I mean he literally destroyed that reporter.

I haven't seen anyone get destroyed like that since that dumb Skynews broad tried to corner Galloway.

9/26/2006 4:21:11 PM

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/26/154154.shtml

Clinton reveals his true self.

9/26/2006 4:35:15 PM

Quote :

"Clinton claims "the CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible [for the Cole bombing] while I was there." But he could replace or direct his employees as he felt. His helplessness was, as usual, self-imposed."

What the fuck? Sounds like some George Bush shit.

"IF YOU DON'T GIVE ME THE INFORMATION I KNOW TO BE TRUE, I'LL FIRE YOU AND FIND SOMEONE THAT WILL!"

I can't give a fair read to any shit that has O'Reilly's book being hawked in eleventy million places on the front page.

9/26/2006 4:42:09 PM

Quote :

"Clinton jabbed his finger in Wallace's face, poking his knee, and invading the commentator's space."

impeach him for sexual harrrrrrasment.

9/26/2006 5:36:45 PM

The ice queen emerges

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq530fmov9Y

Olbermann's take

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70wOzCkWN5g

[Edited on September 27, 2006 at 11:57 AM. Reason : -]

9/27/2006 11:56:22 AM

olbermann's take said most everything that a lot of people have wanted to say for a long time

hopefully he doesn't get assassinated for it

9/27/2006 12:15:12 PM

Richard Clark's take on Bush

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyAUsWSLIUE&mode=related&search=

9/27/2006 12:16:46 PM

Do you want to know what I don't get?

Seriously?

I'm pretty sure you've guessed it's long, but there's a point to it. I'll do my best to keep it interesting:

What's Bill Clinton's deal with Fox News, really? Or Republicans? That's what I'd like to have the next reporter he speaks to ask him. If they want to contextualize the question to box him into a meaningful answer, they could mention the cooperation he and his wife have gotten from Rupert Murdoch and George H.W. Bush lately.

I mean, as I saw the video, what he said looked and sounded like ostensibly rational, although obviously emotionally sparked charges. But George H.W. Bush and Rupert Murdoch were two powerful heads of each arch "conspiring forces" confronting him at the time of Monica Lewinsky and evidently from his behavior, even today. Strangely though, each man would make sense as a perfect politically conspiring "boogeyman," and is also effectively 'on Clinton's buddy list' (think IM) in some capacity.

George H.W. Bush worked intimately with Clinton to raise aid for victims of the Tsunami that killed 250,000 people 2 years ago, and raised $120 million for the victims of Hurricane Katrina (which I'll bet's more potent in your memory). Given how long it took Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams to transcend the personal damage from their political battles, this was an admirable statement about the quality of men we elect as statesmen.

Once they've left their political offices, that is.

Rupert Murdoch's intimately working with Clinton today through his Global Initiative, as one of three bankrollers of his global warming initiative no less. Barbara Streisand is one of the others. The Fox News owner even recently hosted a fundraiser for the conservative's favorite boogeyman, Hilary Clinton. This constitutes another positives statement about the quality of people who participate in funding such initiatives.

But why the tirade against Republicans? Against Fox News? Against the media manipulation? What the hell makes a human being, and former head of this great state, respond to a question that way? Both of the heads of the forces "conspiring against him" in most scenarios about what he'd be personally affected by are also of friendly connections as well?

The next Katie Couric, Diane Reim, Brit Hume, or Jeff Gannon should ask President Clinton: "Could you please articulate your hypothesis about what forces your emotions should have been directed in that interview? In either case, could you elaborate on the facts supporting the charges you made in the interview for the record?"

Of course, that'd take a media with balls. And a press pass.

9/27/2006 1:00:06 PM

Sry for the double post, but I didn't like the first question I came up with for Clinton. I'd rather it be this one: "Could you please articulate you hypothesis naming the forces, actors, and events in which each met to engender your emotional response to the questions on Fox News?"

The second question is fine as is.

