Bill Clinton interview with Chris Wallace

#51
#51
If that is the case, then Clinton has lost his grip on the game of politics. Sure, that interview probably aroused his supporters and solidified the Democratic base, however, it most certainly did not win over any moderates, to include moderate Democrats. Even network news men and women were appalled by Clinton's behavior...and these people usually vote Democrat!
 
#52
#52
therealUT said:
If that is the case, then Clinton has lost his grip on the game of politics. Sure, that interview probably aroused his supporters and solidified the Democratic base, however, it most certainly did not win over any moderates, to include moderate Democrats. Even network news men and women were appalled by Clinton's behavior...and these people usually vote Democrat!
Click to expand...

Yea, I just said I halfway believed my proposed theory. I don't like the man but he is usually too clever, politically speaking, to do something that looked as stupid as that did.
 
#53
#53
Rice's comments equate to saying Clinton did do something and we did as much. But then offers nothing to show they did more.

The issue that is clearly being avoided here is that 5 years after 9/11, Bin Laden is still on the loose...same as after each event he was tied to under Clinton's administration. So essentially, the people who are blasting Clinton for inaction or doing little are only doing the same about the current President without acknowledging it.
 
#54
#54
CSpindizzy said:
Rice's comments equate to saying Clinton did do something and we did as much. But then offers nothing to show they did more.

The issue that is clearly being avoided here is that 5 years after 9/11, Bin Laden is still on the loose...same as after each event he was tied to under Clinton's administration. So essentially, the people who are blasting Clinton for inaction or doing little are only doing the same about the current President without acknowledging it.
Click to expand...

That issue has nothing to do with what happened in that interview though. The question still remains - Why did Clinton lose his mind when a journalist predictably asked him the question? He knows that any journalist worth his salt is going to ask him about the Bin Laden issue in light of recent events.

The same question has been asked of a lot of people, and none of them wigged out the way Clinton did. I'm really not going for a political angle here, just trying to figure out if he really was that defensive about it, or was he putting on a performance?
 
#55
#55
Clinton had from 1993 (WTC 1) to go after bin Laden, at the latest 1995 (Embassy attacks.) During Clinton's presidency their were CIA operatives that actually had bin Laden in their sights, awaiting clearance to take him out. The NSC at the time would not sponsor the strikes.

As of now, there is no evidence that shows that bin Laden has even been clearly identified by any US operatives on the ground since GWB took office. Was bin Laden allowed to slip out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan during GWBs presidency? Most likely. Did the NSC, since 2001, actually make the call to let him go? No! Since then, GWB has stated that if he were provided actionable intel on bin Laden's whereabouts, that our troops would invade a sovereign nation in order to get him.
 
#56
#56
If Wallace was just trying to do Fox's bidding, he should of just asked how Monica was doing? Wallace took it well, I don't know how many would of took the finger pointing and the poking! Wonder what the Secret Service was thinking? Is the President is "fixin" to get the taste salpped out of his mouth?
 
#57
#57
Clinton has always had a bit of a short fuse. Why would it be surprising that he would bristle at tough questions?
 
#58
#58
allvol123 said:
Yea, I just said I halfway believed my proposed theory. I don't like the man but he is usually too clever, politically speaking, to do something that looked as stupid as that did.
Click to expand...
Clinton is not clever, he only thinks he is clever. Much like Jimmy Carter believes his presence alone will bring about world peace. For more on Jimmy Carter, we turn to Khaled Hosseini:
A big-toothed cretin. In 1980, the U.S. announced it would be boycotting the Olympic Games in Moscow. "Brezhnev is massacring Afghans and all that peanut eater can say is I won't come swim in your pool." Carter had unwittingly done more for communism than Leonid Brezhnev. "He's not fit to run this country. It's like putting a boy who can't ride a bike behind the wheel of a brand new Cadillac."
Click to expand...
 
#59
#59
therealUT said:
If that is the case, then Clinton has lost his grip on the game of politics. Sure, that interview probably aroused his supporters and solidified the Democratic base, however, it most certainly did not win over any moderates, to include moderate Democrats. Even network news men and women were appalled by Clinton's behavior...and these people usually vote Democrat!
Click to expand...

Haven't you noticed the new philosophy on elections? Pander to your base and get them energized. Obviously this is not a stupid decision since it has worked so well for Rove. Too many on the Far Left have been complaining about the squishy attitude of Pelosi and Reid and want more blood drawn. I think this was the first slashing we'll see in the next few weeks.
 
#60
#60
CSpindizzy said:
Haven't you noticed the new philosophy on elections? Pander to your base and get them energized. Obviously this is not a stupid decision since it has worked so well for Rove. Too many on the Far Left have been complaining about the squishy attitude of Pelosi and Reid and want more blood drawn. I think this was the first slashing we'll see in the next few weeks.
Click to expand...
Bush pandered to the base??? Considering the fact that he supports plenty of social programs that are not traditionally on the Republican platform, I would conclude that your philosophy is way off.
 
#61
#61
therealUT said:
Clinton had from 1993 (WTC 1) to go after bin Laden, at the latest 1995 (Embassy attacks.) During Clinton's presidency their were CIA operatives that actually had bin Laden in their sights, awaiting clearance to take him out. The NSC at the time would not sponsor the strikes.

As of now, there is no evidence that shows that bin Laden has even been clearly identified by any US operatives on the ground since GWB took office. Was bin Laden allowed to slip out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan during GWBs presidency? Most likely. Did the NSC, since 2001, actually make the call to let him go? No! Since then, GWB has stated that if he were provided actionable intel on bin Laden's whereabouts, that our troops would invade a sovereign nation in order to get him.
Click to expand...

Bush had from 9/11 until now to go after him. Instead he chose to divert resources to other items of interest that had nothing to do with 9/11. With backing down at Tora Bora to not pushing the Pakistanis harder, we have allowed Osama, Zawahiri, Omar, and both the Taliban and Al Qaeda to not only survive but to flourish and spread in greater areas since 9/11.

Again, there seems to be an avoidance of the current situation. If Clinton is to be faulted for a pathetic attempt to pursue Osama after the events he was responsible for during the 90's, what does that say for someone who cannot even find him nor has aggressively pursued Osama since 9/11? Making statements such as you're either with us or with the terrorists, Osama will be captured dead or alive, and any nation harboring terrorists or preventing us from bringing them to justice is a state supporter of terrorism just does not match with the actions coming from the WH.
 
#62
#62
therealUT said:
Bush pandered to the base??? Considering the fact that he supports plenty of social programs that are not traditionally on the Republican platform, I would conclude that your philosophy is way off.
Click to expand...

Your conclusions are deluded then. Look at the social issues. Look at immigration now. Read Rove's own words. Again, reality avoids you.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top