Clinton Smackdown!

[archibald]

12 years of politcs and I've never, EVER seen a politician utterly destroy a biased "journalist" the way President Clinton [censored]-slapped Faux News' Chris Wallace this morning, a 15 minute nutshell of why he beat the repubs every time....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215445,00.html

[Bansenshukai]

12 years of politcs and I've never, EVER seen a politician utterly destroy a biased "journalist" the way President Clinton [censored]-slapped Faux News' Chris Wallace this morning, a 15 minute nutshell of why he beat the repubs every time....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215445,00.html

I've served in active duty under administrations run by both parties. I don't trust either. Essentially, I continue to serve for the men to my left and my right - them I trust.

However, I will say this; former Pres. Clinton is responsible for not being more aggressive "then" to get after UBL. I would have preferred him "[censored] slap" UBL when he had the chance. The fact is that HIS administration failed; and he openly admits this. The next administration failed too - don't even let me get started there - but, it inherited the Clinton Administration's screw-up; there's no getting around that and anyone with any intellectual honesty knows that. You see, I'm not a Kool-Aid drinker partisan that believes that former Pres. Clinton walked on water, or that the current administration is doing its job in the GWOT. Former Pres. Clinton did not "utterly" destroy anyone in that interview. Quite the opposite, he lost his nerve and allowed his pride to get in front of his usual brilliant intellect. He could have brushed the question aside as he always has and it would have gone unnoticed instead of the "Hey, look at me, I didn't get UBL and I'm [censored] to be called on it." I've seen enough BS in the field to understand that a politician will always be a politician - regardless of what party he adheres to.

[Polynomial]

I don't know JS about politics, but I am pretty sure Clinton is not President any more, there is an ape-like creature doing the job for quite some time now

[LeGambleur]

He he, sweet!

Fox news is a joke, i just can´t understand how people can watch their news and take it seriously and think it´s objective

Edited September 25, 2006 by LeGambleur

[Watchwatcher]

Clinton is an ACTOR, pure and simple. Arguably an even more convincing ACTOR than Reagan at his best. Since the 9/11 film pointing out the lack of response from him, Clinton has known he would need to come out in a very bold and public way to attempt to change public opinion... what you saw was a completely plastic calculated performance which the media gobbled up in exactly the way Clinton had anticipated.

Whether you like him or hate him, you can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that when Bill Clinton is on national TV, his every move, every glance, and every word is completely calculated to MANIPULATE the press and as many naive viewers as possible... in that regard, Clinton is quite reliable.

[r11co]

However, I will say this; former Pres. Clinton is responsible for not being more aggressive "then" to get after UBL. I would have preferred him "[censored] slap" UBL when he had the chance.

What, like the same way George Bush snr. 'bitchslapped' Saddam Hussain? The majority of Americans are so force fed their own [censored] that they have no hope of even approaching an understanding of the truth.

Simple fact is that the world is a more hostile place thanks to the current administration's handling of foreign policy.

'UBL' (if I think I know who you are talking about) is almost certainly dead, but the threat of him being alive is a more powerful weapon for Bush jnr. than any so called bitchslapping. Problem is you don't seem to get that, but just keep living in fear and handing over your freedoms.....

Edited September 25, 2006 by r11co

[gran]

If only Al Gore had been elected we wouldnt have been in this kind of trouble

[ekhunter]

12 years of politcs and I've never, EVER seen a politician utterly destroy a biased "journalist" the way President Clinton [censored]-slapped Faux News' Chris Wallace this morning, a 15 minute nutshell of why he beat the repubs every time....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215445,00.html

Clinton didn't [censored]-slap anyone, he's only use to the leftist press kissing his ass. I watched it, and he did a good job responding, but believe me, he knew the question was coming, and he knew exactly what he would say. Remember, he's got books to sale now. If he hadn't spent so much time trying to trying to hide his affair, which he did have, he would have concentrated on greater matters, like getting UBL. Were the Republicans on a 'witch hunt' when they went after Clinton over Lewinsky, of course they were, that's American politics. It's the same thing Democrats do when they are in power. Democracy at it's finest. I wouldn't exactly call Chris Wallace is a biased journalist either. I've seen him rip a few Republicans a new one on his show. What it boils down to, is it was 'all for show', the blame game continues, remember what Nancy Pelosi said the other day, it doesn't matter if this administration gets bin Laden now, it's been five years, which has been too long. Hopefully the jackass is dead, but we won't know for sure until that unbiased news agency known as Al-Jazerra plays his next video. The true beauty of it all is we have the right to agree to disagree. You want to talk about [censored]-slapping, then that's talk about what the Europeans did to the Americans in the Ryder Cup this past weekend. Now, that is a [censored]-slapping.

[Guest TTK]

Personally I think I would have preferred to be an American under Clinton's regime than the present regime.....I surely KNOW that America was safer then.....and happier.....I mean all we had to worry about was Monica's dry cleaning bill...!

Fux news....first ..foremost and fair..........yeah the way Desmond Tutus hair is fair....!

[Bansenshukai]

What, like the same way George Bush snr. 'bitchslapped' Saddam Hussain?

No. Like the way he (Fmr Pres. Clinton) should have ensured UBL was killed when he was not as well protected and was more vulnerable. But, I am not discussing Iraq. I'll address that later, as you seem to want to do a relative comparison of bad leadership between our two Chief Executives. Hint: They both score low. Sorry.

The majority of Americans are so force fed their own [censored] that they have no hope of even approaching an understanding of the truth.

It's a good thing you are in the minority then, right?

The truth is relative. I fight under the orders of men such as these. I have seen four of my friends die on the orders of the current US President. Do not think for a second that I am naive to what you consider "truth". This "truth" is grey in this case. Former President Clinton's failure and lack of real initiative in this regard has greatly contributed to our involvement in this "Global War on Terrorism" (for lack of a better term). UBL was a critical catalyst for why my hometown does not have two towering buildings in its skyline anymore and why it lost over 2,000 American citizens - that's right, it was also my hometown. Now, I agree 100% with former President Clinton in that there is no real reason why Iraq should have the priority it has over Afghanistan. He is absolutely right, in my opinion. I don't agree with the reasons that we "used" to get into Iraq and I don't agree with us spreading our military resources to engage in that campaign. The results are clearly visible in Afghanistan - where UBL should have been killed by another Chief Executive.

I like to remain objective and I believe I'm a great position to do so. After all, I lost neighbors in the WTC attacks and friends in OEF. I will be returning to the region soon enough for another deployment and I might, or might not, come back from it. So, believe me that I do not allow my perspective to be shaped by party lines and hero worship. Fmr President Clinton was perhaps (in my opinion) one of the most intellectually gifted men in the White House in the 20th Century. He was NOT - as some "Kool Aid" drinker Republicans tout - a total failure. The facts support the notion that he failed at getting UBL. UBL and his organization financed and supported the 9-11 attacks. Simple enough?

When a leader screws-up, he takes full responsibility. I believe Fmr Pres. Clinton did that in this, and other interviews. I just think the guy is sick of defending this. Fmr. Presidents are all concerned with "legacy". Fmr Pres. Clinton, I believe, is no different. But, he is not the "devil" either. I really wish partisans woke up and tasted a bit of "truth" as you so eloquently put it.

I don't get fed the BS you speak of because I execute the National Strategy at the most personal level. When your life hangs on the orders of your President, you don't cling to unrealistic beliefs and hero worship to get you throught your day. When bullets snap past your head, you don't revert to the speech you heard on TV at the National Republican Convention. Finally, relax and enjoy the forum... like I tell my men when we are back in CONUS and get [censored] at administrative BS: "At least we are not getting shot at."

Edited September 25, 2006 by Nouns Defions

[Guest TTK]

When will you Americans get it thru' your skulls that there weren't 2000+ AMERICANS killed......they were all different nationalities....from all over the globe......British / Egyptian / French / Indian.....etc etc.....and Americans.....!

[Bansenshukai]

Problem is you don't seem to get that, but just keep living in fear and handing over your freedoms.....

I just caught this.

My reply: How did you come to that assesment as to what I do and do not "get"? I don't enter into "assessing" you personally as I do not know you and this forum does not present a good enough opportunity for me to get an idea as to what you think, know, do or why. The reasons I don't is that I would do us both a disservice by engaging you on a personal level on something that should remain as intellectual jousting and nothing more. I don't know you and you DON'T know me. Don't assume you do. It is not only rude, but also counter-productive. Have a nice day.

[yt74]

I thought it was a pathetic display by a pathetic former president...

[fotoman]

i have a pact with myself not to get into the political threads on the new board.

but i have to say, i saw the interview - it pumped me up, i actually physically applauded.

I wish we could have more leaders like him. He will go down as one of the greatest americans in history. Partly as a president, but mostly for what he is doing now with the 6 billion he is raising for real charity work. Not BS overhead heavy organizations.

you watch him speak, and he actually understands and discusses things.

its sad really, pathetic -- if GWB is the best america has to offer - - we deserve to have china take us over.

Which they will in the next 20 yrs.

Were going to be making the reps for them!!!!!

at least, they will have more customers for us then we provide for them

[trunk21]

Gotta do something to stay in the limelight. He's a media [censored], nothing more. Just like the rest of them...

[ekhunter]

i have a pact with myself not to get into the political threads on the new board.

but i have to say, i saw the interview - it pumped me up, i actually physically applauded.

I wish we could have more leaders like him. He will go down as one of the greatest americans in history. Partly as a president, but mostly for what he is doing now with the 6 billion he is raising for real charity work. Not BS overhead heavy organizations.

you watch him speak, and he actually understands and discusses things.

its sad really, pathetic -- if GWB is the best america has to offer - - we deserve to have china take us over.

Which they will in the next 20 yrs.

Were going to be making the reps for them!!!!!

at least, they will have more customers for us then we provide for them

Ironic that one of his biggest contributers to his charity is Rupert Murdoch of FOX fame!

Americans have been selecting slackers for a long time for President. Most people don't want the skeletons or their dirty laundry aired in a campaign, so a lot of good people don't run. I mean, if you don't have any skeletons in your closet, then have you really lived. I don't think so. We need to shake things up a bit. This next election is going to be worse than the last one. The Republicans leading candidate will probably be John McCain(potential Manchruain candidate) or the Dems leading candidate Hillary Clinton (Vast Right Wing Conspiricy out to get her and her husband). Enough said. Maybe we could get a good independent like Ron Jeremy to run for President with Ginger Lynn Allen as V.P.. Now that would be a sight to see. I honestly don't think they could do any worse than the status quo.

[eddhead]

Clinton is an ACTOR, pure and simple. Arguably an even more convincing ACTOR than Reagan at his best. Since the 9/11 film pointing out the lack of response from him, Clinton has known he would need to come out in a very bold and public way to attempt to change public opinion... what you saw was a completely plastic calculated performance which the media gobbled up in exactly the way Clinton had anticipated.

Whether you like him or hate him, you can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that when Bill Clinton is on national TV, his every move, every glance, and every word is completely calculated to MANIPULATE the press and as many naive viewers as possible... in that regard, Clinton is quite reliable.

See this is why so many politcal pundits on both the left and right objected to the 9/11 film.. and yes I said the right too (Bill Bennett, Pat Buchanan) the film itself was filled with lies, half-truths, and events that never even occured including meetings that showed the president not engaged in meetings, and distracted by the lowinsky deal. All concerned including Bill Cohen who is a Republican but served in the Clinton cabinet agree that he was very involved and not at all distracted.. in fact the message to the white house staff was we are going to get nailed by the right wing press anyway, so you might as well do the righ thing.

It shouls be noted that ABC's explanation was that it is a Docu-Drama and not an historical reenactment. As such it was not designed to be historically true to the events, and no one should ake it that way. Nevertheless, as substantiated in this post, people pick and choose what they want to hear.. you ar enot the only one who did not pay attention to or regard abc's 'disclaimer.

BTW, It should be noted that the writer and directer of the film are righ wing activists who particpate in groups whose publicly stated goals are to use the media to promote the right wing agenda. It should also be noted that the original technical consultant, a former senior FBI agent who served and was involved during the adiministration resigned before the film was produced because he felt the film distorted the historical record.

SO, if you want the tre historical perspective, read Richard Clarke's book.

On the subject of setting poor chis wallace up, remind you of any other presidental flayings.. perhaps the way George H Bush set up Dan Rather...?

Bottom line: Do I think Clinton had a 'comprehensive' strategy for containing the taliban? Actually no, i do not. Nevertheless, i do beleive the Clinton adminsitraion had the taliban and bin-laden on their radar screen, especially after the Cole bombing and was at least aware and connected to their activities and were doing their best to contain him. I also think they were clear with the transtion Bush team on the al-queda threat, however I do not believe the Bush admin took it a seriously as they should have. This is not just conjecture on my part, read the book...they did not follow up on al queda intelligence initiatives, they demoted the head counter terrorism operations because it was not the crowd they were interested in chasing... (can you say Iraq?)... In fact, that is why they tried so hard (and are still trying) to link Iraq to al-Queda. I still do not get that.

[gran]

I like Clinton and i can see why some do not like Hollywood.....we all remember the mess sorrouding JFK...M.Monroe....and then later we had (the bright cowboy) Ronald R...its difficult to know where politics begin and hollywood ends (or is the other way round) ...we want to see a president turn movie actor

[Isoroku]

I think that interview could have been entirely different. I think the content of Clinton's response was quite logical and reasonable...Essentially : " We did everything that made sense at the time with the knowledge available...." Indeed, bin Laden was not a well known figure until the late 90's, and attributing the Somalia-debacle with bin Laden's comment about it showing our weakness isn't a fair connection of dots to Clinton. I think if he would have packaged that response in his normal cool, intelligent demeanor that he could walk away from that interview knowing that his perspective was clearly conveyed and his global initiative would have been discussed more thuroughly.

Instead, his lapse of calm very much shrouded his (in my opinion) justified response. If I had read his non-tempermental lines of his response on paper, like how no one heard to UBL at the time, and that the FBI and CIA wouldn't certify the intel...I would be inclined to agree with him.....

But with his "All YOU right wingers did this....and all the republicans did that!" and other martyrdom-like slogans made him look incredibly partisan and robbed his response of some credibility. Whenever anyone bunches a group together (like when he said "all the conservatives are this and that") it very much turns me off. I believe there are good, competent forces on either side of the aisle, and I would never say "all democrats are" anything...because I have always been drawn to the likes of Obama, Lieberman, Beareaux, etc....just like I am to McCain, Gulliani, etc.

He had a perfect oppurtunity to go into enemy territory and convey his message to a viewing audience that statistically doesn't support him and his party and lay out a clear explaination and conveyance of what, to me, seemed like reasonable job done as president in that regard, given the resources, limitations, and intel he had. But instead he made himself look like a died in the wool, archetype liberal throwing a fit because he got asked a touchy question and was tricked....causing right wingers to cheer about him losing his cool and sounding less like his normally super-cool self, and that he had good reason to be defensive...and leftists cheering becuase the smack down with a FNC reporter.

I don't see how anyone could claim a victory there. It seemed to me like a waste of time and a lost oppurtunity to give attention to a great cause that Clinton is doing alot to advance. One question and he went on a tangent for several minutes at the cost of discussing something alot more worthwhile than what happened in Somalia over a decade ago. Shame on Fox for getting on that topic...shame on Clinton for staying on it.

[Guest TTK]

Who cares about all that nonsense.......America is a village and everybody's gossiping.....the other villages don't care......the single biggest thing for me was........his trousers were too short.......did you see the gap between sock and pant leg.......all that skin........how terribly gauche......

[Watchwatcher]

edd...

you may be missing my point (or emphasis). during one chapter of my life, i worked in close contact with some master 'spinners.' They had more charisma and personal warmth than you could imagine. You would believe them 200% of the time and trust them more than your own mother. If anyone ever accused them of lying, they could twist the truth like a pretzel until whoever it was that pointed the finger looked like the devil himself.

I would guess that 99.9% of the American public has never come in direct contact with people like this.

They are rare.

Consequently, few people even understand who they're dealing with... they just like the way this guy sounds... he sounds sincere... he sounds truthful... he's the guy you want on your team... someone you'd want to tell others is your friend... etc.

People like this are very calculating. They enjoy their ability to shape and mould perceptions. They believe they are more intelligent than most other people. It is a selective form of megalomania--a character flaw. Usually if you look back in the person's personal history you will find severe imbalances (this is very evident with both Bill and Hillary, both of which had extremely difficult relationships with their parents during childhood).

I'm not saying that everyone is naive, but my observation of Clinton is that he is this rare kind of a person and you simply cannot take him at first impression ... you have to look at the second derivative and ask yourself... why would he say this, what is his motive, how does this benefit his next few moves on the chess board.

[ekhunter]

To want to be President... you'd have to be insane or a megalomaniac.

Or Both!

[eddhead]

edd...

you may be missing my point (or emphasis). during one chapter of my life, i worked in close contact with some master 'spinners.' They had more charisma and personal warmth than you could imagine. You would believe them 200% of the time and trust them more than your own mother. If anyone ever accused them of lying, they could twist the truth like a pretzel until whoever it was that pointed the finger looked like the devil himself.

I would guess that 99.9% of the American public has never come in direct contact with people like this.

They are rare.

Consequently, few people even understand who they're dealing with... they just like the way this guy sounds... he sounds sincere... he sounds truthful... he's the guy you want on your team... someone you'd want to tell others is your friend... etc.

People like this are very calculating. They enjoy their ability to shape and mould perceptions. They believe they are more intelligent than most other people. It is a selective form of megalomania--a character flaw. Usually if you look back in the person's personal history you will find severe imbalances (this is very evident with both Bill and Hillary, both of which had extremely difficult relationships with their parents during childhood).

I'm not saying that everyone is naive, but my observation of Clinton is that he is this rare kind of a person and you simply cannot take him at first impression ... you have to look at the second derivative and ask yourself... why would he say this, what is his motive, how does this benefit his next few moves on the chess board.

Got it. I also work with some heavy spinners an unfortunate fact of life in large companies.. swim with sharks you know...

While I agree that the Clintons are of this ilk, considering thier livlihood, my guess is this is less a rare personallty trait than you may think. For instance the current administration is constantly spinning about synergies between Iraq and the war on terror. You're either with us or against us, and if you are against us, you are a trairor. At the time of the last presidential election, more than 50% of the population believed that Saddam was involved in 9/11 planning. Why? because our president all but said so when he spoke about the axis of evil during the 2001 State of the Union address. Why would he say that? Was he pre-positioning for an Iraqie invastion? Probably. Did he have and evidence whatsoever that Iraq was involved? I think not. Did Geore H Busy set up Dan Rather the same way Clinton set up Chris Wallace. Yeah probably. Did candidate Bush slime McCain in the South Carolina primary while all the time bearing a convival grin? Yo You bet. It happens all the time.. misstatements, distortions and spin.. and it is not just politics. You do not get to the top without learing how to step on some heads and still smell like a rose. Reagan was a master at it as well but he let his staff do the heavy lifting so he could appear above the frey. What do you think Karl Rove gets paid to do?

And it is not just politics... why would the producers of 9/11 produce an historically inaccurate account of the events leading up to the attack, when the historical account is sobering enough. What is their ulterior, unstated objective?

[eddhead]

Who cares about all that nonsense.......America is a village and everybody's gossiping.....the other villages don't care......the single biggest thing for me was........his trousers were too short.......did you see the gap between sock and pant leg.......all that skin........how terribly gauche......

that wasn't a gap

[eddhead]

that was not a gap, it was a hanging appendage. I understand that when properly motivated, he can split an inseam