Clinton on Fox News interview with Chris Wallace Video

[edward]

This one surprized me. Clinton unloaded on Wallace, the Republicans, and Fox news. It was about time. This is a 15 minute video.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215445,00.html

 

[devil-fire]

wow... can a former president say that on tv? he really gives fox and others a piece of his mind

 

[Skyhunter]

I get errors on the page. Is there another source for the clip?

[edit] I found it here. A much better website.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002

Clinton has such a dominating presence that he totally took over that conversation.

 

[Daverz]

How did Mike Wallace produce such a tool for a son?

 

[turbo]

The apple fell quite far from the tree in this case.

 

[devil-fire]

its quite an informative interview though. i can see how a lot of people would think that clinton's lack of action largly contributed to 9/11, but i didnt know the amount of resistance he had with the amount of action he took, nor where the resistance came from (the same people who now claim he did too little), nor did i recogize the amount of time the people who took over after him had to correct his lack of action but instead did nothing themselves

 

[Daverz]

Some links to contemporary sources here: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/who-wanted-to-cut-and-run-from-somalia.html

 

[Skyhunter]

One of the reasons the ABC "Road to 911" was such BS is the claim that Clinton's administration called off the CIA. the CIA had standing orders from the President to kill Osama bin Laden. Since they already had authorization, they would not have called Sandy Burger for authorization.

It is not surprising devil-fire, the media, especially FOX has been complicit in the anti-Clinton propaganda and the dissemination of misinformation.

Did you note how Wallace hit all the wing-nut talking points while asking the question, then tried to stop Clinton from addressing each point?

His purpose, as Clinton pointed out, was not to get the answer, but to cast aspersions. Clinton turned the tables on him. haven't seen anything like that since the John Stewart interview on Crossfire.

 

[edward]

Richard Clark

Clinton kept referring to Clark during this interview. Here is Clarks perspective on what happened immediately after 911.

What the Bushies Did Wrong
Page 30-32: Considered attacking Iraq on the evening of Sept. 12. At one point, Bush pulled a few of his advisors into a conference room:

"Look," he told us. "I know you have a lot to do and all … but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."

I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed.

"But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."

"I know, I know, but … see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred."

"Absolutely, we will look … again." I was trying to be more respectful, more responsive. "But, you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of Al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen."

"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us.

CBS video from 2004.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

It is quite clear that the invasion of Iraq was being planned even before 911. The secrecy and outright lies of this administration are alarming.

 

[Astronuc]

It is quite clear that the invasion of Iraq was being planned even before 911. The secrecy and outright lies of this administration are alarming.

Bush planned the invasion of Iraq before he was even elected!

In the debate with Gore at Wake Forest, Bush mentioned the possibility of using US troops to remove a dictator from office.

On Somalia -

BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html (about quarter of page down).

How many dictators has he removed? With how many does he do business?

Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill mentioned that the first item of business of the first cabinet meeting (January 2001) was - Iraq!

Bush (and his administration) ignored al Qaida in favor of invading Iraq. Bush put his personal vendetta ahead of the security of the US.

 

[ptabor]

good link, astro.

the only flaw in your argument is that a nation building exercise is exactly what we're involved in - precisely what he claimed to want to avoid.

Could be the case that he didn't think it would take this much construction, though... He may have figured it'd be a smash up job - get in blow some stuff up and get out.



As for the interview, I saw a snippet of it on Fox news last night, that was hilarious. I respect Clinton more now for admitting he failed to get Osama. Unlike the present administration, he seems willing to own up to his mistakes.

 

[J77]

Could be the case that he didn't think it would take this much construction, though... He may have figured it'd be a smash up job - get in blow some stuff up and get out.

I think that's what Bush is saying in the quote.

Great attitude, Geroge

 

[Astronuc]

the only flaw in your argument is that a nation building exercise is exactly what we're involved in - precisely what he claimed to want to avoid.

I was simply pointing out that Bush planned in advance to invade Iraq and 1) set about trying to find evidence to support his plan, and if not, fabricate the evidence, and otherwise deceive the American public.

Could be the case that he didn't think it would take this much construction, though... He may have figured it'd be a smash up job - get in blow some stuff up and get out.

I think he seriously miscalculated.

As for the interview, I saw a snippet of it on Fox news last night, that was hilarious. I respect Clinton more now for admitting he failed to get Osama. Unlike the present administration, he seems willing to own up to his mistakes.

If Bush mentions that he made a mistake, he would be insincere, saying it because it sounds good, not because he believes it. This is the mark of a poor leader.

Listening to Clinton talk about how the FBI and CIA failed to certify that bin Laden was responsible, I was left wondering if there was any obstruction. :uhh: Otherwise it seems Republicans (in the Congress, i.e. HR and Senate) were more interested in getting Clinton than in protecting the US. Congress has intelligence and national security oversight committees. Where were they?

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

 

[Astronuc]

On the other hand -

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-09-26T123431Z_01_N26315500_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-CLINTON-RICE.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C5-politicsNews-2

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice strongly disputed a claim by former President Bill Clinton that he left a comprehensive plan to fight al Qaeda when his term ended.

In a heated interview aired on "Fox News Sunday," the former president accused the Bush administration of doing far less that he did to stop al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden after the September 11 attacks.

Clinton said he had "battle plans" drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale search for bin Laden.

But Rice, who was national security advisor at the time of the September 11 attacks, strongly disagreed with Clinton's version of events during an interview on Monday with the New York Post.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice said in a transcript of her comments released by the State Department.

"For instance, big pieces were missing, like an approach to Pakistan that might work, because without Pakistan you weren't going to get Afghanistan," Rice said.

Or maybe the Bush administration just ignored anything from the Clinton administration. Or maybe the plans got conveniently misplaced, like Hilary's records.

Well, apparently Rice knows of a plan that lacks specific details. Maybe Rice and others do not consider comprehensive - by their qualification. At least there appears there was a plan - unlike the Bush administration.

Speaking of 'comprehensive' plans - how about the one to invade Iraq? Oh yeah, there wasn't one.

 

[Anttech]

go clinton! About time someone starting righting some wrongs!

 

[Skyhunter]

Well, apparently Rice knows of a plan that lacks specific details. Maybe Rice and others do not consider comprehensive - by their qualification. At least there appears there was a plan - unlike the Bush administration.

I don't put much stock in Rice's assessments. Remember, this is the woman who characterized the August 7, PDB entitled, "Osama bin Laden determined to strike within the US" as "historical." There was a plan, there were major elements that had not been worked out, but the plan to put an end to al qaeda and the Taliban was in place. The fact that Bushco ignored terrorism until the WTC attacks is what tells the story.

Like Clinton said, "Read Clarkes book!"

 

[Skyhunter]

According to a http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=24733 , Americans blame Bush over Clinton, 53% to 36%.

I find it encouraging, that with all the blame Clinton propaganda only 36% of the people believe that he was responsible for 9/11.

 

[Anttech]

Me too, I think people are starting to "understand" what the neo-cons are all about better now. About time!

 

[kcballer21]

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/OlbermannRespondsToNyPost.wmv

 

[Astronuc]

Roger Ailes on the receiving end. He can dish it out, but he can't deal with it when it comes back at himself.

Fox Chief's Tables Are Turned and Attitude is Different

Sept. 29, 2006 — Fox News Chief Roger Ailes says Bill Clinton's response to Fox anchor Chris Wallace's question about efforts he made to pursue Osama Bin Laden was an "assault on all journalists."

"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.'"

No, Clinton doesn't hate journalists, but he certainly doesn't like being set up. No one does. Wallace was smug, not mild-mannered.

But Mr. Ailes is no stranger to interview subjects who fire back at journalists.

The year was 1988. Vice President George H. W. Bush was getting ready to run for the presidency, occupied for 8 years by Ronald Reagan.

Bush had been a good vice president — meaning he had never gotten out of Reagan's shadow. That's when a big opportunity presented itself.

The CBS News beckoned. Anchorman Dan Rather was offering prime exposure: a live interview on the Evening News for Bush. It was too good to pass up.

Bush sat down with his campaign guru Roger Ailes (subject of this post) and mapped out how the interview should go.

As ABC's Howard Rosenberg, then of CBS News, recalls: "I was co-producer of the set-up piece for that interview. Not only was Ailes cuing then VP Bush, the former President himself told Sam Donaldson in an interview in 2000 that his campaign had a person on the inside at CBS who was feeding them intelligence about what questions Rather was going to ask."

Bush feigned surprise, when he had been prepared, and Rather was vulnerable because of his own arrogance and stupidity.

So when Rather pressed Bush on his role, if any, in the scandal, the vice president pounced:

Reading from cue cards Ailes was holding up for him, Bush asked, "How would you like your whole career judged by that seven minutes when you walked off the set in Miami?"

Why Rather didn't indicate to the audience that Bush was using cue cards.

Rather was not the best choice after Cronkite who was a 'hard act to follow.'