Bill Clinton interview on Fox News (video)

[Todd33]

As soon as Clinton start with facts the Fox guy just tries to move to the next talking point. He has zero interest in the answer, how pathetic.

 

[TravisT]

I think you're dumb if you have different opinions of the way Bush and Clinton handled the situation with al Qaeda prior to 9/11. Neither one did much at all, we realized what the terrorist group was capable of after the attack.

If you don't think Clinton did much, then you need to stop taking everything Limbaugh says as "The Lord's word". Neither one really did anything until the attacks though.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Starting to question whether the Republican leadership in this country is good for anything...

Sure they are--lining their own pockets!

Oil companies made record profits. :thumbsup:

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001:

-- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.

-- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.

-- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.

-- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.

-- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.

-- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.

-- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.

-- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.

-- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.

-- By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data, missed opportunity to stop the 9/11 plot as Clinton-Gore had stopped the millennium plots.

-- Blamed President Clinton for 9/11. "

Gee what Richard Clarke said in 2002 is a lot different than what you are posting. Now since Clinton seems to view Clarke as such a great source maybe we should read what he said. :scroll up:

Here's the source of that cut & paste info I posted:

http://www.mikehersh.com/Clinton_vs_Terror_Republicans_vs_Clinton.shtml


Let's add a few quotes from Repukes regarding Bosnia:

Quotes from prominent Repukes when President Clinton committed troops to Bosnia:

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)



Seems like the same crap as they spewed about Clinton's attempts to control AlQueda...

actually it sounds very similar to the crap dems are spewing about Iraq now.
So lets just
1) admit that such tactics are always applied to the other side depending on who is on office.
2) Recognize that these tactics cannot be good and evil also, they are either good in that the other side always should ask these questions or evil in that it defeats the purpose of what a said president is trying to accompolish.
So if it was evil of the repukes as you call them to do it it is now also evil for the demagogues to use it in Iraq,

 

[Estrella]

What Clinton said makes me hold any government with even more skepticism. But alas, we must hold what Clinton said with equal scrutiny. Isn't Clinton from Austria??!?!?!? BC HE IS THE ULTIMATE PWn-eh-NAT-uh!!!

CLINTON FTW!!!!!!!!

 

[getbush]

Originally posted by: daniel49
actually it sounds very similar to the crap dems are spewing about Iraq now.
So lets just
1) admit that such tactics are always applied to the other side depending on who is on office.
2) Recognize that these tactics cannot be good and evil also, they are either good in that the other side always should ask these questions or evil in that it defeats the purpose of what a said president is trying to accompolish.
So if it was evil of the repukes as you call them to do it it is now also evil for the demagogues to use it in Iraq,

Do you think skepticism of how this government has handled Iraq is strictly a democrat phenomenon? I don't think anyone is criticizing republicans for asking those questions in the first place. I don't remember any huge backlash and a huge message of support the president no matter what coming from democrats back then. The issue is the hypocrisy exhibited on teh right. It seems they think it's ok to question a president from another party, but when it's your own guy on top he can do no wrong. Is the hypocrisy lost on you? Was Kosovo a war based on false pretenses? Did we have 130,000 troops in kosovo going past 3 years now? Did Kosovo cost anywhere near what Iraq is in terms of american lives and tax money?

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

Clinton wastes his time on the sheeple that crowd around Fox News for their blatant mis-information. Just the fact that Wallace had to point out at the beginning that it was and "uncut" interview shows you how Fox News usually cuts and splices their crap together to support the right wing talking points crap they spout.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
For those whose memories are "the 2nd shortest things about them", let's recap just a bit:

"President Clinton led the fight against terrorism over strong opposition from Republicans in Congress and the pro-Republican Media. Here's a partial - yet incredibly long - list of accomplishments against terrorism for which the Clinton Administration gets almost no credit or even recognition. President Clinton:

-- sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.

-- sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

-- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.

When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, President Clinton:

-- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.

-- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

-- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.

-- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.

-- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

-- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.

-- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries

-- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.

-- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"

-- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "

-- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."

Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001:

-- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.

-- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.

-- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.

-- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.

-- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.

-- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.

-- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.

-- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.

-- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.

-- By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data, missed opportunity to stop the 9/11 plot as Clinton-Gore had stopped the millennium plots.

-- Blamed President Clinton for 9/11. "


Anyojne remember "Wag The Dog"? How many times was Clinton accused of trying to deflect attention from the "Monica Hearings" when he'd try to do something about Osama Bin Forgotten? I seem to remember the Repug leadership making those kinds of statements every time Clinton shot off cruise missles at an Al Queda training camp, or some other terrorist target...

http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm

http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000193.html

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14642

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101303A.shtml

1993 WTC bombing - He did nothing
1996 Khobar Towers bombing - He did nothing
1998 Embassy bombings - He launched a few cruise missiles on Afghanistan and Sudan (this was taking attention away from the Lewinsky stuff -- "Wag the dog")
2000 USS Cole bombing - He did nothing

And dont forget the horrid gutting of the intelligence and military agencies as well as giving decades worth of technical research tot he Chinese.

Yeah, All Hail Clinton. :disgust:

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: randym431
Three words... Wag The Dog

THATS ALL you heard from the right, back then. Exactly like Bill said, the right could have cared less about Bin Laden?PERIOD.

The right only cared about ONE thing, getting Clinton. from alpha to beta of his admin.

Now I can not imagine the right wingers, reading these posts, can actually claim they have "forgotten" wag the dog? They used it to pull the rug out from under Clintons attempts to fight terror over and over.

No, Clinton was not obsessed with Monica back then, truth is the right was obsessed with wag the dog.

THATS what allowed Bin Laden to get away.

And the Bush admin, being as arrogant as anyone on earth can be, simply refused to pick up ANY issues left on the burner when the Clinton admin changed to Bush.

Oh you mean like the Left is doing now to Bush??

Say it aint so.......

 

[getbush]

specops I think you'll find the chapters of Clarke's book regarding Clinton's time in office will mention more than simply "he did nothing" - and thanks for reiterating the point about Republicans calling him out for trying to do anything against bin laden, instead more worried about getting him over Lewinsky. Priorities huh? Facts are Clinton had his arms tied behind his back the same people who are so "tough" on terrorism today. If tough means creating more terrorism through head-in-ass foreign policy and actions.

 

[getbush]

How, when, and by whom is Bush being accused of wagging the dog? What is Iraq and the war on terror supposed to pulling our attention away from? How bad thigns are in Iraq and how inept Bush is? That makes no sense. Hey aren't gays getting married somewhere? We're all bashing him for forgetting about bin laden. You know that sound bite, the one where Bush says he's not concerned about bin Laden?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: getbush
specops I think you'll find the chapters of Clarke's book regarding Clinton's time in office will mention more than simply "he did nothing" - and thanks for reiterating the point about Republicans calling him out for trying to do anything against bin laden, instead more worried about getting him over Lewinsky. Priorities huh? Facts are Clinton had his arms tied behind his back the same people who are so "tough" on terrorism today. If tough means creating more terrorism through head-in-ass foreign policy and actions.

And it looks like that favor has been re-paid. How many Lefties are against the war? How many Democrats speak out against it?

If cutting funding to intelligence agencies and gutting the military and lobbing a few missiles is "doing something" its no wonder the Lefties are pissed about what Bush is doing. The WOT is damn WWIII compared to what Clinton did.

As for Monica, I dont give a damn about that. Congrats to the man for getting a peice of ass while in the Oval Office. Damn well bet I'd do the same.

Dont misunderstand me, I sure aint a Bush fan but I wont be in any hurry to put Clinton on a pedestal either. And those who do might want to review a few facts first. Oh, yay, he stopped this and that and the other but he didnt stop it all, he gutted the military doing it and didnt really go after those responsible.

And if your going to blame the Right for tieing Clintons hands damn well bet it'll come back to bite you when the Right blames the Left for trying to tie Bushs hands in the WOT.

Those in glass houses shouldnt throw stones......

But, I suppose thats the joys of politics is getting the sheeple behind you. Bush does it by being tough on terror, Clinton did it with a snake charmers tongue.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: getbush
How, when, and by whom is Bush being accused of wagging the dog? What is Iraq and the war on terror supposed to pulling our attention away from? How bad thigns are in Iraq and how inept Bush is? That makes no sense. Hey aren't gays getting married somewhere? We're all bashing him for forgetting about bin laden. You know that sound bite, the one where Bush says he's not concerned about bin Laden?

I didnt bring up any comparison to wagging anything.

 

[getbush]

I'm in the middle too and I recognize he wasn't perfect, even he does, which is very refreshing from a public official given the curretn trend of we can do no wrong. I just miss the times when we had a person in office who was capable of forming a complete thought on his own and then communicating it.

 

[getbush]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: getbush
How, when, and by whom is Bush being accused of wagging the dog? What is Iraq and the war on terror supposed to pulling our attention away from? How bad thigns are in Iraq and how inept Bush is? That makes no sense. Hey aren't gays getting married somewhere? We're all bashing him for forgetting about bin laden. You know that sound bite, the one where Bush says he's not concerned about bin Laden?

I didnt bring up any comparison to wagging anything.

1998 Embassy bombings - He launched a few cruise missiles on Afghanistan and Sudan (this was taking attention away from the Lewinsky stuff -- "Wag the dog")

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: getbush
I'm in the middle too and I recognize he wasn't perfect, even he does, which is very refreshing from a public official given the curretn trend of we can do no wrong. I just miss the times when we had a person in office who was capable of forming a complete thought on his own and then communicating it.

I think thats one of the big problems in politics.
We arent electing good representatives, we're electing good actors.
I'm not trying to defend Bush anymore then I am trying to glorify Clinton here but the fact is as time goes on politicians are more concerned with image then actions.

I want someone whos willing to make the hard decisions and do what muist be done and who doesnt pander about on camera for feel good emotions. Unfortunately, those people arent elected. The ones who are are the ones who sound good on camera and tell you what you want to hear.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: getbush

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: getbush
How, when, and by whom is Bush being accused of wagging the dog? What is Iraq and the war on terror supposed to pulling our attention away from? How bad thigns are in Iraq and how inept Bush is? That makes no sense. Hey aren't gays getting married somewhere? We're all bashing him for forgetting about bin laden. You know that sound bite, the one where Bush says he's not concerned about bin Laden?

I didnt bring up any comparison to wagging anything.

1998 Embassy bombings - He launched a few cruise missiles on Afghanistan and Sudan (this was taking attention away from the Lewinsky stuff -- "Wag the dog")

Many felt the reasoning behind the who Afghan thing was indeed to downplay the Monica stuff.
I didnt compare that to Bush though. If Clinton really wanted to get tough on the Embassy bombings we should have had boots on the ground and planes in the air and did it until the job was done. Not a few missiles here and there.

Maybe if Clinton had taken it seriously and went in to get the job done more akin to what Bush has done people wouldnt have thought it was done as a detraction.

Again, my personal opinion is I dont give a damn. I dont think of it as a detraction, hell if I was the President I'd be a damn pimp. I only look at it as a failure to follow through to the end, aalthough not necesarily done to detract from Monica.

But no comparison was made to Bush wagging anything.

 

[Estrella]

Regardless of what party BUSH is in, most people do not believe he is doing an adequate job. I believe this has nothing to do with parties playing the out of power-in power blame game. BUSH and his policy suck.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Estrella
Regardless of what party BUSH is in, most people do not believe he is doing an adequate job. I believe this has nothing to do with parties playing the out of power-in power blame game. BUSH and his policy suck.

So its damned if you do, damned if you dont.

Clinton is equated with doing nothing, gets dragged through the coals.
Bush is equated with doing too much, gets dragged through the coals.

