Monday, September 25, 2006

 

I Just Can't Stand It

I just shouted a vulgar word at my computer monitor. This is why: a Newsweek column titled Clinton Loses His Cool. It gives media atrocities a bad name. The subhead asks, "Was the former president justified in blasting a Fox News interviewer who questioned his administration’s counterterrorism record?" Michael Hirsh does his utmost to avoid giving an honest answer to that. First he portrays Chris Wallace as harmless and inoffensive, the victim of a misdirected blast (and excuse me, the man works for Fox News, by definition he's an attack dog):

Ever since ABC television aired its riveting but risibly fictive docudrama "The Path to 9/11" earlier this month, former Clintonites have been seething.... So when Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace gently asked the former president "why didn’t you do more" to put Al Qaeda "out of business," he sparked an unexpected blast.... "At least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said, thrusting his face into the mild-mannered Wallace's.
Hirsh does allow as how President Clinton's defense of his Administration's actions and his criticism of Bush's inaction are "mostly true". But he can't admit that being repeatedly defamed is sufficient reason for even Bill Clinton to finally lose his temper. Oh, no. It has to be a reason that fits the Official Media Storyline(tm). This is the exact moment I yelled a short, sharp, vulgar word:
But, as is always the case with Bill Clinton, politics can’t be too far from his considerations. With Hillary Clinton expected to make a 2008 run, the former president and his wife have been going to great lengths to neutralize what they see as the “vast right-wing conspiracy” that almost brought Bill Clinton down in his second term. That has meant, for example, winning over ex-GOP foes one by one, inviting Laura Bush to speak at his forum, and buddying up to Fox News’ conservative owner, Rupert Murdoch. The charm campaign may also have been the reason for the former president deciding to grant his first-ever interview to Fox News Sunday.
Got that? The only possible reason President Clinton resents being blamed for the 9/11 attacks is that it might hurt Hillary's chances of become President. The media are obsessed with the Clintons, and not in a good way. They're deranged. And people still trust them to tell the truth. I just can't stand it.
Comments:
Yeah, okay, so Clinton was *right*... but he wasn't civil about it, so he's disqualified.
 
He was civil about it. He challenged Wallace. He didn't yell or call him names. But he wasn't letting Wallace get away with any bs either.

Why shouldn't he be steamed? 6 years later and they're still blaming Clinton. What a bunch of wimps or cowards. Take your pick.

Clinton has always been 'damed if he did and damned if he didn't'. I rather see him damned for doing.
 
And of course these are the same people who cover for Bush when he drops f-bombs in public and calls other reporters "major league assholes".

letters@newsweek.com.

That is all.
 
I've watched the tape several times and Clinton did lose it, waving his hands angrily, doing the Lewinsky finger-pointing thing, pounding on Wallace's notes and the like. Although I'm no fan of his, Clinton has always impressed me with his grace under fire, but not this time. Leftover angst about "the Road to 9/11"?

AFA OBL is concerned, thre's plenty of blame to go around, but Clintonites seem conveniently to forget that Sudan was ready to hand him over on a platter to the US, only to be turned down on a technicality.
 
Sudan was ready to hand him over on a platter to the US

Got proof? I keep hearing nutball RW sites asserting this, but their "proof" is nonexistent.
 
Alas, tomsyl11, that too is a lie.

I'll let Richard Clarke tell the story (Against All Enemies, p. 142):

In recent years, Sudanese intelligence officials and Americans friendly to the Sudan regime have invented a fable about bin Laden's final days in Khartoum. In the fable the Sudanese government offers to arrest bi Laden and hand him over in chains to FBI agents, but Washington rejects the offer because the Clinton administration does not see bin Laden as important or does and cannot find anywhere to put him on trial.

The slivers of truth in this are that a) the Sudanese government was denying its support for terrorism in the wake of the UN Sanctions, and b) that the CSG had initiated informal inquiries with several nations about incarcerating bin Laden or putting him on trial.... Turabi was not about to turn over his partner in terror to us and no real attempt to do so ever occurred.


Even apparently well-meaning folks like you have been sucked in by a calculated campaign of lies which have been poured out in an attempt to villify Bill Clinton and excuse the performance of the present Commander in Ebriated.

You should be angry about being so incessantly lied to. If you were appropriately angry, you might well understand Bill Clinton's response.

I thought he did just fine.
 
Now the headline is Clinton.
Is that all America is good for-waiting for someone to screw up and then bash them? Where is the love? the Bible says we must love one another if we want to make it to heaven.
God has issued two severe warnings and people are still not taking notes.
1-911
2-Katrina
3-Countless brothers and sister, best friends, cousins, wives, husbands, children past presidents(Reagan) movie Stars, news anchors and our relatives who die every minute. Some even die in our hands just to show that death is real and that the devil only came to kill and destroy but Jesus came to die so that we may live.
When do we get it? Oh I know-when something terrible happen to us personally then we call on Jesus. That was me but why wait till that happens? Why not make it right with God now to prevent a tragedy from happening-let me correct that; why wait for Satan to destroy you? Believe it or not there are only two ways in life; God or Satan, Good or Evil, which side are you on?
And that goes for those of you who claim that you do not believe in God or the Bible but get this-You do believe and convinced yourself NOT to believe in the Bible.
In other that you not believe in something, you must first have knowledge of it and if you do have knowledge, then you are qualified to face judgment because you do have knowledge. Simply put, you will be punished for choosing not to believe.
http://www.myspace.com/m1124
 
The funny thing was, when Clinton was getting all, shall we say, *animated*, and invading Wallace's space and touching his leg, I kept thinking, "Wow, that's the same kind of stuff Bush does to intimidate people."

Bush visibly loses his cool every single time he's questioned by a non-creampuff, and no-one ever calls *him* angry or out of line.
 
Bill Clinton

I wish he would go crawl back under his rock!
This man has disgraced the Office Of The President and the entire country. He has no character or morals and the people that put him in office can not accept the fact that they
made a mistake. They should have known from his reputation as a governor that he was lacking in this area. How can anyone believe a word he says? He has proven he is a liar, yet the people that put him in office keep making excuses for him. He will go down in history as one of the worst presidents we have ever had.
This entire situation is a good example of party politics; over look anything, just maintain the power, the hell with the country. That is what we have today!
 
Guess what, Annie? Your comment is so unreal that I'm front-paging it so everyone can see how silly you are. Bon appetit! (Not that you'll ever see it, since you're a hit-and-run coward.)
 
pw, do a little research and broaden your horizons beyond "Clinton good, Bush bad. Arggh!"

charles, you'll understand if I don't automatically take the highly agenda-driven Mr. Clarke at his own word. There were many credible reports that named names and contradicted what Clarke told the 9/11 Commission; here's one. I'm not sure of the exact source but unless the names and quotes are fabricated, it certainly contradicts at least part of Clarke's version of the story.

It's also worth noting that Clinton significantly misrepresented Clarke himself during the Wallace interview. Clinton attacked the Bush administration by incorrectly claiming Clarke had been fired or demoted before 9/11, but Clarke's book shows his change in job status was his own choice, and did not even take effect until later.
 
pw, do a little research and broaden your horizons beyond "Clinton good, Bush bad. Arggh!"

Tomsyl11, two things:

1) MEC did the post, not me.

2) By attacking me/MEC instead of addressing the content of the post, you're already admitting that you've lost the argument before it's even started.

As for your comments on Clarke: Interesting, how Clarke according to you is totally untrustworthy, except when you think you can use him to bludgeon Clinton.

But thanks for playing! We have some lovely parting gifts for you backstage.
 
PW:
1) See my posts for the substance of my arguments. I didn't see the need to repeat them in response to your post. Without agreeing with anonymous, dismissing someone as a "hit-and-run coward" is hardly the height of moderation.
2) I think Clarke is the best source for the facts regarding the path of his own career, particularly when it contradicts the Fibber-in-Chief's accusation that the Bush administration demoted him just before 9/11. Do you think Clarke's lying about it in his book?
3) I'll take what's behind Door Number 3 %^>
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

More blogs about politics.
Technorati Blog Finder