smartest comedians out there