Clinton vs. Fox News (good read)

[dilloduck]

Not at all. I haven't defended a thing Clinton said. But the "oh innocent me" show Wallace is running with is pathetic. I'd love to see people's reactions if Clinton was Bush and Wallace was John Stewart.

Bush has been thrown some pretty hardball questions for nearly his entire presidency without going ballistic.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Bush has been thrown some pretty hardball questions for nearly his entire presidency without going ballistic.

If that interview is word for word the same, but it's Bush and Stewart, do you honestly think everyone's reaction here would be about how innocent Stewart was? Give me a break.

 

[dilloduck]

If that interview is word for word the same, but it's Bush and Stewart, do you honestly think everyone's reaction here would be about how innocent Stewart was? Give me a break.

Your missing the point. Bush doesn't go ballistic. Don't make up a fairy tale and ask how me how I would think about it.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Bush has been thrown some pretty hardball questions for nearly his entire presidency without going ballistic.

Yeah, he just dodges instead. In the Hamid Karzai/Bush press conference today, Bush got asked if what Clinton said about his administration having zero meetings about Bin Laden or terrorism before 9/11 was true and he completely dodged the question. His answer was some bull about "staying the course" to do everything in his power to defend "America" and he said he wasn't going to comment on "he said, she said." Clinton got pissed because he agreed to an interview with Fox News so that he could promote the fact that the CGI raised over three billion dollars to fight global challenges like poverty and aids and instead the conservative wanks at Fox decided to sling sh*t at him. I'd get pissed too. And I think he handled it well and showed how much of a tool-bag Wallace is, despite being unceremoniously and disrespectfully interrupted throughout the interview.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Your missing the point. Bush doesn't go ballistic. Don't make up a fairy tale and ask how me how I would think about it.

No. You're missing the point. You're trying to twist this into me defending Clinton for going nuts. Not that I'm surprised, really.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Yeah, he just dodges instead. In the Hamid Karzai/Bush press conference today, Bush got asked if what Clinton said about his administration having zero meetings about Bin Laden or terrorism before 9/11 was true and he completely dodged the question. His answer was some bull about "staying the course" to do everything in his power to defend "America" and he said he wasn't going to comment on "he said, she said." Clinton got pissed because he agreed to an interview with Fox News so that he could promote the fact that the CGI raised over three billion dollars to fight global challenges like poverty and aids and instead the conservative wanks at Fox decided to sling sh*t at him. I'd get pissed too. And I think he handled it well and showed how much of a tool-bag Wallace is, despite being unceremoniously and disrespectfully interrupted throughout the interview.

Clinton knew exactly what was going to happen in that interview. It was written across his face.

 

[dilloduck]

No. You're missing the point. You're trying to twist this into me defending Clinton for going nuts. Not that I'm surprised, really.

Nor am I. With elections coming up, the democrats are all deperately attempting to prove how tough there were or are on our enemy.Why?--for votes! From Rangel to Albright to Clinton etc, they are coming of the woodwork after YEARS of sabotaging the war effort.It's backfiring royally as thier lies and hypocrisy spew out for all to see. They have NO record of being tough of terrorism to fall back on but they all fell for thier own lies I guess.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Nor am I. With elections coming up, the democrats are all deperately attempting to prove how tough there were or are on our enemy.Why?--for votes! From Rangel to Albright to Clinton etc, they are coming of the woodwork after YEARS of sabotaging the war effort.It's backfiring royally as thier lies and hypocrisy spew out for all to see. They have NO record of being tough of terrorism to fall back on but they all fell for thier own lies I guess.

All of which has exactly what to do with my point?

 

[dilloduck]

Clinton knew exactly what was going to happen in that interview. It was written across his face.

Being the "ego-centric ex-president that can't get his ass off the stage" man that he is, I suspect Clinton wanted to blow his own horn and brag about his accomplishments but was fully prepared to jump all over Wallaces' shit if Wallace threw him anything close to a fastball.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Clinton knew exactly what was going to happen in that interview. It was written across his face.

Of course he did. He wouldn't have agreed to his first-ever interview on Fox if he hadn't. I think his response to the criticism, though, was delivered well. And I think the facts speak for themselves. Clinton did launch operations to kill Bin Laden. I've said before in other threads. He also showed without a doubt how ridiculously slanted Fox News is. What is the journalistic value in asking the question Wallace asked? The answer is none. The question was totally partisan and was meant to rile Clinton. And I think you're right about the "innocence" angle Wallace is playing. It's ridiculous. If, as Wallace says, the interview was supposed to be half CGI and half other questions, then why did Wallace sling sh*t the second or third question in? He knew exactly what he was doing and he had a good understanding of the ABC docudrama because he spoke out against it himself, so he should have been able to craft a non-slimeball question about it if he wanted a real answer.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Nor am I. With elections coming up, the democrats are all deperately attempting to prove how tough there were or are on our enemy.Why?--for votes! From Rangel to Albright to Clinton etc, they are coming of the woodwork after YEARS of sabotaging the war effort.It's backfiring royally as thier lies and hypocrisy spew out for all to see. They have NO record of being tough of terrorism to fall back on but they all fell for thier own lies I guess.

What do you think Republicans are doing? Do you actually think their policies are sound? It's almost October man. Both parties are going to be scrambling like this until the elections in November.

 

[dilloduck]

Of course he did. He wouldn't have agreed to his first-ever interview on Fox if he hadn't. I think his response to the criticism, though, was delivered well. And I think the facts speak for themselves. Clinton did launch operations to kill Bin Laden. I've said before in other threads. He also showed without a doubt how ridiculously slanted Fox News is. What is the journalistic value in asking the question Wallace asked? The answer is none. The question was totally partisan and was meant to rile Clinton. And I think you're right about the "innocence" angle Wallace is playing. It's ridiculous. If, as Wallace says, the interview was supposed to be half CGI and half other questions, then why did Wallace sling sh*t the second or third question in? He knew exactly what he was doing and he had a good understanding of the ABC docudrama because he spoke out against it himself, so he should have been able to craft a non-slimeball question about it if he wanted a real answer.

Bullshit--you mean offering a president a chance to explain why he didnt connect the dots is of no journalistic benefit? How many times has Bush got naield with "How stupid do you feel that there were no WMDs " The question was meant to expose Clinton and he stepped right into it.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Bullshit--you mean offering a president a chance to explain why he didnt connect the dots is of no journalistic benefit? How many times has Bush got naield with "How stupid do you feel that there were no WMDs " The question was meant to expose Clinton and he stepped right into it.

Clinton ordered strikes against Bin Laden. Bush inherited the problem and held zero meetings to even discuss Bin Laden. Expose Clinton of what? Trying to get rid of terrorists? Are you insinuating that Clinton should have been clairvoyant in knowing about Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden before 9/11? I can actually remember when he ordered the strikes in Afghanistan and all those here at home who are now so hawkish about the "War on Terror" criticized Clinton merciliessly about "wagging the dog." Bush should be nailed repeatedly about the WMD issue. That was the single issue he gave as an excuse to invade Iraq and it has now been shown to be false. I think your hatred of Clinton is unjustified. Try looking at the current administration and ask yourself how Clinton is responsible for 9/11 when he actually tried to get rid of Osama Bin Laden and Bush never even addressed the issue until it was rammed up all of our asses on 9/11.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Bullshit--you mean offering a president a chance to explain why he didnt connect the dots is of no journalistic benefit? How many times has Bush got naield with "How stupid do you feel that there were no WMDs " The question was meant to expose Clinton and he stepped right into it.

And he didn't "offer" anything. He prefaced his bullsh*t question by saying that "his viewers wanted to know." Then he asked Clinton to respond to criticism that he "didn't do enough to combat terrorism" before anyone even knew that Al-Qaeda existed. Lame.

 

[dilloduck]

What do you think Republicans are doing? Do you actually think their policies are sound? It's almost October man. Both parties are going to be scrambling like this until the elections in November.

Of course they are---all politicians want votes. It's just that some of them don't have to create a record of being tough on terror when they don't have one.

 

[dilloduck]

And he didn't "offer" anything. He prefaced his bullsh*t question by saying that "his viewers wanted to know." Then he asked Clinton to respond to criticism that he "didn't do enough to combat terrorism" before anyone even knew that Al-Qaeda existed. Lame.

Giving the guy a chance to defend himself in front of millions of TV viewers is lame ?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Of course they are---all politicians want votes. It's just that some of them don't have to create a record of being tough on terror when they don't have one.

Well, it's difficult to have a record on it when you haven't been given a chance to do so in the first place. It would be a lot easier if the issue hadn't been created during a period of one-party rule. Before the "War on Terror" was declared by Bush, terrorism was viewed as a criminal act restricted to small bands of militants. Post 9/11, terrorism has become a global threat and throughout the last six years, the federal government has been exclusively controlled by the Republican party. I think with all the obvious controversies, scandals and bone-headed gaffes that this administration has made, it would behoove the nation to give another group of people a shake at it. The Dem's record pre-9/11 is good. The terrorist threat was detected after the attacks on the US embassy in Africa and on the Cole and military strikes were ordered to get rid of the threat. That's about the extent of the Dem's record. It's not a "created" record, it IS the record. So you're argument is stupid.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Giving the guy a chance to defend himself in front of millions of TV viewers is lame ?

God.

Because the point of that interview was to give Clinton a chance to defend himself? How charitable of FoxNews!

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Giving the guy a chance to defend himself in front of millions of TV viewers is lame ?

No, calling yourself a "fair and balanced" "real" news network and then disrespecting and baiting a former Democratic president with partisan questions is lame. The fact that Fox news never asks Bush about why he never held meetings to discuss Osama Bin Laden or terrorism before 9/11 is lame. Your position defending Wallace after what he did is lame.:thumbdown:

 

[dilloduck]

No, calling yourself a "fair and balanced" "real" news network and then disrespecting and baiting a former Democratic president with partisan questions is lame. The fact that Fox news never asks Bush about why he never held meetings to discuss Osama Bin Laden or terrorism before 9/11 is lame. Your position defending Wallace after what he did is lame.:thumbdown:

The "Fair and Balanced" thing is a great marketing ploy--you gotta admit. I wish I would have thought of it. I'll be the first to say it is a right leaning organization. If Clinton is such a weeny that he can handle a "partisan" question, he better stuck tightly to the people who kiss his ass all the time. An ex-president who can't handle a question from an interviewer with out going ballistic? Thank God for term limits. Interesting how y'all "miss" FOX when they give Bush the business.