Fox Tries To Smear Bill Clinton… Clinton Blasts Fox…

[Richard Tafoya]

Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/22/clinton-fox/

Today, President Bill Clinton taped an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, which is scheduled to be aired Sunday. He was told the interview would focus on his nonpartisan efforts to raise over $7 billion to combat the world’s biggest problems (http://www.clintonfoundation.org/092206-nr-cf-ee-cgi-pr-second-clinton-global-initiative-results-in-215-commitments-worth-7-billion-dollars.htm).
Early in the interview, Wallace attempted to smear Clinton with the same kind of misinformation contained in ABC’s Path to 9/11 (http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Path+to+911). Clinton was having none of it.
ThinkProgress has obtained a transcript of the interview. Here are some highlights –
Wallace repeats Path to 9/11 misinformation, Clinton fights back:
WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on Fox News Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I got to 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 which I suspect you’ve read called the Looming Tower. And it talks about how 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 US troops.” Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole.
CLINTON: OK..
WALLACE: …may I just finish the question sir. And after the attack, the book says, Bin Laden separated his leaders because he expected an attack and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is 20/20.
CLINTON: No let’s talk about…
WALLACE: …but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?
CLINTON: OK, let’s talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits but I want to talk about the context of which this arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network…ABC just had a right wing conservative on the Path to 9/11 falsely claim that it was based on the 9/11 Commission report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report. I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much. Same people.
Clinton takes on Fox News bias:
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 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 you nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..
WALLACE: Now wait a minute sir…
CLINTON:…
WALLACE: 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 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…
WALLACE: We asked…
CLINTON:…
WALLACE: Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday sir?
CLINTON: I don’t believe you ask them that.
WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of…
CLINTON: You didn’t ask that did you? Tell the truth.
WALLACE: About the USS Cole?
CLINTON: Tell the truth.
WALLACE: I…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 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…
WALLACE: [laughs]
CLINTON: You said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion dollars plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.
Clinton on his priorities and the Bush administration priorities:
CLINTON: What did I do? I worked hard to try and 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 never criticized President Bush and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that 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. It looks like you’re so clever…
WALLACE: [Laughs]
CLINTON: 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…We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. Until I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that’s strange.

[BrokenHalo]

Huh. The Drudge Report has posted a small excerpt of this with the headline "Clinton Anger Unleashed" (the exerpt is actually on YouTube with the title "Clinton Freaks Out"). And the spin begins...lol.

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

[pinky]

Thank you for posting about Drudge. Now Richie Rich won't have to. ;)

Oh, and can I just say that I like Bill Clinton more and more as time goes by?

[Richard Tafoya]

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/23/fox-clinton-promo/

Fox on The Defensive, Promos Interview As ‘Clinton Gets Crazed’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/23/fox-clinton-promo/)

During his interview with Bill Clinton, Wallace insisted it was conducted in “good faith (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/22/clinton-fox/).” Well, here’s how the Fox News website is promoting the interview, scheduled to be aired tomorrow:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/picture-1.png
Clinton simply told the truth (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/22/clinton-fox/) about Fox News, his record on terrorism and the Bush administration’s record on terrorism. Apparently, Fox News is threatened by that.

[mandyknows]

Go Clinton go!!! Funny how the right always wants to blame Clinton!

[Richard Tafoya]

Main portion of the interview is up at Crooks and Liars:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/fox-clinton-interview-part-1-osama-bin-laden/

[Venisenvy]

Fox News Has the entire interview up. I don't see a problem with how he answered it. I believe there is plenty of blame to be handed to Clinton, I mean even in his response the USS cole explanation was not a good one. But the question asked was completly loaded and I was happy that Clinton defended himself so vigorously, I like that in a person, PASSION. It is a quality I look for and admire and thats what i saw in his defense of himself. Just listen to the tone of the question, its just really loaded, the content is absolutley fair but the way it was formulate was not.

I have said this before and I will say it again, I like Bill Clinton so much more as a former President than President.

[James Dean]

Sorry to bump this but I haven't had time to see it until recently. I think for starters Wallace had nothing to say after Clinton just flat out told him what he meant. It was funny to see how Bill reversed the questions to Chris, kind of says something right there.

[*Katy*]

Huh. The Drudge Report has posted a small excerpt of this with the headline "Clinton Anger Unleashed" (the exerpt is actually on YouTube with the title "Clinton Freaks Out"). And the spin begins...lol.

http://drudgereport.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UwJabtvSUQ
Its about time a politian grew some balls and said what he said, I like clinton because he doesnt say the "right" thing, hes honest which is something the majority of washington needs to learn how to do. (yea yea sex scandle :o)

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Clinton puts the Bush administration on the defense. lol Rice whines, well, so did we!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/26/rice.clinton.ap/index.html

[db44]

Heh, one-two punch. Using FOX and the New York Post? Next interview will be for Matt Drudge himself.

All excerpts I saw on FOX were all about Bill getting mad. Nothing about the fact that he as alluding to, that that's not why he was doing the interview.

Of, and they had one little interesting tidbit up: It was Clinton's first appearance on FNS.

[Venisenvy]

Because the Clinton Global innitiative was not what was news worthy about the interview, none of the other networks show clips of that either. The question while asked in a loaded way was absolutly a fair question to ask. And I believe if you watch Chris Wallace on a regular basis you will see he is a pretty damn fair person.

[tiger_rascal]

I believe Rice.

[db44]

I believe Rice.

Funny she couldn't do much convincing of that fact in front of the 9/11 Commission. Why believe her now?

[tiger_rascal]

Because, I firmly believe this: "She denies Clinton officials left behind a full strategy to deal with al Qaeda"

You know, I could joke and say that if Clinton was not preoccupied in the Oval Office he could have done his job, or at least he could have been more focused on doing a better job. That would make a good conspiracy theory, the Monica thing was just a distraction from how poorly the Clinton admin. dealt with Al Qaeda.

Typical of politicians though. Get through your term, leave a mess for the next one to clean up. If only they could have worked together, all of our politicians.

[db44]

Clinton, the Republicans have fed us for a while now, actually had a drone targeted on UbL. Bush used his drones and satelitte pictures to find nothing in Iraq. At least Clinton was close enough to the target.

Again, that's by the Republican hype.

You are actually calling the Monica issue a distraction for Clinton?! That's a good one! If you actually believe that, you are certified nuts. The last thing Clinton wanted was the whole Monica/Starr thing to continue. It was a Republican witchhunt to try and get a Democrat impeached for something they had no business in.

[tiger_rascal]

You are actually calling the Monica issue a distraction for Clinton?! That's a good one! If you actually believe that, you are certified nuts. The last thing Clinton wanted was the whole Monica/Starr thing to continue. It was a Republican witchhunt to try and get a Democrat impeached for something they had no business in.

I agree with you.

But now that it is brought up, that would make an excellent conspiracy theory. Think about it, which is worse, not targeting a known dangerous terror threat against the US, or getting busy in the Oval Office? Of course the terror threat is far worse, but if the Clinton admin. did not do their best at targeting this terror group, a simple distraction like Monica would work perfectly and effectively. When looked at that way, yes, it is a good distraction.

But, that is just a silly conspiracy theory.

[db44]

The affair has nothing to do with it. That's happened with other presidents, it will happen again, and some claim (I don't believe this one) that it's even happened with our current president and the afore mentioned Rice.

Starr had no juristdiction to go after Clinton on this. It's as plain and simple as that. If anyone caused this "distraction" it was the party out to get the best preisdent we've had in a while.

[Richard Tafoya]

Because, I firmly believe this: "She denies Clinton officials left behind a full strategy to deal with al Qaeda"
It sounds like you haven't read the Richard Clarke book. Take a look - it's laid on there in clear and unequivocal detail.

[*Katy*]

Because, I firmly believe this: "She denies Clinton officials left behind a full strategy to deal with al Qaeda"

You know, I could joke and say that if Clinton was not preoccupied in the Oval Office he could have done his job, or at least he could have been more focused on doing a better job. That would make a good conspiracy theory, the Monica thing was just a distraction from how poorly the Clinton admin. dealt with Al Qaeda.

Typical of politicians though. Get through your term, leave a mess for the next one to clean up. If only they could have worked together, all of our politicians.
how is that a conspiracy theory? It makes sense, and whose fault is that......? The republicans were the ones pushing the issue. Its what humans do, its human nature to be distracted by something, its hard to put equal amount of attention to every issue. Which is why demoestic policy is not Bush's thing. I do agree with you that most presidents do leave a mess for the next to clean up, which doesnt make it right either way. Its not right to leave a mess,and its not right to ignore a situation and blame it on the last guy. I do wish they would all work together, i find the global initiative a good first start and i wish i could have seen that part of the interview as well.

[Regis Philbin]

I see where Howard Dean praised Bubba's rant the other night. Guess it takes a lunatic to know one. Al Gore, Howard Dean and Bill Clinton can be spokesmen for Prozac.

Why are the Dems so angry?

Two reasons:

They HATE George W. Bush.

They have no power and will do anything to get it back.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Actually, we can do something. It's called voting. Uh oh.

[Regis Philbin]

Actually, we can do something. It's called voting. Uh oh.

Yeah, assuming you can get your "base" to actually turn out to the polls. Most of them are either illegal aliens, too drunk or high to get to the polls or can't find the right bus to take them there.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Getting desperate, are you? Feeling a little frightened about all the hippies and tree huggers and women and non-white people taking over? lol

[LesterX]

Yeah, assuming you can get your "base" to actually turn out to the polls. Most of them are either illegal aliens, too drunk or high to get to the polls or can't find the right bus to take them there.

Gotta love comments like this from a man who quotes the Bible. Jesus must be so proud.

[*Katy*]

Yeah, assuming you can get your "base" to actually turn out to the polls. Most of them are either illegal aliens, too drunk or high to get to the polls or can't find the right bus to take them there.
Wait but Bush was the alcoholic and cocaine user. I'll be voting this november, and im now in a "conservative" city in Texas.

[pinky]

Yeah, assuming you can get your "base" to actually turn out to the polls. Most of them are either illegal aliens, too drunk or high to get to the polls or can't find the right bus to take them there.
Well, I'm part of the base. I was born in this country, I don't do drugs, I drink only rarely (and minimally when I do), and I'll be driving myself. I also have a LOT of friends who believe the same things I do, and are equally capable.

Will you be able to find your way out of the basement, Richie? Will Mom need a government-provided shuttle to get her to the polls?

[Richard Tafoya]

Gotta love comments like this from a man who quotes the Bible. Jesus must be so proud.
Ummm... he misquotes the Bible.

[LesterX]

^Oops, I stand corrected. Yet another reason why Jesus must be so proud.

[Richard Tafoya]

AP:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060927/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rice_clinton

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has struck back at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the escalating political bickering over which president — Bill Clinton or George W. Bush — missed more opportunities to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks.

Clinton, D-N.Y., took aim at President Bush and Rice over their roles in 2001 before the attacks, part of a growing argument that ignited after former President Clinton gave a combative interview on "Fox News Sunday" in which he defended his efforts to kill Osama bin Laden.

"I think my husband did a great job in demonstrating that Democrats are not going to take these attacks," Hillary Clinton said Tuesday. "I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team."

The senator was referring to a classified brief given to Bush in August 2001, one that Democrats say showed the Bush administration did not do enough to combat the growing threat from al-Qaida.

When the brief was delivered, Rice was Bush's national security adviser, and Clinton's response was clearly designed to implicate her in the same criticisms that have been made of Bush.

Clinton's response came a day after Rice denied President Clinton's claim in the television interview that the Bush administration had not aggressively pursued al-Qaida before the attacks of 2001.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice said during a meeting with editors and reporters at the New York Post. "The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false, and I think the 9/11 commission understood that."

[Richard Tafoya]

The Facts vs. Condi:

Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/26/not-focused/

In her interview with the New York Post (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/73107.htm), Condoleezza Rice falsely claimed that President Bush’s pre-9/11 anti-terror efforts were “at least as aggressive” as President Clinton’s. In fact, the 9-11 Commission disputes that account (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/26/rice-clinton-terrorism/). While the Bush administration should have been preparing for a potential terrorist attack, it was instead focused on developing a costly missile defense system. Here are the facts:
Clarke Handed Over Plan To “Roll Back” Al Qaeda. “The terrorism briefing [in the White House Situation Room in Jan. 2001] was delivered by Richard Clarke … [S]enior officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations…say that Clarke had a set of proposals to ‘roll back’ al-Qaeda. In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, ‘Response to al Qaeda: Roll back.’ Clarke’s proposals called for the ‘breakup’ of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel.” [Time, 8/4/02 (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html)]

Bush Said “Most Urgent Threat” Was Ballistic Missiles. In a speech on May 1, 2001, Bush said, “Unlike the Cold War, today’s most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in the Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of these states, states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life.”

Bush’s Priorities Did Not Include Al Qaeda. “After his first meeting with NATO heads of state in Brussels in June 2001, [B]Bush outlined the five top defense issues discussed with the closest U.S. allies. Missile defense was at the top of the list, followed by developing a NATO relationship with Russia, working in common purpose with Europe, increased defense spending in NATO countries, and enlarging the alliance to include former East European countries. The only reference to extremists was in Macedonia, where Bush said regional forces were seeking to subvert a new democracy.” [Washington Post, 4/1/04 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40697-2004Mar31?language=printer)]

Rice Was “Focused On Matters Other Than Terrorism.” “A review of the record, from testimony and interviews, suggests that Ms. Rice…was usually fixed on matters other than terrorism , for reasons that had to do with her own background, her management style and the unusually close, personal nature of her relationship with Mr. Bush. … [B][T]he reality is that Ms. Rice has virtually no public utterances about Al Qaeda to point to as evidence that she was as engaged in the issue as she was in Mr. Bush’s other foreign policy agendas.” [NYT, 4/5/04 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/05/politics/05COND.html?ex=1396497600&en=050c510bcb0bce8e&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND)]

Rice Was Set To Deliver 9/11 Speech On Missile Defense. “On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address ‘the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday’ — but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals. … The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text.” [Washington Post, 4/1/04 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40697-2004Mar31?language=printer)]


President Bill Clinton, meanwhile, was focused on the terrorist threat. He outlined a three-pronged strategy (http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19980522-4986.html) for combating terrorism in a 1998 speech at the Naval Academy. Read it here (http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19980522-4986.html).

[Stopanimalabuse]

All of this arguing and finger pointing makes me think I'm back in kindergarten. I wish both sides could take some responsibility and worry about current issues.

[Richard Tafoya]

9/11 won't stop being an issue in this campaign. It's what the GOP has run on for the past several election cycles. It'll be an open and loud debate until election day.

[db44]

It's what they've used as a rallying point, despite saying they wouldn't.

[James Dean]

Yeah, assuming you can get your "base" to actually turn out to the polls. Most of them are either illegal aliens, too drunk or high to get to the polls or can't find the right bus to take them there.

That's hilarious and pathetic at the same time.

[James Dean]

Now if only Bush had done an interview like this...atrocious.

[Annoyedlistner]

Yeah, assuming you can get your "base" to actually turn out to the polls. Most of them are either illegal aliens, too drunk or high to get to the polls or can't find the right bus to take them there.


lets see if your republican buddies can stop screwing their sisters in time so they can get to the polls. or better yet...lets see if they can get to the polls legaly...without having to bribe someone to get there....or lets see how many votes they try to steal.


I dont normally vote straight ticket...i like a few republicans...but this time...im punshing your party by my vote.

Im walking in and voting straight democrat this time around...i hope others do it.

its time that the GOP is punished for what they have done to this country.

Regis...i got news for you...the republican party is really doing their part...the more they talk...the more people will get out to vote...just not in the republicans favor.

[tracyraz]

Regis...i got news for you...the republican party is really doing their part...the more they talk...the more people will get out to vote...just not in the republicans favor.

I so hope you are correct.

[oxymoron]

The recently "released" portions of the NIE that indicate that the Iraq war has exacerbated Islamic terrorism is only surprising in one regard:

How could the Bush administration not have understood that this is what would happen?

Now, I am not talking about the depth of the insurgency. I certainly would never have claimed to have understood the course of these actions.

I am talking about the fact that there attacking Iraq would antagonize the Islamic world and further their hatred of America. This was blatantly obvious.

So, we are faced with only two possiblities:

1. That the Bush administration was blind

or

2. That the Bush administration willfully de-emphasized this issue for the sake of other goals.

In either case, it seems to me that the Bush administrations actions were the result of two fatal flaws:

1. Self-centeredness: The Bush administration attacked Iraq on the basis of American goals. Some of these were legitimate such as the desire to keep America safe. Others, however, were motivated by the feeling that America needed to exert power upon the world because enemies were seeing us as weak and unwilling to act. More venally, there was a base instinct of vengeance that seemed to motivate the Cheneys et al.

2. Old Think: The approach that the entity with more power can go in and destroy their opponent is no longer valid. While it remains true that America's power can wreak enormous damage, it is also the case that one singular person can wreak enormous damage against America. In this case, what must be recognized is that the PR war is actually of greater consequence than military action. Bush failed to realize this and we are suffering the consequences.

In my view, the Bush administration got caught up in self-centered and outdated notions of how to operate as power. This caused them to fail to focus on "the other." They didn't want to understand the Islamic world, because ultimately they wanted to remake that world in the image of themselves.

Unfortunately, this was all too transparent to the Islamic world. Why this was not obvious to the America public is a topic for another thread regarding the influence of marketing on elections, which in my view brings up legitimate questions as to the value of "democracy" in today's world.

Actually, questioning the value of democracy is something that I think I may share with none other than Dick Cheney.

[Richard Tafoya]

My take is that the Bush administration's failures in regards to Iraq are both strategic and tactical. It seems clear that they downplayed intel that
1) indicated that Saddam was a lesser threat than they had built him up to be (including the lack of WMD in the country)
2) indicated they'd need a lot more boots on the ground to offset the vacuum of authority that would likely (and did) happen once existing police and military forces were shut down.

They planned a "best-case-scenario" war and went in on the cheap, which exacerbated the chaos post-Saddam and then didn't respond to the growing anarchy in the streets until hearts and minds were decidedly pitched against what came to be understood as the "occupying forces."

From the Iraqi citizen view, to paraphrase Bush, we were either for them or against them. By not lifting a finger to halt the looting and letting their society devolve into a lawless civil war, we demonstrated that we're not for them.

When police in metropolitan areas of the U.S. become complacent or corrupt, the mob moves in. When the police of Iraq took their leave, quasi-populist warlords with terrorist ties moved in.

It's not rocket science, and was predicted by more than a few people, but Team Bush put them all on mute when they needed to hear them most.

[Regis Philbin]

Chris Wallace is the son of uber-lib and Ahmadinejad butt-kisser, Mike Wallace. I doubt he has a conservative bone in his body. He was fired by ABC and happened to get hired by FOX.

Bubba needs anger management---not to mention sex offender therapy...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060927/ap_en_tv/tv_fox_clinton_1



Ailes: `An assault on all journalists'

By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
Wed Sep 27, 5:29 PM ET

NEW YORK - Fox News chief Roger Ailes says former President Clinton's response to Chris Wallace's question about going after Osama bin Laden represents "an assault on all journalists."

Ailes said Clinton had a "wild overreaction" in the interview, broadcast on "Fox News Sunday." Hundreds of thousands of people subsequently watched clips over the Internet, with Fox foes rallying behind Clinton.

"If you can't sit there and answer a question from a professional, mild-mannered, respectful reporter like Chris Wallace, then the hatred for journalists is showing," Ailes said in an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday. "All journalists need to raise their eyebrows and say, `hold on a second.'"

Wallace has said he asked Clinton about bin Laden partly because of ABC's recent docudrama "The Path to 9/11," widely criticized as full of falsehoods by former Clinton administration officials for depicting a bungling effort at going after the terrorist leader.

Wallace asked: "I understand that hindsight is always 20/20, but the question is, why didn't you connect the dots and put him out of business?"

Clinton said his administration did more than President Bush to go after bin Laden before the terrorist attacks. While Clinton said Wallace's question was legitimate, he called it a "conservative hit job" and accused Fox of not being similarly tough on Bush.

Clinton aides later said they considered the question an attack.

[*Katy*]

Oh god, hes such a vagina

[Annoyedlistner]

so it doesnt matter that Fox luried Clinton into that interview by saying they would discuss another topic?

Fox got what they deserved here....it was nice to see that this country actually had a smart president at one time.

[Regis Philbin]

Excellent piece...

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/092606.html

September 26, 2006

The real Clinton emerges

From behind the benign façade and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris Wallace’s interview on Fox News Channel. There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know – the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch. The truer the accusation, the greater the feigned indignation. Clinton jabbed his finger in Wallace’s face, poking his knee, and invading the commentator’s space.

But beyond noting the ex-president’s non-presidential style, it is important to answer his distortions and misrepresentations. His self-justifications constitute a mangling of the truth which only someone who once quibbled about what the “definition of ‘is’ is” could perform.

Clinton told Wallace, “There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down.” Nobody said there was. The point of citing Somalia in the run up to 9-11 is that bin Laden told Fortune Magazine in a 1999 interview that the precipitous American pullout after Black Hawk Down convinced him that Americans would not stand up to armed resistance.

Clinton said conservatives “were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day” after the attack which killed American soldiers. But the real question was whether Clinton would honor the military’s request to be allowed to stay and avenge the attack, a request he denied. The debate was not between immediate withdrawal and a six-month delay. (Then-first lady, now-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) favored the first option, by the way). The fight was over whether to attack or pull out eventually without any major offensive operations.

The president told Wallace, “I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill bin Laden.” But actually, the 9-11 Commission was clear that the plan to kidnap Osama was derailed by Sandy Berger and George Tenet because Clinton had not yet made a finding authorizing his assassination. They were fearful that Osama would die in the kidnapping and the U.S. would be blamed for using assassination as an instrument of policy.

Clinton claims “the CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible [for the Cole bombing] while I was there.” But he could replace or direct his employees as he felt. His helplessness was, as usual, self-imposed.

Why didn’t the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden’s involvement in terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center sufficiently seriously. He never visited the site and his only public comment was to caution against “over-reaction.” In his pre-9/11 memoirs, George Stephanopoulos confirms that he and others on the staff saw it as a “failed bombing” and noted that it was far from topic A at the White House. Rather than the full-court press that the first terror attack on American soil deserved, Clinton let the investigation be handled by the FBI on location in New York without making it the national emergency it actually was.

[pinky]

Fox News is an assault on reputable journalism.

[oxymoron]

I agree with both your points. However, I think even if the strategic and tactical factors were better managed the whole thing was based on a flawed conceptual premise. That is, assuming that the conceptual premise was to make America safer from terrorism. Maybe, it was instead to give the Iraqis the great gift of American style democracy. The latter is, of course, also conceptually flawed as Iraqi society, as are all Islamic societies, is at base paternalistic.

In each case, the failure remains a lack of understanding of the other. Probably because the Bushies don't honestly respect Islamic culture as they see it as inferior.

[LesterX]

^You beat me to the punch, Pinky!

[Venisenvy]

so it doesnt matter that Fox luried Clinton into that interview by saying they would discuss another topic?

Fox got what they deserved here....it was nice to see that this country actually had a smart president at one time.


Actually Fox told him 1/2 the interview was going to be on his global innitiative, it does not take a genious after the past couple of weeks to figure out the other half.

[James Dean]

They throw around these words like 'red-faced' and 'finger-pointing' but fail to point out the interview itself. I guess his mannerisms are as important than the issue at hand. As if he actually 'exploded' on air, more like Wallace was put in his place.

[Richard Tafoya]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/27/keith-olbermann-takes-a-look-back-at-bushs-first-months-in-office-leading-up-to-911/

Video at the link. A chronological look at the months from Bush's inauguration to 9/11.

Here's in interesting nugget I'd not seen before:

February, 2001, in a White House press briefing after we knew al Qaeda had attacked the Cole: Q: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States would drop its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me take that and get back to you on that.
There is no record of any subsequent discussion on the matter.

[Annoyedlistner]

you gettin dizzy yet regis?...i mean all of this spinning has got to make you get sick and throw up sometime soon.............

[oxymoron]

Anyone who doesn't think that Clinton's move was not calculated is blind. We are in a political season. There was just a film on ABC that was very unfavorable to Clinton regarding events leading up to 9/11. The Democrats have been losing elections becausen they have been weak in the face of political/personal attacks upon them. The Clinton move was planned to show toughness and passion. This has the effect of suggesting he was engaged with Bin Laden, that Democrats are not wishy washy, and that if Roved is going to use terrorism in upcoming election he is going to get it back at him too.

What Rove has brilliantly identified in the past elections is that personality attributes such as strength, conviction, and toughness are more important than policy in winning elections.

This has allowed Bush to gain credit from voters by staying to the right, rather than having to move to the middle which was the more typical approach when thinking about elections was based on one's positions. By staying right, Bush gains credit for conviction, strength and toughness.

I think Rove's thinking is exactly right in this area. The pathetic, personality-based political threads on this message board are evidence that politics is not about policy, but about base human emotions rooted in sexual identity needs.

[Richard Tafoya]

ABC News Blog:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2006/09/was_it_an_assau.html

Fox News Chief Roger Ailes is up in arms over the now famous clash between former President Bill Clinton and Fox's Chris Wallace. He says Clinton had a "wild overreaction" and his "attack" on Wallace was "an assault on all journalists."

How supremely ironic that Roger Ailes would be saying this. On January 25th, 1988, it was Ailes who, sitting five feet away from then Vice President George H.W. Bush in his Senate office in the Capitol building, literally used cue cards to help orchestrate the now-famous Bush confrontation with Dan Rather over the Iran/Contra affair.

Longtime television news producer, Howard Rosenberg, now with Nightline, remembers well. He was the co-producer of the set-up piece Dan Rather used that Bush -- cued by Ailes -- claimed was an ambush. It was Bush who asked Dan Rather how he would feel if people judged his career by an infamous moment in which Rather walked off the CBS News set in a huff when CBS Sports coverage cut into his news time.

But the slam at Rather occurred only after Bush feigned surprise at his tough questioning. We know it was feigned because in an interview with ABC's Sam Donaldson in 2000, Bush himself, admitted that the GOP had a mole on the inside at CBS who gave them advance word of the questions Rather was going to ask.

And those of us who worked at CBS at the time also recall the Ailes-orchestrated telephone campaign from viewers "outraged" over Rather's show of "disrespect" to the Vice President. The phone calling onslaught was so effective it brought the CBS-New York switchboard to a grinding halt for nearly three days.

Bush and Ailes knew they were going into a hostile interview that had a wicked set-up piece to preface it and they arrived for the Rather interview loaded for bear. Kind of like Clinton walked into FOX studios last Friday loaded for bear. It’s history repeating itself from the other side of the political spectrum. And how exquisitely ironic that Roger Ailes would play such an interesting role in both events.