BF2S Forums Wallace gets owned by Clinton

Wallace seems like an obnoxious prick, Clinton should have gnawed his face off and repeatedly hit him with his saxophone.

AchangelTyreal wrote:

Aenima_Eyes wrote:

Clinton sure is defensive about his time in office.  He writes this book trying to mend his image and now anytime he receives any criticism about his 8 years he goes off. 

Also funny how he acts all buddy buddy with Bush Sr. and then turns right around and talk shit about the Republicans, Dubya, and everything else under the sun. 

I think Wallace just asked him a damn question and Clinton freaked out.  Show some class Bill.

I couldn't disagree more.  Can you deny that you never see Republican representatives getting asked these questions?  I think clinton lost his temper yes, but I don't think it was unwarrented or unjustified, and I think he showed plenty of class in answering the question by stating fact and reinforcing his statements with proof.  Although he could have dropped the comment about the smirk.  Oh god, imagine if it had been Tucker Carlson asking him that question HAH! That would have been amusing.

No, the Repubs just get slammed, called Nazis, Devils and such,  they dont get questioned they just get called names. Kind of like here in this thread. Example, the poster whom so nicely implies Bush supporters have single digit IQ's and are Inbred.  Nice Generalization there.

Ones doesnt have to totally agree on everything the prez does, to support the Prez during these times.

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

Ones doesnt have to totally agree on everything the prez does, to support the Prez during these times.

I support America- not the President.

I don't pretend to know the whole truth about this situation.  I don't think anyone REALLY knows all the facts.  So, usually when I don't know all the facts I look to the few indisputable things I DO know.

1.  bin Laden and crew attacked the WTC in 1993.  Clinton took office in 1992.

2.  There were several terror attacks on American holdings across the world while Clinton was in office.  The embassy bombings. . .the Cole. . .etc.

3.  Clinton was in office this ENTIRE time and did not get anything done about it.

4.  President Bush and his administration. . .for all their MANY faults were in office only 8 months before the attacks on 9/11.

Logic here says that Bill Clinton had plenty of time and specially, a helluva lot more time than Dubya, to do something about Osama and Al Qaeda.  Clinton of course says he did plenty and then blames it all on the CIA and FBI as to why he didn't get Bin Laden.  Last time I checked. . .Clinton was the commander in chief.  If he wanted something done. . .he probably could have gotten it done.

In my own personal opinion, I think Clinton made some miscalculations.  He was riding this tidal wave of success.  The economy was doing superb and Clinton was taking all the credit for that.  We had good foregin relations because Clinton was giving away nuclear secrets and letting communist leaders sleep in the White House.  Everyone just LOVED Bill.  So, Clinton starts thinking he can do whatever the hell he wants and he screws up with the whole Monica Lewinsky thing.  Then, he's between a rock and a hard place so he goes and bombs the hell out of the Bosnians and other things to try and deflect criticism.  He probably doesn't want to rock the boat anymore before he leaves office. . .so why should he take up the mantel against this Osama guy?  It's a lot easier to not do anything and then let it fall squarely on the lap of the next guy in office if anything does happen.

I think where Clinton screwed up was underestimating the Bin Laden threat (which everyone did so can't blame him TOO much) and the backlash that would be directed at everyone involved in not dealing with the threat.  Now, Clinton who has ALWAYS been a prima donna and vain as all get out is worried about his image.  That's why he pumped out that book of his.  That's why he acts all nice and cozy with Bush #1.  That's why he went off on his tirade against Chris Wallace. . .one of the most unassuming, most professional journalists that Fox News has.  I definitely could understand if it was Bill O'Reilly asking him those questions. . .but Chris Wallace is a cupcake!  At the very least Bill could have not attacked Chris personally.  That whole comment about "You're sitting there with that smirk on your face".  That's just downright rude regardless of whether Chris Wallace was purposely asking bad questions or not. 

Clinton continues to have the same M.O. he had in office. . .he blames everyone else for his faults and problems and everytime any criticism comes up he acts all hurt and offended like it's the end of the world.  Think about if Dubya acted like Bill did whenever he faced any criticism. . .Dubya would have committed suicide by now!  I like how Bill "admitted" his faults and whatnot to the 9/11 commission and how he wanted to make that perfectly clear in the interview.  However, if you actually listen. . .the only thing he says was his fault was that the CIA and FBI wouldn't approve the attacks on Bin Laden!  So in essence he never truly blames himself for anything!  He sure does a nice job tho of pointing out how its all a conspiracy on part of the neo-cons ands ABC's film-doc Pathway to 9/11.  Hey Mr. President. . .I've got this great video to show you. . .it's called Loose Change about the 9/11 attacks. . .I think you'll love it! /sarcasm

Like I've said before. . .if Clinton wasn't so good at bullshitting and public speaking he'd have gotten roasted a just as bad or worse than Dubya.  He's a liar. . .an adulterer. . .and vain, which is fairly pathetic given the position he held.  Obviously 9/11 wasn't completely his fault, but I think it was a lot more his than he'll ever admit.

Aenima_Eyes wrote:

your failed attempts cost thousands of American lives.

Yeah, 3000 Yanks dead since the 'war on terror' started allegedly? and thats a RUNNING total, because until you end it forever, it's a failed attempt.

Stop trying to be the Neo-Con-Bill Hicks and rent yourself a viewpoint son. You jump all over other peoples opinions, yet all you do is discredit, answer me something, whats the deal with people laughing because the guy who is no longer the president Lost his rag at a smug prick on the teevee?

I'd have been MORE vocal. If it had been Bush Jr it had been done to, you'd have pissed your pants with rage.

Aenima_Eyes wrote:

I think where Clinton screwed up was underestimating the Bin Laden threat (which everyone did so can't blame him TOO much)

If everyone did it, you CAN'T blame him, it's not that he had intel and didn't think it was prudent, the intel didn't portray the Bin Laden threat accurately. Or everyone else wouldn't have misunderestimated it would they? But grats on the cheap jab to add extra damage to a mans rep.

Aenima_Eyes wrote:

Clinton continues to have the same M.O. he had in office. . .he blames everyone else for his faults and problems and everytime any criticism comes up he acts all hurt and offended like it's the end of the world.

Didn't he (Clinton) say he failed?

Wallace&Clinton wrote:

Do you think you did enough sir?
No, because I didn't get him.
Right!
But at least I tried.

That looks a hell of a lot like taking some responsibility without pushing it off on everyone else.

Last edited by Foxhoundmgw (2006-09-24 21:33:02)

ATG wrote:

Why is it that only former democrat presidents go around talking shit?

Whatever happened to having some class?

I don't hear Bush 1 talking shit about Clinton, or Ford talking shit about Carter, yet there these clowns are, bashing Republicans every time there is a camera around.

Pathetic

I'm surprised they don't bash him more, have you seen Bush speak? Keep in mind, his job is PR and it's supposed to be something he excels at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ux3DKxxFoM

I don't care how patriotic you are, thats some funny shit

Foxhoundmgw wrote:

Aenima_Eyes wrote:

your failed attempts cost thousands of American lives.

Yeah, 3000 Yanks dead since the 'war on terror' started allegedly? and thats a RUNNING total, because until you end it forever, it's a failed attempt.

No, Clinton helped cost thousands of lives on 9/11 because he had the intel on Bin Laden and chose not to do anything about it. 

Stop trying to be the Neo-Con-Bill Hicks and rent yourself a viewpoint son. You jump all over other peoples opinions, yet all you do is discredit, answer me something, whats the deal with people laughing because the guy who is no longer the president Lost his rag at a smug prick on the teevee?

I'd have been MORE vocal. If it had been Bush Jr it had been done to, you'd have pissed your pants with rage.

If Bush Jr. had been fielding the questions then I'd have laughed my ass off while he spluttered his way through it.  I'll be the first to admit that he's an idiot.  You say I need to rent a viewpoint. . .well sir, you need to widen yours.  Just because I think Clinton is a scoundrel doesn't mean I'm some happy go lucky neo-con with dreams of world conquest.  Seriously. . .for all the left's talk of open-mindedness they sure do have a lot of prejudices that get in the way of clear thinking.

Aenima_Eyes wrote:

I think where Clinton screwed up was underestimating the Bin Laden threat (which everyone did so can't blame him TOO much)

If everyone did it, you CAN'T blame him, it's not that he had intel and didn't think it was prudent, the intel didn't portray the Bin Laden threat accurately. Or everyone else wouldn't have misunderestimated it would they? But grats on the cheap jab to add extra damage to a mans rep.

Yes you CAN blame Clinton.  Why?  Because he had WAY more info than anyone else in the world AND the time to act on it.  I'm sure he didn't think that within a year after he left office the WTC would get knocked down. . .but he had to have known that something was going to happen.  Also, he acts like Osama bin Laden didn't exist until after the bombing of the Cole.  He makes it seem like that was the ONLY time he knew about the guy and what he could do and that his window of opportunity was very small and that it was SOMEONE ELSE'S fault that he couldn't act.  Truth of the matter is Osama has been around since the 80's and we definitely knew he was out to get us after 1993 or 1996, take your pick.

Aenima_Eyes wrote:

Clinton continues to have the same M.O. he had in office. . .he blames everyone else for his faults and problems and everytime any criticism comes up he acts all hurt and offended like it's the end of the world.

Didn't he (Clinton) say he failed?

He HAS to say he failed because it's so obvious.  That's one of the cheapest tricks in the book!  You take some of the blame on yourself and garner sympathy and then you spin the majority of the blame on to other people (i.e. the CIA, FBI, the HUGE VAST Right-wing conspiracy). 

Wallace&Clinton wrote:

Do you think you did enough sir?
No, because I didn't get him.
Right!
But at least I tried.

That looks a hell of a lot like taking some responsibility without pushing it off on everyone else.

So.  Let me get this straight.  "Trying" involves repeatedly letting American holdings get bombed, etc. over the course of your Presidency. . .and then at the end having the opportunity to blast Osama into bits and then not doing it because of the CIA/FBI.  That's a pretty weak attempt if you ask me.  Also. . .no one else had a chance to try and kill Osama because the entire time Osama was building his power base Clinton was in charge!  Bush has all of eight months in office before the attacks.  You can ask anyone connected to Washington that in an Administration's first eight months they're still cleaning out the closets in the White House and trying to get their shoes tied in the morning.  Richard Clark and Bill Clinton act as if they got on bullhorn and screamed at Dubya and his crew daily about the threat of Osama bin Laden when they did exactly the opposite.  Bill high-tailed it out of there and never looked back. . .and Richard Clark left some dubious "memos" and whatnot.  Personally, I think Richard Clark saw the writing on the wall.  He knew he'd had all these years to neutralize Osama and co. and he never got it done.  He also knew there could be an attack coming and that he'd get blamed because he didn't do jack to stop it.  So, he goes squealing and pointing fingers at everyone else so his head doesn't hit the chopping block.

Clinton is shitting his pants because he knows that his legacy is going to be that of only the second President ever to be impeached and because of an affair in the Oval Office.  He's also worried that the harsh light of truth is going to be shined on his Presidency and it isn't going to be pretty.  Congrats to him though on his Global Initiative.  Nice to see him raising money for a good cause.  Surely none of that will find its way into his wife's campaign fund.......

Clinton was more popular coz he kissed a lot more asses.

Aenima_Eyes wrote:

So.  Let me get this straight.  "Trying" involves repeatedly letting American holdings get bombed, etc. over the course of your Presidency. . .and then at the end having the opportunity to blast Osama into bits and then not doing it because of the CIA/FBI.  That's a pretty weak attempt if you ask me.  Also. . .no one else had a chance to try and kill Osama because the entire time Osama was building his power base Clinton was in charge!  Bush has all of eight months in office before the attacks.  You can ask anyone connected to Washington that in an Administration's first eight months they're still cleaning out the closets in the White House and trying to get their shoes tied in the morning.  Richard Clark and Bill Clinton act as if they got on bullhorn and screamed at Dubya and his crew daily about the threat of Osama bin Laden when they did exactly the opposite.  Bill high-tailed it out of there and never looked back. . .and Richard Clark left some dubious "memos" and whatnot.  Personally, I think Richard Clark saw the writing on the wall.  He knew he'd had all these years to neutralize Osama and co. and he never got it done.  He also knew there could be an attack coming and that he'd get blamed because he didn't do jack to stop it.  So, he goes squealing and pointing fingers at everyone else so his head doesn't hit the chopping block.

Clinton is shitting his pants because he knows that his legacy is going to be that of only the second President ever to be impeached and because of an affair in the Oval Office.  He's also worried that the harsh light of truth is going to be shined on his Presidency and it isn't going to be pretty.  Congrats to him though on his Global Initiative.  Nice to see him raising money for a good cause.  Surely none of that will find its way into his wife's campaign fund.......

Dangle a carrot in front of a donkey and it bites the carrot.

You accused him of blaming everyone else. I quoted the segment of the video where he said he failed. I gave enough extra information in that quote for you to be unable to address that original flame of yours, and enticed you to attack him again. You took a big old bite of that carrot, and flamed away.

You use the word 'think' when it suits you, and when you don't, you act like what you typed is canon. 90% of what you write, just like anyone else, is opinion, because, and correct me if this in fact the case, unless you are there for EVERY related event over the span of history, You Don't Know Shit.

