Jump to content

Wallace v. Clinton


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I merely suggested that sometimes when one gets bent out of shape when being faced with accusations, it could be (please note the important distinction between "could be" and "is") a sign that there is some validity to the accusations.

 

That's ridiculous. The only thing you have to backup this "could be" claim is that sometimes people lie.

 

So...anytime anyone vehemently defends themselves- you should suspect that they're lying, because they "could be." :yawn :yay

 

Out of curiosity, does any of you who have such problems with the "Path to 9/11" movie have any problems with the lies or intentionally misleading juxtapositions in "Fahrenheit 9/11"?

 

Moore used soundbytes in Farenheit 9/11 in the exact same way that Fox News uses them every day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No. But I do suspect that you are lying to yourself. I'm always here if you need to talk about it.

 

Did they teach you in law school that a nonsense rebuttal is better than no rebuttal? Or perhaps you're just extra suspicious of people because you are a professional liar? I guess it's easy to be a cynic if you judge others based on your own compromised standards. :monkey

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my belief that 100 years from now, when 1992-2008 are but chapters in a history book, that favor will shine much more brightly on President Clinton than President Bush. There is a difference betweeen failing to respond properly, and manufacturing information that leads to the deaths of 3K Americans and 25K Iraqi civilians.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a difference betweeen failing to respond properly, and manufacturing information that leads to the deaths of 3K Americans and 25K Iraqi civilians.

 

Didn't failing to respond properly lead to the deaths of 3000 Americans?

Link to post
Share on other sites
try reading this again:

 

"I merely suggested that sometimes when one gets bent out of shape when being faced with accusations, it could be (please note the important distinction between "could be" and "is") a sign that there is some validity to the accusations"

 

If I thought that anytime someone defends one's self vehemently that one should be suspected of lying, then I would have used the word "whenever" rather than "sometimes."

 

That doesn't make it any less arbitrary.

 

Your vehement rebuttal could be a sign that there's some validity to loper's accusation.

 

Bingo. Exactly what I was going to say, except I would've said it more poorly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Such as vehement disagreement in the face of normal coolness?

 

Given those criteria, you could probably get a rise out of anyone if you accuse him of something terrible enough.

 

In fact, I could probably accuse any co-worker of stealing from the snack jar and he'd have an angrier response than Clinton's. Does that mean I could justifiably suspect him of theft?

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is my belief that 100 years from now, when 1992-2008 are but chapters in a history book, that favor will shine much more brightly on President Clinton than President Bush.

Oh, I doubt we'll have to wait that long.

 

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/...l_date=20060827

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I am familiar with the phrase and its context in Hamlet.

 

I believe, however, that you use it incorrectly. The "case" in which this works is when the defense is odd, or a surprise, not when it is predictable.

 

Clinton's response was similar to yours when I unjustly accused you of being a professional liar. It was both predictable and justified. He got angry at the audacity of Wallace's veiled accusation. Would someone claiming to be rational say something like that in good faith or in an attempt to make a fool or manipulate to prove a point?

 

In Hamlet, Gertrude's response is awkward, not predictable to many of the characters in the play.

 

Conversely, we all know that Clinton has taken a beating in the press lately, and the accusations are well-known and audacious, if not largely embellished.

 

That being said, do you honestly believe that he secretly knows he's responsible for September 11, 2001, or do you believe him when he says:

 

And I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn’t do enough said I did too much — same people.

 

So. Is he really protesting too much, or is this just another sleazy smokescreen to divert attention from the issue as a whole- and return the gullible, lazy American TV-absorbing people back to a kid-simple battle of good vs. evil?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't failing to respond properly lead to the deaths of 3000 Americans?

 

 

Are you referring to the period from January 2001 through September 2001? Remember that blissful time when all we cared about were tax cuts, secret oil energy meetings, starwars, downed planes in China, cutting dairy subsidies, grounding our predator drone fleet for 8 months, closing naval firing ranges in Puerto Rico, battling pretzels etc

Link to post
Share on other sites
I appreciate that response. You make a valid point in talking about the reactions being unusual for the "protest too much" suspicion to apply. But I guess that is kind of my point in all of this--to me at least, Clinton's reaction was SO unlike Clinton, who seems almost never to lose his cool. Indeed it's one of the things that probably made him such a great leader and persuader.

 

As I stated earlier, since I don't really know what Clinton did or didn't do (or have the expertise to make an informed judgment about whether what he did or didn't do was reasonable under the circumstances), I have reserved my judgment on the issue, and refuse to be one of the lemmings screaming that Bill Clinton is the only guy responsible for not grabbing Bin Laden.

 

I agree with you on your last statement. As said somewhere else, certainly, Clinton has some culpability for waiting and missing the chance to get Bin Laden.

 

Clinton has admitted that he instead left his anti-Taliban plans with expectations that the next President would address them. I'm sure, though, that he realizes now the urgency that he did not see. Clinton has said that he was reluctant to wage a military campaign when the U.S. leadership was changing. I'd call this politically-motivated timing, for sure.

 

Truly, if Clinton had not put Bin Laden aside for later, the ball would've been rolling and impossible to sidestep. Of course, did anyone really give a damn about Bin Laden at the time? I believe the most pressing issue in our country was Monica Lewinsky/impeachment.

 

Clinton has definitely admitted to regretting this- not only because he took his eyes off the ball, but also because the project went into the hands of a group determined to do the opposite of everything Clinton!

 

But this is true, too: When Bush took office, he had little interest in Bin Laden. And this negligence also led to the 9/11 attacks. (I'm convinced that he thought he'd be able to sail through the Presidency just like everything else in his life.)

 

I am certainly biased- I'll readily admit to liking Clinton and not liking Bush- but I do think that had Bush been willing to listen to Clinton or his affiliates, we might not be in this mess at all.

 

Listening only to yes-men and partisans is a major failing in the Bush White House, and he will no doubt go down in history as someone basically uninterested in anything truly 'balanced.'

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cleverly worded.

 

Are you of the opinion that Mr. Moore's movie wasn't inaccurate in any sense?

Never saw that movie. Seemed pointless; why would I pay $8 when I already know I don't like Bush?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you referring to the period from January 2001 through September 2001?

 

Yeah. And the period from the first WTC bomb to January 2001. I was just arguing against the claim that there's a big difference between not catching Bin Laden and manufacturing information (that's begging the question, but I'm not getting into another Bush lied argument) that led to 3000 Americans getting killed. I wasn't trying to lay more blame on Clinton for not catching Bin Laden.

 

For those who believe that Path to 911 is factual and is equivalent to F911 you need to take a step towards reality.

 

I haven't seen either movie and am not claiming that Path to 911 is accurate, but come on! It's considered lying when Bush uses actual intelligence reports to claim that Iraq has WMDs but splicing video clips together to give false impressions isn't dishonest?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't seen either movie and am not claiming that Path to 911 is accurate, but come on! It's considered lying when Bush uses actual intelligence reports to claim that Iraq has WMDs but splicing video clips together to give false impressions isn't dishonest?

 

It's absolutely dishonest. But like I was saying before- if it's fair game for Fox News, who does it regularly, then it should be fair game for left-wing liberals too.

 

Ideally, though, it should be put to an end altogether.

 

I'm with Bjorn on this one. Moore was preaching to the choir, and I'm not into that kind of entertainment- whether it's book or movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...