That's just retarded. Period.



That certainly would explain why you emphasized well-timed in your statement, because it's common to emphasize what you didn't mean.

I didn't watch "Path to 9/11". I don't care about it one whit. If you want to dispute the content, fine. But to ride the rail that it was timed for mid-terms on the 5th anniversary is very weak. I don't disagree that Fox paints the pictures it wants. I don't think it tries very hard to hide it either.

However, to keep bringing up this Vast Right Wing Conspiracy card is pretty fucking lame, especially after you served 8 years as president. It's just as pathetic as the Bush Administration & GOP decrying a Liberal Media Bias.

I think Clinton's first mistake was feeding his ego to preserve his precious Legacy, as Kingfish up there already summed up very well. His second mistake was getting his panties in a bunch over "hit jobs" from "right wingers". A step too far. Completely unnecessary.

I thought his statement about trying, though failing, was a damn near perfect statement. But to then leap off into the smear campaign talk is just paranoid wankery. I realize how amazing it was that Clinton served 8 years and never once made a mistake. It's quite clear in his Presidential Library. However, without comparing Fox (or any other major news source) to Joseph Pulitzer, I agree with Pulitzer's position on newspapers: "A good newspaper has no friends."

To not question Clinton or his policies during his Presidency is a disservice to the nation. Of course, that applies 1000x more to when he was in office than now. It's not a smear campaign nor an attempt to tear down his Legacy. It's also a disservice to not question the Bush Administration, even though they make so few attempts at being available for questioning. Good journalism ain't easy.

cokehead clinton>cokehead president clinton>windex>george bush


p.s.
anti flag rulz

ps no they dont...everything they stood for and did went down the drain once they signed to a major......this is even worse then rage against the in my opinion

American political debate at its best... point, counterpoint... our democrarcy is safe.

Explain to me why a group of politicians that would manipulate, cherry pick intelligence for their purposes, a group that has such closely scripted talking points that senators to televangelists to Limbaugh clones to talking heads on Fox all turn on the same linguistic dime several times within an afternoon... explain to me why it is retarded that there might be intentional media presentations of revisionist history on the fifth anniversary, close to an election, rather than the fourth anniversay of 9-11. My rhetoric may be reaching, but the point is substantive. Semi colon;

I think it makes no sense for Dems to refuse to get on up when Bush Repubs do it every chance they get. It's time focused anger is delivered straight to the source, not all this high road we-wish-to-achieve-our-goals-through-diplomatic-discourse bullshit. Not all this whimpering about how the press is "misrepresenting Democratic ideologies."

The Bush/Rove end of the GOP has being bitch slamming the Dems for six years. Fight back, pussies.

Don't equivocate on talk shows. Don't whimper-whine-nitter-nat. Take it to their face, for god's sake. If you truly believe this administration is horrific, throw down the gloves and let's go.

The problem's probably that many career Dems don't care that this administration has run roughshod since 9/11. They do care about looking right to their specific constituencies.

I think there are far more pissed-off people out there than those wimptards are acknowledging, people who want aggressive Dem campaigning.

I don't mean finger-wagging and self-righteous proclamation. I mean refusal to accept being labelled, demonized and dismissed, and calling out bullshit directly and immediately, without all this drytoast blathering few people pay attention to.

Bush is expert at being firm, unyielding and RIGHT. Dems need to call that out as empty posturing but also need to say specifically WHY it's empty, in direct, understandable terms. When Bush says something ridiculous, dispatch smart, likeable COMMUNICATORS to quickly, specifically, say why it's ridiculous. Don't send out the same unbearably boring, deluded asspumps who pass for democratic leaders and commentators only to have them yammer, stammer, pontificate and again be dismissed as obstructionist irritants by the segment of the GOP whose strategem has always been contemptous dismissal. Take it right back at them or you'll always be dismissed.

Unfortunately, the Democratic party doesn't seem to produce a lot of Bill Clintons. A shame. Because the SOB is pretty remarkable. 20 or 30 of those would go a long way to getting the party nads back.

frosted for president

Good television. I miss the guy.

BTW the bit about "our viewers" wanting to ask Clinton about 911 is the sissiest, laziest journalism around.

"Some of your critics say you grind up puppies and snort the dust. How do you respond?"

Nah, I couldn't run to save my soul. I'm much too tired of personal conflict to engage polititwits head-on. But I certainly expect people who do this crap for a living to have a bit more frickin' spine than they've shown since Sept. 2001.

It's like baseball: I can't pitch, but if a pitcher gets millions of dollars a year, it's my God-Given Sports Fan Right to demand they pitch with the bloody sock and don't bellyache about not "feeling right" Pitch the damn game, guys.

Yup, because the Klintons were soooo forthcoming and above board with their health care overhaul...



Harry's pattern is great--he spews some egregious left-wing schlock, and when someone bluntly calls his schlock for what it is, he throws the "There's political discourse for you, the nation is safe, Kant be praised". Plus, for no extra charge, he'll usually throw some four dollar word from somewhere deep in Berkeley to sweeten the deal.

I prefer to think of it as "spring forth" rather than "spew"...

"egregious" on sale today for $3.95.

Quite a comprehensive post and I am pretty ‘sure’ that all the points you’ve covered bear the same (equal) weight in significance.
Oh yes, it is common to emphasize points in any issue some of which will have more overshadowing significance depending on the event at hand.

Simply put, if the content of the Docudrama was accurate instead of being deliberately misleading and fault-finding then the time of release would be of less significance (and would have remained so) but that was not the case. As mentioned previously, no one wants having ignored a major threat on the lives of citizens to become part of their legacy. Given the history we’ve all witnessed and the profound bipartisan 9/11 commission report, Chris Wallace didn’t pose that question because he was being a ‘good’ journalist. The Terrorists were responsible for 9/11. Period.

Did you miss the whole part where I said I wasn't comparing Fox to Pulitzer?

An echo chamber is an echo chamber is an echo chamber. That's what too damn many people are totally unwilling to admit right now. I love how open-minded folk have co-opted the Bush refrain to read "If you're not against Bush & Fox, then you're against America".

Again, I will state for the record that I am a registered Democrat that voted for Clinton in 1996, and I have never cast a vote for Bush. I don't even have a bone to pick with Clinton's record against terrorism.

I do have a bone to pick with christening him as the Democrat's Ronald Reagan, i.e. The Best President of All-Time and therefore an uncriticizable super-genius.

Jesus people, If you can't read between the lines and see that Clinton is desperate to not have the history books write that he was soft on terrorism and set-up the 9/11 attacks and the Bush Presidency then you are either dense or blinded by party affiliation.

Of all the former presidents I've been around none of them have campaigned for their legacy as much Clinton. That book was joke. Like anybody cares how much of genius he was to embrace Arafat properly as to not spark a middle east war.

You're spot on about the echo chamber. I do think that Dems have let Repubs spout off for years and have answered back very feebly. It's got to be more than liberal Democrats pouting and ultra-right Republicans guffawing. The middle needs step up and address the Iraq mess and Bush's continually use of "wartime" status for whatever he wishes to use it for.

Perhaps the middle doesn't care much, but I'm the middle and I care a lot. I don't want it to be a "you must be against Bush" scenario. I want it to be a "what, if any, illegal and dangerous activities has this administration engaged in, which are false, which are true, what can we do about both and how do we extricate ourselves from that mess?"

But I feel like both parties are behaving like the leaders of Krypton just before it blew up and Jor-El had to shoot Superbaby into space.

And there's not even a Susannah York hanging out being hot or nothin'.

What if Jenna Bush turns out to be our Superman?

Well, Jenna's alright, but having THAT for a Superdad would be worse than having Gene Hackman at your house all the time, that's for sure.

No way. Send the Gore daughters!!!!

I'll shoot on her face, i mean, shoot her off into space.

how many former presidents have you been around?

I don't disagree with this. I just don't think Bill Clinton is the proper MC.

Yeah, you're right. I don't have specific solutions since I'm just a crank stuck in northern Maine. But I want these shmucks to own up to the actual problems. Not to send Dubya to jail or anything, because what's done is done, but to put the brakes on continued abuse of power and to halt the diminishment of legislative branch authority.

I want there to be a firm slapping down of Bush's stance that he's not answerable or accountable because we're "at war."

Are you serious? I do like everyone else and base my opinion on the info available to me like interviews, books, tv coverage.

But again, I take off my rose colored glasses unlike some obners. From a policy stand point, I'm a supporter of Clinton. But C'mon.

This never really happens in our history. The most significant example in my mind being the guy that lots hold up as being one of the best presidents ever: Abe Lincoln. From what I remember, didn't he basically use the "we're at war" business to do a lot things without express permission?

Exactly. But now, we have a Major League Baseball Commissioner. & his express written consent was not obtained prior to the formulation of doctrine re: "unlawful combatants".