Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

**Steeler** · 09-25-2006 10:43 AM

Courtesy Crooks and Liars:

Video - WMP Video- QT

I'm not a Clinton fan.

<aside>(although I'd prefer the moderate left-leaning realism of his administration to the rightist authoritarian ideological disaster of today)</aside>

But I do enjoy it when the Big Dog gets a chance to tear into some ignorant partisan idiot on national TV. Chris Wallace asks the leading question, "people want to know why you didn't do more to catch Bin Laden," and the President smacks him down. Hard. Ah, the joys of retirement.

**leejo** · 09-25-2006 10:49 AM

"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. ..."

Yeah it's always fun to see Clinton bust loose with some righteous anger. Meaningless, but entertaining.

**Steeler** · 09-25-2006 10:52 AM

So, did you watch it, or did you just jump straight to the joke about his genitals?

**Nikolas** · 09-25-2006 10:57 AM

Clinton's correct. Read Ghost Wars for a roundup of pretty much everything he did there. His statement that he'd drawn up plans to invade Afghanistan but that neither the FBI nor CIA would certify that Bin Laden had been behind the Cole bombing was new to me.

I really love his comment that, "If I were still president, we'd sure as hell have more than 20,000 troops in Afghanistan." Bush's failure to quickly apprehend (edit:) or even to commit large numbers of forces to the mission of apprehending (/edit) Bin Laden is alone sufficient to deem his Presidency a failure in my opinion.

**USN_Squid** · 09-25-2006 11:15 AM

Yes, it's pretty entertaining to see a sociopathic narcissist go off the deep end. Too bad he didn't stick to the emotional rage, because the right wing fact checkers are tearing him up today.

Steeler: "Chris Wallace asks the leading question, 'people want to know why you didn't do more to catch Bin Laden,' and the President smacks him down. Hard. Ah, the joys of retirement."

He also asked Don Rumsfeld the same question in '04. What a partisan hack.

He had eight years to confront Islamic extremism, four years to address Bin Laden’s declaration of war on the U.S., and two and a half years to respond to the embassy bombings, yet somehow Republicans had “three times” as long as Clinton did to get him.

From Richard Clarke's Book (on Bubba's advise to check it):

[I]t’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince — as opposed to, say, order — U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up.

Clinton did not give up in the sense of an executive who gives an order and then moves on to other things, thinking the order is being carried out when in fact it is being ignored. Instead, Clinton knew at the time that his top military and intelligence officials were dragging their feet on going after bin Laden and al Qaeda. He gave up rather than use his authority to force them into action.

**leejo** · 09-25-2006 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Clinton's correct. Read Ghost Wars for a roundup of pretty much everything he did there. His statement that he'd drawn up plans to invade Afghanistan but that neither the FBI nor CIA would certify that Bin Laden had been behind the Cole bombing was new to me.

I really love his comment that, "If I were still president, we'd sure as hell have more than 20,000 troops in Afghanistan." Bush's failure to quickly apprehend (edit or even to commit large numbers of forces to the mission of apprehending (/edit) Bin Laden is alone sufficient to deem his Presidency a failure in my opinion.

Wow I really disagree. Suppose UBL turns up dead tomorrow. And? What just changed?

**Nikolas** · 09-25-2006 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by leejo

Wow I really disagree. Suppose UBL turns up dead tomorrow. And? What just changed?

Allow me to repeat:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Bush's failure to quickly apprehend or even to commit large numbers of forces to the mission of apprehending Bin Laden is alone sufficient to deem his Presidency a failure in my opinion.

**leejo** · 09-25-2006 12:19 PM

I think that's an very easy position to take now that we've dispelled the notion that Afghanistan is an army-destroying machine. You may recall there was a very different tone struck by the people who are now critical of the decision to go in with a light force. It was a certain quagmire at the time.

And dude, lose the split infinitive.

**Trooper** · 09-25-2006 01:24 PM

i would like to remind those out there reading this that Clinton did have a chance to get a hold of Bin Laden back in his first term, the saudis had him and offerd to send him to america if we wanted.....BUT Clinton turned them down and said he was no big threat to the USA, so for Clinton to make those statements is kind of hypocritical of his own administration.

linky

**Nikolas** · 09-25-2006 02:31 PM

Leejo, are you suggesting that I was one of those who "struck a different tone" before the invasion of Afghanistan?

And I will continue to compoundly split my infinitives whenever I like, thank you very much.

**Beatnik** · 09-25-2006 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

Yes, it's pretty entertaining to see a sociopathic narcissist go off the deep end. Too bad he didn't stick to the emotional rage, because the right wing fact checkers are tearing him up today.

Steeler: "Chris Wallace asks the leading question, 'people want to know why you didn't do more to catch Bin Laden,' and the President smacks him down. Hard. Ah, the joys of retirement."

He also asked Don Rumsfeld the same question in '04. What a partisan hack.

He had eight years to confront Islamic extremism, four years to address Bin Laden’s declaration of war on the U.S., and two and a half years to respond to the embassy bombings, yet somehow Republicans had “three times” as long as Clinton did to get him.

From Richard Clarke's Book (on Bubba's advise to check it):

[I]t’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince — as opposed to, say, order — U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up.

Clinton did not give up in the sense of an executive who gives an order and then moves on to other things, thinking the order is being carried out when in fact it is being ignored. Instead, Clinton knew at the time that his top military and intelligence officials were dragging their feet on going after bin Laden and al Qaeda. He gave up rather than use his authority to force them into action.

I for one do appreciate the irony of invoking the word sociopath in reference to Bill Clinton in the very same post trumpeting 'fact checkers' for clearing up the story. lol

**leejo** · 09-25-2006 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Leejo, are you suggesting that I was one of those who "struck a different tone" before the invasion of Afghanistan?

And I will continue to compoundly split my infinitives whenever I like, thank you very much.

I'm not suggesting that you were one of those who struck a different tone

**leejo** · 09-25-2006 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Beatnik

I for one do appreciate the irony of invoking the word sociopath in reference to Bill Clinton in the very same post trumpeting 'fact checkers' for clearing up the story. lol

And I think it's kewl that you can identify weed varieties in one thread and deliver sage political commentary in the next! Have you ever thought of combining weed and political commentary? Not sure how that would work. Maybe someone could eat a pot brownie or whatever it is you do with the stuff, then, you know, type.

**BHack** · 09-25-2006 03:55 PM

This thread delivers.

**Beatnik** · 09-25-2006 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by leejo

And I think it's kewl that you can identify weed varieties in one thread and deliver sage political commentary in the next! Have you ever thought of combining weed and political commentary? Not sure how that would work. Maybe someone could eat a pot brownie or whatever it is you do with the stuff, then, you know, type.

Ah sandbox how I missed thee. Let me count the ways: ad hominem, non sequitur, straw man. Staying true to form I see leejo. Well done, sir.

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.

Thread: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

Thread Tools

Display

Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

Re: Clinton Kicks Chris Wallace Down the Stairs

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions