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

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,503
0
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
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?)

You did fail to accurately read my post, or some other error(s).

You were diminishing the importance of Usama Bin Laden with this statement:

"History tells us that cutting off the head simply spawns a new one."

This is a grossly inaccurate statement if applied to Usama Bin Laden, which you did with your post.

It strongly implies a lack of understanding of him and the things I listed in my post above this.

Additionally, I called you neither stupid nor foolish, I said your statement was stupid and your behavior was foolish.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
Originally posted by: Frackal
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
Ha ha ha. :roll: You are arguing opinions. Who is the foolish one. I don't subscribe to your opinion that killing OBL would not have spawned someone to take his place. Someone more than able to carry out what was already set in action at the time. Prove otherwise. The fact that you think you have your finger on the pulse of how his followers would have reacted to his death is imo, laughable. They would have carried it out and Bush would have still invaded Iraq. Agree to disagee, neither of us will ever be able to prove otherwise so arguing opinions is futile. I respect your opinion, I simply think it is as wrong as your opinion of mine. I still don't think killing OBL then or now would stop one terrorist from continuing along their path. I guess the only way we will ever know is if and when he is axed.
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,503
0
0
Just as there is large-scale agreement on the notion that two planes hit the World Trade Center, there is broad agreement that Usama Bin Laden is a heroic and exceedingly inspirational figure in the Muslim world for the cause of Jihad against the United States. He is unique in this for many reasons, including the respect he holds amongst Muslims for his deeds, his piousness, his bravery; further, his strategic thinking with respect to how to accomplish his goals, and his stirring of memories of other Muslim heroes such as Saladin amonst the Ummah. He is also, to my knowledge, the first individual whose group has set about in a serious, organized and from accounts, frighteningly professional and state-like effort in the acquisition of nuclear weapons.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
Originally posted by: Frackal
Just as there is large-scale agreement on the notion that two planes hit the World Trade Center, there is broad agreement that Usama Bin Laden is a heroic and exceedingly inspirational figure in the Muslim world for the cause of Jihad against the United States. He is unique in this for many reasons, including the respect he holds amongst Muslims for his deeds, his piousness, his bravery; further, his strategic thinking with respect to how to accomplish his goals, and his stirring of memories of other Muslim heroes such as Saladin amonst the Ummah. He is also, to my knowledge, the first individual whose group has set about in a serious, organized and from accounts, frighteningly professional and state-like effort in the acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Now see, I agree with most of what you said and I never indicated otherwise, but I think the outcome of a world without OBL especially if it were at the hands of US forces would be one of full-blown chaos and an even more envigorated offensive by his followers. I would not expect them to cower away into the night. Call me crazy if you wih. Nor am I suggesting we don't take him out when we have the chance. We have to do it, we just need to be prepared for the back lash and the people who would suffer most would be our men and women bogged down in Iraq. Since the only thing you seemed to take issue with me over was my statement that "History tells us that cutting off the head simply spawns a new one", I never said it would be someone who would rise his level of power and admiration. But someone would take his place. There is always a number two, even Dr. Evil had one.
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,576
1
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
# 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
Wow. you really need to watch the interview. Wallace specifically asked willy if willy wanted to talk about CGI, willy said no. Wallace wanted to get away from the tangent willy went on, but willy would have none of that.

Not to mention, willy specifically agreed to talk for half of the time about CGI, the other half about anything else. willy is the one who broke his own agreement. Not to mention, in his answer to Wallace's question about his failure to prevent 9/11, willy repeated his points 2 or 3 times. He could have made his point once, then moved on to his charity work. It was willy who broke the agreement, not Fox.

Regardless, the one thing that we can all bring away from this is willy's admission of failure. You have to give him that much, he was willing to admit he failed. Good luck seeing dubya saying that EVER.

P.S. - i'd like to see a source on willy's claim that republicans said he was "obsessed" with finding OBL - and it can't be some left wing tripe like the "source" that stated how bush said the constitution is just a piece of paper(which was never proven to be true).
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
Wow. you really need to watch the interview.
I withdraw my statement about Clinton being unfairly ambushed in an interview about the CGI. I had inaccurate info on that, and it was a mistake.

