Bill Clinton vs Fox news brillant transcript !

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?

CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him

WALLACE: Right…

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t….. I tired. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke… So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..

But Rove is good and why I honor him…I’ve always been amused by how good he is. But on the other hand this is perfectly predictable. We’re going to win a lot of seats if the American people aren’t afraid. If they’re afraid and we get divided again then we’ll only win a few seats.

link

The interview or parts of it will air on Sunday on the Fox news channel. No doubt Fox news will try and spin the interview to make Clinton look bad. Clinton knew that the ambush was coming and he was prepared.

What can I say ?
The transcript is a great read Clinton takes on the Republican propaganda heads on and he points out some interesting points that Clinton bashers over look.

Clinton comments about Karl Rove also make interesting reading Americans should take heed from the fact that he dosnt hate Rove despite disagreeing with him.

WHY did you say this - Bill Clinton VS Fox News??
It was an interview. It wasn't a 'VS' thing ...

Originally posted by FlyersFan
WHY did you say this - Bill Clinton VS Fox News??
It was an interview. It wasn't a 'VS' thing ...

Really ?
Dont be so navie Fox News has a right wing agenda and this reporter Wallace just wanted to smear Clinton to futher the Republican agdenda. Clinton isnt the first guest on Fox news who came prepared for the usual ambush.

ALL reporters are supposed to ask questions. It isn't a VS thing .. it's a reporter thing. I didn't think there was a VS thing at all. It was an interview ... much as Hardball on MSNBC is interviews.

Your comment - don't be so naive - was out of place.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
ALL reporters are supposed to ask questions. It isn't a VS thing .. it's a reporter thing. I didn't think there was a VS thing at all. It was an interview ... much as Hardball on MSNBC is interviews.

While I agree with your sentiment in this case all Fox News hardball plays were aimed at making Clinton look bad. There isnt much that can be done about Fox News right wing biase expect to switich channels.

Your comment - don't be so naive - was out of place.

Im sorry if I upset you somehow.

Did I miss the airing? I am really torn on this one, I happen to watch FOX but I think there was something different in this interview from the small clips I've seen. It just struck me as having a different air to it.

Anyway, what is this part about attempting to have Bin Laden "hit", as in assassinated? I thought we weren't allowed to do that, did I get that wrong?

I'm terribly confused because either he admitted to something he shouldn't have or I have to ask why are we having these wars when we can just send in some non-existant group to kill the guys causing all the trouble?

Relentless the first option I consider is that the interview was quite heavely edited by Fox News to fit into the aloted timeslot.

As for the answer to your 2nd question this article may or may not help.

Beginning in the summer of 1998, Clinton signed a series of top secret memos authorizing the CIA or its agents to use lethal force, if necessary, in an attempt to capture bin Laden and several top lieutenants and return them to the United States to face trial.

link

I saw the clips also and it did look to me that the reporter was trying to frame Clinton and make him look bad about the Bin-Laden issue.

But Clinton was prepared and he is a very good speaker and he can play with words just as good.

He even put the reporter on the spot.

We all know that the scandal in the white house was to juicy for Americans to take their eyes from the hot issues and see what else was going in the world beside the affair in the white house.

But Bush was warned not matter how much they want to push the blame on Clinton.

Originally posted by xpert11
Dont be so navie Fox News has a right wing agenda and this reporter Wallace just wanted to smear Clinton to futher the Republican agdenda. Clinton isnt the first guest on Fox news who came prepared for the usual ambush.

Let's see now there is what 5 networks in the US if one includes PBS and not including cable etc. Of the 5 there is only one that I would even characterize as being conservative friendly.. (notice I didn't say it is right wing.. because I am right-wing and I Don't consider Fox to even be right wing), and you feel threatened by that enough that you post this item as a titanic struggle of the poor weak left vs the almighty US right-wing MSM??



Clinton deserves to be criticized for his softness on communists and enemies of the US since he was the President of the USA at one time, I think.

You can watch the video here.

Oh, and Denythestatusquo have you ever thought about how many from all over the planet would like to see another ''softy'' president?

Do you know why? No, obviously not. Because concensus and debate are the keys to solve problems. It's the ingnorant among us that believe barbaric warmongering strategies are the key nowadays, to solve problems.

Ask yourself what has been accomplished in Iraq and Afghanistan, or rather what has worsened?

Torture in Iraq worse than Under Saddam
Sunni/Shi'ite violence: Women and children slaughtered in Baghdad
Be Ready For Civil War
Afghanistan, no longer a success story

The list goes on; but hey this is the right strategy

Do you know why? No, obviously not. Because concensus and debate are the keys to solve problems. It's the ingnorant among us that believe barbaric warmongering strategies are the key nowadays, to solve problems.

So what are you saying then? Are you saying its ok for 2 US embassys to get blowed up and we turn the other check. Are you saying its ok for a ship in the navy to get hit and we turn the other check. Are you saying it ok when the twin towers got blew up in 1993 killing 5 injury dozens more, just turn the other check. theres a few more to go with Clintons Presidecy as well. Clinton, had BIN Ladan he admitted that several times and let go. That is FACT.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Let's see now there is what 5 networks in the US if one includes PBS and not including cable etc. Of the 5 there is only one that I would even characterize as being conservative friendly.. (.

Translation Fox News is the only news network that tows the Republican completely. The current crop of Republican and so called conservatives arent happy unless every media outlet tows the Republican line if media outlets do anything differnt they get the automatic label know of the "Liberal Media."

Dont get me wrong Im not a Clinton worshiper he is far from perfect.

Related

In a contentious taped interview that aired on "Fox News Sunday," former president Bill Clinton vigorously defended his efforts as president to capture and kill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

"I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him," Clinton said, referring to Afghanistan.

"We do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is one-seventh as important as Iraq," he added, referring to the approximately 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

link

[edit on 25-9-2006 by xpert11]

Originally posted by Shar

So what are you saying then? Are you saying its ok for 2 US embassys to get blowed up and we turn the other check. Are you saying its ok for a ship in the navy to get hit and we turn the other check. Are you saying it ok when the twin towers got blew up in 1993 killing 5 injury dozens more, just turn the other check.

Very great summary . However, did Bush manage to capture Bin Laden? No. He did not. So the main and initial goal of invading Afghanistan has not been accomplished. Did the terrorist attacks stop? Did coalition soldiers for no purpose die, yes. Did we solve the problems? No.

Now let me ask you the following: on what front did Iraq/Saddam Hussein contribute to the terrorist attacks you just named?

Originally posted by Shar
theres a few more to go with Clintons Presidecy as well. Clinton, had BIN Ladan he admitted that several times and let go. That is FACT.

Please provide your sources.

You know I dont think any of knows why Bush went into Iraq. ( Thats a war that several of my family members fault in. ) You have to ask him. I would love to know that answer. For 10 years he followed what we the US set up for him. He gave up his military and most weapons. He followed very heavy sactions, all for what to get slammed by US ten years later. (However, I cannot and will not go off on any military guy. I will stand up for my country no matter what.)

Originally posted by Mdv2

Originally posted by Shar

So what are you saying then? Are you saying its ok for 2 US embassys to get blowed up and we turn the other check. Are you saying its ok for a ship in the navy to get hit and we turn the other check. Are you saying it ok when the twin towers got blew up in 1993 killing 5 injury dozens more, just turn the other check.

Very great summary

. However, did Bush manage to capture Bin Laden? No. He did not. So the main and initial goal of invading Afghanistan has not been accomplished. Did the terrorist attacks stop? Did coalition soldiers for no purpose die, yes. Did we solve the problems? No.



Please provide your sources.

President Bush has not finished his 8 years in office yet. Clinton had the full 8 years. President Bush has also not had the CIA to call him and tell him they have Bin Ladan in their sight can we take him out? This is what happen several times under Clinton. He denied the CIA several times this was addmitted to by Clinton it is on record.

The question should be Why did Clinton keep telling the CIA . NO

Remember the last time Clinton did the finger wagging thing?

Yep, it was when he was lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky.

I wonder if it is some kind of defense mechanism?

Kinda goes like this...I know I'm lying, they know I'm lying, I better wag my finger?

He did not have sex with that woman, look it up.
GWB and his team have already commited 3 acts of treason and this wudd-a** conress does not have the marbles to do something.

All you RWers, get it straight. Clinton was ordering the capture of OBL but the warmongers were too busy trying to disrupt operations and the Clinton presidency.

[I had a longer post but the damn board ate it]

Clinton's got my vote again.