Clinton smacks FOX - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

***DarrylS*** · 09-24-2006, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

It's amazing how in this thread and the one about charitable expresidents, the response of the righties is to name call. Clinton makes them very defensive because he exposes their lies to the American people, and they cannot take him on when one must argue the facts. The righties are so blinded by their hate for Clinton, they're incapable of seeing how irrational they become.

BF faults Clinton for defending himself so effectively! Patsfan calls Clinton a liar. PFIEL calls him the anti-Christ. Harry_Boy, whenever he hears Clinton's name, he can't help but think about sex. Hate to say it, but their responses to the video are a little hysterical. They shouldn't be so oversensitive -- it clouds their ability to reason and they end up posting childish comments that lack substance.

I thought he handled himself well, my issue has been that sooner or later he will wake up and put forth a whole bunch of truths that he has kept silent about, and tell what really happened. His problem is he is too nice, but as a lot of folks are he can only be pushed around so long and then he will fight back. It is amazing how he is portrayed on Drudge, Purple Faced Rage... my view is he gave Chris Wallace a good ***** slap.

Real World · 09-24-2006, 12:16 PM

i haven't seen the entire interview but i did find it interesting that he said to gobuy Richard Clarke's book, cuz it's all in there. I personaaly think Clarke is a disengenuous individual. Anytime a person tosses out criticism in his own defense, coincided by a book release, I throw up a red flag.

***maverick4*** · 09-24-2006, 12:23 PM

I'm not even liberal, but after the past 15 years, I have to say Clinton comes out a LOT better than Bush. Bush is arguably the worst President in our history, IMO.

Also, I am continually amazed at the mindless zombies who continue to support Bush, and love to repeat catch phrases over and over that are put out by the GOP. All Rove has to do is throw out a catchy sentence that is easy to remember, regardless of whether it actually fits the circumstances, and these sheep just eat it up.

.

***patsfan13*** · 09-24-2006, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

It's amazing how in this thread and the one about charitable expresidents, the response of the righties is to name call. Clinton makes them very defensive because he exposes their lies to the American people, and they cannot take him on when one must argue the facts. The righties are so blinded by their hate for Clinton, they're incapable of seeing how irrational they become.

BF faults Clinton for defending himself so effectively! Patsfan calls Clinton a liar. PFIEL calls him the anti-Christ. Harry_Boy, whenever he hears Clinton's name, he can't help but think about sex. Hate to say it, but their responses to the video are a little hysterical. They shouldn't be so oversensitive -- it clouds their ability to reason and they end up posting childish comments that lack substance.

The plea for purjury (where he gave up his law license) labeled him a liar not me.

***Harry Boy*** · 09-24-2006, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

Well Harry, seeing as you brought it up AGAIN, and FINALLY, Bill Clinton is exposing the lies of the Neo cons, and FOX...chew on this for a while.....THE PROOF THAT IT WAS THE REPUBLICANS, NOT CLINTON, WHO FORCED THE WITHDRAWAL FROM SOMALIA AND DID NOT GO AFTER BIN LADEN... READ IT HARRY....IT IS FACT, TRUTH, STRAIGHT FROM THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS THAT BLOCKED CLINTON ALL THE WAY..... Here ya go Harry.

I will accept your apology, and flip flop NOW.

Here it is, Republicans helping Al-Qaeda, emboldening the enemy:

URGING WITHDRAWAL OF AMERICAN TROOPS FROM SOMALIA (House of Representatives - October 06, 1993)

[Page: H7516]

(Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to put in the Record the six points that then-Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger said should be followed before American men and women are committed in combat or near a combat area. That speech was November 28, 1984. The words ring as valid as they did then.

I want to put into the Record the House Republican Policy Committee statement that was drafted yesterday. It is excellent. Also, I want to repeat my own words in this well 8 days ago when we were discussing that weak Somalia resolution. Listen to my words in this well a week ago Tuesday:

`Here is something very sad, Mr. Speaker--Mr. Chairman. Two Pakistani men are MIA. Can you imagine, if these were American boys, how upset Members of this Chamber and the U.S. Senate should be? Missing in action. Does that mean men in some dirty little garage off a Mogadishu alley are being tortured to death, or does it mean they are already dead, and their bodies have been dumped down a well, or are rotting behind some blown-up building in Mogadishu?'

Four days later, that nightmare comes true. One of our American Black Hawk helicopter men had a handcuff on one wrist. Nobody puts handcuffs on a dead body. They were tortured to death. Now, get 5,000 men in there and get these Americans back and then get out.

*

* Mr. Speaker, specifically, I believe the six tests for committing combat forces, as outlined by former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger in a November 28, 1984 speech, must be our guide. Secretary Weinberger said that the following tests should be used to determine whether or not U.S. troops should be sent into combat:
* First. Is the situation vital to U.S. or allied national interests?

* Second. Have all other options already been considered or used?

* Third. Is there a clear commitment, including allocated resources, to achieving victory?

* Fourth. Are there clearly defined political and military objectives?

* Fifth. Will our commitment of forces change if our objectives change?

* Sixth. Will the American people and Congress support the action?

Here it is! B-1 Bob Dornan and the Republican statement asking for Clinton to take troops out of Somalia.

Statement of Republican Policy on U.S. Armed Forces in Somalia, Adopted April 1, 1993

U.S. military forces in Somalia have fulfilled the mission given them by President Bush. Republicans therefore call on President Clinton to bring our troops home.

The United States has a proud tradition of providing international humanitarian assistance to those truly in need. Somalia is a case in point. In the early 1980's, and again in the early 1990s, the American people and the U.S. Government responded to famine in Somalia by bringing in massive quantities of food and medical assistance.

In the last several months, as anarchy gripped that country and famine again loomed on the horizon, President Bush sent U.S. Armed Forces to Somalia to restore order and permit food to reach the people. He made a commitment to withdraw our troops when the mission was completed and return the operation to the U.N. This process was begun before he left office. The mission has been accomplished, but our troops remain, and it appears President Clinton has no intention of bringing them home. Instead, U.N. bureaucrats who want to keep the United States in Somalia will decide their fate.

Republicans commend our Armed Forces for restoring order to Somalia and for helping to alleviate human suffering in that country. However, we have several deep concerns. Without appropriate congressional consultation, President Clinton has committed thousands of U.S. military personnel to a U.N. peacekeeping operation commanded by a foreign national for an indefinite period of time. Our men and women in uniform will provide both the fighting teeth and the logistical tail for this open-ended operation.

Republicans believe U.S. Armed Forces should always remain under U.S. command. They should not be loaned to international organizations to conduct operations with ambiguously defined objectives.

Furthermore, costs to the U.S. taxpayer continue to mount. In addition to the $800 million in costs already incurred by the U.S., President Clinton has just committed the taxpayers to another half billion dollars.

The United States is the world's only superpower, but this does not mean we are omnipotent, nor that our obligations are universal. Republicans believe that President Bush's commitment to pull our forces out of Somalia should be fulfilled.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r103:H06OC3-756:

The hypocrite party strikes again!

There ya go Harry, and others, debunk and try to defend that.

Also, The Cole was attacked at the end of Clintons 2nd term...1 month to go.

Bush had 9 months, before 9/11, to act on Bin Laden and did nothing, didnt even mention him...all you heard out of Bush's mouth was Sadam Hussein.

Like Clinton said to Chris Wallace...How come no one at FOX ever asks Bush, Cheney and the others...WHY DID THEY NOT GO AFTER BIN LADEN WHEN THEY HAD THE EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS HE THAT ATTACKED THE COLE AND KILLED AMERICANS?????? B]WHY DIDNT THEY HARRY???? WHY HARRY?

By God I'll have to look into this one, why hasn't Hillary or the Uncle Teddy Gang ever brought this up, why didn't Billy Blue Dress ever mention this, where the hell was Dan rather, where's Sean Penn & Danny Glover, this is big news, hot stuff, Limbaugh & Fox News are all done now, this is proof that Billy Blue Dress is the greatest Leader the world has ever known, statues of Billy will be on every City Hall in America, Churches will Remove statues of Jesus H Christ and replace them with William Jefferson Clinton.
God Is Great

***IcyPatriot*** · 09-24-2006, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikey

I don't understand why Bill Clinton even gave Fox News the interview in the first place?

Fox News is just a propaganda arm of the Republican Party.

.

He doesn't want anyone to remember that he bombed a POWDERED MILK FACTORY/PHARMACEUTICAL FACTORY..killing innocent women and children in the process. This is just another left attempt to rewrite history...it's been goin on since FDR sh1t the bed.

***IcyPatriot*** · 09-25-2006, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

Then allow me to ask the question that is not asked.....

Why did Bush do NOTHING to go after Bin Laden for EIGHT MONTHS after he was handed the evidence that it was Bin Laden who ordered the attack on the Cole???

Simple question..... WHY??????????????????????

NEM .... you and all the others who want to rewrite history are clueless. My 2 Clinton threads have produced silence...stop trying to rewrite history by painting the man as our greatest savior...he was a criminal who was always too busy mopping up his own trail to go after OBL. Anything that was done was done by Albright and not by Clinton. She ran foreign policy without him for much of his criminal term of 8 years.

***Harry Boy*** · 09-25-2006, 10:08 AM

Billy Blue Dress is running scared, BLAME is headed his way, he panicked, he showed his true colors, he lost it, now the truth finders will dig even deeper, WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY WILL FIND?

Hillary beat the ***** out of him last night.

GOD IS GREAT

Real World · 09-25-2006, 11:27 AM

I'm still trying to figure out what record Slick Willy was trying to set straight. As for Republicans pushing to get us out of Somailia, I wouldn't be surprised if it was true. Afterall, it is the duty of Team A in the two party system to publically oppose the position of Team B, regardless of principles. Just think Social Security. Clinton and the Dems said it was a problem in the 90's. That it was in danger of going bancrupt and needed an overhaul. Repubs vehemently disagreed. Enter the GOP presidency, and alas, the GOP now says that Social Security is going bancrupt, and needs an overhaul. Surprise, surprise, the Dems disagree. See my point? Where I would offer criticism of Somailia is with the man who ultimately makes the decision. There are countless Dems who want us to pull out of Iraq, to which the man in charge has said no. With respect to Somalia, Clinton said yes.

***patsfan13*** · 09-25-2006, 11:42 AM

IIRC any pubbie concerns about staying in Somilia was the lack of a mission deifiition where the military was essential. We were there to support humanitian efforts not effect a change in the basic situation on the ground. There was also the issue of the commanders on the ground requesting equipment they felt was needed to protect our troops and being turned down by the CiC.