Community

General discussion

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Thatcher

by Oz_Media In reply to I think

Can you imagine the uproar if Thatcher had, forgive my language, "Wagged her finger" at a reporter? My god the whole country would have crumbled and chastized her for it.

Sorry, forgot the sarcasm alerts there. Our PM slapped a guy in the face who was in hiw way, he was applauded by most and it was completely inderstood why he did it. Clinton has a menacing stature and those horribly cold baby blue eyes that his crocodile smile can't seem to put any warmth in to. Definitely a threatening and scary individual to run into in a dark alley, or a well lit, secured television studio I suppose. LOL

Pansys.

Collapse -

No doubt

by Oz_Media In reply to Way to go, Bill!

This guy is a reporter, interviewing a former president on issue he has carefully chosen his topics, has carefully chosen wording specifically to raise controversy and ask the sam eold rhetorical BS that's been thrown at him for years.

See if that was Canada, our PM would have just smacked him in the head and been done with it, not that he would be on FOX news to begin with though.

the funny part is that teh right wing likes to pretend Fox is not a right wing network, but it is owned by SBG and is one of their top outlets, SBG is without doubt one of the most right wing supportive groups around. In reality they all see Fox as a hero, so when Fox gets it's head straightened out they get all hissy about it.

Turn teh tables and such action from GWB would be adamantly defnded without question.

I'm not even defending Clinton, just the reality of what happened.

Seriously, living so close to the USA is like being beside the looney bin sometimes. The things they come up with, or is it what they DON'T come up with?

Collapse -

Me thinks he protesteth too much

by jdclyde In reply to Bill Clinton Rage

I looked at this a few different ways after watching several of the different clips and followed the links to the blogs and such.

Both "sides" walked away saying "wow, did you see him?"

Was it a "loaded question"? Duh.
Was it a "fair question"? Duh. (that is a "yes" in both cases incase your a little slow)

Clinton should have fully expected that question after the CBS movie, and I would BET he DID expect it and had his little rant all practiced out.

I didn't see as much negative about this as many from different political "sides" did.

Did Wallace come off as a weasle? Actually, yes he did.

Did Clinton seem to over react to this very valid question, and then validate his reaction because he didn't think Republicans have been asked the same questions? Definately.

It wasn't about Bush, it was about Him and what he did or didn't do while HE was in office. He should have been able to explain this without accusing Wallace of the "hatchet job" and as much deflecting as he did.

I saw the interview (if there is a winner and loser) as they both lost.

Collapse -

The Irony is deafening

by ProtiusX In reply to Bill Clinton Rage

There sat William Jefferson Clinton who was impeached for lying under oath wagging his sanctimonious finger at a reporter who has in the past asked the same hard questions to conservatives and accusing him of being less than honest. Oh the humanity!

Collapse -

STOP IT, right now!

by jdclyde In reply to The Irony is deafening

We will have none of your facts or logic in a political discussion.

"I did not have sexual relations with THAT WOMAN"....

Collapse -

You didn't either?

by dawgit In reply to STOP IT, right now!

I know I sure didn't.

Collapse -

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

by clockmendergb In reply to STOP IT, right now!

He is right to say this.
From what I have read and heard she did the doing and he just laid back and thought of America.
Now to me that seems like she was consumming the "cocktail" and he was just the filling a need.
I suppose he could be blamed for feeding an addicts addiction but not having S R W T W.
I like his style.

Collapse -

Something that occurred to me on the way home

by jdclyde In reply to Bill Clinton Rage

In this interview, President William Jefferson Clinton clearly stated that he had ok'ed the CIA to kill Osama bin Laden.

For the **1 commission, he testified that he did not take Osama bin Laden when he was offered up because he did not have legal grounds.

Can't arrest Osama bin Laden, but you can have him killed? Am I the only one that sees a possible problem with this?

Collapse -

That sure does seem mighty strange...

by Absolutely In reply to Something that occurred t ...

But, when did those two events occur?

"In this interview, President William Jefferson Clinton clearly stated that he had ok'ed the CIA to kill Osama bin Laden.

For the **1 commission, he testified that he did not take Osama bin Laden when he was offered up because he did not have legal grounds."

Didn't these events happen, chronologically, in order opposite the order that you presented them to us? I would even venture to guess that Clinton "did not take Osama bin Laden when he was offered up because he did not have legal grounds" before the USS Cole was bombed, but that he "ok'ed the CIA to kill Osama bin Laden" after the Cole attack. Correct?

"Can't arrest Osama bin Laden, but you can have him killed? Am I the only one that sees a possible problem with this?"

Can't arrest a man without proof of a crime (before Cole), but can have him killed for an action (1) for which he claims (meaning, willingly admits) responsibility, (2) which amounts to an act of war according to international law (after Cole). I hope you are the only one that sees a possible problem with this!

Related Discussions

Related Forums