http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/25/4700.aspx From Elizabeth Wilner, Mark Murray, Huma Zaidi, and Jennifer ColbyForty-three days until election day...  Having determined that fighting terrorism remains their party's best issue, the Bush Administration has worked strenuously over the past severalen-USCommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60608.1)http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/25/4700.aspx#4706Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:10:23 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:4706Nancy Kaplan, West Bloomfield, MichiganWhy do you describe President Clinton's comments on FOX as "strident"? Look it up in a dictionary! "Strident" is a negative, judgmental adjective. How about "strong" or "passionate"? President Clinton's comments can easily be fact-checked - are you planning to do that? It was Bush who discontinued the unmanned Predator drones over Afghanistan to find Bin Laden in early 2000 because the Pentagon and the CIA couldn't agree on who would pay for it! It was Bush who ignored a PDB that warned Bin Laden was intent on striking on US soil. It was Bush who spent his August 2000 vacation relaxing while Richard Clarke and others continued to warn of impending disaster.When was the last time you or any mainstream media outlet described President Bush's rhetoric as "strident"? I don't remember seeing that word used to describe even his most over-the-top comments. Please don't buy the GOP talking point about President CLinton "losing it" - this is how they try to characterize anyone who expresses outrage at their lies and obfuscations. Cf. what they did to Sen. McCain in South Carolina in 2000.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/25/4700.aspx#4707Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:27:45 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:4707Brandon Makoroff, Los Angeles, CalifThe Republicans keep trying to tell us that when the Democrates get into office the government will be stalled because of all the supenas that will be issued. What did they do when they thought that they would be able to impeach Clinton for lying about Monica. Why haven't they started something on Bush when it has been shown that he has lied to us and taken us into a War that we should not be in. Since he has done that he has lost more people then was lost in the World Trade Center. Please explain to me why Congress can do nothing until just before the November elections and then they rush to have all of the bills passed. Oh I forgot they are running for reelection.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/25/4700.aspx#4708Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:29:55 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:4708Mike Howell, Newton, MassachusettsFirst Read is generally pretty even-handed, but I second Nancy Kaplan's umbrage at characterizing Mr. Clinton's response as "strident." How could you have bought into such an obvious spin that was designed to divert attention from the facts and give phoney credence to the Republican canard that Bin Laden being at large is somehow Clinton's fault despite the fact that Bush has been president since 2000?http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/25/4700.aspx#4710Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:57:11 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:4710Cory HaberFirst Read,I must agree with Ms.Kaplan."strident" was an incorrect word to use .Personally,I beleive President Clinton acted admirably.He said what we have been saying for awhile.Chris Wallace you should be ashamed to shill for Fox news.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/25/4700.aspx#4713Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:24:31 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:4713Lee Steele YEAH!!! Bill Clinton! FINALLY, naitonal TV gets to hear a little TRUTH about Osama Bin Laden! I don't know how you kept yourself from leaning over and wiping that stupid, arrogant know-it-all smirk right off his Jr. Chimp face. The Republicans are not only dragging America through an uneccessary nightmare, they're lying though their teeth and spinning stories like tops, and we NEVER heard that point made until Bill Clinton got "strident." Go ahead and make the story about "strident" - MSM will do it's job inspite of itself because the TRUTH WAS HEARD! And on FOX! I never saw that coming. Chickhawk talk and tough guy cowards - all we ever got. Thanks again, Mr. President.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/25/4700.aspx#4715Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:25:38 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:4715John Di GiambattistaIt is less than very poor journalism for a major US news agency to be so subjective in reporting as NBC First Read has been when using "strident" in describing Clinton's reaction ro Chris Wallace's comments regarding bin Laden's attack on the WTC as his folly. This is an obvious attempt in Karl Rove's quest to rewrite History. Shamem to Fox, Wallace and First Read.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/25/4700.aspx#4721Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:28:56 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:4721B. Honest, Portland OregonWas it not President Clinton that actually led the first attacks on Osama bin Laden, al Qaida and the Taliban by launching a rather large wave of Tomahawk cruise missiles at the training bases and places believed to be the home of Osama after the bombings in Africa were checked out and verified to be the work of al Qaida? The 'Right Wingers' threw fits about that as going against established diplomatic proceedures for his 'unilateral actions'. Now these same 'Right Wingers' are trying to smear him saying that he was ineffectual, and trying to blame him for the whole lack of attention to the terrorists that actually happened on Bush's watch. Pres. Clinton was forthright and within his rights to get upset and try to set the record straight in the face of a nationally aired, blatant smear campaign by Chris Wallace and the far right leaning Fox news apparatus. It would be very easy to think that the specific questions were given to Mr Wallace by Karl Rove himself. I think that Pres Clinton handled himself rather well in the face of the smug and loaded question asked of him and Did ask very pertinant questions back of Mr. Wallace, who then had to backpedal and could not come up with any sort of reasonable answer. The Republicans are obviously trying to smear Clinton because he was a competent, effective President that did his job without trying to override the Constitution and civil rights while their incompetent President Bush who has been Totally ineffective in the 'War on Terrorism' in that there are Many Many more terrorists out there now. This administration has ridden roughshod over the constitution and has trashed our civil rights in this ineffectual attempt to fight the 'War on Terrorism'. The NIE information released recently states that present policies have actually Created more terrorists and that we are Not as safe as Bush and his crones are making out. Trying to divert attention from failed policy and trying to pin the blame on President Clinton are just more of the dishonest propaganda coming from the 'Far-Right Wingers' and I do not think that the majority of Americans are really fooled.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/25/4700.aspx#4722Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:33:26 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:4722Mark Check, Greensburg, PAClinton lost it? No way, as usual Fox News and other media outlets have it wrong. Actually, Clinton finally spoke up and defended himself from the inacuracies and distortions the Republicans have been slinging his way for years. President Clinton is not about to stand by and allow his history as President to be distorted so that President Bush's can be embellished. President Clinton was right- Mr. Bush had eight months and was given the best man on terrorism to work with- Richard Clark. They ignored him,demoted him and ignored the threats to America.President Bush is very much accountable for 9/11- period. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/25/4700.aspx#4724Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:35:11 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:4724Ann J Utica NYYEAH! YEAH! YEAH! I agree with all of the above comments. The press are all Lapdogs to The Bush Administration.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/25/4700.aspx#4725Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:37:56 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:4725Scott Turner, Salt Lake City, UTMr. Bin Laden himself clarified the connection of Iraq to the war on terror when he said: "I now address the whole Islamic nation. Listen and understand. The most serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War that is raging in Iraq." Iran recognizes this as well. Their desire is to establish an Islamic state that runs from Eastern Asia to England, whose capitol is in ancient Babylon (which is modern-day Iraq). It seems that our enemies recongize the seriousness of Iraq better than we do. Bin Laden is calling it the Third World War. It's time we stop playing politics with this war and get busy winning it. Visit this link for more on this: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/06/gb.01.htmlhttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/25/4700.aspx#4726Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:57:02 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:4726Ron Stevens, Bay SHore, NYTO CHRIS WALLACE: OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE NOT A JOURNALIST. FOX: FAIR & IMPARTIAL- HAH! JUST KEEP THIS IN MIND COME ELECTION DAY: DURING THE 2 BOMBINGS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER: 1993 & 2001, WHICH PRESIDENT HAD THE PERPETRATORS FOUND, TRIED, AND LOCKED UP. THE BLIND SHIEK LOCKED UP TO ROT = CLINTON. OSAMA BIN LADEN STILL ON THE LOOSE 5 YEARS LATER= DUH, THAT'S BUSH!!!http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/25/4700.aspx#4727Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:59:50 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:4727F. Lang, Palmdale, CAHow long will the media blame Mr. Clinton for all of Bush's lies, inadequacies, stupidity, stubborness, cronyism, etc., while giving Bush a pass? Is ALL media controlled by the Republican party? Is no one honest? Why is there no special prosecutor investigating all the Bush lies? All voters need to get to the polls in November and eliminate the Republican dominance. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/25/4700.aspx#4728Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:12:26 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:4728Dr. Bob Carpenter, Denver, COFace it, Chris Wallace is a faux Mike Wallace, just as Fox News is a bully pulpit for bullies, pretending to present "news." Clinton was suckered again. Nonetheless, in all the sputtering we hear the still small voice of Reality. Bush II is a disaster and this nation will be paying for it for a long time, assuming we have that long. I hope Chris enjoys cashing his next paycheck. It is covered with American blood. Lord have mercy. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/25/4700.aspx#4734Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:28:27 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:4734W S ClarkAll I can say about Clinton's appearance on Faux News - can we please revoke the Constitutional Admendment and allow this great man to serve a THIRD term. He has my vote, then and now. Clinton has proven his ability to clean up the messes he has found in the Bushes. We need him now more than ever. BTW - Chris Wallace could not carry his father's briefcase.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/25/4700.aspx#4735Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:50:24 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:4735Olivia Elizabeth Burdon, Peoria, Ill.Discussion of the word "strident" reminds me of the "Lawyer's Law" I read some time ago: "When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. When both are against you, argue semantics."http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/25/4700.aspx#4739Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:22:29 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:4739John J. St. Augustine Fl.Thjs blog has always leaned to the Right. It's about time somebody said something to remind First Read that the Left hasn't left. They are still here in large numbers, and will speak with our Vote. Thank you President Clinton for speaking the TRUTH. That's something that is sorely missed today. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/25/4700.aspx#4751Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:19:37 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:4751Jane, Southern MississippiPresident Clinton could run again, couldn't he? He just cannot serve more than two consecutuve terms, right? I'd vote for him. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/25/4700.aspx#4752Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:39:08 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:4752Joe Gladden; White Bear Lake, MN "I love Keith Olbermann"...it's as simple as that. Where previously Democrats have not been able to find the "sweet spot" in their collective message for combating the Republican fear tactics and terrorism rhetoric, I must credit Keith, our very own modern day Edward R. Murrow, for rekindling that spark in the collective American consciousness which may actually help Democrats regain control of at least The House in Nov. and perhaps even the Senate. Regardless if the "mainstream media" likes the wording Keith used or not, the sad reality for us all is that we are dealing with either one of two things in the White House -- Outright Lies and distortions about who owns responsibility for 9/11 and/or Utter Ineptitude when it came to their ability to combat terrorism. Either way you slice it, it isn't something Americans should want to condone (or reelect) regardless of their party affiliation. George W. Bush, in the months after 9/11, did NOTHING to try and stop Osama Bin Ladin and prevent the 9/11 attacks. It's about time somebody with the public's ear called a spade a spade. Thank you Keith from the bottom of ourhearts, and thank you President Clinton...how wonderful it would be to have you back again. "Behold, Oh Partisan Republican Mariners.... Your Party's Albatross sits in the Oval Office". http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/25/4700.aspx#4753Tue, 26 Sep 2006 04:05:10 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:4753Jane, Southern MississippiI wish the Democrats WOULD use terrorism as their primary issue. It's way worse now than in the past. President Clinton did go after Bin Laden, and the Republicans that controlled Congress complained that it was a smoke screen against the trial of the stained dress. Our going into Iraq has only increased the number of people willing to use terror against us and the the free world. Why do the Reublicans think they would win using terrorism in their platform? Certainly not their track record. And I'm sick to death of their always saying how awful it would be if the Democrats controlled things. I ask you this: how could it be any worse than it's been under the Republican watch? We were attacked on 9/11 on Bush's watch after Bush had been warned of a possible attack from Bin Laden. Bush and his "people" of course didn't listen. They are so very arrogant and lacking in wisdom that they will not seek the wisdom of those before. Bush will not listen to his dad, George I, or Colin Powell, both who had considerable insight into the workings of Iraq. (Remember the first Gulf War?) He would not listen to the many generals who told him they would need thousands and thousands and thousands more troops if they did go into Iraq. This was after we all blindly believed that our President would not stoop so low as to actually lie about the reason for going into war. We believed that he was telling us the truth, especially when he had Colin Powell deliver the message, since Powell had not signed on at first. We were stupid to actually believe that this president was speaking the truth, especially since he and Cheney had decided (I guess they both were the "deciders.") to go into Iraq soon after George II was annointed, I mean appointed, by the Supreme Court. This administration is so corrupt in so many ways, and I am saddened that they actually hide behind a cloak of religion to justify everything they have done and continue to do. How many American soldiers have to die and how many billions of dollars must go to rebuild Iraq and Lebanon, while our own country has not rebuilt. How many illegal aliens will it take to make George II happy? How many jobs outsouced to other countries will make him happy? How many more days without securing our borders and ports will make him happy? Everything has to be HIS way, or the HIGHWAY, except it his way is certainly not the high way, but the most LOW-DOWN way. And the Republicans HATE Clinton, why I don't know. They hated him just because he was a Democrat and people liked him and elected him president. They hate him because he did a good job, I guess. When he was president, he actually did try to unite by reaching across party lines, even if not appreciated by the party elite. The American people appreciated it and elected him by a larger margin than Bush "won" either time. Clinton could have used his "political currency" if the Democrats had been in power of the Congress. However, I don't think he would have. He seemed genuinely concerned for the people of the United States. Bush doesn't seem concerned for the good of his people.