The Big Dog takes a bite out of FOX.....

[svonkampen]

If you didn't see it over the week-end, here is Bill Clinton tearing Chris Wallace / Fox News a new one ;-)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1844573638241073765&q=chris+wallace+clinton

SvK

[rcecale]

Your dog has no teeth.

Randy

[75'930cab]

Originally posted by svonkampen
If you didn't see it over the week-end, here is Bill Clinton tearing Chris Wallace / Fox News a new one ;-)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1844573638241073765&q=chris+wallace+clinton

SvK

Didn't you already post this here yesterday.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?threadid=306140

[rcecale]

Originally posted by 75'930cab
Didn't you already post this here yesterday.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?threadid=306140

It's an old liberal trick...repeat some BS line often enough, and pretty soon, people will start to believe it.

"Bush lied...!"
"Republicans are mean spirited and want to throw the poor out on the street."
"There is no liberal media bias."

...and MY all time favorite...

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."


Randy

[M.D. Holloway]

Clinton: "I would have committed more than 20,000 troops to getting Bin Laden..."

So...am I missing something here?

[Rodeo]

I'm pretty sure he was saying that if he were still president, he would have sent more troops to Afghanistan, and kept them there until bin Laden was dead. I agree. That bin Laden still breathes after what he did is unacceptable, no matter what your politics.

Yet we have 20,000 troops in Afghanistan compared to 140,000 in Iraq, and bin Laden has become a folk hero for attacking us and getting away.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally posted by rcecale
It's an old liberal trick...repeat some BS line often enough, and pretty soon, people will start to believe it.

"Bush lied...!"
"Republicans are mean spirited and want to throw the poor out on the street."
"There is no liberal media bias."

...and MY all time favorite...

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."


Randy

Oh, you mean like "WMDs!", "Mission Accomplished", "You're doing a heck of a job Brownie", "link between Hussein and Al Qaeda", "I'll fire whoever leaked classified information", "John Bolton is the right man for the job at the U.N.", "I'm a uniter, not a divider", "I'm the decider", etc? You mean like that?

[Moneyguy1]

Kicking back, reading the responses, I find it somewhat hilarious that no matter what is said, it is always the "liberals" that seem to be at fault.

Goebbels was right.

OTOH, trying to see both sides of the story and separate the ***** from the wind is getting far more challenging.

I do get a kick out of attempts to label people as "liberal" or "conservative" when most of the labelers are so far to one side that EVERYONE ELSE is, by definition, opposite to their own beliefs. To a "liberal", a Centrist is "conservative". To a "conservative", that same person is a "liberal". Both extremes are blinded by their own lack of willingness to learn. They already know all they wish to know.

[RoninLB]

BC doesn't do or say anything without a political agenda. He's so smart some people think he's stupid.

[450knotOffice]

I do get a kick out of attempts to label people as "liberal" or "conservative" when most of the labelers are so far to one side that EVERYONE ELSE is, by definition, opposite to their own beliefs. To a "liberal", a Centrist is "conservative". To a "conservative", that same person is a "liberal". Both extremes are blinded by their own lack of willingness to learn. They already know all they wish to know.

This is one of the most succinct posts I have seen on OT and basically says it all. I happen to be of the opinion that most people in this country are somewhat centrist, as opposed to "conservative" or "liberal".

[Rodeo]

"Once you label me you negate me."

Søren Kierkegaard

[bryanthompson]

During the Wallace interview, Bill said, "I failed, I tried and I failed..." And then proceeded to say that he had given Bush a 'comprehensive anti-terror strategy' that included al Qaeda.

My question is, if he and his previous plans were failures (as he himself acknowledges), why would President Bush even consider looking at them?

[lendaddy]

Here's what doesn't jibe for me...

All can agree that it was MUCH easier to kill OBL before 9/11 than after, so....

Even though Clinton was OBSESSED with OBL during this period he was unable to kill him or even locate him when he was not surrounded by hundreds of ill children, Saudi princes, and/or the Pope. But this is ok, he "tried".

Bush has dedicated thousands of troops and millions of dollars to find him now that he has gone into hiding, but he is accused of not caring and being incompetent BECAUSE he has not gotten him. Whether or not he "tried" is now unimportant. The lack of results is suddenly important.

'bout right?

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by lendaddy

'bout right?

you are asking for a response of Dem talking points.

[Rodeo]

You forgot three things in your analysis.

9/11/01

Tora Bora

Iraq

Clinton wasn't responding to the worst attack on American soil in our nation's history, didn't lose ObL in Tora Bora because of plain old-fashioned incompetence, and didn't divert men, money and equipment to a wholly irrelevant country that posed no threat.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo
You forgot three things in your analysis.

9/11/01

Tora Bora

Iraq

Clinton wasn't responding to the worst attack on American soil in our nation's history, didn't lose ObL in Tora Bora because of plain old-fashioned incompetence, and didn't divert men, money and equipment to a wholly irrelevant country that posed no threat.

So Clinton wasn't really trying to get him, he was just really trying given the current state of events. He would have really tried had he been in office after 9/11.

[Rodeo]

Yes, Clinton was operating in the time/space continuum assigned to him, not one in in the future

Clinton was sleazy and (mostly) competent. Bush is sleazy and (virtually always) incompetent. That's my story and I'm sticking to it

[lendaddy]

Think this guy is lying?

O‘DONNELL: But many people have made the impression that something in the Bush administration was done wrong. But there‘s evidence that the Clinton administration knew full well that bin Laden had the wherewithal and was planning to attack the United States. Who is to blame and did the president, Clinton, get this information?

SCHEUER: Certainly the president got the information. And most certainly his closest adviser, Sandy Berger and Mr. Clarke—Richard Clarke, had the information from 1996 forward that bin Laden intended to attack the United States. There‘s no question of that. And in terms of which administration had more chances, Mr. Clinton‘s administration had far more chances to kill Osama bin Laden than Mr. Bush has until this day.

O‘DONNELL: That‘s very interesting. I don‘t think that many Americans know that or think that everything that they‘ve heard—you‘ve spent your life tracking Osama bin Laden. From what we know now and what you know, how many missed opportunities were there to prevent the 9/11 attacks?

SCHEUER: Well, we had—the question of whether or not we could have prevented the attacks is one you could debate forever. But we had at least eight to 10 chances to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in 1998 and 1999. And the government on all occasions decided that the information was not good enough to act.

[Rodeo]

Sounds credible to me.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Sounds credible to me.

So in those 8-10 chances that Bill had to get him in just two years.......What? Are we to belive that even though he was obsessed with getting him that...gosh things just didn't feel right? What?

So in a this 2 year period Bill goes 0 for 10 and you jump on W for missing him once?