OT Clinton on Fox

marky · Post by **marky** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:42 am

Sorry for another OT post but I really think it's great to see Clinton biting back again. The Fox interviewer didn't know what had hit him, you can see how nervous he looked even as he asked the question...

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/fox_fns_clinton_.mov

Fuckin Fox cunts...

- Mark

marky · Post by **marky** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:47 am

"I set off on a tear because you people ask me questions you don't ask the other side !"

subterFUSE · Post by **subterFUSE** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 2:19 am

Bill Clinton said he passed a "comprehensive terrorism plan" over to the Bush admin when they transferred power. But Richard Clarke directly contradicted that. And Clinton cites Richard Clarke as the primary authority on his record on terrorism.

DeadlyKungFu · Post by **DeadlyKungFu** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 2:22 am

it's just great to hear Clinton's voice, an eloquent person who says things like "democracy isn't just about majority rule, it's about protecting the rights of the minority"

interesting bit of history.

just for you FUSE I'm going to read that book. you read it or heard that it contradicts the statement?

/all respect.

subterFUSE · Post by **subterFUSE** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 2:30 am

DeadlyKungFu wrote:it's just great to hear Clinton's voice, an eloquent person who says things like "democracy isn't just about majority rule, it's about protecting the rights of the minority"

interesting bit of history.

just for you FUSE I'm going to read that book. you read it or heard that it contradicts the statement?

/all respect.

It's from the 9/11 Commission Report. Clarke said that no terrorism plan was passed from Clinton to Bush. Condoleeza Rice was also saying this today, in response to the Clinton TV Interview.

DeadlyKungFu · Post by **DeadlyKungFu** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:20 am

sheesh!!

12micsn1 · Post by **12micsn1** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:30 am

DeadlyKungFu wrote:it's just great to hear Clinton's voice, an eloquent person who says things like "democracy isn't just about majority rule, it's about protecting the rights of the minority"

interesting bit of history.

just for you FUSE I'm going to read that book. you read it or heard that it contradicts the statement?

/all respect.

One thing i notice about Bill Clinton an all Democrats when they dont have the hearts and minds of the people to go to the VICTIMHOOD playbook whenever theyre not winning to claim a vast RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY. As soon as Victmhood BS act start i knew CLINTON was up to something far more sinister such as using the BIG LIE again. That BIG LIE is AMERICA is not a RIGHTWING COUNTRY an theres overwelminging evidence to support this. America can expect more shannadigans like this soon before the elections. The dirty filthy bastards are so full of it!!!!!!!!!

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:23 am

subterFUSE wrote:
DeadlyKungFu wrote:it's just great to hear Clinton's voice, an eloquent person who says things like "democracy isn't just about majority rule, it's about protecting the rights of the minority"

interesting bit of history.

just for you FUSE I'm going to read that book. you read it or heard that it contradicts the statement?

/all respect.

It's from the 9/11 Commission Report. Clarke said that no terrorism plan was passed from Clinton to Bush. Condoleeza Rice was also saying this today, in response to the Clinton TV Interview.

There was at least a long conversation between Bush and Clinton about the terrorist threat, that's well documented.
It's all total BS though, Clinton as a Democrat was capable of passing NAFTA, the public would have been up in arms if a republican passed such a bill, Nixon as a republican was capable of making trade agreements with China, republicans would have been up in arms if a democrat had made such agreements.

We are being played.

aqua_tek · Post by **aqua_tek** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:43 am

clinton is the man!

better than old bushy boy by far, that's for sure

subterFUSE · Post by **subterFUSE** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:48 am

Machinesworking wrote:
subterFUSE wrote:
DeadlyKungFu wrote:it's just great to hear Clinton's voice, an eloquent person who says things like "democracy isn't just about majority rule, it's about protecting the rights of the minority"

interesting bit of history.

just for you FUSE I'm going to read that book. you read it or heard that it contradicts the statement?

/all respect.

It's from the 9/11 Commission Report. Clarke said that no terrorism plan was passed from Clinton to Bush. Condoleeza Rice was also saying this today, in response to the Clinton TV Interview.
There was at least a long conversation between Bush and Clinton about the terrorist threat, that's well documented.
It's all total BS though, Clinton as a Democrat was capable of passing NAFTA, the public would have been up in arms if a republican passed such a bill, Nixon as a republican was capable of making trade agreements with China, republicans would have been up in arms if a democrat had made such agreements.

We are being played.

A conversation is not the same thing as a "comprehensive terrorism plan" as Clinton claims in that interview. He even elaborates and claims to have had battle-plans. And he says to just read Richard Clarke's book... it's all there. Yet Richard Clarke specifically said that no such "plan" was passed from admin to admin.

Clinton is known through inner-circles to have a red-hot temper. We saw one of his little moments there. We saw one when he said he had no sexual relation with "that woman." Frankly, I think the degree of rage increases with the level of truth of the claims against him.

I was watching Dick Morris (who was Bill Clinton's "Karl Rove") on TV tonight. He was saying that the reason Clinton didn't kill Bin Laden when they had the intelligence on his location, was because he was afraid that everyone would cry "Wag the Dog." It was during the Monica Lewinsky fiasco. I believe it. I think nobody considered terrorism as much more than a law enforcement matter, and Clinton sincerely worried that if he ordered a strike against Bin Laden everyone would react that way.

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:26 am

subterFUSE wrote:A conversation is not the same thing as a "comprehensive terrorism plan" as Clinton claims in that interview. He even elaborates and claims to have had battle-plans. And he says to just read Richard Clarke's book... it's all there. Yet Richard Clarke specifically said that no such "plan" was passed from admin to admin.

In his book, or as a question posed by the 911 commission? Wouldn't be the first time that people contradict themselves, or the question's wording make's themselves sound contradictory. In other words, are you saying that because you have read/heard that the 911 commission report states that? or because you read/heard that the man's book states/doesn't state that?

Clinton is known through inner-circles to have a red-hot temper. We saw one of his little moments there. We saw one when he said he had no sexual relation with "that woman." Frankly, I think the degree of rage increases with the level of truth of the claims against him.

That doesn't make any sense? Somebody you obviously do not care for gets upset and you say that it's a character flaw, yet there are plenty of right wing hot tampered pundits out there. Hell? George Bush Sr. seriously lost it at a reporter when asked about Iran Contra, because he wasn't told that was what the interview would be about, sounds similar doesn't it?. Does that make him guilty? or just tired of being manipulated by the media for their own ratings etc.

I was watching Dick Morris (who was Bill Clinton's "Karl Rove") on TV tonight. He was saying that the reason Clinton didn't kill Bin Laden when they had the intelligence on his location, was because he was afraid that everyone would cry "Wag the Dog." It was during the Monica Lewinsky fiasco. I believe it. I think nobody considered terrorism as much more than a law enforcement matter, and Clinton sincerely worried that if he ordered a strike against Bin Laden everyone would react that way.

That says more about the sad state of our political system than it does about Clinton. Personally, I thought it was stupid they went after him about that, and it was lame he didn't hit something a little more classy than Lewinsky.

Also, I still believe terrorism is more of a law enforcement matter. We can't possibly bomb and attack every country and region with people in it who don't like us, we have to worry more about the hearts and minds of the people as a whole. England and the IRA is a good example. England won through attrition, and improving the standard of living in occupied Ireland. .

Electix88 · Post by **Electix88** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:57 am

aqua_tek wrote:clinton is the man!

better than old bushy boy by far, that's for sure

Yeah, and Clinton can play the sax, can you imagine Bush trying to play an instrument....perhaps the nose flute.

DeadlyKungFu · Post by **DeadlyKungFu** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:00 am

Electix88 wrote:
aqua_tek wrote:clinton is the man!

better than old bushy boy by far, that's for sure
Yeah, and Clinton can play the sax, can you imagine Bush trying to play an instrument....perhaps the nose flute.

skin flute

glu · Post by **glu** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:14 am

other way around

DeadlyKungFu · Post by **DeadlyKungFu** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:17 am