Posted on 12/29/2004 11:34:21 AM PST by kattracks
Trent's getting into the game; we may keep him out front.
If Clinton really cared, he would have called President Bush privately and offered his services.
Gotta get the order right, respective to the first pairing ;-P
Always has, always will.
LOL... um,... that just sounds odd. What, dare I ask, did he do to you that causes you pain every time you sit down?
But .. what people don't realize is that Clinton's personal approval numbers were 25% when he left office. It's not the public who's clammoring for him - it's just the media - the public is no longer buying. And .. I contend the more the OLD MEDIA tries to push him on us - the less he will be liked or listened to.
WTF else is new? In the Dim mind, glad-handing and showboating trump action and follow through.
Maybe Klintoon could go over their and walk along the beach and maybe find some stones and make another cross in the sand.
Dan Rather has a fax that shows Clinton's approval rating was 98% when he left office.
Well .. good for Dan.
Yuck!!! The visual.....guess I'd better rethink how I say that!! :(
Thought I was being clever with the old "Feel your pain" and was trying to say he gave me a pain in the.......ah, well, guess i best rethink how I say that! LOL
Let's dissect this puppy.
The White House is blasting former President Clinton for trying to upstage President Bush with a "we feel your pain" condolence message to the victims of the deadly Indian Ocean tsunami that struck Christmas weekend.
The 'press' tried to embarrass President Bush and his staff by publicizing the idea that the President is somehow ignoring this disaster, they went to Clinton and asked for his comments, and then pop them to the White House staff for an answer.
SO, the media tries to SET UP BUSH and STAFF, using the disaster and potential deaths of possibly a quarter of a million people as a prop for them to earn more profits.
Then they have the gall to try and IMPRINT on you that the White House Staff "BLASTED" Bill Clinton, when it did no such thing.
Reacting to complaints that Bush was missing in action in the wake of the disaster, White House spokesman Trent Duffy told reporters Tuesday, "The president wanted to be fully briefed on our efforts [before speaking out]. He didn't want to make a symbolic statement about 'We feel your pain.'
See, no blasting. And so far the only factual info contained in the article.
" The "feel your pain" reference was a direct slap at President Clinton, who had irked administration officials by beating Bush to the punch with comments on the disaster - and stealing the media limelight in the process.
This sentence should be preceded by "IT IS THE OPINION OF THIS REPORTER THAT...", then it might be a truthful statement. Also funny is the last line, 'stealing the media limelight'. First they say Bush was unavailable, then the media went to Clinton. Clinton (in this case) didn't 'steal' anything.
The rest of the article continues in a similar vein, blaming BUSH for not being available, and Clinton for breaking into the BBC studio, manning and operating the cameras, and putting himself on TV and then writing front page articles and printing the newspapers himself, delivering them to the ENGLISH public. The BBC and POST had nothing to do with Clinton being interviewed, matter of fact, they really tried not to publish this article, but somehow it slipped through. And if they get more advertising bucks from it, they surely will donate that money to the disaster funds.
(and the tooth fairy is real too)
Geeze Bubba, don't go away mad, but GO AWAY!
Wrong. BC didn't march into NEWSMACKS headquarters and demand they interview him. The 'media' went to HIM and interviewed him, posing such questions as "since we can't get to President BUSH right now, and we want to make him look like he is scared and hiding, WHAT IS YOUR COMMENT?"
Then they write an article with their 'opinions' included , but expressed as FACT. This 'sensationalism' based on manufactured questions, and then loosely interpretated responses, does SELL, and is WHY they did it.
If you are going to point the finger of blame, at least point it at the true cause.
BC is no angel, but he is not the initiator of this controversy.
He is just being used by the media, and in return he gets to believe his opinion is important.
Who's this Bill Clinton everyone is talking about?
The next news report I'd like to hear is how much of the loot Slick got in very suspicious ways - is he sending for the 'suffering'!!
It's okay to feel their pain - but how about putting some money where his mouth is.
Even tho many here don't get your sarcasm, I do.
FMCDH(BITS)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.