Bill Clinton Savages Fox News Presenter -----by John Nichols , at The Nation

Love Bill Clinton or hate him, but understand that his appearance on Fox News was one of those rare moments in recent American history when a target of our drive-by Media shot back.

http://nationmag.blogspot.com/2006/09/you-did-your-nice-little-conservative.html


Regular readers of this column will know that it maintains no great affection for former President Bill Clinton.

A Democratic Leadership Council stalwart, Clinton got elected president by promising health care and education for all and then proceeded to give the country fiscal conservatism and a corporate-sponsored free trade agenda.

His missteps handed control of Congress to Newt Gingrich and the radical right, rendering the Democratic party largely dysfunction at the legislative level to this day.

But there has never been any doubt that Clinton was more serious about combating terrorism than his successor, George W. Bush.

Clinton actually worried about threats to the United States, while Bush dismissed warnings at precisely the moment when the threats were most serious. And, as the intelligence community now confirms, Bush's failure of focus and practice have made the Americans more vulnerable.

The fact that Bush's supremely political presidency treats "homeland security" as a slogan rather than a necessity is the fundamental flaw in the current commander-in-chief's deeply flawed tenure. And his handlers are well aware of the problem.

That's why they have worked so hard, along with their amen corner in the Media, to create the false impression that Clinton and the Democrats were somehow more responsible for the 9-11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon than Bush and the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

Unfortunately, the so-called "leaders" of the opposition party have done a lousy job of challenging the spin job..........until now.

Clinton used an appearance with "Fox News Sunday's" Chris Wallace to challenge the lies of the Bush administration and its Media acolytes.

The interview, which was broadcast over the weekend, got to the heart of what's wrong not with the Bush presidency but with a media that covers that presidency from the on-bended-knee position.

Clinton recognized that Wallace, one of the more competent members of the Fox team, was under pressure to mouth the Republican talking points that the network uses as its reference points. And the former president pounced on that vulnerability.

When Wallace started in on the "Why didn't you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President?" line of questioning, Clinton leapt.

"Okay, let's talk about it," the former president began. "I will answer all of those things on the merits, but I want to talk about the context (in) which this (discussion) arises.

"I'm being asked this on the FOX network… ABC just had a right-wing conservative (program) on "The Path to 9/11" falsely claim that it was… based on the 911 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 (in the 1990s) 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 (then) that I did too much. Same people."

By now, Wallace was sputtering: "I understand...," "with respect, if I may, instead of...," "But Mr. President..."

But Clinton was on a roll.

Despite Wallace's stumbling attempts to interrupt him, Clinton went year-by-year, incident-by-incident, initiative-by-initiative through his anti-terror efforts.

I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill (bin Laden).

The CIA was run by George Tenet, who President Bush gave the Medal of Freedom to and said he did a good job. The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came to office.

If you can 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 (only) 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 helicopters and refuel at night.

Even the 9/11 Commission didn't (think we should have done) 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 (former National Security Advisor) Richard Clarke's book.



Wallace finally asked: "Do you think you did enough, sir?"

Clinton replied: "No, because I didn't get him."

Wallace chirped, "Right."

Clinton countered, "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 and they didn't. 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. 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..."

Stung, Wallace was again interrupting. But Clinton held firm. "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 you asked ‘Why did you fire Dick Clarke?' I want to know…"

"We ask plenty of questions of…" sputtered Wallace.

"Tell the truth…" Clinton shot back, before revealing that he had Wallace's number.

"You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because (Fox owner) Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change.

"And you came here under false pretenses and said that you'd spend half the time talking about (climate change.) You said you'd spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don't care."

Truer words have rarely been spoken on a nationally-televised "news" program.

When a beaten Wallace tried to cover for himself – "… 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 nailed him:

"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."

Love Bill Clinton or hate him, but understand that his appearance on Fox New Sunday was one of those rare moments in recent American history when a target of our drive-by media shot back.

It's just that kind of posting that endears me to you all the more, Freethinker.
It's got it all, the bashing of our current president, the canonization of our former president, and an unabashed adoration for a charming, articulate gray-haired man with an admitted penchant for underaged girls.

I laughed, I cried, and it's quite possible that I suffered a moment of incontinence.

We may be soul-mates, I think.
This piece really moved me.
:thumbs:

I laughed, I cried, and it's quite possible that I suffered a moment of incontinence.

I don't know about the *incontinence*, but you apparently suffered a moment of lunacy with the ""admitted penchant for underaged girls"" allegation.

its interesting to see how different people viewed that thing.. the adjectives used... this guy obviously is desperately defending Clinton. I mean.. according to this guy.. Wallace "chirped" and "stuttered".. while Clinton "FIRED BACK" and was "strong" LOL.. give me a break.. can we get the story from someone who DOES NOT have lotion all over his hands from jacking off Clinton?

And its funny to see someone like FT.. someone who supposedly distances himself from democrats and says they are "just as evil"... suddenly jerk off Bill Clinton like he did something great.. when all he did was act like a jackass to someone who asked pretty simple questions. Thats going under the radar here.. Wallaces questions WERE NOT tough, NOT bias... it could have been TEN TIMES worse.

It seems to me FT is drinking Klinton Koolaid.. this man can do no wrong i guess. He's allowed to look desperate, disrespectful, and stumble over words like an idiot.. but Bush isnt. Clinton=strong and smart.. Bush=dumb.. i get it. You dont have to tell me your bias.. its showing as constant as the Northern Star.

This isnt a political thing... Clinton was an asshole.. and if Rice or someone did this.. id call HER an asshole. This is a litmus test for people who never stand for anything.. like FT. Its great to see where they stand... Just Anti-bush. Obsession anybody?

It seems to me FT is drinking Klinton Koolaid.. this man can do no wrong i guess.

I wonder how many times it would be necessary for me to TELL a simpering idiot --"I did not like Bill Clinton" -- before he could figure it out??!

Again.....the thing that I enjoyed about the teevee show in question was witnessing the extremely rare event of a Corporate Media whore (who was sent out, as is virtually every hack on the major nightly news channels, to repeat the Republican's propaganda and their talking points) getting his little set of rightwing talking points shoved back in his face.

The account seems pretty much like I saw it. Wallace who is normally used to giving out the whipping was crushed by Clinton. Absolutely crushed. He never had a chance against Clinton. You have to be pretty smart to go from farm boy to the president of the US.

I don't even like Clinton much - he's a sleazeball, but I think it's funny that people who are so starry eyed by Bush just can't see that interview exactly as it was.

with an admitted penchant for underaged girls.

I never heard about any underage girls - did I miss something?

Wallace who is normally used to giving out the whipping was crushed by Clinton. Absolutely crushed. He never had a chance against Clinton. Then why did President leave the interview so angry? Why did his handlers try to cut the interview short?
I think you're seeing this in a positive light that they didn't even see it in.

Then why did President leave the interview so angry? Why did his handlers try to cut the interview short?
I think you're seeing this in a positive light that they didn't even see it in.

I think "they" think that if they tell enough people they "won".. maybe it will spread like a disease.. who knows.

Clinton WAS angry.. and really had no reason to be... talk about a ticking time bomb.. hilary must not be putting out.;)

My apologies. I should have said, “admitted penchant for girls half his age”.

In his own book Bill Clinton admits ‘inappropriate sexual encounters’ with Monika Lewinsky from Nov. 1995 to April 1996, and again in Feb. 1997.
Monika Lewinsky was born on 23 July 1973.
Bill Clinton was born on August 19, 1946.

That means that the office affair had been initiated when our former Commander in Chief was 49 years old, and Monika Lewinsky was just 22.

Now, I admit that I am an unsophisticated hayseed, educated in Alabama no less, but by my math that means that Bill Clinton was over twice her age when he began carrying on like a horny old goat with her, right there in the White House. (And worse yet of course, he later stared into that television camera and into the eyes of the American people and he lied about it.)

So, please allow me to retract my previous statement, and issue this corrected version:
“It's got it all, the bashing of our current president, the canonization of our former president, and an unabashed adoration for a charming, articulate gray-haired SCUM-BAG with an admitted penchant for girls half his age.”

Thanks for pointing that out, I feel better now sir.
:flowers:

Slick Willie (william jefferson klinton) is a sexual predator. Repeatedly he has been accused of improprieties with younger women. Regardless of "courtroom level" evidence, he has demonstrated amoral behaviors as well as an incapability to adhere to the truth. Long before he was on the national stage he was regarded as a buffoon by many of his peers. That he is an intelligent, polished politician there is no doubt. That said, his lack of moral behavior should offend even the most strident supporter.

That said, his lack of moral behavior should offend even the most strident supporter.
Absolutely.

So, please allow me to retract my previous statement, and issue this corrected version:
“It's got it all, the bashing of our current president, the canonization of our former president, and an unabashed adoration for a charming, articulate gray-haired SCUM-BAG with an admitted penchant for girls half his age.”
Spot on. Well put.

LMAO, "Clinton actually worried about threats to the United States". Again, to liberals "worryong" and "planning" are the equivilant of actually doing something. Last I heard Clinton never sent a force into afghanistan to get rid of the taliban after we got hit by al qeada trained in afghanistan on at least 4 different occasions during his administration. Why not? was the body count not high enough in those attacks to warrant an invasion of afghanistan? Is theere some magical number of casualties we must take before he would act? Sort of like the magical number of casualties in Iraq when it suddenly becomes a quagmire?

Why did we not just invade afghanistan while clinton was in office? Really, thats the only thing that could have been done that would have had any real effect. Let me guess, Clinton had plans drawn up to invade afghanistan but the CIA told him no :rolleyes: