http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/2 ... bin-laden/

There's also a video to download. It was originally about his Global Initiative but of course Wallace starts asking questions about why Clinton didn't do anything about Bin Laden. Subsequently it warranted a rigorous defense which made Wallace look like a total fool. Good interview.

i just read where he said he came closer to getting bin laden


*golf clap*


i came close to getting him too, and it provided the same results as his did

So are you gonna hold your phoney double-sided brand of corny skeptical discourse to the Republicans and Neoconservatives who didn't want to pursue Bin Laden?

You didn't read the interview. You couldn't have, I posted it 6 minutes ago.

my fucking lord, you of all people, should never ever ever ever talk about double sided skepticism, NEVER

i read about this on cnn.com

believe it or not, there are places that break stories well before you

clinton is trying to make it look like he did everything in his power to hunt down bin laden, the same that bush is doing. the only difference is pakistan (or another country, i cant recall) said, bin laden is here bill, what do you want to do

and he did nothing

Nothing? Maybe not a whole hell of a lot, but nothing, I don't think so.

Sorry Pal, we are talking about you here. So why don't you answer my question?





So again, you didn't read the interview.

You aren't a skeptic, you're a cheeseball with half-formed and thought out opinions.

I love it when interviews turn unexpectidly candid.

Are we talking about the time he ordered a missile strike, and some Republican senator accused him of trying to take attention away from his purgery trial?

im not your pal, if you want one, i suggest buying a dog, cause i cant really see anyone confessing to being your pal, at least willingly


if he felt so strongly that bin laden was a thread, and i think history is showing this is indeed the case, then he should have went ahead with his plan. but he didnt, he let a known murder/terrorist go cause he didnt have the FBI/CIA's help, when he had other avenues

its easy enough to criticize others when you have no worries of being criticized yourself

You still aren't answering my question. You want everyone else to be so skeptical and you go out of your way to derail threads to point out people's hypocrisy on a daily basis. Clinton is sitting there saying he failed but he tried, whilst the Republicans in Congress gave little more than a whim about the issue of terrorism. And apparently Bush did even less.

So surely they are equally deserving of your scorn as Bill Clinton is for not catching him, correct?

how do i want everyone to be skeptical? and believe me, i dont go out of my way, you folks make it wayyyyyyyyyyyy and i mean wayyyyyyyyyyyyy to easy to point that shit out



he is saying he tried but failed yes, but he only tried one avenue, there were others. he is trying to shift blame for bin laden squarely on bushs shoulders. im willing to bet 90% of america thought bin laden was produced by the foreign polices of the bush admin in the last 8 years, when in fact, bin laden made his presence known before then.

but because its bush, you and the people of your mindset, love to pin this all on george. i think bush is at best a below mediocre president, but i also think he doesnt deserve 1/10 of the venom that is spewed by people in general

now should congress have authorized everything, sure hindsight says yes, they should of, but if youre going to bitch about the iraq war and that the president lied or whatever you want to say about proof, then you cant also turn and criticize a president and his branches like the cia and fbi for not acting on less than solid proof, again, even though monday morning quarterbacking shows it was the right play

i never really had too major a problem with clinton, i think he is every bit as charismatic as kennedy ever way, but hes just trying to make himself look better and push all his crumbs under bushs rug and saying, look, he has a dirty floor, and thats bullshit

Where is he shifting blame onto Bush's shoulders? Bush and the Republicans don't deserve blame too? Clinton said he tried and said he failed. He was defending himself, and accusing FOX News of accusing him of doing NOTHING. Which was obviously far from the case.



I'm confused. Clinton didn't have the information to drop bombs in Afghanistan so he didn't do it. In retrospect, according to the 9/11 report, it was the right decision. Bush thought he had the information (or manipulated and pushed it on the American public) and in retrospect he didn't. So what is the issue here?



Fair enough. But the Republicans have done their fair share of sweeping and finger pointing. In fact, that's why this issue with Clinton "supposedly" not doing enough has been brought to light recently.

there is no way, even if it was the jesus commision, that i believe it was the right decision

No, you still don't understand. The attack wasn't certified, and Clinton respected the boundaries of law and didn't carry through with it.

I think he offered a fairly clear and articulate defense of himself and I'm impressed. He looked Wallace right in the face the entire time, and he is either very aware and informed or it was somehow rehearsed, which I think is a far stretch. Again, you couldn't bring yourself to offer the same criticism where it is deserved. And that hardly makes you any better than the rest of us.

I like the fact that Clinton is getting fired up over this. It's about time. The right has stopped just short of saying that clinton caused everything, so i think it's about time he stood up for himself.

I don't really know enough about history to rate presidents ... but Clinton's pretty cool, man.

Holy shit. Clinton got pissed.

Bravo, Chris Wallice!

After watching a week's worth of puff-ball interviews, I was waiting for someone to ask the big question that arose after "The Path to 9/11."
Did anyone see Keith Olbermann's pathetic ass-kiss of an interview? The guy handed Clinton a contribution to the Clinton Global Initiative before he started asking questions! Then he starts lobbing in softballs that were meant to make President Bush look bad. Clinton didn't have a problem talking about what Bush should have done differently....but don't ask him what HE should have done differently. Otherwise, you're a Republican shill, right Mr. Clinton? What a joke. I watch FoxNews Sunday on occasion, and Wallice will give Republicans as hard of a time. Actually, it was a very fair question and Clinton lost his composure.
For the record, I think what Clinton is doing with his global initiative is great. But he can't sit there and whine about 1 interview when he has sat through a week's worth of puff ball interviews conducted by the Liberal Mainstream Media.

he looked people in the eye and said he didnt have sexual relations either....so i wouldnt put anything past the man. thats what made him such a good president. he could look you in the eye, say the sun was purple, and could do so in such a convincing manner that you would be hard pressed not to believe him



i said i complete disagree with the we didnt have enough evidence thing with the following statement, which you dismissed...



clinton said he knew he was right to do it, but didnt cause he didnt have the backing. if he would have done this on his own like his plan to, then theres a good chance 9-11 wouldnt have been as big or it could very well have been even bigger.

but to sit by and not follow your gut, and saying i didnt have the sources to back me, and applaud him for doing so, and then turning around and blasting bush who used information and it turned out wrong is the same in both instances, yet bush is the devil for it