Clinton gets p*issed off...

univera

In case you're interested. Personally don't care about O'Reily's book....As fair and balanced as the Iranian government IMO, but we aren't suppossed to talk politics here. Video provided for interest and cool factor of seeing Clinton get pissed. http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=2&guideContext=65.73&pmmsid=1725631

jdhdiggs

Reilly appeared very neutral and under control for once... Wow...

brettw22

Go to fox.com and watch the unedited interview. Wallace asked a 10 point question and clinton interrupted him to answer his questions. I can understand his irritation because the questioning presentation.

MacLeod

I agree with every word O'Reilly said.

I also think Wallace did nothing wrong either. He asked a hard question but no more harsh than the ones he was asking when he was ripping Condi and Rumsfeld a new one not more than a month ago. Howard Dean even came on and said he was suprised by how tough Wallace was on those 2.

That being said, I dont hold it against Clinton for getting pissed, I think he overreacted and was taking it out on Wallace but I can also empathize. I disagree with virtually every policy he had but I do think he was a good man and had the best intentions. I also understand that Presidents are crucified daily in the press but are never able to respond and after a decade of this you finally have enough. I actually admire his restraint for now blowing his stack sooner!

I dont, however, think this was a "conservative hit job" and that he was way off base with his conspiracy theories but I do understand him just getting sick of having every decision he ever made questioned ad nauseum.

I do think he dropped the ball a couple times with Bin Laden during his Presidency BUT I also think that at that time, Bin Laden was some nutjob in Afghanistan that was responsible for some terrorism overseas. In fact, I bet you probably couldnt find 3 people in the entire country that even knew Bin Laden's name much less knew him as a threat. I think Clinton couldve been a little more aggressive in his pursuit of Bin Laden (and no I dont buy his "I worked harder on this than anything in my life" which was the exact same thing he said about tax cuts in 1993) but I think it was impossible to forsee what Bin Laden would be capable of in 2001. NOBODY saw 9/11 coming and NOBODY is to blame for it other than those responsible for carrying it out.

RuSsMaN

F Clinton and O'Reilly.

Both assclowns of the highest order, why anyone would listen to either one of them is beyond me.

Holydoc

MacLeod wrote:

That being said, I dont hold it against Clinton for getting pissed, I think he overreacted and was taking it out on Wallace but I can also empathize. I disagree with virtually every policy he had but I do think he was a good man and had the best intentions.

Clinton was a good man? I am going to have to throw out the BS flag on this one. Good people do not conspire to lie to your face. Unintentional or misled information, I can understand. Planning and scheming about how you are going to lie to me eliminates you from my list of good men.

I did not care one bit about this man's sex escapades or his infidelity to his wife. That was between his spouse, his partners, and his beliefs. However when you conspire to produce a speech to try to convince me that the word Oral Sex does not contain sex or that everyone around you are the liars knowing full well that you are guilty of all accounts, you lose your credibility from me.

MacLeod

Yeah, he was a masterful manipulator and probably the best politician in history! I didnt say he was a saint. I just dont think he was a big A hole either.

Maybe Im naive and an optimist but I think somebody able to rise to the level of President of the United States is pretty special and worthy of respect.

Funny, I have no problem loathing Congressmen but Ive always held Presidents up on a pedestal I suppose.

aaharvel

I can't fault Clinton for what he did. Clinton went into the mouth of hell and outfoxxed Fox, and I loved it. For 10 years, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have pulled these b.s. political stunts, sandbagging and bullying guests who aren't conservative, washing transcripts, conducting panels that are 3 to 1 conservative on average, and most especially manipulating the minds of Americans who unfortunately for them don't know that much about current events. Proof in the pudding: wedge issues > real issues. That to me undermines the intelligence and good intentions of MANY intelligent and good-intentioned conservatives out there, be it in here or out in the real world.

Murdoch and Ailes have been asking for this for the last 10 years. And although I respect Chris Wallace as a good journalist, regardless of idealogy, the next time he wants to ask a tough, direct question, don't ****-foot by using the "my internet audience emailed me this question to ask you" gibberish. Be a man! I think Clinton was fully in the right to do what he did, but just took it out on the wrong guy. After being sandbagged, when Clinton asked Wallace how many sitting conservative Bush Administration officials has Fox News gone after and asked those same questions that they asked an ex-President who's gone back to public life I heard crickets, and that to me says it all.

(edited for length)

audiobliss

Just because someone managed to have enough popularity to rise to the position of President of the United States in no way makes him a 'good person'.

MacLeod

aaharvel wrote:

I can't fault Clinton for what he did. Clinton went into the mouth of hell and outfoxxed Fox, and I loved it. For 10 years, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have pulled these b.s. political stunts, sandbagging and bullying guests who aren't conservative, washing transcripts, conducting panels that are 3 to 1 conservative on average, and most especially manipulating the minds of Americans who unfortunately for them don't know that much about current events. Proof in the pudding: wedge issues > real issues. That to me undermines the intelligence and good intentions of MANY intelligent and good-intentioned conservatives out there, be it in here or out in the real world.

Murdoch and Ailes have been asking for this for the last 10 years. And although I respect Chris Wallace as a good journalist, regardless of idealogy, the next time he wants to ask a tough, direct question, don't ****-foot by using the "my internet audience emailed me this question to ask you" gibberish. Be a man! I think Clinton was fully in the right to do what he did, but just took it out on the wrong guy. After being sandbagged, when Clinton asked Wallace how many sitting conservative Bush Administration officials has Fox News gone after and asked those same questions that they asked an ex-President who's gone back to public life I heard crickets, and that to me says it all.

(edited for length)

Now this I love. Murdoch is the devil because he is a conservative that owns 1 of 50 news networks. However, I dont recall too many howls when that commie Ted Turner owned THE ONLY NEWS NETWORK for about 10 years!

Yeah, the right has Fox. But the left has MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Headline News, CNBC, NPR, New York Time, Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today. Not to mention Hollywood, college profesors and most of television.

Id say the right measly 2 outlets (Fox and AM Talk radio) are still pretty well outnumbered in the propaganda war.

hearingimpared

MacLeod wrote:

Now this I love. Murdoch is the devil because he is a conservative that owns 1 of 50 news networks. However, I dont recall too many howls when that commie Ted Turner owned THE ONLY NEWS NETWORK for about 10 years!

Yeah, the right has Fox. But the left has MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Headline News, CNBC, NPR, New York Time, Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today. Not to mention Hollywood, college profesors and most of television.

Id say the right measly 2 outlets (Fox and AM Talk radio) are still pretty well outnumbered in the propaganda war.

Right there with ya brother!;) Dennis Paeger & Michael Medved

polkatese

MacLeod wrote:

Yeah, the right has Fox. But the left has MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Headline News, CNBC, NPR, New York Time, Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today. Not to mention Hollywood, college profesors and most of television.

Id say the right measly 2 outlets (Fox and AM Talk radio) are still pretty well outnumbered in the propaganda war.

MacLeod,

By a simple logic, if yours is a fact, we should and would have Kerry in the White House...



** duck **

aaharvel

MacLeod wrote:

Now this I love. Murdoch is the devil because he is a conservative that owns 1 of 50 news networks. However, I dont recall too many howls when that commie Ted Turner owned THE ONLY NEWS NETWORK for about 10 years!

Yeah, the right has Fox. But the left has MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Headline News, CNBC, NPR, New York Time, Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today. Not to mention Hollywood, college profesors and most of television.

Id say the right measly 2 outlets (Fox and AM Talk radio) are still pretty well outnumbered in the propaganda war.

Mac, in your first post i more or less agreed with everything you said. You can read my first post and probably come to the same conclusion, with the exception of my dislike for Satan err... I meant Rupert. But if you reeeeeaaaally want to pursue this line of conversation over Rupert Murdoch, then by all means..

It's especially uplifting to see that you're beginning to see the light and finally admit that Fox is biased. Maybe it's time to cease with the whole "Fair & Balanced" thing eh? That was an especially nice touch breaking up NBC into 3 and CNN into 2 separate conglomerates just to add visual flair to your comparison list.. but i'll go one step further than that. I find it hilarious that so many pro-Fox watchers don't even know who's in charge of the joint. No checks and balances. They just watch, soak up the smash-mouth, and buy into which ever side is loudest, not necessarily right. Republicans 1, Democrats 0.

But what's ridiculous is I bet if you ask 80% of Fox viewers who the wizard behind the curtain is, they wouldn't even know. Hell, they'd probably say Bill O'Reilly. LOL! Better yet, I bet the ones that DO know wouldn't even know that he's not from this country! I just find that hilarious since it's Republicans in general that use Patriotism and the flag to further their on wedge issues by promoting fear and divisiveness. Too funny! Rupert's sitting back in the land down under laughing his **** off at you guys- and to a lesser extent, me too (afterall, I DO use MySpace and watch the occasional Tarheel game on Fox Sports South)

Oh and if you can prove that USA Today and NPR are inherently biased i sure would love to see it. Better yet, If you have proof that any of those companies you mentioned are even remotely as biased to one side as FOX, show to show, timeslot to timeslot, I sure would love to see it. And regarding college professors, so what? I hardly ever see any preachers that are liberal. As a matter of fact, if BOTH sides switched interests, maybe we'd see an increase in both sides from both idealogies. Better yet, maybe if we threw out the 4th amendment all-together, which dumbasses like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have obviously never read, we could begin a whole new melting pot. Sounds delightful!



Rupert Murdoch's media holdings:

Hollywood & Movie Studios:
20th Century Fox (the largest movie studio- both Hollywood and Home)
includes:
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
20th Century Fox International
Blue Sky Studios
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Fox Studios (Australia)
Fox Studios (Baja CALIFORNIA)
Fox Studios (LA)
20th Century Fox Animation

Television and Affiliates:
Fox News Channel (includes 212 national affiliates)
Fox Television Studios
20th Television (includes 36 national affiliates)
Fox Broadcasting
Fox Sports (20 national affiliates not including FSS)
FoxTel
MyNetworkTv
Star
Fox Movie CHannel
Fox Sports Enterprises
Fox Reality Channel
National Geographic Channel
FX Network
Speed Channel
TV Guide Channel
TURNER SOUTH

Magazines:
The Weekly Standard
TV Guide
TV Guide International
Big League
Inside Out
Donna Hay
Alpha
SmartSource
News America Marketing
GemStar
SmartSource

Book Publishers:
Harper Collins USA
Harper Collins UK
Harper Collins Canada
Harper Collins Australia
Harper Collins Children Books
Regan Books
Zondervan
News America Publishing

Newspapers/American:
The NY Post
-the oldest newpaper in the US, the 7th largest paper in the US

Newspapers/Other:
The London Times
Daily Telegraph
Fiji Times
Gold Coast Bulletin
Herald Sun
News Photos
Newspix
NT News
NewsText
NT-News
Post Courier
Sunday Herald Sun
Sunday Mail
Sunday Tasmanian
Sunday Territorian
Sunday Times
The Advertiser
The Australian
The Courier-Mail
The Sunday Telegraph
The Weekly Times
News International
News Of The World
The Sun
The Sunday Times
The Times (not NY)
Times Literary Supplement

Other Assets:
Hughes Electronics- the largest US Satellite TV System
Broadsystem
Classic FM
Fox Interactive Media
MySpace
MySpace Records
Festival Mushroom Records
IGN Entertainment
Rotten Tomatoes
Ask-Men
Scout
WhatifSports
kSolo
Fox.com
Americanidol.com
National Rugby League
NDS
News Interactive
News Optimus
News Outdoor
Radio Veronica
Foxsports.com
Fox Sports Radio (50 National Affiliates)

Now, would you like to care to re-define the term MASS Media? Or did Satan just do it for you?

TroyD

I'll give you a couple of examples right off the hip.

David Gregory is a partisan hack for NBC. He is nothing but a schill for the Democratic party. Compared to that putz, the Fox dude was VERY polite. George Stephanopolous....I mean, he carried Clinton's luncbox for chrissakes. The whole Dan Rather and Bush in the ANG thing??? Had that been done by Fox against a Democrat, I will bet any amount of money there would have been a HUGE push to have Fox's FCC liscence revoked. Peter Jennings overtly questioning Bush's motives on 9/11 ??

I have no doubt that Fox takes a slant to the right. To think that the majority of the other media outlets are not biased is foolish.

A couple of other things. Clinton said something to the effect that the Republicans MADE him get out of Somalia or some crap. He was the EFFING COMMANDER IN CHIEF. If he didn't have the stones to command, that's HIS problem. In 1993, there was no Republican majority anywhere in gov't. Democrats owned the House and Senate. That doesn't hold water.

Tasmanian Sunday? Gold Coast Bulletin? TV Guide.....ooooh, there are some political heavy hitters.

Also, go check and see what candidates the NYTimes, Boston Globe, Chicago Trib, LATimes and Washington Post have endorsed over the years.....g'head.

BDT

F1nut

RuSsMaN wrote:

F Clinton and O'Reilly.

Both assclowns of the highest order, why anyone would listen to either one of them is beyond me.

Amen!

aaharvel

TroyD wrote:

I'll give you a couple of examples right off the hip.

David Gregory is a partisan hack for NBC. He is nothing but a schill for the Democratic party. George Stephanopolous....I mean, he carried Clinton's luncbox for chrissakes. The whole Dan Rather and Bush in the ANG thing??? Had that been done by Fox against a Democrat, I will bet any amount of money there would have been a HUGE push to have Fox's FCC liscence revoked. Peter Jennings overtly questioning Bush's motives on 9/11 ??

I have no doubt that Fox takes a slant to the right. To think that the majority of the other media outlets are not biased is foolish.

A couple of other things. Clinton said something to the effect that the Republicans MADE him get out of Somalia or some crap. He was the EFFING COMMANDER IN CHIEF. If he didn't have the stones to command, that's HIS problem. In 1993, there was no Republican majority anywhere in gov't. Democrats owned the House and Senate. That doesn't hold water.

BDT

Somalia Conflict- 1993-1994 UNOSOMI and UNOSOMII. the UN, Operation Restore Hope/Blackhawk Down. Then Operation United Shield in 1994. Do you honestly believe that the Somalia conflict lasted only one year? The Republicans demanded he get out of Somalia, which we did in '94. Could've been worse though- the UN didn't fully pull out until Spring of 95.

As far as the rest of the media outlets, I never said they don't claim a liberal bias. So that point is mute.

Perhaps the media is simply echoing the American sentiment.. afterall, Republicans control all three branches of government. I remember the media was relentless on Clinton between 92-93 with the "Dont ask don't tell policy" works both ways. It's nice to be in control of every branch, but that also means it's a more of a chance you're going to be questioned and doubted by the media more as well. It's alot more complicated than well "the media is just biased". Much much more complicated. The root of it is, you also have to look at the mindset of the American people as well. Good or bad, positive or negative. Positive polling, dismal polling, well-- you get the picture.

(edit) for Senate/House; Troy correction

TroyD

aaharvel wrote:

Somalia Conflict- 1994. Republicans controlled both house and senate. oops.

Bill Clinton didn't pull out after 3 days like the Republican Congress told him to do. He stayed 6months later. So I guess he had the stones afterall. oops..

As far as the rest of the media outlets, I never said they don't claim a liberal bias. But not show after show after show after show after show after show after show...

And if you want to talk bias, maybe the media is simply echoing the American sentiment.. afterall, Republicans control all three branches of government. When you combine that with dismal polling, well-- you get the picture.

now what doesn't hold water??

Somalia was in 1993, sport......more than a year before the 1994 midterm elections. The Black Hawk Down incident occured on 3 Oct 1993. The midterm elections were in Nov. 1994 and the next legislative session didn't start until Jan. 1995. Again, we were pulling combat troops out before the end of 1993. That's a fact, jack.

Even IF (which it wasn't but for the sake of argument) there was a Republican majority, Clinton was still the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Period. End of story.

Look, I was part of that operation.....Gear was moving OUT of Mogidishu before the smoke had completely settled. Turned over to the UN?? Flush your headgear out, that's abdication. Period.

Echoing American sentiment?? Not hardly. The Democrats have steadily lost ground in national elections for almost two decades now. Other than Kerry (who still lost fair and square), the Democrats have not received 50% of the votes in a Presidential election since Carter in 1976.

Ultimately, I think that the takeaway for me is that Clinton had good intentions, however, the results were piss poor. In the final analysis, good intentions count for squat and he does deserve a heap of blame for the inaction of the 1990's.

BDT

aaharvel

point taken on the Congress, but regarding 50%, isn't it true that since Bush/Dukakis Republican votes have gone down too? The country has increasingly become polarized in the last 3 decades, not to mention Independents have been given more opportunites to take away from the points of both parties.

But regarding sentiment, i'm not talking elections. I'm talking about polls, which of course- either side will ignore if it doesn't reflect their own values. As for me, I'm not ignoring the polls, at least not now.

aaharvel

"They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in "Black Hawk down," and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations."

Clinton to Wallace, Fox News Sunday

Those were the exact words. I guess my point is Troy is that you don't have to own Congress to make things happen on Capital Hill.. probably because Clinton knew he was going to lose Congress anyway, which is why he took the 3day pullout seriously. But not seriously enough to ignore and continue for 6more months. As for my mistake with Congress, right-o. I always thought the pullout of Somalia was December, 1994. Not March 1994, which as you say, was before the midterms.

"Ultimately, I think that the takeaway for me is that Clinton had good intentions, however, the results were piss poor. In the final analysis, good intentions count for squat and he does deserve a heap of blame for the inaction of the 1990's."

I agree more or less with that, always did- just as Mac said at the beginning of this thread. But to alleviate any responsibility from a Republican Congress in the 90's who were so desperate to pin anything on the guy, they spent millions of taxpayer money on a freakin' ****, well to say that that didn't effect our planning on the war on terror is just insane. Both sides are to blame. Both presidents are to blame. And I actually watched O'Reilly tonight to get his take on the Clinton/Wallace interview. Practically everything he said I agreed with tonight, which almost never happens.

TroyD

Look, I don't have a problem with the criticism of Bush and his policies by anyone. Much of it is well deserved. What I do object to is Clinton acting like a petulant child when asked an unflattering question. He is as much responsible for the mess we are in now as anyone and for him to expect to be given a pass and to outright LIE about it is unacceptable.

BDT

aaharvel

see previous statement.

good debate, surprised they haven't kicked us off yet.

Guys have a good one.

TroyD

aaharvel wrote:

point taken on the Congress, but regarding 50%, isn't it true that since Bush/Dukakis Republican votes have gone down too? The country has increasingly become polarized in the last 3 decades, not to mention Independents have been given more opportunites to take away from the points of both parties.

But regarding sentiment, i'm not talking elections. I'm talking about polls, which of course- either side will ignore if it doesn't reflect their own values. As for me, I'm not ignoring the polls, at least not now.

Polls are fickle, anecdotal and ultimately mean very little. In 1991, Bush 41 could have been elected King and we know, ultimately, what happened. The fact is, Clinton never received a simple majority and it's no secret that Perot siphoned off FAR more disenchanted Republican voters (remember 'Read my lips, no new taxes'? That deal where Bush went along with a Democratic congress who then burned him later for making the compromise?) than Democratic voters. Gore (I said Kerry earlier but meant Gore) received more votes than Clinton ever did, however, I digress....the fact remains that Democrats have steadily LOST ground for a generation. They have good success at the state and local level but it hasn't translated to results at the national level. There is a reason for that too but that's for another discussion.

Again, national elections do not bear out your claims. Poll all you like but votes are what ultimately count.

BDT

TroyD

I guess my point is Troy is that you don't have to own Congress to make things happen on Capital Hill

Ok, let's take this statement first and I don't really have any issue with that. however, you have a LOT of Democrats who have voted in LOCKSTEP with the President's policy towards the war on terrorism who are claiming the exact opposite. Now, which is it? (Kerry, I voted for it before I voted against it??) My point is, you can't have this argument both ways. If you accept your statement at face value, by the nature of thier votes, the Democrats are just as responsible as the Bush administration for the current state of affairs.

probably because Clinton knew he was going to lose Congress anyway, which is why he took the 3day pullout seriously. But not seriously enough to ignore and continue for 6more mont

Again, Clinton was the Commander in Chief. Period. Congress is not in charge of commanding the US Military.

But to alleviate any responsibility from a Republican Congress in the 90's who were so desperate to pin anything on the guy, they spent millions of taxpayer money on a freakin' ****, well to say that that didn't effect our planning on the war on terror is just insane.

Congress doesn't appoint the Independent Counsel if memory serves. That's done by the Justice Dept. (IE Janet Reno). As far as spending millions on a freakin' BJ. Well, that's no exactly true either. Vince Foster? Whitewater? The problem was that pretty much anyone who knew the truth was either dead (Foster) out of the country (Charlie Trie) or refused to testify. Oh, and perjury REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT IS ABOUT is a crime. Period. End of Story. Not only that, a controversy or investigation didn't relieve Clinton of his responsibility. If HE felt that distraction diminished his ability to execute his duties, he should have resigned. That is no excuse.

point taken on the Congress, but regarding 50%, isn't it true that since Bush/Dukakis Republican votes have gone down too? The country has increasingly become polarized in the last 3 decades, not to mention Independents have been given more opportunites to take away from the points of both parties.

Well, let's look at it. The tide has clearly been turning away from the Democrats in the legislative branch for a couple decades. I forget the exact numbers but it's pretty substantial. As far as the claim that since Bush/Dukakis votes have gone down for the Republicans....well, let's look at that. Again, in 1992, take Perot out of the equation and Bush would have beat Clinton by double digit percentage points. (Clinton I believe received in the neighborhood of 43% of the vote, again, don't quote me but I think that was it). That means that a VAST majority voted against the Democrat platform. In 1996, Clinton had a good economy, low unemployment and relative peace (which that's not really true but we didn't know better) and he STILL needed Perot to beat Dole. I think he got, maybe 46 or 47 percent of the vote. So, with all that going on Clinton still couldn't get a majority. That should tell you something.





BDT

jdhdiggs

Geez Troy, you should know by now facts and logic have no bearing in talking about Clinton. He re-writes his own history daily and his defenders will use whichever quote will help them as fact.

bert26

Great thread!

Some random thoughts:

I would like to think that if I was president I would have told congress to piss off and sent EVERYTHING needed to Somalia to protect the troops.

I think that "purple faced rage" is an overstatement of Clinton's reaction. I believe it was justified to some extent - but Clinton is more than intelligent enough to deflect those questions without acting like a child.

Bush pisses me off too with the wanton spending over the last several years.

Clinton's lying under oath (for some sexual transgression) is inexcusable. It is not as if he was committing perjury to insure that special ops troops were kept safe.

Cheating on your wife is inexcusable as well.

The current administration should increase military pay across the board to the enlisted men and women - and pull out all the stops to get them the best weaponry and protection in the world. And yes, I would support an increase in taxes for that, especially since it is Constitutional.

Just my .02.

Troy - I cannot wait to meet you in person at Polkfest. Seems we agree on a lot.

Chris

shack

Clinton came across as a blithering idiot IMO. His "facts" didn't even match the testimony of his own anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke.

jdhdiggs

Shackman, you forgot that his own "facts" don't even match his own recorded testimony.

aaharvel

yeah. reminds me of another President I know.

Done here, i can't argue with a wall of Clinton-haters, I know I have no chance.
Troy, kudos for setting me straight on the 103rd Congress... see I can admit when I'm wrong.

polkatese

Good discussions, guys!

Now, if we remove ALL the labels: Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, Right, Left, etc. can we look forward and be OBJECTIVE in assessing WHAT should be done going forward?

I would use the analogy of having someone report to you at work (you are his boss), and his future career depends on you. He made mistakes, mishaps, but firing him IS NOT an option. By the way, you are interested in his success, at the same time, be very candid on pointing out to him all the blunders that he did, as a constructive criticism for him to do better and to FIX what is broken.

What would you say?

PhantomOG

Hey... did I just see Spyderman run by?????

Maybe not... oh well, carry on!!!!

TroyD

aaharvel wrote:

yeah. reminds me of another President I know.

Done here, i can't argue with a wall of Clinton-haters, I know I have no chance.
Troy, kudos for setting me straight on the 103rd Congress... see I can admit when I'm wrong.

aaharvel, c'mon, that's just quitting. I'm all ears for the rebuttal to my theories. If you have a point of view, by all means, there is nothing wrong with that but substantiate it. As I've said, I'm not a schill for Bush but the standard party line for the Democrats in this particular case doesn't really hold up to the light of day. Even if Congress had been Republican controlled in 1993, your line of reasoning still doesn't stand up to scrutiny any way you slice it. It would still paint Clinton as indecisive.

To just throw up you hands and dismiss it as a wall of Clinton hater's is a cop out.

BDT