And actually came out looking pretty damn good. I more than disaprove of Clinton, but I've got to admit, he can hold up against uncomfortable questioning. That's what you've got to remember about Clinton, a very, very formidable politician.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4

WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on Fox News Sunday, I got a lot of emails from viewers, and I gotta 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 Qaeda out of business when you were president?

There's a new book out, you may -- I suspect you've already read, called The Looming Tower, and it talks about 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 cut the --

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. I will answer all of 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 their little Pathway to 9-11 [sic] 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 neocons 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 Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of 1993.

WALLACE: I understand -- 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 are now criticizing me wanted to leave the next day. You brought this up, so you get an answer, but you can't --

WALLACE: I'm perfectly happy to.

CLINTON: All right. All right, secondly --

WALLACE: Bin Laden says --

CLINTON: But -- bin Laden may have said that --

WALLACE: Bin Laden says it showed the weakness of the U.S. --

CLINTON: But it would have shown the weakness if we'd left right away, but he wasn't involved in that. That's just a bunch of bull. That was about Mohammed Adid, a Muslim warlord murdering 22 Pakistani Muslim troops. We were all there on a humanitarian mission. We had no mission -- none -- to establish a certain kind of Somali government or keep anybody out. He was not a religious fanatic.

WALLACE: But Mr. President --

CLINTON: There was no Al Qaeda --

WALLACE: With respect, if I may, without -- instead of going through '93 --

CLINTON: No, no, you asked it. You brought it up.

WALLACE: May I --

CLINTON: You brought it up.

WALLACE: -- may I ask a general question and then you can answer? The 9-11 Commission, you -- which you talk about -- and this is what they did say -- not what ABC pretended they said.

CLINTON: What did they say?

WALLACE: They said about you and President Bush and I quote: "The U.S. government took the threat seriously, but not in the sense of mustering anything like the kind of effort that would be gathered to confront an enemy of the first, second or even third rank."

CLINTON: That -- first of all, that's not true with us and bin Laden.

WALLACE: Well, I'm talking about what the 9-11 Commission says.

CLINTON: Let's look at what Richard Clarke said. Do you think Richard Clarke has a vigorous attitude about bin Laden?

WALLACE: Yes, I do.

CLINTON: You do, don't you?

WALLACE: I think he has a variety of opinions and loyalties --

CLINTON: That's right.

WALLACE: -- but yes, he has a vigorous opinion.

CLINTON: He has a variety of opinions and loyalties now, but let's look at the facts. He worked for Ronald Reagan. He was loyal to him. He worked for George H. W. Bush. He was loyal to him. He worked for me and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush; he was loyal to him. They downgraded him and the terrorist operation. Now, look what he said. Read his book and read his factual assertions -- not opinions -- assertions. He said we took "vigorous action" after the African embassies. We probably nearly got bin Laden.

WALLACE: Well, wait --

CLINTON: I authorized -- now, wait a minute --

WALLACE: You launched a few -- you threw a few cruise missiles.

CLINTON: No, no. I authorized -- I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him. The CIA was run by George Tenet that President Bush gave the Medal of Freedom to. He said he did a good job, setting up all these counterterrorism things. The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came there.

Now if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: after the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full scale attack/search for bin Laden. But, we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got after 9-11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So, that meant I would have had to send a few hundred Special Forces in, in helicopters and refuel at night. Even the 9-11 Commission didn't do that. Now, the 9-11 Commission was a political document, too. All I'm asking is: If anybody wants to say I didn't do enough, you read Richard Clarke's book.

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough, sir?

CLINTON: No, because I didn't get him.

WALLACE: Right.

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried. 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.

So, you did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit-job on me, but what I want to know --

WALLACE: Now, wait a minute, sir, I asked a question. You don't think that's a legitimate question?

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question. But I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you've asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, "Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?" I want to know how many people you asked, "Why did you fire Dick Clarke?" I want to know how many people you asked about this.

WALLACE: We asked -- we asked. Have you ever watched Fox News Sunday, sir?

CLINTON: I don't believe you asked them that.

WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of --

CLINTON: You didn't ask that, did you? Tell the truth, Chris.

WALLACE: About the USS Cole?

CLINTON: Tell the truth, Chris

WALLACE: With Iraq and Afghanistan, there's plenty of stuff to ask.

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 is 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. But,

WALLACE: President Clinton, if you look at the questions here, you'll see half the questions were about that. I didn't think this was going to go off on such a tear.

CLINTON: You launched -- it set 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.

WALLACE: That -- sir, that is --

CLINTON: And Richard Clarke -

WALLACE: That is not true.

CLINTON: Richard Clarke made it clear in his testimony --

WALLACE: Would you like to talk about the -- about the Clinton Global Initiative?

CLINTON: No, I want to finish this now.

WALLACE: All right. Well, it's up to you.

CLINTON: All I'm saying is, you launched -- you falsely accuse me of giving aid and comfort to bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew Al Qaeda existed then, and --

WALLACE: Did they know in 1996, when he declared war on the U.S.? Did they know in 1998?

CLINTON: Absolutely, they did.

WALLACE: When he bombed the two embassies? Did they know in 2000, when they hit the Cole?

CLINTON: What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now, I've never criticized President Bush, and I don't think this is useful.

But you know, we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only one-seventh as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of -- sort of dismissive theme, when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke's book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you've got that little smirk on your face. You think you're so clever.

But I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending Special Forces into Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise because we could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was president. And so I left office. And yet, I get asked about this all the time, they had three times as much time to deal with it and nobody ever asks them about it. I think that's strange.

WALLACE: Can I ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative?

CLINTON: You can.

WALLACE: I always intended to, sir.

CLINTON: No, you intended, though, to move your bones by doing this first, which is perfectly fine. But I don't mind people asking me. I actually talked to the 9-11 Commission for four hours, Chris, and I told them the mistakes I thought I made. And I urged them to make those mistakes public because I thought none of us had been perfect. But instead of anybody talking about those things, I always get these clever little political eels where they ask me one-sided questions, and the other guys another set. And it always comes from one source. And so -- and so --

WALLACE: I just want to ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative, but what's the source? I mean, you seem upset, and I -- and I --

CLINTON: I am upset, because --

WALLACE: -- and all I can say is, I'm asking you in good faith because it's on people's minds, sir. And I wasn't --

CLINTON: Well, there's a reason it's on people's minds. That's the point I'm trying to make. There's a reason it's on people's minds because they've done a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression. This country only has one person who's worked against terror, from the terrorist incidents under Reagan to the terrorist incidents on 9-11. Only one: Richard Clarke.

And all I can say -- anybody is -- you want to know what we did wrong or right, or anybody else did? Read his book. The people on my political right, who say I didn't do enough, spent the whole time I was president saying, "Why is he so obsessed with bin Laden? That was 'Wag the Dog' when he tried to kill him." My Republican Secretary of Defense -- and I think I'm the only president since World War II to have a Secretary of Defense from the opposite party -- Richard Clarke, and all the intelligence people said that I ordered a vigorous attempt to get bin Laden and came closer apparently than anybody has since.

WALLACE: All right.

CLINTON: And then, you guys try to create the opposite impression when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke's findings and you know it's not true. It's just not true. And all this business about Somalia --the same people who criticized me about Somalia were demanding I leave the next day -- the same exact crowd.

WALLACE: All right.

CLINTON: So, if you're going to do this, for God's sake, follow the same standards for everybody --

WALLACE: I think we do, sir.

CLINTON: -- and be fair.

WALLACE: I think we do.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002

Chris Wallace is a pretty tough interviewer. He nearly always controls the course of discussion and at times I've seen him absolutely steamroll the unwary and unsuspecting. But not this time. And no, I'm not suggesting Wallace intended to steamroll Clinton. It's just that Clinton left no doubt who was in control of the conversation.

I very much enjoyed the way he stood up for himself: strongly, clearly and intelligently.

Clinto has his failings but he is a very intelligent & articulate man. Bush is a cowboy idiot - there is really no comparison between the two.

I saw the interview and I thought Clinton acted like a petulant child. Rather than make me think more of him it had the opposite effect. I thought little of him before the interview and I think even less of him after the interview.

I saw the interview and I thought Clinton acted like a petulant child.LMAO!!

It cracks me up that you of all people would say this! :)

Don't go getting all petulant on me, Sedan.

Not to worry. :stifles guffaw:

Chris Wallace is a pretty tough interviewer.

Yes, he is.

IF it is an evil Democrat in the hot seat.

He nearly always controls the course of discussion and at times I've seen him absolutely steamroll the unwary and unsuspecting.

Absolutely.

If the person is not Republican to the core, Wallace can be relentless.

I'm not suggesting Wallace intended to steamroll Clinton.

You don't have to.

It was painfully obvious by Clinton's heated response that Wallace sandbagged him into thinking it was one kind of interview, when steamrolling him was the intent from the get-go.

Can you even IMAGINE, in your wildest dreams, a darling of the Republicans going on Fox (or any other network, FTM) and getting asked a question that tough and pointed by a Corporate Media flack?!?!?

I didn't like Clinton, and did not agree with his actions as president, but he is 100% correct in pointing out how Wallace and his fellow Media flacks come after certain politicians (Clinton himself being the perfect example) with a vengeance while exhibiting a distinct lack of curiosity when other politicians (like Bush or Cheney) do something despicable or dishonest.

Clinton may have inhaled a joint once??.......innumerable stories about it in the national news.

Bush had a bad cocaine problem??............I saw maybe two or three reporters in the entire country ask Bush one or two softball, easily dismissed questions about it then just drop it.

During the presidential campaign, Al Gore was wearing clothes whose color was for some reason said to be the "wrong" color. Outcome??.........huge story in the mainstream Media

GWBush sells more than 200,000 shares of Harken Energy, then claims he did not know the company was in bad financial shape, when memos from the company itself show in great detail that he was apprised of how badly the company's fortunes were failing before he sold his stock. Outcome??..........virtually zero interest in the story from the mainstream Media.

It was painfully obvious by Clinton's heated response that Wallace sandbagged him into thinking it was one kind of interview, when steamrolling him was the intent from the get-go.

I think just the opposite. Clinton sandbagged Wallace. Clinton knew he would be asked that question, especially since he had recently been accusing GWB of not doing enough to get bin Laden. His outrage was planned and was made to play to his base. Clinton does nothing without cold calculation.

I saw the interview and I thought Clinton acted like a petulant child. Rather than make me think more of him it had the opposite effect. I thought little of him before the interview and I think even less of him after the interview.

Why, because all the points he made disprove what you want to believe, which is that he did nothing to try to kill Bin Laden?

Did you call Bush a "petulant childe" when he talked the same way to Helen (I forget her last name) during that press conference a few months back? It was the exact same behavior. I disagree with a lot of what Bush does, but the way he stood up for himself that day really impressed me, and I'm equally impressed with Clinton's response today.

I would really like an answer to one of Clinton's questions. Why don't all his critics ask why Bush did nothing in response to the 2000 Cole bombing in his first eight months in office?

Full disclosure: You all may not be aware of this but I tend to be toward the right wing and generally don't side with President Clinton.

I thought President Clinton was taken aback by tough questioning. I don't think Wallace was disrespectful, just tough. I thought the president was very disrespectful.
His prepared bytes were nasty ("So, you did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit-job on me," and "you sit there with that little smirk on your face" - or something to that effect).

He even came up with a conspiracy theory that since Rupert Murdoch donated money to Clinton's organization, Fox News had to attack Clinton so their viewers wouldn't be mad at the Fox organization.
If Dop said this we'd all laugh!!

Some things he said were just untrue, and more will come out in the days to come.

A couple of weeks ago President Bush was interviewed by Brian Williams, and at times he, very unusually, defended his record. I heard a pundit say he was in Williams's face. Can you imagine what would have been said if President Bush pointed his finger, glared and vein-popped the way President Clinton did?

Did you call Bush a "petulant childe" when he talked the same way to Helen (I forget her last name) during that press conference a few months back? It was the exact same behavior. Not even close to the same behavior.

"...you falsely accuse me of giving aid and comfort to bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia.
President Clinton, Please see my signature line.

I do like to see Clinton speak. He is sharp.

The Clintons are like most people that have reached a certain status in life in their mind. They do not like to have their decisions, or lack of, questioned.
Bush/Chaney included.

I believe Bill had something to say and regardless of what Wallace asked he would have got it in somewhere.

I want to see Hilary really pissed in a speech one day.

Can you imagine what would have been said if President Bush pointed his finger, glared and vein-popped the way President Clinton did?
Sitting presidents are generally treated with more respect than other politicians including former presidents. This whole exchange never would have happened had Clinton been president at the time. The bit about the Murdoch contribtions was a bit of a rant, but I think Clinton makes good points about Clarke serving under all those Presidents and being demoted under Bush. Let's face it, Bush's handlers would never have left W alone in a similar situation. He barely answers questions a news conferences, not even the lollypops....

1. This whole exchange never would have happened had Clinton been president at the time.
2. ....but I think Clinton makes good points about Clarke serving under all those Presidents and being demoted under Bush.
3. [Bush] barely answers questions a news conferences, not even the lollypops....
1. I think Helen Thomas and Sam Donaldson became famous for going after sitting Republican Presidents with similar vigor. And in Helen Thomas's case, with much less respect.

2. Rush Limbaugh was just talking about this today. Clinton often refers to Richard Clarke's book in this interview as the source.
According to the 9/11 movie, Richard Clarke was taken aback by a "demotion."
According to Clarke's own book, he asked to leave in order to take on a new department involving gathering intelligence over the internet.
In this case the 9/11 movie was unfair to the Bush Administration and President Clinton uses it as a greater authority than Clarke's book.
That was more than misleading, that was a lie.

3. What's sad is I think he means to and when it's over he thinks he has.

Originally Posted by Frogger
I saw the interview and I thought Clinton acted like a petulant child. Rather than make me think more of him it had the opposite effect. I thought little of him before the interview and I think even less of him after the interview.

Why, because all the points he made disprove what you want to believe, which is that he did nothing to try to kill Bin Laden?

You nailed it.

The exact reason why the Righty whiners didn't like Clinton's responses; because they blow away the cherished rightwing myth that --"Clinton did nothing to go after bin Laden".

Did you call Bush a "petulant child" when he talked the same way to Helen (I forget her last name) during that press conference a few months back? It was the exact same behavior.

Bush truly treated Helen Thomas like shit. But I can top even that. Bush got caught calling a reporter an "asshole" on a live microphone.

Do you remember how much criticism Bush was subjected to because of it at the time? I do. Almost NOTHING.

On this one side issue or respecting/disrepecting the Press, the fucking Rightwingers have NO leg to stand on. ZERO.

Clinton, as political leader, was an abject failure in a lot of areas I'd have liked to see the nation make progress in (but then, when your number one priority while in office is, as Clinton's was, bending over every day so the Republican leadership can line up and fuck you up the ass, you probably WON'T get much done that will benefit the People, but i digress) , but I will have to say that Bill Clinton possesses immeasurably more courage than the cowardly GWBush ever had or ever will have.

Clinton went into the lion's den, and took on the Faux News crowd face to face; can you imagine the chickenshit, *run-and-hide-in-a-bunker-in-Nebraska-while-terrorists-attack-the-nation* G.W. Bush doing something that gutsy or that dauntless???.......there is ZERO chance that Bush would EVER, under ANY circumstance, allow a progressive political observer like Amy Goodman or Howard Zinn to ask HIM any tough questions on national television.

I actually just heard Colonel Robertson.. the guy who had Clinton's "nuclear breifcase" in 1998... and he verifies that Clinton had EVERY CHANCE to kill Bin Ladin. They had his position, they had reliable info, and by that time they had proof that Bin Ladin was head of Al Queda AND was involved in the 1993 trade center bombings...

Looks to me like Clinton is lying out of his arse.. id like to see the two debate and see who is the moron... because robertson describes a very detailed story..

Did you call Bush a "petulant childe" when he talked the same way to Helen (I forget her last name) during that press conference a few months back? It was the exact same behavior.

Helen Thomas, the fat broad in the red dress is a Democrat operative more than a reporter. She has come out and said Bush doesn't deserve to be president. (Does that make for an objective reporter?) She asks questions designed to insult the president, not just GWB but any sitting Republican president and she asks them in the least respectful way possible. She along with Donaldson and Rather is among the most disrespectful and partisan news people in existence.

Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was going to say even before Chris Wallace asked his first question. His less than fervent chasing of Osama bin Laden has been the talk of the t.v. news talk programs for weeks. He sandbagged Wallace and acted more like a schoolyard bully than an ex president. Had I been Wallace I would have walked away and told Clinton that I would return once he had regained control of himself and stopped acting like a petulant child.

Geez i just watched the full interview on YouTube...

you want to talk about a straight up, insecure, bully.. thats bill clinton in that interview. This guy was on a mission, and he bumbled and fingerpointed his way to looking like someone who doesnt know and is trying to get Wallace's lunch money. Plus.. Most of the stuff he "claimed" is very much up in question. I mean.. i heard Limbaugh gave plenty of FACTS, not opinions, that pretty much made Clinton look like a liar today. Clinton has no class, he came on there and bullied around a guy who was merely asking him questions. This guy is just desperately trying to clear himself of wrong-doing and finger-pointing, passing-the-buck, and blaming others. It is well documented that Clinton cares about his place in history, its just a shame he has to spew out crap like this on other people. He pretty much ridiculed THE ENTIRE republican party during the interview many times... now i dont know about you but thats not good PR stategy.. i hope everyone sees Clinton for what he is.. hollow, and out to smear shit on other people.

Clintons finely crafted legacy is coming apart and he doesnt know what to do so he yells like a maniac. When your entire record of success is a bunch of smoke it doesnt take much wind to blow it away.

I think Clinton's stategy of coming on FOX News and belling the cat so to speak backfired on him. He came away from the interview looking like a childish bully, not at all presidential.

I think Clinton's stategy of coming on FOX News and belling the cat so to speak backfired on him. He came away from the interview looking like a childish bully, not at all presidential.
Question for you Frogger...would you respect him at all in any situation? It sounds like no matter what Clinton had done you would have rapped him. He obviously was prepared...if he had not been and had been surprised by the attack you would have said he had no forsight, was weak and ineffectual just like he was in office.
He was going to be attacked...he came prepared and went on the offensive.

Clinton went into the lion's den, and took on the Faux News crowd face to face;
Chris Wallace did a very tough interview with Secretary Rice. Howard Dean personally told Wallace that the interview was "tough". Chris Wallace said "not tough - fair".
Chris Wallace is not from the right wing. Two weeks ago he ripped the 9/11 movie and said ABC shouldn't show it. He's not what you're claiming.

And like I said, in the following days as this is vetted more thoroughly, it will become clear how misleading and dishonest Clinton was in this interview.
And it will probably interest you as much as the recent truths about the Plame affair.

He was going to be attacked...he came prepared and went on the offensive.
Sal, watch the interview. Chris Wallace opened with a very simple question that Clinton could have handled very easily. President Clinton went from zero to sixty almost instantly.
Wallace was very calm, even when interrupted, insulted, glared at and, oddest of all, touched.
From Chris Wallace's standpoint it really wasn't a tough interview. I think what the president came "prepared" for was a fight, which unfortunately ended up being rather one sided.

Chris Wallace did a very tough interview with Secretary Rice.

Do you have any examples of the *very tough* questions he asked her?

Chris Wallace is not from the right wing. Two weeks ago he ripped the 9/11 movie and said ABC shouldn't show it. He's not what you're claiming.

Chris Wallace, along with the rest of the Corporate mainstream Media, will come out with the gloves off if some "evil liberal" like Clinton has a private, consensual sexual liason or even when he (even though it was later proven to be a complete fabrication) gets a goddamned haircut on an airplane runway..............but when a lying bastard like George Bush (as it has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he LIED about the WMDs in Iraq) wants to foment a war, they line up like the little rightwing toadies they are and help him sell it.

Chris Wallace, along with the rest of the Corporate mainstream Media, With no substantive response, and nothing to say about Clinton's misinformation in this interview, you just go into default mode.

Helen Thomas, the fat broad in the red dress is a Democrat operative more than a reporter. She has come out and said Bush doesn't deserve to be president. (Does that make for an objective reporter?)

Care to back up that allegation with a quote??

She asks questions designed to insult the president, .....

Quote???

.....not just GWB but any sitting Republican president and she asks them in the least respectful way possible.

How about a few quotes?

Or perhaps you can recollect what it was she said. Anything.


She along with Donaldson and Rather is among the most disrespectful and partisan news people in existence.

Name a few things they said to a president that were intentionally disrespectful??


Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was going to say even before Chris Wallace asked his first question.

Well, Frogger, since you're clairvoyant, coming up with all those quotes asked for should be effortless for you. Just consult the same crystal ball that told you that -----""Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was going to say even before Chris Wallace asked his first question"".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I never liked Clinton as president......but there are few things I have ever found more satisfying than watching Bill Clinton (more than once!!!) tell the hack Chris Wallace, in so many words ---"Shut up, you little sandbagger!!!.....you sneakily ASKED me a QUESTION and smirked over how you thought I'd be put on the hot seat.....butNOW you are going to shut up and you are going to HEAR ME GIVE YOU the goddamned ANSWER to that question and the rest of the Americans listening to this program are going to hear it too"!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DAAAAAAAAAMN.......i LOVED that!!!!

FT- I would like to see proof that Wallace attacked Clinton during Monicagate.

Brooks- I would like to see the "very tough" questions Wallace asked Secretary Rice.

FT- I would like to see proof that Wallace attacked Clinton during Monicagate.

Chris Wallace may not have. I have no idea if he did or not.

But there were innumerable others in the mainstream Media who did.

A million words in print over a meaningless roll in the hay.

The next so-called "leader" lies a nation into a war, and there is virtually no condemnation in the Press...........not only THAT, but the Media willingly helped the son-of-a-bitch SELL the phony assed war.

______________________________________

"liberal Media" my ass.

Chris Wallace may not have. I have no idea if he did or not.

But there were innumerable others in the mainstream Media who did.

That wasn't the question, nor does it have anything to do with what we are talking about.



The next so-called "leader" lies a nation into a war,

You cant prove it... idiot... so please call your "theory" what it is.. and stop trying to pass it off as fact... at least anything you have "said" so far has been nothing but assumptions and biased spew...


...........not only THAT, but the Media willingly helped the son-of-a-bitch SELL the phony assed war.

"liberal Media" my ass.

more default mode... good call on that one Brooks...

But back to the POINT of this thread:

Wallace didnt ask any unfair or intimidating questions.. Clinton was just an asshole. If he hadn't done what he did on the interview.. im sure some of us would have STILL questioned his "statements" about Richard Clark and catching Osama Bin Ladin.. but being a complete bumbling jackass sure doesnt help..

You cant prove it... idiot... so please call your "theory" what it is.. and stop trying to pass it off as fact... at least anything you have "said" so far has been nothing but assumptions and biased spew...
I've noticed lately that you are obsessed with the idea that if you can't prove something with 100% proof, then it must be wrong or stupid. May I ask why? I mean, you've done this in your last few debates and I find it rather annoying.

You can have a position with strong evidence that leans you towards a specific position. There is nothing wrong with that. Honestly, I don't know for sure if Bush lied about everything in regards to the Iraq War, but based on a lot of evidence I have come to the conclusion that there are more facts showing he is a liar then there are facts showing he isn't a liar.

To ask people for 100% proof in everything is laughable. Stop trying to refute people's opinions by saying, "Well if you can't prove something with 100% proof STFU!" because most things are NOT BLACK AND WHITE. There is always going to be some doubt and some grey area. So you do the best you can and come to an educated opinion based on strong evidence.

Honestly, I don't know for sure if Bush lied about everything in regards to the Iraq War, but based on a lot of evidence I have come to the conclusion.....
To ask people for 100% proof in everything is laughable. You make an excellent point about the margin for error allowed here, and that's a very candid assessment on your part about Bush's lies.
But the frustration around here comes when someones "conclusion" is presented as fact.

Helen Thomas, the fat broad in the red dress is a Democrat operative more than a reporter. She has come out and said Bush doesn't deserve to be president. (Does that make for an objective reporter?) She asks questions designed to insult the president, not just GWB but any sitting Republican president and she asks them in the least respectful way possible. She along with Donaldson and Rather is among the most disrespectful and partisan news people in existence.

The "petulant child" is the one calling someone "the fat broad in the red dress". My comarison wasn't between Helen Thomas and Chris Wallace, it was between Bush's reaction to Thomas and Clinton's reaction to Wallace. The WERE very much the same. Both Bush and Clinton were offended at the accusation that the questions insinuated, and I believe they both reacted in a reasonable manner. The only difference was that Clinton's response went on a bit longer than Bush's response to Helen Thomas, and that he threw in the Fox bias issue which I thought was unnecessary.

Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was going to say even before Chris Wallace asked his first question.

Look out everyone, Frogger can read minds. Funny how the very person who conducted the interview, Wallace, today said he in no way believed that what Clinton did was a prepared performance. But of course you know it all. Again, you only believe what you wish to be true.

Funny how the very person who conducted the interview, Wallace, today said he in no way believed that what Clinton did was a prepared performance.

Maybe being caught unprepared is what allowed the "real" klinton to come out, rather than the polished facade typically seen.

The only difference was that Clinton's response went on a bit longer than Bush's response to Helen Thomas, and that he threw in the Fox bias issue which I thought was unnecessary.
First of all, calling a reporter bias is a major accusation.
Second, earlier in the thread someone alluded to how sitting and former presidents' treatments should differ.
Third, President Clinton invented conspiracies, glared, accused him of smirking, etc....
He also got mad that Wallace was asking too many questions on a particular topic, a complaint President Bush doesn't have the luxury to make.

A lot of people are impressed with Helen Thomas when she's outspoken and disrespectful. Nobody would accept that from anyone with more credibility.

This was no more than the big dawg serving notice that he will be running a shadow presidency.

Now, for Wallace, if he has any b*lls, he takes Clinton up on his challenge and invites Bush (or Cheney) on an interview to answer the same questions.

This was a real spanking by Clinton.

Meaningless roll in the hay???? What in the hell are you talking about???

Clintax tells a PROVEN LIE UNDER OATH to the American people, and you call

it a "meaningless roll in the hay." He later said that he did it because he could.

You are so quick to blame Bush for an UNPROVEN LIE, yet you call the PROVEN LIE A MEANINGLESS ROLL IN THE HAY.

And we have kids who will call oral sex "not having sex" (We have clintax to blame for this, at least more than partially)

Stop with your conservative media crap, it just isn't true.

The media has a severe liberal slant.

Yes, the media came down hard on the Clintax oral office thing. The would have done the same to Carter, Reagan, or any president. (It is great news)

Chris Wallace may not have. I have no idea if he did or not.

But there were innumerable others in the mainstream Media who did.

A million words in print over a meaningless roll in the hay.

The next so-called "leader" lies a nation into a war, and there is virtually no condemnation in the Press...........not only THAT, but the Media willingly helped the son-of-a-bitch SELL the phony assed war.

______________________________________

"liberal Media" my ass.

This was a real spanking by Clinton.Provable lies and misinformation passes for a spanking now, huh?

Chris Wallace may not have. I have no idea if he did or not.

But there were innumerable others in the mainstream Media who did.

A million words in print over a meaningless roll in the hay.

The next so-called "leader" lies a nation into a war, and there is virtually no condemnation in the Press...........not only THAT, but the Media willingly helped the son-of-a-bitch SELL the phony assed war.

______________________________________

"liberal Media" my ass.


lol. :lolhit: DO you realize how far left you have to be to see the US media as "right wing"? I didnt know it was even possible to go that far to one side.

I've noticed lately that you are obsessed with the idea that if you can't prove something with 100% proof, then it must be wrong or stupid. May I ask why? I mean, you've done this in your last few debates and I find it rather annoying.

You can have a position with strong evidence that leans you towards a specific position. There is nothing wrong with that. Honestly, I don't know for sure if Bush lied about everything in regards to the Iraq War, but based on a lot of evidence I have come to the conclusion that there are more facts showing he is a liar then there are facts showing he isn't a liar.

To ask people for 100% proof in everything is laughable. Stop trying to refute people's opinions by saying, "Well if you can't prove something with 100% proof STFU!" because most things are NOT BLACK AND WHITE. There is always going to be some doubt and some grey area. So you do the best you can and come to an educated opinion based on strong evidence.


Brooks has it right.. i value and respect people's opinions.. but when idiots try to pass off THEIR opinion as FACT.. it pisses me off.

Barry Bonds is currently battling a steroid scandal... noone can PROVE hands down that he took them, but there are bits an pieces that might lead one to ASSUME that he did. But still, Bonds is clean in the history books and with all his Home Run records until he is PROVEN 100% to have used steroids...

same thing with Bush.. you can form your own opinion and ASSUME bush "lied" about going into iraq.. but dont try to pass it off as what happened..because we dont know.

First of all, calling a reporter bias is a major accusation.

Yes, its an accusation you and almost everyone else has made at some point.


Second, earlier in the thread someone alluded to how sitting and former presidents' treatments should differ.

That "someone" is wrong. Besides, if they should be treated with more respect than a former president, then they should show more respect as well.

Third, President Clinton invented conspiracies, glared, accused him of smirking, etc....

He was smirking.

That wasn't the question, nor does it have anything to do with what we are talking about.

Let's review, Einstein.

Evakian comes out with a question directed to me which --even though it had nothing to do with anything I said-- I answered.

Evak's question was; ""FT- I would like to see proof that Wallace attacked Clinton during Monicagate.""

My answer was; ""Chris Wallace may not have. I have no idea if he did or not.""

Then YOU come out complaining -- "that wasn't the question"...........WTF?!?!?

Originally Posted by Brooks
Chris Wallace did a very tough interview with Secretary Rice.

Do you have any examples of the *very tough* questions he asked her??

Clinton new fine well what the story would be when he went on Fox. I mean come on - did he expect a golden welcome?

He went on Fox for one main reason

1. Questions about his record on terrorism reflect directly on Hilary & can hurt her run for the whitehouse

Secondly, he may have wanted to defend himself and that's understandable.

Basically Clinton shouldn't get upset with a right wing news channel trying to have a go - they are well known to be right wing organization. If the shoe was on the other foot then Clinton would have no mercy, so he has nothing to complain about.

That said - he looked excellent, sincere and articulate. The points he made were valid & comprehensive.

If it were not for 9-11 then Bush wouldn't even know who Bin Laden was, they absolutely would have done NOTHING regarding the issue. Clinton acted in a pre 9-11 world and Bush in a post 9-11 world.

Clinton may be a sleasy sack of crap, but on the issues he is infinately more credible than Bush. Bush may keep it in his pants, but Bush is a moron. I'd rather have a sleazo like Clinton that actually has a brain running the country than a guy like Bush who clearly is very sub par. Clinton is self made, Bush would be flipping burgers if his daddy wasn't uber Rich and had been the President himself.

DO you realize how far left you have to be to see the US media as "right wing"?

DO you realize how divorced from reality you have to be to see the mainstream Media in the U.S. as being "left wing"?

Would a "left wing" Media have become willing shills for a war trumped up on faked evidence??! (note; the NYTimes has, after Bush's misleading info was exposed for what it was, apologized for having MISLED the American People) Would a "left wing" Media refuse to question or criticize Bush over his train wreck of a presidency, under which the nation has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs?? Would a "left wing" Media give ANY president a pass on the abject failure of the government to adequately respond to a disaster like Hurricane Katrina?!?!?

The list goes on and on and on AND ON where the subservient, Corporate owned and controlled mainstream Media has given Bush and or his co-conspirators on the Right a pass where he (or they) either lied thru their teeth, committed war crimes, condoned attrocities being committed by other nations, undermined or tried to circumvent the U.S. Constitution or broke the law.
__________________________________________________ ____

The hypocrisy of the Consevative faction is beyond belief. They pretend to stand for smaller federal government, while they spend us into record debt. They endlessly shout about "liberal bias" while at the same time constructing the most biased-toward-the-Right media machine in this nation's history - substituting propaganda for journalism; innuendo for facts and shouting for intelligent discourse. The Rightwingers in Washington pretend to stand for ordinary American working people, while they vote time and time and time again for massive giveaways to the huge Corporations who pay to have them elected.

The points he made were valid & comprehensive.
And in many cases, completely untrue.

Do you have any examples of the *very tough* questions he asked her??
These are some snippets pulled from some of the long, filibustering questions presented by Chris Wallace. Howard Dean was right - this was a tough interview (tougher than the one with President Clinton).
The reason it didn't get as much attention is that Ms. Rice kept her eyes in their sockets, kept her hands to herself, didn't insult Chris Wallace and didn't spin a conspiracy theory.


-that you know, five years later the war on terror hasn't gone as well?
-Aren't we involved in a terrible case of mission creep here that has nothing to do with the war on terror?
-But is it our responsibility to solve these ethnic sectarian problems?
-Secretary Rice, why didn't we finish the job in Afghanistan?
-I'm sure a lot of Americans are saying, "Isn't it a failure?" We had them on the run, we had the Taliban completely disrupted. Isn't it a failure to have allowed the Taliban to regroup
-Didn't you and the President ignore intelligence that contradicted your case?


http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/71998.htm

And in many cases, completely untrue.
:lolhit:

Howard Dean was right - this was a tough interview (tougher than the one with President Clinton).
The reason it didn't get as much attention is that Ms. Rice kept her eyes in their sockets, kept her hands to herself, didn't insult Chris Wallace and didn't spin a conspiracy theory.

The reason that Ms. Rice kept her eyes in their sockets, kept her hands to herself, didn't insult Chris Wallace and didn't spin a conspiracy theory was her supreme confidence in knowing that the sheep in this country had already been thoroughly indoctrinated to NOT believe or recognize that the war on terror hasn't gone well (which it has not), and to NOT believe that they --the Bush cabal-- have allowed the Taliban to regroup (which they have) and to NOT believe or recognize that she and the President ignored intelligence that contradicted their case (which they most certainly DID ignore).

Also, it is interesting to note the number of flat out lies that Rice told in that interview---

"In terms of homeland we are more secure"

"Our ports are more secure"

"the Taliban is not going to succeed {in Afghanistan}"

"There were ties between Iraq and al-Qaida"

"Saddam Hussein dragged us into a war in 1991 because he invaded his neighbor Kuwait"

"Saddam Hussein...was a mass murderer of more than 300,000 of his people using weapons of mass destruction" (not only was the absolute HIGHEST estimate by anyone 182,000 while most estimates put the number between 50,000 and 100,000, but the weapons he used were sold to him by U.S. corporations)

The reason that Ms. Rice kept her eyes in their sockets, kept her hands to herself, didn't insult Chris Wallace and didn't spin a conspiracy theory was her supreme confidence in knowing that the sheep in this country.... Twice you asked me to show you that he gave a tough interview to Ms. Rice. Obviously you didn't believe he did.
Rather than admit, as Howard Dean did, that Wallace is a fair interviewer, you instead blame Clinton's behavior on the American people.

I tend to agree with the people that I have heard say that anything that Bill Clinton does now is to help Hilary get re-elected senator and them back into the White House.
You would think that that these folks would not want another 4 years of that kind of scrutiny.

if one word came out of that interview which describes bill clinton.. its "desperate"... NOONE can deny that the guy was a disrespecting, bumbling jackass...

Now, you can say FOX news deserved it.. but that still brings the admittance that Bill Clinton was a jackass.. and should be seen as such if he continues this "self-blame-lifting crusade" he's on. Plus.. i'd like to see Clinton answer to all the testimony and supposed evidence that says he's full of shit.. just like i'd like to see Bush answer all the questions so many people ask.

And in many cases, completely untrue.

tell me 1 single thing he said that was untrue

NOONE can deny that the guy was a disrespecting, bumbling jackass...

Many people can deny that - he looked great in the interview

Many people can deny that - he looked great in the interview

You cant deny he acted disrespectfully, he cut off wallace, he pretty much LASHED out wallace.. yea.. he looked like a nice man:rolleyes:

If Bill Clinton looked "great" in that interview, then George W. Bush is a good public speaker

nuff said

You cant deny he acted disrespectfully, he cut off wallace, he pretty much LASHED out wallace.. yea.. he looked like a nice man:rolleyes:

If Bill Clinton looked "great" in that interview, then George W. Bush is a good public speaker

nuff said

I guess it's all just opinion. I think Clinton looked awesome in that interview, and no, Bush will never be a good public speaker - he would need to learn how to read & write first.

Bill Clinton was trying to rally the dem base and he did just that.

well if George Bush went on TV and ridiculed an interviewer, pointed at him, yelled at him, and acted like a jackass.. would he look good too? Or does Clinton only get that luxery?

Behavior is behavior... it doesnt matter who does it.

if one word came out of that interview which describes bill clinton.. its "desperate"... NOONE can deny that the guy was a disrespecting, bumbling jackass...
Now, you can say FOX news deserved it.. but that still brings the admittance that Bill Clinton was a jackass.. and should be seen as such if he continues this "self-blame-lifting crusade" he's on. Plus.. i'd like to see Clinton answer to all the testimony and supposed evidence that says he's full of shit.. just like i'd like to see Bush answer all the questions so many people ask.


I'm confused as you are now describing Bush to a tee.

I'm confused as you are now describing Bush to a tee.

Bush doesnt yell at reporters... well not normally LOL

he doesnt pick fights, like Clinton did on Fox

And if you hate bush because he's a "bumbling jackass".. then do you hate Clinton too? Why all the support for clinton? I thought the FT's of the world hated him, i thought the democrats are a "right winged puppet"... Im seeing the OPPOSITE.. im seeing support for Clinton... which is hypocracy compared to what ive heard from these left wingers who claim to not be affiliated with either major party...

the proof is in the puddin'.. its okay to "come out of the closet"

Haven't you got it figured out by now? Anybody, anywhere, regardless of their status or veracity speaking publicly against the Bush administration brings virtually orgasmic ecstasy to a wide number of folks, many of whom post here. They, in turn, can't help but try in vain to share those feelings.

Sal, watch the interview. Chris Wallace opened with a very simple question that Clinton could have handled very easily. President Clinton went from zero to sixty almost instantly.
Wallace was very calm, even when interrupted, insulted, glared at and, oddest of all, touched.
From Chris Wallace's standpoint it really wasn't a tough interview. I think what the president came "prepared" for was a fight, which unfortunately ended up being rather one sided.

Yeah he actually touched him more than once...have to say though I enjoyed the whole exchange. I am not particularly a Clinton fan but he was prepared. I think anyone who supports Bush is going to belittle the interview. Those who dislike Bush will give it credence. It's human nature.

This is one battle FOX, Wallace, Rice and the right wing smear machine will not win.

Sorry, but those are the facts.

This is one battle FOX, Wallace, Rice and the right wing smear machine will not win.

Sorry, but those are the facts.


And you got that right from the fair minded, unbiased lungdop philing.

you can tell a lot about someone in react to questions. Its funny because Clinton and the left wingers are so used to having an easy go of it with their admirers in the media that anyone who dare even question them is considered a right win nut job. Tell me, what was it exactly that Wallace asked that got Clinton so ticked off? Clearly it was something he is very sensitive about. If he was secure in his actions he would just laugh it off an dlet history be the judge, not go off on Wallace.

Bill Clinton was trying to rally the dem base and he did just that.That may have occurred inadvertantly, but this interview did not go as Bill Clinton planned.
Wallace and a producer said that during the interview, one of the president's handlers repeatedly said to the producer "this interview is over, this interview is over". And afterwards Clinton was screaming at them for setting up the interview.

Haven't you got it figured out by now? Anybody, anywhere, regardless of their status or veracity speaking publicly against the Bush administration brings virtually orgasmic ecstasy to a wide number of folks....

Well, i WAS loving it listening to Clinton give it to Chris Wallace.......but I can't recall Clinton criticizing the *Bush Administration* at all, so that was not the reason for my delight.

The reason it made me so happy was that it was my first time ever to hear a Corporate Media operative who was out to "expose the evil liberal" have his *Gotcha!* question shoved right back in his face.

(Clinton is no liberal, but since he is only around 90% conservative and not 100% conservative, he MUST be forever portrayed by the Corporate Media as being some "uber-leftwing" politician..........when to me he was nothing less than the best president the Republicans ever had.)

This is one battle FOX, Wallace, Rice and the right wing smear machine will not win.
Sorry, but those are the facts.
Dop, what are you talking about when you say "win". Wallace didn't even have a horse in this race. He was a lot tougher on Rice when he interviewed her. Everything to you is conspiracies.

And Fox had their best ratings since 2004, so in that sense they did win. Maybe other media sources will see that people will tune in for more than just Russert/Larry King style fawning Clinton interviews.

SEN. BOXER : I hear that you agree with the president. I am not surprised.
FOX ANCHOR: We are just trying to bring both sides.
SEN. BOXER: Yeah, you are fair and balanced, thank you very much.

********
I'm glad you posted this. This was an exchange that occurred today.
Is their anything that the Dems do spontaneously?

Wallace and a producer said that during the interview, one of the president's handlers repeatedly said to the producer "this interview is over, this interview is over". And afterwards Clinton was screaming at them for setting up the interview.

LOL.

So much for Frogger's repeated insistence that --"Aw, Clinton had the whole thing planned and knew in advance exactly what would be asked!"

I think his crystal ball is out of whack.

So much for Frogger's repeated insistence that --"Aw, Clinton had the whole thing planned and knew in advance exactly what would be asked!"
I think his crystal ball is out of whack.Oh, I think Clinton did have prepared lines (who doesn't) and had an idea of what might be asked. But I think he was prepared for another mush like Russert who he could charm and touch and get to change the subject. When an interview didn't go his way, it was new territory for him.

Bush doesnt yell at reporters...

No.......he simply calls them an "asshole".

What class!!....how marvelously statesman-like Mr Bush was in refering to reporter Adam Clymer as an "asshole". My my, how he enhanced the prestige and dignity of the office of the Presidency that day!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(for the record, I personally couldn't care less about any supposed "prestige and dignity of the Office of the Presidency".......but for some odd reason, millions of Rightwingers in this country suddenly became EXTREMELY concerned about said "prestige" and "dignity" around 1998-1999......then, after January 2001, for some reason they reverted to not caring the least thing about it. How strange)

tell me 1 single thing he said that was untrue

When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy........
According to Dick Clarke and Secretary Rice no such strategy was left in place.
....and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted.
According to Clarke's own book, he chose to leave and head up a new department.
I want to know how many [Bush administration] people you asked, "Why did you fire Dick Clarke?"
Dick Clarke was not fired.
Now, I've never criticized President Bush, and I don't think this is useful.
Saying this was probably supposed to give him more credibility for the criticisms in this interview, but it's not true.
The people on my political right, who say I didn't do enough, spent the whole time I was president saying, "Why is he so obsessed with bin Laden?
This may or may not be true, but I couldn't find a thing resembling this claim.

I'm sure more will be vetted out in the days to come, but everyone on this thread claiming Clinton did a good job in the interview will probably ignore it the way the truth about Joe Wilson has been ignored.
I think our idea of a good Clinton interview has very little to do with whether or not what he says is true.

No.......he simply calls them an "asshole".
He whispered that to Cheney over, what turned out to be, an open mic (was that fact avoided by you or not known?).
Are you saying Clinton's private thoughts are all milder than that.
They have Clinton saying worse things in unguarded moments, but the a-hole thing gets much more attention. Bias - naahhh.

[QUOTE=Brooks] "Why is he so obsessed with bin Laden?
This may or may not be true, but I couldn't find a thing resembling this claim.

QUOTE]



I sure couldn't find anything close.

FT,

Please, please, please, respond to this. You seemed to have skipped right over it.

Thanks


Meaningless roll in the hay???? What in the hell are you talking about???

Clintax tells a PROVEN LIE UNDER OATH to the American people, and you call

it a "meaningless roll in the hay." He later said that he did it because he could.

You are so quick to blame Bush for an UNPROVEN LIE, yet you call the PROVEN LIE A MEANINGLESS ROLL IN THE HAY.

And we have kids who will call oral sex "not having sex" (We have clintax to blame for this, at least more than partially)

Stop with your conservative media crap, it just isn't true.

The media has a severe liberal slant.

Yes, the media came down hard on the Clintax oral office thing. The would have done the same to Carter, Reagan, or any president. (It is great news)

Rush Limbaugh was just talking about this today. Clinton often refers to Richard Clarke's book in this interview as the source.
According to the 9/11 movie, Richard Clarke was taken aback by a "demotion."
According to Clarke's own book, he asked to leave in order to take on a new department involving gathering intelligence over the internet.
In this case the 9/11 movie was unfair to the Bush Administration and President Clinton uses it as a greater authority than Clarke's book.
That was more than misleading, that was a lie.I also listened to some of Rush's 'critique' and found this particular charge very interesting. Knowing Rush as well as I do I suspected he was bending, omitting or just plain ignoring the truth (as is his habit and wont). Sure enough, from Clarke's own book (p. 230):

Rice decided that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism would also be downgraded. No longer would the Coordinator be a member of the Principals Committee. No longer would the CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] report to the Principals, but instead to a committee of Deputy Secretaries. No longer would the National Coordinator be supported by two NSC Senior Directors or have the budget review mechanism with the Associate Director of OMB [Office of Management and Budget]. She did, however, ask me to stay on and to keep my entire staff in place. Rice and [then-deputy national security adviser Stephen] Hadley did not seem to know anyone else whose expertise covered what they regarded as my strange portfolio. At the same time, Rice requested that I develop a reorganization plan to spin out some of the security functions to someplace outside the NSC staff.

Clarke was demoted (or fired, one could say) from the Principals Committe of the National Security Council in January of 2001.

I don't know if that is a demotion or not. According to him he still oversaw the same number of subordinates, and I can't tell from that if the reason for the reorganization was for efficiency or budget or maybe for his own autonomy.
He may have omitted the reason for doing this, and don't forget this book was written through the prism of someone who was passed over as NSC director.


PS - Do you really think this qualifies as a firing, or did Bill plant that thought in your head?

I don't know if that is a demotion or not.Well, he says his position was 'down-graded'. One day he's on the Principals Committee and the next day he's not. How can that not be a demotion?According to him he still oversaw the same number of subordinates, and I can't tell from that if the reason for the reorganization was for efficiency or budget or maybe for his own autonomy.Are you serious? His own autonomy?? His removal made him a supplicant to the very committee on which he formerly served! If that's autonomy it's the autonomy to be ignored.He may have omitted the reason for doing this, and don't forget this book was written through the prism of someone who was passed over as NSC director.Talk about trying to have it both ways! You and Rush say his own book proves Clinton lied. Now when his own book shows the opposite you talk about his 'prism'? Sorry, Brooks, but that's simply weak.PS - Do you really think this qualifies as a firing, or did Bill plant that thought in your head?While getting fired usually means a pink slip it doesn't necessarily have to mean only that. I was once demoted from a project lead position after a nasty fight with my boss. In the days following when co-workers would ask for my help with related issues (that I no longer had the authority to make decisions about) I'd say something along the lines of "I'd like to help you but I can't. The bitch fired me." A stretch, maybe. But nowhere near as great a stretch as saying Clarke wasn't demoted because his staff remained intact.

And no, I have a tin-foil hat to protect me from Clinton mind-rays. :)

you can tell a lot about someone in react to questions. Its funny because Clinton and the left wingers are so used to having an easy go of it with their admirers in the media that anyone who dare even question them is considered a right win nut job. Tell me, what was it exactly that Wallace asked that got Clinton so ticked off? Clearly it was something he is very sensitive about. If he was secure in his actions he would just laugh it off an dlet history be the judge, not go off on Wallace.


OK -- I'll explain it for the political-science challenged members.

First, Clinton has obviously taken off the gloves since ABC showed Path to 9/11 which contained many references that were total lies but portrayed and advertised as being directly from the 9/11 commission report.

Second, he wanted to show the dems how they must act against the right wing smear machine. He did just that and today, nearly every dem on every show was in-your-face with a new attitude. Witness the spanking that Franken gave to Tony Blankley on hardball. Witness the bitch-slap that the congressman (didn't catch his name) gave Tucker 'Flashdance' Carlson on his show tonight ... LOL .. it was great.

Paul Begala summed it up when asked about Clinton's behaviour ... he said that he (Clinton) was serving notice to everyone that the game is over ... Game, Set, Match. Beautifully said.

My own opinion is that Clinton is serving notice of a different kind ... that being he will run a shadow presidency for Hillary.

Now to answer your question about what did Wallace ask and why did Clinton go off on him ... Wallace asked Clinton questions that he has never asked any right winger during any of his interviews. For future reference, before you call me on this ... here is a list of Bush administration officials interviewed on Fox by either Wallace or Tony Snow previous to becoming press secretary and none of them have ever been asked the questions asked of Clinton ...

* Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; 9/10/06
* National Security adviser Stephen Hadley; 8/6/06
* Rice; 7/16/06
* Rice; 6/4/06
* Rice; 5/21/06
* Rice; 3/26/06
* Rice; 12/18/05
* Hadley; 12/4/05
* Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld; 11/20/05
* Rice; 10/16/05
* Rumsfeld; 6/26/05
* Rice; 6/19/05
* Hadley; 5/15/05
* Then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card; 5/1/05
* Rumsfeld; 3/20/05
* Hadley; 3/13/05
* Vice President Dick Cheney; 2/6/05
* Rice; 1/30/05
* Rice (then-National Security adviser); 10/10/04
* Rice; 6/27/04
* Rice; 6/6/04
* Rice; 4/18/04
* Rumsfeld; 3/28/04
* Card; 12/7/03
* Rumsfeld; 11/2/03
* Rice; 9/28/03
* Rice; 9/7/03
* Rice; 7/13/03
* Rumsfeld; 5/4/03
* Rumsfeld; 3/30/03
* Rice; 2/16/03
* Card; 1/26/03
* Rumsfeld; 1/19/03
* Rice; 11/10/02
* Rice; 9/15/02
* Card; 6/9/02
* Rice; 5/26/02
* Cheney; 5/19/02
* Rice; 5/5/02
* Card; 4/14/02
* Rice; 2/3/02
* Cheney; 1/27/02
* Rumsfeld; 11/11/01

I don't think Clinton had anything against Wallace ... he was just unlucky enough to draw the short straw to interview the Big Dawg. Too bad.

I don't think Clinton had anything against Wallace ... he was just unlucky enough to draw the short straw to interview the Big Dawg. Too bad.Dop, I can't say this is the most inventive thing you've ever come up with. This is only spin, your tall tales are far more creative.
However, if you think that interview went as planned for president Clinton, you are easily deceived by his spinners.

Dop, I can't say this is the most inventive thing you've ever come up with. This is only spin, your tall tales are far more creative.
However, if you think that interview went as planned for president Clinton, you are easily deceived by his spinners.

Yes I understand you are afraid ... we all fear what we don't understand.

I think Frogger planted that thought in Dop's head. :)

Yes I understand you are afraid ... we all fear what we don't understand.A bon mot is only bon if people know what the hell you're talking about.

Yes I understand you are afraid ... we all fear what we don't understand.
That's gold, get this guy on TV.

...we all fear what we don't understand.Then consider me in constant fear of your posts.

Its funny because Clinton and the left wingers are so used to having an easy go of it with their admirers in the media that anyone who dare even question them ........

Riiiiight.

Why, if the Corporate Media in this country hadn't gone so "easy" on Clinton, if that Media weren't slavish "admirers" of Clinton, they might have begun running innumerable "news" stories speculating about his private, consensual sexual relations, which could have in turn caused the imbecilic Joe Sixpacks in America to begin to clamor for their representatives in Washington to hold an investigation, which in turn might have resulted in Clinton being railroaded into testifying before some witch-hunt posing as a committee, which might have somehow ended up with him being IMPEACHED!!!

Whew!!!........lucky thing for him the U.S. Media "admired" him so much and took it easy on him.

Then consider me in constant fear of your posts.

I take this to mean you no longer want to debate me on this topic. Understood. The hole is deep enough ... no sense digging yourself in deeper.

Barry Bonds is currently battling a steroid scandal... noone can PROVE hands down that he took them, but there are bits an pieces that might lead one to ASSUME that he did. But still, Bonds is clean in the history books and with all his Home Run records until he is PROVEN 100% to have used steroids...

same thing with Bush.. you can form your own opinion and ASSUME bush "lied" about going into iraq.. but dont try to pass it off as what happened..because we dont know.Right. Bonds never used steroids, Bush didn't lie and OJ Simpson didn't murder his wife. Nice version of reality you've got going there.

I take this to mean you no longer want to debate me on this topic. I'd love to as soon as you find it.

Right. Bonds never used steroids, Bush didn't lie and OJ Simpson didn't murder his wife. Nice version of reality you've got going there.

well hey.. they all officially CANNOT be proven... it shows something about your character that you dont know the difference between suspicion and fact.

I am not trying to be a smart ass here, nor am I trying to be partisan, but how can anyone see someone going ape shit after getting a question as anything but a purely defensive question for which he has no real answer? I mean, its simple stuff. "do you know where the cookies went Jimmy?" "what? how dare you accuse me of stealing the cookies! I hate you!"

well hey.. they all officially CANNOT be proven... it shows something about your character that you dont know the difference between suspicion and fact.Officially? Is there some office that certifies facts? I'd like to know who works there!

BTW, I proved that Bush lied. You are officially in a state of denial.

I am not trying to be a smart ass here, nor am I trying to be partisan, but how can anyone see someone going ape shit after getting a question as anything but a purely defensive question for which he has no real answer? I mean, its simple stuff. "do you know where the cookies went Jimmy?" "what? how dare you accuse me of stealing the cookies! I hate you!"

I think you should go back to watching Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, serious stuff obviously just flies right over your head.

I am not trying to be a smart ass here, nor am I trying to be partisan, but how can anyone see someone going ape shit after getting a question as anything but a purely defensive question for which he has no real answer? I mean, its simple stuff. "do you know where the cookies went Jimmy?" "what? how dare you accuse me of stealing the cookies! I hate you!"

Yes.....it's "simple stuff", because you are a simpleton of the first order.

Face the facts of what happened on the t.v. program; why don't you read the transcript of what was said, and you will see how you are presenting a blatant falsehood here.

Clinton was indeed forceful, but he could hardly be said to have "went ape shit".

He stopped Wallace, he in-no-uncertain-terms informed Wallace that he wanted to lay the question bare, he held up his hand and halted Wallace again each time Wallace tried to interrupt and to escape from hearing the answer to the very question that Wallace had just asked, and then Clinton proceeded to give Wallace an articulate point by point answer to his question.

Clinton sat back and allowed wallace quite some time to lay out his questions & then Clinton answered each and every question wallace asked. Wallace of course tried hard to stop Clinton answering the questions, but he failed miserably.

When you look at the early posts on this thread, Clinton's defenders used words like "heated" and "rant" to describe him. They claimed some sleazy tactics on Wallace's part.
Now just 3 days later I read here that this whole thing was tactical. President Clinton was trying to rally the Democrat base. That he "sat back and allowed".
Why the change in tone when the video hasn't changed?

Also, for those who think President Clinton did such a great job, or that this was planned, or that he was in control.... why was he so angry at his handlers when it was over?

Officially? Is there some office that certifies facts? I'd like to know who works there!

BTW, I proved that Bush lied. You are officially in a state of denial.

no denial.. Bush DID lie about wiretaps.. even though he still somehow says he had the constitutional right to do it... which still puts up some shades of gray.. but o well.

But there's no way to pin point if Bush lied us into Iraq... even though idiots like FT use their ASSUMPTIONS as fact, its not fact. Does the wiretap thing hurt Bush's credibility? absolutely. Does it mean he lied us into Iraq? no it doesnt.

As for "office of certified facts".. FACTS can be proven. You cant PROVE that Bonds used steroids, you cant PROVE that OJ did it.. so while you ASSUME they did it, its your OPINION.. gah im sick of explaining this 6th grade stuff to you lefties.

Clinton sat back and allowed wallace quite some time to lay out his questions & then Clinton answered each and every question wallace asked. Wallace of course tried hard to stop Clinton answering the questions, but he failed miserably.

If thats how you want to "see it"?? Wallace was "trying to stop Clinton from answering?" LMAO its SOOO funny how some people saw what went on. Wallace was the one asking questions.. he was trying to conduct an interview.. he gave Clinton PLENTY of time answer.. and clinton kept on cutting off WALLACE.. geez thats what i saw, and im not drinking klinton koolaid.

Like i said before.. you can debate whether or not Fox "deserved" to be questioned, but you CANNOT DENY that Clinton acted like a jackass on that interview.. plain and simple. He sounded rather crazed talking about "hit jobs" and trying to paint a "smirk" on wallaces face, not to mention his "THE REPUBLICANS ARE OUT TO GET ME" quotes... AND his extreme exaggerations and misinformation... but YEA clinton came out GREAT in that interview yea!!!

LMAO

geez, so many conspiracy buffs in here... "oh yea Mike wallace didnt want Bill to answer".. LMAO .. you guys are idiots

I think you should go back to watching Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, serious stuff obviously just flies right over your head.

Drew.. i guess you dont see what is going on here. Trav had it right.. Clinton and his libs are ALWAYS the ones DEMANDING ANSWERS! now that wallace "demanded some answers" from clinton... all the sudden his panties go up in a bunch, he gets uncomortable, he yells, he points, he interrupts... sounds to me like he got a dose of his own medicine. He likes to give it out but he obviously can't take it... geez that was an awkward interview.

In order to prove that someone lied, you MUST prove that the person knew somthing contrary to what he/she told.

You have not proven a LIE.


Officially? Is there some office that certifies facts? I'd like to know who works there!

BTW, I proved that Bush lied. You are officially in a state of denial.