The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Bill Clinton sets the record straight, and totally shreds Chris Wallace, during an appearance on Fox News. Watch the carnage here.

We all know Clinton is a good liar. He can say anything he wants but I will not believe it. With that being said, the media needs to focus on the present and future to try and fix mistakes in the past. I doubt that will happen as long as human beings are involved but an effort can be made to move on.

Clinton lies. He's a known liar. He's admitted to lying in court. Now he wants you to believe him and you do??

I didn't see Clinton "shred" anyone. I saw him blustering and babbling and getting defensive because some much-needed scrutiny is now finally being applied to his administration's failures to fight terrorism and capture OBL when he had the chance.

Clinton lied about doing everything he could. Clinton did next to nothing to catch OBL. He had at least 7 years to do so and refused on multiple occasions to "ok" the grab of OBL and bring him to justice. He thinks a few missiles to blow up camels and an aspirin factory is the much needed response to the first WTC bombing, the Cole attack, the embassy bombings,etc...??? And he did all he could???

Must be another one of those things where he imagined it happened and now he thinks its real and can't believe why anyone would doubt him since...you know...he's Bill Clinton. Much like him remembering seeing the black churches burning in his neighborhood and state as a child even though the historical record showed none burned there during that time-frame. But...he's Bill Clinton, so how dare you question his veracity??

Here's one of his "whoppers" with Chris...

Bill: OK, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaida was a growing concern in October of ‘93.

Not a living soul?? Really ???

His own Justice Department indicted OBL and Al Qaeda's military commander, Mohammed Atef, on Nov. 4, 1998, for conspiring to kill Americans. PBS (definitely not right-wing friendly wouldn't ya say??) has the information here...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/readings/indictment.html

So even if they didn't get around to actually legally "indicting" him until '98 they still knew who did it well ahead of that time. Additionally, he had 2 years to go after him after the indictment.

Clinton mentions Richard Clarke's book a bunch of times. While Clarke is obviously in Clinton's camp (he's no Bush supporter) and his views on Clinton are biased to a pro-clinton viewpoint, his book still doesn't get Clinton off the hook. Read Clarke's book and you'll see that the ball was in court numerous times and Clinton never mustered the will to decisively act and tell certain organizations and military leaders to get the job done. Even though those elements fall under his authority.

He had 7 years to do something. He failed to do it. And now he wants to complain that the others didn't stop the attacks in 8 months when he failed to do anything in 7 years?? Thats just BS.

Methinks he doth protest too much...

thaiphoon wrote:Here's one of his "whoppers" with Chris...

Bill: OK, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaida was a growing concern in October of ‘93.

Not a living soul?? Really ???

His own Justice Department indicted OBL and Al Qaeda's military commander, Mohammed Atef, on Nov. 4, 1998, for conspiring to kill Americans. PBS (definitely not right-wing friendly wouldn't ya say??) has the information here...

Dude, if you can't tell the difference between 1993 and 1998, then you have no business operating as a member of general society, and instead should be in a home for the mentally incapacitated.

Tell me cville... how does someone being in a 'home for the mentally incapacitated' relate to the post as opposed to the poster?

... because otherwise, I'd say we construe that a a personal attack and don't allow such things. If you want to attack a person's mental abilities, then please take it to Smack.

Thanks.

As a person of limited mental capacity, I am deeply offended as well.
Who is Chris Wallace?

He had 7 years to do something. He failed to do it. And now he wants to complain that the others didn't stop the attacks in 8 months when he failed to do anything in 7 years?? Thats just BS.

Let him complain!!! I'm complaining about it! If Bush had read the darn security report that was presented to him in August while he was on vacation 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened! But he was to busy to care about America while he was on vacation. As if that wasn't enough, A month later he was to scared to get out of his seat while a plane was inbound for our nations capital!

JSPB22 wrote:Bill Clinton sets the record straight, and totally shreds Chris Wallace, during an appearance on Fox News. Watch the carnage here.

Hmm. . .one corrupt former politician that is still politically powerful critiques another corrupt politician. . .and takes on a talking-head, neocon, mainstream reporter.

. . .and so the great chess match between two parties that are mostly the same continues. . .

Irn-Bru wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:Bill Clinton sets the record straight, and totally shreds Chris Wallace, during an appearance on Fox News. Watch the carnage here.

Hmm. . .one corrupt former politician that is still politically powerful critiques another corrupt politician. . .and takes on a talking-head, neocon, mainstream reporter.

. . .and so the great chess match between two parties that are mostly the same continues. . .

I feel like he did a little more than that (ie pointing out the ongoing disinformation campaign, rewriting of history, biased questions asked only of one side in the debate, and that the same people who criticized him as President for doing too much, are now criticizing him for having done too little). As he repeatedly points out, he failed in his attempts to kill or capture OBL, but at least he tried. I also found it quite enjoyable that, after Wallace had insisted that he be allowed to complete his question, Clinton insisted that he be allowed to answer, despite Wallace's constant attempts to divert him to another subject. As for your last sentence, I couldn't agree more. Divide and conquer.

Irn-Bru wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:Bill Clinton sets the record straight, and totally shreds Chris Wallace, during an appearance on Fox News. Watch the carnage here.

Hmm. . .one corrupt former politician that is still politically powerful critiques another corrupt politician. . .and takes on a talking-head, neocon, mainstream reporter.

. . .and so the great chess match between two parties that are mostly the same continues. . .

Best non-football post of the week.

admin wrote:Tell me cville... how does someone being in a 'home for the mentally incapacitated' relate to the post as opposed to the poster?

... because otherwise, I'd say we construe that a a personal attack and don't allow such things. If you want to attack a person's mental abilities, then please take it to Smack.

Thanks.

Sorry. *Leaves thread with tail between his legs...*

Yes, but what has all this got to do with Mark Brunell?

Nothing at all?

OK, sorry, I'm in the wrong thread.

But, while I'm here, accusing any politician of lying really is a pointless exercise. It's best to assume that they're all lying, all the time. Then just judge them on their actions, or lack of action.

Cville wrote:

Dude, if you can't tell the difference between 1993 and 1998, then you have no business operating as a member of general society, and instead should be in a home for the mentally incapacitated.

Ok - here goes...did you see the part where I said they knew who did it before the indictment? Apparently you didn't. There's a far cry from getting ever "i" dotted for an indictment and having enough intelligencxe data to know who was responsible.

Here's a little tidbit to help you out since you've missed the point;

Lexis-Nexis, in 1994:

Associated Press Worldstream
August 24, 1994; Wednesday 16:40 Eastern Time


SECTION: International news

LENGTH: 311 words

HEADLINE: Alleged Islamic Terrorist Chief May Have Fled Sudan

DATELINE: MANAMA, Bahrain

BODY:
A reported leader of Islamic terrorists, Osama Bin Laden, may have left his exile in Sudan, a newspaper reported Wednesday.

Bin Laden, a Saudi Arabian of Yemeni descent, was headed to London, reported Al-Khaleej, which is based in Sharjah, part of the United Arab Emirates...

...Bin Laden was a confidant and a bankroller of Sheik Hassan al-Turabi, Sudan's leading fundamentalist and the real power behind the country's government.

His family originally came from southern Yemen, and emigrated decades ago to Saudi Arabia where they amassed a fortune from the construction business and became one of the country's wealthiest families.

Bin Laden reportedly has used his family's wealth to finance a number of extremist Islamic organizations.

He has been cited in Yemen as the leader of fundamentalist terrorists who bombed two hotels in Aden in December 1992 in which two Austrian tourists were killed.

The bombings narrowly missed 100 U.S. servicemen en route to Somalia for Operation Restore Hope.

So as early as 1994 the MEDIA knew OBL was targeting U.S civilians and servicemembers. It is not outside the realm of possibility to assume that our intelligence services knew about it as well.

Even assuming - magically- that Bill knew only from that indictment, he still had 2 years to do something. Bush had only a few months to do anything about the growing threat that could've been stopped cold many years before.

Let him complain!!! I'm complaining about it! If Bush had read the darn security report that was presented to him in August while he was on vacation 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened! But he was to busy to care about America while he was on vacation. As if that wasn't enough, A month later he was to scared to get out of his seat while a plane was inbound for our nations capital!

Gee a non-specific report only weeks before the attack and you expect it to magically be stopped? couple that with the "wall" that was erected during the Clinton presidency and his failure on at least 8 times to get OBL and I'd say that, while there's blame to be spread around, that we better be sure about dividing it up correctly.

JSPB22 wrote:

I feel like he did a little more than that (ie pointing out the ongoing disinformation campaign, rewriting of history, biased questions asked only of one side in the debate, and that the same people who criticized him as President for doing too much, are now criticizing him for having done too little).

The only rewriting of history has been the constant attempts to lay 9/11 solely at the feet of the current administration. Bill has not been asked enough of these questions. Former Presidents are supposed to go away after they leave office. Instead he interjects himself time and again as a "foreign policy expert"
Since he is doing so, his record is fair game for tough questions. But on his recent MSM tour he gets questions like Larry King " How is your health", etc... etc...

