Funny, that wasn;t what i saw at all. check out my post in the thread above.
Clinton was interviewed by Chris Wallace for Fox News Sunday. He was actually asked a question about his effort against Al Quaeda. For some odd reason he seems to be a little defensive about this issue. I guess he didn't appreciate not getting his ass kissed once again by the media. He went off and started wagging that defiant litle finger of his. I can't wait to see this.
He should just be interviewed by Jon Stewart every week for now on. Then he too can be the greatest ex-President.
Maybe you can't wrap your mind around this comparison, but a non-alcoholic will also deny being an alcoholic. Yet, denial is cited as a "symptom" of alcoholism. I know you scored low on the Iowa Basics, so you won't get this.
I guess a slanderous, utterly make-believe piece of shit propaganda video against him shouldn't be grounds for getting defensive. You read everything you think you know into his emotions but can't read facts.
Too bad they baffle you.
-- Modified on 9/23/2006 11:13:19 AM
unbelievable, Keith Olbermann really is a lunatic. Plus he's a bigger butt kisser that Charlie Rose.
He asks Willie what advise he would give to Bush to make things better tomorrow (24 hours). Willie says he would tell Bush to say there has to be a Palestinian state! Yeah right willie. When muslims will not say Israel has a right to exist.
But prior to that, Keithy boy was praising willie for his new shakedown gig. They're gonna do so much good! Helping poor people and old people and people in Africa and people w/aids and global warming and such..
HA HA HA--- There's gonna be some good all right. WHEN TH IRS AUDITS THE BOOKS AND THROWS WILLIE IN JAIL FOR TAX FRAUD MAIL FRAUD AND JUST BEING AN ALL AROUND FRAUD!! hehehe
But back to the interview, Willie then commensed to say that he doesn't know if Hillary is gonna run for President. HA HA HA HA HA HA Sure Willie, THAT'S ALL YOUR EVIL WICKED WITCH OF A WIFE FROM HELL CAN THINK ABOUT!
But I am looking forward to seeing Hillary getting her head handed to her on a plate by----CONDI RICE!!
Yes, Condi for President! Condi for President. Make your vote count. Vote Condi Rice. Vote the Republican Party. Up and down the ballot. Republican Republican Republican.
The religious right...
GOPGeezer, the religious right has highjacked your party & wants all the social issues to be front & center of the party's focus...
To give one example, on the porn star board, I posted a link about a story where several conservative christan groups want the FBI to investigate hotel porn..Hotel porn?!, they think it's a problem for adults to be able to order a porn flick in the privacy of their own room!
Maybe, just maybe, if your party could come up w/some M-O-D-E-R-A-T-E candiates, ie; Lincoln Chaffe, & not have such extreme ones like the Santorums, Brownbacks, Coburns, etc. of the party, then perhaps I could vote republican, but for now, it's an easy straight Democratic ticket for me...
for legalizing the hobby. And, the late great great great pillar of the Republican Party-- Barry Goldwater-- would be too. The Republican Party has a big tent! Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Rich people, poor people. Catholics, Jews, atheists and hobbyists. hehehe
SO COME ON IN!
That just because the supposedly defamed people (Clinton, Berger, Tenant, and Albright) cry foul that their version of the truth is 100% true and other evidence no longer exists.
Maybe you should wait for the slander and defamation law suits to be won (or at least filed). Actually I welcome their coming. The discovery process will be quite interesting. Which is exactly why we won't see the suits filed, even though the whiners and analysts alike claim that the harder line was crossed protecting speech in a political forum.
I conjectured before about liable and defamation, but without legal advice (I'll look on findlaw if I have time), they might not be possible regardless. Speech about political figures would have the most solid protections under the law. Otherwise the charge would be similar to seditious liable-- with the cases about that already decided in John Adams' administration.
I'm certain lawyers for all of them are looking into this, but you're likely not to see any suits, for reasons other than what you've written.
Not as short as I thought. I'm going to be gone for 2 days. I'll make other answers after that.
Yeah, it's like the slander and defamation lawsuits Bush has filed against Richard Clark and the 9/11 Commission for saying he did not hold a SINGLE MEETING about terrorism even though he was repeatedly warned, right?
You know, we're really tired of this busllshit, myfriend.
denial is proof of guilt.
Bush would "seem a little bit defensive" when talking about Iraq and you would "seem a little bit defensive" when talking about your relationship with a goat, right?
And turns him into a blubbering crying little baby.
Mike is not proud of his son.
Clinton makes a salient point, that the people whining NOW and saying he did nothing to catch OBL, were the same ones blocking him and calling it "wagging the dog" when he WAS trying to get OBL.
Wallace of course just tries to blubber his way out of it.
It will be interesing to see how FAUX News edits the interview.
Willie turns into a spoilt three year old having a temper tantrum. Plus, Willie is a spinmeister and spins a long yarn to wear his interviewer out. His suppositions are FALSE and w/his phony rage, the interviewer gets worn down or backs off.
A perfect example would be w/that great high school dropout from Canada who got his start as a J C Penney underwear model before he made it bigtime in broadcasting-- Peter Jennings.
At the Clinton library, Jennings dared to ask a question about Monica L. Wow!!!! Clinton turned on a dime. Willie almost poked out Jenning's eye with his finger and figuratively ripped off Jenning's head. Jenning's dropped it and clinton was back to how he was before the subject was even broached 20 seconds before. Wow, it was freaky.
exactly were false? You should at least try to support your arguments.
Willie kept saying how he did everything he could. And I kept saying and thinking "what did you do willieboy?" HE never really got specific on the how and what he did in regards to his claims.
He's such a spinmeister.
and, isn't that advocating torture in violation of the Geneva convention?
And, I'm sorry but I don't care about the Geneva convention. The muslims don't. MAybe in the past I was a little flippant but waterboarding is really effective and does no permanent physical damage and the psychologial damage can be treated if the torturee is ever in a position to get treatment.
No, he's too stupid. Bush is a bullshitter. How often have we seen a reporter ask him a question, only to have him comment on the reporter's glasses or suit?
Bush isn't serious. He's a joker, a frat boy, installed by the RNC because they know he won't be independent.
Clinton is a pussyhound. So what? So is every man on this board, and every man in the world with a dozen red blood cells left in him.
As for the Geneva convention - I don't think this is an issue of equal nations at war. This is a case of us setting the standard for the future of civilization. I am dead set against treating terrorists as warriors; I would treat them as criminals, just as pirates were 300 years ago, and make them subject to court martial. I would not allow them the legitimacy of treatment as warriors. I think we do far too much to unite muslims, and far too little to split them by distinguishing among them according to their actions toward us.
I have never been in the position of interrogating a POW. I have observed and conducted many legal inquiries and interrogations, in and out of military service, about many subjects - criminal and civil issues alike. I've dealt with many polygraphs, and seen exactly why they don't produce admissible evidence. I've seen people do things, and maybe done things myself, that might result in disciplinary action at the hands of an overeager senior.
Based on my observations, I doubt that physical coercion is a reliable tool. I have said I think it's good to keep your options open; but I think it's too easy to fall back on, and assume that the information you get is reliable; when in fact it's very likely to just be what they think you want to hear. IOW, it's very likely a recipe for us bullshitting ourselves.
Based on my experience, I really don't believe much of any information I get, until I've pieced it together from disinterested sources.
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/networks/wallace_i_felt_as_if_a_mountain_was_coming_down_in_front_of_me__44380.asp
Clinton acted like a little, scorned, whiny school girl.
Wallace behaved very profesionally, although a bit taken a back (oh no wait, that's Bush's line).
-- Modified on 9/24/2006 10:46:57 PM
Funny, that wasn;t what i saw at all. check out my post in the thread above.
You guys forget that there are the overwhelming majority of Americans were against the Clinton impeachment. His approval was at something like 70% the day he was impeached.
All you wacked-out rightwingers can't handle the truth, so you just make up a bunch of crap.
Too bad 50% of the public never actually voted for him. He was a lot better at playing "victim" rather than playing "leader".
And too bad Clinton could still be one of the best President we've ever had and Bush possibly the absolute worst EVER!
Check the numbers. There is no need to reply back with all CAPS and exclamation points. Check the numbers. You're coming across as foolish.
-- Modified on 9/26/2006 11:05:49 AM
cLINTON:
After the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden.
CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.
QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?
CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.
(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)
ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?
CLARKE: You got it. That's right.
oR MAYBE, JUST MAYBE IT'S JUST ANOTHER SOCIOPATHIC LIE?????