You have to feel bad for the FOXNews interviewer--after six years of Bush running things, it is hard to remember that most presidents are able to speak extemporaneously for more than 10 seconds at a time, are able to speak in complete sentences, and are able to follow a coherent thought from one sentence to the next.

In the middle of watching the video YouTube posted this message, "This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner Fox News Network, LLC because its content was used without permission."

PS - I echo the first comment!

I guess Bill must have won the argument.

Yeah, Bill was able to speak in complex sentences. Too bad he could also have spoken accurately about the facts. Just about every assertion he made in that embarrassing tyrade - from misstatements about Clark's book, to outright lies about his actions to combat terror and the Bush administration's 'demoting' of Clark - was completely false. Shows you how dangerous it is for a President - even Mr. "I feel your pain" - to go off the cuff and unrehearsed (and in this case, completely unhinged).

It really was an embarrassing moment for ol' Bill. He completely loses his cool and starts going into bully mode -- stabbing the interviewer's notes, getting in his face and tossing around conspiracy theories.

Accusations, ad hominems and blowing one's top seems to be the M.O. for a fair number of liberals.

Hard to stay calm when your country is being destroyed by a monkey.

Just about every assertion he made in that embarrassing tyrade - from misstatements about Clark's book, to outright lies about his actions to combat terror and the Bush administration's 'demoting' of Clark - was completely false.

What was false? I guess if he got details about Clarke's book wrong, we'll hear from Clarke, eh? (So far, three days after the interview, I'm not hearing anything. Surprise.) And, er, the Bushies DID demote Richard Clarke. That's not a debateable point, regardless of what Rush and Hannity might tell you.

What was false? Where to begin? First, that he never asked anyong in the Bush administration 'such questions'. Chris Wallace absolutely grilled Rumsfeld just a couple months ago....MUCH harder questioning that the open lob to Clinton.

Second, that conservatives were criticizing him for being "obsessed" with Bin Laden. Flat-out lie. No one criticized him for being obsessed with Bin Laden because Bin Laden's name hardly ever came up. And his assertion that conservatives criticising his bombing of the aspirin factory is another lie. It was praised by none other than Newt Gingrich as "the right thing to do". Some, including Democrats, questioned the timing of the attack as it came only 2 days after his grand jury testimony.

Third, that the Bush administration Demoted Richard Clarke. Flat. Out. LIE. Even Clarke's book that Clinton repeatedly references disputes this lie ("Against All Enemies", pg 234):

"I had completed the review of the organizational options for homeland defense and critical infrastructure protection that Rice had asked me to conduct. There was agreement to create a separate, senior White House position for Critical Infrastructure Protection and Cyber Security, outside of the NSC Staff. Condi Rice and Steve Hadley assumed that I would continue on the NSC focusing on terrorism and asked whom I had in mind for the new job that would be created outside the NSC. I requested that I be given that assignment, to the apparent surprise of Condi Rice and Steve Hadley."

Believe me, there was LOTS more - mainly dealing with his claims to be focussed on terrorism. Bill is a serial liar, pure and simple. He sees his legacy going down the tubes and is on a rampage to rewrite history. Good luck, Bill.

Condi Rice and Steve Hadley assumed that I would continue on the NSC focusing on terrorism and asked whom I had in mind for the new job that would be created outside the NSC. I requested that I be given that assignment, to the apparent surprise of Condi Rice and Steve Hadley.

Yes. This is because HE HAD ALREADY BEEN DEMOTED. When Rice took over, she kept him as the same title, but demoted his actual duties, having him report to cabinet undersecretaries rather than reporting to Rice and/or Hadley.

So changing the reporting chain of command is now a "demotion"? I can see you've never worked for a large business.....or at the very least have had a very unusual tenure there.

When the boss lady no longer invites you to her office to hear what your thoughts are, you have been ... how do you say? ... demoted? Is that the word? I don't know, I hate Clinton so much I can't think straight.

What happened was that the Bush Administration chose to shift the focus of anti-terrorism to Nations that supported the groups rather than the individuals themselves. Clark wasn't "demoted". Judging from his smashing success at combatting terrorism throughout the 90's, I'd say the shift was well founded. When your one documented 'success' in combatting terrorism came from a Canadian boarder guard simply getting lucky, I'd say its time to shift focus.

What happened was that the Bush Administration chose to shift the focus of anti-terrorism to Nations that supported the groups rather than the individuals themselves.

Great strategy. So why are we in Iraq?

No love affair with Bush but

I gather aggressive Clinton would invade Pakistan when his
"a lot more than 20,000 troops in Afghanistan" discover he was across the border.
I imagine the northern Pakistani tribes would welcome Bill and the Democrat lead US troops. There would be sing alongs of AlaGumbaya as they worked together to find OBL.

But wait, suppose things got bogged down and turned into a "quagmire"?
Oh I know, just turn around and leave, right?

"Oh I know, just turn around and leave, right?"

But UBL attacked us on 9/11. Iraq did not.

Invading Iraq was stupid; sending enough troops to get UBL would have been smart. You know it.

You know we will leave Iraq someday. Can you afford another $300 billion for another three years of an occupation that empirical data shows creates more terrorism?

I can't.

So a Democrat president would have invaded Pakistan by now in search of OBL?

And what if things got bogged down, insurgents were killing innocent civilians and our troops and OBL was still at large?

Just leave or stay the course?

I can't help but think that if Bush had done the same and we were bogged down in Afghanistan and Pakistan (instead of Iraq) all of you Bush haters would be echoing the identical things you are about Iraq.
"Pakistan had nothing to do with 911"
"We have no business being there",
"Bush let OBL get away"
"We're creating more terrorists"
"Rumsfeld is stupid"
on and on and on.

I think the Clinton reference to a greater mission to get OBL in Afghanistan
may represent the currently unknown Democrat plan.

Can one of you at least speculate what a Gore or Kerry effort in Afgansistan would look like with the assumption OBL was still at large? And, how Gore or Kerry would have dealt with OBL and other terrorists hiding and working out of Pakistan?

"Can one of you at least speculate what a Gore or Kerry effort in Afgansistan would look like with the assumption OBL was still at large? And, how Gore or Kerry would have dealt with OBL and other terrorists hiding and working out of Pakistan?"

Sounds pointless. Gore and Kerry are not president. The heat belongs on GWB, not on hypothetical DemocratIC presidents. What is GWB's "plan" to get UBL and destroy the Taliban? Send 20,000 troops to Afghanistan, and seven times as many to Iraq?

Hopefully a hypothetical DemocratIC president's plan would be to send enough troops to get UBL and destroy the Taliban, which GWB has not done, and to NOT invade and occupy Iraq, which is a costly diversion that creates more terrorism, per the new NIE. Hopefully a DemocratIC president would have accepted the Taliban's offer to turn over UBL right after 9/11, an offer GWB rejected. Hopefully UBL would never have made it to the sanctuary of that nuclear state sponsor of terrorism, Pakistan, as he has under GWB.

BTW, it's the 16 US intelligence gathering agencies, not Democrats, who have concluded from empirical data that invading and occupying Iraq creates more terrorists (see the new NIE). BTW, it's highly decorated generals who have served under him in Iraq, not Democrats, who are saying "Rumsfeld is stupid." See yesterday's congressional testimony. I respectfully suggest you take off your partisan colored glasses for a second and think like an American instead of a Republican.

I think Bill over reacted. Im a fairly conservative individual and I do not accuse Clinton of not doing enough. You have to put the situation in historical perspective. The Cold War had just ended, and you had new nations being built in eastern europe. New notions of diplomacy were rising, the international political waters had changed and everyone was trying to figure out how to navigate the new emergence. Couple this new geo political landscape with issues of Islam and genocide in E Europe and you have some murky waters to sail through. I am in no way a Clinton fan, but blaming him for not getting Bin Landen is about as effective as wiping your butt with a hulla hoop. Even if Clinton had sucessfully gotten Bin Landen, I do not think it would of changed the outcome of a terrorist attack. Its a retarded issue to argue, Dems and Reps should focus on what is going on now.

"Hopefully a hypothetical DemocratIC president's plan would be to send enough troops to get UBL and destroy the Taliban"

Hopefully?

and the Taliban may have turned over UBL right after 9/11?
"UBL would never have made it to the sanctuary of that nuclear state sponsor of terrorism, Pakistan"

Wow, it's almost like terrorism would not exist if only Gore had won.

Talk about "partisen colored glasses".

And you didn't answer my question.

Suppose things got bogged down for Gore in Afghanistan and there was "more terrosists" because of our being there and OBL was in Pakistan.
What then the Democrat plan for peace?

Playing fantasy about all things being rosy simply because Bush isn't the president is just not realistic.

Unless you think Bush had somethig to do with 911.

"Hard to stay calm when your country is being destroyed by a monkey." --Bojack.

Name the only person in America who had the BALLS to question what "Shakes, The Chimp" did to stop Osama AFTER the USS Cole bombing and before 9/11.

Not one god-damn, m-fing thing.

Look up Condi's BIG SPEECH she was going to give on THE FUTURE OF AMERICA's DEFENSE morning of 9/11.

Terrorism? Osama? Al Qaeda?

Nope. It was about a $100,000,000,000 missile shield that still doesn't work and the speech did not mention the word terrorism or Osama.

You can look it up, folks!

Daphne, you're a lunatic. What did Bush do to stop terrorism prior to 9/11? Well golly, let's ask Bill Clinton's new hero Richard Clarke.

If I were Bill Clinton, I wouldn't be steering folks to Richard Clarke to defend my record:

"Clinton insisted that his version is backed both by Clarke's book and public testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

In fact, Clarke told the commission a very different story during hours of private testimony behind closed doors - one that jibed with a 2002 background briefing he gave to reporters.

Back then, he said: "There was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. . . . [a] plan, strategy - there was no, nothing new."

Indeed, Clarke said, the Bush team in 2001 "changed the [Clinton] strategy from one of rollback [of] al Qaeda over five years to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline."

Bush, he added, took action on several "issues that had been on the table for a couple of years," such as instituting a new policy in Pakistan that convinced Islamabad "to break away from the Taliban" and boosting "CIA resources...for covert action five-fold to go after al Qaeda."

In fact, a 1999 Clarke after-action memo - the one top Clinton aide Sandy Berger later stole from the National Archives - identified national-security weaknesses so "glaring" that only sheer "luck" prevented a cataclysmic attack back then."

Daphne.....go along now and take your medication.

Richard Clarke said in his book (which I have read) and on "60 Minutes" that he and Clinton told W and his gal Condi, that terrorism and AQ would be their biggest job.

W yawned and asked where Bubba kept the near-beer. Then he asked Clarke to get ready to bomb Iraq. That'd be January, 2001.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

Of course, Clarke had been to the Middle East a dozen times (12 more than W) and knew that Iraq was divided by Shiite, Sunni and Kurds.

W found out about that little factoid the day before he dropped the first bombs on Baghdad. From an Iraqi who laughed out loud, in W's face, in the Oval Office, when faced with W's stupidity.

Ask Armitage. He was there with Powell, who giggled a bit too.

History is a b!tch, huh Butch?

So Daphne, should we believe the Richard Clarke who testified under oath to the 9/11 commission, or the Richard Clarke who later was making a killing on the liberal talk show and speaking gig circuit? Fact: I directly quoted Clarke's sworn testimony. Fact: you made some stupid, smarmy comment about near beer. Back to debate school. Buh bye.

"Hopefully?"

Yes. You posted the pointless question calling for speculation about a Dem prez. I took the bait and speculated, and "A ha, yer livin' in fantasy land!" D'oh, ya got me there Steve.

"and the Taliban may have turned over UBL right after 9/11?"

That's not what I meant to say; sorry you misunderstood. Let me be more clear: Just after 9/11, the Taliban did offer to turn UBL over to a third party nation, or to be tried in Afghani court, and GWB said no. I didn't mean to say the Taliban would've done that if Gore were prez.

"And you didn't answer my question."

Yes I did, I speculated (and you got me!).

"Suppose things got bogged down for Gore in Afghanistan and there was "more terrosists" because of our being there and OBL was in Pakistan.
What then the Democrat plan for peace?"

Suppose unicorns were real, and Americans were Smurfs, and we all cruised around riding on roller skate wearing unicorns instead of driving cars. Major reduction in auto emissions, but what then the Smurf plan for saving the Bio-Diesel and auto asphyxiation industries? Huh? HUH?

Ha ha! Thanks for the fun and super-relevant debate, Steve!

Good night,
Sam

I think the operative word here is "failed". Clinton said he tried, and failed.

Assuming we all know what the definition of the word "failed" is, I couldn't agree more.

"Taliban did offer to turn UBL over to a third party nation, or to be tried in Afghani court, and GWB said no"

What folly. Did the Taliban have OBL in custody?
I don't think so.
More like OBL had the Taliban strings.

Let's try this.

We're still at war in '08, Hillary or ? becomes president and OBL is in Pakistan.
Does the Hillary administration order an invasion of northern Pakistan?
After pulling out of Iraq of course.

"Does the Hillary administration order an invasion of northern Pakistan?"

That will depend on (a) the number of Smurfs in her cabinet, and (b) whether GWB is able to capture or Smurf UBL before the November '06 mid term elections.