Comments | reality_hammer: More on Clinton's YEARGH! moment

reality_hammer

More on Clinton's YEARGH! moment

Sep 25, 2006 13:32

Chris Wallace is commenting on Fox News that Clinton remained angry throughout the interview and threatened to fire anyone who ever put him in that kind of position again. Wallace said that Clinton's handler was poking the producer in the arm throughout the exchange saying "end this interview now ( Read more... )

chris wallace, fox news, bill clinton

Comments 51

hopeleslove September 25 2006, 18:23:42 UTC

Wouldn't you get pissed if someone implied that YOU were to blame for 9/11?

reality_hammer September 25 2006, 18:27:49 UTC

I suppose it would depend on what I had done while in office.

If Clinton really believes that he did all that he could then he has nothing to get angry about.

hopeleslove September 25 2006, 18:41:45 UTC

So you wouldn't mind being wrongly accused of something? You'd just sit there and smile and be polite while someone accused you?

(The comment has been removed)

Thread 19

hollie_is_right September 25 2006, 18:23:43 UTC

rotflmao!

allykatt September 25 2006, 18:30:29 UTC

i think clinton missed a MAJOR opportunity here.
sure, it wasn't exactly a soft-ball. it was more of a medium-ball.
but, it gave him an opportunity to explain his version, and back up his stories, to a "hostile audience" without interruption.

it looked to me like wallace really expected a 2-3 minute conversation about the major points, let clinton have his say, and move into the meat of the conversation - the conservation stuff.

clinton blew it by taking ALL of his time fighting with someone who was trying to give him his say.

supedujour September 25 2006, 18:45:25 UTC

Exactly! I don't think any president; prior to 9/11 did enough to deal with bin Laden and al Qaeda. To blame Bill Clinton specifically is a lot partisan politics.

However, his making a military decision based on whether or not the GOP was haranguing him is an excuse, and excuses are not acceptable for a leader of the free world. Regardless of whether what he did worked or not, as the president of the United States he was responsible for everything that happened on his watch. Not everything was within his control, and hindsight is 20/20, but whining and finger pointing should be beneath a former US president.

allykatt September 25 2006, 19:40:04 UTC

he's so on the run right now, i don't think he considers what he says NEAR so carefully as he used to.

really, that's pretty sad.

it give more fuel to the fire that i truly believe liberalism is a degenerative mental disorder.

it's hard to see clinton losing it, even for me - who had little respect for him to begin with.

minxyroo September 25 2006, 20:44:07 UTC

liberalism is a degenerative mental disorder.

LMAO! So true. I had no respect for the skunk to begin with, and didn't think it was possible for him to sink any lower than he already had. Wow.

Thread 9

The truths hurts, doesn't it? dlombard September 25 2006, 19:38:25 UTC

Boy, Clinton just seems to think that when he farts it smells like flowers too. I guess he didn't read the credits were a member of the 9/11 comission was a consultant to the writers of the Path to 9/11 movie which by the way doesn't make the Bush administration look like a pack of geniuses either. But he doesn't care about that. He only cared about how he and his people were portrayed in the thing. Because that is what this has been all about for him the entire time. Himself. His legacy. His life. Supposed lies from right winger neo-cons about him. "If I were still the President, we wouldn't have 1/7th the people lookin' for bin Laden, I'd still be huntin' for him with 20,000 troops!"

Oh yeah? Are you sure that once you got him, you wouldn't be asking, no pleading with the Saudi's to take him?

Oh wait, we Do have tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan.

Why all the yelling to your staff? Why call Chris Wallace names? Why all the poking?

Maybe Clinton has a conscious afterall.

Re: The truths hurts, doesn't it? allykatt September 25 2006, 19:42:39 UTC

no, i think he's right. 6 years later, he'd STILL have 20,000 troops looking for bin laden.

we'd be no further ahead there, and we'd be WAY behind in the rest of the world. and, our communication with other nations would be massively skewed. i think we'd fall for france's lines of rhetoric more often, and have less strength in our connections with britain and australia. not to mention the UN, good lord...

>>thanks god again for the election results<<. .

Re: The truths hurts, doesn't it? dlombard September 25 2006, 19:45:02 UTC

Well Clinton pretty much nuked his one opportunity to tell his side of the story so, so much for that.

And man, he just lost it. He lost it just the way he did with Peter Jennings. He just lost it.

Re: The truths hurts, doesn't it? reality_hammer September 25 2006, 20:13:45 UTC

And the fact is that he did have a chance to put 20,000 troops into Afghanistan and chose to use cruise missiles instead.

Thread 10

minxyroo September 25 2006, 20:35:13 UTC

What a calm & collected individual... He handled his impeachment better than he handled the Chris Wallace interview. Sounds like a guilty conscience to me. Had he done everything in his power to kill bin Laden as he stated he wouldn't have blown his fuse and would have defended his actions instead. It was clear he went into the interview with an agenda, but he did more to advance Fox News and the conservatives than he did his own tree-hugging campaign.

I found it hilarious how he was so concerned about the "tone" he made his statements in. I'm surprised he didn't start dissecting words like he did during his impeachment.

When he came out with his "right wing hit job" I couldn't help but think of the left-wing hit job executed on Vince Foster. But maybe that's just me.