Pres Bill Clinton Bitch Slaps Chris Wallace on FOX
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6tos...elated&search=

My favorite quote is, "You got that little smirk on your face - you think you're so clever." Although that probably won't play well to the other side and is easily spun. Still, it's great. :lol:

He asks his question at 3:30. In part 2 it gets particularly interesting at 4:40.

Clinton mentions that Fox does not ask the same questions of Ds and Rs. He points out that he tried to get Bin Laden many times, that Richard Clark and he told the new administration that terrorism would be their #1 priority, which they ignored, and then demoted Clark. He mentions that all the right wingers used to criticize him for spending so much time on Bin Laden and now they say he didn't do enough.

I'm glad he agreed to go on there because Wallace (smirky pants) was forced to be respectful because of Clinton's status. That is not the case with other Dems that wind up on the network. It is also interesting that Wallace denied that there was any spin to the questions they ask. Oddly, he asked Clinton "Why didn't you do enough to get Bin Laden?" instead of, "What did you do to get Bin Laden?", which would have been a more neutral, less accusatory question. He either does not get this distinction or is content to lie to an ex-president regarding his intentions. What a hack.

As much as I hate Bush, I have to put more blame on Clinton for not getting Osama :distress:

Ah that's baloney!

:eek: That is appalling. That is bad journalism. That is why the news media today is becoming a joke.

He tries to cover his tracks by blaming his viewers, it was their emailed inquiries that made him ask the question. :eek:

yes yes yes!!!! time for a blobbie! :blob1: :blob1:

apparently you swallowed WHOLE that garbage ABC broadcast even tho it was apparent that it was full of inaccuracies :distress:

Email inquiries???
 

WTH??? My email inquiry asking about Pres.Clinton in 'the ORAL office' must've not made their cut, darn!!! :shrug:

Abc?
 

Awful
Bad
Comedy

or

Awful
Bad
CRAP

Sorry, Dis-knee makes me more nauseated than I already feel due to health issues

In that case, one can still ask in a more professional manner. "We've had many e-mails saying you didn't do enough to get Bin Laden...what is your response to that?" or something - but to come out and say, "Why didn't you do enough..." that's confrontational, and just plain unprofessional. But I guess it's yet another showcase of Fox's ethics (or lack thereof.)

exact-alac-alee (sp???)

Yeah, it's a nuance that the right wing either doesn't get or deliberately denies. I think they're more sinister and that the latter is the case.

Clinton admits he failed at getting Bin Laden. He was alittle pre-occupied ;) Thinking with the wrong head :distress:

Clinton doesn't look so good and his speech sounds tired and abit slurred. He better slow down abit.

Which Clinton accepted when he said I tried and failed, which is true :shrug: Clinton's efforts were, however, hampered by his own BS sexcapdes as well as the unwillingness of the armed forces, CIA, etc. to cooperate. Having said that, he was the fukcing Commander in Chief - which begs the question why not just order the campaign executed and be done with it. We all know the answer to that is politics and public perception.

In the end, Clinton did a lot to catch OBL, which IMO W has not done.

Interestingly, I love how Clinton points out that though he was unable to prevent or catch the people responsible for the Cole bombing, W did little or nothing to catch them once Clinton left office and instead seemingly focused on Iraq, despite being told by everyone that although SH was a bad guy, OBL was far worse.

Clinton mentioned that he told the 9/11 commission exactly what mistakes he made in catchig Bin Laden, he told them they could quote him on them, and they left them out of their report. Was that so they could say he didn't do anything? Or allude it it that is? What I mean is, if they published his words, they would surely include detailed descriptions of what he DID DO along with what went wrong. They didn't want to document his actions so they could make it look like he did nothing IMO.

On edit: Ed Schultz is talking about this right now. http://wegoted.com/

I do not think they in fact said he did nothing - so, that argument is inaccurate.

Here is some info. -

9/11 Panel Critical of Clinton, Bush
Officials From Both Administrations Defend Response to Al Qaeda Threat
By Dan Eggen and John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 24, 2004; Page A01


The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks issued a stinging condemnation yesterday of the U.S. government's failed hunt for Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network, finding that both the Clinton and Bush administrations focused too heavily on diplomacy that did not work and were reluctant to consider aggressive military action.

The criticism prompted spirited defenses from top Clinton and Bush officials, who testified in a day-long public hearing that the government proceeded as aggressively as possible given what was known about the threat from al Qaeda.

Several of the witnesses, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, also suggested that there was little public or congressional appetite for military action against Afghanistan, which harbored al Qaeda, until after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and that even removing bin Laden may not have prevented the hijackings.

"This administration came in fully recognizing the threat presented to the United States and its interests and allies around the world by terrorism," Powell said. "We went to work on it immediately. The president made it clear it was a high priority."

But the new reports by the commission's investigative staff portray the Bush administration as giving terrorism scant attention during its first eight months, noting that officials did not draw up concrete plans to confront al Qaeda and its Afghan protectors until just days before the Sept. 11 attacks.

The reports suggest that many of the Clinton administration's policies also were ineffectual, revealing significant new details about as many as four missed opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden in 1998 and 1999.

The reports also appear to confirm some of the key criticisms made by Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism coordinator for Clinton and Bush, in a book released Monday that has revived the bitter debate over the government's war on terror. Clarke set off a political firestorm with allegations that the current administration neglected the al Qaeda threat in part because senior officials were obsessed with attacking Iraq, and accused both administrations of failing to act aggressively enough. He is scheduled to testify before the commission today, along with CIA Director George J. Tenet, Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage.

Addressing what more could have been done, Madeleine K. Albright, Clinton's secretary of state from 1997 to 2001, said: "I can say with confidence that President Clinton and his team did everything we could, everything that we could think of, based on the knowledge we had, to protect our people and disrupt and defeat al Qaeda. We certainly recognized the threat posed by the terrorist groups."

The panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, is a 10-member bipartisan commission established by Congress to examine the missteps leading up to the attacks. Unlike previous efforts, including a joint inquiry by the House and Senate intelligence committees, the commission is conducting a wide-ranging probe that reviews foreign policy, aviation, border control and other issues. It is scheduled to issue a report this summer.

The panel has engaged in repeated battles with the Bush administration over access to documents and witnesses, and several commissioners repeated their request yesterday that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice be permitted to testify. Rice, citing the opinion of White House lawyers, has declined to appear, but has submitted to private interviews with the commission. The current and former presidents and vice presidents also are scheduled to be interviewed privately.

The panel's staff issued reports earlier this year showing that the government fumbled repeated opportunities to stop many of the hijackers from entering the country. Among the new findings disclosed yesterday:

• The Clinton administration had as many as four chances to kill or capture bin Laden between December 1998 and July 1999, but all the operations were scuttled because of uncertain intelligence and fears that civilians or dignitaries might be killed. In one example, in May 1999, sources provided detailed reports about bin Laden's whereabouts in the Kandahar area over a period of five nights, but strikes were not ordered because the military was concerned about the accuracy of the reports and the risk of collateral damage, investigators found.

"Having a chance to get [bin Laden] three times in 36 hours and foregoing the chance each time has made me a bit angry," a CIA unit chief wrote to a colleague, adding that Tenet "finds himself alone at the table, with the other princip[als] basically saying 'we'll go along with your decision Mr. Director,' and implicitly saying that the Agency will hang alone if the attack doesn't get [bin Laden]."

• Rumsfeld told the commission in earlier interviews that he "did not recall any particular counterterrorism issue that engaged his attention before 9/11," other than the debate over preparing armed drones to target bin Laden.

• A month after the Clinton administration launched missile strikes on al Qaeda targets in retaliation for the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa, counterterrorism officials within the Pentagon prepared a paper proposing "a more aggressive counterterrorism posture" to "take up the gauntlet that international terrorists have thrown at our feet." The authors also warned that in case of more "horrific attacks . . . we will have no choice nor, unfortunately, will we have a plan."

The eight-point proposal went nowhere, in part because senior officials thought the plan was too aggressive, investigators found.

• In the spring of 1998, the Saudi government broke up a plot organized by bin Laden to launch attacks on U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia using portable missiles. Scores were arrested, but the Saudis did not publicize the case at the time, the commission report said.

• U.S. officials learned that Hamid Gul, the former head of Pakistani intelligence, had assured Taliban leaders in July 1999 that he would provide three or four hours of warning before any U.S. missile launch as he had the "last time" -- an apparent reference to the failed 1998 missile strike.

Testifying yesterday were Albright, Powell, Rumsfeld and Clinton defense secretary William S. Cohen. The pairs of representatives agreed with one another on many broad issues, including the difficulties of targeting bin Laden and his allies before Sept. 11, 2001, and the perceived lack of political support for military action during those years. Some commissioners, particularly former senator Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), argued that both administrations could have rallied support for military operations just as they did in Kosovo and Iraq, respectively.

The officials from both administrations also struck a similar theme on the question of preventing the terror strikes, arguing that it is unclear how effective aggressive action might have been, given the extent of the plot and the determination of the participants. Powell noted that al Qaeda and its allies have launched attacks since the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan in late 2001.

"Anything we might have done against al Qaeda in this period or against Osama bin Laden may or may not have had any influence on these people who were already in this country," Powell said.

Albright said that "things looked very different before 9/11. We were mostly accused of overreacting, not underreacting."

But each side disparaged the other on several occasions. Albright, for example, bemoaned many of the policy changes pursued by Bush and his aides after they took office, while Rumsfeld said the new president was determined not to repeat the Clinton administration's tactic of "bouncing the rubble" by sending cruise missiles at al Qaeda sites of little strategic value.

Rumsfeld and Powell defended the administration's pace in adopting new strategies to battle al Qaeda and persuade the Taliban to give up bin Laden. Final plans for both were completed the week before the terrorist attacks.

Cohen and Albright similarly defended Clinton's actions against al Qaeda. Cohen said that missile strikes against bin Laden were called off in each instance because of CIA doubts about the accuracy of the intelligence involved.

In his testimony, Powell confirmed one claim by Clarke that Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary who strongly supported U.S. military action against Iraq, suggested an attack on the government of Saddam Hussein during a meeting at Camp David just four days after the 2001 attacks. President Bush "said first things first," Powell said. "He decided on Afghanistan." Wolfowitz, who appeared alongside Rumsfeld later, did not directly address the issue.

Research editor Margot Williams contributed to this report.

Wallace also bagged on his own father, Mike Wallace of CBS's 60 minute saying he was suffering from Alzheimer's because Mike came out against the war. I'll post that little beauty later if you're interested.
I was so glad to see Clinton lay it down on what Fox News is. He also admitted that he felt that he had made mistakes.

Then you don't know the facts. Read Richard Clarke's book.

Thank god because I'm sick of hearing about his blow job. Our country is infinintely more ****ed up now than it ever was under his administration.

Thanks for this. Faux news apparently leaves out the part where the CIA advised the White House not to strike in all 4 cases. In which case there is shared blame. Although it is true that ultimately it was Clinton's responsiblity to make the call and he could have overruled the CIA. However, being told the reports might be innacurate would probably make anyone hesitate. You would want to be pretty certain your target was, in fact, in your sights.

He ate that poor fool's lunch - no question about that. I think Fox is used to people either being terrified of them and/or easy interviews with yes men. I think they are also used to W and his cronies and their canned answers and lack of relative intelect. Clinton is none of those things and he sure showed it in brilliant colors in that interview. I was watching it thinking what a charm it was to have someone who could at least speak English in the White House.

I think there can be no qustion that Clinton did not go ball$ out against OBL because there was little public support for it and he had other issues - any politician would have done the same thing. But, Clinton brought up the opposition in this interview.

Again, I think the interviewer was at first taken aback and then scared shiitteeless :nod:

I read an article about how the country is actually nostalgic for the Clinton era and the article discusses the possibility of bringing Clinton back as the VP!
can you imagine? the article discusses the issues of the 12th and 22nd amendments and how a Dem Presidential Candidate could LEGALLY name Clinton the VP running mate, what a freakin miracle that would be........if anyone's interested, I'll post the article.

in fact, here's the link

Post! There have been reports of standing ovations when Clinton walks into a public place! :eek:

This is weird that you posted this because after I read strand's post I thought, "I sure am feeling nostalgic for Clinton's era."

I do not think Clinton could legally run for VP or really for any office that could eventually lead to him being the Pres. for a third term as the 22nd Amendment says:

Section 1.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once . . . .

____________________________________________________________

Clinton could, however, accept a cabinet position because although that put him in line for the Oval Office - the 22nd Amendment prohibits only being "elected" - not appointed.

Oh darling - do not get me wrong, I think Clinton was a snake - but I'd take him back in a second over the tripe in power now.

Thats the joke...
 

of it to me, who cares what happened years ago.

Putting ALL (As in 100%) the blame squarely on Clinton for OBL is like blaming Bush for McVeigh & OKC.

As for blowjobs, need I say more:

Exactly, and the fact remains that OBL attacked eight months into W's watch and W was warned about Al-Q and repeatedly refused to lift a finger to investigate it. Could he have connected the dots to have prevented 9/11? Who knows and I personally doubt it. But, at least the effort would have been there.

Amen.

Dubya has now had more than 5 years to catch Osama, WITH the full support of the entire government/US military/country and most of the world, none of which Clinton ever had. Did Dubya catch Osama yet?

Nope, and he called off the unit assigned to getting him! "I don't know where he is. He's not that important. He's not our priority."

Damn right.

Clinton kicked Wallace's ass... And rightly so. Wallace was trying to steer away from the line of questioning once he realized where he was at (location: up **** creek), but Bill was having none of it and stuck to his guns. "You asked the questions, so I'm going to give you the answers."

Clinton is ****ing brilliant- faults and all. The whole time I was just thinking to myself- what a moron Wallace was to think that he would just be able to breeze into that kind of question and that someone of Clinton's intellect would just sit back and take it.

Democrats take note- fight back, fight hard and fight smart.

Hmmm...
 

As for the rest of the inteview, ThinkProgress and MediaMatters both have analyses of Wallace's other interviews with prominent Republicans. And, like you couldn't have guessed, he's never asked them anything remotely as caustic as this. In fact, he's never asked most of them a tough or even important question at all.

http://thinkprogress.org/ - most of it has been bumped to page 2 now...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002

I know most you peeps in this thread already know this - I'm posting these more for the lurkers...

Jason, the article I referenced says it IS possible. to wit:

That is reaching because the VP is elected for the sole purpose of being the Pres. in the Pres. cannot be and the Amendment strictly prohibts the election, etc. So, I cannot see that pasting any kind of muster, etc. But, the cabinet position is far more doable.

Well, we've got two legal eagles saying he could so......:shrug:

again:
believe me, the Rethugs would HOWL if they thought this was even a REMOTE possibility, but if it is, then I think the Dems need to utilize old William Jefferson because Lord knows we sure NEED him! And it just might give the Dems the boost they need! The very idea is exciting to me! :blob1:

That is an inaccurate and fallacious conclusion - VP is elected solely for that reason and the 22nd Amendment expressly prohibits that in plain language, etc. But, he could always try.

I think the "plain language" says otherwise and it is NOT forbidden in either the 12th or 22nd amendment. And I hope someone DOES try it. I think this country NEEDS him....

by the way, I found the exact same interpretation in another place:

No I don't know all the facts and I don't think any of us will ever know "all" the facts. And if I did read his book, it would be with a grain of salt. After all, he worked for the government ;)