Welcome to Tactical Gamer

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 36
Discussion: General Forums / The Sandbox - Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs - There no attack there, bro. My intentions were purely lighthearted. I was applauding your many
  1. #16

    leejo's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    7,839

    Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

    There no attack there, bro. My intentions were purely lighthearted. I was applauding your many talents. Maybe you're paranoid?

    Q) Would it be ironic if you posted an implication that rightwing factcheckers are sociopaths then took offense at a subsequent post and objected to the ad hominem attack you perceived in it? A) No, sadly, it would not be ironic. Funny though.

    FWIW my first reaction to the Clinton tizzy was that it was intentional, and planned. Either something has gotten way under his skin, in which case the dems' prospects this fall must be even worse than I suspect (Clinton's instincts are sans pareil outside the republican party along those lines), or the whole thing was staged to achieve some purpose. President Clinton doesn't throw a hissy on national television just 'cause.

  2.  
  3. #17

    Beatnik's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Age
    36
    Posts
    4,432

    Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

    I didn't allege any attack, Grasshopper. I simply pointed out your M.O. and applauded its consistency in delivery despite being called out on it repeatedly. Bravo, sir.

    As for the Q and A, I didn't understand that at all, but maybe some wacky weed would help that.

    And I think you must be the paranoid one if you think that somehow Bill Clinton hopped into bed with Fox News to do what was supposed to be a report on the Clinton Global Summit (which Rupert Murdock did attend, conspiracy theorists), where Chris Wallace introduced the topic of Bin Laden. But I'm sure if Clinton demured and stuck 'on-topic' the right wingers would have trumpeted that as vindication of the fact that he in fact did nothing to try to capture/kill/disable Bin Laden. As far as something getting under his skin, and this is just a stab in the dark, but I suspect it may have something to do with a made-for-TV movie that aired recently.

    Here's a little thought experiment: What answer by Clinton to that question would have produced a positive response from right wingers? (hint: it's a trick question)

    EDIT: As a brief aside, and this is just wild speculation, but perhaps being baited to discuss the Clinton Global Summit and its many accomplishments (to wit, raising $7.5 billion dollars from various philanthropists), then have the interview switched to answer criticisms (as interpreted by a made-for-TV movie funded by right wing and republican agents) questioning his legacy, would get under the President's skin. Again, that's just a guess.
    Beatnik

  4.  
  5. #18

    Steeler's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NY
    Age
    33
    Posts
    2,965

    Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

    I'm willing to bet that if President Bush were to give, say, Wolf Blitzer a stern talking to, it would not be percieved as a hissy fit, but as a balls-out dressing down of an empty suit. But if Clinton gets genuinely angry at Wallace for propagating a Republican talking point lie, it's a tantrum.

    Clinton has had a lot of crap thrown at him, some deserved, most not (IMO). Regardless of the specific "facts" that will get tossed around, it's at the very least entertaining and refreshing to see him hit back hard. Whether it was calculated politically or not is up for the viewer to decide. I can't personally see an angle to it aside from defending his own legacy.
    In game handle: Steel Scion

  6.  

     
  7. #19

    USN_Squid's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,188

    Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

    Quote Originally Posted by Beatnik View Post
    I didn't allege any attack, Grasshopper. I simply pointed out your M.O. and applauded its consistency in delivery despite being called out on it repeatedly. Bravo, sir.

    As for the Q and A, I didn't understand that at all, but maybe some wacky weed would help that.

    And I think you must be the paranoid one if you think that somehow Bill Clinton hopped into bed with Fox News to do what was supposed to be a report on the Clinton Global Summit (which Rupert Murdock did attend, conspiracy theorists), where Chris Wallace introduced the topic of Bin Laden. But I'm sure if Clinton demured and stuck 'on-topic' the right wingers would have trumpeted that as vindication of the fact that he in fact did nothing to try to capture/kill/disable Bin Laden. As far as something getting under his skin, and this is just a stab in the dark, but I suspect it may have something to do with a made-for-TV movie that aired recently.

    Here's a little thought experiment: What answer by Clinton to that question would have produced a positive response from right wingers? (hint: it's a trick question)

    EDIT: As a brief aside, and this is just wild speculation, but perhaps being baited to discuss the Clinton Global Summit and its many accomplishments (to wit, raising $7.5 billion dollars from various philanthropists), then have the interview switched to answer criticisms (as interpreted by a made-for-TV movie funded by right wing and republican agents) questioning his legacy, would get under the President's skin. Again, that's just a guess.
    Oops, someone didn't read the interview. He was promised half the interview to discuss the Global Yadda Yadda. Clinton wanted to take more time to clarify his point on the first half of questions.

    And by the way, Wallace agreed with Clinton on the Path to 9/11.

    How exactly is this question a right-wing hit job? "Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President?"Especially considering the path to 9/11 movie controversy you'd think he'd take the opportunity to clear the air.

    I'm quite sure movies, books and hundreds of white house press corps questions have asked Bush the same thing regarding the period before 9/11. Are we saying those questions were left-wing hit jobs?
    New to TG? Start here!

  8.  
  9. #20

    Beatnik's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Age
    36
    Posts
    4,432

    Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

    Uh, where did I call the interview a right-wing hit job? Yes it is Fox News. But I don't see where I referred to it as a hit-job or even implied as much.

    I was simply answering leejo's question about attributions regarding the hissy/tizzy/response to Wallace's question. Please don't lump me in with whoever else is using the phrase 'right-wing hit job' as quoted in your second link.

    This of course is missing the point. The point is that after a false 'dramatization' airs about the Clinton's presidency, somehow Clinton is now culpable in 9/11, at least on Fox News. And an appropriately indignant response is characterized as a 'meltdown', 'hissy', etc.

    But this is the Sandbox, and we all know that minds don't get changed in the Sandbox. I'm just entertained that Bill Clinton can still strike loathing in the hearts of right-wingers after being out of office for 6 years, as evidenced by the conservative blogs' 'analysis' of the interview. Hi ho.
    Beatnik

  10.  
  11. #21

    USN_Squid's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,188

    Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

    Quote Originally Posted by Beatnik View Post
    Uh, where did I call the interview a right-wing hit job? Yes it is Fox News. But I don't see where I referred to it as a hit-job or even implied as much.
    Clinton did, sorry I jumped tracks on you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beatnik View Post
    This of course is missing the point. The point is that after a false 'dramatization' airs about the Clinton's presidency, somehow Clinton is now culpable in 9/11, at least on Fox News. And an appropriately indignant response is characterized as a 'meltdown', 'hissy', etc.
    I've seen this said a few times today around other places, and it just isn't true. There are no less than 6 books out there written since 9/11 that make the same claims. It's nothing new that's just happend since The Path to 9/11.

    I don't think any President should ever display such emotional immaturity, and it doesn't help his legacy that's for sure.
    New to TG? Start here!

  12.  

     
  13. #22

    Beatnik's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Age
    36
    Posts
    4,432

    Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

    No problem - I went through and watched the whole thing and saw where he used that phrasing (that part wasn't included in the clips I'd seen).

    My response was about why he got huffed up in the interview. If you actually watch the interview, it speaks for itself. I didn't see any evidence of emotional immaturity, but again nobody's changing minds in the sandbox.

    Oh, and I bet I can find at least seven books poo-pooing GWB's handling of the war. By the transitive property of book citations theorem, that means that GWB is 1/6 more at fault than Clinton.
    Beatnik

  14.  
  15. #23

    leejo's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    7,839

    Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

    Quote Originally Posted by Beatnik View Post
    I didn't allege any attack, Grasshopper. I simply pointed out your M.O. and applauded its consistency in delivery despite being called out on it repeatedly. Bravo, sir.
    Hey man thanks! It reads a little slimy but I know that's not what you meant.

    Ever heard of the little boy who cried wolf? A lot of times in this forum I feel like a villager who, when told *again* that the boy had cried wolf replies "yeah well that little lying sack of crap has been saying there's a wolf for years" and a chorus replies "AD HOMINEM!!!" or "ew that's a logical fallacy!".

    Thanks gang. I'm aware of this. But it seems to me that understanding someone's pattern of behavior, history, tendencies, etc. is useful information. Apparently this displeases some to the extent that they will accuse me of a logical fallacy but not to the extent that they will avoid personally attacking me. Funny, kinda.

    President Clinton has established a pattern of behavior. In the past he has been faced with outrageous allegations and he responded with righteous indignation. Later, we learned that he was lying through his teeth, and that the allegations were precisely true. Useful information.

    If his calculus concludes that Afghanistan is 1/7th as important as Iraq - without explaining how this is a problem! - then here's my calculus: Clinton had 96 months to do jack about Al Qaeda. Bush had 8.

    That's 1200% as much time.

    He also had 400% as many hints:

    Quote Originally Posted by HINTS
    Feb. 26, 1993: A massive bomb explodes in a garage below the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and more than 1,000 injured in the blast. Analysts cite some links to al Qaeda in the attack, though Osama bin Laden disavowed any connection.

    June 25, 1996: A powerful truck bomb explodes outside a U.S. military housing complex near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen and wounding several hundred people.

    Aug. 7, 1998: Two bombs explode within minutes of each other near the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The blasts kill 264 people.

    Oct. 12, 2000: Seventeen American sailors are killed and 39 wounded by a bomb aboard a small boat that targets the the USS Cole, a U.S. Navy destroyer refueling in Aden, Yemen.
    So yeah, I'm really feeling our boy Bill on this topic.

  16.  
  17. #24

    Beatnik's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Age
    36
    Posts
    4,432

    Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

    lol I was referring to the ad hominem use of equating the fact that I know what brickweed is with not being able to have an intelligent opinion on politics. Not with Bill Clinton.

    And I'm happy to fight fair and stay away from being personal as long as you extend me the same courtesy dude.
    Beatnik

  18.  

     
  19. #25

    Hambergler's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    HTX
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,708

    Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

    The elephant may not be dead, but it's smelling pretty funky right now.

  20.  
  21. #26

    Rick_the_new_guy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Virginia Beach
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,788

    Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

    Quote Originally Posted by Beatnik View Post

    Back on topic, my favorite quote from the interview: "But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is one-seventh as important as Iraq."

    It's funny because it's true.
    I am with Beatnik on this thread.

    Before they could even get into the conversation on all the Global Initiative stuff; Wallace brings out the big guns and throws a curve ball: " A lot of people want to know, 'Why didn't you do more to get Bin laden?"
    I mean at least give the first part of the conversation a few more paragraphs. lol.

    The question is ofcouse o.k.; It almost seem like the inteviews main objective was to ask this tricky question. The conclusion and after thoughts can only lead to Clintons failures. This is good T.V. for Foxnews wathcers. Granted I am a human and ever so biased, but me thinks that station was made (awsome profits) for conservative Americia to get some media broadcast satisfaction.
    Clintons only answer: "I faild."
    I belive Clinton was prepared for this. You do not go into the lions den with B.B. Q. all over your person and expect not to get the fangs.
    Being the cunny serpent that he is, Clinton handled himself well. Sure he was awakened, but his anger was not seen in his apperance. However, plenty of journlist (not on Fox news, lol) have ask the current adminstartion about why they did not do more to stop Bin Laden.

    Sadly, in the end, both parties and administrations have failed in destroying Ale Qudai. In every regard they have failed without question.

    In the late 1980's The American C.I.A. who helped the War Lords in Aphganistain repulse the U.S.S.R. left after the war was over.
    America left this ravanged poor country without an Embassy without anything, expect... a hole. A hole filled by a faction that could only find safe haven in a country that only existed because no one wanted to wage war with it. A country that was indeed devoued of any authoritive power.
    The seeds were planted in the late 80s and early 90s.

    thanks to Mr. Wallace we see what could have been done differntly in Clinton's term.

    Thanks to Mr. Clinton we see how Bush's admin could have done differntly in the months leading up to 9/11.

    IN the early fall of 2001, the world saw the near collapse of Al-Queada.
    Americai sent the C.I.A. back in to buy out the Clans and War Lords in order for safe passage; recon personnel; intellegaince; and arms to decap and destroy Al-Queada.
    The wound the U.S.A. put on Al-Queada was mortal. It was nearly slain.

    Yet, just like in the book, Interview With a Vampire, to kill the beast you must hake and slash and burn it to truly destroy the enemy. Letting the beast festure in its wounds and to allow it to rejuvinate is serious folly.


    This is what has happened to day 9-26-06.
    Never repulsed, Al-Quadia has returned. It is still a threat today as it was yesterday.

    I my be baised, but I believe both Presidents have failed their country in stopping this threat.
    (PO3) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Member
    (CPO) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Leader
    (LCDR) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Commander

    Squad Member pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...ad-leader.html
    Squad Leader pledge to their team:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...r-platoon.html
    Commander pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...d-leaders.html

  22.  
  23. #27

    leejo's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    7,839

    Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

    Obviously I don't see things this way.

    It seems to me that any discussion that envisions 100k troops scouring the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan presupposes that there is a significant strategic goal in them thar hills to justify the enormous logistical challenge of supplying an army in the mountains of a landlocked country. I can't even begin to imagine the expense and effort required to airlift all that stuff. It would be 9/11 times a million.

    Furthermore, and I hate Vietnam analogies but..., it seems to me that we're dealing with the same situation that occurred when the NVA started darting in and out of Cambodia and Laos. We *could* have left SH in power in Iraq, or merely killed him when we caught him and immediately pulled out, or something, instead diverting all those resources into Afghanistan, but honestly what would that have accomplished when anyone who wishes can dart back into Pakistan?

    Shall we invade Pakistan? We may wind up doing that.

    It seems to me that the Iraq experiment is our best shot at ending this Islamic terror threat without having to kill millions. Either democracy will spread faster than the radical wing of Islam, and things will settle down, or radical Islam will defeat this effort and we will find ourselves eventually in a more nearly total war between Islamic nations and everyone else.

    Maybe Iraq was a bad idea, but I think ultimately it will be seen as a merciful idea and worth a shot. This focus on Afghanistan, though, is misguided. The goal was never to eliminate Al Qaeda there but to eliminate the government that gave them shelter. Eliminating Al Qaeda is a special forces task, not Corps tasks. Corps provide the environment in which special ops can operate freely, but sticking a soldier on every square foot of the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan is about as stupid a military idea as I can imagine.

    If you do some searching, you will find a number of quotes from late 2001 by high-level democratic leaders who were ready to wrap things up in Afghanistan and move on to the next target in the GWOT. This fixation on Afghanistan has evolved as democrats have struggled to find a way to appear strong on defense and make Bush and the republican party appear weak, or misguided, on defense.

    IMO it's a stunt to try to win an election, not a serious strategy.

    We could have sent every soldier we had into that country to hunt UBL, and Mr. BL could have ridden a donkey into Iran and hopped on a boat to wherever, and the same people would be making the exact same complaint about this administration's incompetence for its focus on Afghanistan.

  24.  

     
  25. #28

    Rick_the_new_guy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Virginia Beach
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,788

    Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

    Wow, our ways of looking at the world politically and tactically are so different.
    That’s cool, we need diversity in engaging such a task in the war on terror.

    The one thing I do agree with is that Pakistan is a sanctuary for the Taliban and A.Q. Much of the high brass were located in this country weeks before their massive assault in 2001.
    This sanctuary is indeed the best thing A.Q. has for it.

    Here is were we disagree on the abilities of the enemy in Afghanistan.
    The enemy was severely damaged and repulsed; however 5 years later they have rallied back. Granted such a small faction cannot be terminated to the man. However, I believe that if the U.S. kept the pressure on the Taliban and AQ, they would no way be as strong as they are today. Let me make my self clear, I believe that logistically the U.S. could have kept the enemy suppressed and negated as they were in late 2001 and early 2002 if the U.S. focused on this these last few years. I also believe that if today the U.S. brought in a large surge of warriors, they could repulse the enemy once again. With billions of dollars spent a year (The UN is not in the price equation), the U.S. could keep this up for decades. With time and good will toward the Afghan people they may forget the Talban for good. Push them into Pakistan and let them rot there.
    Winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people are included in this equation, I do not know if the U.S. has failed in this endeavor. One thing is for sure, the enemy is doing a good job in recruiting warriors.

    I am glad that you brought up the political maneuvers. I agree that the Demos will use Afghanistan and Iraq as leverage to attempt to win votes. Sadly due to this the Federal Administration will not increase troop numbers in both of these countries. Meaning, that in Iraq and Afghanistan there will not be a large increase in troops from now until next spring. The election is in November right? If the Administration does announce an increase troops before then, the Democrats will say: “See, I told you so, this guy does not know what he is doing! He finally puts more troops in Iraq and or Afghanistan. The generals have been calling for this for years!!!. Etc etc..”
    Here is my point. To not give the Democrats ammunition, the Repubs will pretend that nothing is wrong at all.
    IMO, we need more troops in Afghanistan.

    Notice I did not say Iraq… People, the Operation in Iraq is a failure.

    Without a monumental change in strategy, troop load, Afghanistan will head in this direction. Granted, I believe that Afghanistan is years and years away from such hopelessness.
    I believe there will be not a increase troop load in Afhan because of the politics I just wrote above. Indeed, I believe that the current Administration will not do anything to improve matters in Afghansistan. If we are lucky, in the winter of 2009 we will know if the next president will.
    Sadly politics and sound tactional logic do not mix at all.

    I do not like to use the words Radical Islam vs Democracy at all. When one talks in such idealistic and black and white ways it is like a shinning diamond that touches the very soul of the potential enemy and current enemy.
    Instead I believe it is best to take every shread of religious aspect out of this equation and War.
    For example saying the words like
    Crusade are a no go.
    Bring it on, is a no go.
    Islamic Fascist is a no go.

    The enemy recruiters love this. I mean they really really do. It makes it so easy for them to recruit new warriors.
    If your still confused I’ll explain.
    For us, Democracy means good.
    For them, Democracy means bad. Indeed, for some it means evil.

    It is o.k. for one to believe that Islam is a warlike and somewhat evil religion, just try to keep this on the down low. Such talk improves the morale of the enemy because they also see the world as black and white; however they of course see themselves as good.

    Instead, here is what you do.
    Say nothing against the religion of Islam!!!!!! Make the whole deal about defense from an enemy that is out to get us.
    Bring shame upon them by killing inosents.
    Embrace and unite peaceful Arabs and Muslims who speak out against such *******s.
    Say noting against Islam, but surround your self with "real"Islamic clerics who say the killing of innosents is murdeer and such.
    I am positive the enemy recruiters will need to chage the benifits package form 100 virgins to 234 virgins to improve their numbers if done so.

    I truly believe that the U.S. piss poor way on handling this task has greatly retared our abilities to win the hearts and minds of the people of many of the people of the countries we are in.
    Last edited by Rick_the_new_guy; 09-26-2006 at 02:17 PM.
    (PO3) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Member
    (CPO) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Leader
    (LCDR) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Commander

    Squad Member pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...ad-leader.html
    Squad Leader pledge to their team:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...r-platoon.html
    Commander pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...d-leaders.html

  26.  
  27. #29

    leejo's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    7,839

    Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

    Turns out Wallace is a registered Democrat. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101001509.html

  28.  
  29. #30

    TheFeniX's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Age
    29
    Posts
    4,799

    Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

    Quote Originally Posted by leejo View Post
    "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time – never. These allegations are false. ..."
    I like the comparison between a lie Clinton told that had the "devastating" impact of people laughing about Clinton's "Johnson" and the "comparitively small lies" the Bush administration has told (Saddam had links to Bin Laden, for just one) which had the "much less problematic issue" of killing 600,000 people and putting the US in the toilet from a world-wide perspective. But hey, we already know the Republicans think violence is A-Ok, while sex is "the devil."

    Yes, it was stupid of Clinton to lie under oath about receiving oral sex. But if you want to compare that with the crap Bush and Co spew daily, be prepared to get filthy in the process.

    Quote Originally Posted by leejo View Post
    Turns out Wallace is a registered Democrat. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101001509.html
    Just a nitpick: both my parents are registered Democrats. They both have voted straight Republican tickets for about 30 years. Guess what's changing in 2008?

  30.  

     

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


  
 

Back to top