The criticism had to do with what and how he was doing. His administration knew who was responsible and instead treated it like they were prearing an indictment of a small-time crook. They didn't focus enough on the regimes who let him havesafe-haven. There's a ton of reasons why the criticism is valid my friend.

Additionally there were lots of Republicans who supported him when he did the right thing vis-a-vis our foreign policy (missile strikes, Yugoslavia,etc..). The GOP Senate Majority Leader Lott and Speaker of the House Gingrich, and most Republicans generally, praised the (long overdo, intentionally weak) attack (missiles).Yes there were some that didn't, but nowhere near the almost unanimous opposition from Dems that Bush faces today. So what is Clinton's excuse for not being a serious President and taking up the fight??

As he repeatedly points out, he failed in his attempts to kill or capture OBL, but at least he tried.

Actually this is not true. According to his own book My Life he said that after the bombing of the USS Cole he considered a "large-scale bombing campaign of all suspected [terrorist] campsites or a sizeable invasion" of Afghanistan where thousands of terrorists were being trained – this was known to Clinton and his deputies. But he decided "neither was feasible without a finding of al Qaeda responsibility for the Cole" bombing. What about the embassy bombings two years before??? And the WTC bombings in 1993?? Could he not see who was responsible then?? Didn't anyone put together who was responsible for the bombings?? As always its one excuse after another about why he could not do anything. BTW that book is 957 pages long. Al-Qaeda is not mention until page 797. And there's no serious discussion about terrorism or terrorists getting themselvs a nuclear weapon. One would think that for a guy who was supposedly focused like a laser beam on al-Qaeda and terrorism (as his apologists argue) that this would've been included in his book. No ??

Also, Osama’s been on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list for his role in the embassy bombings since June 1999. Still 1.5 years to do something from that posting (and we know that they had OBL as responsible YEARS before that).

I also found it quite enjoyable that, after Wallace had insisted that he be allowed to complete his question, Clinton insisted that he be allowed to answer, despite Wallace's constant attempts to divert him to another subject.

What I found funny is that Clinton was the one who set up the question with his little stroll down I-LOVE-ME-YOU-SHOULD-LOVE-ME-TOO-BECAUSE-I"M-BILL-CLINTON lane.

From the interview:

WALLACE: How do you rate, compare the powers of being in office as president and what you can do out of office as a former president?

CLINTON: Well, when you are president, you can operate on a much broader scope. So, for example, you can simultaneously be trying to stop a genocide in Kosovo and, you know, make peace in the Middle East, pass a budget that gives millions of kids a chance to have afterschool programs and has a huge increase in college aid at home. In other words, you've got a lot of different moving parts, and you can move them all at once.

It was Clinton who talked about all the great deeds he did and how he could move all these parts at once. Wallace merely asked a simple question about why he wasn't more assertive with some of those "parts".

He had;

1.) 8 years to confront Islamic extremism
2.) 4 years to address Bin Laden’s declaration of war on the U.S.
3.) 2.5 years to respond to the embassy bombings,
4.) 1.5 years to do anything after the 10 most wanted list was posted

Yet somehow Bush had “three times” as long as Clinton did to get him?? And Billie wants to be absolved of any culpability in letting OBL and Al-Qaeda grow into a threat until too late??

Another funny thing I took away from the interview -> The “entire military” was against using special forces to go in and get Bin Laden thereby rendering Clinton powerless?? I guess this is the truth since you know it came from Bill Clinton. It must be one of those Constitutional Commander-in-Chief powers he cannot use because the "entire military" was against it.

Another thing I take away; Wallace asks tough questions of his guests regardless of which party they belong to. Yet Clinton tries to browbeat him and acts with all the dignity of a drag-queen who just got "her" wig puleld off.

Seconf to last point -> as I've pointed out, Clarke's own book is pro-Clinton. And Clinton mentions it over 10 times in his diatribe, yet there's time and again in clarke's book of how the President did not forcefully act or force the intelligence community and other "moving parts" to aggressively act when he could have done so and had time to do it.

Sorry my friend. We had 8 years of an unserious teenager as President, when we needed a serious adult at the helm. As a result a threat developed to the point where it would be hard to stop when it could've been easier to stop it at its genesis.

As I said before there's lots of blame to go around. Bill and his apologists are just pissed that the finger is finally coming around to them (5 years too late). They deserve a good share of the blame as well so IMHO the current spotlight is long overdue.

