'He Just Went Off'

posted: Sat - September 23, 2006 at 01:24 PM       j$p  send 

Daniel
Keith Olbermann/MSNBC claims Clinton was sand-bagged in this interview and he (KO) didn't even see it. It looks like Wallace was the one who was 'attacked'. Sheesh, and these are the tough-on-terror guys? 
 
I mean if 'Mister' Bush (Keith Olbermann's preferred salutation for the leader of the free world. yet he calls Clinton President Clinton, six years later) came unhinged like that the left would surely guffaw and demand the guy be removed from office in a straight jacket.
 
The ABC docu-drama was excellent and I was wondering when the fallout was going to begin from an astounding production put out mind you, by the MSM. I think 'Mister' Clinton has unwittingly gotten the ball rolling.
 
Yay!
September 23, 2006, 5:16:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

warren
i think that slick willy doth protest too much. chris wallace traps him with the truth and willy starts lying.
September 23, 2006, 5:19:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

Fox Fan
I saw part of the video on Drudge. It should be a good watch in full. 
 
Good post Daniel! The only thing that sucked about the ABC docudrama is that they pulled 20 minutes of film to appease the crying Clintons and other leftists who couldn't have their idol smeared.
September 23, 2006, 6:31:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

BushIsOurRuination
Wallace stated he had an equal number of questions on both topics, and was going to wrap the interview by returning to the CGI. YOU say, oh he only did that because he was "shamed" into it. Based on what, your psychic powers? Even CLINTON didn't claim what you claim!
 
You're calling Chris Wallace a liar based on nothing but your loathing. Another two minutes of hate from the newshounds.
johnny dollar | Homepage | 09.25.06 - 8:54 am | #
 
johnny dollar | Homepage | 09.25.06 - 8:54 am |
----->>>
 
Hey Johnny - not "based on psychic powers"... based on common sense. Ooopsie, we got off topic, couldn't get to those CGI questions - out of time. Sorry.
 
Only four minutes in, and this cancervative cretin, smirking, smarmy, DISRESPRCTFUL IN THE EXTREME, [expletives deleted] - "Junior" (Wallace) started in on his BLATANT hit job. Only Clinton was way too smart for this cancervative cretin, Wallace, and exposed him for the [expletives deleted] that he is... Idiot, Wallace - smirking embarrassingly like the Commander and Chimp, was nothing short of pathetic, and Clinton [expletives deleted] him. I was embarrassed (almost) for the smirking and unprofessional cancervative cretin...
 
And yes, I agree with the observation - which was [expletives deleted]... "I didn't want to ask you about this stuff, (say it in a sing-song voice, now) it was our AUDIENCE, you see...
 
Oh please!!! [expletives deleted] and pathetic...
 
Now let me demolish YOUR glaring lack of logic...
 
1. You said Wallace had an equal number of questions on both topics, and was going to wrap the interview by returning to the CGI.
 
Do you know this for a fact? Did you see the list??? How do you know? Do you have psychic powers? Two minutes of Fox [expletives deleted] from Johnny Dollar...
 
And please don't say, "I know because Chris Wallace said so..." and further embarrass yourself...
 
This was an "attempt" at an amaturish, bungled, and back-fired badly, disrespectful Fox News hit-job on a former POTUS. Disgusting... Except Clinton made Wallace - and Fox, look like [expletives deleted].
 
If you can't see that, you need to go back to preschool and get one of those books where you connect the dots to form a shape. Practice figuring out what the shape is before you've connected all the dots...

Edited By Siteowner
September 25, 2006, 10:13:13 AM EDT – Like – Reply

---

johnny dollar
BIOR, your profanity-laced tirade should, under our rules, have just been summarily deleted. But since it's your first time posting here, to my recollection, I cut you some slack and did some judicious editing. In the future, if you can't follow the simple rules for posting you will be treated like everyone else.
 
For those who can't figure out what BIOR is talking about, he is responding to a comment I posted over at the newspoodles. In fact, BIOR has done us a favor. Since the "tolerant" newsmutts quickly deleted my post over there, BIOR has preserved it here, where we don't censor differing viewpoints.
 
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, even though it is based on zero facts, evidence, or data. But that's what I expect from the kennel dwellers.
 
Thank you for your comment.
September 25, 2006, 10:20:39 AM EDT – Like – Reply

---

BushIsOurRuination
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, even though it is based on zero facts, evidence, or data. But that's what I expect from the kennel dwellers.
--
 
You mean just like YOUR assertion of what Chris Wallace "WAS GUNNA DO" was based on ZERO facts, evidence, or data, since you didn't SEE THE LIST???? 
 
Such absolutley laughable, LAUGHABLE glaring logic gaffes is exactly what I would expect from uber-cancervative idiot, Johnny "Fox News' Sturm Abteilung" Dollar...
 
It's cancervative idiot "performance art", right??? Right???
September 25, 2006, 11:16:18 AM EDT – Like – Reply

---

johnny dollar
Sorry, but Chris Wallace says he had a list with 5 questions on CGI, 5 questions on other topics. I haven't seen the list (he offered to show it to Clinton), but his statement that he had it IS evidence. In a courtroom that would be called "testimony". And testimony is evidence. People have been sent to jail for life on the basis of such evidence.
 
Now where is the evidence that Wallace had no such list? The evidence that he is lying? Um, there isn't any. Only name-calling. And that is also what I expect from the kennel-dwellers.
September 25, 2006, 11:22:59 AM EDT – Like – Reply

---

BG
Really Johnny??? Testimony IS THE SAME THING AS evidence??? They're one in the same??? Is this how things work on cancervative idiot bizarro-world???
--------
tes·ti·mo·ny (tĕs'tə-mō'nē) 
n., pl. -nies.
 
A declaration by a witness under oath, as that given before a court or deliberative body.
------------------------------
 
ev·i·dence (ĕv'ĭ-dəns) 
n.
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
---------------------------------
 
Geez, they're not even synonyms here in reality --- are they synonyms in cancervative idiot bizarro-world??? 
 
Geez... I don't recall Wallace "giving testomony"... when did he take the oath??? Or did I miss that part??? 
 
Where's the EVIDENCE that Wallace had such a list as he claims???? Odd that he launced into his ineffective attack 4 minutes in...
 
Very, very funny, Jawwwny...
 
Swear, cancervative idiots are great at "performance art"... very entertaining. However, 
 
Governance? Horrible... disasterous
Voter suppression - another skill...
September 25, 2006, 2:40:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

johnny dollar
You really have a problem reading. I type that a statement is what in court would be considered "evidence", and you insist that they're not "synonyms". No kidding.
 
Statements are ALWAYS considered evidence. You have obviously never practiced law, or worked in law enforcement. When a detective takes a statement about a crime--that's EVIDENCE. Duh.
 
Where's the EVIDENCE that Wallace had the list? He held it in his hand. He reported that he had it. That's evidence. You may not like it, you may not believe it, that's your prerogative. But such a statement IS evidence, as any rookie cadet in the Police Academy could tell you.
 
Now the better question is, where's the evidence that there was no such list? Exactly who is claiming this? Wallace? No. Clinton? No. Anybody who was there? No.
 
Ergo, there is evidence for what Wallace says, and ZERO evidence for what you say. Therefore you are wrong. Q.E.D.
September 25, 2006, 2:56:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

BG
Hahahaah... 
 
Wallace said he had a list... (Oh, yes, that plus he held a piece of paper in his hand...) That's it, case closed. That's all the "evidence" that you need that Wallace's interview was fair-n-balanced, and not a Fox News cancervative attempt at a hit job on Clinton (which any fool who watched the interview can plainly see that it was...)
 
Your position is perposterous! Priceless! 
 
Guess that's all the "evidence" you need if you're a cancervative idiot defending another cancervative idiot.
Strange, this place... cancervative bizarro-world.
 
Cancervative performance art... it's the best! Keep the lunacy rollin'! Hysterical! 
 
No wonder you fall prey to all those strawman arguments, assorted logical fallacies, and "The Cavuto" on Fox and cancervative idiot AM hate-jock radio... eh?
September 25, 2006, 5:05:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

johnny dollar
it's more evidence than you have that he didn't have such a list.
 
But that's OK. I don't expect haters to be big on reason or logic.
September 25, 2006, 5:10:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

BG
Doesn't matter if he had a list, Jawwny. The BIG PICTURE (something you "have issues" with...) is what was Wallace's intent?
 
CLEARLY, his intent was a hatchet job on Clinton... as any fool (except a cancervative fool) can plainly see...
 
But it's okay to interrupt a former POTUS on Fox 500 thousand times (did that piece of garbage, Druge reference that?), if said POTUS was a Democrat... The disrespect this hack showed Clinton was disgusting.
 
And, geez, why aren't they so tough on the president and vice president - eh? What not ask Bush how /he/ failed to capture OBL AFTER 911??? 
 
Or is it this piece of cancervative propaganda posing as a cable news station isn't so interested in "Truth"...
 
... just advancing the agenda, just like the worthless piece of garbage propaganda outlet that it OBVIOUSLY is... 
 
Well "mission accomplished" for Clinton anyhow... Same cancervative idiots and partisan hacks who resisted and criticized Clinton for trying to kill OBL /BEFORE/ 911 and the same POS cancervative idiots NOW saying Clinton didn't do enough...
 
And BEFORE 911, and DESPITE cancervative resistance, no one has come closer to killing OBL than Clinton... 
 
How do cancervative idiots live with their own hypocracy????
September 25, 2006, 6:46:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

OverHere
Well BG, I'm not sure how anyone lives with "hypocracy," since that's not a word. Don't believe me? Look for it at dictionary.com.
 
BIOR, you clearly know nothing about the law. When a Judge charges the Jury, they are told to "consider all of the evidence presented, whether from the witness stand (i.e. TESTIMONY) or through physical evidence produced in court." In a court of law, testimony can have just as much weight as actually seeing something with your own eyes. I have several clients who are sitting in jail now because of TESTIMONY. So next time you want to make an argument, do a bit of research first. I know you Newsmutts devotees have trouble with those messy things called facts, but give it a try! It might open up a whole new world for you.
 
And you might want to look at Slick Willy's reaction when Tim Russert asked him almost the same EXACT question. He didn't turn into a madman that time. Why can't you be honest enough to admit what Slick Willy's own camp has admitted? It wasn't the question, it was that it was coming from someone who works for FNC. Someone, I might add, who has a LONG and distinguished history of asking tough questions of ALL sides, and who doesn't toe anyone's party line.
September 26, 2006, 9:19:42 AM EDT – Like – Reply

---

BG
Well BG, I'm not sure how anyone lives with "hypocracy," since that's not a word
----------
 
- Reduced to pointing out typos and misspellings, Jawwwny? Is that all ya' got? 
 
BIOR, you clearly know nothing about the law. 
---------------
- Sorry, lil Jawwwny, never did get that "Armchair Lawyer" degree, which cancervative idiots all seem to have ; ) You'll forgive me if I don't take anything an "Armchair Lawyer" has to say about the law seriously, or even bother to read it.
September 26, 2006, 12:24:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

OverHere
BG, I'm not Johnny. I am also not an armchair lawyer, as I have a JD degree from a fully accredited Law School and have been a criminal defense attorney (public defender) for over 10 years now.
 
Try again.
September 26, 2006, 1:12:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

BG
Sorry, when I read a post and it appears that we're heading into "Armchair Lawyer" territory, I generally don't waste my time and bail... 
 
