« What a Richard | Main | The press who cried "wolf" »

That Clinton Interview and the Smirk

That Clinton interview was worse than I thought it would be. He really lost his cool. What is it about Democrats and smirks?

More highlights at Hot Air.

Newsbusters has a transcript and takes a look at attempts in the liberal blogs to discredit the interview. In my opinion, the only way to discredit that interview would be to prove it was a Clinton impersonator being interviewed.

Ace has been all over this interview all weekend, comparing some of Clinton's claims to what really happened.

Michelle Malkin has a great roundup.

Update: I agree with Sister Toldjah that what is most infuriating about the interview is the attack on the Bush administration. There have been tons of opportunities for the current administration to criticize the former, not only over the terrorism issue, but for leaving a recession, corporate scandals and lots of other messes to clean up. This president makes the occasional veiled reference, but has never attacked or placed blame on the Clinton administration like Bill Clinton did on anyone he could point a finger at for eight years. He didn't limit placing blame on the other side, either -- remember Janet Reno and Waco? He continues to point fingers to this very day. There are quite a few differences between the current and former presidents, but one of the most striking is how one seeks to place blame for everything on anyone but himself, and the other refrains from placing blame many times when he easily could have.

Others blogging:

Betsy Newmark
Tammy Bruce
Stop the ACLU
Webloggin
Wide Awake Cafe

Update: Golden Boy Bill Clinton will not be tarnished by a nasty little blow up on Fox News of all places. Nope. Ain't gonna happen. I watched my local news tonight (WRAL) and saw a clip from the Clinton interview. It was introduced by the anchor saying Bill Clinton was "fired up" at the suggestion that he didn't do enough to catch Osama bin Laden. Then they showed the clip of the interview where Clinton talked about all the things he did to catch bin Laden and how Bush had not done nearly as much as he had and how he had never criticized Bush. Cough. Excuse me, I choked on that one. Then the anchor closed by saying Clinton had accused Fox News of something or another (right wing conspiracy, hit job or some such, I think). Anyway, the impression was that even though that rightwing Fox News had attacked Clinton, he had not backed down and had stood his ground and told them how much more he had done than Bush. They didn't show the little "smirk" comment or the worst of the freakout. I turned the channel. I have not watched WRAL news in months and now I remember why. The media has quite a bit invested in the Clinton legacy and he will have to do much worse than this interview before many of them will admit he is anything less than the greatest president that ever lived.

Update II: What it felt like to be Chris Wallace (via Media Bistro -- Fishbowl DC):

The groundrules were simple--15 minutes--to be divided evenly between questions about the Clinton Global Initiative and anything else I wanted to ask.

I intended to keep to the groundrules. In fact--I prepared 10 questions--5 on the CGI and 5 on other issues.

I began the interview with 2 questions about Mr. Clinton's commitment to humanitarian causes. His answers were cogent and good-humored.

Then--I asked him about his Administration's record in fighting terror--fully intending to come back to CGI later (as indeed I did).

I asked what I thought was a non-confrontational question about whether he could have done more to "connect the dots and really go after al Qaeda."

I was utterly surprised by the tidal wave of details--emotion--and political attacks that followed.

The President was clearly stung by any suggestion that he had not done everything he could to get bin Laden. He attacked right-wingers--accused me of a "conservative hit job"--and even spun a theory I still don't understand that somehow Fox was trying to cover up the fact that NewsCorp. chief Rupert Murdoch was supporting his Global Initiative. I still have no idea what set him off.

Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward--wagging his finger in my face--and then poking the notes I was holding--I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me.

The President said I had a smirk. Actually--it was sheer wonder at what I was witnessing.

I tried repeatedly to adhere to the ground rules--to move the President along--and back to the CGI. But he wanted to keep talking about his record fighting terror.

When it became clear he wanted to throw out the ground rules--then I just went with the flow of the interview.

See, it wasn't a smirk. It was dumbfounded shock at the mountain coming down in front of him.

Update III (9/25): From Hugh Hewitt:

But books like Lawrence Wright's cannot be manipulated, and so Clinton launches into a furious counterattack on Wallace, Fox and ABC, the Bush Administration and right wing critics and media. This fascinating bit of theater --part paranoia, part panic-- distills Clinton's argument to: "Who you going to believe, Dick Clarke and his memoir, or everybody and everything else?"

Bill Clinton's record vis-a-vis Osama cannot withstand even two minutes of sharp questions-and-answers. He's obliged to tightly control every encounter with the press, denounce every serious work of history, obfuscate by pointing to meeting after meeting or to non-sequitors like the fact that no one knew at the time that Osama was connected to Mogadishu (but when, Mr. Clinton, did you become aware of his connection), legal tap dancing --the FBI and CIA wouldn't let me do it-- and the worst of all, chest thumping about how he'd be waging the war if he was still president.

Whatever Clinton hoped to accomplish with this childish filibuster and tantrum, it guaranteed the opposite: No such fury is required when the facts are on your side. You don't have to control every encounter and explode with anger and accusations when asked if you would like to comment on a new book.
...
What is astonishing is that in the five years since 9/11, the Democratic Party and the nation's media has become even more feckless about the threat from Islamist terror than Bill Clinton was --and remains.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference That Clinton Interview and the Smirk:

» Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense linked with Clinton Unleashed

» Stuck On Stupid linked with Slick The Willie Loses It

» The Political Pit Bull linked with VIDEO: Clinton Bugs On Wallace (Full Clip)

» Stuck On Stupid linked with The Clintons And Their Terrorist Ties

» In Search Of Utopia linked with Clinton Eats Fox New's Lunch

» Sensible Mom linked with He Poked His Notes

» BIG DOGS WEBLOG linked with Rewriting History; Eight Months vs Eight Years

» Iowa Voice linked with Liveblogging The Clinton Interview

» rightlinx.com linked with Bill Clinton, Terror Warrior

» The Consortium linked with Clinton's Meltdown

» Musing Minds linked with Clinton on Fox News Sunday

» Drudge Radio Archive linked with Clinton Unhinged? On Script? Or Under the Table?

» Church and State linked with Bill Clinton Still hasn't Learned to NOT Lie

Comments (130)

looks like Clinton wishes t... (Below threshold)
jp:

looks like Clinton wishes to challenge Jimmy Carter as the most pathetic ex-President title.

He did all he could to find... (Below threshold)

He did all he could to find Bin Laden...right.

The CIA and FBI could not link up with each other..right.

Jamie Gorelick ring a bell President Clinton? Or your grand plan for "scaring" Al Qaeda:

"It would scare the (expletive) out of al Qaeda if suddenly a bunch of black ninjas rappelled out of helicopters in to the middle of their camp. It would get us an enormous deterrence and show those guys we're not afraid."

He was more anxious in trying to get cash from China than he was trying to find Bin Laden.

All that was missing was th... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

All that was missing was the part where Clinton stood up and shouted "BLOOD FOR ODIN!"

What you have here is a man... (Below threshold)
kirktoe:

What you have here is a man with a maturity level of a 10 year old. Plain and simple. Everything has to be about him. The man is a narcisist.

Everything is Chris Wallace' fault.

You can see that Wallace is flabbergasted at the total inmaturity of a former President.

The contrast between Clinton and Bush is clear. One is an adult and one is a little boy.

Where have we heard this be... (Below threshold)
Florence Schmieg:

Where have we heard this before? It's all the fault of a vast right wing conspiracy!! Pathetic.

"The contrast between Clint... (Below threshold)
jp:

"The contrast between Clinton and Bush is clear. One is an adult and one is a little boy."

not just W, compare/contrast Reagan, HW and W compared to Clinton and Jimmah...how anyone in their right mind would consider voting Dem for Leader of the Free World is beyond me.

I want to chime in on this ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

I want to chime in on this before the idiots arrive. Clinton learned that finger wag from his mother when she caught him lying, no doubt. Hard to believe that man was President of the United States. A search of the military history of the Clinton Administration will reveal many things, but not any mention of al-Qaeda or Osama. Clinton spent more time and effort getting the "W's" of the computer keyboards than they did in trying to get OBL. The Clinton administration truly was a criminal enterprize.

Are you kidding? Nobody out... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Are you kidding? Nobody outsmirks the current smirker-in-chief. He was born with a silver smirk on his mouth!

All I saw in this interview was a good smackdown of Chris "ferret-face" Wallace, who tried to punk Clinton and got more than he bargained for. I didn't hear much, if any, criticism of the current administration. He was wondering, as are many other Americans, why Bush didn't pay more attention to the intel they were given. A reasonable question.

The people who post on this... (Below threshold)
Fordrill:

The people who post on this website live in a bizarro world.

Anyone who can compare a man to a child and find George W. Bush more of a man is living in complete and utter denial of everything they see and hear.

George Bush has acted like a spoiled little child from the day he took office and has the articulation capacity of a 3-year-old.

Bill Clinton is - and always will be - an eloquent speaker, a sharp debater with a complete command of the facts and understanding of the complexities of any issue.

This is what comes from being curious, educating yourself and not falling down drunk until you're 40 years old.

Stop making apologies for the moronic man-child who inhabits the oval office. He's made a complete fool out of you people and the country entire.

And you want facts? Well, first of all, you won't find them on Fox News, The New York Post or the National Review.

Go ahead, fools. Live your lie. It's funny to watch - despite the horrid consequences of having the idiot in charge.

Well, I see the idiots have... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Well, I see the idiots have chimed in. So what you fools are telling me, is that I do not remember what went on from 1992 to 2000. I am sure I heard most of that liars speeches, and I do not recall one related to Osama Bin Ladin or al-Qaeda. I recall little if any response to that attacks on Somalia, the attacks on the base in Saudi Arabia, the attacks on the embassies in Africa, or the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. I did not hear about Richard Clarke until after Clinton left office. Give that MotherFu*ker a polygraph test. He is not on trial. Let him see his own lies. He lied to his wife, his child, his administration and the American People. He has not morals scruples or values any adult should display.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III you g... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III you got it 100% correct. The democrats have been lied to and lied to each other for so long the don't reconize the truth. Their partents lied to them and the lies were continued by the education community. I never failed to correct my children when they come in with some lie by a teacher (democrat). The teachers didn't like it but as all cowards do they were scared to say anything to me when they were told they had been called a liar. I guess they figure that someone that hunts game every year has a gun and might just show up and lay them down.
What I can't figure out is why people don't kill more of these fools. Maybe they think it isn't right to kill a menatal retard, or like the old dats, take care of the drunks and mentally retarded. I really look for some mass slaughters in the school systems and government offices if the democrats take over again. I remember it happened quite a bit a few years ago.

I have a quick question.</p... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

I have a quick question.

Zeisdorf and Scrapiron, do you 2 share a padded cell or do you have separate ones?

Well that's some pretty sca... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Well that's some pretty scary stuff there, Scrappy. I'm sure you were a hit at all the parent-teacher conferences. Do you still beat your wife? What exactly does your deep seated pathological hatred have to do with the Clinton interview? I'll bet you'd like to "lay him down" too, wouldn't you, Scrappy?

He's pointed so many finger... (Below threshold)
BorgQueen:

He's pointed so many fingers over the years I can't keep count any longer. The one question I have though is this: If so-and-so was responsible for this, and so-and-so was responsible for that, etc etc etc, what was Bill doing for eight years? Wasn't HE supposed to be in charge, making the decisions? Why did he apparently let every so-and-so in Washington take over the Presidency?

Too bad Truman didn't nail his "The buck stops here" sign to the desk in the Oval Office!

Hugh, that is two questions... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Hugh, that is two questions, you idiot. No matter. Groucho, I don't like being lied to. Be it a former President of the United States, or some idiot on a Blog. If you had the balls to stand in front of me and lie, you would understand just how much I dislike it. Since you must have been in pampers when Clinton was President, I do not know why you post here at all.

its amazing the left still ... (Below threshold)
jp:

its amazing the left still is lying and spinning clinton's "legacy"....wonder how Buchanan was spinning his presidency while Lincoln was handling war and low approval ratings?

I had the misfortune of liv... (Below threshold)
Battsman:

I had the misfortune of living in Georgia when Jimmah was governor, and then watched in shock as a country was somehow duped into voting this man as President.

I thank God that I had the joy of watching the nation awaken and kick that old boy out in 1980 (and I'm a Georgia native, mind you, just nothing like that ignoramus). What a tremendous surge in pride came in with Reagan. The Left still hates him, and will go to their collective graves doing so, so it must really grate on their nerves that history is going to be orders of magnitude kinder to Reagan than their little spoiled heroes, jimmah and bubba.

Now we have an adult in the WH again, someone who doesn't lead by polls, but sees the greatest danger to Civilization in centuries and acts. Since I have children, I thank God we have GWB taking this was seriously, rather than "police action" bubba or "earth in a lurch" gore or "Hey, I served in Vietnam!" JK.

Zelsdorf,You don't... (Below threshold)
Fordrill:

Zelsdorf,

You don't like being lied to? Look at your current President and, for that matter, look in the mirror - since you're obviously in denial about about the incredible number of lies you've ignored the last 5 years.

Oh, but Clinton. He's the DEVIL. He lied about an infidelity. How many people died due to his lie about a blow job? Sure, you don't have an answer for that and you never will. You'll probably try to turn this around on something I never said or insinuated, like I MUST be against all military action because I don't agree with your lame point of view. Just to set the record straight before you try to twist it, I've never had a problem with getting BL, going into Afghanistan, or, for that matter, going into Iraq - until I was lied to. And that's what it was, a lie. Iraq - sorry - was based on a lie and has put us in a worse position than we ever have been. But spin it however you want. It's your side's M.O.

Scrapiron,

You're a scary, angry fool - and you make my point better than I do. Thanks for posting, psycho.

I would really like to see ... (Below threshold)
Quimby:

I would really like to see someone answer his charge that the Bush Admin did nothing in the 8 months before 9/11....I have always wondered about that. Is it true or not?

IF ONLY, Clinton had gone a... (Below threshold)
Soupy2c2:

IF ONLY, Clinton had gone after bin laden like he did all the right wingers. He thinks he saved lives as Pres. -- how many was that on 9-11 alone and just to start count of what he cost us!

All - I am a sim... (Below threshold)
KNKLHD57:

All -

I am a simple person and we have a simpe saying where I live - "When you fling a rock it is the hit dog what yelps the loudest." I'd say Chris Wallace did an admirable job of flinging a rock....

i had written these thought... (Below threshold)
hnav:

i had written these thoughts earlier...

For Democrats, Bill's implosion poses a sincere problem. They have been using Bill to campaign for various Democrats for this Fall's election, (mostly to fundraise). Democrats seem to forget the Clinton impotency to influence anyone. The Clintons may drive more away, than they attract.

Having Americans reminded of the Clinton negligence from the past, failing to address serious threats prior to 9-11, enabling problems with inept weakness and appeasement, is a serious problem for Democrats with November looming.

The Democrat Partisans have been promoting a silly political message, the disastrous Clinton effort was better for Americans. As if the threat of Islamic Radical Terrorism could simply go away, if ignored, appeased, or embraced. Like John Kerry's effort in 2003, Liberal Democrats often advocate returning to the dangerous denial of the 1990's.

Some Democrats these days, actually blame President Bush for Muslim Radical Militancy, with generic accusations of 'growing terrorism around the World'. They have tried to obstruct essential measures, which have protected Americans from attack ever since 9-11. The Democrat Party has attempted to 'kill' the Patriot Act, close Gitmo, block interrogations and surveillance of terrorists, even undermine the admirable Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, Bill Clinton is personally offering an admonition, a sincere warning against this foolishness with his conceited presence.

But now, I think it is worse than previously imagined. This will be the focus on the internet for some time, and the image for Democrats is not good. Bill is actually appearing quite demented. It will be hard for Democrats to use him in the future, and bodes terribly for Hillary's political ambitions.

Reporters on the other hand, might just begin to ask the Clintons more serious questions, imagining the ratings boom to Fox News this Sunday. Will we see Katie ask Hillary, why the Clintons lied about Genocide in Rwanda?

No, but if they want ratings, they should...

Watching this, i could not help but imagine the missed opportunities, to stop 9-11 during those 8 ugly years of malfeasance.

i had written these thought... (Below threshold)
hnav:

i had written these thoughts earlier...

For Democrats, Bill's implosion poses a sincere problem. They have been using Bill to campaign for various Democrats for this Fall's election, (mostly to fundraise). Democrats seem to forget the Clinton impotency to influence anyone. The Clintons may drive more away, than they attract.

Having Americans reminded of the Clinton negligence from the past, failing to address serious threats prior to 9-11, enabling problems with inept weakness and appeasement, is a serious problem for Democrats with November looming.

The Democrat Partisans have been promoting a silly political message, the disastrous Clinton effort was better for Americans. As if the threat of Islamic Radical Terrorism could simply go away, if ignored, appeased, or embraced. Like John Kerry's effort in 2003, Liberal Democrats often advocate returning to the dangerous denial of the 1990's.

Some Democrats these days, actually blame President Bush for Muslim Radical Militancy, with generic accusations of 'growing terrorism around the World'. They have tried to obstruct essential measures, which have protected Americans from attack ever since 9-11. The Democrat Party has attempted to 'kill' the Patriot Act, close Gitmo, block interrogations and surveillance of terrorists, even undermine the admirable Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, Bill Clinton is personally offering an admonition, a sincere warning against this foolishness with his conceited presence.

But now, I think it is worse than previously imagined. This will be the focus on the internet for some time, and the image for Democrats is not good. Bill is actually appearing quite demented. It will be hard for Democrats to use him in the future, and bodes terribly for Hillary's political ambitions.

Reporters on the other hand, might just begin to ask the Clintons more serious questions, imagining the ratings boom to Fox News this Sunday. Will we see Katie ask Hillary, why the Clintons lied about Genocide in Rwanda?

No, but if they want ratings, they should...

Watching this, i could not help but imagine the missed opportunities, to stop 9-11 during those 8 ugly years of malfeasance.

OK I've read the comments h... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

OK I've read the comments here and NOT one was specific about what was wrong with the content and factuality of Clintons response.

Bottom line from my perspective is Clinton KICKED THE CRAP OUT OF WALLACE. I ENJOYED this interview thoroughly. He exposed Fox News for what it is and made them and Chris look like a total fool.

So all you neocons with nothing but innuendo give me one thing that Clinton said that is not supported by the facts or tell me what he should have done different to effect the war on terror.

Bottom line if you put Bush and Clinton in a room with no moderator and let them discuss this issue Bush would either be crying or attacking Clinton physically....Bush would get his pea brain smashed and the facts would tear him a new one as he stuttered to explain ONE thing he did between 1/21/2001 and 7 minutes after the second plane hit.

Chris Wallace did a pretty ... (Below threshold)
Baggi:

Chris Wallace did a pretty good job but Clinton did a good job brow beating him. At least from what I saw in the Hot Air clip. Hopefully i'll be able to catch a repeat of the performance later tonight and see the whole thing.

But what Clinton did was effective in one sense. He established that anyone who asks him these questions will get a finger in the face and an accusation of being "Right Wing".

When was the last time you saw someone wagging their finger at a reporter and accusing them of being "Left Wing"?

A lot of media folks absolutely adore Bill Clinton, even so much that they've admitted publicly they'd like to have sex with him. They don't want to get on his bad side. So he's let them know loud and clear, through this interview, what they are allowed to ask him about and what they are not allowed to ask him about.

This is one of the reasons I love President Bush so much. He doesn't play any of these games. You know exactly what you are getting with President Bush, love him or hate him.

May God Bless George W. Bush.

So Bill, how much quality t... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

So Bill, how much quality time did you spend with W convincing him how important it was to get OBL?

Hmmmm?

Maybe Wallace is smirking ... (Below threshold)
Chris Gill:

Maybe Wallace is smirking because Clinton is making a complete ass of himself. Along the lines of "This f***er has fliped his lid. Damned hillbilly has no couth", while listening to Clinton scream in the background.

I supported Clinton until the end. I was his second most ardent supporter behing Geraldo. I thought the impeachments were complete BS, and set politics in this country back 50 years. I think the Republicans knew he would not be convicted in the Senate, but did it to undermine him. That is borderline criminal.

With that being said, how does a former president give 200+ interviews since leaving office 5 years ago, and no one asks him the question on everyone's mind: "What went wrong with your efforts to catch Bin Laden". Instead we get a bunch of panty-throwing klatches over coffee i.e. Meredith Viera white-knuckling it through the interview to keep her underwear on her backside and off Clinton's head. Also note Clinton's appearance on Meet the Press, Good Morning America and so forth. Also absent are any questions from the same media who asserts Bush lied (mislead) the country into war are the same media that do not challenge Clinton Administration officials making the same statement as Bush concerning Iraq'a WMD's

And what is up with Dan Rather? The only person I've seen him treat better than Clinton was Sadaam

Ketih Olberamnn gets mad respect from me. He gives Clinton a check for his foundation on camera. Somehwere Dan Abrams was screamin' "WTF IS UP WITH THAT?!" It takes balls to show everyone you are a biased idiot. Olbermann is literally telling the world "I'm Clinton's knob warmer and anyone with a problem with that can watch that Nazi-hack O'Reilly"

Bush gets raked over the coals on the regular, and I am one who thinks he should because that should come with the office for every president.

Clinton gets more grapefruits lobbed at him than a middle school girls softball team. I thought you were better than William. The recent media frenzy is another effort to rehab his image/legacy after the debacle of Path to 9/11.

Somewhere the Clinton limo rounded a curve in Manhattan and clipped an old lady with her walker, trying to get to Larry King's studio with Clinton in the phone saying "Larry, I need some positive affirmation. See you in 15 minutes".

It's a shame the Democrats can't find someone with the fortitude to be asked tough questions without having a meltdown.

Clinton is comical. He is s... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Clinton is comical. He is so defensive about his record because it is a truly horrendous record.

Somebody dared to question King Bill --- who never once got a majority, mind you --- and he lost it. He loses it whenever he is asked a question that doesn't fawn over him.

I'm stunned the Dems avoided threatening FNC's license.
-=Mike

Fordrill,Oh, bu... (Below threshold)
usfulijit:

Fordrill,

Oh, but Clinton. He's the DEVIL. He lied about an infidelity. How many people died due to his lie about a blow job? Sure, you don't have an answer for that and you never will.

I'd say the answer is 3000 people on September 11, 2001. While President Clinton was focused on the contents of a certain blue dress, Osama Bin Laden attacked again and again, with nary a credible response from the U.S. So, while Bill tried, people died.

And the numbers will unfortunately continue to mount as GWB must clean up the mess of decades of misguided "why don't they like us" root-cause policy.

Rest easy and spout nonsense if you need, those of us on the right side of history will spare you the responsibility of the defense of our civilization. A responsibility you are unwilling to bear.

But I suppose GHW Bush and ... (Below threshold)
Desi:

But I suppose GHW Bush and Reagan don't bear any blame for leaving the Muj in Afghanistan in 1991 and arming them to the teeth in the first place, respectively?

Look at the main incidents laid down at Clinton's feet.

1993 WTC -- who would you have gone to war against? Islam in general? Al Qaeda (who didn't exist then)?

Khobar -- Iran was responsible. Should Clinton have declared war against Iran?

African Embassies -- Clearly Al Qaeda. But if Clinton bore responsibility for not declaring war on terror, why do you excuse Reagan for not doing anything after the airplane hijackings in the 80s, Beirut or the spate of hostage takings?

Cole -- the 2000 elections were a month away. A new President 3 months away. Even after 9/11, it took 3 months to get the logistics squared away before attacking Afghanistan. How could this have been achieved?

Poor Bill. He knows history... (Below threshold)
NoFrendaBill:

Poor Bill. He knows history will rank him in the lower third of presidents. He knows his legacy is the blue dress, the weak-kneed response to multiple terrorist incidents, the disbarment. Let him have his pathetic say. Historians will have their say in the end.

But I suppose GHW Bush a... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

But I suppose GHW Bush and Reagan don't bear any blame for leaving the Muj in Afghanistan in 1991 and arming them to the teeth in the first place, respectively?

Yup, as always, NOTHING is Clinton's fault.

1993 WTC -- who would you have gone to war against? Islam in general? Al Qaeda (who didn't exist then)?

Radical Islam? Yeah, sounds like a damned solid idea.

Khobar -- Iran was responsible. Should Clinton have declared war against Iran?

Well, trying to help Freeh investigate isn't too much to ask. After that --- yeah, attack Iran.

But we couldn't, since Clinton feels FAR too warmly towards the Iranians.

African Embassies -- Clearly Al Qaeda. But if Clinton bore responsibility for not declaring war on terror, why do you excuse Reagan for not doing anything after the airplane hijackings in the 80s, Beirut or the spate of hostage takings?

Again, blaming Reagan for pulling troops out of Beirut as the Dems, who ran Congress, demanded is just a wee bit weak.

But, hey, you are nearly admitting that Clinton COULD have done something and refused to do so.

Cole -- the 2000 elections were a month away. A new President 3 months away. Even after 9/11, it took 3 months to get the logistics squared away before attacking Afghanistan. How could this have been achieved?

Ah, so let the troops die for political reasons?

Yeah, good idea.

Clinton did have 4 months to do something and the Congress would have supported it.
-=Mike

"Watching this, i could not... (Below threshold)

"Watching this, i could not help but imagine the missed opportunities, to stop 9-11 during those 8 ugly years of malfeasance."

Or eight months of golf, ignoring the warnings of the man you fired because you got tired of hearing it. And thanks to your party, creating the monster that bombed us in the first place, with your f%#@*d up Middle East policies.

The FAUX faithful are just pissed off, because Bubba called out their network for being the fruadulent propaganda arm of our commander the thief.

Scrapiron, the scary thing is that you might actually have children. Yes my friends, that's a scary thought! Little Scrapirons running around, ready to spread the republican message of hate.

"The teachers didn't like it but as all cowards do they were scared to say anything to me when they were told they had been called a liar. I guess they figure that someone that hunts game every year has a gun and might just show up and lay them down"

Yeah OK tough guy, go shoot some pencil pushing teacher. So you hunt game every year, and I guess we are supposed to be scared of you or something? You are pathetic! Why don't you sell your rifles and buy some books, I am sure those around you would appreciate it. The people posting here certainly would.

Desi, he did nothing. ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Desi, he did nothing.

His main defense seems to be "the FBI, CIA, and some military didn't listen to me." What the fuck is that? That is the lamest of the lame things he said in the interview.

Anyone who thinks he came off well is not well-socialized, to say the least. If you like it so much, let's get that sour puss on the 3 majors as well.

Best quote of the day about the Bubba Meltdown:

"he's the peace-at-any-cost bong-smoking hippie pussy we always suspected he was."

Yep. The Clinton/Carter approach to diminishing a Presidential legacy is firmly enhanced.

Desi,I don't excus... (Below threshold)
usfulijit:

Desi,

I don't excuse the responses of any previous Administrations, and I don't place blame on any in particular, hence the "GWB must clean up the mess of decades of misguided "why don't they like us" root-cause policy.

My point to Fordrill was to point out that President Clinton most certainly contributed to the boldness of Bin Laden, and indirectly to, but not the responsibility for, the deaths 3000 people, and our present need to wage war against this evil ideology. He didn't cause these deaths, but his lack of focus allowed Bin Laden to operate.

The attacks of Bin Laden and others was a result of a blindness of the U.S. for decades, and only after 9/11 has an American president chosen to respond.

Also and importantly, the U.S. had assets on the ground in Afghanistan within weeks of the 9/11 attacks, and we began bombing Taliban and Al Qaeda targets on October 7, 2001, less than a month after the attacks.

[H]ere is what Wallace aske... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

[H]ere is what Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:
I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?
. . . .

What do you make of his [Richard Clarke’s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?

. . .

Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.


The difference is that Republican officials like Rumsfeld are used to being asked tough questions; Clinton isn't. Also, Rumsfeld has good answers to those questions. Clinton doesn't.

Clinton is a low class jerk and pathological liar, as well as a diagnosible narcissist, and Mr. Wallace isn't. Nor is Mr. Bush.

Clinton's comments that Rep... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Clinton's comments that Republicans opposed his actions is ALSO false. Most Republicans supported him.
-=Mike

From what I have read today... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

From what I have read today, it appears most of what Clinton said was misleading, or in fact incorrect, hence, a lie.

MacNamara was a Republican when JFK appointed him Secy of Defense, Gingrich and most of the Repubs. supported his strike against UBL, there were no "Neo Cons" prior to 9/11, he did not exert his influence over CIA to get bin Laden because he was concerned about rocking the boat in the Middle East, and, quite interestingly enough, Wallace asked primarily about al Quaeda, and not bin Laden. Clinton just craftily switch to a different question/issue, to deflect more attention from his record.

Can any of the libs here tell me what was actually truthful, or correct, in what Slick said? The substance appears worse than I had at first thought.

usfulijit,You're j... (Below threshold)
Fordrill:

usfulijit,

You're just a sad, excuse-filled joke of a human being. Clinton responsible for 9/11? Why don't we just blame Reagan for leaving during his war with Afghanistan? How about blaming Bush Sr. for leaving a base in Saudi Arabia for Bin Laden to get angry over.

Bush had 8 months to do something about Bin Laden AND HE DID NOTHING. Sorry. That's a fact, loser.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. You must work for that little pea brain, GW Bush. You sure wine like him.

Well, I agree that every pr... (Below threshold)
Desi:

Well, I agree that every president since the formation of the present states of the Middle East have paid less than sufficient attention to the potential for trouble there.

Reagan was preoccupied with a greater problem than a couple of hijacked airplanes and a few kidnapped journalists (and rightfully so). He was fighting communism and trying to negotiate limits on nukes.

Bush#1 between 1989 and 1991 saw the fall the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Understandably that required a radical rethink in American foreign policy strategy. The opportunity cost in each of these was paying less attention to radicalism in the Middle East.

I think Clinton could have done more. But blaming him for 9/11 or for not going to war against Al Qaeda is a little disingenuous. I don't think the political circumstances would have warranted it. He also had the unenviable job of making sure that the rump states of the Soviet Union didn't fall completely apart and end up in civil war or fall back into the grips of totalitarianism, particularly Russia.

Bush #2 could not have gone to war pre 9/11. The problem I have with Bush is Iraq. I think he should have stayed in Afghanistan and made sure that the Taliban were once and for all and definitively crushed. More importantly, he should have worked to make sure that AL Q didn't have any where to work in Pakistan.

The problem with making blanket statements like "we want to fight islamo-fascists" is that these guys don't have a state. They don't fight under a flag and they are pretty hard to find.

It might make some people (as indicated by posts on this blog) to take on all of Islam. But that's 1.2 billion people. Most of them don't have a clue about what the deal is with this war, who's fighting and what the fight is about.

ALl morality aside, it is certainly impractical to go out and kill 1.2 billion people. That would make even Stalin and Mao look like petty amateurs. If as some say that 10% of Islam is made up of radicalists, that's still 120 million people. Does anyone think that it is even remotely feasible to knock off 120 million people? Not to mention the sheer brutality and immorality of the suggestion?

You know it's bad for the L... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

You know it's bad for the Left when one of their own, in this case ABC, fisks them:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2006/09/the_truth_about.html

Desi, Fordhill. Please res... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Desi, Fordhill. Please respond to my last two posts if you have anything remotely interesting to say that squares with reality.

This must be unnerving, what with all the facts and all. And ABC News! Those turncoats!

I couldnt believe what a pa... (Below threshold)
heymike:

I couldnt believe what a pathetic display that was tonight. He'll be LUCKY to go done in history as a Nevell Chamberlain equal. Very very sad- so is the Democate party-By the way Not Once did Al Gore mention Terrorism in his campaign speeches.

>>here were no "Neo Cons" p... (Below threshold)
Desi:

>>here were no "Neo Cons" prior to 9/11

Google "american Interest", "Commentary Magazine", "Leo Strauss", "Alan Bloom", "Robert Kaplan" and "Irving Kristol".

They were neocons. And most of them died well before 9/11. The movement has been around for a long time.

I do agree that Clinto should have done more prior to 9/11. He should have been harder on Pakistan and he should have tried to get the Taliban out, militarily if necessary.

He should also have raised a big stink about Dick Cheney trying to get oil services contracts for Halliburton via offshore companies as it was illegal for US companies to do business with Afghanistan. He should have had the mullahs from Afghanistan promptly arrested and thrown in prison when they set foot in Houston in 1999 to meet with oil execs.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FE18Aa03.html

Ok, so you've acknowledged ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Ok, so you've acknowledged the truth of my, and ABC's, assertions, and have changed the subject to Halliburton, of all things.

Frickin' kook.

You're just a sad, excus... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

You're just a sad, excuse-filled joke of a human being. Clinton responsible for 9/11? Why don't we just blame Reagan for leaving during his war with Afghanistan? How about blaming Bush Sr. for leaving a base in Saudi Arabia for Bin Laden to get angry over.

That would entail blaming the Saudis for asking us to build one there.

Bush had 8 months to do something about Bin Laden AND HE DID NOTHING. Sorry. That's a fact, loser.

Clinton had EIGHT YEARS.

Bit of a difference.

He should also have raised a big stink about Dick Cheney trying to get oil services contracts for Halliburton via offshore companies as it was illegal for US companies to do business with Afghanistan. He should have had the mullahs from Afghanistan promptly arrested and thrown in prison when they set foot in Houston in 1999 to meet with oil execs.

Seeing as how Clinton invited them (hint: The governor of a state has zero power in telling people they can enter the country), that'd be a little ironic.

Just because he says it doesn't mean Moore knows what he's talking about.
-=Mike

When Wallace asked Presiden... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

When Wallace asked President Clinton what he did during his two terms about Osama bin Laden, Clinton replied, “What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him.”

If true, this is a very troubling statement. Because you see, during President Clinton’s term in office, ordering the CIA to kill Osama bin Laden would have been an overt violation of U.S. law.

Whoa.

Maybe the saying for Slick should be, "He lied, Osama didn't die, etc."

What is it with uber leftis... (Below threshold)
Sue:

What is it with uber leftists like field-negro? The hate simply jumps off the post. That is exactly the problem: hate = instability.

Fordrill,I may ver... (Below threshold)
usfulijit:

Fordrill,

I may very well be a "sad, excuse-filled joke of a human being." I may be worse. I'm not infallable. But in your post,

"Oh, but Clinton. He's the DEVIL. He lied about an infidelity. How many people died due to his lie about a blow job? Sure, you don't have an answer for that and you never will.,

You imply that "Bush lied, people died." A lie unto itself. I'm going to presume you are misinformed about this, and not dancing around the truth knowingly.

Read my posts, I don't absolve any previous Administrations inactions. I merely point out an obvious rebuttal to your quote.

Desi,

You present a more reasoned response, and seem to agree with me that it is an American lack of resolve for the current situation, and not the blame of any particular president or party.

However, your quote,

"The problem with making blanket statements like "we want to fight islamo-fascists" is that these guys don't have a state. They don't fight under a flag and they are pretty hard to find.,

seems to suggest the futilty of any action. As frightening as it is, we are in a clash of civilizations, and all that that implies. Literally, all that we believe in, against a return 7th century barbarism. Make your choice. We didn't choose this fight, but we must decide whether it is worth it. I say it is. I want Western Civilization to survive, for humanity's sake.

Maybe I am as Fordrill claims, a "sad excuse for something" (I know better), but my argument remains the same.

We are in a battle that some refuse to see, and those blinded by the truth will be protected by those with a clear vision of reality .

>>seems to suggest the futi... (Below threshold)
Desi:

>>seems to suggest the futilty of any action

Not in the least. I think the quickest way to get Saudi Arabia to fold is to take a couple of big military cargo planes and drop a bunch of Playboy magazines all over the place. While at it, maybe give them a few copies of the latest Christina Aguilera CD too.

If this is about a war of ideas (as it should be), the Islamists have no chance. They keep their people locked up physically and emootionally and use fear and terror to keep power. Using their tactics is neither smart nor likely to succeed.

If you identify the ones perpetrating the problem (like the Taliban), then by all means go after them. But if you can't get any more specifc than "islamofascist", all you will do is waste money, lives and potential allies. All the chest thumping will be of no avail.

The example to follow is that of Turkey. It's a Muslim country. They don't produce too many terrorists. India has 140M Muslims. Not too many of them are in Al Qaeda.

It make make you feel good to say that you're fighting a GWOT against "Islamo-Fascists". But if you don't know where they are and how to get to them, it doesn't do you all that much good.

Links between Unocal and th... (Below threshold)
Desi:

Links between Unocal and the Taliban go back a long way. They are true regardless of Michael Moore making a movie about it.

My point is not to blanketly say oil companies are responsible for the Mid-East mess. But energy dependence prevents usage of the moral argument and it prevents usage of real economic levers.

Unocal and Halliburton's involvement with the Taliban was a problem. Clinton should have taken both to task for working with them. And it is a disgrace that those stone-age barbarians were granted visas to enter the US.

Here are a list of terrori... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Here are a list of terrorist attacks. What actions did the presiding president/s take??


1982–1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.

1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.

Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.

1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.

Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.

1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.

June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.

Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.

Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.

1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.

April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.
1988

Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.

1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

"Fordrill"--" capacity of a... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

"Fordrill"--" capacity of a 3 year old"--which is 4.763 higher then yours.

I wish right in the middle ... (Below threshold)
jp:

I wish right in the middle of Clinton blowing his top, Wallace would've pushed even harder by asking something like: "Mr. President, did Sandy Berger steal documents from the National Archives before the 9/11 Commission testimony, in an effort to cover something up that would embarras your administration?"

Desi,You say,... (Below threshold)
usfulijit:

Desi,

You say,

"Not in the least. I think the quickest way to get Saudi Arabia to fold is to take a couple of big military cargo planes and drop a bunch of Playboy magazines all over the place. While at it, maybe give them a few copies of the latest Christina Aguilera CD too.

If this is about a war of ideas (as it should be), the Islamists have no chance. They keep their people locked up physically and emootionally and use fear and terror to keep power. Using their tactics is neither smart nor likely to succeed.

This is fine reasoning if you are approaching this from an American/Western mindset. I am sure if you and I met we would agree to disagree on almost, if not every subject, and have a drink or a dozen to smooth out the wrinkles. This is not about us. It is about people like you and me, as varied and divergent our philosophies, against an ideology which believes in either our conversion or death, praise be Allah.

I choose to see this as it is, and I think you see this too. It is frightening, as I've sais before, but it is a battle, better said, war, that we Westerners have not chosen, but must wage for humanity's survival.

Can any of the libs here te... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Can any of the libs here tell me what was actually truthful, or correct, in what Slick said? The substance appears worse than I had at first thought.

Posted by: Mitchell

Yes, everything he said is backed up in Richard Clarke book or in the 9-11 commission report.

PIck ONE thing that he said that was untrue.

He took Chris Wallaces pants down turned him around and SPANKED his bare hiney until it was red in front of all his neocon cultist and the comments on this board have shown that no one has any specific counter arguments to the points Clinton made.

That interview was fricking GREATTTTTTTT!!!!

I wish right in the middle ... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

I wish right in the middle of Clinton blowing his top, Wallace would've pushed even harder by asking something like: "Mr. President, did Sandy Berger steal documents from the National Archives before the 9/11 Commission testimony, in an effort to cover something up that would embarras your administration?"

Posted by: jp


The answer to that would have be NO. Because those documents were things that generally supported the things Clinton did and NONE of those document originals were destroyed.

This point on your part is COMPLETELY irrelevant to what Clinton did to fight the war on terror.


Did you or anyone here read Richard Clarkes book??? I did.

geez you are a lemming....S... (Below threshold)
jp:

geez you are a lemming....Sandy Berger pleaded guilty in April to stealing and DESTROYING top secret terrorism documents from the National Archives.......this was no accident

Berger even admitted to LYI... (Below threshold)
jp:

Berger even admitted to LYING when he first called the crime "an honest mistake."

From the 9-11 commission re... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

From the 9-11 commission report;

"Until 1996,hardly anyone in the U.S.government understood that Usama Bin
Ladin was an inspirer and organizer of the new terrorism."


So Clinton had 5 years and he didn't catch OBL. Bush has been in office for almost 6 years..where is OBL? Is Al Queda broke? The Taliban? (Reference:the just released National Intelligence Estimate report)

So what SHOULD Clinton have done? Invade Iraq??? Now there's a plan???

"The more he talked of his ... (Below threshold)
Nahanni:

"The more he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Man the more I watch that i... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Man the more I watch that interview the better it gets.

Here's my e-mail to Fox,

Titled; Clinton SMACKDOWN

I totally enjoyed watching Mr Clinton pants and spank
Mr Chris Wallace and Fox News in front of his
audience. Mr. Clinton exposed you guys for what you
are a corporate dishonest misleading SHAMEFUL
propagandist network with little credibility for
reporting fair and balanced....


Thanks for that broadcast,

GB MD a REAL PATRIOT

Muirgeo,You are ge... (Below threshold)
usfulijit:

Muirgeo,

You are geting lost in the minutiae. This isn't about President's Carter, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, Bush43. It is about our, America's response to radical islam. Nothing else. Trying to defend President Clinton or President Bush is not the issue we face. The issue is, what is the problem and what do we do. You and those of your mindset believe that those of my mindset are the problem. Those of my mindset believe that radical islam is the problem and you are enablers of this problem. We, those of my mindset, are however, willing to save you as it is a consequence of saving ourselves.

I love how Clinton can fart... (Below threshold)
Syntax:

I love how Clinton can fart and all you Right-wing drones get so unhinged about it. Its like watching a flea circus. So what! Good! Let Clinton get a little bitchy over Wallace and the Fakes News Network. Its about damn time. Now if only the rest of the Democrats would grow a set. I truly believe that is becoming too much to ask for. All the Democrats combined couldn't produce one single testicle. He makes a point though, one official was sounding the Bin Laden alarm and curious George fired him for it. Many of you seem to forget that little fact but then, none of you are allowed to think for yourselves. Too bad!

You know it's bad for the L... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

You know it's bad for the Left when one of their own, in this case ABC, fisks them:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2006/09/the_truth_about.html

Posted by: Mitchell at September 24, 2006 10:32 PM


This took 2 minutes:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14132

You guys disgust me?<... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:
Muirgeo,You are ge... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Muirgeo,

You are geting lost in the minutiae. This isn't about President's Carter, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, Bush43. It is about our, America's response to radical islam. Nothing else. Trying to defend President Clinton or President Bush is not the issue we face. The issue is, what is the problem and what do we do. You and those of your mindset believe that those of my mindset are the problem. Those of my mindset believe that radical islam is the problem and you are enablers of this problem. We, those of my mindset, are however, willing to save you as it is a consequence of saving ourselves.

Posted by: usfulijit


No the issue at hand is Foxes attempted false accusations and false reporting backfiring in their face because Clinton defended his actions while admitting his ultimate failure and likewise showing how BUsh did nothing and even fired/ demoted our most knowledgeable terrorist specialist of the time.

Chris Wallace and FNN got pantsed and spanked in front of all their cronies...and Bush's pre 9-11 do nothing attitude were exposed.....THAT"S GREAT!!!!!!!

And not one significant reply to Clintons response other then name calling and innuendo.


And you want to change the subject to be , "what do we do about it"...now there's a covet admission of defeat on the subject at hand.

Now there is a whole group ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Now there is a whole group of idiots posting here. I like the quote from the idiot Muirego and the idiot Fordrill and anyone else that refers to the book by Richard Clarke. Notice Clarke states Clinton could not get the CIA and FBI to act. That the Pentagon drug their feet, refusing to act when the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ORDER THEM TO ACT. Since when is it that those that work for the executive branch refuse to follow what the President tells them? What you are trying to say and what Clinton did say was that he had people working for him that didn't do what he told them to do, and he didn't fire them. From the time he said he smoke pot but did not inhale, I knew he was either a liar or incompatent.

I just watched a reply of t... (Below threshold)
Baggi:

I just watched a reply of the questions and I think what President Clinton did was rather effective. It kept Chris Wallace on the defensive for the rest of the interview and allowed Clinton to ask more questions and make wild accusations rather than be questioned, as the press generally makes its job.

There are so many questions screaming to be asked with each accusation. When Clinton asserts that "right wingers" were against him going after Bin Laden, the obvious question is, "Who?" The interview is too much filibuster and not enough hard hitting questions.

Too bad, could have been a much more informative interview. Instead, its just sorta sad and funny all at the same time.

However one wants to choose... (Below threshold)

However one wants to choose up sides, the simple truth is this:

President Clinton was the commander-in-chief. He should have issued an executive order, in such capacity, if he was serious about taking action. Regardless of what the CIA, FBI, Clark or any other flamming idiot wanted or did not want to do, when you are sworn in, you take an oath.

Clinton wanted a free ride for eight years -- and pretty near got one. His disgraceful behavior tonight defines his presidency: It was always someone else's fault.

And who cares what Richard Clark wrote? Clinton was the president -- he should have his own defense -- not defer to some nonsensical book.

Clinton has presented a shocking example of why we never want to have a democrat back in the White House.

However one wants to choose... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

However one wants to choose up sides, the simple truth is this:

President Clinton was the commander-in-chief. He should have issued an executive order, in such capacity,....


Posted by: voter

And what would this executive order been for and when should he have ordered it?

And who cares what Richard ... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

And who cares what Richard Clark wrote?

Posted by: voter

You completely become illegitimate here.
Richard Clark was the top terrorist expert for 4 administrations.

You guys have nothing.

so interesting, seeing more... (Below threshold)
hnav:

so interesting, seeing more desperate attempts to excuse a liar named Billy...

no wonder the Democrat Party is sinking...

I absolutely love the "unhi... (Below threshold)
Syntax:

I absolutely love the "unhinged" criticism and thumb-sucking over Bill Clinton and yet...you prove the point on the current administration.

"President Clinton was the commander-in-chief. He should have issued an executive order, in such capacity, if he was serious about taking action. Regardless of what the CIA, FBI, Clark or any other flamming idiot wanted or did not want to do, when you are sworn in, you take an oath." -- So what about the oath sworn by the current idiot, "Bullhorn Photo-op" Bush? Hey? What about the promise to the American people that those responsible would be brought to justice? If Clinton does make one point that is the honest truth, he got closer to killing Bin Laden then this current group of draft-dodging pansies have! I got news for ya, BIN LADEN ISN'T IN F##KING IRAQ!!!!! HE NEVER WAS!!!! HELLOOOOOO?

What a bunch of two-faced mindless, monotonous drones! "We must all say the same thing or the leaders of the collective will not be happy with us." Please...drink the freakin kool-aid will ya!!!

Glad Bill let that sleaze-ball have it! We need more Democrats to grow a set because Lord knows, none of you have any. Your too dumb to be trusted with balls which is why Michelle Malkin has them all.

Perhaps the time has come f... (Below threshold)
sang:

Perhaps the time has come for all of us to "get a life"; talk talk talk blog blog blog not time to vote (only 1 ballot per voter please oh and no dead people are allowed to vote even obsentee) :o)

muirgeo - Yes, eve... (Below threshold)
Marc:
muirgeo - Yes, everything he said is backed up in Richard Clarke book or in the 9-11 commission report.

PIck ONE thing that he said that was untrue.

You make things too easy!

Here's one of many: Clinton claimed Bush first demoted Clarke then fired him.

You claim to have read his book, better check page 234 of "Against All Enemies," where Clarke writes:

"I had completed the review of the organizational options for homeland defense and critical infrastructure protection that Rice had asked me to conduct. There was agreement to create a separate,
senior White House position for Critical Infrastructure Protection and Cyber Security, outside of the NSC Staff. Condi Rice and Steve Hadley assumed that I would continue on the NSC focusing on terrorism and asked whom I had in mind for the new job that would be created outside the NSC. I requested that I be given that assignment, to the apparent surprise of Condi Rice and Steve Hadley."

Well looky there, Clarke requested to be assigned to a lesser role within the Bush admin. But wait muirgeo there's more on page 239.

"Roger Cressey, my deputy at the NSC Staff, came to me in early October, after the time that I had intended to switch from the terrorism job to Critical Infrastructure Protection and Cyber Security. The switch had been delayed by September 11."Gee... Bush thought so much of Clarke he keep him on the job until after 9/11.

Clarke adds in a footnote on page 240:

"Cressey and I did spend over a year working on the cyber security problem, producing Bush's National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, and then quit the Administration altogether."

So what say you muirgeo, did Clinton lie? Sore looks like it to me.

Syntax error: Billy ... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

Syntax error:
Billy was the draft dodger... President Bush served. (unless you're into Dan Rather's forged memos)

Not that I want to pile on ... (Below threshold)
Marc:

Not that I want to pile on or anything muirgeo, sorry that was a lie like Clinton's, but you might want to consider Clintons assertion that bin Laden had nothing to do with Somalia.

The fact is Clinton's own Justice Dept named bin Laden in a 1998 Grand Jury Indictment that indicates they thought he was involved in Somalia.

On second thought muirgeo maybe Clinton didn't lie in the interview. He didn't know what the hell his own Justice Dept was doing at the time, or now.

Bill Clinton's word and act... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

Bill Clinton's word and actions are about one thng and one thing only: his legacy. He has to protect that with all the zeal he can. To an extent, it is why Gore lost in 2000.

Many people don't recall but Clinton was widely criticized during the 2000 election for not campaigning more for Al Gore. Pundits found it strange that a president as wildly popular as Clinton wouldn't back his VP for the top job. Many people assumed that it was because Clinton was trying to distance Gore from his own problems. That just doesn't fly. Clinton's approval ratings were through the roof during that period. One word from him would have sealed the deal for Gore. Instead, Clinton only appeared at the last minute and gave some half-hearted endorsements. Why?

Its the economy stupid. As the economy bagan slowing down in 2000, Clinton was faced with a dilemna. If Gore won and the economy tanked, it would be a repudiation of his economy. If Bush won, well, it would be his fault that the economy tanked. Given the choice between belieing that an evil Republican or the Greatest President Ever® killed the economy, who will the people pick? Clinton' legacy was safe as long as Gore lost.

Plus, it set Hillary up for a run in '08. She couldn't run in '04 without breaking her promise to serve a full term. If Gore won two terms, his VP would be the presumptive nominee in '08. Hillary's chances come only in the current scenario.

This outburst is more legacy-protecting.

What I find to be sad, is t... (Below threshold)
jim:

What I find to be sad, is that Jimmy Carter's success in being elected POTUS was in large part due to his being perceived as a man of honor while his predecessor (Nixon) had dishonored himself and the office by his deeds.

Honor was thus the Democrats' successful strategy to the White House.

Before Carter, Kennedy's dishonorable personal (extra-marital) behavior was ignored by the media partly because less was said of that stuff then, but probably more due to his demonstrated honorability elsewhere, including heroic war service.

Heroism and honor thus again had been a major element of the Democrats' electoral success.

Then came Clinton, with neither personal honor nor heroism, with all of Kennedy's negatives and none of his positives. He could mouth Kennedy-esque rhetoric, but had no heart and no fire in his "belly". He had words but no will.

I grew up Democrat and I voted for Carter in the Nixonian aftermath. I'd love to vote Democrat again if they'd just put up a national candidate with personal honor and achievement.

What has happened to the party I grew up with?

So what say you muirgeo, di... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

So what say you muirgeo, did Clinton lie? Sore looks like it to me.

Posted by: Marc

Clinton says Clarke and his advice was ignored and downgraded. And later he says he was demoted. Then later he asked Wallace if he ever asked the administration why Clarke was fired. He should have said Why didn't you ever ask them why they ignored Clarke.

Now its true he was not fired but he was ignored and that is the question to be answered.

Why did they ignore and basically demote Clarke?

Make the issue about being fired but that is not the issue.

I want to make sure I have ... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

I want to make sure I have this right. When Clarke was slagging the current President, he was a terrorism genius. When he went after Clinton, he's a hack.

Did I get that right?

jim:You almost sou... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

jim:

You almost sound like an RNC flak despite your claim to have voted for democrats. I note how you pine for the days when democratic presidents were men of "honor."

The current resident of the White House is as dishonorable a man as one can imagine. How dare I say that?

He avoids Vietnam. He lives in a bubble so he is fed pieces of the truth by those who work for him, so that he can't be branded a "liar." He lets his goons in the 2000 election smear John McCain....but keeps his own hands clean. He lets his goon smear Max Clelland and stands by mutely. He claims to be a "compassionate" conservative and we all know how he's proven that. He has the belief God put him here for a purpose and then directs a disastrous war which has killed and maimed untold thousands. And does not admit error or change any of the players responsible. (Ironically, the only man with honor, somewhat belatedly, Mr. Powell is driven from the inner circle). He violates the Constitution at will. He dumps his chosen Supreme Court nominee (Harriet Myers sic) when the goof-nut religious wing of his party objects. Torture is just fine. Laws? He signs them and them and then writes notes to ignore them. A man of "honor" would veto a law he doesn't intend to enforce. could go on but it just gets more sickening.

In short the man is a genius...a political genius. Honorable? God help us all. Do I hate him? No. Do I despise him? Yes.

"libloons" vs "right-uptigh... (Below threshold)
sang:

"libloons" vs "right-uptights"

Boortz.com is a worthwhile visit; Neal Boortz has a law degree, is a synidcated radio talk show host, author, savvy investor and an independant thinker. Altho sometimes quite brash, he is rather a "common man" who leans some to the left and some to the right, his opinions are always interesting

Hey Hugh. Hello? Max Clelan... (Below threshold)
Georgia on my mind:

Hey Hugh. Hello? Max Cleland was a neighbor and friend; in his book "Stronger in the Broken Places" he details how his "war injuries" were accidentially self inflected, he also credits Former Pres. Carter with his post Viet Nam successes; Max owes the Dems for his livelihood and I am sure wishes to remain on good terms...I'm sorry for Max, he's paid some really tough dues and I must say, he really doesn't need you Hugh. You know there really is a bird called a Loon; if birds have bird brains and all loons are birds (some named Hugh) are all loons bird brains?

This is the same problem wi... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

This is the same problem with the Environmentalists, they get a notion in their heads, unfettered from scientific or other facts, and off they go.

Now, Richard Clarke's book is at direct odds over any "demotion" or other false accusation about his employment.

And, as I have posted, above, Clinton's interview was replete with factual inaccuracies, to be charitable.

Either you have the ability to sift through facts, or at least know what they are, and make an informed judgment on the man's words. Or, in the case of many here, you don't.

And we all know how it is to debate with an environmentalist, or Clinton apologist. You could have Jesus Christ himself testify to the facts and our followers of the Holy Clinton/Environment/other wacky Left religion would not be moved one inch off their position.

So, it really is ridiculous trying to argue in a fact free environment.

If you want to talk facts, debate the facts the others, and I, have documented here. Actually read the Clarke book and get back to us.

But don't make shit up, and don't change the subject. Otherwise, you're just a drive-by hit artist unserious about the discussion.

Hugh -No RNC flak ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hugh -

No RNC flak moi, so that thinly-veiled shot went awry.

I notice that you did not dispute facts that I actually posted about Democrats who were POTUS. Instead, you attacked the current POTUS, who is not a Democrat.

I did not recognize most of your references, but the Nam one is demonstrably false and has been debunked. Since I served in the Nam warzone back then, I had checked that one out myself. Bush was a fighter jock and those guys love to fly. The Guard, however, has historically flown models handed-down from the front forces and, as such, have limited future service. The F-102 was no exception. The rest of your stuff look to me to be mostly opinion allegations, not facts.

BTW, I admired Carter for his personal integrity and still do, though many of his decions as POTUS and since have not seemed wise to me. JFK had my admiration and, though I regret his "feet of clay" in his personal life, his heroism and vision will always earn him considerable slack with me.

The contrast both provide to Clinton is poignant.

Having had the misfortune t... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

Having had the misfortune to experience Richard Clarke in the mid eighties, I will say that if he were to tell me the sky were blue, I'd insist on a three man verification team to make sure it actually was.

"Any chance we could get T... (Below threshold)
kurious kat:

"Any chance we could get Ted Kennedy to drive Hilary Home from the DNC?"

"Any chance we could get T... (Below threshold)
kurious kat:

"Any chance we could get Ted Kennedy to drive Hilary Home from the DNC?"

Georgia:No doubt M... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Georgia:

No doubt Max doesn't "need' me. I have no allusions about that. I wish I had half the honor he has. The problem is there aren't near enough Max Clelland's around.

You, of course, make it sound as if he intentionally blew himself up in Vietnam or as if what happened to him somehow is less because it was an "accident." And of course you make it sound as if he was some kind of charity case. That's about as disgusting a defense of what was done to him in the election as I have heard yet. I guess he just deserved what he got eh?

Hugh? I've known Max perso... (Below threshold)
Georgia:

Hugh? I've known Max personally for decades; it's you that suggest and imply that rubbish how clintonese of you bud. For sure Max is a better man than you and his dog is better than the hypocritcal horse you rode in on. Get back get back to where you belong.

btw hugh-boy I knew Max in ... (Below threshold)
Georgia:

btw hugh-boy I knew Max in Lithonia when he stood 6'4" and sported a Basketball letterman jacket. Max came back from Nam a triple ampitee and went on to serve GA as Secretary of State and did alot for the Vets when he was appointed to the VA; you are such a whimpering dunderheaded boob wannabe, leave Max out of your malicious ranting hugh-boy.

Georgia:You drinki... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Georgia:

You drinking moonshine today? Last I checked I was defending Clelland.

hugh-boy you were not defen... (Below threshold)
Georgia:

hugh-boy you were not defending Max you were claiming him as your lib-poster-boy and you hugh-boy have not earned the right to use Max as 1 of your blogging points! He served his country, did you? He made something of himself inspite of the "cards" dealt, have you? My point is hugh-boy stand up for your point of view (no matter how off base) on your own merit; you are such a user you loser. I know Max Clelland and you lil' guy are no Max Clelland. Max would be among the 1st to own up to his err of judgment and among the 1st to allow me to do the same; right or wrong he's my friend and I do not appreciate your usery. Got it hugh-boy.

Clinton can't be happy with... (Below threshold)
moseby:

Clinton can't be happy with his performance yesterday. In fact, he's probably unhappy altogether. His skank of a wife is un-eff-able. He's probably banging Chelsea these days and thinking..."Why am I doin' this--SHE'S A DOG??!!!"

Georgia:What's wit... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Georgia:

What's with the constant calling of me "boy"? Do you think I'm one of your house "boys" from your plantation? I thought all you red-necked cracker sheet-wearing goons were gone by now. Pretty sad.

Yes I served. Six years as a matter of fact. I think Max would be proud to be my poster-man for my beliefs. In fact I have no doubt he would agree with my original post, word for word.

Stand up for my point of view? I have no fear of that, despite the loud noises from goons like you make. Who the hell do you cavemen think you are anyway? You self-righteous red-necked bastard.

Why did they ignore and bas... (Below threshold)
Marc:

Why did they ignore and basically demote Clarke?

Make the issue about being fired but that is not the issue.
Posted by: muirgeo at September 25, 2006 09:56 AMReading comprehension was a strong suit in school I see.

Better go back a reread Clarkes words. He REQUESTED the demotion.

Geesh... no wonder you defend the undefensable.

Marc,You re... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Marc,


You read the book right? I did. So why did he request a new position?

Bottom line marky-boy is th... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Bottom line marky-boy is that Clarke and other testimony and documents showed that Clinton tried to address the Al Queda threat while Bush ignored the recommendations of Clark not meeting until 9/04 and even then the admin was more concerned with Iraq which was no threat. And Clinton admits he failed but indeed he tried which is more then the Bush admin did.


Here's a good question for you and any other willing neocons.

What actions SHOULD Clinton have taken after the Al queda threat was revealed in 1996. And why did Bush not take similiar actions in his first 9 months?

Georgia is my home now hugh... (Below threshold)
georgia:

Georgia is my home now hugh-boy; born in liberal Santa Monica, CA; military brought family to the south; my parents were married prior to my conception thank you very much, now hugh-boy time to wash out your nasty lil' mouth hugh-boy. I claim no party afiliation; I get informed and then cast my vote for the most qualified statesman (not politician), sooo lil' minded hugh-boy I call you & raise you twice what you're worth hugh-boy (smirk) I'd exercise my privilege to vote for GWB if he was eligible to go for 3 (smirking more) W/N the next 2 years I'm hopeful someone will emerge who exhibits and has the "right-stuff"; time will tell.

You've been dipping in the ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

You've been dipping in the chaw and drinking too much of the "shine" Georgia-red neck. Statesman? Bush? Can you even define what a "statesman" is much less apply those atrributes to Mr. Bush?

Alas some people have convu... (Below threshold)
Hello is anyone thinking on their own out there:

Alas some people have convuluted tunnel visioned little minds that doom them to repetitive narcisstic behavior patterns. Stop. Become informed, try really hard not to become just another party anchored drone. Think. Think. Think. Some of you people appear to be a colossal waste of skin and very small amounts of active gray matter. United we stand; divided we appear weak and an easy target for terrorists. They are here there and everywhere, they are watching and waiting for a preceived weak spot.

Boo!!There's one u... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Boo!!

There's one under your bed. The commie left and gave him his space.

hmmmm. let's see, statesman... (Below threshold)
Georgia:

hmmmm. let's see, statesman: one who is skilled in governing, wise in handling purblic affairs, inflential in shaping public policy...

And I must say your comment "Boo..." removes any and all doubt that you are sooo not even close to being as much fun as you must think yourself to be. And your constant use of vugarities is witness to your lack of language skills. I'll attempt to say it at a level you may be able to comprehend, "...your a stupid do-do head..."

Lets see geordia-redneck, y... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Lets see geordia-redneck, you left out a key part of the definition: "a skilled, experienced, and respected political leader or figure."

Now he certainly is experienced, I'll give him that. Respected? Oh, what is it? About 35% of his fellow countrymen? I don't think he gets the respected part. Skilled? Not when his lips are moving.

As for the Boo comment, you wouldn't know what irony or political satire is if it hit you right upside your red neck.

Hugh, 1st regardless of you... (Below threshold)
Georgia:

Hugh, 1st regardless of your probable imbedded self imposed "issues", I do thank you for your Military Service whether you were drafted or volunteered, you said you served and I thank you for your service. 2nd your assumption that my neck is red is erroneous, never farmed, don't drive a truck, don't hang my keys on a chain from my belt loop and my dog wasn't bred to hunt. 3rd and not least, you did succeed in bringing me into selfrighteous petty retorts, a dubious accomplishment at best. 4th you taught me that I am not above the mind bloating lure of blogging. Ironic political satire is debatable and I choose not to go there. I hope that you will discover your true motivation, whatever it maybe and that you use it "for the better good" and that you are as prosperous as you decide to extend the effort to be. Blogging is your bailiwich, not mine, I have neither the inclination nor the time to become so ensnared again. Lastly, "...God has given me this day to use as I will. I can waste it or I can use it for good. Whatever I do...today is very important because I am exchanging a day of my life for it. When tomorrow comes, this day will be gone forever leaving something in its place I have traded for it. I want it to be a gain, not loss, good not evil. Success not failure in order that I shall not forget the price I paid for it." So far, I've pretty much wasted today; "not prudent". Blog on Hugh.

He avoids Vietnam.</... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

He avoids Vietnam.

Volunteered. Didn't have enough flight hours to qualify.

He lets his goons in the 2000 election smear John McCain....but keeps his own hands clean.

Amount of evidence behind it? Virtually nil.

No scripts. One person claimed to have been called --- and, of course, only one person.

He lets his goon smear Max Clelland and stands by mutely.

Criticizing Cleeland for his atrocious run in the Senate is unfair?

He could've been real mean and explained how Max got hurt.

And does not admit error or change any of the players responsible.

Aren't you people bitching that Clarke was allowed to leave? You don't see Tenet there.

He dumps his chosen Supreme Court nominee (Harriet Myers sic) when the goof-nut religious wing of his party objects.

Actually, the religious right supported her. Those of us, though, more concerned with QUALIFICATIONS opposed her.

And of course you make it sound as if he was some kind of charity case.

That's exactly what he was. He got into the Senate SOLELY because he served. He lacked any real qualification for his position.

What's with the constant calling of me "boy"? Do you think I'm one of your house "boys" from your plantation? I thought all you red-necked cracker sheet-wearing goons were gone by now.

Well, Dem voters tend to vote them into the Senate from W. Va.
-=Mike

Thanks for your last post G... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Thanks for your last post Georgia, be well

Nothing like a little Clint... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Nothing like a little Clinton misinformation to stir up the usual suspects in his defense.

God Mungo and Hugh are beyond help.

It really makes no difference what facts one gives you, you'll find something else to go after before the ink is dry on your misconstruing them.

It's hardly worth engaging a blind man in a round of marksmanship.

The Party of Bubba continues its death spiral.

Volunteered. Didn't have en... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Volunteered. Didn't have enough flight hours to qualify.

Volunteered, yes. Didn't have enough hours, yes. Nice how it all worked out for him wasn't it. Didn't have enough flight hours cause he didn't show up enough to fly. Pretty simple and supported by the facts. Amount of evidence behind it? Virtually nil.


No scripts. One person claimed to have been called --- and, of course, only one person.

Pamphlets circulated in church parking lots that labeled McCain the fag candidate. Racist rumors about McCain's daughter just to name a few "facts." Did Bush do it? No, his dishonor is in not condemning it and stopping it.

Criticizing Cleland for his atrocious run in the Senate is unfair? He could've been real mean and explained how Max got hurt.

Attack ads linking Cleland to Osama. Bush says nothing. I assume from your other statement you think it is less than honorable that a veteran loses three limbs from an accidental explosion (assuming that to be true). Nice.


Aren't you people bitching that Clarke was allowed to leave? You don't see Tenet there.

I'm talking about Rumsfeld. Almost criminal his post-war planning. Check out what many generals are saying about him.


That's exactly what he was. He got into the Senate SOLELY because he served. He lacked any real qualification for his position.


Your reference to qualifications is to Bush isn't it?

Well, Dem voters tend to vote them into the Senate from W. Va.

Touche. Oh, and I guess that's true for voters from Virginia too.

Mitchell:Funny, I ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Mitchell:

Funny, I feel the same way about you and the wack-nuts of the right.

I think I know your problem with Clinton. You right wing goofies all suffer from penis envy. I heard on Fox news they do transplants in China.

Death spiral? Sheet, even I admit there's only one way to go - up. And by god it looks like we're going to soar. But then you know those polls all over the country, they mean nothing. And we have problems with facts?

Pamphlets circulated in ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Pamphlets circulated in church parking lots that labeled McCain the fag candidate. Racist rumors about McCain's daughter just to name a few "facts." Did Bush do it? No, his dishonor is in not condemning it and stopping it.

So, it's Bush's responsibility to condemn anything, in spite of a lack of actual evidence, eh?

Got it.

Attack ads linking Cleland to Osama. Bush says nothing. I assume from your other statement you think it is less than honorable that a veteran loses three limbs from an accidental explosion (assuming that to be true). Nice.

It's hardly "heroism". I wouldn't care, but since Max has made it a point to smear Nat'l Guardsmen, he warrants it.

And, again, it's Bush's job to condemn negative ads in all campaigns in the country now?

Got it.

Touche. Oh, and I guess that's true for voters from Virginia too.

There's no proof of Allen saying anything.

Byrd being a Klansman is pretty well known.
-=Mike

Hugh"Death spir... (Below threshold)
914:

Hugh

"Death spiral? sheet, even i admit theres only one way to go-up. And it looks like were going to soar.But then, You know those polls all over the country,They mean nothing. and we have problems with the facts.>"

Yes You certainly do!

Mike SC:By "in spi... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Mike SC:

By "in spite of actual evidence' I assume you mean the "smoking gun" tying Bush to the smears. No there is no memo. no recording. just a pattern that happens in his elections. Coincidence? Of course not. He can hide behind other groups and claim no responsibility all he wants. it simply serves to demonstrate his lack of character and a lack of honor. By the way, that was the debate I was having -a question of his honor.

Is it his responsibility to condemn "anything." No, one would hope he would have the character to condemn character assassination ads in elections (please don't cite his pathetic mewing about outside interest ads) Again, his modus is to hide behind others so that he can "deny" facts and fail to take responsibility for mistakes. He does it as the chief executive of the country and he does it as commander-in-chief.

Proof? People have said they heard Allen use racial slurs. What better "proof "is there? You can deny the "proof" or not accept the "proof" but it certainly is "proof." We're not in criminal court here - the standard is not beyond a reasonable doubt. My guess is you were more than satisfied with the smear of John Kerry.

Lastly, I take it as "proof" that your lack of response to my point about Cleland is that you do believe it is less than honorable for a vet to lose three limbs as a result of an accident. Why am I not surprised?


People have said they h... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:
    People have said they heard Allen use racial slurs.

That would be two anonymous "people" and one named person with pronounced Left-wing sympathies who has already been proven wrong on at least two claims in an article written by Lefty reporters in a Lefty magazine.

I hear you abuse children, Hugh. Someone who prefers to remain unknown told me so. What better "proof" is there? We're not in criminal court here - the standard is not beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, case closed, everybody.

Hugh is a paedophile.

Well Martin if you read new... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Well Martin if you read newspapers and watched news other than on Fox three identified people have given specific information. Then of course we have the famous "maccaca" reference, the obsession with things from the Confederacy. Proof, I think that's proof.

Well Martin if you read... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:
    Well Martin if you read newspapers and watched news other than on Fox three identified people have given specific information.

Go ahead. Name them.

And please do not include Larry Sabato as someone giving "specific" information. Larry Sabato has always had a pronounced partisan preference for Democrats even if he does his best to subdue it when appropriate. He's apparently not doing that anymore.

    Then of course we have the famous "maccaca" reference ...

Oh please.

According to the Senator's campaign staff (which has quite a few non-white members), they nicknamed Sidarth "macaca". He had been following Allen around obssessively with a camera for weeks and that was how they referred to him within the campaign. So if Sidarth had been white, green, purple, black or pink with yellow polka-dots, Allen would still have called him "macaca".

That's far more plausible than the Left-wing fantasy that Allen's Tunisian born mother sat her children down at her knee and fed them a steady diet of racism and prejudice.

Hugh -The Bush fli... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hugh -

The Bush flight hours thing has been well vetted, so your innuendo and snarky asides on that point are just that. There is plenty of evidence.

Heck, you can just google it and find Wash Post articles admitting that point back in 1999. Or do you consider WaPo a GOP media source?

A talk radio station here i... (Below threshold)
mj997:

A talk radio station here in the Boston area was calling the segment "The Chris Wallace Smackdown".
I saw the interview and I thought Clinton looked psychotic, but that is not the impression you get while listening to CNN, ABC, CBS, ect. He looked like a cartoon character who's head was going to blow. And they did not get into the numerous lies. It must be good to be Bill.

Martin; Christophe... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Martin;

Christopher Taylor and Ken Shelton in addition to Larry Sabato. I do agree Sabato needs to come forward with the specifics. There are others in the Salon piece who do not want to be identified. They should come forward and identify themselves and give specifics as have Taylor and Shelton.

Your maccaca explanation defies reality. Is that their first, second or third explanation? One of their "talking points?"

I don't know what left wing fantasy you're talking about.
Your fantasy about the maccaca story is beyond fantasy. it's disingenuous at best as was their first, second, third et al explanations.

"hugh-boy"- seems someone e... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

"hugh-boy"- seems someone else has your #. (snicker-snicker)-now you can join old "pucker puss" (lee lee ). he he

Ken Shelton<... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:
    Ken Shelton

Ken Shelton is the guy who claims that Allen told him that he chose to attend the University of Virginia because he wanted to play in a team where black people knew their place. He also claims that Allen nicknamed him Wizard because he shared the same last name as a famous KKK leader at the time.

(1) George Allen attended the University of Virginia because his father had just been made Head Coach of the Washington Redskins. Furthermore, the University of Virginia football team did have black players and one of Allen's black team mates is vouching for the fact that he never perceived any racial animus from the Senator.

(2) Every other team mate of George Allen's and and assistant coach recalls that Ken Shelton got his nickname for his ability to get open and catch the ball, and that he got the nickname before George Allen got into the University of Virginia.

In other words, Shelton is a compromized liar. He's the founder of an anti-tobacco industry group that has complained about the fact that George Allen had received the most campaign contributions from the tobacco industry than any other official running in this election.

    Christopher Taylor

Forgive me if I don't lend any credence to a partisan Democrat recalling with perfect clarity a conversation he had in the early 1980s and somehow forgot all about it throughout George Allen's career until this very convenient moment. Heck, there isn't even any proof that they even knew each other.

    Your maccaca explanation defies reality.

Really? I got that information the second day after the story broke. Fact; Allen's campaign staff claim that they nicknamed the guy "macaca" and they called him that within the campaign. For what reason, I have absolutely no idea.

What is so reality-defying about that? It's no way near as reality-defying as the Left's fantasies of Bush blowing up the levees in New Orleans or blowing the Twin Towers down.

Either way, it's a great deal more credible than the Left's racist mother theory.

Martin:So as I und... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Martin:

So as I understand your disingenuous defense (sounds just like a RNC or Allen campaign talking points(s) the accusers are liars. And Allen's defenders, those who have come out and supported him from their time with him at school, are telling the truth? They have no interest other than telling the truth?

This is from Salon today:
"One of the teammates in the press release, Doug Jones, is listed on the Virginia Republican Party Web site as the "Unit Operations Co-Chair for the Allen campaign in Fairfax County." When Allen was the governor of Virginia, he appointed a second teammate cited in the press release, Charles M. Hale Jr., to the Virginia Board of Mining Examiners, according to state records. As governor, Allen also gave an appointment to the wife of George Korte, a third teammate in the press release. According to state records, Allen appointed Holly Korte to the Virginia Board of Social Services. And he appointed Joe Gieck, the former trainer, to the Governor's Commission on Physical Fitness and Sports."

Interesting that you left this stuff out. Did you not get your orders correctly?

You're funny, Hugh.<p... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

You're funny, Hugh.

From the same Salon article:

    Over the past week, Salon has interviewed 19 former teammates and college friends of Allen from the University of Virginia. In addition to the three who said Allen used the word "nigger," two others who were contacted said they remember being bothered by Allen's displaying the Confederate flag in college, but said they do not remember him acting in an overtly racist manner. Seven others said they did not know Allen well outside the football team, but do not remember Allen demonstrating any racist feelings. A separate seven teammates and friends said they knew Allen well and did not believe he held racist views. "I don't believe he was insensitive," said Paul Ryczek, who played center in Allen's year before joining the Atlanta Falcons. "He had no prejudices, biases or anything else."

Out of NINETEEN people, only THREE (one of whom is an out and out political opponent of George Allen and the other two are under cover of anonymity - or completely made up out of the Salon reporter's imagination) recall him being a racist.

You fault four people as lacking credibility because they are too close to the Senator. But why should I give the severely partisan folks (and only three out of NINETEEN) on your side any more credibility than the rest of their team mates - including their African American team mates? What about the other twelve as referenced in the article you place so much stock in?

Heck, let me even help you out:

Statement from Rev. Gary Ham, defensive corner on the University of Virginia football team 1969 thru 1973. Rev. Ham was one of the African-American players on the UVA football team at the time:

    "Let me say honestly, that I was not a close acquaintance with Senator Allen during our football days at UVA but I do not recall any language or behavior that was racist in nature.

    "I have better recollections of Senator Allen when he was the Governor of VA. Although I disagreed with the position which he took on Martin Luther King Day, I believed him to be a man who was open to dialogue with African-Americans and other minority groups. He did much to promote outreach to poor neighborhoods and communities through faith-based initiatives."

Try harder, Hugh. You can certainly do better than this ...

This argument has become a ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

This argument has become a waste of time Martin. I have 5 you have 4. You claim mine are biased, yours work for or have been beholden to Allen. Others didn't see or hear anything. Failure to see or hear a racial slur doesn't mean one wasn't made to others. I see a pattern, you see something else.

Lets let more time go by. If I'm wrong I'll admit it. Will you?

P.S. I'm not "trying" to do anything. I read stories, I hear speakers and I come to conclusions based on my beliefs. I imagine you do the same. You have one pair of glasses, I have another. Lets not call each other names lets wait and see what develops. Reasonable isn't it?

Hugh -That's the s... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hugh -

That's the second time you've called someone who debunked you a RNC flak (moi) or just reciting RNC campaign talking points (Martin).

jim:Well if that's... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

jim:

Well if that's the worst I get chastised for it's not so bad.

Can't help if you guys sound that way. My bad.

Hugh

Hugh - Fair enough... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hugh -

Fair enough. ;-)

He avoids Vietnam.<... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

He avoids Vietnam.

Insert unsubstantiated soundbit here.

He lets his goons in the 2000 election smear John McCain....but keeps his own hands clean.

Insert unsubstantiated soundbit here.

No scripts. One person claimed to have been called --- and, of course, only one person.

Insert unsubstantiated soundbit here.

Criticizing Cleeland for his atrocious run in the Senate is unfair?

Insert unsubstantiated soundbit here.

And does not admit error or change any of the players responsible.

Insert unsubstantiated soundbit here.

He dumps his chosen Supreme Court nominee (Harriet Myers sic) when the goof-nut religious wing of his party objects.

Insert unsubstantiated soundbit here.

That's exactly what he was. He got into the Senate SOLELY because he served. He lacked any real qualification for his position. What's with the constant calling of me "boy"? Do you think I'm one of your house "boys" from your plantation? I thought all you red-necked cracker sheet-wearing goons were gone by now.

Insert unsubstantiated soundbit here.
Insert unsubstantiated soundbit here.
Insert unsubstantiated soundbit here.
Insert unsubstantiated soundbit here.
-=Mike




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy