Bill Clinton shouts at 9/11 protesters at Hillary fundraiser

Former President Bill Clinton responded aggressively on Tuesday when his speech at a fundraiser for his wife's campaign was interrupted by 9/11 conspiracy protesters.

"A fraud? No, it wasn't a fraud," Clinton said, responding to one of the hecklers as the audience cheered. "I'll be glad to talk to you if you shut up and let me talk." Another protester yelled that the attacks were an "inside job."

"An inside job? How dare you. How dare you. It was not an inside job," Clinton said. "You guys have got to be careful, you're going to give Minnesota a bad reputation."

Watch the video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/26/bill-clinton-shouts-down-_n_70010.html

"How dare you?" Isn't there still freedom of speech? And it isn't as though they are attacking him or Hillary.What is he so defensive about? How dare them or what? I don't like this.

them.

I think his response (and Bill Maher's recent response to a similar group) was fine, because I'm not really into the whole interrupting people concept.

television studio and involved payment for both studio and air time. But this was a private event as well in the sense it was a fundraiser but still the phrase " Hoe dare you" says volumes of unattractive things.The implication is that the protestors have no "right ' to say what they believe and that he is "better than they are.It is also a bit of a threatening phrase.I have no problem with their being escorted out of a private event, I just have a problem with the way they were spoken to. And I don't understand why Clinton seems to be protective of a Bush policy. This wasn't directed toward Climton.I was shocked he didn't make a joke and move on.Why should he care if people think Bush planned 9-11?

It was belittling and crass.I genuinely expected better of him. Why should he belittle those who do not trust Bush?

it is probably the MIHOPers.

And Bill could have handled it better.This is the first time I have ever seen him contemptuous of anyone, and in defense of Bush in actuality.I am very disappointed.

the MIHOPers, and the former president of the united states, I guess
I am surprised that the only worthy fault that you found was named
"clinton".

(and he was extraordinarily contemptuous of britt hume after a pointed
question early in his presidency, and that is just off the top of my
head)

Why did Bill get defensive of Bush? Who cares what the conspirators say about Bush? Why does Bill care, ands enough to get angry? And BTW, in this country a "former President of the United States rates no more consideration than the lowly protesters, who I also think are nuts but still deserve respect. Bill also jumped Chris whatever his name is from Fox and Chris deserved it, but those were attacks on Clinton himself.I do not get the consideration of Bush at the expense of patronizing ordinary citizens.

I don't actually have a better explanation as to why the
freak MIHOPer picked bill clinton.

and a former president of the united states rates a bit
more consideration than you and I, to say the least. we
don't have secret service, for example. ;)

and that fauxnews guy was setting him up, and he deserved
what he got, IMO.

And I agree Clinton was right about Faux News guy.

why did the MIHOPers attack clinton? I am as confused as you
are.

That is what I don't understand. The MIHOP ers were trying to get attention for themselves.I do not agree with how they did so but I guess they saw Clinton as "high Profile " and TV camera would be fiming him. What I don't get is Clinton making statements like "How dare you"? And "this was not an "inside job" that come across as a defense of this Administration. Why the heck does he even care what these people say about Bush?????

He just said it wasn't true. There are DUers who do not believe it was an inside job, a conspiracy. I am one of them. I've read about all of the effort that Clinton put into finding OBL, chasing him down, making it a priority of his administration. I think in this instance he was truly taken aback that people actually believe that everything HE worked for so hard didn't really exist, or that maybe Clinton himself was part of the "inside job."

Bill Clinton has already gone on the record several times and talked about what he did to find OBL. We know what Bush didn't do so the contrast makes Bush look ugly and incompetent. I think Bill wants to leave it at that...

By entwering into the fray and denying it was an "inside job" as well as saying"How dare you" Clinton is expressing outrage that these people are attcking Bush. This is not about Clinton and I believe he knows it.Everyone knows who was President on 9-11. I think Clinton should have responded with more tact and not reduced himself to the level of the protestors.

