Story after countless story has come out over the years referencing his anger management problems. With that knowledge, was this a manifestation of that anger or a pre-planned attempt to make Democrats appear strong?
2006-09-26 12:15:41 · 14 answers · asked by K_Man1998 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You can tell it was not his true nature. Had it been, Chris Wallace would have been raped.
2006-09-26 12:18:35 · answer #1 · answered by Colorado 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If everyone will remember, the 911 commission cited the fact that Bill had the chance to take OBL out and didn't. They also pointed fingers at Bush that for the first 9 months, he took for granted, the data that showed that an event was gonna happen. They couldn't tell us in their report if there was any indication as to WHERE the attacks would be.
I guess they should have called Ms Cleo, the Phsycic Friends Network to tell them where the attack would be.
Besides, no one has cornored him about the military loss of life in Somalia or Bosnia, places he and the Democratic Party wish would fall off the globe. Of course, I guess its OK for the Liberal left to poke fun and name call Bush, but dont step on the Blue Suede Shoes of Bill " I didnt have Sex" Clinton!!
2006-09-26 12:54:20 · answer #2 · answered by bigmikejones 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, not at all. Bill Clinton has done a lot for our Country and because of his inapproriate behavior with Monica, he has taken the "heat" nonstop. He has every right to NOT take any crap any longer. If you read and kept up to date with politics, you would know what he did for our Country. Don't EVER just listen to one side. Listen to BOTH sides. He was not at all rude. He just did and would not put up with any crap from someone NOT allowing him to finish answering etc. Just because he was forceful does NOT make him rude. Just like if a woman is forceful that does not make her a *****. Although some fools think so...
As far as you thinking it was an attempt to make the Democratic party look strong?!? They are strong. That was a man standing up for himself and the great job that he did do. Everything was better when President Clinton was in office. Weren't you paying attention?
2006-09-26 12:48:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Wallace later performed harmless, whilst in certainty he replace into accusing Clinton of inflicting 9/11 by skill of failing to get bin weighted down. generic Republican sleaze: accuse with a query, then pretend ask your self whilst replied decrease back with a lively protection. That Clinton did no longer get bin weighted down - and his camp bombing in Afganistan almost did - isn't the reason of 9/11, and Bush hasn't gotten him the two. Republicans who answer right here with distortions and history amnesia can shove it decrease back up the butts they have been given it from...
2016-12-12 15:45:19 · answer #4 · answered by bornhoft 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I heard the interview on the radio and was surprised that it wasn't edited out. Whether he was right or wrong in his position is not what was important to me. The fact that he attacked that stoic icon of TV decorum is enough for me to admire Clinton. He was good on the attack. Chris Wallace (and the high and mighty news media) had that coming. I am not a Democrat but kudos to Clinton on that one.
2006-09-26 12:23:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I thought he handled Chris Wallass pretty well. I would have been too tempted to pummel the propaganda-spreading, low-life weasel. It's interesting how Bush is getting bent out of shape because critics are bashing him because they are going off only half a report. Funny how I didn't see that stop him or any other conservative from spreading that load of crap called the "path to 911". What goes around comes around. The elections will be the final punch.
2006-09-26 12:32:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
For all the years Clinton has been interviewed this is the first time, I have ever seen him mad. Usually he has kept his cool. This man has taken so much nasty ridicule by the reporters and I think Clinton felt, enough is enough. Once the blood thirsty reporters start in, they have no pity on their victum. I was glad to hear Clinton, finally voice his angry opinion.
2006-09-26 12:23:38 · answer #7 · answered by Norskeyenta 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I personally think he showed his true, thug-like side. The news has reported that this was what his staff had to put up with all the time.
2006-09-26 12:20:16 · answer #8 · answered by Albannach 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
we monkey libs are upset that our hero Mr. Bill Clinton cried like a little girl on TV
2006-09-26 12:18:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Dick Morris called him an idiot and its about time the world sees the real Bill Clinton.
sis you see willys tears and spit?
2006-09-26 12:17:56 · answer #10 · answered by Super Shirazz 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