An angry Clinton on Fox

[Upchurch]

Saw this yesterday: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/clinton_fox_news
and this this morning: http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002
which has the actual video.

Now, I admit that I am not as familiar with this aspect of Clinton's presidency. Anyone know how accurate Clinton was being?

(about what he did during his presidency, not his critique of Fox news)

[Mephisto]

I saw the interview too, and I'm also not that familiar with this aspect of Clinton's presidency. He sure did get angry though. :)

[Vorticity]

Wow, that was one angry Clinton.

Is it my imagination or was he being a little bit physically intimidating to that Wallace guy? Leaning forward, getting in his face, tapping his hand on the guy's leg. I thought he was going to lunge forward and grab Wallace by the lapels.

I'll give him this, though: He's articulate. I know I couldn't have talked for that long on national TV, while being that angry, without stumbling over half of my words and making a hash of it.

I got the distinct impression that this had been bubbling beneath the surface for a long time, waiting for an appropriate place to let it out. I guess Fox was the right place.

[SteveGrenard]

Clinton was saying that he TRIED to kill Bin Laden during his presidency which was pre- 9/11 and yes, he failed but not for want of TRYING. On the other hand Bush didn't even TRY to get Bin Laden until post 9/11. He's implying Bush did not TRY for the first 8 months of his Presidency and didn't listen to intelligence and so did nothing to TRY and stop 9/11 in spite of reports from intelligence sources.

Clinton did try and kill bin Leden but missed. This is accurate.

[Darth Rotor]

On the other hand Bush didn't even try to get Bin Laden until post 9/11.
Do we know that Bush advised persons to cease previous efforts to get Bin Laden, or that he didn't increase or emhpasize the efforts? I don't think "didn't even try" fits, the various disgust at CIA on lack of support for their efforts considered.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

Do we know that Bush advised persons to cease previous efforts to get Bin Laden, or that he didn't increase or emhpasize the efforts? I don't think "didn't even try" fits, the various disgust at CIA on lack of support for their efforts considered.

DR

Rember "we are not the worlds policemen"?

Also wasn't the Bin Laden group in the CIA recently dismanteled?

[firecoins]

Clinton tried to get Bin Laden. Clinton fired three Cruise missles in his 1 attack. Clinton fired on a "chemical" weapons plant in Sudan, an Al Qeida training facility and a third location. The Chemical weapons plant was an aspirin factory. Osama Bin Laden had moved from the training camp hours before hand. Wasn't even close.

Clinton had other opportunities. In one instance Osama was with a prince from the UAE. So Clinton decided not to kill Bin Laden for public relations with UAE.

Clinton complained that the FBI and CIA didn't certify Bin Laden was behind the attacks. The FBI director Louid Freeh, complained Clinton got in the way of an investigation into Kubar towers in 1996. John Clark complained of the Ambassador got in the way in the USS Cole.

[Garrette]

What would have been the fallout if Clinton had killed bin Laden when OBL was in the UAE?

What would have been the outcry?

It is the eternal dilemma of the decision-makers:

Act now to avoid the potential for terrible future acts, but be condemned for acting unilaterally and without justification, or act after the futre acts and be condemned for not acting sooner.


Am I the only one who thinks Bill Clinton is sounding more and more like Gary Busey? Meaning actual sound, not content.

[Dragonrock]

Saying Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden but failed is like me going out the the corn field, throwing a rock into the rows, then going back to the house saying "I tried to kill the rabbit, but I failed."

[Jerry_ex_machina]

Clinton was pretty accurate here. In point of fact, most every attempt Clinton launched against OBL in the 1990's was opposed by the same Fox News reporters and right wingers on the Hill that are now saying he didn't do enough. Remember when he bombed the chemical factory, at that time he was accused of "wagging the dog" by the right wing, but we now know from R. Clarke's book that this was a legit target and to give away more info would have hurt national intelligence.

What we do know about Bush is that when he came to office, he agreed that there would be no retaliation for the Cole bombing - he seemed to buy the logic that OBL was not directly involved. Secondly, he scaled back the CIA's efforts to investigate Al Qaeda. And finally, he patently ignored the CIA white paper "OBL Determined to Strike in the U.S." just before the attack happened. Even folks in his own administration have confirmed this.

One might cynically suppose that Bush's close financial and family ties to the Saudi royal family and to the Bin Laden Group itself - not to mention direct support for Al Qaeda during the cold war on the part of Reagan and his administration - might have mitigated his desire to go after OBL. I won't make that suggestion here, but I'm also willing to take Clinton at his word that he tried to get the guy.

[Cylinder]

What would have been the fallout if Clinton had killed bin Laden when OBL was in the UAE?

OBL was in one of his training camps. Pre-strike imagery indicated the presence an official UAE aircraft at the camp and HUMIT suggested it was a minor emir on a hunting trip with OBL. This was decided to be outside the political assumptions for the mission, which was canceled.

[headscratcher4]

Saying Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden but failed is like me going out the the corn field, throwing a rock into the rows, then going back to the house saying "I tried to kill the rabbit, but I failed."


Or, saying: We're going to fight terrorism by invading Iraq.

[Cylinder]

BTW, Clinton was dead-wrong (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2006/09/the_truth_about.html) about the "right-wing" criticism over "wag-the-dog". The House leadship came out with statements of support. Their were only two Rs (Sen. Lott and a Rep. Coats) and one RINO (Sen. Specter) that came out with heavily qualified criticism. It was CBS, CNN and ABC that played wag-the-dog.

Clinton was also wrong about his silly FNC consipary theory. Wallace asked the same question (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040328-secdef0568.html) when he interviewed Rumsfeld a few years back. It was kind of funny accusing Wallace of "getting his bones," since Wallace obviously already has the flagship Sunday morning news program for both FOX and FNC.

[headscratcher4]

BTW, Clinton was dead-wrong (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2006/09/the_truth_about.html) about the "right-wing" criticism over "wag-the-dog". The House leadship came out with statements of support. Their were only two Rs (Sen. Lott and a Rep. Coats) and one RINO (Sen. Specter) that came out with heavily qualified criticism. It was CBS, CNN and ABC that played wag-the-dog.

Clinton was also wrong about his silly FNC consipary theory. Wallace asked the same question (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040328-secdef0568.html) when he interviewed Rumsfeld a few years back. It was kind of funny accusing Wallace of "getting his bones," since Wallace obviously already has the flagship Sunday morning news program for both FOX and FNC.

May be he was "dead" wrong...though here are some additional Senators who seem to be calling for quick withdrawl from Somalia at least:


GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, speech on the Senate floor October 6, 1993


"I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option. "

GOP Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, speech on the Senate floor, October 6, 1993


"Mr. President, the mission is accomplished in Somalia. The humanitarian aid has been delivered to those who were starving. The mission is not nation building, which is what now is being foisted upon the American people. The United States has no interest in the civil war in Somalia and as this young soldier told me, if the Somalis are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then it is absolutely time that we go home. . . It is time for the Senate of the United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the American troops home."


GOP Minority Leader Sen. Robert Dole, Senate speech, October 5, 1993


"I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with--I do not know how many Members were there--45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close. . . . "

GOP Sen. Jesse Helms, Senate floor speech October 6, 1993:


"All of which means that I support the able Senator from West Virginia--who, by the way, was born in North Carolina--Senator Robert C. Byrd, and others in efforts to bring an end to this tragic situation. The United States did its best to deliver aid and assistance to the victims of chaos in Somalia as promised by George Bush last December.

But now we find ourselves involved there in a brutal war, in an urban environment, with the hands of our young soldiers tied behind their backs, under the command of a cumbersome U.N. bureaucracy, and fighting Somalia because we tried to extend helping hands to the starving people of that far-off land. Mr. President, the United States has no constitutional authority, as I see it, to sacrifice U.S. soldiers to Boutros-Ghali's vision of multilateral peacemaking. Again, I share the view of Senator Byrd that the time to get out is now."

Of course, that is when the GOP was against "nation building" ...

[SteveGrenard]

One might cynically suppose that Bush's close financial and family ties to the Saudi royal family and to the Bin Laden Group itself - not to mention direct support for Al Qaeda during the cold war on the part of Reagan and his administration - might have mitigated his desire to go after OBL. I won't make that suggestion here, but I'm also willing to take Clinton at his word that he tried to get the guy.

No comment:

[ponderingturtle]

Of course, that is when the GOP was against "nation building" ...

No it was "being the worlds policeman" that they where against before they found out that they had some strong missperceptions on september 11, 2001. They of course argue that the world changed and not their perceptions of it(this seems pretty silly)

[Reager]

The real point Clinton was trying to make was not whether he should have done more to catch OBL. That can be debated ad nauseum (but at least he did something). Clinton was complaining about "reporters" like Chris Wallace who constantly question his efforts to deal with OBL, yet hardly ever question Bush administration officials about their failure to deal with OBL before 9/11 (or after 9/11, for that matter).

As the Media Matters article noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002), these are some of the questions Chris Wallace and his predecessor have failed to ask Bush administration officials, despite having had the opportunity to do so in 43 separate interviews on Fox News Sunday:

Why did the White House not respond more forcefully to the August 6 CIA memo warning of an impending bin Laden strike against the United States?

Why did the Bush administration demote Richard Clarke?

Why didn't the Bush administration do anything in response to the bombing of the USS Cole?

Why did Bush not heed the CIA's call for more troops to help catch bin Laden at Tora Bora?

