Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Clinton Interview on Fox News Sunday (Video)
thinkprogress.org — Watch the contentious discussion Clinton's record on terrorism and Fox News.
jlegum- 1489 diggs
- digg it
- Aidenag, on 10/12/2007, -17/+248I miss having a president that can debate.. gets thrown an on the spot question in this, and acually gives a detailed and well thought out response...
Now days we get "Ummmmm" followed by a blank stare.. and something about putting food on my family..- BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -137/+22I liked the comment where he criticized Bush for only having 20,000 troops looking for bin Laden. I guess he's advocating reinforcements.
Clinton was asked perfectly legitimate questions. Instead of directly answering any of them, he pointed his finger in Wallace's face and scolded the guy.
Here are the answers:
"Mid-August 1998: Clinton Authorizes Assassination of bin Laden President Clinton signs a Memorandum of Notification, which authorizes the CIA to plan the capture of bin Laden using force. The CIA draws up detailed profiles of bin Laden’s daily routines, where he sleeps, and his travel arrangements. The assassination never happens, supposedly because of inadequate intelligence. However, as one officer later says, “you can keep setting the bar higher and higher, so that nothing ever gets done.” An officer who helped draw up the plans says, “We were ready to move” but “we were not allowed to do it because of this stubborn policy of risk avoidance... It is a disgrace.” [Philadelphia Inquirer, 9/16/2001] Additional memoranda quickly follow that authorize the assassination of up to ten other al-Qaeda leaders, and authorize the shooting down of private aircraft containing bin Laden. [Washington Post, 12/19/2001] However, “These directives [lead] to nothing.” [New Yorker, 7/28/2003]
Entity Tags: Central Intelligence Agency, Osama bin Laden, William Jefferson ("Bill") Clinton
Mid-August 1998-2000: US Submarines Ready to Attack bin Laden Within days of the US African embassy bombings, the US permanently stations two submarines, reportedly in the Indian Ocean, ready to hit al-Qaeda with cruise missiles on short notice. Missiles are fired from these subs later in the month in a failed attempt to assassinate bin Laden. Six to ten hours’ advance warning is now needed to review the decision, program the cruise missiles, and have them reach their target. However, in every rare opportunity when the possibility of attacking bin Laden occurs, CIA Director Tenet says the information is not reliable enough and the attack cannot go forward. [Washington Post, 12/19/2001; New York Times, 12/30/2001] At some point in 2000, the submarines are withdrawn, apparently because the Navy wants to use them for other purposes. Therefore, when the unmanned Predator spy plane flies over Afghanistan in late 2000 and identifies bin Laden, there is no way to capitalize on that opportunity. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 220-21] The Bush administration fails to resume the submarine patrol. Lacking any means to attack bin Laden, military plans to strike at him are no longer updated after March 2001. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004]
Entity Tags: George J. Tenet, al-Qaeda, Bush administration, Osama bin Laden, Clinton administration
August 20, 1998: ISI Alerts the Taliban to Incoming Missiles Targeting Their Shared Training Camps The US missile strike on Afghanistan on this day inadvertently reveals connections between al-Qaeda and the ISI. Two of the four camps in Afghanistan hit had strong connections to the ISI, and five ISI officers and some twenty trainees are killed. The US also loses the element of surprise. General Joseph Ralston, the vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was purposely scheduled to eat dinner with General Jehangir Karamat, the Pakistani Army’s chief of staff, in Islamabad, Pakistan the night of the missile strike. At one point during the dinner, Ralston looks at his watch and announces that in ten minutes about sixty cruise missiles will be entering Pakistan’s airspace on their way to Afghanistan. This is done to make sure the missiles wouldn’t be misidentified and shot down. [New Yorker, 1/24/2000] But this carefully timed ploy is not successful. Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke claims he was promised by the Navy that it would fire their missiles from below the ocean surface. However, in fact, many destroyers fired their missiles from the surface. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 188-89] He adds, “not only did they use surface ships—they brought additional ones in, because every captain wants to be able to say he fired the cruise missile.” [New Yorker, 7/28/2003] As a result, the ISI (or bin Laden sympathizers within) had many hours to alert bin Laden. Clarke says he believes that “if the [ISI] wanted to capture bin Laden or tell us where he was, they could have done so with little effort. They did not cooperate with us because ISI saw al-Qaeda as helpful in pressuring India, particularly in Kashmir.” [Clarke, 2004, pp. 188-89] In 1999 the US will intercept communications suggesting that Hamid Gul, ISI Director in the early 1990’s, played a role in forewarning the Taliban about the missile strike which may even had predated the firing of the cruise missiles (see July 1999).
Entity Tags: Jehangir Karamat, Pakistan Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, Osama bin Laden, Richard A. Clarke, Hamid Gul, Taliban, al-Qaeda, Joseph Ralston"
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=huntForBinLaden - RenZ87, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37Here is the full first half of the interview.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/fox-clinton-interview-part-1-osama-bin-laden/ - 23r17i05o42n, on 10/12/2007, -121/+19How dare Chris Wallace demand tough answers from President Bubba Scumbag! He's our lovable lying cheating womanizing felon!
- psimaster, on 10/12/2007, -22/+111Bush will never submit himself to something like this because he has a hard time putting a full sentence together. Clinton Rocks!!!
- Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -16/+132Compare this interview to the one Bush did with Wolf Blitzer today...when I listen to Clinton, I feel proud, and I feel like I'm hearing a man to whom I could trust my country's stewardship.
When I hear Bush, I feel embarassed for him...like I'm a parent watching my 4th grade son in a school play, and I just have to pray he doesn't screw up and embarass us both - BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -99/+17It's amazing that anybody would think Slick Willie looked good in this interview. He was evasive, defensive, aggressive, pointing, name-calling, comparing his incompetence to Bush's incompetence....
What a prick. - serpentor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23Koopa - When/where was the Bush inerview with Wolf Blitzer today? Would like to watch it, thx.
- christianw, on 10/12/2007, -15/+86@ 23r17i05o42n
Ok so the best you can do is Clinton lied about getting head in the white house. I highly doubt you think John F. Kennedy was a more horrible person and president considering he did a HELL of a lot more when it came to infidelity .
That being said, by your own standards, lets see how you feel our current president is? For starters he, in a compete act of cowardess abandoned his post in the texas air national guard. He's illegally tapped the communications of law abiding americans. Defied rulings of the Supreme Court (in case you failed government class, they are one of the 3 branches of federal government), and illegally given himself amnesty from breaking the law by sliding in "the law on this topic does not apply to me" in bill after bill after bill.
Clinton may have lied under oath, but Bush's past and present are clear. He's a man who has committed the very definition of the act of treason. Which is punishable by death which I believe is only punishable by firing squad.
God Bless America - cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -101/+20Wait a ***** minute. Either 9-11 was an inside job by the Bush administration, or its entirely the Bush administrations fault?
Shall we ignore the Clinton administration's cover up of the Sudan offering Bin Laden up on a silver platter?
So the video shows Clinton in his usual silver tounged manner telling lie after lie to support his "legacy". Wow, color me surprised.
Diggs new URL: digg.moveon.org - christianw, on 10/12/2007, -12/+72@ cliffzdude
Digg is about community, we have users here on all sides of the issues. Some agree with me, some dont, some have completely different opinions. Digg succeeds where biased sites fail because the community balances itself out.
So on behalf of the regular users here at digg.com, in response to your smartass little comment about moveon.digg.com. From all of us here at digg on all sides of this issue, to you sitting there at home...
Go ***** yourself - Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28Here's the best link I can find for the Bush-Blitzer interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBiwqiT4_Nk
I guess it was first done on Sept. 21, but I saw a rerun this morning I guess.
He just kinda keeps repeating his talking points:
1) There is no civil war in Iraq.
2) I consult with the "people on the ground" who know more about what's going on than reporters who are just "speculating".
3) I discovered that Iraq was an imminent threat after 9/11. - BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -72/+10@koopa
Bush was amicable, whereas Clinton's demeanor resembled that of a cornered rat. - audi100quattro, on 10/12/2007, -7/+32You mean putting food on you family and that they're gonna get killed by terrorists unless you vote Republican?
- Dipsomaniac, on 10/12/2007, -11/+30@cliffzdude:
THAT NEVER HAPPENED. Read the Senate report.
Jesus Christ, how long are you dittoheads going to keep telling the same lies? - shreveyboy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+24I hate fox news. The reporters there always feel like their questions are more important than the responses that their getting. They're all in love with the sound of thier own voices. And it shows. Stupid faux news.
- deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25Bill Clinton bitch slapped Chris Wallace. Wallace tried to sand bag Clinton and Bill shoved it up Wallace's ass. Clinton didn't back down and told it like it was. Wallace tried to change the subject but Clinton didn't have any of it. I would love to see if Bush Lite could of handled it. Yeah, right. Now that would have been funny.
Bill Clinton Rocks!
http://www.democratgiftshop.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi/571511948/liberal_shop/1272470 - deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Bitch Wallace got 0wned by Bill Clinton!
You just got to love it. - cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -17/+8@christianw,
Your comments, although intended to show that Digg is somehow a reflection of the USA at large with quantifiable percentages representing each side of the political isle, clearly show that Digg is NOT a representation of the USA's political leanings.
I took a political stand, and made a political point about where Digg users lean, generally speaking. My point and opinion is valid, just as valid as anybody else. One user's opinion may be patently wrong, but its still valid to hold your opinion and debate the point(s).
