Hey. If you want to start a debate in this thread, go ahead. It could use the something like a debate to make it worthwhile.
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
I pointed out that he was lying when he claimed that he was criticized by all the conservatives for being obsessed with Osama Bin Laden.
I found NO ranking republicans making that charge, and only one or two that criticized him during the Wag the Dog thing. The majority expressed strong support for him
Anyway, I didn’t find anybody who criticized him for being obsessed with OBL, as he claims.
For that matter, I can really find no evidence of him obsessed with OBL. As far as I can tell he may never have mentioned him publically.
So, it’s pretty clear that he was just lying out his ass. What else is new?
Oh shit! We got moved to the pit?
See ya.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2006/09/the_truth_about.html
So, technicly true depending on how you define “ranking”, and I’m pretty sure I know how you will.
No such evidence offered.
Elucidator:
So where in that quote was Arlen criticizing Clinton for being obsessed with OBL?
Can you quote me that part?
(Oh, and Clinton said that they “all” criticized him for it, so I’ll be looking for you to provide quotes from “all” conservatives, neocons, bushistas, etc)
Or, you could save yourself a lot of trouble and a lot of weaseling and just admit that Clinton of the unusually long finger (now I know why girls like him,) was just lying his ass off.
Well, what did Rush Limbaugh say? Sean Hannity? Hugh Hewitt? What makes you think this is necessarily restrained to elected officials?
Lord love a duck, do you even know when you’re embarassing yourself anymore? Hell, you’re embarassing me just being on the same page.
Long fingers have nothing to do with it.
It’s how deep their voices are. Duh.
See what I mean? You can’t win a rational argument with an irrational person.
Shayna reads my posts, but she can’t “hear” them. So she argues with the voices in her head.
So, for the last time as far as this thread goes,
:shrugs:
Regards,
Shodan
Man oh man, Shodan what a dramatic exit! Divaville! Very impressive! You should do it more often! And sooner! Much, much sooner!
Hey, I’m doin’ my best, here, asking for evidence and reasoned arguments and whatnot. It’s a pity (Pit-y?) this got moved, though an understandable one, because it blows off any chance of thoughtful analysis of the interview.
Did any of them say Bill was obsessed with OBL?
Actually, all that I remember Rush saying was that the only reason Clinton would need to defend himself from “wag the dog” attacks was because he made himself vulnerable to them by his own actions with a subordinate intern, but if you think he said Clinton was obsessed with OBL by all means produce the quote.
What Bill said was “And I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden.”
That’s embarassing. As far as I can tell, nobody made that claim. Ever!!
I’ve been waiting since page 2 for somebody to produce such a claim of obsession, or concede that old Smeagol hands was lying.
Anyone? Anyone?
BTW, I’ll again state that I really don’t have any issue with Clinton’s actual actions regarding OBL as Pres. I think he acted pretty appropriately.
I’ll concede he was exaggerating, probably conflating this issue with the natural amount of Republican congressional obstructionism any Democratic president might face (or a Republican president facing a Dem congress). In Clinton’s particular case, I’d have to say the natural friction with Congress was at the high end of average. Somewhere in there, I can easily imagine Clinton getting hassled on some minor points regarding OBL and a decade later remembering this resistance as far greater than it really was.
Yes, I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt. If that’s a sign of unreasonable partisanship, please let me know.
This may be a smaller group than it first appears.
If we look only at “all the conservative Republicans who now say I didn’t do enough,” who are we actually looking at? (Note that the comma in the transcription may or may not have been in the spoken line.)
Actually, there is still room for a serious debate in GD. If it starts out with a serious premise and avoids the silliness that knocked this off track, based on the OP, it might survive for quite a while (provided a few emotional folks who cannot post except in terms of black and white and red emotion all over will restrain themselves).
I’m amused that, having read what Airblairxx posted, could still make a big deal about Clintonista WH vandalism on the way out the door.
Lessee: that’s the 'popping of the W’s - $4,650 (even in 2001, keyboards didn’t cost $75 a pop)
disappearance of 26 cellphones and 2 cameras - $2,769
cleaning - $1,150
TV remotes - $221
Other unspecified - $534
Total: $9,324
In a medium-sized operation like the White House where people aren’t exactly asked to account for a company cellphone every time they take it off the premises, 26 disappeared cellphones in 8 years is actually impressively low. TV remotes? Cry me a river. Anyway, neither of those is vandalism, whatever it might be. And $1,150 can easily be spent on a thorough, professional cleaning of an ordinary suburban split-level. Puh-leeze.
That leaves the 62 missing 'W’s and the unspecified $534 as the ‘vandalism.’ If they’d paid $20 a keyboard, that would have been a total ‘vandalism’ cost of $1774. Anyone who’s saying the Clintons trashed the place on the way out, well, don’t bogart that joint.
Aw. Don’t go away all crazed and in a hissy fit.
Yeah, but Newt Gingrich backed him up on this. As I remember it, the majority of Republicans backed him on this and disavowed the wag the dog thing.
Of course, they did so for political reasons. To support the President on this made them appear magnanimous, impartial and even-handed. They could point to this as evidence of fairness while preceding to crucify him with the Lewinsky thing and display the appearance of even-handedness.
That’s the way I remember it.
So, no, I’m not inclined to give Billy a pass on this utter fabrication. Your opinion may be different but it doesn’t make you unreasonable. I’d just hope you’d consider whether my viewpoint has merit.
I am willing to grant and concede everything you say, with the exception of the TV remote thing.
Have you ever not been able to find your TV remote and stayed up all night looking for it?
Do you remember how annoying that is?
No right-thinking Conservative would misplace his remote. Fucking liberals.
One day, jack-booted UN thugs in blue helmets will break down our doors and confiscate our remotes.
He also says: " All of President Bush’s neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden."
and: "They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn’t do enough said I did too much — same people.
They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in Black Hawk down, and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations."
Which isn’t really how I remember it, either.
And let’s not forget the poking.
The Dude was seriously off, though probably pretty smart. Doing something like this prior to the ABC movie puts his response to it in the public eye a lot more than if he hadn’t made a scene.
Fucking A!
WHy do you think all the conservative talk shows are on Sunday morning?
Liberals can’t find their remotes until noon. Let’s us operate under the radar and that’s the real reason we’ve been able to stay in control and win elections.