It was not a debate, it was an interview. To me it appeared that Clinton lost his cool and got very upset. I thought he was going to hit the reporter. To bad Clinton did not have that type of anger towards Bin Laden, or the world might be a different place today.
You mean getting upset to be able to state your case when asked and not being allowed to do so because you were'nt expected to be able to do so is bad? Ann Cunter, you know, the angry white female, does it all the time. Is she exempt? So it was not a debate. I commend bill for asserting his facts when trying to be squelched.
No, but it was clear he was getting defensive. So much so he looked like he was turning colors, sweating, and shaky, almost on the brink of physical contact. A sore spot was struck that might impede on his legacy. Given he is no longer in control and time is now telling, there will be no way he can hide facts any longer. Getting angry about it is not the answer. Ann "Coulter" (remember there are women on this board, why do you always have to resort to such disgusting language when you get upset?) is not and was not the President, nor does she hold any political office that holds her accountable to her actions or opinions. She is an author, legal correspondent, commentator, and lawyer. What she says or does not say has about as much influence on the world and foreign policy as Rush Limbaugh's radio talk show. NONE. No, it was an interview that was taped last Friday. The interview could have been on Larry King and if the outcome were the same, we could then bash that there CNN. Hell it could have been a favorable interview on there there Fox News and people still would have thought there was some right wing agenda afoot.
I guess no one actually listend to the audio file I posted on page one. That, or as usual, it doesn't matter.
Clinton was very pissed off. The question hit a sore spot. On the other hand he was accurate in that he gets hit w/ this question from conservatives while Bush doesn't get questioned about what his administration did or didn't do from Jan/01 through 9/10/01. The ones who hit Clinton on the issue are the Conservative Right. The whole series of questions get to be an accusatory who did what kind of thing rather than a question of how to do the best job. It was neat to watch!!!
I did, but then again, I've heard it several times already. Hell, I lived it. Well there are still people that believe we did not land on the moon, so it comes as no surprise to me when people ignore reality.
Yeah, it's old news really. Those that know, knew a long time ago. There's even a book written on how Clinton let bin laden go three times.
What I find really ironic about the "interviewer" and assertions by Clinton and the rest of the moonbat from planet zeekoid is that Chris Wallace was a CBS newsman before Fox, and was school mates with Al Gore. Ah the irony.
Jumping into the debate here... too lazy to read the past 4 pages and many many posts... What handling? You mean laziness?
What handling did george bush do before 9/11? (besides stopping the fbi from investigating the bin ladens? )
what do you guys think about the time GW missed out on killing zarqawi ? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
And when special ops had bin laden cornered and asked for 400 special ops men and got 40 regular troops, that was not letting bin laden go? I beg to differ!
I'd say it's a precarious position for liberals. On one had, they want Bush to be wrong about something...anything. So they momentarily set aside all the asertions they've made with sheer excitement to proclaim "Bush was wrong too!" The problem though, is that within the very information they want to use to show "but, but, but Bush was wrong too," it also points out that Zarqawi was in Iraq prior to the war, that he wasn't just "minding his own business," and that he was making checmical weapons of mass destruction. Sort of a quandry, isn't it?
Come on, Mia. I try my best to be apolitical and choose politicians based on their individual merits and not consider political lines, and I think Clinton's response was totally valid and not uncalled for in any way. In my opinion, watching the interview, you can see Wallace get an "oh shit, I messed with the wrong guy" look on his face as his body language changes from leaning inwards to leaning back. And when you try to say that Clinton was the aggressive one, please relate first to the context in which the question was asked. The "question" was tantamount to saying Bill Clinton was a lazy idiot responsible for 9/11. Not only is that untrue, but it is incredibly insulting. In my opinion, Clinton won that one like Mike Tyson would win over a cripple. Wallace was destroyed by a vastly more intelligent / articulate, and well-spoken person who wasn't going to put up with his crap. I was very, very impressed by Clinton there. I can't imagine any Democrat today standing up for himself so well. While I realize this has become a somewhat heated discussion (in this thread), try to just imagine for a second that Clinton were a Republican making a response like that on a liberal TV network. Would you criticize him for losing his cool then? No, you would extol his sturdy defense. There are many Republicans I like very much, and the same goes for Democrats, so please, spare me any "crazy liberal"-esque reply. It just happens that Clinton is a Dem I like, and he did very well in that interview.
Are you refering to him or the family?...his family is among Saudi's royalty. Not that they're all good people... but we have some sort of pact with the Saudi's, since they have the ball in their hands. Sort-of like walking a tight-rope 60 feet up.
With only about 10 months in office? What do you expect him to do? He was still too busy undoing Clinton's OTHER mistakes. Clinton didn't do anything for 8 years... when he definitely knew of the threat. And if he was against George Bush giving weapons to fund our campaign with the Taliban in the middle east, then how come he didn't do anything to stop that and let them keep the weapons? Hmmm??? Obviously Clinton didn't care. He just wanted good ratings.