[Scape]

[url=http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20060923/clinton_reams_out_wallace_on_fox] WALLACE: …but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

CLINTON: OK, let’s talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits but I want to talk about the context of which this arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network…ABC just had a right wing conservative on the Path to 9/11 falsely claim that it was based on the 9/11 Commission report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report. I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much. Same people.[/url]

[ridenrain]

Funny, both sides are calling this a victory.

Here is the full transcript from an evil neo-con website who are saying that Clinton is a desperate man who's seeing his reputation as president drop to a sad fibbing intern-diddler.
full transcript.

[MaelstromRider]

intern-diddler

[Scape]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvQmrtuQUnI[/youtube]

Full interview

[Scape]

PT II

Chris Wallace Never Asked A Bush Administration Official Why They Demoted Richard Clarke

Chris Wallace Has Never Asked A Bush Administration Official About The USS Cole

Days After 9/11 Commission Testimony, Wallace Doesn’t Ask Rice About Infamous PDB

[url=http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/arianna-on-clinton-vs-fox/]HUFFINGTON: What this may lead to which could be good news is that Bill Clinton may wake up to the fact that there is a real battle going on to define who is going keep America safer. And for him to try to have it both ways, to have Laura Bush do the keynote during his conference, as though we’re all in this together; to have Rupert Murdoch, Chris Wallace’s ultimate boss, do the fund-raiser for his wife, all that stuff is simply not making it as clear and as distinct as it to needs to be for the American people that there are two very different views–and there should be leading up to the ‘06 election–about who is going to keep America safer.

And Bill Clinton needs to decide if he’s just a former president or a former Democratic president, helping his party define what is at stake in the upcoming election. So this may be a good wake-up call for him. What this may lead to which could be good news is that Bill Clinton may wake up call for him.[/url]

[Jaime_Souviens]

Clinton sounds desperate and pathetic.

For a American President to even engage in this kind of battle means he's lost the argument. Sitting Presidents and Former Presidents are not supposed to engage in this kind of bickering. Whether you agree with this or not, it's how it is, and how it will be understood in America.

Limbaugh will have a f'ing field day with this.

This doesn't blow the whole '06 election for the Left all in one stroke, but it goes toward that end.

And by the way, Scape-a-rino, nobody gives a rat's ass what Wallace asked anybody. Wallace doesn't have to win an argument, the question is, why is Clinton getting into it with some Washington journalist?

That Ariana Huffington is relying on Clinton coming back for the '06 or '08 elections is perfectly beautiful. As long as they're relying people out of the past to save their ass, it's an admission they've got no one now.

Yay!!!!

[hwacker]

Airhead Huffington she's got the IQ of a soapdish.

[hwacker]

+ If I was Chris I would have asked him to stop waving his finger around like that. You never know where it's been.

[Scape]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

For a American President to even engage in this kind of battle means he's lost the argument. Sitting Presidents and Former Presidents are not supposed to engage in this kind of bickering. Whether you agree with this or not, it's how it is, and how it will be understood in America.

The fact he and not his party is making the argument says a great deal but the argument itself speaks to the basis of the war on terror.

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Wallace doesn't have to win an argument, the question is, why is Clinton getting into it with some Washington journalist?

No one cares about slogans like fair and balanced either. If he really wants to ask the hard questions why is it ok to only apply that standard to one side of the isle? When the GOP was wailing 'wag the dog' over Clinton doing something to kill/catch Usama shouldn't they be culpable for their actions as well? Then after they assume power, they do absolutely nothing to deal with a clear and present danger and demote the man who has the key intel to put a plan in motion when time was of the essence.

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

That Ariana Huffington is relying on Clinton coming back for the '06 or '08 elections is perfectly beautiful. As long as they're relying people out of the past to save their ass, it's an admission they've got no one now.

You miss the point, he isn't running but his wife has yet to throw her hat in the ring. If he gets fired up she will have to run with that and that will mean this unholy union between the parties since 9/11 will be broken. A clean break between the GOP and the dems made clear to the voting public and not obscured by mixed signals that co-operation between the parties has created.

[Yank-in-NY]

God forbid Bush takes any responsibility for ANYTHING.

[Hardy]

Desperation?

$1:

Zogby:
"Overall, how would you rate President Bush's performance on the job . . . ?"

Excellent/Good - Fair/Poor - Unsure
9/06 37 63 1
8/06 35 65 -
7/06 36 64 -
6/06 31 67 1
5/06 32 68 1
2/06 38 62 -
1/06 39 60 -
12/05 38 62 -
10/05 39 61 -

$1:

Zogby:
"Overall, how would you rate the performance of Bill Clinton as president: excellent, good, fair, or poor?"

Excellent/Good - Fair/Poor - Not Sure
1/00 52 48 -
9/99 48 49 3
5/99 47 52 1
4/99 52 47 1
2/99 55 44 1
1/99 61 38 1
11/98 56 43 1
10/98 55 44 1
9/98 61 38 1
9/98 55 45 0
8/98 56 43 1
7/98 53 46 1
5/98 56 43 1
4/98 56 43 1
3/98 55 43 2
1/98 57 42 1
10/97 51 48 1
8/97 50 48 2
6/97 42 55 3
4/97 44 55 1
1/97 51 49 -

$1:

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. May 16-18, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. LV = likely voters

"I'm going to read the names of some people. Please tell me whether you have a generally favorable or unfavorable opinion of each one. If you've never heard of one, please just say so. Bill Clinton."

Favorable - Unfavorable - Can't Say
5/06 58 35 7
4/05 53 40 6
6/04 52 40 8

$1:

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Aug. 8-9, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. LV = likely voters

"I'm going to read the names of several individuals and groups. Please tell me whether you have a generally favorable or unfavorable opinion of each one. If you've never heard of someone, please just say so. George W. Bush."
Favorable - Unfavorable - Unsure
8/06 39 56 4 -
5/06 40 55 5 -
2/06 46 47 7 -
12/05 45 50 5 -
10/05 45 49 7 -

[Johnny_Utah]

The Truth on Clinton and Bin Laden..

[Yank-in-NY]

This is nonsense. Clinton didn't do enough to catch Bin Laden? Maybe not. Someone tell me how Bush unleashing chaos has caught him?

[HyperionTheEvil]

From my view its seems to be nothing more that election fever heating up for our cousins in the US.

[Jaime_Souviens]

Hardy Hardy:

Desperation?

You mean a desperate attempt to post a lot of numbers?