Clinton vs Chris Wallace

I saw parts of that, he got a bit hot under the collar.

 

Seriously, Clinton looked like a complete fool, and Wallace is anything but a right-wing hit man. The whole thing was silly. Clinton needs to be put on meds. He's getting a bit loopy in his old age.

 

I don't watch the same telly you do, but Mr. Clinton has made many trips to Canada. He has been a complete gentleman and very popular here. He was signing his book in Toronto and took an extra hour to meet with the people there, shake hands and talk with the folks. He got nothing but good press.

I rather like him, as I do his wife when I met her in Watertown, NY.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Either you didn't see it, or you are too biased to make a reasonable comment.

 

I didn't see it, but I wisht that I had seen it . . . trusting other people to interpret the news is always dangerous.

 

I think this is what had Clinton steamed...

On August 6, 2001, the CIA delivered a now-famous "Presidential Daily Brief" (PDB) to Bush entitled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S." The memo stated that, although the FBI had "not been able to corroborate" a 1998 report that bin Laden was seeking to "hijack a U.S. aircraft," "FBI information since that time indicate[d] patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
The administration appears to have done little in response to the August 6 PDB. The 9-11 Commission stated in its report that it "found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States" -- this despite the fact that "[m]ost of the intelligence community recognized in the summer of 2001 that the number and severity of threat reports were unprecedented."

This after Bush had dismantled most of the programs Clinton had in place to protect the US from terrorism. (also documented by the 9/11 commission)

FOX rarely mentioned any of this, so when Chris Wallace tried to spin it the other way, it's not surprising that Clinton took umbrage at it. Wallace found himself in the position of a man who pokes a sharp stick at a caged tiger, only to learn that the cage is unlocked.

 

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/networks/wallace_i_felt_as_if_a_mountain_was_coming_down_in_front_of_me__44380.asp

Here is Chris Wallace's version of events. You can take it or leave it. Keep in mind, Clinton is a proven liar, Wallace is not.

And yes, I did watch it. Clinton looked and acted like a nutcase.

 

The important thing is that Clinton was right. Bush dismanteled Clinton's protections against terror, and pooh-poohed the danger Osama posted.

"Clarke sharply whacks Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as the leader of the Get Saddam squad. When the White House finally did convene a top-level meeting to discuss terrorism, in April 2001, Wolfowitz rebuffed Clarke's effort to focus on Al Qaeda. According to Clarke, Wolfowitz said, "Who cares about a little terrorist in Afghanistan?" getCSS("3222991")The real threat, Wolfowitz insisted, was state-sponsored terrorism orchestrated by Saddam. "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4571338/

Assured by nutcases like Wolfowitz that Saddam was the source of terrorism, Bush shut down Operation Catcher's mitt, downgraded antiterrorism activities, and intervened to stop the FBI from monitoring suspicious Arab militants in the U.S.

Did that make 9/11 possible? We can't say. But it sure made it easier for Osama.

And FOX gave Bush a pass on that. Chris Wallace flat out lied to Clinton, when he insisted that he had also confronted Bush about Bush's 9/11 failures.

 

No, Clinton acted with appropriate outrage - what kind of loaded question is, "Why didn't you do more to stop bin Laden?" Implicit in the question is a ton of undeserved blame. As I have seen some form of this question on this board, I have concluded that this is rrw attack point.

 

Clinton never had much class as president. He has even less as an ex president.

 

Former Clinton advisor David Gergen writes in "Eyewitness to Power" that Clinton's temper was like Vesuvius and that his blowups were legendary and were impediments to his leadership abilities (273-274).

The bi-partisan 9/11 commission (I don't have a link to it or the National Geographic Channel's documentary) also faulting Clinton's administration for failing to carry out hits against UBL twice. One time was when he was at a funeral. The second was because UBL had a dignitary from the UAE with him.

In his "My Life," Clinton goes to enormous measures to blame everyone for the reason UBL was not apprehended: the Pentagon, the CIA, other members of his cabinent, his lack of belief that UBL was responsible for the USS Cole bombing (925). The most troubling of Clinton's statements regarding his "pursuit" of Bin Laden is this:

We can go back and forth on that all day long if we like, but can we agree (we, being those who are not hacks) on the following:
1. Clinton and Bush have both failed to get UBL. Clinton failed for years. Bush failed just prior to and since 9/11 so his failures are magnified.
2. The CIA failed to do its job properly. They worried too much about international pressures.
3. Clinton's "Well, I tried to get him" is fine and good, but so has Bush, and neither gets any points for trying. The ball has to go through the hoop, if you'll permit the weak metaphor.

Clinton's interview and defense was under the pretext of Clinton's Global Initiative Conference. I believe it was an excellent campaign move on Clinton's part to rally the Dems in the light of recently weakening numbers. Clinton is a campaigner without equal. Launching into this defense on Fox News is just what the doctor ordered.

Bottom line: Clinton haters will blame Clinton for UBL since Clinton is the reason the Reds won't make the playoffs this year. The Kool-Aid drinkers on the other side exonerate Clinton because he's the reason we have water, sunlight, salvation, electricity, etc. All now have more fodder, but I suspect this was aimed at helping and will help the Dems midterm election campaign.

 

If you can't attack the substance, attack the style; but, above all else, attack.

 

So, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a hack? Cute.

Ok.

I think it's a childish myth that if you just try hard enough, you will achieve your goal.

The CIA has its problems, but caring too much about international pressure doesn't seem to be one of them. There are international consequences to international actions and they do have to be weighed.

Um, Bush disregarded the Clinton administration's warning that terrorism should be the biggest priority and chose education instead (perhaps that's why Bush was reading 'My Pet Goat' to school children during the attack).

I don't think it is just a pretext. I thought it was the Republicans with the weak numbers this time. Fox gave him the opening with that attack question.

Sure, Clintion's appearance was definitely aimed at helping his party, as well as his Global Initiative Conference, and Chris Wallace's asinine question was designed to help Republicans (but it backfired).

 

Beats being defensive all the time, Daisy.:thumbs:

But you did what you accuse me of.

Clinton has shown a definite lack of class, in my opinion, by breaking many of the protocols that former presidents have used for decades to guide their conduct.

Do you deny that is a true statement?

 

Clinton looked like he is. A pathological liar. I know he's used to soft-ball questions by idolizing "journalists", so the guy who supposedly worked harder than anyone to end terrorism was made to look like an eight year old by faux news. Didn't see it coming. Haw haw.

Gonna be a great November.