Fan Forum
Remember Me?
Register

  New Forum Poll (Vote Here)   |     Summer TV Shows Poll (Vote Here)   |     Request a Forum   |     View New Forums

Reply   Post New Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-25-2006, 07:31 PM
  #1
Master Fan

 
sick little jag's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 20,783
Bill Clinton Vs. Fox News and Chris Wallace

I'm surprised that this wasn't already a topic here...hope this is alright.

Quote:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 24, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(CBS/AP) In a combative interview on "Fox News Sunday," former President Bill Clinton defended his handling of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden, saying he tried to have bin Laden killed and was attacked for his efforts by the same people who now criticize him for not doing enough.

"That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said in the interview. "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try."

Clinton accused host Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job" and asked: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, 'Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many people you asked, 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?"'

He was referring to the USS Cole, attacked by terrorists in Yemen in 2000, and former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke.

Wallace said Sunday he was surprised by Clinton's "conspiratorial view" of "a very non-confrontational question, 'Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after al Qaeda?"'

"All I did was ask him a question, and I think it was a legitimate news question. I was surprised that he would conjure up that this was a hit job," Wallace said in a telephone interview.

Clinton said he "worked hard" to try to kill bin Laden.

"I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him," Clinton said. "We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody since."

He told Wallace, "And you got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever, but I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try and I did everything I thought I responsibly could."

The interview was taped Friday during Clinton's three-day Global Initiative conference.
The article can be found here.

In my opinion....Bill Clinton >>>>>>>>>>> Chris Matthews and Fox News. They were there to talk about his Global Initiative humanitarian group, and instead he get's shanghaied. Say what you want about his personal conduct, but this man did a much more competent job as Commander in Chief than our current one. He really did try and protect America, when he left office there were all the resources set up for Bush to use to combat terrorism, and he wasted them and ignored warnings. Sad that Clinton didn't get bin Laden, because if he had 9/11 might not have happened but don't dare blame him or question that he tried get bin Laden and dismantle al Qaida, because clearly he did.

I suggest everyone watch the video of this. The videos were up on youtube but have been removed, but they are still up on Crooks and Liars.
__________________
If looks could really kill, then my profession would be staring / know we do this cause we care
and not for the thrill ....
Samantha #121
sick little jag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2006, 07:43 PM
  #2
Fan Forum's Finest

 
S.A.S.H.A.'s Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 119,857
That was a hilarious interview. I love it when politicians get all riled up. Rawr! That's all I've seen today on the morning/evening news. Can't wait to hear Bill Maher's take on it all.

Sasha
__________________
Sasha
S.A.S.H.A. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2006, 08:05 PM
  #3
Master Fan

 
AlexEvans's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 14,169
Yeah, they had 8 months, he had 8 years! 8 years in which attack after attack against the United States was met with a weak response. 8 years in which the wall between intelligence and law enforcement got higher.

While in some cases failure was understandable (warning Pakistan about the cruise missiles on their way to Afghanistan, so they didn't think India was attacking, was reasonable) the fact is that Clinton didn't take the issue seriously. He didn't do enough. He didn't even say enough to let the American people know what was going on.

After September 11th Clinton, Albright etc say they knew right away it was Bin Laden.

They knew how dangerous he was. They knew he was that much more dangerous than anyone else. And yet at every step - the World Trade Center attack, the USS Cole attack, the Embassy bombings, the Khobar bombing - they did so very little.

I don't fault Clinton for what he did (besides Monica). The chemical factory in Sudan that he linked to Iraq and al Qaeda might or might not have really produced aspirin, but Clinton clearly had reason to believe it was producing WMDs. Withdrawing from Somalia emboldened our enemies, but maybe we should never have been there. But I do fault him, very much so, for all the missed opportunities.

I dare blame him.
__________________
The Universal Friendship League? Could it sound any creepier?
AlexEvans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2006, 09:44 PM
  #4
Addicted Fan

 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,647
Not to rehash what Clinton did and didn't do because it will fall along partisan lines I do think that asking Bush what he did for those 8 months is a valid question. If they came into power knowing how bad bin Laden was then why didn't they go after him right there and then? What stopped them?

In February they knew al queda was responsible for the Cole bombing but nothing happened. What about Tora Bora in December of 2001? Bush invaded Iraq and bin Laden was forgotten.

I think history will judge the two men. Or if there's a Democratic Congress then they can investigate the whole fiasco..then maybe he'll be judged sooner.

ETA - it was fun to see Clinton let Fox News have it though..that was good entertainment.
__________________
The Committee To Re-elect President Obama: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul
ceilirose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 02:21 AM
  #5
Extreme Fan
 
Lexis's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,166
I was really glad that Clinton defended himself so well - I hadn't heard him speak for an extended period of time for a while and I'd forgotten how eloquent he is.
Lexis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 04:35 AM
  #6
Elite Fan

 
vc318's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 31,693
Yes, Clinton had a greater focus for us as Americans than to go and pick fights with other countries like our current moron in office. Clinton had the American people in mind making sure we were happy (at least I was). We could quit a job today and be back in an even better one by Monday, gas NEVER went over $2, and we all weren't trying to step on each other's necks to get ahead. Also, I honestly never even thought about terrorists until Bush came into office. Thanks to him other countries hate us even more and want us to perish. Clinton made us feel like we were number one because of the great things he did for us. With Bush, you feel like your the bottom of the barrel after all the jobs are given away to people in other countries when they're are people here that could use it. He thinks threatening people makes you number one as a country and it doesn't. And he knows he didn't win both terms with dignity. I live in Florida so I'm sure his brother Jeb had ALOT to do with arranging that he wins. Pompous jerk. Anyway, I know I'm going off topic but I didn't watch the interview but I don't care if Clinton got a little hot with Wallace or whatever. He'll always be number one in my book.
__________________
Phoebe (singing): Happy Hanukkah, Monica. May your Christmas be snowy, Joey. Happy New Year, Chandler and Ross. Spin the dreidel, Rachel!

Have a happy holiday & prosperous new year!
vc318 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 05:07 AM
  #7
Master Fan

 
*Ledi*'s Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 14,339
I pretty much loved seeing Clinton be that way. It was amazing.
__________________
+ Eda +
*Ledi* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 08:18 AM
  #8
Fan Forum's Finest

 
S.A.S.H.A.'s Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 119,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by sick little jag (View Post)
Pissy and sexy, Sasha.


Sasha
__________________
Sasha
S.A.S.H.A. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 09:11 AM
  #9
Dedicated Fan
 
WalkingOnSunshine's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by sick little jag (View Post)
Sad that Clinton didn't get bin Laden, because if he had 9/11 might not have happened but don't dare blame him or question that he tried get bin Laden and dismantle al Qaida, because clearly he did.
Personally, I think it is more than simply sad that Clinton didn't get Bin Laden. So, let me see to recap - don't dare blame or question Clinton about not getting Bin Laden. Why not? Don't most of the "dissenters" against Bush claim that questioning such things is what this country is all about? Or does that just apply when the other guy is in office?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vc318 (View Post)
Yes, Clinton had a greater focus for us as Americans than to go and pick fights with other countries like our current moron in office. Clinton had the American people in mind making sure we were happy (at least I was). We could quit a job today and be back in an even better one by Monday, gas NEVER went over $2, and we all weren't trying to step on each other's necks to get ahead.
Clinton took a backseat to security so if people have to deal with high gas prices and a current war on terror - I think some of the focus should be on the lack of attention the issue was given by the former President.

Quote:
Also, I honestly never even thought about terrorists until Bush came into office.
Maybe people would have thought a little more about terrorism if Clinton had been more aggressive at getting the #1 terrorist instead of bypassing on chance after chance.

Quote:
Thanks to him other countries hate us even more and want us to perish.
I don't understand this. Just simply because Bush is in office different countries now all the sudden want us to perish?
__________________
The game that will define a season is coming.

Date: November 2, 2006
Time: 7:30pm
Event: Louisville v. West Virginia --- Only on ESPN
WalkingOnSunshine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 10:10 AM
  #10
Master Fan

 
AlexEvans's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 14,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by WalkingOnSunshine (View Post)
Personally, I think it is more than simply sad that Clinton didn't get Bin Laden. So, let me see to recap - don't dare blame or question Clinton about not getting Bin Laden. Why not? Don't most of the "dissenters" against Bush claim that questioning such things is what this country is all about? Or does that just apply when the other guy is in office?



Clinton took a backseat to security so if people have to deal with high gas prices and a current war on terror - I think some of the focus should be on the lack of attention the issue was given by the former President.



Maybe people would have thought a little more about terrorism if Clinton had been more aggressive at getting the #1 terrorist instead of bypassing on chance after chance.
Quite true.

Quote:
I don't understand this. Just simply because Bush is in office different countries now all the sudden want us to perish?
It's easier to blame it all on one person. That gives hope it will go away.

Unfortunately, it's false hope. Clinton was called a "war criminal" etc and used as a pretext for anti-Americanism, just as Bush is now. (And while I am deeply disappointed in President Clinton's record, I consider these allegations as baseless, unfounded, hateful and absurd as the ones aimed at the current President.)

Anti-Americanism isn't going away any time soon. Bigotry has always been a fact of life, and some forms of it linger on, and on, and on.

A few details may change - Afghanistan and Iraq replace Bosnia and East Timor - but the substance seldom does.
__________________
The Universal Friendship League? Could it sound any creepier?
AlexEvans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 10:15 AM
  #11
Addicted Fan

 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,647
Ok..how about this - let's see a comprehensive, objective source that describes in detail all the times that Clinton missed "getting' bin Laden.

Not the rantings of Limbaugh and Coulter and their wannabes but an actual government report. Let's see where it says that utimately it all goes back to Clinton.

I wouldn't use a leftist leaning blog/source to back up my claims and honestly I don't think most would treat anything from the radical right as gospel either.

Having said that I don't doubt that mistakes were made in the Clinton Administration as have mistakes been made by Bush. For me the difference is that Clinton admits failing to get bin Laden and Bush keeps on changing his mind on whether bin Laden is important or not.

Anyone can question what Clinton did and on the flip side - anyone can question what Bush did. Sometimes that gets lost in all the rheotoric.

While we're at it - the FIB officially told Bush that al Queda was responsible for the Cole Bombing at the end of January 2001 - what did Bush do to get bin Laden after that?
__________________
The Committee To Re-elect President Obama: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul

Last edited by ceilirose; 09-26-2006 at 10:37 AM.
ceilirose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 10:44 AM
  #12
Extreme Fan
 
Lexis's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,166
Jumping in here....

Quote:
Originally Posted by WalkingOnSunshine (View Post)
Personally, I think it is more than simply sad that Clinton didn't get Bin Laden. So, let me see to recap - don't dare blame or question Clinton about not getting Bin Laden. Why not? Don't most of the "dissenters" against Bush claim that questioning such things is what this country is all about? Or does that just apply when the other guy is in office?
To my mind, its totally acceptable to ask the question. I think we should be tough on our leaders. As he said to Wallace, he made mistakes. Its nice he admits that. Maybe after Bush is out of office, he will be able to admit that he didn't do enough to cut off Bin Laden's escape.

Quote:
I don't understand this. Just simply because Bush is in office different countries now all the sudden want us to perish?
I think some of Bush's actions encouraged extremist attitudes but that's in a minority of people I think. At the same time, I think its clear that a lot of people hold poor opinions of Bush - and he's the leader your country elected.

From earlier this year:

Quote:
More than three quarters of Britons believe the current president is a "poor" or even "terrible" world leader and almost as many believe that his rhetoric about promoting the cause of democracy in the world is merely a cover for his promotion of American national interests.

Americans as individuals are still held in high regard in Britain, but America's role in the world is not. The so-called "special relationship" may still thrive in Downing Street and at Camp David but it has obviously atrophied among the British public.

As the figures in the chart show, a large majority of Britons like Americans as people either "a little" (49 per cent) or "a lot" (21 per cent) and more than half, 54 per cent, are inclined to feel positively about the US in general. There are certainly few signs in YouGov's findings of an across-the-board anti-American prejudice.
Telegraph | News | Britain falls out of love with America

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexEvans (View Post)
Quite true.
Anti-Americanism isn't going away any time soon. Bigotry has always been a fact of life, and some forms of it linger on, and on, and on.

A few details may change - Afghanistan and Iraq replace Bosnia and East Timor - but the substance seldom does.
I agree that anti-Americanism isn't so simple to get rid of - some will hate the US no matter what. But I don't recall such widespread concern and criticism of the US under Clinton. He got cheers in the streets here - still does when he comes. When Bush was at Buckingham Palace, people had to be kept back down Pall Mall to protest.
Lexis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 12:48 PM
  #13
Banned
 
Jacob1983's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,893
I thought this interview was hilarious. I enjoyed seeing Bill Clinton get rattled. Clinton was acting like a little kid in school wanted a prize for perfect attendance or something. Okay, Clinton did try but he failed miserably. A lot of people love to bash and blame Bush solely for 9/11 however the guy only had 8 months to prepare. Mr. Clinton had 8 years to catch Bin Laden. I laughed hard when Clinton said they didn't even know Al Qaeda existed when he was president. I think the reason why Clinton got so aggravated at the FOX News guy is because he feels guilty about what happened. Clinton was too focused on fat interns to give a crap about Bin Laden.
Was I the only that noticed Clinton was wearing high water slacks?

Fox News does seems to shift to the right of thing and isn't always balanced. But CNN surely isn't conservative and Republican all the time.
Jacob1983 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 01:22 PM
  #14
Elite Fan

 
vc318's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 31,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by WalkingOnSunshine (View Post)
Maybe people would have thought a little more about terrorism if Clinton had been more aggressive at getting the #1 terrorist instead of bypassing on chance after chance.
Picking fights with people isn't a priority in my life maybe for some like our smart-old president here. Bush's big concern is letting other countries think that we're better than everyone else. To this day, I still find him responsible for 9/11. He knew for weeks and weeks that it was going to happen and just because he didn't want to take the time to actually look into it, he let thousands die. I don't know how he even sleeps at night. His concern aren't for the people who can't find a job THANKS TO HIM or can't go to work because of high gas prices... THANKS TO HIM. You may enjoy paying high gas prices but I don't. Clinton didn't ignore security - he just knew that there were more important issues than trying to show off to other countries to piss them off

Quote:
I don't understand this. Just simply because Bush is in office different countries now all the sudden want us to perish?
His actions obviously. He wanted this war and now thanks to him MOST people are miserable - with their job, their income, the gas prices. Now most countries can't stand us. I'm not surprised.

Quote:
I think some of Bush's actions encouraged extremist attitudes but that's in a minority of people I think. At the same time, I think its clear that a lot of people hold poor opinions of Bush - and he's the leader your country elected.
He's no leader - his actions are pure evil to me. I didn't vote for him and he didn't win with dignity. He used some dirty way to win, I'm sure. He even had a pompous attitude about "getting back to work" when the votes were being counted. If Dick Cheney was the president, I'd respect him more than this clown.
__________________
Phoebe (singing): Happy Hanukkah, Monica. May your Christmas be snowy, Joey. Happy New Year, Chandler and Ross. Spin the dreidel, Rachel!

Have a happy holiday & prosperous new year!
vc318 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 02:19 PM
  #15
Extreme Fan
 
Lexis's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob1983 (View Post)
I laughed hard when Clinton said they didn't even know Al Qaeda existed when he was president.
I thought he said that during the military operation in Somalia, they did not know Al-Qaeda's operation. Later on, they did know.
Lexis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply   Post New Thread

Bookmarks


Thread Tools



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:07 PM.

Fan Forum  |  Contact Us  |  Fan Forum on Twitter  |  Fan Forum on Facebook  |  Archive  |  Top

Powered by vBulletin, Copyright © 2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2
Copyright © 1998-2012, Fan Forum.