This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Clinton pwns Fox News

This made me grin.
Particularly since Fox tried to wipe out every single reccord of the interview off the internets. It's gone from YouTube and they took it off their own website. You can't even find the transcripts on Fox's website.
Internet struck back and posted it everywhere they could.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-649761639290777197
«13

Comments

  • Bill Clinton is my man. I followed the '92 election closely and even campaigned for him in our school's mock election. He was one of the few politicians in recent memory to whom I would give the title "statesman."
  • Clinton pwns Fox News???

    Did you watch the same thing I did?

    Rather then very quickly answering the question he dragged in for what, eight minutes?

    Besides, he never answered the question. All he did was spin it by pointing out Bush's failures.

    Come on now, when he said that Bush had eight months to get Bin Laden and failed I'm sitting here thinking, "8 months... 8 years..." Granted Bin Laden was not exactly known as a threat in '92 but you get the drift...

    I give Clinton props for being a great politician, but that is not exactly a compliment.

    Clinton also kept pounding the "Read Clarke's book," line but if you read his book you will find out the "demotion" was not a demotion as Rice and the others were not expecting Clarke to request the transfer to the new cyber-terrorism unit. How can it be a demotion if the person requests the transfer? Not only that, but the transfer was AFTER 9/11 not before as Clinton tried to imply.

    Perhaps Clinton should have read the book first?
  • edited September 2006
    What the book says aside, the point that was made was that Fox tried to ambush him in an interview by sniping at him with spun comments. Then tried to cut him off numerous times when he bit them back for turning the interview into something it wasn't supposed to be. They told him the interview would be about the Clinton Global Initiative, not how 'he failed to capture Bin Ladin and helped embolden terrorists', as Fox has put it in the past.

    This is about Fox getting bitch-slapped in an interview by someone far too slick to take a punch on camera and then trying to bury it because it made them look stupid.
    Post edited by GreatTeacherMacRoss on
  • Clinton told the Sudanese 'no thanks' when they offered Bin Laden to him

    Yet he said he was "obsessed" with finding and killing him.
  • How about a website that isn't another neo-con propaganda machine for some proof of that?
  • edited September 2006
    Wow people still believe that Clinton/Sudanese myth? I love how Newsmax misrepresents the facts:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61251-2001Oct2
    The government of Sudan, employing a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.

    The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at a Rosslyn hotel on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later. Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.

    <snip>

    Clinton administration officials recalled that the Saudis feared a backlash from the fundamentalist opponents of the regime. Though regarded as a black sheep, bin Laden was nonetheless an heir to one of Saudi Arabia's most influential families. One diplomat familiar with the talks said there was another reason: The Riyadh government was offended that the Sudanese would go to the Americans with the offer.
    Post edited by Kite on
  • RymRym
    edited September 2006
    The issue with Bin Laden was more that, while he was suspected of being behind the Cole attacks, there was no definite proof. It was one of those situations where everyone knew that he did it, and there was some unconfirmed evidence that it was him, but there wasn't enough to actually seek out an indictment.

    Half of his former advisors say he didn't have a plan to invade Afghanistan, but the other half say he did. Hardly anyone from either camp agrees on what actually went down. while he was in office, and I think there's a lot being left unsaid.

    Thus, I can't judge Clinton based on what he tried to do, I can only judge what he did do. To not get into a big debate in this thread, I'll simply say that Clinton is one of my top 15 presidents, and I largely agreed with many of his actions in office.

    Edit: posted while kite was posting. That was the link I was looking for
    Post edited by Rym on
  • edited September 2006
    I worked at the place where they used to print the dead tree version of that propaganda paper, and I think that's about as reliable as a primary source as the worst kinds of blogs that litter the internet with strange conspiracy theories. Try to examine the biases of the sources you cite if you want to use it to support a point.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • Clinton told the Sudanese 'no thanks' when they offered Bin Laden to him

    Yet he said he was "obsessed" with finding and killing him.
    This website is clearly not a valid source of information. You might as well have linked to The Onion.
  • Okay.

    Can we just agree that no matter what is said, Clinton fans will stand behind his administration's bin Laden policies?

    I've noticed that while I'm willing to admit that Bush II has made mistakes - No Child Left Behind, ignoring the Kyoto Protocol, declaring "mission accomplished," not defending Taiwan against Chinese takeover, backing the FCC television witch hunt - very few Clinton supporters are willing to do the same about Clinton's presidency.

    Interesting mental exercise: I'll bet both main parties would be using the other's tactics against each other if John Kerry had been elected president before bin Laden attacked. What would have happened then?

    I'm not saying this to be mean, or pig-headed, or partisan, and I wish that my docilely interested tone could come across over the forum. I don't want this to be a heated, contentious, mud-slinging thing. I just want people to be honest instead of entrenched.
  • RymRym
    edited September 2006
    Post edited by Rym on
  • RymRym
    edited September 2006
    We couldn't prove in a court of law that Osama had anything to do with the Cole bombings. What kind of nation would we be if we had people assassinated without due process and trial by jury? That aside, the article you link to shows some valid reasons why it was wise to NOT make an attempt on his life.

    Remember: back then, the only major crime we had evidence of was the Cole bombing. Osama was just one among many foreign discontents with a grudge against the United States. The people in power decided he wasn't worth the risk of a backlash.

    I was behind Bush 100% when he invaded Afghanistan. He had the backing of the world and a clear, defined mission to overthrow the Taliban. I had a lot of optimism for the future of that nation under US guidance. I don't doubt that Kerry/Gore/Clinton/Perot would have done the same.

    Of course, we pulled out as fast as possible in order to then invade and occupy the unrelated nation of Iraq. That's right about when I lost all respect for our dear leader. I don't think any of the people I mentioned above would have seriously considered invading Iraq during their administrations...
    Post edited by Rym on
  • You can say a lot of good things about Bill Clinton, but no serious historian claims that his strength was foreign policy. Let's not forget that this is a guy who bombed an aspirin factory and the Chinese Embassy.
  • The difference is that Bush had carte blanch from both the American public and the international community to do whatever it took to get Bin Laden and he blew it big time. Remember all the Republicans crying about Kosovo where genocide was occurring? Taking the extreme steps necessary to kill Bin Laden wasn't really possible before Sept. 11th.
  • Well, Bill's certainly not at the top of my list ^_~ He's no Teddy Roosevelt or Thomas Jefferson.
  • Also, I have this to say.

    I really never cared much about politics. Until high school I couldn't really tell you the difference between right and left. I did however, always sort of dislike whoever was in power. I think that's mostly because all the stand-up comedians always ragged on the current president, and I tended to agree with people who made me laugh. As Lewis Black says "I have a problem with authority".

    In hindsight, I miss Slick Willy. During the eight years Bill Clinton was president, life was grand. People weren't scared. The economy was growing at an insane rate. Technology advanced tremendously. The country was not heavily polarized. People were generally happy, and not angry. The 90's were the good times.

    Bad things did happen while Clinton was president. None were quite as insane as 9/11, but they were still bad. You had the Oklahoma City bombing, Somalia, Israel/Palestine, embassy bombings, Bosnia, and more. With the exception of perhaps Rwanda, which can be blamed mostly on the UN, these things were taken care of as well as can be expected. The messes were cleaned up in a reasonable fashion, and our way of life remained largely undisturbed. The worst thing Clinton ever did was get it on with an intern and lie about it. Any reasonable man can only applaud that feat. The only question you could ask is "Weren't there any non-ugly interns to go after?"

    I know that neither Clinton nor Bush are directly responsible for all the things that happen in the world during their terms. Many would say that FDR is more responsible for our current way of life than any president to date. Regardless, it's hard to disagree with someone who says that life in the US was happier in 1995 than in 2005. Surely, with the government playing such a large role in our lives, the decisions made by these men have something to do with that fact. It is almost impossible to deny that if Clinton were still president that the people of the United States that there would be less strife, less fear, more prosperity and more happiness in this country, and others.

    You could uselessly debate for eternity whether 9/11 would still have happened if Clinton were in power at the time. You could debate for a second eternity as to how he would have handled it. Looking back on it now I am confident that if it had happened, no matter how he handled it, Clinton would have made sure it impacted our everyday lives far less than it has. He made sure that our way of life was safe and sound despite all the other terrible things going on in the world. For that alone, I would vote for him in less than a second.
  • Bin Laden was directly tied to the 1998 bombings of several American embassies and had been placed on the FBI's 10 most wanted list before the 2000 Cole bombing. He was also undeniably linked to training and funding of the Bali night club and Madrid bombings.

    Terrorists are legally categorized as enemy combatants and are not granted the right to due process or trial (this is why there was no trial for the three al-Qaeda operatives killed in Baghdad on Sept. 11, 2006, or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi also in Iraq on June 7, 2006.

    Clinton was brilliant in his own way (not just with the ladies, lol) as an energizer for the DNC, a campaigner extraordinaire, an incredibly apt scholar, and civil rights advocate. But he also launched the U.S. into completely tangential conflicts in Somalia and Bosnia. His West Bank policy failed miserably and contributed to the outbreaks of violence between PLO and Israeli forces. Clinton's fundraisers were tied to Chinese intelligence officers, resulting in the theft of ICBM, satellite, and nuclear arsenal information. Then there were repeated sexual accusations, Pardongate, and of course his dubious honesty about Monica.

    I just don't get the disparity in public perception between Clinton and Bush. Why did his approval rating remain so and why is his legacy so iron-clad? Is it because he was better looking than Bush? They both have Southern accents, so it can't be a national bias against that. What is it?
  • I just don't get the disparity in public perception between Clinton and Bush. Why did his approval rating remain so and why is his legacy so iron-clad? Is it because he was better looking than Bush? They both have Southern accents, so it can't be a national bias against that. What is it?
    One of them invaded another nation on dubious pretenses, embroiling the United States in a costly long-term occupation of foreign soil. One of them did not. ^_~
    But he also launched the U.S. into completely tangential conflicts in Somalia and Bosnia.
    I wish he would also have intervened in the Rwandan genocide, the failure to do so being "the biggest regret of [his] administration." These were people who needed help, and there was no pretext to our involvement. In fact, much like with Afghanistan, there was pressure both globally and domestically in favour of our involvement. I wish the United States would engage in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions more, not less, often.
    His West Bank policy failed miserably and contributed to the outbreaks of violence between PLO and Israeli forces.
    Me sneezing this morning contributed to the outbreaks of violence between the PLO and Israeli forces. I don't think any president with the possible exception of Carter has made ANY significant progress in that region, and I wonder if such progress is even possible. I don't blame Bush for this situation either. I blame Jewish fundamentalists and Muslim fundamentalists and them alone.
    Terrorists are legally categorized as enemy combatants and are not granted the right to due process or trial
    I think that's a dangerous precedent.
    Bin Laden was directly tied to the 1998 bombings of several American embassies and had been placed on the FBI's 10 most wanted list before the 2000 Cole bombing. He was also undeniably linked to training and funding of the Bali night club and Madrid bombings.
    There were countless other figures of equal notoriety at the time the world over, and there had not been a significant attack or attempted attack on American soil. Any president would have had a very difficult time justifying the type of action that would have been needed to eliminate any of these seemingly minor players.
    Clinton's fundraisers were tied to Chinese intelligence officers, resulting in the theft of ICBM, satellite, and nuclear arsenal information. Then there were repeated sexual accusations, Pardongate,
    I'm by no means saying Billy was perfect, but it seems that every president we've had in recent memory has had similar bad points. There is certainly a great deal of corruption surrounding the Clinton administration. It just seems that this same level of corruption has tainted every president both before and after as well...
  • Because even when all that shit was happening to Clinton, things were still good. People in the country were happy, healthy, and more wealthy, and not just the top 1% but everyone was. Also the world liked us, because we were treating them like they really mattered, not that we were leading the world like a dictator (not that Bush is, but you know what I mean.)
  • Somalia...

    I was stationed in Germany when all of that shit went down...

    The mission began as something good and was turned to shit when a certain president decided something more had to be done to show he cared...

    Once it was made clear that the US had "picked sides" we were a target.

    What's worse is that the troops who were there WANTED to hear the order to go into the city with guns blazing.

    Part of the tragedy of what occurred in Somalia was the troop cap in place and the fact that no one was willing to take orders from anyone not of their nation. Why do you think so much of the rescue operation when the Black Hawks went down was so fucked up?

    If Clinton had just left things alone and not tried to "do something" with Somalia it would not have blown up as badly as it did...

    Former Clintonites had expressed (privately) that Clinton's anti-war past made him feel as if his hands were tied in any matter that involved the military.

    He had no problem giving us, "Don't ask, don't tell," which none of us wanted. Or the wonderful, "Hey, those guys with black berets feel special (yeah, 'cause they went through hell to earn the right to wear them) Let's give everyone a moral boost by having everyone wear black berets as part of the uniform. Then everyone will feel special..."

    I served during the Clinton military years after having served during the Bush military years. I saw medals being given out like candy. Those medals are a symbol of what you have done and seeing someone get an Army Commendation Medal just because they hosted an exchange student for a week is downright insulting.

    Granted it started at the end of the Gulf War when "everyone" got at least some sort of medal. Hell, the National Defense Service Medal is still given out just for serving! My brother was over in Desert Shield/Storm and got an ARCOM just for being a "good" mechanic... Medals were given out by rank... The higher the rank the better your medal... It was very sad to see the guys who had been in since Vietnam with medals on their dress uniform earned for true valor in combat being outdone by an officer who got a higher medal just for getting his paperwork in on time...

    There... enough of my rant...

    Clinton had two years with a Democrat Senate and he was not able to do much. It wasn't until the Republican Revolution and Newt Gingrich that things started to happen. Clinton may have taken things the Republicans wanted and made them his own but I don't much care who gets the credit as long as it gets done.

    Do you think he would have passed Welfare Reform if there wasn't a Republican Senate pushing him?

    I don't much care for a lot of the things Bush is doing today but he is a better president then Gore or Kerry would have been...

    Damn I miss Reagan...
  • edited September 2006
    Somalia...

    I was stationed in Germany when all of that shit went down...

    The mission began as something good and was turned to shit when a certain president decided something more had to be done to show he cared...

    Once it was made clear that the US had "picked sides" we were a target.

    What's worse is that the troops who were there WANTED to hear the order to go into the city with guns blazing.

    Part of the tragedy of what occurred in Somalia was the troop cap in place and the fact that no one was willing to take orders from anyone not of their nation. Why do you think so much of the rescue operation when the Black Hawks went down was so fucked up?

    If Clinton had just left things alone and not tried to "do something" with Somalia it would not have blown up as badly as it did...

    From what I remember from reading Mark Bowden's book was that the military element in Somalia requested light armor and Apache gunships, but the higher ups did not want to escalate the conflict.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • There was a "Troop Cap" in place.

    Also, there was a big problem with people leaving units in the normal course of changing duty assignments. There is a very large "human element" to the military that is often ignored.

    There is a very good book on the subject written by a retired Warrant Officer. I can't recall the name of the book but it is very good.
  • That's one thing that has always bothered me. I'm generally of the mind that if the United States (or any nation) feels the need to engage in military action, there should be no half-measures. There should always be a clear goal, defined conditions of both victory and defeat/abort, and overwhelming force.

    If special forces or other non conventional methods are to be used, then the government should be fully willing to accept and deal with the possibility of a total loss. Hedging your bets when it comes to war is ludicrous.
  • edited September 2006
    This made me grin.
    Particularly since Fox tried to wipe out every single reccord of the interview off the internets. It's gone from YouTube and they took it off their own website. You can't even find the transcripts on Fox's website.
    Internet struck back and posted it everywhere they could.
    What are you talking about? I watched the first part of the interview (which was aired in it's entirety) on a public broadcast on Sunday.

    Another thing. To hear Clinton tell it, the intelligence agencies pressured him out of office. Actually, it was the Constitution that forced him out of office. The Constitution kicks presidents out after 2 terms. Clinton's expired and he could no longer serve as president.

    Clinton also said that he did more than some. Yeah, like Carter. No matter what you feel about Bush, you can't deny that he has done more (of harm or good is debatable) than Clinton did. We did get Saddam under Bush, no?
    Post edited by Rooster on
  • I just don't get the disparity in public perception between Clinton and Bush. Why did his approval rating remain so and why is his legacy so iron-clad? Is it because he was better looking than Bush? They both have Southern accents, so it can't be a national bias against that. What is it?
    I think it is a fundamental difference in perception of personality, lemme put it this way: Clinton comes off as the type of guy you go out to a bar with, drink a few picture of fine ale, debate philosophy, ethics and the possibility of warp-drives all in the presence of classy ladies. While on the other hand, Bush comes off as the type of guy you go out with and pursue for trouble, polish off a keg of Bud Light at the local frat house and at the end of the night, if he passes out before you, you and the guys draw a wiener on his face with a magic marker.

    Now, this isn't an attack of Bush's intellectual capabilities, there's not doubt that he is a smart man, it's just that his public personality subjects him to a different type of ad hominem attack, ie he's a bumbling idiot. Whereas Clinton's public personality (and private, considering this video) was/is always johnny-on-the-spot, therefore he was attacked for being immoral and so forth, not his ability to tell/show the nation hes got it under control. So, when it comes it public opinion, in light of current events and a few seemingly dubious choices Bush and his administration have made, it's pretty obvious (or it seems to me) which personality the public would rather hear from.

  • I think it is a fundamental difference in perception of personality, lemme put it this way: Clinton comes off as the type of guy you go out to a bar with, drink a few picture of fine ale, debate philosophy, ethics and the possibility of warp-drives all in the presence of classy ladies. While on the other hand, Bush comes off as the type of guy you go out with and pursue for trouble, polish off a keg of Bud Light at the local frat house and at the end of the night, if he passes out before you, you and the guys draw a wiener on his face with a magic marker.
    Lol, even tho I am a Bush-fan, I agree with that assessment (to a point, of course). But can you honestly see Clinton caring about the possibility of warp-drives?
  • Clinton also said that he did more than some. Yeah, like Carter. No matter what you feel about Bush, you can't deny that he has done more (of harm or good is debatable) than Clinton did. We did get Saddam under Bush, no?
    Bush invaded Iraq on false pretenses and got rid of a dictator that had nothing to do with terrorists, and who managed to keep three opposing groups in a sort of peace, with the very obvious results of civil war that kills many times more people than Saddam's horrible regime ever did. Yes, Bush did a lot of that. ...After 911. He did get his straw man Saddam, but the real threat - Bin Laden - is presumably still alive and kicking.
  • I think we got a bit into the Clinton was good/bad debate.

    My point was that they baited him onto their show under the false pretense of questioning him about the Clinton Global Initiative (which even George Sr. and Rupert Murdoch are giving money and support to) with hopes of continuing to smear him and he verbally bitchslapped the interviewer and called him on the bullshit.
  • Clinton had two years with a Democrat Senate and he was not able to do much. It wasn't until the Republican Revolution and Newt Gingrich that things started to happen. Clinton may have taken things the Republicans wanted and made them his own but I don't much care who gets the credit as long as it gets done.
    Gees, finally someone seems to be putting it together. Our Government works a lot better with a healthy variety of parties in control of different parts of the government. The Government works best when cons and Libs have different branches under their control. The problem these days is that only one party has any power! The Clinton years were great because there still was a balance of power. A balance of power that no longer exists!
  • edited September 2006
    Clinton also said that he did more than some. Yeah, like Carter. No matter what you feel about Bush, you can't deny that he has done more (of harm or good is debatable) than Clinton did. Wedidget Saddam under Bush, no?
    Bush invaded Iraq on false pretenses and got rid of a dictator that had nothing to do with terrorists, and who managed to keep three opposing groups in a sort of peace, with the very obvious results of civil war that kills many times more people than Saddam's horrible regime ever did. Yes, Bush did a lot of that. ...After 911. He did get his straw man Saddam, but the real threat - Bin Laden - is presumably still alive and kicking.
    Bush tried to pull a Raiders of the Lost Ark and replace the gold idol Bin Laden with the bag of Sanddam (get it sand+Saddam... anyway) but now with the boulder coming at him can he really run fast enough? He's sure no Indiana Jones.
    Post edited by Kiey on
Sign In or Register to comment.