Clinton Lays an Egg on Fox News Sunday

[fossten]

On every point? Well, at least I scored 100%... I do not blame the Republicans for Clinton’s misdeeds, he had sex with Monica, it was his choice and it was wrong. But just as you have repeatedly blamed the Democrats for gimping Bush and cabinet for everything he does, therefore ultimately blaming the Democrats for our sh!t poor security, it works the same with the Clinton/Osama deal. Was Clinton only using the Osama issue during the MonicaGate trial as an attempted diversion?

If he wasn't using it as a diversion, then he was so distracted by his own pitfalls that he couldn't concentrate. Either way, it's irresponsible and it contributed, along with his cowardice with the Cole and Black Hawk Down, to the boldness of bin Laden and the advent of 9/11.

Sure, it's possible, but it is also possible that the Republicans going at Clinton’s jugular did distract him from the Osama issue, remember, it was a HUGE scandal, he was almost impeached.

Wrong. He WAS impeached, and it wasn't for playing hide the cigar. It was for interfering with a trial. He tried to get his secretary, Betty Curry, to lie for him. He tried to get Monica to lie for him. He lied on the stand before a judge, which got him a contempt citation and a disbarment. He lied in front of the American people, angrily and forcefully, just like he did Sunday, wagging his finger. The guy is a phony. If you can't see that then you're full of Kool-Aid.

If you are absolutely certain that Clinton could have killed Osama with a word, why didn't he then... What does being a "coward" have anything to do with it. He wasn't personally pulling the trigger, all he had to do was give the order, if you're going to say he was a coward even in that, he has given orders bomb and kill others during his Presidency [Yeah, he bombed an aspirin factory and some people in Kosovo. But he was unwilling to go in and invade Kosovo. He was a coward because he didn't want to take casualties.], why so cowardly now with Osama?

Good question. I'd like to know why, when the phone call was made to tell him that they had bin Laden in the sights of the CIA, he didn't answer the phone.



Well, that's an answer that Clinton was unwilling to give on Sunday. He was asked that question and he dodged it. Moreover, he lied about it. But if you want my opinion:

He didn't because he hated the military and was reluctant to use force. He also had hamstrung himself by adopting a crime posture against terror instead of a war posture. But that might be to complex for you to understand.

Was Clinton the perfect president? Certainly not, but your bias clearly blinds you, the guy isn't the devil you make him out to be. Blame Clinton all you want, but killing Osama wouldn't have been a guaranteed deal that 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

And yet all the Democrats and the media continue to vilify Bush because HE hasn't caught bin Laden yet. Hypocrites much? Self-explanatory.

You also need to take into account when you hate on Clinton, 9/11/201, who was in the Oval office on that date? The blame needs to be shared if anything, the actions that lead to 9/11 didn't start the day Clinton took office, it goes back even further.

I'm not defending Bush. You're trying to shift the blame off your boy Willie, who can't take the heat, because you can't take the heat either. He had years to get bin Laden, and Bush had months. Clinton admitted that he's the only person who had a legitimate shot at killing him, but he lied when he said he tried. He chickened out.

 

[TheDude]

Come on guys. I love the heavy hitting but I just don't think the personal attacks serve any purpose. What happens if I let everything go as far as the name calling? Barry has already shown what a grown up is willing to do when it comes to childish name calling of fellow members, and at least to me, I don't think it reflects well on us all.

Attack the left and right all you want, just try to steer clear of the gutter when it comes to fellow member name calling. Hope that is not too much to ask.

It's your BBQ and I do respect your rules, but as far as I am concerned about post directed solely at me, I do prefer non-censorship.

 

[bufordtpisser]

Sometimes starting something a little controversial ........

can be really good for business. I rarely post to this forum at all anymore. And it is because of the drivel that some posers are allowed to post. Playing nice is not an option with some. These are not attacks on his person, they are attacks on the half witted drivel that he spews each and every time someone points out Clintons faults. I honestly believe that he wishes that it was him in the blue dress instead of Monica. I apologize if I offended anyone on this forum with the exception of Deville. I intentionally try to offend him because he is just so damn offensive.

Come on guys. I love the heavy hitting but I just don't think the personal attacks serve any purpose. What happens if I let everything go as far as the name calling? Barry has already shown what a grown up is willing to do when it comes to childish name calling of fellow members, and at least to me, I don't think it reflects well on us all.

Attack the left and right all you want, just try to steer clear of the gutter when it comes to fellow member name calling. Hope that is not too much to ask.

 

[fossten]

It's your BBQ and I do respect your rules, but as far as I am concerned about post directed solely at me, I do prefer non-censorship.

In light of the above statement, I have a question arising solely from pure curiosity:

Do you sometimes pick up gauntlets you ordinarily wouldn't just because you know the act will generate controversy?

 

[TheDude]

If he wasn't using it as a diversion, then he was so distracted by his own pitfalls that he couldn't concentrate. Either way, it's irresponsible and it contributed, along with his cowardice with the Cole and Black Hawk Down, to the boldness of bin Laden and the advent of 9/11.

Wrong. He WAS impeached, and it wasn't for playing hide the cigar. It was for interfering with a trial. He tried to get his secretary, Betty Curry, to lie for him. He tried to get Monica to lie for him. He lied on the stand before a judge, which got him a contempt citation and a disbarment. He lied in front of the American people, angrily and forcefully, just like he did Sunday, wagging his finger. The guy is a phony. If you can't see that then you're full of Kool-Aid.

Good question. I'd like to know why, when the phone call was made to tell him that they had bin Laden in the sights of the CIA, he didn't answer the phone.

Well, that's an answer that Clinton was unwilling to give on Sunday. He was asked that question and he dodged it. Moreover, he lied about it. But if you want my opinion:

He didn't because he hated the military and was reluctant to use force. He also had hamstrung himself by adopting a crime posture against terror instead of a war posture. But that might be to complex for you to understand.

And yet all the Democrats and the media continue to vilify Bush because HE hasn't caught bin Laden yet. Hypocrites much? Self-explanatory.

I'm not defending Bush. You're trying to shift the blame off your boy Willie, who can't take the heat, because you can't take the heat either. He had years to get bin Laden, and Bush had months. Clinton admitted that he's the only person who had a legitimate shot at killing him, but he lied when he said he tried. He chickened out.

I agree, Clinton isn't faultless in 9/11 happening, but I do disagree that he is solely to blame.

Correct... I made a grammatical error, you know what I meant, his b@lls were on the line, it wasn't a walk in the park he had to focus all his resources on defense.

Yes, thank you for the condescending tone. I do basically get what you mean with Crime/War posture. I am fully aware that you think Democrats would rather blame themselves and America for why terrorist do things than just blame the terrorist. I do not necessarily agree with you though.

Actually, that wouldn’t be hypocrisy. You're blaming Clinton for 9/11 because he failed to kill Osama BEFORE 9/11 and there is no guarantee in that. The Democrats blame Bush for failing to capture Osama AFTER he took responsibility for being a part of it. Also, as you remember, as Osama continued to evade death/capture, the Republicans played it off as at it being intentional since Osama wasn't deemed a threat anymore. I.E., He's just a face, he's has no more money, he's probably dead, he's stuck in a cave etc. etc. etc.

Yes, you are defending Bush when you fail to acknowledge that Bush had a hand in 9/11, he was acting President at the time. I am not shifting the blame off Clinton completely; I said I thought his actions were part of the problem that lead to 9/11. You seem to think Clinton flew the planes himself, that's just as retarded as the moonbat liberals who rant 'Bush engineered 9/11"