Bill Clinton savages Chris Wallace of FOX News on terror record

Watch Bill Clinton smack down Chris Wallace and set the record straight about Clinton's efforts to fight Bin Laden.

FOX whines: But we just asked a simple question....

Comments

[John Lucid]

I love it. Clinton should send copies of that interview to all conservative newspersons and pundits who run his name into the dirt, and add a little intro of his own:

Your ass. It's what for dinner.

I'm not a big Clinton fan (I think it was someone at DKos who put it best when he or she said that Clinton was the best Republican president of the 20th century), but there's no denying that the guy is whip smart and fast on his feet. I was actually proud of him after seeing that.

Unfortunately I doubt it will change anyone's mind. For conservatives Clinton will still be just as evil if not more so, especially after he savaged one of their own. Still, it felt good to see him do something that every Democrat should do when these assholes try to play games with them.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

Oh, that is _Righteous._ Just calling bullshit by its proper name. This is like the moment of rebuke for Senator McCarthy, "Have you left no sense of decency, sir?"

I note that Chris Wallace had a serious case of what I like to call "Bullshitter's Blink:" his eyes kept blinking, "blink/blink/bl-blink/blink/bl-blink," every second. This is a Tell. I've noticed this over the years, that whenever someone's lying on TV, and they know they're lying and might be called on it, they get the blinks.

I think this is more than a wonderful moment of some liars getting zinged, this is a good historical document, until Bill Clinton writes a book of his own about the hunt for Al Qaeda, though I also hope he does.

[386sx]

Does anybody have any doubts that the interview went pretty much the way Clinton had it planned out? Come on, it's not like all of that came from out of the blue, you know. Not that it wasn't a fabulously brilliant performance.

[The Phantom]

--Not that it wasn't a fabulously brilliant performance.--

It was, and he was not wrong in what he said. I remember when he ordered the strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan, and the "Monica Missiles" charge that came at that time, from Republican and other sources.

They were so intent on taking him down that they ignored the national security issue that he was trying to address.

Je me souviens, baby.

I condemn in the strongest terms the Michael Moore element of the Democrat Party and everything these cockroaches have said since 9/11, but in the days well before 2001, there were a number of Republicans who threw obstacles in Clinton's way every single time that he tried to do something.

Truth.

[whig]

What the heck are you doing condemning people you don't talk to or try to understand, Phantom?

[Hawise]

Chris Wallace got smacked down- about time. Now let us hope other people smack down the rest of those complacent buggers and maybe we will get an actual journalistic media back.
Wallace forgot that Clinton doesn't have to stand for election ever again. He raises money for charity and by extension some for himself. He deals almost exclusively with people who have got to be as tired as he is by the smirking talking heads that pose as reporters these days. That rant probably raised a billion dollars for one of his causes- rant on ex-Prez, rant on.

[The Phantom]

whig

I do talk to them. A lot. And I do understand them, as much as they can possibly be understood.

---

Which does not mean that Clinton wasn't pretty much spot on in what he said.

[Count Zero]

Clinton rocked, that's all I got to say. I might not agreed to his personal choices and some policy issues, but he ran the country well. I miss the guy.

[whig]

Phantom, you've talked to Michael Moore, or just people who you've decided belong to some "Michael Moore element" (whatever that means)?

What is it you condemn?

[The Phantom]

Ehh

I never said that I spoke to Michael Moore.

I have read some of his books and I did see the absurd "Farenheit 9/11"

What do I condemn?

The thought that the Iraq "resistance" is the "equivalent of the Minutemen"

Those stupid enough to believe that the Afghan invasion was in order to build an oil pipeline there

The thought that those on the United plane that went down were "white wimps" and that if there had been "some more blacks" that the plane could have been successfully recaptured.

All three statements are from Moore. In truth, I don't know anyone who signed off on the last, despicable, mockery of brave people who at the time were only recently murdered.

But I do know people who are naive enough to believe the second, wrong enough to believe the first. Regardless of one's belief in the rightness of the war, I'd hardly believe that those who sawed off the head of a still-living Nicolas Berg and those who set off suicide bombs are doing things that the Minutemen would have done. The two groups couldn't be more different.

The Michael Moores of this world are very different from most Americans, and even from most Democrats. But they are members in good standing in that party, and are an Achilles heel.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

ABC News' local station televised half a minute of the Clinton/Chris Wallace interview last night--of course, the 20 seconds of the interview that they could characterize as "Clinton on the defensive." Soon, of course, we'll get an "analysis" of the interview from Fox themselves, with a side order of bullshit: "What do you think? Can Clinton spin this?" Just wait for it.

[The Phantom]

This morning, I heard ( famous lefty ) lawyer Ron Kuby saying that this was just Clinton diverting attention from his failures. When you listen closely to all that he said, I do not think that is a fair comment.

I think that Clinton deserves some criticism, a point he himself has made, but that he ain't the only one that deserves to be criticized. Not by a long shot.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

True. He was not the best President on intelligence matters, but on the matter of Al Qaeda, he took action in an intelligent and dynamic way. He neither sat on his ass, nor took many actions that were counterproductive (although the unfortunate timing of the zipper question made people think it was "wag the dog"--or, one might even say, the timing of the release of that movie was bad!).

[whig]

Phantom: "The thought that those on the United plane that went down were "white wimps" and that if there had been "some more blacks" that the plane could have been successfully recaptured."

Where and when did he or anyone say that? Please provide a link to a credible reference.

[whig]

I don't believe any of those "statements" are from Michael Moore, by the way. At best you paraphrased something you think he might have said, but out of context and without being in his own words, so you misconstrue them not only for yourself but everyone who reads what comes out as a smear from you. Typical Republican-Rovian smear job, too.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

I would weigh in, but I've recently concluded a peace treaty with Phantom. Among the terms: He will never again insult San Francisco, and I will never again insult country music. Continue.

[Count Zero]

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

[Bill]

LET'S DO A THOUGHT experiment: Perhaps Bill Clinton, an experienced and sophisticated politician, knew what he was doing when he made big news by "losing his temper" in his interview with Chris Wallace. Perhaps Clinton's aides knew what they were doing when they publicized the interview by providing their own transcript to a left-wing website as soon as possible Friday evening, and then pre-spun reporters late Friday and Saturday. Maybe it was just damage control. Or maybe Clinton did what he wanted to do when he indignantly defended himself, blasted the Bush administration, and attacked Fox News. What could Clinton have been seeking to accomplish? Three things.

1. Helping Democrats in 2006.

In the Fox interview, and in other recent interviews (Meet the Press, the New Yorker), Clinton has shown himself well aware of Republican efforts (engineered by the dastardly Karl Rove) to paint Democrats as unreliable in the war on terror. Clinton would have known that these were doing some damage to Democrats, and that Bush and Rove have had a few good weeks on this issue. And he would know that the Democrats haven't fought back well (e.g., they're now in a difficult position on the Bush-McCain detainees legislation).

In this interview, Clinton rallied Democrats. He reminded them of their talking points on Bush's alleged passivity in his first eight months in office (remember Richard Clarke!), and on the alleged distraction posed by Iraq from the more worthwhile war in Afghanistan. He nicely laid the predicate for the leaked portions of
the National Intelligence Estimate that appeared in the press the next day. If the Bush-Rove war-on-terror offensive stalls out this week (and much of the media is committed to making this happen), and Democrats do well in November, Bill Clinton can take credit, at a crucial moment, for discrediting the terror issue as a mere political ploy, and showing Democrats how "to fight back" and how "to stand up to the right-wing propaganda machine" (in the words of Howard Dean).

2. Helping Hillary in 2008.

Hillary Clinton has been having problems with the left wing of the Democratic party. With this interview, Bill Clinton has the entire left wing of the Democratic party rallying to him. Some of this solidarity can presumably be transferred to Hillary. And the dangerous move of the left-wing of the party toward Gore and Edwards, and their rise in national and Iowa polls respectively, can perhaps be stopped.

3. Intimidating Critics.

Clinton wants to make it incorrect, or at least impolite, to criticize his record on terror. Chris Wallace stood up to him. Will others? Will his next interviewer raise the same set of questions? Will they be willing to take the criticism of being "conservative hit men" or part of the vast, Fox-centered right-wing conspiracy? Bullying and intimidation sometimes work. Clinton has used both effectively in the past. Now he wants to put out of bounds certain perfectly legitimate and straight-forward questions. Can we debate which party--based on their practice when in power--can better deal with the jihadist/terror threat? No, according to Clinton. That's illegitimate right-wing propaganda. Whose personal reputation benefits from putting such issues out of bounds? Which political party benefits? Which 2008 presidential candidate?

Bill Clinton is a smart (and calculating) politician.

[Count Zero]

LET'S DO A THOUGHT experiment:

OK LET'S, THIS WILL BE FUN!

Perhaps Bill Clinton, an experienced and sophisticated politician, knew what he was doing when he made big news by "losing his temper" in his interview with Chris Wallace.

Is that really what you call losing his temper? I wonder what you call Cheney cussing out people in halls of Congress? I quiet discussion? He didn't lose his temper, his record was being attacked in a schmarmy confrontational style, and he responded in the same manner as any other politician I've seen discuss their policies. Russell Crowe hitting someone across the head with a phone is "losing your temper". Disagreeing with someone on national television is not.

Perhaps Clinton's aides knew what they were doing when they publicized the interview by providing their own transcript to a left-wing website as soon as possible Friday evening, and then pre-spun reporters late Friday and Saturday.

Maybe they did, and would they have been wrong to do it? It after wall was an attack piece, and given the Bush administrations known record of rewritting history and facts, it's not suprising that he would attempt to get his version out there before anybody else. You act as if this is some horrible thing, when Republicans do it on a daily basis.

Maybe it was just damage control. Or maybe Clinton did what he wanted to do when he indignantly defended himself, blasted the Bush administration, and attacked Fox News.

Or....if we want spin it the other direction, maybe he was just defending himself. Or maybe Clinton VALLIANTLY was JUST in standing up to the COWARDLY Chris Wallace, blasting the pathetic Bush administration, and the ever CONTEMPTOUS Fox GOP News Channel.

What could Clinton have been seeking to accomplish? Three things.

You mean other than defending himself on a subject Chris Wallace brought up, not Clinton, who wasn't there even to discuss his prior terrorist policies?

1. Helping Democrats in 2006.

In the Fox interview, and in other recent interviews (Meet the Press, the New Yorker), Clinton has shown himself well aware of Republican efforts (engineered by the dastardly Karl Rove) to paint Democrats as unreliable in the war on terror. Clinton would have known that these were doing some damage to Democrats, and that Bush and Rove have had a few good weeks on this issue. And he would know that the Democrats haven't fought back well (e.g., they're now in a difficult position on the Bush-McCain detainees legislation).

In this interview, Clinton rallied Democrats. He reminded them of their talking points on Bush's alleged passivity in his first eight months in office (remember Richard Clarke!), and on the alleged distraction posed by Iraq from the more worthwhile war in Afghanistan. He nicely laid the predicate for the leaked portions of the National Intelligence Estimate that appeared in the press the next day. If the Bush-Rove war-on-terror offensive stalls out this week (and much of the media is committed to making this happen), and Democrats do well in November, Bill Clinton can take credit, at a crucial moment, for discrediting the terror issue as a mere political ploy, and showing Democrats how "to fight back" and how "to stand up to the right-wing propaganda machine" (in the words of Howard Dean).

Attacks on Clinton regarding his policies aren't new. They are old, as old as 9/11, and the Republican blame game. What is new however is that he got the opportunity to defend himself face to face on national television, something cowardly Fox News rarely allows. The fact that they didn't edit the shit out of his discussion like they do on Bill O'Reilly is simply amazing. The leaking of information to the public has been happening on an ongoing basis, and probably will continue as people in the administration grow tired of all the secretive bullshit, the ass covering, and other things the Bush administration tries to do. It's not like Bush's anti-terrorism policy has any offense anyways, they have virtually no credibility left, and they're policies have been complete and utter failures. You act as if what they are doing is horrible, "zOMGz the DemZoCRatZ R FighTing BAcK"!! The right-wing spin machine is notorious and isn't some fabling thing that people make up. Nothing you stated in fact in truth helps Democrats because it's not like there is anything new. His failures, old news. Clintons policies, old news. Richard Clarke's book, old news. Everything that is helping the Democrats is the fact that the Republicans had complete control of everything, and still couldn't get it together. I suppose all that time down at the Watergate, boozing it up and playing poker while getting lap dances from hookers was their idea of protecting us from terrorism.

2. Helping Hillary in 2008.

Hillary Clinton has been having problems with the left wing of the Democratic party. With this interview, Bill Clinton has the entire left wing of the Democratic party rallying to him. Some of this solidarity can presumably be transferred to Hillary. And the dangerous move of the left-wing of the party toward Gore and Edwards, and their rise in national and Iowa polls respectively, can perhaps be stopped.

Why does he need to help her? She's got a job, and is doing quite well. She's not planning to run for president, and until she says she is, you're just having some political wet dream she will. If you had any clue as to what you're talking about, you would know that the Clintons don't represent the "left-wing" of the Democratic party, far from it. That's like saying your buddy Lieberman is "left-wing" or for that matter Bill Frist.

3. Intimidating Critics.

Clinton wants to make it incorrect, or at least impolite, to criticize his record on terror. Chris Wallace stood up to him. Will others? Will his next interviewer raise the same set of questions? Will they be willing to take the criticism of being "conservative hit men" or part of the vast, Fox-centered right-wing conspiracy? Bullying and intimidation sometimes work. Clinton has used both effectively in the past. Now he wants to put out of bounds certain perfectly legitimate and straight-forward questions. Can we debate which party--based on their practice when in power--can better deal with the jihadist/terror threat? No, according to Clinton. That's illegitimate right-wing propaganda. Whose personal reputation benefits from putting such issues out of bounds? Which political party benefits? Which 2008 presidential candidate?

I couldn't possibly count the times I've heard the press threatened from censure from the White House if they dared speak up against the President. If you read this article..

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/09/the_united_stat.html#comments

it's pretty obvious the Bush administration manipulates the media in order to protect it's image and to get it's message out to the public. He called them conservative hitman justifiably, they repeat lies told by the Republican leadership in their ongoing disinformation campaign to snow job the public into believing their BS. Let's talk about how many journalists the Republicans have bought off in order to write stories promoting their policies and agengda? That isn't manipulating the media? Clinton pretty clearly debated and demonstrated which party based on practice in power handled terrorism better. If you aren't willing to talk the blinders off to see that, then you're as blind and ignorant as the rest of the blathering Republican neo-cons you listen to.

[Stormbringer]

Clinton smacked down Chris Wallace? Who are you kidding? Remember,when he is pointing his finger he is lying! Richard Clarke has already said that there was no plan from Clinton, and since you Dems believe everything else he has said, you should believe this. Bush did not take Bin Laden seriously because the Clintons did not take him seriously. It took 911 for that to happen. Bush had 8 months, Clinton had 8 years. Do the math. G.W. wasnt worried about getting a B.J. like ol' Bill was. We could of had Bin Laden in 98, but Bill was watching Tiger play golf and did'nt want to be bothered. Sorry Bill, you blew it (no pun intended).

[conservative host]

You DEMOs (close to demons) just don't get it. You'd follow a pathological lier into a submission hold by OBL. You just don't get it. You people are cowards.You have no solutions to the religious war that's been going on now for years. You people would have OBL and his boys as gods. If not put up or shut up. It's been too long now listening to your bleeding heart BS. You people really think freedom is for you the DEMS to control.Well reallity check Either fight this fight or get out of the country. Clinton is a pussy. He can't define IS he can't keep his dick in his pants and he can't for give himself for bumbling OBL.

[Count Zero]

Clinton smacked down Chris Wallace? Who are you kidding?

You obviously didn't watch the entire interview.

Remember,when he is pointing his finger he is lying!

Yes, just as when any Republican politician opens their mouth they're lying.

Richard Clarke has already said that there was no plan from Clinton, and since you Dems believe everything else he has said, you should believe this.

Actually, if you've read his book, plan of attack, they had outlined a strategy, and handed it over to the administration. They then took the initiative to downgrade what Clinton had built up. Foreign terrorism back in the 90's wasn't something that was a national issue, and at the time Clinton was attempting to do something without pissing off the entire world, unlike Bush, who lashs out at the entire world, and preemptivly attacks nations, while lying, in the name of terrorism. We don't believe a god damn thing a Republican says anymore and why should we. Bill might have been getting a blowjob from interns, but he sure as hell wasn't in a hotel room in the Watergate with all his CIA cohorts bozzing it up with hookers while playing poker. That's the answer to the war on terror? Pay off a bunch of defense contractors, take the money you stole from the people and go get drunk and layed?
Just great. Give me back the blow job president please.

"Bush did not take Bin Laden seriously because the Clintons did not take him seriously. It took 911 for that to happen. Bush had 8 months, Clinton had 8 years. Do the math. G.W. wasnt worried about getting a B.J. like ol' Bill was. We could of had Bin Laden in 98, but Bill was watching Tiger play golf and did'nt want to be bothered."

Just like the Republican controlled Congress tried to stone wall him everytime he TRIED to do something, because they said it was "wag the dog". Remember that term? Yes, Osama was "wag the dog", and it took him to bit the Republicans in the ass to wake them up to the fact. Yes, Clinton watched Tiger woods play golf, like that's somehow relevant, and what was Bush doing up to 9/11? Oh yeah, he spent a majority of his time in Crawford Texas cutting down branches, obviously worried about national security issues.

You DEMOs (close to demons) just don't get it.

Neither do the Neo-Republinazis.

You'd follow a pathological lier into a submission hold by OBL. You just don't get it.

And you do? How many thousands of times has Bush, Cheney and Rice lied to the public? I've lost count. Yes, Clinton lied about getting a blowjob, but it didn't get anyone killed or jeopordize our countries security. I can't say the same for leagues of fanatical Bushies blindly goose stepping to the administration, eagerly waiting to enact their next gay S and M fantasy on the next terrorist they find. So when did the Republican pary come out of the closet?

You people are cowards.

You people, if I can call you that, are nothing more than closet homosexuals with gay S and M fanatasies of bondage torture. Have fun anally raping that poor Iraqi farmer with a broomstick!

You have no solutions to the religious war that's been going on now for years. You people would have OBL and his boys as gods.

And you people who have George Bush and his people as Gods, goose-stepping to whatever Geneva Convention and Constitution breaking bills they want to pass, and why? I know most Republicans like you are probably closet homosexuals, and have no problem with S and M torture, but the rest of us normal people do. If we were trying to find good ole' OBL, then why the hell are we in Iraq? Too chicken shit to go after him in Pakistan? Or is having sex with dark skinned foreign guys more appealing? Oh, we already know the answer to that. Pass that
"We want legal anal rape and S and M torture please!" bill. It will finally legitimize that the entire Republican party are gay, and not in fact religious since being gay is not Christian.

If not put up or shut up. It's been too long now listening to your bleeding heart BS. You people really think freedom is for you the DEMS to control.Well reallity check Either fight this fight or get out of the country.

Reality check? Why don't you go fight over there. I did. Why is it that the majority of the Republicans want poor black democrats to do the fighting for them? Not good enough to do the job yourselves? Too chicken shit to enlist? Yep, Bush wouldn't even send a distant relative to this war, let alone go himself. So take your gay whiny ass shit back to whatever neo-con site you came from and go analy rape your buddies there and laugh over some gay porn mag full of middle eastern guys.

Clinton is a pussy. He can't define IS he can't keep his dick in his pants and he can't for give himself for bumbling OBL.

Not only is Bush a pussy, he's so stupid he doesn't even know where Osama is. He was in Afghanistan and Pakistan! Oh wait, is that anywhere near Iraq? Hell no. Clinton couldn't keep his dick in his pants, but at least he had brains enough to know where to fire the god damn missles. And as far as keeping their dicks in their pants, it's not like you Republicans don't like to rent rooms down at the Whitewater, booze it up on the national dime, and go rent some hookers, and go play poker with the rest of the money they stole from our taxes.