Bill Clinton Spanks Fox News Hard for Political Bias and Trying to Mug Him

-

wallace clinton.jpg
(photo from Crooks and Liars)
After the Clinton Global Initiative had ended and in the hours that followed, I was doing some writing and organizing of notes in the CGI press room where Fox News’ Chris Wallace was also hanging around — looking pensive, waiting for what I didn’t know then was an attempted mugging of President Bill Clinton.
Fox News had secured the exclusive interview with Clinton to talk with him about how the $7.3 billion that the CGI had helped raise was going to be directed at various global problems.
Instead, Fox News was there to hit Clinton for his failure to deal effectively with bin Laden and pre-9/11 terrorism.
Watch the interview here.
Here is the full transcript.
Read the entire thing, or better yet, watch it — but here is one of the many effective Clinton passages:

WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on Fox News Sunday, I got a lot of e-mail from viewers. And I’ve got to say, I was surprised. Most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaida out of business when you were president?
There’s a new book out, I suspect you’ve already read, called
The Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops. Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the Cole.
CLINTON: OK, let’s just go through that.
WALLACE: Let me — let me — may I just finish the question, sir?
And after the attack, the book says that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around, because he expected an attack, and there was no response.
I understand that hindsight is always 20/20. . .
CLINTON: No, let’s talk about it.
WALLACE: . . .but the question is, why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?
CLINTON: OK, let’s talk about it. Now, I will answer all those things on the merits, but first I want to talk about the context in which this arises.
I’m being asked this on the Fox network. ABC just had a right-wing conservative run in their little “Pathway to 9/11,” falsely claiming it was based on the 9/11 Commission report, with three things asserted against me directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report.
And I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn’t do enough said I did too much — same people.
They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in Black Hawk down, and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations.
OK, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaida was a growing concern in October of ’93.
WALLACE: I understand, and I. . .
CLINTON: No, wait. No, wait. Don’t tell me this — you asked me why didn’t I do more to bin Laden. There was not a living soul. All the people who now criticize me wanted to leave the next day.
You brought this up, so you’ll get an answer, but you can’t. . .
WALLACE: I’m perfectly happy to.
CLINTON: All right, secondly. . .
WALLACE: Bin Laden says. . .
CLINTON: Bin Laden may have said. . .

Here is another gem:

CLINTON: Did you ever ask that?
You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch’s supporting my work on climate change.
And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about — you said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7-billion-plus in three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.
WALLACE: But, President Clinton, if you look at the questions here, you’ll see half the questions are about that. I didn’t think this was going to set you off on such a tear.
CLINTON: You launched it — it set me off on a tear because you didn’t formulate it in an honest way and because you people ask me questions you don’t ask the other side.

Crooks & Liars has more.
I will be writing more about the whirling, fascinating world of Bill Clinton’s philanthropic globalthon — but have to say that Chris Wallace deserved this throttling.
Fox News’ efforts to market this as “Clinton losing it” diminishes Fox’s credibility even more than the interview did as Clinton is clearly at the top of his game and did much to set the historical record right.
– Steve Clemons

Comments

36 comments on “Bill Clinton Spanks Fox News Hard for Political Bias and Trying to Mug Him

  1. xenical without prescription says:

    Xenical (Generic Xenical, Orlistat) blocks some of the fat that you eat from being absorbed by your body. Xenical (Generic Xenical, Orlistat) is used in the management of obesity including weight loss and weight maintenance when used with a reduced-calorie diet. Xenical (Generic Xenical, Orlistat) may also be used for purposes other than those listed in this medication guide.
    http://www.rxwanted.net/generic-xenical.html

    Reply

  2. John says:

    Clinton said to read Clarke’s book. It was one of the first post-9/11 publications written by an insider. I think it was a best seller, but nobody posting here seems to have actually read it.
    Clarke asked for a reassignment to cybersecurity because he was frustrated with the Bush administration’s refusal to deal with terrorism, particularly the looming threat posed by Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. He specifically wrote that both he and CIA Director Tenet were running around with their “hair on fire” during the summer of 2001 because they knew something disastrous was being planned and their warnings were not being taken seriously.
    Clarke was demoted and Condi Rice didn’t respond to his Al Qaeda reports or requests to schedule a higher level meeting to discuss them. Disgusted, he decided to request reassignment. Not because that was what he wanted, but because terrorism had been downgraded by the Bush administration and he was not accomplishing anything.
    Clarke was simply tired of being looked at as Chicken Little yelling, “The sky is falling, I must tell the king!” Nobody, especially the king, was interested.
    The Administration response to Clarke has been that he has an axe to grind because he was demoted. However, he is not challenged about the facts. Actually, the White House had to retreat from its initial denial that on 9/12/01, inside the White House, President Bush directly asked Clarke to find a connection between Sadam Hussein and the previous day’s terrorist attacks. Too bad for Bush, a witness was standing next to Clarke during their conversation. It’s not surprising that the automatic response from Chris Wallace after Clinton mentions Clarke’s name was to question Clarke’s motivations.
    One more point, but again you have to read a book. This time it’s Ron Suskind’s “The One Percent Doctrine” and you don’t have to read beyond the first page. While vacationing on his Texas ranch in August 2001, President Bush was disturbed by a CIA analyst flying from Washington DC to personally deliver the famous “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” intelligence memo. The analyst then verbally briefed the president about the threat alert. Instead of being alarmed or asking questions, which he aparently never does, about an obvious “heads up” concerning bin Laden’s intentions, President Bush’s response to the analyst’s briefing was, “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.” Reading between the lines indicates that George Tenet was probably the analyst and the source. Somehow, I don’t think Bill Clinton would have received these warnings and reacted the same way.

    Reply

  3. MP says:

    “campbell is far too articulate and grammatically correct to actually believe what he or she says. More likely he’s a neo-con pretending to be a conspiracy theorist. The purpose of posting such nonsense is so others of his ilk can whine about the trash that appears on centrist blogs. His own posting can be cited to show that extremists have taken over the blogosphere.”
    You think you have it figured out, djb, but actually, you’re being naive. If you think these folks are all rednecks, think again. Also, read some history.

    Reply

  4. Bill says:

    I guess you’ve got no problems with the outright fabrications told by Clinton during the interview. One example:
    Clinton said in the Wallace interview that Richard Clarke was “downgraded”, “demoted” and “fired” — part of his criticism of the new Bush Admin. For not doing anything in 8 months:
    CLINTON: All right. Let’s look at what Richard Clarke said. Do you think Richard Clarke has a vigorous attitude about bin Laden?

    CLINTON: … They downgraded him and the terrorist operation.
    CLINTON: …. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti- terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted.
    .…
    CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question, but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of…. I want to know how many you asked, “Why did you fire Dick Clarke?”
    Now — here is what Richard Clarke had to say HIMSELF about the change in his job status in the Bush Administration — the source is an interview he gave on March 20, 2002, as part of the PBS Frontline program on John O’Neill — “The Man Who Knew”
    “Frontline: “You tried to convince him, it has been written, to take your job. Can you tell me a little bit about that what happened?
    Clarke: “Shortly after the Bush administration came into office, we were asked to think about how we organized the White House for a number of issues, including cybersecurity, computer security, homeland security, and counterterrorism. I was asked for my advice, and I proposed that the counterterrorism responsibility be broken off be a separate job, and that the cybersecurity job be broken off as a separate job. I said I had done counterterrorism for about a decade, and I wanted to start working on cybersecurity, which I think is terribly important. That was later approved by the president.
    “Downgraded”, “demoted” and “fired”.
    That would be news to Richard Clarke.

