Daily Wisdom

September 28, 2006

Looney Liberal of the Week: Bill Clinton


This week's award goes to former President William Jefferson Clinton for his angry outburst on 'FOX News Sunday' with Chris Wallace. The competition was stiff this week, with scores of liberals voting against anti-terrorism legislation and then seeking to confer the Constitutional rights of Americans upon foreign illegal enemy combatants and terrorists. But despite the whacky antics of libs on Capitol HIll, the performance of Bill Clinton was a real "show-stopper". You can read the transcript HERE.

What struck me most about Clinton was his body language. He was pointing his index finger at Wallace, leaning forward, tapping the notepad on Wallace's lap. His demeanor was domineering and somewhat threatening. He was clearly invading the personal space of Chris Wallace... trying to impose his will on Wallace. It was reminiscent of Clinton's news conference during which he told America that he "did not have sex with that woman... Ms. Lewinsky". His finger was out and pointing at the cameras then too. So, I can only conclude that if he was lying then (as we know he was), then perhaps he is lying now as well. People have a tendency to lie using the same body language each time.

The conversation went pretty much as follows. The editorial comments are some of my thoughts on the subject...

_____________________________________


WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on "Fox News Sunday," I got a lot of e-mail from viewers. And I've got to say, I was surprised. Most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?

[...]

CLINTON: OK, let's talk about it... but first I want to talk about the context in which this arises.

I'm being asked this on the FOX network. (EDITOR: The FOX network is A.K.A. as 'the political tool of the Neo-Con Bourgeoisie'.) ABC just had a right-wing conservative run in their little "Pathway to 9/11," (EDITOR: The only network farther to the political right than FOX is ABC.) falsely claiming it was based on the 9/11 Commission report, with three things asserted against me directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report. (EDITOR: Too bad Mr. Clinton didn't enlighten us as to which three things those might be.)

And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. (EDITOR: Funny, nobody seems to able to find any support for this statement.)

[...]

CLINTON: No, no. I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him.

The CIA, which was run by George Tenet, that President Bush gave the Medal of Freedom to, he said, "He did a good job setting up all these counterterrorism things."

The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came there. (EDITOR: And the country didn't have a comprehensive anti-terror operation when he left there, either.)

Now, if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: After the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. (EDITOR: Funny, he never mentioned this before... not even in his autobiography which weighs as much as a boat anchor.)

But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got after 9/11. (EDITOR: Hmmm... why did we need to invade Afghanistan when Clinton blew as many as 8 to 10 opportunities to kill bin Laden outright?)

The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify... (EDITOR: AHH! Here's the answer! Clinton wanted 'absolute' proof that bin Laden was the guilty party. He wanted the CIA and FBI to "certify" that bin Laden was responsible. What was he expecting... fingerprints maybe?)

[...]

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. They did not try. I tried. (EDITOR: The 'right-wingers' had all of eight months to try and get bin Laden while Clinton had at least four years.)

So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted. (EDITOR: The "comprehensive anti-terror strategy" consisted of a four or five page report written by Richard Clarke.)

So you did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me. (EDITOR: Chris Wallace is well-known as the conservative 'power behind the throne'. He has been suspected to be Karl Rove's mentor.) What I want to know is ...

WALLACE: Well, wait a minute, sir.

CLINTON: No, wait. No, no ...

WALLACE: I want to ask a question. You don't think that's a legitimate question?

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question, but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. (EDITOR: FOX News interviewers are only allowed to ask questions of Democrats that they have already asked of Republicans.)

[...]

CLINTON: Did you ever ask that?

You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch's supporting my work on climate change. (EDITOR: Chris Wallace knew that the owner of FOX News was supporting Clinton's work on climate change, and he was expecting a tidal wave of negative E-mails to come flooding into 'FOX News Sunday'... therefore, he asked Clinton to come onto the show so he could ask him embarrassing questions.)

And you came here under false pretenses and said that you'd spend half the time talking about — you said you'd spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7-billion-plus in three days from 215 different commitments. And you don't care. (EDITOR: The show was not yet half over, but Chris Wallace was now being accused of not spending half the show talking about Clinton's pet project. In fact, Wallace apparently "tricked" Clinton into coming on the show under "false pretenses" so he could bash Clinton.)

WALLACE: But, President Clinton, if you look at the questions here, you'll see half the questions are about that. I didn't think this was going to set you off on such a tear.

CLINTON: You launched it — it set me off on a tear because you didn't formulate it in an honest way and because you people ask me questions you don't ask the other side. (EDITOR: Unless the questions are "softball" type questions, then they are not formulated in an honest way. Only "softball" questions are "honest" questions.)

WALLACE: That's not true. Sir, that is not true.

[...]



CLINTON: All I'm saying is, you falsely accused me of giving aid and comfort to bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew Al Qaeda existed then. (EDITOR: Funny, but I can't find where Chris Wallace accused Clinton of anything remotely related to Somalia.) And...

WALLACE: But did they know in 1996 when he declared war on the U.S.? Did they know in 1998 ...

CLINTON: Absolutely, they did.

WALLACE: ... when he bombed the two embassies?

CLINTON: And who talked about ...

WALLACE: Did they know in 2000 when he hit the Cole?

CLINTON: What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. (EDITOR: President Clinton's legacy will be that he "almost" killed bin Laden.) And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. (EDITOR: It is unclear exactly how 20,000 troops stationed in North Carolina would be able to kill bin Laden.)

[...]

And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive thing? When all you have to do is read Richard Clarke's book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. (EDITOR: Clinton refers to Clarke's book because, until he read it, he had no idea what was going on.)

And you've got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever...

[...]

WALLACE: I just want to ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative, but what's the source? I mean, you seem upset, (EDITOR: Chris Wallace has rarely been treated with such contempt in his short 31-year career. Although Wallace has won three Emmy Awards, the Dupont-Columbia Silver Baton Award, and a Peabody Award, he was obviously inexperienced enough to expect that a former President would act with dignity and decorum.) and I ...

CLINTON: I am upset because ...

WALLACE: And all I can say is, I'm asking you this in good faith because it's on people's minds, sir. And I wasn't ...

CLINTON: Well, there's a reason it's on people's minds. That's the point I'm trying to make. There's a reason it's on people's minds: Because there's been a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression. (EDITOR: There is a vast right-wing conspiracy which is secretly trying to destroy the image of Bill and Hillary Clinton. President Bush undoubtedly asked Karl Rove to feed Chris Wallace with questions that would make Clinton look like more of a loser than he already is.)

28 Comments:

At 9/29/2006 1:31 AM , Blogger camojack said...

Give the devil his due; Sick* Willie is no mere loon...he's an evil scumbag.

*That was no typo...

 
At 9/29/2006 5:28 AM , Blogger RAM said...

Clinton trying to intimidate Wallace reminded me of when Al Gore tried the same thing with GWB during the 2000 debate.

Bullying works, (for a while), in high school, but makes adults look pretty silly.

I don't mean this to sound bad against Chris Wallace, but Bubba really ought to pick on someone his own size-----like maybe Bill O'Reilly?

I think it would be fun to see Bubba in a one on one with Rush or Mark Levin. Levin genuinely despises the guy and what he and Hillary did to the dignity of the office of President.

 
At 9/29/2006 7:16 AM , Blogger Beerme said...

After the interview, and the flap over it, I heard a few people say that they didn't think he reacted so poorly and that he "won" the interview. I don't know that it's possible to win an interview, but if that's winning I don't know what losing would be...
Disgraceful!

 
At 9/29/2006 8:44 AM , Blogger boberin said...

A funny world of late. No matter what the issue, no matter what the context (war, interview, whatever) both "sides" come out declaring "victory", whatever that means to them.
Used to be at least some pretext of listening to the other side, trying to work it out (whatever "it" is). Now we can't even get American to listen to one another, a grim time indeed.
Yup, funny world nowadays, hardy freakin' har har

 
At 9/29/2006 9:21 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Thanks for your comments everyone.

(:D) Regards...

 
At 9/29/2006 4:04 PM , Blogger Barb said...

Did none of the Lie-berals ever watch an interview between Any MSMNewsreader and Dick Cheney or Rumsfeld? You want to hear nasty ,or innuendo? But if you want to hear snarky snide-winders put firmly in their places , listen ,to Cheney or Rummy and you won't see posturing and ranting . You see very polite gentlemen making points ....that are totally ignored,by the News Ignoranuses. Oh and they don't have to tell lie after lie.
Actualy ,I'm not sure OReilly would do much with Clinton , he certainly didn't impress me with Michael Moore at the dim con.

 
At 9/29/2006 10:44 PM , Blogger Maggie said...

Hawkeye,
We need another caption contest.
Clinton to Wallace :size does matter.

 
At 9/30/2006 10:25 AM , Blogger RAM said...

Hawkeye: I left this at Scrappleface too, but it fits here better:

http://blogs.indystar.com/varvelblog/index.html

Scroll down to, "Bully Clinton". Fits REALLY well!

 
At 9/30/2006 1:17 PM , Anonymous west coast liberal said...

Newsflash:
Admit it, you losers are nothing but jealous of the man.

It is a known fact that if the constitution allowed a 3rd term, Clinton would have easily won in 2000 even with all the blowjob controversy.

In case you nitwits are not aware of this, he left office with a HIGHER approval job rating than Ronald Reagan did when he left office.

"In the wake of the House of Representatives' approval of two articles of impeachment, Bill Clinton's approval rating has jumped 10 points to 73 percent, the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows.

That's not only an all-time high for Clinton, it also beats the highest approval rating President Ronald Reagan ever had."

CNN Dec 20 1998

"Despite his prevaricating, his sexual misadventures and his impeachment by Congress, a remarkable 65 percent of Americans approve of the way Clinton has done his job — the best end-of-career rating of any postwar president (one point ahead of Ronald Reagan)."

End-of Presidency Job Approval Ratings
Bill Clinton (2001) 65%
Ronald Reagan (1989) 64
Dwight Eisenhower (1961) 59
John F. Kennedy (1963) 63
George Bush (1993) 56
Gerald Ford (1977) 53
Lyndon Johnson (1969) 49
Jimmy Carter (1981) 34
Richard Nixon (1974) 24

 
At 9/30/2006 5:56 PM , Blogger Pat'sRick© said...

A man who never won a majority of the votes polls higher in popularity than others. Perhaps something would be learned by looking at the poll questions and demographics, but I digress.

Clinton admitted to a much higher level of lawlessness in this interview than perjury or abuse of power. He said he wanted to assassinate someone. All presidents before that decried such actions.

Bill was always a visionary. The fact that he was obsessed by Bin Laden is somewhat indicated by the fact that Bin Laden is mentioned in Bill's book, MY LIfE. If only Bill had been president on 9-11, he would have had a legacy other than a stained dress.

 
At 9/30/2006 9:26 PM , Anonymous west coast liberal said...

Clinton is the best role model for children all around the globe.

He is a caricature of what one can achieve with hard work and determination. he is the best example of how not to let a humble beginning and limited financial resources hamper one's dream to achieve great things in life.

 
At 10/01/2006 12:30 AM , Blogger camojack said...

west coast liberal said:
"Clinton is...a caricature."


I'll second that...

 
At 10/01/2006 10:54 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

We have a motion and a second... All in favor?

 
At 10/01/2006 10:56 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Maggie,
I assume Clinton was referring to his nose.

 
At 10/01/2006 11:01 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

RAM,
Thanks for the link. Good one as usual from Varvel.

 
At 10/01/2006 11:08 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

WCL,
"HELLO! Wake-up McFly!" We are not jealous of Clinton or his approval ratings. We never liked the guy while he was in office, and we like him even less now.

 
At 10/01/2006 11:10 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Rick,
Wow! Clinton even mentioned Bin Laden, eh? I'm impressed. But I'll bet that there are more paragraphs devoted to his saxophone playing or being the first "black" President than there are to Bin Laden.

 
At 10/01/2006 11:17 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

WCL,
Clinton is the best role model for children all around the globe.

I disagree. I think Jesus Christ is the BEST role model for children all around the globe.

 
At 10/01/2006 3:27 PM , Blogger RAM said...

left coast lie--beral: You may be on to something with those poll numbers.

My first thought would be, maybe that is why Klinton gets so hot about people pointing out his failures, that incidently, the MSM covered up for him when he was King Bill?

If Bubba is shown to be the failure he truly was, it can ONLY lower his poll numbers and legacy!

Second, with the immorality that is rampant in America, I'm not sure being popular means Bubba is such a good person!

The Bible says the antiCHRIST will be VERY popular with the world.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, ----wonder if there might be a connection?

And I thought Hillary was the antiCHRIST?

 
At 10/02/2006 11:02 AM , Anonymous west coast liberal said...

hahaha, Ram, I think you've made a mistake there. The anti-Christ bears the number 666, e.g. Ronald Wilson Reagan. Incidentally, 666 is also the number of his post-Presidency street address before he changed it to 668.

Why don't you google "Ronald Reagan 666" and come back to tell us what you found?

 
At 10/02/2006 8:12 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

WCL,
Anyone who believes that garbola about 666 and Reagan has abosolutely NO IDEA what the Bible says about "the mark of the beast". I assume that you are one of those?

(:D) Regards...

 
At 10/02/2006 10:30 PM , Anonymous west coast liberal said...

Hawkeye:
I would say that I do NOT know the bible as well as you. However, the key diff between you and I is that I do not mask my political beliefs as biblical teachings.

 
At 10/03/2006 10:07 AM , Blogger Maggie said...

Hawkeye,
If you will re-examine the picture,Clinton was obviously talking about his pointer finger.

 
At 10/04/2006 7:08 PM , Blogger Beerme said...

hawkeye®,

I see you've been communicating with my latest troll, Edu Cate! Funny guy that Mr. Cate.

Maybe we can switch trolls sometime. I kinda like WCL, he's so cute with all that I love Clinton stuff!

 
At 10/04/2006 8:38 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

WCL,
You are really weird! How can you even suggest that I "mask my political beliefs as biblical teachings"? I rarely, if ever discuss anything even remotely "biblical" in my articles at this blog (OK, maybe once in awhile at Christmas time or something). Go through my archives if you wish, and point out the articles you think of as "biblical teachings".

Or, are you perhaps suggesting that because I have a daily Bible verse at the top of my blog that everything else in the blog is a "biblical teaching"? Get real.

If you want some real biblical teaching, then go to my Testimonium website HERE and click on any one of the links. In fact, why don't you read them all? It might be good for you. I'm trying to post a new article there every week or two. If you'd like to be on the mailing list, just give me your E-mail address.

(:D) Regards...

 
At 10/04/2006 9:19 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Beerme,
Troll swapping? ...Is that anything like wife swapping?

BTW, how do you know Edu Cate is a "he"? I was thinking it might be a female, as in... Edu "Kate". I didn't get any sense for his/her gender, did you?

(:D) Regards...

 
At 10/04/2006 10:08 PM , Anonymous Ms RightWing said...

All right, I am slow, but sooner or later I get to everyones blog. Even if Clinton's mug is on it

 
At 10/06/2006 10:16 AM , Blogger Beerme said...

hawkeye®,

No I wasn't assuming, just using my patriarchic "he" to avoid the PR "he/she", is all.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home