The protesters didn't say anything about *. The quote is "inside job"

Where do the protesters accuse * and where does Clinton defend *? Show me the quotes

The protestors are saying 9-11 was an "iside job". That means the Bush Admin. Clinton said it was an "inside job". That is a defense of the Bush Admin as they were the "insiders" on 9-11 .Clinton was not in office nor were any of his people. Please don't be so dense.

The protesters said nothing about * and Clinton said nothing to defend *

What else could they possibly mean? Since 9/11 took more than a year to plan and execute, they may have meant that Clinton was in on it too. Unlike you, I can't read minds and determime exactly what was on the nutjobs minds. People think all kinds of things.

"Clinton said it was an "inside job"."

No he didn't.

"That is a defense of the Bush Admin as they were the "insiders" on 9-11 "

No it isn't. Saying it doesn't make it so

"Clinton was not in office nor were any of his people. Please don't be so dense."

Wrong again. Richard Clarke was still there. Tenet was still there. So where several other holdovers

Please don't insult me when it's you who doesn't know the facts

I knew about Clarke and Tenant. Clinton wanted to fire Tenant BTW. But it still was NOT his admin.You are arguing like a Repuke. This is exactly the argument they use to blame Clinton instead of Bush. Done is Done.Clinton's Admin was finished. He was NOT being accused of ANYTHING by the MIHOP people and I think you know that.

"Clinton said it "wasn't an inside job". "

So what?

"I knew about Clarke and Tenant"

But you said no one from the Clinton admin was in the * admin. You can't even admit to a simple mistake. You did the same w/McGovern. It took you weeks to admit you were wrong.

"But it still was NOT his admin."

How do you know which admin the protesters were referring to?

"You are arguing like a Repuke. This is exactly the argument they use to blame Clinton instead of Bush"

Nope. You're getting desperate. I didn't say Clinton was part of it. I said maybe the protesters think Clinton was part of it. Maybe the protesters were republicans

Clinton was defending Clarke

Whatever.I am sure Clinton knew who they meant by insiders. Most people don't consider the few remaining Clinton people part of Bushco. maybe Clinton was protecting Norman Mineta too? Get real.

Nah, he wasn't so close to Minetta. Clarke is a different story.

although free speech doesn't protect somebody who is disrupting an event.

The protesters were making an accusation. Bill Clinton knows what its like to be accused with no evidence and even when, like in this case, the accusation is ridiculous. Clinton's umbrage was understandable.

along with the threat that phrase implies that fraked me out. This was creepy.

He shouldn't have been condesending.

I'm afraid.

Noblesse n'oblige.

eludes me. Thank you for the patch up. :)

I was just trying to make a lame joke. I'm just an old Portland State French major who had to go back to school and study business in order to make a living.

I have lovely memories of good time in Ashland and Medford.

I am so glad you've been to my lovely home. Ashland is a great town. Medford has some of the best Chinese food ever. :hug:

Authoritarian way. It isn't a democracy when you a little kid around an adult, and I don't like when politicans talk down to me , Chimpy or Bubba.

by an ex president to protestors. It was condesending and wrong IMHO.And why Bill Clinton would be so mad at people who dislike Bush is beyond me. He is literally asking"How dare they think Bush may be guilty of having something to do with 9-11" Why should he care?

And being a birthday celebration, I thought he was quite reserved in his response.

IMO, if someone wants to commit civil disobedience, go right ahead. But be prepared to be jailed.

I would have thought Bill Clinton, of all people would have treated them with respect.

And they weren't contemptuous to "him".They were attacking the opposition.

And interrupting someone while they speak is contemptous. It shows a lack of respect for the speaker, and for the audience.

one they claim MIHOP.I don't think Bush is smart enough for that but that is JMHO. A Formwer leader and especially one campigning for his spouse ought to be better than those who behave badly .He did not need to enter the fray and demean himself , particulary on behalf of Bush.This could have been handled with more dignity.I can't imagine Jimmy carter dismissing anyone with "how dare you", esapecially if he were not the one under attack.

They deliberately chose HIM.

9-11. He did not seem to be angry at the "interruption so much as "what" they said.His response of "How dare you? This was NOT an inside job "referred to their subject matter, which had nothing to do with him and everything to do with Bushco.

It was going on for more than a year, which puts it right in the Clinton years. And several Clinton appointees were working in the White House on 9/11. Richard Clarke, Tenet, and others

Bill Clinton is an ex-president of the united states. i think it'd be safe to say that he loves this country a great deal if he'd be willing to do all he has to serve it. his outrage is understandable. to impy the very same government he worked in for 8 years was responsible for the worst terrorist attack in american history is obviously going to get him angry. his outrage is entirely understandable.

there is no difference between the two? I happen to think there is but maybe you can correct me? And if all "governments" are the same, why would we bother having elections?

To serve as president requires a certain belief that, no matter who is running the government, it's essentially a force of good for america. clearly this is not the case with the bushs, but can you really blame bill? this nitpicking is getting old...

every administration is the "same government", you obviously do not know DC. Even major Dept's. sometimes do not exist under certain admins though they may be on the books. No the government is not the "same". No one would know that better than Clinton.

It is the same govt. Different people hold the jobs. When a major corporation goes through a reorg, it's still the same corporation.

I have a friend that has done "policy" for 3 admins, including this one.She isn't a political appointee so she gets to stay on through "changes. She does NOT agree with you.She states that all three admins have been completely different.

It's been a constitutional republic for over 200 years. Let's hope we can keep it that way

And yes, the three ADMINISTRATIONS were different. Different administrations; same govt

Don't vote for "HER". sadly Bill is not on the ticket. thats what gets me voting for Hillary is NOT a vote for Bill. Why are her supporters that confused???

Can't Hillary stand on her own? I would find a comment like that insulting.She is her own candidate.Bill should not be part of the equation.It is an insult to her and all women legislators and candidates everywhere.

Maybe you could give me a link to a thread where you complain about the other spouses involvement in public forums.

Or is it only insulting to have one's spouse campaign when the spouse is a man?

citizens? Are there any other "spouses" who are former presidents doing that?

And when Carter expressed contempt for the * administration in his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, did you complain about a fmr president expressing contempt for citizens?

And how about when potential future president express contempt for citizens? For example, do you think it would be appropriate for Obama to express contempt for homophobes? Or is what an retired president says more important than what a (potential) future president says?

Politics isn't a tea party. If you act with contempt, don't expect roses in return. Bill didn't win two presidential elections by being nice to his enemies

attacked an Adminisration.And this isn't about Obama doing anything.This is about Bill Clinton.And Bill is certainly being "nice " to his enemies today.Maybe he is keeping his friends close and his enemies closer.I really don't know but his comments were not of the caliber I expected.And again. We owe Bill nothing.he owes us.We pay for him,he is supposed to be, even as an "Ex -president" a servant of the people".

he owes us.We pay for him,he is supposed to be, even as an "Ex -president" a servant of the people".

We don't pay Bill. He is no longer working for the govt. Try again

Check again ,sweetie.Yes we do.

He owes us nothing for those things. He already earned it.

you better suck my dick

I saw a clip of the exchange on TV. Bill said in a cold tone, "Maybe if you shutup, I'll listen to you."

Classy guy. :eyes:

Almost as classy as Hillary accusing that Iowan of being a "plant" after he asked her about her Kyl-Lieberman vote.

I wonder who that is?

Ever hear of Harold Mayberry? He's a black preacher, too. Like Donnie McClurkin. And he uses his giant 2,800-member Oakland, California, pulpit
to preach against homosexuality.

When asked about this in 2004, Mayberry gave the classic "love the sinner, hate the sin" defense:

I'm comfortable in what I believe in. I'm not rejecting people. As God loves, we love. I don't reject thieves, I reject thievery.

But just this past August, Hillary Clinton met with Mayberry and thanked him for his "commitment to fighting for civil rights and equality."

Ever hear of Darrell Jackson? Another black preacher. Like Donnie McClurkin. In South Carolina. Like Donnie McClurkin. He's a State Senator, too.
And a political consultant. Busy guy.

In fact, just after Jackson endorsed Clinton in February, he admitted that he's also negotiated a $10,000-a-month consulting contract with
her campaign.

Turns out Jackson's not a big fan of gay people, either. Although Jackson abstained from voting on a 2005 bill for a constitutional amendment
banning same-sex marriage in South Carolina -- two of Clinton's South Carolina co-chairs, John Matthews and Linda Short, voted for the
bill -- he indicated in remarks on the Senate floor that an amendment was a moot point, since most people in South Carolina -- himself
included -- already opposed same-sex marriage.

Now, we know how we feel on this issue, and I've allowed my position to be known more than anybody else. I stand here
as someone who is a pastor to a congregation of a whole lot of people, and I've said it to them and I'll say it to anyone else.
My personal moral position is what I believe and what I subscribe to. I don't have to come here and try to legislate it...There
is little doubt in this body what will ultimately happen with that issue. That is a forgone conclusion.

How many times do you think Jackson has uttered -- or will utter -- anti-gay sentiments while Clinton is paying him?

Are you going to publicly denounce Hillary Clinton for her association with -- and endorsement by -- these people?

Or is she getting a pass, because she's "your girl"?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/10/24/162436/74

Oh right, nothing. :eyes:

beyond the fact that he's against gay marriage? Not one candidate besides Gravel and Kucinich is in favor of gay marriage. I think that's absolutely outrageous, but why single Clinton's consultant out? And why single Clinton out when Obama was offering money for his services too?

Barack Obama isn’t the only Democratic candidate who should be called out for his anti-gay associates. As Paul Jenkins
points out Hillary Clinton has also taken up with some queer bedfellows, including Reverend Harold Mayberry.

In this game, all candidates have been associated with homophobes. For instance, Hillary Clinton recently trumpeted her
friendship with Harold Mayberry, of the First African Methodist Church in Oakland; her press release on the meeting/
endorsement left out the fact that Mayberry believes homosexuality to be comparable to thievery.

It’s true, the Oakland-based Methodist, once said, “I’m not rejecting people. As God loves, we love. I don’t reject thieves,
I reject thievery.” Too bad Clinton didn’t reject Mayberry’s endorsement.

http://www.queerty.com/news/et-tu-hillary-20071023/


There's more than one candidate with homophobic bigot support. Where's the horror and outrage from LGBT Billary supporters
about Rev. Mayberry? I can imagine that'd only happen if Rev. Mayberry had endorsed Obama. :eyes:

As for Rev. Jackson, the quote came from a letter to the HRC regarding their complete inaction on Hillary's Homophobes.
I am glad Jackson went to the highest bidder - obviously Obama didn't think he was worth it but Billary did.

he doesn't believe in gay marriage? Who gives a shit why Obama didn't come up with the money, he wanted Jackson nontheless.

Clinton should remove Mayberry from her list of endorsements, but the outrage isn't there because the two situations aren't even close to being equal. Clinton didn't ask for his endorsement, Clinton never booked him to headline any tours with her and Clinton never rejected more than two days of requests by the LGBT community to toss him off her tour. And McBigot isn't the only gay-bashing performer on his gospel tour. Obama was lucky that only one is being challenged.

Keep spamming the board with your pathetic attempt to absolve Obama from his own actions though, maybe you'll get a few DUers to buy into the BS.

There's never an excuse for bad behavior!!:thumbsdown:

"Don't you open your mouth when you're talking to me!"

That's a right wing lie that was debunked by film of the incident.

We don't have film of the whole transaction Bill was involved with. Its likely the protesters continued to shout and disrupt before Clinton got that firm with them.

Clinton was gracious to offer to talk with the kooks. I wouldn't have. The kooks made a horrible groundless accusation.

Not to mention stealing the enjoyment of the event from the audience.

I have no problem with anything that anyone does, within the law, to someone who intentionally disrupts someone else's event or show or whatever. They are troublemakers who are, in my view, too lazy and insignificant to start their own event for their supposed cause, so they steal someone else's event. They want 15 minutes of fame is all.

People have the right to protect their lives, their property, their events, their fundraisers, their audiences, their families, whatever.

We do have freedom of speech in this country...

What if Code Pink and the Truthers and all the rest had a giant protest on the DC Mall with hundreds of thousands of people and the Clintons blasted out the whole event with giant amplifiers? Suppose the Clintons got kicked out then. Would you say that the Clintons had their free speech rights denied?

disapproval of what CODE PINK has done, to the point of becoming persona non grata here.I do not approve of those tactics nor do I approve of what the MIHOP people did to Clinton but I retain the right to say he did not handle this well.He had an obligation to behave with more dignity than he did.He should have granted the protesters MORE respect than he was given.They are citiZens.If nothing else, he is a politician who wants a vote for his wife.He had the right to say what he did.And I have the right not to like it.

Try reading the Constitution. It only prohibits the GOVT from limiting lawful speech. Individuals are free to censor, as newspapers, tv shows, magazines, and even DU does every day

have no problem with escorting them out.It was a quasi "private" event but Bill's "noblesse noblige " attitude was uncalled for.

Try reading the Constitution. It only prohibits the GOVT from limiting lawful speech. Individuals are free to censor, as newspapers, tv shows, magazines, and even DU does every day

I would have no problem with the protestors being escorted out.I do not have a problem withClinton disagreeing with them.I have a major problem with a former President treating citzens with contempt, particularly when they are complaining about something that has nothing to do with him.Why he got all jazzed up about statements regarding George Bush is beyond me.He should have been polite and asked the hecklers to leave.He could have had them removed.Cracked a joke and moved on. Instead, he expressed contempt.

It doesn't

You don't have to like it, but please don't misrepresent our Constitution.

But I have continuously stated I do not have a problem with the protestors being removed..This was AFAIK a "fundraiser" and somewhat "private" in that one pays to be there. But I do have a major problem with any elected official, former or not expressing "nobless noblige".Bill Clinton and his wife live off of "our" tax dollars.We pay them. They ought to damn well respect us and remeber that we are the bosses, not them.They are not more important than the people.

You can not come into my house and make a political speech w/o permission, and if you do, I will have you arrested. And if you come into my house and then behave rudely and with contempt, then I will throw you out and humiliate you. (And I don't mean you personally)

Free Speech refers to the govts being prohibited from censoring political speech. It has nothing to do with non-governmental entities.

But I have a problem with a politician who is paid by us disrespecting the people who are his employers.We pay Clinton's salary.he has an obligation to be polite. He has the right to disagree but he could have been less disrespectful .So could the MIHOP people but they have less of an obligation.

Even you admitted that in an earlier post.

And Clinton isn't paid by us. He no longer works for the govt. He recieves no salary. But you already know that

to some events as well as a SS detail. We pay for all of that.Sorry.You are incorrect.He also gets franking privileges for life.

We pay for those things because we owe HIM, not the other way around

I owe Clinton nothing.He chose to run for president and I and many others chose to vote for him but he is just a citizen no differnt than any other and he chose to work for us.We "employed" him, not the other way around. We the taxpayers are providing that pension. We are also providing heathcare offices, postage, transportation and protection.
As we provide those things to him, he has an obligation to us. The obligations of the preidency do not cease when the president retires. He is still a representative of this nation,he represents us everywhere he goes. He does indeed owe us.
We owe depts of gratitude to heros and the military who sacrifice for us.We do not "owe" presidents. We should respect them as we respect ourselves.That was why Washington refused to accept a title and why the proper address for the president is "Sir" or "Mister" as it is for every citizen.

"he is just a citizen no differnt than any other"

You've been arguing that Clinton has a duty as an ex-president to not treat ANY citizen with contempt, but as soon as it's convenient for you, you say "he is just a citizen no differnt than any other"

Besides, the persons were apparently "free" to say what they wanted, and so was Clinton, in response.

Tasers were used in the other event by policemen, against someone who was resisting arrest. I don't distinguish that, well, I liked what the person was saying, so that means it's okay for that person to break the law and resist arrest. Nope. When a policemen tells you to leave an event because you're disrupting it, you must leave. If you don't, and the policeman tells you you're under arrest, and you resist. Then you must know what's coming.

Our country is built on laws. Without it there is anarchy. Anyone is free to say anything at any time to anyone...unless it interferes with someone's else's rights....as in these two cases. You are not free to steal someone else's event for your 15 minutes of fame. It's pretty simple.

as per usual.

:hi:

somebody needs to turn their speakers down to an "acceptable" level. :hi:

His answer reminded me of someone's response posting here on DU.

He did volunteer to talk to the interupter.

Sad, how the heckler demanded instant gratification... sans manners.

He handled him just right.

:toast:

Proud of you, man!!

No offense to the disruptors, but can we start slamming down some Republican events for a change? Good grief, the GOP events are sorely lacking warm bodies, and they may even enjoy your presence for making the nightly newsies :D

Is nothing beneath you?

Thanks for pointing it out. I will take it up with them.

:thumbsup: Huffington Post


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1931031

He could have handled it better.

I think he handled it just right.

shout

noun

1. a loud cry or call
2. any sudden, loud outburst or uproar

Not what Bill Clinton did...

and if you are addressing me - I go by Pirhana, not Piranha.

If you put quotes around the subject line, indicates an article title...keep from getting helpful suggestions from people like me...

:-)

Did you watch the video? He raised his voice.

If it had a misleading headline, isnt that a clue that the article might be slanted? Are you in the habit of posting slanted articles?

After all, YOU did post it. You can't put that off on Arianna. There are a million bullshit pieces I could post, but I don't because I don't like to post bullshit.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shout


Something that Bill Clinton may have done.

you are entitled to your own opinion?

many hard-working, patriotic government employees* are in fact traitors, those who have worked closely with them may get offended.


*Here referring to the military, CIA, FBI, NTSB, NIST, State Dept., NSA, and others. Not referring to Bush and Cheney.

I reckon.

.

you see that they cooperated with the police when ejected from the room.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it smells of it to me. que pena bill. they will hurt your reputation and not give a damn. look how colin powell is trying to rebuilg his (not that he had one to begin with in my eyes) after his fictionalized presentation of WMDs at the UN. Watch it. The Bushes are Destroyers of Facts and Destroyers of Peoples Lives. It seems you are defending the wrong cause by defending their "it was not an inside job" thing.

and the hecklers were out of control.

removed and deflrected this with a joke.Instead he had to defend the Bush ADMIN."This was not an inside job""How dare you" ? WTF? Why defend George? I do not get it.

but Bill ought to be fine with the same thing being done to Bush?

about himself. The young Clinton never would have stanchly defended his enemies. He would have been polite but ignored it and allowed it to spin. He NEVER would have chastized those who criticized them and reviled them for having attacked the opposition.Our party is attacking Bush and Clinton is outraged on Bush's behalf? What is up with that?

The protesters said nothing about *. They said "inside job"

Show us the quote where the protesters accuse *, and the quote where Bill defends *

people were referring to BUSHCO.Clinton's reponse was "How dare you? Howdare you? This was NOT an inside job.". Why is he speaking for Buhco? How would he even "know" wether it was an "inside job? (I don't believe it was either) but the MIHOPERS were NOT attacking Bill.They were obnoxious and interupted him but he didn't behave much better.

No one referred to *

try again

are a Political Figure and your wife Bill, is running to be POTUS and you Bill are campaigning for her......These are political protestors, get with the program. They do so because they live in the US and the media doesn't report the real news, so you Bill, and many others just may be confronted by angry US citizens more and more - just like Condi was.

We are your constituents, YOU work for us, WE have a right to voice our opinions, ESPECIALLY, when the media and other political figures are not. Deal with it.

are not going to give Minnesota a bad reputation. People who keep their mouths shut and never question authority, now that would give us a bad reputation.

be respected regrdless of the silliness.

and no, some people don't deserve respect.

Now tell me again how Bill is still receiving a salary.

"We are your constituents, YOU work for us,"

Umm, Bill is retired from political office.

AND he is doing FUNDRAISING....still in the public servant sector....and more and more, looking like he will be the "1st Gentleman" or "Co-President" unoffically..

So "That's pretty stupid "Posted by cuke" Umm, Bill is retired from political office",

is totally besides the point, he is actively campaigning and fundraising to gain personally from an elected office...try again

surprised by this attack and certainly did not handle it well. After all Bill is human. Can I take back all the mistakes I made today?

Send random crazies to Democratic events to cause trouble and controversy.

wouldn't you want to say something to him, even if it was across a big room? I would. There would be PLENTY that I would like to say. Like how does it feel to have your lips off of Bush's ass for a few days? for 1, How about offering up some real solutions on the ME with Iran and Iraq? How about speaking up against what is going on in politics now with a little more vigor? I don't know, "Big Dawg" is turning into the "Dirty Dog" as far as I am concerned.

And when I'm a guest, I don't interrupt and shout at one of the hosts. And if I do, I expect to be treated with the contempt I'd deserve

choose not to answer questions by one of their employers, than they should, at least, respectfully reply. Maybe you worship our Public Servants, I don't, I want some accountability and some answers and/or at least acknowledgment to some of the concerns that many of us have and if they don't like being asked questions, they shouldn't be in public service. AND if the media did their jobs properly, WE would have to be shouting questions to be heard.

I was wondering where the 9/11 thing came out of...was Bill talking about it and then the tirade...or were people just venting their thing...

Does he think the Bushes had nothing to do with making his 8 years of presidency a living hell? What is he thinking? A deal about Hillary's campaign for the presidency, is what I'm thinking.

even after he had been smeared by Bush in the previous election. They know where the power lies.

Even I who do not believe the conspiracy theories wouldn't bother to defend Bush, much less get defensive.Why should he care? No one is answering that question.

Mustn't rock the boat now, must we?

Even on DU that's considered extreme by many. Maybe Clinton was genuinely offended that people suggested our govt was in on it.

And you're not being honest when you say Clinton defended bush1. Never happend

the Admin that had responsibility on 9-11 and that was Bushco.

He was defending Richard Clarke who was an "insider" on 9/11

about Bush?

of the fence a possible violation comes from then they aren't values of right and wrong at all. Its just sanctimonious finger pointing.

that out.

I recall most Dem's being furious that Bush had anyone who disagreed with him barred from all his events. Both "private" and public.And he had protesters sequestered in a "free speech zone". Perhaps that is a solution you prefer? Bush doesn't like to be "interrupted either.If we don't like when Bush treats protesters with disdain, we have to apply the same standard to Clinton. The phrase "How dare you"? said it all.It was a very Bush like moment.

* attacks their patriotism

Clinton attacks their tactics. Clinton even said he would answer their question (can you imagine * doing that?) if they would only be quiet. Instead, they escalated.

And when Kerry was interrupted, he also asked for quiet so he could answer the question. He also was rightfully contemptous towards the nutjob and asked "Do you have a point?" And in the end, the guy was tasered, and rightfully so, but it's Clinton that is like *.

that put the protesters so far away that nobody will see their protest, or otherwise unnecessarily curtail the right to protest. I do believe if Bush wants to give a speech he doesn't have to put up with protesters in the crowd interrupting his speech, which many people there would like to hear.

Its a balance to me. The ideal is when both sides can speak but if that's not possible I'd go with whoever was there first.

surprising to see how much of our board unquestioningly accepts the official story. The HP comments are much more diverse, and I wouldn't consider that site exponentially more open-minded than this one.

the nutcases out of the dungeon. lol.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=125

He went off on those protestors because he probably forgot he wasn't president when 9/11 happened since it is considered his fault by the Bush lackeys out there.

Disease: Tinfoil hat "9/11 was planned at the Crawford Ranch" theories

Symptom: Two terms of a president who has destroyed the U.S. and lied to bring us into war with Iraq.

YES, he was heckled at a public event. He had a every right in the world to react and respond to that intrusive behavior.

But if Bill Clinton's going to stump for his wife between now and November 2008, he's going to run into one hell of a lot of pent-up anger and resentment over George W. Bush. Some of it will come from lucid, articulate pundits. Some will come from clueless assholes.

"How dare you" sounds more like a Bush Administration response than what I'd expect from Bill Clinton...something his handlers might want to think about before he gets behind his next microphone.

was shouting "How dare you! How dare you! from that clip then you would believe John McEnroe never shouted at an umpire....

Ben David

then I'm GOD.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

protestors, but it's about what you could expect from any politician. None of them are particularly interested in anything a member of the peon-class general public has to say about anything, and when someone is perceived as questioning the official story - any official story - that's when the guard goes way way up. It's not in the interest of any of the powers that be that people ask hard questions or challenge the status quo. That "How dare you" was the response of an authority figure to someone perceived as having gotten out of line.

How is that dismissive?

The protesters, on the other hand, ignored that and kept shouting, so who was dismissive?

So it is a bad thing to say Bushci may have MIHOP at a Democratic political event? 'How dare they ? what ? Blame Bush? Sheesh.

It's a question

And they said nothing about *. They were referring to Clarke. How dare they blame Clarke

that give political activism a bad name.

Give it to those conspiracy nuts!

whatever threat they have used on Bill seems to be working just fine.

cripe, the man was hanging out with the murderous criminal Poppy. no wonder he needed heart surgery.

Then I remeber that I'm on the Internets

:hi:

this?

If you 9/11 conspiracy types want to be taken seriously, quit acting like you're part of a deranged lynch mob. Incidents like this one put you down on the level of Fred Phelps and his psychotic Christians. I guess you'd never consider putting your energies into disrupting a Republican function over the sick, unneccesary war in Iraq, would you? I didn't think so......

We paid for his salary transportation and housing.We pay for his SS detail We pay for his retiremnt and healthcare. We pay for his office and staff. Bill Clinton is a servant of the people.He owes us, not the other way around. He has no business being condecending to his employers.Those fruitloops are still his employers and he owes them respect.He should be above the kind of behavior he exhibited.

They need to be put down or they will disrupt any campaign rally where the speaker does not agree with their nutty ideas. Bill Clinton does not work for us. He did his work for 8 years and part of the compensation for that is the benefits he now receives. He owes you nothing. With that logic then someone who worked for a company and received a pension would still be working for that company long after they retired. No. Owes you absolutely nothing. Get over it.

"owes" us.All presidents ex or not are "servants of the people". And are provided for accordingly.An Ex presidents never "really" retire.They are always used as goodwill ambassadors and such.They continue represent us. I am sorry that some do not understand that "we the people" are employers of any president and the other representaives. Your corporate example is not apt but if you were actually familiar with some corporate pensions, many employees do maintain and obligation to their companies in many instances for their lifetime.

You speak as one that has a lot of respect for our President and none for the people. Perhaps you do not find the idea of roalty, politcal or otherwise repugant the way our forefathers did. Presidents are not entitled to anymore respect than the people they represent, and they also represent the "Fruitloops " whether you like it or not.

My mother recieves a pension from the NYC Bd of Ed. She has Alheimer's. Does she have to report to work? Does she owe the NYC Bd of Ed anything?

NO!!! She earned it with her 30 years of work. And Bill EARNED his SS detail, his pension, and every other benefit he receives

and making him a king.

as specified by legislation

Being the "servant of the people." The President is elected to be head of the Executive Branch. He gets benefits after the term is up whether he plays golf, writes books or builds houses. He is not your servant. Current workers pay social security taxes which are used to pay benefits for retired workers. Are the retired workers the servants of the current workforce?

describe public servants and especially applies to elected officials including the president. Ex presidents are in a special catagory.Do all other rstired workers have offices that are paid for by taxpayers? Do other retirees have duties they are expected to perform? We will not agree on this and I think your knowledge of history is faulty. We must agree to disagree on this. Bill Clinton himself has referred to himself as a "servant of the people. He mentions it in his book.