That Fox News Sunday interview reminded me of a time when he wagged his finger and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". It seems to me like he has something to hide given the way he blew up over what appears to be what any journalist would ask. What does everyone else think?
2006-09-26 03:04:32 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Of course he's lying. He's trying to protect that incredible "legacy" of his.
Yeah, the Clintonistas tried real hard to deal with bin Laden -- even going so far as to turn down the Afghan offer to capture and turn him in. He ordered the military to launch a couple of cruise missiles into the same cubic parsec that bin Laden was hiding in, and then claimed victory so he could go back to Monica. Really pathetic.
2006-09-26 03:09:39 · answer #1 · answered by Dave_Stark 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i think of that maximum people who've examine the 9-11 comission checklist know finished nicely that former President, invoice Clinton did no longer do all that he claims in attempting to seize UBL. The checklist is particularly sparkling in that regard. i think of that people who have not examine the checklist yet have seen the entire interview with Wallace observed former President Clinton replace into very protecting and that they questioned why? Why such an outburst? Why one in each of those lively tirade against unfavourable Chris Wallace? and persons positioned 2 and a pair of collectively and mentioned, "Hmmm if he rather did what he claimed, and if he rather replaced into never at fault for 9-11 then he does no longer have executed what he did merely then..." It maintains to be to be seen how the election will finally end up, even yet it amazes me how with President Bush's ballot numbers being so low at present the vote replaced into nevertheless the two cut up. One could think of that with Bush at an all time low greater people could be leaping on the Democrat bandwagon, even yet it merely did no longer take place, which tells us that even unsure moderates have not got plenty faith in the Democrats and their far left perspectives.
2016-12-12 15:25:27 · answer #2 · answered by hayakawa 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Consider that he's been raked over the coals for not getting Bin Laden when the chance arose. I think he's just tired of getting all the blame. Especially since he was out of office on 9/11. Hindsight is 20/20. So now we can look back and say it was a mistake not to take Osama out back then. But who was calling for Bin Laden's death at the time? Nobody. Nobody knew what was coming - Democrat or Republican.
2006-09-26 03:10:30 · answer #3 · answered by Gene Rocks! 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Clinton is used to "soft-ball" questions. Given what's going on in the world right now, it was a reasonable question and he overreacted big-time, which completely took away from any credibility in his responses.
His portrayal of what happened during his presidency certainly doesn't match up with many people who worked around him in those days. Making everything a "vast Right-wing conspiracy" didn't work then, and still doesn't work now.
2006-09-26 03:11:17 · answer #4 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Did you hear about afterwards, he was throwing stuff around and cursing and throwing a hissy fit about having to be interviewed by Wallace.
2006-09-26 03:48:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, you republicansa just can't handle the truth and the failures of the Bush administration. Hurts doesn't it.
2006-09-26 03:32:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Journalists should be nice to Slick Willie. He is having a hard enough time trying to fabricate an enduring legacy.
2006-09-26 03:07:56 · answer #7 · answered by rockdeboat 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
If I was playing poker with him, I'd be "all in"! LOL
2006-09-26 03:19:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