• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Bill Clinton interview on Fox News (video)

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
2
0
Originally posted by: catnap1972
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.rawstory.com/images/clarkeatt.pdf

That's a PDF. Portable Document Format. In this case, it means it's a scanned image of the actual document. Where the image is hosted matters not. Well, at not to anyone with at least one firing synapse so where's that leave you?

How about these, then, skippy?


http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/terrorism/dec2000aqmem.html
One of two reports attached to former Counterterrorism Chief Richard Clarke?s January 25, 2001 memo to former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice warning that ?al Qida is not some narrow, little terrorist issue.? (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/clarke/clrk2rice12501mem.html)
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/clarke/attachment1.gif
Image 1. Same exact image as that hosted at RawStory (who, btw, has had a cousin of one of their key members "disappeared" by INS)

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/clarke/attachment2.gif
Image 2.


There are 13 total. Shall I continue?
Only if Pabster persists in denying the reality of the documents. For further confirmation these documents are genuine and more on this story, catch Keith Olbermann's first segment, tonight, or catch it on his page on MSNBC, tomorrow.

Pabster -- Your flight from reality has crashed and burned. Do you plan on returning to Planet Earth? :roll:
Not likely--he's too busy worshipping his life-sized cardboard cutout of King George
Well, he's been online since I posted those links so he's either cowering in a corner in his parents' basement or awaiting word from his GOP Team Leader on how to pursue further distraction from the matter.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
That's a PDF. Portable Document Format. In this case, it means it's a scanned image of the actual document. Where the image is hosted matters not. Well, at not to anyone with at least one firing synapse so where's that leave you?
Yeah, not like anyone could edit a PDF :laugh:

[links deleted for brevity]

There are 13 total. Shall I continue?
I'm still waiting for the "war plans". A memo that Clarke handed out is hardly that.

Now I'll ask for at least the 5th time in this thread, and await your childish responses.
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,503
0
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
The part that still amuses me is some people, cough the GOP, think that had Clinton been able to kill OBL when he had the window to do so, that would have somehow prevented 9/11. History tells us that cutting off the head simply spawns a new one. So this whole OBL/Clinton echo chamber BS is just that, BS It is planned, strategic deflection for the ball they have dropped time and time again since 9/11. The world is indeed less safe now thanks to our romp in Iraq. It's time for a change.
Actually that is an amazingly stupid statement. Bin Laden is extraordinary at what he does, killing him early would have been a momentously helpful achievement, 9/11 prevented or no. Stop acting foolish, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,660
4,483
126
Clinton is playing the media morons like a fiddle. Expect to see a lot more of him between now and november election.
All he has to do is to point his finger and make an angry face, and his message gets picked up on every channel :D

Gallup Poll is out showing his message is working:
"Who do you blame more for the fact that Osama bin Laden has not been captured: George W. Bush or Bill Clinton?" Options rotated 9/21-24/06


.

Bush Clinton Unsure
% % %
53 36 11
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Oh look at this page here
Page 4
"Numerous sources have reported that al Qida is attemtping to develp or acquire chemical or radiological weapons."

Good thing we removed Saddam, never know when he might have given al Qida some of the technological know how on building chemical weapons. Of course most of you don't think Saddam was a threat.

Conjur, I read just about the entire report and there is no "magic" plan in their that would have rolled up al Qaida. And certainly nothing in there that would have stopped 9-11 from happening.
The whole "plan" is to increase pressure on al Qaida and the Taliban on many different fronts.

BTW: if this is the plan Clinton talks about how come he was not following it himself?
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: conjur
That's a PDF. Portable Document Format. In this case, it means it's a scanned image of the actual document. Where the image is hosted matters not. Well, at not to anyone with at least one firing synapse so where's that leave you?
Yeah, not like anyone could edit a PDF :laugh:

[links deleted for brevity] [ says pabster during this quote]
http://www.rawstory.com/images/clarkeatt.pdf
http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/terrorism/dec2000aqmem.html
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/clarke/attachment1.gif
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/clarke/attachment2.gif
[ ...actually NO, how about links added back in because you aren't ducking this too - says smilin ]
There are 13 total. Shall I continue?
I'm still waiting for the "war plans". A memo that Clarke handed out is hardly that.

Now I'll ask for at least the 5th time in this thread, and await your childish responses.
5 times you've asked? You can go ahead and ask 10 times. 100. Your question got answerd *several* times already. Go fish.

While we're repeating ourselves. Let me go ahead and get this out of the way for the 3rd time...

Originally posted by: Smilin
It's ok pabster. You got pwned a couple times in this thread with lots of witnesses. There will be other threads. ..Probably should firm up that logic and maturity first though. Your own quotes and lack of thoroughly reading others is killing you too.
You're quite dense it seems.
 

eits

Lifer
Jun 4, 2005
25,207
2
81
www.integratedssr.com
Originally posted by: Pabster
Clinton was owned by Chris Wallace.

Nothing but typical lies from Slick. Excuse after excuse for the incompetence of himself and his administration. "But Bush had 8 months!" (Nevermind that I had 8 years!)

My favorite was the viewer who wrote in "Is Bill Clinton lying? Well, are his lips moving?" :D :p
uh... wtf are you talking about? that smug bitch got owned by clinton.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,677
482
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Oh look at this page here
Page 4
"Numerous sources have reported that al Qida is attemtping to develp or acquire chemical or radiological weapons."

Good thing we removed Saddam, never know when he might have given al Qida some of the technological know how on building chemical weapons. Of course most of you don't think Saddam was a threat.
Wow, you are really reaching. :roll:

Do you know why there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to our invasion? Because Saddam was a secularist and he didn't like them or want any association with them. Your idea that he would have given them information is laughable. Even if he had, there's a difference between knowing how to make a complex bomb and actually having the capability to do so.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: Pabster
I'm still waiting for the "war plans". A memo that Clarke handed out is hardly that.

Now I'll ask for at least the 5th time in this thread, and await your childish responses.
I was waiting to see your response. The documents from Clarke have now been authenticated from multiple sources, and the only two people in the entire world I have seen denying what they said are Condie Rice and you.

She gets paid a lot of money to be a sleezy, lying, sellout whore traitor, but at least, she can play the piano. What's your excuse? :roll:
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
BTW: if this is the plan Clinton talks about how come he was not following it himself?
As has been reported many times in many places, it's because the timing of Clinton confirming Al Queda was behind the USS Cole attack which led him to create the war plan led to it being completed in December, 2000, and he felt it was wrong to start a war and leave it to his successor, since he knew at that point it was Bush and not Gore, the way that Bush 41 had got the US into Somalia just before leaving office and left it for Clinton.

Instead, he handed the war plans to the Bush transition team, and his administration told the Bush team that Al Queda would take more of their time than any other.

The Bush team had a childish attitude of not doing anything Clinton had, and ignored their information (and made up the 'Clinton trashed the White House' stories, if you recall).

That's why Clinton did not do the war plan himself. If Gore had not had the presidency stolen, Clinton would have implemented the plan, coordinating with Gore.

This wasn't 'politics' - remember, before 9/11, the Bush team was criticizing Clinton for his being 'obsessed' with bin Laden.
 

Dean

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,757
0
0
What is strange is, back in 2001, I was glad that Bush was in office. He at the time seemed to have a strong hand and would not take sh!t. As the years rolled by, more and more holes were being exposed in his job performance, but I still did not see anyone speaking out about it.

The Bush spin doctors really worked overtime on anyone questioning their decisions and would label them as Weak or Traitors. Nobody would speak out publicly about their decisions. The "You are either with us or against us" statement was not only internal policy, but their foreign policy.

The tide against him has grown so strong now, that you can see it written all over his face.
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,576
1
0
Originally posted by: Smilin
You don't see FOX jumping the Bush administration that way...actually Bush does the fewest interviews and press briefings (with questions allowed) of any modern president. It's because he's Mr. Footmouth and makes a fool of himself way too much. Every time he gets asked a question he doesn't know is coming ahead of time another Bushism is born.

Clinton didn't really demonstrate any problem answering the question either...he even had to tell the guy to shut up to let him answer. He just got really pissed that they interviewed him under false pretenses. Anyone would be.
you don't give willy enough credit. He knows wallace isn't the White House Press. Wallace is not going to lob softballs at willy like the white house press did. Yes, that's right, the White House Press, who put willy's agenda ahead of the public good and made a partisan spectacle of themselves in front of a large number of Americans who wanted the press to act as a watchdog of willy.

BTW, I love how every time a comment is made about willy, the only rebuttal to the comment is something about dubya. Libs are so enraged and vitriolic, they can't answer any question without somehow mentioning dubya. Every problem must, in some way, shape, or form, be attributed to dubya.
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: Smilin
You don't see FOX jumping the Bush administration that way...actually Bush does the fewest interviews and press briefings (with questions allowed) of any modern president. It's because he's Mr. Footmouth and makes a fool of himself way too much. Every time he gets asked a question he doesn't know is coming ahead of time another Bushism is born.

Clinton didn't really demonstrate any problem answering the question either...he even had to tell the guy to shut up to let him answer. He just got really pissed that they interviewed him under false pretenses. Anyone would be.
you don't give willy enough credit. He knows wallace isn't the White House Press. Wallace is not going to lob softballs at willy like the white house press did.


BTW, I love how every time a comment is made about willy, the only rebuttal to the comment is something about dubya. Libs are so enraged and vitriolic, they can't answer any question without somehow mentioning dubya. Every problem must, in some way, shape, or form, be attributed to dubya.
Bush and Clinton are linked by this topic. You should expect Bush to be mentioned in responses about Clinton and vice versa so long as we are on this topic. Don't make a federal case out of it. ... and don't make me ask why it is conservatives manage to bring lewinsky into any Clinton discussion regarless of the topic. :p

I'm quite sure Clinton was wary of an interview on FOX news (hence some defensiveness). However, If you say you are interviewing on a particular topic then suddenly bust out a "when did you stop beating your wife" question then it is an attack. You appear to be, unlike pabster, intelligent enough to recognize Clinton got jumped. We should be able to agree on this tiny point I think. Plenty of other stuff to argue about. We could even degenerate into a "who won" or something :)


 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
# of republicans I have seen say one word critical of Fox for breaking their agreement to talk about Clinton's charity work instead of the 9/11 issues: 0
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: daveymark
BTW, I love how every time a comment is made about willy, the only rebuttal to the comment is something about dubya. Libs are so enraged and vitriolic, they can't answer any question without somehow mentioning dubya. Every problem must, in some way, shape, or form, be attributed to dubya.
Is your mouse so link challenged that it won't let you follow any of the links in this thread and others regarding either of them to find the information you so blatantly ignored? :laugh:
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,054
0
71

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
Originally posted by: Frackal
Originally posted by: umbrella39
The part that still amuses me is some people, cough the GOP, think that had Clinton been able to kill OBL when he had the window to do so, that would have somehow prevented 9/11. History tells us that cutting off the head simply spawns a new one. So this whole OBL/Clinton echo chamber BS is just that, BS It is planned, strategic deflection for the ball they have dropped time and time again since 9/11. The world is indeed less safe now thanks to our romp in Iraq. It's time for a change.
Actually that is an amazingly stupid statement. Bin Laden is extraordinary at what he does, killing him early would have been a momentously helpful achievement, 9/11 prevented or no. Stop acting foolish, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Bullshit. 9/11 was already in motion then and the only thing killing OBL would have done is change the time table. Prove you are right and I am wrong. Until then since neither of us can, STFU.

Do you think that killing OBL today would stop terrorism and prevent the killings of US soldiers and the Iraqis?

If you answer yes, you are a fool.

If you answer no, you are an even bigger fool for calling me out. Again, killing OBL when Clinton had the chance would not have prevented 9/11, it would have only changed the time table. It might have pushed it up or back but 9/11 was going to happen. I don't blame Bush for 9/11, IMO, in retrospect I don't think any could back in 2001. But I blame him for what he did afterwards. Try and remember that.
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Frackal
Originally posted by: umbrella39
The part that still amuses me is some people, cough the GOP, think that had Clinton been able to kill OBL when he had the window to do so, that would have somehow prevented 9/11. History tells us that cutting off the head simply spawns a new one. So this whole OBL/Clinton echo chamber BS is just that, BS It is planned, strategic deflection for the ball they have dropped time and time again since 9/11. The world is indeed less safe now thanks to our romp in Iraq. It's time for a change.
Actually that is an amazingly stupid statement. Bin Laden is extraordinary at what he does, killing him early would have been a momentously helpful achievement, 9/11 prevented or no. Stop acting foolish, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Bullshit. 9/11 was already in motion then and the only thing killing OBL would have done is change the time table. Prove you are right and I am wrong. Until then since neither of us can, STFU.

Do you think that killing OBL today would stop terrorism and prevent the killings of US soldiers and the Iraqis?

If you answer yes, you are a fool.

If you answer no, you are an even bigger fool for calling me out for the same exact thing. Again, since you appear to be daft, killing OBL when Clinton had the chance would not have prevented 9/11, it would have only changed the time table.
I think you answered before you really read his post. Seriously, do an edit or something. He said, "killing him early would have been a momentously helpful achievement, 9/11 prevented or no."
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
Originally posted by: Smilin
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Frackal
Originally posted by: umbrella39
The part that still amuses me is some people, cough the GOP, think that had Clinton been able to kill OBL when he had the window to do so, that would have somehow prevented 9/11. History tells us that cutting off the head simply spawns a new one. So this whole OBL/Clinton echo chamber BS is just that, BS It is planned, strategic deflection for the ball they have dropped time and time again since 9/11. The world is indeed less safe now thanks to our romp in Iraq. It's time for a change.
Actually that is an amazingly stupid statement. Bin Laden is extraordinary at what he does, killing him early would have been a momentously helpful achievement, 9/11 prevented or no. Stop acting foolish, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Bullshit. 9/11 was already in motion then and the only thing killing OBL would have done is change the time table. Prove you are right and I am wrong. Until then since neither of us can, STFU.

Do you think that killing OBL today would stop terrorism and prevent the killings of US soldiers and the Iraqis?

If you answer yes, you are a fool.

If you answer no, you are an even bigger fool for calling me out for the same exact thing. Again, since you appear to be daft, killing OBL when Clinton had the chance would not have prevented 9/11, it would have only changed the time table.
I think you answered before you really read his post. Seriously, do an edit or something. He said, "killing him early would have been a momentously helpful achievement, 9/11 prevented or no."
I misred nothing. He called me foolish and stupid for thinking that killing OBL would have prevented 9/11. No where in my original post did I state that killing OBL would not have been a good thing, it simply would not have prevented 9/11. So why else would he be calling me out?
The crux of my post was that 9/11 was already in motion (was in not reported that it took 5 years to plan and execute?)
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
I have no love for Clinton and I certainly have no love for bush....I'm not a registered republican OR democrat...

but i have NO idea how anyone think Clinton didn't absolutely dominate that discussion. He forcibly addressed all the points --> it seems the other guy was more interested in bringing up a point and switching to an entirely different question once Clinton actually talked about the RELEVANT issues. That switch came with trying to just interject with random grunts or facial expressions, to continually talking about how irrelevant Clinton's points were (which they were not). However Clinton didn't care about that and pushed forth with logical responses.

And of course if you get pulled with a bait and switch you will be angry, but he did a very good job of addressing the questions and embarrassing the interviewer even if he did toss in a few jabs.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
0
0
Originally posted by: daveymark
Libs are so enraged and vitriolic, they can't answer any question without somehow mentioning dubya. Every problem must, in some way, shape, or form, be attributed to dubya.
Yep. The same libs who can't stand it when someone brings up Clinton have a hissy fit when they bring up Bush in a totally unrelated conversation.

I wonder when they're going to figure out Bush can't run again?

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
0
0
Bill Clinton is ancient (political) history. Who cares? Anyone who does so is clearly living in the past! ;)
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
I misred nothing. He called me foolish and stupid for thinking that killing OBL would have prevented 9/11. No where in my original post did I state that killing OBL would not have been a good thing, it simply would not have prevented 9/11. So why else would he be calling me out?
The crux of my post was that 9/11 was already in motion (was in not reported that it took 5 years to plan and execute?)
Fair nuf.
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: daveymark
Libs are so enraged and vitriolic, they can't answer any question without somehow mentioning dubya. Every problem must, in some way, shape, or form, be attributed to dubya.
Yep. The same libs who can't stand it when someone brings up Clinton have a hissy fit when they bring up Bush in a totally unrelated conversation.

I wonder when they're going to figure out Bush can't run again?
Go Away. Nobody is listening.

You've been punked too much.
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,503
0
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Frackal
Originally posted by: umbrella39
The part that still amuses me is some people, cough the GOP, think that had Clinton been able to kill OBL when he had the window to do so, that would have somehow prevented 9/11. History tells us that cutting off the head simply spawns a new one. So this whole OBL/Clinton echo chamber BS is just that, BS It is planned, strategic deflection for the ball they have dropped time and time again since 9/11. The world is indeed less safe now thanks to our romp in Iraq. It's time for a change.
Actually that is an amazingly stupid statement. Bin Laden is extraordinary at what he does, killing him early would have been a momentously helpful achievement, 9/11 prevented or no. Stop acting foolish, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Bullshit. 9/11 was already in motion then and the only thing killing OBL would have done is change the time table. Prove you are right and I am wrong. Until then since neither of us can, STFU.

Do you think that killing OBL today would stop terrorism and prevent the killings of US soldiers and the Iraqis?

If you answer yes, you are a fool.

If you answer no, you are an even bigger fool for calling me out. Again, killing OBL when Clinton had the chance would not have prevented 9/11, it would have only changed the time table. It might have pushed it up or back but 9/11 was going to happen. I don't blame Bush for 9/11, IMO, in retrospect I don't think any could back in 2001. But I blame him for what he did afterwards. Try and remember that.

Hahaha. This post was even more foolish, malformed and poorly framed than your previous, and demonstrative of either:

A: Sheer lack of understanding of Usama Bin Laden and what he represents to the Muslim world, the impact of his words, his lifestyle, and himself as a man on Jihad

B: Generally poor reasoning skills and/or deliberate effort at deception and diversion

C: Both



Oh and by the way, how precisely does this statement:

" Again, killing OBL when Clinton had the chance would not have prevented 9/11, it would have only changed the time table. "

follow from this statement:


"Prove you are right and I am wrong. Until then since neither of us can, STFU."


Hahaha



 

ASK THE COMMUNITY