Whether it is due to ideological bias, Clinton-bashing, or piss-poor journalism (probably all three, IMHO), there is a strong case that the FNS crowd has given the Bush administration a pass on these issue. That was Clinton's real beef with Wallace: That he was cowtowing to the bias of his viewers, his employers, and himself, instead of being a truly "fair and balanced" journalist.

[Dog Boots]

Possible inaccuracies aside (which I don't know enough to talk about), it is so obvious that Clinton actually had an idea what was going on from hands on experience, compared to Bush who always speaks in general and vague terms.

Night and day difference.

[Ziggurat]

I haven't seen the video yet, but if the descriptions I've read are accurate regarding him wagging his finger at Wallace, then he screwed up royally. Remember the last time he famously waved his finger around? It was when he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

And he really didn't need to act defensively, either, or blame Bush. He could have just said, look, we screwed up, we faced a lot of different threats and didn't prioritize that one enough, but we can only know that for sure in hindsight. And most people will accept that because most people felt the same way at the time. But the defensiveness makes him look like he's got something to hide (Sandy Berger stuffing documents down his pants doesn't help much with that perception either).

[LawnOven]

Yeah he could have said that if it was true.

[roger]

Saying Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden but failed is like me going out the the corn field, throwing a rock into the rows, then going back to the house saying "I tried to kill the rabbit, but I failed."What did GW do prior to 9/11 (the only fair comparison, I believe)?

ETA: that's a fairly rhetorical question on my part. I neither have the interest or the knowledge to debate it extensively.

[Upchurch]

I haven't seen the video yet, but if the descriptions I've read are accurate regarding him wagging his finger at Wallace, then he screwed up royally. Remember the last time he famously waved his finger around? It was when he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
Wow. Way to poison the well. What does that have anything to do with what he's talking about here?

And he really didn't need to act defensively, either, or blame Bush. He could have just said, look, we screwed up, we faced a lot of different threats and didn't prioritize that one enough, but we can only know that for sure in hindsight. And most people will accept that because most people felt the same way at the time. But the defensiveness makes him look like he's got something to hide (Sandy Berger stuffing documents down his pants doesn't help much with that perception either).
Lovely. You don't know what he said or did, but your blaming him for the actions you've heard he took and the things you've heard he said. :rolleyes:

[Mephisto]

Or, saying: We're going to fight terrorism by invading Iraq.

:)

[Mephisto]

What did GW do prior to 9/11 (the only fair comparison, I believe)?

ETA: that's a fairly rhetorical question on my part. I neither have the interest or the knowledge to debate it extensively.

I think he ignored a Richard Clarke memo with the obscure title; Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S. using planes (or something similar). But Condi Rice explained it all - Clarke didn't issue a particular DATE that Bin Laden would attack so they naturally didn't take it seriously. :)

[Darth Rotor]

I think he ignored a Richard Clarke memo with the obscure title; Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S. using planes (or something similar). But Condi Rice explained it all - Clarke didn't issue a particular DATE that Bin Laden would attack so they naturally didn't take it seriously. :)
Oh, we see that Condi has trouble with (getting) dates? ;) No wonder she was such a hawk as National Security advisor!

*ducks*

DR

[Ziggurat]

What does that have anything to do with what he's talking about here?

So I forked the coversation - is the political wisdom of his response somehow a verboten topic?

Lovely. You don't know what he said or did, but your blaming him for the actions you've heard he took and the things you've heard he said. :rolleyes:

I just watched the video. It's worse than I thought. He says,
"So, you [Wallace] did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me."
Why? Because Wallace asked him why he didn't do more to get Bin Laden. Is that a hit job on Wallace's part? Hardly. But it is extreme defensiveness on Clinton's part, and it was unnecessary. And frankly, his picture of conservatives attacking him for "obsessing" about Bin Laden, and claiming his efforts to go after him were like "Wag the Dog" (the movie), doesn't match up at all with my memory of events. What I recall was that charge being leveled mostly by the press, and primarily in regards to Iraq, NOT Bin Laden. He also claims that Wallace never asked these kinds of questions of Bush administration officials. That's not much of a defense, since the question was legitimate regardless of whether or not Wallace asked anyone else. But it's also factually wrong, since Wallace asked pretty much the same questions of Rumsfeld back in 2004.

[Ziggurat]

I think he ignored a Richard Clarke memo with the obscure title; Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S. using planes (or something similar). But Condi Rice explained it all - Clarke didn't issue a particular DATE that Bin Laden would attack so they naturally didn't take it seriously. :)

Um... I think you're refering to the Presidential Daily Briefing. Clarke didn't write it. The CIA writes those. I thought everyone knew that, but apparently not.

Edit: Oh, and the title is "Bin Laden determined to strike in US". Just for the record. You can read much of it here:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

[headscratcher4]

More voices from the time on Clinton's actions...against alleged Bin-Ladin activities in Sudan.

Rep. Dick Armey, GOP majority leader: "The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."

Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.: "It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it," Solomon said in an interview with CNN. Asked if he was accusing Clinton of playing with American lives for political expediency, Solomon said, "Whether he knows it or not, that's exactly what he's doing."

GOP Sen. Dan Coats: Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack [on bin Laden] and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action."

Sen. Larry Craig, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee: "The foregoing, the premise of the recent film 'Wag the Dog,' might once have seemed farfetched. Yet it can hardly escape comment that on the very day, August 17, that President Bill Clinton is scheduled to testify before a federal grand jury to explain his possibly criminal behavior, Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton has ordered U.S. Marines and air crews to commence several days of ground and air exercises in, yes, Albania as a warning of possible NATO intervention in next-door Kosovo ...

"Not too many years ago, it would not have entered the mind of even the worst of cynics to speculate whether any American president, whatever his political difficulties, would even consider sending U.S. military personnel into harm's way to serve his own, personal needs. But in an era when pundits openly weigh the question of whether President Clinton will (or should) tell the truth under oath not because he has a simple obligation to do so but because of the possible impact on his political 'viability' -- is it self-evident that military decisions are not affected by similar considerations? Under the circumstances, it is fair to ask to what extent the Clinton Administration has forfeited the benefit of the doubt as to the motives behind its actions."

GOP activist Paul Weyrich: "Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton's decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote 'is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress.'"

Wall Street Journal editorial: "It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment."

Sen. Trent Lott, GOP majority leader: "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."

Rep. Gerald Solomon: "'Never underestimate a desperate president,' said a furious House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.). 'What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?'"

Rep. Tillie Folwer: "'It [the bombing of Iraq] is certainly rather suspicious timing,' said Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Florida). 'I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office.'"

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: "First, it [intervention in Kosovo] is a 'wag the dog' public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the 'life is truer than fiction' movie 'Wag the Dog.' The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to 'move on' from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command."

Jim Hoagland, Washington Post: "President Clinton has indelibly associated a justified military response ... with his own wrongdoing ... Clinton has now injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy, and vice versa."

Wall Street Journal editorial: "Perceptions that the American president is less interested in the global consequences than in taking any action that will enable him to hold onto power [are] a further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in conducting the nation's affairs, and should be impeached."

[Ziggurat]

More voices from the time on Clinton's actions...against alleged Bin-Ladin activities in Sudan.

OK, so you've specified that you're talking about the Sudan, which means Clinton's cruise missile strike against a suspected chemical weapons factory.

Rep. Dick Armey, GOP majority leader: "The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."

But that's Iraq, not Sudan. And it was Saddam, not Bin Laden. You pulled a bait and switch.

Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.: "It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it," Solomon said in an interview with CNN. Asked if he was accusing Clinton of playing with American lives for political expediency, Solomon said, "Whether he knows it or not, that's exactly what he's doing."

Doesn't specify what action it's refering to. The previous quote references impeachment, so does this one - might this one not also be refering to Iraq and not Sudan?

GOP Sen. Dan Coats: Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack [on bin Laden] and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action."

So you've got one so far.

Sen. Larry Craig, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee: "The foregoing, the premise of the recent film 'Wag the Dog,' might once have seemed farfetched. Yet it can hardly escape comment that on the very day, August 17, that President Bill Clinton is scheduled to testify before a federal grand jury to explain his possibly criminal behavior, Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton has ordered U.S. Marines and air crews to commence several days of ground and air exercises in, yes, Albania as a warning of possible NATO intervention in next-door Kosovo ...

Albania. Not Sudan, is it? Not Bin Laden either, is it?

GOP activist Paul Weyrich: "Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton's decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote 'is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress.'"

Well, we bombed Iraq, but we sent cruise missiles to Sudan. Sounds to me like this is referencing Iraq again, as the first impeachment-connected quote did.

Wall Street Journal editorial: "It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment."

Doesn't specify whether it's Sudan, Iraq, or Albania. My guess is Iraq, since again, the only quote that directly reference impeachment AND names the location of the strike refers to Iraq.

Sen. Trent Lott, GOP majority leader: "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."

The Sudan doesn't border the Persian Gulf. But Iraq does. Hmmm...

Rep. Gerald Solomon: "'Never underestimate a desperate president,' said a furious House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.). 'What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?'"

Doesn't specity.

Rep. Tillie Folwer: "'It [the bombing of Iraq] is certainly rather suspicious timing,' said Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Florida). 'I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office.'"

Not Sudan.

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: "First, it [intervention in Kosovo] is a 'wag the dog' public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the 'life is truer than fiction' movie 'Wag the Dog.' The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to 'move on' from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command."

Not Sudan.

Jim Hoagland, Washington Post: "President Clinton has indelibly associated a justified military response ... with his own wrongdoing ... Clinton has now injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy, and vice versa."

Doesn't specify.

