Unless they have a goofy looking face, apparently.
Sweet Jesus, man! Someone does that and the blogosphere starts soiling itself with fear, Faux Nooze bloviators commence to shouting in righteous indignation, Shodan starts in with shit that (allegedly) happened six years ago and ralph124c begins claiming that his beliefs equal The Truth©.
In short, civilization as we know it ends.
Are you sure you want to be held responsible for that sort of chaos?
IIRC, that’s not too terribly uncommon for political figures to do. In some cases journalists agree to do it, in other cases they don’t. Personally, I don’t have much respect for journalists who would agree to such things. YMMV.
That’s a tough one, though, since you might never get the chance to interview that politician otherwise. I don’t really have a problem with it, but the journalist should make it clear to the audience if that is the case. Full disclosure is always a good thing.
I see. So the same people who criticize Bill for not doing enough conveniently forget that Bush failed miserably to be aggressive enough in pursuit of OBL after the worst terrorist attack on US soil in US history? This is after OBL had already declared war on the US as well.
Putting it in perspective what can we possibly call Bush’s failure considering the timing and the severity of the attack on 9/11, in comparison to Clinton’s actions?
If you want to play that game, then let’s make an homest comparison.
In the beginning of the video CW says the agreement was that if they spent at least half the time speaking of the CGI and the rest was open for any questions. That doesn’t exclude a complete review of the questions but from Clinton’s reaction I doubt it. If he saw them and then they slipped one or two in that’s dishonest on their part, but it worked out okay because Clinton kicked his weasley little ass.
BTW John, that last sentance is toward those who do make the comparision, not you in particular.
Thanks for the info.
That’s not how I saw it. I always consider it a sign of weakness when someone loses his temper. CW looked pretty composed during the whole thing, although I’ll admit I didn’t necessarily see “the whole thing”, only the clips shown on Harball yesterday. But it seemed like Chris Matthews showed enough it to get a sense of how CW held up. Chris Matthew’s “liberal” guest analyst defended Wallace, btw. I don’t know if anyone else saw that segment.
I don’t recall the specific details, but I seem to remember that it was agreed that half the interview time was to be devoted to Clinton’s initiative and the remainder could be anything the interviewer wanted to ask about. I’m sure that Clinton knew the likelihood was that the subject of bin Laden would be brought up and so he had all his (duplicitious) ducks in a row beforehand. And yes, smarting off about someone’s looks, shaking your finger in their face, and poking them in the knee while leaning forward and invading their personal space is a bullying tactic.
And as an aside: Thanks, Shodan. As I said in the post that you referenced, I never really expected the cited information to have much effect on the verbal blow-job that Clinton is getting around here.
To prove his patriotism, of course!
What? A “news” discussion show in the mainstream that presents a rightwardly biased version of events? One that slaps a “liberal” label on a creampuff commentator who is horribly out of his or her depth, all in the name of balance? What a surprise! If this keeps up, they might be able to develop some kind of humorous fake news show to mock this kind of thing, say maybe on a cable comedy channel.
That’s a million dollar idea, baby, and it’s all mine.
In actuality, maybe you should watch the actual video before making judgments. As it is, you’ve already apparently started a meme that Clinton made fun of Conventional Wisdom’s looks when he said he was smirking. A smirk, by the way, is a facial expression (transitory), not a physical feature (enduring). The things one has to explain these days. Sheesh!
Just speaking as a father, Mike Wallace is the guy I feel sorry for today.
What a stupid, lying bitch. I am so sick and tired of this administration standing up in front of the American public and deliberately lying through their stinking teeth, I could scream. (bolding mine) [
](http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf#search="9%2F11%20commission%20report") Liar got the memo and then did absolutely nothing about it until September freaking 4th! The 9/11 Commission Report goes on to say. . .
So the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission acknowledges that this administration did absolute NOTHING about al Qaeda for nearly 8 months. Nothing.
I don’t have time to sit and transcribe any more (I can’t seem to get my computer to “copy” from the source material), but the report goes on to say that, in spite of Clarke continuing to provide evidence linking al Qaeda to the Cole and urging action, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld and Bush all decided that ““tit-for-tat” responses were likely to be counterproductive.” Rummy and Wolfie decided that “too much time had passed,” and that the Cole incident was “stale,” so they didn’t push for action (see page 202 of the report, linked via the first quote in this post).
Condolieza Rice has some unmitigated gall to claim they did as much as the Clinton administration and deny they got the memo that the 9/11 Commission Report says they did. And apparently “tit-for-tat” is only acceptable when you’re avenging your father and promoting your own political future. The hell with following up on the atrocities committed as the previous administration was leaving office – “history [will] judge all the different finger-pointing and all that business.”
Lying liars is about the nicest thing I can think of to call these snivelling rats.
CW has physical facial features that give him the appearance of having a smirk. I’m sure that nervousness and perhaps an attempt to smile could cause this apparent smirk to grow wider, but it’s only a facial feature, not an actual smirk.
Indeed.
Well, I can’t prove that Clinton made fun of CW’s looks, but that’s the way it came off to me. You, of course, can’t prove that he was actually smirking, either. But there can be no denying that Clinton attacked CW personally in addition to answering the question. I can understand Clinton’s frustration with the question, but I don’t see that as a justification for a personal attack.
I don’t know if you saw “The Daily Show” take on this matter, but they did an awesome job of contrasting Rice’s statement that they received no strategy with her statements to the committee that, while they were not given a strategy, they were given a set of ideas and a list of actionable items! So, while they weren’t given a strategy, they were given a euphamism for a strategy.
These people are indeed outrageous. LEAN FORWARD!
So, those who spoke directly to your Morris Op-Ed piece such as:
and:
and:
Were doing what in your version of the world? Honestly, if you’re going to be a willfully ignorant person, disingenuousness is more than is required.
However, what do you believe Clinton could have done to solve this problem that the Congress would have allowed him to do?
He could have taken advantage of the numerous opportunities he had to kill or arrest bin Laden.
I don’t. It’s called being a human being. What someone does when they become angry helps define their character. Losing control because you lost your temper tells us something. Making wild accusations and name calling, or maybe saying FU to someone as our VP did. Making bad judgements based on anger instead of rational thought would be a weakness. Clinton did not lose control. He expressed his anger at the constant dishonesty and for CW and Fox being a political tool, and while doing it he presented facts and presented his arguments coherently. What he didn’t do was let CW cut him off and move on after delivering his partisan message. That wasn’t a lack of control. I think that was his plan all along. He is way to smart to not realize what he might expect. He’s too smart to let them get away with it.
Now we’ll see if the BS of “Clinton went ballistic” overshadows the factual content of what he said due to more of the same dishonest spin we’ve seen for years now.
I think it’s a shame if we as a culture see genuine anger as intellectual or emotional weakness. It isn’t. The measure is our ability to remain rational when we feel and express that anger.
Excellent! No doubt the proof is at your fingertips! Bring!