TVSquad

All I can say about this - is good for Mr. Clinton. It's about time someone called these so-called reporters out on their agenda. People have been politely accepting all their innuendos and spin without saying, enough is enough.
My hope is that more politicians do what Clinton did - maybe then we will get back to real news from reporters instead of recycled talking points from the administration.

Reply

ballistic is not an appropriate word, its too negative. he was just putting people in their place

Reply

Conservatives going wild in the comments section in 3... 2... 1...

Reply

I can't believe this guy was president (thank Ross Perot for that one).

Is this really the way for a former president to act? Chris Wallace looked like he was fearing for his life.

Shameful, shameful, shameful.

It's about time someone called these so-called politicians out on their agenda. People have been politely accepting all their innuendos and spin without saying, enough is enough.

My hope is that more reporters do what Wallce did - maybe then we will get back to real news from reporters instead of recycled talking points from the Democratic National Committee.

Reply

Clinton always gets angry when he's called out on his lies, just like he did when he swore he "...did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski." Either way, he lost a lot of credibility by losing his cool.

Reply

Clinton wants to make it incorrect, or at least impolite, to criticize his record on terror. Chris Wallace stood up to him. Will others? Will his next interviewer raise the same set of questions? Will they be willing to take the criticism of being "conservative hit men" or part of the vast, Fox-centered right-wing conspiracy? Bullying and intimidation sometimes work. Clinton has used both effectively in the past. Now he wants to put out of bounds certain perfectly legitimate and straight-forward questions. Can we debate which party--based on their practice when in power--can better deal with the jihadist/terror threat? No, according to Clinton. That's illegitimate right-wing propaganda. Whose personal reputation benefits from putting such issues out of bounds? Which political party benefits? Which 2008 presidential candidate?

Reply

Actually, rt, if Clinton had spent more time tracking down the people behind the embassy bombings, the attack on the cole, the FIRST attack on the world trade center and responding to Osama actually declaring War on the U.S. back in 1996, and less time on well .. other things, maybe none of those 6,000 people would have died.

Second, it should also be noted that Mike Wallace asked the SAME questions to both Sec. Rice and Sec. Rumsfeld. Clinton is just the only one who has a guilty conscious.

http://patterico.com/2006/09/24/5187/chris-wallace-has-indeed-grilled-bush-officials-about-failing-to-get-osama-before-911/

Third, if you are going to describe Fox News as a "conservative channel" then you should include the same thing when writing about CNN, which is completely in a Left wing channel these days.

It's a two way street people.

Fourth,

Clinton said "Right Wingers" attacked him when he made those attacks, something couldn't be further from the truth. You can read all the quotes in the ABC News Political Blog here:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/

via none of then the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/react082198.htm

Here are just some of the quotes:

"I think the president did exactly the right thing," said House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said. "By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists." Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) called the attacks "appropriate and just," and House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said "the American people stand united in the face of terrorism."

The AP says: "Gingrich dismissed any possibility that Clinton may have ordered the attacks to divert attention from the scandal. Instead, he said, there was an urgent need for a reprisal following the Aug. 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. 'Anyone who watched the film of the bombings, anyone who saw the coffins come home knows better than to question this timing,' Gingrich said. 'It was done as early as possible to send a message to terrorists across the globe that killing Americans has a cost. It has no relationship with any other activity of any kind."

Reply

I don't think anyone's answering post author Joel Keller's question- was Clinton right to go off like he did? Or was Chris Wallace right to even ask him that question? Enough with the lives lost tally and shameful president bullcrap. THIS QUESTION IS IMPORTANT- is Clinton required to answer questions like these? Is Chris Wallace wrong to ask him questions like these?

I wanted to hear this question asked of Clinton. Well, he definately answered it, but I got the distinct feeling that Clinton himself doesn't ever believe he should have to answer anyone's questions about anything. This is not acceptable.

Reply

Azimuth,

Why WOULDNT he be able ask these questions? These are questions everyone has been throwing at Bush since 9/12. These questions could and should be asked of everyone in both administrations, and some would argue even going back to Bush I/Reagan/Carter. After all, this didn't all start in the 90's this has roots reaching back into the 70's.

Another thing, Wallace really did ask other people these same questions. It's not spin. You can see exactly the questions Wallace asked Rice and Rumsfeld.

Rice:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213211,00.html

Rumsfeld:
http://patterico.com/2006/09/24/5187/chris-wallace-has-indeed-grilled-bush-officials-about-failing-to-get-osama-before-911/

Reply

I don't think Clinton got any more "ballistic" than
President Bush has been throughout his term. And although some may not agree with his presentation, Clinton really didn't say anything that wasn't true.
Heck, I was one of the people accusing Clinton of "wagging the dog" every time he wanted to go after bin Laden or anyone else associated with terrorism.

I do Clinton was justified in being upset over having the nature of the interview changed the moment the cameras started to roll. If we are going to discuss how a former president should talk, we also ought to discuss how a former president should be treated. But at least we know Clinton isn't requiring that interview questions be preapproved and press conferences be scripted.

I thought Wallace looked like he was having the time of his life. He probably was thinking about how it would be on YouTube before he even had a chance to take his tie off after the interview.

Reply

its a like an ex-boyfriend & ex-girlfriend, always
drudging up old feelings and who was right & wrong and neither one wants to open a can of worms but it happens anyways.

im not totally sure what wallace's agenda was, if he had one, but clinton's is his environment thingy, at least thats what i gather.

i say everyone should be tough on everyone, no holding
back questions. conservatives should ask conservatives what they ask liberals and liberals should ask liberals what they ask conservatives.

its all a big mess and everyone in the news and
politics, and i dont think this excludes anyone, everyone is a hypocritic.

Reply

Hey RT, you seem to forget the 3000 people who died on 9/11. If Slick Willie was so determined as he says he was, this never would have happend. Thanks for trying though.

Reply

I agree with courtney. Clinton set the record straight, and it is pretty obvious that he would have haldeld things a lot better in a post 9/11 World.

Bottom line of all the ways to do things, Bush and his people picked the worst way. So I think Clinton was right to defend himself.

Reply

Clinton comes off juvinile. Seems like a man with a guilty consciuous.

Reply

Tammy, it was already revealed that Clinton told Wallace he could have 15 minutes to talk about the CGI and 15 minutes for anything else. Once Wallace asked the questions Clinton didnt like, it was Clinton who used the rest of the time to defend himself, this making the entire interview "about something else"

this is from the article linked above.

"The groundrules were simple--15 minutes--to be divided evenly between questions about the Clinton Global Initiative and anything else I wanted to ask.

I intended to keep to the groundrules. In fact--I prepared 10 questions--5 on the CGI and 5 on other issues.

I began the interview with 2 questions about Mr. Clinton's commitment to humanitarian causes. His answers were cogent and good-humored.

Then--I asked him about his Administration's record in fighting terror--fully intending to come back to CGI later (as indeed I did).

I asked what I thought was a non-confrontational question about whether he could have done more to "connect the dots and really go after al Qaeda."

I was utterly surprised by the tidal wave of details--emotion--and political attacks that followed."

Reply

I don't see how this is Clinton going ballistic. He was asked questions by Chris Wallace, and did his best to answer them, despite being continually interupted by Chris Wallace. Now, maybe he went a little too far in criticizing Fox News' right wing bias, and really he made the mistake of lumping all of Fox News in with Chris Wallace, when Mr. Wallace only represents himself.

Reply

Alberto, it's because of the way Clinton FAILED to take care of things during his 8 years in office that we are forced to address now:

-1993 World Trade Center Bombing
-1994 US Troops humiliated in Somalia (which Bin Laden says proved the US has no spine)
-1995 bombings of not one, but two US Embassies in Africa.
-1996 Bombing of the US barracks in Saudi Arabia
-1998 Lobbying cruise missles at an asprin factory
-1999 bobmbing of the USS Cole

It's funny how now he says he was so focused on capturing Bin Laden. How can anyone take this guy seriously.

President Bush may not have have done a great job with the post Iraq planning, but last time I checked, it's been 5 years since we've been attacked. That's a hell of a better track record than Clinton.

Reply

const, how can anyone take anyone seriously. one guy cant do it all. bush cant do it all, clinton couldnt do it all, the other bush couldnt do it all. you cant lump clinton or bush into everything thats wrong in present or past. the ceo of a corp isn't responsible for everything, thats what a boardroom committee is for, just like the president has congress, cia, fbi, nsa, etc... one man cant do it all. one man cant see it all.

like a itch now can turn out to be cancer 10 years down the road.

im guessing your saying is that all other agencies are incapable of lifting one finger against everyone because of one guy. and to be more dramtic, i guess it would seem that not one single person has ever been arrested during the clinton years for anything, not possesson of drugs or shoplifting, because clinton was president. so, terror ensues during 8 specific years and things are fine the next 8 years.

Reply

const, when you have a close family working with military intelligence come back from 1 year of duty and feel like they worsened the situation rather than help the situation by being in Iraq you kinda wonder maybe the TWIG sat his ass around his TX crawford ranch a little too much rather than getting a reality check! Maybe you need a reality check as well.

Reply

I dont remember 6,000 people dying under Mr. Clinton's watch. And Bush???

Reply