Finally - I admire Wallace for his composure during the interview. Had it been me that he was poking and poking at, he'd have to have that finger and the hand it was attached to surgically removed from his a$$.

thaiphoon wrote:Here's one of his "whoppers" with Chris...

Bill: OK, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaida was a growing concern in October of ‘93.

Not a living soul?? Really ???

Anyone remember the Iran-Contra Hearings....A friend of mine sent me this the other day!

At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration.

There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!

He was being drilled by a senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?"

Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir."

The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't that just a little excessive?"

"No, sir," continued Ollie.

"No? And why not?" the senator asked.

"Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir."

"Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.

"By a terrorist, sir" Ollie answered.

"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"

"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir" Ollie replied.

At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked.

"Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of", Ollie answered.

"And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator.

"Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."

The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.


By the way, that senator was Al Gore!

That was a little before 1993? Not that anyone expect that his reach would become so broad....not anyone except Oliver North that is.

BTW, I don't have a link....Look up the transcripts if you are that interested.

thaiphoon wrote:

Let him complain!!! I'm complaining about it! If Bush had read the darn security report that was presented to him in August while he was on vacation 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened! But he was to busy to care about America while he was on vacation. As if that wasn't enough, A month later he was to scared to get out of his seat while a plane was inbound for our nations capital!

Gee a non-specific report only weeks before the attack and you expect it to magically be stopped? couple that with the "wall" that was erected during the Clinton presidency and his failure on at least 8 times to get OBL and I'd say that, while there's blame to be spread around, that we better be sure about dividing it up correctly.

Dude!!! It was just the title that was non specific! Thats why he didn't read it! And magically stopped? All I ask for is the President to read it! Is that to much to ask for?

thaiphoon wrote:Cville wrote:

Dude, if you can't tell the difference between 1993 and 1998, then you have no business operating as a member of general society, and instead should be in a home for the mentally incapacitated.

Ok - here goes...did you see the part where I said they knew who did it before the indictment? Apparently you didn't. There's a far cry from getting ever "i" dotted for an indictment and having enough intelligencxe data to know who was responsible.

Here's a little tidbit to help you out since you've missed the point;

Lexis-Nexis, in 1994:

Associated Press Worldstream
August 24, 1994; Wednesday 16:40 Eastern Time


SECTION: International news

LENGTH: 311 words

HEADLINE: Alleged Islamic Terrorist Chief May Have Fled Sudan

DATELINE: MANAMA, Bahrain

BODY:
A reported leader of Islamic terrorists, Osama Bin Laden, may have left his exile in Sudan, a newspaper reported Wednesday.

Bin Laden, a Saudi Arabian of Yemeni descent, was headed to London, reported Al-Khaleej, which is based in Sharjah, part of the United Arab Emirates...

...Bin Laden was a confidant and a bankroller of Sheik Hassan al-Turabi, Sudan's leading fundamentalist and the real power behind the country's government.

His family originally came from southern Yemen, and emigrated decades ago to Saudi Arabia where they amassed a fortune from the construction business and became one of the country's wealthiest families.

Bin Laden reportedly has used his family's wealth to finance a number of extremist Islamic organizations.

He has been cited in Yemen as the leader of fundamentalist terrorists who bombed two hotels in Aden in December 1992 in which two Austrian tourists were killed.

The bombings narrowly missed 100 U.S. servicemen en route to Somalia for Operation Restore Hope.

So as early as 1994 the MEDIA knew OBL was targeting U.S civilians and servicemembers. It is not outside the realm of possibility to assume that our intelligence services knew about it as well.

Even assuming - magically- that Bill knew only from that indictment, he still had 2 years to do something. Bush had only a few months to do anything about the growing threat that could've been stopped cold many years before.

That republican biased crap doesn't contradict what Clinton said about Somalia! What are you talking about? Clinton specifically said 1993! Not August of 1994!

It sure is sad there are still people out there that find it worse to lie about one's sex life than lying about, well....what hasn't Bush lied about?

http://goofyblog.net/olbermanns-comment ... f-clinton/

Maybe Faux News should go back to trying to descredit our American War Heroes.

Dude!!! It was just the title that was non specific! Thats why he didn't read it! And magically stopped? All I ask for is the President to read it! Is that to much to ask for?

The intelligence dated back to 1997. Clinton received this PDB as well. Clinton would not do so. Bush's policy was one of rapid elimination of al-Qaeda not the 5-year gradual rollback that Clarke references in his book. Additionally, please share with me the "specifics" of that PDB that you refer to.

ATV wrote:It sure is sad there are still people out there that find it worse to lie about one's sex life than lying about, well....what hasn't Bush lied about?