Wallace specifically asked willy if willy wanted to talk about CGI, willy said no. Wallace wanted to get away from the tangent willy went on, but willy would have none of that.
That's unfair. Wallace made an accusation, and Clinton answered. Wallace wanted to change the subject when Clinton was wiping the floor with him.

Not to mention, willy specifically agreed to talk for half of the time about CGI, the other half about anything else. willy is the one who broke his own agreement.
That seems unfair as well. It's pretty clear that it was Fox making the concession to let Clinton have at least half the time to talk about the CGI, and so it was Clinton's time to choose to spend answering Wallace's attack. Also, numerous times when Wallace asked about chaging the topic to CGI, he also indicated it was ok for Clinton not to do so.

P.S. - i'd like to see a source on willy's claim that republicans said he was "obsessed" with finding OBL - and it can't be some left wing tripe like the "source" that stated how bush said the constitution is just a piece of paper(which was never proven to be true).
The main quote I'm aware of is from Reagan counterterrorism ambassador Robert Oakley, as reported here by Joe Conason, but you can google the quote:

A month before Clinton left office -- and nine months before the planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- those successful operations were praised by the nation's most experienced diplomats in this field, including conservatives. "Overall, I give them very high marks," said Robert Oakley, who served as ambassador for counterterrorism in the Reagan State Department, to a reporter for the Washington Post. "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which has made him stronger." Paul Bremer, who also held the same post under Reagan and later was chosen by congressional leaders to chair the National Commission on Terrorism, disagreed slightly with his colleague. Bremer told the Post he believed that the Clinton administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden."
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,576
1
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
The main quote I'm aware of is from Reagan counterterrorism ambassador Robert Oakley, as reported here by Joe Conason, but you can google the quote:

A month before Clinton left office -- and nine months before the planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- those successful operations were praised by the nation's most experienced diplomats in this field, including conservatives. "Overall, I give them very high marks," said Robert Oakley, who served as ambassador for counterterrorism in the Reagan State Department, to a reporter for the Washington Post. "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which has made him stronger." Paul Bremer, who also held the same post under Reagan and later was chosen by congressional leaders to chair the National Commission on Terrorism, disagreed slightly with his colleague. Bremer told the Post he believed that the Clinton administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden."

still need to see the actual source. i.e., the actual washington post article, not a snippet from a leftist blog like salon which may have been taken out of context.

also need to find the source where Oakley is saying Clinton didn't do enough. Clinton accused Oakley of blaming clinton for not doing enough, where's the source on that?

is this this the singular quote that democrats are using? Clinton specifically said "the SAME conservatives" who said he was obsessed are now saying he didnt' do enough.

We also need to find the other conservatives who said this as well, because clinton specifically stated there are multiple conservatives who stated this. where are these conservative flip floppers?


 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Smilin
Go Away. Nobody is listening.

You've been punked too much.
What's the matter...no argument?
No need. All you've posted in this entire thread are lies and distractions. You've proven yourself irrelevant and useless, with the possible exception of being a good football. Even then, you're overinflated with hot air and foul smelling gas.

:cookie: :cookie: :cookie:
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Smilin
Go Away. Nobody is listening.

You've been punked too much.
What's the matter...no argument?
Sure there was an argument. It's been over with for some time. Since you weren't really paying attention let me give you the recap: You lost.






oh, and since you've been failing to read again it gives me the opportunity to say this quite truthfully for the fourth 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.
buh-bye.
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
I withdraw my statement about .... I had inaccurate info on that, and it was a mistake.
Wow. You don't see that much on the forum.


Irregardless of the topic that was about, you just earned some major bonus respect points in my book.
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,576
1
0
can anyone provide a source of one conservative that accused clinton of being obsessed with OBL, then another source of that same individual saying clinton didn't do enough?

one conservative won't be enough, as willy said multiple conservatives have said this. where are these flip flopping conservatives?

