Bill Clinton Blows a Gasket On Fox

[Figleaf]

Clinton was absolutely right, and it's about time someone stood up to the abusive falsehoods continually propagated on that public menace, the Faux News Cabal.

[America1]

Clinton was absolutely right, and it's about time someone stood up to the abusive falsehoods continually propagated on that public menace, the Faux News Cabal.

Don’t be so naive, this was a complete act put on by Clinton. The question was by no means "out of bounds" and Clinton used it to "stage" a show. This was a calculated explosion to rally the Dems base leading into an election season as well as trying to get the rabid left-wingers behind Hillary (08 set up for Hillary, something that has been happening for 2 yrs now). He had all of the democratic talking heads out the very next day saying how this would “show Dems how to fight back against the republicans” (as if the Dems not being combative enough was the reason the Dems having lost elections for the 15 yrs).

BTW, if Fox news is a propaganda tool for the right then what do you call, MSNBC and CNN, all of the networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) as well the major newspapers, lead by the NYT. If Fox news is bias, it is no more then the fore mentioned orgs are to the left. Let’s call a spade a spade.

[Figleaf]

BTW, if Fox news is a propaganda tool for the right then what do you call, MSNBC and CNN, all of the networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) ...

Lesser propaganda tools for the right.

[America1]

BTW, if Fox news is a propaganda tool for the right then what do you call, MSNBC and CNN, all of the networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) ...

Lesser propaganda tools for the right.

hahaha - good one! BUT seriously,,, if you think for 1 second that the NYT or MSNBC (the most bias) are even in the slightest way "right-wing" you are 1 of 2 options

1.) Truly ignorant about politics and news coverage in the US.

2.) Completely partisan to the point of being blind to reality.

[BubberMiley]

BTW, if Fox news is a propaganda tool for the right then what do you call, MSNBC and CNN, all of the networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) as well the major newspapers, lead by the NYT. If Fox news is bias, it is no more then the fore mentioned orgs are to the left. Let’s call a spade a spade.

Man, you must live a sheltered life if you think MSNBC and the networks are leftist. I'll call those spades centrist. You need a real leftist propaganda tool like our Mother Corp.

[sharkman]

Shady, I agree. Treating terrorism with law enforcement is quite useless, you might as well sue Osama.

That is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of the "law enforcement" approach. Bush is treating the GWOT *only* as a military exercise, but he's doing NOTHING, NO THING, to do basic police work which can help target terrorists and stop acts of terror prior to their commission. The (questionable) plot to blow up planes with liquid explosives was foiled SOLELY by law enforcement means.

You must be kidding. If you think national security organizations and military organizations weren't collecting data from sat/cell phone communication and web chatter as well as other sources to foil this plot, you are off your rocker.

[sharkman]

Don’t be so naive, this was a complete act put on by Clinton. The question was by no means "out of bounds" and Clinton used it to "stage" a show. This was a calculated explosion to rally the Dems base leading into an election season as well as trying to get the rabid left-wingers behind Hillary (08 set up for Hillary, something that has been happening for 2 yrs now). He had all of the democratic talking heads out the very next day saying how this would “show Dems how to fight back against the republicans” (as if the Dems not being combative enough was the reason the Dems having lost elections for the 15 yrs).

BTW, if Fox news is a propaganda tool for the right then what do you call, MSNBC and CNN, all of the networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) as well the major newspapers, lead by the NYT. If Fox news is bias, it is no more then the fore mentioned orgs are to the left. Let’s call a spade a spade.

Excellent post, the whole thing was obviously a put on. And it appears to be needed with the good news of lower gas and oil prices that has improved Bush's ratings lately.

[BubberMiley]

Lonjowet's post of quotes is a good indication of where the Republican mindset was in 1998 and how they haven't really changed to this day. They were willing to weaken a president and their nation, compromising national security, and viewed any action he took through the lens of how it related to Monica Lewinsky. I can totally see how he would get angry with any insinuation from Republicans that he didn't do enough after they spent so much time and energy distracting him from the real issues and trying to tie his hands in dealing with them.

[sharkman]

Lonjowet's post of quotes is a good indication of where the Republican mindset was in 1998 and how they haven't really changed to this day. They were willing to weaken a president and their nation, compromising national security, and viewed any action he took through the lens of how it related to Monica Lewinsky. I can totally see how he would get angry with any insinuation from Republicans that he didn't do enough after they spent so much time and energy distracting him from the real issues and trying to tie his hands in dealing with them.

I beg to differ, are you surprised!? What that president did weakened his administration and their nation. At any rate, it seems that the reublicans have actually done pretty good in every election since '98. Perhaps their mind set has actually been beneficial.

[BubberMiley]

I don't think their mindset was very helpful when they did nothing in reaction to a memo titled "bin Laden determined to attack in the United States."

[sharkman]

I don't think their mindset was very helpful when they did nothing in reaction to a memo titled "bin Laden determined to attack in the United States."

Perhaps they thought the Clinton administration had already taken care of Osama when they lobbed cruise missiles at him.

Really, though, I'm sure they didn't need a memo to tell them that Osama was gunning for the U.S. Easy to say they did nothing, but again, they only had eight months to deal with this when Clinton had eight years. I'm going to keep on repeating that line until it sinks in.

[Riverwind]

Really, though, I'm sure they didn't need a memo to tell them that Osama was gunning for the U.S. Easy to say they did nothing, but again, they only had eight months to deal with this when Clinton had eight years. I'm going to keep on repeating that line until it sinks in.

I am willing to cut both Bush and Clinton a little slack for what they did prior to 9/11. The attack seems obvious in hindsight but at the time anyone who suggested that Al Qaeda would launch such a devastating attack would have been called a paranoid quack.

That said, Bush deserves a lot of criticism for what he done after 9/11: an endless series of screw ups that have alienated most of the world and turned even more Mulsims against the US.

[BubberMiley]

...they only had eight months to deal with this when Clinton had eight years. I'm going to keep on repeating that line until it sinks in.

What about the five years since 9/11? They've done less to try to capture Osama since then since Clinton did before. They pulled almost all their troops out of Afghanistan to go to Iraq, the one place everybody is pretty well sure bin Laden isn't.

[jdobbin]

...they only had eight months to deal with this when Clinton had eight years. I'm going to keep on repeating that line until it sinks in.

What about the five years since 9/11? They've done less to try to capture Osama since then since Clinton did before. They pulled almost all their troops out of Afghanistan to go to Iraq, the one place everybody is pretty well sure bin Laden isn't.

Most Presidents try to get a plan in place for the first 100 days to indicate the tone and texture of their administration. They push through their budget ideas, foreign policy and social policies.

Bush had said when he campaigned that he wanted to focus on the domestic agenda.

Republicans are now trying to blame Clinton for September 11 entirely. Complete blame. Bush is not responsible at all. I'm sorry. It doesn't wash. Bush was not interested in foreign policy for the most part. They were suspicious about anything the previous administration did. The last thing they wanted to hear about what Osama bin Laden.

[BubberMiley]

Bringing Clinton up is not exactly a great strategy for the Republicans. He is still well liked, his poll numbers are still very, very high, and he reminds people of what a president should be like. Apart from his indiscretions, which the public are more than tired of hearing about and which make the Republicans look worse than him in retrospect, he was one of the best presidents the U.S. ever had. The contrast to today is startling.

[sharkman]

Bringing Clinton up is not exactly a great strategy for the Republicans. He is still well liked, his poll numbers are still very, very high, and he reminds people of what a president should be like. Apart from his indiscretions, which the public are more than tired of hearing about and which make the Republicans look worse than him in retrospect, he was one of the best presidents the U.S. ever had. The contrast to today is startling.

I have good news for you. With an attitude like that, I'm sure Billary would love to have you work on her campaign for 2008!

An administration that became the laughingstock of the world when Bill shook his finger and declared,"I never had sex with that woman!", and then the stained dress proved him a liar. Even the lawyer governing body banned him from ever practicing law again for his testimony lies in court. Not quite an unblemished record. And when he appears in the media repeatedly defending himself, it shows even he knows he has some weak spots.

[Remiel]

Yes, because we all know that in the United States of America, it is more morally reprehensible to lie about your extramarrital sexual antics than to lie about terrorism and become responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. I am so glad that in this world we have a people of such moral clarity.

[gc1765]

An administration that became the laughingstock of the world when Bill shook his finger and declared,"I never had sex with that woman!", and then the stained dress proved him a liar. Even the lawyer governing body banned him from ever practicing law again for his testimony lies in court. Not quite an unblemished record. And when he appears in the media repeatedly defending himself, it shows even he knows he has some weak spots.

You have to admit, that lie was nothing compared to bush's lies that saddam hussein was connected to al qaeda and 9/11.

[sharkman]

Yes, because we all know that in the United States of America, it is more morally reprehensible to lie about your extramarrital sexual antics than to lie about terrorism and become responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. I am so glad that in this world we have a people of such moral clarity.

Uh, no, I think it is viewed as more wrong to be responsible for the deaths of innocents. For instance, when the towers went down, it was good to see the outrage over those innocents who were murdered. Kind of puts things in perspective. Terrorists have been looking over their shoulders ever since. The recent plot to bring liquid explosives aboard planes in water bottles was yet another victory in the war to save innocents. But I suspect you were refering to the eleventy billion innocent Iraqis that were killed in the war, according to responsible media outlets who hate Bush and would say he's Satan if they could get away with it. Apparently, Chavez can, so they repeated his remarks ad nauseam. Hey, it was the best they could do.

Which reminds me, what the hell is it with terrorists and airplanes? Why not sport stadiums or something. Always with the airplanes. Weird.

[sharkman]

You have to admit, that lie was nothing compared to bush's lies that saddam hussein was connected to al qaeda and 9/11.

Here's the difference: Bush made his decisions based on intel the U.S. had at the time. Clinton made his decision based on the state of his groin. Which is the proper decison making process?

[gc1765]

Here's the difference: Bush made his decisions based on intel the U.S. had at the time. Clinton made his decision based on the state of his groin. Which is the proper decison making process?

Bush was specifically told that hussein had no ties to 9/11. It wasn't bad intelligence, it was a lie.

[sharkman]

Here's the difference: Bush made his decisions based on intel the U.S. had at the time. Clinton made his decision based on the state of his groin. Which is the proper decison making process?

Bush was specifically told that hussein had no ties to 9/11. It wasn't bad intelligence, it was a lie.

Okay, I'll bite: when was he told and by whom was he told and who is it that is saying so? (I'm hoping your not going to say it's Dan Rather who is saying so.)

[Riverwind]

Here's the difference: Bush made his decisions based on intel the U.S. had at the time. Clinton made his decision based on the state of his groin. Which is the proper decison making process?

The Bush adminstration made the decision to invade Iraq and then told the CIA to produce the evidence to justify the invasion. This kind of incompetance and tunnel vision is unforgivable.

[sharkman]

Here's the difference: Bush made his decisions based on intel the U.S. had at the time. Clinton made his decision based on the state of his groin. Which is the proper decison making process?

The Bush adminstration made the decision to invade Iraq and then told the CIA to produce the evidence to justify the invasion. This kind of incompetance and tunnel vision is unforgivable.

I know what the party lines of the Dems are, but if it is all true, then they have long had enough to impeach Bush, and they would impeach him in a minute if they could. I notice that he's still on the job, therefore there is no evidence of their hatemongering. You'd think that with all of the energy they show in hating him, they could find SOMETHING to arrest him with, but no such luck. Geez, they got Clinton to an impeachment vote, can't the Dems substantiate ANY of their claims? Apparently not, so it's death of Bush by character assassination instead(and of course actual movies with Bush being assassinated, coming soon to a theatre near you!).

[Remiel]

How exactly would they impeach him right now? He is doing his best to wield dictatorial power over this kind of stuff. He would say, " You can't impeach me, I'm a president during war time, blah, blah, blah... " When exactly did they US make an actual declaration of war, and against whom? You can't declare war on a tactic, and the two actual " wars " are over, so all of his bull about his powers is a load of crap. If any of the Republicans had any spine, -maybe- they could pull it off, but as long as it is coming from anyone but the Republicans, they will just spin more lies and commit more crimes.