Clinton on "60 Minutes"

[The Blowhard]

I hope Dan Rather was wearing kneepads. Awful!

[Melrapuo]

I think it's sorta funny that the man who once F'ed as many whores as he could is now a whore himself. For publicity reasons, anyway.

<img src="http://img18.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/melr2_sig.jpg">
Thanks M1
YANKEES FAN SINCE BIRTH!

[Mike Teacher]

Heckler! Synopsis please? I missed the Clinton Hour.

I am, however, about a foot from Sundays NY Times and on the front page, they, and I was hoping it would be the exact opposite, but they say in effect; the book really stinks.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/sigsig">

[TheGameHHH]

i dont really like the man all that much, but im still buying his book

<IMG SRC="http://home.comcast.net/~rmfallon/RFnetHHH.jpg">

[The Blowhard]

This was nothing more than a bad infomercial, plain and simple. Rather was fawning all over "The Great Stainmaker" and many subjects were not addressed, mainly:
Waco
The pardoning of the FALN terrorists
The Chinese/Los Alamos scandal
The USS Cole.
If we credit Clinton for a great economy(actually the GOP controlled House and Senate kept his massive spending in check), he must answer for the first WTC attack in 1993, 8 years of NOTHING.
And don't forget the North Korean nuclear program, sending illegal computer and missile technology to China.
He claims he never had a shot at Osama Bin Laden. I find that hard to believe. He admitted in a speech that he did have a shot but he feared collateral damage.
I'm no Bush fan. In fact, I fear GW and his zealots. But Clinton damaged us, severely.
Shame on CBS. The once great "Tiffany Network" has turned to shit.

[HBox]

And don't forget the North Korean nuclear program

That didn't start until Bush entered office and ended Clinton's policy with dealing with North Korea.

He claims he never had a shot at Osama Bin Laden. I find that hard to believe. He admitted in a speech that he did have a shot but he feared collateral damage.

I'm not giving Clinton a pass here, but everytime he did something, either with Iraqi airstrikes or Kosovo, Republicans were slamming him for "waging the dog." A real leader would have done what needed to be done regardless, and this is where he failed. However, the shameless exploitation at the expense of our national security by Republicans was also inexcusiable, especially from a party who would years later lecture us about the grave dangers of Iraq.

actually the GOP controlled House and Senate kept his massive spending in check

Is this the same GOP who has been in total control of our government the last 2 years and presided over huge tax cuts, massive spending increases and a skyrocketing deficit? Or is there another one you're talking about?

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

[TheMojoPin]

he must answer for the first WTC attack in 1993, 8 years of NOTHING.

We caught and prosecuted all but one of the people directly involved.

The rest of the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the FBI and ESPECIALLY the CIA (again).

The intelligence services dictate the president's actions in these cases, not vice versa. The president needs to rely on the information provided by these people. If there's no info, what's he supposed to react on? The USSR collapsed more than two years before he took office, yet our intelligence resources had made NO effort to switch focus from the former Soviet states to more relevant threats in other parts of the world. The CIA basically had to build it's Middle East information bureaus and opertations literally from next to nothing when he entered office, and they failed miserably over the next few years. So again, if they don't have the information in the first place, the president has nothing to act upon.

Same with the Cole. Hindsight is great, but our intelligence services would have viewed that the same way if anyone else had president...a strike against a US military target overseas. That gives ZERO indication that Al-Queada was planning something like 9/11. That's assuming that somebody else in office would have lept from point A to point Q, which is HIGHLY unlikely, to say the least.

We retaliated against Al-Queada bases and camps with airstrikes in Afghanistan (And I believe the Sudan) after both the attack on the Cole and the bombings of the US embassies in Africa. We had no clue where bin Laden was at the time, and no "real" target to "declare war" against. Al-Queada was an even more "shadowy" and less defined threat than they are today.

Besides, we had large terrorist strikes against Americans overseas while Reagan was in office, and we didn't go to war over those. If Clinton is going to be called out for some kind of "inaction" in this regard, Reagan should get just as much scrutiny and finger-pointing.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[JerryTaker]

I'd buy his book if I had the disposable income I had 4 years ago.



<br><B>
Sig Pending...</B>

[ChrisTheCop]

(they say) the book really stinks.

What could you expect? A book of his life that he was rushed to finish so that it would be out before the conventions; even if he wanted to truly reflect on his life, the good and the bad, he hadnt the time. This book could have been the chance for him to come clean and make amends with himself, his family, friends, and country. Instead, it's just another work of fiction.

<img src="http://rfcop.50megs.com/images/jersey_rich-fluffernutter_sigpic.gif">jersernutter productions

[HBox]

Instead, it's just another work of fiction.

Umm, have you read it?

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

[TheMojoPin]

A reviewer said the book "tells everything while telling nothing," which is what I came away thinking.

It's clear this man plans to write many, MANY more books, and smartly all he's done is whet our appetite for those future writings.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[ChrisTheCop]

Umm, have you read it?

Who am I? Evelyn Wood?
But I say it's fiction, because of several things I've heard/read about it. For example; he writes that after the Lewinsky affair scandal, Ms Rodham made Bill sleep on the couch for several nights. As Ron and Fez pointed out, how many bedrooms are there in the White House that the maids couldnt make up a bed for The President of The United States!?!?! An obvious obvious lie (depending on what your definition of the word "an" is.) And who thinks these two were sleeping in the same bed to begin with? I'm just saying that it wouldve been better if he had been given a chance to really write his memoirs and not been rushed.

<img src="http://rfcop.50megs.com/images/jersey_rich-fluffernutter_sigpic.gif">jersernutter productions

[Doomstone]

he writes that after the Lewinsky affair scandal, Ms Rodham made Bill sleep on the couch for several nights. As Ron and Fez pointed out, how many bedrooms are there in the White House that the maids couldnt make up a bed for The President of The United States!?!?! An obvious obvious lie


I'd say Clinton was basically self-punishing himself; I think anyone who's ever been in a relationship and fucked up once or twice could relate. Let's look past the fact that Clinton was a sleazeball and accept that he wasn't a TOTAL sleazeball. I think he really did feel the way he should've felt after what happened. First of all, do you think he felt like he deserved to sleep in a guest room? And second, I'm sure he felt like he should've had to sleep outside or something, but the President can't exactly do that. I think his wife accepted that the President sleeps in the residence--they couldn't have just put him up in a hotel or something.

<center><img src="http://img1.photobucket.com/albums/0903/snoopy114025/ds2_sig.jpg">
M1 rules!
</center>