 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,677
482
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Smilin
buh-bye.
Good riddens. Please come in with facts and evidence next time to avoid making a fool of yourself.
You are telling him to avoid making a fool of himself after saying "Good riddens".

Okay.
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Smilin
buh-bye.
Good riddens. Please come in with facts and evidence next time to avoid making a fool of yourself.
That's a cute technique pabster. You've done it several times now...

Quoting someone but truncating out the part where you got pwned then replying to the quote as if it was intact.

Very nice. Makes others do a lot of work proving what and idiot you are while allowing you single line replies to get yourself out of it. It works pretty well in threads like this I'm sure. We are up to page 8 so most people won't go back and check. Everyone that has followed along since the beginning knows the truth though.

For anyone interested in an example. Find pabsters post that contains the text: [links deleted for brevity] (with brackets)

Also find the post where he said "Are you 10 years old?". Look what he quoted me as saying then find my entire post.


aaaaaany whoooo.....

When was the last time you posted a link to any sources pabster? Here, have a sammich. 5th time I've gotten to use this:

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.
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: daveymark
can anyone provide a source of one conservative that accused clinton of being obsessed with OBL, then another source of that same individual saying clinton didn't do enough?

one conservative won't be enough, as willy said multiple conservatives have said this. where are these flip flopping conservatives?
Yeah, honestly dude that really sounds like work so I'm going to decline for now. :p Sorry. You are welcome to give it a shot though. There are a couple good posts in this thread full of quotes from people bashing bush about doing "too much" ("wag the dog" when tomahawking Afghanistan, Dick Clarks obsession with UBL etc). Those posts would be a good starting point. Just take the guys that said that stuff and dig on what else he may have said about Clinton since.

Really though if I remember right Clinton was using "conservatives" (or was it "right wingers") as a group rather than individuals. This thread is getting some age on it and it's been a while since I watched the interview so if he was being specific about individuals instead of a group, just correct me here and I'll go have another listen.

So, I'm ducking your challenge out of pure laziness for now. If you succede in dragging someone into it please respect the fact that it will involve a bit of work and be prepared (as they should) to suck it up when presented with proof.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: Pabster
Good riddens. Please come in with facts and evidence next time to avoid making a fool of yourself.
Good RIDDENS??? You want facts and evidence? Your post is evidence proving that, in addition to being a useless, brainwashed dogmatic liar, you're functionally illiterate.

Buahahahaha! Got anymore evidence you want to post to support the obvious? :laugh:
 

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
7,550
666
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Smilin
buh-bye.
Good riddens. Please come in with facts and evidence next time to avoid making a fool of yourself.
Might want to at least spell correctly in the post where you accuse someone else of making a fool of themselves.
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,576
1
0
Originally posted by: Smilin
Originally posted by: daveymark
can anyone provide a source of one conservative that accused clinton of being obsessed with OBL, then another source of that same individual saying clinton didn't do enough?

one conservative won't be enough, as willy said multiple conservatives have said this. where are these flip flopping conservatives?
Yeah, honestly dude that really sounds like work so I'm going to decline for now. :p Sorry. You are welcome to give it a shot though. There are a couple good posts in this thread full of quotes from people bashing bush about doing "too much" ("wag the dog" when tomahawking Afghanistan, Dick Clarks obsession with UBL etc). Those posts would be a good starting point. Just take the guys that said that stuff and dig on what else he may have said about Clinton since.

Really though if I remember right Clinton was using "conservatives" (or was it "right wingers") as a group rather than individuals. This thread is getting some age on it and it's been a while since I watched the interview so if he was being specific about individuals instead of a group, just correct me here and I'll go have another listen.

So, I'm ducking your challenge out of pure laziness for now. If you succede in dragging someone into it please respect the fact that it will involve a bit of work and be prepared (as they should) to suck it up when presented with proof.
No need to apologize, it's too much work because there's nothing to find on those left wing blogs, or any other blog for that matter. Lucky for us, this is willy who stated the lie. if it were any other former president, we might have the inclination to believe him, just because he said it. Willy is a classic truth bender, so this comes as no surprise.

The fact is, Willy stated the lie based on one statement made out of context by someone who has never been elected to public office. He then decided to group that statement in with all conservatives. Classic Clintonian move.

If we're going to do believe what Willy says just because he said it, let's take Leibermann's statements on Iraq and Zell Miller's statements on just about everything else and claim they are the cornerstone of what all liberals believe.





 

Aisengard

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2005
1,558
0
76
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: Smilin
Originally posted by: daveymark
can anyone provide a source of one conservative that accused clinton of being obsessed with OBL, then another source of that same individual saying clinton didn't do enough?

one conservative won't be enough, as willy said multiple conservatives have said this. where are these flip flopping conservatives?
Yeah, honestly dude that really sounds like work so I'm going to decline for now. :p Sorry. You are welcome to give it a shot though. There are a couple good posts in this thread full of quotes from people bashing bush about doing "too much" ("wag the dog" when tomahawking Afghanistan, Dick Clarks obsession with UBL etc). Those posts would be a good starting point. Just take the guys that said that stuff and dig on what else he may have said about Clinton since.

Really though if I remember right Clinton was using "conservatives" (or was it "right wingers") as a group rather than individuals. This thread is getting some age on it and it's been a while since I watched the interview so if he was being specific about individuals instead of a group, just correct me here and I'll go have another listen.

So, I'm ducking your challenge out of pure laziness for now. If you succede in dragging someone into it please respect the fact that it will involve a bit of work and be prepared (as they should) to suck it up when presented with proof.
No need to apologize, it's too much work because there's nothing to find on those left wing blogs, or any other blog for that matter. Lucky for us, this is willy who stated the lie. if it were any other former president, we might have the inclination to believe him, just because he said it. Willy is a classic truth bender, so this comes as no surprise.

The fact is, Willy stated the lie based on one statement made out of context by someone who has never been elected to public office. He then decided to group that statement in with all conservatives. Classic Clintonian move.

If we're going to do believe what Willy says just because he said it, let's take Leibermann's statements on Iraq and Zell Miller's statements on just about everything else and claim they are the cornerstone of what all liberals believe.
I just listened to the interview again. The issue is not This guy said to the word "Clinton was obsessed with Osama bin Laden" and then turned around and said "Clinton didn't do enough to catch OBL" verbatim. The real issue, if you listened to the context in which he said these things, were all the people who were criticizing him about his campaigns in Somalia, and in Black Hawk Down, which has been linked with Al Queda and which Osama bin Laden made comments about after Clinton finally left, about his "victory" over the evil Americans.

He said that "the people who said I was doing too much" (i.e. didn't support the Somalia campaign, among other things) "are the people who now say I did too little" (criticized him for not fighting terrorism).

You can say I'm 'retreating', but really it's not about verbatim quotes at all. So I guess this guy Oakley said it, but he wasn't really talking about him, was he.
 

Eos

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2000
3,448
2
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
I found it hilarious Clinton called Chris Wallace a conservative hitman lmao.
You learn something new every day hahaha.
I meant to reply to this earlier.

Clinton called the questioning that Wallace was doing a "hit job". At no time did he call Wallace a "hit man". Just to be clear, ya know.

CLINTON: So you did Fox?s bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: eos
Originally posted by: Genx87
I found it hilarious Clinton called Chris Wallace a conservative hitman lmao.
You learn something new every day hahaha.
I meant to reply to this earlier.

Clinton called the questioning that Wallace was doing a "hit job". At no time did he call Wallace a "hit man". Just to be clear, ya know.

CLINTON: So you did Fox?s bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me.
I pointed out in another thread that during a 2004 Tom Brokaw interview he was asked very similar questions and never accused Tom of being a "hit man"

And while we are setting the record straight. Wallace asked almost the exact same question "did you do enough" of Rummy.

I think this was a calculated effort by Clinton to attack the messenger, and ignore the message/question. If Chris Mathews had asked the same question there is no way Clinton could have responded the same way.

Irregardless, the ?did you do enough? question is something both Clinton and Bush will have to answer for the rest of their lives.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY