9/11 was the fault of terrorist not Bush, not Clinton.

 

Bill Clinton is a great speaker/politician but he has not moral/ethical core in my opinion.

I haven't seen the Clinton-Wallace interview yet, so I'll reserve judgment on it until then.

 

I agree with RickyP that there is no bogeyman to blame for 9/11 other than the people who carried out the attack. But there is a segment on the right wing that is obsessed with assigning as much blame as possible for it to Bill Clinton. I would assume he is tired of it, and that's why he is responding to the criticism.

I haven't seen the Clinton-Wallace interview yet, so I'll reserve judgment on it until then.

 

I agree with RickyP that there is no bogeyman to blame for 9/11 other than the people who carried out the attack. But there is a segment on the right wing that is obsessed with assigning as much blame as possible for it to Bill Clinton. I would assume he is tired of it, and that's why he is responding to the criticism.

 

I think he responding because of the upcoming midterm elections. Once a politician always a politician. It's the same reason Bush has been so active lately. Just the way the system works.

 

It is funny how polarized the country has become. There doesn't seem to be many moderate canidates anymore. I think if I was my age in the 50's or 60's I would be a hardcore Democrate but due to their social stances I cannot vote that way today.

It is funny how polarized the country has become. There doesn't seem to be many moderate canidates anymore. I think if I was my age in the 50's or 60's I would be a hardcore Democrate but due to their social stances I cannot vote that way today.

Actually, it's more sad than funny. I agree with your point. I would love to vote for a moderate candidate, but there aren't that many out there and the ones that are get it from both sides.

 

I used to think I was a liberal. But the more drivel I see from the right about "what liberals believe," I have apparently shifted to the moderates' camp.

 

Everything that Bill Clinton says is worthless drivel whose sole purpose is to make himself look good. Always was; Always will be. This interview is just another example. Clinton's artfully interweaves facts with misdirection while skillfully preventing the interviewer from responding. Clinton points out that Bin Laden wasn't in Somolia when the BlackHawk incident occured as if that was a "gotcha" to his critics. Not only does Clinton conveniently ignore the major thrust of his detractors' criticism of BlackHawk down, he interupts the interviewer to ensure that he doesn't have to answer to that criticism. Bin Laden is on record as saying that the BlackHawk down incident was evidence of the weakness of the United States, a conclusion that does not now nor has ever required Bin Laden to be in Somolia. It's a fact Clinton's reponse to BlackHawk down emboldened Bin Laden. I am at a loss to explain why pointing out a fact (Bin Laden wasn't in Somolia) that Clinton's critics have never disputed passes for a convincing argument against Clinton's display of weakness.

 

You can take ANY politician's name and put in the bold type. Welcome to modern poltics.

I'm watching it on FOXNews now. I don't blame Clinton one bit for his answer to the question. Chris Wallace is an ambush journalist and he's trying too hard to be like his daddy in the journalism world. I don't care if you're Republican or Democrat. Clinton was right when he said he came the closest of anyone to killing Bin Laden, and he didn't even make a war out of it.

 

Kudos to the former President for his comeback that put Wallace on the defensive and looking silly like he has done to so many people before.

Preach on Brother Bill

 

You can take ANY politician's name and put in the bold type. Welcome to modern poltics.

 

 

You must like to hear worthless drivel then since you're the one telling Clinton to preach on.

You must like to hear worthless drivel then since you're the one telling Clinton to preach on.

 

 

Been listening to it for the past 6 years, whats a little more, and good to hear from a different source.

I sure miss Bill.

I sure miss Bill.

Yes, I miss the days when I had a president that wouldn't take a stand on an issue, or make a difficult decision as well. That is what I really look for in a leader.

Let me see if I can salvage a civil debate here. Without a doubt, Bill Clinton was one of the best politicians of our time. People around the world love him for whatever reason.

 

What role could he have in a presidency that doesn't include Hilary to use this? Would he be a wonderful person at the UN? What about putting him in charge of the group to bring the sides to the table in Iraq? What about putting him as a special ambassador to Iran?

 

The man is talented despite my personal feelings for him as a human being, a father and a husband. Shouldn't we try and use that? But in what role that a Republican President would feel comfortable?

Let me see if I can salvage a civil debate here. Without a doubt, Bill Clinton was one of the best politicians of our time. People around the world love him for whatever reason.

 

What role could he have in a presidency that doesn't include Hilary to use this? Would he be a wonderful person at the UN? What about putting him in charge of the group to bring the sides to the table in Iraq? What about putting him as a special ambassador to Iran?

 

The man is talented despite my personal feelings for him as a human being, a father and a husband. Shouldn't we try and use that? But in what role that a Republican President would feel comfortable?

My guess is that it will be hard for any president, including HRC to use him because he tends to overshadow everyone. I think he will continue to do things like his global initiative. I think he would make a GREAT Secretary of State. I just don't think he will be offered the job or that he would take it.

My guess is that it will be hard for any president, including HRC to use him because he tends to overshadow everyone. I think he will continue to do things like his global initiative. I think he would make a GREAT Secretary of State. I just don't think he will be offered the job or that he would take it.

I am not sure a permanent position would be the best use of his talents. Because he would have to deal with so much of the stupid government bureaucracy. But big, special, splashy projects would be right up his alley.

My guess is that it will be hard for any president, including HRC to use him because he tends to overshadow everyone. I think he will continue to do things like his global initiative. I think he would make a GREAT Secretary of State. I just don't think he will be offered the job or that he would take it.

I think you're right. Hillary has to find a way to grab onto his coattails while keeping him from becoming the focus. I don't think he'll be offered Secretary of State, but Ambassador to the UN is a definite possibility.

Yes, I miss the days when I had a president that wouldn't take a stand on an issue, or make a difficult decision as well. That is what I really look for in a leader.

 

Not exactly how worlld leaders view Bill, but even if it were so I would rather have that then the someone who makes wrong decisions.