Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Replay of Clinton Interview on FOX On NOW!

Posted on 09/24/2006 7:06:29 PM PDT by Doctor Raoul

Quick, it's only 15 minutes long.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: outfoxed; repblicannonsense
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-139 last
To: Doctor Raoul
Here's the "drive-by" L.S.M.'s "spin" on the 11 o'clock local ABC channel 10 news:

"FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON IS SETTING THE RECORDS STRAIGHT IN A FOX INTERVIEW TODAY!!!

Hmmmmm???

121 posted on 09/24/2006 9:23:54 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massfreeper; Howlin

I remember very distinctly that the Republicans backed Clinton's decisions to go into Somalia. Clinton was the one who pulled the troops out of Somalia, not the Republican party or the "right wing conservatives" he was babbling about. This whole interview was an attempt to blame everyone else for his failings.


122 posted on 09/24/2006 9:36:45 PM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (Karl Rove you magnificent bastard!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: 4integrity
What nerve to impugn President Bush who never says a word about 'ole Bill. And, what a laugh to imply that the "conservatives" are never asked questions like Chris Wallace asked him. The leftist media bashes Bush, Cheney et al......every day, all day.

Cris Wallace NEVER fired a tough question, and you get this kind of insane reaction!

If this possum would be questioning on the same level that the "drive-by" L.S.M. are presenting to President Bush, B'J.clintoooon's blodpressure would hit the roof and he would be hauled away in a ambulance!!

Slick willy and killery are never ever faced with tough questions like their derelictions benefiting the china-men and N.Korea regarding giving them electronic for launching rockets and Nuclear facilities in N.Korea, etc!!!

123 posted on 09/24/2006 9:48:45 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Raoul

124 posted on 09/24/2006 10:20:23 PM PDT by Doctor Raoul (New York Times? Get a rope!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Citizen Reporter
Truly and honestly, I want to know what he meant by NEOCON.

NEOCON is a code word of the left for Jewish conservatives.

125 posted on 09/24/2006 10:23:20 PM PDT by Conservababe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Can I ask this question: is a U.S. president suppose to openly admit he tried to KILL somebody?

You caught that too ??

126 posted on 09/24/2006 10:26:58 PM PDT by Mo1 (Hey McCain and Graham .... our soldiers signed up to dodge bullets not lawsuits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
For someone who has had people killed before he got in office, it probably never occurred to him that he should be discreet.
127 posted on 09/24/2006 10:32:51 PM PDT by Conservababe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: A Citizen Reporter

Question .. what the heck is wrong with this speech .. sounds like he's wearing a retainer or .... maybe false teeth


128 posted on 09/24/2006 10:33:54 PM PDT by Mo1 (Hey McCain and Graham .... our soldiers signed up to dodge bullets not lawsuits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Cracked me up, excellent! (WOF fan!)


129 posted on 09/24/2006 10:35:18 PM PDT by tina07 (In Memory of my Father - WWII Army Air Force Veteran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Kimmers
**I have never seen Clinton look sooooo bad**

Syphilis will do that and would explain his behavior.

I think at every public event he attends if protesting Freepers will chant loudly "Clinton got the Clap" over and over we could drive him over the edge.
130 posted on 09/24/2006 10:46:11 PM PDT by Swiss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
But one thing you're right about is the rage; today reminded me of the times he was in office when I felt like we were in one long national therapy session, with him working out his personal issues on the public stage.

Clinton is a psychopath

In current, clinical, use, psychopathy is most commonly diagnosed using Robert D. Hare's Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). Hare describes psychopaths as, "intraspecies predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they cold-bloodedly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret."[

131 posted on 09/24/2006 10:49:16 PM PDT by Mo1 (Hey McCain and Graham .... our soldiers signed up to dodge bullets not lawsuits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
"Question .. what the heck is wrong with this speech .. sounds like he's wearing a retainer or .... maybe false teeth"

I think he is wearing some kind of partial plate that doesn't fit well. You can actually see the bad dentistry in his upper tooth line.

132 posted on 09/25/2006 5:22:20 AM PDT by A Citizen Reporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
I remember very distinctly that the Republicans backed Clinton's decisions to go into Somalia.

Well, I'm not sure your memory isn't as distinct as you think.  President GHW Bush put the troops in Somalia on December 9th 1992 "to spearhead the arrival of 35,000 troops from a dozen countries assembled as part of a US led multi-national operation to crack down on looting and extortion that has prevented food getting through." source

I don't remember Republicans backing him at all. In fact we were screaming that he changed the mission from peacekeeping to nation building after drawing down troop levels from 28,000 to 1,200 Rangers as asserted by Senator Orin Hatch and Al D'Amato on the floor of the senate.  So we were darn sure screaming at him, but because he was foolish and didn't supply the power necessary to do the job. We weren't against the concept of the mission.
congressional record for Hatch
congressional record for D'Amato
Senator DeConcini  Trying to cover for Clinton.

As I remember it, Republicans were saying either go in with enough troops to do the job or get out.

I do agree: This whole interview was an attempt to blame everyone else for his failings.


Congressional Record article 5 of 112         Printer Friendly Display - 5,762 bytes.[Help]      

TRAGEDY IN SOMALIA (Senate - October 07, 1993)
 

 

[Page: S13198]

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this morning brought more grim news from Somalia. Another American has been killed, this time by a mortar attack on the airport at Mogadishu.

I mourn this loss, as well as the loss of the other Americans who have died and who have been injured in Somalia. It is a tragedy. What is worse is that it is a needless and a pointless tragedy.

As one who knows what it is like to lose his only brother in a war, having lived through that tragedy, my heart and my prayers go out to the families who have lost their loved ones.

This military operation has been badly bungled by the Clinton administration and by the United Nations.

Where did this mission go wrong? It did so last March when President Clinton shifted the mission of our forces in Somalia from the humanitarian mission of delivering food to prevent mass starvation to the much larger mission of establishing security in Somalia and nation building.

Let us be clear. President Bush deployed forces to Somalia on a humanitarian mission that most of us supported. The forces we sent were sized and configured for opening roads for the delivery of food in the absence of organized resistance. And our forces achieved that mission.

But President Clinton changed that mission. At the bidding of the United Nations, he shifted the mission to building up a new Somali Government. Even this week Secretary of State Christopher has said that we will not leave until a `secure environment has been established.' Yesterday, President Clinton said that American forces must stay to complete `the job of establishing security in Somalia.'

What the administration did not do--and this represents its major policy failure--is reconfigure our forces for the new mission. We cannot pacify Somalia, or even Mogadishu, with the 4,000 troops we have in Somalia. If the President is serious about his new nation-building mission--and I want to express deep reservations about its wisdom--he must ask Congress to send the vastly larger forces needed to achieve that mission.

It is a simple question of means and ends. If the President wills these ends, he had better will the means. Otherwise, he will pointlessly sacrifice American lives and, I might add, the mission will inevitably fail.

The mistake of shifting missions without changing the forces is at the root of the tragic loss of American lives in recent weeks. Yet, unbelievably, the administration still does not see its error.

It is now sending another 1,000 troops and a few armored vehicles. But this will not create a force sufficient to establish security in Somalia. That is nowhere near enough. The new deployments may enhance the security of American troops in Somalia--and that is important in and of itself--but the only mission our forces will be able to achieve is the mission of defending themselves.

I would like nothing more than to be able to arrest Aideed and punish him for the actions of his forces. If we can do that with a surgical strike, I am in favor of it. But I am under no illusions about the massive deployments of troops that will be needed to achieve the mission of stabilizing and establishing security in Somalia.

The administration's basic inability to match mission and forces is deeply disturbing. Even more disturbing are the reports that the administration turned down the requests by commanders in the field for reinforcements and equipment needed to defend themselves. I will not prejudge these decisions, but a serious congressional inquiry into this tragic matter is imperative.

Mr. President, it seems more and more that it is amateur hour in American foreign policy. We sacrifice the lives of our troops to patrol the streets of Mogadishu, but we impose an embargo to the United Nations that prohibits the victims of genocide in Bosnia even to buy arms to defend themselves. We support a political role for the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, but we hunt down General Aideed in Somalia. We use the United Nations for nation-building in Somalia, but we allow the United Nations to facilitate the brutal partition of a nation in Bosnia.

We are told that our policy is one of `assertive multilateralism.' In fact, it is incoherent multilateralism.

It is time that this administration ends its excessive, and dangerous, reliance on the United Nations as a vehicle for American foreign policy.

We must stop allowing the international bureaucrats at the United Nations to treat the United States as their personal 911 emergency number. We should participate with other U.N. military missions, but only when U.S. forces are under U.S. command, and only when the operation serves vital American interests. No such interest exists in the streets of Mogadishu. No more American troops should die there.

Mr. President, I add that no more American troops should be taken hostage. We should do everything in our power to remedy that situation.

Mr. President, I sincerely hope that the administration will come to its senses and return to the Bush plan in Somalia. Our mission is complete. Our forces should be withdrawn. The United Nations should be tasked with pursuing a political--not military--solution to the internal conflict in Somalia.

Most of all, the administration must learn the lesson that the United States should put its troops in harm's way only if our vital and critical interests are at stake and should send enough forces so that they can achieve their mission rapidly and with the least risk to American lives.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

 


SOMALIA (Senate - October 07, 1993)

 

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, first of all, I want to concur in the sentiments expressed by my good friend, the Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], as it relates to the United Nations literally taking command of our troops and our forces. I think that raises very serious questions--questions that we should be discussing as to when, how, and under what circumstances. Basically, I say they should not have command and control over U.S. forces.

Second, the fact that we have changed the mission in Mogadishu, in Somalia, where we once undertook a mission of mercy, for feeding starving people--and everyone could sympathize and support that effort; I did, and I think most of the American people did, as did Congress--we have gone from that humanitarian mission, where we put in 28,000 troops to guarantee the safety of the U.N. personnel undertaking that mission. Thereafter, we draw down that 28,000 to some 4,000 U.S. troops--most of them support, 1,200 Rangers. The fact of the matter is that by that draw down, and then a change of the mission from one which was of humanitarian nature but yet had sufficient fire power to assure that those charged with the responsibility of carrying this out could be protected, to one that we call--it is a wonderful sounding name--`nation building.' That sounds like a political process: `nation building.'

Mr. President, it is not a political process. It is not a political process if you have to use armed personnel and U.S. troops to go in and seek out people. It is not a political process if you are having fire fights with different segments, whether it is Aideed or anyone else. It is not a political process in the terms that we generally think about it. It is a much more aggressive one. It is a policy that departs from sending food in. A policy of seeking out and hunting down people who are armed and dangerous. By its very nature, it is much more dangerous.

What do we do? We withdraw support for the young men and women who we send over there in basically a humanitarian effort. And now, under the aegis of the United Nations, it has been changed, and it is much more a military action. That is what it is. Nation building is a military action.

Senator Brown and I sent a letter to Secretary Aspin yesterday in which we requested from him confirmation or denial of those reports that we have read in a number of the media, in which it has been said that Secretary Aspin denied the request of General Montgomery to send armored personnel support tanks to Somalia for defensive purposes.

Let me read to you a report from Knight-Ridder, in the Albany Times Union:

`Defense Secretary Les Aspin twice spurned requests from General Colin Powell to send additional tanks and troops to Somalia to defend American soldiers--before a dozen died in last week's fire fight,' Pentagon officials said Wednesday. Officially, Aspin and the Pentagon decline to discuss the episode, saying that such matters are classified. Privately, Aspin aides acknowledged that the Secretary never acted on the request, made twice over a 3-week period. `The Defense Secretary was mulling this request when the mission blew up over the weekend,' one said.

In addition, it has been reported that the civilian advisers to Secretary Aspin said they feared there might be a political backlash from the Congress and the American people.

Since when has Congress ever, ever engaged in that kind of second-guessing of what was necessary for the defense of our young men and women? How dare those political bureaucrats make that assumption? And how dare the Secretary of Defense turn down that kind of request? Incredible.

Indeed, we have a right to these answers. Why did Secretary Aspin turn down a request that came from the field and that was approved by none other than Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to see that the kind of support necessary, that the tanks and equipment necessary to defend our young men were not made available?

If it is true that he feared a political backlash, does that mean that because of the sake of political expedience we do not give proper support to our young men and women in the field? Is that what that means? That is a pretty sad commentary.

Let me indicate to you why this takes on some relevance because the fact of the matter is these young rangers were pinned down for up to 9 hours, although American personnel quick reaction forces that were supposed to be able to respond in 20 minutes, it took them 9 hours to get to these rangers who were pinned down because they did not have what? Tanks in which to get them there. And after they started a rescue operation and hit withering fire, their commander on the ground determined that the losses would be too great and withdrew and, thereupon, it took another period of time before we could assemble tanks from other areas from the Malaysians who then broke through and were finally able to rescue these rangers who were pinned down for 9 hours.

Mr. President, maybe it is not the political thing to say or to do in this climate of political correctness, but Secretary Aspin has a lot to be called for and a great deal of accountability on why it is he turned down these tanks. And if the answer is that which we have heard from the nameless, faceless bureaucrats, because he feared a political backlash, then I suggest that he should be fired now. He should resign now, and if he does not resign, the President should remove him.

We understand the principle of civilian control and that the President is Commander in Chief of the military. But we also recognize that when we send our people out into the field, our young men and women, our soldiers, to take on hazardous and dangerous missions that we give them the best, that we support them, that we do not withhold support with something so basic as tanks to defend them in a situation that has changed from one that was supposed to be humanitarian to now a more militaristic adventure. And that is what it is. That is unconscionable to deny that field commander, who is backed up by no less than Colin Powell, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to deny them that which they need to protect themselves.

I do not know how many lives may have been saved if those tanks were available. I do not know how many of those who were wounded may not have been wounded. I do not know whether or not that mission would have been conducted in that manner, dropping them in that manner, because they did not have tanks and could not approach. I do not know.

But I certainly would suggest to you that the conduct of this operation not only leaves a lot to be desired, but it would appear that we do things on the altar of political expedience, and that is not acceptable. It is not acceptable.

Mr. President, I want to suggest to you that we are getting ourselves further into a situation where we are losing control over the command of our own U.S. personnel. I believe that what we see in Somalia may be the harbinger of things to come that may bring greater consequences and devastation to this country.

We use these nice new terms `nation building.' Well, if nation building means that we have to conduct strikes against various people and tribes, I would suggest to you that that is far more hostile than what it may sound like, that it is far more dangerous than the so-called humanitarian mission of bringing food to people.

I suggest to you that it is a military operation. We now use another term. Maybe it is to get around the War Powers Act. It is called peacekeeping, and we now talk about bringing in,

injecting 25,000 so-called peacekeepers into Bosnia.

Let me tell you something. Sending 25,000 so-called peacekeepers into Bosnia is far more dangerous than having 4,000 troops in Somalia under the present situation. If you believe that 25,000 peacekeepers are going to keep the peace, then I tell you, you believe in the tooth fairy, because they are not going to keep the peace and they are going to wind up being targets themselves. And just like some of our United States servicemen have reported, we do not know who the enemy is in Mogadishu and Somalia. They are not going to know who the enemy is because one day it is one group and another day it is going to be the next group.

We are taking on the mission of being world policeman. We are saying that under the aegis of the United Nations we are going to enter wherever there is civil strife. If they say it is a U.N. operation, it is going to be United Nations in name alone, and the fact of the matter is the firepower, the men who bear the suffering, the combat forces are going to be primarily United States.

Have we become hired mercenaries to inject in every hot spot throughout the world?

These are the kinds of questions we better be answering ourselves. Are we going to have the incompetent bureaucrats at the United Nations determining the destiny of our U.S. service people? Are we going to have the command and control on battlefield situations, the lives of young U.S. citizens, who serve their country, determined by foreign nationals who may decide to send in help or may not decide to send in help? Who may decide it is appropriate?

We get reports that in certain situations when military operations were being conducted--and I say military operations in Somalia--that certain of the countries that participated, their commanders did not agree with the overall command and refused to undertake various operations.

How do you assure the safety of our U.S. troops in that kind of situation?

I suggest to you that we better have a clear understanding of this business. It is nice to bring in this business of one world--one world, former President Bush discussed that--and the use of the United Nations. When do you decide it is appropriate to use force? At what level, and who is going to participate? Who is going to fund this?

Mr. President, I know there are others who would like to speak to the issue at hand, the Dellinger nomination. I thank them for their indulgence to permit me the opportunity to raise these issues.

These are difficult times, but I think sometimes we are afraid to call them the way we see them because maybe it is not politically correct. There are other issues. There are those who say let us get Aideed.

I think the only thing necessary for us to do is to make sure that we secure those who have been taken hostage and get out as quickly as possible. I think this Nation is far greater than having to worry about how we are going to be viewed in other areas of the world. I do not think it is worth, that conflict in that area, one more U.S. life. Yesterday we had another person who was killed as they mortared the fields over there.

I do not like when I hear situations where the other conveys and the other troops of the nations are not fired upon, but it has now become sport to fire upon the U.S. personnel. I

understand there will be deaths there. Pakistan suffered deaths. But now it is very clear we have become the enemy where here we are reaching out to give humanitarian aid to help starving people and are now viewed as the enemy. Here we went in with one purpose, and now we are being asked to hunt down whoever it is. I would like to hang him, no doubt about that.

Is it worth more and more human lives, more and more servicemen, one more man to go and get him. If we are going to get him, then for God's sake, let us authorize this and let us do it in an appropriate way. Let us see to it we have overwhelming power and force so that we do not unnecessarily jeopardize lives and do it in that manner as opposed to this haphazard manner calling it one thing and yet it is something else--putting a nice, acceptable political terminology on as nation building when it involves far more in the way of military risk than our previous authorized undertaking of supplying humanitarian relief.

I think we better be more realistic, and I also think we need real accountability.

Notwithstanding that, it may not sound nice, Secretary Aspin should go. He absolutely has forfeited his right to have the support of this Congress, of the people of this Nation, when he refused to send the necessary armament so that young men could be defended from the kind of thing that took place.

Mr. President, I see my colleague from Alabama, and I yield the floor.

 

[Page: S13200]
SOMALIA (Senate - October 07, 1993)
 

 

[Page: S13211]

Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I am not going to take the time right now to discuss Somalia because I know others want to talk on the Dellinger nomination, including the Senator from Massachusetts and perhaps others. I will have some comments later on the present situation in Somalia.

I think President Clinton will announce either today or tomorrow a position, the United States disengagement from Somalia under a very orderly process. I hope people carefully pay attention to what he is going to tell us, because I believe he has a plan. It is different from where we have been drifting. It is, in my judgment, a stand-up plan that discusses and admits some errors were made in our policy in Somalia in going along with the U.N. mission. We have changed our position that was originally established by President Bush in December 1992. The President has set time limits, and he is prepared to use the necessary force to extract American troops and to also end our engagement there without dismantling the United Nations capabilities to provide the humanitarian success for which the United States can take full credit.

 

 

133 posted on 09/25/2006 6:17:09 AM PDT by HawaiianGecko (Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
BTW: Judging from your name you live in God's country. I lived in Great Falls for 4 years in the early 70s and loved it. I still get back into Bozeman every couple of years to visit an old friend. I miss living there.

 

134 posted on 09/25/2006 6:24:54 AM PDT by HawaiianGecko (Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: bannie

Yep, it was like winning the lottery to them.


135 posted on 09/25/2006 6:38:24 AM PDT by hope (ha! And the left says Bush is a liar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Lol!


136 posted on 09/25/2006 7:49:59 AM PDT by getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL ( **Hunter-Tancredo-Weldon-Hayworth 4 President** I get it, Glenn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko
BTW: Judging from your name you live in God's country. I lived in Great Falls for 4 years in the early 70s and loved it. I still get back into Bozeman every couple of years to visit an old friend. I miss living there.  

 Yep.  Born and raised here.  Live up in the NE Corner near Scobey.

137 posted on 09/25/2006 11:50:58 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (Karl Rove you magnificent bastard!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: A Citizen Reporter
Truly and honestly, I want to know what he meant by NEOCON.

Racist code word for the left which means "Jews".

138 posted on 09/25/2006 11:53:28 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (Karl Rove you magnificent bastard!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper

That's what I thought it meant. I have to say that I'm astonished a former President would use it. Even him.


139 posted on 09/25/2006 11:57:06 AM PDT by A Citizen Reporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-139 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson