An angry Clinton on Fox

corplinx said:
Of course you are right, that was the whiskey speaking.

If you can't see how great a politicion that Bill Clinton is despite how you think he performed his duties, then you are a blind man. He is a master politician. How much is a gallon of milk?
Click to expand...
He really was. I give him that. And I liked life when he was president. I did very well financially and it seemed that a lot of other people did also. There's some controversy about how much help he got from the Internet bubble and the surge in the economy that began a year he got in office but the fact is he didn't screw things up too badly, at least for me. I didn't vote for him but I'd like that time back.
 
Not to get all nostalgic, but I miss the two parties actually trying to work together on occasion. Shame that we were more united when we didn't need to be and more divided when we need unity the most.
 
Upchurch said:
Are you saying that Clinton's argument is an ad hoc or that he is arguing that the Republicans are doing an ad hoc, or what?
Click to expand...

It was offered for the limited purpose that you described - that is, to assert hypocrisy. I don't buy the hypocrisy argument necessarily but it was offered by Clinton for that narrow purpose.
 
corplinx said:
Originally Posted by Huntster
Ummmmmmmmmmm...............That wasn't Chris Matthews. It was Chris Wallace.
Click to expand...
Of course you are right, that was the whiskey speaking.
Click to expand...

Have another swig. It'll make President Clinton look even better.

If you can't see how great a politicion that Bill Clinton is despite how you think he performed his duties, then you are a blind man.
Click to expand...

He was a pretty good politician, but in all honesty, it was quite clear that the media gave him a free pass from the very start.

And his abilities as a politician didn't make him a good President.
 
Huntster said:
He was a pretty good politician, but in all honesty, it was quite clear that the media gave him a free pass from the very start.

And his abilities as a politician didn't make him a good President.
Click to expand...

Whua? Free pass? Clinton? What mind-altering substances were you ingesting in the 90's? Have you forgottent the giant parade of non-scandals that were breathlessly reported on all the alphabet networks seven days a week, even though none of them went anywhere? The way the media worked with the insurance lobby to kill universal health care? The medias constant willingness to float "wag the dog" accusations whenever Clinton did anything with the military? Free pass? Regardless of what you think of Bill Clinton as a politician, viewing his treatment by the press as anything short of "vigorous" puts you in woo-woo land.
 
Random said:
Originally Posted by Huntster
He was a pretty good politician, but in all honesty, it was quite clear that the media gave him a free pass from the very start.

And his abilities as a politician didn't make him a good President.
Click to expand...

Whua? Free pass? Clinton? What mind-altering substances were you ingesting in the 90's?
Click to expand...

None. Don't even drink whiskey.

Have you forgottent the giant parade of non-scandals that were breathlessly reported on all the alphabet networks seven days a week, even though none of them went anywhere?
Click to expand...

Thank you for driving the point home for me. They were reported on reluctantly by the leftist media giants after conservative outlets pounded on them relentlessly, and they were presented as "non-scandals." Gennifer Flowers was pooh-poohed during Clinton's first campaign, and there was a virtual parade of them forever afterward.

The way the media worked with the insurance lobby to kill universal health care?
Click to expand...

I guess I should be a bit more grateful to the media for those few pleasant surprises that they can deliver.

The medias constant willingness to float "wag the dog" accusations whenever Clinton did anything with the military? Free pass?
Click to expand...

During his campaigning? Regarding his sexual problems? You betcha. During his presidency? He's media fodder just like all the rest.

Regardless of what you think of Bill Clinton as a politician, viewing his treatment by the press as anything short of "vigorous" puts you in woo-woo land.
Click to expand...

Oh, ouch! What a painful blow you can deliver! I'm devastated!

I guess I should re-evaluate my entire being, everything I've learned, and everything I've experienced.

Pray tell, Random: What should I believe next. I need you to instruct me.

Lord knows I don't ever want to be accused of being in "woo-woo land."...........
 
Funny thing is that he could have honestly answered "Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida?" with a "yes." His administration may have missed the target, but they did identify the target.
It is one thing to arm chair quarterback and post analyze what took place, but I think going after a former president this way is disrespectful. Let me clarify, if there were new evidence of wrongdoing on Clinton's part, that would be another matter, this is just a partisan re-hashing of what we already know.
The sad thing is that Clinton went off on his "right-wing conspiracy" tangent. I've seen used car salesmen with more charisma and composure under pressure. Perhaps he is the greatest statesman of your time, but not mine.
 
I only heard clips on the radio and Clinton seemed to slur his words. Does anyone know if he takes medication or has any serious health issues? I am not trying to take a cheap shot here. But maybe he had a stroke or something?
 
It's roughly 45 days to election. Bill's the best speaker and best stalking horse for the Dems. No one can harm him, because he's not running for anything, so he can stand up and make whatever case he wants.

He is absolutely right about Chris Wallace's approach. It's Fox, guys! Would Fox be asking tough questions of BC and not of GWB? No, not my Fox! They're so fair.:p

Is it any coincidence that Clinton is out there brawling on this topic at exactly this time? Right after the ABC schlocumentary on 9/11 where these charges were made prominent? Just before an election? Oh, just a coincidence, I'm sure. Wallace caught him unguarded in the men's room at the Marriott? This was a scheduled interview. Hell, Bill probably told him ahead of time, "Heh Heh, Chris, don't mess with ma record on Osama - I'm gonna have to take you down if you do, ol' buddy!"

The traditional give-away to the GOP is the "who's stronger on defence" vote. The Repubs always get that faction. Now, with a lot of the middle-right angry over the direction the war is going, the Dems have a chance to actually stake out that ground. There have been recent polls that showed that respondants thought the Dems would do a better job in the war on terrorism.

Ergo, I think you have two forces working at once. First is any sitting or former president's concern with his record. Neither of them want to be "the president who didn't go after OBL". Second is that they're trawling for the middle-ground undecided vote, and the only person in the Democratic Party with a personality is Bill Clinton so he's going to be their stalking horse. After all, what does he have to lose? Staying silent would've let the Bush apologists have their way. Speaking up, he draws attention to the abyssmal record on the execution of the peace in Iraq and the hunt for Osama.

He can out-charm and out-debate the whole media, as he's proven innumerable times. It's a smart gambit from a cagey politico.

PeptoA: Do we really think he was surprised by this? From Chris Wallace?? He "cracked under pressure and lost his cool" just like Reagan ad-libbed the "I paid for this microphone" moment.... He was just sitting there like a cat in front of a mousehole with cheese on his breath, waiting for Chris to say anything that smacked remotely of his bad record on terrorism or OBL. Classic political gambit, if you aks me.
 
Cylinder said:
Actually, Wallace posed the same question to Sec. Rumsfeld some time ago. There's a link to the transcript in one of my comments above.
Click to expand...

Oh no! Another tenuous-apology-needed thread (see exchange earlier with Upchurch....). You're right. I'm sorry. Really. I am. (2.5 apologies, so I can bank a couple, right?):p

Seriously... I was exaggerating. Smileys are used for such things, generally.
 
steverino said:
I only heard clips on the radio and Clinton seemed to slur his words. Does anyone know if he takes medication or has any serious health issues? I am not trying to take a cheap shot here. But maybe he had a stroke or something?
Click to expand...
I saw it, and yeah he did seem to be slurring his speech. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt though, he has been traveling extensively lately.
 
This whole Clinton/Wallace exchange is why 9/11 shouldn't be politicized as it has. This is also why I didn't think the 9/11 Commission would do anything really useful. It becomes a political blame game, w/ all parties looking for that "gotcha" moment and everyone engaging in CYA.

It would be far more productive to worry about what is happening now and in the future when it comes to terrorism, rather than waste all these resources on counterproductive inspections of past actions in order to gain temporary political advantage.
 
Huntster said:
Thank you for driving the point home for me. They were reported on reluctantly by the leftist media giants after conservative outlets pounded on them relentlessly, and they were presented as "non-scandals." Gennifer Flowers was pooh-poohed during Clinton's first campaign, and there was a virtual parade of them forever afterward.
Click to expand...
I'll have what he's having!

Speaking of spin yet again, Random didn't say the media presented them as non-scandals. To my memory, both the politicians and the media took them very seriously at the time. They just mostly didn't go anywhere, because there was very little of substance to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom