Clinton v. Fox--Who won?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

The only thing that Wallace said about the book was:

"There's a new book out, I suspect you've already read, called 'The Looming Tower.' And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, 'I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops.'"

The article I cited referred to Wallace's statement as "historically factual." Isn't that true? And what the heck does that have to do with our discussion of whether Clinton lied when he said that "conservative Republicans" and "all of Bush's neo-cons" claimed he was obsessed with bin Laden?

It doesn't. Stay on topic, please.

no kg, the article referred to statments made in the book as "historically factual". the way that the above sentence was written shows the inaccuracies intertwined.

look at this: "when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, 'I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops.'"

that's just flat out wrong. bin laden didn't say that in 1993.

look at correct words: "bin laden said after 9/11 that when you pulled troops out of somalia in 1993 he saw the frailty..."

recall this was the question that, in a way, was the match that set the clinton fireworks off.

I don't know how much simpler I can make this for you.

Clinton said: "And 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."

In response to that claim, the writer of the article states: " . . . a thorough LexisNexis search identified absolutely no instances of high-ranking Republicans ever suggesting that Mr. Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden, or did too much to apprehend him prior to the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000. Quite the contrary, Republicans were typically highly supportive of Clinton’s efforts in this regard."

The writer did the research and could not find ONE instance where someone was criticizing Clinton for being too obsessed with bin Laden. That indicates that he was LYING when he said that such statements were made.

Unless, of course, you can point us to such statements, in which case I will be happy to concede the point.

I do recall that the cole attack saw a unanamity typically seen in congress when the us is attacked. the same common purpose as after 9/11.

I also don't see how I could possibly research the quotes from the specified people over the remainder of clinton's 8 years either.

from my view, this is just symtomatic of the preoccupation of so many with clinton, and proving he "lies".

Show me a quote where Gramm said that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden.

gee, does he have to use the word "obsessed"? gramm said the bill was unnecessary.

Of course it's a fair question. It's THE question. The fact that some Republicans gave support to Clinton doesn't prove that his remark is a lie, but the fact that not a single instance can be found of someone criticizing Clinton like he claimed DOES prove it.

from the article, i'd agree that it looks like it's not accurate. otoh, the recollection may be an accurate portrait of his dealings with them.

a lie? from my perspective he's puffing.

Again, you're trying to change the subject. If you want to talk about George Bush, do it in another thread. Let's talk about Bill Clinton.

If Clinton said "all" and the reality was "some", that might be an exaggeration. But when you can't point me to ANY, that's more than exaggeration. It's a lie.

Feel free to prove me wrong. Point me to one statement made by a "conservative Republican" or a "neo-con" where they said that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden or doing too much to try and get him.

it is fair to compare these two, they both occupied the same office. my point is their position produces a great deal of rhetoric and hyperbole in their speaking. if you wish to hold clinton to every single word used, the same should be done with bush.

let's see what quotes from the mid 90's come out. the place where I expect to see them is when the "wag the dog" remarks were made, tht's what 1998?

it seems that you won't be satisfied until a republican is found who said the word "obsessed" and "bin laden" in the same sentence.

by focusing on if he "lied" about "conservatives" and "neo-cons" saying he was "obsessed over bin laden", the issue of what failings did clinton's administration have in the conflict with terrorism isn't even addressed.

that was clinton's point, not the criticism by the republicans he says he received, but the question of what did he do, or not do, to defeat the terrorists and perhaps stop 9/11.

likewise, he wants the same question asked of the current administration. that is a very fair request.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no kg, the article referred to statments made in the book as "historically factual". the way that the above sentence was written shows the inaccuracies intertwined.

look at this: "when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, 'I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops.'"

that's just flat out wrong. bin laden didn't say that in 1993.

look at correct words: "bin laden said after 9/11 that when you pulled troops out of somalia in 1993 he saw the frailty..."

recall this was the question that, in a way, was the match that set the clinton fireworks off.

Wallace's question was poorly worded and misleading to the extent that it implied that bin Laden said that in 1993, but you're conflating two different arguments here.

I don't pretend to be able to read minds, so I don't know what the author of the article meant when he said "historically accurate." I haven't read the book "Looming Tower", so I can't say whether it misrepresents the facts or if Wallace just got it wrong. Either way, that still has NOTHING to do with whether Clinton's response was a lie or not!

I do recall that the cole attack saw a unanamity typically seen in congress when the us is attacked. the same common purpose as after 9/11.

I also don't see how I could possibly research the quotes from the specified people over the remainder of clinton's 8 years either.

from my view, this is just symtomatic of the preoccupation of so many with clinton, and proving he "lies".

In other words, you can't point me to a single instance.

Thanks for the concession. It's a rarity.

gee, does he have to use the word "obsessed"? gramm said the bill was unnecessary.

He could have used any phrase that suggested that Clinton was doing too much to try and pursue bin Laden. BTW, you're putting words in Gramm's mouth and misrepresenting the reason for his opposition to Clinton's proposed bill.

At the time, Gramm said, ""The way to deal with terrorists is to hunt them down and kill them." That doesn't sound to me like someone who thinks that Clinton was doing too much to try and hunt down bin Laden. Also, I think it's only fair to point out that the real reason Gramm opposed the bill was that he was aligned with the banking industry on the issue, which opposed the measure. It had nothing to do with Gramm's opinion of Clinton's hunt for bin Laden and everything to do with a special interest group that he was trying to help out.

from the article, i'd agree that it looks like it's not accurate. otoh, the recollection may be an accurate portrait of his dealings with them.

a lie? from my perspective he's puffing.

Puffing is what a used car dealer does when he says, "Oh yeah, this baby runs great!" This wasn't puffing.

But hey, whatever. Let's just give him a pass. Sure, there are no comments in the public record AT ALL to support his rather incredible claim. But all of those right wing neo-cons might have been pulling Bill aside privately and giving him hell for being obsessed with bin Laden.

Yeah, right.

it is fair to compare these two, they both occupied the same office. my point is their position produces a great deal of rhetoric and hyperbole in their speaking. if you wish to hold clinton to every single word used, the same should be done with bush.

It IS done. There have been a myriad of books written about the purported lies Bush has told, and that's while he's still in office!

Bringing it up in this context just appears to me to be an effort to rationalize Clinton's lies.

that was clinton's point, not the criticism by the republicans he says he received, but the question of what did he do, or not do, to defeat the terrorists and perhaps stop 9/11.

likewise, he wants the same question asked of the current administration. that is a very fair request.

It has been asked, ad nauseum in fact, by everyone from the media to the 9/11 Commission.

FWIW, I don't think Clinton is responsible for 9/11. That's unfair to try and pin it on him. For all we know, 9/11 might have happened even if bin Laden had been killed. It is, however, fair, to criticize Clinton for not lacking the backbone/willpower/resolve (pick your term) to demand that the CIA, FBI, and/or military take action to kill bin Laden. Even Clarke's sympathetic account of events reveals that Clinton simply couldn't get those agencies to do what he told them to do. That's Clinton's fault. Period.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Wallace's question was poorly worded and misleading to the extent that it implied that bin Laden said that in 1993, but you're conflating two different arguments here.

I don't pretend to be able to read minds, so I don't know what the author of the article meant when he said "historically accurate." I haven't read the book "Looming Tower", so I can't say whether it misrepresents the facts or if Wallace just got it wrong. Either way, that still has NOTHING to do with whether Clinton's response was a lie or not!

it was wallace who spoke the statement, not the author.

yes, the inaccuracies of the wallace question- in fact, inaccuracy is mild, the question was a set up- do not have any bearing on if "all" or "some" of the conservative republicans thought clinton was "obsessed" with bin laden. it does however go far in explaining why clinton was so animated and aggressive.

In other words, you can't point me to a single instance.

not yet, but there's ton of quotes to go through, and I'm comfortable trhat someone wll spend the time to find one.

He could have used any phrase that suggested that Clinton was doing too much to try and pursue bin Laden. BTW, you're putting words in Gramm's mouth and misrepresenting the reason for his opposition to Clinton's proposed bill.

At the time, Gramm said, ""The way to deal with terrorists is to hunt them down and kill them." That doesn't sound to me like someone who thinks that Clinton was doing too much to try and hunt down bin Laden. Also, I think it's only fair to point out that the real reason Gramm opposed the bill was that he was aligned with the banking industry on the issue, which opposed the measure. It had nothing to do with Gramm's opinion of Clinton's hunt for bin Laden and everything to do with a special interest group that he was trying to help out.

you can attempt to minimize the gramm position as merely carrying water for the banks, yet it is a FACT that 1) the kyc banking regs were proposed by the clinton administration as a needed tool against al queda finances, and 2) gramm stopped the bill and took the position that it was an unnecessary piece of legislation. that has EVERYTHING to do with clinton's focus on al queda and a clear example of a conservative republican opposing the clinton administration's efforts.

But hey, whatever. Let's just give him a pass.

what I am saying is don't focus on a minutia comment like "every conservative republican and neo-con" but focus on what he is saying....that the attempts by the conservatives to blame clinton and not apply the same criteria to bush is wrong.

It IS done. There have been a myriad of books written about the purported lies Bush has told, and that's while he's still in office!

Bringing it up in this context just appears to me to be an effort to rationalize Clinton's lies.

so do you agree that bush has "lied" just like you accuse clinton of doing?

I'm not sure it is fair to say "rationalize" as much as to understand the playing field he is on.

apply the same citeria to clinton and bush. apply it to their public statements and apply it to their administrations. apply it consistently.

unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case...

It has been asked, ad nauseum in fact, by everyone from the media to the 9/11 Commission.

FWIW, I don't think Clinton is responsible for 9/11. That's unfair to try and pin it on him. For all we know, 9/11 might have happened even if bin Laden had been killed. It is, however, fair, to criticize Clinton for not lacking the backbone/willpower/resolve (pick your term) to demand that the CIA, FBI, and/or military take action to kill bin Laden. Even Clarke's sympathetic account of events reveals that Clinton simply couldn't get those agencies to do what he told them to do. That's Clinton's fault. Period.

you and I agree that clinton, just like bush, should not have 9/11 laid at their feet. could the event have been stopped? sure, but only with a great deal of fortunate events happening. unfortunately luck was not on our side that day.

however, wallace was not embracing that "fair and balanced" view that we agree on. he was attempting to lay the blame on clinton, just as the wording of the lead off question revealed.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it was wallace who spoke the statement, not the author.

yes, the inaccuracies of the wallace question- in fact, inaccuracy is mild, the question was a set up- do not have any bearing on if "all" or "some" of the conservative republicans thought clinton was "obsessed" with bin laden. it does however go far in explaining why clinton was so animated and aggressive.

Sure, assuming that it wasn't all just a calculated act by Clinton in the first place. Clinton's spokesperson indicated after the show that Clinton was ready for whatever Wallace was going to ask and came ready to fight back, or words to that effect. In other words, Clinton wasn't ambushed. He knew he was going to be asked about bin Laden and 9/11, and he used the interview as an opportunity to have a "controlled" eruption.

not yet, but there's ton of quotes to go through, and I'm comfortable trhat someone wll spend the time to find one.

Okay, well let me know....

you can attempt to minimize the gramm position as merely carrying water for the banks, yet it is a FACT that 1) the kyc banking regs were proposed by the clinton administration as a needed tool against al queda finances, and 2) gramm stopped the bill and took the position that it was an unnecessary piece of legislation. that has EVERYTHING to do with clinton's focus on al queda and a clear example of a conservative republican opposing the clinton administration's efforts.

I'm not trying to minimize anything. I'm trying to provide accurate context.

Gramm opposing legislation which Clinton said was a needed tool against al Qaeda simply doesn't equate to Gramm thinking Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden. Not even close. Also, it should be noted that Gramm is just one man, not "all" conservative Republicans.

what I am saying is don't focus on a minutia comment like "every conservative republican and neo-con" but focus on what he is saying....that the attempts by the conservatives to blame clinton and not apply the same criteria to bush is wrong.

It's not minutiae; Clinton is trying to rewrite history, as if he were the one that was strong on terrorism but was opposed at every turn by Republicans.

And, FWIW, Wallace's question really was pretty tame. I've seen Russert, for example, ask FAR tougher questions of Bush and Cheney.

so do you agree that bush has "lied" just like you accuse clinton of doing?

That's a pretty broad question, don't you think? Lied about what? No, my point was that you don't need to bring up Bush when discussing Clinton, because Bush gets more than his fair share of criticism.

I'm not sure it is fair to say "rationalize" as much as to understand the playing field he is on.

Sure it is. You're saying it's okay to lie because Bush did it.

apply the same citeria to clinton and bush. apply it to their public statements and apply it to their administrations. apply it consistently.

I'll say it again. Clinton has had a far easier time of it than Bush with respect to his record on terrorism and foreign affairs.

you and I agree that clinton, just like bush, should not have 9/11 laid at their feet. could the event have been stopped? sure, but only with a great deal of fortunate events happening. unfortunately luck was not on our side that day.

however, wallace was not embracing that "fair and balanced" view that we agree on. he was attempting to lay the blame on clinton, just as the wording of the lead off question revealed.

I don't agree with your take on Wallace's motivations or the thrust of his question. Either way, I agree that it's wrong to blame Clinton for 9/11. I think it might have happened even if bin Laden were already dead.