The Day Bill Clinton Stopped Turning His Cheek

It was shortly after ABC television ran an obscenely political movie which – in my opinion – was produced with the sole intention of placing the blame for the 911 attacks on Clinton.

This interview took place after Clinton had been eviscerated – for over a decade – by Rush Limbaugh and a plethora of other radio hosts and at least one “religious leader” who produced a video tape saying he killed hundreds of people; including one of his friends.

If there had been any truth to any one of those claims, you would think they would have gone after him for murder instead of a blow-job.

After happening upon these two videos – in light of Rupert Murdoch’s recent problems – , I just couldn’t hold myself back.


Part I

Part II

In regards to Chris Wallace:

Like father; Unlike son.

  1. #1 by Cliff Lyon on July 23, 2011 - 8:38 am

    WOW! Larry. What an ASS KICKING! I’d forgotten about this one. Thanks for posting.

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on July 23, 2011 - 10:14 am

    Cyrus Nowrasteh’s fictionalized account “The Path to 9/11” (2006) wasn’t as much a hit job on President Clinton as a litany of purported excuses for President Bush. It will never be forgotten that the worst terrorist attack in history occurred on Bush’s watch. The docudrama was so political they couldn’t get any commercial sponsors for it. It was never released on DVD.

    Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste said that the miniseries misrepresented facts presented in the 9/11 Commission report. The miniseries even neglected to mention that Bush stayed on vacation after they got information about an impending al-Qaeda attack on the USA involving airplanes.

  3. #3 by Larry Bergan on July 23, 2011 - 4:14 pm

    Yeah, Cliff. I hadn’t seen the entire video until yesterday and I was stunned to see Clinton actually lose his temper. He was known for keeping-it-together under enormous, politically motivated, pressure from his detractors every day of his presidency.

  4. #4 by Larry Bergan on July 23, 2011 - 4:19 pm

    The producers -if you call them that – of that movie must have realized that they probably wouldn’t make any money off a DVD. It was a terrible movie on every level; proving, once again, the republicans have no artistic talent.

  5. #5 by Larry Bergan on July 23, 2011 - 4:21 pm

    I wonder what Chris Wallace’s dad thought about his sons “journalistic” career. What a little snot.

  6. #6 by brewski on July 23, 2011 - 7:19 pm

    I see no ass-kicking of any kind. I see a legitimate question on one hand and a defense with some valid points and holes on the other side.

    Where Clinton loses the argument is where he goes on about Fox News and what questions they ask of whom. If that is his sole point then Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer need to ask all the same questions with the same tone of all politicians as they do of Republicans. Of course they don’t , but I don’t see Slick Willy wagging his self-centered ego-maniac finger at them.

    At the end of the day, this interview made Willy look like a very small man.

  7. #7 by Larry Bergan on July 23, 2011 - 9:38 pm

    Yeah, right brewski; when democrats stand up for themselves with the truth, they’re “small men”, but when republicans defend their lies acting like children throwing a temper tantrum, they’re being “bold” and “strong”.

    You’ve been watching Fox “news” too long.

  8. #8 by brewski on July 23, 2011 - 10:48 pm

    Bullshit. The questions Wallace asked were in no way more tough than any given Republican gets all the time on other networks. I didn’t see Palin throw a temper tantrum at Charlie Gibson’s face when he asked her questions that he didn’t ask of Obama or Hillary. So his hissy fit was that of an egomaniac who is so used to telling people what to do he can’t take one tough question. The funny thing was that in his answer he actually did say “No, I didn’t do enough, we didn’t get him.” Which is all he needed to say. In other words, “yes, in 20/20 hindsight, we should have done more.”

    So yes, his reaction was “small”.

  9. #9 by Larry Bergan on July 23, 2011 - 11:19 pm

    Yeah brewski, and don’t forget that Richard Clark was the one to say “we failed you” in congressional hearings. That’s the difference between republicans and democrats; when an apology is proper democrats will respond. Clinton has apologized on numerous occasions. It’s a sign of honor.

    The only way you’d EVER get an apology out of a republican is to water-board him: YES, I”M SORRY, I DID IT! I DID IT!

    The other networks bow to Democrats? Give me a break! How old were you when ALL of the networks were kicking Clinton around like a dog and having the time of their lives? “He lied” was the mantra, but when Bush stole the office the L word was off limits, no-matter what lie-for-profit was told.


  10. #10 by brewski on July 24, 2011 - 12:12 am

    The question is whether or not Wallace asked a fair question or not. The answer is yes it was a fair question. Period.

    The question is did Clinton get nutty paranoid about him being asked that question while others did not? Yes, he got nutty paranoid.

    Larry, name the the last time ANY major market newspaper endorsed a GOP for President? Name one…….

    As for the Lewinski affair and the press’ treatment. The press loves any salacious story, so Clinton brought this upon himself. And it wasn’t as though that was Willy’s first ethical lapse. Willy had his law license suspended for pete’s sake.

  11. #11 by Larry Bergan on July 24, 2011 - 5:27 pm


    Chris Wallace didn’t even have the guts to personally ask the question. He used the old worn out Fox “news” tactic of saying “we’ve been getting of lot of E-mails” wanting you to answer this question.

    It wasn’t just the ABC movie that was distorting the facts; there was a concerted effort by Fox, using Hannity and others to constantly blame Clinton for not doing enough to stop Bin Laden. at the time, Bush was saying he didn’t even care about getting Bin Laden and you wonder why Clinton gets angry.

    I just don’t know what to say.

    Actually, I do know what to say: always trust a man who admits his mistakes and never trust someone who never admits to a mistake.

  12. #12 by Larry Bergan on July 24, 2011 - 5:30 pm

    The major paper around here is The Salt Lake Tribune and they endorsed Bush for president after four years of destroying the thing he took an oath to protect.

  13. #13 by james farmer on July 24, 2011 - 5:52 pm

    America would do well to have Clinton in the White House again.

  14. #14 by brewski on July 24, 2011 - 5:59 pm

    I said “major market”. Salt Lake does not count.

  15. #15 by brewski on July 24, 2011 - 6:03 pm

    James, I can see why you like Clinton. He provided full employment for the defense bar:

    – Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
    – Number of these convictions during Clinton’s presidency: 33
    – Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
    – Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122
    – Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
    – First president to establish a legal defense fund.
    – First president to be held in contempt of court
    – Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
    – Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
    – First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

  16. #16 by Larry Bergan on July 24, 2011 - 6:58 pm


    Did you assemble that list yourself or do you have a link?

    Clinton had to go under oath for his blow job, but Bush and his buddies NEVER had to go under oath. Karl Rove didn’t even show up when he was subpoenaed and faced no punishment for that in the media or the courts.

    Amazing what you can get away with when you pack the courts for decades

    Are you familiar with governor Don Siegelman’s imprisonment? Believe me: even this “Sixty Minutes” report completely missed the reason he was actually imprisoned, but all roads lead to Karl Rove and election fraud.

    If you care about election fraud, I can fill you in.

  17. #17 by brewski on July 24, 2011 - 7:08 pm

    From “The Progressive Review”

  18. #18 by Larry Bergan on July 24, 2011 - 7:18 pm

    “The Progressive Review”? 🙂

    Shouldn’t they change the name to “The Clinton Machine Review”? I can understand why you didn’t originally provide the link, but nice try.

    Maybe you can tell me why all those myriad of liberal news organizations never told us about governor Don Siegelman’s imprisonment?

  19. #19 by james farmer on July 24, 2011 - 7:24 pm

    brew: Why don’t you just admit your life was better under Clinton than the eight years of Bush failure and the subsequent economic crisis his presidency created?

  20. #20 by Larry Bergan on July 24, 2011 - 7:38 pm


    brewski seems to have made a lot of money when Bush was president. There can be no other reason for his admiration.

  21. #21 by brewski on July 24, 2011 - 8:20 pm

    The Clinton years were a bubble which crashed 9 months before W took office. So much for your numerical analysis acumen.

  22. #22 by Larry Bergan on July 24, 2011 - 8:26 pm


    Your “chart” is a squiggly line with no information.

    Charts are supposed to be based on at least two factors which are clearly represented.

  23. #23 by brewski on July 24, 2011 - 8:31 pm

    The Y axis is the P/E ratio of the S&P 500.
    The X axis is years.

    So as you can see, long before W took office there was a huge asset bubble which crashed.

    I have no idea what the S&P 500 asset bubble has to do with Don Siegelman.

  24. #24 by Larry Bergan on July 24, 2011 - 8:33 pm

    Your last line is Gibberish! Illuminate me.

  25. #25 by brewski on July 24, 2011 - 8:46 pm

    I have been documenting how Clinton was an ethical banana slug and how the economy during his time was a bubble and crashed 9 months before W took office. This is not defending W or supporting W in any way. But you blind partisans can’t see the difference between verifiable data and cult of personality worship. For some reason, others injected the discussion of Don Siegelman into this conversation when he has nothing to do with this.

  26. #26 by Larry Bergan on July 24, 2011 - 8:54 pm

    brewski said:

    For some reason, others injected the discussion of Don Siegelman into this conversation when he has nothing to do with this.

    I’m a strong advocate of comments being introduced which are off subject, but important. Nobody on this site has prevented your proclivity to do that, (even when your comments were designed to deflect the conversation away from reason). Why would you try to make an argument against me doing that on my own post?

  27. #27 by Larry Bergan on July 24, 2011 - 11:49 pm

    Totally off topic:

    Check this out!

  28. #28 by brewski on July 24, 2011 - 11:49 pm

    OK, you can link Don Siegelman to Willy’s crimes all you want.

  29. #29 by Larry Bergan on July 24, 2011 - 11:55 pm

    I don’t know why, but you will notice brewski’s and my comments appeared at exactly the same minute.

    There may be a God!

  30. #30 by Larry Bergan on July 24, 2011 - 11:59 pm

    I swear to you! I didn’t plan this! I have no way to plan this.

    Beautiful picture though.

  31. #31 by james farmer on July 25, 2011 - 1:08 am

    Kind of like the final episode of Lost? 😉

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: