It must be an election season since Bill Clinton is in the news again.

In a Fox News Sunday program former President Bill Clinton was asked "why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them (bin Laden and Al Qaeda organization) out of business?" In response, Clinton went on the offensive, replying to his accusers in detail and accusing the host Chris Wallace of doing "a nice little conservative hit job".

By now, the bits and pieces of this interview are all over the news outlets, so chances are you've seen it already.

Questions for debate:

Do you think that Chris Wallace had a hidden agenda when he asked Clinton why didn't he "put Al Qaeda out of business"? Was it really a legitimate question or a "hit job"? Was Clinton justified in his response?

Do you think this interview helps or hurts Democrats' chances in their quest to wrestle the House majority away from the GOP?

Here's a transcript for those that can't watch the video.

What you conveniently left out, EH, is the lead in to the question posed by Wallace:



Do you think that Chris Wallace had a hidden agenda when he asked Clinton why didn't he "put Al Qaeda out of business"? Was it really a legitimate question or a "hit job"? Was Clinton justified in his response?

Certainly the questions that Wallace asked are the ones that Americans want answered. They were legitimate questions. Even Clinton thought so (sort of...)



Clinton was justified to respond the way he felt was appropriate. I thought he was overly defensive, but then he is defending his legacy. Of course, Clinton is Clinton:



I guess it's good that he doesn't criticize Bush (but then criticizes him in the next sentence...)

Clinton tells Wallace not to rely on the 9/11 Commission's report, but on Richard Clarke's book. The panel (on that same show, same transcript) went into Clarke's book:



Clarke seems to be saying that although Clinton was committed to getting bin Laden at first, he was not so keen after the public's negative reaction.

Do you think this interview helps or hurts Democrats' chances in their quest to wrestle the House majority away from the GOP?

Neither. Clinton is not running for election. Nothing was raised that directly impacts the elections. If anything, raising the question helps Republicans, who are favored on the war on terror (as an issue). There was no election angle here, however. Clinton did flat out nothing that would help Democrats, but he didn't harm them either.

Do you think that Chris Wallace had a hidden agenda when he asked Clinton why didn't he "put Al Qaeda out of business"? Was it really a legitimate question or a "hit job"? Was Clinton justified in his response?

I think FOX is terribly biased. When FOX interviews Bush they coddle him and never ask hard hitting questions. Wallace was fine if that's how they acted with Bush, but they don't.

So it was terribly biased, IMHO. In many ways it's a loaded question.

So yes, it was a hit job. But a poor one at that as Wallace is no match for Clinton.


Do you think this interview helps or hurts Democrats' chances in their quest to wrestle the House majority away from the GOP?

It depends. I've seen a ton of spin on it from news sources that I thought were not biased. Apparently the wealthy in this country running the media want to keep their dividend tax cuts in place and the republicans in office.

One radio news excerpt played some guy that they never even said who he was, saying "Clinton looked mad, he looked very angry". That was it. No explanation of why he may be angry.

I think they're trying to spin it like the Dean video of him screaming and looking insane.

Personally I liked it. I liked the fact that FOX actually played it several times and NOT excerpts which could be manipulated. Clinton makes great points and if you have a brain in your head, Clinton comes out on top in the interview. I wish Kerry had had a backbone....

Do you think that Chris Wallace had a hidden agenda when he asked Clinton why didn't he "put Al Qaeda out of business"? Was it really a legitimate question or a "hit job"? Was Clinton justified in his response?

They agreed 15 minutes split evenly between Clinton's Global Initiative program and anything else. Wallace starts with the Global Initiative program and 3 minutes and 20 seconds into that discussion changes the subject. It was a bit disingenuous on Wallace's part to change the subject without finishing the discussion on the Global Initiative and changed it early with an inflammatory question. It allowed him to then use the agreement against Clinton later in the program with the Gee, I'd like to get back to talking about your Initiative, you're obviously upset.

It was a very smart move on Wallace's part. I think Clinton was expecting it and handled it in a very Clintonian fashion.


Do you think this interview helps or hurts Democrats' chances in their quest to wrestle the House majority away from the GOP?

I don't believe it will do anything to help or hurt Democrats.

I think the issue Clinton kept bringing up was; what has Bush done? You can nit-pick about Clinton, but Clinton made attempts to get Bin Laden while Bush did nothing. That was the main point from Clinton.

It is a hatchet job. It's trying to divert attention from a republican WHite House and Congress that claim to be superior on terror when in fact they did much less than Clinton. And Clinton's comment about how Bush demoted Clarke was a great key point in that argument.

Most Americans seem like idiots, IMHO. So they'll probably focus in on an "out of control" Clinton rather than his valid points and his successful tarnishing of the republican's image.

If I were Clinton, I would have asked Wallace "what has Bush done?" and reiterated it over and over again. Then maybe bring up that while Clinton was going after Bin Laden in his presidency, Bush was kissing the butt of the Prince of Saudi Arabia as well as Bin Laden's family.

If he did that he would have looked like an idiot. He accepted an interview from Fox News, Wallace asked him what he did to damage terrorists in anyway...what does that have to do with George Bush? This reminds me of when I was back in Jersey after the Red Sox beat the Yankees back in 2004, I'd talk about it and Yanks fans started talking about past Sox failures and Bill Buckner. One has nothing to do with the other.
-Mr. Clinton, what did you do to stop terrorist attacks?
-What has George Bush done to stop terrorist attacks?
-No, sir, I mean you, what did you do to prevent terrorists from killing Americans?
-What has this President done to prevent terrorists from killing Americans?

I think Wallace asked legit questions [although its obvious that he new Clinton "exploding" would make for a great Republican propaganda piece], Clinton defended himself, case closed, not a bad interview, not a great one...Not a conservative "hit job", whatever the hell that is.

CP

The question itself was perfectly legitimate (although the excuse for it was quite lame - "our viewers want to know...". One can justify ANY question with this line). The way the question was phrased though - "why didn't you do more to put Al Qaeda out of business?" - is similar to a question "Why didn't you do more to eradicate poverty in United States?" There's no good way to answer that, and Wallace knew it. One either has to admit guilt and say that he didn't do enough; the alternative is to mention all the things that you did and still face the rebuttal along the lines of "But there's still poverty in the United States!"

This being said, I don't think that Clinton "flew off the handle", as media portrays it. He was articulate and logical in his argument, maybe a bit forceful in its delivery. Overall, I think it was great. Will it hurt or help Dems? It definitely didn't hurt to have someone as articulate as Clinton to present his side of the story to FN viewers.

I have not seen the clip, but if there is anybody better at reading political winds than Karl Rove, it might well be Clinton. Perhaps the "blow up" was orchestrated and might not be a good Republican propaganda piece. After all, Kerry waited too long to reply to the swifties and that backfired. Maybe Clinton just nipped it in the bud. It's too soon to determine what the fallout, if any in the long term, is going to be on this.

Republicans misunderestimate Clinton at their own expense.

Of course it was. I mean, given the publicity Clinton made with the fuss about the "Path to 9/11" movie, how could he not ask it. Of course, Clinton was predictably coddled by every other network, but that's to be expected. Keith Olbermann handing him a check for "8 more Kenyan schools" was especially obsequeous. The new chick on "Today" just about went Lewinsky on him, it was so fawning.


Right. Compare this with what Wallace asked Don Rumsfeld when he was on Fox News Sunday:


I found this interview of Bush by Fox' Brit Hume, which was pretty favorable to Bush, but Hume asked a few tough questions about Iraq in particular. Where did the WMD go, etc.

I suppose Fox is easier on Bush, but one would be blind not to see how easy the other networks are on Clinton. And for him to accuse Chris Wallace, of all people, of being part of a 'right wing conspiracy' and 'conservative hit job' right on the air, that's just embarassing. Perhaps he forgot that noted "righty" Fox Chairman Rupert Murdoch was a supporter of the Clinton Global Initiative that Clinton was there to talk about, and that he's hosted fundraisers for Hillary. That's a funny way to run a conspiracy.


edit - Meredith Viera on the Today Show was the fawning hostess, not the View. My mistake.

Do you think that Chris Wallace had a hidden agenda when he asked Clinton why didn't he "put Al Qaeda out of business"? Was it really a legitimate question or a "hit job"? Was Clinton justified in his response?

I would think that Clinton would expect some tough questions showing up on Fox. I think Wallace had a legitimate question and I think he is thrilled that he provoked such a response.

When I watched this on Sunday I remember thinking right away that the response to this will fall straight down party lines.

I think Clinton over-reacted in his response and got emotional enough that he can be marched out as one of the "angry" democrats of 2006 when he usually keeps his calm quite effectively. I think he had some good points to make but tripped over himself in doing so and when he started alluding to the "vast rightwing conspiracy" stuff again.

I strongly suspect that Wallace broke an agreement made about coming on the show.



Do you think this interview helps or hurts Democrats' chances in their quest to wrestle the House majority away from the GOP?

I think this helps energize the base of the Democratic party but does little to help the Democrats show their ability to win on the issue of terrorism or the Iraq War. What will be remembered is Clinton's angry response and not the substance of his point.

I think this interview is mostly just a little bump in the road and it means a lot more to Chris Wallace than it will for the chances of either the Republicans or the Democrats in the coming election.

Do you think that Chris Wallace had a hidden agenda when he asked Clinton why didn't he "put Al Qaeda out of business"? Was it really a legitimate question or a "hit job"? Was Clinton justified in his response?

Not Wallace, but the people who started the idea that Clinton blew his chances at nabbing OBL during his administration. This is linked to a docu-fiction that was recently aired and apparently a published non-fiction fantasy book. That's the hit job that Clinton was referring to, and yep, he's justified in taking Wallace to task about bringing up the fiction/fantasy of the right wing. It was a lot of fun to watch Wallace wriggling under the intensely logical Clinton stomp.

Now I can see where Wallace might be at the mercy of his email. I just don't buy it. If he didn't expect a strong response, then he is a fool.

It would be like asking a father why he didn't do more to save his child from murder. I'm surprised that Wallace didn't get a punch in the nose. He, and those spreading this crap, deserve it.

Do you think this interview helps or hurts Democrats' chances in their quest to wrestle the House majority away from the GOP?

One must ask oneself, why is the right wing fiction/fantasy being pushed in the year 2006 and before November 7?

The answer then becomes plainly clear. The push is to influence the mid-term elections, and so give Prez Clinton a point for the Demo's side. Awe hell, give him a touchdown and extra point.

Denying that attacks on Clinton still might sway the mid-terms is pretty naive. Granted that Clinton isn't running, but he's still a Democratic icon. Attack him, and the attack is against all Democratic candidates.

(note that I'm using the right-wing irritant adjective, Democratic -- two can play the subliminal message game)

Conversely, Demos don't have to attack the Repubs nearly as much. Fact and reality work against the Repub candidates. All they have left are fabrications to fight back with, which is rather pathetic. They are basically claiming that either Demo candidates did things to screw things up while out of power, or that they did things while in power that screwed things up years later.

Not only won't this dog hunt, it has to be on drugs.

Do you think that Chris Wallace had a hidden agenda when he asked Clinton why didn't he "put Al Qaeda out of business"? Was it really a legitimate question or a "hit job"? Was Clinton justified in his response?
Only Chris Wallace could know the answer to this question. It's fair to say that coverage of politics is far different on FOX and CNN. You are going to get tougher questions for Dems on FOX and tougher questions for Republicans on CNN. FOX is more overt in their conservative slant which makes this a little more obvious but Clinton was correct in his assessments. The question was unfair just like the question Bush was asked in the 2004 debates with Kerry about what mistakes has he made. Politically, those questions have no right answer. If Bush answers that question the headlines reads, "Bush failed at __________" For Clinton, the question was "Why didn't you do more?" There is no answer he can give other than to flat out claim the entire foundation of the question is based on a false premise. His answer was that he did everything he could and more than anybody else did prior to and even suggested that he would be doing more if he was in Bush's position, which falsifies his claim that he never criticized Bush because if you suggest a strategy that would be more effective you are, in essence, criticizing Bush.

But the important thing to do is take from the facts. Somalia and al Qaeda are not intertwined. Some would suggest that al Qaeda noticed the Americans leave but that can also be said of the Beirut barracks bombing and even was stated by Condoleeza Rice among others that that event contributed to the formation of bin Laden's opinion that the Americans have no resolve. So if you blame Clinton for Somalia then you must also blame Reagan for Beirut. Another fact, nothing was done by the Bush administration about the Cole bombing. Clarke, a non-partisan, complains that Bush did not pay enough attention to bin Laden.

Clinton did make attempts to get bin Laden, nobody denies this. At the same time, Clinton was being harassed about the Lewinsky/Grand Jury incident by a Republican controlled Congress, which certainly took significant time away from bin Laden. One could claim that the Republicans are to blame, but they could also suggest that Clinton should be focusing on his duties instead of his booties.

What do I take away from the whole situation? A few things, you will never get facts from politicians, the media has an agenda, and ultimately, our government failed us.

Do you think this interview helps or hurts Democrats' chances in their quest to wrestle the House majority away from the GOP?
Nobody other than the Dittoheads think that FOX is anything other than a right-wing conservative soapbox. This interview will not affect the diehards on either side and will most likely boil down to a he said/she said and be a wash. Clinton was popular when he left office and continues to do positive things so you cannot really think that this will tarnish him and it does nothing to benefit him. This was not an outright attack. If it was, a Jim Rome style denigrating interview then FOX/Wallace would have come off as the bad guys and probably lost some swing voters but that was not the case so I see no significant impact on the upcoming elections.

BoF, you and I and John Dickinson of SLATE all agree: Bill Clinton went FOX hunting and poor Chris Wallace got caught up in it.

Bill Clinton wasn't sandbagged, because he is a smart politician. He just spent several weeks fighting ABC over its interpretation of his administration's hunt for Bin Laden. He knew the question was coming and he took advantage of it. Forty-three days before the election, he has provided a moment to rally party activists and attack the GOP at the heart of its perceived strength on handling terrorism.

...Clinton's push-back against ABC over its 9/11 dramatization, which included unflattering fictional scenes about his administration, started his latest comeback. He even hosted a lunch with bloggers to plot strategy. The Fox interview is his second performance that not only attacks left-wing bogeymen but seeks to set the record straight against what liberals see as a tide of propaganda from the right and amnesia from the mainstream media. His attack on the "right wing" was an echo of his wife's famous complaint about the "vast right wing conspiracy" she claimed was out to get her husband during his tenure. Back then, Hillary drew attention to herself to help her husband's cause. Now, by defending himself, Bill Clinton helps hers.

http://www.slate.com/id/2150335/

With the exception of the self-inflicted wound of Lewinskygate, it's easy to forget that Clinton was called "Slick Willie" for a reason. He was on FOX NEWS, for Chrissakes! He knew he was walking into a hostile environment. He just punked Wallace before Wallace could punk him. Nobody was expecting Clinton to come out swinging like that but he picked the perfect forum to do it. It's fodder for both the Righties AND the Lefties. If it Clinton's performance was a bit over-the-top and in-your-face, that's what it takes to grab our attention these days.

That wasn't a interview. It was a concert and Maestro Clinton played Chris Wallace like a piano.

Face it---I don't see any threads about Clinton raising $7 BILLION in raising pledges to fight global warming, poverty and other issues. Who cares about that? That's boring. An exagerrated pie-fight between a former president and a sandbagged news anchor is the kind of thing that holds our interest.

Here's the short version. It's a political year. It's ALL about politics. Both short-term and long-term.

Do you think that Chris Wallace had a hidden agenda when he asked Clinton why didn't he "put Al Qaeda out of business"? Was it really a legitimate question or a "hit job"?

Well, as carlitoswhey pointed out, it must have been the same "hidden agenda" that motivated Wallace's grilling of Rumsfeld on the same subject.

Was Clinton justified in his response?

I think Clinton was every bit as justified as Bush would have been if he threw an infantile tantrum at a reporter who was asking him tough questions.

As a nice little extra touch, many of Clinton's responses were completely counterfactual and illogical. He says, "And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden." Totally false. Scroll down to the heading, "Nothing but GOP support for getting bin Laden". It shows most Republican leaders heaping praise on the so-called "Wag the Dog" attacks. There were a few detractors who questioned the timing (right in the thick of the Lewinsky scandal), but even they were put down by Newt Gingrich. The article quotes the Boston Globe:


And there's NO support for the assertion that Republicans or conservatives claimed that he was "obsessed" with bin Laden.

Then he talked about how he "never critcized President Bush", after having gone through a string of criticisms of him right in that very interview, and continued to do so after making that statement (classic Clintonism there).

His suggestion that Bush had "three times" as long as he did to deal with al-Qa'eda was disingenuous, at best. True, he was specifically referring to the Cole bombing, but our known troubles with that particular group didn't begin with that incident. It goes back at least as far as the embassy bombings, 2 & a half years before the end of his term, which followed bin Laden's very public declaration of war against America.

All in all, Clinton was seriously on the defensive, which would have been wholly unnecessary if he actually felt justified in his actions.

Something tells me that President Clinton did not forget that Murdoch contributed to the Clinton Global Initiative. He has mentioned it in every interview I've seen him give about the CGI - including the interview under discussion in this thread:
Allow me to insert my own

Do you think that Chris Wallace had a hidden agenda when he asked Clinton why didn't he "put Al Qaeda out of business"?

Not in the least. I think his agenda is quite transparent - to perpetuate the myth that the Clinton administration did nothing in relation to bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Wallace is no idiot. He knows - or should know - his recent history.

Was it really a legitimate question or a "hit job"?

Is "When did you stop beating your wife?" a legitimate question? First, I seriously doubt that Wallace "got a lot of email from viewers" demanding that he ask a pointless question whose answer is a matter of pubic record. I suspect this was yet another instance of the old Fox news "some people say" ploy that allows their moderators to ask biased political questions while disowning them at the same time. I don't want to rehash all that the Clinton administration did do about terrorism (or the fact that the Bush adminstration did absolutely nothing whatsoever about terrorism prior to September 11, 2001), but seriously: when are people going to start acknowledging documented history in relation to these two administrations?

Was Clinton justified in his response?

What - he should have lied? He answered the question honestly and forthrightly. To my mind, honesty is always justified.

Do you think this interview helps or hurts Democrats' chances in their quest to wrestle the House majority away from the GOP?

I don't know if it will have much impact one way or another - and I imagine that Eeyore is correct in assuming that response to the interview will fall along "party lines". There may be some, though, who have somehow remained unaware of the fact that the Clinton administration did more than any other administration in US history to seriously address and combat terrorism and the reality that the Bush administration was asleep - indeed comatose - at the wheel. If those people listened objectively, the interview can only possibly give them a better impression of Democratic leadership and a more accurate (and hardly flattering) impression of Republican leadership. That could have slight impact on the mid-term elections - though I'm hardly holding my breath.



Point of information: Using an adjective as an adjective rather than using a noun as an adjective should not be seen as an irritant, it should be seen as grammatically correct. One should no more refer to a Democratic candidate as a "Democrat candidate" than one should refer to a Republican candidate as a "Republic candidate". The only people who mistake nouns for adjectives are either hysterical partisans (the improper usage started with Sen. Joseph McCarthy - no comment required) or those who are so educationally challenged as to be ignorant of their own language. Feel free to use proper English without explanation or justification, AuthorMusician.

Do you think that Chris Wallace had a hidden agenda when he asked Clinton why didn't he "put Al Qaeda out of business"? Was it really a legitimate question or a "hit job"? Was Clinton justified in his response?
There was nothing unjustified about the questions asked by Wallace, nor the manner in which he asked them. I don't even have too much issue with how Clinton responded to the questions, other than he came off looking like he had a severe case of saggy diapers. He lambasted Wallace, accusing him of taking more time on that issue than his Global Initiative Project, when it was Clinton himself that took the air time to rant.

The issue I find interesting and sad is the enormous amount of publicity being generated by those on left wing blogs......viewing this interview as some sort of smackdown of the evil Fox News Channel. How pathetic.

I agree that this is pathetic; almost as pathetic as the RIGHT-wing blogs ranting about Clinton 'Goin Crazy', or 'having a childish tantrum', or 'losing his mind' or other such utter nonsense.

The question was reasonable, and so was the answer. He was forceful (not violent, aggressive or 'crazy') because he felt he had been the subject of a smear campaign on this issue, and perhaps he was right. But frankly, this is not a news story. It is neaither some glorious beating of the 'Faux news' network, nor is it Clinton 'throwing an infantile tantrum'. Anyone who would couch this interview in EITHER extreme language obviously has their own political axe to grind, dont care about the reality of the interview, and are just looking for a pretext to be 'outraged'.

Good question, good answer, end of story.

Well lets look at this interview. Thanks for the link, but you left some things off like:



That seems like he's planting the seed that Clarke is a possible liar and has an agenda? The rest of the interview he makes Clarke's testimony and comments suspect.

Then this nice little softball. :



It was a pretty soft interview. He didn't go after Rummy like he did Clinton. Then again Rummy keeps saying "I don't know" so it may be very difficult to go after someone with perpetual amnesia.

I don't know if Wallace is a right-wing homer, but the fact that they stuck Wallace on Clinton rather than a softy interviewer is telling of Fox, not necessarily Wallace. I've seen so many interviews on Fox of Bush that NEVER ask him anything challenging and coddle him, that it's obvious they have a certain motivation.

Did you ever see the movie Outfoxed? There's a pre-interview with Bush and the Fox reporter is saying "you're great, my wife is out campaigning for you, etc.".

Maybe Clinton was not EXACTLY correct, but FOX is FOX. To pretend they aren't is just being misleading.

Do you think that Chris Wallace had a hidden agenda when he asked Clinton why didn't he "put Al Qaeda out of business"? Was it really a legitimate question or a "hit job"? Was Clinton justified in his response?

Hidden agenda? Hmmm. Nope, it looked pretty clear to me. There has been a concerted effort among Republicans and particularly neo-Cons to discredit Bill Clinton as much as possible since their President has (rightly) taken so many hits for being on vacation when he was supposed to be on the job. Too bad the stained blue dress can't be used in this one. Keith Olbermann put it quite well when he pointed out that it was these same people who cried "wag the dog" while then President Clinton was trying to get Osama bin Laden.

The truth is that Richard C. Clarke was demoted during the Bush administration, and that neither President Bush, Jr., nor his staff took seriously enough the PDB which stated that bin Laden was determined to attack within the United States. No, the anti-terrorism czar's meeting with the President was assigned so much importance that Clark was slated to meet with Bush after 9/11/2001.

There are posters on this board who try virtually every time criticism is leveled against George W. Bush and his merry entourage to try to pin Bush's failures on the Clinton administration (we all know who they are).

Clinton admitted that he had made mistakes during his administration, but he also tried to get Osama bin Laden. This is the fact that seems to be omitted by Faux News and ABC's alleged "documentary", The Path to 9/11.

I do not blame Bill Clinton in the least that he defended, aggressively, his role and his administration to Chris Wallace, who had undoubtedly been encouraged by "the powers that be" to try to nail Clinton even as he gave Clinton airtime to talk about his activities to combat global warming and his successes so far.

Do you think this interview helps or hurts Democrats' chances in their quest to wrestle the House majority away from the GOP?

I think that this interview will tend to cement the opinions of those on both far sides of the argument. I am pleased that the interview did not result in an indictment of Bill Clinton's presidency and particularly his anti-terrorist activities.

Better luck next time, neoCons (not to be mistaken for true conservatives).

Keith Olbermann is a lying, 3rd-worst-cable-news-rated, 400,000-viewer-having, piece of crap in a suit. Daily Kos with pictures. A gifted sportscaster and nothing more.

Anyway, neither you nor "Mister" Olbermann nor "Mister" Clinton can re-invent this era. I, along with other debaters, actually remember this, and Wag the Dog was the commentary for Bosnia, and lesserly for the Sudan aspirin factory (which was *not* an attempt on Mr. Bin Laden's life).

You are perhaps going to provide some evidence that Republicans were going after Clinton because he was, as he put it,
Please americasdebaters, enlighten us on this point.

Indeed. I guess it matters what you mean by "is." Clinton told the truth, when he said that "Right-wingers" said that he was "obsessed with Bin Laden?" Seriously? Sources, please. I recall Gingrich supporting him fully for the cruise missle attacks. Waiting for evidence of your 'honesty.'

As for media coverage, and whether this question was "fair" - As noted by opinionjournal.com, here are the sycophantic softball questions "Mister" Clinton is more accustomed to, courtesy of Larry King:

Now, the purpose of your initiative overall is to make the world a better place, right? . . .

And the four things it covers is to make the world a better place. . . .

Is it a better place? . . .

How's your health? . . .

The greatest thing you almost did was peace in the Middle East. . . .

Want to just briefly discuss some of the initiatives at this conference. We love coming here every year. Poverty alleviation. Possible?

All that said, I will say that no politician of any stripe should have realized the full terrorist threat. No one, Republican or Democrat, could have understood the absolute evil that we face. It's just inhuman. Another suicide bomber in Iraq just detonated, killing women and children waiting for fuel rations. I don't hold Clinton, Clarke, Powell, Allbright, Bush, or Rice responsible. All I ask for is a robust response, which the current administration is providing. Someone tell the disbarred, philandering "Mister" Clinton that his 15 minutes are up.

I just happened to catcht the whole interview at work, didn't even realize it was coming on- but, I just happened to be in the area to watch the whole thing- I was pretty much whooping it up with the smackdown Clinton laid down on the right wing Fox- I am quite sure NT had it about 110% right - Clinton punked fox, and I enjoyed the heck out of it!

Fact- Clinton went after OBL with far more tenacity with less resources than GW- and not much political cover. GW had everything- willpower of the country, total lapdog accemptance of everything he spewed out of his cakehole by his party, who is in control of all houses of goverment- judicial, legislative, executive. Billions of dollars of funding. Yet Clinton Got closer- and what does he get from right wing bloggers ? "Clinton did nothing to stop OBL- and the tone of the questions from Wallace was intended by Wallace to reinforce this in Faux viewers- but Clinton had his number, big time.

Yes- Chris Wallace transparently, obviously, was going for a rigth wing hit job, just as Clinton described- Wallaces own response was pathetic- Chris couldn't even sell it to himself- it was right up there with " I excercise my fifth amendment right..."

But Clinton is no joke when it comes to this crud- he battled it for years, and he laid an old fashioned booty whuppin' on Chris.

Made me wish Clinton had been in charge this whole crappy 6 years since. I have no doubt we would have 2800+ living services man, a dead OBL and a much more peaceful world, even in the aftermath of 9/11- had it even occured if Clinton had been in power- you see- he actually was on OBLs path after the Cole- GW just let it be dormant non-issue.

It was better than WWE smackdown, jumping out of airplanes onto rollercoasters while watching Motogp live- make- it was good to see this- I enjoyed the heck out of this comeuppance!

This question was no more "loaded" than the questions that Tony Snow faces every day during the White House briefing. Remember Helen Thomas asking the president "why he lied to the public"?

The mainstream press is utterly dominated by the liberal viewpoint. That's why they hate Fox news so much. They have a audacity to actually present a non liberal point of view from time to time. But in this case, the question that Wallace asked Clinton was pertinent. In fact, the recent ABC mini-series made exactly this point which explains the rabidity of the response by the Clinton attack team and their attempts to censor these historical truths.

Clinton simply protests too much. He had 8 years to deal with terrorism and Bin Laden and had other priorities. It's a matter of record that Clinton met more times in the oval office with Monica Lewinsky than he did with his CIA director. His actions, in direct contrast to his words, speak volumes.

Come to think of it, the last time I remember Clinton getting all red in the face and wagging his finger was when he uttered the famous line, "I'm only going to say this once.... I DID NOT have sexual relations with that woman... Ms. Lewinsky". Clinton knew that his denial plus his attack squad's whisper campaign to discredit Lewinsky as a "stalker" was his way out of dodge.

In this case, he's creating another "stalker" in the form of a "vast right wing conspiracy" with Fox News as the head of the beast. It's a line of thinking he knows will resonate on the left who see anyone to the right of Keith Olbermann as a fascist.

Clinton seems to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to manufacturer a legacy for his 8 year term. He spends most of his effort, it seems, trying to define the past, not move toward the future. His actions speak to the weakness of his historical record and the fact that his legacy is, and always will be scandal, impeachment, and ineffectiveness in the face of a real terrorist threat.

Frankly, I'm tired of Clinton and wish he'd just go into retirement and fade away. But his egomaniacal nature will keep him searching for the spotlight and for attention wherever he can find it.

Was Fox out of line? No way. That question was no tougher than anything Russert and the like routinely give Bush, Cheney, and any republican who sits in the hot seat on their shows.

How was the question biased??? If viewers sent emails with an overwhelming question about (insert whatever), there would've been nothing wrong with him bringing this up. It became a "hit job" because the people of America often hold Clinton responsible (and more than one person very close to him hold him responsible for not getting Bin laden).

I stick to my ground that many liberals will defend Clinton to the death.

Frankly, Chris Wallace did a great job with handling Clinton's tirade. For a public official, and for a former president, he should be embarassed. He went nuts. That's not ok for anyone. Frankly, people always talked about his overwhelming temper inside the White House... I think we saw a glimpse of it.

All he had to do was to say "Chris, let's finish talking about the global initiative and then I'll gladly address your viewers concerns".

Fox News isn't biased, and time and time again people have tried to prove how they are... to no avail. I believe that we just struck a nerve. The fact that he perpetually laid blame on Republicans, used terms like "neo cons", and talked about everyone elses faults reminded me of a kid in grade school who was caught in a group of wrong-ders... laying blame on Billy and Jimmy instead of admitting responsibility.



Not at all... "booty whoopin'" if you call yelling and looking like a crazed lunatic on national tv a booty whoopin'... frankly, again, why does everyone defend Clinton like he's related or something?

Think of it in this context... if George Bush yelled and went nuts on CBS, people would talk about it as if he'd started another war. The media would use it to their advantage and play sound bits to no end. Even Juan Williams (very liberal) stated that afterwards that Chris did a great job of remaining composed. He wasn't there to debate the merits of the emails, but to give Clinton a way to state his case...

Frankly, I believe Clinton could've stated his claim in a tactful, adult, and composed manner. Guess that's out of the question... but what should I expect? The same defenses are coming from people that know he cared more about watching golf than getting Bin Laden, cared more about bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan than addressing the public about the scandals, cared more about philandering and cutting our military than addressing the emerging threat. Blame congress too... but while you're at it... try to remember that all of these things are irrefutable truths about Mr. Clinton. Consider what the debate would be like if Mr. Bush were inserted in Mr. Clinton's shoes.

Do you have any sources for this? Reality seems to be about 180 degrees from this point of view. Source.



Again, source? Clarke was not "demoted". According to wikipedia "He was the counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council when the September 11, 2001 attacks occurred." The same position he had under Clinton.



What did the 9/11 Commission say about this memo? 9/11 Commission report, page 277


The PDB you mention says: "Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example ofWorldTrade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and “bring the fighting to America.”

Nothing immediate. No subsequent reports added any details. It was historical in nature. It was an accurate summation, but nothing that could be used at the time.







According to Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit (and current Bush critic), said the Clinton administration missed at least 10 chances to get bin Laden. He also said that Clarke was "risk averse" had a "tendency to interfere" and "was an interferer of the first level, in terms of talking about thing that he knew nothing about and killing them". source



What is that supposed to mean? It was the "neo-cons" that supported bin Laden's going after bin Laden in Afghanistan (notably Richard Perle). It was "moderate" Republicans who challenged him on it (notably Arlen Spectre). Clinton indulged in quite a bit of revisionism in his interview, especially in the way he portrayed the Republican stance on the bin Laden issue during his administration.

I know many have been critical of Clinton's response, saying that he should have done more, etc. etc. I put him in the same category as Bush: before 9/11 nobody took the threat seriously enough. Some action was taken, but obviously not enough.

Last time I checked, Carlitoswhey, ad-hominems were frowned upon here. Unless you have a specific item Mr. Olbermann lied about, this comment really isn't appropriate, or useful.


Very well, since you insist

First, you are partly correct in that the "Wag the Dog" reference was used in response to Clinton's Bosnia initiative. But, it was also in reference to his use of military force against Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan. It was a persistent analogy any time Clinton used miltary force. Wikipedia


For a more specific reference (ThinkProgress.org)


I too, remember the references during that time, CW and the one that stood out the most was the attack on the camp in Afghanistan, as far as the wag references went. However, in full disclosure, my research seems to lean toward a more even balance between both attacks being used for that political fodder.

The frustration I saw at the time, though, was the political opportunism that took place (which, I believe, would have been the same had the parties been reversed), and the rhetoric that implied Clinton was too focused on terrorism, in particular in response to the Afghanistan missile attacks. Whether you can find a smoking gun of the GOP saying he was obsessed with Bin Laden is unclear (I haven't yet, admittedly), but the talking points of the day were unquestionably minimimalist, almost begging the question of why a President under an impeachment siege wouldn't be in a foxhole trying to defend himself instead of chasing terrorists in Afghanistan.

And for the record, had Bin Laden taken the "Road Less Traveled", those cruise missiles likely would have ended much of this discussion. (link)


Onto the questions:
Do you think that Chris Wallace had a hidden agenda when he asked Clinton why didn't he "put Al Qaeda out of business"? Was it really a legitimate question or a "hit job"? Was Clinton justified in his response?
As Clinton said, it was a legitimate question. Nor did he fail to anticipate it. He would have been a fool to think otherwise. I don't think it was a "hit job" (I hate that word) by Fox News. It was a former Democratic President appearing on a news network that is known for having a conservative POV.

Do you think this interview helps or hurts Democrats' chances in their quest to wrestle the House majority away from the GOP?
I think Eeyore's analysis is probably correct about this falling on party lines. However, I do think the Democratic Party can use this for momentum heading into November. Passion can be a boon and a danger in this equation, however, just ask Howard Dean. The American People want to know if the Democrats can be effective on national security. Passionately debunking some of the GOP talking points is a start at telling that story. The bottom line is, and history backs this up, that when the Democrats were in power, they did do a lot to try and combat terrorism. All of them will agree in the same breath that it clearly wasn't enough. As Carlitoswhey accurately points out, no party would have prevented 9/11, our failures were too systematic to even contemplate that opportunity. But, the next month or so will be rife with sharp political rhetoric, trying to make one look better than the other. This exchange on Fox News was simply just another salvo in that affair.

I guess you both are missing the point the Clinton is just a private citizen now. Unlike Tony Snow, he has this "ex" in front of his title. He is no longer an elected official like Bush and Co. He doesn't have to face tough questions - as a matter of fact, the amount of heat he is getting is unprecedented for an ex-president. Right now Mister Clinton is doing something that is getting praise from both Conservatives and Liberals alike. Am I wrong, or did Carter, (late) Reagan, and H.W. Bush never faced the same kind of scrutiny once they stepped out of office and moved to their other endeavours?

From your statement, I take it that you are one of the 99.9% of Americans that don't watch Olbermann. It's an ad hominem, yes, but with the exception of "piece of crap" (debatable), my entire statement is factual. Feel free to look up the ratings, click over the daily kos, and tune into ESPN radio for the midday show. All true.

Anyway, I don't see the transcript for last night up at Edward R Olbermann's blog page just yet, so I'll paraphrase and grab a few quotes from the various liberal blogs that eat this stuff up.

Olbermann: Bill Clinton has spoken the truth...Clinton has taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty...

Fact: See amlord's entire post above. Many, many, factual misstatements by Clinton. Richard Clarke wasn't fired, Bush had "three times as long" to deal with terrorism as Clinton, etc.

Olbermann: The President has been given the greatest pass for incompetence and malfeasance in American history.

Fact: Has Olbermann ever seen Bush interviewed by anyone? Seen Fahrenheit 9/11? Read the dozens of books by Richard Clarke or Maureen Dowd or Kevin Phillips or Ron Suskind or John Dean or Joe "I went to Niger and all I got was this sweet tea and a cool story" Wilson? If Bush has been given a pass, it's news to me.

Olbermann: our worst Presidency since James Buchanan

Fact: Nixon? Warren Harding? A certain impeached / disbarred philanderer from Arkansas? Anyway, this is subjective.

Olbermann: Chris Wallace is a monkey posing as a newscaster....[Fox News] are hyenas...
Hey Doclotus, what was it you said about ad hominems!

Olbermann: There it is, sir [Mister Bush = sir]. Are yours the actions of a true American?
Hey, is Keith questioning Mister Bush's patriotism? How un-American!


I'll ignore the wikipedia entry, which has no doubt been updated by the global community recently. Other than that, you offer me the mighty Jim Gibbons R-NV in response? Who? How about the reaction of the Republican Congressional leadership instead:

So yeah, people like Dan Coats and your guy from Nevada were critical, but "for the most part" Republican leaders supported Clinton. Doesn't sound like a group claiming that Clinton was "obsessed" with bin Laden to me. Plus, just to contrast presidencies, how many nanoseconds would it take the New York Times and the entire Democratic world to condemn George Bush if he said what Clinton said in the linked piece? "There will be no sanctuary for terrorists" - where have I heard that before.

Anyway, Clinton tells me to believe Richard Clarke. Well, okay...


edit - I just wanted to add to DocLotus hat I pretty much agree with your responses to the debate questions. I hate to get that lost in the "passionate debunking" which, as you note, is well underway with 60 days to go. Too bad that Russ Feingold and John McCain and George W Bush conspired to restrict our freedom of speech, or we could all take out ads and condemn the candidates for this kind of stuff

What I don't get is this claim that Clinton was "yelling" or somehow acting out- I think he verbally sliced and diced Chris Wallace- but he was a very long way away from yelling, and, for once, instead of the host of a Faux show cutting off the guest- the guest cut off the host- another great comeuppance for a Faux show talking head- but he was not yelling or being out of control in any way- like say, Howard Dean with the yell- didn't engage in any stupidity in any way. Clinton is a very powerful speaker, you have to give him that- and his points were powerful- but he was not yelling in any way, shape or form. He was not acting even the slightest way out of control.

After years of getting that idiotic right wing spam in my inbox, I felt it very refreshing for him to adress it with a little truth.

No matter how you want to wiegh it, Clinton did more with less that the current regime in regards to OBL- he tried and missed, and admitted it was a great disappointment for him not to have killed him.

I think Clinton wanted to go there to talk about the philanthropic stuff he has been engaged in, and to great success- but knew that they would try to blind side him on the Faux- so prepared to go into the Lion's den, but it turned out he was carrying some anti-Lion smackdown in his hip pocket.

Despite Clinton's self inflicted wounds- he was competent throughout his presidency- he was doing things while in office that GW should take some lessons from- working with private and public hybird programs that helped America- he was more fiscally conservative that GW by a mile- and he came in to Faux to talk about his Global initiative that actually continues that very same style that he showed in his presidency.

But the interview was great- best I have seen in years. But, Clinton is "Slick Willie" for real- NT was correct- I really don't like Clinton as a human being that much- he is a very flawed man- but he is a great entertainer LOL

With all due respect, this is a smackdown.



Michael Scheuer is the author of Imperial Hubris and served as the Chief of Alec Station, the Osama bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.

Huh? This is twice in this thread you've made this assertion. Let's indeed weigh it, shall we? On Clinton's side, we have a couple missles lobbed at a camp, and refusing to extradite him when available. On Bush's side, we have invading the host country. Both had the same resources available. Sounds like you're looking at the scale backwards. Also, strange that you're so quick to say Clinton tried and missed, yet lambast Bush for also failing but with what was an immeasurably greater effort. Biased much, are we?

Not piling on to Clinton here...every President I think takes US security very seriously (probably the one issue that is completely apolitical), so I think he had reasons for what he did and didn't do (just as is surely the case for Bush). However, I do think it would help tremendously in a discussion such as this to have the 'facts' at least somewhat aligned with reality.

As for the interview itself, Clinton rarely does anything without being fully aware of the political impact. He surely knew the questions were coming, therefore it is safe to assume the response was calculated. The question would then be: for what? It surely follows current Democratic talking points, and also helps deflect any potential criticism for Hillary in the future.

I do find the references Clinton made regarding troop size and importance (and has also made in the past) a little superficial at best. Troop size is almost always determined by need, not importance. So, equating troop strength in Afghanistan and Iraq does nothing to signify the importance of one over the other. For example, how many troops are currently deployed around our capital? None. Does this mean we hold that Afghanistan is infinitely more important? Certainly not. Good talking point which completely ignores reality...unfortunately par for the course from our politicians. Too bad the American public doesn't get a little more fed up with the degree of stupidity our politicians assign to us when making such ridiculous statements.

