Bill Clinton interview on Fox News (video)

[her209]

Originally posted by: Corbett
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

"Indeed I did have sexual relations with that woman"

Sorry but Clinton lost all credibility with me when he lied without flinching to the American people, and did it with a straight face no less.

He disgraced the White House the way no other president has and is the biggest narccisist I have ever seen.

And I can already hear it now. "Well Bush lied too". I'd expect that from the lib crowd here. But the fact is, Clinton lied to our faces with no problem. Bush was given faulty intel and it hasn't been PROVEN otherwise, just conspiracy theories. Clinton proved himself to be a liar.

That being said, I believe Clintons performance on Sunday just shows how unglued the democratic party has become. They blame everything on a "right wing conspiracy" and never take responsibility for their actions. They never offer a solution, other than the point a finger at the other side.

"Got wood?"

See, Bush lied to your face too.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
I could write a ong rebuttal to your views on Clinton's honesty and your lack of acknowledgement of the Bush administration's dishonesty, but:

There were a number of people involved, and they say the same thing as Clinton - for example, Richard Clarke.

Here's an article on the topic in Time magazine; note the Bush administration has a huge motive in hiding the truth about the warnings from the Clinton administration.

Article

Clinton had to go on national TV and admit to lying to the public.
So far there nothing that Bush had to admit to lying about.
Say all you want about WMDs and the like, but everyone in Washington was saying the same thing.
When Hillary, and Kerry etc get up and admit that they were lying about WMD in 2002 then I'll start calling for Bush to do the same, but I think I am safe in saying that will never happen.

Name me one major outright Bush lie? Not some "well he said there were links with al-Qeada, but now after 3 years we learned that there weren't. One thing that Bush said they he knew for a fact and without and doubt was to be a lie.

As chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security Group (CSG), Clarke was known as a bit of an obsessive?just the sort of person you want in a job of that kind. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen on Oct. 12, 2000?an attack that left 17 Americans dead?he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. The result was a strategy paper that he had presented to Berger and the other national security "principals" on Dec. 20. But Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up

In office for 8 years and they finally come up with a plan 1 month before leaving... nice plan... I'll try to read the rest tomorrow.

Oh god... Clinton was put under oath about a blowjob.. Bush hasn't been put under oath about ANYTHING! Do you know why? Well, let's see.. the republicans let Bush get away with murder and never question a thing.. while the same republicans wasted millions of tax dollars going after a blowjob...

Bush has been caught in lies 100s of times... he may not be under oath.. but that is because his congress is under his party's control... geez.. use some brains.. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Corbett
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

"Indeed I did have sexual relations with that woman"

Sorry but Clinton lost all credibility with me when he lied without flinching to the American people, and did it with a straight face no less.

He disgraced the White House the way no other president has and is the biggest narccisist I have ever seen.

And I can already hear it now. "Well Bush lied too". I'd expect that from the lib crowd here. But the fact is, Clinton lied to our faces with no problem. Bush was given faulty intel and it hasn't been PROVEN otherwise, just conspiracy theories. Clinton proved himself to be a liar.

That being said, I believe Clintons performance on Sunday just shows how unglued the democratic party has become. They blame everything on a "right wing conspiracy" and never take responsibility for their actions. They never offer a solution, other than the point a finger at the other side.

The only thing that was disgraces by the blowjob fiasco is how pathetic this country is.. that the people in charge of congress care more about a blowjob than botched intelligence, 1/2 a trillion dollars in more debt from a war having nothign to do with 9/11, 3000 troops dead for no reason, 100,000 Iraqi innocents dead, occupation of a foreign country(no nation building!), a terrible economy, spying on americans, a completely mind numbingly bad post-9/11 response to disaster(Katrina)....

The United States was disgraced when the world saw just how prepared we were for a disaster post 9/11 with Katrina... But was Bush put under oath for ANY of these blunders? Nope! I guess he would have to have a blowjob to be put under oath!

 

[Smilin]

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.

Dude, Clinton caught MAJOR flak when he sent the Tomahawk strike into Afghanistan to hit that Al Qaeda training camp. Anybody remember that?

Before 9/11 the country and the world were just not ready to put up with us invading (or even airstriking) a sovereign nation.


He still screwed up by not getting OBL though...but so did Bush. I'm not going to point a finger at either one of them though. You know who is really responsible for 9/11? Al Qaeda. Let's not forget that while we bicker about politics.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
ProfJohn - why and, in your own words - didn't the Bush administration pick up from Clinton's administration when OBL was labeled a threat? To keep proclaiming Clinton could have done more, then ignore the info that had been passed to the Bush team and that they did nothing in that time - it's a false viewpoint.....

In my own words:
1. Bush was in the process of changing the way in which they approached the war in terror. The record is there for anyone to see. The problem is that the time table did not give them enough time before 9-11 to make a significant enough of a change in policy to actually do something. Bush takes office around January 20, his appointees start taking office in March and April during the summer they developed a new plan for the war on terror, in late August they got together and agreed on said plan the plan did not hit Bush's desk till September 10. (This timeline is based on what Richard Clarke said)
That is what Bush was in the process of doing before 9-11, he was going to change how we went after al-Qaida.

I don't think any of that really matters because that plan would most likely not have stopped 9-11 anyway, it was to far along in planning by then to stop it. We could have killed bin Laden in the spring of 2001 and still not stopped 9-11. The only way to stop 9-11 would have been for us to either "get lucky" as happened in the millennium attacks or for the FBI, CIA etc to connect all the dots and realize what the plan was and came up with measures to stop it. (see my thoughts on stopping 9-11 below)

2. on Clinton: My problem with Clinton is not that he could have done more or should have done more, which he could have tried, but we don't know if that would have made a difference.
My problem is his excuses, well I couldn't take Osama because I had no legal reasons. I couldn't order the CIA to kill him without a "finding stating I can do so" etc etc. President Ford wrote a Presidential order outlawing assassination, Clinton could have written a new one re-allowing it, no one could have stopped him.
In August 1996 Osama declared war on the US "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." At that point Clinton could have signed an order for Osama to be killed or captured and justified it using his "war powers" as commander and chief.
Clinton sent thousands of troops in to Bosnia using the "war powers resolution."
Clinton launched an extended air war in Kosovo because of humanitarian issues.
Clinton sent troops to Haiti in order to return President Aristide to power.
Clinton sent troops into Somalia in order to protect humanitarian relief from armed gangs.

All this use of the military around the world, and yet Clinton was afraid of taking action against Osama because he lacked ?findings? or lacked the legal right to do so?

We bombed Kosovo for 78 days, according to Nato 720 aircraft flew almost 36,000 sorties - an average of 455 every 24 hours dropping over 20,000 bombs.
And against Osama and al-Qaida AFTER the embassy bombings we launch all of 75 missiles?????!!!!!

Do you at least understand why those of us on the right don?t believe him when he said he did everything he could??

(BTW: on stopping 9-11, one of the planes on the morning of 9-11 was given a warning about attempted hijackings, it did no good that plane was still hijacked. Now if we can tell the pilots to be alert and on the look out for a hijacking after 2 planes had already been hijacked and still have the warning do no good I do not think some generic warning would have done any good. Once they are on the plane it was too late, now they could have started searching everyone?s luggage and banning knifes etc before hand, but who knows if anyone had the political will to give that a try pre-9-11. Just look at the out cry over the ban on liquids on airplanes after we learn of a plot to blow up planes with liquid explosives, imagine what these people would have said pre 9-11. Heck, we can't even search Arab men now after 9-11, London and Madrid, the civil rights people would flip out if we did that, imagine if we even TRIED it before 9-11.)

Bush cut anti-terrorist funding on 9/10.. was that part of his plan against terror?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: MrK6
Man, I could go on and on in this thread, what a great topic; however, it's 1AM and I have class tomorrow. That said, consider this: rather than go on quotations, hearsay, slanted political rants, etc. etc., look at action. While Clinton was president, we had an extremely successful decade, the economy was up and the defecit down, international relations (as a whole) were great, Kosovo was handled very well, things were going smoothly (except for that idiotic crap about Clinton getting a BJ, who the hell cares, grow up you bible thumpers). Bush came into a PRIME state of this nation. The economy was still up due to the tech boom, the nation was going well, and he had many experienced people in his cabinet (Colin Powell for one). After 9/11, his true incompetence showed through. The operations in Afghanistan weren't that bad, but Iraq was/is a disaster, the deficit is a disaster, almost the entire world despises the U.S., the handling of Katrina was disgusting (the disgrace couldn't even get off his ass from vacation to do his damn job), the list goes on and on. I'm not partial to either party, but to men and their actions. Actions show a real person, the part the words cannot convey nor hide. There was a list posted of Clinton's accomplishments, where's one of Bush's?

