Good Article About Clinton

[Rupert Pupkin]

The thing that is so ridiculous about the Clinton interview is that the liberals actually think that Wallace did something wrong. They think he was out of line and Clinton put him in his place. That is absurd. What did Wallace do wrong? Wallace was very respectful and he asked a fair question. He didn't attack Clinton. He asked him if he felt that they did enough with regard to Bin Laden. That's not a legitmate question? What are you guys thinking?

The reason everyone is making a big deal about the interview is because Clinton got so angry over nothing. Why would a guy get so mad about a fairly easy and predictable question. Have you guys ever watched Meet the Press? Have you heard the questions that Tim Russert asks to guys like Rumsfeld and Cheney? He asks them much more confrontational questions than Wallace asked? They don't get angry. They answer the questions.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The thing that is so ridiculous about the Clinton interview is that the liberals actually think that Wallace did something wrong. They think he was out of line and Clinton put him in his place. That is absurd. What did Wallace do wrong? Wallace was very respectful and he asked a fair question. He didn't attack Clinton. He asked him if he felt that they did enough with regard to Bin Laden. That's not a legitmate question? What are you guys thinking?

The reason everyone is making a big deal about the interview is because Clinton got so angry over nothing. Why would a guy get so mad about a fairly easy and predictable question. Have you guys ever watched Face the Nation? Have you heard the questions that Tim Russert asks to guys like Rumsfeld and Cheney? He asks them much more confrontational questions than Wallace asked? They don't get angry. They answer the questions.

i think it was a legit question as well! clinton could very easily have sat there and stated all those times they almost got bin laden, could have outlined all the things they did, or attempted to do. instead he got defensive as hell...he even tried to say wallace was part of some bigger 'conspiracy' type thing against clinton. what a nut he seemd to be. and yeah, i agree with oracle. exact same serious look and finger wag. i did not have....blah blah. he's a pathological liar.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i think it was a legit question as well! clinton could very easily have sat there and stated all those times they almost got bin laden, could have outlined all the things they did, or attempted to do. instead he got defensive as hell...he even tried to say wallace was part of some bigger 'conspiracy' type thing against clinton. what a nut he seemd to be. and yeah, i agree with oracle. exact same serious look and finger wag. i did not have....blah blah. he's a pathological liar.

Mr. Clinton is not anywhere close to the W in terms of honesty. Not even close! One man lies about a blowjob. Another man lies us into war.

The blowjob guy is definitely the liar.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Mr. Clinton is not anywhere close to the W in terms of honesty. Not even close! One man lies about a blowjob. Another man lies us into war.

The blowjob guy is definitely the liar.

You obviously don't know what the definition of a lie is. If the Bush Administration went to war based on faulty intelligence, that doesn't mean they lied. If you listened to interviews with democrats in government just before the war, they were saying the same thing that Bush was saying. They were saying stuff like, "We know Saddam has WMDs." Everyone thought that Saddam had WMDs. That doesn't mean they all lied. It means they had bad information.

As I said in my post the other day, the US still had the right to invade Iraq because Saddam was not honoring the conditions of the cease-fire from the original Persian Gulf War.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You obviously don't know what the definition of a lie is. If the Bush Administration went to war based on faulty intelligence, that doesn't mean they lied. If you listened to interviews with democrats in government just before the war, they were saying the same thing that Bush was saying. They were saying stuff like, "We know Saddam has WMDs." Everyone thought that Saddam had WMDs. That doesn't mean they all lied. It means they had bad information.

As I said in my post the other day, the US still had the right to invade Iraq because Saddam was not honoring the conditions of the cease-fire from the original Persian Gulf War.

Ummm...read the CIA reports Rupert. Even after the CIA made it clear to Bush and company that Iraq had no ties to Al Quada, the president and the vice president still made that one of the reasons to go to war. Shall i pull the story or will you take my word for it?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Ummm...read the CIA reports Rupert. Even after the CIA made it clear to Bush and company that Iraq had no ties to Al Quada, the president and the vice president still made that one of the reasons to go to war. Shall i pull the story or will you take my word for it?

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.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

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

Sorry Rupert. Read it and weep.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Mr. Clinton is not anywhere close to the W in terms of honesty. Not even close! One man lies about a blowjob. Another man lies us into war.

The blowjob guy is definitely the liar.

again, i was talking about clinton. what he has to do with bush i don't know. so bush is a liar too...but the interview we were discussing was about clinton the liar, not bush the liar, or any other pols that are liars.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i think it was a legit question as well! clinton could very easily have sat there and stated all those times they almost got bin laden, could have outlined all the things they did, or attempted to do. instead he got defensive as hell...he even tried to say wallace was part of some bigger 'conspiracy' type thing against clinton. what a nut he seemd to be. and yeah, i agree with oracle. exact same serious look and finger wag. i did not have....blah blah. he's a pathological liar.

Exactly right! I don't understand how some of these other posters don't see this. I guess they just see what they want to see.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Exactly right! I don't understand how some of these other posters don't see this. I guess they just see what they want to see.

Obviously none of you have ever been associated with anyone of celebrity so i will inform you of how interviews work.

When two parties agree to an interview, topics are discussed and time on said topics is agreed upon beforehand. President Clinton's purpose for the interview was primarily to discuss Climate Change and time was to be devoted to that topic or else he would not have agreed.

When that idiot started in on PRESIDENT Clinton, it was obvious that FOX wasnt going to live up their end of the bargain. That IS a hatchet job.

Unfortunately, most dont know this so it comes across that Mr. Clinton was just getting aggressive with Wallace.

Now, do i think that Clinton knew beforehand that Wallace would take this approach? Of course he did. Even his strongest detractors would agree that Mr. Clinton is a brilliant man. He knew that he was going to come down on Wallace before he came on the set. Regardless, Wallace was in the wrong for going away from the agreed upon topic. Now...does that make sense?

Clinton took that moron apart just like he did the late Peter Jennings a few years back. heck, just like he did Bob Dole and George the 1st. You guys do remember what he did to your boy George in those debates dont you? If your memory is lapsing, go google it.

Yes, Mr. Clinton was a two term president by a landslide. He was rated top ten presidents by a group of historians in terms of domestic and foreign policy. He didnt need any hanging chads or any of that stuff.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Obviously none of you have ever been associated with anyone of celebrity so i will inform you of how interviews work.

When two parties agree to an interview, topics are discussed and time on said topics is agreed upon beforehand. President Clinton's purpose for the interview was primarily to discuss Climate Change and time was to be devoted to that topic or else he would not have agreed.

When that idiot started in on PRESIDENT Clinton, it was obvious that FOX wasnt going to live up their end of the bargain. That IS a hatchet job.

Unfortunately, most dont know this so it comes across that Mr. Clinton was just getting aggressive with Wallace.

Now, do i think that Clinton knew beforehand that Wallace would take this approach? Of course he did. Even his strongest detractors would agree that Mr. Clinton is a brilliant man. He knew that he was going to come down on Wallace before he came on the set. Regardless, Wallace was in the wrong for going away from the agreed upon topic. Now...does that make sense?

Clinton took that moron apart just like he did the late Peter Jennings a few years back. heck, just like he did Bob Dole and George the 1st. You guys do remember what he did to your boy George in those debates dont you? If your memory is lapsing, go google it.

Yes, Mr. Clinton was a two term president by a landslide. He was rated top ten presidents by a group of historians in terms of domestic and foreign policy. He didnt need any hanging chads or any of that stuff.

regarding going off topic:

Mr. Clinton agreed to his first one-on-one interview ever on "FOX News Sunday." The ground rules were simple: 15 minutes for our sit-down, split evenly between the Global Initiative and anything else we wanted to ask. But as you'll see now in the full, unedited interview, that's not how it turned out.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

regarding going off topic:

Mr. Clinton agreed to his first one-on-one interview ever on "FOX News Sunday." The ground rules were simple: 15 minutes for our sit-down, split evenly between the Global Initiative and anything else we wanted to ask. But as you'll see now in the full, unedited interview, that's not how it turned out.

Yes, thats great. The Bin laden question came FOUR minutes into the interview. Is that half? I didnt think so.

[Danzig]

maybe they were going to do one of his questions, and then one of theirs...a back and forth so to speak.
heck, he knew what he was getting into...all he had to do was remain calm and answer, not go off on a rant. it WAS a legit question. he could have answered in a way that made what he did look right. instead he now looks emotional and foolish.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Obviously none of you have ever been associated with anyone of celebrity so i will inform you of how interviews work.

When two parties agree to an interview, topics are discussed and time on said topics is agreed upon beforehand. President Clinton's purpose for the interview was primarily to discuss Climate Change and time was to be devoted to that topic or else he would not have agreed.

When that idiot started in on PRESIDENT Clinton, it was obvious that FOX wasnt going to live up their end of the bargain. That IS a hatchet job.

Unfortunately, most dont know this so it comes across that Mr. Clinton was just getting aggressive with Wallace.

Now, do i think that Clinton knew beforehand that Wallace would take this approach? Of course he did. Even his strongest detractors would agree that Mr. Clinton is a brilliant man. He knew that he was going to come down on Wallace before he came on the set. Regardless, Wallace was in the wrong for going away from the agreed upon topic. Now...does that make sense?

Clinton took that moron apart just like he did the late Peter Jennings a few years back. heck, just like he did Bob Dole and George the 1st. You guys do remember what he did to your boy George in those debates dont you? If your memory is lapsing, go google it.

Yes, Mr. Clinton was a two term president by a landslide. He was rated top ten presidents by a group of historians in terms of domestic and foreign policy. He didnt need any hanging chads or any of that stuff.

You live in a dream world if you think that Clinton "took Wallace apart". The only thing Clinton did was make a fool of himself.

There was nothing for Clinton "take a apart". There was no debate going on. Wallace asked him a simple question. You can't take a guy apart who asky you a simple question. That is why Clinton made such a fool of himself.

Forget about what partisans think. I'm sure that very liberal democrats think that Clinton did great in the interview. I'm sure that conservative republicans think that Clinton made a fool of himself. The important thing is what non-partisan people think. If you think that non-partisan people think Clinton handled himself well in that interview, you are sadly mistaken.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You live in a dream world if you think that Clinton "took Wallace apart". The only thing Clinton did was make a fool of himself.

There was nothing for Clinton "take a apart". There was no debate going on. Wallace asked him a simple question. You can't take a guy apart who asky you a simple question. That is why Clinton made such a fool of himself.

Forget about what partisans think. I'm sure that very liberal democrats think that Clinton did great in the interview. I'm sure that conservative republicans think that Clinton made a fool of himself. The important thing is what non-partisan people think. If you think that non-partisan people think Clinton handled himself well in that interview, you are sadly mistaken.

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?

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

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?

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!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

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 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.

Originally Posted by SentToStud

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?

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

Ez

[Rupert Pupkin]

[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.