| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/27/2006 12:08:19 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by shamrock:
Let's put that full quote out there:
WALLACE: Do you think you did enough, sir?
CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him.
WALLACE: Right.
CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried.
It looks to be that he is fully admitting that he didn't do enough. Sure, he mentions right-wingers, but he accepts responsibility. Unlike some. |
Those that choose to defend the Clintons should pay closer attention to their words. It would also be beneficial (in my opinion) to speculate the definitions of their words based on previous evidence of the actual application of those words.
For example: "But at least I tried." What does "I tried" mean. Does it mean that he looked at a couple of reports? Does it mean he was briefed on a couple of meetings that somebody had? Does it mean that he overheard a converstaion about Bin laden and had a brief thought about him? Does it mean he sent troops to find him? Does it mean that he was aware of Bin Laden's pressence in a training camp and failed to issue the order to kiil him? Does it mean he was actively involved with the day to day tracking of him and was abreast of the various intelligence reports and it was on his top 10 list?
My take on President Clinton, based on the evidence of his parsed words over his 8 years as President, is that the word "tried" for him was little more than that he was aware of some discussions and was abreast of various attempts to "handle" him, but took basically a "hands off" approach to the matter personally.
However, when he then speaks of the new admisistration, he changes the definition of "tried" to the one that he hoped you thought he meant about himself. Then in conclusion, you would surmise that he was factually correct when in fact he didn't say what you think you heard.
This is the skill that so many admirers of his admire. To me it is just more lying. Listen carefuly to his words. Challenge his definitions. Then see if what you think he said, is in fact what he really said.
Likely not.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 12:37:19 PM · #77 |
Flash, you are quite deluded if you think this is the sole domain of the Clintons. Welcome to politics in the US. Aren't we having fun with the "definition" of torture under the Geneva conventions, etc.?
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 01:14:19 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Flash, you are quite deluded if you think this is the sole domain of the Clintons. Welcome to politics in the US. Aren't we having fun with the "definition" of torture under the Geneva conventions, etc.? |
No delusion here. Can't recall any politician that I admire. There are some I vote for and many that I find entertaining. It is the insistence of some who defend the liars and cheats that I take exception to. The positioning of the liberal left that individual responsibility should be forsaken.
I prefer to hold all politicians accountable for their actions. That is why we have elections. Unfortunately, politicians (like the Clinton's) are savy enough to say one thing and have voters hear something completely different. Then have those same voters come on boards like this and defend their "quotes" when what they are defending is not what the person said.
Just my take on things Doctor.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 01:16:13 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shamrock:
Let's put that full quote out there:
WALLACE: Do you think you did enough, sir?
CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him.
WALLACE: Right.
CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried.
It looks to be that he is fully admitting that he didn't do enough. Sure, he mentions right-wingers, but he accepts responsibility. Unlike some. |
Those that choose to defend the Clintons should pay closer attention to their words. It would also be beneficial (in my opinion) to speculate the definitions of their words based on previous evidence of the actual application of those words.
For example: "But at least I tried." What does "I tried" mean. Does it mean that he looked at a couple of reports? Does it mean he was briefed on a couple of meetings that somebody had? Does it mean that he overheard a converstaion about Bin laden and had a brief thought about him? Does it mean he sent troops to find him? Does it mean that he was aware of Bin Laden's pressence in a training camp and failed to issue the order to kiil him? Does it mean he was actively involved with the day to day tracking of him and was abreast of the various intelligence reports and it was on his top 10 list?
My take on President Clinton, based on the evidence of his parsed words over his 8 years as President, is that the word "tried" for him was little more than that he was aware of some discussions and was abreast of various attempts to "handle" him, but took basically a "hands off" approach to the matter personally.
However, when he then speaks of the new admisistration, he changes the definition of "tried" to the one that he hoped you thought he meant about himself. Then in conclusion, you would surmise that he was factually correct when in fact he didn't say what you think you heard.
This is the skill that so many admirers of his admire. To me it is just more lying. Listen carefuly to his words. Challenge his definitions. Then see if what you think he said, is in fact what he really said.
Likely not. |
If you really want to know what Clinton meant by "I tried," you could read the 9/11 Commission report and the many books on the market now that address the issue, not to mention the government source documents available to you on the Internet. Or, if you don't want to know and would like only to speculate and spin... well, you've demonstrated you're capable of doing that already.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 01:20:25 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shamrock:
Let's put that full quote out there:
WALLACE: Do you think you did enough, sir?
CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him.
WALLACE: Right.
CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried.
It looks to be that he is fully admitting that he didn't do enough. Sure, he mentions right-wingers, but he accepts responsibility. Unlike some. |
Those that choose to defend the Clintons should pay closer attention to their words. It would also be beneficial (in my opinion) to speculate the definitions of their words based on previous evidence of the actual application of those words.
For example: "But at least I tried." What does "I tried" mean. Does it mean that he looked at a couple of reports? Does it mean he was briefed on a couple of meetings that somebody had? Does it mean that he overheard a converstaion about Bin laden and had a brief thought about him? Does it mean he sent troops to find him? Does it mean that he was aware of Bin Laden's pressence in a training camp and failed to issue the order to kiil him? Does it mean he was actively involved with the day to day tracking of him and was abreast of the various intelligence reports and it was on his top 10 list?
My take on President Clinton, based on the evidence of his parsed words over his 8 years as President, is that the word "tried" for him was little more than that he was aware of some discussions and was abreast of various attempts to "handle" him, but took basically a "hands off" approach to the matter personally.
However, when he then speaks of the new admisistration, he changes the definition of "tried" to the one that he hoped you thought he meant about himself. Then in conclusion, you would surmise that he was factually correct when in fact he didn't say what you think you heard.
This is the skill that so many admirers of his admire. To me it is just more lying. Listen carefuly to his words. Challenge his definitions. Then see if what you think he said, is in fact what he really said.
Likely not. |
If you really want to know what Clinton meant by "I tried," you could read the 9/11 Commission report and the many books on the market now that address the issue, not to mention the government source documents available to you on the Internet. Or, if you don't want to know and would like only to speculate and spin... well, you've demonstrated you're capable of doing that already. |
;-]
I find it amusing that you defend the Clinton's yet accuse me of "spinning".
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 01:23:06 PM · #81 |
No worries. I'm certainly not one to say that everything that comes out of Billy's mouth is not political doublespeak.
Just recently I was listening to a news story about a Canadian who was detained, shipped to syria, allegedly tortured and released when it was found they had the wrong guy. Alberto Gonzales' answer to an inquiry from the press made me sick in it's doublespeak.
Originally posted by Alberto Gonzales:
"We were not responsible for his removal to Syria. I'm not aware that he was tortured, and I haven't read the commission report.
Mr. Arar was deported under our immigration laws. He was initially detained because his name appeared on a terrorist list, and he was deported according to our -- according to our laws." |
What is the definition of "torture" Alberto is using? he's so famous for restricting its meaning. How could "we were not responsible for his removal" and "deported under our immigration laws" be both true? How could Gonzales NOT have read the commission report talking about a falsly detained person? Does he not care?
I'm not trying to stick this on the Right or on Bush at the moment. I'm merely trying to cry out for some reasonableness and some freaking responsibility and compassion for innocent people who are being caught up in our ferver.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 01:25:44 PM · #82 |
I concur. The article I read relating to the incident had a rather harsh take on the RCMP and their role in the initial intel. Bad situation for that fellow.
However, my mother always told me to watch the company I keep, for my reputation would be based on those I ran with.
This fellow had some unfortunate contacts with some unsavory folks.
[kind of like: "yes officer, I knew he was a drug dealer, but I didn't give him permission to have any in my car..."]
What I remember about the Clinton Whitehouse was a total disdain for the military and an awful lot of folks around them that either died or were indicted for doing their bidding. I am aware that they themselves for the most part avoided any direct prosecution, however "if it walks like a duck...."
Message edited by author 2006-09-27 13:38:26.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 02:03:48 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Flash:
This is the crux of my criticism of Clinton and the Left. They seem to need an excuse for their troubles.
"The right wing conspiracy", or "the right wing attack machine", or "the right wing Fox news" etc etc etc. |
This is the crux of my criticism of Bush and the Right. They seem to need an excuse for their troubles.
"The left wing communist conspiracy", or "the ACLU", or "the left wing liberal media bias/New York Times" etc etc etc.
Mr. Bush finally admitted he was "responsible" for the Federal government's inadequate response to the Katrina disaster. Usually, those responsible for a negligent response resulting in ghastly disasters and multiple fatalities are fired, not given lifetime pensions and more time on vacation than any previous President. Mr. "Uniter, not a divider" seems to have executed the most successful bait-and-switch routine in commercial history. How about taking an objective look and compare what was advertised and what we've been given?
At least Mr. Clinton didn't subvert our form of government. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 02:29:19 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
This is the crux of my criticism of Bush and the Right. They seem to need an excuse for their troubles.
"The left wing communist conspiracy", or "the ACLU", or "the left wing liberal media bias/New York Times" etc etc etc.
Mr. Bush finally admitted he was "responsible" for the Federal government's inadequate response to the Katrina disaster. Usually, those responsible for a negligent response resulting in ghastly disasters and multiple fatalities are fired, not given lifetime pensions and more time on vacation than any previous President. Mr. "Uniter, not a divider" seems to have executed the most successful bait-and-switch routine in commercial history. How about taking an objective look and compare what was advertised and what we've been given?
At least Mr. Clinton didn't subvert our form of government. |
General - again you offer up my point by stating "at least Mr. Clinton..."
He was still a scoundrel, liar and cheat. And most likely still is.
I have not heard Laura Bush go on any national media and claim that her husbands troubles are the result the ACLU, the vast left wing media or other such nonsense. I have seen her responsibly answer questions regarding her "percieved" unfairness of various attacks on the President.
{the ACLU has taken some very disturbing case positions. At least they are in a country that allows them to.)
Regarding your remarks about "Bush's" failure on Katrina, I thought that the Liberal left leaning socialist advancing Mayor and Govenor were the main raesons for the diasaterous responses to Katrina. But here is another example of how responsibility is not owned up to and thrust onto someone else. Exactly, why I don't agree with socialism or its ideals.
Message edited by author 2006-09-27 14:35:10.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 02:53:11 PM · #85 |
I'm fully willing to believe that Mr. Clinton is a lying scoundrel, who abused his position for personal gain.
However, I believe Mr. Bush is a traitor who has repeatedly lied, violated his oath of office as well as statutory law, and has actively attempted to overthrow the government and subvert the Constitution.
If forced to choose only between those two evils, I guess I'd stick with Mr. Clinton, though I'd rather have someone else entirely (or no one at all). |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 02:56:36 PM · #86 |
And I concur that The Bush's (father and son) are poor examples to cite as "Good Presidents". Could not stand his father and support "most" of the platform (not the candidate) of the son.
So for that we are nearly on the same page. At least I beleive we are in the same book ;-}
Message edited by author 2006-09-27 14:59:37.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 02:59:28 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm fully willing to believe that Mr. Clinton is a lying scoundrel, who abused his position for personal gain.
However, I believe Mr. Bush is a traitor who has repeatedly lied, violated his oath of office as well as statutory law, and has actively attempted to overthrow the government and subvert the Constitution.
If forced to choose only between those two evils, I guess I'd stick with Mr. Clinton, though I'd rather have someone else entirely (or no one at all). |
LOL. Bush did say his job would be so much easier if this country was a dictatorship.
And boy I'm sure wanting to join the fray, but respectfully decline. This is just one of those subjects that is so not winnable for either side. We all believe what suits our own circumstances and nobody is going to change that. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 03:52:06 PM · #88 |
Rant >> Like him or hate him, Clinton is the Master:
..................
I never voted for him, I prefered Nadar for honesty in both elections, however, William Clinton is a larger than life personality - a former President whose ideas are always considered. When people who have met Clinton and describe him in person - I have more than once heard the words he is a personality "...who lights up the room" He is liked & disliked by many.
The FOX interview was remarkable for the ideas, revelations, but also for the way Clinton expressed them, which mirrors the frustration & anxiety many citizens feel. Clinton's observations and words are harsh criticism for what he sees as error of judgement by George W. Bush - for international policy in general, the continuing military blunder in Iraq, and most obvious to me the subesequent, but unmistakable, creation of apprehension & fear in the US and throughout the world due to misguided leadership and decisions. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 06:14:50 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I find it amusing that you defend the Clinton's yet accuse me of "spinning". |
I'm defending the truth. I have no interest in defending "the Clintons" in terms of every political position they may take or every statement ever uttered by them. But there is a truth here, there is a history, there are facts that can be discovered, and it's not that tough to do. If you were interested in doing so, you'd refrain from the smear campaign and do some reading.
Message edited by author 2006-09-27 18:15:33. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 06:51:51 PM · #90 |
Here is John Stewart's take on the parsing of language, Republican style.
Video
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 07:43:34 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by Flash:
But here is another example of how responsibility is not owned up to and thrust onto someone else. Exactly, why I don't agree with socialism or its ideals. |
What does socialism have to do with accountability?
I find this very odd on the basis that the two principal parties in the US are both generally right wing/conservative (although one more than the other, and one marginally more liberal than the other).
|
|
|
|
09/27/2006 10:40:53 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Those that choose to defend the Clintons should pay closer attention to their words. It would also be beneficial (in my opinion) to speculate the definitions of their words based on previous evidence of the actual application of those words.
For example: "But at least I tried." What does "I tried" mean. Does it mean that he looked at a couple of reports? Does it mean he was briefed on a couple of meetings that somebody had? Does it mean that he overheard a converstaion about Bin laden and had a brief thought about him? Does it mean he sent troops to find him? Does it mean that he was aware of Bin Laden's pressence in a training camp and failed to issue the order to kiil him? Does it mean he was actively involved with the day to day tracking of him and was abreast of the various intelligence reports and it was on his top 10 list?
My take on President Clinton, based on the evidence of his parsed words over his 8 years as President, is that the word "tried" for him was little more than that he was aware of some discussions and was abreast of various attempts to "handle" him, but took basically a "hands off" approach to the matter personally.
However, when he then speaks of the new admisistration, he changes the definition of "tried" to the one that he hoped you thought he meant about himself. Then in conclusion, you would surmise that he was factually correct when in fact he didn't say what you think you heard.
This is the skill that so many admirers of his admire. To me it is just more lying. Listen carefuly to his words. Challenge his definitions. Then see if what you think he said, is in fact what he really said.
Likely not. |
As is usual in these situations, debate really doesn't change anyones mind. If Clinton doesn't admit failure, you say he's blaming someone else. If he does admit failure, then you say he's doing it in such a way as to pull off the lie. Frankly, i don't care. I don't consider myself Republican or Democrat - but i really don't like the Bushes, elder, younger, or Floridian. |
|
|
|
09/27/2006 11:53:48 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Flash:
But here is another example of how responsibility is not owned up to and thrust onto someone else. Exactly, why I don't agree with socialism or its ideals. |
What does socialism have to do with accountability?
I find this very odd on the basis that the two principal parties in the US are both generally right wing/conservative (although one more than the other, and one marginally more liberal than the other). |
This is right-wing red-baiting, conflating liberalism, socialism, communism, and any other "ism" they don't like, because they don't know the difference between them, and because it scares some people in this country, so it's to their political advantage to confuse them. Capitalism is their one true god, and sadly they don't even know what conservatism is anymore.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 05:15:17 AM · #94 |
preference aside, I think it's nice to have someone actually putting the talk-show host in a compromising position for a change. Thanks for sharing the link and video clip! :)
crayon |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 05:35:48 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by crayon:
preference aside, I think it's nice to have someone actually putting the talk-show host in a compromising position for a change. Thanks for sharing the link and video clip! :)
crayon |
There is another good example of this with George Galloway on Sky News (another Murdoch owned news channel) lambasting them for their very one sided reporting and ridiculous questioning:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Wdwk1dp-uU
I happened to have watched this live and it was slotted between about 25-30 minutes of live pictures of Israel's reaction to 7 or 8 soldiers being killed, during which there was a one sentence voice over "and in another part of the conflict we have just heard that 15 Lebanese civilians have been killed in an air strike - now back to our main story..." etc. I don't question that both acts were tragic, but the reporting was transparently partial.
Message edited by author 2006-09-28 05:40:53.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 06:34:38 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Flash:
I find it amusing that you defend the Clinton's yet accuse me of "spinning". |
I'm defending the truth. |
It is very odd to have the words Truth and Clinton together.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 06:45:01 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Flash:
I find it amusing that you defend the Clinton's yet accuse me of "spinning". |
I'm defending the truth. |
It is very odd to have the words Truth and Clinton together. |
You seem to really be hung up on the fact that he lied about his sex life. Have you never lied about yours? Really? Never? Come on face it... all politicians are liars. That includes Bush, Clinton and every president before them and all that will come after them. It's what they choose to lie about that defines them for the history books. Social behaviors change like fads. There are a bunch of conservative years, then there are a bunch of liberal years. Just follow history. Gotta run... so I'm not ignoring you if you reply. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 07:14:51 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by kdsprog:
You seem to really be hung up on the fact that he lied about his sex life. Have you never lied about yours? Really? Never? Come on face it... all politicians are liars. That includes Bush, Clinton and every president before them and all that will come after them. It's what they choose to lie about that defines them for the history books. Social behaviors change like fads. There are a bunch of conservative years, then there are a bunch of liberal years. Just follow history. Gotta run... so I'm not ignoring you if you reply. |
You severly mis understand my posts. My views of President Clintons personal behavior have not beeen mentioned by me at all. The fact that political double speak is part of politics is also not at issue. The thread was initiated on the premise that Bill Clinton, due to his masterful command of both presentation and language should be "awed". I disagree. I believe he is not to be "awed", "admired", or even given an audience, due to his repeated professional disgraces. However, some, continue to flock to this charlatan, and in doing so, I believe they speak to their own values.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 07:31:49 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Flash:
But here is another example of how responsibility is not owned up to and thrust onto someone else. Exactly, why I don't agree with socialism or its ideals. |
What does socialism have to do with accountability?
I find this very odd on the basis that the two principal parties in the US are both generally right wing/conservative (although one more than the other, and one marginally more liberal than the other). |
This is right-wing red-baiting, conflating liberalism, socialism, communism, and any other "ism" they don't like, because they don't know the difference between them, and because it scares some people in this country, so it's to their political advantage to confuse them. Capitalism is their one true god, and sadly they don't even know what conservatism is anymore. |
I have chosen this quote as opposed to Leaglebeagle's own as it provides me an opportunity to address both.
In my stating Originally posted by Flash:
But here is another example of how responsibility is not owned up to and thrust onto someone else. Exactly, why I don't agree with socialism or its ideals. |
I was referring to President Clinton's changing of the definition of the word "tried" as it applied to himself and then the next administration. The link to socialism and my belief that it discourages personal accountability is the positions taken by the liberal left (socialist embracing) that those that have should mandatorily support those who do not have. This in my view, promotes dependence rather than independence.
The Clinton's and others of the socialist leaning liberal left, believe it is permissible to tax those that work and give it to those who do not. The UK (for example) has fuel costs roughly 2-3 times the US due to the taxes imposed to pay the costs of various social welfare programs. I believe that reliance on socialized porgrams, inhibits the contribution potential of individuals. I believe this has been proven in nearly every country that has this form of structure.
The Katrina example used earlier, ia another illustration. The victims most affected were those most dependent on the social welfare, that was promoted by the left leaning liberal mayor and govenor. There is in my view, no excuse in America for 3rd-5th generation poor. America has free public schools. No one is denied access to an education. Therefore, for anyone to be 3rd and 4th and 5th generation poor (read dependent on social welfare), then it is due to their lack of initiave or drive. The asians do not have 3rd generation poor. The mexicans do not have 3rd generation poor. The Irish did not have 3rd generation poor. Why does New Orleans have 3rd to 5th generation poor? It is because of the failed social welfare dependencies that are driven by the socialists.
This is not "red baiting" or a product of confusing the "isms". It is reproduceable in nearly every enviornment where those that have are mandated to support those that do not have. I fully support charitable giving and belief philanthropy to be one of the greatest contributions a person can make to their community and society at large. I do not believe in wholsale socialism.
As a complete aside - I asked my brother last night if he felt I was a liberal or a conservative? He stated without hesitation, that he felt I was a Liberal. I doubt many here would agree.
Message edited by author 2006-09-28 07:40:09.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 08:11:51 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by Flash:
America has free public schools. No one is denied access to an education. Therefore, for anyone to be 3rd and 4th and 5th generation poor (read dependent on social welfare), then it is due to their lack of initiave or drive. The asians do not have 3rd generation poor. The mexicans do not have 3rd generation poor. The Irish did not have 3rd generation poor. Why does New Orleans have 3rd to 5th generation poor? It is because of the failed social welfare dependencies that are driven by the socialists.
This is not "red baiting" or a product of confusing the "isms". It is reproduceable in nearly every enviornment where those that have are mandated to support those that do not have. I fully support charitable giving and belief philanthropy to be one of the greatest contributions a person can make to their community and society at large. I do not believe in wholsale socialism.
As a complete aside - I asked my brother last night if he felt I was a liberal or a conservative? He stated without hesitation, that he felt I was a Liberal. I doubt many here would agree. |
So, do you disagree with Social Security supporting the permantly disabled? How about the mentally ill? Do you disagree with them supporting the children of those who worked their whole lives and died before retirement and while the children were still minors? Do you disagree with the elderly getting social security? Do you disagree with charity medical care being given to the uninsured? These are all a case of the have's giving to the have-not's. Are these programs wrong? If so, what do you think should be done with these people? |
|
