What is Digg?223 Comments
- canadianguy33, on 10/12/2007, -26/+230Really? I thought Wallace got owned.
One thing I found funny about the interview was that Wallace starts out by saying he's "been getting a lot of emails" asking why Clinton didn't do more to catch Bin Laden when he was in office. Did he really get a lot of emails or is that just another version of the "some people say" line some reporters use to ask their ridiculous or loaded questions? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -42/+245If you're deluded enough to believe that Wallace for one second pwnd anybody, then there's no hope for you. You sir, are too stupid to live.
- kent1146, on 10/12/2007, -22/+196"So, exactly what did Clinton do during his presidency besides nothing?"
Intervene in a humanitarian crisis in Kosovo, bring the country out of deficit spending and leave his presidency with a budget surplus, oversee the country during the largest economic boom in the history of the United States.
Anything else you care to troll? - shrewduser, on 10/12/2007, -29/+181"So, exactly what did Clinton do during his presidency besides nothing?"
he didn't ***** ***** up. - gr8one, on 10/12/2007, -29/+151Chris Wallace is like that pathetic weeny of a kid in high school who was too small to hurt you but was too smart for his own good and would always say the most beating-worthy things to piss you off, and then when you actually responded would be like "dude...come on...I was just kidding...what's the big deal". Man...I hated that kid.
Clinton should have bit his ear off.... - rotten777, on 10/12/2007, -14/+121"Who the ***** are you?!" J. Stewart
hahaha
That was a great clip. The media has it's head so far up its asses that it can't realize that Clinton was unprepared and still toppled the interviewer with facts. I'm glad Clinton stood up for himself and spoke his word. We need more people with a backbone in both parties. - meistaiwan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+82^^^---- lover's quarrel
- stoops, on 10/12/2007, -13/+74All I have to say is that Jon Stewart ***** rocks! He makes other media outlets look like crazed idiots who don't know what they're talking about. Rock on Jon!
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -7/+63Whoa - Looks like we're going to need 2 or 3 waaaaambulances here...
- mem2, on 10/12/2007, -34/+89ahhh pwned (glad I was out of the FPS scene before this term became the norm).
pwned: owned, just mistyped on purpose spawned from 1 unfortunate typo.
People who use pwned:
1: Uninformed teens with extreme views.
2: Adults with no social skills who need approval of people I category 1.
3: Toddlers who accidentally mash the keyboard and produce the sequence of letters by sheer chance.
4: Sad pathetic PC users who fit the mold of nerds seen in the nerd movie desperatley trying to appear cool by using New net lingo.
5: Normal person who was 1 key off. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -19/+66as far as i can recall clinton also didnt coherse the media into attacking former presidents on national television.. or coherse the media at all for that matter
he also didnt get us into major wars
lets compare:
clinton - lies about the meaning of sexual intercourse
bush - lies. period. has anything hes said since taking office been truth?
whoa wtf my captcha code is '2bush' - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+50I would've gone for the knees myself
@Satanstorm - nothing?? and our troubles in Iraq is something? - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -11/+56Left? Digg.com left biased? WTF?
Most of us on here were former republicans and either are independants or libertarians.
The reason most of us like Clinton now is that he turned out ot more of a old school conservative than Bush is now.
Bush has put this nation in the worst position budget wise ever. He also has dragged into a war that didn't need to happen.
That and he still hasn't bothered to try to find Osama. Had we spent the money finding him that we did on Iraq we'd have his head on a platter on display in Congress 3 years ago. - sidebuster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+44Although I am far from a Clinton fan, I do have to say he had all the right in the world to get pissed. Since he isn't the President anymore, he doesn't really have to worry about doing things like that.
And to be honest, that was kind of a sucker punch question. - J6stik, on 10/12/2007, -10/+48"Obviously we have a difference in opinion. You apparently don't count Monica as *****."
@IEatHamburgers-
Being an adulterer doesn't cost hundreds of billions of tax dollars, jackass.
So, no, we don't count Monica as *****. - jayesbee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41I don't know, Really. I think he was trying to bust Clinton's balls. I can't remember a reporter/host/interviewer asking that kind of question to anyone in the current administration. The Bush administration is handled with kid gloves, yet (here and in that stupid 9/11 made for TV movie) people are still beating up Clinton. Hell, Nixon managed to rehabilitate himself in the eyes of posterity. 100 years from now kids will probably be told that Clinton's dick blew up the WTC!
- TheSolomon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36A real interview with real questions, similar to when George Bush grants interviews?! Oh wait, actually when Bush has granted interviews, his staff has demanded the questions beforehand in order to edit as they see fit. (No joke; this is why any interviews with GW Bush looks like an ass kissing fest.) The same is done with "spontaneous" audience members speaking at Bush events. All of those audience members are planted or otherwise given cards with pre-written questions on them. Not surprisingly, tough questions are never a part of a Bush media event.
- venir, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29Holy ***** a Clinton hater with common sense. +Digg my friend. Thank you for your voice of reason.
- TheInfidel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30Whether or not you like Stewart, or Clinton for that matter, you cant escape the fact that every thing that Clinton said during that interview was true.
If we can judge a president's commitment to stopping terrorism by how vigorously he tries to neutralize the perpetrators, then Clinton was far more an 'anti-terror' president than Bush. Bush's strategy is an excercise in futility, mainly because it is hopelessly one-dimensional. At no point within the past six years has the Bush administration even attempted to look at the causes of terrorism, mainly because it's foreign policies can be attributed as one of those causes.
Instead, it has successfully constructed yet another 'boogeyman' scenario that, in 2004, 48% of Americans bought lock, stock, and barrel.
- rebrane, on 10/12/2007, -7/+32Popdmb -- they promised him that the interview would be on his Clinton Global Initiative program. It's apolitical, so he figured it would've been wrong to deny them an interview because of their political biases.
- tont0r, on 10/12/2007, -7/+32is 'used to be' the president a bad thing?
- venir, on 10/12/2007, -8/+29How do you figure Wallace wasn't trying to bust his balls? The man practically accused him of letting Osama bin Laden go. If someone said this to Bush he would have a god damn coronary. It's sad to see how hypocritical Republicans can get as soon as it is in their best political interest.
- chadpyle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22If memory serves me, Clinton's presidency was marked by a federal surplus, a booming economy, terrific foreign trade relations, overall great national security, etc.
And let's face it, he was entertaining as hell.
I challenge someone to name one thing Bush has done better... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25"This is exploiding and Bill Clinton is not looking very good."
Only to people who are too stupid to form their own opinion of things without consulting Fox news first. - ZeroMP, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24You sir, are a moron.
I love Clinton and all - and he definately did the right thing to put Wallace in his place - but you make all Libs look silly when you go around accusing everyone of being a "neocon ass licker". It just makes you look stupid, that's all. - venir, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18The difference being is that Stewart is on COMEDY CENTRAL and calls his show "THE FAKE NEWS." He doesn't pretend to have unbiased reporting like the other crack job media sources. No comparison.
- TheSolomon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17From Clinton's initial response, it sounds like Fox News had participated in a bidding process beforehand in order to land the interview (instead of other media outlets). I'm guessing the possible topics of the interview were also covered at that time. Given Clinton's initial heated response, and his use of the phrase "nice little conservative hit job," I'm guessing Fox News laid out an entirely different line of questioning beforehand, and then smacked him in the face once the cameras were rolling. It's not that Clinton doesn't want to answer "tough questions," but that he doesn't necessarily want to be hijacked by agenda-toting Fox News when he's granted them an interview about a completely unrelated subject.
Maybe he let a few different media outlets bid on an interview based upon his current humanitarian efforts, which are at a crucial point and could benefit from the additional donations the publicity would bring. Now instead of that happening, Fox News decided to attempt to sling dirt about a topic that is partisan rhetoric, at best.
The expression on his face seems to say, "You lying SOB's! I should have known you were going to dig up some anti-Clinton rhetoric. I knew I couldn't trust Fox News to keep their word." - zglider, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18"Who the F*** are u?"
Hilarious line, i'd say not just wallace , but the all of fox.. got , yes, PWNT (forgive me father for i've sinned, .. im an uninformed 23 year old with extreme views and no social skills .. ) - REXNFX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19I would have to say that I am a right wing conservative, but MAN THAT INTERVIEW WAS AWESOME. I hate when Fox News does crap like that. I think Bill handled himself very well. Props to him. Imagine if that was George W. You know he would be bumblin' through it, wouldn't know how to defend himself well. Clinton HAS BALLZ, even though he has "lettem' loose Lewinsky" a few times.
- emitemirp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20"he truly did nothing after all those attacks, its amazing how some people don't see that,he had 8 years and he bitches about bush not doing anything for 8 months,what a hypocrite"
I'll call you on your BS. During his 8 year administration, the intelligence community only knew about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda for about 5 of those years (1995-2000). His real name wasn't known for a while. Read "Inside Al Qaeda" by Rohan Gutaratna (the foremost English speaking Al Qaeda expert). From the book, it was clear that Bill ordered the CIA to assassinate Bin Laden after the attacks.
Really the problem is that the CIA did not have operatives in Afghanistan. The main reason why the Clinton administration could not capture Bin Laden was because the CIA was relying too much on technology. They did not have human assets in there, which by the way was not due to Clinton's policies. To read about the degradation of the CIA clandestine service read "See no Evil" by Robert Baer. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15What would have really been funny is if Clinton attacked Wallace a la Jim Everett vs. Rome
THEN they could say he really lost it; however, this was just a heated debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeeSzOlGyjc - lingua203, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Clinton faced down Fox news right in their own house! Good for him!
- cuddleparty, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19i think it's because they have the ability to have people laugh WITH them, not AT them.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17i think its cause they are smarter and pay more attention ;)
anyone who is smart and pays attention naturally leans left, or at least during this adminstration does
id like someone to explain to me how conservatism = bigger more powerful government, taking away constitutional rights and premptively attacking multiple countries, and protecting big business. that is NOT CONSERVATISM - fak3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Right, and in my mind Clinton is 1) telling the truth of what he did/didn't do -and- 2) admitting his shortcomings. Let's see the same from someone in this administration, then we can have an honest debate, instead of this going for re-election BS that we constantly get. Yeah, suicide bomb in Iraq yesterday killed 37 people! What are we worried about here, gay marriage? Great perspective, and people wonder why we're hated?
- KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13the moment of zen was perfect.
Rice the National Security Advisor at the time who received a report entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" before 9/11 is asked about dating. - drowningfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"Bottom line is National Security is not a political issue, and I deplore people on both sides that make it one. We are in a fight for our lives against militant Islam and the last thing we need is political discourse."
It certainly is a Political Issue if it's being wagged at us every 2 years for the sake of injecting political Viagra into another (lifer's) Senator's System.
It certainly is a Political Issue if the actions in the name of it are eroding our Constitution.
It certainly is a Political Issue if the plethora of grotesque lies behind the reasons for going into Iraq were all in the name of our "National Security". - yesurbius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10This is what is sad. When Clinton was in office he got so much criticism. Remember all the "hillary wears the pants" angles being spun?
The fact that Bush is such an unbelievable nincompoop (I chose that word carefully), has made Clinton appear that much better. - DontSayFanboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I think we all know exactly how Stewart would have handled a similar interview of Bush. It happened last week. Remember Matt Lauer's question about Bush's illegal CIA torture facilities? Watch it for yourself.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mp4vLBvU1bA
Now watch Stewart's spin on it
http://youtube.com/watch?v=oXZkcw7jPjM
Jon Stewart says "perhaps 'so what' is not a thoughtful rationale for the secret CIA facilities, but at least he hasn't punched Lauer in the face yet. Perhaps he has a more reasoned analysis" And then cut to Bush trying to scare the public into submission.
Is that a complete 180 from Stewart? I would say that Bush's response to a pointed question was a complete 180 from Clinton's. Clinton admitted his mistakes and says that he failed, while countering with an informative and well spoken reply. Bush refuses to answer the question, and falls back to juvinile quips like "so what" and "I'm not going to talk about that" and does his best to change the subject to FEAR.
One of these responses lends itself much more easily to satire as you'll find on comedy central. I'll let you figure out which one. - SweetsGreen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I thought journalists where supposed to be objective. Every reporter that I've seen talk about this story seems to push the idea that Clinton lost it...where it clearly is not the case.
He obviously got mad over a cheap shot and retailiated as so. He didn't stand on his chair and start preaching scientology...he responded in a articulate manner, with a angry tone in his voice...Ex-presidents aren't allowed to get angry?
Good for Stewart for pointing fun at the american media for ridiculously twisting the story.
Its sad when I find the news in a "Fake News" program to be more legitimate than nearly all other news outlets. - tont0r, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Now if we can just get ALL of the media to do this to ALL politicians, it would restore my faith in them. This would be a nice change to listening to all the interviews on news stations where they just kiss their ass.
And if you are about to jump on Stewart for not doing it, i would like to refer you to this link:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=comedy+show - Smiff2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10If you're referring to the Fox News "Fact Sheet", that's already being shown to be false. Lies around lies.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/fact-sheet-clinton/
If you want to be taken seriously, you must link to something that backs up what you say, or someone else who does that for you. Hint: find a source that *wasn't* directly involved, whether it's left or right wing doesn't matter as long as its research is sound.
My take: that "debunking" is a sad and desperate attempt at damage control from a right wing propaganda channel whose attack on an ex-president backfired. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12@chadpyle: "I challenge someone to name one thing Bush has done better..."
***** up our country. - sebnukem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7If it had been W instead of Clinton, we would have heard:
... ... huh? I thought you were gonna ask about the pig... ... - cwalk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7For *****. Stop being partisan for one minute and actually watch the entire interview. Bill comes off as an intelligent interviewee who calls things as they are. He was attacked, so he attacked back and set the record straight. Can you not give the man respect for having the balls to completely debunk his criticisms?
- growler1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@bwallwin
I just dug you down, and I wanted to tell you why:
"Why didn't you do more to fight terrorism/capture Osama Bin Laden?" is an underhanded question, pointed; not open. It assumes that he did not, in fact, do very much to accomplish those goals in his presidency. It attempts to frame the discussion in such a way so that Clinton has to tacitly adopt that position by simply attempting to answer. This is a logical fallacy called "begging the question."
It's not good journalism. I also disagree with you about the "docu-drama." It was blatent propaganda, and anyone who cares to follow politics understands the link to it, the upcoming mid-terms, and the war in Iraq.
It was no mistake that Wallace did what he did, and in all honesty I can't blame Clinton for getting angry, although he should have known he'd get this kind of treatment from Fox news. - RugbyPrince, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4
It looks like the video is back up, minus the initial instroductions. I encourage all of you to watch this in entirety if you have not already before further contributing to this discussion. Thank you. - psychophil, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10jayesbee, Wallace has.
Chris Wallace Has Indeed Grilled A Bush Official About Failing to Get Osama Before 9/11
http://patterico.com/2006/09/24/5187/chris-wallace-has-indeed-grilled-bush-officials-about-failing-to-get-osama-before-911/ - HardSide, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8You telling me he should show the interviewer respect because he is the ex-president of the united states and should have answered him politely?
Its the other way around, the interviewer should be showing Clinton respect and not just lash out and accuse him off not dealing with Bin Laden. Chris Wallace just blately accused our ex-president of ignorance. - venir, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It's funny how many people fail to see the merits in Clinton defending himself. I believe you were spot on in your assessment.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 217 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is