Clinton destroys critical questions on Fox News

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

jesus...back to somalia...

I am not going to play leaping games through the entire 8 years of Clinton's presidency, he is not the patron saint of liberals (we have bones to pick with him for not building up the national party)

the bottom line is, if he was calmer, not instigated, perhaps he could have stated things more clearly and less aggressively, but all the points he made stand up, only if you nitpick and take things out of context like this was a state of the union address can you rack up some points against him

it was a home run by Clinton, and the facts are with him, Fred Barnes is part of the extreme right Republican machine and he had the transcript for days and he said NOTHING against Clinton on the facts, because he knew he was right

this reminds me of the WMD thing...the republican machine won't touch it because its BS but the extreme rightwing blogs will because they have nothing to lose

You don't have to play leaping games to see that Clinton has a bad military track record. Lost the trust of the FBI/CIA to lead our military and gave up on bin Laden when he had the authority to actually "try". Which he didn't do.

He didn't try anymore than the Bush administration.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

You don't have to play leaping games to see that Clinton has a bad military track record. Lost the trust of the FBI/CIA to lead our military and gave up on bin Laden when he had the authority to actually "try". Which he didn't do.

He didn't try anymore than the Bush administration.

To say he "gave up" on bin Laden is just an out right lie

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

To say he "gave up" on bin Laden is just an out right lie

How? The FBI/CIA told him his plan sucked and he said "ok" and ended it.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

How? The FBI/CIA told him his plan sucked and he said "ok" and ended it.

So you are saying during the election of 2000 he gave up? The CIA didn't tell him his plan sucked, they said the other countries simply wouldn't agree to terms that would help us...9/11 changed that, not Bush

Afghanistan is landlocked, you need secure bases

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

SThe CIA didn't tell him his plan sucked, they said the other countries simply wouldn't agree to terms that would help us.

So they said his plan won't work, broken plan = his plan sucks. That's what I said.

And yes, gave up. He may have talked the talk. But all along he had the authority to do something. But he chose not to.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

So they said his plan won't work, broken plan = his plan sucks. That's what I said.

And yes, gave up. He may have talked the talk. But all along he had the authority to do something. But he chose not to.

Drawing up plans = not giving up

If you remember he did do something, he attacked bin Laden and conservatives all called it wag the dog, they wouldn't back him up an inch, conservatives failed the country

Like Clarke said before the nation, everyone failed, to single someone out is petty and pathetic, Clinton didn't do that, he just pointed back at a general group of "right wingers" who critique him exclusively, he named no names

Everyone can watch the FNS show, the interview, and the fox panelists (with extreme right wingers) reactions and judge for themselves, theres no more need for me to waste my time here

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Drawing up plans = not giving up

Then I guess Bush didn't give up on bin Laden either...

Drawing up stupid plans and quitting the subject after getting embarrassingly rejected over your plan does not exactly qualify as a try. He could have revised, or he could have authorized action. He did nothing. He tucked his tail between his legs and let the situation go which arguably led to 9/11. He knew Laden was a threat. I'll give him that. But, he gave up trying to get him.

Through all your posts you still have not shown how he didn't present a plan and then gave up after being told it was stupid.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

To say he "gave up" on bin Laden is just an out right lie

He didn't get his chemical markers...

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

Just got done watching it.. to Clinton

I can't wait until we have a President who isn't afraid to admit mistakes and speak candidly about things like this again..

You're actually saying Clinton is the type of President that will admit mistakes?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by lew

You're actually saying Clinton is the type of President that will admit mistakes?

Certainly moreso than these current would-be-kings..

No President will be willing to admit it 100% of the time, but this President and his closed inner circle, refusal to listen to outside opinions, no alternatives considered, etc, etc.. is certainly a step backwards in that regard.

[JaJae]

Malkin has a cute little video about this up:
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Slick Willie’s Day of Rage

[JaJae]

Here's the factcheck:
GOP.com | Republican National Committee :: The Bill Clinton Anti-Terror Myth Fact

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

Certainly moreso than these current would-be-kings..

No President will be willing to admit it 100% of the time, but this President and his closed inner circle, refusal to listen to outside opinions, no alternatives considered, etc, etc.. is certainly a step backwards in that regard.

Who brought up Bush?


I'm not defending Bush at all. But to imply that Clinton was a President that "isn't afraid to admit mistakes and speaks candidly about things" is a little bit ridiculous.

[Thorgrim]

I think its amusing that use direct GOP talking points...can I cite Howard Dean's speeches as facts now?

Anyway, I'll go through this once just for fun

No GOP criticism of wag the dog?
CNN.com - Cohen criticizes 'wag the dog' characterization - Mar 23, 2004
wrong!

bin Laden in Somalia?
We can classify that under the same claims by bin Laden that he has been defeated America in Iraq in 2004

al qaeda knew in 93?
National Review Online hit piece, and quoting anti-clinton republicans and one advisor who may have mentioned bin Laden's name

somalia withdrawal:
Rep Dornan called for: Now, get 5,000 men in there and get these Americans back and then get out.

Clarke is nonloyal?
this is a smear from 2004, and you can't use his clinton criticisms then say he can't be trusted, pick one

No terrorism plan?
No one has argued that Clinton was not the first president to have an all-encompassing anti-terrorism plan when there was no call for it, he did it on his own in 98

Didn't try hard to get bin Laden?
Airstrikes, authorizations for military actions, gave CIA ability to kill him, etc etc wanted plans drawn up for invading Afghanistan



All of those "facts" are a joke and EASILY pushed aside

[garbagemanlb]

So....so far the two sources refuting the claims of Clinton were Michelle Malkin and GOP.com/the RNC. Astounding.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

So....so far the two sources refuting the claims of Clinton were Michelle Malkin and GOP.com/the RNC. Astounding.

Well why would liberals want to refute him? That's why we have checks and balances. Republicans CAN find facts you know

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Well why would liberals want to refute him? That's why we have checks and balances. Republicans CAN find facts you know

sure they can find them.. but can they avoid spinning them so that they sound like something they aren't? probably not.

all politicians do that.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

sure they can find them.. but can they avoid spinning them so that they sound like something they aren't? probably not.

all politicians do that.

Ah, the beauty of bloggers and the internet. Now everything politicans say is checked, rechecked, and re-rechecked.

[Thorgrim]

Asked about Clinton's complaint, a Fox spokeswoman pointed to Wallace's interview two weeks ago with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Wallace pressed her about the lack of prewar ties between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but he did not ask about U.S. efforts against bin Laden before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Carson noted that the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole was officially linked to al-Qaeda after Bush took office.

^^ too bad Clinton didn't know that before hand he could have brought it up

[lew]

Just to make it clear: the "conservatives" Clinton was criticizing in the interview that criticized him going after bin Laden were neocons. Wolfowitz and the like.