Clinton Owns Mike Wallace and the Fox Spinners!

[sadaist]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh

And look! Ooooh! Tinkle-Tom just gave me his "rolleyes," then followed it up with his patented "blow-yer'-top!"

Maybe if you actually supported any of your 9th grade level arguments with something more than childlike smilies --sort of like examples or facts, you know, like semi-educated adults do, you wouldn't be so easy to dismiss as another ignoramus barely in sight of his GED.

Nick, you should have a talk with Lounge about this as well.

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Really? Liar?

Please check your post again for your link or reference

Can't admit you fucked up and tried to pass shit off as your own

typical.

[DrMaddVibe]

RICE BOILS OVER AT BUBBA
By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent

September 25, 2006 -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.

Rice hammered Clinton, who leveled his charges in a contentious weekend interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel, for his claims that the Bush administration "did not try" to kill Osama bin Laden in the eight months they controlled the White House before the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added.

The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton's claim that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice responded during the hourlong session.

Her strong rebuttal was the Bush administration's first response to Clinton's headline-grabbing interview on Fox on Sunday in which he launched into an over-the-top defense of his handling of terrorism - wagging his finger in the air, leaning forward in his chair and getting red-faced, and even attacking Wallace for improper questioning.

The "Fox News Sunday" show had its best ratings since the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003, according to Nielsen Media Research. Two versions of the interview were the two most-watched clips on YouTube yesterday, totaling more than 800,000 views.

After Clinton got angry during the questioning, Wallace said Clinton aide Jay Carson tried to get his producer to stop the interview. Carson said he was concerned that time was running out and that little of the philanthropy efforts of the former president had been addressed.

At The Post, Rice also touched on hot spots around the globe:

On Iran: "There isn't a particularly good, direct way to neutralize the Iranian threat."
On Iraq: "You're never going to have a just Sunni-Shia reconciliation if you don't have a political system in which the interests of all can be represented - and that's what Iraq represents."
On Pakistan: "The future of Pakistan, as [President Pervez] Musharraf and his people fully understand, is to de-radicalize elements of the population."
On the Middle East conflict: "It would help to have a moderate force in the Palestinian territories and to have the beginnings of rapprochement with Israel and the rest of its neighbors."
On the Far East: "I would like to see an improvement in Japanese-China relations."
In her pointed rebuttal of Clinton's inflammatory claims about the war on terror, Rice maintained the Bush White House did the best it could to defend against an attack - and expanded on the tools and intelligence it inherited.
"I would just suggest that you go back and read the 9/11 commission report on the efforts of the Bush administration in the eight months - things like working to get an armed Predator [drone] that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important," Rice added.

She also said Clinton's claims that Richard Clarke - the White House anti-terror guru hyped by Clinton as the country's "best guy" - had been demoted by Bush were bogus.

"Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened. And he left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security, some several months later," she said.

Rice noted that the world changed after 9/11.

"I would make the divide Sept. 11, 2001, when the attack on this country mobilized us to fight the war on terror in a very different way," Rice said.

Rice cited the final 9/11 commission report to substantiate her claims, while Clinton relied on Clarke's book as the basis for many of his rehashing the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I think this is not a very fruitful discussion. We've been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said," she added.

Transitioning to the global war on terror, an animated Rice questioned, "When are we going to stop blaming ourselves for the rise of terrorism?"

Asked about recently leaked internal U.S. intelligence estimates that claimed the Iraq war was fueling terrorist recruiting, Rice said: "Now that we're fighting back, of course they are fighting back, too."

"I find it just extraordinary that the argument is, all right, so they're using the fact they're being challenged in the Middle East and challenged in Iraq to recruit, therefore you've made the war on terrorism worse.

"It's as if we were in a good place on Sept. 11. Clearly, we weren't," she added.

"These are people who want to fight against us, and they're going to find a reason. And yes, they will recruit, but it doesn't mean you stop pursuing strategies that are ultimately going to stop them," Rice said.

She insisted U.S. forces must finish the job in Iraq and the wider Middle East to wipe out the "root cause" of violent extremism - not just the terror thugs who carry out the attacks.

"It's a longer-term strategy, and it may even have some short-term down side, but if you don't look at the longer term, you're just leaving the problem to somebody else," she said.

She also said Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have a "major educational reform" effort under way to root out propaganda literature and extremist brainwashing.

In Latin America, home to outrageous Venezuelan bomb thrower Hugo Chavez, Rice said the U.S. approach is to "spend as little time possible in talking about Chavez and more time talking about our positive agenda in Latin America," including several trade agreements.

With Post Wire Services

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09252006/news/nationalnews/rice_boils_over_at_bubba_nationalnews_.htm

May the Force be with you...pwn3d by an avatar!

[Ellyllions]

Who are the better manipulators?

Charles Manson, Politicians or Terrorists...

Charles did a good job of getting people to do his dirtywork making it hard for the judicial system to put all the offenses on his hands. So, months of trials, new judicial decisions, and new laws had to be put into place because even though he never actually killed anyone...it was imperative that he be removed from society.

Figureheads like Osama and other well-known terrorists in our news today can barely even fire a weapon. But have people who will willingly kill themselves as well as others to do what the figureheads request.

Politicians like anyone labeled Republican/Democrat/Libertarian etc...They seem to have the same manipulative powers. Although none of them are truly involved in the division of the people of the world, people are slinging harsh words and crazy rude sentiments on each other based on political affiliation.

Interesting concept.

Ya'll tear each other limb from limb if you please. Neither Bill Clinton nor George Bush will ever care or even know who you are. Their day will continue with sunshine and dollar bills (most of which are yours) while you stress at the blinking cursor on your screen.

[DrMaddVibe]

September 26, 2006
Bill Clinton Meets the Smirk

By Debra Saunders
The smirk is the new angry. Remember the '90s, which Dems spent putting down "angry white men?" Now the Dems are angry. They've been hopping mad for six years. Sunday, their biggest star, former President Bill Clinton, embraced his angry side during a Fox News interview with Chris Wallace, as he turned his ire to the new target of Democratic sensibilities, the smirk.

Since 1999, Dems have been dreaming about wiping the smirk of George W. Bush' face. Sunday, Clinton expanded the smirk zone when he chided Wallace for having "that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever." Left-leaning blogs are lauding Clinton's tantrum. Thinkprogress.org reported that Clinton taught Wallace "a lesson."

If so, it was a lesson on How Not To. Bubba looked silly dismissing Wallace, his "nice little conservative hit job on me" and the Fox News network as conservative tools. Sorry, Fox News mogul Rupert Murdoch donated $500,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative last week and hosted a fund-raiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton this summer.

I don't get it. If Bill Clinton is so smart, why has he made his failure to get Osama bin Laden the big story of the week twice in the last month? Start with the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11." I never saw it, so all I know about it is that Clinton thought it showed him to be too soft on bin Laden. Oddly, when Democrats were billing themselves as tough on terrorism, Clinton turned the spotlight on his failure to vanquish bin Laden.

Let me be clear. I in no way blame Clinton for 9/11. Before 9/11, neither Clinton nor Bush could have garnered the domestic or international support they would have needed to defeat al-Qaida.

Besides, if Clinton emboldened al-Qaida by pulling U.S. troops out of Somalia after the death of 18 U.S. soldiers, his actions were no worse than those of the first President Bush (who ended the first Gulf War prematurely) or Ronald Reagan, who cut and ran after terrorists killed 241 U.S. troops in Lebanon.

Clinton also was right to point out that in 1993 no one knew al-Qaida was paying attention to Somalia. Ditto his point that few of today's critics were pushing for him to risk a war by bombing those suspected in the bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa or the USS Cole.

But Clinton complained that the right accused him of waging a "wag the dog" foreign policy -- as if he had nothing to do with his credibility problems. I believed the threats against America were real, but suspected Clinton's martial responses were timed to deflect attention from the Lewinsky scandal.

Some on the left thought so, too. So what? Surely Clinton would not argue that he could not fight Osama bin Laden, lest he be criticized. Read Richard Clarke's book, the former president repeatedly admonished Wallace. Hmm. If Clinton wants to remind voters that his own National Security Adviser Sandy Berger pleaded guilty to sneaking out and shredding three copies of a Clarke memo about the growing terrorist threat in America, well, OK. Twist my arm.

For three years, the left has accused Bush of lying to the public about intelligence that suggested Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Partisans seem to have forgotten that Clinton ordered air strikes over Iraq in 1998 in order to check the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program.

On Sunday, Clinton got a taste of the Dems' bitter medicine, and he choked on it.

dsaunders@sfchronicle.com
Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate

[Ellyllions]

What seems to be getting lost in all this is Clinton's smirking quote to Wallace..."I don't blame Rove, if you've got a strategy that works..."

This was when he was talking about how the Reps are winning with fear.

That one line, says "ya do what you gotta do in Politics".
It makes them one in the same.

[ULTRAMAN VH]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
What level of Bush Bashing would you find appropriate?

70%?
60%?



Maybe because we are passionate about how our country is run, and the future of our democracy.


Do you even care what this administration has done in YOUR NAME???

Aren't you embarassed too?

I am very disapointed with the current administration. His stance on illegal immigration is appalling, his spending is over the top and he is being led by neocons. This President is not a Conservative. Lets not forget the war which has cost middle class taxpayers huge sums of money. He would be sitting pretty if he had gone after Al Qaeda instead of a whole country. With that said, I will go independant before voting for a democrat. The democratic party is leaning to far left for my taste. Hence why The Big Dog put on a show with Fox News to change the image of the pussyfied democratic party. Obama understands that his party needs to promote strength in National Security also.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
I am very disapointed with the current administration. His stance on illegal immigration is appalling, his spending is over the top and he is being led by neocons. This President is not a Conservative. Lets not forget the war which has cost middle class taxpayers huge sums of money. He would be sitting pretty if he had gone after Al Qaeda instead of a whole country. With that said, I will go independant before voting for a democrat. The democratic party is leaning to far left for my taste. Hence why The Big Dog put on a show with Fox News to change the image of the pussyfied democratic party. Obama understands that his party needs to promote strength in National Security also.

Illegal immigration isn't going to be solved until we secure our borders. Nobody but Pat Buchanan has had the guts to use this as a political platform. Pat wanted to limit and reduce legal immigration to this nation way back when he tried to capture the Presidency.

This President is not a conservative. The spending has always worried me with this administration. Yeah, we're in a "war" (because some still don't feel it's worth fighting) but that's no excuse for the pork that's been appropriated.

An Independant wouldn't have the support of either party as they'd only try to tear down how an outsider got there. Sad, but true. With that said, there was no way I would pull for the likes of a candidate like Gore, much less Kerry. Seems they win when the put up a "moderate". They haven't figured that out yet.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Illegal immigration isn't going to be solved until we secure our borders.

Wrong.

You can have all of the "secure" borders you want.....they'll get in.

Secure Borders is like the lame ass WAR ON DRUGS argument.

Why not get rid of the INCENTIVE for sneaking across the border in the first place? Jobs.

Someone is hiring these people. They are corportist law breaking sleaze, and should be dealt with as such.

But the borders will NEVER be "secure"

Just like the WAR ON TERROR/DRUGS will never be "over"

[ULTRAMAN VH]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Wrong.

You can have all of the "secure" borders you want.....they'll get in.

Secure Borders is like the lame ass WAR ON DRUGS argument.

Why not get rid of the INCENTIVE for sneaking across the border in the first place? Jobs.

Someone is hiring these people. They are corportist law breaking sleaze, and should be dealt with as such.

But the borders will NEVER be "secure"

Just like the WAR ON TERROR/DRUGS will never be "over"

If your assumption is correct, than America is heading down a road to ruin. We are not capable of accepting illegal aliens on that grand a scale. Most are unskilled and uneducated. I think securing the border is a start, but I also agree that going after these Corporate elites would also curtail illegals from crossing into this country.

[ULTRAMAN VH]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Illegal immigration isn't going to be solved until we secure our borders. Nobody but Pat Buchanan has had the guts to use this as a political platform. Pat wanted to limit and reduce legal immigration to this nation way back when he tried to capture the Presidency.

This President is not a conservative. The spending has always worried me with this administration. Yeah, we're in a "war" (because some still don't feel it's worth fighting) but that's no excuse for the pork that's been appropriated.

An Independant wouldn't have the support of either party as they'd only try to tear down how an outsider got there. Sad, but true. With that said, there was no way I would pull for the likes of a candidate like Gore, much less Kerry. Seems they win when the put up a "moderate". They haven't figured that out yet.

I am currently reading Pat Buchanans State Of Emergency. I highly recommend this book. He really lays out the problems illegals are causing this country without bashing hispanics. He would have been a better President than the current one. Mr. Buchanan has a real concern for the future of this country, unlike the globalist, neocon run adminstration currently running The White House.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
No matter what Bill Clinton does, he's always going to be the guy who got a blowjob in the Oval Office and blew kak on a blue dress.

...

He's also leaps-&-bounds far more popular than any current political figure. Funny how that works? Get a blowjob, people forgive you. Lie about wars and kill America's young people, not so forgivable...

[FORD]

Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
I am currently reading Pat Buchanans State Of Emergency. I highly recommend this book. He really lays out the problems illegals are causing this country without bashing hispanics. He would have been a better President than the current one. Mr. Buchanan has a real concern for the future of this country, unlike the globalist, neocon run adminstration currently running The White House.

Pat's been right about a few things in recent years, especially in his opposition to the BCE/PNAC agenda. But his latest crusade is as much racism and paranoia as it is legitmate concern about border security.

What bothers Pat is not people jumping the border, but Mexicans jumping the border. If a bunch of white supremacists from Canada came over one of the Great Lakes in a rowboat, he would be all for it.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by sadaist
And what makes you think that I simply didn't forget the link? I never claimed I wrote it. I didn't even lead into it as mine. Even when I re-quoted a particular passage, I didn't refer to it as my own.

Well, when you finally get your GED, you'll realize that not quoting or somehow indicating other peoples' work is called "plagiarism." The onus is not on the reader to determine what is posted as yours' or not.

The link was posted in post #60. (yet still no comment from anyone on the content, just the delivery method)

Actually, I know you're not to bright since you apparently have to use others' comments since you seem to have little prior knowledge, but I actually did comment on it.

Just because you are registered Republican doesn't mean shit.

Got that right. It certainly doesn't mean what it used to be. It used to mean efficient, pluralistic governance; not the unequal adherence to a discredited 19th cent ideology and religious social policies.

The party you belong to is determined by your views, morals, values, beliefs, what direction you would like the country to go, etc... You're like a guy who converts to Judaism just so he can make Jewish jokes.

LOL I didn't "convert" to being a Republican to bash the GOP. The GOP is the one losing its soul and standing for nothing but corruption, mindless self-defeating militarism, hate, polarization, and the hijacking of America's secular institutions through the use of revisionist history.

So what do Republican's stand for? Smaller gov't? Destroying the New Deal and workers rights? Corruption and arrogance? Passing the buck and lying?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
He's also leaps-&-bounds far more popular than any current political figure. Funny how that works? Get a blowjob, people forgive you. Lie about wars and kill America's young people, not so forgivable...

If JFK hadn't been murdered by the CIA, he could have been remembered as "the guy who fucked Marilyn Monroe", but would that have taken anything away from the leadership he demonstrated during the Cuban Missile Crisis??

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
RICE BOILS OVER AT BUBBA
By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent

September 25, 2006 -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks..."The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters.

....
With Post Wire Services

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09252006/news/nationalnews/rice_boils_over_at_bubba_nationalnews_.htm

Oh, they did huh? So, what part of the 9/11 Commission Report should I refer too Condi? In fact, they imply that Bush did very little, and list no specific actions that he undertook against Bin Laden or al-Qaida. There is no evidence that Bush ever did anything, nor had any sort of meeting regarding terrorism.

The only indication that he did anything was by himself, and Condi's own testimony in it. You'll pardon me if I don't trust them. Bush tried to suppress any 9/11 Commission and testified very reluctantly as I recall. What did he have to cover up? Well, the evidence could indicate that he deliberately ignored all terror indications in order to take advantage of any attack.

They did in fact do nothing for nine months...

May the Force be with you...pwn3d by an avatar!

LMFAO! "pw3ed" by a kiddie movie avatar from the worse of the prequals? I think this might be a more fitting avatar for you: