Clinton vs Chris Wallace

Very appropriate given the interview last night. I didn't see it. I have read about it, and heard a few clips of it.

Clinton immediately went on the attack on the style of hte question rather than the substance of it. The question is legit. "Why didn't you do more" is not implying that he did nothing. It implies that he stopped short of success. The question was simple: Why didn't you do more?

Didn't Clinton himself say that they failed? He admitted that. So why is a question based on the self-evident premise of failure wrong?

Why didn't Clinton say, "We didn't have a clear shot." "We tried but couldn't make it work." "We weren't sure where he was." Instead, he attacked a reporter.

He should know better.

Predictably, this thread has materialized like most do. Those who generally take hte liberal side defend Clinton at all costs. Those who generally take the conservative side attack Clinton. The truth is that the question may have been loaded somewhat, and presented negatively. The truth is that Clinton overreacted (and probably told lies in the process, at least if you believe what the CIA and others are saying).

 

I didn't get that impression from what I read Bob. Wallace said he repeatedly tried to get Clinton back to the topic of his fund raising, but he wouldn't go there. Wallace said they agreed to 15 minutes, half for the fund raising and half for what Wallace wanted to ask.

But it seems to me, that whatever side you come down on, that we would have to conclude that Clinton did not look or act very presidential, at least in the pictures I have seen and the reports I have read.

So what exactly is your objection do the questino, "Why didn't you do more?" Do you think he did enough?

 

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. I will answer all of those things on the merits but I want to talk about the context of which this arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network…ABC just had a right wing conservative on the Path to 9/11 falsely claim that it was based on the 9/11 Commission report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report. I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much. Same people.

 

Clinton is feeling attacked because the word on the street is that his administration did nothing. The fact remains that he gave intelligence to the next administration that was ignored and because it was ignored many american's died.

He can make excuses like you suggested but what for, his watch gathered intelligence and gave it to the next aministration. Had we of re-elected him he would have been at the control's when it was time. Since we didn't, we allwed the attack to happen as a front to go over and avenge Bush Sr. debaucle...

 

The agreement they had was: Half of the time discuss the "global initiative", the other half discuss whatever Chris wanted to ask. What was Chris supposed to say, "Send in the guys with the white jackets"? One simple little question and Clinton decides to spend the rest of the time talking about "right-wing hit job" and the "smirk" on Wallace's face.

I actually watched it, did you? I can't see how you would be "proud of your hero" after a performance like that. You must not have watched it. You must have watched reaction to it.

 

Paranoia,misdirection, lack of class and always refusing to accept personal responsibility. That's the Clinton legacy.

 

No, I only saw parts but I do know how it feels to be welcomed like a fly to the spiders trap. It is natural to attack when backed into a cornor. It's the only way out.

 

You honestly think Chris Wallace was trying to trap Clinton? I think Chris gave Clinton a golden opportunity to respond to the "Path to 9-11" ABC movie. Clinton could have been prepared to explain what he did, why he did it, and why he did not do some things. He could have acted like a former President of the United States.

Chris Wallace the Spider.... ROFL

 

Actually, I believe this whole thing was staged by Clinton. I believe he anticipated a question along those lines and knew exactly how he would react and what he would say. His temper and his degrading treatment of his subordinates is legendary. But when the camera is on him, it's show time.

 

Agreed. And, the very best thing about the 2008 election is that both the Clinton bashers/supporters and the Bush bashers/supporters can go off into corners and continue to bloody each other while the rest of the country supports a new president.

Clinton held his own with Chris Wallace, but didn't win points with his "smirk" attack. For a bit there, he did lose his focus. Yes, Wallace's questions were loaded -- whose aren't?

 

It will be interesting to see if Democrats elect Hillary. I do wonder what role Bill will play in her administration.

 

Now we have pastors Baptist no less that support abortion. Good grief!

 

That's it!!! I'm becoming a calvinist. :laugh:

The best thing Clinton did as President, is help pass most of Newt's Contract with America. Sure made him look good. All those scandals though...

 

Yes because that is the same thing. How foolish of me.:tonofbricks:

 

Well, in teh interest of accuracy, the word on the street is that they did not do everything, and did not do enough. I have not heard anyone say that they didn't do anything. They did fly a missile in a tent a hit a camel in teh butt ... or something like that.

Probably not.

And went into Iraq on that intelligence and look how good that turned out to be.

Which would likely have made no difference. Since he didn't get him in eight years, the next eight months was probably not going to be the time. In addition, the constitution prohibited reelecting him. Although personally, I would like to see that amendment go, since I am pro choice in politics. Of course, the myth of Clinton would have taken a severe hit becuase we would have had the 9/11 attacks and the continued economic dive in a Clinton presidency, and then people would understnad what really happens.

False charges. It is ridiculous for you to say that we allowed the attack to happen.

 

Unfortunately, that's not the first time Bill Clinton went off on a member of the press. Check out this exchange between Bill Clinton and Peter Jennings in November, 2004:


JENNINGS (Discussing rankings by presidential historians]: They gave you a forty-first in terms of moral authority - after Nixon.
CLINTON: They're wrong about that. You know why they're wrong about it? They're wrong about it.
JENNINGS: Why, sir?
CLINTON: Because we had $100 million spent against us in all these inspections. ... In spite of it all, you don't have any example where I ever lied to the American people about my job, where I have let the American people down. And I had more support from the world when I quit than when I started. And I will go to my grave being at peace about it. And I don't really care about what they think.
JENNINGS: Oh, yes you do.
CLINTON: They have no idea ...
JENNINGS: Excuse me, Mr. President. I can feel it across the room. You care very deeply. CLINTON: No, no. I care. I care. You don't want to go here, Peter. You don't want to go here. Not after what your people did. And the way you - your network - what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every little sleazy thing he did. No one has any idea of what that's like.