    Reply

  5. Talondale says:

    Dillusional, some of these posts are purely dillusional. Clinton is rude, defensive, uses aggressive mannerisms (finger pointing, poking the papers in Chris’ lap, leaning forward), name calls, accusational, and plain childish.
    >”Wallace was told he had 7-8 mins to discuss >the Global Initiative. He was then told he had >7-8 mins to discuss other topics”….????
    >Really? Where did you see that? I don’t >remember seeing any reference to that in the >transcript or in Steves comments…did I miss >it? (Quoting Carroll)
    Yes Carroll you missed it. Chris Wallace mentioned what the format would be, in his intro segment, illudes to it in the in the interview, and Clinton confirms it in one of his answers:
    “CLINTON: Did you ever ask that?
    You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch?s supporting my work on climate change.
    And you came here under false pretenses and said that you?d spend half the time talking about? you said you?d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7-billion-plus in three days from 215 different commitments. And you don?t care.
    WALLACE: But, President Clinton, if you look at the questions here, you?ll see half the questions are about that. I didn?t think this was going to set you off on such a tear.”
    Clinton even admits it’s a legitimate question:
    “CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question,….”
    So why lose your “Presidential” demeanor?
    Compare this simple question Chris asked with Tim Russert’s interview with VP Chenney:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14720480/
    Is it really onesided? No, it seems a fair question and on par with what the current administration is being asked. Yet Chenney’s composure was much more mature than Clinton’s even though he “hit back hard” with his answers. If you can’t see that Clinton’s actions are those of someone on the border of losing control of their composure you need some serious work in your interpersonal skills.

    Reply

  6. bertignac says:

    Bill’s bull?
    Ex-advisers: Clinton had no plan to overthrow Taliban,
    kill Osama
    BY JAMES GORDON MEEK and KENNETH R. BAZINET
    DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
    Former advisers of Bill Clinton deny he had plan to wipe out Taliban.
    WASHINGTON – Former advisers ridiculed ex-President Bill Clinton yesterday for saying he had a plan to invade Afghanistan, topple the Taliban and kill Osama Bin Laden after jihadists nearly sank the destroyer Cole.
    “The only order we got from [Clinton] after the Cole was to put together a target list for air attacks,” said Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA’s hunt for Osama Bin Laden under Clinton.
    “What I was involved in could in no way be called a full-fledged plan to attack and overthrow the Taliban,” he said.
    In his fiery interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Clinton claimed he did more than President Bush to get Bin Laden before 9/11, disclosing that he had a secret plan to invade Afghanistan and wipe out the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
    Clinton insisted he never ordered that invasion because the CIA and FBI could not “certify” that Bin Laden was involved in the Oct. 12, 2000, attack on the Cole in a Yemeni harbor.
    Scheuer, who wrote the book “Imperial Hubris,” said he met every 10 days with top members of Clinton’s anti-terror team and plans for an invasion were never presented or discussed.
    He also lashed out at Clinton for blaming subordinates for the failure to get Bin Laden, saying they had 10 chances to kill or capture the terror kingpin before 9/11.
    “I was responsible for sending men and women into harm’s way to get information he didn’t use,” Scheuer added.
    Fran Townsend, a former top intelligence adviser in Clinton’s Justice Department and now Bush’s anti-terror czar, rolled her eyes when asked about Clinton’s invasion plan.
    “There were lots of things that seemed new” in Clinton’s recollections on Fox, Townsend said.
    Still, Team Clinton stood by its story. “A plan existed, but the ability to act on it was not corroborated by intelligence until after President Clinton left office,” said Clinton spokesman Jay Carson.
    P.J. Crowley, spokesman for Clinton’s National Security Council and a retired Air Force officer with a security clearance, said many contingency plans existed at the Pentagon.
    “It wasn’t that there was a lack of plans, it’s that there was a lack of actionable intelligence,” Crowley said.
    Scheuer and a retired senior FBI official agreed that they knew almost immediately that Al Qaeda was behind the Cole bombing. “We all said this was definitely Bin Laden,” the ex-FBI official said. “But we couldn’t take it to court and get an indictment.”
    Two sources that Clinton repeatedly cited in the Fox interview – the 9/11 commission report and Richard Clarke’s book, “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror” – never mention plans to invade Afghanistan.
    Originally published on September 26, 2006

    Reply

  7. Jean says:

    Correction: “…November 2000 election [not 2006] when he was trying to persuade DN! listeners to vote for Gore/Lieberman”. Sorry, should have proofread first.