So, why dont you tell us what should be done?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: getbush

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: getbush
How, when, and by whom is Bush being accused of wagging the dog? What is Iraq and the war on terror supposed to pulling our attention away from? How bad thigns are in Iraq and how inept Bush is? That makes no sense. Hey aren't gays getting married somewhere? We're all bashing him for forgetting about bin laden. You know that sound bite, the one where Bush says he's not concerned about bin Laden?

I didnt bring up any comparison to wagging anything.

1998 Embassy bombings - He launched a few cruise missiles on Afghanistan and Sudan (this was taking attention away from the Lewinsky stuff -- "Wag the dog")

Many felt the reasoning behind the who Afghan thing was indeed to downplay the Monica stuff.
I didnt compare that to Bush though. If Clinton really wanted to get tough on the Embassy bombings we should have had boots on the ground and planes in the air and did it until the job was done. Not a few missiles here and there.

Maybe if Clinton had taken it seriously and went in to get the job done more akin to what Bush has done people wouldnt have thought it was done as a detraction.

Again, my personal opinion is I dont give a damn. I dont think of it as a detraction, hell if I was the President I'd be a damn pimp. I only look at it as a failure to follow through to the end, aalthough not necesarily done to detract from Monica.

But no comparison was made to Bush wagging anything.

Except that Clinton actually listened to the top brass in the military when they told him that would be a bad idea.

 

[getbush]

Well it is truth that he could not get the required certification from the CIA and FBI to finger Afghanistan as a target to get boots on the ground. That was back when republicans did everything they could to take power away from the presidency. They've had a change of heart on that delicate balance since then.

 

[crownjules]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
And if your going to blame the Right for tieing Clintons hands damn well bet it'll come back to bite you when the Right blames the Left for trying to tie Bushs hands in the WOT.

Please post evidence supporting this other than blanket statements. Heck, how could it even be possible? Bush has enjoyed majority rule his entire term of office. Dems did support the WoT when it was that. They only turned when the Iraq war began to quagmire and the truth of the underlying reasons of why we went there (and the extent of the manipulation of the Bush administration) started to come out into the open.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: crownjules

Originally posted by: Specop 007
And if your going to blame the Right for tieing Clintons hands damn well bet it'll come back to bite you when the Right blames the Left for trying to tie Bushs hands in the WOT.

Please post evidence supporting this other than blanket statements. Heck, how could it even be possible? Bush has enjoyed majority rule his entire term of office. Dems did support the WoT when it was that. They only turned when the Iraq war began to quagmire and the truth of the underlying reasons of why we went there (and the extent of the manipulation of the Bush administration) started to come out into the open.

QFT

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: senseamp
I am surprised Clinton waited this long. He is absolutely right that the same people who blame him for not getting Bin Laden, did everything in their power to undermine his ability to do so.

Check out this archived Freeper "Wag the Dog!" thread from 1998:
http://web.archive.org/web/200410111602...www.freerepublic.com/forum/a530320.htm


Freakin' hypocrites.

Hahahaha partisan bastards. This does not surprise me a bit. Another good reason why people should take note that this partisan extremism that has come to be is harmful to the wellbeing of the United States and its citizens.

Now, IMO, Clinton did kick Chris Wallace around, however, although he probably did try to get Bin Laden (as he should have given that this guy kept hitting our nation), he/the administration was too worried about not killing civilians, arab princes, etcetera to hit Osama and save us all the pain of what we are now experiencing.

And by the way, it appears from what I've seen and read, they weren't worried about not killing civilians out of altruism/empathy (which is at least admirable but think of how many died in Iraq due to sanctions and many other actions) but because of WHAT PEOPLE WOULD THINK OF THEM. Europe, and probably the largely left-leaning media "elite."

That, is a grave problem that should not exist.

 

[Craig234]

One other thing to remember, Clinton's FBI director was a republican who was basically at war with the president, and the political situation with the republican congress prevented Clinton from being able to replace him.