For more analysis on Clinton's mythology attempt go here http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2006/09/the_truth_about.html

perception it would appear is subjective emily. i saw someone who confronted foxnews pathology for manipulating information and representing it as fact. which is nice, non?

 Feel free to post what part of the interview was manipulation or representative of Foxnews "pathology".

it is not the content i was referring to so much as the context draginol. as in foxnews predilection to representing information as fact or, at the very least, blurring the line between opinion and fact. their slogan 'fair and balanced' perhaps most epitomizes this, when it is patently obvious they consistently maintain a republican bias. a more comprehensive content analysis that supports this can be seen in robert greenwald's documentary 'outfoxed'.

clinton acknowleges this himself in his referring to the 'context in which this (interview) arises' - on 'fox', a partisan network & during a time in which a factually fallacious account based on the 9/11 report (path to 9/11) has recently been shown. that is, he was addressing the fact that wallace's question - of all possible questions that could've been asked - was not benign, but politically motivated.

...at the very least, blurring the line between opinion and fact. - Mr. Roberts

Many mainstream news organizations have adapted this despicable format.

mais oui deference. i believe it even has a name. it's been called the 'fox effect' (again i refer to greenwald's film). at the very least it inspires one not to take anything at face value. non?

in the context of this thread for example, whilst it may be debatable as to the degree in which the neocons felt clinton was 'obsessed' with getting binladen it is clear that clinton subjectively felt that to be the case. whatever the actual situation it is not the core issue here.

the central criticism levelled by both wallis and abc's 'docudrama' is clinton's failure as to why he 'didn't do more to put bin laden and al quaeda' out of business'. it is an accusation that clinton clearly refutes. he argues that after the cole, he had 'battle plans to go into afghanistan, overthrow the taliban, and launch a full scale search for bin laden.' the cia & fbi, however, refused to certify that bin laden was responsible, thus denying basing rights for the offensive. further, he states that he left behind a 'comprehensive anti-terrorist strategy' for the bush administration that failed to act on for the 8 months prior to 9/11. these are not opinons. these are stated facts, supported by richard clarke in his own book.

apparently, going by her own post, emily has evidence to the contrary.

mais oui deference. - Mr. Roberts

Naturellement je ne parle pas français mais j'emploierai Babelfish afin d'essayer d'attraper l'espoir de la signification... I que vous riez chaleureusement.

Je suis d'accord de tout coeur avec vous.

It was the same tone of voice he used when he sternly said "I did not have sex with that woman"... telling.

He got a little overly upset about it from what I saw. Lots of "I woulda killed him!" and not much actual justification of why Clinton didn't actually kill him or why he should have at that time.

It was the same tone of voice he used when he sternly said "I did not have sex with that woman"... telling.

It was also planned. I don't believe for one second that this is something that happened "at that moment". This was in retaliation for the tv movie that showed how he let osama loose for worrying about what the "world" will think of him.

This was so planned, it's not even funny. Think about it:

their slogan 'fair and balanced' perhaps most epitomizes this, when it is patently obvious they consistently maintain a republican bias.

If this person believes that Fox is Republican bias, as many others do here, it would be plainly obvious to Clinton as well. So he knew from minute 1 that he was gonna be asked questions about this, Fox knew that he knew. This is all a joke. Why would he be dumb enough to go to Fox, of all places, right after this whole crap about this movie and about the recent claims that he did not do enough to catch Osama? Either he's an idiot or this was planned way ahead of time. This was more of a Docudrama than the movie was.

Everything that Clinton said about himself can be used in Bush's favor. Bush has also tried and has not triumphed yet. But at least he tried, Bush just tried harder.

it is not the content i was referring to so much as the context draginol. as in foxnews predilection to representing information as fact or, at the very least, blurring the line between opinion and fact. their slogan 'fair and balanced' perhaps most epitomizes this, when it is patently obvious they consistently maintain a republican bias. a more comprehensive content analysis that supports this can be seen in robert greenwald's documentary 'outfoxed'.

So you simply believe left-wing bias that tells you that Fox news has a right-wing bias.  Fox news does have a right-wing bias but no more than CNN has a left-wing bias.

Talk about trying to deflect the issue. There were numerous blatantly false statements by Clinton. Clinton claimed that Republicans complained that he was obsessed with getting Bin Laden. That's nonsense. Feel free to find a quote from a Republican that argued he was obsessed with Bin Laden. Any Republican will do (preferably an elected one). Clinton tells lies. It's in his nature. It is not surprising he would want to go back and have people remember events differently. It's not that he did a terrible job, it is that he just isn't willing to accept that he didn't do very much. Some left-winger crying that Fox is biased (and anyone who thiks Chris Wallace is biased has clearly never watched the show - this is Mike Wallace's son we're talking about here, he's as straight a shooter as you can get) because other left wingers told them it's biased is just another case of lazy intellectualism on the left. Fox IS right-wing biased overall in terms of its content but that doesn't make every show on the network biased anymore than it means that every show on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN left-wing biased just because the bulk of the news content has a left-wing bias.

i'm not one to copy and paste too often, and i'm hardly a "far leftie" ,,,but again,,Keith said it best....from last night's countdown:



The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong.

It is not essential that a past president, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.

It is not important that the current President’s portable public chorus has described his predecessor’s tone as “crazed.”

Our tone should be crazed. The nation’s freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as al Qaida; the nation’s marketplace of ideas is being poisoned by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would’ve quit.

Nonetheless. The headline is this:

Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done in five years.

He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.

"At least I tried," he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. "That’s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried."

Thus in his supposed emeritus years has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as liberating, as any, by any one, in these last five long years.

The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama bin Laden before 9/11.

The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors.

The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."

The Bush Administration did not try.

Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks, the current administration, and in particular the President, has been given the greatest “pass” for incompetence and malfeasance in American history!

President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs—some of them, 17 years old—before Pearl Harbor.

President Hoover was correctly blamed for—if not the Great Depression itself—then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the Stock Market Crash.

Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War—though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.

But not this president.

To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been president on September 11th, 2001 -- or the nearly eight months that preceded it.

That hardly reflects the honesty nor manliness we expect of the executive.

Sean, when you're reposting crap from Oberman you might as well wear a pin that says "left-wing chump".

Most of the stuff you mentioned has been discredited so many time or, at best, is just a loud unsubstantiated claim.

Instead of just regurgitating other people's analysis, do some research on facts yourself. Otherwise it's just another case of...

https://www.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=26937