Bill Clinton smacking down Chris Wallace.

[Mr Sparkle]

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?

and actually the question would be

"should you have been thinking more about that?"

in other words...should you perhaps have given more thought to your parents safety?

but yeah....we get it.

 

[PeeNN]

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

The only problem I have with Clinton was his ****ing over African nations when Argentina was trying to provide them with cheap, generic AIDS medication. The US manufacturers (ie, Glaxo-Wellcome) presured him to appeal with them to the WTO and he caved, forcing S.Africa (among others) to buy the more expensive drugs from American pharmaceutical giants with money he lent them at commercial interest rate levels. For that he's a ****ing *******, otherwise, no problems here. I much prefer him to the baby-killer in office right now.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

The only problem I have with Clinton was his ****ing over African nations when Argentina was trying to provide them with cheap, generic AIDS medication. The US manufacturers (ie, Glaxo-Wellcome) presured him to appeal with them to the WTO and he caved, forcing S.Africa (among others) to buy the more expensive drugs from American pharmaceutical giants with money he lent them at commercial interest rate levels. For that he's a ****ing *******, otherwise, no problems here. I much prefer him to the baby-killer in office right now.

and he penned the "defense of marriage act"

 

[Truthteller]

this thread has proven that this is not so.

Simply not true. This thread has proven nothing other than the influence of media and personality.

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

I trust neither. Although both are sometimes correct.

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.

A convenient myth that he was "obsessed" with binLaden. Sounds good now. I don't blame only him for not catching binLaden, but the notion that he could not have focused on the situation more after the '93 WTC attack, and the African embassy attacks is silly.

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

Personal attack. I wont follow suit.

 

[PeeNN]

and he penned the "defense of marriage act"

Lol. I wasn't aware of that. The irony is astounding. The most famous adulterer in history (not that I really give a **** about that whole Lewinski thing) penned the "defense of marriage act." That'd be like Strom Thurmond penning the "emancipation proclaimation".

 

[Darthphere]

Personal attack. I wont follow suit.

Why not?

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

Youve already done so.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Simply not true. This thread has proven nothing other than the influence of media and personality.

no, not really.

I trust neither. Although both are sometimes correct.

and CNN, and BBC and US weekly at the time. do you trust them

A convenient myth that he was "obsessed" with binLaden. Sounds good now. I don't blame only him for not catching binLaden, but the notion that he could not have focused on the situation more after the '93 WTC attack, and the African embassy attacks is silly.

how do you figure? compared to the Bush admin he was pretty focussed on this. it was afterall republicans who claimed he was obsessed.

Personal attack. I wont follow suit.

"I expected you to be more balanced " is a personal attack?

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

yeah...telling you I expected more balance from you is an attack, but refering to those who disagree with you as a "cult" is not. gotcha.
you're the Mod afterall.

 

[PeeNN]

Simply not true. This thread has proven nothing other than the influence of media and personality.

Right. The left-wing media conspiracy. Perhaps that's why every single American news network has been treating Clinton as a raging loon since the interview, focusing more on his demeanor than the issues being discussed. Infact, since the interview only the BBC World News has discussed the actual "content" of the interview in great detail.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

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?

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

The truth is, if you want to know what the truth is you'd better not start off a discussion with this kind of bullsh** kindergarden logic . Seriously I expect more from you.

In a discussion it's important to make sepcific accusation not just say "he's lying" because it totally undermines your credibility.

But so far we have proven

- Richard Clarke was demoted
- Chris Wallace had never made those accusations of politically right of center guests

So just with those two, your claim that he lied throughout the entire interview is grossly false.

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

Ha I did you one better...t:

Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:

• Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
• Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
• Passenger Profiling: $10 million
• Screener Training: $5.3 million
• Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
• Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
  million
• Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
• Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
• Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
• Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million
• Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
• Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
• Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
• Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million
• Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million
• Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million
• Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million
• Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million
• Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million
• Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million
• Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million
• Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million

The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.

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

I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

When Stahl pointed out that some administration officials say it's still an open issue, Clarke responded, "Well, they'll say that until hell freezes over."
By June 2001, there still hadn't been a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism, even though U.S. intelligence was picking up an unprecedented level of ominous chatter.

The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August."

Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House.

Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.

Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden.
The president's new campaign ads highlight his handling of Sept. 11 -- which has become the centerpiece of his bid for re-election.

"You are writing this book in the middle of this campaign," Stahl tells Clarke. "The timing, I'm sure, you will be questioned about and criticized for. Why are you doing it now?"

"Well, I'm sure I'll be criticized for lots of things," says Clarke. "And I'm sure they'll launch their dogs on me."

http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabotaged_Clintons_Anti-Terror_Efforts.shtml

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10319

Bin Laden is officially wanted by the United States in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, that killed 225 people and injured more than 4000. Since June 1999, bin Laden has been listed as one of the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives and FBI Most Wanted Terrorists. Al-Qaeda was allegedly involved in several unsuccessful conspiracies, including the 2000 millennium attack plots to bomb Los Angeles airport, several tourist sites in Jordan and the USS The Sullivans, and well as the subsequent Paris embassy terrorist attack plot. The al-Qaeda organization was allegedly responsible for the successful USS Cole bombing in October, 2000.

In response to these attacks, President Bill Clinton ordered a freeze on assets linked to bin Laden. Clinton also signed an executive order authorizing bin Laden's arrest or assassination. In August 1998, the U.S. military launched an assassination attempt using cruise missiles. The attack failed to harm bin Laden but killed 19 other people.

 

[Darthphere]

Shadowboxing, why do you keep using these "facts" in this discussion, you know they dont work.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Shadowboxing, why do you keep using these "facts" in this discussion, you know they dont work.

I really should just go back to baseless opinions and ranting

 

[DorkyFresh]

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

best comments i've heard on the Clinton interview....EVAR!!!

 

[sinewave]

The truth is, if you want to know what the truth is you'd better not start off a discussion with this kind of bullsh** kindergarden logic . Seriously I expect more from you.

In a discussion it's important to make sepcific accusation not just say "he's lying" because it totally undermines your credibility.

But so far we have proven

- Richard Clarke was demoted
- Chris Wallace had never made those accusations of politically right of center guests

So just with those two, your claim that he lied throughout the entire interview is grossly false.

Ha I did you one better...t:







http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabotaged_Clintons_Anti-Terror_Efforts.shtml

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10319

good work. i'm looking forward to truthteller's response.

 

[Truthteller]

Why not?

I don't want to pick on Mr Sparkle. We've been through that. He's an old friend.

Youve already done so.

 

[Matt]

Lets just agree to disagree and acknowledge that no president (Bush included) has done enough to catch Bin Laden.

 

[sinewave]

Red faced Clinton, lying again.

i'd just like to point out that this picture looks to have been manipulated. he was not physically "red faced" during that interview. where did you get it from, tt?

 

[Truthteller]

The truth is, if you want to know what the truth is you'd better not start off a discussion with this kind of bullsh** kindergarden logic . Seriously I expect more from you.

Sorry you didn't like my post. I suggest you get over it and cease with the ridiculous personal attacks. Judging by your post, the notion of taking advice from you on matters of decorum and debate is truely comical.

In a discussion it's important to make sepcific accusation not just say "he's lying" because it totally undermines your credibility.

But so far we have proven

- Richard Clarke was demoted
- Chris Wallace had never made those accusations of politically right of center guests

So just with those two, your claim that he lied throughout the entire interview is grossly false.

Not even close. You have not proven Jack Crap other than you have a knack for insulting people that you shouldn't and true lack of judgement in your ability to judge integrity.

As for Richard Clark. He was not demoted. Rather he was to be director of the new cyber-terrorism effort. A new and very important initiative. Hardly a demotion. Here is Clark on the the so-called "comprehensive anti-terror plan" left by the Clinton administration:

Finally, Richard Clarke himself debunked the story in a background briefing with reporters. He said he presented two things to the incoming Bush administration: “One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to any new conclusions from ‘98 on.”

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.”http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjZmOTBmNjA0ZGFmMGY4ZjM5ZGY1M2IzMWQ4MTBmMTY=

good work. i'm looking forward to truthteller's response.

I hope you enjoyed it.

 

[KingOfDreams]

But oh, thats not a big thing

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

1) When Clinton lied, nobody died.

2) Republican Congress

 

[Truthteller]

i'd just like to point out that this picture looks to have been manipulated. he was not physically "red faced" during that interview. where did you get it from, tt?

Of corse its been manipulated! Thats the point, I made him even more red faced than he was. Think of my post as more of a post-modern cyber art social commentary than a strict black and white narrative. Hope that helps.

 

[KingOfDreams]

seriously one of the funniest and smartest comedians out there

I think George Carlin and Lewis Black are funnier and smarter. Carlin/Black '08!

 

[sinewave]

Sorry you didn't like my post. I suggest you get over it and cease with the ridiculous personal attacks. Judging by your post, the notion of taking advice from you on matters of decorum and debate is truely comical. Not even close. You have not proven Jack Crap other than you have a knack for insulting people that you shouldn't and true lack of judgement in your ability to judge integrity.

As for Richard Clark. He was not demoted. Rather he was to be director of the new cyber-terrorism effort. A new and very important initiative. Hardly a demotion. Here is Clark on the the so-called "comprehensive anti-terror plan" left by the Clinton administration:

Finally, Richard Clarke himself debunked the story in a background briefing with reporters. He said he presented two things to the incoming Bush administration: “One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to any new conclusions from ‘98 on.”

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.”http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjZmOTBmNjA0ZGFmMGY4ZjM5ZGY1M2IzMWQ4MTBmMTY=
I hope you enjoyed it.

i am indeed enjoying this debate, and please, stop winking at me. i'm a married man.

 

[sinewave]

Of corse its been manipulated! Thats the point, I made him even more red faced than he was. Think of my post as more of a post-modern cyber art social commentary than a strict black and white narrative. Hope that helps.

whew, i was hoping that entire post was tongue-in-cheek. you had me worried there for a second.

 

[Truthteller]

no, not really.

Yes, really.

and CNN, and BBC and US weekly at the time. do you trust them

Nope.

no, not really.
how do you figure? compared to the Bush admin he was pretty focussed on this. it was afterall republicans who claimed he was obsessed.

It was a question of him using the attacks as a distraction at specific times that he was in hot water as I recall. And as you know I don't give a damn about the Repblicans (or the Democrats for that matter).

"I expected you to be more balanced " is a personal attack?

Thats right.

yeah...telling you I expected more balance from you is an attack, but refering to those who disagree with you as a "cult" is not. gotcha.
you're the Mod afterall.

Glad you see it that way. You are correct. My comment about the slack-jawed followers of the "Cult of Bill Clinton" - although not directed at any specific SHH poster - was indeed a bit over the top. Good point.

 

[DBella]

Keep in mind that there's always two sides (sometimes more) to every story. It's just that one side sometimes hold more truth or facts than the other(s).
See with eyes wide open, and put prejudices and bias aside and we'll be able to get a better, clearer picture.

The better posts are ones without condescending remarks, imo. Carry on with the debate, they're very interesting.

PS. I love Bush coz he makes me laugh.

 

[sinewave]

I think George Carlin and Lewis Black are funnier and smarter. Carlin/Black '08!

I love Carlin. The only things I've seen Black do were his Black on Black segments on the Daily Show. Having said that, I'm a bigger fan of David Cross, based on his time with Mr. Show and his connections to my favorite band of all time.