Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Cody Dawg · Sep 23, 2006, 10:54 AM

He flips out on television (50-second video)

Maybe he's not getting enough nookie?

Maybe he's not meeting new interns?

Maybe he still likes to blame "right wingers" for his failings?

Maybe...

Maybe...

Maybe...

???

Millennium · Sep 23, 2006, 11:21 AM

Interesting. He tried to capture Osama himself, failed to do so, and yet his first instinct when "the right-wingers" do the same is to accuse them of not trying. Clinton of all people should know how difficult this task is, and I'd think he would be just a little more sympathetic considering the current administration's trouble with catching the man.

Cody Dawg · Sep 23, 2006, 11:25 AM

Especially since his only "successful" endeavor was bombing an aspirin factory.

BlueSky · Sep 23, 2006, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Interesting. He tried to capture Osama himself, failed to do so, and yet his first instinct when "the right-wingers" do the same is to accuse them of not trying. Clinton of all people should know how difficult this task is, and I'd think he would be just a little more sympathetic considering the current administration's trouble with catching the man.

Perhaps he was referring to Bush's dismissal of the PDB "Osama determined to strike within US" or maybe Bush spending 40% of his first nine months in office on vacation.

In any case, Clinton was addressing the possible unfairness of some questions, considering that it's FOX "News" and his accusation that they don't ask Bush and company the same questions.

Here's more...so it's not COMPLETELY out of context.

besson3c · Sep 23, 2006, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

He flips out on television (50-second video)

Maybe he's not getting enough nookie?

Maybe he's not meeting new interns?

Maybe he still likes to blame "right wingers" for his failings?

Maybe...

Maybe...

Maybe...

???

WTF Cody? How is this freaking out? It is so refreshing to hear somebody say that they failed, is this the freaking out part of this clip you are referring to? Or, are you just inviting the usual sorts of partisan politics knee-jerk reactionary B.S.?

Cody Dawg · Sep 23, 2006, 11:50 AM

ONCE AGAIN Bill "I-Never-Had-Sexual-Relations-With-That-Woman-Monica-Lewinsky" Clinton tries to shift the blame to someone else, this time the "right wingers."

How OLD is that?

I remember when Hillary Clinton took up that mantra when defending her husband when the rumors about his affair with Lewinsky surfaced - it was a "vast right-wing conspiracy" remember?

That's the problem with those two: They seem to want to blame others - the "right wingers."

BlueSky · Sep 23, 2006, 11:51 AM

Yeah, "freaking out"...you might want to take note that when he "freaks out" he speaks with substance, unlike a certain batshit-insane leader whose every other response to questions is that he's "protecting the American people". Not that he's playing politics with terrorism or anything.

Besides, I'm sure Drudge had something to do with cody's post. Not even gonna look, but there's something sensationalistic there I'm sure.

Orion27 · Sep 23, 2006, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by BlueSky

Yeah, "freaking out"...you might want to take note that when he "freaks out" he speaks with substance, unlike a certain batshit-insane leader whose every other response to questions is that he's "protecting the American people". Not that he's playing politics with terrorism or anything.

Besides, I'm sure Drudge had something to do with cody's post. Not even gonna look, but there's something sensationalistic there I'm sure.

How about acting with substance when he had the chance? Clinton is a certified liar. The Democrats did nothing but set the table for the likes of Chavez and Ahmadinejad. Talk is cheap.
Bull...... walks.

besson3c · Sep 23, 2006, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by BlueSky

Perhaps he was referring to Bush's dismissal of the PDB "Osama determined to strike within US" or maybe Bush spending 40% of his first nine months in office on vacation.

In any case, Clinton was addressing the possible unfairness of some questions, considering that it's FOX "News" and his accusation that they don't ask Bush and company the same questions.

Here's more...so it's not COMPLETELY out of context.

Thanks for the link to the transcript. Looks like he handled himself pretty well. I think Democrats need to learn from how he handles these sorts of confrontations.

besson3c · Sep 23, 2006, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

ONCE AGAIN Bill "I-Never-Had-Sexual-Relations-With-That-Woman-Monica-Lewinsky" Clinton tries to shift the blame to someone else, this time the "right wingers."

How OLD is that?

I remember when Hillary Clinton took up that mantra when defending her husband when the rumors about his affair with Lewinsky surfaced - it was a "vast right-wing conspiracy" remember?

That's the problem with those two: They seem to want to blame others - the "right wingers."

Did you read the transcript? All he said was that he did try and failed because he couldn't get CIA/FBI authorization (i.e. the accusations against him are not fair), and he felt that this particular line of questioning was unfair.

Take a deep breath and read the transcript carefully.

besson3c · Sep 23, 2006, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by Orion27

How about acting with substance when he had the chance? Clinton is a certified liar. The Democrats did nothing but set the table for the likes of Chavez and Ahmadinejad. Talk is cheap.
Bull...... walks.

I don't think he would lie about not receiving CIA/FBI authorization certifying that Al Queda was involved, this would be extremely easy to debunk.

What lies are you referring to, or are you just being reactionary?

marden · 12:31 PM

In the Issue: Byron York on Clinton on National Review Online

Clinton Has No Clothes
What 9/11 revealed about the ex-president.

By Byron York, NR White House Correspondent
From the December 17, 2001, issue of National Review

[...]

In early August 1996, a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing, Clinton had a long conversation with Dick Morris about his place in history. Morris divided presidents into four categories: first tier, second tier, third tier, and the rest. Twenty-two presidents who presided over uneventful administrations fell into the last category. Just five — Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt — made Morris's first tier.

Clinton asked Morris where he stood. "I said that at the moment he was at the top of the unrated category," Morris recalls. Morris says he told the president that one surprising thing about the ratings was that a president's standing had little to do with the performance of the economy during his time in office. "Yeah," Clinton responded, "It has so much to do with whether you get re-elected or not, but history kind of forgets it."

Clinton then asked, "What do I need to do to be first tier?" "I said, 'You can't,'" Morris remembers. "'You have to win a war.'" Clinton then asked what he needed to do to make the second or third tier, and Morris outlined three goals. The first was successful welfare reform. The second was balancing the budget. And the third was an effective battle against terrorism. "I said the only one of the major goals he had not achieved was a war on terrorism," Morris says. (This is not a recent recollection; Morris also described the conversation in his 1997 book, Behind the Oval Office.)

But Clinton never began, much less finished, a war on terrorism. Even though Morris's polling showed the poll-sensitive president that the American people supported tough action, Clinton demurred. Why?

"He had almost an allergy to using people in uniform," Morris explains. "He was terrified of incurring casualties; the lessons of Vietnam were ingrained far too deeply in him. He lacked a faith that it would work, and I think he was constantly fearful of reprisals." But there was more to it than that. "On another level, I just don't think it was his thing," Morris says. "You could talk to him about income redistribution and he would talk to you for hours and hours. Talk to him about terrorism, and all you'd get was a series of grunts."

And that is the key to understanding Bill Clinton's handling of the terrorist threat that grew throughout his two terms in the White House: It just wasn't his thing. Clinton was right when he said history might care little about the prosperity of his era. Now, as he tries to defend his record on terrorism, he appears to sense that he will be judged harshly on an issue that is far more important than the Nasdaq or 401(k) balances. He's right about that, too.

Read the whole article here and then compare it with what the former President says (interview to be aired on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace) tomorrow and then decide which one is closer to the truth. Don't make up your mind immediately. Listen to his account of things.

THEN decide.

Oh. I just saw the link Bluesky posted to the transcript. So read both and then decide.

besson3c · Sep 23, 2006, 12:39 PM

Who is this Bryan York guy and why should I care? Assuming that the transcript posted is accurate, it seems to speak for itself without this person's commentary.

Cody Dawg · Sep 23, 2006, 12:46 PM

Why are you defending Bill Clinton?

Do you think it's okay that he kept foreign heads of state waiting on the runway while Lewinsky was on her hands and knees under his Oral Office desk pleasuring him? You don't think his lack of, shall we say, "focus," affected or impaired his professional capacities - such as decision making?

ebuddy · Sep 23, 2006, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Especially since his only "successful" endeavor was bombing an aspirin factory.

Not really. His Administration did a masterful job of fire-bombing that enemy compound in Waco.

BlueSky · Sep 23, 2006, 12:52 PM

I never make important life decisions before getting a good b...

'k, never mind.

besson3c · Sep 23, 2006, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Why are you defending Bill Clinton?

Do you think it's okay that he kept foreign heads of state waiting on the runway while Lewinsky was on her hands and knees under his Oral Office desk pleasuring him? You don't think his lack of, shall we say, "focus," affected or impaired his professional capacities - such as decision making?

Why are we talking about his hummer now?

This is boring. I'll leave this thread for you guys to figure out.

BlueSky · Sep 23, 2006, 12:56 PM

Yeah, she's talkin' a lot about nookie and bj's. I think we're being set up.

marden · Sep 23, 2006, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Who is this Bryan York guy and why should I care? Assuming that the transcript posted is accurate, it seems to speak for itself without this person's commentary.

York was (is?) National Review's White House correspondent. You should care because you want the whole truth and not just President Clinton's version which can be delivered in the limited course of a TV interview. You want to weigh both versions and maybe even more versions of the Clinton history of responding to al Qaeda attacks. That way you will be knowledgeable and your opinions will be respected because people will know you have looked at many sides of the story and didn't just say the first thing that came to your mind.

Do you know who Dick Morris is?

Well, Dick Morris and James Woolsey and many others are quoted in this article and you wouldn't discount what they had to say on the subject, would you? Not if you wanted a more complete understanding of the situation.

The ABC TV docudrama, Path to 9/11 presented information in a certain way. The former President presents it in another way. This article still another.

Go ahead and try reading it. The worst thing that could happen is that you'd become more informed and would be able to intelligently defend the former President.

marden · Sep 23, 2006, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by BlueSky

I never make important life decisions before getting a good b...

'k, never mind.

That wouldn't say anything about where your thinkin takes place, would it? A good b... would clear the 'mind' wouldn't it?

Cody Dawg · Sep 23, 2006, 01:15 PM

ebuddy

Not really. His Administration did a masterful job of fire-bombing that enemy compound in Waco

Not to mention storming the Elian Gonzalez home in Miami in order to make sure that he was returned to the enemy dictator state of Cuba when thousands upon thousands of other Cubans who float into our country get to stay without a problem.

Chuckit · Sep 23, 2006, 01:29 PM

Clinton lied under oath. That was bad. I couldn't care less if he got a blowjob from some chubby college kid. More to the point, both are irrelevant to the matter at hand.

brassplayersrock² · Sep 23, 2006, 01:38 PM

his Monica finger is at it again

Cody Dawg · Sep 23, 2006, 02:09 PM

If Monica was taking care of his business then he wouldn't be so irritable and throwing fits on camera.

itai195 · Sep 23, 2006, 02:43 PM

I'm not sure how he freaked out in that clip.

voodoo · Sep 23, 2006, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Interesting. He tried to capture Osama himself, failed to do so, and yet his first instinct when "the right-wingers" do the same is to accuse them of not trying. Clinton of all people should know how difficult this task is, and I'd think he would be just a little more sympathetic considering the current administration's trouble with catching the man.

As an ex-president he is privy to classified intelligence and reports in the White House. He has a pretty good idea of if the Bush administration is trying or not to catch OBL.

Intelligence aside, all that leaks out of the US adminstration on the 'hunt' for OBL indicates lack of focus, blunders and ineptitude.

Whatever president Clinton thinks, it is pretty obvious that the current administration hasn't tried to apprehend OBL to any serious degree.

V

voodoo · Sep 23, 2006, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Not really. His Administration did a masterful job of fire-bombing that enemy compound in Waco.

Those sicko heretics deserved their fate. I applaud the Clinton administration on how they handled Waco.

V

Kerrigan · Sep 23, 2006, 03:18 PM

What is it with you Icelanders and your diminution of non-believers?

Orion27 · Sep 23, 2006, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

Those sicko heretics deserved their fate. I applaud the Clinton administration on how they handled Waco.

V

Clinton refused to go after Bin Laden because as I remember " the children were in the way"
I wish we'd go into some of these mosques the way they went into Waco. Burning Christians has always been PC.

Nicko · Sep 23, 2006, 03:40 PM

Oh I get it.... is this thread to deflect from the utter incompetance of Bush?

May I remind you all that Clinton was the best president your country will probably ever have?.... err except for when his wife gets elected that is!!

When the impending global recession kicks in next year due to the machinations of the Bush administration, I’ll remember this thread.

Cody Dawg · Sep 23, 2006, 04:12 PM

The best president we've ever had was Reagan.

Remember the wall falling? End of the Cold War? Reaganomics - trickle down theory?

HE was an excellent president.

voodoo · Sep 23, 2006, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Orion27

Clinton refused to go after Bin Laden because as I remember " the children were in the way"
I wish we'd go into some of these mosques the way they went into Waco. Burning Christians has always been PC.

The Waco cult was nothing close to being Christian. They were abominations and heretics. Burning was their fate, in this world or the next.

V

voodoo · Sep 23, 2006, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

What is it with you Icelanders and your diminution of non-believers?

Non-believers are one thing and have a right to their 'faith' in no faith, but they pale in comparison to the heretics who pervert and attempt to destroy Christianity. They are the real enemy, giving atheists fuel to the fire and confusing thosw who don't know better.

We say it like it is, there aren't many of us so we have no time for beating around the bush. Being PC is choosing to lose.

V

voodoo · Sep 23, 2006, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Reaganomics - trickle down theory?

.

You mean 'voodoo economics'?

V

itai195 · Sep 23, 2006, 05:36 PM

And here I thought our best presidents were George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Also a personal favorite, Teddy Roosevelt

kd · Sep 23, 2006, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

Those sicko heretics deserved their fate. I applaud the Clinton administration on how they handled Waco.V

74 men, women and children died - including twelve children younger than five years of age. http://www.serendipity.li/waco.html

I do not applaud.

tie · Sep 23, 2006, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by Nicko

Oh I get it.... is this thread to deflect from the utter incompetance of Bush?

It's odd that the same people criticize Clinton for not catching Bin Laden, and then let Bush off the hook for not even trying.

spacefreak · Sep 23, 2006, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by tie

It's odd that the same people criticize Clinton for not catching Bin Laden, and then let Bush off the hook for not even trying.

Only a moron would say invading Afghanistan, overthrowing the Taliban, and still monitoring and patrolling a huge area of Afhan/Pakistani territory is "not even trying".

Kevin · Sep 23, 2006, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Not really. His Administration did a masterful job of fire-bombing that enemy compound in Waco.

And Ruby Ridge.

Kevin · Sep 23, 2006, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Only a moron would say invading Afghanistan, overthrowing the Taliban, and still monitoring and patrolling a huge area of Afhan/Pakistani territory is "not even trying".

moron? Naw.

A shill for the left? Sure.

Railroader · Sep 23, 2006, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

Those sicko heretics deserved their fate. I applaud the Clinton administration on how they handled Waco.

V

You've certainly declared you're not a Christian with this post.

Kevin · Sep 23, 2006, 09:19 PM

I wouldn't go as far as claiming he was or wasn't. That isn't me to judge. If I did, I would be just as bad as he was.

voodoo · Sep 23, 2006, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

You've certainly declared you're not a Christian with this post.

I'm not without sin and I'm not perfect. I am Christian, however. That you don't appreciate that in the imperfect world of humans bad things happen for the greater good, I can understand.

It is said that the good die young. When the bad die young, I do applaud. It isn't that frequent, unfortunately.

All life is sacred and it is a great failure of the Church when they lose a life, but it happens. Death isn't the end you know.

But then, you're a heretic and don't know. I seem to recall that you even proudly claimed you were a heretic. Funny that.

V

mitchell_pgh · Sep 23, 2006, 09:24 PM

I'm not saying we should blame him... but he said it. The republicans only had eight months to do what he was unable to do for eight years.

voodoo · Sep 23, 2006, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by kd

74 men, women and children died - including twelve children younger than five years of age. http://www.serendipity.li/waco.html

I do not applaud.

People die every day. These people chose their end. They were abominations, even to your normal average atheist.

They have found greater peace in death, than they ever could in life. Sometimes death is a good thing.

V

marden · Sep 23, 2006, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

People die every day. These people chose their end. They were abominations, even to your normal average atheist.

They have found greater peace in death, than they ever could in life. Sometimes death is a good thing.

V

I agree. Sad, but true. What's more, the authorities were originally only trying to apprehend Koresh. Furthermore, against the wishes of the authorities, the local newspaper leaked the fact that a raid was set to occur.

Once again, a case of the people whose most important previous decision making experience dealt with the placement of quotation marks, is trying to defend the Constitution by endangering ALL the people in the compound and the LEO's in the raid.

'But, but nobody could have predicted that would happen.' Yes they could and yes they did. Just because the editor of a newspaper doesn't understand the implications of an action doesn't mean it's 'rocket science' to everyone.

****. The constitution defenders who have no clue piss me off. Stupid ****s.

Railroader · Sep 23, 2006, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

I wouldn't go as far as claiming he was or wasn't. That isn't me to judge. If I did, I would be just as bad as he was.

Sorry, I was assuming with the words he used that he was claiming to not be a Christian. What he said is in direct violation to Christian beliefs.

Railroader · Sep 23, 2006, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

I'm not without sin and I'm not perfect. I am Christian, however. That you don't appreciate that in the imperfect world of humans bad things happen for the greater good, I can understand.

It is said that the good die young. When the bad die young, I do applaud. It isn't that frequent, unfortunately.

All life is sacred and it is a great failure of the Church when they lose a life, but it happens. Death isn't the end you know.

But then, you're a heretic and don't know. I seem to recall that you even proudly claimed you were a heretic. Funny that.

V

Heretic:A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

I am a proud heretic. "don't know"?!?! huh?

So are you, with your statement above you are going directly against the Catholic Church's teaching.

I perfectly understand that in the imperfect world of humans bad things happen for the greater good.

I never applaud when anyone dies. If they are a Christian I rejoice for them because they are going home. If they are not, I mourn in my heart for another soul lost.

marden · Sep 23, 2006, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

The Waco cult was nothing close to being Christian. They were abominations and heretics. Burning was their fate, in this world or the next.

V

I'm starting a new thread on Koresh & Waco.

Kevin · Sep 23, 2006, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

I'm not without sin and I'm not perfect. I am Christian, however. That you don't appreciate that in the imperfect world of humans bad things happen for the greater good, I can understand.

Yet you don't use the same understanding with others when you belittle their faith and tell them that they aren't Christians.

How odd.