The complaint that I was responding to was that he hadn’t asked any Bush officials about lack of response for the Cole incident. As I already noted, he has asked at least one Bush official (Rumsfeld) about not doing more pre-9/11 to go after al Qaeda. AFAIK, CW has never interviewed Bush himself, so I don’t think he’s had the opportunity to ask him that question directly-- if that is what you are implying.
How dare you insult John F. Kennedy’s memory by lumping him in with that sleazebag!?
JFK didn’t lie with virtually every word out of his mouth; use Massachusetts state troopers to procure “bimbos” who he sexually assaulted and then tried to destroy the lives of; get involved in illegal/unethical business deals; commit perjury; stay up all night pardoning felons for monetary gain and/or to pay off political favors; etc., etc., ad infinitum.
There’s much more to Clinton’s lack of character than cigars and Monica. :rolleyes:
That was my impression, yes.
While we’re on something like common ground, I invite your attention to the high irony of the fact that for something like four years, nearly every thread about Bush has been hijacked by the Other Usual Suspects (borrowing Shodan’s phrase with a twist) to point out the Nefarious Evils of Bill Clinton (cf. any of **Starving Artist’s uh, works of prose for details) – a thread about Clinton has been hijacked to talk about Bush. Le plus ce change, le plus c’est le meme chose.
JFK was an accomplished liar, being a politician, and all. He even managed to outlie Nixon, a gigantic accomplishment in and of itself. As a for instance, he campaigned on the crucial importance of the “missile gap” between the US and Soviet Russia, a desperately important national security problem that simply didn’t exist. He attached his name as author to books he didn’t write, claimed a somewhat dubious war heroism, etc. This is not necessarily to detract from his accomplishments, but they were rather meager in comparison to the myth.
Utter horseshit. Complete and utter horseshit, grade A, pure-D, weapons grade horseshit. You can’t substantiate a word of that. Not one. Go ahead, try.
Well, no. Being richer than God, he had people for that sort of thing. Surely, by now,you realise that the whole Whitewater scandal was complete nonsense? Please tell me the depth of your ignorance is not so great? Do the words “Arkansas Project” mean nothing to you? Check it out.
Not this again. Sweet Jesus, not this again. So far, that’s all you got, that he lied when asked a question he should never have been asked in the first place. Shirley you don’t believe that Ken Starr was on a non-partisan and noble quest for truth? If you do, take some drugs. Lots of drugs. Take them massively and at random, just on the hope that they might jar loose the mountains of crapola.
Just to be safe, next time you polish your shoes, have someone smell them.
Not Shoddy’s. I am entirely too modest to point out that first use of that phrase as a mild deprecation of one’s political opponents. But damn sure wasn’t Shoddy, who has yet to make an intentionally humorous remark.
The tu quoque is alive and well. Yes, it gets tiring.
Is that all you’ve got to compare JFK’s untruthfulness to the truly Olympian levels that Clinton acheives so effortlessly every day of his life?
I would think the so-called ‘missle gap’ would have been easy enough to refute during the campaign if it was such a blatant lie. Sounds to me more like a difference in perception. Anyone could argue either side and ultimately no one could prove the other wrong (kind of like this place).
And plenty of people have had ghost-writers; I’ve yet to hear one referred to as a liar as a result.
:: sighs :: You’re right.
I can’t prove that JFK didn’t use Massachusetts state troopers to acquire ‘bimbos’.
:: hangs head in shame ::
Well, it seems to have been legal; therefore I’m at a loss as to how it shouldn’t have been asked in the first place. We all have to go by the rule of law whether we like it or not, and the law appears to have been that Clinton could indeed have been asked about it.
Nope, I don’t necessarily believe it, nor do I necessarily disbelieve it. Fact is, I don’t care. If Clinton had done no wrong he’d have had nothing to fear regardless of Starr’s motivation. Now I’m not some Pollyanna pretending that there are people out there (and most especially moi) who lead totally righteous lives and never do anything wrong…but when you do things that you can be prosecuted for, it’s hardly the fault of the ones doing the prosecuting.
Nah! Makes me feel closer to you, luci. 
Next up: the difference between burro and burrow.
Daniel
*sniff * I miss Bill.
When you compare him with what we have now, it makes me all misty and nostalgic.
It was all Clinton’s fault!!
No, really. He initiated the comparison with Bush during his ‘hissy fit’ by asking whether the same questions had been asked of Bush Administration officials.
Bill Clinton Vs George W Bush.
There’s only one of the two I’d vote for to sit in the President’s chair again. (Bet he’d pay off the debt too. Again.)
Assuming you mean Clinton, that’s not true. During his administration, the yearly budget deficit fell to zero (and even ran a surplus), but that’s a far cry from paying off the debt accumulated from previous deficits. And the President does not set the budget single-handedly.
He done good, but let’s keep the facts straight.
Wait a minute. He’s a shitstain because he dared to ask Clinton a question about whether he did enough to catch bin Laden? Now, before you bring out the “when was the last time you beat your wife?” analogy (too late), keep in mind that Clinton agreed with the premise of Wallace’s question. As you can see from yojimbo’s quote, Clinton said that he didn’t do enough.
… So how exactly was the question unfair? By Clinton’s own admission, it didn’t assume anything untrue.
Personally, I think Clinton acted reasonably re. bin Laden and al Qaeda. I’d have liked for him to do more, but I don’t think anyone recognized the magnitude of the problem at that time, and I don’t blame him for not going after it harder.
But I certainly don’t think it’s unfair to ask him about it now. I understand why Clinton got upset – it’s not the topic he wanted to talk about – but I don’t think Wallace did anything wrong, and he certainly didn’t do anything to deserve Clinton going a little whacky with the “Fox News takes its orders from the GOP” conspiracy theory/red herring.
It wasn’t that long ago that people were lambasting the press for not asking tough questions of Bush. Isn’t this the role that we want them to have? If you’ve got the former President of the United States up there, then you shouldn’t just lob him softballs. Ask him a few tough questions.
So I think Wallace was just doing his job.
How’s the Koolaid, AQA? Wallace absolutely did NOT ask Clinton “whether he did enough to catch bin Laden.” He specifically asked him “why he did not do more.” That’s an explicit, un-gray-area accusation.
Watch the tape before you drink anymore FOX-ade, dude.
True, but his presentation was weak. He asked a particular question in violation of pre-interview agreement (i.e. 15 minutes would be spent on the CGI) because of pressure applied by e-mail? At the very least, it looks weaselly. At least when Mike Wallace asked Ayatollah Khomeini his reaction at being called a madman, he was clear about the source of the quote (Anwar Sadat). Further, Chris Wallace tried to make a show of trying to bring the subject back to the CGI as though Clinton was being comically unreasonable.
He did his job, badly.
But Clitnon chose how much time he spent on the answer. He could’ve done a perfectly good job answering it in a fraction of the time he ended up using. Surely you’re not going to suggest that Clinton was outmaneuvered on that by Wallace, are you?
No. Wallace asked a complicated question and Clinton gave a complete answer. When Clinton decided that question had been sufficiently answered, he went right to discussing the CGI which, though Wallace claimed he wanted to discuss it, shortly slid away yet again with “Let’s talk some politics” and mentioned Karl Rove. Clinton could have gotten re-riled, but he seemed more jovial about it. He probably felt good about the drubbing he’d given Wallace without losing his temper, as a lot of people seem (oddly) to think he did. Sure, Clinton got upset, but he never started ranting and he never threatened to leave and he never pouted or got sullen… what the heck does the OP of this thread think a “hissy fit” is, anyway?
Seems to imply that the Big Dog is ineffectual, or perhaps even effeminate. An amusing notion.
Heh, that is pretty funny. Kinda reminds me of the “Amendment-to-be” song from Simpsons:
It’s a funny lyric, more so when on deeper thought there’s no Senator less likely to be gay than Ted Kennedy, given his decades-long reputation as an uber-hound, with a generation’s head-start on Big Dog Bill.
Well, we disagree then. Clinton is famous for many things, and one of them is talking on and on and on. But if you think Chris Wallace outmaneuvered him, then so be it. 