Bill Clinton: Unhinged!

[billie]

[Scarletprayers]

My President can beat up your President......

t.

What if your President is my President???

[Marnie]

Please advise how to proceed in the event that one does not claim a particular president. Does the sole president in the fight beat himself up?

If he's is a Democrat, yes.

[ted]

In that case, the Vice President would have to step in for the no-show President- then the Speaker of the house, then the..............ummm.......who ever is next after that.

t.

[MrsSealedEternal]

In that case, the Vice President would have to step in for the no-show President- then the Speaker of the house, then the..............ummm.......who ever is next after that.

t.

[Naziyr]

Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal... makes no difference.

Grown men shouldn't flail about like angry children, and treat other men in the fashion Clinton treated the one interviewing him. Don't get me wrong, Clinton has the right to defend himself, but to act like such a child on national television?

This is where we see Bad Politicians revealing their true nature, as Boys in Suits, and not Men of Honor.

Shalom

[georgesbluegirl]

Fox is the highest rated cable news network...why do you think that is?

Because it's easier to believe that things are going well than to imagine that they're not.

Look, every source of mainstream media brings some kind of bias to the table. As someone who likes to get her news from a wide variety of sources - and that does include Fox and Drudge as a sort of counterbalance, but I also listen to NPR, watch CNN and read "The Economist" (a British publication) - I like to think I have a general handle on what's going on. The fact is that you can't get everything from Fox, nor from any source of mainstream media - but Fox is time and time again at fault for twisting the facts.

Frankly, there's an information deficit in this country. Here's a fun question: guess what percentage of our troops on the ground in Iraq think Saddam blew up the WTC? Hint: it's well over 50%.

What we need these days is some responsible journalism. Mainstream media's stuck on sex and scandal and shlock - Exhibit A is the Duke affair. A good deal of investigative reporters have been terminated in the last decade - we need them back! We need intelligent people willing to work hard to get the facts, ask the tough questions and - God forbid - do a little muckraking. I'm not saying that this ethic is dead in the journalistic community, but I feel that it's lacking and is incredibly important as we try to sort out the mess we're in.

I recently saw Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., speak - he's one of my heros in terms of what he's managed to do (check out the Hudson Riverkeeper and the Waterkeeper movement, the organizations do fantastic and highly successful work). During his speech he spoke about the "legalized bribery" currently known as campaign financing, the oil and coal industry execs heading up environmental agencies, subsidies...etc. The rollback of 30 years of legislation by this administration. How people just don't know about it.

We used to be one of the most loved nations on earth. Everyone was with us after 9/11. What's happened in the last five years to change that; who and what are to blame? Certainly, part of it falls on us.

[ted]

Frankly, there's an information deficit in this country. Here's a fun question: guess what percentage of our troops on the ground in Iraq think Saddam blew up the WTC? Hint: it's well over 50%.

I'm with you on the "get my info from several different sources" thing, and the most of them will slant the news in one way or the other" thing, but where did you get the 50% of our troops on the ground think Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 thing from?

I've been in for 17 years and haven't met one yet that thinks Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

We know we are there for a different, but semi-related purpose. Y'see, the "Iraq war" and the Afghan War" are misnomers. I actually heard someone on one of the radio shows point this very important distinction out the other day. He was one that "get's it". What people are calling "wars" are really just battles in support of a larger war.

We had a reason to go into Afghanistan and the reason was to take revenge/ get those who had helped the 9/11 attackers.

Going into Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but it was a part of what Bush calls the War on Terror. Taking out Saddam was simply ending a long, 12 year, seemingly endless period of Saddam ignoring the sanctions imposed by the UN following the Gulf War.

Remember, the War on Terror was not, is not, and will not be limited to simply catching the ones responsible for planning the attacks of 9/11. It was never put out like that by anyone, ever. From the beginning of it all, Bush has made it clear that the war is against terrorists and the nations that support and/ or harbor them. The terrorists who planned and executed the attacks on 9/11 are a small part of the whole picture.

Please go back to the beginning of this and re-check the speeches.

Anyway, I'd like to see the report that shows that 50% of the troops on the ground think that Saddam had a big part in the attacks on 9/11.

Thanks,

t.

[georgesbluegirl]

Well, you were on the right track in thinking the number of troops wasn't 50% - it was actually 85%.

A Zogby poll (Zogby is an independent polling organization which has no political bias) done in conjunction with LeMoyne College found, in summary, that:

Just one in five troops want to heed Bush's call to stay

[ted]

Thanks for the link!

It was interesting...but I still haven't met one of these people that have that in their heads.

Odd stuff, though.

t.