Okay, I'll play along... you're not lil Jawwwny, and you're a real and for true criminal defense lawyer...
 
Back to topic...
 
You're then agreeing with Jawwwny that because Wallace alleges to "have a list" - that this statement is the equivalent of "testimony" from Wallace, and this is therefore "evidence" that his interview was intended to be "fair-n-ballanced", and not a hatchet job???? 
 
Donchya think that's a wee bit thin, Counselor? Beyond thin, I think it a laughable and perposterous stretch legal definitions and symantics aside.
 
My "testimony" evidenced by what I saw - and what any fool could plainly see, regardless of the claim Wallace that he "had a list" (rolls eyes) is this was a hatchet job, and a pretty disrespectful and unprofessional one at that...
September 26, 2006, 2:16:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

OverHere
BG, whether Wallace's "evidence" as you put it was thin or not, that was his claim. Are you familiar with what happens in a court of law? Witnesses and/or alleged victims TESTIFY about their observations and memory about a certain event. This often includes things such as what were they carrying, wearing, or doing at a particular moment. Are you saying Chris Wallace's claim to have a list would not fall into that category? Once a witness says something, it goes into the category of evidence presented at trial and is for the Jury in a Jury trial, or the Judge in a bench trial, to decide its validity and truth. Chris Wallace presented his story, just like a witness would have, so yes that qualifies as "testimony" in my book, and were it a trial, would move to the category of "evidence" once presented. You don't want me to get into the evidence rules that would determine whether the actual list would be entered, trust me...
 
Either way, was it a hatchet job when Tim Russert asked the SAME QUESTION? So whether it's a hatchet job is dependant on where it comes from?
 
The only unprofessional and disrespectful behavior I saw came from former President Clinton. He overreacted. Plain and simple. He didn't like the person/network asking the question, so he launched into attack mode and made wild accusations. Again, watch the video of Tim Russert asking the same question on "Meet the Press" and see former President Clinton's reaction there. It's pretty clear who holds the bias.
September 26, 2006, 4:31:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

BG
The only unprofessional and disrespectful behavior I saw came from former President Clinton. He overreacted.
----------
 
Disagree, Wallace interrupted Clinton - wouldn't let him finish his answer to the extent it was disrespectful. And that "smirk" has got to go. This is not how members of the current administration are interviewed. And, it's a pretty common Fox technique, especially from Hannity when he's in "did you stop beating your wife - yes or no" mode. 
 
Rashomon - what I saw, was an attempted hatched job by a partisan interviewer on a partisan station. Different environment between Meet the Press and Fox, so the interviewee handled it differently. You perceived this another way.
 
I will not concede - regardless of attempts muddy the issue with nuances of legal terms and defs, that because Wallace claims to have "a list", that this means the interview was or was intended to be "fair-n-balanced". 
 
This I consider perposterous on its face. 
 
That's my testimony...
September 26, 2006, 5:02:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

OverHere
BG, one of the wonderful things about the country we live in is that we are all free to disagree. You asked me for my opinion and I offered it. I respect your right to hold yours. Something I'm afraid many people on your side of the aisle do not do.
September 26, 2006, 5:47:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

BushIsOurRuination
Something I'm afraid many people on your side of the aisle do not do.
---
 
Oh please...
September 26, 2006, 9:01:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

OverHere
I'd expect that from you BIOR, since you are a minion of the Newsmutts. They're the worst offenders. They don't even allow dissenting comments to remain on their Web site.
September 26, 2006, 9:42:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

Fox Fan
Clinton emotionally overreacted to a question he could have twisted into a pro-democrat theme with his "magic tongue" liberals fawn over.
 
Condi tells it like it is and backs it up with facts- many of Clinton's claims were "flat out lies".
 
End of story.
September 27, 2006, 9:22:03 AM EDT – Like – Reply

---

BG
I'd expect that from you BIOR, since you are a minion of the Newsmutts. They're the worst offenders. They don't even allow dissenting comments to remain on their Web site.
OverHere | 09.26.06 - 9:47 pm | # 
----------
 
First off, you made a ridiculous comment, as if people on /your/ side of the isle aren't equally guilty - if not more so...
 
Secondly, try this. Go over to Freepers, and post a respecful dissenting opinion or criticism of Bush or the GOP... G'wan try it... 
 
Bizarro-world is more bizarre than I thought.
September 27, 2006, 9:57:20 AM EDT – Like – Reply

---

BG
Clinton emotionally overreacted 
Fox Fan | 09.27.06 - 9:27 am | # 
---------------
 
Clinton showed some passion. Of course as part of the GOP playbook, if passion is shown you're branded as "over the top and half-nuts" by cancervative AM hate-jock radio, Fox, and the rest of the RW noise machine. Meanwhile, cancervative AM hate-jocks and cancervative idiots like Jean Schmidt go off half-cocked all day long...
 
Besides, this was probably calculated, and Gingrich called it a reasonabley good strategy. 
 
If you want to see a nice (and entertaining) dissection of Wallace/Clinton, take a look at Jon Stewart's take (scroll 2/3rds down page) for this thread, Daily Show Rips Cable News for Clinton Coverage:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/
 
Very entertaining...
 
And when you see the smug, smarmy, smirking cancervative talking s-head, Wallace - too cowardly to even take credit for the question, blaming it on viewers e-mails.... ask of CLINTON, 
 
"...why didn't YOU do more to kill Bin Laden"
 
When five YEARS after 911, Bush has FAILED to capture him... and the cancervative press gives BUSH a pass????? Clinton did a great job making cancervative idiots look even more idiotic.
 
By the way, interesting how that new report just leaked talks about how Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorists, and Bush's policies have made the US and the world demonstrably LESS safe... 
 
Great stratergy, there, cancervative idiots... 
 
Kudos - you're great at using dirty campaigning, "catapulting propaganda", playing the fear card (and in this regard the 911 attacks were the best thing to ever happen to the GOP), and voter suppression to win election... This I'll grant you... 
 
But when it comes to actual governance??? Sweet Jebuz... cancervatives are an abortion. Disasterous, horrible... 
 
Do us a favor. Stick to listening to AM hate-jock radio, bobbing your brainless cancervative bobbleheads to some dope like Lush Limpball, whine about Hillary and Hollywood... 
 
Just, for the love of God, stay the hell out of Washington for the sake of the nation! 
 
Please?
September 27, 2006, 10:16:43 AM EDT – Like – Reply

---

OverHere
BG, where did I deny that it goes on from the right side too? You all talk about the "Freepers," well I don't visit there because it's the kind of closed-minded place that I despise. Those of you who do nothing but bash them spend more time there than anyone I know.
 
Do you think you're funny repeatedly posting "cancervative?" You know what it makes you? Pathetic. Really. Instead of spewing hatred and whining about how bad things are, how about you come up with a plan for how to fix things? Oh wait, then where would you direct all your anger.
September 27, 2006, 11:12:29 AM EDT – Like – Reply

---

BG
how about you come up with a plan for how to fix things? 
 
- Humorous, when the baton was handed to Bush, the US was winning the race. Bush didn't just drop the baton, he started running in the wrong direction. 
 
So now one of the cancervative squaking points is that the Dems have "no plan" to fix the things WE (the cancervatives) BROKE... 
 
So, if you mean how to fix the things broken by the rescumlicons? 
 
Let's do it one step at a time... 
 
Step One, get the cancervatives - who are unfit to lead, out of the House, Senate, and the Oval Office.
 
Step one goes a long way...
 
And for someone who seems to have a low tolerance for assumptions, you assume I spend a lot of time on Freepers... wrong, Sparky. One post, quite respectful, several years ago... Deleted and banned. 
 
As far as the term "Cancervatives" - it fits, so I use it. I consider it a most accurate description. 
 
The US is broken into two factions:
 
1. Cancervative idiots
2. The Normal Majority
September 27, 2006, 2:41:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

Fox Fan
Clinton and BIORsGhost are angry because their admittedly weak on terror party let Bin Laden go multiple times when he was offered to us.
 
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
 
Of course this is after Bin Laden had already committed multiple terror attacks on US targets and claimed responsibility. Some efforts to save American lives, thanks for nothing democratic party.
 
The democratic party is weak on terrorism on every front, not just in its failures regarding Bin Laden. NSA, torture, Iraq policy, pleas to talk with terrorists, I could go on but it is lost on BG and his spineless cohorts.
September 27, 2006, 3:43:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

BG
Reality check "Fox Fan" -
 
1. 911? Bush's watch
2. Five years after 911? OBL free as a bird, 
3. Al Qaida GROWING as a result of cancervative policies...
 
You BET I'm angry. 
 
Sorry for these CLEAR inconvenient truths... I know the "Blame Clinton first crowd"(c) has problems with reality. If only you knew how silly you sound. 
 
And remember - no one came closer to killing OBL than Clinton - BEFORE 911, despite the "wag the dog" criticisms of cancervative idiots who now - laughabley, do what they do best:
 
1. Refuse accountability of their own (in)actions
 
2. Blame Clinton...
September 27, 2006, 4:01:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

OverHere
BG and BIOR, your arguments are so old and tired. *YAWN*
September 27, 2006, 6:17:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

Fox Fan
No kidding OverHere.
 
BTW, BG is BIOR who is BIORsGhost who is BushIsOurRuination.
 
BIORsGhost is one of many misled individuals, brainwashed by his liberal media and his pot; sitting stoned in awe as the "cancervatives" are shown ruining the country on CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and his favorite hangout, the newspoodles.
 
He's quite out of it today, hence his recent posts that include:
****************
"- er, uh,"
"So... um,"
"Nawwww,"
"donchya know. Geez,"
"bizarro-world"
"alternate universe..."
****************
The best part is that it was all in one post!
September 27, 2006, 6:55:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

BG
BG and BIOR, your arguments are so old and tired. *YAWN*
OverHere | 09.27.06 - 6:22 pm | # 
---
 
That's the part of the cancervative playbook used when a simple inconvenient truth surfaces that can't be refuted. The ironically tired - in and of itself cliched "Yawn" post soon ensues by the cancervative idiot. 
 
What I posted were Truths, not "arguments"... Here they are again:
 
- 911 - Bush's watch (not Clinton, he was out of office for 8 months...) Bush (not Clinton) failed to stop it (because Bush was IN office, reading The Pet Goat, and Clinton was no longer president...) 
 
- Five years later? Bush FAILED to capture him. OBL still free, Pres says, "He's not worried about him" in 2002. - think he meant it.
 
- (Another) Recent intelligence doc says Bush policies /increasing/ terrorism!
 
Greate stratergy, there. An anti-terror policy that /increases/ the terror threat. 
 
Is this what constitutes an effective stratergy on cancervative idiot bizarro-world??? 
 
Sorry, still trying to figure this place out...
September 27, 2006, 8:45:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

Fox Fan
Sorry, still trying to figure this place out...
BG
******************
Baby gangster, your "arguments" were not as argumentative as you wish they were.
 
Ooooh, Clinton was out of office for 8 months before 9-11 occurred after his 8 years of presidency that included multiple warnings of Bin Laden's attacks and offerings of his head after successful attacks on US targets..
 
Clinton had 10 times the time allowance and failed to stop Osama before 9-11. I'd say he's 10 times more responsible than Bush.
 
It's too bad democrats support terrorists in every vote.
September 27, 2006, 10:45:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---