Since you don't agree with me, and have taken personally (why, I'm not sure) my comment that Digg.com is starting to look like moveon.org you reply with "go ***** you self"
You should be ashamed of yourself for directing such a nasty comment at another Digg user. (your "go ***** yourself" comment)
Ironically, in my younger college days it was considered the last move of a loser to end a war of words with "***** you", or "go ***** yourself".
Spend some time looking inside yourself and see if this is really how you want to represent yourself. Digg is a community, and in a community one does not take a comment that feels to be an insult as a reason to draw down with fighting words such as "go ***** yourself", as you did. - tehnico, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19@BullyJack
Re: Bush was amicable, vs. clinton was aggressive
Bush was asked opinion questions. Wolf may as well have asked him what he thought of Scarlett Johansens dress at the Golden Globes (It was stunning BTW).
Clinton was asked what's called loaded questions. Caparable to "Does your mother know you're gay?" Why would anyone asnwer that? The loaded questions were centered around propogating the standard Republican rhetoric. And all of them were lies about Clintons lassez-fair attitude towards terrorism. "Why didn't you do more to catch Bin laden?" Back that up and we see that Clinton had done the most in his capacity to capture him in the first place. Clinton called ***** on him right away. And made him look like a ***** for brains in the process.
And in the short term, Bush excuses his inability to capture him on his short term before the 9/11 attacks. When you look through the policies of the Bush administration for the first 9 months in office, they did more to dispense the terror assesment programs that were built up for the past several years then encourage them. If anything Bush's administration made this attack come sooner, and more easily. But that's my own subjective analysis. The facts remain that the Bush administration failed at catching him as well. In the short term, more responsibility falls on the Bush Admin. anyway, since the attack happened on their watch. Not Clintons. Bush is sure painting himself as a buck passer. In fact the paint can't even dry before he passes another. That's what this Admin. will go down in history as.
In the Blitzer/Bush interview, Bush was prompted directly that "I thought you said Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11" Wolf was met with, "excuse me, can I finish" to which point he never addressed that again. What Bush is doing there is avoiding sound bytes of him saying Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so that americans who still believe that Iraq was tied to 9/11 will continue to do so. Or atleast the chances of the misinformation getting corrected goes down.
Not that you deserved that analysis, you've proven yourself a jackass already. But In the hopes that there is some sense of objectivity in you, you'll be able to be more critical and apply this objectivity in other political interviews. - tehnico, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17@cliffzdude
Aside form you poignant response (which I dugg+ because I've alway felt the same, too many good comments are needlessly dugg into oblivion), I dugg you're first comment down because it was supremely retarded. You showed your colours, relevance in this discussion, and credibility by supporting the "Sudan offering" as fact, despite it's flasehood. Two years before the three alleged offerings, Clinton found Bin Laden threatening enough to sign an executive order to “get Bin Laden”. The turn down never happened. And the BS about "no reason to incarcerate him" is a fabrication. The US had every reason to incarcerate him and, if given the opportunity, would have.
The Sudan Offering line, is part of the overall Democrats-don't-care-about-our-safety ***** from the republicans. - Caroline30, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Amen!
- christianw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@cliffzdude
lol i love it when guys try to take the literary high road to try to salvage any remnant of saving face after making an idiot of themselves on the internet. you insulted digg, it ***** me off, and aparently at least 70 other people.
QQ tough guy
- BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -137/+22I liked the comment where he criticized Bush for only having 20,000 troops looking for bin Laden. I guess he's advocating reinforcements.
- Diggasaurus, on 10/12/2007, -14/+97Heh, I like how the reporter tries to keep his balls firmly attached to himself while getting yelled at by a president.
Awesome clip though, Bill really brought some good points, the best one was the quick 'wag the dog' comment. The right wing all came out and said Clinton was wagging the dog because of the impeachment trial, but now they are saying he didn't anything to stop Osama before 9/11.- bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -10/+69He certainly lost his cool a little, but he said some things that needed to be said. I especially dug: "Well, every even number year–right before an election–they come up with some security issue."
It's true though...
http://www.richgentlemenhide.com/comic/weekend-at-bin-ladens/ - Shadar, on 10/12/2007, -8/+71I don't consider that losing your cool. That's called debating an issue with a person who doesn't want you to answer the question that you were asked. If Clinton didn't raise his voice to cut Mathews off he would have been cut off himself and stopped from answering the question. He had to make it clear he wasn't afraid of the question and was perfectly able and willing to talk about it and answer it... but also express the bias in the question at the same time.
Clinton is a master politician. He WANTS to debate every and all issues at all times because he knows he will out-argue any politician he is up against... his problem is when he is forced to answer those tough questions and his opponents arn't. Maybe this will get some of the networks to ask republicans the questions he wanted them to be asked. - Teddystiltskins, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1It's too bad that this many people in our great country are so ***** stupid. It is quite apparent that liberalism as it exists today excuses all the wrongs of those that belong while placing all the blame on other peoples shoulders. You know what would be nice? Admitting that after the first WTC bombing that this country was at war with Muslim fanatics. But somehow, every liberal asshole here at Digg has decided to ignore this fact. Then you have the embassy bombings in Africa and U.S.S. Cole. Funny how all of the ignorant malinformed liberals out there have forgotten this. How could anyone possibly place the full blame of 9-11 on the shoulders of Bush? Clinton had 8 ***** years to protect the country and did NOTHING!!! That is quite evident. But liberals try to deflect attention to this by trying to somehow harken back to the days where it was only a blowjob. The act, however, despicable wasn't the issue. It was the fact that the President of the United States lied to America about it.
Bill Clinton is an embarassment to the United States of America. I am ashamed of the fact that so many uniformed robots still exist out there to keep complimenting him on his work as President. It has become apparent to me that facts are irrelevant to liberals and that hatred has taken over the left.
To be honest, it makes it real easy to win elections with someone like Clinton out there blowing up at a news reporter for challenging him on record on fighting terrorism. I encourage him to stay on Fox News and act like an idiot. It just helps us all out.
- bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -10/+69He certainly lost his cool a little, but he said some things that needed to be said. I especially dug: "Well, every even number year–right before an election–they come up with some security issue."
- cjbanna, on 10/12/2007, -16/+138A glowing example of why Fox News is far from "fair and balanced."
- SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -9/+76This?
Nah, they were trying(and failing) to be subtle here, since they were dealing with a former president. There are far far more blatantly propagandist things aired by fox on a regular basis.
Did you see the one where they accuse that judge, that upheld the law against warrant-less tapping, of wanting Americans to die? That's more their `normal` level of spin.
The fact that so many Americans rely on FOX for their news is really scary. - djbruker, on 10/12/2007, -12/+56"The fact that so many Americans rely on FOX for their news is really scary."
Actually, I've heard that Americans rely on FOX news more than any other news source. Oh wait, I heard that on FOX news... - Shadar, on 10/12/2007, -11/+38Fox news rating are dropping actually. It was a story here on Digg a lil while back. CNN/MSNBC are gaining in ratings. So obviously people are getting tired of the lies.
- christianw, on 10/12/2007, -29/+9The same people that say fox is fair and balanced say warlocks in world of warcraft arent overpowered in pvp.
- babakshirazi, on 10/12/2007, -28/+8
What's not balanced? Clinton answered the question that Fox asked.
I fail to see what is unbalanced anymore on Fox than on CBS, NBC or CNN. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -24/+8"A glowing example of why Fox News is far from "fair and balanced."
More fair and balanced than thinkprogress.org, sadly - Danin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"The same people that say fox is fair and balanced say warlocks in world of warcraft arent overpowered in pvp."
Clearly this comment is being dugg down by filthy overpowered warlocks. - Caroline30, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7For those that believe Fox news is no different than other news stations and that it is fair/balanced...I am curious....have you ever been outside the US? How long has it been sinse you read a book that referenced something ((anything)) about politics and world's affairs...??? Look, maybe I should make this a survey. I trully feel sorry for you folks who are STILL blind as BATS! It is unfortunate that there are so many individuals in this country who remain so poorly informed on what is REALLY GOING ON!
Independant research will do you wonders. Please don't vote until you do. - Teddystiltskins, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yeah and CNN and ABC,CBS (Rathergate) and NBC are, right?
- SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -9/+76This?
- diablo943, on 10/12/2007, -16/+71Clinton catches the real criminals... It was quite pleasurable to watch Clinton rail on the right-wing stooge from Fox. The one line Clinton missed and should have used was, "Fair and Balanced, my ass!"
- fredgsanford, on 10/12/2007, -22/+7I envisioned it as:
Clinton: Now move on to the next question! [under breath] Fair and Balanced my BLACK ASS!" - Teddystiltskins, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2See the fact that liberals believe they are at war with conservatives is the problem. Muslim fanatics are trying to kill everyone in this country regardless of your political beliefs. Please, if you are ever confronted by a Muslim fanatic just tell him you voted for Clinton. I am sure that he will let you go!!! Yeah, he let you go ***** yourself and then he is going to kill you and your family. Because that is what Muslim fanatics do!!!
- fredgsanford, on 10/12/2007, -22/+7I envisioned it as:
- hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -14/+118Wallace learned the hard way...do not ***** with people who are smarter than you are on live TV. Wallace is a hack and FOX "news" is a joke.
- djbruker, on 10/12/2007, -10/+62Chris Wallace is worse than a hack. He's a typical Washington ass-sucking sycophant of the highest order. A mere year after Bush distracted troops away from the war on terror in Afghanistan to the incompetently managed (by Bush & Rumsfeld) war in Iraq, under the false pretence that Iraq posed a clear and present danger of supplying (nonexistent) WMD to Al-Qaeda (with whom there was NO connection with Iraq) -- a year after this Wallace put out his ridiculous book where he lamely attempted to elevate Bush to the level of a great president. Who the hell is going to believe that crap? The man clearly has no dignity or self-respect and is only interested in proving his party loyalty so he can be the next FOX news rich white faux-Christian racist Republican asshole to get rewarded with a Republican appointment.
- Shadar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30What makes it worse is that his father was/is such a respectable journalist. I really wonder if he is proud of his son or not... it can't be easy for him.
- djbruker, on 10/12/2007, -10/+62Chris Wallace is worse than a hack. He's a typical Washington ass-sucking sycophant of the highest order. A mere year after Bush distracted troops away from the war on terror in Afghanistan to the incompetently managed (by Bush & Rumsfeld) war in Iraq, under the false pretence that Iraq posed a clear and present danger of supplying (nonexistent) WMD to Al-Qaeda (with whom there was NO connection with Iraq) -- a year after this Wallace put out his ridiculous book where he lamely attempted to elevate Bush to the level of a great president. Who the hell is going to believe that crap? The man clearly has no dignity or self-respect and is only interested in proving his party loyalty so he can be the next FOX news rich white faux-Christian racist Republican asshole to get rewarded with a Republican appointment.
- themoderate, on 10/12/2007, -10/+54Amazing. Thanks for putting this up. I have wanted to watch it for somet time now. Score 1 for Clinton, 0 for Fox News. They deserved this, and its about time they put someone on who can defend themself. I was getting tired of seeing Fox invite Democrats and Independents who would get torn apart by the Fox staff. Hopefully lots of people who watch Fox News will actually watch this and learn that they have been spoon fed lies and deceit for years.
- dmh11686, on 10/12/2007, -33/+10When has FoxNews only had Democrats that only get torn apart by their staff? FoxNews always has democrats on, and they all seem to be able to defend themselves fine. They have Juan Williams and Mara Liasson on Fox News Sunday, Alan Colmes on their second highest rated show, General Wesley Clark is one of their correspondents and I could go on. I watch FoxNews all the time and I also watched this interview in its entirety and Bill Clinton defended himself like all other democrats who are on FoxNews.
- Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -31/+7You are going to get so dugg down DMH for that simple truth. In fact, I hope my calling it keeps you dugg up so that all they can do is pretty much say those corespondants aren't "liberal enough" They do that a lot to discount what they might say and continue to segrigate themselves from ever even coming to a middle ground. It's very sad really. If liberals would come back even a little bit from la la land, the republicans wouldn't be making so much money and we would already be very much better off.
- bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34dmh:
>They have Juan Williams and Mara Liasson on Fox News Sunday, Alan Colmes on their second highest rated show
You're either retarded or purposefully dishonest. Juan Williams? Four against one on that show, and they interrupt him. And he's a moderate! Colmes? He gets about three questions in, he's a mouse, weak and half the time he agrees with them.
They like to have a faux opponent because it makes their position sound more believable. - Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -26/+4...Annnnd Time!
Thanks for posting what was expected.
(In reg's to the "not liberal" enough cop-out) - Shadar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27Alan Colmes is the funny looking guy that is only there to prop up the main act. Fox intentionally found a goofy looking guy that would be a perfect example of democrats. Spineless, bad at debating, funny looking, wishywashy, willing to concede arguments to his masters.
- dmh11686, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3bigdave,
Thanks for the insult but I'm neither retarded or dishonest. Juan Williams does a good job presenting the democrat view. Mara Liasson is also a democrat. And Chris Wallace is just the mediator so it is actually 2 to 2. You did not address General Wesley Clark. And for you to simply say that Alan Colmes is to timid is ridiculous, he gets just as much time on as Sean Hannity. But, I can go on how about Bob Beckel, Susan Estrich, Ellis Hennigan, Kirsten Powers these all are democrats and are Fox News correspondents. Neil Gabler of Fox News Watch is a super liberal. Eleanor Clift is often on Fox News. And Fox even had Bill Maher on Hannity and Colmes the other night. Robert F Kennedy Jr was on after he first wrote that report about the stolen 2004 elections. Democrats are always on FoxNews and for you to say that they only have weak democrats is just plain wrong. - themoderate, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21I am just amazed. Look at my name. I am not a liberal. In fact, I tend to vote Republican (Bush is not a Republican). Open your eyes and watch Fox News. I do agree that they have some people on sometimes who can argue a point, but it is rare. Colmes is a very poor example. Wesley Clarke is a good example, but I have only seen him on Fox once in probably the past 5 months. I am talking about someone who will criticize the network, not someone who is on their payroll. Don't automatically assume that because someone is criticizing your precious Fox News that they are a Democrat. I know what I am talking about, and I am in the great majority of people who KNOW that Fox News is biased in the way they ask questions, who they ask questions to, and how they advertise interviews.
- bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22dmh:
>Thanks for the insult but I'm neither retarded or dishonest. Juan Williams does a good job presenting the democrat view.
For the three sentences he gets in? Get real. Come on, some debates are worth having, some are a joke. This one is a joke.
>Mara Liasson is also a democrat. And Chris Wallace is just the mediator so it is actually 2 to 2.
Mara Liasson never disagrees with anyone, and half the time even she's not on. And Chris Wallace is not a "mediator". His bias is loud and easily noticeable.
>And for you to simply say that Alan Colmes is to timid is ridiculous, he gets just as much time on as Sean Hannity.
More *****. You're just spewing it out. Here are some facts for this fake debate we're having about Hannity and Colmes:
WORDS
Total words: 1483 (100%)
Colmes words: 295 (19.9%)
Forbes words: 633 (42.7%)
Hannity words: 555 (37.4%)
Hannity/Forbes words combined: 1188 (80.1%)
Eighty point one percent. Just be honest for what Fox is: it's ***** Pravda.
Here's another one:
"The "signature political news show" of the Fox News Channel, Special Report with Brit Hume, was found to have a strong bias in their choice of guests, overwhelmingly choosing conservatives over 'non-conservatives' to appear in interviews. This was the finding of the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), noted in a study taken across a 19 week period from June 2003 to December 2003. They found the ratio of conservative guests to liberals to be 50:6. [13]" - dmh11686, on 10/12/2007, -20/+4BigDave,
It is not BS, you just presented one interview, and just because Alan got in less words does not mean he had less time to ask questions. Like I said he gets the same amount of time to speak as Hannity. And Alan even has his own radio show on FoxNews Radio in which he can speak all he wants.
On Special Report, Brit usually just has one very short interview and who cares if it is mostly with republicans. All the other segments are correspondents with stories from both sides. Brit Hume is one of the most respected journalist in Washington. And have you ever seen Keith Olbermann who has almost all democrat guests on his show.
And , Chris Wallace IS the mediator on Fox News Sunday, he begins with a question and then lets the pundits talk. Juan always gets in fights with Bill Krystal or Brit and they let him talk as much as he wants. Not just two sentences.
Neal Gabler of Fox News Watch who is on the Fox payroll always criticizes Fox News. And he has been there for years. - bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13dmh:
>It is not BS, you just presented one interview, and just because Alan got in less words does not mean he had less time to ask questions. Like I said he gets the same amount of time to speak as Hannity. And Alan even has his own radio show on FoxNews Radio in which he can speak all he wants.
He DOESN'T get the same amount of time to speak as Hannity. You're full of *****, and blatently lying or as I said, deranged. You can google for about two minutes and find studies broken down by time or by words that shows what you're saying is abjectly false.
>On Special Report, Brit usually just has one very short interview and who cares if it is mostly with republicans. All the other segments are correspondents with stories from both sides. Brit Hume is one of the most respected journalist in Washington.
Where do you get this tripe? Brit Hume is considered a joke among reporters. Chris Wallace has got all the credibility among the press as Toto in the Wizard of Oz. He just THINKS he's a flying monkey. These guys are a joke to the press.
>And have you ever seen Keith Olbermann who has almost all democrat guests on his show.
Keith Olbermann? He's not on Fox, you idiot! He's on MSNBC -- and that's like the Bush defense "...but Clinton!" Fox is Pravda. Whether or not MSNBC is bad is a different conversation.
>And , Chris Wallace IS the mediator on Fox News Sunday, he begins with a question and then lets the pundits talk. Juan always gets in fights with Bill Krystal or Brit and they let him talk as much as he wants. Not just two sentences.
And if I post actual statistics showing that what you're saying is false, you'll say "Well that's just one show." Do you work for Fox or something? Because your defense is so weak that's it's actually unbelievable. Perhaps you're trolling. - dmh11686, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Once again, you did not respond to Neal Gabler or fox giving Alan Colmes a radio show. Or the liberal democrats that are on Fox News. I looked up the equal time thing, which are mostly from liberal media watch dog groups like media matters, which is real credible(not), or FAIR, same lack of credibility.
Brit Hume is one of the most respected journalist like I said. He even received the 2004 broadcaster of the year award. And he worked as the chief white house correspondent of ABC for years. Chris Wallace also worked for ABC for 15 years and for NBC as their chief white house correspondent during the 1980's. And also has received many awards for journalism.
The reason I mentioned Keith Olbermann was because you were suggesting since Brit has republicans during the very short interview segment on his show that he loses credibility. A very short segment does not make his whole show biased. Keith Olbermann has all democrats on and liberals seem to think that he is the best thing since Edward R. Murrow.
For you to say that the democrats on Fox are not liberal enough is your problem. They are there and they present their views. And I don't work for Fox, am not a troll, and simply defend FoxNews when it is unfairly criticized. - bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1dmh:
>Once again, you did not respond to Neal Gabler or fox giving Alan Colmes a radio show.
Look, I can't respond to every one of your distractions.
Here's how this works:
You claim that Fox isn't wildly and offensively biased, beyond all recognition. I say "You're full of *****" and post relevant statistics proving it.
You, with a wave of your hand, dismiss the sources as "biased" but offer no statistics of your own in defense of Fox, no statistics of your own that the sources are biased, and frankly, offer no data in defense at all.
You then try and distract from your factual mistakes with "Brit Hume won one journalism award in 2004!" Yes, he did. And people resigned because of it. Now THAT'S popular.
- p51d007, on 10/12/2007, -102/+11I know the libs will flame me, I could care less. I think it shows just the opposite.
Clinton was a cornered dog and struck out. He got caught off guard on this one.
His body language gives him away big time. He's "in your face", look at his eyes
when he's lying. Fast blinking, his body language is showing him to be the liar
that he is.
Ok, go ahead and flame me like I know you will, I have thick skin :)- RenZ87, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36What is he lying about? Is there a female intern in the room or something? Don't try to make false assertions that are unsupported by evidence and reality.
- sharpfork, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26@p51- By saying you "could care less," you are saying that you are capable of caring less than you do which means you care. The expression is "could NOT care less."
That being said, Clinton made it very clear that he was ambushed in the interview. Yes, he was a cornered dog; but, he was capable of a decent debate and even admitted "failure" in not getting rid of Osama. He did make the point that he at least tired to do something about Osama pre 9/11 which is much more than the NOTHING Bush did.
Bush would have mumbled some crap about staying the course or mission accomplished and ended the interview. - d1carter, on 10/12/2007, -19/+7You can tell that there is no liberal bias here in Diggdom...
- HumanWaste, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Stop pressuring him guys! p51d007's a professional lie detector!
- ToMaHaWk1187, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Why flame you?
You yourself don't beleive in what you are saying!
Your certainty on beeing flamed is quite indicative of that fact. - babakshirazi, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3
More like a cornered rat. Clinton was too busy bustin' a nut to get Bin Laden.
World Trace Center 1, African Embassy bombings, USS Cole, Khobar Towers....all of that happened on Clinton's watch. Everyone knew Al-Quaida existed during the Black Hawk Down time, what's Clinton talking about?
We got punked in Somalia and bombed a pharmaceutical factory and bombed some tents in Afghanistan.
However, Clinton did not have 9/11 happen on his watch, so it's hard to say what he would have done after that. Hindsight is always 20/20. - annonimality, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@p51
It's "I COULDN'T care less". Dumbass. - iPsyko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0At least he doesn't have to be coached.
- argoff, on 10/12/2007, -63/+7OK, here's the real story again. Clinton didn't want a war on terrorism because his constituents wanted to spend money on the welfare state and not counterterrorisim measures. But, UBL eventually forced his hand after a series of terrorist attacks, so Clinton "tried" to get UBL without getting engaged in the Middle East. After Clinton got out of office, he knew that UBL would strike again as did everyone else, and did everything possible to cover his ass by moaning and groaning about it. Maybe he tried, in a half hearted way, to get UBL, but the truth is he pawned the problem off on Bush (making it worse) no matter how you look at it. The truth is also, the worse he makes Bush look, the more it distracts from his failures.
- RenZ87, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31Is that your opinion or can you actually back it up? Seriously, you should read Richard Clarke's book.
- iamrussell, on 10/12/2007, -5/+44"Maybe he tried, in a half hearted way, to get UBL, but the truth is he pawned the problem off on Bush (making it worse) no matter how you look at it."
that being said, why did bush ignore it completely for nine months? the ***** even got a report a month before 9/11 saying that bin laden was going to strike the us and still ignored it. the bush administration is DIRECTLY responsible for 9/11. - Shadar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16"Maybe he tried, in a half hearted way, to get UBL, but the truth is he pawned the problem off on Bush (making it worse) no matter how you look at it."
Well, you know, no matter how much the American people may have wanted Clinton to be president for a 3rd term, he wasn't allowed to run again. So he was FORCED to give the reigns over to GWB. He didn't pawn it off... the Republicans forced him to pawn it off to Bush and then the Republicans didn't do a single thing to stop terrorists. If Clinton had his way he would have allowed Gore to continue his work to capture and kill the terrorists. - allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17argoff --
Do you copy and paste that paragraph in EVERY digg discussion about Clinton?
Funny how I keep seeing that paragraph of propaganda under your name everywhere.
Or am I misunderestimating you?
- signal15, on 10/12/2007, -9/+70FOX News isn't news. It's entertainment and mutual masturbation for neocons.
- poxonyou, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19I think FOX is more geared towards Nascar (or country music) Republicans than neocons. Nascar Republicans casually watch the news and just want to watch the channel/show that tells them their team is winning and is the toughest. Neocons are a small elite group who have made their way into the top of the government.
- icebrk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13I agree completely, FOX News and the like are a TOOL of the Neocons to manipulate the nascar republicans / scared folk into believing the neocon agenda is in their best interest. No way they're drinking their own lemonade.
- dmh11686, on 10/12/2007, -57/+7You can obviously see that Clinton was waiting to fight Chris. Before he even asked the question. Then he insults him saying that Chris has a smirk on his face. Later on, he brings up a wild conspiracy theory about Rupert Murdoch and Fox's viewers. Clinton really looked unprofessional, by attacking Chris Wallace and not letting him get a word in edgewise.
- snockhockster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38You mean like their commentators do to almost every guest on the network?
They were trying to lampoon him and it back-fired. - willistg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31not letting Chris get a word in? The mother ***** asked Clin-TON a question and then wouldn't let him answer. Clin-TON was the best republican prez.
- RenZ87, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23@dmh11686
You should see how he formulated the question. It was dishonest. Here is the entire first half of the interview.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/fox-clinton-interview-part-1-osama-bin-laden/ - baldr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38"Clinton really looked unprofessional, by attacking Chris Wallace and not letting him get a word in edgewise."
It's an interview, not a debate. Clinton is the one that is supposed to be talking. Wallace should only say things to move what Clinton is talking about along or to raise a new topic.
Anyway, I think that the nervous laugh that Wallace does when he feels threatened is hilarious... - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34"My ventures in media are not as important to me as spreading my personal political beliefs" - Rupert Murdoch
Wild huh... - wjw75, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7@bitcloud
As much as I suspect that Rupert Murdoch does think in that way, I think that quote was made up and put on his wiki page. It's the last quote in the list, and the reference given is the exact same URL for the one above it in the list - it links to a hollywood reporter page. The second to last quote is in fact there, but the one you've put down is not. - bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7wjw:
>The second to last quote is in fact there, but the one you've put down is not.
"not as important to me as spreading my personal political beliefs" (November 23, 2005).
Check out the Hollywood Reporter for that date to verify. - wjw75, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I think the date was changed to the 23rd arbitrarily - I searched the Hollywood Reporter site but it's not there. Plus a google search for the quote will show that it only comes up on wiki pages, personal sites and forums.
- bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Yeah it's a tough one... It's listed on other online encyclopaedias like reference etc, but when something gets on wikipedia it spreads these misconceptions like wildfire.
I'm sorry I got duped on this, I read the whole hollywood reporter interview & nothing like that was in it.
Sounds to me like whoever entered that into wikipedia, their ventures in credible wiki editing are not as important to them as spreading their personal political beliefs... - bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7wjw:
>I think the date was changed to the 23rd arbitrarily - I searched the Hollywood Reporter site but it's not there. Plus a google search for the quote will show that it only comes up on wiki pages, personal sites and forums.
Okay, I'll remove it from wikipedia. - d1carter, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2I think Bill may have been on "medication" or had a few before the interview. Sounded like he had a preplanned response and his tongue was a little thick. "I haven't been drinking, ossifer".
- snockhockster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38You mean like their commentators do to almost every guest on the network?
- OMGWTFROFLMAO, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21***** PWNT!!
- snockhockster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34What never fails to amaze me is that when I watch Fox and see a live interview, later on the commentators *ahem* I mean reporters comment about it drastically change what was said. They "sum it up" for you instead of actually showing it because interpreting it is too difficult for some apparently.
It's almost like how they are hyping the interview as "Crazed Clinton" and have continuously referred to him as "angry" in the interview. Already trying to shape the perceptions of those who want Fox to tell them what they should think about it.
I think President Clinton had a good point on the "wag the dog" and about how the republicans are manipulating fear for votes... among other things.
What I can't understand is how any republican can rationalize Ney not being forced to resign his position, but can ignore all the valid points Clinton has.
Truthiness4tw- Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -53/+2Bull ***** *****. You only over recognize what you, as a liberal, does as second nature. This is how YOU work. You incite emotional responses and reactions EVEN BEFORE something comes up. THAT IS HOW YOU GET YOUR FOLLOWERS! You are ***** pro's at it!
Get real people. Stop thinking others are doing what primarily you invented. - snockhockster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35Zethris, considering the fact you have no idea what my political leanings are I would encourage you to keep such comments to yourself.
Your exhibition only illustrates that there are those who are more willing to throw names and speak empty rhetoric then actually address the facts at hand.
It doesn't help your position, and in fact, only detracts from it. - Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -41/+3Yes blather on as if you aren't. Stay on your fuel efficient solar energy high horse. That "always" works. *Rolls Eyes*
- Danin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@ Zethris
That's just immature. Seriously. Go back and read it, all you did was insult him. What kind of contribution to discourse do you think you're making?
- Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -53/+2Bull ***** *****. You only over recognize what you, as a liberal, does as second nature. This is how YOU work. You incite emotional responses and reactions EVEN BEFORE something comes up. THAT IS HOW YOU GET YOUR FOLLOWERS! You are ***** pro's at it!
- Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -41/+3What a hack job. This is NOT the full interview as provided by fox news! Thinkprogress has no boundaries.
- j.carcinogen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14The full interview is 22 mins long.
- RenZ87, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/fox-clinton-interview-part-1-osama-bin-laden/
- Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -19/+7Thank you for the link. This one is NOT edited.
This one shows much more clearly how BOTH got too emotionaly driven to the Q&A and in fact both screwed up. However, the interviewee should know that the interviewer needs to be able to finish the question no matter how preposterous it may be. Then respond accordingly. - Web_Weasel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Zethris you seem to be yet another angry (real or fake) lying shill. Since you add nothing of use to any discussion I am adding you to my ignore list. I suggest others do the same.
- willistg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21http://www.foxnews.justgotowned.com/
- xman00, on 10/12/2007, -20/+3@willistg:
That has to be one of the most hilarious links I've ever seen! Here it is again in case somebody missed it:
http://www.foxnews.justgotowned.com/
- xman00, on 10/12/2007, -20/+3@willistg:
- garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23I love how just about everyone has been modded down for praising Clinton.
- earl507, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Well, the neocons have to get 'revenge' for making a hero of theirs cry.
- Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -42/+5Plain and simple, you liberals are being "kept" and by the fact that this thinkprogress joke of a website only links to their own edited and buffered internal "sources" shows right there that there is a major problem and flaw with your reliance upon this website as any sort of accurate source of information. All it is, is a common information club where they will apeal to your dilusions and gain your trust to feed you more dilusions. Many, if not all, already think that thinkprogress is some sort of authority now on news.
I can't wait until the day when someone, for a school project, pretends to be liberal, starts a website like move-on.org or thinkprogress.org easily gains the raport of the liberals, and then one day throws it right in your face that half of the things said was *****. Then as extra credit will start taking stats at how many of you blame the sudden change of the website as a hack/hijack.
Who knows, it could already be happening with one of the two...- gridbread, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17"Plain and simple, you liberals are being "kept" and by the fact that this thinkprogress joke of a website only links to their own edited and buffered internal "sources" shows right there that there is a major problem and flaw with your reliance upon this website as any sort of accurate source of information. All it is, is a common information club where they will apeal to your dilusions and gain your trust to feed you more dilusions. Many, if not all, already think that thinkprogress is some sort of authority now on news."
So it's the liberal version of Fox News? - Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -37/+2There is no paradox here, and the two cannot be compared. For one, thinkprogress has no regulation. If Fox News ever really did go too far, like CNN has multiple times in the past, they will be fined and delt with. But thinkprogress and all of your other beloved liberal pig slop news sources have no regulation and can edit and do whatever they want to the information. Thus, why we have such a rash of the liberal cancer today.
- RenZ87, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@Zethris
Do you know Stephen Colbert? He does the same thing for the opposite. - ilikevag, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7dude the entire interview was posted yesterday and was pretty much the same
- Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -20/+3No it isn't "pretty much the same" a half truth is always the most vicious of all lies. Fact.
Edited for convenient context and paraphrasing to incite an emotional response out of it's viewers to cater to the audience is what liberals invented. Flat out. Thinkprogress is very much no exception bottom line.
- 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14> Zethris wrote: "If Fox News ever really did go too far, like CNN has multiple times in the past, they will be fined and delt with."
Fined by whom? Dealt with by whom? And what are these previous occurrences of "fining" and/or "dealings" targeted at CNN of which you write?
If you're thinking of the FCC then please remember that they have very little regulatory power over what takes place on a cable news service such as CNN or FOX. - rakaur, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Is "Zethris" code for "Ann Coulter"?
I don't know anyone else that's vehement enough to spew out garbage phrases such as "liberal cancer." - tehnico, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Zethris
"Edited for convenient context and paraphrasing to incite an emotional response out of it's viewers to cater to the audience is what liberals invented. Flat out. Thinkprogress is very much no exception bottom line."
If that's the case, then your response is the is the one that is being incited. Perhaps the WHOLE liberal agenda is to make you, Zethris, look a blithering, senile, crackpot. But more to the point, if that is the case, then the conservative news outlets are learning well.
- gridbread, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17"Plain and simple, you liberals are being "kept" and by the fact that this thinkprogress joke of a website only links to their own edited and buffered internal "sources" shows right there that there is a major problem and flaw with your reliance upon this website as any sort of accurate source of information. All it is, is a common information club where they will apeal to your dilusions and gain your trust to feed you more dilusions. Many, if not all, already think that thinkprogress is some sort of authority now on news."
- whiteguysamurai, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32What a perfect person to show the bias of the faux news network-republican happy fun time infomercial.
Not only did he not back down, he tore that idiot a new asshole.
And he just sunk into his chair and smirked like the little coward he is.
I hope more democrats take Mr. Clinton's lead, and stand up to these asshole. - jedi693, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Does anyone have the second half of this video?
- treyjp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6i'm still looking for better coverage, but as allatti2d said:
Part 1: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/09/clinton_vs_fox.html
Part 2: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/09/clinton_vs_fox_1.html
- treyjp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6i'm still looking for better coverage, but as allatti2d said:
- jessssse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26my favorite part is that clinton actually takes some accountability in regards to his failure to get bin laden. i can't imagine bush ever doing that.
- Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -26/+5The difference is, Bush wouldn't care. He would say he's accountable. Maybe. But it should wouldn't hold the same weight or supposed scincerity. He has a job elsewhere if what he does in office doesn't work out. That is the difference between republicans and democrats. Democrats have to apeal to the liberal hive mind in order to gain political power, then when it's over, it's over so they MUST tread lightly in order to create and preserve future book deals and other possibilities. Republicans are different, they are elected usually because of how much money they have. How successfull they were. Well this make for a president who mostly doesn't care. That is because they will shoot from the hip, if it doesn't work out, they can retire to their multi million/billion dollar company right after.
- lucidmatt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23@Zethris.
Okay. I'll bite. How was GWB successfull before getting into public office? Two failed oil companies, and running the Texas Rangers into the ground and trading off their top talent. What made him successful, other than having rich parents?
That being said, no, he wouldn't say he's accountable. He doesn't believe he makes mistakes. First debate with John Kerry, question posed "What mistakes do you think you have made in the past four years?" "Mistakes? I dont think I've made any". Such is his attitude. NO accountability. Everyone makes mistakes, especially the President of the United States. It happens, it's human. However, GWB has consistently refused to admit to mistakes, or even be held accountable for the actions of people he appoints. - Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -24/+3For one thing, he sure has made a lot more money than you may ever see in your lifetime. That makes for quite a success and flexibility to start businesses if neccesary to maintain that level of success the remainder of his life.
Because a leader, just like Clinton, doesn't admit mistakes until the job is done. This is lesson #1 on how to be a leader. However, as I said, without you twisitng it more, Clinton does now only to preserve his book deals, Bush wont because he doesn't care. - lucidmatt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Given. He was GIVEN more money than I'll ever see in my lifetime. Furthermore, he has bankrupted nearly every firm he has been in charge of. So he can start as many businesses as he wants, and if he fails at them all, will he still continue to be successful?
And what job, pray tell is being done? Bankrupting the United States with an unending conflict in Iraq? Fomenting hatred and scorn throughout the world? Because he hasn't stopped worldwide terrorism, in fact, he hasn't even staunched it. - Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -23/+2No he was not "given" any more money than he needed to make more. You seem to have an entitlement problem and in which case makes much of your point of view here off base.
The "Job" as described as being the leader of the United States for a period of up to 8 years. the "Job" of being a leader means you don't admit mistakes while being a leader. Any thinking person who has leadership skills knows exactly what I am talking about. Once this is done, then the admitions can come if it will sell a book (Clinton), or they wont because they have what they consider better things to do (Bush)
-End - lucidmatt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Yes, I do have a problem with entitlement, but not as much as I have with the logic of your argument. So feel free to take O'Reilly style -End tag and put it in your personal museum of ways to end a discussion for which you have no facts and only baseless opinions.
- dvfreelancer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"Democrats have to apeal to the liberal hive mind in order to gain political power"
And Republicans have to rig elections. - rakaur, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13You talk like being the President of the United States and "not caring about it" is a good thing. You basically say "he can do what he wants and if he throws the country down the *****, oh well he's rich anyway." I'm willing to bet most of Mr. Bush's money is in off-shore bank accounts so that it can retain its value while the value of the dollar has taken a nose dive since Mr. Bush has been in office.
You do have a good point though: republicans do mostly get elected because of their money. They get a lot of it from corporations, like, oh I don't know, oil companies.
This entire administration is like having a group of little kids with trading cards. I'll trade you Iraq for a Halliburton contract!
- Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -26/+5The difference is, Bush wouldn't care. He would say he's accountable. Maybe. But it should wouldn't hold the same weight or supposed scincerity. He has a job elsewhere if what he does in office doesn't work out. That is the difference between republicans and democrats. Democrats have to apeal to the liberal hive mind in order to gain political power, then when it's over, it's over so they MUST tread lightly in order to create and preserve future book deals and other possibilities. Republicans are different, they are elected usually because of how much money they have. How successfull they were. Well this make for a president who mostly doesn't care. That is because they will shoot from the hip, if it doesn't work out, they can retire to their multi million/billion dollar company right after.
- berfmurret, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12jesus aitch christ cant someone get passionate about something on national television anymore and not get ridiculed?
- bitteroldcoot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18WOW!
An intelligent articulate president.
I never liked Clinton when he was in office, and I thought the whole Monica thing showed he was morally bankrupt, but that was impressive. The democrats should send him out on the campaign trail, he definitely has his mojo back.- rakaur, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Oh yeah, he got a hummer in the White House, he should be burned at the stake. Bush hasn't committed any crimes worse than "getting a blow job."
Right.
- rakaur, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Oh yeah, he got a hummer in the White House, he should be burned at the stake. Bush hasn't committed any crimes worse than "getting a blow job."
- martiancyborg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Can't you guys get him back in office (i'm not american), modify the 22nd amendment or something... ? (I've been reading threads so i know) Bill Clinton is way more popular around the world, compared to GWB. Atleast he wasn't a fool...
- garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Modifying the constitution would take probably at least 3 years and it needs 2/3rds of the congress and senate to support it (which both are controlled by the republicans) so it's unlikely : Besides, that would allow Bush to run again, and although I doubt he would get re-elected by the people, he would definitely get re-elected by Diebold.
- rakaur, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The funny part is is that you're not American, and you know what amendment that's in. You're lucky if you find an American that knows what an amendment even is.
- scamjefe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7good video. thanks for posting. it's nice to see a president that can debate and give a reasonable and insightful to a question.
- steeel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Thanks for putting the video up. Here in Canada we do not have Fauxnews
- Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -25/+5Then how do you know to make an oppinion of it? Oh wait, you were probably told to think that way rather than seeing it for yourself. Great way to illustrate the liberal hive mind. Thanks.
However, somehow luckily though you are right in many areas. The difference is, many people would rather watch Fox news because they have a total ***** detector to get rid of the crap than what comes up all the time on CNN. - bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Damn you're stupid, Zethris. He can form an opinion by watching these clips online.
You have heard of the Interweb, haven't you? It's a series of trucks and tubes. - Shabadoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Actually, we do.
http://www.shoprogers.com/store/cable/ptv/digitaltv_programming_specialty.asp?shopperID=3A4DJ42SAS3P8NCUBRB116TSGRAXDWM1 - Dipsomaniac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@Zethris:
The way to get decent news coverage is NOT to watch the news network that actually went to court so that they'd be able to air what they knew to be false and still call it news.
If that's the standard that you want to call worthy, then you stay in your handbasket by yourself, okay, and try not to take the rest of the country with you. - Horseshoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Guys, just block Zethris, It is widely known that he is a ***** moron that always spews innacuracies...
You respond to him, and you simply give him more folks looking at what stupid ***** he posted. Just block him and talk to real people, not this shill. - steeel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For your information, I hacked satellite dish systems and I had Fauxnews for many years. I now have ***** cable and I no longer watch news, I get all my news from the net.
And I will not block this guy, because if I do, how will I vote him down?
- Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -25/+5Then how do you know to make an oppinion of it? Oh wait, you were probably told to think that way rather than seeing it for yourself. Great way to illustrate the liberal hive mind. Thanks.
- derekknight, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19President Clinton was awesome. He is a brilliant man who did his best to serve this country. I can never fault him for his heart.
I think he handled the sabotage interview masterfully. Fox "News" is pathetic.- rakaur, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1wrong thread. my bad.
- flag564, on 10/12/2007, -34/+5Clinton: I tried to catch bin laden, but failed.
Digg Liberals: CLINTON ROCKS! OH I WISH I COULD HAVE SEX WITH HIM!!!!!
OH HE'S SO SMART, EVEN THOUGH HE DIDNT STOP ONE TERRORIST ATTACK, I STILL LOVE HIM!!!
FAUX NEWS SUCKS!!!!
Liberals are still living pre 9-11.- whiteguysamurai, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12That's why you should post elsewhere.
- rakaur, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26Clinton: I tried to catch him, but failed.
Fox Lovers: THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS, HE FAILED.
Normal People: But at least he trie--
Fox Lovers: SHUT UP, CUT THEIR MICS. - flag564, on 10/12/2007, -24/+4Post elsewhere?
I just summed up this sorry attempt on Digg liberals to prop up this incopotent dunce of a former president. This impeached liar (as stated by members of his own party) sat on his butt while terrorist groups blew the hell out of Americans all over the world. I guess as long as he can lay a slick line, Digg liberals wont give a darn.
Clinton is just so cooooooooool. (barf!) - wjw75, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17@flag564
...and you must be living post-lobotomy. - whiteguysamurai, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12flag564
Seeya!
Don't let the door hit ya on the way out. - flag564, on 10/12/2007, -23/+4
"Normal People: But at least he trie--"
Tried what? bombing an empty tent in Afganistan?
Dude, stop being a shill. Even honest Democrats know that he didnt do squat. - allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5whiteguysamurai --
Oh yeah! That little square by the username... the one with a circle with a slash through it... I forgot about that. Thanks for reminding me! Sometimes it's true, what they say, "Ignorance is bliss." Or putting someone with nothing intelligent to say on your ignore list.
Another very nice Digg feature! :) - andreo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17@flag564:
"Dude, stop being a shill. Even honest Democrats know that he didn't do squat."
I cannot believe how short (or scrambled) the memories of some people are. I'm not very much into politics and was even less so back when Clinton was in office. But for some reason I was interested in the events that happened during Cole bombing, Monica BJ, the impeachment, etc.
I remember very clearly the news report that came in while I was eating lunch in my car at the park while listening to WGN in Chicago. They reported that Clinton launched a missile strike against what he thought was a terror camp that was holding OBL. And I remember all the Republicans and some Dems that wanted to distance themselves from Clinton bashing the hell out of him for doing it. All I heard was "wag the dog" all over the place and out of everyone's mouth.
I think I'm gonna be sick... - rakaur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3flag564, you don't have to be a member of any political party to see what he did and did not do. Go read some Senate reports. Government documents are usually available on microfilm or microfiche at your local library. I'm guessing you can't be bothered to go find any actual facts, though.
If all you know is what you hear from Fox, you have to trust that Fox's reporting and record keeping can be trusted. Which, by the way, your administration's cannot. - TheUngod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The problem with stopping terrorist attacks is you don't hear about the stopped ones. How do you know he didn't stop any, since they never happened? Oddly though, under the Bush administration they did...so who really failed to stop the attacks?
- Horseshoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Guys, just block Zethris AND flag da Fag, It is widely known that they are ***** morons that always spews innacuracies...
You respond to them, and you simply give him more folks looking at what stupid ***** he posted. Just block him and talk to real people, not these shills. (I think I am missing two more... hmmm... enough, they will show up in a bit I am sure.) - LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2 andreo
"They reported that Clinton launched a missile strike against what he thought was a terror camp that was holding OBL. And I remember all the Republicans and some Dems that wanted to distance themselves from Clinton bashing the hell out of him for doing it."
Sounds like you may be trying to spin because you left out many important facts:
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york092401.shtml
1. The Generals on the ground said tent bombing was a one-in-a-million shot
2. Clinton bombed an old camp that was empty
3. Clinton bombed the tents three days after he testified before the grand jury.
4. Clinton bombed the aspirin factory the night before Monica's was to testify before congress
Please remember, the Clinton missile attacks accomplished absolutely nothing. - LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1TheUngod
"The problem with stopping terrorist attacks is you don't hear about the stopped ones. How do you know he didn't stop any, since they never happened? Oddly though, under the Bush administration they did...so who really failed to stop the attacks?"
The US was attacked over five times while Clinton was president - we have had one terrorist attack since Bush has been president and zero since Bush started the war on terrorism.
Just think what might have happened if Clinton would have declared war on terror when we were being attacked in the 1990's - instead Clinton handled it as a law enforcement issues and the terrorists kept on attacking and growing stronger. - TheUngod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The major difference between Clintons 5 attacks is that none of them gave him enough justification to go to war. Clinton, a democrat, would have needed a lot to have his party stand by him while he went to war with "terror." Bush on the other hand, 1 attack was enough for his party and him to go to war due to the large-scale of that particular attack.
And true, we've had 0 attacks since he's been president...however his one was far worse than any under Clinton. And to prevent all these potential attacks, look at what he's taken from us. We have our phone calls tapped, our soldiers are dying, we're getting all but raped on airplanes...and I thought this was to stop the terrorists from changing our way of life. It's pretty damned changed if you ask me!
- kevine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15It's really, really important to also watch the first part of the interview and not just the clip:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/fox-clinton-interview-part-1-osama-bin-laden/
Now I'm Bush-voting Republican, but I thought Clinton came across ***VERY*** well here in almost every way. I've always though it was a mistake to point to Clinton in regards to 9/11 or to assign partisan blame. It just doesn't get us anywhere because nobody would have done the things they did if they knew 9/11 was going to happen.
Now, here's where I'm going to get Dugg down...
One thing Clinton did allude to in this interview, which was one thing portrayed (accurately IMHO) in ABC's Path to 9/11, is that he did try to get Bin Laden, and there was a "Wag the Dog" reaction to it. I remember seeing Wag the Dog posts on several *liberal* mailing lists I'm on when it was happening.
Now, had the Lewinsky controversy not happened while he was in office, Clinton would've been better able to get support for going after Bin Laden, and as such *may* have been able to take stronger action that would've killed Bin Laden and those planning 9/11.
It may seem like a butterfly effect, and you can assign the blame the right-wing for reacting the way they did, but Clinton's actions with Lewinsky and subsequent actions regarding it, did set things in motion which restricted Clinton's ability to deal with what he knew was a direct threat to the United States.
So while I liked what Clinton said in this interview, and how he said it...especially the statements of being forthright in having tried and failed to get Bin Laden, I did feel that he wasn't really so open and forthright in not accounting for and taking responsibility for why there was a Wag the Dog response to his actions.- flag564, on 10/12/2007, -18/+4"Now I'm Bush-voting Republican,"
What a liar. - lucidmatt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Dugg up and applauded. I'm not registered for either party, but I supported Clinton, and I agree. He was hamstrung by Wag the Dog comments, but he also put himself in a position for them to be made.
*we may differ here but...*
The man HAD to know an entire political machine was geared up to get him. Christ, he was messing about with Monica while the I.C. was going on. At least FDR had the brains to keep his mistress discreet. Hell, he died in her bed, but you don't see anyone claim he got involved in WWII to distract anyone from finding out about her.... - willistg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3So you're saying it's the womans fault for giving him the BJ then?
Man's gotta relieve the pressure....lest he explode
- flag564, on 10/12/2007, -18/+4"Now I'm Bush-voting Republican,"
- linkinpark342, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1wrong topic, bury (if anyone actually sees this...)
- cocoamix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33Appears that some people here may have gone through an apostasy during the last decade or so.
I was a Republican during much of the 90s. At the time I thought Clinton was a horrible, slimy President. In retrospect, I'm ashamed that I thought so poorly of him over a sex scandal.
Now that I know how awful a President REALLY can be, I really miss Clinton. It's true that you often don't know how good off you are until something's gone. - allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Here's another source for the interview (neither from Fox nor Crooksandliars)...
Part 1: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/09/clinton_vs_fox.html
Part 2: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/09/clinton_vs_fox_1.html
I'm still looking for a good source for the transcripts. Please post if anyone knows of a reputable source. - Dr.House, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Bill Clinton is the finest orator of our generation. This guy could sell anything so well. He's just brilliant behind the camera, and his performance on Fox was well played. He answered the question suprisingly well and didn't dodge any of them like most liberals do. I think that both Fox and CNN are getting carried away with the mudslinging bull *****. The country is in need of new leadership, not that I'm entirely unhappy with the way things are going right now. I certainly wouldn't want a man like Clinton in office right now, while i have been a staunch conservative in the past, I'm thinking with an open mind. I'll take a liberal president if he has the balls to get things done and keep the country united.
- allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Dr.House --
I agree with you, mostly. I would love to have Clinton back in office, though. He's a great diplomat and a strong leader (I don't give a rat's ass what he does in his personal life), and it's sad to see that none of the parties have anyone very strong in the forefront. I didn't like Kerry very much. We need a good, strong, INTELLIGENT, knowledgeable leader who is more unifying than polarizing. Same with the media.
The division of this country is sickening. People are spewing hate over politicians simply because they belong to a different party from their own, and not because they are being discriminating about the politicians as individual leaders. I mean, the politicians started the mud-slinging, but the media (and the crazy nutjob extremists) took the ball and ran with it.
Once again... a nation divided among itself cannot stand. We all lose. - rhizome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A nation divided against itself cannot stand, so we need the divider...oops, I mean "decider" to hold us up.
- allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Dr.House --
- BonPosh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12
http://digg.com/politics/What_a_Difference_10_Years_Makes_in_the_War_on_Terror
An interesting Digg from a couple weeks ago. Just 10 years ago Clinton was working pretty hard on fighting terror. The republicans at the time were calling it a "Phony Issue." My how times change.... - andreo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Why is it when I hear Clinton explain something that he did (or wants to do) I feel like I'm getting the entire story?
Why don't I feel the same way with the current administration?- rockets, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Because you are a partisan ideologist and won't listen to the other side. Hear? yes, listen? no.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1"Why is it when I hear Clinton explain something that he did (or wants to do) I feel like I'm getting the entire story? "
It's called truthiness, by Colbert. - brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think its the smirk that the current administration has adopted. Even Rice did it during an interview on 60 Minutes last night. It just comes off as really skeezy.
Oh and they lie and dodge and then lie again. They've taken advantage of immediate distribution such that any fact checking always comes well after their lies have been accepted as fact.
- slothroplt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18I hope everyone noticed from the link that, even though Wallace has had dozens of opportunities, he has
NEVER asked a Bush Administration official why they demoted Clarke,
NEVER asked a Bush Administration official about the USS Cole,
NEVER asked a Bush Administration official about the August 2001 PDB, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US."
But he just told Clinton that he did. Lying *****.- xen0blue, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2I assume you're calling CLINTON the lying mother *****.
Because thats what he is. - LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0slothroplt
NEVER asked a Bush Administration official about the USS Cole,
I see we have another Digg extremist making up "facts" - clearly you have no source for these claims and you are just making it up.
Second, the USS Cole was attacked in 2000 - Clinton was president - Bush become president three months later. - tehnico, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@lastvisibledog
The cole was attacked on October 12, 2000. The elections were on November 7th the same year. The USS Cole report and investigation was completed on January 19th 2001. Bush was inaugurated on January 20th 2001.
Any right or left winged individual would have preferred to get the investigation back before taking action. Of course, Bush would have blindly jumped into the fire at the tax payers expense of course before having any body of evidence to work with.
So... Why didn't George W. Bush do anything about the Cole?
- xen0blue, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2I assume you're calling CLINTON the lying mother *****.
- sh0k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Skimmed from the article's quotes:
The party is leaving us on our own, as far as I can tell. I agree unreservedly with the sense of stupefied disgust, revulsion and outrage given voice by members of this community … .
Here’s where I think I come down on this, and this has been no easy couple of days for me: I will not quit. And I will not pretend that making this country a country that tortures is okay. I will not swallow hard and clap louder for the party and I will not take to the sidelines, or write in such a way that might lead others to despair, slow down, or quit.
I’m a fighter, because in this age, a person of conscience must fight. - zenmouse, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Clinton did in fact own. This is why he was president and why Wallace is just a tool.
- jthomp3120, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Could someone explain what he was saying about Murdock donaiting money? Did Murdock donate money so Clinton would agreed to the interview? Or was he saying that Murdock was trying to save face with fox news watchers by badgering clinton?
Thanks for any clarity.- torifile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Murdoch donated money to the Clinton Global Initiative. Apparently that was the reason Fox asked for the interview. It sounds like they told Clinton that they wanted to talk to him about the Initiative when all they wanted to do was ambush him with these questions.
- Dugg2Death, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2..Murdoch donated money to the C.G.I.
..Fox wanted to interview Clinton because of this
..When given the question about U.B.L Clinton felt it was just a chance to divert attention from Murdoch's support for a cleaner environment (by donating $500,000 to C.G.I.) which the right wing of the Republican party will hammer Murdoch for - LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0torifile
"Apparently that was the reason Fox asked for the interview. It sounds like they told Clinton that they wanted to talk to him about the Initiative when all they wanted to do was ambush him with these questions."
If you actually watched the unedited version you would know that you are wrong. Wallace and Clinton agreed to the terms of the interview which was to be 50% Clinton's current work and 50% about anything Wallace wanted to talk about. Wallace tried to talk about Clinton's global imitative but Clinton would not let him. It sure looks like Clinton's act was preplanned but clearly Clinton went way overboard. It did look and sound like Clinton had a few drinks in the green room before the interview.
- PixelCloud, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UwJabtvSUQ
looks like fox has already attempted to make clinton look like he was just "freaking out" ... - lebaige, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5I get a real kick out of the use of the term "neocon" people seem to have adopted lately. Support the Iraq war? You're a neocon! Support the president? You're a neocon! Watch out, those crazy neocons are gonna get you!
- allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yeah, it's just as bad as when people say "Liberal" for all the wrong reasons. The word "neocon" just *sounds* evil, never mind that no one really knows what it means. I get offended when dittoheads toss the word Liberal around as if it's a bad word. I get upset when people throw the word "conservative" around as if it's a bad word.
The real evil are the politicians and the media who have some sort of vested interest in hate-mongering. And many people (the audience) love to watch violent freak-shows... they have a morbid curiosity; there's something about blood and violence and WWF shows and Homeless Fight Clubs and all that. This is no different. It's juvenile, and very sad. - LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0allatti2d
"Yeah, it's just as bad as when people say "Liberal" for all the wrong reasons."
Yes - they should use the more appropriate term: Moonbat
Hey, lighten up - it's joke.
- allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yeah, it's just as bad as when people say "Liberal" for all the wrong reasons. The word "neocon" just *sounds* evil, never mind that no one really knows what it means. I get offended when dittoheads toss the word Liberal around as if it's a bad word. I get upset when people throw the word "conservative" around as if it's a bad word.
- ckerst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If Digg looks biased to the left all you have to do is read some right wing sites. They can't spell, have bad grammer, just repeat each others comments, it's dull. If you want more exposure learn how to write and quite the parroting of ideas.
- palindrome12, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2I totally agree... I just think it's funny that all these Digg liberals sound exactly the same, and repeat other, while burying comments from people with a different view. But oh well, this is the way this site is, I guess if I didn't like it I could go somewhere else. I just love reading all the comments from the kool-aid drinkers out there how Bush did this and Bush did that. Bush gave me a headache! Bush made my mortgage payment go up! Bush stole my toothbrush!
- rhizome, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Comments in stories like this skew leftward because those on the right are incapable of defending their postition on these issues. Notice that you don't pick out any assertions to refute, and everything you say other people are saying did not actually happen. This is the way Rush Limbaugh operates.
Who's the Kool-Aid drinker now?
- rockets, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1Ah, so much liberal Koolaid being handed in this one... So refreshing
But I loved Clinton's purple face!!! Can't beat that! - Cam_86, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5You know what i LOVE about the right wing in America? And i say 'in America' because this isn't apparent in ANY other part of the western world...
They will constantly use personal attacks to dismiss and insult there counterparts. As if bill Clinton having an affair put America at a disadvantage... It might have pushed the focus of americans to that, but that is also hardly Clinton's fault... Esp. since its now clear there was a rather large group of people in the right who were actively trying to get as much media coverage on the issue.
Clinton getting a blow job somehow cheapens America, in conservatives minds, more then Bush blatantly lying and waging a war that has cost America 300 billion dollars and nearly 3000 soldiers lives(and who even knows how many innocent Iraqis, since the republican led govt. decided to not count that... which in itself is pretty controversial)- rhizome, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2They say it looks bad and demeans America's character. These people have a collective self-esteem that makes Nicole Richie look like Napoleon, and so they need to become moralistic at the expense of national security until they gain power and exercise their religion on other countries just so Preznit Horse-Cranker can stay on top. It's a sick situation.
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I wish that Bush's mom had just given George H a blow. We wouldn't have this ***** for a President.
- Petrushka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Cam_86:
Funny you should say that -- it's not just the US where these personal attacks happen. For example, in New Zealand recently there's been a fuss over an extremist religious sect, which members of the right-wing opposition party have regular meetings with, and which has been hiring PIs to spy on the prime minister's husband and various MPs to provide dirt for the opposition to sling. It's quite funny, but only because they were caught doing it.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/24/clinton.binladen/index.html
CNN's summary - atticusfinch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"I just think it's funny that all these Digg liberals sound exactly the same, and repeat other, while burying comments from people with a different view"
That's because most Digg users like to read intelligent comments, not drivel and vitriol spewing from the nuts who are afraid of the "Liberal Boogyman". Go watch O'Reilly to get charged up for your reply. - darkten, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7For all of the folks bickering over this matter, I recommend you watch the unedited clip...including the Wallace set-up/intro where he explicitly states what the terms of the interview were.
Then, I want you to count how many minutes into the interview, and how many questions were posed/asked about the CGI before the "our viewers wrote"/Bin Laden turn came.
Pay very close attention to this.
How long was it? Does it appear to you that the interviewer was sticking to the agreement, or that perhaps he threw out the agreed format when he felt he had the interviewee in a "comfort zone" and had his "guard down"?
Perhaps we can throw out that last part there, as it is a bit leading/suggestive, if anyone wishes, and stick to the original query: Does the clock say that we were about halfway in before the questioning changed? Did it appear that the discussion was announced and switched to "now, for the second part of our interview" or was it "snuck in"?
This is for posterity...so please, let us be honest. Please reply with how many minutes in you feel/saw/observed the "switch"...as this really can't be "spun"...
I'd like to see where this discussion goes.
-D- darkten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'll start. I counted two Clinton Global Initiative Questions, then the Bin Laden thing. This was 4 minutes into the interview.
Anyone else come up with something different?
-D
- darkten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'll start. I counted two Clinton Global Initiative Questions, then the Bin Laden thing. This was 4 minutes into the interview.
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Someone needs to make Chris Wallace a t-shirt that says, "I interviewed Bill Clinton and all I got was a new asshole."
- ptm4261b, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I think it is interesting that an ex-president strongly stated over and over again that he tried to "KILL" Bin Laden many times while in office. Not capture, not arrest, but KILL is the exact wording used many times.
I am not naive to the fact that all governments lie and that murder with extreme prejudice and impunity is common place. However, I cannot forget the Castro years where secret operations occurred to "kill" Castro and when this fact was discovered our wonderful government lied stating that "assassination = murder" and was not only illegal, but would never be allowed for any reason. A person could only be hunted down and shot on the spot during a time of war and war was never declared on Cuba. Of course now that war had been declared on Terrorism we have open season to murder anyone we want with the grandest prejudice and broader impunity than ever before.
I guess the old proverb is true; You have to be the monster in order to kill the monster.
Humanity is so *****!! :-( - Kemo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"I miss having a president that can debate.. gets thrown an on the spot question in this, and acually gives a detailed and well thought out response...
Now days we get "Ummmmm" followed by a blank stare.. and something about putting food on my family.."
-Aidenag
*****!!
I wish Clinton could run again, I vote for him another time! W00t! - Thurmont, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8BILL ROCKS!!!
If George Dubya wants to change the US Constitution so badly, let him change it so EXCELLENT Presidents like Bill Clinton can serve again.
Honestly, Bill had his faults (Monica being the most pronounced) but the good he did for this country FAR outweighs his shortcomings.- xen0blue, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2an excellent liar under oath, I assume you mean.
clinton could stare you in the face and say "i'm not here" and you would believe him.
- xen0blue, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2an excellent liar under oath, I assume you mean.
- xen0blue, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2Wow, Clinton gets ***** in this video.
Of course anything he says the lefties will take as gospel, but if it were reversed and this were president bush talking on some liberal network like nbc, he would be ridiculed for doing exactly what clinton is doing in this video.
And in this video, Clinton is lying AGAIN about trying to capture 'bin laden'. He didn't do jack ***** to capture bin laden, even after those terrorist attacks in the 90's. Why was there ever anything in the news about him trying to catch him if he was 'trying so hard'? Why hadn't anyone ever heard of bin laden before september 11th if he was 'so important' to clinton?- allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7xen0blue --
You should have watched the whole thing on Fox. After the interview, a panel of talking heads (including Brit Hume) came on and conceded that Clinton did try hard to get Bin Laden.
If Clinton lied about that, why would the talking heads agree that he did? They could not dispute what Richard Clarke said in his book, the factual findings he made about Clinton working hard to kill Bin Laden and BL's lieutenants. Clarke worked for Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. -- and was loyal to each of the presidents -- and yet Bush Jr. fired him, demoted him, ignored him.
I think you are screaming that Clinton lied (which is incorrect, even according to Fox) only because Clinton is a democrat and you hate anything democrat, never mind who the individual is. The fact that Clinton is a former President makes it even worse for you, doesn't it? I'm very sorry you feel that way, and I hope you change if this country is going to become great again. - edverb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8xen0blue said: "Why was there ever anything in the news about him trying to catch him if he was 'trying so hard'? Why hadn't anyone ever heard of bin laden before september 11th if he was 'so important' to clinton?"
Listening to some of you rightwingers talk about history is like listening to an illiterate talking about the alphabet. You have zero command of the facts.
--------------
U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan
Retaliation for bombing of U.S. embassies in eastern Africa
August 20, 1998
link: http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saying "there will be no sanctuary for terrorists," President Clinton on Thursday said the U.S. strikes against terrorist bases in Afghanistan and a facility in Sudan are part of "a long, ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism."
[...]
American cruise missiles pounded sites in Afghanistan and Sudan Thursday in retaliation for the August 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
U.S. officials say the six sites attacked in Afghanistan were part of a network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border that housed supporters of Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden.
American officials say they have "convincing evidence" that bin Laden, who has been given shelter by Afghanistan's Islamic rulers, was involved in the bombings of the east African embassies.
-----------
Next up in the education of xen0blue:
link: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html
-----------------
The following text is the second fatwa originally published on February 23, 1998, to declare a holy war, or jihad, against the West and Israel.
It is signed by Osama bin Laden, head of al Qaeda; Ayman al-Zawahiri, head of Jihad Group in Egypt, and several other Islamic terrorist groups.
---------------
Beyond that, you'll have to do your own research. Clinton's suggestion to read Dick Clarke's book (Against All Enemies) is a good one. I also recommend "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll and "Imperial Hubris" by anonymous (later revealed to be Michael Schueuer, CIA's UBL station chief).
Turn off the TV and read. You might learn something. - allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4edverb --
xen0blue said, "Why was there ever anything in the news about him trying to catch him if he was 'trying so hard'?"
The excerpts you gave weren't from Fox news. That's why xen0 never saw them. At least that's what I assume. Some people don't want to watch, read, or listen to any other source of information, unfortunately. - LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1edverb
"Listening to some of you rightwingers talk about history is like listening to an illiterate talking about the alphabet. You have zero command of the facts."
Personal insults and spin - you must be a leftie!
Just remember the cold hard facts:
1. Bill Clinton's efforts related to terrorism were a complete failure - we continued to be attacked by terrorists.
2. Since Bush started the war on terror, we have had zero attacks therefore the efforts are working - no attacks is the desired outcome. - tehnico, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@LastVisibleDog
"Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm."
Nuff said. - tehnico, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@xen0blue
"Why was there ever anything in the news about him trying to catch him if he was 'trying so hard'? Why hadn't anyone ever heard of bin laden before september 11th if he was 'so important' to clinton?"
Um, I heard about him. In fact when I saw the second hit live, that was my first thought. It's that USS Cole mother *****. But why wasn't there anything in the news in the late nineties? Well there was, but the majority of the headlines were stolen from the BJ smear campaign. Which admitedly was Bills fault for getting himeself in the predicament. His bad decision was used by the partisans to limit his ability to perform in other ways.
- allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7xen0blue --
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content po