Clintons FOX Sunday interview.

Al Quandt · Post by **Al Quandt** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:40 am

Very intersting, did any one catch it. I liked it, while that is out of my character I didnt enjoy this.

http://www.youtube.com/v/AYm1TH23e9E

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:45 am

Not interested in anything he has to say. And I stopped watching FOX a while ago. They are now partially owned by a Saudi company and since that transaction, they have been running more fluff and haven't been as hard-hitting on Islamic extremism.

Al Quandt · Post by **Al Quandt** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:58 am

it was just an interesting interview, thats all. and I am actually very happy that I dont have TV (havent had it for 3 months now) and I haven't had to watch any form of cable news.

I still read articles and such but I got my share of FOX news living back home and I could deal without it.

I didn't really care too much for what he was saying in this interview but his points and lashing out at the media were valid in my opinion. Probably the same reason you dont watch FOX anymore.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:24 am

In my opinion, this is nothing but a calculated move designed to garner sympathy and repair his image and legacy, so he's not as big of a liability to Hillary when she runs for President (shivers of terror)...

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:48 am

...except the reporter asked the question. Bill just took it and ran. I do think he held onto the point for a bit too long. It's not like he was asked what it felt like to blow a load on an intern.

I just find it frustrating that politicans and celebrities have such a love / hate relationship with the media.

When they want to push something onto the public they love the media outlets and their exposure; but the second they ask / do something the personality wasn't expecting the personality freaks out.

I mean; what did Pres. Clinton expect? Every media outlet drops the jaw-dropper / soundbite question now-a-days.

I did catch Bill O'Ring on 'Good Morning America' this morning commenting on it. He said that President Clinton was 'frustrated' and that's why he went off; but said overall he did a good job purising Bin Laden.

Morphine Child · Post by **Morphine Child** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:35 am

I need to watch that yet, I'm curious to hear what he has to say about the Bin Laden pursuit during his time in office. I know he did pursue the taliban, and was, as they call it now "fighting the war on terror". Though while Clinton was blowing up pharmacuetical plants that were tied to the taliban nobody cared. Because there were more important things pre-9/11 than this stupid "war on terror" which has always been present. It just wasn't the headline of every paper. Clinton did something to fight the terrorists, and it was 3rd page news. jeez.

LowLife · Post by **LowLife** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:12 am

its easy to pass the blame on the former Pesident cuz of the stupid intern scandle, its saying that he cares more bout a hummer than than terrorism! i know they don't say that but you can see why theres no trust in what Clinton says "if he lied bout a hummer what else has he lie bout?!" Personal things, yes he lied ,but Polictically he was a good leader! f-word FOX NEWS the douche bag giving the interview was flustered cuz he didn't expect that kind of response from Clinton and he want to move on with the Q's cuz it "WASN'T" making the current government look good with elections around the way! FU(KING MEDIA!

this dude · Post by **this dude** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:56 am

I agree. Just another pre-election smokescreen. How about those gas prices too

?

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:32 pm

For the record

Clinton hasn't done any better/worse than Bush on
whacking Bin Wheat..... to be fair.

before 9/11, this country wasn't in a true "committed
all the way" mindset to even start to take on
him or terrorism. (we seem to be drifting backwards
on this now anyway)

poopstains · Post by **poopstains** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:32 pm

He is just used to having his hand held, and his ass kisses. He couldn't handle someone in the press asking him real questions. It was in no way worse than what is said about Bush daily. He should except that times will come when he'll really be interviewed.

I agree. Just another pre-election smokescreen. How about those gas prices too ?

I don't see why people think the politicians have anything to do with the gas prices, senators, and other state politicians don't set the prices. It's probably OPEC fearing a back lash, and a serious look into alternative energy, why look for something other than oil when gas is so cheap.

Morphine Child · Post by **Morphine Child** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:47 pm

WBOB wrote:For the record
Clinton hasn't done any better/worse than Bush on
whacking Bin Wheat..... to be fair.

before 9/11, this country wasn't in a true "committed
all the way" mindset to even start to take on
him or terrorism. (we seem to be drifting backwards
on this now anyway)

Beforehand: this is not an attack on you, just an observation off of your point.

I have no statistical evidence, though I'm quite curious of the amount of attacks that have taken place since the beginning of this "war on terror". As I said with my Clinton defense post, actions, such as those taken by Clinton were page 3 news at best, and not a headline. So I wonder if there were as many attacks around the world before we declared war? Or are we hearing more about them since it became a media focus? Reagan was bombing the hell out of Latin and South America in the 80's and again, it was not in the headlines....but there was no offical "war on terror".

LowLife · Post by **LowLife** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:19 pm

this dude wrote:I agree. Just another pre-election smokescreen. How about those gas prices too ?

its all a set up!

this dude · Post by **this dude** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:41 pm

"Terror" or "terrorism" is a TACTIC, not a living breathing enemy, or other animate object to war against. Just an observation.

this dude · Post by **this dude** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:44 pm

LowLife wrote:
this dude wrote:I agree. Just another pre-election smokescreen. How about those gas prices too ?
its all a set up!

I don't know if it is or not. It just seems a little overly "miraculous" that the futures oil prices are supposedly based on are suddenly so much brighter.

LowLife · Post by **LowLife** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:06 pm

???? i don't know anymore but i'm glad its going down!