9/27/2006 1:52:54 PM

Do you watch faux news? I don't feel like explaining my emotions in detail, just open your eyes and listen, so to speak. Generally speaking, Fox News is one-sided in its dialouge, questioning, presenting, and rationalizing of everything! It confuses its audience, while controling the way discussions are carried out, in their entirety. There is no civil discourse.

9/27/2006 2:06:34 PM

^ They seem guilty of that in my experience of watching them. I agree with that much.

[Edited on September 27, 2006 at 2:10 PM. Reason : ...]

9/27/2006 2:10:31 PM

Quote :

"very well....abortions for some, mini-American flags for all!"

9/27/2006 2:13:54 PM

If I make a thread called "NY Times and Washington Post sets up B-ush" it will get locked but its the same shit

9/27/2006 2:17:11 PM

Try using different words.

9/27/2006 2:17:34 PM

try not being too frightened to admit what you majored in

9/27/2006 2:18:51 PM

Who's frightened?

9/27/2006 2:19:53 PM

you're scared to say what you majored in at State

I bet nobody else on this site is scared to say what they majored in

9/27/2006 2:21:22 PM

And I bet I'm not either.

9/27/2006 2:22:01 PM

yeah

but you are

9/27/2006 2:23:02 PM

Ooh ooh what are we betting? Victory? I want some winning. Can we please win in the Soap Box again?

9/27/2006 2:23:35 PM

i'm not the one scared to say what I majored in at this fine university

9/27/2006 2:24:24 PM

Quote :

"If I make a thread called "NY Times and Washington Post sets up B-ush" it will get locked but its the same shit"

It's a little bit easier to control the people when it is via the TV than when it is via the newspapers.

9/27/2006 2:25:39 PM

that maybe true, but it doesnt change the fact that Fox News is somewhat right-wing and NY Times and Washington Post is somewhat left-wing...they've both got their biases...and its not like tv outlets dont mention the NIE leaks that NY Times and Wash. Post published

9/27/2006 2:27:26 PM

Note, I didn't speculate a single damned thing in my huge long post. Nothing vaporous, unverifiable, or anything. I used unbiased language, and asserted purely accessible official information. After building my case using a mountain of facts, I made a very small inference that led to my confusion.

When most people are confused, they assume answers and move about their merry way. I try not to be like those people. I want to ask questions.

9/27/2006 2:28:21 PM

I don't get how people think Fox News is such a biased news outlet. Admittedly, once you reach prime time and it becomes punditry, Fox News takes a lean to the right. But throughout the day I switch between CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News and I don't notice a difference in the phrasing, tone, or facts in the major stories. They're all extremely similar.

Please watch Fox News and CNN's coverage of the same story of the next few days and tell me what the difference is that makes Fox News = teh Debil for so many people.

9/27/2006 2:34:17 PM

It's not just fox good friend. Maybe thats why they don't sound so different.

9/27/2006 2:44:55 PM

^ & ^^ Are both right. Unfortunately, you'd have to be one of those filthy stinking Hugo Chavez people who like to read Chomsky to see the similarities between news networks.

9/27/2006 3:11:36 PM

I don't know what the forces are either. I don't tend to think it is a concerted effort but it is really odd that you can watch them all and see the language the admin chooses to use seep into the news show, without ever questioning why the language switch.

It's quite possible that the numnuts can't think for themselves and they just keep passing on what Tony Snow tells them in the news conferences like its gospel.

9/27/2006 3:27:06 PM

Oh, this is rich...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7dMA475Avs

Gamecat, begging the question is important, but don't confuse confusion, with enlightenment. I too, am a person that is reluctant to come to conclusions quickly, but that doesn't prevent me from making decisions to the best of my ability, regardless. Wisdom is earned, not learned.

[Edited on September 27, 2006 at 3:29 PM. Reason : -]

9/27/2006 3:28:11 PM

I agree with what both of you have said. And still have refused to speculate. All of the speculation is occurring in your mind, not mine. I'm not going to express anything I believe if it doesn't make rational sense. Seems a hell of a lot more appropriate and more fitting for the Soap Box, where politics, social issues, financials and basically anything deemed "serious" by the mods is supposed to be discussed.

[Edited on September 27, 2006 at 3:52 PM. Reason : ...]

9/27/2006 3:50:44 PM

Clin-ton reveals his true self.

9/27/2006 5:19:30 PM

I don't wander around confused most of the time. Not for poor reasons anyway. Otherwise, something tells me I'd be argued with a hell of a lot more often.

9/27/2006 5:29:23 PM

Oh look, the plot thickens. Enter Roger Ailes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060927/ap_en_tv/tv_fox_clinton_1

Quote :

"Ailes: `An assault on all journalists' NEW YORK - Fox News chief Roger Ailes says former President Clinton's response to Chris Wallace's question about going after Osama bin Laden represents "an assault on all journalists." Ailes said Clinton had a "wild overreaction" in the interview, broadcast on "Fox News Sunday." Hundreds of thousands of people subsequently watched clips over the Internet, with Fox foes rallying behind Clinton. "If you can't sit there and answer a question from a professional, mild-mannered, respectful reporter like Chris Wallace, then the hatred for journalists is showing," Ailes said in an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday. "All journalists need to raise their eyebrows and say, `hold on a second.'" Wallace has said he asked Clinton about bin Laden partly because of ABC's recent docudrama "The Path to 9/11," widely criticized as full of falsehoods by former Clinton administration officials for depicting a bungling effort at going after the terrorist leader. ..."

I'm sure it is an assault on journalism in some way, but I don't think it's an undeserved or untimely one. What people conclude about it seems to be what's at issue. I wonder how different the world would be tomorrow if the headline to all articles about this began: "The advertising genius behind "Willie Horton" and the creation and management of the Fox News Channel Roger Ailes says Former President Bill Clinton's opinion should be interpreted as an assault on all journalists."

Changes the tone a bit, eh?

9/27/2006 6:35:38 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_5Ek5BfDu4

I AM CLIN-TON

(ok, they cut that part out, but still)

[Edited on September 27, 2006 at 10:39 PM. Reason : .]

9/27/2006 10:39:03 PM

Dick Morris--who knows Bill Clinton better than any of us--wrote a piece about "the outburst." He suggested that Clinton ALWAYS gets angry like that when confronted with an "inconvenient truth" (play on words intended). And we all know that the truth gets in the way of the Clinton agenda.

9/29/2006 3:54:25 PM

^could you post that? im interested in reading it.

clinton is a liar, plain and simple. it has been proven. just look at both the former president and vice president.

9/29/2006 3:59:05 PM

Quote :

"Dick Morris--who knows Bill Clinton better than any of us has the biggest case of sour grapes in all of human history--wrote a piece about "the outburst.""

Seriously, Morris still hasn't gotten over being fired. He's the McClellan to Clinton's Lincoln



[Edited on September 29, 2006 at 4:09 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2006 4:08:55 PM

^a "convenient half-truth"

9/29/2006 4:09:53 PM

He was lubby-dubby with Clinton until he got canned.

Ever since he's been making millions telling conservatives how horrible Clinton is.


[Edited on September 29, 2006 at 4:14 PM. Reason : and you guys lap it up]

9/29/2006 4:12:28 PM

your assertions that those who are conservatives are simply yes men for the current administration is simply false. heaven forbid we be critical of those who we believe are wrong and bad for this country.

9/29/2006 4:18:23 PM

^^^^ Dick Morris has been busy with political campaigns around the world that contacted him for his unique expertise, he appears on the political lecture circuit, he is a frequent guest on a variety of talk shows, he is a syndicated columnist, and he has authored several books. If that's what sour grapes gets you, I want several truckloads!

Here's Morris's bio from Cagle.com, and it shows that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about:

"Dick Morris has become a familiar figure as a commentator for the Fox News Channel. He writes weekly columns for the New York Post, The Hill Magazine in Washington D.C. and The National Post in Canada.

Probably the most prominent American political consultant, Morris is almost universally credited with piloting Bill Clinton to a stunning comeback re-election victory in 1996 after the president lost Congress to the Republicans two years before. Called "the most influential private citizen in America" by Time Magazine, Morris helped steer Clinton to the center and away from the liberal policies he had pursued in his first two years in office. Morris is also credited with advising Clinton to sign the welfare reform bill of 1996 and getting him to back a balanced budget, both key centrist positions.

Morris began his relationship with Clinton in 1977 when he handled the Arkansas Attorney General's successful campaign to become the youngest Governor in the nation. Morris did not work on Clinton's defeat for re-election in 1980, but did oversee his comeback victory in 1982 as well as his Arkansas re-election victories in 1984, 1986, and 1990. In addition to Clinton, Morris has handled the winning campaigns for more than 30 Senators or Governors including Republican Senator Trent Lott and former Governors Bill Weld of Massachusetts and Pete Wilson of California.

In recent years, Morris has turned to foreign campaigns and served as chief strategist for Mexico's reformer Vicente Fox in his upset victory in July, 2000 over the PRI party that had ruled the nation for 71 years. He also was the chief strategist for the winning campaign of Argentina's former president Fernando de la Rua in November, 1999. He also worked for Jorge Battle in his victory for president of Uruguay that same year.

Morris founded the web site Vote.com where people may log on to vote on the major issues of the day. Dick wrote the 1997 best selling memoir of the Clinton Administration, titled Behind the Oval Office, Winning the Presidency in the Nineties. Dick's newsest book, Power Plays, will be published by Harper Collins in the Spring of 2003. Unlike other syndicated columnists who deliver a column on the same schedule every week, Dick's columns are delivered to our subscribers immediately when they are written, in response to breaking news."

http://caglecartoons.com/archiveColumnist.asp?columnistID=%7BCA079D16-9DF1-49EC-A86B-01A5050C35E7%7D

[Edited on September 29, 2006 at 6:55 PM. Reason : Inserted proper noun]

9/29/2006 6:54:08 PM

^^^^^^ Here it is, Randy:

"The Real Clinton Emerges

By Dick Morris

From behind the benign façade and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris Wallace’s interview on Fox News Channel. There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know – the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch. The truer the accusation, the greater the feigned indignation. Clinton jabbed his finger in Wallace’s face, poking his knee, and invading the commentator’s space.

But beyond noting the ex-president’s non-presidential style, it is important to answer his distortions and misrepresentations. His self-justifications constitute a mangling of the truth which only someone who once quibbled about what the “definition of ‘is’ is” could perform.

Clinton told Wallace, “There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down.” Nobody said there was. The point of citing Somalia in the run up to 9-11 is that bin Laden told Fortune Magazine in a 1999 interview that the precipitous American pullout after Black Hawk Down convinced him that Americans would not stand up to armed resistance.

Clinton said conservatives “were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day” after the attack which killed American soldiers. But the real question was whether Clinton would honor the military’s request to be allowed to stay and avenge the attack, a request he denied. The debate was not between immediate withdrawal and a six-month delay. (Then-first lady, now-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) favored the first option, by the way). The fight was over whether to attack or pull out eventually without any major offensive operations.

The president told Wallace, “I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill bin Laden.” But actually, the 9-11 Commission was clear that the plan to kidnap Osama was derailed by Sandy Berger and George Tenet because Clinton had not yet made a finding authorizing his assassination. They were fearful that Osama would die in the kidnapping and the U.S. would be blamed for using assassination as an instrument of policy.

Clinton claims “the CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible [for the Cole bombing] while I was there.” But he could replace or direct his employees as he felt. His helplessness was, as usual, self-imposed.

Why didn’t the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden’s involvement in terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center sufficiently seriously. He never visited the site and his only public comment was to caution against “over-reaction.” In his pre-9/11 memoirs, George Stephanopoulos confirms that he and others on the staff saw it as a “failed bombing” and noted that it was far from topic A at the White House. Rather than the full-court press that the first terror attack on American soil deserved, Clinton let the investigation be handled by the FBI on location in New York without making it the national emergency it actually was.

In my frequent phone and personal conversations with both Clintons in 1993, there was never a mention, not one, of the World Trade Center attack. It was never a subject of presidential focus.

Failure to grasp the import of the 1993 attack led to a delay in fingering bin Laden and understanding his danger. This, in turn, led to our failure to seize him when Sudan evicted him and also to our failure to carry through with the plot to kidnap him. And, it was responsible for the failure to “certify” him as the culprit until very late in the Clinton administration.

The former president says, “I worked hard to try to kill him.” If so, why did he notify Pakistan of our cruise-missile strike in time for them to warn Osama and allow him to escape? Why did he refuse to allow us to fire cruise missiles to kill bin Laden when we had the best chance, by far, in 1999? The answer to the first question — incompetence; to the second — he was paralyzed by fear of civilian casualties and by accusations that he was wagging the dog. The 9/11 Commission report also attributes the 1999 failure to the fear that we would be labeled trigger-happy having just bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by mistake.

President Clinton assumes that criticism of his failure to kill bin Laden is a “nice little conservative hit job on me.” But he has it backwards. It is not because people are right-wingers that they criticize him over the failure to prevent 9/11. It was his failure to catch bin Laden that drove them to the right wing.

The ex-president is fully justified in laying eight months of the blame for the failure to kill or catch bin Laden at the doorstep of George W. Bush. But he should candidly acknowledge that eight years of blame fall on him.

One also has to wonder when the volcanic rage beneath the surface of this would-be statesman will cool. When will the chip on his shoulder finally disappear? When will he feel sufficiently secure in his own legacy and his own skin not to boil over repeatedly in private and occasionally even in public?

Dick Morris was an adviser to Bill Clinton for 20 years. Look for Dick’s new book “Condi vs. Hillary” available now. Copyright 2006 Dick Morris, All Rights Reserved. Distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. http://www.caglecartoons.com. To reprint, call Cari Dawson Bartley at (800) 696 7561 or e-mail: cari@cagle.com. Email for Dick Morris is dmredding@aol.com."

http://caglecartoons.com/column.asp?columnID={8686A038-BE7F-493C-9743-BCCEAAD75CF6}

9/29/2006 6:58:42 PM

Quote :

"If that's what sour grapes gets you, I want several truckloads! "

Sure!

Just run a successful presidential campaign, get fired for having extramarital relations with a hooker, and then stab your old boss in the back. You'll be minting money!

9/29/2006 7:53:23 PM

^ And Clinton was better?

9/29/2006 8:42:22 PM

^^ PS: Just ask Webb "I guess I have to roll over one more time" Hubbell who does the backstabbing when the Clintons are around. He fucking went to prison for their asses!

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/29/lkl.00.html

9/29/2006 8:53:16 PM

ahaha

If only you could realize how typical that answer is

9/29/2006 8:56:32 PM

^ Not necessarily typical, but certainly true. "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened" (Sir Winston Churchill).

9/29/2006 9:11:58 PM

You're still not getting the funny.

No matter who or what people are talking about, it aways comes around to the "but omg look what Clinton did!" fallacy.

Even when we're talking about an ex-Clinton aid attacking Clinton.

9/29/2006 10:32:04 PM

i'm glad clinton decided to step it up on fox news

hopefully in the future

he can take the platform to public places

like the ones he speaks in front of

whip them into something

oh i dunno

maybe a pudding cosby swirl

A SWIRL OF ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

what am i supposed to do

take to the streets in a fire of mediocrity?



i'm too lazy to do anything






guess i should just support some sort of war

hooray my car

9/30/2006 3:46:53 AM

lol, it was a little drawn out, but still a pretty good post

9/30/2006 3:54:00 AM