"I'm not partial to either party" umm based on what you posted I am not sure anyone on the right would believe that for a second.

Note:"The economy was still up due to the tech boom"- ever heard of the dot.com bust? On March 10 2000 the NASDAQ hit 5048, by January 2001 it was down too 2500. Lost half its value in a year, and that was under President Clinton hmmm
and "real GDP growth" 2nd quarter 2000 it was 4.8 and dropped to .6 by 3rd and only 1.1 in forth. and in 2001 it actually shrunk -.6 -1.6 and -.3 guess we can blame that on Bush huh?

Believe it or not, people could be impartial and yet point to the EXTREME shortcomings of this administration and point to Clinton's obvious fortunes in office...

You fail to believe it is possible. My Republican father says Bush is the worst president he has seen in his lifetime... if you aren't head deep in the sand, you could be critical of any president.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: getbush
I think that is honest and healthy skepticism of the Clinton admin. on your part. What boggles me then is where do you throw that out the window with the current administration? These are some of the most deceitful, arrogant, holier than thou, butt-out we can do no wrong, hypocritical, scheming and politicking crooks of our time.
I'm not convinced Bush was doing much at all about the terror threat before 9/11, to be clear. Clinton understood the damage a fvck 'em all I'm the president of the US the best country in the world attitude would do. Bush has had a total majority his whole presidency, and there is not much that can be done to stop this juggernaut of stupidity until that changes.

Well thank you for the positive comment. So much nicer when we get away from personal attacks.

What did Bush do before 9-11?? Nothing that amounted to anything, was working on a "plan" that as Richard Clarke says would change "the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda." What was the plan? I don't know, don't have details and it is 2:22am and I am not going to Google for half an hour to find them. 🙂 Based on what Bush HAS done I think it is safe to say that he would have been more agressive in going after al Qaeda for sure.

After 9-11, what he did in Afghanistan was masterful, no one can deny that. Overthrew the Taliban without placing hardly any US troops on the ground.
Sad to say we never caught Osama and are still looking for him. (We could start a thread on why we can't find him, but essentially we are looking for 1 man who is hiding in an area the size of California and most likely has the help of dozens if not hundreds of people. Plus everyone seems to say he is no longer in command, so getting him now is more PR than anything else. Don't forget Bush is a politician, if you told him that 15,000 troops in Afghanistan for 6 months would bring Osama in a body bag he would do it. Instead we have 20,000 NATO troops there and no one has even SEEN him for over 2 years.)
Also the Taliban is trying to make a comeback, but they seem to get thier asses kicked every time they actually face NATO in battle. They spent 10 years fighting Russia, so we better be prepared for the fact that they could be fighting us for that long as well.

Now onto Iraq, what a mess that has turned into. The original idea was a good one. Take Saddam out of power and create a allied Democratic state. In essence change the whole dynamic of the middle east in one daring move.* The reality didn't turn out quite as well. Saddam is gone and a Democratic government is in place, progress there, but everything else seems to be a mess. Wish the left would offer some solutions that might actually work.
BTW: Bush and company have admitted that things have gone wrong in Iraq, they just have not admitted that the idea behind the policy is wrong. (Did Clinton ever admit that any of his policies were mistakes? How about Somalia? Sadly in our political system admitting mistakes is tantamount to suicide. Maybe after this election cycle when Bush truly becomes a lame duck he will be more open to admitting past errors.)

As far as Europe and what they think... They have bitched about everything we have done since WAY before Bush was in office and they will bitch when he is gone. They feel that they (all of Europe) should have equal status to the US on the world stage, based on population and economy they should, however they are not willing to spend the money militarily.

Go read this if you want a good analysis as to why there is a difference between US policy and European ideas.
Power and Weakness

Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Kant?s ?Perpetual Peace.? The United States, meanwhile, remains mired in history, exercising power in the anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might. That is why on major strategic and international questions today, Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus: They agree on little and understand one another less and less.

* The dynamic of the middle east could actually be changing based on events in Lebanon and the backlash against Hezbollah, but we will have to wait and see how that plays out.

Oh my god!

"After 9-11, what he did in Afghanistan was masterful, no one can deny that. "

Even Bob Woodward said that Afghanistan was completely botched! We had them all cornered in Tora Bora and we LET THEM ESCAPE INCLUDING BIN LADEN! If that is masterful, then what the hell isn't!?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
I don't. Clinton had a war plan; Bush commented that he 'doesn't spend that much time' on Osama, saying he's not that concerned.

BS. I can smell it from afar. Where is this "war plan" that Slick claims to have prepared? None of his former officials speak of it, and he's produced no evidence. Even the book he tells all to read (by the great Dick Clark) makes no mention of such "plans" by his administration.

There has to be a middle of the road approach here. I don't believe Clinton was "obsessed" with Bin Laden. I also don't believe he was totally asleep at the wheel for 8 years. I think there is no question his personal misgivings and legal problems had some effect on his ability to conduct any war on terror.

How can anyone take you seriously when you claimed that Clinton will never admit mistakes when RIGHT THERE in the interview he admitted multiple mistakes multiple times? You haven't even seen what you are criticizing... so I smell BS right on you and everything you say.

 

[GTKeeper]

Bush is a worse version of Jimmy Carter.

He's a republican with a republican congress and has gotten absolutely nowhere with ANY of his policies. He sucks.

And I welcome anyone to prove to me he did a better job than Carter, and we know what a craptastic job Carter did.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Anyone claiming that Wallace or Clinton "won" the interview are totally missing the point. This was not a debate...Wallace, as a news media interviewer, simply has to ask questions...and it is up to the person being interviewed to answer those questions...rather simple.

Wallace asked a legitimate question...you cannot draw a line in the sand and pretend that Al Quaida and Bin Laden did not exist as threats prior to the Bush Administration...I think Clinton should answer the question of what his Administration did or failed to do in addressing the alarming rise of militant Islamic groups during the 1990s.

That Clinton lost his composure and ranted about right wing media hatchet jobs achieves nothing...Clinton knows that Fox News leans right and is sympathetic to the Bush Administration...yet he chose to take an interview with Wallace...so he really has no right to complain about a biased interview that HE chose to participate in.

Similarly, trying to blame 9/11 on Bush or Clinton is an argument in futility. No American Administration has come up with a solution to Islamic militance...Clinton failed to engage the issue enough...Bush's heavy handed choices to engage the issue have been utter failures...neither President really deserves passing grades in the foreign policy department, particularly when discussing the Middle East.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Anyone claiming that Wallace or Clinton "won" the interview are totally missing the point. This was not a debate...Wallace, as a news media interviewer, simply has to ask questions...and it is up to the person being interviewed to answer those questions...rather simple.

Wallace asked a legitimate question...you cannot draw a line in the sand and pretend that Al Quaida and Bin Laden did not exist as threats prior to the Bush Administration...I think Clinton should answer the question of what his Administration did or failed to do in addressing the alarming rise of militant Islamic groups during the 1990s.

That Clinton lost his composure and ranted about right wing media hatchet jobs achieves nothing...Clinton knows that Fox News leans right and is sympathetic to the Bush Administration...yet he chose to take an interview with Wallace...so he really has no right to complain about a biased interview that HE chose to participate in.

Similarly, trying to blame 9/11 on Bush or Clinton is an argument in futility. No American Administration has come up with a solution to Islamic militance...Clinton failed to engage the issue enough...Bush's heavy handed choices to engage the issue have been utter failures...neither President really deserves passing grades in the foreign policy department, particularly when discussing the Middle East.

mmm, I think Wallace flat out ambushed him after saying the interview was going to be on a different topic. Regardless of how it played out (who won, lost, whatever) it was sh1tty pundit journalism.

I expect Wallace and FOX will never talk to that former president again. Nice job jackasses.

 

[Smartazz]

tagged for later.

 

[Genx87]

I found it hilarious Clinton called Chris Wallace a conservative hitman lmao.
You learn something new every day hahaha.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Dude, Clinton caught MAJOR flak when he sent the Tomahawk strike into Afghanistan to hit that Al Qaeda training camp. Anybody remember that?

He caught major flak because A) the timing was not coincidental given the Monica case and B) his "strike" hit a camel in the ass.

He still screwed up by not getting OBL though...but so did Bush. I'm not going to point a finger at either one of them though. You know who is really responsible for 9/11? Al Qaeda. Let's not forget that while we bicker about politics.

That we can agree on.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I found it hilarious Clinton called Chris Wallace a conservative hitman lmao.
You learn something new every day hahaha.

No surprise. As I said at the start of this thread, Clinton has been blaming everyone but himself since day one.

shadow: I'm waiting for you to show the evidence of Clinton's "War Plans" he speaks of, instead of attacking me.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Anyone claiming that Wallace or Clinton "won" the interview are totally missing the point. This was not a debate...Wallace, as a news media interviewer, simply has to ask questions...and it is up to the person being interviewed to answer those questions...rather simple.

Wallace asked a legitimate question...you cannot draw a line in the sand and pretend that Al Quaida and Bin Laden did not exist as threats prior to the Bush Administration...I think Clinton should answer the question of what his Administration did or failed to do in addressing the alarming rise of militant Islamic groups during the 1990s.

That Clinton lost his composure and ranted about right wing media hatchet jobs achieves nothing...Clinton knows that Fox News leans right and is sympathetic to the Bush Administration...yet he chose to take an interview with Wallace...so he really has no right to complain about a biased interview that HE chose to participate in.

Similarly, trying to blame 9/11 on Bush or Clinton is an argument in futility. No American Administration has come up with a solution to Islamic militance...Clinton failed to engage the issue enough...Bush's heavy handed choices to engage the issue have been utter failures...neither President really deserves passing grades in the foreign policy department, particularly when discussing the Middle East.

Aye. Here's my take on it: they had an agreement to split the time between the CGI and whatever. Wallace asked the questions out of order (I.e. instead of doing precisely half and half, he didn't wait and just asked). I don't think Clinton got angry out outraged (or as you see on Fox News "crazed"), but he did get impassioned. Bush does this frequently in his interviews and speeches where he does a Q&A. It is easy to understand why he has been so infuriated, as there has been a lot of people who have been following a revisionist history to explain what Clinton did. Yes, he did fail, but it wasn't for a lack of trying -- it was for not trying enough. And, as Clinton brought up, the infuriating part is that the people blaming him now are the ones who attacked him for doing anything then.

 

[Oblivionaire]

Why does the right continually question why Clinton didn't get Bin Laden while they have yet to get him themselves? Bush even said at one point he doesn't care about Bin Laden. Do these guys know what they are doing?

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
I don't. Clinton had a war plan; Bush commented that he 'doesn't spend that much time' on Osama, saying he's not that concerned.

BS. I can smell it from afar. Where is this "war plan" that Slick claims to have prepared? None of his former officials speak of it, and he's produced no evidence. Even the book he tells all to read (by the great Dick Clark) makes no mention of such "plans" by his administration.

There has to be a middle of the road approach here. I don't believe Clinton was "obsessed" with Bin Laden. I also don't believe he was totally asleep at the wheel for 8 years. I think there is no question his personal misgivings and legal problems had some effect on his ability to conduct any war on terror.

Again, if reporters focused on what Clinton said during that interview, as opposed to his being "combatativem," we might get to the bottom of his claims.

Instead, all you see is "Former President Clinton was combatative in an interview w/ Chris Wallace."

 

[Oblivionaire]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Anyone claiming that Wallace or Clinton "won" the interview are totally missing the point. This was not a debate...Wallace, as a news media interviewer, simply has to ask questions...and it is up to the person being interviewed to answer those questions...rather simple.

Wallace asked a legitimate question...you cannot draw a line in the sand and pretend that Al Quaida and Bin Laden did not exist as threats prior to the Bush Administration...I think Clinton should answer the question of what his Administration did or failed to do in addressing the alarming rise of militant Islamic groups during the 1990s.

That Clinton lost his composure and ranted about right wing media hatchet jobs achieves nothing...Clinton knows that Fox News leans right and is sympathetic to the Bush Administration...yet he chose to take an interview with Wallace...so he really has no right to complain about a biased interview that HE chose to participate in.

Similarly, trying to blame 9/11 on Bush or Clinton is an argument in futility. No American Administration has come up with a solution to Islamic militance...Clinton failed to engage the issue enough...Bush's heavy handed choices to engage the issue have been utter failures...neither President really deserves passing grades in the foreign policy department, particularly when discussing the Middle East.

Aye. Here's my take on it: they had an agreement to split the time between the CGI and whatever. Wallace asked the questions out of order (I.e. instead of doing precisely half and half, he didn't wait and just asked). I don't think Clinton got angry out outraged (or as you see on Fox News "crazed"), but he did get impassioned. Bush does this frequently in his interviews and speeches where he does a Q&A. It is easy to understand why he has been so infuriated, as there has been a lot of people who have been following a revisionist history to explain what Clinton did. Yes, he did fail, but it wasn't for a lack of trying -- it was for not trying enough. And, as Clinton brought up, the infuriating part is that the people blaming him now are the ones who attacked him for doing anything then.

It actually wasn't Clinton's fault for not trying enough either. He was advised by the CIA, FBI and military not to go into afganistan, because of fear it would just become a fruitless quagmire. This mindset was most likely directly caused by the fiasco that happened in Mogadishu, Somalia where the Black Hawk chopper was shot down by missiles and pilots taken hostage. They underestimated the enemy then and they didn't want to nake the same mistake again. Did the right learn from the mistake of Somalia? NO they went in guns blazing into the mess we are in now. I don't really blame them either, they are upset about 9/11 and that is certainly understandable. But now it seems like the right would rather just try to blame it all on Clinton, without much success, instead of coming together as a nation against a comon foe. They seem desperate and it's tragic and sad, but the reality of the situation is that military solution may just be an oxymoron in this case. Staying the course when it's obvious it's the wrong one through deception sure sounds a lot worse than cheating on your wife now doesn't it? I don't want to date the president I want him to run the nation.

 

[getbush]

Fox news doesn't ask republicans hard questions. Just like CNN and comedy central don't ask dems the hard questions. It happens on both sides. Everyone knows that.They should just drop the facade on either side and rename the stations Elephant Beat and Donkey Talk.

I really liked how Wallace said, well we got a lot of emails that want me to ask you this question, and i'm surprised. Like hell he was surprised. They had that script ready to go before Clinton even agreed to an interview. They should trade fair and balanced for transparent, fake and biased.

I don't understand how anyone can tolerate the lies and deceit that this administration spews on us all. Does it not insult your intelligence? Clinton lied, it's true. Lied right to us about a blowjob, and he was wrong and look how the right reacted. Bush & co. lied to get us into a $317 billion and rising quagmire that has cost 3,000 families their sons and daughters, and you defend him, and attack those who have the sanity to question him. There is no hope for you. They all laugh at you behind close doors I'm sure. You've had your own wool pulled over your eyes for years now.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering 4-18-1946

This is what you get when you elect oil and defense executives into power.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Genx87
I found it hilarious Clinton called Chris Wallace a conservative hitman lmao.
You learn something new every day hahaha.

No surprise. As I said at the start of this thread, Clinton has been blaming everyone but himself since day one.

shadow: I'm waiting for you to show the evidence of Clinton's "War Plans" he speaks of, instead of attacking me.

Huh? Why would you be waiting for that? I never made any claims of that... 4 page ago you claimed Clinton didn't admit mistakes and I pointed out that he admitted it 3 times int he interview... it is obvious you didn't watch it.. good dodge!

 

[getbush]

I think you're underestimating the ignorance of the hard core bible belt. Pabster has probably never left Iowa, and he only watches Fox news You almost have to pity him. He can't see past the blade of grass hanging from his mouth. I've been to the bible belt. It's a scary place.

 

[piasabird]

Why does the President Clinton need to certify that a terrorist with an indictment from a US Court as a terrorist, is a terrorist. Clinton is a lawyer and an expert liar. Why would anyone believe anything President Clinton had to say?

 

[starwars7]

ah! fox had them take down the video, anyone have it or know of another way to get it, or possibly a transcription of it?

Thanks!

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: getbush
I'm neither a republican or a democrat, and I started that post with "share the blame". And then you quote my post and talk about the blame game and one side clamoring for higher ground. I hope this wasn't the most logical thing you did all day.

You say share the blame, but then each of your post seems turn into a bush tirade...so your objectivity is certainly suspect to me.

And who was talking isolationism?

Not you but certainly plenty of others who seem to think its a solution.


edit: Why are you hung up on my name? It's been my goddamn name since way before W got in office. It is an old email handle that is basically an abbreviation of "get a hold of or get in contact with Bush" - me And then it became an AT screen name.I told you once but I guess i'll have to break out the paper and crayons for you. You are so fvcking asinine.


You told me your last name was bush and did not answer the first name part.
I suspect you already had the paper and crayons out.


Oh and Bush and his administartion are a bunch of asshats. There is my political objectiveness for you. Give me a break.

There at least you are being honest now, that your just another raving I hate Bush lunatic.
I may be asinine, but at least I can spell administration.
If you want a break, Go to McDonalds.