Wall Street Journal editorial: "Perceptions that the American president is less interested in the global consequences than in taking any action that will enable him to hold onto power [are] a further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in conducting the nation's affairs, and should be impeached."

Doesn't specify.

You've got a few quotes that specify somewhere OTHER than Sudan, a bunch that don't specify what they refer to (but which, judging from the ones that do, most likely refer to Iraq), and only ONE quote that specifies Sudan. That was weak, headscratcher. Really weak.

Unless you're taking the position that Bin Laden and Saddam really were connected, and that a strike against Saddam was also a strike against Bin Laden.

Edit to fix quote tags

[Cylinder]

With the exception of Coats and Lott, those were all issues other than the efforts to kill or capture OBL. Clinton was not referring to Iraq or Somalia orKosovo. His claim was that when he tried to act against OBL in Afghanistan, he was criticized by "the right-wingers."

[Ziggurat]

With the exception of Coats and Lott, those were all issues other than the efforts to kill or capture OBL.

I don't think the Lott quote refers to attacks against Bin Laden either. I'm pretty sure that the cruise missiles sent into Afghanistan were sent from the Arabian Sea, and flew over Pakistan en route, not from the Persian Gulf, where they'd have to fly a longer distance over Iranian airspace. I believe Lott is talking about the strikes on Iraq.

[Cylinder]

I just do not understand how this is supposed to play. Is Clinton really agruing that criticism of the President during times of armed conflict hampered his ability to protect the nation?

[Upchurch]

So I forked the coversation - is the political wisdom of his response somehow a verboten topic?
Not at all, but logical fallacies are never in fashion, not even in politics. You were not commenting on the wisdom of his response but on on a response he gave many, many years ago on a different topic.

[Upchurch]

I just do not understand how this is supposed to play. Is Clinton really agruing that criticism of the President during times of armed conflict hampered his ability to protect the nation?
No, I think he's arguing the hypocrisy of those who are arguing that he was too obsessed with OBL then are the same people who are arguing that he wasn't obsessed enough with OBL now.

[Ziggurat]

Not at all, but logical fallacies are never in fashion, not even in politics. You were not commenting on the wisdom of his response but on on a response he gave many, many years ago on a different topic.

Huh? I'm pointing out that I think the way he responded this time is going to remind people of his previous response, and that will (rightly or wrongly) make people wonder if he's telling the truth. Had he responded differently, less defensively, I don't think anyone would make the comparison and would be less likely to suspect deceit on his part.

[Upchurch]

Huh? I'm pointing out that I think the way he responded this time is going to remind people of his previous response, and that will (rightly or wrongly) make people wonder if he's telling the truth. Had he responded differently, less defensively, I don't think anyone would make the comparison and would be less likely to suspect deceit on his part.
Uh-huh. Sure. You weren't going out of your way do draw a connection between the two largely unrelated events at all. :rolleyes:

He was also wearing a suit in both instances. Think that will remind people of the earlier situation, too?

[firecoins]

I don't believe anything Clinton says. I don't believe anything Bush says.

Clinton's whole "right wing conspiracy" theory is b.s. I don't believe CLinton did enough during his presidency to prevent further terror attacks. He had 8 years to do so and blames everyone else. I think Clinton is more worried about his legacy. He was obsessed with approval numbers in office and was unwilling to take major risks.

I think Bush is less concered with appearences but he has made more major mistakes like going to Iraq.

[Ziggurat]

Uh-huh. Sure. You weren't going out of your way do draw a connection between the two largely unrelated events at all. :rolleyes:

Beyond what I just said? No, I wasn't. Now, you can dismiss what I said as being of little to no importance, and I'm fine with that. But kindly refrain from telling me what I intended.

[RandFan]

No, I think he's arguing the hypocrisy of those who are arguing that he was too obsessed with OBL then are the same people who are arguing that he wasn't obsessed enough with OBL now.Damn you sir. Damn you and your logic.

FWIW, I'm not convinced that Clinton did all that he could but then I'm not convinced that a Republican would have either. There is a certain amount of hindsight reasoning in all of this.

[Upchurch]

But kindly refrain from telling me what I intended.
As I didn't say anything about what you intended, there is very little worry of that.

[Upchurch]

FWIW, I'm not convinced that Clinton did all that he could but then I'm not convinced that a Republican would have either. There is a certain amount of hindsight reasoning in all of this.
Indeed.

Before 9/11, I think each pretty much did what they thought was reasonable at the time. (That I personally didn't agree with what some of each thought was reasonable at the time is neither here nor there.)

After 9/11, however, some of decisions made on both sides are highly questionable, imho. I lay the blame of most of those decisions in the Republicans' laps mostly because they've been in the driver's seat the entire time.

[Jocko]

As I didn't say anything about what you intended, there is very little worry of that.

Huh? You just said:

Uh-huh. Sure. You weren't going out of your way do draw a connection between the two largely unrelated events at all.

Which clearly bespeaks your suspicion of an agenda, a.k.a. intentions.

[Upchurch]

Huh? You just said:

Which clearly bespeaks your suspicion of an agenda, a.k.a. intentions.
Not at all. Are they related events?

[Darth Rotor]

Just had a bizarre set of visuals with this thread's title:

An angry Clinton on Fox

1. Slick Willy Philandering, part IX: WJC in flagrente delicto, male dominant, with the lovely Vivica Fox (http://www.vivicafox.com/Index1.htm).

I imagine such a juxtaposition has crossed his mind. He's still alive and breathing, right?

2. Photos of Vicente Fox and Slick Willy in the horror that none of you wanted to have flash into your heads until you just read this.

You are welcome for that visual.

My task here is done.

DR

[Jocko]

Not at all. Are they related events?

Sigh. Whether they are or not, your reply to Ziggurat clearly indicated that you thought he was attempting to create one - IOW, divining his "intentions."

[Ziggurat]

Sigh. Whether they are or not, your reply to Ziggurat clearly indicated that you thought he was attempting to create one - IOW, divining his "intentions."

Oh, don't bother. When Upchurch gets fixated on something like this, it's really not worth the effort to get him to be able to look at it from a different perspective.

[Upchurch]

Sigh. Whether they are or not, your reply to Ziggurat clearly indicated that you thought he was attempting to create one - IOW, divining his "intentions."
I agree: *sigh*

My sarcasm and typos aside (should have been "to" rather than "do"), I didn't say he was attempting to create a relation. I said he did go out of his way to create a connection. I wasn't speaking of his intentions but of what he actually did.
You weren't going out of your way do draw a connection between the two largely unrelated events at all. :rolleyes:
Removing the sarcasm:
You went out of your way to draw a connection between two largely unrelated events.
You'll note I did not say, "You went out of your way to make Bill Clinton look like a bad person." That would have been divining Zig's intentions.

[Jocko]

I agree: *sigh*

My sarcasm and typos aside (should have been "to" rather than "do"), I didn't say he was attempting to create a relation. I said he did go out of his way to create a connection. I wasn't speaking of his intentions but of what he actually did.

Removing the sarcasm:

You'll note I did not say, "You went out of your way to make Bill Clinton look like a bad person." That would have been divining Zig's intentions.


A distinction only Claus could love, IMHO.

[Upchurch]

Oh, don't bother. When Upchurch gets fixated on something like this, it's really not worth the effort to get him to be able to look at it from a different perspective.
Oh, please. I'm the first to admit when I've made a legitimate mistake. (well, at least somewhere in the Top 20 of mistake admiters. Recent example. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1947590#post1947590))

Just because we're in the Politics forum does not mean that we should not adhere to a little rigorous rationality and avoid logical fallacies.

[Upchurch]

A distinction only Claus could love, IMHO.
Ouch. That's low.

[Cylinder]

No, I think he's arguing the hypocrisy of those who are arguing that he was too obsessed with OBL then are the same people who are arguing that he wasn't obsessed enough with OBL now.

You're right. After reading the transcript today, Clinton was clearly arguing ad hoc.

ETA: Great. Now I look like a suck-up because of your previous post about admitting mistakes.

[Upchurch]

You're right. After reading the transcript today, Clinton was clearly arguing ad hoc.

ETA: Great. Now I look like a suck-up because of your previous post about admitting mistakes.
(I won't say anything if you don't.)

I always have to look up the Latin terms*, and even then I don't always get how it applies. Are you saying that Clinton's argument is an ad hoc or that he is arguing that the Republicans are doing an ad hoc, or what?



* Who am I kidding? I had to look up "poisoning the well" to make sure I was applying it correctly.

[Huntster]

I am no fan of Bill Clinton, but I believe he was getting lousy advice and guidance from his cabinet and Joint Chiefs on Bin Laden just like George Bush got lousy intelligence on Iraqi WMD.

Secondly, I don't think Wallace asked an inappropriate or disrespectful question. Clinton was waiting for the question in order to put on a show in the same way that George Bush 1 ate up an interviewer in order to kill the "wimp" personna some media types were trying to tag him with.

Thirdly, I really have to wonder about the low-level partisan political types (with nothing at stake but their silly ideology) and how they seem willing to let everything go to Hell in a handbasket just to justify their own face after talking stupid, partisan junk.

[stamenflicker]

Wow, that was one angry Clinton.

Is it my imagination or was he being a little bit physically intimidating to that Wallace guy? Leaning forward, getting in his face, tapping his hand on the guy's leg. I thought he was going to lunge forward and grab Wallace by the lapels.

I thought this too. And I thought it was disgusting and unprofessional. Reminded me of when Gore walked over to Bush during the debates trying to look tough.

Imagine if GW Bush was to do this to Wolf Blitzer. The headlines would read:

"Bush tries to intimidate reporter."

But what we got this morning was...

"Clinton passionately defends his record."



And to think he has the nerve to call Fox biased.

[corplinx]

I totally agree with how Clinton handled this. He went on the offensive and went passionate. He didn't even let Matthews finish qualifying or refining the question, he cut him off and went on offense.

We will never seen another politician like Bill Clinton. He is the bar by which to judge.

[Huntster]

I totally agree with how Clinton handled this. He went on the offensive and went passionate. He didn't even let Matthews finish qualifying or refining the question, he cut him off and went on offense.

Ummmmmmmmmmm...............That wasn't Chris Matthews. It was Chris Wallace.

We will never seen another politician like Bill Clinton.

Many of us hope you are right.

He is the bar by which to judge.

He should have been judged by the BAR.

[Ziggurat]

He should have been judged by the BAR.

Wasn't he barred by the bar?

[RandFan]

Oh, please. I'm the first to admit when I've made a legitimate mistake. (well, at least somewhere in the Top 20 of mistake admiters. Recent example. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1947590#post1947590)) Hey, I gotta say, I've always found Upchurch intellectually honest. I know, he's a big boy and can defend himself and, well, who the hell am I? But I think he deserves that acknowledgment. Now, whether you want to take my word for it is a whole other matter. ;)

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
He should have been judged by the BAR.

Wasn't he barred by the bar?

As a matter of fact, yes. Actually he was disbarred by the Supreme Court. You're right. (http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/News/ClintonDisbar-011001.htm) I forgot.

[corplinx]

Ummmmmmmmmmm...............That wasn't Chris Matthews. It was Chris Wallace.

Of course you are right, that was the whiskey speaking.

If you can't see how great a politicion that Bill Clinton is despite how you think he performed his duties, then you are a blind man. He is a master politician. How much is a gallon of milk?

[RandFan]

Of course you are right, that was the whiskey speaking.

If you can't see how great a politicion that Bill Clinton is despite how you think he performed his duties, then you are a blind man. He is a master politician. How much is a gallon of milk? He really was. I give him that. And I liked life when he was president. I did very well financially and it seemed that a lot of other people did also. There's some controversy about how much help he got from the Internet bubble and the surge in the economy that began a year he got in office but the fact is he didn't screw things up too badly, at least for me. I didn't vote for him but I'd like that time back.

[Upchurch]

Not to get all nostalgic, but I miss the two parties actually trying to work together on occasion. Shame that we were more united when we didn't need to be and more divided when we need unity the most.

[Cylinder]

Are you saying that Clinton's argument is an ad hoc or that he is arguing that the Republicans are doing an ad hoc, or what?

It was offered for the limited purpose that you described - that is, to assert hypocrisy. I don't buy the hypocrisy argument necessarily but it was offered by Clinton for that narrow purpose.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Ummmmmmmmmmm...............That wasn't Chris Matthews. It was Chris Wallace.
Of course you are right, that was the whiskey speaking.

Have another swig. It'll make President Clinton look even better.

If you can't see how great a politicion that Bill Clinton is despite how you think he performed his duties, then you are a blind man.

He was a pretty good politician, but in all honesty, it was quite clear that the media gave him a free pass from the very start.

And his abilities as a politician didn't make him a good President.

[Random]

He was a pretty good politician, but in all honesty, it was quite clear that the media gave him a free pass from the very start.

And his abilities as a politician didn't make him a good President.

Whua? Free pass? Clinton? What mind-altering substances were you ingesting in the 90's? Have you forgottent the giant parade of non-scandals that were breathlessly reported on all the alphabet networks seven days a week, even though none of them went anywhere? The way the media worked with the insurance lobby to kill universal health care? The medias constant willingness to float "wag the dog" accusations whenever Clinton did anything with the military? Free pass? Regardless of what you think of Bill Clinton as a politician, viewing his treatment by the press as anything short of "vigorous" puts you in woo-woo land.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
He was a pretty good politician, but in all honesty, it was quite clear that the media gave him a free pass from the very start.

And his abilities as a politician didn't make him a good President.

Whua? Free pass? Clinton? What mind-altering substances were you ingesting in the 90's?

None. Don't even drink whiskey.

Have you forgottent the giant parade of non-scandals that were breathlessly reported on all the alphabet networks seven days a week, even though none of them went anywhere?

Thank you for driving the point home for me. They were reported on reluctantly by the leftist media giants after conservative outlets pounded on them relentlessly, and they were presented as "non-scandals." Gennifer Flowers was pooh-poohed during Clinton's first campaign, and there was a virtual parade of them forever afterward.

The way the media worked with the insurance lobby to kill universal health care?

I guess I should be a bit more grateful to the media for those few pleasant surprises that they can deliver.

The medias constant willingness to float "wag the dog" accusations whenever Clinton did anything with the military? Free pass?

During his campaigning? Regarding his sexual problems? You betcha. During his presidency? He's media fodder just like all the rest.

Regardless of what you think of Bill Clinton as a politician, viewing his treatment by the press as anything short of "vigorous" puts you in woo-woo land.

Oh, ouch! What a painful blow you can deliver! I'm devastated!

I guess I should re-evaluate my entire being, everything I've learned, and everything I've experienced.

Pray tell, Random: What should I believe next. I need you to instruct me.

Lord knows I don't ever want to be accused of being in "woo-woo land."...........

[peptoabysmal]

Funny thing is that he could have honestly answered "Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida?" with a "yes." His administration may have missed the target, but they did identify the target.
It is one thing to arm chair quarterback and post analyze what took place, but I think going after a former president this way is disrespectful. Let me clarify, if there were new evidence of wrongdoing on Clinton's part, that would be another matter, this is just a partisan re-hashing of what we already know.
The sad thing is that Clinton went off on his "right-wing conspiracy" tangent. I've seen used car salesmen with more charisma and composure under pressure. Perhaps he is the greatest statesman of your time, but not mine.

[steverino]

I only heard clips on the radio and Clinton seemed to slur his words. Does anyone know if he takes medication or has any serious health issues? I am not trying to take a cheap shot here. But maybe he had a stroke or something?

[Foolmewunz]

It's roughly 45 days to election. Bill's the best speaker and best stalking horse for the Dems. No one can harm him, because he's not running for anything, so he can stand up and make whatever case he wants.

He is absolutely right about Chris Wallace's approach. It's Fox, guys! Would Fox be asking tough questions of BC and not of GWB? No, not my Fox! They're so fair.:p

Is it any coincidence that Clinton is out there brawling on this topic at exactly this time? Right after the ABC schlocumentary on 9/11 where these charges were made prominent? Just before an election? Oh, just a coincidence, I'm sure. Wallace caught him unguarded in the men's room at the Marriott? This was a scheduled interview. Hell, Bill probably told him ahead of time, "Heh Heh, Chris, don't mess with ma record on Osama - I'm gonna have to take you down if you do, ol' buddy!"

The traditional give-away to the GOP is the "who's stronger on defence" vote. The Repubs always get that faction. Now, with a lot of the middle-right angry over the direction the war is going, the Dems have a chance to actually stake out that ground. There have been recent polls that showed that respondants thought the Dems would do a better job in the war on terrorism.

Ergo, I think you have two forces working at once. First is any sitting or former president's concern with his record. Neither of them want to be "the president who didn't go after OBL". Second is that they're trawling for the middle-ground undecided vote, and the only person in the Democratic Party with a personality is Bill Clinton so he's going to be their stalking horse. After all, what does he have to lose? Staying silent would've let the Bush apologists have their way. Speaking up, he draws attention to the abyssmal record on the execution of the peace in Iraq and the hunt for Osama.

He can out-charm and out-debate the whole media, as he's proven innumerable times. It's a smart gambit from a cagey politico.

PeptoA: Do we really think he was surprised by this? From Chris Wallace?? He "cracked under pressure and lost his cool" just like Reagan ad-libbed the "I paid for this microphone" moment.... He was just sitting there like a cat in front of a mousehole with cheese on his breath, waiting for Chris to say anything that smacked remotely of his bad record on terrorism or OBL. Classic political gambit, if you aks me.

[Cylinder]

Would Fox be asking tough questions of BC and not of GWB?

Actually, Wallace posed the same question to Sec. Rumsfeld some time ago. There's a link to the transcript in one of my comments above.

[Foolmewunz]

Actually, Wallace posed the same question to Sec. Rumsfeld some time ago. There's a link to the transcript in one of my comments above.

Oh no! Another tenuous-apology-needed thread (see exchange earlier with Upchurch....). You're right. I'm sorry. Really. I am. (2.5 apologies, so I can bank a couple, right?):p

Seriously... I was exaggerating. Smileys are used for such things, generally.

[WildCat]

I only heard clips on the radio and Clinton seemed to slur his words. Does anyone know if he takes medication or has any serious health issues? I am not trying to take a cheap shot here. But maybe he had a stroke or something?
I saw it, and yeah he did seem to be slurring his speech. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt though, he has been traveling extensively lately.

[WildCat]

This whole Clinton/Wallace exchange is why 9/11 shouldn't be politicized as it has. This is also why I didn't think the 9/11 Commission would do anything really useful. It becomes a political blame game, w/ all parties looking for that "gotcha" moment and everyone engaging in CYA.

It would be far more productive to worry about what is happening now and in the future when it comes to terrorism, rather than waste all these resources on counterproductive inspections of past actions in order to gain temporary political advantage.

[Upchurch]

Thank you for driving the point home for me. They were reported on reluctantly by the leftist media giants after conservative outlets pounded on them relentlessly, and they were presented as "non-scandals." Gennifer Flowers was pooh-poohed during Clinton's first campaign, and there was a virtual parade of them forever afterward.
I'll have what he's having!

Speaking of spin yet again, Random didn't say the media presented them as non-scandals. To my memory, both the politicians and the media took them very seriously at the time. They just mostly didn't go anywhere, because there was very little of substance to them.

[CFLarsen]

No comment:

I have.

You are aware that quickly kissing each other on the lips and walking hand in hand are both perfectly acceptable customs for males in the Arab world?

Do you have a source for the first photo?

[Upchurch]

Rice's rebuttal (or a brief article about it, rather): http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060926/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rice_clinton

[CFLarsen]

How is she angry?

[Upchurch]

How is she angry?
:rolleyes:

Relax, Claus. It is only a play on the thread title. No need to get your panties in a bunch.

[CFLarsen]

:rolleyes:

Relax, Claus. It is only a play on the thread title. No need to get your panties in a bunch.

I merely asked. No need to think my panties get in a bunch, just because I ask.

[Upchurch]

No need to think my panties get in a bunch, just because I ask.
Sure there is: experience.

But it pleases me that you aren't going to obsess about my poetic license and derail this thread.

[CFLarsen]

Sure there is: experience.

That's your problem. Not mine.

But it pleases me that you aren't going to obsess about my poetic license and derail this thread.

Do you think you could tune the prejudice down a bit?

[HarryKeogh]

You are aware that quickly kissing each other on the lips and walking hand in hand are both perfectly acceptable customs for males in the Arab world?

Yeah, but Bush isn't an Arab and this was in Texas. And it is an odd image to see the "leader of the free world" holding hands with the Crown Prince of a country that produced 15 of the 19 hijackers, jails dissidents and is a breeding ground for terrorists with their teaching of Wahhabism in the schools.

There are plenty of customs in the world but people are usually under no obligation to follow them. If I was granted an audience (however unlikely) with the Pope I ain't bending down and kissing his ring.

Oh, and I think that photo of the lip kissing is doctored. The usual custom is kissing on the cheeks.

[Reager]

Actually, Wallace posed the same question to Sec. Rumsfeld some time ago. There's a link to the transcript in one of my comments above.

Heh, and how many other questions did Wallace ask other Bush admin officials about their handling of OBL pre-9/11? Did you read the Media Matters link (http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002)?


In the March 28, 2004, interview (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115436,00.html) with Rumsfeld, Wallace did press him on whether the Department of Defense should have "been thinking more about" terrorism prior to 9-11 and asked him to respond to the "basic charge that, pre-9-11 ... this government, the Bush administration, largely ignored the threat from Al Qaeda." ... But beyond this exchange, the Fox News Sunday interviews listed above have almost entirely ignored several key questions regarding the Bush administration's efforts to pursue bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

...News of the August 6 memo first broke (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0518-04.htm) on May 18, 2002. During Cheney's appearance on Fox News Sunday the following day, Snow brought up the memo and asked him, "Why didn't we connect the dots?" But in their subsequent interviews with Bush administration officials, Wallace and Snow repeatedly failed to ask them if they regretted not reacting more forcefully to it. Wallace even avoided questioning Rice about it days after she discussed the memo during her testimony before the 9-11 Commission, as the weblog Think Progress noted (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/23/wallace-rice-pdb/).

...In his numerous interviews with Bush administration officials, Wallace mentioned [Richard] Clarke only once, as Think Progress noted (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/23/fox-clarke-demoted/), in the March 28, 2004, interview (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115436,00.html) with Rumsfeld. But in that interview, Wallace failed to question Rumsfeld on Clarke's demotion.

...no Bush administration official has ever been asked about the administration's lack of response to the Cole bombing by a host of Fox News Sunday -- this despite the fact that the FBI and CIA did not certify that bin Laden was responsible for the attack until early 2001.

...in their subsequent appearances on Fox News Sunday, senior Bush aides did not face any questions regarding the Bush administration's decision-making at Tora Bora.

...Since Suskind's book release in June, Wallace has interviewed both Rice and Hadley, but he did not ask either of them about this revelation.


Are you seriously arguing that asking one or two questions over the course of 5 years and 43 separate interviews is not equivalent to giving the Bush admin a pass?

[CFLarsen]

Yeah, but Bush isn't an Arab and this was in Texas.

So, if he was in Saudi Arabia, things would be different?

And it is an odd image to see the "leader of the free world" holding hands with the Crown Prince of a country that produced 15 of the 19 hijackers, jails dissidents and is a breeding ground for terrorists with their teaching of Wahhabism in the schools.

Is the Crown Prince responsible for 9/11?

There are plenty of customs in the world but people are usually under no obligation to follow them. If I was granted an audience (however unlikely) with the Pope I ain't bending down and kissing his ring.

Who expects you to do that?

Oh, and I think that photo of the lip kissing is doctored. The usual custom is kissing on the cheeks.

No, if you are on friendly terms, you can kiss on the lips. Briefly, and if both are males. But I agree, the photo looks doctored. Which is why I asked Steve for sources.

[HarryKeogh]

No, if you are on friendly terms, you can kiss on the lips. Briefly, and if both are males.

Read what I say: "the usual custom" is kissing on the cheeks. I've Googled and am having trouble finding websites detailing lip to lip kissing greetings. Plenty about cheek kissing though.

[Jocko]

Read what I say: "the usual custom" is kissing on the cheeks. I've Googled and am having trouble finding websites detailing lip to lip kissing greetings. Plenty about cheek kissing though.

I think Claus has mixed up his personal and academic "Favorites" folders once again, if you catch my drift.

Please, keep focused on the subject of discussion.

[Upchurch]

Do you think you could tune the prejudice down a bit?
How ironic it is that you, of all people, should ask others to not be prejudice.

[CFLarsen]

Read what I say: "the usual custom" is kissing on the cheeks. I've Googled and am having trouble finding websites detailing lip to lip kissing greetings. Plenty about cheek kissing though.

Two men kissing each other quickly on the lips when greeting is an expression of friendship.
Source (http://www.bellydanceuk.co.uk/pagegestures.html)

How ironic it is that you, of all people, should ask others to not be prejudice.

Apparently not.

Oh, well.

[Jocko]

On page 1 of a thread, it's prejudice.
By page 3, it's just plain judice, and amply demonstrated at that.

[HarryKeogh]

Claus, I'm just debating which is the more usual custom. I never said it doesn't happen, just that I had trouble finding any webpages detailing lip kissing and I didn't have any problem finding webpages detailing kissing on the cheek. Judging by the number of websites that describe cheek to cheek kissing as opposed to kissing on the lips it seems cheek to cheek is more usual (in fact, that's how Bush kissed the Crown Prince unless that pic on page one isn't Photoshopped then he kissed him both ways).

Do you have an opinion as to which is the more common custom? I said cheek kissing was the usual custom and you flatly said no it wasn't. You're so sure but what do you base that on?

anyway...
http://www.cyborlink.com/besite/uae.htm (http://www.cyborlink.com/besite/uae.htm)

A more traditional greeting between men involves grasping each other’s right hand, placing the left hand on the other’s right shoulder and exchanging kisses on each cheek.

http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/morocco-country-profile.html (http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/morocco-country-profile.html)

Once a relationship has developed, it is common to kiss on both cheeks, starting with the left cheek while shaking hands, men with men and women with women.

So unless you have definitive proof that one custom is more usual than the other don't flatly declare mine wrong especially when this discussion between us started with an Arab kissing a non-Arab. I'm sure lip-kissing is even more rare there.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I haven’t seen the entire interview, Just segments on Cspan1. However I agree with Clinton that this was an obvious attack and setup on the part of the Conservative pro Bush FoxNews. I admire Clinton for being able to defend himself like he did against the attacks. He damn sure put that Wallace guy in his place.

[CFLarsen]

So unless you have definitive proof that one custom is more usual than the other don't flatly declare mine wrong especially when this discussion between us started with an Arab kissing a non-Arab. I'm sure lip-kissing is even more rare there.

Who said anything about what custom was the more common? I sure didn't.

The question is not whether which custom is the more common. The question is if two men kissing briefly is a custom which demonstrates a sign of friendship.

It is. Men who are on friendly terms also hold hands. There's nothing sinister to it.

[Jocko]

Who said anything about what custom was the more common? I sure didn't.

Liar.

Harry:
The usual custom is kissing on the cheeks.

Claus:
No, if you are on friendly terms, you can kiss on the lips. Briefly, and if both are males.

See, when someone says X is customary, and you respond with "No, Y is customary," then you bloody well are saying which one is more usual, i.e., common.

Your semantic butchery knows no limits, does it?

[CFLarsen]

Liar.

Harry:


Claus:


See, when someone says X is customary, and you respond with "No, Y is customary," then you bloody well are saying which one is more usual, i.e., common.

Your semantic butchery knows no limits, does it?

Take a reading comprehension class, before you call someone "liar".

I am saying "no" to lip-kissing among male friends being fabricated. While the photo certainly looks doctored, lip-kissing among male friends is indeed a custom.

[SteveGrenard]

Harry:

Claus, I'm just debating which is the more usual custom. I never said it doesn't happen, just that I had trouble finding any webpages detailing lip kissing and I didn't have any problem finding webpages detailing kissing on the cheek. Judging by the number of websites that describe cheek to cheek kissing as opposed to kissing on the lips it seems cheek to cheek is more usual (in fact, that's how Bush kissed the Crown Prince unless that pic on page one isn't Photoshopped then he kissed him both ways).

Harry ....

I am not very up on photoshopping so don't know if these photos were doctored or not. I recall getting the pix I posted from google images and in searching there again just now found the following:

http://images.google.com/images?q=bush+kissing+abdullah&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images

[Upchurch]

Wow. I sure am glad that I don't have to worry about Claus's obsession with irrelevent details derailing this thread.

[HarryKeogh]

See, when someone says X is customary, and you respond with "No, Y is customary," then you bloody well are saying which one is more usual, i.e., common.

Your semantic butchery knows no limits, does it?

Thanks, Jocko. Glad someone sees where the confusion lies.

[Jocko]

Take a reading comprehension class, before you call someone "liar".

I am saying "no" to lip-kissing among male friends being fabricated. While the photo certainly looks doctored, lip-kissing among male friends is indeed a custom.

I showed you precisely what you were saying "no" to, and it wasn't that... liar.

Once more, for the record: You are a liar in that statement.

[Jocko]

Wow. I sure am glad that I don't have to worry about Claus's obsession with irrelevent details derailing this thread.

Can it be called worrying when it's a foregone conclusion?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Thank you for driving the point home for me. They were reported on reluctantly by the leftist media giants after conservative outlets pounded on them relentlessly, and they were presented as "non-scandals." Gennifer Flowers was pooh-poohed during Clinton's first campaign, and there was a virtual parade of them forever afterward.

I'll have what he's having!

Foster's in the bottle.

(Hey, at least it ain't whiskey...............)

Speaking of spin yet again, Random didn't say the media presented them as non-scandals.

Sorry. That's exactly what he wrote: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1952751&postcount=65)

...Have you forgottent the giant parade of non-scandals that were breathlessly reported on all the alphabet networks seven days a week, even though none of them went anywhere?...

To my memory, both the politicians and the media took them very seriously at the time. They just mostly didn't go anywhere, because there was very little of substance to them.

Actually, I agree. At least the media ended up reporting about Gennifer Flowers during Clinton's first campaign, unlike the JFK situation.

George Bush 1 actually used the phrase, "Who are you gonna' trust?" as a campaign slogan. Spent a lot of money on it, too.

And there was every bit of substance to them, and then some.

Remember Monica?

[Random]

Sorry. That's exactly what he wrote: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1952751&postcount=65)

I see that I am going to have to clarify what I mean with that statement. I meant to say that the media went after Clinton non-stop for years, and relentlessly pushed every new scandal like it was a major constitutional crisis, even though it was in fact a bunch of puffery.

Troopergate- Man who hates Clinton pays two state troopers thousands of dollars to say they brought him girls to sleep with.

Filegate- Hillary Clinton touched some paperwork while she was working as a lawyer. That paperwork was lost, then found again.

Whitewater- Clintons loose thousands of dollars in a crooked land deal. A convicted perjurer offers to say Bill did something wrong in order to get a reduced sentence.

Travelgate- I don't think I have heard a right-winger provide a coherent accusation on this one. Near as I can tell, some White House staffers were giving people too many free perks and Clinton fired them.

Vince Foster- It was suicide. Deal with it.

And all the time the media was going along with it. They slavered over every cherry-picked, spoon-fed tidbit that Ken Starr illegally leaked out of his office from his massive smear machine, paid for with $40,000,000 of taxpayer money. They went after Clinton like a pack of rabid hyenas.

I am sorry if you misinterpreted my previous statement.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Sorry. That's exactly what he wrote:
I see that I am going to have to clarify what I mean with that statement. I meant to say that the media went after Clinton non-stop for years, and relentlessly pushed every new scandal like it was a major constitutional crisis, even though it was in fact a bunch of puffery.

The news was quite specific.

Clinton had a problem with the women. The Gennifer Flowers affair was first, and during his initial campaign. After conservative news outlets reported it ad nauseum, the "mainstream" media reported it as a "non-scandal."

We had lots of "non-scandals" after that, including the Monica affair.

So, yeah. There were lots of "non-scandals." I'm not sure if those are better than GWB and his wife (who I suspect might make Lorena look like the trash that she was), but I'm sure if GWB pulled that kind of BS, he'd get what he deserved.

He would from me..........

Troopergate- Man who hates Clinton pays two state troopers thousands of dollars to say they brought him girls to sleep with.

Filegate- Hillary Clinton touched some paperwork while she was working as a lawyer. That paperwork was lost, then found again.

Whitewater- Clintons loose thousands of dollars in a crooked land deal. A convicted perjurer offers to say Bill did something wrong in order to get a reduced sentence.

Travelgate- I don't think I have heard a right-winger provide a coherent accusation on this one. Near as I can tell, some White House staffers were giving people too many free perks and Clinton fired them.

Vince Foster- It was suicide. Deal with it.

And all the time the media was going along with it. They slavered over every cherry-picked, spoon-fed tidbit that Ken Starr illegally leaked out of his office from his massive smear machine, paid for with $40,000,000 of taxpayer money. They went after Clinton like a pack of rabid hyenas.

I am sorry if you misinterpreted my previous statement.

Hyenas are attracted to the scent of blood, and they're scavengers.

No Troopergate, travelgate, filegate, Whitewater, or Vince Foster involved with this administration.

No blood.

[RandFan]

I see that I am going to have to clarify what I mean with that statement. I meant to say that the media went after Clinton non-stop for years, and relentlessly pushed every new scandal like it was a major constitutional crisis, even though it was in fact a bunch of puffery.

Troopergate- Man who hates Clinton pays two state troopers thousands of dollars to say they brought him girls to sleep with.

Filegate- Hillary Clinton touched some paperwork while she was working as a lawyer. That paperwork was lost, then found again.

Whitewater- Clintons loose thousands of dollars in a crooked land deal. A convicted perjurer offers to say Bill did something wrong in order to get a reduced sentence.

Travelgate- I don't think I have heard a right-winger provide a coherent accusation on this one. Near as I can tell, some White House staffers were giving people too many free perks and Clinton fired them.

Vince Foster- It was suicide. Deal with it.

And all the time the media was going along with it. They slavered over every cherry-picked, spoon-fed tidbit that Ken Starr illegally leaked out of his office from his massive smear machine, paid for with $40,000,000 of taxpayer money. They went after Clinton like a pack of rabid hyenas.

I am sorry if you misinterpreted my previous statement. Wow, still crazy after all these years.

Let's at least get Whitewater straight.

Whitewater- Funds from a failed savings and loan are illegally funneled into Bill Clinton's campaign. Only 4 people could have been involved. Susan McDougall was given immunity to testify and she refused which put her kiester in jail. Bill Clinton denied it. Hillary Clinton denied it. James McDougall first said Bill didn't know anything and then said he did. Jim had serious credibility problems as did Susan. But Susan refusing to testify was quite telling. All she had to do was tell the truth. She claimed that if she testified that Bill was innocent that she would be put in jail so she preferred to go to jail rather than tell the truth and, well, go to jail.

To date we don't know the truth. There clearly was never enough evidence to take Bill Clinton to court. But we know that Bill Clinton was the only one to benefit from those funds. It's possible that he didn't know. I kind of doubt that.

I don't quite agree with some of your other statements of the other incidents but I don't care enough to correct them.

[fuelair]

May be he was "dead" wrong...though here are some additional Senators who seem to be calling for quick withdrawl from Somalia at least:


GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, speech on the Senate floor October 6, 1993


"I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option. "

GOP Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, speech on the Senate floor, October 6, 1993


"Mr. President, the mission is accomplished in Somalia. The humanitarian aid has been delivered to those who were starving. The mission is not nation building, which is what now is being foisted upon the American people. The United States has no interest in the civil war in Somalia and as this young soldier told me, if the Somalis are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then it is absolutely time that we go home. . . It is time for the Senate of the United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the American troops home."


GOP Minority Leader Sen. Robert Dole, Senate speech, October 5, 1993


"I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with--I do not know how many Members were there--45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close. . . . "

GOP Sen. Jesse Helms, Senate floor speech October 6, 1993:


"All of which means that I support the able Senator from West Virginia--who, by the way, was born in North Carolina--Senator Robert C. Byrd, and others in efforts to bring an end to this tragic situation. The United States did its best to deliver aid and assistance to the victims of chaos in Somalia as promised by George Bush last December.

But now we find ourselves involved there in a brutal war, in an urban environment, with the hands of our young soldiers tied behind their backs, under the command of a cumbersome U.N. bureaucracy, and fighting Somalia because we tried to extend helping hands to the starving people of that far-off land. Mr. President, the United States has no constitutional authority, as I see it, to sacrifice U.S. soldiers to Boutros-Ghali's vision of multilateral peacemaking. Again, I share the view of Senator Byrd that the time to get out is now."

Of course, that is when the GOP was against "nation building" ...

Oooh we have me started again. The idiots sent our troops in with only thin-skins not heavy armor - only a complete idiot sends people into combat (humanitarian my.......)without heavy armor and heavy weapons, Blackhawk down? You send in 15 heavily armed Blackhawks , tell them to only return with enough of it to defend on way back and they take down the buildings and whatever hides in them. Our men, dead, dragged through the streets? Destroy the streets and the buildings around them as a monument. Letter a memorial stone with the blood of the rectums that lead. Little ah local tyrant/leader doesn't follow instructions go in pull him out shoot him in the street, ask who wants to take over for him and make sure they know enough English to follow our instructions. OR, don't bother sending our troops in.

[fuelair]

No comment:
Nothin' wrong with Shrub pdaing with one of his bboys.

[CFLarsen]

I am not very up on photoshopping so don't know if these photos were doctored or not. I recall getting the pix I posted from google images and in searching there again just now found the following:

http://images.google.com/images?q=bush+kissing+abdullah&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images

So, you can't provide a reference to a photo that sure looks photoshopped.

Wow. I sure am glad that I don't have to worry about Claus's obsession with irrelevent details derailing this thread.

It is hardly irrelevant if someone posts photoshopped pictures to support his contention. You may be willing to overlook that (perhaps because I point it out?), but I don't.

[Huntster]

...GOP Sen. Jesse Helms, Senate floor speech October 6, 1993:

"All of which means that I support the able Senator from West Virginia--who, by the way, was born in North Carolina--Senator Robert C. Byrd, and others in efforts to bring an end to this tragic situation....

....But now we find ourselves involved there in a brutal war, in an urban environment, with the hands of our young soldiers tied behind their backs, under the command of a cumbersome U.N. bureaucracy, and fighting Somalia because we tried to extend helping hands to the starving people of that far-off land. Mr. President, the United States has no constitutional authority, as I see it, to sacrifice U.S. soldiers to Boutros-Ghali's vision of multilateral peacemaking. Again, I share the view of Senator Byrd that the time to get out is now."

Of course, that is when the GOP was against "nation building" ... Oooh we have me started again.

Wow. You're started.

Hold the Halls of Congress! Alert Pork-Barrel Byrd! Fuel-Air has been "started."

The idiots sent our troops in with only thin-skins not heavy armor - only a complete idiot sends people into combat (humanitarian my.......)without heavy armor and heavy weapons,

Gee. Ho and General Giap did it. Did it against an army of armor.

Worked, too.

Blackhawk down? You send in 15 heavily armed Blackhawks , tell them to only return with enough of it to defend on way back and they take down the buildings and whatever hides in them. Our men, dead, dragged through the streets? Destroy the streets and the buildings around them as a monument. Letter a memorial stone with the blood of the rectums that lead. Little ah local tyrant/leader doesn't follow instructions go in pull him out shoot him in the street, ask who wants to take over for him and make sure they know enough English to follow our instructions. OR, don't bother sending our troops in.

Before the Blackhawks arrive, how about a good, old fashioned carpet bombing? Napalm, maybe? Or even just that old fashioned HE?

If nobody was left around the LZ, there would be no need to land there, and there would damned sure not be anybody around to shoot our troops up.

[SteveGrenard]

No comment:

I was advised this morning by DARAT that my Post#15 in this thread was edited to remove the picture of President Bush kissing the King of Saudi Arabia on the lips.

This editing was done without explanation in the body of the message leaving only the words "No Comment" which by themselves convey nothing. I might construe that this was a deliberate attempt engineered by a frequent poster here to suppress the official record but I won't do that. I am not allowed to go back and add the URL of a source for the news
photograph(s).

Lest there be any doubt that many of such un-retouched news photos exist, and for the record, I refer readers to the following page full of photographs. You can find many more on the web as well, all taken from different angles and snapped seconds apart in the embrace.

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=Bush+kissing+Abdullah



I trust this Google Images website will not be censored or edited.

While I had no comment before, the reason King Abdullah and the President kiss each other on or near the lips is undoubtedly based on the close relationship between the Bush family + their friends and associates and the millions, maybe billions of dollars in business their associates at Halliburton and subsids and the Caryle Group get from the work they do for ARAMCO. The President's father regularly gets $100,000.00 fees from talks he gives to groups sponsored by the Caryle Group. For the kind of money involved here I am surprised that Dubya was only kissing his lips.

[CFLarsen]

I was advised this morning by DARAT that my Post#15 in this thread was edited to remove the picture of President Bush kissing the King of Saudi Arabia on the lips.

This editing was done without explanation leaving only the words "No Comment" which by themselves convey nothing. I might construe that this was a deliberate attempt engineered by a frequent poster here to suppress the official record but I won't do that.

Don't look at me, Steve. When you cheat, I want it to stay visible to all.

Lest there be any doubt that many of such un-retouched news photos exist, and for the record, I refer readers to the following page full of photographs. You can find many more on the web as well, all taken from different angles and snapped seconds apart in the embrace.

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=Bush+kissing+Abdullah

A google search does not constitute evidence. Where did you get the photo from, Steve?

[WildCat]

Another thread Larsenized™.

[Darth Rotor]

A google search does not constitute evidence. Where did you get the photo from, Steve?
From behind the grassy knoll? :D

DR

[CFLarsen]

It sure looks like it.

[HarryKeogh]

Lest there be any doubt that many of such un-retouched news photos exist, and for the record, I refer readers to the following page full of photographs. You can find many more on the web as well, all taken from different angles and snapped seconds apart in the embrace.

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=Bush+kissing+Abdullah


Steve, if you click on the second photograph on your link you can see that it really appears to be a poor Photoshop job that was probably never even meant to be taken as genuine but intended as poking fun of when they kissed each other on the cheek (where video of that instance actually exists).

[SteveGrenard]

Steve, if you click on the second photograph on your link you can see that it really appears to be a poor Photoshop job that was probably never even meant to be taken as genuine but intended as poking fun of when they kissed each other on the cheek (where video of that instance actually exists).

The source is as given. Not MY link but Google Images. I cannot tell photoshop alterations from none so just offer the link. There are many of these photos floating around and I said in my remarks on or NEAR the lips which includes the cheeks, well the ones on the face anyway.

Bottom line he kissed the Saudi King, held hands with him and then showed him a field of Blue Bonnet wildflowers which could, of course, have been added with paintbox.

[CFLarsen]

The source is as given. Not MY link but Google Images. I cannot tell photoshop alterations from none so just offer the link. There are many of these photos floating around and I said in my remarks on or NEAR the lips which includes the cheeks, well the ones on the face anyway.

Bottom line he kissed the Saudi King, held hands with him and then showed him a field of Blue Bonnet wildflowers which could, of course, have been added with paintbox.

You have not provided a source for the picture in your post #15.

[HarryKeogh]

The source is as given. Not MY link but Google Images. I cannot tell photoshop alterations from none so just offer the link. There are many of these photos floating around and I said in my remarks on or NEAR the lips which includes the cheeks, well the ones on the face anyway.

fair enough.

[Upchurch]

It is hardly irrelevant if someone posts photoshopped pictures to support his contention. You may be willing to overlook that (perhaps because I point it out?), but I don't.
...to support his contention that Bush is schmoozing (or smooching) the Saudi royal family. What does that have anything to do with Clinton's interview, how he handle terrorism during his presidency, or his claims about what the Bush adminstration has or has not done (i.e.: the thread topic)?

Yes, whether or not the photo that Steve posted was faked is, indeed, irrelevent to the topic at hand.

[CFLarsen]

...to support his contention that Bush is schmoozing (or smooching) the Saudi royal family. What does that have anything to do with Clinton's interview, how he handle terrorism during his presidency, or his claims about what the Bush adminstration has or has not done (i.e.: the thread topic)?

Yes, whether or not the photo that Steve posted was faked is, indeed, irrelevent to the topic at hand.

I notice that you don't attack Steve derailing the thread, but instead attack me for pointing out that Steve uses faked evidence.

You need to sort your priorities.

[davefoc]

Keith Olberman had some opinions about the interview:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/42155/#more

[Upchurch]

I notice that you don't attack Steve derailing the thread, but instead attack me for pointing out that Steve uses faked evidence.He made one comment and let it go. You not only questioned the legitimacy of the photograph, but when he presented more photos showing the same thing, you started obsessing about the origins of the original photograph.

Does it really matter? The origin of the first picture does not matter to his argument, when he can provide ample other evidence that still suports his point. I doubt anyone else really questioned the first picture because I'm guessing most of us remembered when the event itself actually happened. The picture itself may have been tongue-in-cheek (so to speak), but we all knew what it was in reference to.

Remember our talk on calls for evidence on irrelevant details as a way to avoid actually discussing something? This would be another example.

You need to sort your priorities.
Oh, you are just the king of irony.

[SteveGrenard]

I was not trying to derail. I believe there was relevance to my original posting of Bush's encounter with King Abdullah because I was clearly supporting the following remark made by Jerry ex Machina in Post#10 in my post #15. The embrace and hand holding and kissing bespoke close family ties beyond what leaders of nations do to greet each other. Has anyone ever seen Bush kiss Tony? Or Pervez? Or Karzai? Now if we could also figure out what Bush's motives for grabbing Merkel were.


One might cynically suppose that Bush's close financial and family ties to the Saudi royal family and to the Bin Laden Group itself - not to mention direct support for Al Qaeda during the cold war on the part of Reagan and his administration - might have mitigated his desire to go after OBL. I won't make that suggestion here, but I'm also willing to take Clinton at his word that he tried to get the guy.


But yes, it was also:

tongue in cheek

......so to speak.

[CFLarsen]

The embrace and hand holding and kissing bespoke close family ties beyond what leaders of nations do to greet each other.

You need to educate yourself.

I'm sure you don't want to talk about the French penchant for kissing, but here are Mitterand and Kohl holding hands. (http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/NeueHerausforderungen_photoKohlUndMitterrand/index.jpg)

You want to turn that into some conspiracy-nut argument, too?

[Jocko]

You want to turn that into some conspiracy-nut argument, too?

Oh, is it his turn now?

[NoZed Avenger]

Well, on the down side, I haven't learned much about the Clinton episode, although I think it was a calculated move -- mainly because Boxer (IIRC) has also attacked Fox during an interview. It looks to me like Clinton was either trying to show the party how he thinks should fight back, or that they've decided to coordinate it ala the attack on Wal-Mart. No real evidence for that, but I don't see Clinton flying off the handle that early or that easily.

On the up side, I did get to see some hot Man-on-Man action.

[pgwenthold]

Quick question: a couple of things I have seen have indicated that Wallace brought him for the interview under the pretense of talking about that Clinton Global Initiative (I think that is what it is) and then brought up 9/11 instead. Is that correct? Is that the basis for calling it an ambush?

[NoZed Avenger]

Quick question: a couple of things I have seen have indicated that Wallace brought him for the interview under the pretense of talking about that Clinton Global Initiative (I think that is what it is) and then brought up 9/11 instead. Is that correct? Is that the basis for calling it an ambush?

I have only seen third party accounts, but my understanding from them was that Wallace agreed to spend half the time on the CGI, and half on anything else.

[Huntster]

I think Clinton is really frustrated with the accusations that he didn't do enough to catch or kill Bin Laden. There was a questionable docu-drama made by an industry that he probably felt was friendly towards him, and now people are talking.

While his administration did indeed fail to actually capture or kill him prior to 9/11, I again opine that it was classic bureacratic bumbling at several levels that caused that failure, he was probably just as frustrated with the situation then, and 9/11 changed priorities.

While he's certainly not my hero, I feel he's getting something of a bad rap here, and without a doubt the more people play these stupid partisan political games, the more we all fail collectively.

Unfortunately, since we are moving closer towards the presidential campaign season, this crap will get much worse before it gets better.

[Ziggurat]

I have only seen third party accounts, but my understanding from them was that Wallace agreed to spend half the time on the CGI, and half on anything else.

Clinton's got no beef on that point. He's the one who wouldn't shut up on the topic, he could have made a one-sentence reply and Wallace probably would have moved on. And isn't it GCI (global competitiveness initiative), not CGI?

[fuelair]

I was advised this morning by DARAT that my Post#15 in this thread was edited to remove the picture of President Bush kissing the King of Saudi Arabia on the lips.

This editing was done without explanation in the body of the message leaving only the words "No Comment" which by themselves convey nothing. I might construe that this was a deliberate attempt engineered by a frequent poster here to suppress the official record but I won't do that. I am not allowed to go back and add the URL of a source for the news
photograph(s).

Lest there be any doubt that many of such un-retouched news photos exist, and for the record, I refer readers to the following page full of photographs. You can find many more on the web as well, all taken from different angles and snapped seconds apart in the embrace.

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=Bush+kissing+Abdullah



I trust this Google Images website will not be censored or edited.

While I had no comment before, the reason King Abdullah and the President kiss each other on or near the lips is undoubtedly based on the close relationship between the Bush family + their friends and associates and the millions, maybe billions of dollars in business their associates at Halliburton and subsids and the Caryle Group get from the work they do for ARAMCO. The President's father regularly gets $100,000.00 fees from talks he gives to groups sponsored by the Caryle Group. For the kind of money involved here I am surprised that Dubya was only kissing his lips.

Thanks, got it, saved it, transfering to a stored file shortly!!!:D :D

[SteveGrenard]

Thanks, got it, saved it, transfering to a stored file shortly!!!



A new thread has been started on worldwide kissing and hand holding etiquette.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64870

[Random]

Clinton's got no beef on that point. He's the one who wouldn't shut up on the topic, he could have made a one-sentence reply and Wallace probably would have moved on. And isn't it GCI (global competitiveness initiative), not CGI?

Well, I don't think a one sentence reply would have sufficed. It was one of those "When did you stop beating your wife" questions carefully crafted to box Clinton in verbally. "Why didn't you do more to get BinLaden?" IIRC.

[monkey]

And isn't it GCI (global competitiveness initiative), not CGI?

Clinton Global Initiative

[Ziggurat]

Well, I don't think a one sentence reply would have sufficed. It was one of those "When did you stop beating your wife" questions carefully crafted to box Clinton in verbally. "Why didn't you do more to get BinLaden?" IIRC.

I'm sorry, but those questions simply aren't equivalent, and your effort to paint the latter as the same as the former is pathetic. The former question presupposes some particular action which (generally speaking) didn't take place. If it did not, then the question is illogical, and no answer can suffice. The only thing the latter question assumes is that Clinton did SOMETHING to try to get Bin Laden - which, I think you'll concede, is both true AND is what Clinton wants us to believe. It is therefore not illogical in the least, REGARDLESS of what the answer might be (including the possible answer that there was nothing more that could have been done). And there are indeed answers which can suffice.

And I'll give you a one-sentence response that would have been sufficient:
"We faced a wide variety of threats to our security, and we tried to respond appropriately to all of them, but it's only in hindsight that we can know that we did not prioritize this particular threat sufficiently."
See? That's all it takes.

[daredelvis]

I'm sorry, but those questions simply aren't equivalent, and your effort to paint the latter as the same as the former is pathetic. The former question presupposes some particular action which (generally speaking) didn't take place. If it did not, then the question is illogical, and no answer can suffice. The only thing the latter question assumes is that Clinton did SOMETHING to try to get Bin Laden - which, I think you'll concede, is both true AND is what Clinton wants us to believe. It is therefore not illogical in the least, REGARDLESS of what the answer might be (including the possible answer that there was nothing more that could have been done). And there are indeed answers which can suffice.




Spin, spin, spin. They are equivalent.

Daredelvis

[SkeptiKilt]

It looks to me like Clinton was either trying to show the party how he thinks should fight back, or that they've decided to coordinate it ala the attack on Wal-Mart. No real evidence for that, but I don't see Clinton flying off the handle that early or that easily.


And maybe it was the honest reaction of someone whom the Kool-Aid drinkers have blamed for the deaths of 3000 Americans for the last five years. Wallace's lead-in, that his viewer e-mails were making him ask the question, is the classic Fox "Some people say . . ." technique. That weasel phrase is a hallmark of the faux journalism which they have raised to something resembling an art form.

By the way, if you think Clinton's demeanor was "flying off the handle," you should spend the holidays with my in-laws.:explode

[Jocko]

And maybe it was the honest reaction of someone whom the Kool-Aid drinkers have blamed for the deaths of 3000 Americans for the last five years. Wallace's lead-in, that his viewer e-mails were making him ask the question, is the classic Fox "Some people say . . ." technique. That weasel phrase is a hallmark of the faux journalism which they have raised to something resembling an art form.

I'm saying it. What amuses me is that of the two people sitting down, you accuse the interviewer of being the weasel.

If Clinton's rebuttals had contained an ounce of truth, maybe we'd be talking about how he was right as opposed to how he was childish. But we're not, because he didn't. Speaking of weasels.... sheesh.

[CFLarsen]

If Clinton's rebuttals had contained an ounce of truth

List all the lies.

[Ziggurat]

Spin, spin, spin. They are equivalent.

No, they really aren't. Even Clinton himself admitted that the question ITSELF was legitimate, whereas the one given by Random is not. I'm afraid you and Random are the ones spinning on that count. And rather pathetically so.

[Dorian Gray]

Saying Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden but failed is like me going out the the corn field, throwing a rock into the rows, then going back to the house saying "I tried to kill the rabbit, but I failed."What about Bush? He threw a little pebble into the corn field, then forgot about it and threw a boulder in a field a couple of miles down the road.

[Upchurch]

A little late, but here is FactCheck.org's analysis (http://www.factcheck.org/article444.html).

eta: They more or less back Clinton on most of his points.

[Darth Rotor]

What about Bush? He threw a little pebble into the corn field, then forgot about it and threw a boulder in a field a couple of miles down the road.
He killed a bunch of gophers. We expect to hear on the Bush White House tape transcripts, between the 18 minute gaps and VP Cheney's ribaldry, the following words intoned by Pres GW Bush:

"In the words of Jean Paul Sartre, au revoir, gophair!"

DR

[NoZed Avenger]

And maybe it was the honest reaction of someone whom the Kool-Aid drinkers have blamed for the deaths of 3000 Americans for the last five years. Wallace's lead-in, that his viewer e-mails were making him ask the question, is the classic Fox "Some people say . . ." technique. That weasel phrase is a hallmark of the faux journalism which they have raised to something resembling an art form.

By the way, if you think Clinton's demeanor was "flying off the handle," you should spend the holidays with my in-laws.:explode

I don't see Clinton losing his cool that easily -- and he would be well prepared for exactly that type of question, which is pretty easily dealt with:

"We did a lot. With the benefit of hindsight, we did not do enough. I think the Administrations under the former President Bush, the current one, and even Ronald Reagan would say the same. Reasonable decisions were made based on the information that we had at the time; later evidence showed that we could have done more -- but laying the blame for this on any adminstration prior to 9/11 is more of a political blame-game that a real criticism."

etc.

My opinion -- and I stated up front that it is only my opinion -- is that he intended to become aggressive and react that way for a calculated purpose.

[Tricky]

A little late, but here is FactCheck.org's analysis (http://www.factcheck.org/article444.html).

eta: They more or less back Clinton on most of his points.
They also state plainly (as opposed to "more or less") that Rice's response was false.

Good site, Funky. Thanks.

[Upchurch]

They also state plainly (as opposed to "more or less") that Rice's response was false.
Well, yes. There is that aspect to the article, too. I thought about cross-posting it in the "Rice refutes Clinton" thread (or whatever it was called), but I figure 90% of the article focused on what Clinton said.

[SkeptiKilt]

When will folks learn that "contradict" =/= "refute" ?