Skip to main content

Tea Partier Dana Loesch Smacks Down Paul Begala on HBO's 'Real Time'

Noel Sheppard's picture

Former Clinton advisor and current CNN contributor Paul Begala thought he was being clever Friday evening when he took a cheap shot at George W. Bush on HBO's "Real Time."

Without skipping a beat, St. Louis Tea Party founder and Big Government editor Dana Loesch smacked down her CNN colleague with a delicious jab at his former boss (video follows with transcript and commentary):

DANA LOESCH, EDITOR BIG GOVERNMENT: The opposition I think is being a little bit underestimated. These are people who are barely armed and they have no air support and they've been able to beat back Gadhafi’s forces and accomplish as much as they have without anyone busting up through the door and providing them support. So, I don't understand why it would be necessary to essentially create the exact same strategy that everyone complained about in Iraq with the Bush Doctrine and replicate it in Libya, because that’s exactly what this is.

BILL T. JONES, CHOREOGRAPHER/ARTISTIC DIRECTOR: You think we should wait this out?

BILL MAHER, HOST: I think we should finish the quagmires we already have on our plate before we order more.

FORMER REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE TOM DAVIS: No, Bill, we need to bring other countries into it with us…

MAHER: Right.

DAVIS: …other countries into it with us.

MAHER: Yes. Where’s the Arab League? Where’s the Europeans?

LOESCH: France is already, they’re going to put an embassy. They’ve already recommended…

PAUL BEGALA, CNN: I’m just glad we have a president who when we have a problem in Libya doesn't freak out and invade Liberia.

MAHER: Right.

BEGALA: Which is what the last guy, that’s what Bush would have done.

LOESCH: Or you know what? Or accidentally bomb a medicine factory like Clinton did.

For those that forget the reference, in August 1998, President Clinton bombed the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan as a reprisal for terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

The incident ended up being rather embarrassing for the Clinton administration as Sudan and other governments disputed any connection between the factory and Osama bin Laden.

Nicely played, Dana. Brava!


#1 → Loesch shoots!

She scores!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Begala should remember Bill Clinton also waged war in Iraq when he authorized Cruise missile strikes during the Lewinski scandal.

Does anybody remember the reasons Mr. Clinton gave for this unprovoked attack?  I do.

#2 Wag the dog

Wag the dog

Liberals ... we can't live with them, they couldn't survive without us ...

#3 Yes, Cool...

I remember. I also remember many on the "right" naively dismissing virtually any aggressive action in the international arena taken by Clinton during that period as calculated diversions from his "personal" issues.

It was an unfortunate assumption which may well have contributed to the insufficient attention given the burgeoning terrorist threat during the first eight months of the subsequent administration.

#4 I was with you on the first paragraph.

He was right to do what he did and he should have done more.

Too bad you blew it with that 2nd paragraph. It was superfluous and not germane to your point.

#5 Oops, Vet...

Misposted at end of thread.


#6 Should've done more

You're right.  Clinton should've done more.  And his reasons for the Cruise missile strikes was to attack Saddam's "Weapons of Mass Destruction" capability.

#7 Congress had 2 resolutions for President Clinton.

Congress had 2 resolutions authorizing President Clinton to take action on Iraq. Just like the resolution for President G.W. Bush in October 2002 authorizing the use of force. And they all had many of the same reasons. Many Many Many of the same reasons listed for authorizing the use of force. One rare exception. The 2002 authorization referred back to the previous authorizations and lised transgressions since 1998.

I compare them here --- Liberal Lies- President Bush lied to Congress to get us into Iraq. Truth - He did not.

You may not have heard Mr. Cool Arrow. Trolls say I contribute nothing here. Well, maybe here topside. I do get busy below decks occasionally though.

#8 Jer, Let us be honest, the

Jer, Let us be honest, the death of 800,000 men, women and children Tutsis lay at the feet of Clinton and his administration as well as at the feet of the United Nations and the rest of the Western world which stood by and did nothing while the rivers of Africa flowed with red blood. This is the true Clinton legacy, this is sad truth of what happens when Liberals carry out their "smart" diplomacy around the world. Don't believe me? Look at Cambodia's fields of death, where over 1 million were slaughtered, while once againa Liberal President, his administration, the UN and the rest of the world stood by, you know carrying out "smart" diplomacy. Remember that, Liberal Jer, next time you start attacking the Bush administration. Two Liberal President's allowed the death of 2 million people. This is the legacy of the Liberal ideology.

#9 So YOURE the infamous Jer, eh?

Read alot about you, and once again, your liberal opinions are WRONG! You probably think Liberians live in Libya, too!

When will liberals WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE! -Me

#10 The famous Uncle Jer. Uncle.

He may be liberal but we love him. Can't chase all of them off. Got to keep a couple around for the museum.

#11 Once again my precious time is imposed upon...

Why oh why do I have to keep tutoring you folks???  "Liberians", as you should know, is a contraction for libertarian librarians, and nearly all of them live right here in the USA.  Furthermore--not that it's really any of your business--for several years now I've been skipping the morning cup of coffee and going directly to the bong.

Now be nice to me or I'll sic the Vet on you.


#12 Donk CheBonk.

And that ladies and gentlemen is why we loves teh Uncle Jer. Subtle yet Kool yet Striking.

#13 Jer, if you are going---

to blow your own horn, the word would be "tootering". ;o)
"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#14 brutony1

I must gently disagree with your premise concerning Jer. He is not a conservative, nor is he a liberal. What he is, is a provocateur extraordinaire. Your unfortunate reaction to his post is prima facie to my posit. Jer has a comportment that might disagree with your sensitivity's and he might even be malodorous in his personal presence, but do not confuse the effluvium as a liberal cloak that surrounds him. The cloak he bears is named foment and this is why many here show some respect, that the uninitiated, may not understand. token liberal he is not.

#15 Mike F---

don't forget, though, that the bear Jer cloaks with his occasional slap at libs, IS liberalism. Actually, I picture liberalism as more of a combination Tasmanian Devil and Duckbill Platypus; a bit crazy, and a lot odd.
"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#16 It gnawed at you so that

you couldn't allow me to savor Mike's generous words for as much as a single hour before twisting them into something cheap and ugly, could you Matthew.


#17 Naw, Jer---

it didn't gnaw on me.  ;o)

I just love raggin' on you.

If anything, I agree with all the good things that are said about you, and will continue to do so.

So long as you keep sending cash, anyway.


"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#18 Jeez,

Jeez, might be the only other guy here that has the slightest CLUE as to what he wrote!!! I don't even know if the Vet could give a decent explanation.............

#19 I shall try Mr. Killa with 37 notches on his barrel.

Uncle Jer stirs up poo.

#20 Actually, Vet, I'm pretty

Actually, Vet, I KNEW that you could say the same thing - except it WOULD be understandable!!! Very understandable!! Hahahaha!!! Actually, I've been having a little merry-go-round with ol' Jer about Boy Barry's 'Hawaiian roots', but it's above-board and not acrimonious or incendiary. Now there are a couple of 50-cent words that I learned at the same high school that Boy Barry went to...............

#21 Yup.

What's going on here is that those who kiss up to Jer are exhibiting Stockholm syndrome. While Jer is not a captor, he is an incessant troll, and serves much the same role. So rather than attacking him (or his positions) the so-called conservatives make a peace with the enemy, and rather than changing HIS behavior, they change THEIRS. It's a classic sell-out of principles to get along with someone not worth the time or day except as a verbal punching bag. The Israelis have been going down that road and what has it got them? Murder with a smile. The same sort of treatment awaits all those who compromise with the left, where every member would be a Mao, if only given the opportunity.
---- Let us all eviscerate the trolls and fill their carcasses with bile and venom.
Visions and Principles blog

#22 Yup...that's classic Tenebrous.

Personally I have a far less cynical opinion of your fellow conservatives at this website and a far greater respect for their capacity to exchange differing views without compromising their principles than do you, Tenebrous.

But, it's certainly in keeping with the tedious drivel which you've been posting for quite awhile now, highlighted by your memorable and preposterously arrogant edict that "all liberals leave NewsBusters" immediately.

So, this latest example of your incurable boorishness is hardly surprising.


#23 Tenebrous

It is quite unfortunate you hold the views you do. While regretfully, you failed to express your viewpoint in a cogent manner, you did, in fact, make mine very well. for that, I thank you.

Although it is not contingent when posting to a blog-site to be cogent , or for that matter coherent, I have found, for most people, these attributes are beneficial, if one wants  to be taken seriously.

#24 Wow Dude.

I am confused now. I thought I was a fake American not a so-called conservative.

I am doubly confused because Uncle has never called me a so-called conservative or a fake American.

#25 I wonder if the Liberians in

I wonder if the Liberians in Libya (Lybia at the WH) speak Austrian?

#26 OUCH!!!

Dana pwns Begala!!

#27 I tried to watch

I tried to watch this...........I DO have HBO, although I rarely watch much of it...........but I couldn't take Begala and the other creeps, including Maher - who seems to have a permanent smirk sewed into his ugly Donkeyface, and a crappy sense of humor stacked on top of his misinformed and marginal IQ brain. I don't know why a class act like Dana would bother going on this show, or any other dumb-ass liberal shoe!!! She can 'hold her own', and even 'score some points', but do you think that the other idiots there actually KNOW IT?????? These guys ( and gals) are TOO delusional to know that they've been had......................and so it the audience!!!!!

#28 Bill Maher

I'm not aware that Mr. Maher has a sense of humor. He is viciously sarcastic. He was mildly amusing on occasion, when his show " Politically Incorrect " was on the air. Once he went to HBO, however, he went wildly PC, for whatever reasons. If HBO is a subsidiary of Time/Life, as I've been told, that might be an answer. As to HBO, I too have HBO as a result of our cable provider. We rarely watch HBO, since it's neither funny, nor informative, nor even thought-provoking. As I see it, " Funny or Die " isn't funny and should die a quiet death. " East Bound & Down " needs to go down the road. The " Ricky Gervais Show " should be sent back to England. " Big Love " should be divorced from TV. I realize the desperate need for entertainment these days, but a funny show should be funny. It should not need a laugh track, or any other inducement.

#29 I did catch 'Politically

I did catch 'Politically Incorrect' once in a while, but I always thought it should have been called 'Politically Correct', since Donkeyface usually had 3 lefties and some outnumbered lib, or something like that. And he was still an irritating twerp!!! As for his 'sense of humor'..........well, I said he had a 'crappy' one, but YOU KNOW that ol' Donkeyface thinks he's a real riot!!!!! Yeah..........I've got about 10 channels there, between HBO and Showtime, and I swear that 99% of the time there is NOTHING worth watching!!!!!

#30 I know, Vet...

But Begala's 'Liberia' comment was superflous, as well as Dana's 'medicine factory' quip, and I just couldn't resist a little superfluity of my own. It's late...maybe not too many will notice.

Uncle Jer

#31 Yeah, well---

Begala started it, so Loesch's comment was justifiably retaliatory and not at all superfluous.
"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#32 md is right.

So I stand by my original statement. We in the military community and the military community supporters and the auxiliary military supporters as well as the military groupies and military auxiliary groupie supporters had President Clinton's back on every military intervention. We only wish he had done more. And we have President Reagan, President GHW Bush, President GW Bush, and President Obama's back on all of their military interventions and what future military interventions may happen in the future*.

* Hint Hint Hint Libya --- No-Fly Zone, No Problem - WSJ**

** For the trolls that whine about me and the WSJ, look way way way down at the lower right corner. Right below the list of editors and writers here.

#33 Better retorts, perhaps...

Not sure the medicine factory example was powerful enough. I would have gone with Yes, it's also a good thing we didn't have a president who - when presented with the chance to take out a terrorist like Osama bin Laden - before that terrorist has a chance to murder 3,000 American citizens - doesn't "freak out" and actually kill the guy. or That "little problem" in Rwanda known as genocide that occurred when Bill was in office. 1 million people dead. Clinton didn't lift a finger, but at least he didn't "freak out." But yeah. A lame-o, forced cheap-shot by Begala. He knows he'll have plenty of friends to back him up when he does that type of thing on CNN or HBO. Try it on FOX, Paulie, where you'd have a guy like Krauthammer or Steve Hayes sitting there... OT: NewsBusters: Please have you the folks doing your IT work fix your comments editor. This thing is seriously broken and it's been that way for months now. e.g., arrow keys don't work.

#34 In Clintons defense it wasn't

In Clintons defense it wasn't exactly like the UN was doing anything about Rwanda either. Why does the US have to be the cop in these situations. Same with Libya. If they want a no fly zone let them go talk to France or Russia. Let them be the bad guys for once if everything doesn't turn out perfect. We don't have the money to be throwing troops all around the world cleaning up other peoples messes. If the UN wants to get involved let them and we will act in a supporting role like every other country has (other than England) to this point.

#35 As the most powerful nation

As the most powerful nation in the world we have a MORAL obligation to stop incidents like the one in Rwanda. In the 1990s we more than had the money to stop the slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis! Using your logic, geez the USA didn't have the money to go into WWII and stop the expansion of Nazi Germany. We should have just laid back and waited for Germany to take over the Britsh. And as I say below, the point is that this so called "smart" diplomacy of Liberals have caused many more millions of lives than any so called aggressive, hawkish diplomacy of Conservatives! The Liberals waiting around policy to get the whole world involved allows dictators and desposts to mass murder their opposition while shoot, the USA, the Liberal President was "smart" and waited for everyont to jump on board! It is like in Egypt, so many people rejoiced when Mubarak, Egypt is worse than before. Riots have kept on going, but shoot does the media care, now that their little narrative played out? NO! I was talking to someone about this just two days ago and they were clueless that riots in Egypt continue! But heck, Obama stood by, did not get involved, said the right words and Mubarak left and now Egypt is a better butt!!! The USA has a moral obligation, with the mighty power that we have, to stop monsters like Qadaffi. As cliche as it sounds, it is true....WITH GREAT POWER, COMES GREAT RESPONSABILITY. If we do not want to be the policeman of the world, then let us also stop being the super power of the world. (sadly, this is the wish of too many Libertarian isolationists and of too many wacked out Left wingers)

#36 Totally agreed, NO MORE

Agreed, the days of us be the cops of the world are over or at least the fraud in chief gave that impression.

Remember when we had a quasi-international crew in Iraq and John Kerry demeaned them and also REMEMBER many wouldn't help us because Saddam and the United nations oil for food scandal.

Now I remember, Three scratches Kerry called the ones that helped us the "Bribed and coerced" while the ones that lifted not a finger were actually the bribed and coerced by SADDAM.

Also remember, those same "nice folks" wouldn't enforce or vote on tougher sanctions because AGAIN they were bribed..... Funny how "We need to get other people involved" reminds of the douchebag UN and Russia etc, etc who were the REAL reason WHY we went into Iraq in the first place. My opinion.

If you make poverty easy, you will have more of it. Benjamin Franklin

#37 Because we have FLAGGED ships and people all over the planet

Idiot. And yes. We do have money to be throwing troops all around the world cleaning up other peoples messes. AppeasementBoy.

#38 Liberals are something

Liberals are something else... Let us not forget that during the 1990s Clinton and the rest of the world stood by, you know trying to figure out what to do, going to meetings, taking it slowly, you know carrying out "smart" diplomacy with the rest of the world WHILE OVER 800,000 TUTSIS, MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE TORTURED AND SLAUGHTERED WITH MACHETES! Don't foget that the Liberals beloved United Nations, the world ran away from Rwanda, you know taking it slowly and being "smart" WHILE 800,000 TUTSIS WERE SLAUGHTERED WITH MACHETES!!!! Let us not forget that the fields of Cambodia were filled with the blood of over 1 million individuals while Jimmy Carter, the United Nations and the rest of the Liberals stood by and talked about the best strategy to help. This is the type of legacy that Liberal Presidents, that Liberals in America and around the world vote for. This is what Liberal ideology leads to!!!! I can guarantee you that if Qadaffi stays in power we will NEVER know how many thousands if not hundreds of oposition forces and rebels were killed at the hands of Qadaffi, the Liberals in the USA are more interested in their legacy than they are in the truth that their Liberal policies foreign and domestic are a complete and utter failure!

#39 Clinting did it too - Poor strategery

While it is amusing to state that President Clinton was even worse it is far from a compelling come back.  It is an admission the President Bush did something wrong in invading Iraq but someone else made a bigger mistake.  I've posted my feelings on Iraq several times and wouldn't dare go into that again without reason but there was only one question that needs to be asked on whether invading Iraq was a viable choice or not; Does the US want to pursue a war on terrorism?  If the answer is yes, then it is only military and political strategy that comes to bear and Iraq is pure logic regardless of what the talking heads would like you to think.  Even if you could prove that the Bush administration knew that there were no WMD, which is borderline insanity in itself considering the actions taken by the US during occupation, then the case for Iraq as the continuation of the war on terror is still an easy decision both militarily and politically.  However, a good deal of people in this country, particularly the media, decided upon their political weapon of choice: to hide the truth and deny knowledge of real events to the a majority of the world that would have garnered not only support at home but also throughout the world.

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid

#40 I've always felt the decision

I've always felt the decision to invade Iraq was a completely rational one under the circumstances. Saddam Hussein had kicked weapons inspectors out of his country, stood in violation of multiple UN Resolutions (which were not being enforced) and was openly supporting terrorists and their cause. In the aftermath of 9/11, as Bush clearly stated, we could no longer afford the luxury of sitting around and waiting for someone like Hussein to make a move. Not everyone agreed with the Iraq invasion, but that makes it no less rational. People disagree with rational decisions every day of the week; and there are a whole host of Americans who are against war of any kind for any reason. These people have the megaphone of the media behind them. There was only one person who was President on 9/11 and only he knows what it felt like to be solely responsible for the response to that aggression. The fact that the response extended beyond Afghanistan does not trouble me. I think the situation called for a response to go beyond Afghanistan, and Bush's invasion of Iraq was a reasonable one.



#41 Smartypants,

Forgetting all political reasons - all the military reasons were there to choose Iraq as the next position for staging the war on terror. Geography, population base, Iraqi military deployment, access, resources, etc..., were all on the side of Iraq being the next logical step. Political justification is just an attempt to make something very awful - palatable.

It is a hard lesson but compassion does kill - in the case of radicalism, compassion slaughters.  I'm just not comfortable with politicians deciding who is radical and who is not.  To our current administration Ayers is a model citizen and I'm one step away from a watch list.

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid

#42 I don't see that she really

I don't see that she really "smacked down" anyone with that comment; it was kind of weak. In fact, I think it is pretty much impossible to smack down Maher or the other libs, as well as his audience, because I just don't think common sense and reason goes anywhere with liberals. Most of the people in that studio did not even hear Loesch's comment, because they were laughing at what was nothing but a cheap shot at the former president. I'm with some others here, I do not understand why conservatives even would appear on Maher's show. He is a left wing simpleton with an audience that echoes his views (and intelligence).



#43 She's perfect....

I like all my women good looking, with long legs, and brains....

#44 yea it was hardly a

yea it was hardly a smackdown, since maher tends to allow himself and others lots of room to move on quickly or talk over conservative guests. dana was ok last night but she was not great. the real news was maher calling the koran a hate filled book, which should, but wont, get msm coverage

#45 Ouch. I felt that from here.

Ouch. I felt that from here.

#46 BOTH Osama bin Laden and Saddam!

The incident ended up being rather embarrassing for the Clinton administration as Sudan and other governments disputed any connection between the factory and Osama bin Laden. Nicely played, Dana. Brava!


The “Aspirin Factory” was said to be a joint chemical weapons plant linked to BOTH Osama bin Laden and Saddam!

Guess they didn't want to remember that, or that the Clinton admin testified to Congress that BOTH Osama bin Laden and Saddam in 1999!

#47 Anyone know why there is not the option under EVERY---

comment box to "switch to rich text"? 

I get that choice only about a third of the time.

And the arrows are messed up, and for some reason there is way too much open space left at the end of some posts.






"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#48 md...did you upload the new FF, style, and code?

See Lachlan's Forum and then Matthew Sheffield's for the updated code.   I get the Rich Text option every time after doing the upgrade (and also in IE7) but the Firefox displays really well, and helps handle the script issues which eventually bog down until i have to restart.

PM me if you need some help with all that, or PM me your e-mail addy and I'll shoot you an e-mail.

#49 Blonde---

PM on the way.
"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#50 Ah Paul Begala

The guy that tries to put out the most thoughtless, cliche statements around and that often turn out to be accidently pro-republican if you make the mistake of trying to think them through. I mean he once said that Bush was trying to get people to use more gas and make gas more expensive. The only way W could have pulled that off is to make people richer. (Hey, that's just economics not that I think Paul realized that's what he was actually arguing.) Oh and then there was the whole "Culture of Corruption" line of thought from the dems and when some claimed that there were dems in on it he had a retort. Unfortunately it was who'd give us money, we're not in power. If you think that through what it means is "If it appears we're not corrupt you have to remember we haven't had the chance yet."

#51 Don't forget about Clinton Breaking international law

Don't forget about Clinton breaking international law in 1999 and bombing the hell out of Serbia for 78 days. He was involved in “trying to stop a genocide in Kosovo…” In fact, Clinton’s bombing of the former Yugoslavia killed more people than died in this “genocide.” And his policy benefited Osama bin Laden and the global Jihad. The Clinton policy of supporting the same extremist Muslim forces in Europe that subsequently attacked us on 9/11 is far more controversial than the policy of regime change in Iraq, which was officially a policy of Clinton, Bush and the Congress.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.