Sorry to break it to you, Clinton was in power for the entire duration of Osama building his power base? Thats some amazing intel. But didn't you say everyone underestimated the threat Osama and his 'power base' represented? But you can accurately state that Clinton was in power for the entire time he was building it.

If you knew all this why didn't YOU go and bump Osama off? From what you type, you are as culpable as Clinton and Bush in your ability to know all these things, yet do nothing about them.

Oh, and as you are adding a little personal insult onto old 'Bill' regarding theft of funds....
It's shone, not shined.

Thanks for your time.

spacebandit72 wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but... Clinton is the first president to be impeached. Nixon resigned before the impeachment process.

Anyway, I think that if Billy would have just answered the question instead of talking in circles, the other questions would have been asked.
I agree that he made some ok points but his personal attack was just plain rude.

We can all agree that Clinton failed to get Osama (for what ever reason you like) but the fact remains... he failed. There is no going back and to be honest, nobody should be bringing up that old news out of spite. The same goes for the bush bashers. To me, They all sound like little kids on the playground. Unfortunatley the playground is our lives.

That's all I have... Unite to stop porkbarrel spending. (both parties)

Nah. . .there is some totally obscure President WAY back in history that got impeached. . .lemme look it up one sec. . .

Congress regards impeachment as a power to be used only in extreme cases; the House has initiated impeachment proceedings only 62 times since 1789 (most recently President Clinton), and only the following 17 federal officers have been impeached:

    * two presidents:
          o Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 after violating the then-newly created Tenure of Office Act. Johnson was acquitted of all charges by a single vote in the Senate.
          o Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed — a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote), and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote). He was acquitted by the Senate.
    * one cabinet officer, William W. Belknap (Secretary of War). He resigned before his trial, and was later acquitted. Allegedly most of those who voted to acquit him believed that his resignation had removed their jurisdiction.
    * one Senator, William Blount (though the Senate had already expelled him and it may have been illegal, see above).
    * Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1804. He was acquitted.
    * twelve other federal judges.

Thanks Wikipedia.

Dude, if you're so sure that you're correct, why don't you run for office.

We have this little rule on these internet forums.. or at least some of us try to.  It's called respect.  Never act like you know everything 100 percent of the way, at least leave some room for you to be wrong.  But even though he's admitted he could be wrong, you're saying that he doesn't know what he's talking about.  Get a grip dude

Last edited by Spearhead (2006-09-25 03:35:48)

Aenima_Eyes wrote:

what he wrote.

You call it a red herring, congrats. You made a point, I addressed that point and put in a little extra, you had the choice to a: go with the extra, or b: go along with your previous point that I addressed. You chose to go with the extra, I pointed it out. You then whine about it being a red herring because you possibly feel like a twat for falling for a red herring that wasn't there.

You say that I'm pulling the 'if you weren't there...blah blah blah' bullshit. But tell me it's any different than the shit you guys pull. Whenever a 'liberal' turns round and says something you all ask for proof or just tell them to shut the fuck up because you know they CAN'T prove it.

Wow, you've read some of my other posts on other threads, and I flew past crazy long ago. Probably. As to medication, it makes me tired and nauseous. So no thanks.

But my forum title does give fair warning as to my methods. Just don't pull the 'you are a liberal' shit if you've actually read a selection. Especially the one suggesting you pull out of the middle east entirely, and if they continue their shit, just wipe them all out.

Either way, thanks for the concern about my mental health, but it's 'under control' just like the situation in the middle east. =P

Oh this is so funny!! You guys talking about who pwned whom and who got owned are missing the big picture. THEY'RE ALL THE SAME!!! What is the difference between democrats and republicans? They both got the same agenda, and the only thing they're quarreling about is who is more effective at it.

Clinton wanted to kill Bin Laden and Bush wanted to kill Bin Laden. Clinton was into Somalia and Yugoslavia, Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There's only one policy and all you vote for is who is best at making it happen! What ever happened to a different point of view? What ever happened to Democracy?

And who the fuck are those guys at the 9/11 Commission? Is Jesus one of them? Cause they sure sound like the all-knowing uberlords. Both Republicans and Democrats refer to this commission as though they know everything and they make it sound as though they could never be intimidated or biased or controlled by anyone. For fucks sake their "primary conclusion was that the failures of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) permitted the terrorist attacks to occur and that had these agencies acted more wisely and more aggressively, the attacks could potentially have been prevented."

Out of 280 million Americans is there anyone who disagrees with this statement?

Here's more criticism if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission