Clinton on Foxnews

[Caldric]

Think they pissed the man off. Was some interesting comments plus looks like he ambushed Foxnews more then they him. Very defensive on his issue. I like Wallace myself and think he deserved a bit more respect even if Clinton was a President Wallace is not a far right winger and is hard on everyone. He only asked a small question hell then Clinton went off on a tangent. He wanted to though.

You can view it here just scroll down a bit to the movie.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Clinton vs. Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” Update: Wallace asked Rumsfeld same question in ‘04


It is not the entire interview I could not find all of it.

Wallace:

The President was clearly stung by any suggestion that he had not done everything he could to get bin Laden. He attacked right-wingers–accused me of a “conservative hit job”–and even spun a theory I still don’t understand that somehow Fox was trying to cover up the fact that NewsCorp. chief Rupert Murdoch was supporting his Global Initiative. I still have no idea what set him off.
Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward–wagging his finger in my face–and then poking the notes I was holding–I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me.

[Caldric]

Just for information Wallace has asked these questions of the Republicans in power more then once. Although they did not go berzerk in answer.


In 2004, Wallace asked almost the exact same question of Donald Rumsfeld that he asked Clinton today.

Here’s what Wallace asked Clinton today:

[H]indsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

And here is what Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:

I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?

Same source as the video.

[KBay84]

Yeah, he was pissed off, I would be too if I was a farq-up and got nailed for it on national TV, proving once again that he's a pathalogical liar.

[Caldric]

He was so mad his hands were shaking... The question must have been closer to home then I ever thought. He also was the one that brought up 9/11 to start with talking about Bush.

I wonder if he was looking for something to go ranting away.

[Snowden]

Originally Posted by Caldric

He was so mad his hands were shaking... The question must have been closer to home then I ever thought. He also was the one that brought up 9/11 to start with talking about Bush.

I wonder if he was looking for something to go ranting away.

He probably expected the velvet glove treatment he usually gets, and some way to sound lordly and wise. A question that aimed to fine out a truth he meant to avoid was probably not what he expected, and obviously not what he wanted!

I love it.

[Scrappy]

I can't believe he was so dumb as to not expect to get asked...yea you're right it's defensive as all get out. But, he may have been looking to go off as Caldric said, who knows Still, you can't trust those who're willing to perjure themselves.

[tnkr111]

Better video link, with 3 clips.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

As for President Clinton's response, it was most assuredly rehearsed, he knew he'd be asked about it. And considering the situation, since he was there to be interviewed about his foundation's philanthropic efforts, he was rightly pissed- I know I'd have been. Giving Wallace a pass, and equivocating on the basis that he is not that conservative, is simply disingenuous- and only excuses the bad behavior that all journalists seem to be guilty of lately.

And frankly, I think the former President made a good case, based on fact about what he had done. A recap:

1992: WTC #1, no one knew about UBL or AQ, and evidence pointed at a bunch of 2-bit criminals in NJ
1993: Somalia, again UBL and AQ not on the radar, and connecting the dots to them when the adversary was a Somali militia is little more than political wishing by Republicans seeking to blame the former President
1996: Khobar Towers, funded by Iran, perpetrators Saudi...again no link to AQ and UBL, though tape surfaced later purporting to show him praising the perps
1998: Embassy Bombings, tied to AQ and UBL, and he authorized a decapitation strike. Monday Morning QB it if you like but (1) invasions were not politically feasible, (2) foolish, and (3) unsupported by the DoD. He was accused of wagging the dog by everyone on the right and of course the media- but that is disingenuous, wagging the dog wouldhave been strikes with no provocation to divert attention- he was acting in the interest of Nat'l Security while concurrently suffering publicly for his indiscretions.
2000: USS Cole, the assumptions were there, but no solid tie had been made to AQ or UBL by the time he left office. Unlike his successor, he decided not to go off half-cocked, he wanted solid proof, furthermore, no one knew for sure where UBL was, just that he was somewhere in Af-stan. President Clinton did authorize the CIA to continue hunting UBL and assassinate him if they found him.