If you are going to make that assertion why don't you take it all the way? What is it that he has lied about? Seriously.

That republican biased crap doesn't contradict what Clinton said about Somalia! What are you talking about? Clinton specifically said 1993! Not August of 1994!

Wrong again...Billie was not only talking about Somalia but he was talking about the rest of his Presidency in general. My points still stand.

Here's a clue for you... there were media reports in the Associated Press tying bin Laden to the attacks as early as August 1994. Now I understand we had a pretty feckless CIA since the 70's and there were budget implications but it doesn't strain credulity to beleive that the CIA knew who was responsible before the ASSOCIATED PRESS did !!! Especially since Lexis-Nexis had the connection in 1994 !!!

I'll say again...

1.) 8 years to confront Islamic extremism
2.) 4 years to address Bin Laden’s declaration of war on the U.S.
3.) 2.5 years to respond to the embassy bombings,
4.) 1.5 years to do anything after the 10 most wanted list was posted

And yet nothing was done...

Like I said there's blame to go around aplenty. The real surprise is that not one other interviewer asked him anything about the pre 9/11 failures (it was a timely question after all). Wallace asked a mild question compared to some of the questions he's asked his Republican guests and Bill Clinton went into a 8-year old girl's hissy-fit. clinton likes to bully reporters into cowing before him. Good for Chris to run with it and since he wouldn't go back and let Chris ask questions about his Global Initiative Chris went with it and stayed with him.

I guess this is what the Loony Left means by Dems "fighting back"? Tough enough to take on an interviewer but not tough enough to make the serious decisions when he had the chance. <shrugs>

Like I said before. Had it been me, he'd be needing help holding his utensils by now

It sure is sad there are still people out there that find it worse to lie about one's sex life than lying about, well....what hasn't Bush lied about?

Draw a distinction between lying under oath and having one branch of the government impeding on the procedings of an equal branch of government (Clinton) and someone relying on intelligence provided by professionals(Bush).

For the record... and I want it made perfectly clear. I did not bring Monica up. You did.

As for Olberman. He was one of the interviewers fawning all over Clinton. The only thing he was missing was he wasn't wearing a blue dress.

I also find it very sad that there are still people that believe Faux News is NOT a propaganda machine and that their (as well as the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Nazi Ann Coulter, etc.) interpretation of events is more credible than the words our chief of counter-terrorism.

http://goofyblog.net/fox-news-spins-and ... interview/

I also find it very sad that there are still people that believe Faux News is NOT a propaganda machine and that their (as well as the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Nazi Ann Coulter, etc.) interpretation of events is more credible than the words our chief of counter-terrorism.

I'll give you Limbaugh and Coulter Clinton was wrong and Wallace was right. Wallace asks tough questions of pretty much everyone he interviews. Why should billie get a pass because everyone else fawns all over him (Meredit viera's questions sounded like a H.S. girl giggling while talkign to the star QB on her H.S. team).

But whats even sadder is those who still believe the NYTimes, LATImes, WashingtonPost, Time, Newsweek and all three major networks are not house organs for the DNC and buy any story and poll and headline they produce for public consumption without analyzing it critically.

BTW- Which chief of counter-terrorism are you referring to? Richard Clarke? We've had more than one in our country's existence so please be specific.

If we're talking about Clarke - then read his book and you'll see how we had a chance to get OBL many times and Clinton never mustered the wil lto act or to force others (who were his subordinates and were duty-bound to obey a direct Executive Order) to act aggressively.

Additionally - as far as this "plan" Clinton supposedly left in place for Bush... never happened. Clarke himself in his 9/11 testimony admitted as such.

Additionally Clarke in a 2002 briefing to reporters - where he described what they handed over to the Bush administration - said the following;

Clarke: “One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to any new conclusions from ‘98 on.

Reporter: “Were all of those issues part of an alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to — ”

Clarke: “There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.”

Reporter: “So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

Clarke: “There was no new plan.”

Reporter: “No new strategy? I mean, I mean, I don’t want to get into a semantics — “

Clarke: “Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.”

Reporter: “Had those issues evolved at all from October of ‘98 until December of 2000?”

Clarke: “Had they evolved? Not appreciably.”

Yes, Richard Clarke. I'm not going to debate with you. You obviously follow current events - If these six disastorous years under the Bush administration aren't enough to convince you then my typed words would be a complete waste of my time. Whatever I wanted to get off of my chest is already off.

Well, besides this.....

http://goofyblog.net/fiat-justitia-et-pereat-mundus/