Posted on 09/24/2006 2:07:59 PM PDT by blogblogginaway
Thought it would be a good idea to discuss the upcoming interview where we already know Clinton loses it with Wallacae here. I for one am anxious to see it.
Even if true (and, like you, I don't think so), so what?
What this really accomplished was getting the Republican base even more fired up. And we all know that's the Rovian way to win elections: fire up YOUR base and forget about trying to win over the other guy's.
So, this was Rove's best work evah! /s
Yes, I was a bit surprised. I just turned it off then. I don't need to hear excuses. Maybe the segment ended differently but I don't think so.
Hi GBUSA! I had finally reached a point where I didn't think about the loon very often, now this. I keep recalling my instinctive reaction the first time I ever saw him. I had no knowledge of his existance before he announced he was running for president. That day I heard him speaking and a cold chill ran down my spine. He was the epitome of the "slick but obvious" bubbas that I had grown up with in the South. I could hardly believe what I was seeing. I recall joking, "He can't be serious can he? Nobody is going to be fooled by that used car salesman." Famous last words I guess. I couldn't believe that he got elected and was sure that people would begin to see what he was. They didn't. I think that is the worst thing for me to handle; the fact that there are that many gullible people in America. It scares me to death that people can't see through someone that transparently phony. He is the ultimate con.
I'm not clear whether Chris meant that clintoon took it out on his (Chris's) staff or his (clintoon's) staff.
I'm just thinking someone owes Bush an apology for the merciless criticism
of his speech. Bush was born with an impediment. Clinton "acquired" his.
I took it as his own staff. They said he did this to them before at some other thing that didn't go too well for him.
That flat "thanks" at the end, with the limp handshake was very telling.
Yes. Chris Wallace did a very good job holding back his surprise at the sudden outburst of Clinton's tyrade. It all goes to show that Clinton had a very sinister agenda. He's just as scary a man as Kerry is. Neither of them give a whit about anybody else except themselves, and more power. Each performs their bait and switch act, then immediately shoots with, "Whatever Works". Clinton AGAIN, did himself in by saying he admired Karl Rove(over and over) for doing whatever works, for that is Clinton's immoral Method of Operation.
Clinton has, fine-tuned the evil M.O. Just like my husband said last night, the Clintons had 8 years in the WH to party. Now they've worked out the bugs and want to put the female Clinton in office. Many people may do that very thing by the idiot thinking of, well even though I know the Dems are a hysterical bunch, maybe just switching the reins over will bring a long-needed change. After all, isn't that one of their long-held tactics...
Hi Nan, I remember seeing him for the first time too. Like you I had that same chilling feeling. I didn't think he could pull it off. Especially after, Jennifer Flowers etc. Like you, I couldn't believe so many could be fooled by him. I can't believe, after all said and done, some still are. I think of his background, who he is and how he actually could and did become President, scary. And living in NY -- I thought, there are so many liberals here but never will the witch win. How disappointed I was that I was wrong.
Yes, you are right. Sorry, I wasn't clear :). Wallace said, Clinton took out his anger on his own staff after the interview.
Wallace, as severals other have, has buckled under the pressure of the noisy loonies. Pandering and placating is what it's called. I don't think he believes any of it, as is the same for others who have relinquished their strong stand against craziness. And what's worse, is that the loonies know they only need to continue screaming nutty things and everybody will eventually give in just to shut them up. Only problem is, there's a tornado after the thunderstorm of stupidity we see coming from the left...
Golly, I had the very same reaction.
Again, I had exactly the same reaction. I remember sitting in an officer's club in Germany and the Jennifer Flowers thing was just in the news. We all felt sure he was done for and we were very happy.
If this is true that Klintoon went off on his own staff, either he's extending the set-up or there goes the "planned rage" theory.
I thought it might have been the usual Carville-Begala type of staged b.s. but this article indicates that he really reamed his own staff afterwards and I don't think he would do that (especially while still in the Fox News studios!!) unless he'd really been taken off guard and lost his cool:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1707730/posts
The whole tantrum is very revealing either way, for if it was not staged it shows that he lives in his own little cocoon of Demagogue/MSM talking points and really does think it's somehow outrageous for any questions to be asked about his performance on terrorism.
In any case, it is still disgusting how much Richard Clarke's dishonest theatrics and the whole 9/11 Omission-Commission still control virtually all public discussion of these matters. Bill Clinton is SCUM and all his enablers, including most of all Hillary, should be driven from our public life forever!!!
Thanks for that. You are right. His lashing out after the interview might indicate real anger. I'm surprised however that he didn't threaten Chris and FOX with lawsuit if they ran the interview. Might have been too obvious, but Chris might want to watch his back. The toon isn't known for forgiving people who threaten his power. FOX also may want to keep a close watch on their business practices for any weaknesses.
We should send Chris Wallace some Cigars. He did a great job of smokin' Bubba! Let's reward him.
Bubba seems to regard Clarke's book as gospel, but, "The Path to 9/11" as heresy. Since, clearly, Path is much based on Clarke, otherwise, he would not be the hero. So which Clarke is correct.
FLASHBACK (from article in 2004 about the Clintonistas nearly forgetting about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda when they submitted their final national security report to Congress in Dec. 2000):
"The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times. The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat, while President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "ignored" it. The Clinton document, titled "A National Security Strategy for a Global Age," is dated December 2000 and is the final official assessment of national security policy and strategy by the Clinton team. The document is publicly available, though no U.S. media outlets have examined it in the context of Mr. Clarke's testimony and new book."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040406-121654-1495r.htm
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.