I watched the whole thing. Clinton did a very good job answering the question, but he did attack CW personally. Besides the smirk comment, there’s the one about CW doing a conservative hit job, and there was one about CW (paraphrased) sitting there thinking he is so clever.
I have no idea if it was disingenous or not. I wouldn’t be surprised if he got lots of e-mails asking him that question. Many of FoxNews viewers are conservative (you’ve probably hear that), so why is it so strange? What makes you say that The Looming Tower is a partisan book? I haven’t read it, but the author is a staff writer at The New Yorker-- hardly a bastion of conservative partisans.
I’m sure you think you’re sure, but you’re only speculating.
I was wondering when someone from either side would remember that.
Clinton, being a former president, can afford to be more forthright about his successes and failures than a sitting president, and I admit when I made my first comment in this thread, it was because Clinton came as more direct and honest than Bush, which is unfair because Bush is being forced to be just as weaselly as Clinton himself was at times during 1993-2001.
That said, the level of nitpickery in the way some posters in this thread have tried to prove Clinton wrong (finger-pointing? Leaning in? Give me a break) is greatly outweighed by the valid criticisms of the history-rewriting performed by ABC, embraced by Fox, and crushed by Clinton. Getting Osama in Afghanistan (indeed just getting to Afghanistan) is not the casual stroll around the park implied to be something Clinton was too lazy and fries-filled and intern-smoking to attempt; OBL is surrounded by followers and those sympathetic to his goals, many of whom live in the northern Pakistan region necessary to cross for any significant incursion. It’s only in Clancy-esque fiction that a President can make one phone call and have anyone in the world eliminated. I’d like to see Shodan, or anyone really, address my question of post #166. In the interest of disclosure, I’m inclined to disregard any answer that suggests my defense of Clinton is a partisan one (or at least partisan to the point where I’d overlook facts to defend my “boy”), in light of my circa 2002 defenses of Bush, during a time when I was arguing for the invasion of Iraq for reasons that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and criticizing posters for resorting to the childish ad hominem nickname “Shrub.”
Or perhaps snatch their papers in a forceful manner, roll them into a tube-like shape and thwack them on the nose and say, “Shame on you! Shame! Bad boy! Outside!”
Your cite actually fails to support your claim, which was (emphasis mine):
The GAO report actually says
Additionally,
So some lame-ass pranks that seem to be a staple of departing staffmembers when transitioning to a new administration are now classified as “stuff [Clinton] thinks he got away with,” even without any evidence whatsoever that Bill Clinton himself had anything to do with the pranks.
Airblairxxx, the administration was actually pissed off that the GAO didn’t go far enough to smear the departing Clinton administration. They were pissed that hearsay “evidence” wasn’t included, that it didn’t name names or include the alleged content of graffiti, messages and signs which there was no longer any direct evidence to support. Their whiney complaints about the content of the report start on page 21 of the report (page 24 of the .pdf). Don’t read it unless you want to puke.
I think it’s completely unreasonable to say Clinton should’ve invaded Afghanistan. I can’t see that Congress would’ve authorized it or that we could’ve gotten the cooperation of surrounding countries even if they did authorize it. In that sense, 9/11 did change everything.
But one needn’t invade Afghanistan to kill ObL. It’s possible that either Clinton or Bush could have tried to bomb his compound prior to 9/11/01, although there’s no guarantee that ObL would have been there. We could’ve tried to get actionable intelligence about his movements, but that’s not always relaible. Remember last year when we “knew” Zawahiri was going to be in that village in Pakistan, and we bombed it? Well, turns out he wasn’t there afterall.
And who knows if killing ObL would’ve done all that much damage anyway. Al Qaeda had an extensive system of training camps in Afghanistan, and we’d need to take those out to really deal a blow to that organization. But I doubt we could have done that without actually invading the country-- which just wasn’t feasible until after 9/11.
He ambushed Wallace?? Right. And when you watch a western where the Marshall rides into the outlaws hideout, they shoot at him and he shoots back, you must think the Marshal is a bushwhacking bastard. How dare he defend himself so vigorously. The prick.
No, Clinton could expect them to set up some kind of ambush for him but it was still* their* choice to shoot first or not shoot. Get the analogy.
What they didn’t like was that he was smart enough to be prepared and shoot back in spades.
I wish you could remember too because I’d like to read a transcript if it’s available.
Clinton made plenty of mistakes and lied on national TV. He shares part of the blame, because of some bad judgement calls. As I said before, I think those that took the focus off the serious issues of the day and spent so much money energy and time on the Monica thing did a much greater disservice to the country. For whatever role the media played in that rather they deserve some criticism as well. We don’t need our journalist to become tabloid style reporters. Leave that to the Enquirer Someone should have had the balls to say that Monica wasn’t that important.
If I drink every night and cheat on my wife and gamble to boot it shouldn’t matter to my employer if I do my job well. If someone purposely reveals that info in an attempt to get me fired then I’d call that person a scum sucking weasel.
How did you feel when the press revealed the Bush DUI just prior to the election? Was it relevant?
I’m only going to respond to the section I bolded because the other stuff doesn’t seem related to his job as president. I can honestly say I don’t know if any of that is true or not. It’s just not what we’re talking about.
The evidence seems to suggest that he did do something regardless of your post. The question about whether he did enough is debatable, and since he himself said he didn’t we’ll leave it at that.
If you hate Clinton for his failed effort how do you feel about Bush’s inaction in Dec 2001? In the wake of 9/11 we could have drawn and quartered OBL in the town square without much political fallout. Why did he hesitate?
If you hate Clinton for being dishonest for the sake of political expediency then you must utterly despise this admin.
try to use the same measureing stick for both and see what you come up with.
Yeah, there would have been a very different response if Wallace had asked about the “White House trashing”. The Big Dog would have laughed in his face, like we all would have.
Thanks for that. I remember that being on the news and thought the whole thing was pretty distasteful. Petty vandalism on keyboards is not very grownup or professional but pretty believable. A few stolen items as well. Anybody got a Holiday Inn Towel?
Spending A boatload of money to blow it out of proportion for political gain is a worse offense IMHO. Fits the pattern though.
What’s “fair” got to do with it? Journalists almost always try to be provocative in these types of situations. Why didn’t Clinton do more? It’s not a bad question, and Clinton did an excellent job answering it. I doubt that most Americans know exaclty what Clinton did and what he didn’t do, and Clinton gave them a good education. Too bad it discracted them from talking more about the global initiative, but Clinton could’ve dismissed the question if he really wanted to and insisted that they talk about the designated topic first.
You wear your disingenuousness like a badge of honor or something. You can highlight the “if”, make it bold, underline it and put it in 73-point font if you want. But shifting the goalpost to the word “if” doesn’t negate the fact that you alleged that Bill Clinton was involved by concluding that sentence with “. . . and the rest of the stuff he thinks he got away with,” and then following it up with an asterisk declaring the supposed truth of it.
The “if” in that sentence is really entirely irrelevant to the allegation you were actually making – that Bill Clinton might throw more of a hissy fit were he asked about his participation in White House vandalism, amongst other things “he got away with.” And since your cite doesn’t even alledge that he had anything to do with it, it hardly supports your contention that “he got away with it,” either.
What you have said is proveably false with your very own cite as evidence. Sucks when that happens, doesn’t it?
And then the usual gang would say he ran away from the question because he didn’t have an answer. If people in this situation are “reasonable” it is considered as another case of liberal wimpiness. If they are aggressive then it’s having a hissy fit or being a bully. I’ll pick aggressive any day.
It looks like the new marching orders are to divert attention from Afghanistan and Iraq by blaming everything on Clinton again. Wallace looked like a willing participant, so he deserved what he got. You think the Fox News memos of how to cover stories have stopped or something?
With respect to the alleged White House trashing- even if true, how would such an act compare to lying to start a war that kills thousands of people? Sort of like comparing jaywalking to mass murder? There’s a lot of army families who would gladly peel the W off every one of their keyboards to get back the lives that Bush stole from them. Keep it in perspective. Even if true, it’s only a series of small pranks.
I thought “fair” was half of Fox News’ motto, coupled with “balanced.”
Voyager already addressed it and he’s right - had Clinton giving anything less than a thorough response, many people would be saying “Walled pwned Clinton” instead of “Clinton lost it”.
There is very little debate, here, and most of what passes for debate in this thread is simply quibbling used to mask personal animosity (against former and sitting presidents and against other posters).
At the risk of making this the most-moved thread in recent history, I’m sending it off to the Pit where you folks can enjoy yourselves.
Well, that’s just fucking great, our goddam Great Debate gets shucked off into the cocksuking Pit just 'cause a bunch of goat felching Tighty Righty shitasses can’t mind thier fucking manners and behave!