Author Topic: Bill Clinton melts down on Fox News Sunday  (Read 5647 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

R.R.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Bill Clinton melts down on Fox News Sunday
« on: September 23, 2006, 06:18:10 PM »
Over some tough questions by Chris Wallace.

Here's the video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UwJabtvSUQ

Notice how Clinton is wagging his finger. The last time he did that he lied to the country.

Look at Clinton's angry reaction to some pointed questions. He never acted like that before. It's because he is so used to getting fluff interviews from the left wingers who call themselves journalists, as he did through his 8 years in office.

Update: Here's the whole part of the interview where Clinton was enraged, wagging his finger just like during impeachment...

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

I can't believe he said to Wallace that he's sitting there with that little smirk on his face.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2006, 06:19:57 PM by R.R. »

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Bill Clinton melts down on Fox News Sunday
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2006, 08:07:46 PM »
There is a school of thought that says it is less important which opportunities were lost in the lead up to the war on terror, than what opportunities are taken advantage of now that we are in it.

I'm thinking of matriculating to that school.

« Last Edit: September 23, 2006, 09:30:04 PM by BT »

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bill Clinton melts down on Fox News Sunday
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2006, 09:59:19 PM »
Revisionist History once again a hallmark of our former Impeached & Chief.  Funny thing is, WHEN was he EVER criticized for going after Usama too hard, for doing "too much" in trying to capture him??  ???   Is he trying to refernce the missle attacks on the aspirin factory?  If that's the case, he wasn't being criticized for using "too many" missiles, simply the timing of his "going after Usama" 

Was there any other time he was being criticized for doing "too much", in going after Usama?
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bill Clinton melts down on Fox News Sunday
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2006, 12:16:59 PM »
I'm watching the show now, and it is pretty sad.  I ALMOST feel sorry for him
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

R.R.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bill Clinton melts down on Fox News Sunday
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2006, 06:26:19 PM »
Quote
Funny thing is, WHEN was he EVER criticized for going after Usama too hard, for doing "too much" in trying to capture him??


Never. He made that up. He never went after Osama "hard." He had several chances to kill him but was too weak to take the shot. He had several chances to bring him here from the Sudan. He was too distracted by an intern.

He says he tried to kill Osama, but he was angry and wagging his finger at the time he said it, so it is probably a lie based on his past times he was angry and wagging his finger.

The war on terror is more than just trying to kill Osama. Osama will die, or is already dead, from just isolating him. He has kidney failure. You have to disrupt and go after the al qaeda network. And Clinton did absolutly nothing after our interests were attacked many times during the 90's.

R.R.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bill Clinton melts down on Fox News Sunday
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2006, 06:34:54 PM »
I can't believe Clinton said to Wallace how he's sitting there with that little smirk like he's so clever. Or when he lunged forward and was poking at Wallace. He was apparently trying to intimidate him from asking him any more questions.

Can you imagine President Bush behaving in such a way? Saying to Matt Lauer, for example, that he's sitting there with a little smirk on his face or lunging forward and poking at him to get him to stop asking questions? I just couldn't imagine Bush losing it in that way. Can you imagine the reaction from the mainstream liberal media if he did??

Clinton has just realized what his legacy will be: he's the guy who didn't do anything against al qaeda when it was growing in strength.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bill Clinton melts down on Fox News Sunday
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2006, 07:11:27 PM »
Can you imagine President Bush behaving in such a way?

Nope.  Bush has a ton more class than this clown.  Perhaps the future will prove me wrong, but when comparing current class & civility, it's no contest.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2006, 08:27:32 PM by sirs »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Bill Clinton melts down on Fox News Sunday
« Reply #7 on: September 25, 2006, 03:01:35 AM »
The truth about Clinton and "Wag the Dog"
President Clinton got into a heated discussion with Fox News Channel's Chris Wallace Sunday about whether he could have done more to kill Osama bin Laden. It's available on YOUTUBE HERE.

 

In the interview Clinton said that during the 1990s conservatives criticized him for "obsessing" over bin Laden and "they ridiculed me for trying" to kill bin Laden.

So let's examine the record...

How many folks raised the "Wag the Dog" scenario? (The idea, nicknamed from the David Mamet movie, being that the attack was unnecessary and only to distract from the president's troubles.)

After Clinton ordered the attacks in August 1998, ACCORDING TO THIS STORY in the Associated Press, "most lawmakers from both parties were quick to rally behind Clinton in a deluge of public statements and appearances yesterday, a marked contrast to the relatively sparse and chilly reception that greeted his Monday statement on the Lewinsky matter."



"I think the president did exactly the right thing," said House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said. "By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists." Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) called the attacks "appropriate and just," and House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said "the American people stand united in the face of terrorism."

The AP says: "Gingrich dismissed any possibility that Clinton may have ordered the attacks to divert attention from the scandal. Instead, he said, there was an urgent need for a reprisal following the Aug. 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. 'Anyone who watched the film of the bombings, anyone who saw the coffins come home knows better than to question this timing,' Gingrich said. 'It was done as early as possible to send a message to terrorists across the globe that killing Americans has a cost. It has no relationship with any other activity of any kind.'

Moreover, the story goes on to say that Gingrich adviser Rich Galen e-mailed to conservative radio talk show hosts that: "Speaker Newt Gingrich has made it clear to me" that the attacks were necessary and appropriate, Galen said. "This is a time to put our nation's interests ahead of our political concerns. I am asking you to help your listeners, your friends, and your associates to look at this situation with the sober eyes it deserves."

Exceptions came in the forms of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) -- who said "There's an obvious issue that will be raised internationally as to whether there is any diversionary motivation" -- Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-MO) -- who said "there is a cloud over this presidency" -- and Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) -- who said: "The president has been consumed with matters regarding his personal life. It raises questions about whether or not he had the time to devote to this issue, or give the kind of judgment that needed to be given to this issue to call for military action." 

What about the "vast right-wing conspiracy," as coined by the then-First Lady?

On PBS's News Hour, conservative commentator PAUL GIGOT SAID about Specter's comments that "you've got to take that with a grain of salt. But I thought when Dan Coats says something, I usually listen, because he's a serious guy; he's not a grandstander, and I took that as a sign ...of how much credibility the president has lost on Capitol Hill. I think Dan Coats was wrong." Gigot called any Wag the Dog accusations "frivolous."

The conservative National Review WROTE "Whatever one thinks of Bill Clinton, surely Sandy Berger and Bill Cohen would not take part in any wag-the-dog scenario. Republicans who suggest otherwise--including, to our astonishment and his embarrassment, the usually sober Sen. Dan Coats (R., Ind.)--should be ashamed of themselves. President Clinton should instead be commended for finally responding appropriately to a terrorist attack."

On THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP, Pat Buchanan said "there was every justification for it. It was a retaliatory strike, it's a pre-emptive strike, it was decided a week ahead of time, unanimously in the Ex Com of the National Security Council. There is not a scintilla of evidence that the president timed this for political reasons, and I think the Republicans who have stood behind the president in these strikes are exactly right."

ON THE OTHER HAND...there's the mainstream media.

The conservative Media Research Council NOTED that "every network did raise the "Wag the Dog" scenario." And indeed, according to the MRC story linked above, CBS ABC and NBC all raised the notion -- with Senator Coats as a leading voice.

DATELINE NBC devoted a December 1999 piece directly using clips from the film to question the basis for the bombing.

And Frank Bruni of the New York Times devoted A WHOLE STORY TO THE NOTION.

So...quite frankly, it looks as though the "mainstream" media did a lot more to question President Clinton than did the GOP leadership apparatus, along with Ashcroft, Specter and Coats. The mainstream media along with conservative media such as WORLDNETDAILY.*

Please send in your fave links to augment or dispute the above conclusions....

--jake

*(An interesting side note -- Clinton WAS slammed by Republicans for using "Wag the Dog" tactics after he authorized a strike against Iraq in December 1998, during impeachment. According to the Los Angeles Times, then-Senate Majority Leader Lott took the step of refusing to back the military action, saying "the timing and the policy are subject to question." And other Republicans -- including then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) and then-Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) -- expressed similar sentiments.)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2006/09/the_truth_about.html

R.R.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bill Clinton melts down on Fox News Sunday
« Reply #8 on: September 25, 2006, 02:34:45 PM »
Legal Disputes Over Hunt Paralyzed Clinton's Aides

By Steve Coll
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 22, 2004; Page A17

Between 1998 and 2000, the CIA and President Bill Clinton's national security team were caught up in paralyzing policy disputes as they secretly debated the legal permissions for covert operations against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

----------------------

Clinton didn't do "too much" against al qaeda as he falsely claimed in his red faced rant. His administration was totally paralyzed, and Clinton was too distracted by interns to do anything about the threat.


sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bill Clinton melts down on Fox News Sunday
« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2006, 02:49:37 PM »
By Steve Coll
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 22, 2004; Page A17

Between 1998 and 2000, the CIA and President Bill Clinton's national security team were caught up in paralyzing policy disputes as they secretly debated the legal permissions for covert operations against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.
----------------------
Clinton didn't do "too much" against al qaeda as he falsely claimed in his red faced rant. His administration was totally paralyzed, and Clinton was too distracted by interns to do anything about the threat.



Oh he was obsessed with something, but it sure wasn't Usama.
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bill Clinton melts down on Fox News Sunday
« Reply #10 on: September 25, 2006, 03:26:24 PM »
Bill Clinton’s Excuses
No matter what he says, the record shows he failed to act against terrorism.
By Byron York[/size]

“I worked hard to try and kill him,” former president Bill Clinton told Fox News Sunday. “I tried. I tried and failed.”  

“Him” is Osama bin Laden. And in his interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, the former president based nearly his entire defense on one source: Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror, the book by former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke. “All I’m asking is if anybody wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book,” Clinton said at one point in the interview. “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,” he said at another. “All you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s findings and you know it’s not true,” he said at yet another point. In all, Clinton mentioned Clarke’s name 11 times during the Fox interview.

But Clarke’s book does not, in fact, support Clinton’s claim. Judging by Clarke’s sympathetic account — as well as by the sympathetic accounts of other former Clinton aides like Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon — it’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince — as opposed to, say, order — U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up.

Clinton did not give up in the sense of an executive who gives an order and then moves on to other things, thinking the order is being carried out when in fact it is being ignored. Instead, Clinton knew at the time that his top military and intelligence officials were dragging their feet on going after bin Laden and al Qaeda. He gave up rather than use his authority to force them into action.

Examples are all over Clarke’s book. On page 223, Clarke describes a meeting, in late 2000, of the National Security Council “principals” — among them, the heads of the CIA, the FBI, the Attorney General, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the secretaries of State, Defense. It was just after al Qaeda’s attack on the USS Cole. But neither the FBI nor the CIA would say that al Qaeda was behind the bombing, and there was little support for a retaliatory strike. Clarke quotes Mike Sheehan, a State Department official, saying in frustration, “What’s it going to take, Dick? Who the shit do they think attacked the Cole, fuckin’ Martians? The Pentagon brass won’t let Delta go get bin Laden. Hell they won’t even let the Air Force carpet bomb the place. Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?”

That came later. But in October 2000, what would it have taken? A decisive presidential order — which never came.

The story was the same with the CIA. On page 204, Clarke vents his frustration at the CIA’s slow-walking on the question of killing bin Laden. “I still to this day do not understand why it was impossible for the United States to find a competent group of Afghans, Americans, third-country nationals, or some combination who could locate bin Laden in Afghanistan and kill him,” Clarke writes. “I believe that those in CIA who claim the [presidential] authorizations were insufficient or unclear are throwing up that claim as an excuse to cover the fact that they were pathetically unable to accomplish the mission.”

Clarke hit the CIA again a few pages later, on page 210, on the issue of the CIA’s refusal to budget money for the fight against al Qaeda. “The formal, official CIA response was that there were [no funds],” Clarke writes. “Another way to say that was that everything they were doing was more important than fighting al Qaeda.”

The FBI proved equally frustrating. On page 217, Clarke describes a colleague, Roger Cressey, who was frustrated after meeting with an FBI representative on the subject of terrorism. “That fucker is going to get some Americans killed,” Clarke reports Cressey saying. “He just sits there like a bump on a log.” Clarke adds: “I knew he was talking about an FBI representative.”

So Clinton couldn’t get the job done. Why not? According to Clarke’s pro-Clinton view, the president was stymied by Republican opposition. “Weakened by continual political attack,” Clarke writes, “[Clinton] could not get the CIA, the Pentagon, and FBI to act sufficiently to deal with the threat.”

Republicans boxed Clinton in, Clarke writes, beginning in the 1992 campaign, with criticism of Clinton’s avoidance of the draft as a young man, and extending all the way to the Lewinsky scandal and the president’s impeachment. The bottom line, Clarke argues, is that the commander-in-chief was not in command. From page 225:

Because of the intensity of the political opposition that Clinton engendered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in ‘Wag the Dog’ tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life. For similar reasons, he could not fire the recalcitrant FBI Director who had failed to fix the Bureau or to uncover terrorists in the United States. He had given the CIA unprecedented authority to go after bin Laden personally and al Qaeda, but had not taken steps when they did little or nothing. Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations they did not want to conduct. He had tried that in Somalia, and the military had made mistakes and blamed him. In the absence of a bigger provocation from al Qaeda to silence his critics, Clinton thought he could do no more.

In the end, Clarke writes, Clinton “put in place the plans and programs that allowed America to respond to the big attacks when they did come, sweeping away the political barriers to action.”

But the bottom line is that Bill Clinton, the commander-in-chief, could not find the will to order the military into action against al Qaeda, and Bill Clinton, the head of the executive branch, could not find the will to order the CIA and FBI to act. No matter what the former president says on Fox, or anywhere else, that is his legacy in the war on terror.
 
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDM4N2E1MzU5ZjQ0YTA3YmJiYzEyYjQ2ZDBiNWJlYjE=

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

larry

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton melts down on Fox News Sunday
« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2006, 08:49:29 PM »
Bill Clinton's performance on Fox News-  put the Democrats in the driver's seat. The GOP will go down in flames in the general election. Clinton sounded the charge and timing could not have been better. The war in Iraq was a huge mistake and the House Of Bush is becoming more isloated by the day. The sad part is the damage is done. Eight years of George W. Bush has been a disaster for the U.S.A. Our constitution has been compromised, our treasury has been raided and our reputation has been damaged. That is why Bill Clinton took off the gloves.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bill Clinton melts down on Fox News Sunday
« Reply #12 on: September 25, 2006, 08:54:50 PM »
The GOP will go down in flames in the general election.



Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bill Clinton melts down on Fox News Sunday
« Reply #13 on: September 25, 2006, 09:13:04 PM »
I will start this off with a disclaimer:  I did not watch the Clinton-Wallace TV segment - for some reason my speakers aren't functioning and I don't have the time to fix them or even find out why.

However:  my first knowledge of it came from Huffington Post.  It was almost universally welcomed on Hufpo as a sign that Democrats are finally getting some backbone and hitting back hard.  I understood that when Clinton asked Chris Wallace how come he (Chris Wallace) asked only Clinton why he hadn't gone after Osama, how come he never asked any Republicans, Wallace stammered, simpered, sank back, claimed he HAD asked the tough questions of his Republican guests, but when Clinton told him not to bullshit him and the audience, he had NOT asked the tough questions of the Republicans, Wallace had nothing to say, just a shamefaced silly grin and a weak giggle.

Clinton further made the point that at least he had tried - - tried and failed - - but that in EIGHT MONTHS of office, Bush had not even tried.  And again, Wallace had no answer to this.

This was looked upon as a HUGE PR victory by a Democrat and a humiliating defeat for Murdoch and Fox "News" in every way.

So imagine my surprise to read R.R.'s spin and the mutual chortle-fest between him and sirs as to how BADLY Clinton had come across.  Once again, I had to wonder:  do conservatives really live in some other universe where people say hello when they mean goodbye and put their clothes on to jump into the swimming pool but shed them to come out?  Now if I could only fix those %#*&!! speakers, I'd know for sure what now I only suspect.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bill Clinton melts down on Fox News Sunday
« Reply #14 on: September 25, 2006, 09:25:20 PM »
I understood that when Clinton asked Chris Wallace how come he (Chris Wallace) asked only Clinton why he hadn't gone after Osama, how come he never asked any Republicans, Wallace stammered, simpered, sank back, claimed he HAD asked the tough questions of his Republican guests, but when Clinton told him not to bullshit him and the audience, he had NOT asked the tough questions of the Republicans, Wallace had nothing to say, just a shamefaced silly grin and a weak giggle

Well, there ya go, since you didn't watch it a) you didn't know that what was "stammering" as you call it, was Wallace taken back by the tirade Clinton was pulling, and b) you didn't know that Wallace has asked numerous Republicans "tough questions" in regards to why they hadn't caught Usama yet, why is Iraq still as difficult as it is, and why was there not a better exit strategy in place.  Ignorance is indeed bliss. 

Naaaa, you just have to assume since its Fox & Clinton, Clinton was simply showing cajones, and Wallace was simply quaking in his shoes.  Kinda like those delusions you have about mass condoned american military misconduct and racist republicans all over the south.

I'd recommend getting those speakers fixed, but I doubt that'd make a dent in facilitating any objectivity, on your part
« Last Edit: September 26, 2006, 12:02:49 AM by sirs »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle