Clinton vs. Fox News (good read)

[The ClayTaurus]

Get over the strawman argument. He has taken full responsiblity for what he asked and what difference does it make anyway. Start a thread claiming Wallace is a shitty journalist and clean up the straw here on your way out.

How about you look up what a straw man argument is and then explain to me just how the fuck it applies to my statements in this thread.

Believe me, I tried to figure it out myself, but just came back thinking you don't know what a straw man is, so prove me wrong.

As for starting my own threads? I'm happy right here and completely on topic, thankyouverymuch. I could dogpile on Clinton and the dems some more, if it'll help. Would you like that?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

BTW, some of us are still waiting for your examples of "FOX when they give Bush the business."

 

[dilloduck]

How about you look up what a straw man argument is and then explain to me just how the fuck it applies to my statements in this thread.

Believe me, I tried to figure it out myself, but just came back thinking you don't know what a straw man is, so prove me wrong.

As for starting my own threads? I'm happy right here and completely on topic, thankyouverymuch. I could dogpile on Clinton and the dems some more, if it'll help. Would you like that?

I get it--you think Wallaces' manner of questioning is a really important part to this thread as opposed to Clintons' defensiveness. I guess you may even think that Wallace FORCED the reaction out of Clinton. Ok --it's all Wallaces' fault.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I get it

We shall see

--you think Wallaces' manner of questioning is a really important part to this thread

Yes, I think it's important.

as opposed to Clintons' defensiveness.

No. Not "as opposed to" but rather "in addition to". Get that through your head.

I guess you may even think that Wallace FORCED the reaction out of Clinton.

Keep guessing. Where did I ever let on I thought that?

Ok --it's all Wallaces' fault.

Where did I ever say that? I guess I need to dogpile on Clinton before you'll understand I'm not defending him? Can you understand that? Clinton flipped his lid. Does that help? Clinton is a fucking traitor! A little clearer now?

 

[red states rule]

The Lion Roars at Last
The lion in the jungle makes every other animal sit up and take notice as soon as he lets out a roar. He didn't get that way through artificial paraphernalia or through springs and wires and trick dumbells. He became the king of the jungle through constant natural use of every muscle in his body.
- Charles Atlas

Liberal Democrats are a peaceful people, highly intelligent yet slow to anger even when provoked by the infuriating stupidity of your average American. But confront us with annoying questions that your feeble minds can’t even begin to comprehend the answers to, and you will hear us roar like lions, drowning out all else.

After six years of politely staying out of the spotlight, the camera-shy Bill Clinton has finally had his fill of brainless conservative morons who take nothing he says at face value. No longer will he sit idly by while minions of the Right-Wing Propaganda Machine ask him to explain what the hell he did for the whole 8 years he was in office. His royal dressing-down of that Faux News Nazi is just a taste of what’s in store for those who would use his record as president to cloud his legacy

Don’t let his name fool you. ChriSHitler Wallace is not a fair and balanced journalist like his father. As evident by his failure to sit on Bill Clinton’s lap and make little cooing sounds whenever he spoke, Wallace is little more than a right-wing hack. But to even suggest that the former president somehow allowed the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks to slip from his grasp is the height of insanity.

Had he any inking that Bush was going to fly planes into those buildings just to launch an illegal and immoral war for oil so he could line the pockets of his Halliburton buddies, Clinton would have done everything in his power to stop him. Perhaps his only mistake was that he was too busy trying to get Osama Bin Laden to worry about what the alcoholic Governor of Texas was doing. In fact, he was in the process of scrounging up enough loose change from under his sofa cushions to launch a CIA and FBI investigation into whether OBL was a bad guy, with hsi full support and cooperation as long as the agencies didn’t communicate with one another, eavesdrop on any terrorists, or interrupt any of his blow jobs. In fact, it was a top priority on his to-do-list, right after signing a few hundred last-minute, legacy-sealing executive orders, and then a pile of pardons for coke dealers and campaign contributors.

So the old Right-Wing canard that Democrats are soft on national defense won’t float this election year. Bill Clinton and his entire cabinet took the terrorist threat very seriously, and Sandy Berger’s trousers are stuffed full of documents to prove it. The poor man has paper cuts on his testicles that will never heal.

As do we all.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/

 

[trobinett]

The Lion Roars at Last
The lion in the jungle makes every other animal sit up and take notice as soon as he lets out a roar. He didn't get that way through artificial paraphernalia or through springs and wires and trick dumbells. He became the king of the jungle through constant natural use of every muscle in his body.
- Charles Atlas

Liberal Democrats are a peaceful people, highly intelligent yet slow to anger even when provoked by the infuriating stupidity of your average American. But confront us with annoying questions that your feeble minds can’t even begin to comprehend the answers to, and you will hear us roar like lions, drowning out all else.

After six years of politely staying out of the spotlight, the camera-shy Bill Clinton has finally had his fill of brainless conservative morons who take nothing he says at face value. No longer will he sit idly by while minions of the Right-Wing Propaganda Machine ask him to explain what the hell he did for the whole 8 years he was in office. His royal dressing-down of that Faux News Nazi is just a taste of what’s in store for those who would use his record as president to cloud his legacy

Don’t let his name fool you. ChriSHitler Wallace is not a fair and balanced journalist like his father. As evident by his failure to sit on Bill Clinton’s lap and make little cooing sounds whenever he spoke, Wallace is little more than a right-wing hack. But to even suggest that the former president somehow allowed the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks to slip from his grasp is the height of insanity.

Had he any inking that Bush was going to fly planes into those buildings just to launch an illegal and immoral war for oil so he could line the pockets of his Halliburton buddies, Clinton would have done everything in his power to stop him. Perhaps his only mistake was that he was too busy trying to get Osama Bin Laden to worry about what the alcoholic Governor of Texas was doing. In fact, he was in the process of scrounging up enough loose change from under his sofa cushions to launch a CIA and FBI investigation into whether OBL was a bad guy, with hsi full support and cooperation as long as the agencies didn’t communicate with one another, eavesdrop on any terrorists, or interrupt any of his blow jobs. In fact, it was a top priority on his to-do-list, right after signing a few hundred last-minute, legacy-sealing executive orders, and then a pile of pardons for coke dealers and campaign contributors.

So the old Right-Wing canard that Democrats are soft on national defense won’t float this election year. Bill Clinton and his entire cabinet took the terrorist threat very seriously, and Sandy Berger’s trousers are stuffed full of documents to prove it. The poor man has paper cuts on his testicles that will never heal.

As do we all.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/

ANY QUESTIONS?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

BTW, some of us are still waiting for your examples of "FOX when they give Bush the business."

have they interviewed President Bush?

 

[Stephanie]

have they interviewed President Bush?

These are two I found at yahoo search....



www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98006,00.html - 2003

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158960,00.html - 2005

 

[Adam's Apple]

Carvelle and Bagala were on Oreilly, and they made an accusation, but when oreilly challenged them to come up with an example, ONE, they couldnt.

Yep, so typical of libs who can never give you specific examples when asked to produce. You get them off the DNC "talking points", and they're in the deep end of the swimming pool without knowing how to swim.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

have they interviewed President Bush?

I dunno. Dilly claims we miss when Fox gives Bush the business, yet gets mysteriously quiet when asked for an example.

 

[dilloduck]

I dunno. Dilly claims we miss when Fox gives Bush the business, yet gets mysteriously quiet when asked for an example.

I'm not going through piles of transcripts for you ,dude. If you wanna continue looking hyperpartisan, just continue claim that FOX NEVER trashes Bush. I don't care how silly you look. Better yet watch it yourself--OReilly nailed Bush again this weekend.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I'm not going through piles of transcripts for you ,dude. If you wanna continue looking hyperpartisan, just continue claim that FOX NEVER trashes Bush. I don't care how silly you look. Better yet watch it yourself--OReilly nailed Bush again this weekend.

Alrighty

 

[dilloduck]

Alrighty

It's sorta like me telling you that there's a big pile of shit on your head. It's of no consequence to me if you're going to wait for me to provide you a link before you get it offa there.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

It's sorta like me telling you that there's a big pile of shit on your head. It's of no consequence to me if you're going to wait for me to provide you a link before you get it offa there.

Alrighty

 

[manu1959]

I dunno. Dilly claims we miss when Fox gives Bush the business, yet gets mysteriously quiet when asked for an example.

you were given two examples....go read the chenny interview....or any night that oreilly goes off on the illegal imigration thing....he constantly says he is not a fan of the bush administrction....or brit's show when the two liberals go a bashing against mort....

 

[Annie]

I dunno. Dilly claims we miss when Fox gives Bush the business, yet gets mysteriously quiet when asked for an example.

Chris Wallace answered that yesterday, with a couple examples: Clarke after 9/11 and Rumsfeld in 2003 and 2006. You hunt up the transcripts.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Thanks.

 

[Annie]

Thanks.

 

[Annie]

related:

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/living/people/women/15703906.htm

Posted on Sun, Oct. 08, 2006

The truth about Mogadishu
No, the battle was not an al-Qaeda ambush. Yes, President Clinton could have done more.

Mark Bowden

is a former Inquirer reporter, now a national correspondent for the Atlantic Monthly, and author of "Guests of the Ayatollah: The First Battle in America's War With Militant Islam"

As we passed an anniversary last week of the Battle of Mogadishu, which took place on Oct. 3 and 4, 1993, it surprised me that with all the conflict this nation has seen since those days, the episode - and our entire sojourn in Somalia - remains such an object of contention.

Former President Bill Clinton caused a disturbance recently when he raised his voice and jabbed his finger at Fox News Sunday interviewer Chris Wallace in a vehement defense of his administration's antiterrorism credentials. Clinton was answering not just Wallace, who seemed startled to have touched such a nerve, but also a widespread conservative take on recent history that casts him as asleep at the wheel, or diddling an intern in his outer office while Osama bin Laden bombed and ambushed his way to Sept. 11, 2001.

Somalia figures in this self-serving, oversimplified narrative as an early Islamist "attack" on America, one from which Clinton ran. Of course, no one is better at this game than Bill Clinton, and typically, there was some truth in what our talented former president said about Mogadishu, and some artful spin.

First of all, the Battle of Mogadishu was not an al-Qaeda production. The battle resulted when an elite force of American soldiers ambushed and arrested two lieutenants of Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid, and then lingered too long at the point of the raid in downtown Mogadishu. The delay allowed Somali militia to respond by massing and directing enough firepower to down American helicopters.

Clinton was right when he said, "There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down, or was paying any attention to it, or even knew al-Qaeda was a growing concern in October of '93." There was no thought of it and there was no truth to it, despite bin Laden's later claim to the contrary - there are other people in this world who have mastered the art of the self-serving, oversimplified narrative.

No one ever mentioned al-Qaeda to me when I researched the book Black Hawk Down, my account of the battle, published first as a serial in this newspaper in 1997. I was told that some in Aidid's militias had been trained in the art of shooting down helicopters with rocket-propelled grenades by "fundamentalist Islamic soldiers, smuggled in from Sudan."

That information was confirmed in more detail recently in Lawrence Wright's excellent book, The Looming Tower, which describes "a handful" of bin Laden's fighters dispatched to Mogadishu to help train Aidid's men. Two of these al-Qaeda men were present during the battle, according to Wright, but played no part in it and quickly fled the country afterward. The myth of an al-Qaeda role in "ambushing" American forces was given official life in 1998 by the federal indictment of bin Laden, but the charges were later dropped. I was questioned by FBI agents after the Sept. 11 attacks, and told them I believed there was no connection between al-Qaeda and the battle. Nevertheless, the lie appears to have legs. I continue to see the battle referred to as an "al-Qaeda ambush."

The second part of Clinton's comments concerned his response to the battle. Speaking of conservative leaders who now fault him for abandoning the mission afterwards, Clinton said: "They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day... and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations."

Clinton is right about the pressure from Congress to withdraw from Somalia after the battle, after images of dead American soldiers being dragged through city streets by angry mobs infuriated the country. Conservatives and liberals alike forcefully demanded a withdrawal. Conservatives in particular objected to American involvement in "nation-building," which was what the United Nations was trying to do in Somalia. Indeed, one would be hard pressed to find a single voice arguing in favor of pressing on with the mission. As I pointed out in Black Hawk Down, it is doubtful that Clinton had the political muscle at that point in his presidency to defy such pressure even if he had wanted to.

The "I refused to do it" is less than a half-truth. It's more like a one-tenth truth. Clinton reinforced Task Force Ranger - the assault force involved in the Battle of Mogadishu - after the battle, but he also immediately halted the mission to apprehend Aidid, the reason it was there. The deployment of a fresh Delta Force squadron and the decision to keep it sitting around Mogadishu for months lent the appearance of resolve, but no one in Mogadishu was fooled. Offensive operations against the warlord and his men stopped. That's why Somalis were still celebrating the one-sided battle (the mission on Oct. 3 succeeded, but at a cost of 18 American and more than 500 Somali lives) as a "victory" when I visited there in 1997.

Neither the Clinton nor the Bush administration took al-Qaeda seriously enough before Sept. 11, but saying so is nothing more than the wisdom of hindsight. There is no question that Clinton's decision to call off the mission in Somalia after the battle heartened our Islamist enemies and confirmed their judgment that the United States would withdraw at the slightest sign of determined resistance. They were wrong about America. For better or worse, I suspect today they know they are in a fight.