# Bill Clinton Has a Hissy fit! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 25, 2006, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067 "2006-09-25T14:24:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/401 "2006-09-29T23:48:33Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I was being fecetious. [/QUOTE] So was I. šŸ˜ƒ ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/402 "2006-09-29T23:50:56Z")
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99] So was I. šŸ˜ƒ [/QUOTE] Or, less alarmingly, I was being f **a** cetious. Remember, it has \*_all_ the vowels, and in order. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2006, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/403 "2006-09-30T00:06:18Z")
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99] It was an ambush, because as phrased it allowed Wallace to pretend that he had an understanding of what had been done, which he did not have (or at least did not demonstrate). [/quote] So in order to ask the question, Wallace had to pass some kind of test? Or did he just have to list all the things that Clinton did to catch ObL in his question? Because wouldnā€™t that actually be _answering_ the question, not _asking_ it? In fact, we have no idea from the question whether Wallace was intimately familiar with Clintonā€™s actions, or if heā€™d never heard the name Osama bin Laden before and was just reading it off an email. So I doubt that Clinton got angry because Wallace didnā€™t know what he was talking about, because thereā€™s no way Clinton could have known how much Wallace knew about the subject. Unless Clinton had some kind of ESP, but I kind of doubt that. I humbly submit that if you see ignorance in the question asked, then your view is being tainted by preconceived biases against Fox News and its reporters. Because thereā€™s nothing in the question that suggests that Wallace didnā€™t know what he was talking about. > [@](#): > > Embedded in the phrasing _ā€œWhy didnā€™t you do more?ā€_ is the accusation that he had The Big Book of Catchinā€™ Osama, that he just couldnā€™t be bothered to crack open. No, it isnā€™t. The question assumes that Clinton didnā€™t do enough, which Clinton admitted. Clinton also admitted that the question was fair. Personally, I think people are sticking up for Clinton when they donā€™t really need to. I think he answered the question fairly well, albeit with more ire than I would have expected, and he trailed off with the conspiracy theories on Fox News. But overall, I think people are making excuses when none are needed. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2006, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/404 "2006-09-30T01:20:24Z")
More interesting than Olbermannā€™s opinion is some actual _reporting_ of his. Rising to Clintonā€™s challenge, [he boldly takes MSNBC where no FOX has gone before](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15046240), and asked what Bush was doing for those first eight months. Seems a number of Dems already had a post-9/11 mindset well before 9/11: > [@](#): > > Until September 11, even when Mr. Bush was asked about the Cole, an attack carried out on water by men in a boat, he offered a consistent prescription for keeping America safe, one he reiterated upon taking office. > > (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) > > BUSH: To protect our own people, our allies and friends, we must develop and we must deploy effective missile defenses. > > (END VIDEO CLIP) > > OLBERMANN: Democrats, who controlled the Senate, warned that his focus was misplaced. > > (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) > > SEN. CARL LEVIN (D): Iā€™m also concerned that we may not be putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security and to the security of our forces deployed around the world, those asymmetric threats, like terrorist attacks on the U.S.S. Cole on our barracks and our embassies around the world, on the World Trade Center. > > (END VIDEO CLIP) > [@](#): > > OLBERMANN: On September 10, 2001, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California requested a meeting with Vice President Cheney to press the case for aggressive counterterrorism measures. She is told Mr. Cheney will need some time to prepare first, six months. Maybe _that_ā€™s why the GOP puts so much blame on Clinton - here Cheney needs six months to prepare _to meet with a senator_. How could they possibly do anything about bin Laden in under eight months?? _Ce nā€™est possible._ Speaking of Osama: > [@](#): > > But while it has become conventional wisdom, although debunked by the 9/11 report, that Mr. Clinton dropped an offer from Sudan to hand over bin Laden, it is rare to hear anyone discuss whether similar but real feelers were ever extended to Mr. Bush. And it is, we suspect, even more rare to see this tape of the Bush White House addressing reports of such feelers in February 2001, after the government knew al Qaeda had attacked the U.S.S. Cole. > > (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001) > > UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States drops its sanctions, and theā€”they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments (INAUDIBLE)? > > ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that. > > (END VIDEO CLIP) > > OLBERMANN: There is no record of any subsequent discussion on that matter. Canā€™t say Iā€™d heard of this before. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2006, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/405 "2006-09-30T01:25:56Z")
Actually, I do recall hearing this stuff. It was buried in lefty blogs and only we of the secular-terrorist wing knew or cared. For instance, the fact that Cheney had task-forced a committee on terrorism that never met. Knew that for a long time, mentioned it any number of times, nobody much cared. I donā€™t necessarily attribute that to partisan stubborness or media conspiracy, just one of those odd facts of mass cognitive disfunction. Something happens, nobody notices, something else happens, the shit catches fire. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2006, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/406 "2006-09-30T02:21:38Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] I humbly submit that if you see ignorance in the question asked, then your view is being tainted by preconceived biases against Fox News and its reporters. Because thereā€™s nothing in the question that suggests that Wallace didnā€™t know what he was talking about.No, it isnā€™t. The question assumes that Clinton didnā€™t do enough, which Clinton admitted. Clinton also admitted that the question was fair. [/QUOTE] I think Clinton referred to it as a _legitamate_ question, if it was asked of all those involved including the current admin. He also said the reason it was asked everywhere he went is because the right had launched a campaign to present the dishonest idea that he could have stopped OBL if he had tried. It was that dishonest campaign and CW playing into it that pissed him off. The point he stressed was although I didnā€™t get him at least I tried. The people who plotted to create this false impression had an opportunity to try and didnā€™t, so be a real reporter, {for a change} and ask them the same question. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2006, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/407 "2006-09-30T03:29:40Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] I think Clinton referred to it as a legitamate question, if it was asked of all those involved including the current admin. [/quote] Yes, he said it was a ā€œlegitimateā€ question. Youā€™ll have to explain to me what the difference is between a ā€œfairā€ question and a ā€œlegitimateā€ question in the current context. But he didnā€™t say it was legitimate if they asked it of Bush. He just suggested that it should be asked of Bush, too. As quoted below: > [@](#): > > WALLACE: I want to ask a question. You donā€™t think thatā€™s a legitimate question? > > CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question, but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. > [@cosmosdam](#): > > He also said the reason it was asked everywhere he went is because the right had launched a campaign to present the dishonest idea that he could have stopped OBL if he had tried. Some people seem to have that impression, but thatā€™s not what the question assumed. The question merely assumed that he didnā€™t do enough to catch bin Laden. And Clinton admitted that was true. > [@cosmosdam](#): > > The people who plotted to create this false impression had an opportunity to try and didnā€™t, so be a real reporter, {for a change} and ask them the same question. Iā€™ve got to admit, I thought that was one of his weaker arguments. First of all, the 9/11 Report suggested that neither Clinton nor Bush went after bin Laden as hard as they could have. So thereā€™s some question as to whether it was a false impression, especially since Clinton admitted it wasnā€™t false. And the White House werenā€™t responsible for the impression. Second, Iā€™m shocked that people seem to believe that no one has asked the Bush admin why they havenā€™t done more to find Osama Bin Laden? Heck, it was spun as a huge PR victory for Dems when Bush was asked that very question, and he responded that he thought he was on the run and marginalized, so he didnā€™t spend that much time thinking about ObL (emphasis added): > [@](#): > > Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part ā€“ deep in your heart, donā€™t you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you wonā€™t really eliminate the threat of ā€“ > > THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if heā€™s alive at all. Who knows if heā€™s hiding in some cave or not; we havenā€™t heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is ā€“ really indicates to me people donā€™t understand the scope of the mission. > > Terror is bigger than one person. And heā€™s just ā€“ heā€™s a person whoā€™s now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. Heā€™s the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is ā€“ as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide ā€“ if, in fact, heā€™s hiding at all. > > So I donā€™t know where he is. You know, I just donā€™t spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. Iā€™m more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did. > > And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. Thereā€™s going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and Iā€™m just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. Weā€™re tough, weā€™re strong, theyā€™re well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2006, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/408 "2006-09-30T03:54:10Z")
Youā€™re being too literal minded, suggesting that question b balances question a, tit for tat. Billā€™s point is that the question has not been investigated enough, certainly not by Fox News. Howcome Cheney forms a whoopity-whoop committee than never manages to meet? Howcome there was so much emphasis on missile defense in comparison to the threat of terrorism? Howcome the goddam cockpit doors were _unlocked_, when weā€™ve been having planes hijacked for forty years? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2006, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/409 "2006-09-30T05:35:58Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] The question merely assumed that he didnā€™t do enough to catch bin Laden. And Clinton admitted that was true. [/QUOTE] I quote myself: > [@Frylock](#): > > ā€œI didnā€™t do enough by definition because what I did do was not sufficient to catch himā€ is not really ā€œadmittingā€ anything. > > What would count as a significant ā€œadmissionā€ would be if he were to say something like ā€œGiven what I knew, there are actions I should have known to undertake, which I did not undertake.ā€ Or something like that. > > Anything like that from Clinton? If not, then claims that he admits he didnā€™t do enough are flimsy. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2006, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/410 "2006-09-30T07:26:35Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Youā€™re being too literal minded, suggesting that question b balances question a, tit for tat. [/quote] Thatā€™s not my suggestion. Itā€™s Billā€™s. He suggested that question B was legitimate, but it hadnā€™t been asked. Iā€™m merely pointing out that it has. > [@](#): > > Billā€™s point is that the question has not been investigated enough, certainly not by Fox News. But thatā€™s not what Bill said. Bill asked why it hadnā€™t been asked. So his point was that it hadnā€™t been investigated. And it has. To the extent that Billā€™s point was that it hadnā€™t been investigated by Fox news, Iā€™ve got to disagree with him. Iā€™m not a big Fox news watcher, but I find it laughable to suggest that they havenā€™t asked about Bushā€™s intelligence failures. This whole idea that Fox is a conservative news service certainly has no more basis in reality than the idea that the mainstream media organizations ā€“ the NY Times, the Washington Post, CBS News, ABC News, CNN, etc. ā€“ are overtly liberal. And the suggestion that it hasnā€™t been investigated enough is pretty incredible. Weā€™ve been investigating it pretty much non-stop for the past 5 years. Weā€™ve had the 9/11 Commission, Joint Congressional investigations, a Senate Intelligence Committee report, innumerable books and tv shows and newspaper articles and editorials and magazine articles, etc., etc., etc. What else do you want? Iā€™m sure there are some facts that weā€™re unaware of, but the vast majority of facts are laid out before us now. Now itā€™s just a matter of interpreting the facts we know. And what we know is that we didnā€™t see it coming. > [@](#): > > Howcome there was so much emphasis on missile defense in comparison to the threat of terrorism? Howcome the goddam cockpit doors were _unlocked_, when weā€™ve been having planes hijacked for forty years? Because none of us appreciated the magnitude of the threat posed by al Qaeda. Not me, not you, not the editorial board of the New York Times, not the Pentagon, not the Senate Intelligence Committee, not the CIA, not the FBI, and not the Bush or Clinton admin. I assure you that if Clinton or Bush could go back in time, theyā€™d both have paid a lot more attention to terrorism. In fact, theyā€™d probably have both sent the entire military after bin Laden, or done whatever it took to make sure that al Qaeda was ground into dust. We all would have. But we just didnā€™t know. And no amount of 20/20 hindsight or wishful thinking is going to change that. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2006, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/411 "2006-09-30T07:44:20Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > ā€œI didnā€™t do enough by definition because what I did do was not sufficient to catch himā€ is not really ā€œadmittingā€ anything. Wow. Iā€™m having a hard time believing that anyone typed this. Let me try to answer plainly. Admitting that you didnā€™t do enough is an admission that you didnā€™t do enough. President Bill Clinton is a former Rhodes scholar, and heā€™s supposed to have a genius level IQ. Iā€™m sure he knows that if the question is, ā€œDid you do enough,ā€ and he answers, ā€œNo,ā€ then that means heā€™s saying that he didnā€™t do enough. If he thought he did enough, then the appropriate answer would be ā€œYes.ā€ That wouldnā€™t surprise a 6 year old, so I doubt itā€™s a surprise to Clinton 'cause heā€™s really smart. And saying that you didnā€™t do enough _by definition_ doesnā€™t mitigate that at all. If anything, it makes it worse. There are times when spin can be really effective, but youā€™re working really hard on an argument that doesnā€™t pass the laugh test. > [@](#): > > WALLACE: Do you think you did enough, sir? > > CLINTON: No, because I didnā€™t get him. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2006, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/412 "2006-09-30T08:00:52Z")
_ā€œI didnā€™t do enough to cure AIDS because some people died of it.ā€_ As you see, Clinton has correctly read how high the bar of ā€˜enoughā€™ has been set. His answer is responsive to that high standard and reflects his acceptance of that standard, which reflects positively on him. There is no ā€˜admissionā€™ there. Clinton was not asked: _ā€œDid you take all reasonable measures, pursue all prudent action and act according to your best advice, dutifully avoiding any dereliction or negligence?ā€_ Had that been the question, the interviewer would have broken faith with Fox and asked of Clinton a question earning a ā€˜Yesā€™ answer. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2006, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/413 "2006-09-30T08:03:31Z")
> [@Rax Stout (heavily parphrased)](#): > > **Detective Cramer** : So you admit it! > > **Nero Wolfe** : I admit nothing. I state it. An assertion is not necessarily an admission, even if it is an assertion that oneā€™s own efforts did not yield the optimum results. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2006, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/414 "2006-09-30T10:18:41Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Actually, I do recall hearing this stuff. It was buried in lefty blogs and only we of the secular-terrorist wing knew or cared. For instance, the fact that Cheney had task-forced a committee on terrorism that never met. Knew that for a long time, mentioned it any number of times, nobody much cared. I donā€™t necessarily attribute that to partisan stubborness or media conspiracy, just one of those odd facts of mass cognitive disfunction. Something happens, nobody notices, something else happens, the shit catches fire. [/QUOTE] I do remember the Cheney task force on terrorism that never met; heard about it a fair number of times over the years. But this nugget in the news from early 2001 that the Bushies mightā€™ve had an opportunity to deal for bin Laden at that time - first Iā€™d EVER heard of that. Be nice to see some MSM followup on that, even at this late date. Like Bill said, they donā€™t ask the Bushies the tough questions. Nearly three and a halr years later, we still havenā€™t had any followup to [Bart Gellmanā€™s remarkable story in the WaPo on 5/11/2003](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A40212-2003May10¬Found=true) about how our troops invading Iraq made no efforts to secure prospective WMD sites - this in a war that was supposedly fought to keep those WMDs from falling into terroristsā€™ hands. Everybodyā€™s so afraid to have their ā€˜accessā€™ cut off - as if that ā€˜accessā€™ is good for anything besides being used to spread the party line in the form of a deliberate ā€˜leak.ā€™ Iā€™m increasingly of the mind that the old media are unreformable, and ultimately some way will have to be found to finance independent reporting online. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2006, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/415 "2006-09-30T13:37:39Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] Yes, he said it was a ā€œlegitimateā€ question. Youā€™ll have to explain to me what the difference is between a ā€œfairā€ question and a ā€œlegitimateā€ question in the current context. But he didnā€™t say it was legitimate if they asked it of Bush. He just suggested that it should be asked of Bush, too. [/QUOTE] Before he even answered the question he commented on the context in which it was asked. That was part of his overall point. Itā€™s fair {as in reporter fair} if they are asking it of both parties. The goal for the pubbies is to create the impression that the Dems did not and will not keep you and your family secure. They do this by implying that Clinton didnā€™t really try much at all. The impression they want is that he had definitive chances to get OBL and perhaps prevent 9/11 and he was to weak. The phrasing of the question was chosen to support those false impressions. Clinton took the opportunity to fight back. ā€œI didnā€™t do enough because I didnā€™t get him, but at least I tried. They had an opportunity before 9/11 and didnā€™t tryā€ > [@](#): > > As quoted below:Some people seem to have that impression, but thatā€™s not what the question assumed. The question merely assumed that he didnā€™t do enough to catch bin Laden. And Clinton admitted that was true.Iā€™ve got to admit, I thought that was one of his weaker arguments. Thatā€™s taking the question out of context and just examining the question sure. Thatā€™s why he made a point to start by mentioning the context and also mentioned the smear campaign that put the question in the forefront of peopleā€™s minds. The question was planned to help continue the campaign. > [@](#): > > First of all, the 9/11 Report suggested that neither Clinton nor Bush went after bin Laden as hard as they could have. So thereā€™s some question as to whether it was a false impression, especially since Clinton admitted it wasnā€™t false. And the White House werenā€™t responsible for the impression. Sighā€¦please. The false impression is that Clinton did little or nothing while the fact is he did try and it was the Bush admin in their first 8 months that did little or nothing. Are you saying Clinton said the White House was not responsible for the false impression? > [@](#): > > Second, Iā€™m shocked that people seem to believe that no one has asked the Bush admin why they havenā€™t done more to find Osama Bin Laden? Heck, it was spun as a huge PR victory for Dems when Bush was asked that very question, and he responded that he thought he was on the run and marginalized, so he didnā€™t spend that much time thinking about ObL (emphasis added): Yes, That is well after 9/11 when heā€™s purposely shifting the emphasis from OBL and the imaginary imminent threat of Saddam to the global war on terror in which Iraq is so crucial. What Bill was talking about are questions concerning his lack of action before 9/11. Now those questions are being asked more than before so that Condi has to lie through her teeth in an attempt to refute BC. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2006, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/416 "2006-09-30T15:28:31Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] Wow. Iā€™m having a hard time believing that anyone typed this. Let me try to answer plainly. [/QUOTE] For the record, what you claim to be unable to believe typable is the following: ā€œā€˜I didnā€™t do enough by definition because what I did do was not sufficient to catch himā€™ is not really ā€˜admittingā€™ anything.ā€ Say I told you ā€œI havenā€™t become a Doctor of Philosophy, by definition, because no university has conferred on me a PhD degree.ā€ (I happen to be a PhD student.) Have I ā€œadmittedā€ anything to you? No, of course not. Iā€™ve simply stated a fact without there being any intent to ā€œadmitā€ some inadequacy. Have you done enough to fly to pluto, dig a well, and bring back the delicious green peanut butter that fuels its space stations? If you answer ā€œno,ā€ then, by your logic, youā€™ve ā€œadmittedā€ (recall, my point was about what constitutes an ā€œadmissionā€) that, among other things, you havenā€™t flown to Pluto. Is it really appropriate to call your ā€œnoā€ answer an admission? No, of course not. That means that, contrary to what youā€™ve argued, simply to say one hasnā€™t done done whatever it takes to do something is not to ā€œadmitā€ that one hasnā€™t ā€œdone enoughā€ to accomplish it. To ā€œadmitā€ that one hasnā€™t done enough is not just to _say_ one hasnā€™t done enough, but rather is to say so _with the understanding_ that one should and could (and could reasonably have been expected to) have done more. I see Clinton saying he didnā€™t accomplish the catching of BL. I see him saying also what amounts to the same thing, that the actions he did take were not sufficient to accomplish the catching of BL. But I donā€™t see him doing so with any understanding that he should (or could reasonably have been expected to) have done more to catch BL. Part of the very point of his tirade was to establish that people should be satisfied with the extent of his actions toward the goal of catching BL. Maybe he should have done more, maybe he need not have, Iā€™m not making a statement either way in this discussion. Iā€™m questioning your judgment that he ā€œadmittedā€ he should have done more. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2006, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/417 "2006-09-30T15:29:42Z")
That PhD sentence should have read: ā€œSay I told you ā€˜I havenā€™t done enough to become a Doctor of Philosophy, by definition, because no university has conferred on me a PhD degree.ā€™ā€ -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2006, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/418 "2006-09-30T19:41:06Z")
[QUOTE=Frylock] Maybe he should have done more, maybe he need not have, Iā€™m not making a statement either way in this discussion. Iā€™m questioning your judgment that he ā€œadmittedā€ he should have done more. [/QUOTE] This is beyond silly. Imagine this conversation: Q: Do you think you did enough? A: No. Q: Shuld you have done more? A: No. Q: WTF??? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2006, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/419 "2006-09-30T19:48:22Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] This is beyond silly. Imagine this conversation: Q: Do you think you did enough? A: No. Q: Shuld you have done more? A: No. Q: WTF??? [/QUOTE] Itā€™s not beyond silly. Imagine a situation where someone breaks a glass. Q: Do you think you did enough to stop the glass being broken? A: No, obviously, because it broke. Q: Should you have done more? A: No, because dropping a glass wasnā€™t likely to happen, and had I wrapped the glass in cotton wool it would have been much more difficult to drink from it. Seems like it could work reasonably to me. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2006, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/420 "2006-09-30T20:28:46Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] Itā€™s not beyond silly. Imagine a situation where someone breaks a glass. Q: Do you think you did enough to stop the glass being broken? A: No, obviously, because it broke. Q: Should you have done more? A: No, because dropping a glass wasnā€™t likely to happen, and had I wrapped the glass in cotton wool it would have been much more difficult to drink from it. Seems like it could work reasonably to me. [/QUOTE] Exactly. This is part of the point Clinton is trying to make when he says (something to the effect of) ā€œI obviously didnā€™t do enough, by definition, because I didnā€™t catch him.ā€ Again, Iā€™m not claiming Clintonā€™s right or wrong. Iā€™m just arguing that what he did say isnā€™t accurately called an ā€œadmission.ā€ -Kris [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067.md?page=22)