Clinton Ambushed on Fox News

I thnk Clinton timed his blowup to help establish some "anti-terrorist" cred for Hilary. If it goes well, Hilary can claim credit. If it doesn't, it would just be Bill being frustrated. Nothing to lose, but hopefully everything to gain. It's just too bad no one has gotten media's attention to focus on what's important to regular people, jobs, economy, gas/energy prices, crimes, housing, etc.. Must hand it to Republican press machines, they really hijacked the debate to focus on what they think their strengths are. Too bad Dem's are busying responding; probably because they are equally clueless on the things important to regular people.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 25 2006, 10:45 AM) [snapback]324749[/snapback]</div>

Let's look at this way, Bill, didn't get Bin Laden. He did (well the government under Clinton's watch) got the guy(s) who bombed the WTC. GWB didn't have to get the guys that flew the planes into the WTCs. They got themselves.

George had eight months - true. But if he was so worried about Bin Laden and friends, he had 8 years if intel to work from. Instead, he was off having a children's book read to him. Maybe a sign of I.Q. who knows.

So, did George get Bin Laden? I think not. All George has managed to do is inflame the easily influenced people around the world to consider terrorism as the way to resolve issues. When Bin Laden dies of natural causes, GWB will take credit for that too.

From the NY Times. 9/25/06

A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document. :blink:

That's the way to fight terrorism. Make more terrorists so we have more to people/countries to shoot at, more wires to tap, more folks to keep in prision without ever charging them, more people so you can continue to practice extraordinary rendition and water boarding. One does need to practice to keep ones skills sharp. <_<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Sep 25 2006, 03:09 PM) [snapback]324847[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, and he's had all day to come up with something.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ck90211 @ Sep 25 2006, 03:21 PM) [snapback]324858[/snapback]</div>

Do you think the Clinton's would ever do anything that was not genuine? That vast right-wing conspiracy that soiled Monicas dress with Bills DNA. I am an independent politically, but the Clinton's make me sick.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Sep 25 2006, 05:49 PM) [snapback]324978[/snapback]</div>

Yes. Soiling someone's dress outrages me as much as made up wars, ecological disasters and meddling with science...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Sep 25 2006, 03:49 PM) [snapback]324978[/snapback]</div>

No doubt, Clinton should have kept his zipper up but whatever you think about the Clintons, they're not the ones that have embroiled us in a no-win situation in Iraq and what appears to be a deteriorating condition in Afghanistan as well. GWB will stand right in front of you and he'll say everything is just wonderful. Mission Accomplished, Iraq is going well, Afghanistan is like peaceful valley, we don't torture prisoners, I need more power ... yadda, yadda, yadda. :lol:

His policies and the masterful planning by our VP who couldn't shoot straight and our "fight the war on the cheap" Sec. of Defense have put a strain on the all volunteer army that it can't sustain for much longer. No slur on the folks with their boots on the ground, the plan or rather the lack of a plan makes their job impossible.

Most of us have no stake in it, military excluded. We have no chips in the game. What have we, John Q American, done lately to win the war on terror? Let's start up the draft again to help the fill the depleted ranks of our armed forces and see how long it takes for Americans to demand a real plan for winning the war, a real timetable to get out of Iraq. :huh:

Has George offered any idea except we have to keep fighting? Has George offered any defined plan to end the conflict in Iraq or anywhere for that matter. Is there any set of goals that someone (maybe the public) can understand? Just saying we have to keep fighting the war on terror forever doesn't cut it. <_<

If George ever had the guts to ask the American people to go the extra mile, to really sacrifice something (families and members of our armed forces excluded), we'd be out of there. Why? Because deep down, the majority of Americans know it's a flawed policy.

Our tax dollars should be able to go to something other than the rehabilitation of our wounded men and women in the armed forces (God knows there's a lot of need there) or the other incredible wastes of money and material. Perhaps all the greedy U.S. companies, given no bid contracts by GWB and his buddies, could give back the billions they've wasted in Iraq. There's a lot of other things this country needs to do beside pour our best and bravest down the black hole called the war on terror. If you don't believe that, just ask somebody that lives on the gulf coast.

This whole mess in Iraq is something George started not because of terrorism but because of WMDs in Iraq (remember that?) George has been shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic ever since. GWB doesn't need to worry though. He won't have to finish what he started. Who ever the next President will be, they'll have to clean up GWB's mess and I don't envy them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfire @ Sep 28 2006, 12:14 PM) [snapback]325084[/snapback]</div>

It is tough to create facts, isn't it - or maybe not?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 25 2006, 04:57 PM) [snapback]324898[/snapback]</div>

Just observing the lovefest you guys enjoy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 28 2006, 12:52 PM) [snapback]325140[/snapback]</div>

Well, why don't you try to "create" an answer..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 28 2006, 01:54 PM) [snapback]325142[/snapback]</div>

It is not I who is attempting to rewrite history - the actions or lack there of mr clinton during his 8 years in office speaks volumes by itself. The burden is on him to explain (notice the word used here) the lack of action on his part over that time period when he was in charge as Americans were slaughtered and injured and attacked.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 28 2006, 01:03 PM) [snapback]325149[/snapback]</div>

Well, many people have answered you. The least you can do is answer what Bush did "when he was in charge and (many more) Americans were slaughtered and injured and attacked".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 28 2006, 02:34 PM) [snapback]325160[/snapback]</div>

By your response you are confirming mr clinton did nothing during his 8 years to respond to Americans being murdered and attacked by terror[ists] - thank you.

If you want to discuss what bush did in his 8 months that could be another post.

 

Clinton is a 60 year old fossil that isnt even relavent to todays society, yet the tired old status quo media just cant get enough of him ..talk about clinging to the past !

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 28 2006, 01:51 PM) [snapback]325171[/snapback]</div>

Wha? He said nothing of the sort.

Why not answer it here? We're all waiting on the edge of our seats.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 25 2006, 11:57 AM) [snapback]324718[/snapback]</div>

Clinton certainly wasn't worried about any terrorists while he was in the white house... He was only worried about Hillary catching him with Monica!! What a Pres...

That is whats great about our country, we can all disagree on politics, but we have a common thread here and can part friends!

Respectfully!

 

I had the segment on my DVR, so I have the advantage of being able to watch it a couple of times.

President Clinton did have a reputation for a temper, and we did see it at least once that I remember during his presidency ... sometime after the Republican majority in Congress came about, he complained about the Republicans being obstructionist, pounded on the podium with a closed fist and said "NO! NO! NO! NO! ..." So I wasn't surprised about President Clinton's reaction, and didn't really think it was over the top that much. There was one point where I think he overdid it, but otherwise, it was a private citizen's passionate defense of his record.

As to his comments, I obviously disagree with some of it. He didn't do enough to stop global terrorism. But then neither did the Bush administration before him. Or the one that was 8 months old when 9/11 happened. And none of us (be honest) thought terrorism was a particular problem deserving our attention. It wasn't an issue during the elections that President Clinton won, nor was it for years before. It is with our "Monday morning quarterback" shirts on that we criticize all of these guys.

And he was absolutely right that the Republicans criticised the actions he tried to take. His comments about talk radio contributing to anti-government feelings after the domestic terrorism of Oklahoma City were linked to his incredible increase in the use of wiretaps to show that he was intent on spying on (conservative) Americans. When barricades were put in front of the White House in response to specific threats, Republican commentators tutted that the White House had always been the "people's house", and President Clinton was simply paranoid. Republicans were so unconcerned about terrorism they spent an inordinate amount of time on an impeachment for obstructing justice ... in a sexual harrassment civil lawsuit. None of us thought terrorism was really a threat. Our 'crisis de jour' was healthcare insurance, prescription drug plans for seniors and living wage issues ... not nearly 3,000 people dying in a single day in the worst attack on our soil ever.

He briefly mentioned the other factor when he said the CIA wouldn't "certify" that Bin Laden was responsible for some of the actions. He was prevented, by law, from doing certain things, and in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Congress gave the Executive some of the powers stripped from it in the 1970's in the form of the Democrat-introduced Patriot Act.

Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are closer to each other's opinions on the war on terror than most people realize. There is sharp divergence over the timing and method used against Iraq ... that President Clinton also wanted to take care of ... but there is no significant difference in how they view the terrorist threat.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 28 2006, 12:41 PM) [snapback]325196[/snapback]</div>

I know I am! I'll personally take the fall for you if you get in trouble for taking this focussed thread off-topic enough to answer the question that has been asked of you countless times now.

 

By your lack of response you are confirming mr <strike>clinton</strike>Bush did nothing during his 8 <strike>years</strike>months to respond to (many more) Americans being murdered and attacked by terror[ists] - thank you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 29 2006, 09:03 AM) [snapback]325515[/snapback]</div>

Prior to 9/11/01 and from the time he took office how many Americans were killed by terror[ists]? And it turns out that the clinton administration left no battle plan against al-qaeda!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 29 2006, 08:09 AM) [snapback]325518[/snapback]</div>

In the words of Condi Rice before the 9/11 commision: "The fact is that what we were presented on January the 25th was a set of ideas and a paper, most of which was about what the Clinton administration had done and something called the Delenda plan which had been considered in 1998 and never adopted. We decided to take a different track".

The different track was never explained...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 29 2006, 09:17 AM) [snapback]325520[/snapback]</div>

now try answering the question - what did clinton do in response the murder and attack on Americans during his 8 years in office. making it simple i can narrow it down to just what did he do after WTC I - 6 murded Americans, 1,000+ injured? What was his response. And if you want to make it interesting what do you think great democratic presidents like FDR or Truman or Kennedy would have done?