That's an amusing footnote, Hobbes, but it is completely lacking in context.

Clinton didn't even remotely have the political capital to invade Afghanistan for the purpose of eliminating Bin Laden. Bush did, but he didn't finish the job. Nor did Clinton (as he freely admits). The play with the intern certainly affected Clinton's ability to act, but it isn't even on the same scale as the wide open credit limit that Bush had following 9/11. To even attempt a comparison is sheer folly.

OBL would have been a failed trivia question for more than 90% of Americans prior to 9/11. Save for the strikes in Afghanistan, he was out of public awareness for the most part.

I notice no one took issue with Wertz's pretty elegant detail of what Clinton did regarding terrorism.


I agree for the most part, except that Bin Laden wasn't even remotely in Bush's vernacular prior to 9/11. Iraq was (see Bob Woodward if you doubt that). When a newly elected President tells the CIA analyst that read him the 8/6/01 PDB that you've "covered your <tail>", does that impart to you any idea of urgency regarding Bin Laden? He could barely pronounce his name, much less define a policy around him.

I think (not surprisingly), Mrs. Pigpen summed up the comparisons between Bush & Clinton pretty well. Clinton should get credit for shifting the government focus onto terrorism in general, but did so at the expense of our intelligence community:

I don't agree with your opinion about global warming and poverty being a "boring" topic.

Bush did this Clinton did that blah blah in all honesty it's just partisan bashing to try to lay the blame "on the other party". It's not going to affect any vote's or going to sway the election either way. In fact we aren't even talking about candidates!

Wallace asked a tough question and Clinton got defensive, wouldn't you on such a topic?

He took a few shots at UBL... prob didn't do as much as he could or should have... im sure Clinton overstated his efforts and the Republicans understate them and the truth is somewere in the midde.

Hindsight is always 20/20. End of story.

No disagreement here. I was merely noting the equal folly of saying that the person who invaded another country did 'nothing', while the person being heralded conducted a couple miniscule raids with absolutely no impact.



Surely a symptom of inadequate governmental response to his actions up to that time, unless a conscious decision was made to keep the public unaware.



Could quibble with a couple of points, but, as I said above, I think most Presidents take US security very seriously, and any actions or inactions need to be viewed in the context of the political climate at the time. I am certainly not going to suggest or argue that Clinton intentionally let bin Laden slide at the cost of US security. Even if viewed from a purely political perspective, letting US security lax is highly politically risky, at best, as it ultimately trumps any other political issue.

You have a right to your opinion of Keith Olbermann, but your rant sounds like it could have come straight out of an Ann Coulter book. You seem to be in that syndrome Joe Scarborough used until seemingly MSNBC made him stop – that is, accusing those who disagree with you of lying.

One of Olbermann’s lies you exposed, was this:



I think Olbermann is closer to the truth than you are. Presidential rankings are tricky. The granddaddy of historian polls was conducted by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr.

Wikepedia reproduces a recent average of historians on presidential greatness,

In this historian compilation the presidents you mentioned are ranked as follows:

William Jefferson Clinton-21
Richard M. Nixon-32
James Buchanan-41
Warren G. Harding-42

You were correct only in your words about Harding.

Historian Composite of Presidential Rankings

In a recent Rolling Stone article, Princeton historian Sean Wilentz suggested Bush might well end up below both Buchanan and Harding.

Worst President in History?

BTW: Olbermann’s piece from last night is now on his blog. I’m providing the link again, but without editorial comment.

A Textbook Definition of Cowardice

Do you think this interview helps or hurts Democrats' chances in their quest to wrestle the House majority away from the GOP?
Hurts. I see that Nora Ephron has weighed in, noting that 'it's all about Bill' was Clinton's reason, as usual.



So, this seems like a wasted opportunity to Nora and me. Bill on Bill. Of course, if 1994 is any guide, Bill Clinton has no business "helping" to elect a Congressional majority, at least not for the Democrats.

edit - removing off-topic remarks.

carlitoswhey,

Heh, well, the world changed after 9/11/2001, didn't it.

I imagine the world will continue to change.

I know one thing that has changed, and that's the general perception of President Clinton since that little thing about impeaching him. Oh, I'm not saying that diehard Clinton bashers have changed. That's just not going to happen. However, Demos seem to have lost a lot of their shame regarding the former president's sexual antics, and independents seem to have figured out that getting serviced in the White House is a lot different than what the present administration has pulled off.

But that's not the point either. The point here is that when an attempt to lay blame on those in power before 9/11 happens, the muck ain't sticking nearly as it used to.

Nora writes great screenplays and does a decent job of directing. I'm afraid that her political opinions aren't as sharp.

What happened is that President Clinton defended himself from attack. Demos were thrilled! Repubs were outraged. No surprises here.

But now it's okay to fight back, which is exactly what's happening around here for the mid-term elections. Demos aren't putting up with the muck slinging. Also, we've got a judge who has ruled that some of our voting machines don't meet state security standards.

Let's see, we're about five weeks away from Election Day. Repubs are supporting Demos (shocker ) in this state. 'Scuse me a moment:

I said it was biased because of how FOX presents questions. One, it was a loaded question. But the reason it was biased is that FOX would never ask Bush that question. DOn't give me a softy interview with Rummy, show me where any FOX interview had Bush answer that question or something similar.

You won't find it. That's why the question was biased.



I'm not a liberal, fwiw. In fact I'm rather distraught at all of the Bush apologists that exist. I remember when Republicans and right-wingers actually stood for something and didn't simply hero-worship a horrible president.



I don't think it was a tirade. Do you really? I think you and the Bush apologists, the Rove strategists, WANT this to appear as a tirade so the media will demonize Clinton like they did Dean.