September 25, 2006
What Bill Clinton Wanted To Accomplish
Still wondering what Pres. Clinton was trying to accomplish in his fiery, finger-wagging chat with FOX's Chris Wallace? Look no further than Camp Clinton's explanation.
"When Wallace questioned his record on terrorism, he responded forcefully, as any Democrat would or should," said spokesperson Jay Carson, in what were essentially Clinton's marching orders to Dems some 6 weeks before
E-Day.
Be forceful, show backbone, defend your record. Lose your temper, if you must.
This outburst may have been a calculated bid to frame the debate, by example, and prep his party for the fight they face. Many Dems were already riding this train. But Clinton may have concluded that others need a gentle kick.
Clinton, as always, is a double-edged sword; His outburst will rally GOPers as well.
HRC's camp is cautiously praising the performance, but many of her supporters privately wonder if his testosterone will be a problem for '08, particularly as she tries to show Commander-in-Chief distinctions from 42. Keeping him in check, and more importantly, keeping voters from comparing the two Clintons too easily, will evidently be easier said than done.
Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee just sent out a long list of "facts" in response to the "myths" it says Clinton disseminated.
For example:
MYTH: President Clinton Said He Was Besieged By "Conservative Republicans" Who Thought He Was "Too Obsessed" With Osama Bin Laden:Former President Bill Clinton: "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." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)
The full RNC document is after the jump.
THE BILL CLINTON ANTI-TERROR MYTH FACT
________________________________________
MYTH: President Clinton Said He Was Besieged By "Conservative Republicans" Who Thought He Was "Too Obsessed" With Osama Bin Laden:
Former President Bill Clinton: "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." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)
FACT: Conservative Republicans Praised President Clinton For Going After Bin Laden:
FLASHBACK 1998: "President Clinton Won Warm Support For Ordering Anti-Terrorist Bombing Attacks In Afghanistan And Sudan ... From Many Of The Same Lawmakers Who Have Criticized Him Harshly As A Leader Critically Weakened By Poor Judgment And Reckless Behavior In The Monica S. Lewinsky Scandal." (Guy Gugliotta and Juliet Eilperin, "Tough Response Appeals To Critics Of President," The Washington Post, 8/21/98)
"[M]ost Lawmakers From Both Parties Were Quick To Rally Behind Clinton In A Deluge Of Public Statements And Appearances ... A Marked Contrast To The Relatively Sparse And Chilly Reception That Greeted His ... Statement On The Lewinsky Matter." (Guy Gugliotta and Juliet Eilperin, "Tough Response Appeals To Critics Of President," The Washington Post, 8/21/98)
Then-Speaker Of The House Newt Gingrich (R-GA): "I think the President did exactly the right thing ... By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists. ... Anyone who watched the film of the bombings, anyone who saw the coffins come home knows better than to question this timing ... It was done as early as possible to send a message to terrorists across the globe that killing Americans has a cost. It has no relationship with any other activity of any kind." (Guy Gugliotta and Juliet Eilperin, "Tough Response Appeals To Critics Of President," The Washington Post, 8/21/98)
Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), Senate Majority Leader: "[The attacks are] appropriate and just." (Guy Gugliotta and Juliet Eilperin, "Tough Response Appeals To Clinton Critics," The Washington Post, 8/21/98)
"On The Other Hand...There's The Mainstream Media. The Conservative Media Research Council Noted That 'Every Network Did Raise The "Wag The Dog" Scenario.' And Indeed, According To The MRC Story ... CBS ABC And NBC All Raised The Notion ..." (Jake Tapper, "The Truth About Clinton And 'Wag The Dog'," ABC News, 9/24/06)
MYTH: President Clinton Said Osama Bin Laden And Al Qaeda Had Nothing "To Do With Black Hawk Down":
Former President Bill Clinton: "There is not a living soul in the world who thought Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down ..." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)
FACT: Experts Agree, Black Hawk Down Was Osama Bin Laden And Al Qaeda's "First Victory" Against The U.S.:
Osama Bin Laden Considered Black Hawk Down His First Victory Against The U.S. "The international community turned away from the country after a 1993 battle that killed 18 U.S. troops the basis for the 'Black Hawk Down' book and movie and a U.N. peacekeeping mission ended in failure in 1995. Osama bin Laden considered the subsequent withdrawal of U.S. troops from Somalia his first victory against America." (Nick Wadhams, "New U.S.-Organized Group Lends Support To Somalia's Weak Interim Government," The Associated Press, 6/15/06)
Mark Bowden, Author Of Black Hawk Down: "The lesson our retreat taught the world's terrorists and despots is that killing a few American soldiers, even at a cost of more than 500 of your own fighters, is enough to spook Uncle Sam." (Mark Bowden, Black Hawk Down, 1999, p. 355)
Gregory Alonso Pirio, President Of Empowering Communications, And Hrach Gregorian, President Of Institute Of World Affairs: "[The dangerous jihadist organization, Al Itihaad Al Islamiya] has actively worked with al-Qaida since 1993 to carry out acts of aggression against the United States, including the 'Black Hawk Down' incident in Mogadishu and the bombing of the American embassy in Nairobi, Kenya." (Gregory Alonso Pirio and Hrach Gregorian, Op-Ed, "Jihadist Threat In Africa," United Press International, 7/8/06)
Pirio And Gregorian: "Osama bin Laden and some of the Al Itihaad leaders have apparently known each other from their Afghan mujahidin days. Al-Qaida and Al Itihaad became closely allied in opposing the U.S.-led humanitarian intervention in Somalia known as Operation Restore Hope." (Gregory Alonso Pirio and Hrach Gregorian, Op-Ed, "Jihadist Threat In Africa," United Press International, 7/8/06)
Pirio And Gregorian: "Bin Laden has claimed that al-Qaida operatives helped orchestrate the 1993 Black Hawk Down incident - the downing of a U.S. army helicopter in Mogadishu and the subsequent loss of life of 18 American soldiers. There is now substantial evidence to back up bin Laden's claim." (Gregory Alonso Pirio and Hrach Gregorian, Op-Ed, "Jihadist Threat In Africa," United Press International, 7/8/06)
MYTH: President Clinton Said No One Knew Of Al Qaeda In 1993:
Former President Bill Clinton: "[No one] even knew Al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of '93." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)
FACT: Osama Bin Laden And Al Qaeda Were Well Known By The Time Clinton Was Inaugurated:
Richard Miniter, Author Of Losing Bin Laden: "One of the big myths about the Clinton years is that no one knew about bin Laden until Sept. 11, 2001." ("Clinton's Loss," National Review Online, 9/11/03)
Miniter: "In fact, the bin Laden threat was recognized at the highest levels of the Clinton administration as early as 1993. What's more, bin Laden's attacks kept escalating throughout the Clinton administration; all told bin Laden was responsible for the deaths of 59 Americans on Clinton's watch." ("Clinton's Loss," National Review Online, 9/11/03)
Miniter: "President Clinton learned about bin Laden within months of being sworn into office. National Security Advisor Anthony Lake told me that he first heard the name Osama bin Laden in 1993 in relation to the World Trade Center attack. Lake briefed the president about bin Laden that same year." ("Clinton's Loss," National Review Online, 9/11/03)
Miniter: "In addition, starting in 1993, Rep. Bill McCollum (R., Fla.) repeatedly wrote to President Clinton and warned him and other administration officials about bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists. McCollum was the founder and chairman of the House Taskforce on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare and had developed a wealth of contacts among the mujihedeen in Afghanistan. Those sources, who regularly visited McCollum, informed him about bin Laden's training camps and evil ambitions." ("Clinton's Loss," National Review Online, 9/11/03)
MYTH: President Clinton Said His Foes Wanted To Cut-And-Run From Somalia:
Former President Bill Clinton: "All the people who now criticize me wanted to leave [Somalia] the next day." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)
FACT: Many Republican Leaders Wanted To Finish The Job Done In Somalia, Not Cut-And-Run:
"'Foreign Policy Will Drift And Get Sloppy In Execution If The President Doesn't Pay Attention To These Things,' Said Sen. Richard Lugar Of Indiana, A Ranking Republican On The Foreign Relations Committee Who Lined Up With Clinton In Opposing A Precipitous Withdrawal From Somalia." (Leo Rennert, "Deadly Ambush Casts A Pall On Clinton's Domestic Focus," The Modesto Bee, 10/9/93)
Sen. Lugar: "It would be a disgrace to cut and run in a way in which we lost more lives and put more people in jeopardy simply because we went into a national panic." (Tom Raum, "Clinton Says U.S. Must 'Conclude Our Role' In Somalia," The Associated Press, 10/6/93)
Then-Speaker Gingrich: "If Clinton is determined to protect the people of Somalia and defeat General Aidid, we should use overwhelming power and get the job done. If not, we should admit the limitations of power and withdraw." ("The Furor Over Somalia Voices," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/7/93)
MYTH: President Clinton Said Al Qaeda Was Not Active In Somalia:
Former President Bill Clinton: "[In Somalia] there was no Al Qaeda ..." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)
FACT: President Clinton's Own Adviser Worried Somalia Was Haven For Al Qaeda:
According To "A Report By The Crisis Group Africa, A Regional Crisis-Monitoring Group ... Some Operatives With Links To The World's Most Deadly Terror Cells Have Been To Kenya From Their Bases In Somalia." (Kamau Ngotho, Op-Ed, "The Terrorist Next Door," Africa News, 7/31/05)
"The US Has Long Kept A Watchful Eye On Somalia As A Potential Haven For Terrorists, Including The Al-Qaeda Network." (Kamau Ngotho, Op-Ed, "The Terrorist Next Door," Africa News, 7/31/05)
"As Early As 1998 When The (Bill) Clinton Administration Launched Cruise Missiles At Terrorist Training Camps In Afghanistan, The Head Of The Counter-Terrorism Group, Richard Clarke, Became Concerned That Osama Bin Laden Was Planning To Adapt Somalia As An Alternate Refuge ..." ("The Terrorist Next Door," Africa News, 7/31/05)
Beverly Kelley, Professor At California Lutheran University: "Gung-ho Americans were caught off guard, however, when a stunning counterattack by Aidid's militia, armed and trained by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, turned the seemingly simple extraction into an 18-hour bloodbath. The final death toll came in at 18 Americans and 500 Somalis." (Beverly Kelley, "Saddam and 'Black Hawk Down'," Ventura County [CA] Star, 4/7/03)
MYTH: President Clinton Said Richard Clarke Was Nonpartisan And "Loyal" To All Presidents He Worked For:
Former President Bill Clinton: "[Richard Clarke] has a variety of opinion and loyalties now, but let's look at the facts: He worked for Ronald Reagan; he was loyal to him. He worked for George H. W. Bush; he was loyal to him. He worked for me, and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush; he was loyal to him." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)
FACT: Richard Clarke Had Close Ties Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) 2004 Campaign And Was Used By Liberal Groups Trying To Defeat President George W. Bush:
Richard Clarke Repeatedly Praised John Kerry During The Height Of The 2004 Presidential Campaign. "Richard A. Clarke ... credits Kerry with having seen beyond the national-security tableau on which most of his colleagues were focused." (Matt Bai, "Kerry's Undeclared War," The New York Times, 10/10/04)
Clarke: "He was getting it at the same time that people like Tony Lake were getting it, in the '93-'94 time frame ... And the 'it' here was that there was a new nonstate-actor threat, and that nonstate-actor threat was a blended threat that didn't fit neatly into the box of organized criminal, or neatly into the box of terrorism. What you found were groups that were all of the above." (Matt Bai, "Kerry's Undeclared War," The New York Times, 10/10/04)
Kerry/Edwards Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor Rand Beers Called Clarke His Best Friend Of 25 Years. CNN's Judy Woodruff: "At today's White House briefing secretary Scott McClellan called Rand Beers, quote, 'Clarke's best buddy.' So I guess the first question is are you best friends with Mr. Clarke?" Kerry Adviser Rand Beers: "Dick Clarke and I have been friends for 25 years. And, yes, I think we're best friends." (CNN's "Inside Politics," 3/22/04)
Clarke Confirmed Beers' Description Of Their Friendship. "'[M]r. Clarke said by telephone from New York ... that he had been friends for 25 years with Mr. Beers, 'and I'm not going to run away from him just because he's John Kerry's national security adviser.'" (Elisabeth Bumiller and Judith Miller, "Ex-Bush Aide, Finding Fault, Sets Off Debate As 9/11 Hearing Opens," The New York Times, 3/23/04)
In 2004, MoveOn.Org And Another Liberal Group, America Coming Together, Used Clarke's Claims To Solicit Campaign Donations:
2004 MoveOn.Org Email: "As you may have heard, Richard Clarke, a former counter-terrorism advisor to Bush... We're committed to stopping that from happening by making sure that the American public hears Clarke's extraordinary comments. If we can raise $300,000 in the next few days, we can run a hard-hitting ad nationally that highlights his message." (MoveOn.Org Email, 3/24/04)
2004 America Coming Together Email: "If you didn't see 60 Minutes on Sunday night, I'm sure by now you've read about it. Richard Clarke, President Bush's former top terrorism expert, revealed convincing proof of the administration's failure to focus on terrorist threats ... Please consider giving online to speed your donation to our effort to help elect progressive candidates at the federal, state, and local levels." (America Coming Together Email, 3/24/04)
MYTH: President Clinton's Said His Record Against Terror Was Made Clear By Richard Clarke's Book:
Former President Bill Clinton: "All I'm asking is, anybody who wants to say I didn't do enough, you read Richard Clarke's book." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)
FACT: Clarke's Book Riddled With Inaccuracies, His Record Marked By "Glaring" National Security Weaknesses:
The National Journal's Stuart Taylor: "Richard Clarke served his country for many years with extraordinary dedication. But it is deeply irresponsible for him to create the false impression that if only we had listened to him, this administration could have prevented the September 11 attacks." (Stuart Taylor Jr., "How To Rebut Clarke Without Slinging Mud," The National Journal, 4/3/04)
Taylor: "Even Mr. Clarke himself admits - very quietly - that immediate adoption of every one of his recommendations would have made no difference." (Stuart Taylor Jr., "How To Rebut Clarke Without Slinging Mud," The National Journal, 4/3/04)
Taylor: "Consider his claim that during a January 2001 briefing on Al Qaeda, Condi Rice's 'facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before.' in fact, she had used the term, quite publicly. He could have looked it up." (Stuart Taylor Jr., "How To Rebut Clarke Without Slinging Mud," The National Journal, 4/3/04)
"Clarke Says In His Book That Bush Asked Him To Look Into A Possible Iraq Connection To 9/11 In An 'Intimidating' Way. No. Two Other Witnesses Say There Was Nothing Intimidating About Bush's Manner." (Editorial, "Clarke's Self-Immolation," National Review Online, 3/25/04)
"A Senior National Security Official [Franklin Miller] Who Worked Alongside Richard A. Clarke On Sept. 11, 2001, Is Disputing Central Elements Of Mr. Clarke's Account Of Events In The White House Situation Room That Day, Declaring That It 'Is A Much Better Screenplay Than Reality Was.'" (David E. Sanger, "Colleague Of Ex-Official Disputes Part Of Account," The New York Times, 3/30/04)
"In The Book, Mr. Clarke Describes Himself As 'The Nation's Crisis Manager' That Day, Though He Acknowledges Periodically Turning Over His Seat In The Situation Room, In The Basement Of The West Wing, To Mr. Miller." (David E. Sanger, "Colleague Of Ex-Official Disputes Part Of Account," The New York Times, 3/30/04)
"[M]r. Miller, A Senior Aide To Condoleezza Rice, The National Security Adviser, Suggested That Mr. Clarke's Version, While It Would 'Make A Great Movie,' Was More Melodramatic Than The Events He Recalled." (David E. Sanger, "Colleague Of Ex-Official Disputes Part Of Account," The New York Times, 3/30/04)
Clarke Claimed To Have Seen Sec. Rumsfeld On A Video Conference When A Plane Hit The Pentagon. "The morning of 9/11 was a blur for many Americans and must have been for Clarke, too. But Clarke relates in vivid detail a secure videoconference of the national security team. The World Trade Center had been hit moments earlier. 'As I entered the Video Center, Lisa Gordon-Hagerty was taking the roll and I could see people rushing into studios around the city: Donald Rumsfeld at Defense and George Tenet at CIA.' Moments later, according to Clarke, NSC staffer Roger Cressey 'stepped back in to the video conference and announced : 'A plane just hit the Pentagon.'" Clarke replied: 'I can still see Rumsfeld on the screen, so the whole building didn't get hit.'" ("The Daily Kos, Richard Clarke, And More," The Weekly Standard, 4/12/04)
"[I]t Didn't Happen Like That. Rumsfeld Was In His Office When The Plane Hit The Pentagon But Not On Video. He Had Come Directly From A Meeting With Members Of Congress And, After The Attack, In One Of The Most-Chronicled Events Of That Day, Went To The Site Of The Impact To Help Load The Injured Onto Stretchers." ("The Daily Kos, Richard Clarke, And More," The Weekly Standard, 4/12/04)
Former Deputy Secretary Of Defense Paul Wolfowitz: "[Clarke] has Secretary Rumsfeld attending a critical September 4th meeting that the secretary wasn't even at. He has the secretary in the Pentagon on a secure videoteleconference, a rather dramatic, memorable moment, when the secretary didn't turn up until an hour later." (Paul Wolfowitz, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 4/20/04)
MYTH: President Clinton Said He Left "Comprehensive Anti-Terror Strategy" For President Bush:
Former President Bill Clinton: "[I] left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy ..." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)
FACT: Clinton And Bush Administration Officials Agree "There Was No War Plan ... Turned Over":
Former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger: "Now, the second question you asked - which comes off the Time Magazine story, I think, was there a plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. If I could address that. The transition, as you will recall, was condensed by virtue of the election in November. I was very focused on using the time that we had - I had been on the other side of a transition with General Scowcroft in 1992. But we used that time very efficiently to convey to my successor the most important information - what was going on and what situations they faced. Number one among those was terrorism and Al-Qaeda, and I told that to my successor. She has acknowledged that publicly so I'm not violating any pr ivate conversation. We briefed them fully on what we were doing - on what else was under consideration and what the threat was. I personally attended part of that briefing to emphasize how important that was. But there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect." (Sandy Berger, Select Committees On Intelligence, U.S. Senate And U.S. House Of Representatives Hearing, 9/18/02)
Richard Clarke In 2002: "[T]here was no plan on al-Qaida that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration." (Richard Tomkins, "WH Throws Own Words Back At Clarke," United Press International, 3/24/04)
"[T]here Was A Strategy In Place Dating From 1998 That The Clinton Administration Had Not Acted On." (Richard Tomkins, "WH Throws Own Words Back At Clarke," United Press International, 3/24/04)
Unnamed Former Clinton Administration NSC Official: "There were certainly ongoing efforts throughout the eight years of the Clinton administration to fight terrorism ... It was certainly not a formal war plan. It was certainly not a formal war plan. We wouldn't have characterized it as a formal war plan. The Bush administration was briefed on the Clinton administration's ongoing efforts and threat assessments." (Byron York, "Clinton The Anti-Terrorist," National Review, 9/2/02)
"A Senior Bush Administration Official Denies Being Handed A Formal Plan To Take The Offensive Against Al-Qaeda, And Says Clarke's Materials Merely Dealt With Whether The New Administration Should Take 'A More Active Approach' To The Terrorist Group." (Michael Elliott, "They Had A Plan," Time, 8/12/02)
MYTH: President Clinton Said He "Worked Hard" To Go After Bin Laden:
Former President Bill Clinton: "I worked hard to try to kill [bin Laden]. 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." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)
FACT: Clinton Administration Repeatedly Missed Opportunities To Stop Bin Laden:
9/11 Commission Report: "[Former CIA Director George] Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to 'turn off' the operation [to capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan]. He had simply informed [Sandy] Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger's recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision." (National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States, "The 9/11 Commission Report," 7/24/04, p. 114)
2000: "Clinton Spurned Sudan's Offer To Hand Over Bin Laden Because The United States Lacked Enough Evidence To Indict Him In Earlier Attacks In Somalia, Yemen And At The World Trade Center In 1993. (So Clinton Let The Sudanese Send Bin Laden To Afghanistan ..." (Dick Polman, "Sept. 11 May Taint Clinton's Legacy," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 1/14/02)
9/11 Commission Report: "In early May 1996, the CIA received intelligence that Bin Ladin might be leaving Sudan. Though this reporting was described as 'very spotty,' it would have been passed along to the DCI's office because of high concern about Bin Ladin at the time. But it did not lead to plans for a U.S. operation to snatch Bin Ladin, because there was no indictment against him." (National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States, "The 9/11 Commission Report," 7/24/04, p. 479)
Former President Clinton: "At the time, in 1996, he had committed no crimes against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America." (Robert Sam Anson, "Bill And His Shadow," Vanity Fair, 6/04)
After 1998 Embassy Bombings In Africa, Clinton Administration Launched Failed Missile Strikes That Ignored Osama Bin Laden. "[There is] some evidence that at least some of the missiles may have missed their targets, and according to Pakistan, it says one missile landed on its soil killing six people." (CNN's "Newsday," 8/21/98)
"U.S. Officials Also Indicated That Bin Laden Himself Was 'Not Specifically Targeted' In The Attacks And Apparently Was Not Present At Any Of The Sites." (Art Pine, "U.S. Targets Heart Of Terror," Los Angeles Times, 8/21/98)
"It's Also True That Clinton Looked Weak In 1998 By Firing A Cruise Missile At Bin Laden In Afghanistan, Missing Him (Narrowly, It Appears), And Failing To Follow Up." (Dick Polman, "Sept. 11 May Taint Clinton's Legacy," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 1/14/02)
PDF Format
Posted at 01:02 PM
Comments
I was very disappointed in former Pres. Clinton's behavior on Fox. Its unbecoming of a former president to conduct himself in such a manner.
DW | 09.25.06 01:14 PM
 |
This is a joke, right? Conservatives, as a whole, were very critical of somalia and were demanding that Clinton leave, immediately. When Clinton was president conservatives didn't believe in nation building, just ask Sean Hannity or George Bush.
kyle | 09.25.06 01:49 PM
|
Well actually, Clinton's little venting excerise suggests that he had probably made a mistake at the security or intelligent level and showing what he might be capable of publicly if someone from his White House or one of his Watergate lawyers got out of line. It's pure Clinton, shoot first ask questions later.
Richard | 09.25.06 01:59 PM
|
Those silly Dems...believing everything they hear/read...of course, the GOP isn't any better as these sorts of myth/fact analyses so often show...So as far as I'm concerned, both sides are at least equally at fault here since the GOP can talk about the "failures of Clinton" until they are blue (or red) in the face, but the fact is, Sept. 11th happened under their watch..as has a ballooning federal deficit, increased regulation of civil liberties, out of control pork barrel spending, and general hysteria and an overall disconnect between the left and the right. So, who will I vote for? Well considering I'm a hard-core fiscal conservative and an equally hard-core social liberal, I guess I'm screwed either way since both sides love to buy votes by selling fear, anger, and expensive social programs.. Oh where oh where is a good, solid, MODERATE party with real backbone and spirit when you need one!?! The way these 2 parties battle they are becoming more and more similar to one another and have pushed us moderates further and further way. I'm truly disgusted as our massive, invasive government continues to make us out to be sniveling, weak-minded fools. Well perhaps we are....
Lance | 09.25.06 02:08 PM
|
It is way pass time that the Democrats stand up and express their thoughts instead of being bullied by the other guys.
Linda | 09.25.06 02:20 PM
|
I am proud that President Clinton did what he did. It is about time someone stood up to all of this "disease" the Republicans and FOX news throws around. It is time the Democrats had some backbone and stand up for themselves and if it had to be President Clinton to make the first move...so be it!
Jeri | 09.25.06 03:20 PM
|
MYTH: President G W Bush could have done nothing to stop Osama's 9/11 attack.
FACT: Bush demoted Richard Clark and put Osama on
the back burner. He knew or reasonably should have
known..that..would aid Osama's plans to attack us.
FLASHBACK: Would it have embarresed GW, in front of his quest (the Bin Laden relatives) at his ranch, to continue Clinton and Clarks campaign against Al-Qaeda.
R Baker | 09.25.06 03:24 PM
|
"Tell the truth"
Regardless of some accusing Clinton of using FNS to make political manuevers, what I saw was a man who was confident, articulate, and with a appreciation of truth. Whether Clinton is actually those things is really irrelevent. If he isn't, he is much better at faking it than Bush who doens't have to fake it, not because he has those qualities, but because Hacks like Wallace give him and those in his administration a pass.
Nathan | 09.25.06 03:33 PM
|
I have been waiting for 5 years for a Democrat to finally get some balls and speak like a real human. How else can anyone get through the lack of reality that the current administration is fostering?
Jill | 09.25.06 03:41 PM
|
MYTH: President G W Bush could have done nothing to stop Osama's 9/11 attack.
FACT: Rep. Bill McCollum (R., Fla.) founder and chairman of the House Taskforce on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare advised G.W. of the danger.
Bush demoted Richard Clark and put Osama on
the back burner. He knew or reasonably should have
known..that..would aid Osama's plans to attack us.
FLASHBACK: G.W. had the benefit of intel gathered
during the Clinton presidency as well as intel gathered after his Inauguration ... yet he FAILED
TO TAKE STEPS to PROTECT US.
Would it have embarresed GW, in front of his quest (the Bin Laden relatives) at his ranch, to continue Clinton and Clarks campaign against Al-Qaeda.
R Baker | 09.25.06 03:42 PM
|
MYTH: President G W Bush could have done nothing to stop Osama's 9/11 attack.
FACT: Rep. Bill McCollum (R., Fla.) founder and chairman of the House Taskforce on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare advised G.W. of the danger.
Bush demoted Richard Clark and put Osama on
the back burner. He knew or reasonably should have
known..that..would aid Osama's plans to attack us.
FLASHBACK: G.W. had the benefit of intel gathered
during the Clinton presidency as well as intel gathered after his Inauguration ... yet he FAILED
TO TAKE STEPS to PROTECT US.
Would it have embarresed GW, in front of his quest (the Bin Laden relatives) at his ranch, to continue Clinton and Clarks campaign against Al-Qaeda.
R Baker | 09.25.06 03:50 PM
|
I am in New Zealand. Watching Clinton gave me a sense that he is frustrated at the lies and deceit, allegations of mis-handling intelligence and security planning.
Give the man a break! why has Bush not arrested Bin Ladin? It's been five years and yet he got Saddam in 6 months!
Quentin Todd | 09.25.06 03:55 PM
|
MYTH: President G W Bush could have done nothing to stop Osama's 9/11 attack.
FACT: Rep. Bill McCollum (R., Fla.) founder and chairman of the House Taskforce on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare advised G.W. of the danger.
FACT: Bush demoted Richard Clark and put Osama on
the back burner. He knew or reasonably should have
known..that..would aid Osama's plans to attack us.
FLASHBACK: G.W. had the benefit of intel gathered
during the Clinton presidency as well as intel gathered after his Inauguration ... yet he "FAILED TO TAKE STEPS to PROTECT US".
Would it have embarresed GW, in front of his quest (the Bin Laden relatives) at his ranch, to continue Clinton and Clarks campaign against Al-Qaeda.
MYTH: The lives loss of our brave young people in Iraq are makeing us safer.
FACT: G.W.'s continued occupation of Iraq is a recuiting tool for our enemies.
MYTH: BUSH is competent in our war on terror.
FACT: The BILLIONS spent and the manpower depleted
would and will be spent on SECURITY HERE.
R Baker | 09.25.06 04:03 PM
|
Lance, under Dean's guidance the Democratic party has shifted toward one of fiscal responsibility and paying for what it spends. Yes, the Democratic platform includes things like healthcare, to bring our poor from third-world to first-world status, but it also includes a responsible fiscal platform for solid longterm economic growth and reduced debt.
Your best bet for now is to vote Democratic, and support this fiscal responsibility during the primaries and with letters.
John | 09.25.06 04:15 PM
|
It's just another example of the historical legacy of the liberals/democrats in the US: They are TOO soft in exterior affairs, and the communists, terrorists and all US-haters around the world throw party when the democrats get to power in the US... Democrats win = US people lose.
Think about it.
Richard | 09.25.06 04:32 PM
|
Why does this site story reprint all the GOP crap with no Dems rebuttles? Were is the balance? Still sucking Republican dick, aren't you guys...
illustrator | 09.25.06 04:41 PM
|
Express their thoughts?
What Clinton did was nothing more than some calculated bunch of bull pucky that someone told him to say. Clinton is just one of those master politicians that can piss in your ear and tell you it's raining. Just because he said it "forcefully" and "emotionally" doesn't mean anything that he's saying is true.
But most people don't understand it. They're already so sold on the idea that Clinton just simply must be a good guy, that when they hear him get all emotional about it ... they figure ... it simply must be true.
All this from the guy that lied to our nation, bold face, and tried to get out of it by re-defining the word "sexual relations". How quickly people forget ...
Matt Marshall | 09.25.06 04:48 PM
|
Bill Clinton lost his temper? Oh b.s.! He made his point fair and square. The more the 'wingers "go after" him for it, the more we know it's effective. If the Democratic Party had a lick of sense (which they don't, unfortunately), they'd have Bill Clinton on the campaign trail from now through November 7th.
WW | 09.25.06 04:51 PM
|
Interesting to note that not one comment from the Bushies refutes Bill's statement that:
The Clinton administration left the Bush administration a full advisory and plan for terrorism.
Richard Clarke was in fact demoted.
Dick Cheney never convened an anti-terrorism meeting before 9/11.
The Bushies DID NOTHING to attack Bin Laden in 9 months even after the Presidential Daily Briefing titled: BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
Hmmm...
BH | 09.25.06 04:52 PM
|
Someone should tell Mr. Clinton to pull up his socks on those pastey white legs of his before poor Chris Wallace did it for him. Very unpresidential
Hal | 09.25.06 05:12 PM
|
Yes, Clinton left an "advisory plan". The substance of that plan was to ignore terrorist attacks due to the "trivial damage" that they generally caused and the "excessive cost" of actually enacting an agressive foreign policy on Islamic terrorism. Clinton's plan is no different than the typical modern-day Democrat. Sit on your ass and treat terrorism as a domestic, police problem. Sorry. But the average U.S. citizen *does* understand what Slick Willy and the Dems stand for in the WoT...that's why the Democrats *still* lose elections.
Wes | 09.25.06 05:17 PM
|
Are you Dem supporters on crack? On Clinton's watch the US was attacked 9 times and he did not do a thing. He never had a plan short of Monica's next visit. He was a liar then and that seems not to have changed a lick. He goes on TV and acts like he is arguing with Hillary. If Bush had lost to Quale we would all be speaking Afghanistan's mother tongue right now and we are lucky they did not pull that 9/11 thing under Clinton's watch or it would be the same situation. Try and make it seem like the FNS played nice with the GOP and you see what the GOP feels like every time a DEM goes on TV or talks to a rag reporter.
Buck up and get real, if you want to give up your rights vote Democrat!!
Really? | 09.25.06 05:22 PM
|
All I think every time I see that sorry excuse for a man is that when Hillary found out about Monica Bill should have seen her through blood smeared eyes as he looked up at her from the floor and she mumbled "How do you reload this stupid thing?".
Respect | 09.25.06 05:25 PM
|
MYTH: President G W Bush could have done nothing to stop Osama's 9/11 attack.
FACT: Rep. Bill McCollum (R., Fla.) founder and chairman of the House Taskforce on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare advised G.W. of the danger.
FACT: Bush demoted Richard Clark and put Osama on
the back burner. He knew or reasonably should have
known..that..would aid Osama's plans to attack us.
FLASHBACK: G.W. had the benefit of intel gathered
during the Clinton presidency as well as intel gathered after his Inauguration ... yet he "FAILED TO TAKE STEPS to PROTECT US".
Would it have embarresed GW, in front of his quest (the Bin Laden relatives) at his ranch, to continue Clinton and Clarks campaign against Al-Qaeda.
MYTH: The lives loss of our brave young people in Iraq are makeing us safer.
FACT: G.W.'s continued occupation of Iraq is a recuiting tool for our enemies.
MYTH: BUSH is competent in our war on terror.
FACT: The BILLIONS spent and the manpower depleted
would and will be spent on SECURITY HERE.
R BAKER | 09.25.06 05:25 PM
|
About time Clinton called the clowns at Fox for what they are. Dealers in propoganda, not news.
And he also seems to grasp that maybe we've done a bit in the world to piss off too many people. All our damn meddling in the Mid East to keep our oil cheap. Well, it's come back to haunt us. Instead of devoting our powers to get off foreign oil, create an intelligence community that would really KNOW what was going on and secure our borders we just kept up with the same old crap. Make all our decisions on what's best for big business, the guys that fund all our so-called representatives. Not just fund them, buy them.
And this 2 party crap is not working. Before the Declaration of Independance John Adams said a 2 party system would never work and he was right.
Maybe it could if we didn't allow incumbents to run. But aside from all that the Bush admin. has done a horrible, clueless job and someone else is going to have to clean it up. It started way before Clinton and Bush but Bush has done more harm than anyone to the US of late. Get the damn Dems in control of the Senate so we can have some checks please! ! !
DBrown | 09.25.06 05:25 PM
|
Learn to read between the lines. These rebuttals are not direct contradictions to Mr. Clinton’s statements. Given that Clinton’s statements were made conversationally and the weak evidence in a deliberated, researched and referenced rebuttal to his statements cannot directly negate them should indicate to any thinking feller that the GOP is grasping at straws here. While I’m sure the former president is posturing to gain clout for the sake of supporting democratic candidates in the upcoming elections I don’t see that his remarks can be discounted. We really must be more discerning of the information put before us if we ever want to hold our elected officials accountable. If we lack the reasoning faculty to hold our government to accountability, they have no impetus to represent us.
Rich | 09.25.06 05:33 PM
|
I guess Chris wallace can change jobs then, Bush will need all his help at the next G8 sumit to keep Bush from being "unpresidential"
tru | 09.25.06 05:42 PM
|
Chris Wallace and the other dirtbags know they've smeared the record and lied about Clinton's legacy. They're shaking in their boots at the prospect of facing the wrath of a very energized, angry and fed-up American civil society.
This latest attempt to hit Clinton will backfire. Democrats and Indies are angry and energized. And energy = votes.
Maezeppa | 09.25.06 05:45 PM
|
Learn to read between the lines. These rebuttals are not direct contradictions to Mr. Clinton’s statements. Given that Clinton’s statements were made conversationally and the weak evidence in a deliberated, researched and referenced rebuttal to his statements cannot directly negate them should indicate to any thinking feller that the GOP is grasping at straws here. While I’m sure the former president is posturing to gain clout for the sake of supporting democratic candidates in the upcoming elections I don’t see that his remarks can be discounted. We really must be more discerning of the information put before us if we ever want to hold our elected officials accountable. If we lack the reasoning faculty to hold our government to accountability, they have no impetus to represent us.
Rich | 09.25.06 05:47 PM
|
Way to go Bill! This interview was right on!
These so-called "fact sheets" arte disgusting... they rely on EQUIVICATION and out of context WORD PARSING in every instance.
...and yet, the authors of the "fact sheet" can't seem to refute one thing:
No one on FOX asked those questions to anyone from the Bush/Cheney administration in 42 appearances on the show!
anyone want to refute that with any "facts?"
these guys will lie all the way to the grave.
D. Tree | 09.25.06 05:52 PM
|
Actually, if the whole interview was taken into account, Clinton was invited to speak on his environmental program. Not to talk about his actions regarding terrorism.
Maybe one of the so-called liberal news networks ought to call Bush Sr. onto the floor, to talk about his efforts in the tsunami ravaged regions, then instead ask him how he supported, funded, and trained terrorists who went on to form Al Qaeda?
Brian | 09.25.06 05:53 PM
|
Someone needs to take a logic class. Few of these "facts" actually refute the "myths".
For example, the fact that Clinton knew of bin Laden does not prove that it was widely known that the al Queida organization was a growing threat. Also, the fact that Clinton did not leave Bush a "war plan" does not disprove the fact that he left Bush a comprehensive threat assessment.
This is an intentionally misleading article. Not very impressive.
Michael | 09.25.06 06:05 PM
|
I think it is intesting how conservatively biased this article is. Does anyone have the common sense to realize the Democrats are the only party with a platform. Just see what happens in congress and try to justify the republicans. They're debating building a physical concrete wall along the border to Mexico and the border to Canada. Good grief! Our national debt is already about 8 trillion. Can we afford to build a wall to protect us from the Canadians in their igloos or Mexicans? How stupid can the Republicans get?
Bushwhacked | 09.25.06 06:19 PM
|
This "Fact" sheet is so full of holes, quotes from F to Z rate sources, irrelevant information and misinformation it’s an embarrassment that it was released by a major political party in this country. I'll attempt at taking it point by point in more threads, but I'll probably find better things to do than shoot political fish in a spin zone barrel. I'll do this one first:
MYTH: President Clinton Said Al Qaeda Was Not Active In Somalia:
Former President Bill Clinton: "[In Somalia] there was no Al Qaeda ..." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)
FACT: President Clinton's Own Adviser Worried Somalia Was Haven For Al Qaeda:
According To "A Report By The Crisis Group Africa, A Regional Crisis-Monitoring Group ... Some Operatives With Links To The World's Most Deadly Terror Cells Have Been To Kenya From Their Bases In Somalia." (Kamau Ngotho, Op-Ed, "The Terrorist Next Door," Africa News, 7/31/05)
"The US Has Long Kept A Watchful Eye On Somalia As A Potential Haven For Terrorists, Including The Al-Qaeda Network." (Kamau Ngotho, Op-Ed, "The Terrorist Next Door," Africa News, 7/31/05)
"As Early As 1998 When The (Bill) Clinton Administration Launched Cruise Missiles At Terrorist Training Camps In Afghanistan, The Head Of The Counter-Terrorism Group, Richard Clarke, Became Concerned That Osama Bin Laden Was Planning To Adapt Somalia As An Alternate Refuge ..." ("The Terrorist Next Door," Africa News, 7/31/05)
Beverly Kelley, Professor At California Lutheran University: "Gung-ho Americans were caught off guard, however, when a stunning counterattack by Aidid's militia, armed and trained by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, turned the seemingly simple extraction into an 18-hour bloodbath. The final death toll came in at 18 Americans and 500 Somalis." (Beverly Kelley, "Saddam and 'Black Hawk Down'," Ventura County [CA] Star, 4/7/03)
1. Kamau Ngotho writes for the Standard, a good Kenyan newspaper, but the quotes seem to come not from Mr. Ngotho but from OP-EDs in regard to his article.
2. Even if Ngotho wrote these statements himself, all they say is that Clarke thought Bin Laden MIGHT have PLANS to adapt Somalia since 1998.
3. From California Lutheran University's website: "Dr. Kelley teaches mass, interpersonal and campaign communication as well as politics in cinema". Kelley is not an expert on African politics, international politics or EVEN domestic politics. She is a communications professor who dabbles in political campaign communication and political cinema.
4. This appeared in the Ventura County Star. I'm sure it's a fine newspaper, but don't you think they could have at least found something from the Washington Times with someone from the Heritage Institute?
If you don't have respectable sources, don't bother trying to refute something. You just look desperate.
John Munich | 09.25.06 06:25 PM
|
No one seems to remember the minority party blocking Bush's appointments during the first 9 months of his administration. It clear the strategy the minority party took to hamstring a sitting President. Ever play a sport with half a team on defense...you lose. In this case our nation lost many.
As you can see from the regurgitated talking points posted as original comments. The best the minority party can do is show contempt for Bush and extend blind excuses for Clinton...As if he can't generate enough on his own.
Self before country...Failure as a legacy.
Rich | 09.25.06 06:41 PM
|
All this from the guy that lied to our nation, bold face, and tried to get out of it by re-defining the word "sexual relations". How quickly people forget ...Yep and 99.9% of the population out there under similar circumstances that Bill Clinton found himself would have done the same and the other 0.1% is a liar.
What about the so called intelligence failure? Anothere bold face lie by the G.W.B administration.
Bravo, Mr.Clinton for finally standing up!
ps | 09.25.06 07:09 PM
|
You know what I just figured out?
The same thing that Karl Rove figured out after he saw that interview.
Clinton still thinks that it's 1992, and that he can peddle BS and not be fact-checked. Unfortunately for him, most of what he said in that interview has either been brought into question or debunked by now.
Indeed, Bill Clinton held onto Richard Clarke like a liferaft in the interview, insisting that he had been fired. But when you actually read the book, you get a different story.
A double-edged sword, indeed.
section9 | 09.25.06 07:14 PM
|
how could they bush was on vacation basically up until 9/11, hmmm all this becoming president stuff has made me tired i think ill take a longer vacation than most average working americans ever get
eric | 09.25.06 07:19 PM
|
I'm unimpressed with the sources the RNC used for their memo. They quote the same articles over and over again, and while some of these articles are from the Washington Post, others are from the National Review.
Clinton was wrong to say no one knew of al-Qaeda in '93, but it is true that no one knew it would become much of a threat. And while there were leaders saying we should stay in Somalia, anyone with a memory knows the national consensus at the time was to get out.
Clinton's not perfect, but this RNC memo has far more flaws than the statesman.
Nathan E. | 09.25.06 07:19 PM
|
Fact: Today Richard Ben-Veniste, former 9/11 Commissioner Member stated that Bush and Chenney was asked why they didn't do anything about the information concerning the attack on the Cole and what threat had been made clear to al-Qaeda.
Bush stated that know one told him about any threat made to al-Qaeda or what to do about al-Qaeda.
Was this a lie like so many other things or was he he really just not aware of what was going on?
Larry | 09.25.06 07:20 PM
|
A rebuttal and list of facts to counter the republican nonsense, from Glenn Greenwald:
'Who wanted to "cut and run" from Somalia?
My post this morning on Salon concerns the accusation voiced this weekend by Chris Wallace in his Fox News interview with President Clinton (a favorite accusation of neoconservatives) that Clinton "emboldened" Al Qaeda when he withdrew American troops from Somalia as soon as we suffered casualties, which (so the neoconservative mythology contends) led Osama bin Laden to believe that we were weak and could be defeated.
President Clinton's response was refreshingly aggressive because the premise of the question is so patently and outrageously false. Clinton responded: "They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in 'Black Hawk down,' and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations."
As I document in the Salon post, that defense, if anything, is a profound understatement, because it was Clinton (along with Senate Democrats like John Kerry) who wanted to stay in Somalia because a precipitous withdrawal would be panicky and weak, but it was primarily conservatives in Congress -- mostly Republican Senators and some conservative Southern Democrats -- who were demanding that American troops be withdrawn immediately, and were even threatening to cut off all funds for our troop deployment.
My analysis is set forth in the Salon post. Following are the full excerpts providing the factual support for that analysis:
GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, speech on the Senate floor October 6, 1993
I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option.
GOP Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, speech on the Senate floor, October 6, 1993
Mr. President, the mission is accomplished in Somalia. The humanitarian aid has been delivered to those who were starving. The mission is not nation building, which is what now is being foisted upon the American people. The United States has no interest in the civil war in Somalia and as this young soldier told me, if the Somalis are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then it is absolutely time that we go home. . . It is time for the Senate of the United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the American troops home.
GOP Minority Leader Sen. Robert Dole, Senate speech, October 5, 1993
I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with--I do not know how many Members were there--45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close. . . .
GOP Sen. Jesse Helms, Senate floor speech October 6, 1993:
All of which means that I support the able Senator from West Virginia--who, by the way, was born in North Carolina--Senator Robert C. Byrd, and others in efforts to bring an end to this tragic situation. The United States did its best to deliver aid and assistance to the victims of chaos in Somalia as promised by George Bush last December.
But now we find ourselves involved there in a brutal war, in an urban environment, with the hands of our young soldiers tied behind their backs, under the command of a cumbersome U.N. bureaucracy, and fighting Somalia because we tried to extend helping hands to the starving people of that far-off land. Mr. President, the United States has no constitutional authority, as I see it, to sacrifice U.S. soldiers to Boutros-Ghali's vision of multilateral peacemaking. Again, I share the view of Senator Byrd that the time to get out is now.'
drindl | 09.25.06 08:12 PM
|
billions are wasted and thousands of life lost not to mention innocent ppl killed in iraq stil thses arogant republicans has not acomplish nothing, on top of that this racist network called fox is tryin to ask those questions to former president Mr bill clinton, war in iraq has nothing to do with terrorism insted itz about oil, when bill clinton left the office first time if history of this country had surplus, this dude came out of the farm pissed away all the money and american lives, god bless america.
Max | 09.25.06 08:42 PM
|
FACT - BUSH HAS MADE US LESS SAFE.
HE HAS CAUSED MORE TERRORISM TO BLOOM BECAUSE OF HIS LIE OF A WAR IN IRAQ.
It appears neither Congress nor the White House wanted the American people to know just how bad things were becoming. The Times said that the new classified estimate “attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee.”
THE POINT BEING ALSO - DEMS HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS SINCE 03. THE MORONS ON THE HILL THINK PEOPLE ARE STUPID , WELL ONLY THOSE THAT FOLLOW BUSH ARE.
AS FOR BIN LADEN - BUSH LIED THERE TOO -
HE SAYS HE CAN'T GO AFTER BIN LADEN BECAUSE PAKISTAN IS A SOVEREIGN NATION ---------
WELL SO WAS AFGANISTAN AND IRAQ !!!! HE'S A LYING SACK OF SHIT.
Pressed on why he opposed the idea of sending a large contingent of special forces to Pakistan to hunt bin Laden, Bush said his strategy was to work with Pakistan's government.
"First of all, Pakistan is a sovereign nation," Bush said. "In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we've got to be invited by the government of Pakistan.
"Secondly, the best way to find somebody who is hiding is to enhance your intelligence and to spend the resources necessary to do that."
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/9/16/worldupdates/2006-09-16T032 117Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-267803-2&sec=Worldupdates
SHALL I CONTINUE POSTING ALL BUSH LIES? WE'D BE HERE A WHILE.
THE NEW ' I TOLD YOU SO' COMING? THE WORD 'RECESSION' THAT ECONOMISTS ARE STARTING TO USE.
michele | 09.25.06 08:42 PM
|
You can argue whether Clinton went on a bender or not, the truth is that George Bush is responsible for 9/11 and all the deaths in Iraq. That fact is undeniable
Gary | 09.25.06 09:36 PM
|
Progressive Radio Hosts More Accepting Of Dissenting Views Than Conservative Hosts
Research 2000 recently conducted a survey testing whether progressive or conservative talk radio shows are more open to callers with dissenting points of view. The organization made 15 calls (with a point of view that was not compatible with the host) to six radio shows — three progressive (Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz) and three conservative (Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh).
Their findings concluded that all the progressive hosts were more willing to take calls from dissenters than were the conservative hosts. Research 2000’s ranking, in order of accessibility: 1): Shultz, 2) Rhodes, 3) Miller, 4) Ingraham, 5) Limbaugh, and 6) Hannity. Among the findings:
– Progressive host Ed Schultz was the most accessible to callers with opposing points of view. “In fact, the only question the screener asked our fifteen callers was simply where are you calling from, radio call letters and your name.”
– Conservative host Sean Hannity was the least accessible. Not a single of the 15 calls Research 2000 made were accepted. “Eleven of our callers with dissenting view points were told by the screener either ‘I will pass it on’ or ‘call our liberal hotline’ and then disconnected.”
– “Only two callers of fifteen dissenting view points was successful in getting on the Rush Limbaugh show. Both callers went through three screeners on the show before getting on the air with the host.”
– Ingraham, Miller, and Rhodes showed “no significant differences” in getting on the air “if one had a dissenting view point.” But the wait time for the Laura Ingraham show was the longest of the three — 40 minutes to one hour and 15 minutes.
Digg It!
Filed under: Media, Radical Right
Posted by Amanda at 7:41 pm
Permalink | Comment (70)
‘Fact Sheet’ On Clinton Interview Gets It Wrong
Today, the right wing is circulating a “fact sheet” on President Clinton’s Fox News interview. Here is one item, published on the Hotline Blog:
MYTH: President Clinton Said No One Knew Of Al Qaeda In 1993:
Former President Bill Clinton: “[No one] even knew Al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of ‘93.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 9/24/06)
FACT: Osama Bin Laden And Al Qaeda Were Well Known By The Time Clinton Was Inaugurated
The sole backup for this claim is a 2003 Q&A session with conservative author Richard Miniter, published on the National Review’s website. The interview doesn’t even rebut Clinton’s assertion.
Miniter says that Bin Laden was known to the Clinton administration after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. That’s true. What wasn’t known for several years was that Bin Laden had a terrorist network called al-Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission report makes that clear on page 341:
In 1996-1997, the intelligence community received new information making clear that Bin Laden headed his own terrorist group.
Clinton was right. The “fact sheet” is wrong.
Enja | 09.25.06 09:52 PM
|
The truth is that that everybody blew it with regard to the Al-Qaeda threat. That said, maybe it's time to stop pointing fingers and start acting like adults. (Which, I do not blame Clinton for getting all bent outta shape; he has been badly slandered and misrepresented --that conservatives wanted the US to stay in Somalia is a crock; there was no political capital to be spent in such a venture; why do you think we did nothing about Rwanda? Hmm. Makes a guy wonder. I guess no president really operates in a political vacuum.) What ought to be readily evident to anyone who gives precedence to intellectual honesty over ideological and party-based loyalty, is that what the Bush administration is doing RIGHT NOW, is not working. "Stay the course" is not going to cut it, and so what we need to do is to stop worrying about what Clinton did or didn't do, and start focusing on an effective strategy for the present.
Unfortunately however, in recent decades party loyalty in this country has come to play a great role in how we identify ourselves. Saying, "I'm a republican," for example, has become as much a part of many of our self-identities as has stating the color of one's eyes or state of residence or religion or nation of ancestral origin. For most of us it's not something that can be changed and we would no more consider changing it than we would consider changing our gender. (Although some people do that as well.)
Which isn't right and is a shame. "My party right or wrong" is not a sound basis for a democracy. We need to get over it. How different would our body-politic be if the majority of voters in this country, rather than the minority, were "swing" voters?
BigNote | 09.25.06 10:29 PM
|
Fox News editorially has also called Clinton a liar over this - big surprise. These GOP response do not address the issues raised and bring a smokescreen of other things they prefer to talk about.
Neither Fox News or the RNC have any response to Chris Wallace's lies on the program. Fox News has never brought up to any Bush official the fact that Bush ignored for months the FBI finally blaming the Cole attack on al-Qaeda, which happened after Clinton left office. Chris lied and said they had. Watch the YouTube or other video again and she if you can spot the liar.
Gary Denton | 09.25.06 11:26 PM
|
Clinton once again inserted his foot into his mouth but his case he unzipped his pants and inserted another body part into...need i say more.
Thank you Mr. Clinton for proving once again that you can single-handly destroy the demoractic party...remember the 1994 mid term elections.
M Green | 09.25.06 11:38 PM
|
If all these "facts" were true then I am highly highly disappointed in what President GW Bush got us into. How can he even be dumber than I thought?
Proposition:
Clinton knew everything there is to know about Osama bin Laden, Al Qeada, everyone supported taking tough action, etc, etc...
Say Clinton decided not to pursuit Osama bin Laden, Al Qeada, etc, etc.
What Bush did with all this information? WHY DID 9/11 HAVE TO HAPPEN?!!!!!
Why is Osama bin Laden still alive and we are still in Iraq without any clear plan to getting us out from now until Bush leaves office?
FACT:
Bush had 8 months to prevent and he did nothing.
"FACT":
Bush ignored all the same information Clinton ignored. Bush had 5 years after 9/11 plus 8 months before 9/11 and still claim he knew nothing.
Lans | 09.25.06 11:41 PM
|
You libs are either idiots with no long term memory or about 10 years old. We knew about bin Laden throughout at least the last half of the 90s and Clinton didn't do a damn thing about it. He was too busy using Monica's vagina as a humidor and then trying to cover that up.
He was too interested in purjuring himself and getting impeached.
Clinton is a bald-faced liar. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Clinton didn't do anything brave or honorable. He simply lied. If you find that honorable, you are very sad.
Ryan | 09.25.06 11:50 PM
|
Why do you post an RNC document in full uncritically, as though it's the last word in truth?
Chris Pierson | 09.26.06 12:02 AM
|
Disclaimer: I am a middle aged Britsh born Aussie.
Yet I saw Clinton rip into the interveiwer with intellect, class and facts on T.V. and have read the transcripts on the web. I don't know who in their right mind would swallow the above rebuttal, even without any other "clues" the document is totally unconvincing.
You don't even have to read all of it to see that many of the quotes that are supposed to support their "facts" actually end up contradicting them. Many of the other (carefully?) selected quotes don't specifcally condradict either side of the story and are therefore meaningless!
From my perspective, FOX threw Clinton to their "lion", Clinton turned the lion into a giggling toothless hyena and walked away a winner. Personally I would like to see Clinton replace Kofi when the time comes (2 years?). Not so much for his politics but for his compassion, intellect and balls.
Alan | 09.26.06 04:38 AM
|
As I read the "FACT:"s in the story, I notice that all of the quotes containing the words "al-Qaida" and "bin Laden" occur after 9/11/2001. The quotes from the Clinton presidency don't contain these words which bolster Clinton's argument that no one had foreseen the extent of the threat. I think the strongest indictment is that of President Bush down grading the possible threat and ignoring the systems put in place by Clinton for the first 8 months.
Todd Gatts | 09.26.06 09:17 AM
|
From the outside looking in, I'm a Canadian, therefore neither liberal or democrat, for the first time an American on television actually challenged the talking points issued by the RNC.
I'm not sure why most, except Clinton apparently, allow these generalizations to simply pass.
Nonsense like "the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power" and "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" are allowed to pass when uttered by a Bushite as if they were actually true.
I'm not that big a fan of Bill Clinton's politics, however I am impressed with the way he wouldn't allow one of these banalities to slip past unchallenged.
Rove intoned that he had a fall surprise in store. Was it shifting the blar the debacle over Osama Bin Laden to the previous administration?
If so, it didn't exactly work out as planned.
It was the first time Clinton was on that show. Somehow I suspect its the last.
From the outside looking in, he tanned Fox's butt.
Cheers - G
Gavin | 09.26.06 09:53 AM
|
I notice many Rep. sympathizers do not miss many opportunities in these postings to refer to Monica's body parts. Jeez, when will these clowns get OVER it? And does G.W. actually have to have sex with someone other than Laura til we can FINALLY impeach him? Will that do it?
p. morris | 09.26.06 09:58 AM
|
I think it's about time the Neo-Cons get out of what was once a great political party. You idiots are driving this country straight off a cliff.
If you idiots really want to call a spade a spade then 9/11 didn't happen on Clinton's watch. It happened on Dubya's after he was on the job for 9 months. So instead of keeping an eye on the problem he was too busy figuring out he was going to invade Iraq.
b | 09.26.06 10:24 AM
|
Is there any way we can hook the GOP noise machine up to an electric generator? There seems to be enough spin coming out to power the entire east coast.
RPM | 09.26.06 10:25 AM
|
Instead of publishing these facts, I would like you to pubkish a speach by Bush or Rice or anyone else before 9/11 where administration talked about Bin Laden or terrorism. If that was such a clear issue, where are the speaches? How many were done by Bush in times of 2000 elections? Please, if you like facts so much, let's hear them.
Sedoy | 09.26.06 10:28 AM
|
I refer you to the Library of Congress regarding Somalia.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r103:H06OC3-756:
Mark | 09.26.06 10:36 AM
|
By the way, Clinton's Somalia statements may be an indirect attack on John McCain, who was a strong "Bring them home" supporter for Somalia.
Mark | 09.26.06 10:44 AM
|
Read the 9/11 Commission Report. You're wrong!
Kenny G | 09.26.06 11:59 AM
|
A little friendly advice for the Dems and Bush-haters:
Go back and read all these comments. Joy reigns as Clinton "takes on" the Bushies and "fights back" against the Republican war mongers. Good ole Bill is going to reveal just how revolting a country America really is!
What's missing, though? Do you find ANY anger at the real enemy? Any indigination at the beheading of Americans, at men and women leaping from the 90th floor, at car bombs blowing up school buses?
No. The Dems are spoiling for a fight, all right. And Clinton's gonna show 'em how it's done. Sadly, Americans recognize that the Dems are fighting the wrong enemy and can't seem to work up any indignation at the ones who are actually killing Americans.
Read the comments and try to get a clue as to why you're not taken seriously in fighting terrorists.
JeanneB | 09.27.06 07:28 AM
|
WOW, where did all these lefties come from. When confronted with the truth they are all yelling & running like cockroaches when you shine a light on them. Most of them don't research the record or facts of the former administration such as Sandy Burgers "NO" to killing bin Laden or the contradictions in Clarke's book to what Clinton said. Certainly Republicans have some oversights, but comparing 8 months in office to 8 years of mismanagement is a joke.
Patrick T. Byrnes | 09.27.06 12:11 PM
|
George Bush is my one true enemy.
jared | 02.07.07 09:56 AM
|
Bill Clinton is a die hard Democrat. I have the upmost respect for him.
jared | 02.07.07 09:57 AM
|
Bill knows his politics. He's a good man. I don't care what they say.
justin | 02.07.07 09:59 AM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
