Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Clinton on Fox News interview with Chris Wallace Video

  1. Sep 24, 2006 #1


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 24, 2006 #2
    wow... can a former president say that on tv? he really gives fox and others a piece of his mind
  4. Sep 25, 2006 #3
    I get errors on the page. Is there another source for the clip?

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


    Clinton has such a dominating presence that he totally took over that conversation.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2006
  5. Sep 25, 2006 #4
    How did Mike Wallace produce such a tool for a son?
  6. Sep 25, 2006 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The apple fell quite far from the tree in this case.
  7. Sep 25, 2006 #6
    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
  8. Sep 25, 2006 #7
  9. Sep 25, 2006 #8
    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.
  10. Sep 25, 2006 #9


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Richard Clark

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

    CBS video from 2004.

    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.
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2006
  11. Sep 25, 2006 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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 -
    http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html [Broken] (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.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  12. Sep 26, 2006 #11
    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.
  13. Sep 26, 2006 #12


    User Avatar

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

    Great attitude, Geroge

    :rolleyes: :cry: :rolleyes: :cry: :rolleyes: :cry: :rolleyes: :cry: :rolleyes:

    :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
  14. Sep 26, 2006 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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.
    I think he seriously miscalculated.
    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?

    Last edited: Sep 26, 2006
  15. Sep 26, 2006 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    On the other hand -

    Clinton did not leave plans to fight al Qaeda: Rice
    Or maybe the Bush administration just ignored anything from the Clinton administration. Or maybe the plans got conveniently misplaced, like Hilary's records. :rolleyes:

    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. :rolleyes:
  16. Sep 26, 2006 #15
    go clinton!! About time someone starting righting some wrongs!
  17. Sep 26, 2006 #16
    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!"
  18. Sep 28, 2006 #17
    According to a http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=24733 [Broken], 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.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  19. Sep 28, 2006 #18
    Me too, I think people are starting to "understand" what the neo-cons are all about better now. About time!
  20. Sep 28, 2006 #19
    http://movies.crooksandliars.com/OlbermannRespondsToNyPost.wmv [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  21. Sep 30, 2006 #20


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

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

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

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

    Rather was not the best choice after Cronkite who was a 'hard act to follow.'
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook