No thanks, it passed...close though!

Moderate Republican here, traditional fiscal conservative/social moderate type.

I think Clinton ripped Wallace a new one. MIKE Wallace would NEVER have let that happen. That's one point. The second point is Chris Wallace is a smirker as are lots of the Fox people. Third, Clinton is right about a lot of the points he made. You certainly can't believe Clinton "made it all up" can you?

I don't think that's true. Tell me specifically what Bush and Cheney said about a possible Iraq and Al Qadea connection that was disputed by the CIA. If the CIA said that they couldn't prove there were any direct ties to Al Qadea, that does not mean that they were saying that Iraq does not sponsor terrorism. It doesn't even necessarily mean that they didn't think there was a connection between Al Qadea and Iraq. They may have suspected it, but just couldn't prove it. You need to know the exact wording before you say that anyone lied.

S2S: great first line! I disagree with your assesment of Clinton! He's been pouting since the docudrama played and now he gets to get pissy with "all you rightwingers" Where's that wondrus thick skin he had during his Presidency?? Chris Wallace showed deference to a past President, and rather than rising above the fray, Bubba chose to give us a 'little piece of his heart" and as usual,displayed his skewed vision of History!

[quote=dalakhani]Obviously none of you have ever been associated with anyone of celebrity so i will inform you of how interviews work.

As usual, you are totally wrong. I grew up in Beverly Hills and am from a show business family. I have been more than associated with plenty of celebrities. I have had lunch, dinner, gone to the track with, gone to their homes, and played golf with plenty of celebrities.

So much for your assessment that "none of us have ever been associated with anyone of celebrity." I'm not bragging. There's nothing for me to brag about. I'm not a celebrity. I'm just telling you that your assessment was wrong.

I have heard both sides of the story. I think there is some truth to some of the things Clinton said. As I said earlier, this is sort of like listening to a prosecutor or a defense attorney. They are usually only go to tell you half the story. It can be very misleading if you don't know the other half of the story.

If you read the 9/11 report, you see that Berger and Clinton dragged their feet on several occassions when it came to going after Bin Laden.

Incidentally, Wallace and Clinton did not have a debate so you can't say that Clinton ripped Wallace a new one. Wallace did not atempt to dispute anything Clinton said. If he wanted to, he certainly could have. He could have quoted excerpts from the 9/11 report. He could have quoted Clinton's formwer CIA director Woolsey who said that Clinton wouldn't even meet with him for a year. Clinton was so serious about fighting terrorism, that he wouldn't even meet with his CIA director.

Yeah, ole Mike really held his own with Ahmadinejad.. In both of their defenses, what is the interviewer going to do?

Ez

You got a point,Ez! It's not like we can tie 'em down,right? Hey! That could be a new reality series(A quasi-political truth or dare) How 'bout that,DTS??

What I saw wasn't a debate, it was Clinton filibustering. He didn't take Wallace apart, far from it. He looked like a rank amatuer who was out to make a big score on Fox and rip the network up and down. He was prepared to say exactly everything he said. He didn't even need Wallace to ask a question.

He did not come across with any dignity or statesmanship that you would expect from a former president. No surprise though, he never treated the office as anything special when he held it. Think about any other former president making such a red-faced spectacle of himself. and he was concerned that Chris was smirking at him? Oh too bad, the former president let an interviewer's smirk get to him.

If he had all the facts on his side he could have just engaged Wallace and answered the questions matter of factly. the reason he can't try that approach, he doesn't have facts on his side and it hurts him so he points and jabs his finger 100 times and talks about media conspiracies as if that somehow makes him correct.

Nothing like the dignity and statesmanship of one dick cheney as he yelled across the senate floor "go F yourself"? yep, dignity.

By "facts", do you mean the ones that the 9/11 commission used in commending Clinton for his efforts in trying to get Bin Laden? Yep, those facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn..._2.html?sub=AR

Sorry Rupert. Read it and weep.:)

[quote=dalakhani]Nothing like the dignity and statesmanship of one dick cheney as he yelled across the senate floor "go F yourself"? yep, dignity.

QUOTE]

you sure make a lot of 'two wrongs make a right' arguments, don't you?

Yes he does...and I believe Cheney was about 4 ft from the guy, and well, he probably deserved it,lol!

i just don't get it....well, maybe i do. some folks are either/or so i guess those folks think everyone is that way. so if i pick on clinton, in some minds i'm a bush fan. um, yeah, sure.

Danzig: it's easier to fit the blocks into the puzzle that way!

[quote=Danzig188]And it sure would be nice if some of the "wrongs" were listed on here that were made by those on the "right".;)

Fair and balanced right?

What did the article say? It did not say that the CIA concluded that the meeting betwen Atta and Iraqi agents did not take place. It said that the report cast doubts about the meeting. There is a big difference.

The same thing can be said for everyting else in the article. There was nothing in there that specicfically contradicted anything that Bush or Cheney said. Juts because it said that Hussein generally viewed extremists as a threat, that does not mean that he never aided extremists.

I can't tell you that I know for a fact that Bush never said anything that he knew wasn't true, but as of right now I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that Bush purposefully lied. He basically did the same thing that you have been doing throughout this thread. He simply believed what he wanted to believe. He gladly accepted evidence that supported what he believed, yet ignored evidence that contradicted what he believed.

And you have been Mr openminded? Please.

If you dont believe reports from your own CIA, then what do you believe? And how can you in one breath use CIA information as ammunition and then ignore it when it doesnt suit your needs?

It was obvious deception an anyone with a brain knows it.

i've posted on some of those as well--thing is, this thread is about clinton, so that's why i was talking about clinton.
also, both sides do things right...er, correctly, and both do things wrong. nothing makes me shake my head more than when one party comes up with an idea, it's automatically shot down by the other....and then weeks or months later, or longer, the other party comes up with something similar, and the ones who originally had the idea, and thought it was good, suddenly are the shooters. it's a wonder anything gets accomplished!

believe me, i'm not anyone's idea of a right winger. don't go to church and fear the religious right, i'm pro-choice (altho it is unconstitutional imo!), don't care if gay people can get married, we've subscribed to playboy forever, very much a believer in the bill of rights and the constitution...basically think everyone should mind their own business....of course i also happen to be a gun owner who believes in small govt....and am a bit 'hawkish'...so the libs won't have me either. i judge each candidate on his or her own merits, and don't belong to any party. thankfully here in arkansas you don't have to register...but if i did, i'd be an independant, thus assuring that i would never be able to vote in a primary!

yeah right. Has Cheney ever appeared on TV with anything other than total class. horrible example. Dick Cheney has always been a class act. Who in public life for 40 years has never been caught with some kind of slip like that.

As usual, you only see what you want to see. There were plenty of negative things about Clinton in the 9/11 report too.

You are a lot more one-sided than any of us. I never said it was all Clinton's fault. And I never said that Bush hasn't made mistakes.

i just wish bush would quit saying nuke-you-ler.

Where did I say that I didn't believe reports from the CIA? The CIA did not say that the meeting between Atta and Iraqi agents did not take place.

I'm open-minded. I never said that I know for sure that Bush and Cheney did not lie. I recognize that it is possible that they might have lied. I'm just giving them the benefit of the doubt. There is no question that they have given some half-truths. I don't excuse them for that. I don't like half-truths from either side. Unfortunately it seems that half-truths are par for the course from both sides in this day and age in politics.

i think they should go back to duels and canings.

then i stand corrected. Fair enough.

Im going back to arguing horses. Much more enlightening and entertaining!

lmao,
I sure as hell hope it is a tougher race than the Million.
the BC is in some serious trouble if not.

and the Tin Man the best turf horse in America?
wow, i doubt even Mandella would make that claim.
pure lunacy.


Repent

If TTM is not the best, then who is? His record is better than EC or Cacique.

I have to agree with S2S on this one. Clinton defended himself quite easily, and I don't think he attacked Wallace at all. He just put him in his place, and what I saw was a set up by Fox. Of course the Repubs would have attacked Clinton for it. By the way they were talking, I thought that Clinton had pushed the man or something. Clinton was just very passionate and enthusiastic about the topic and wanted to put a lot of emphasis on it to prove his point.

All Clinton did was defend himself and state the FACTS. He admitted that he made mistakes in the interview. That is something that Bush to this day still won't do. The Repubs continue to insist that we are winning the wars. Uh, LIE, duh!

Clinton specifically asked Wallace some questions and Wallace never answered them. And Fox news doesn't ask the other side those kinds of questions! What Clinton said was true! What happened to Clinton happens on this board all of the time. There is a breaking point. After the same people question you and question you in a derogatory manner about something that they know nothing about or isn't true, you get fed up.

Clinton is very witty and very intelligent, and that interview did nothing but prove it. You have to remember that Clinton went to Oxford University in England. They debate and argue a little more agressively over there. I wish that they would debate like they do over there here in this country.

I wish that a Dem media channel would sit Bush down and ask Bush why he didn't do anything about Al Queda when they blew up the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000...
Bush would freak and fall apart.

Like it or not, the Bush administration is using fear as a campaign strategy. These kinds of strategies always turn ugly. We are moving into an authoritarian government, and it must be stopped. Whether you want to believe it or not is your decision. But, just because you don't believe it doesn't mean that it isn't happening. It is happening. It is a fact. These wars have done nothing but further anger the terrorists in the Middle Easts. Our terrorist threat is the worst that it has ever been right now because of these wars. Troops are dieing because of it. We aren't safe. We will never be safe. They're fooling us. They're playing with us. We must stop them by talking and by voting.

Jessica, That is not true. When Rumsfeld has been on with Chris Wallace, Wallace has always asked him tough questions.

Bush was President in 2000? thats new to me. I thought he started in Jan of 2001

C&C: don't let the facts get in the way!

Does this have to do with a line from the movie American Flyers?

not that I know of..people will just grasp at straws to assess blame!

hes not even the best middle distance turf horse on the west coast.
Lava Man and that marathon runner TH Approval are better.

in fact, if both run in the BCT, TH Approval will beat The Tin Man.



Repent

KRIM: Time to take off the 'rose-colored' glasses,wipe the stardust from your eyes and see the truth! Clinton the mastermind planned this little debacle. He was still pouting from the docu-drama, and used this excuse to bully Wallace. Where I come from, a man gets in your face like that..he gets fired on! Bubba is twice the size of Wallace,points and jabs his finger at him and pokes his knee repeatedly! Real REGAL of the ex Pres,huh? Passionate and expressive? He went off on him...some debater. I'm sure one of the facts that you'll ignore is the interview with bin Laden in 1999 where he says they were surprised that America pulled out after BlackHawk Down! That same lack of resolve by you liberals is a great signal that the terrorists can win if they push hard enough. You are so starstuck by Bubba! As has been pointed out to you, Yemen was on Bubbas' watch, and oh by the way, 'W' won't be granting any MSMBS or CNN interviews, because He has a real JOB...not strutting around the globe at 150 G's a speech, pushing his revisionist history and thumping his chest. Yes, Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar...and still he did most of his thinking with his little head! My My. Authoritarian...better that then grovelling in fear that the World won't LIKE us if WE stand for our principles! The terrorist threat is more real now because the terrorists believe this country is weak. Heaven help them if the real 'silent majority' ever stands up! Troops are dying?? Troops have been dying for the very rights you have to speak your mind,whether you're right or wrong! This is the wrong side of Heaven for things to be all good! No conspiracy,kiddo! Just life! But, you are right....at least you should vote.

I have a question for you...Explain to me what a liberal is. Not all Dems are liberals, and not all Repubs are conservatives. In fact, right now, I think that it is the other way around in some topic areas. My mother can't stand Clinton, and even she saw that he was deliberately set up and Wallace was derogatory to him first. He did go off on Wallace, but what I saw was passion and enthusiasm, not hatred or meaness. He had an enthusiastic look in his eye, not a mean one. If you watched Wallace's reactions, you could tell that he was guilty as sin for setting it up. Let's look at the facts, it wasn't a debate...an interview, a setup. And of course Fox News was going to try to say Clinton went crazy after the fact...Sure, Clinton could have handled it better, but what he did was not necessarily wrong either.

Besides, there are many other people that have seen through the propaganda of the Republican party, and have seen the entire uncut interview, and agreed with me.

I'm not a liberal or a conservative 100% of the time. I'm both, depending on the topic. I am also neither a Dem or Repub. I am strictly center. But I do not like some of the things that the Bush administration is doing, and the Republicans definitely use their propaganda a little more harshly than the Dems do. I mean, the Dems don't have an Ann Coulter! I don't like parties. I think that they cloud a lot of people's minds. They are ALL for Repubs, or ALL for Dems. It drives me crazy because you can't talk to either side about good things that the other side is doing. From my experience, seems worse with the Repubs than the Dems though. If no one has ever read George Orwell's 1984, you need to read it. Great book. This actually happened in Nazi Germany. It could very well happen again.


By the way, the USS Cole, was attacked in late 2000. Neither Bush or Clinton did enough in my opinion, but Clinton did say he tried, so I will take it that he tried. Still, he obviously wasn't able to get the job done.

Also, about Black Hawk Down. Clinton got overwhelming pressure to pull out. The Repubs that are criticizing him now were putting the most pressure on him. This world may not be perfect, but what happens if everybody quits trying to do good and make it that way. Of course, it will never be perfect, but that doesn't mean that people like me aren't going to try to do some good.

Also, it is false that I am starstruck by Clinton. I don't like the man, but I think that he is a lot smarter than our president right now, and I think that our country was a lot better off economically when he was president.

Troops are dying and it is for a lost cause. All we are going to end up doing is replacing the old dictator with a new one. Real smart. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but Iraq is in a full civil war.

Bush is always thumping his chest. He thumps his chest every time he puts a little more fear into Americans when talking about terrorists. You are obviously scared to death. And it scares me that you are letting this fear overtake you. Do you know what comes after the authoritarian style? Are you saying that the U.S. should become a dictatorship? Do you actually know what an indirect democracy is?

I dont think the Tin Man is even the best Turfer in Socal, hell even id pick Lava Man in a race if they were both in it

KRIM: I applaud you for trying to make the world a better place. We do,at least, share that desire. However, you should watch the interview again and maybe you'll notice Bubba move into Wallaces' space so far I thought he was gonna grab him. Clinton was hostile and belligerant,and again gave a glimpse into his usual modus operandi. What was Bubba doing touching Wallace for, if not to bully him and impose his will on the interview. What a statesman! As for the attack on the Cole....August isnt late....Christmas is late in the year! And let me give you a hint...NOTHING that America fights for is a lost cause! You talk of propanganda...I don't think you understand the scope of it. Btw...the Liberals would KILL for someone like Ann Coulter. I don't see any Liberal speakers getting death threats or speeches interrupted or pies being thrown at them. Lastly: It will be a cold day in Hell when I'm scared to death, unless it's when I view the country going down because people dont have the guts to engage a worldwide threat to peace.

Once again Tim, you're only looking at one side of the picture. I also said that Clinton could have handled it better, but he wasn't necessarily in the wrong either. I MEAN, OH MY GOD, A FINGER...RITFLMAO.

I don't like Ann Coulter. A lot of people don't. Her hate speech is unbelievable. One day, I'm going to bury her (not literally, I want her fired) if I ever get the opportunity. The liberals aren't stupid enough to want her and her trash. The only thing she does is sell, and the only reason that she sells is because her articles and books are trash. People are attracted to trash for some reason or another. She is a threat to this country as far as I am concerned. It is because of people like her that our international standing has plummeted, and it rightly should. When someone writes articles about how they wish that Timothy McVeigh (sp?) would have blown up the NY Times building...well, enough said.

Also, where did you get that the USS Cole was attacked in August? IT WAS ATTACKED IN THE MIDDLE OF OCTOBER!!!

OUR GOVERNMENT IS THAT WORLDWIDE THREAT TO PEACE. Don't you see? Don't you understand? THE WAR IN IRAQ IS A LOST CAUSE. We are engaged in a war that we will never win and that we were lied to to get into it. There are still people who think that we went to Iraq because of 9/11. We have made the terrorist threat higher for the entire world. None of the UN is helping us because we are wrong. We are the ones who are attacking and killing. We are the ones who are in Iraq killing people without a good reason when we should be in Afganistan. It is us. We are our biggest threat. We are supposed to be the greatest nation in the world, yet our leaders can't seem to make good decisions.

If you don't believe me, then just ask any political scientist.

Timm,
"The world wide threat to peace" is currently being seen as something very different from what you postulate, by the world community. Just "google" it in the world press.
Yes, al Queada did their best to bring on a confrontation five years ago.
So I won't debate that issue. We can not go back.
So, being as, given the fact that we can only go "forward"...
please let me know what you think "VICTORY" in Iraq is going to look like.
Throw in Afghanistan if you have the time. I don't think a 60% increase in the opium crop cuts it, but I'm happy to hear about what "success" will look like.
Follow up: When will "mission accomplished" be accomplished?