Clinton v. Wallace — redux

September 25, 2006

I don’t want to belabor the point, but Bill Clinton’s interview with Chris Wallace — the former president’s first-ever chat with Fox News — has become one of the more interesting political showdowns in quite a while.

If you were out of the loop over the weekend, Clinton sat down with Wallace, ostensibly to discuss the Clinton Global Initiative. As this video and this transcript demonstrate, the interview became a heated discussion about Clinton’s counter-terrorism efforts as president.

Some of Clinton’s far-right critics have suggested that the former president somehow lost his cool. Nonsense. Watch the clip. Clinton certainly felt strongly about the subject at hand, but his responses were forceful and factual. Every word was not only true, but an assertive, detailed response to conservative propaganda.

Indeed, Clinton’s office had some good advice to Dems who caught the interview.

“CGI is a nonpartisan event, and so we thought it would be fair to do Fox News Sunday… When Wallace hid behind his viewers and attacked President Clinton’s record on terror, President Clinton fought back hard, just like any Democrat should when they are attacked with a baseless attack,” said Clinton spokesman Jay Carson.

The Note referred to this today as the “Chappaqua Hint,” meaning that Clinton’s forceful response was meant “to set an example for how [Clinton aides] want the party to behave between now and Election Day.”

I can only hope so.

A few other Clinton v. Wallace notes to consider:

* From today’s Progress Report:

Clinton pressed Wallace on why he had never asked the Bush administration why it demoted Clarke. Wallace claimed “we asked” and shot back, “a href=”http://thinkprogress.org/clinton-interview”>Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday, sir?” In fact, a Progress Report analysis found that, since 2001, Wallace has interviewed the top national security officials from the Bush administration — Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Hadley — 42 times. According to a Lexis-Nexis database search, he never asked any of them why Clarke was demoted, nor did he ask why they failed to respond to the USS Cole attack. Days after it was revealed that President Bush had received a President’s Daily Brief that said “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.,” Wallace did not even bring it up in an interview with former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

* After the interview aired, Wallace suggested he was physically frightened of Clinton.

In an interview yesterday with MediaBistro.com, Mr. Wallace noted that Mr. Clinton is “a very big man” and that he thought the former president was trying to intimidate him by getting angry.

“As he leaned forward — wagging his finger in my face and then poking the notes I was holding — I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me,” Mr. Wallace said.

I’m not quite sure what to make of this. Wallace was, what, afraid Clinton would beat him up?

* And Glenn Greenwald had a good item about the conservative talking point blaming Clinton’s handling of Somalia for the growth of al Qaeda. Clinton explained the issue to Wallace, but as Greenwald noted, “If anything, Clinton understated his own defense.”

Ultimately, I don’t imagine Clinton will be going back onto Fox News anytime soon, but all in all, I’m delighted he did this interview and said what needed to be said.

I never watch FOX because it is bad for my blood pressure, but I have certainly enjoyed the clips shown on the other networks. Clinton spoke the truth. Dems running for election: watch and learn from the master. He is far from perfect, but damn the man can communicate.

  • President Clinton fought back hard, just like any Democrat should when they are attacked with a baseless attack,” said Clinton spokesman Jay Carson.

    Fight. Back. Hard.

    read those words Dems. Live those words. Triangulation and Perot were not the only reasons Clinton won in 1992 and 1996.

  • Chris Wallace: The President Made Me Wet My Pants!

    What do bullies do when someone stands up to them?
    Cry like a baby of course. I hope he really was scared. He got a taste of what his pathetic life will be like after his gods in the current administration are standing before an International Tribunal.

    The right-wank pundit response is to be expected. Just as jeering would be their response if Clinton had rolled over when Wallace started his idiotic line of insinuation. They hate Clinton because try as they might to re-write history he was a much better president in his SLEEP that Shrub will ever be on his best day. And of course a romp in the Oval Orifice has long since paled in comparison to the zillion dollar disater we’re embroiled in now. I don’t think Clinton will return to Fox News not because he’s angry but because they’re scared of him.

  • I’m suprised Wallace didn’t quote The Path to 9/11. Bravo to Clinton for not allowing these sycophants to rewrite history.

  • Momm-meeeeee!!! Billy Clinton said mean things and wagged his finger in my face! It was s–s–sc, scaaaarrrrry! Momm-meeeeee!!!

    There, there little Chris, everything’s going to be all right. You go up to your room and hide under your bed, and that bad Billy Clinton won’t be able to hurt you.

    (Sniff) R, reeeaaallly, Momm-mee???

  • In an interview yesterday with MediaBistro.com, Mr. Wallace noted that Mr. Clinton is “a very big man” and that he thought the former president was trying to intimidate him by getting angry.

    “As he leaned forward — wagging his finger in my face and then poking the notes I was holding — I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me,” Mr. Wallace said.

    Funny. This trick seems to work on “real” reporters as far as shutting them up. After all, intimidation is Bush’s (and his whole Admin’s) style during an interview. And I’m sure the Freepers love Bush for it. If only the “real” reporters dealing with Bush would show half as much fight as Wallace did with Clinton.

    Given Wallace’s quick lie about asking Bush hard questions, he might have a future in politics, methinks.

  • On the day before his interview with Bill Clinton, Chris Wallace, seated in a quiet, out-of-the-way restaurant, receives his order from a smiling waitress. Underneath the plate is a small tape recorder and a photograph. Wallace takes them out and, looking all around to make sure he is not being observed, presses the PLAY button on the recorder. A voice begins speaking:

    “Good morning, Mr. Wallace. You are scheduled to conduct an interview on FOX News tomorrow with this man, former president Bill Clinton. The CEO of FOX News has determined that Bill Clinton was entirely responsible for the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Your mission, Chris, should you decide to accept it, will be to cajole Bill Clinton into admitting on the air that he was indeed solely and completely at fault for the 9/11 attacks. As always, should you or any of your FOX News associates be embarrassed or humiliated, the CEO will disavow any knowledge of your intentions. This tape will self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck, Chris.”

    Wallace places the tape recorder on the seat beside him. A small plume of smoke emerges from the instrument. Moments later, Wallace pays his bill and walks out.

  • Too bad the Big Dog DIDN’T beat the crap out of that snivelling little insect. Wallace running around in terror, knocking over props and lights, with an enraged Clinton yelling, “Monica THIS!” Would have been fun to watch.

  • Wow. I have never seen a former President treated with such disrespect. Wallace should be ashamed, but all Fox News personalities have their shame removed surgically.

    Sounds more like Bill wants Clarke to run for President, though. I think I’ll have to pick that book up; it sounds like hell of a read.

  • I ceased being fond of Bill Clinton his first week in office. He promised his first act as President would be to allow gays in the military by executive order. In fact, his first act was to bend over for the Pentagon and Sam Nunn.

    Later, during the his impeachment hearings, I believed him when he lied to me over television (“I never had sexual relations with that … woman”). All through his administration I’d have given anything to have a real Democrat in office, one worthy of the epithet, “profile in courage”. I don’t think I’m romanticising to say that the Democratic Party hasn’t seen the likes of FDR, HST or JFK in the last half-century. Today’s crop of Dems is a dismal lot indeed.

    But that Wallace weasley attempt at a hatchet job on Clinton was a wonder to behold. If Gore or Kerry (or anyone else for that matter) had shown even a tenth of Clinton’s wit, force, wisdom, courage and oratory the Republicans would all have scurried for the same rock Wallace crawled out from under on Sunday.

    Clinton’s exchange is destined, as long there is a United States, to belong among the other outstanding examples of American oratory … even though (or especially because) it was spontaneous and often rudely interrupted. God, I wish he could run again. Makes me proud that I once, in 1992, wore a campaign button which read “Vote for Hillary’s Husband”.

  • Chris Wallace, a typical uberschwein-minion of the Reich, is but the latest example of why anyone—and everyone—not declaring their “loyalty” to Herr Bush should avoid doing business of any sort with FAUX. They should deny the entire reich of their “daily minimum dose of raw meat.”

    Let just one person watch, so that their “advertising revenue sources” may be documented—and then, ramp up the boycotts.

    Let “a few” watch—with TIVO units and video-recorders at the ready—so as to capture, for the entire world, the venom of these reptilian thugs.

    Got a machine? Record their stupidities—and then share the recordings. Take down their ratings. Lowered ratings will cost them money. They’ll have to divert more—and more—of their reserves to keep their signal on the air, thus reducing the amount of funds they can ship off to their favorite hate-charities.

    FAUX should be declared a primary target—and then, let’s declared “hunting season” to be wide open….

  • Bill Clinton Explodes…The wrath of Clinton…Clinton in his rage is terrifying to behold.

    This is about what you’d expect from some rightwing blog, right? Hey, it’s from The Fix on Salon.com! With friends like that, who needs enemies? One justifiably pissed off commenter pointed out that this is like the Dean Scream thing. But for a regular writer on Salon to buy into the hysteria is beyond the pale.

  • …as Greenwald noted, “If anything, Clinton understated his own defense.”

    The Somalia issue is a tricky one. Clinton’s strategy of delayed withdrawal was indeed perceived by the bad guys as a sign of weakness. It’s also the closest thing to today’s demand to get out of Iraq ASAP.

    Now, pointing out that Republicans (and Southern Democrats) preferred an even *worse* option in 1993 should put the kibosh on the notion of the GOP as the party of security. (Should, but won’t.)

  • Somalia is instructive. Bush I got us in and a Clinton had to get us out.

    Then Iraq. Bush II got us in and he won’t get us out. Is it up to a Clinton again?

  • If he pulls out a knife, you pull a gun. If he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicaaago way. 🙂

  • I usually refuse to watch FOX news, but I made it a point to watch Sunday. A couple things struck me:

    1) I think Clinton wanted Chris Wallace to interview as opposed to some of the real hacks (John Gibson, Britt Hume, etc.) that work for FOX. Wallace has his faults, but he isn’t as blatantly partisan as the rest of the crew.

    2) I think Clinton fully anticipated the question and had his response ready in case he was asked. So there was some degree of theater involved by the Big Dog.

    3) The best thing that came out of this is how the whole narrative was changed. FOX had a panel discussion afterwards, and instead of the typical “Democrats are weak on defense” storyline, the story was more on the order of “well nobody ever accused the Democrats of not being concerned about Al Queda”. A great spin to change the storyline.

    4) Another brilliant moment was when Clinton was asked whether he agreed with the administration’s goals of democracy promotion in the Third World. After a dramatic pause, he said of course he agreed. But the process with how you try to accomplish these goals is what is critical – and he disagrees with the process. So instead of being “against everything the GOP is trying to do to win the war on terror”, he focused the debate on how their current plan “can” screw up any chance of achieving the desired result.

  • “As he leaned forward — wagging his finger in my face and then poking the notes I was holding — I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me,” Mr. Wallace said.

    What a freakin’ pansy.

    I admit I’m not the biggest Clinton fan because the guy just had a problem telling the truth for about eight years. But the fact that he straight-up, without hesitation, admitted that he was responsible for not getting bin Laden just raised my Respect-O-Meter up about 8 clicks.

    I guess I’m not used to seeing politicians take personal responsibility for … well, anything. And that, in and of itself, makes me weep for the future of our country …

  • Attack, attack, attack. Where the hell is bin Laden? Bush has had five years to get bin Laden. Maybe Bush doesn’t want to get bin Laden.

    Over, and over, and over.

  • WAG THE DOG….WAG THE DOG…WAG THE DOG…

    Why aren’t the republicans being reminded that while Bill Clinton was the only one working, they were nonstop lip service..

    While they were holding impeachment hearings for a private affair, Clinton was bombing the smithereens out of the bad guys.

    They can’t have it both ways. First they accuse him of wag the dog, now they are accusing him of not doing anything.

    Word of the military strike spread among House members as they were walking into their respective party meetings to map out strategy for the impeachment debate.

    Many Republicans were unable to contain their anger, voicing suspicions that the attack was politically timed to distract the nation from the president’s domestic woes.

    “He’s a liar, and he can’t be trusted,” shouted Rep. Dana Rohrbacher, R-Calif. as he walked into the meeting.

    A number said it only reinforced their belief that the president should be removed from office.

    “The suspicions some people have about the president’s motives in this attack is a powerful argument for impeachment,” said House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Irving. “After months of lies the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reason.”

    Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis, said that “today’s events have reinforced the need for President Clinton to resign or be removed from office.”

    In a highly unusual move, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss, issued a news release just moments before the bombing saying he opposed the military action.

    Others rushed to the television cameras to condemn the president’s motives.

    “It is obvious that he is doing it for political reasons, and I and others are outraged,” Rep. Gerald Solomon, an outspoken Republican from New York, told Cable News Network.

    “Drop a bomb and your ratings go up 10 points,” said Larry Sabato, political science professor at the University of Virginia, who believes that the president factored in political considerations in deciding to launch the attack the day before the impeachment debate.

    He noted this is the second time the president has taken military action when he was in trouble. In August, Clinton sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan and the Sudan days after he admitted to an improper relationship with Lewinsky.

    At the time, the events were likened to the movie “Wag the Dog,” where a president embroiled in a sex scandal concocts a fake war to distract voters.

    December 17, 1998, Thursday 3 STAR EDITION

    SECTION: A; Pg. 1

    LENGTH: 870 words

    HEADLINE: U.S. hammers Iraqi targets;
    Assault fans bigger fires on the Hill

    SOURCE: Staff

    BYLINE: BENNETT ROTH, Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

  • What cin, are you trying to say that Republican’ts are incompetent inconsistent hypocrits who don’t deserve the time of the day?

    News this is not.

  • More Wag The Dog from Senator Pat Roberts. Sorry for the trip down memory lane.

    Senator Pat Roberts (Republican – Kansas)
    Voting Record — Impeachment Trial of William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton

    ——————————————————————————–
    AmeriRoots Home Page Senate Index

    ——————————————————————————–

    Allowed the House Managers to present their case.
    Allowed House Managers to depose witnesses.
    Allowed videotaping of witnesses.
    Allowed the House Managers to present transcripts and video of witnesses.
    Made trial a sham without any live testimony.
    Allowed the House Managers to present closing arguments.
    Allowed normal trial procedures in which closing arguments were not disclosed in advance.
    Voted to remove Mr. Clinton for perjury.
    Voted to remove Mr. Clinton for obstruction of justice.
    ——————————————————————————–

    Statement Taken From U.S. Senate Web Site February 25, 1999
    This section is taken verbatim from the official web site of Senator Roberts, except for editorial comments by Orville R. Weyrich, Jr. in square brackets of the form [ORWJr– ] and minor touch-ups to the HTML.

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – February 12, 1999

    Statement of Kansas Senator Pat Roberts on Articles of Impeachment Votes
    I today voted to sustain both articles of impeachment of President William J. Clinton. I so voted because I believe the President is guilty of obstructing justice and lying to a grand jury and because I believe these crimes are so serious they warrant his removal from office.

    This has been a difficult time for our nation. It has been a difficult time for me and for each Senator who was required to weigh the evidence and vote on the most important constitutional issue of our generation.

    I listened to 18 days of debate and testimony covering nearly 70 hours. I reviewed 14 hours of taped testimony by three witnesses and the President. I spent many more hours reading the voluminous record of the impeachment articles and meeting with my fellow Senators in order to reach a conclusion that was 1) fair, 2) met the constitutional mandates and 3) best served the nation.

    I did not seek that responsibility. I have, however, carried it out to the best of my ability.

    As a Senate juror, I was asked to weigh whether the House articles of impeachment charging the President with lying and with obstructing justice were likely true or false and, if true, whether the offenses rose to a level that requires the President be removed from office.

    I was especially impressed with testimony that misleading witnesses does indeed constitute obstruction of justice. I was equally swayed by the video testimony that painted a clear picture of a president willing to be untruthful and to encourage others to be untruthful in order to cover up abhorrent personal behavior.

    I believe that any open-minded individual hearing what I heard and applying the principles of Kansas common sense would arrive at the same conclusions.

    We in Kansas know that you don’t call witnesses in the middle of the night unless you want to sway them. The President did so.

    We in Kansas know that you don’t urge hiding legal evidence under the bed unless you want to affect the outcome of a legal proceeding. The President did so.

    We in Kansas know that you don’t hide behind the meaning of “is” when you are asked a direct question. The President did so.

    Do these actions rise to the level envisioned by our founding fathers in the Constitution as “high crimes and misdemeanors” so warranting removal from office? Our Constitution requires that the threshold for that judgement must be set by each Senator sitting as a juror.

    Again, I believe an open-minded individual applying Kansas common sense would reach the conclusion that I reached.

    In similar circumstances, 182 individuals were convicted and jailed in 1997 for perjury. That same year, 144 persons were convicted and jailed for obstruction of justice. The Senate has removed from office federal judges found guilty of perjury.

    Are we to have standards for the President different from standards applied to other citizens? Americans long ago rejected the imperial presidency. The President is not above the law. He is not a king.

    In arriving at the conclusion this President should be removed from office I weighed whether his actions damaged the national security of the United States. Again, I concluded that the President, by his actions, has severely damaged his ability to act as a leader in the community of world nations at a time when solid leadership is needed.

    This President has lost respect of our allies. His actions have emboldened our potential enemies, creating opportunities for them to act adversely to U.S. interests. Our foreign policy is adrift. The consequences to this generation and future generations are severe.

    I am convinced that this President has used foreign policy and the power of his office for his own purposes in an effort to divert attention from the legal and personal problems he created.

    Last February, as the President’s sordid affair surfaced, President Clinton threatened an attack on Iraq, complete with national town meetings and a cabinet road show.

    Last August, as Monica Lewinsky testified, President Clinton ordered a missile attack on targets in the Sudan and Afghanistan. There is increasing evidence his hand-picked target in the Sudan was a mistake.

    Last December, on the eve of the House impeachment vote, President Clinton ordered air strikes on Iraq. The result is murky at best, the reasons unclear.

    Each time the President has acted, charges of “wag the dog” have reverberated around the globe. Whether those charges are true or false is no longer material. What is material is that the President of the United States is not credible. He is not trusted. He cannot act in the best interest of America.

    He has lost the moral mantle of leadership.

    He has selfishly placed this nation in jeopardy.

    It is precisely this kind of situation, I am convinced, that worried America’s founding fathers as they devised the impeachment mechanism to remove a sitting president whose actions endangered the republic.

  • ON SOMALIA:

    Help me out here and let me know if I read Clinton’s response wrongly.

    Chris Wallace asked him: “There’s a new book out, I suspect you’ve already read, called The Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops.”

    Clinton responded: “OK, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaida was a growing concern in October of ‘93.”

    and: CLINTON: “All I’m saying is, you falsely accused me of giving aid and comfort to bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew Al Qaida existed then. And…”

    I thought this was perhaps the weakest part of Clinton’s defense largely as a result of his reading more into the question than Wallace intended and then overreacting. Did Osama read our response in Somalia as weakness? He probably did. Just the same way he read our rapid withdrawal from Lebanon after Hezbollah killed about 200 Marines during the Reagan presidency. The question was not whether Osama was involved in Somalia at the time of Black Hawk Down. And, if the question implied that Clinton’s reaction to Black Hawk Down gave aid and comfort to bin Laden, I did not read it that way. And quite honestly, I don’t think Chris Wallace did either.

    No doubt Clinton’s powder was dry and his cap was primed. I’d have to rate his performance about a 5 out of 10, which was about as good as I would rate his presidency.

  • Lance:

    I am trying to say the republicans are hypocrites. That they get away with double standards. With Bush, anything goes. With Clinton…he was impeached. Republicans spent nearly two presidential terms trying to destory Bill Clinton. IT was and still is an outrage.

    I want the Clinton Impeachment Repulicans to be held accountable for the statements they made just a few years ago. I am sick if Blame Clinton.

    Thats what I am trying to say.

  • CB, let’s be honest, Clinton did become a little unglued. If Bush has started poking a journalist notes in the aggressive manor that Clinton did, we would be using the word unhinged as well.

    The question is did he truly become unhinged, or was a planned stunt to allow his words to reach many.

    He could have went on any other program to talk about his initiatives, but he choose Fox, an audience who he thinks he is enemy #1. Seriously, is there even one Fox viewer that would send Clinton money ?? He is no dummy, so I think this was a bit of a stunt to get press and to allow democrats some arguing ground on National defense. What other station could Clinton have gotten so worked up at ? It would have seemed fake, but because it is Fox, it seemed genuine.

    That clip is getting world wide attention.

    It reminded me of the Jerry Lawler and Andy Kaufman wrestling match, except I don’t think Kaufman was in on this one.

  • ScottW,

    Clinton doesn’t think anybody is “enemy #1” – he is bigger than that and that’s why he said yes to be interviewed on a network that you, ScottW, consider to be enemy #1. The Clinton Global Initiative goal’s are too important to be subject to petty politics so he’s willing to take any microphone on any stage to get the word out – and that’s why I admire him so very much. Do you see King George agreeing to be interviewed for Mike Moore’s next movie w/ no prior copy of the questions or input on set direction or lawyer/Cheney earpiece or antennae sticking out of his back a la the ’04 debates? Puh-leez…. Like the bumper sticker’s say, “I miss Bill”.

  • I find Wallace’s cowardice excuse to be a particularly interesting point to note. Use of fear seems to be commonplace at Fox News. Bill O’Reilly in particular is notorious for intimidation tactics and trying to scare his “guests” (opponents?) into submission, on-air and off the air. And Wallace has to use the excuse of being on the receiving end of similar tactics. There is something very insightful there I’m sure I’m on the edge of touching.

    And, far be it for me to believe Wallace’s excuse that Clinton was acting like a bully, but is it safe for us to call Wallace a coward? I think so.

  • I’m surprised Mike didn’t teach his kid what happens when you go sneaking up on big dogs and poking them with pointed sticks. They’ll come at you, barking!

    If Chris was honestly surprised by Clinton’s reaction, then he really needs to get out more. He’s spent so much time in the Fox bubble.

  • All I know is that I have never been prouder of Bill Clinton than I was yesterday. I’m glad he choose Fox News for his interviewand was determined to get his point across. It sent a clear message to all democrats across the country that you don’t need to be cowered to win elections. Every debate that comes up between now and election the canaidate should make a forceful case about national security.

  • I hope Clinton will think twice before once again talking up Rupert Murdoch about some pithy CGI donation… Murdoch smells of sulphur, and needs to be called out on it.

    I hope the Clintonistas have learned that just because Clinton talks respectfully about Rove/Bush/Murdoch, does NOT mean that the respect will be returned.

    I hope the “New Democrats” learn that bipartisanship cannot flourish in today’s environment, OVERTHROW this bunch first, bipartisanship later.

  • And the Lord said unto Wallace:
    “Wipe that smirk off your face.”

    And Wallace frowned before the Lord and lied:
    “I have too asked these questions of the other side.”

    And the Lord wagged his finger at Wallace and said:
    “Tell the truth even as you sit there smirking before thy Lord.”

    And then the Lord smote Wallace a blow…
    The foul smirk did then disappear from Wallace’s face.

    All across the land the mark of the beast was thereafter seen upon the brow of Wallace…
    And the mark said: PECKERWOOD.

  • Clinton was very articulate, as usual, but I have to point out…liberals are crowing about his performance, thinking it will help the Democrat’s cause, and the right-wingers are also ecstatic because they think Clinton made a fool of himself and embarrassed the Democratic party.

    Someone is wrong.

  • “Clinton was very articulate, as usual, but I have to point out…liberals are crowing about his performance, thinking it will help the Democrat’s cause, and the right-wingers are also ecstatic because they think Clinton made a fool of himself and embarrassed the Democratic party.

    Someone is wrong.” – Addison

    Who has been wrong about Terrorism and Iraq for the last six years?

    I’d say the answer is the same to both questions.

  • how old is wallace that he would be afraid of a 60 year man? God, the frightwingers are such cowards.

  • Wow- looks like we have issues here. What’s really amazing to me, a Republican, is how irate you all ( Democrats ) get. Look at yourselves! Seriously…. What do you stand for? That you don’t like Bush? That’s not an idea or solution to make our country better. Come up with some ideas and you may be able to replace Dean, Pelosi, Boxer etc… you will not get anywhere with them running your party.

    Clinton made a lot of mistakes, Bush has made a lot of mistakes- get over it. You should focus on ideas that will help our country and our allies.
    Your favorite saying is ” Bush Lied “- who hasn’t-, raise your hand if you haven’t!! See nobody raised there hand.

    So now your saying, what about Iraq? That’s worse. My stance on it is this… Iraq invaded Kuwait- remember? We (US and Allied countries ) saved Kuwait from Hussein. There was a cease fire agreement… That cease fire agreement was breached- 18 times. So we acted and I am glad we did- WMD’s found or not!! Name a country that has invaded another country without cause since? You can’t.. We and the world are better off because of the war in Iraq- no matter how hard that is to comprehend- it may not be popular and it’s cool to be the ” Rebel against authority ” It’s a traceable fact and it will become clearer in the years to come. You also lament at the ” why haven’t the Bushies gotten bin Laden ” . Last time I checked- military personnel is bipartisian and Joe Biden ( D ) is the Sr. Most ranking official on the Senate Intel Cmmte. Are you saying Joe just collects paychecks and doesn’t work, is he not trying to find bin Laden too? See the blame game gets you know where.

    So please- ” progressive thinkers ” please come up with something other than- ” Bush Lied “, ” Bush is a Neo-con “, Bush should be assasinated or that Bush is an idiot. What do you stand for? What do you want your country to be? Do you have any ideas? Oh and the- stock market is at an all time high and gas is going down a nickel a day, we have weathered 9/11 like nobody thought we would and Laura is much cuter than Hillary… Peace.

  • Please make the bad mad go away… he is wagging his finger at me… get Barbara Walters in here to help me… she good… she not afraid of old man with wagging finger. Quote Wallace 9/2006

    • Comments are closed.