An angry Clinton on Fox

I was not trying to derail. I believe there was relevance to my original posting of Bush's encounter with King Abdullah because I was clearly supporting the following remark made by Jerry ex Machina in Post#10 in my post #15. The embrace and hand holding and kissing bespoke close family ties beyond what leaders of nations do to greet each other. Has anyone ever seen Bush kiss Tony? Or Pervez? Or Karzai? Now if we could also figure out what Bush's motives for grabbing Merkel were.

One might cynically suppose that Bush's close financial and family ties to the Saudi royal family and to the Bin Laden Group itself - not to mention direct support for Al Qaeda during the cold war on the part of Reagan and his administration - might have mitigated his desire to go after OBL. I won't make that suggestion here, but I'm also willing to take Clinton at his word that he tried to get the guy.
Click to expand...

But yes, it was also:

tongue in cheek

......so to speak.
 
Well, on the down side, I haven't learned much about the Clinton episode, although I think it was a calculated move -- mainly because Boxer (IIRC) has also attacked Fox during an interview. It looks to me like Clinton was either trying to show the party how he thinks should fight back, or that they've decided to coordinate it ala the attack on Wal-Mart. No real evidence for that, but I don't see Clinton flying off the handle that early or that easily.

On the up side, I did get to see some hot Man-on-Man action.
 
Quick question: a couple of things I have seen have indicated that Wallace brought him for the interview under the pretense of talking about that Clinton Global Initiative (I think that is what it is) and then brought up 9/11 instead. Is that correct? Is that the basis for calling it an ambush?
 
pgwenthold said:
Quick question: a couple of things I have seen have indicated that Wallace brought him for the interview under the pretense of talking about that Clinton Global Initiative (I think that is what it is) and then brought up 9/11 instead. Is that correct? Is that the basis for calling it an ambush?
Click to expand...

I have only seen third party accounts, but my understanding from them was that Wallace agreed to spend half the time on the CGI, and half on anything else.
 
I think Clinton is really frustrated with the accusations that he didn't do enough to catch or kill Bin Laden. There was a questionable docu-drama made by an industry that he probably felt was friendly towards him, and now people are talking.

While his administration did indeed fail to actually capture or kill him prior to 9/11, I again opine that it was classic bureacratic bumbling at several levels that caused that failure, he was probably just as frustrated with the situation then, and 9/11 changed priorities.

While he's certainly not my hero, I feel he's getting something of a bad rap here, and without a doubt the more people play these stupid partisan political games, the more we all fail collectively.

Unfortunately, since we are moving closer towards the presidential campaign season, this crap will get much worse before it gets better.
 
NoZed Avenger said:
I have only seen third party accounts, but my understanding from them was that Wallace agreed to spend half the time on the CGI, and half on anything else.
Click to expand...

Clinton's got no beef on that point. He's the one who wouldn't shut up on the topic, he could have made a one-sentence reply and Wallace probably would have moved on. And isn't it GCI (global competitiveness initiative), not CGI?
 
SteveGrenard said:
I was advised this morning by DARAT that my Post#15 in this thread was edited to remove the picture of President Bush kissing the King of Saudi Arabia on the lips.

This editing was done without explanation in the body of the message leaving only the words "No Comment" which by themselves convey nothing. I might construe that this was a deliberate attempt engineered by a frequent poster here to suppress the official record but I won't do that. I am not allowed to go back and add the URL of a source for the news
photograph(s).

Lest there be any doubt that many of such un-retouched news photos exist, and for the record, I refer readers to the following page full of photographs. You can find many more on the web as well, all taken from different angles and snapped seconds apart in the embrace.

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=Bush+kissing+Abdullah



I trust this Google Images website will not be censored or edited.

While I had no comment before, the reason King Abdullah and the President kiss each other on or near the lips is undoubtedly based on the close relationship between the Bush family + their friends and associates and the millions, maybe billions of dollars in business their associates at Halliburton and subsids and the Caryle Group get from the work they do for ARAMCO. The President's father regularly gets $100,000.00 fees from talks he gives to groups sponsored by the Caryle Group. For the kind of money involved here I am surprised that Dubya was only kissing his lips.
Click to expand...

Thanks, got it, saved it, transfering to a stored file shortly!!!:D :D
 
Ziggurat said:
Clinton's got no beef on that point. He's the one who wouldn't shut up on the topic, he could have made a one-sentence reply and Wallace probably would have moved on. And isn't it GCI (global competitiveness initiative), not CGI?
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think a one sentence reply would have sufficed. It was one of those "When did you stop beating your wife" questions carefully crafted to box Clinton in verbally. "Why didn't you do more to get BinLaden?" IIRC.
 
Random said:
Well, I don't think a one sentence reply would have sufficed. It was one of those "When did you stop beating your wife" questions carefully crafted to box Clinton in verbally. "Why didn't you do more to get BinLaden?" IIRC.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but those questions simply aren't equivalent, and your effort to paint the latter as the same as the former is pathetic. The former question presupposes some particular action which (generally speaking) didn't take place. If it did not, then the question is illogical, and no answer can suffice. The only thing the latter question assumes is that Clinton did SOMETHING to try to get Bin Laden - which, I think you'll concede, is both true AND is what Clinton wants us to believe. It is therefore not illogical in the least, REGARDLESS of what the answer might be (including the possible answer that there was nothing more that could have been done). And there are indeed answers which can suffice.

And I'll give you a one-sentence response that would have been sufficient:
"We faced a wide variety of threats to our security, and we tried to respond appropriately to all of them, but it's only in hindsight that we can know that we did not prioritize this particular threat sufficiently."
See? That's all it takes.
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm sorry, but those questions simply aren't equivalent, and your effort to paint the latter as the same as the former is pathetic. The former question presupposes some particular action which (generally speaking) didn't take place. If it did not, then the question is illogical, and no answer can suffice. The only thing the latter question assumes is that Clinton did SOMETHING to try to get Bin Laden - which, I think you'll concede, is both true AND is what Clinton wants us to believe. It is therefore not illogical in the least, REGARDLESS of what the answer might be (including the possible answer that there was nothing more that could have been done). And there are indeed answers which can suffice.
Click to expand...


Spin, spin, spin. They are equivalent.

Daredelvis
 
NoZed Avenger said:
It looks to me like Clinton was either trying to show the party how he thinks should fight back, or that they've decided to coordinate it ala the attack on Wal-Mart. No real evidence for that, but I don't see Clinton flying off the handle that early or that easily.
Click to expand...

And maybe it was the honest reaction of someone whom the Kool-Aid drinkers have blamed for the deaths of 3000 Americans for the last five years. Wallace's lead-in, that his viewer e-mails were making him ask the question, is the classic Fox "Some people say . . ." technique. That weasel phrase is a hallmark of the faux journalism which they have raised to something resembling an art form.

By the way, if you think Clinton's demeanor was "flying off the handle," you should spend the holidays with my in-laws.:explode
 
SkeptiKilt said:
And maybe it was the honest reaction of someone whom the Kool-Aid drinkers have blamed for the deaths of 3000 Americans for the last five years. Wallace's lead-in, that his viewer e-mails were making him ask the question, is the classic Fox "Some people say . . ." technique. That weasel phrase is a hallmark of the faux journalism which they have raised to something resembling an art form.
Click to expand...

I'm saying it. What amuses me is that of the two people sitting down, you accuse the interviewer of being the weasel.

If Clinton's rebuttals had contained an ounce of truth, maybe we'd be talking about how he was right as opposed to how he was childish. But we're not, because he didn't. Speaking of weasels.... sheesh.
 
daredelvis said:
Spin, spin, spin. They are equivalent.
Click to expand...

No, they really aren't. Even Clinton himself admitted that the question ITSELF was legitimate, whereas the one given by Random is not. I'm afraid you and Random are the ones spinning on that count. And rather pathetically so.
 
Dragonrock said:
Saying Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden but failed is like me going out the the corn field, throwing a rock into the rows, then going back to the house saying "I tried to kill the rabbit, but I failed."
Click to expand...
What about Bush? He threw a little pebble into the corn field, then forgot about it and threw a boulder in a field a couple of miles down the road.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom