Clinton Takes On Fox News

[AROCES]

Wow...we can't have a single discussion without you accusing me of being in league with the terrorists

I'm sorry you don't like what you hear, but its the truth, they are dissatisfied with the US prescense in their country

Not in the same league, just having the same position as the thugs in the Iraq siituation.

You keep saying the Iraqis are dissatisfied witht the US presence, where did this come from? Any OFFICIAL announcement of the Iraqis saying US occupier must leave NOW!

Any rally or march with the demand of the US leave? (NO BLOGS PLS!)

So far, it is only coming from you.

[Lord Umbarger]

If BC would've had any sence he would have simply said that he felt those who think he could've done more were wrong. Instead he gave us all a little show of childishness that would have stood out in any first grade class room.

He certainly did make mistakes. Who hasn't? Now thta he's out of power, all he seems to do is say that Bush is wrong. Bush sr. never did that to him while he was in office. It just goes to show how low class this guy is.

And the Clinton Death List... Yep, look it up. I remember seeing it while he was still in office. Every one of those things was on the news while he was in office and they couldn't make them stick. That's when they started calling him "Slick Willie".

BC's little sexual daliances weren't done to try to make the country better, safer or stronger. Bush on the other hand, rather his decisions are right, wrong or you just don't agree with them, were done to rid the world of Americas biggest threat. There's a lovely little difference there, huh?

How about... "I smoked pot, but I didn't inhale!" Just how stupid did he think that we were? Well, I guess that he calculated right. The American public voted him right on in, after just hearing one of the biggest bold faced lies in American politics. Of course, we did get what we paid for, a president that was so mired in sexual scandals and illegal land deals that he was for all intents and purposes, useless.

Many presidents are merely figureheads but, Clinton? He was a hood ornament.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Not in the same league, just having the same position as the thugs in the Iraq siituation.

You keep saying the Iraqis are dissatisfied witht the US presence, where did this come from? Any OFFICIAL announcement of the Iraqis saying US occupier must leave NOW!

Any rally or march with the demand of the US leave? (NO BLOGS PLS!)

So far, it is only coming from you.

From polls done of Iraqis, Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, recently showed a majority viewing US forces as occupiers and saying that they would like to see the US troops leave ASAP

The information was in US news and USA today

[SG7]

I stand by him. He's a graet man!

[AROCES]

From polls done of Iraqis, Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, recently showed a majority viewing US forces as occupiers and saying that they would like to see the US troops leave ASAP

The information was in US news and USA today

Why US news and not a direct talk and ask US to leave? I'm sure US would if the Iraqis really wants us out.

Imagine thousands of Iraqis chanting US out! US will pull out without a doubt.

So, I suggest to the Iraqis to get on the street and not do polling.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Why US news and not a direct talk and ask US to leave? I'm sure US would if the Iraqis really wants us out.

Imagine thousands of Iraqis chanting US out! US will pull out without a doubt.

So, I suggest to the Iraqis to get on the street and not do polling.

That would be rage, rather than just dissatisfaction, they may not like us there, but they probably aren't at the point of hate yet

[Reincarnated]

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=79268

[truthorder]

I'm nearly as conservative as they come, and I couldn't stand Bill Clinton while he was in office.

But I will say this much............

What he has done after his Presidency rivals or surpasses any American President in recent memory, but it never gets reported.

The reason why it's not getting reported is simply because he doesn't want it to get reported.

He has done a TON of things for the healthcare industry in his time out of office that haven't been reported and has tried like hell to bridge a gap between the right and left wings in America to establish at least some semblance of common ground.

I love my country, but I will not vote in any elections anymore because I have finally realized that it's not going to make a difference because it won't matter who is in office.

If a Democrat is in office, then the Republicans care more about chopping him down than dealing with what is really important. If a Republican is in office then the Democrats care more about chopping him down than dealing with what's really important.

A good friend of mine who I recently told this to asked me to support the Libertarian Party. I refuse. If the Libertarians were to miraculously gain control, they'd be lambasted just as much as a leader of the other two parties.

Nobody in any position of power in this country can do any good and I'm absolutely ashamed at myself for having my own blinders on and not realizing it sooner.

I hear about countries all across the globe who completely wipe out their politicians and start over (England has done it a few times) because the people in power aren't thinking about what is really important.....the people that they represent.

My Congressman won't listen to me (and I've written a TON of letters and emails about some of the problems in my own community). My Governor won't listen to me for the same damn reason. I haven't gotten a response from either of them on any of my issues. Not even a computer-generated copy/paste response. I wouldn't have been happy with one of those, but at least it would have been something to acknowledge that one of their "people" were heard. *cough* *cough*

Instead, they are more concerned with throwing up campaign ads bashing their opponent for what he/she has done or not done and none of it has ANYTHING to do with the REAL problems that are going on.

I want something tangible to see that I can relate with, and I finally got it.

And, even as a conservative, it came from none other than Bill Clinton himself....the guy I've bashed for all these years. And it was something SIMPLE. A REAL solution for once. From a politician!

He's spearheading an effort to eliminate waste of sterile medical supplies. If any of you have ever been in the hospital for any kind of surgical operation (I've had several), you (like me) wondered why you got charged for stuff that the surgeon didn't even use.

Well, if only a portion of a packet of sterilized product or equipment goes unused, we still have to pay for it, but it goes into the damn garbage.

Not anymore.

Now, those unused BUT STILL GOOD AND STERILE portions now get sent to 3rd world countries or any country in need because of the initiative Clinton has helped to put in place.

No longer is that stuff just sent to the trash bin, and they are things that are perfectly usable and healthy. Instead, they are sent to other countries where they CAN be used instead of just being thrown away.

This is the first example of something tangible that I've seen that really makes sense and does good for the entire world.

I'm sorry for such a long post, but I've had a lot to get off of my chest.

I know it is my right to vote in a month. But I choose not to vote until there is someone in office, at least in my own district, who cares that much.

Edited September 26, 2006 by truthorder

[Lord Umbarger]

If a Libritarian were to win the presidency, neither party would work with him. It would be the most ineffectual presidency in U.S. history. Oddly enough, I do think that if there were enough Libritarians in Congress to support him/her, I think it could be the second golden age for the U.S.

[Celumnaz]

It's not your right to vote as a citizen, it's your duty. (cliche but true)

If we can't have our revolutions at the polls, it WILL spread out into the streets.

[Celumnaz]

I see alot of postings of opinion peices, so to keep in line here's an interesting take on the Clinton interview posted yesterday.

Bill Clinton, Bin Laden, and Hysterical Revisions

Posted by Noel Sheppard on September 25, 2006 - 09:05.

Last week, former president Bill Clinton took some time out of his busy dating schedule to have a not so friendly chat with Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday. Given his rabidity, Mr. Clinton might consider taking a few milligrams of Valium the next time he allows himself to face “fair and balanced” questions, assuming once wasn’t enough that is.

This wasn’t Mr. Clinton’s finest hour. In fact, it could be by far the worst performance of his career, which is saying a lot given that his acting skills were typically much more apparent than his policy-making acumen when he was in office.

From the onset, Mr. Clinton seemed ill at ease. This is understandable, as he didn’t see the normally comforting initials of the “Clinton News Network” proudly displayed on the video cameras in front of him. But, this doesn’t absolve him of appearing before the American people as if he were Norman Bates just questioned about his mother.

On the other hand, maybe asking the former president anything of consequence these days will elicit such volatility, as the fireworks started as soon as Wallace brought up historically factual statements made in a new book, The Looming Tower. In it, author Lawrence Wright addressed how Osama bin Laden had indicated that when American troops pulled out of Somalia in 1993, he and his al Qaeda buddies saw this as an indication of American weakness.

Although this certainly couldn’t have been the first time he had heard this, it didn’t sit very well with Mr. Clinton, who lashed out in a fury akin to a president that had just been accused of having sexual relations with an intern:

I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much.

Republicans claimed that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden? He did too much to try to capture the infamous terrorist leader?

Do the facts support such assertions, or is this the typical Clinton modus operandi: when questioned about your own mistakes, bring up Republicans, neocons, and conservatives – the liberal equivalent of lions and tigers and bears…oh my – and how it’s all some kind of a conspiracy the complexities of which only Oliver Stone fully grasps.

Historically this line of attack has worked quite well with an adoring interviewer that buys such drivel hook, line, and sinker. However, what Mr. Clinton and his ilk seem to forget regularly is a recent invention known as the Internet. It is indeed odd the former president is unaware of this, inasmuch as his vice president created it.

Regardless, this tool – with the assistance of search engines and services such as LexisNexis – allows folks to go back in the past to accurately identify the truth. Sadly, as has often been the case with the rantings of the Clintons, their grasp of the past is as hazy as their understanding of what the word “is” means. At least that is the charitable interpretation.

Nothing but GOP support for getting bin Laden

With that in mind, a thorough LexisNexis search identified absolutely no instances of high-ranking Republicans ever suggesting that Mr. Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden, or did too much to apprehend him prior to the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000. Quite the contrary, Republicans were typically highly supportive of Clinton’s efforts in this regard.

As a little background, prior to the August 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, there is hardly any mention of bin Laden by President Clinton in American news transcripts. For the most part, the first real discussion of the terrorist leader by the former president – or by any U.S. politicians or pundits for that matter – began after these bombings, and escalated after the American retaliation in Afghanistan a few weeks later.

At the time, the former president was knee-deep in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, so much so that the press was abuzz with the possibility that Clinton had performed these attacks to distract the American people from his extracurricular activities much as in the movie Wag the Dog.

Were there high-ranking Republicans that piled on this assertion? Hardly. As the Associated Press reported on the day of the attacks, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) said the following on August 20, 1998:

Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do. [emphasis added]

Gingrich was not alone in his support. CNN’s Candy Crowley reported on August 21, 1998, the day after cruise missiles were sent into Afghanistan:

With law makers scattered to the four winds on August vacation, congressional offices revved up the faxes. From the Senate majority leader [Trent Lott], “Despite the current controversy, this Congress will vigorously support the president in full defense of America’s interests throughout the world.” [emphasis added]

Crowley continued:

“The United States political leadership always has and always will stand united in the face of international terrorism,” said the powerful Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee [Jesse Helms]. [emphasis added]

It was vintage rally around the flag, just as they did for Ronald Reagan when he bombed Libya, for George Bush when he sent armed forces to the Gulf.

The Atanta Journal-Constitution reported the same day:

“Our nation has taken action against very deadly terrorists opposed to the most basic principles of American freedom,” said Sen. Paul Coverdell, a Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “This action should serve as a reminder that no one is beyond the reach of American justice.” [emphasis added]

Former vice president Dan Quayle was quoted by CNN on August 23, 1998:

I don’t have a problem with the timing. You need to focus on the act itself. It was a correct act. Bill Clinton took—made a decisive decision to hit these terrorist camps. It’s probably long overdue. [emphasis added]

Were there some Republican detractors? Certainly. Chief amongst them was Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana:

I think we fear that we may have a president that is desperately seeking to hold onto his job in the face of a firestorm of criticism and calls for him to step down.

Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) also questioned the timing at first. However, other Republicans pleaded with dissenters on their side of the aisle to get on board the operation, chief amongst them, Gingrich himself. As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Speaker felt the “Wag the Dog” comparisons were “sick”:

“Anyone who saw the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, anyone who saw the coffins come home, would not ask such a question,” said the House speaker, referring to the 12 Americans killed in the embassy bombings.

In fact, Gingrich did everything within his power to head off Republican criticism of these attacks as reported by the Boston Globe on August 23, 1998:

Indeed, Gingrich even saw to it that one of his political associates, Rich Galen, sent a blast-Fax to conservative talk radio hosts urging them to lay off the president on the missile strikes, and making sure they knew of Gingrich’s strong support. [emphasis added]

That’s the same Rich Galen, by the way, who is openly urging Republican congressional candidates to try to take political advantage of the president’s sex scandal in their television advertising this fall.

Sound like Republicans were complaining about President Clinton obsessing over bin Laden? Or, does it seem that Mr. Clinton pulled this concept out of his… hat in front of Chris Wallace, and ran 99 yards with the ball, albeit in the wrong direction?

Regardless, in the end, sanity prevailed, and both Specter and Coats got on board the operation:

After reviewing intelligence information collected on bin Laden, Specter said: “I think the president acted properly.” [emphasis added]

As for “neocons,” one so-called high-ranking member, Richard Perle, wrote the following in an August 23, 1998, op-ed published in the Sunday Times:

For the first time since taking office in 1993, the Clinton administration has responded with some measure of seriousness to an act of terror against the United States. This has undoubtedly come as a surprise to Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi terrorist believed to have been behind the bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and to the regimes in Afghanistan and Sudan who provide him with sanctuary and support.

Until now they, along with other terrorists and their state sponsors in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea, have manoeuvred, plotted, connived and killed with confidence that the United States would do little or nothing in retaliation.

So Thursday’s bombing is a small step in the right direction. More important, it reverses, at least for now, a weak and ineffective Clinton policy that has emboldened terrorists and confirmed that facilitating terror is without cost to the states that do it. [emphasis added]

Does that sound like a “Bush neocon” claiming that Clinton was “obsessed with bin Laden” to you?

In reality, the only person that appears to have said that Clinton was fixated with the al Qaeda leader was Richard Clarke, who stated the following on CNN on March 24, 2004:

Bill Clinton was obsessed with getting bin Laden. Bill Clinton ordered bin Laden assassinated. He ordered not only bin Laden assassinated but all of his lieutenants.

Well, at least somebody felt Clinton was obsessed with Osama. But Clinton referred to Clarke quite favorably during his tirade.

Moving forward, conservative support for Clinton’s Afghanistan attacks didn’t end in the weeks that followed. On October 25, 1998, high-ranking Republican senator Orrin Hatch of Utah said the following on CNN:

You’ve seen the great work of the FBI and the CIA in particular with regard to the Osama bin Laden matters.

Yet, maybe more curious than the delusion by Mr. Clinton that Republicans were claiming he was obsessed with bin Laden is the fact that he believes he was. After all, if Clinton had been so focused on this terrorist leader that Republicans would have thought it was over-kill, wouldn’t there be indications of this obsession in the record?

Quite the contrary, much as there is no evidence of any Republican expressing such an opinion, there is no evidence that anti-terrorism efforts were a huge focus of the Clinton administration. For instance, just five months after the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Africa, President Clinton gave a State of the Union address.

Think terrorism or the capture of bin Laden was a central focus to the supposedly obsessed former president? Hardly. In a one-hour, seventeen minute speech to the nation on January 19, 1999, this is all President Clinton had to say about such issues:

As we work for peace, we must also meet threats to our nation’s security, including increased danger from outlaw nations and terrorism. We will defend our security wherever we are threatened—as we did this summer when we struck at Osama bin Laden’s network of terror.

The bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania reminds us again of the risks faced every day by those who represent America to the world. So let’s give them the support they need, the safest possible workplaces, and the resources they must have so America can continue to lead.

We must work to keep terrorists from disrupting computer networks. We must work to prepare local communities for biological and chemical emergencies, to support research into vaccines and treatments.

Furthermore, twelve months later, even though he spoke for almost an hour and a half during his final State of the Union address on January 27, 2000, according to a LexisNexis search, the name Osama bin Laden was never mentioned. This appears almost impossible to believe given revelations that very morning about a connection between the individual apprehended trying to cross the Canadian border with explosives in December and bin Laden.

So much for obsession.

Sadly, this entire incident speaks volumes about how the press have given Clinton a pass for his transgressions, and, maybe more important, the danger of such negligence. When one watches this interview, it is easy to see a man that is unused to challenging questions from the media. After all, this is the first time that Clinton agreed to be on Fox News Sunday, and, as a result, he’s become so accustomed to the softballs fed to him by folks like Tim Russert and George Stephanopoulos that he feels it’s his right to not be challenged.

Just look at some of the disdain Clinton showed for his interviewer all because he was asked a question he didn’t want to answer:

You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about…You said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion dollars plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.

Or, how about this wonderful statement by a former president:

And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…

Or this one:

So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me.

Just imagine President Bush speaking this way to a member of the media when he is being grilled either during a press conference, or in the middle of any of his interviews since he became president. Or getting in the face of his interviewer and tapping on the host’s notepad that’s sitting on his lap.

Would this be acceptable? Not a chance. However, such was the behavior of America’s 42nd president. And, as much as he and his troops appear to be aggressively defending his actions to preserve his legacy, they have failed to recognize that such displays in front of a well-regarded member of the press will defeat their purposes no matter how much they try to rationalize them.

In the end, it’s not clear which is more surprising: Mr. Clinton once again lying to the American people and disgracing himself so, or that he didn’t realize that in his self-absorbed desire to revise history for the benefit of posterity, he was actually doing himself more harm than good.http://newsbusters.org/node/7869

Much better than just opinion is opinion chalked stuffed full of facts. And some people still stand by the "man".

[Twitch98]

It was simply another case of a smartazz media geek poking someone with a stick. This is what so called media journaism has sunk to. It is no different if it was Bush or Clinton or Brad Pitt! It's the same old tactic of continuing to ask the same nauseating question over and over and over untill you get some sort of sound and/or video bite to air so your station can get a ratings scoop. It's like watching a sports team use the same plays over and over till it gets so boring and predictable you change the damned channel.

[SharkBait]

This is all a never ending cycle, the guy who came before has always had the finger pointed at him, especially when they are of opposite parties. The same thing will happen when Bush is gone, even more so if the Dems retake office. When the **** really hits the fan in Iran, North Korea, or wherever it may be, they'll look back and say "Hey! He could have done more to prevent this."

If the politicians would get their heads out of their rears and quit being so bound by party lines, maybe they could get more accomplished. The truth is, most all our leaders have had some skeletons of some sort in their closet but I don't see that as a reason for the other party to spend the entire length of his presidency slinging mud, when they could be getting something constructive accomplished. Seems the only thing the parties will ever agree on is "to disagree".

*BTW Twitch, Your views of the media are right on the money imo.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

I see alot of postings of opinion peices, so to keep in line here's an interesting take on the Clinton interview posted yesterday.

Much better than just opinion is opinion chalked stuffed full of facts. And some people still stand by the "man".

You're actually referencing Noel Sheppard, that conservative hack

He's attacking Clinton, wow that's so surprising

Edited September 26, 2006 by Avinash_Tyagi

[Raptor Witness]

I'm nearly as conservative as they come, and I couldn't stand Bill Clinton while he was in office.

But I will say this much............

What he has done after his Presidency rivals or surpasses any American President in recent memory, but it never gets reported.

The reason why it's not getting reported is simply because he doesn't want it to get reported.

He has done a TON of things for the healthcare industry in his time out of office that haven't been reported and has tried like hell to bridge a gap between the right and left wings in America to establish at least some semblance of common ground.

I love my country, but I will not vote in any elections anymore because I have finally realized that it's not going to make a difference because it won't matter who is in office.

If a Democrat is in office, then the Republicans care more about chopping him down than dealing with what is really important. If a Republican is in office then the Democrats care more about chopping him down than dealing with what's really important.

A good friend of mine who I recently told this to asked me to support the Libertarian Party. I refuse. If the Libertarians were to miraculously gain control, they'd be lambasted just as much as a leader of the other two parties.

Nobody in any position of power in this country can do any good and I'm absolutely ashamed at myself for having my own blinders on and not realizing it sooner.

Patience Cubs, a power has come to assist, much greater than Karl Rove's bag of dirty tricks. A donkey can be reformed with maturity, but the elephant shall always trample mankind.

The Holy Spirit of Truth is here with us. Know that in this age, what appears good at first is really evil, and what appears evil at first, may really be good.

[Fluffybunny]

Raptor, out of respect for others who may not have a connection as fast as yours, please do not post photos that have nothing to do with the topic and are simply adding wasted bandwidth to be downloaded.

[Pinky Floyd]

Patience Cubs, a power has come to assist, much greater than Karl Rove's bag of dirty tricks. A donkey can be reformed with maturity, but the elephant shall always trample mankind.

WTF???

If anything they are amusing...

[Aztec Warrior]

It was simply another case of a smartazz media geek poking someone with a stick. This is what so called media journaism has sunk to. It is no different if it was Bush or Clinton or Brad Pitt! It's the same old tactic of continuing to ask the same nauseating question over and over and over untill you get some sort of sound and/or video bite to air so your station can get a ratings scoop. It's like watching a sports team use the same plays over and over till it gets so boring and predictable you change the damned channel.

Actually, if you do a nexis search you would see that NO other reporter has asked the almighty Clinton this question. And why would they, when he only appears on left leaning drive-by media outlets.

[AROCES]

That would be rage, rather than just dissatisfaction, they may not like us there, but they probably aren't at the point of hate yet

They like us, but like any country they would not want to be seen as a country ruled by another country. The hate won't happen for USA will leave if ask to leave, that is given.

[__Kratos__]

Why Bill Clinton Planned His Tantrum

No president in the modern age has had to face an “insurgency” of relentless criticism from not one, but two former presidents—both dedicated to undermining his policies. Bill Clinton’s appearance on Fox News yesterday is a case in point, calculated to score points through attacks on the “right-wing conspiracy” and President Bush.

Jimmy Carter is still trying to build his legacy and sell books—but he’s not much more than a gadfly these days. William Jefferson Clinton is important for a number of reasons: He’s still the heart and soul of the Democratic Party; European liberals love him; and his wife is setting herself up for a presidential run.

Obviously, Clinton would like to regain the White House, even if it’s just as “First Gentleman,” but there are other forces at work as well to make him sit down for the first time with the Fox News. The stated reason was his three-day Global Initiative Conference, and half of Chris Wallace’s interview was supposed to touch on that—but Clinton would not allow Wallace to get to that subject.

Wallace asked a simple if overlong question about Clinton’s efforts to deal with Osama bin Laden. With the recent ABC docudrama “The Path to 9/11” still eating at him, Clinton went off on a tirade.

Clinton accused Wallace of mounting a right-wing hit job on him at the behest of Fox News, while throwing softballs to the Bush Administration. Clinton was visibly angry and combative. But was he putting on?

His wife is running for president, his party is often considered weak on national security issues, and he desperately wants the Democrats to take back Congress in the midterms. He’s mad at the right-wing conspiracy for somehow convincing ABC to run a movie that might be damaging to his legacy and to Democratic prospects now and in 2008.

What a perfect way to score points! You go on the one network that liberals perceive as a mouthpiece for the other side, and you wait for the inevitable question about bin Laden. And when you get it, you launch into a tirade designed to make headlines and build the base.

Meanwhile, the softballs that Clinton accused Wallace of firing at the Bush Administration were being hurled at Clinton over on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” There was no vitriol in Clinton at all as Tim Russert set him up with easy questions and never, ever interrupted him or came back with tough follow-ups. Like he does with every other interview.

In fact, Chris Wallace said in a later appearance that Clinton had appeared the same week with Russert, Larry King, Keith Olbermann and Meredith Vieria on “Today”—and never once did they ask about his record in fighting al Qaeda.

You have to believe that Clinton offered himself up to Fox for the explicit purpose of going off on Chris Wallace. It was the perfect way to undermine Fox News, the so-called right-wing conspiracy, and President Bush’s policies while appearing to simply be defending his honor.

If this wasn’t a planned tantrum, then why wouldn’t Clinton have just answered the question and moved on? He was obviously expecting it, likely hoping for it, and totally prepared for it.

As to whether Clinton laid a glove on Fox News or President Bush, time will tell. Left-wingers will be applauding and saying that it’s about time someone fired back at Fox News. Right-wingers will point out that Wallace never pressed Clinton about reports that he was offered bin Laden on more than one occasion by Sudan and that Saudi Arabia (whose government bin Laden was committed to overthrow) had sought American help in removing bin Laden from Sudan.

On the question posed by Clinton of the Bush Administration, “Why didn’t you do something about the Cole?”—Wallace did not come back with a statement that the CIA killed Ali Qaed Sinan al-Harthi on Nov. 4, 2002, using a Hellfire missile fired from an unmanned drone. That’s the guy we think planned the U.S.S. Cole bombing.

Wallace really wasn’t all that tough on Clinton, who, after all, could have gone on ABC’s “This Week” and been interviewed by George Stephanopoulos who used to be a top Clinton aide. But Clinton was spoiling for a fight, and to get it, he had to go on Fox.

Clinton Gives Us Another Finger

Former President Bill Clinton shook his left index finger at Chris Wallace during an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” denying charges he and his administration did too little to catch Osama bin Laden and ward off the 9/11 terror attacks. Leaning forward and appearing angry, Clinton said, “…at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They (the Bush administration) had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed.”

Clinton added that he authorized the CIA “to get groups together to try to kill (bin Laden).” He said he had drawn up plans to go into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and launch an attack against bin Laden after the Oct. 12, 2000 attack on the USS Cole in the Yemeni part of Aden. Clinton suggested the plan was thwarted because Uzbekistan would not grant basing rights and only did so after 9/11.

Clinton apparently is coming out about this now because of the recently aired ABC film “The Path to 9/11,” which portrayed him and his top aides as indecisive at best, and incompetent at worst, when they failed to take advantage of an opportunity to kill bin Laden. A docudrama is not necessary to counter Clinton’s claims. There is testimony from many sources that he and his administration blew chances to nail the al-Qaida mastermind.

One credible source is Michael Scheuer, a 22-year CIA veteran who used to head the Counterterrorist Center’s bin Laden unit. Scheuer, who is referred to as “Mike” in the 9/11 Commission Report, wrote a July 5 op-ed column in The Washington Times. In it, he referred to former “terrorism czar” Richard Clarke and Clarke’s assertion in his book “Against All Enemies” that the CIA failed to put operatives in Afghanistan to kill bin Laden, relying instead on Afghan locals. Scheuer writes, “In spring 1998, I briefed Mr. Clarke and senior CIA, Department of Defense and FBI officers on a plan to kidnap bin Laden. Mr. Clarke’s reaction was that ‘it was just a thinly disguised attempt to assassinate bin Laden.’ I replied that if he wanted bin Laden dead, we could do the job quickly. Mr. Clarke’s response was that the president did not want bin Laden assassinated, and that we had no authority to do so.”

The planning and plotting by the hijackers was done on Bill Clinton’s watch and executed eight months into the Bush administration, which refused to heed warning signs that an attack was imminent. A wealth of information and evidence about the laxness of the Clinton administration can be found by Googling “Clinton failures to catch terrorists and bin Laden.” Some postings are from what might be regarded as “right-wing” Web sites, but others are from such left-wing sources as The Los Angeles Times.

In a Dec. 5, 2001 op-ed for that newspaper, Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and chairman of an investment company in New York, wrote, “President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates. … I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.”

Ijaz says that from 1996 to 1998 he opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration, including National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Sudan’s president and national intelligence chief, “President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt’s Islamic Jihad, Iran’s Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

“Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center. The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was defeaning.”

When considering whether to take Bill Clinton’s outrage seriously, it is helpful to revisit his notorious finger wagging when he forcefully denied having had sex with Monica Lewinsky. The Web site YouTube.com has juxtaposed the latest finger wagging with the previous one. Viewers can judge for themselves whether Clinton’s latest claim and blame should be believed anymore than his previous denial of extramarital sex with an intern.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He got closer to killing Osama alright... He just failed to press the kill button. Yeah, that's quite the arguement against the 'right-wing conspiracy'.

[AROCES]

First time I saw the video. Clinton simply lost it and he felt cornered, so he tried to charged forward and intimidate.

He could have simply answered the question. That would have been the smart thing to do and be dignified.

But it's Clinton.

[IronGhost]

First time I saw the video. Clinton simply lost it and he felt cornered, so he tried to charged forward and intimidate.

He could have simply answered the question. That would have been the smart thing to do and be dignified.

But it's Clinton.

You must have seen a different video than I did -- far from "losing it" Clinton took that little pip squeek Wallace out to the woodshed and gave him a thrashing in a finely-tuned and controlled manner. Wallace's endless, self-superior smirk was finally wiped from his face by someone who clearly outclasses him intellectually, and in terms of accomplishments on the world stage.

[__Kratos__]

You must have seen a different video than I did -- far from "losing it" Clinton took that little pip squeek Wallace out to the woodshed and gave him a thrashing in a finely-tuned and controlled manner. Wallace's endless, self-superior smirk was finally wiped from his face by someone who clearly outclasses him intellectually, and in terms of accomplishments on the world stage.

Yeah, that's called losing it and Wallace being the bigger man by not getting angry back and letting Clinton get his goat.

Update: Rice challenges Clinton 9/11 comments

NEW YORK - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenged former President Clinton's claim that he did more than many of his conservative critics to pursue Osama bin Laden, and she accused President Bush's predecessor of leaving no comprehensive plan to fight al-Qaida.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice said Monday during a meeting with editors and reporters at the New York Post.

The newspaper published her comments Tuesday, after Clinton appeared on "Fox News Sunday" in a combative interview in which he defended his handling of the threat posed by bin Laden and said he "worked hard" to have the al-Qaida leader killed.

"That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said in the interview. "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try."

Rice disputed his assessment.

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false — and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," she said.

Rice took exception to Clinton's statement that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for incoming officials when he left office.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida," she told the newspaper, which is owned by News Corp., which also owns Fox News Channel.

In the TV interview, Clinton accused host Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job" and asked: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, 'Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many people you asked, 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?'"

He was referring to the USS Cole, attacked by terrorists in Yemen in 2000, and former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke.

Rice said Clarke "left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security."

The interview has been the focus of much attention — drawing nearly 1.2 million views on YouTube and earning the show its best ratings in nearly three years.

Rice questioned the value of the dialogue.

"I think this is not a very fruitful discussion," she said. "We've been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said."

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., defended her husband.

"I just think that my husband did a great job in demonstrating that Democrats are not going to take this," she told Newsday on Monday.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clinton just had to rant a little bit... Even more so with his ever famous 'finger'.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Though would anyone expect Rice to agree with Clinton

[Reincarnated]

First time I saw the video. Clinton simply lost it and he felt cornered, so he tried to charged forward and intimidate.

He could have simply answered the question. That would have been the smart thing to do and be dignified.

But it's Clinton.

And they say liberals are out of touch from reality...