    Reply

  8. Jean says:

    I’m no fan of Fox (or CNN or NPR or the New York Times or really any corporate American media outlet), but Clinton came across as defensive, self-righteous, and belligerent. He had the same reaction to Amy Goodman’s questions during the November 2006 election, when he was trying to persudae Democracy Now! listeners . Whined about how “hostile” and “comabative” she was when she asked tough but legitimate questions:
    http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/21/1613218
    Why shouldn’t a reporter be entitled to ask a politician about his decisions and actions?
    Pissed off American (comment above, September 24, 2006 11:38 PM) gets it.

    Reply

  9. FRIEDA says:

    IT WAS VERY OBVIOUS THAT CLINTON HAS NOT READ CLARK’S BOOK. I JUST FINISHED IT AND EVEN CLARK ADMITS THAT HE WAS NOT, NOT , NOT FIRED BY BUSH ADMINISTRATION. I THINK CLINTON WAS REFFERING TO PATH TO 9/11 MOVIE WHICH THEY EVEN GOT IT WRONG REGARDING CLARK.
    CLINTON IS STILL CLUELESS!! POOR GUY!

    Reply

  10. Pissed Off American says:

    “campbell is far too articulate and grammatically correct to actually believe what he or she says. More likely he’s a neo-con pretending to be a conspiracy theorist. The purpose of posting such nonsense is so others of his ilk can whine about the trash that appears on centrist blogs. His own posting can be cited to show that extremists have taken over the blogosphere.”
    Posted by djb
    The same thought crossed my mind. However, either personage, be it a neo-con troll, OR simply a bigoted ass, would be doing us all a favor by heeding my suggestion.

    Reply

  11. djb says:

    campbell is far too articulate and grammatically correct to actually believe what he or she says. More likely he’s a neo-con pretending to be a conspiracy theorist. The purpose of posting such nonsense is so others of his ilk can whine about the trash that appears on centrist blogs. His own posting can be cited to show that extremists have taken over the blogosphere.

    Reply

  12. Pissed Off American says:

    “Jews are the masters of murder, as they proved with 9/11 and just now in Lebanon, not to mention their genocide of Palestinians, of Russians and Ukrainians – and Germans.”
    Posted by Campbell
    Another TRULY anti-semitic crock of horseshit. It is useless bigoted blather such as that that opens the door for any criticism of Israel to be branded “anti-semitic”. You would be doing is all a favor if you just slithered back under your rock and shut your ignorant maw.

    Reply

  13. Eli Rabett says:

    At the Democratic Policy Committee hearing today, one of those who testified was asked what could have been done better. His reply (a paraphrase from memory) was that the biggest mistake was made by the Democrats who controlled the Senate in 2002. Instead of holding hearings before the election they chose to postpone the debate until after. By the nature of war planning and preparation this meant that even if they had maintained a majority, the planning for war would have been so far advanced after the election that there still would have been no turning back.

