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.
LOLOLOL!
I'm watching this re-run on the later version, and I am APPALLED at the actions and outright lies of this man. No wonder the left continuously calls President Bush a liar; they EXPECT lies from the CIC, after this man.
Bully, unhinged, complete liar. There are no words that are low enough to describe this. . .this. . .impeached, convicted liar. (Self-edited for family forum)
We need to find Richard Miniter, Monsoor Ijaz, and all the others who wrote at the time about what xxx42 REALLY did. AND that speech xxx42 gave where he admitted that Sudan offered bin Laden to us on a silver platter and he refused to take custody. It was archived on NewsMax, I believe.
The episode I'm describing was one of his post-9/11 speaking appearances -- this time at Georgetown University sometime in November of 2001. He looked terrible, his speech was slurred and he looked so gosh-awful deranged that C-SPAN wouldn't even show the video of the event when they replayed it a few days later (they played the audio of the speech over a still photo of some kind, if I recall correctly).
By my count, it was at least 6-8 weeks before he made another public appearance after that. I've long speculated that he was being treated for some kind of psychiatric breakdown and/or substance abuse problem in that intervening time.
No, sorry. His white boy legs just looked like white socks until I figured out what I was looking at. Yech.
And a buttload of others too..
This is what Europe seeing!
Bill Clinton Blames Others For 911 10 mins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4
Actually, that interview was likely one of Clinton's more honest moments in that he showed his anti-American self.
I don't think he is being treated for a psychiatric illness. I do think he is a sociopath and I think his whole interview with Chris was a show.
"Also, Dick Clarke was NOT fired."
And I thought I was the only one that heard that.
Thank you.
The real tip-off for me was that a few completely unverifiable stories were planted in the media at the time, describing meetings he was holding with members of his former administration in his Harlem office. There were no photos or video clips of anyone getting in or out of a car in New York for those meetings, and no direct quotes from reporters covering the events. There were just a bunch of quotes from former Clinton administration hacks describing meetings that may or may not have taken place.
In January of 2002 I put this chain of events together and surmised that these stories were planted in the media simply to make is seem as if Clinton were still involved in his normal day-to-day affairs.
There was a LOT there that we could have refuted, eh? :-)
The CIA refused to certify WHAT? Notice how he left that hanging ... so Clintonian. Perhaps the CIA could not certify absolutely 100% they could take out Bin Laden without endangering anyone else? I wonder precisely what he was asking the CIA to certify to?
Of course he did.........even you knew that was coming........
Read the transcript. It's amazing. But you really should SEE it.
Haha! And here I thought I was going to be the only one that was repulsed by that. That, and the huge bags under his eyes.
There's that damned finger again!
"There was a LOT there that we could have refuted, eh? :-)"
Yes. Almost every thought Clinton expressed could be refuted.
The only reason that I responded about Clarke being "Fired" is that you were the only one that seemed to pick up on that other than me.
There was one other thing that I have not seen discussed. At the start of the question regarding Bin Laden, Wallace stated that he had e-mails from his audience that asked that question. Considering Clinton's response, I would like other people's take on whether Clinton was indicating that no average American citizens were to ask him any hard questions, or whether no "right-wing, neo-con Americans were allowed to ask him hard questions.
And I thought we had freedom of speech in this country.
If I'm not mistaken, I heard Slick tell Wallace that he'd never criticized President Bush. Huh???? Is he really stupid enough to not 'think' that his words have been recorded and saved for the record on audio and video? I could point to half a dozen times he has criticized Bush. And then, after Katrina, Bush's parents go and treat Clinton like he's Bush's little brother. Makes me want to gag.
The USS Cole? WTF?
Did a little google search and didn't see any Republicans claiming Bill Clinton was obsessed with Bin Laden. Did however find a 60 Minutes interview where Clinton himself was "obsessed" with Bin laden.
President Clinton says he was "obsessed" with bin Laden during his time in office and denies he refused opportunities to capture the al Qaeda leader.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/21/eveningnews/main625205.shtml
I was thinking the same thing, Hitlery and Lazio..and didn't his mama teach him that it's not polite to point his finger at someone?? LOL! He definitely lost it, showed his true colors for sure going ballistic on Chris Wallace like he did.
That's exactly how Chris looked, couldn't believe how Clinton was ranting at him. Chris doesn't get crazy, but he sure received craziness from Clinton.
yes, the picnic...I just read about that the other night on another thread, the reporter's last name was Sperry I believe....
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.