Yeah, your belief. And as my dear, departed grandmere often said: Believe (or think, imagine, what have you, really) in one hand, shit in the other and get back to me on which one fills up the quickest.
Is this belief based on any real evidence?
There is a mention of spending the first fifteen minutes on his Initiative, Fear. So Wallace was breaking an agreement.
Correct. In fact, Clinton specifically brought that up during his smackdown.
Perhaps Clinton understood the topic for discusion was his initiative, but I doubt any credible journalist would submit questions in advance for approval.
ralph, I am going to do you a favor and concede it was a hissy fit. But let’s concede it was a factual and on point hissy fit that did not evade the question that put to rest the inanity of the inquiry. Much better, I think, than the controlled, lying, spin-doctoring, talking point, sound-bite spewing literati that grace the White House.
No, he very decidedly isn’t. See his comments upthread about having his father’s competency tested following his criticism of the Bush administration.
The agreement was that they would talk about the Clinton Global Initiative for the first fifteen minutes of the interview. Since the question about bin Laden came five minutes in, Wallace broke the terms of the interview.
The Clinton Global Initiative has raised billions of dollars in the last few years to fight poverty, study climate change, and improve global health, among other things. If that’s how he wants to secure his legacy, more power to him. What have you done for humanity lately?
I think it’s fair to call it a hissy fit. Yes, he did offer up a substantive answer, but all the while making very personal remarks about CW that were just uncalled for. Especially the part about CW having a smirk on his face-- that was downright cruel.
Cite? That’s as in “Provide proof or retract.” For clarity’s sake, reiterating your personal unsupported opinion does not constitute proof. No matter how many times you do it. Citing some right-winger’s blog is likewise not proof – unless it happens to contain factual information supportive of your opinion.
Oh, and “It wasn’t because bill cared anything about his answer…” is really nice. It’s like my saying “Dick Cheney and Karl Rove don’t care a damn thing about the American Constitution, system of government, and system of laws. They’re only useful for them in how they can be manipulated into getting right-wing Republicans into office. And obviously, since you and Shodan support them, it would be a logical inference from that that you two probably have equal respect for our laws and government.” It’s called poisoning the well, Ralph. If you’re offended about what I just said, don’t bother reporting it. I’m assuming the moderators can see the point behind my doing it. He who dislikes wearing dung and slime himself, should not hurl it at others, lest they hurl some back.
pets and sexual abuse? Wallace never mention Kathleen Wiley during the interview.
NOW THAT’S a HISSY FIT!! :smack:
In the Dick Morris link he speaks of a squandered chance to get OBL in 99.
Someone please remind me. Why did we have the best chance by far and what’s your understanding of why Clinton didn’t go for it?
Other than that, I find it intellectually dishonest for Morris to make the links from the first failed WTC bombing to the rest and blame Clinton within noting what the Bush administration failed to do during its first 8 months. If it’s true in hindsight that Clinton should have taken the first WTC attack as a sign and done much more , then what can you call the Bush admins actions after so much more serious and deadly attacks had taken place? Negligent? Incompetent? Those seem to be the mildest accurate adjectives.
What can you call Bush’s decline to commit more US forces into Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden in late 2001 {anyone know how late?}
Presidents dont have to secure their legacy. Time seems to do it. Nixon doesnt get the vilification he deserves any more. Exes sins diminish with time.
No iit is not fair to call it a hissy fit. Divas throwing phones at their underlings is a hissy fit.This was a vigorous attemp to react to the Fox bigotry. On the level of Shodan saying his sole motivation was popularity. What fine nuancing that is. Gays in military .How does that fit.?National Health Care. How does that fit?By
Some may not believe it but Fox is kinda one sided. It needs to be openly stated sometimes.This was a set up and he resented it.
One of the several things I liked in the Oberman response to the interview was his mentioning of who is responsible for the huge Monica distraction during the Clinton admin.
In discussions with friends about it I’ve made a similar point although not specifically about terrorism.
Something like this
Who did a greater disservice to the people of this country and their future? A president who made a bad personal judgement call and got a BJ in the White House, or the folks who, realizing they could not beat him on policy issues decided to focus on this personal issue. With all the serious issues facing this country and it’s citizens these people deciding to focus our attention on the issue of the presidents sex life for months and using millions and millions to do so. IMHO Both parties share some of the blame. However when the time came to choose what our priorities are these so called “leaders” decided that scoring some political victory based on a sex scandal was more important than actually dealing with the issues that affected the day to day lives of the citizens who pay their freakin salaries. It’s disgraceful. I realize it’s not really a new concept. I expect politicians to play some political games. It’s our job as citizens to realize when their games and their spin and outright lies have gone too far and they need to be thrown out of office. Concerning this admin, they are overdue.
It was Dec 2001-- Tora Bora. The military guy on the ground at the time called for a division of Special Ops guys, but that was denied. Who know if we would’ve actually caught ObL, but that was probably the best chance Bush had.
:rolleyes: Jesus. Pointing out that someone has a smirk on their face is cruel? Do you really believe this? This is cruel behavior to you?
Well, I guess if you’re so discalibrated that you can make such a statement, I can see where Clinton’s behavior might fall into an idiosyncratically-defined category of “hissy fit.” For the rest of the world, however, it appeared to be a smack-down. I think the problem is that you conservatives are just not used to seeing people on the other side deliver a smack-down, and thus find it shocking.
Here’s the message for liberals and democrats: When opposed by bullshit from conservatives, LEAN FORWARD. Apparently it is cruel and makes them crap in their pants.
It makes sense. It has been becoming more and more evident that they are a fearful bunch. So, lean forward. Gesture with your hands. Use a stern voice. They find it frightening.
Dude! Harsh!
In CW’s case, yes. He has that permanent upturning of the lips that gives him a goofy-looking face, like’s he’s always smirking. I think it’s cruel to make fun of someone’s appearance.
And in case of real emergency, and I mean you REALLY NEED TO PUT THE FEAR OF OG INTO SOME CONSERVATIVE INTERVIEWER…you may even want to touch their papers with your hand.
There’s nothing wrong with badmouthing sitting presidents, and why on Earth should Clinton have denounced Chavez?