    Reply

  14. Campbell says:

    Mr. Ahmadinejad knows that the Council on Foreign Relations is the de facto government of the United States. He knows that the nuclear attack that is planned for his country was designed by the members of this iniquitous club of Rothschild/Rockefeller. But he still went there and messed their minds up. He so enraged those pampered, perfumed pimps that one of them said later:
    “If this man represents the prevailing government opinion in Tehran, we are
    heading for a massive confrontation with Iran,” he said. [ibid]
    We know what that means. It means that the Iranians are going to be irradiated. The question is, are we going to allow our Manhattan gangsters to get away with it? They are certainly our responsibility. And of course, the CFR disclaims all responsibility while claiming all power. “We’re just a think-tank – a private study group.” But the fact is that you can’t have power without responsibility, once honest men figure out what you’ve been doing. They have to answer for their actions, and for their crimes against humanity. They have to answer to us. If they don’t answer to us, they’ll have to answer to some angry foreigners. You just can’t keep mass murdering for eighty years and building the empire and ruining other countries without someone stopping you. Not in this day and age. It has to be American men stopping them. If someone else came over and wiped out the CFR, we would be in permanent disgrace. Our manhood would be irretrievably lost.
    As I pointed out last time, the Iranians are perfectly within their rights to attack the United States based on the many reports of Bush’s plan to attack them. The fact is, though, that Moslems do not engage in unprovoked action. They generally don’t engage in very drastic action even when they are provoked, although a few of them are flexing their muscles in Iraq and Lebanon, showing their true potential. But we have driven them against the wall, and even a rabbit will bite you if you give it no way out of a corner. If Moslems were as murderous as the Jews claim, Israel would no longer exist as a Zionist entity. It is the Jews and Judaized Americans and Englishmen who attack without provocation, as they continue to prove. Jews are the masters of murder, as they proved with 9/11 and just now in Lebanon, not to mention their genocide of Palestinians, of Russians and Ukrainians – and Germans.

    Reply

  15. Christian says:

    Let me get this straight. If a Democrat fights back and stands his ground, he/she is considered as “losing it” and if a Republican does the same, many in the media will call him/her “resolute,” “standing tall,” etc., etc.
    Can you say double standards? I’m sorry but you really do see this a lot when it comes to the MSM in framing Democratic/Republican leaders who stand up and argue on something

    Reply

  16. JS says:

    I know Steves an advocate for the two parties playing off one another and there being a semblance of balance between the two in the aisles of power in Washington.
    But, one has to start to realize America is sick and tired of both parties, because all they are is parties that stick to their platform, even if it is not in tune to what Americans need, but they still use it as long as it is “sufficient for political opposition” to the other party.
    What America needs is another party. We all know what Democrats and Republicans want, but they dont seem to see and know what we all want.
    Its gotten really disgusting the last 12-15 yrs especially. All the special interest money on both sides, big business throwing its weight at both parties. Democrats arent the party of the little people anymore, nor are they the party of minority groups. Theyve honestly and truly morphed into really the same type of political party the Republicans are, its simply that they forcefully hold different platforms and agendas to get elected and then consolidate power to stay there and get fat.
    I wish people were elected to Congress who actually say for once and for all ” you know what, screw politics, and screw agendas”. Im going to give the people what they need.
    What we need:
    New Tax Formula…….Including elimination of all tax cut packages.
    Social Security Reform…….Including tough decisions involving cutting back eligible benefits to certain retirees, extending the age for such benefits to an older age. We cant simply throw the burden of funding this albatross to a younger generation. It will breed distrust and even hatred. Certainly there can be small tax hikes imposed, but too much of a tax hike on younger workers will leave them with feelings of being disenfranchised and perhaps causing some structural damage to the education/economy and whole “American Dream” idea.
    Health Care Reform. Again, another problem which you simply cant throw money at. The system needs to be overhauled and a new foundation built. Too many people are receiving medical care who arent insured, burdening hospitals, overburdening people who have to pay. There needs to be a national coverage system. There also needs to be strict fiscal and logistical oversight. You cant have people applying for surgeries like facelifts, cosmetic surgery, or non-essential surgeries under this plan. Also, people who are high-risk patients who routinely spend significant time in the hospital or routinely desire medical attention need to be dealt with in a special system.

    Reply

  17. Carroll says:

    Yep POA…I voted for Clinton twice but he is slick Willy and has gotten slicker since his retirement, especially with Hillary in the senate…but he still has his wits about him.
    I, like you, am just sick really of all the politicans talk in the face of such complete utter stupidity destruction waste…
    It’s all about “them and their” elections not about the country…something has to happen to change that…

    Reply

  18. Pissed Off American says:

    This horeshit cracks me up. Gee howdy whup whup, “Clinton comes out swinging”. Gimme a break. The Bushlickers have been spinning this yarn about Clinton “doing nothing about Bin Laden” since before the dust settled from the collapse of the towers. And Clinton, and the rest of these spineless cowards that comprise the “opposition party”, have failed to forcefully and publically defend themselves against such rhetoric. This bit with Fox News is far too little far too late. The fact is that if you mention the Graham/Rudman Report, in a group of people, you recieve mostly blank stares. Nobody has even heard of it. But hey, you can find plenty of people that will claim to know that “Clinton missed getting Bin Laden”. The Democrats have allowed the criminals in the White House to SCREAM lies, while doing little more than whispering truths, (if they answer the lies at all). Clinton, Kerry, Gore, ALL of them have been raked over the coals, and have done very little to defend themselves or set the record straight.
    I got news for you folks, and especially for Steve. These bastards, right AND left, are a bunch of self serving ass licking opportunists. And if the current crop of Democrats gain power there will be very little that changes in Washington. The true patriots that would serve America’s interests, such as Kucinich or Conyers have been marginalized, silenced, ridiculed, and ignored by BOTH SIDES. Where the fuck was Clinton or Kerry when Conyers was consigned to a basement cubby hole in which to hold his hearings on vote fraud? Where the hell were these people hiding when it was time to filibuster Alito? Where do these two mewling empty suits stand on the Downing Street Memo? The list goes on and on. And I am supposed to experience a throbbing orgasm of renewed faith when one of these cowards actually DEFENDS themselves? Come on, someone should have shoved the truth up Fox News’ propaganda laden ass YEARS ago.
    Clinton can tell Fox News to shove it till hell freezes over, and it will not improve America’s lot one iota. The last five years have probably been the DAMAGING five years in America’s history. We have lost the moral high ground from which we used to champion human rights in world affairs. We have lost our credibility. We have lost the respect of the world community. We are losing our technological edge, and industry has fled our nation. And through all this the Democrats have twiddled their fucking thumbs and whispered an occassional “tsk tsk” while these maniacs in the White House have made a MOCKERY out of every tenet and ideal that we used to pride ourselves in.
    This country is in deep shit, and it is going to take a leader of far greater charisma, far greater power of presence, and far stronger moral fiber, than the current batch of clowns in Washington have to offer, to pull us out of this mess.
    What did Clinton accomplish by his participation in another Faux News skit??? Well, I’ll tell you. He indoubtedly managed to raise their ratings. But tomorow, Alito will still be on the bench. Another few of our boys will die for lies in Iraq. Someone on the Hill will get a check from AIPAC or Standard Oil. And a coupla thousand more illegals will cross over and dissappear into our general population.
    Whoopee, Clinton told Fox News to fuck off.
    And somewhere, tomorrow, we will torture another Muslim, finance another coup, and sell a coupla billion dollars of arms to the highest bidder.
    Oh swell.

    Reply

  19. grytpype says:

    The right wing doesn’t like it when somebody fights back. They don’t like it at all.

    Reply

  20. Carroll says:

    “Wallace was told he had 7-8 mins to discuss the Global Initiative. He was then told he had 7-8 mins to discuss other topics like War in Afghanistan/Iraq, Path to 9/11 movie, etc.”
    Posted by: JS at September 24, 2006 03:43 PM
    >>>>>>>>>
    “Wallace was told he had 7-8 mins to discuss the Global Initiative. He was then told he had 7-8 mins to discuss other topics”….????
    Really? Where did you see that? I don’t remember seeing any reference to that in the transcript or in Steves comments…did I miss it?
    You are in deep denial or a Stepford republican if you can’t read that transcript and see that Wallace’s ploy blew up in his face.
    What impresses me about the paid gop mouthpieces on Faux is that when they are forced off their script they fall to incoherent drooling and snide infantile little quips and whinning.

    Reply

  21. JS says:

    Clinton did actually make some good points about the CIA/FBI problems.
    He also made a great point about Richard Clarke.
    I never understood where the heck Condy Rice got off on demoting Clarke.
    He also made a good point about Afghanistan and it being ignored for a false pretense in Iraq.
    So, upon further review, perhaps I was a bit harsh towards Clinton, but his demeanor towards Wallace is still suspect.

    Reply

  22. MS says:

    Wallace tried to sandbag Clinton. He asked loaded questions “why didn’t you do enough to get Bin Laden?” and tried to stop Clinton from answering.
    Clinton never raised his voice, never shouted. So the IDEA that he was “rageful” or “purple-faced” is absurd.
    See the interview for yourself.
    Chris Wallas insinuates that Clinton did not do enough. And Clinton responds with dates, names, facts and fitures.
    Wallace asks loaded questions. Clinton fairly responds by saying ‘look at the context of these questions!’ and ‘why are you asking ME?’ ‘why haven’t you been asking the Republicans these questions too?’
    Nothing rude. Nothing rageful. THE TRUTH sounds like “rage” to the conservatives?

    Reply

  23. momster says:

    Like Father like Son—Chris Wallace–naught!

    Reply

  24. CLK says:

    Clinton SmacksDown Weasel Wallace.
    Take Notice.
    This is a Strong President.
    Using Intelligence.
    Using Words.
    Using Ideas.
    Fighting back.
    Democrats Don’t Need Cowboy Boots.
    Smart Democrats know how to SmackDown.
    ELECT DEMOCRATS TO CONGRESS.

    Reply

  25. JS says:

    Newsflash:
    Democrats are as complicit for whats wrong with the country right now.
    Yes, Clinton’s economic agenda was very good. However, many of the Democrats hide behind Clintons economic stance, yet only continue to spend and spend without making government equally accountable to that spending.
    I have no problem if government wants to spend more, so long as we get our bang for the buck. Defense spending included.
    Republicans obviously are incredibly guilty of this under Bush and thats why he has lost some of his base including fiscal conservatives.

    Reply

  26. JS says:

    Some of you are seriously delusional. No wonder Democrats and liberals cant win elections with kooks like you misconstruing and deriding anything.
    Yeah. Great Job by Clinton fighting back against the right wingers. Fighting back by sounding a leftist kook and acting in an immature and physically threatening manner.
    Im not a fan of Bush or the hard line republican. Im a republican who supports many of Clinton’s ideas and philanthropic causes.
    However, his legacy as President is clear. All Wallace wanted to do was clarify certain things.
    And for all you naysayers out there, Wallace did not blindside Bill Clinton.
    Wallace was told he had 7-8 mins to discuss the Global Initiative. He was then told he had 7-8 mins to discuss other topics like War in Afghanistan/Iraq, Path to 9/11 movie, etc.
    Perhaps if some of you stopped with the conspiracy theories and recognized the failures of both administrations and we started working to correct them, wed be in better shape.
    By the tone of some of you, one would think that Bill Clinton is Jesus. Hes far from it, and even some of his close friends would say that while he does have good initiatives and philosophical approach, he is a pugnacious individual whos only concern is his legacy.

    Reply

  27. ET says:

    The NY Times reported today that over a dozen spy agencies agree that the Iraq War worsens the threat of terror.
    Completed in April, this intelligence estimate is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began. The report represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.
    The Bush Administration, the complicit Congress, and all those running for office should be rigorously confronted with these data by the press and by the people.
    http://tinyurl.com/zzqfa

    Reply

  28. Marge in Huntington says:

    Mike Wallace must be increasing his dose of antidepressants just watching his pompous son make an ass of himself. I hope all the Democrats slam these right wing liars this election season. It’s what’s been missing the last 5 years. Bravo Bill Clinton!

    Reply

  29. Eli Rabett says:

    Looks like JS got his marching orders. But then again, given JS’s politics when Clinton hit back hard against the smarmy Wallace, it probably did make JS sick.

    Reply

  30. susan says:

    JS writes:
    if you watch the interview again and again, you realize that Wallace actually tried to move discussion away from the issue and Clinton kept harking back on bin Laden.
    Do you know what that is? Thats called insecurity….
    Wrong, JS. it’s called “I won’t let you distort and smear my record.” look it up for yourself. Read Richard Clarke’s book. Wallace fired the opening shot, and for once the response wasn’t some meek little apology. that was exactly the sort of response that Wallace deserved for his crappy little stunt. His Dad must be ashamed.

    Reply

  31. jbCharleston says:

    Well, well, well. Steve, it seems your on the Swift Boat 2 monitoring list. Very quick, very ad hominem. Yup, got all the earmarks.
    Wallace did indulge in “blind-siding”, something no one should do to another. Why is it they insist on supporting the worst presidency in history and trashing one that had a great economy (ie didn’t bankrupt the country) and a president who knew when to cut losses. BTW, Reagan did that on a larger scale (Lebanon), and he was right also.

    Reply

  32. theo says:

    If you watch the whole interview without looking at Clinton, just looking at Wallace, it’s pretty obvious what’s going on.
    Wallace has a embarrassed look on his face the entire time. He got busted for using false pretenses to get the interview. He looks especially weaselly when he’s trying to think of hard-hitting questions he asked Republicans — and can’t come up with any.

    Reply

  33. zAmboni says:

    Clinton comes off as so pugnacious it makes me sick.
    It is about time someone on the left decides to counterpunch the jabs from the right and then goes on the offensive. Clinton hits back at assertions from Wallace, veiled as concerns from emailers, with facts and avoids the usual evasions others usually give in interviews.
    I know it may look like someone is “losing it” when they go on the attack, but that is only because Dems and liberals have been so timid and backpedalling whenever dealing with the media. Clinton didn’t give the right what they expect, and they want to vilify him for not rolling over for them.
    JS, I consider the tone and response to be rather calm and measured. I would be interested to hear how you would categorize Bush’s attitude in recent press conferences and interviews. Pugnacious would be a step up for the current president when his tone can be accurately described as condescending, petulant and dismissive.

    Reply

  34. JS says:

    Clinton comes off as so pugnacious it makes me sick.

    Reply

  35. JS says:

    I disagree completely Steve. Chris Wallace is pretty neutral. He was not attempting to mug Clinton. And if you watch the interview again and again, you realize that Wallace actually tried to move discussion away from the issue and Clinton kept harking back on bin Laden.
    Do you know what that is? Thats called insecurity….
    We all know the failures of the Bush administration at Torah Borah and realizing the threat before 9/11.
    But Bill Clinton is a man who is only concerned about his legacy and his legacy as President will be largely mediocre, especially when it comes to foreign policy. It has to hurt when a grown man like Sandy Berger and your ex NS advisor is caught stuffing classified documents into his pants.
    I think youre completely misreading this. Ive watched clips of the interview 15-20 times, and I dont see any malicious intent on the part of Wallace. I see Bill Clinton acting like a leftist nut accusing Fox News of being an agent of the neocon right.
    I do applaud Bill Clinton for his excellent work with the CGI, as I see that being his bigger claim to fame than his actual Presidency (which is sad).
    Its one thing for you to opine that Wallace is “mugging” Clinton, but for you to completely dismiss the immediate and obvious failures of Clinton against Al-Qaeda is really making me question your ability to observe and analyze from a neutral viewpoint.

    Reply

  36. FDRDemocrat says:

    Pretty amazing to see Drudge and FoxNews pitching this as “Clinton losing it” or “Clinton enraged.” If you watch the excerpt, Clinton is assertivebut never remotely loses control and he sticks to the facts. Wallace larded his questions with self-serving propaganda and generally came off as rude.
    The reality is that the ABC series and what has followed is the first step in the attempted “Swiftboating” of the Clinton’s in anticipation of Hillary running in 2008. The predicate is to sow in people’s minds that 9/11 could have been prevented but for what Clinton did or did not do. The goal is to shift people’s attention away from the disaster of Iraq and the mismanagement of our counter-terrorism policy by Bush-Cheney over to a discussion of Clinton.
    You have to love the fact that Clinton came out swinging here. The Democrats need to meet the right wing toe to toe and not give an inch.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *