Wow did the old boy get wound up with M Wallace in a interview. Im sure many of you saw it. It was good to see him fire back . I think it's time more of the politicians should let lose with guys like this that are pious. And folks like Lush and some of these talking heads that can't win a seat in office but think they have the answers. Like Buchanan.
Clinton Vs Wallace
- Thread starter djv
- Start date
Was a long winded rant--however believe he was ranting at wrong guy--Wallace is one of few on Fox that has stuck up for Clinton in the past--which is why I assume he got the interview.
1st off I thought Bill would be smarter than to use the ole:nono: again to give impression of what he said was gospel.
However more importantly I don't know many times he referred to Clarkes book to back up what he was saying.
So we are suppose to take the view of fellow who writes book and by admitting any failure on administration would be equally admitting his own failure--and was axed in Gw's admin and doesn't have ax to grind????
Haven't read his book to comment on any it--just saying there is lots of reasons for bias all pointing in same direction.
1st off I thought Bill would be smarter than to use the ole:nono: again to give impression of what he said was gospel.
However more importantly I don't know many times he referred to Clarkes book to back up what he was saying.
So we are suppose to take the view of fellow who writes book and by admitting any failure on administration would be equally admitting his own failure--and was axed in Gw's admin and doesn't have ax to grind????
Haven't read his book to comment on any it--just saying there is lots of reasons for bias all pointing in same direction.
Consider what Bill said Clarkes book stated and then read this interview with Clarke--Bear in mind this report was BEFORE his termination.
WASHINGTON ? The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.
RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office ? issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies ? and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.
Over the course of the summer ? last point ? they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.
QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the ? general animus against the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.
JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that's correct.
ANGLE: OK.
QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?
CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues ? like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy ? that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.
QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...
CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.
ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?
CLARKE: In October of '98.
QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?
CLARKE: Right, which was in September.
QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...
CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.
QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?
CLARKE: There was no new plan.
QUESTION: No new strategy ? I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...
CLARKE: Plan, strategy ? there was no, nothing new.
QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...
CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.
QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?
CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.
ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?
CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?
One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.
ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...
CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed ? began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.
QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?
CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.
(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)
ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no ? one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?
CLARKE: You got it. That's right.
QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?
CLARKE: That's right.
QUESTION: I want to add though, that NSPD ? the actual work on it began in early April.
CLARKE: There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel.
ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda ? did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?
CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.
QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?
CLARKE: Yes it did.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?
CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.
QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?
CLARKE: No, it was March.
QUESTION: The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops ? now we haven't completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda?
CLARKE: I can not try to speculate on that point. I don't know what we would have done.
QUESTION: In your judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground?
CLARKE: Uh, yeah, I think it was. I think it was. If we'd had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance.
WASHINGTON ? The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.
RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office ? issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies ? and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.
Over the course of the summer ? last point ? they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.
QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the ? general animus against the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.
JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that's correct.
ANGLE: OK.
QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?
CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues ? like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy ? that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.
QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...
CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.
ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?
CLARKE: In October of '98.
QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?
CLARKE: Right, which was in September.
QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...
CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.
QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?
CLARKE: There was no new plan.
QUESTION: No new strategy ? I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...
CLARKE: Plan, strategy ? there was no, nothing new.
QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...
CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.
QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?
CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.
ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?
CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?
One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.
ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...
CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed ? began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.
QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?
CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.
(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)
ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no ? one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?
CLARKE: You got it. That's right.
QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?
CLARKE: That's right.
QUESTION: I want to add though, that NSPD ? the actual work on it began in early April.
CLARKE: There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel.
ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda ? did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?
CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.
QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?
CLARKE: Yes it did.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?
CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.
QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?
CLARKE: No, it was March.
QUESTION: The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops ? now we haven't completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda?
CLARKE: I can not try to speculate on that point. I don't know what we would have done.
QUESTION: In your judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground?
CLARKE: Uh, yeah, I think it was. I think it was. If we'd had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance.
i`m not a clinton hater..jimmy carter`s another story.....
but,i was shocked when i realized that these two had much in common...
carter grew peanuts....
clinton grew pea-nus....
but,i was shocked when i realized that these two had much in common...
carter grew peanuts....
clinton grew pea-nus....
Has anyone on Fox ever asked a Republican from this administration why they haven't done more to get Bin Laden?
I don't have a problem with what Wallace asked - it was valid. I don't have a problem with Clinton's anger - it too was valid. Of course when they show highlights of the interview now, they only show his anger, they don't show that he ACTUALLY ANSWERS THE QUESTION IN DETAIL.
OK, Fox - if you are truly fair and balanced then please get Bush, Cheney, or Rice and ask them the same question. I wasn't a history major, but I think 9-11 actually happened under THEIR WATCH. It's really quite awesome to see Fox spin out of that FACT and get everyone all turned out and under the belief that this was the fault of a guy who'd been out of office 9 months rather than the guy who was/still is president.
If Fox is concerned about Bin Laden, why don't they ever bring up Bush's thoughts on Bin Laden in March 2002....
"I don't know where he is. I'm truly not that concerned about him".
I don't have a problem with what Wallace asked - it was valid. I don't have a problem with Clinton's anger - it too was valid. Of course when they show highlights of the interview now, they only show his anger, they don't show that he ACTUALLY ANSWERS THE QUESTION IN DETAIL.
OK, Fox - if you are truly fair and balanced then please get Bush, Cheney, or Rice and ask them the same question. I wasn't a history major, but I think 9-11 actually happened under THEIR WATCH. It's really quite awesome to see Fox spin out of that FACT and get everyone all turned out and under the belief that this was the fault of a guy who'd been out of office 9 months rather than the guy who was/still is president.
If Fox is concerned about Bin Laden, why don't they ever bring up Bush's thoughts on Bin Laden in March 2002....
"I don't know where he is. I'm truly not that concerned about him".
AhSmurph i have been saying this for years. This station is a cancer to this country and it preys on the weakminded. Pretty soon we are gonna get a steady dash of the looters from New Orleans. This reminds the weak and brittle to make sure they don't forget about race.
Murph, don't you remember, Bush is getting him DEAD OR ALIVE. that's why he pulled the special forces off even looking for him.
He'll get him dead, probably from old age, and maybe six th generation, Saudi, French, Australian, British, Canadian, and our intelligence will report him dead.
He'll get him dead, probably from old age, and maybe six th generation, Saudi, French, Australian, British, Canadian, and our intelligence will report him dead.
"Has anyone on Fox ever asked a Republican from this administration why they haven't done more to get Bin Laden?"
I guess you forgot Oreilly's interview with Bush last year Smurph--he also grilled him on securing the borders as well as eight other points my memory fails to recall but you can do search here as entire interview is somewhere here but if you remember we went through similiar discussion with someone else back then until interview was put to print.
--and I watched entire interview with Clinton also saw Wallace comments on interview next day in which he said Clinton's PR guy was standing next to Fox producer and telling him to cut interview but he wouldn't.
Now one thing in Clintons defence that hasn't been discussed much that was a fact and I feel pertinent and is sore spot on both parties to me depending who is in power--was Bills referral to GOP accusation of tail wagging the dog on one of his few efforts to try and get UBL and I was prob just as quilty at time.
I guess you forgot Oreilly's interview with Bush last year Smurph--he also grilled him on securing the borders as well as eight other points my memory fails to recall but you can do search here as entire interview is somewhere here but if you remember we went through similiar discussion with someone else back then until interview was put to print.
--and I watched entire interview with Clinton also saw Wallace comments on interview next day in which he said Clinton's PR guy was standing next to Fox producer and telling him to cut interview but he wouldn't.
Now one thing in Clintons defence that hasn't been discussed much that was a fact and I feel pertinent and is sore spot on both parties to me depending who is in power--was Bills referral to GOP accusation of tail wagging the dog on one of his few efforts to try and get UBL and I was prob just as quilty at time.
well, in 2004 Wallace himself put these questions to Rumsfeld.
Wallace even used Clarke's charges to ask Rummy: "What do you make of his basic charge that, pre-9/11, that this government, the Bush administration, largely ignored the threat from Al Qaeda?"
Mark Updegrove at "The Nation" has some common sense a few interesting tidbits to say about Clinton/Chris Wallace:
Get Me Rewrite
Mark Updegrove
It was said of Lyndon Johnson that he wanted to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. LBJ, the very definition of "bigger than life," rarely let the spotlight warm to another, and upon taking the reins of presidential power he had grand ambitions for his legacy on par with those of his political hero, Franklin Roosevelt. But just over five years later, when he packed his bags and left the White House after forgoing another run for his party's presidential nomination, the Vietnam War, which raged on with no end in sight, compromised his place in the presidential pantheon.
Bill Clinton, the only other President in the last two generations who truly fits the definition "bigger than life" and matches up to LBJ's legendary ego, also had great aspirations for his presidency and, like LBJ, obsessed over his presidential legacy. Six years after relinquishing office, however, Clinton finds his historical standing threatened not by his impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky affair--or other scandals left in his wake--but over whether he did enough to combat the growing threat of Al Qaeda.
Unlike LBJ, who retreated to his ranch in Texas Hill Country and threw himself into exile, unplugging almost completely from the political and media worlds, Clinton has remained as actively engaged as almost any of his predecessors--and as defensive of his presidential actions. Clinton's September 24 appearance on Fox News wasn't the first time he has taken exception to the media's evaluation of his presidency. In his first year out of office, his press aide got used to being stirred in the wee hours by phone calls from the boss "ranting and raving about something." "Sir," the aide learned to respond dispassionately, "Are you watching Fox [News] again?" This time however, the diatribe took place in front of the camera.
Since the 9/11 attacks, Clinton has been particularly sensitive about his Administration's handling of terrorism, readily pointing to his Administration's record: breaking up twenty Al Qaeda cells; thwarting plots involving the bombings of Los Angeles International Airport and New York's Holland Tunnel timed around the millennium; more than tripling the budget for the government's anti-terrorism efforts; and attacking Osama bin Laden's Afghanistan training camp, narrowly missing bin Laden himself. As Clinton said in 2005, "I always thought bin Laden was a bigger threat than the Bush Administration did," adding that he "desperately" wished he had been President when the FBI and CIA confirmed that bin Laden had been behind the USS Cole bombing on October 12, 2000, at which time he would have driven the Taliban out of Afghanistan.
"I don't know if it would have prevented 9/11," he said. "But it certainly would have complicated it." While ABC's The Path to 9/11 may have misled viewers on Clinton's efforts, the 570-page 9/11 commission report on which it was supposedly based was almost as damning, accusing both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations of not understanding "the gravity of the threat" from Al Qaeda due to a "failure of imagination."
In fact, it will take at least a generation--well after the Clinton Administration's record can be used for political purposes--to get a sense of how Clinton will play in history. LBJ died four years after he left the presidency, the day before Nixon announced to the nation that peace was at hand in Vietnam, when the forest of his Administration could barely be seen for the trees. During the Fox interview, Chris Wallace referenced an earlier interview in which Clinton was asked if he could wind up doing more good as a former President than as a President. "Only if I live a long time," Clinton had responded. That may also be the only way Clinton will get a true sense of the light history will ultimately throw on his legacy.
Wallace even used Clarke's charges to ask Rummy: "What do you make of his basic charge that, pre-9/11, that this government, the Bush administration, largely ignored the threat from Al Qaeda?"
Mark Updegrove at "The Nation" has some common sense a few interesting tidbits to say about Clinton/Chris Wallace:
Get Me Rewrite
Mark Updegrove
It was said of Lyndon Johnson that he wanted to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. LBJ, the very definition of "bigger than life," rarely let the spotlight warm to another, and upon taking the reins of presidential power he had grand ambitions for his legacy on par with those of his political hero, Franklin Roosevelt. But just over five years later, when he packed his bags and left the White House after forgoing another run for his party's presidential nomination, the Vietnam War, which raged on with no end in sight, compromised his place in the presidential pantheon.
Bill Clinton, the only other President in the last two generations who truly fits the definition "bigger than life" and matches up to LBJ's legendary ego, also had great aspirations for his presidency and, like LBJ, obsessed over his presidential legacy. Six years after relinquishing office, however, Clinton finds his historical standing threatened not by his impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky affair--or other scandals left in his wake--but over whether he did enough to combat the growing threat of Al Qaeda.
Unlike LBJ, who retreated to his ranch in Texas Hill Country and threw himself into exile, unplugging almost completely from the political and media worlds, Clinton has remained as actively engaged as almost any of his predecessors--and as defensive of his presidential actions. Clinton's September 24 appearance on Fox News wasn't the first time he has taken exception to the media's evaluation of his presidency. In his first year out of office, his press aide got used to being stirred in the wee hours by phone calls from the boss "ranting and raving about something." "Sir," the aide learned to respond dispassionately, "Are you watching Fox [News] again?" This time however, the diatribe took place in front of the camera.
Since the 9/11 attacks, Clinton has been particularly sensitive about his Administration's handling of terrorism, readily pointing to his Administration's record: breaking up twenty Al Qaeda cells; thwarting plots involving the bombings of Los Angeles International Airport and New York's Holland Tunnel timed around the millennium; more than tripling the budget for the government's anti-terrorism efforts; and attacking Osama bin Laden's Afghanistan training camp, narrowly missing bin Laden himself. As Clinton said in 2005, "I always thought bin Laden was a bigger threat than the Bush Administration did," adding that he "desperately" wished he had been President when the FBI and CIA confirmed that bin Laden had been behind the USS Cole bombing on October 12, 2000, at which time he would have driven the Taliban out of Afghanistan.
"I don't know if it would have prevented 9/11," he said. "But it certainly would have complicated it." While ABC's The Path to 9/11 may have misled viewers on Clinton's efforts, the 570-page 9/11 commission report on which it was supposedly based was almost as damning, accusing both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations of not understanding "the gravity of the threat" from Al Qaeda due to a "failure of imagination."
In fact, it will take at least a generation--well after the Clinton Administration's record can be used for political purposes--to get a sense of how Clinton will play in history. LBJ died four years after he left the presidency, the day before Nixon announced to the nation that peace was at hand in Vietnam, when the forest of his Administration could barely be seen for the trees. During the Fox interview, Chris Wallace referenced an earlier interview in which Clinton was asked if he could wind up doing more good as a former President than as a President. "Only if I live a long time," Clinton had responded. That may also be the only way Clinton will get a true sense of the light history will ultimately throw on his legacy.
DTB and TerryRay,
How do you feel about Bush's comments 6 months after 9-11 that he wasn't concerned about Bin Laden? Do you give Bush some strange benefit of the doubt about that? Has Fox News ever shown those comments from Bush? ...If Clinton had said the same thing, how many times would Fox News have shown it? Please answer honestly.
How do you feel about Bush's comments 6 months after 9-11 that he wasn't concerned about Bin Laden? Do you give Bush some strange benefit of the doubt about that? Has Fox News ever shown those comments from Bush? ...If Clinton had said the same thing, how many times would Fox News have shown it? Please answer honestly.
that quote was from a press conference where Bush was in a line of questioning about Bin Laden and he was clearly bit upset about the emphasis on this individual versus the wider issues and he said that clumsy line for emphasis (not being the most eloquent and exact speaker!).
you can tell from his actions and speech he was rather concerned with Bin Laden in 2002.
harping on this one line, while ignoring the obviously bigger picture and numerous other quotes and deeds, is a very "Hannity" sort of behavior, smurphy! :nono:
and yes, if they could find a quote like this from Clinton, it would find it's way on some Fox progam I don't doubt. It's frequency would depend on how badly out of context it was.
smurphy, you gonna be up in Las Vegas next week, lend support, moral and otherwise, to Jack and assorted MJ poker players? :mj06:
quote in context:
Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.
And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.
you can tell from his actions and speech he was rather concerned with Bin Laden in 2002.
harping on this one line, while ignoring the obviously bigger picture and numerous other quotes and deeds, is a very "Hannity" sort of behavior, smurphy! :nono:
and yes, if they could find a quote like this from Clinton, it would find it's way on some Fox progam I don't doubt. It's frequency would depend on how badly out of context it was.
smurphy, you gonna be up in Las Vegas next week, lend support, moral and otherwise, to Jack and assorted MJ poker players? :mj06:
quote in context:
Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.
And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.
Last edited:
Oh OK. So there was a larger context,one in which
"I don't know where he is. I'm truly not that concerned about him" doesn't actually mean that at all. It was all a result of him not being a good speaker.
Amazing how quickly Bush is let off the hook, while a guy who wasn't in office at all is being grilled. You don't see the oddity and inconsistency of this?
I'm confused about the next MJ's Vegas thing. What days are those? I'll be in Vegas again very soon, but not sure when.
"I don't know where he is. I'm truly not that concerned about him" doesn't actually mean that at all. It was all a result of him not being a good speaker.
Amazing how quickly Bush is let off the hook, while a guy who wasn't in office at all is being grilled. You don't see the oddity and inconsistency of this?
I'm confused about the next MJ's Vegas thing. What days are those? I'll be in Vegas again very soon, but not sure when.
any interviewer that can get Bill Clinton to wag his finger at them while telling a lie :nono: (i.e. moving his lips) obviously has him out of sorts
i suppose you leftists thought that Clinton was being honest when he wagged his finger at America :nono:
bottom line: Clinton had Bin Laden handed to him on a silver platter and refused to handle the situation
attempting to intimidate an interviewer is a little less than being Presidential :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono:
i suppose you leftists thought that Clinton was being honest when he wagged his finger at America :nono:
bottom line: Clinton had Bin Laden handed to him on a silver platter and refused to handle the situation
attempting to intimidate an interviewer is a little less than being Presidential :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono:
X waved his finger once and lied
If X wags his finger
X must be lying
valid but not true.
and on your last sentence:
oh brother, you wanted him to bow down and let fox news make him look like a buffoon? I am not even liberal and I think trying to get the ex-pres admit his faults is like asking michael jordan if he used refs to help with his success. He had to see it coming. :nono:
What did i say three days ago? I said this would be the right wings talking point. Now here is this mental midget spouting it off. What a freaking dope. Do you post picks? If you by this bull i have to see your handicapping knowledge.
Clinton is a bitter old man and all he cares about is his stupid legacy which he really did nothing other than become mildly conservative economically in '94 as he had to
He dropped the ball and didn't respond to Bin Laden
Now he is making a fool of himself reminding us all of his finger wagging days and stooping down to the level of intimidating a reporter
Pathetic at best:nono: :nono: :nono:
He dropped the ball and didn't respond to Bin Laden
Now he is making a fool of himself reminding us all of his finger wagging days and stooping down to the level of intimidating a reporter
Pathetic at best:nono: :nono: :nono:
I think Clinton knew what was coming and was prepared for it. But that finger-wagging reminds folks of you know what....I doubt his media consultants woulda approved using that gesture!
smurphy:
again, you focus on a detail and ignore the main. Let me do a few deletes in my statement above to bring out my main points:
"that quote was from a press conference where Bush was in a line of questioning about Bin Laden and he was clearly bit upset about the emphasis on this individual versus the wider issues and he said that ..... line for emphasis......
you can tell from his actions and speech he was rather concerned with Bin Laden in 2002."
the mere few paragraphs of the Bush quote detail an awlful lot of action he took against Bin Laden, and the concern he had for him.
but it has dropped off considerably since Bin Laden's was pushed "more and more on the margins".
So I don't think there is any "hook" to let Bush off on here. But yes, this is still (tho in a wider sense) odd and inconsistent 'cause we're talking about Fox News!
Some criticize Bush for his neglect of not intensively pursuing Bin Laden, but the cost of that would be high for such a marginalized individual.
It's just some MJ members in LV next week playing poker and hanging out. Meeting some members haven't met before. :toast: A lot of fun still. Point that hybrid up I-15, stab it and steer!
........
funny to read Chris Wallace's post interview comments:
"I was delighted to get the chance to interview former President Clinton. This was the first one-on-one sitdown he's ever given "Fox News Sunday" during our 10 years on the air.
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.
The President was clearly stung by any suggestion that he had not done everything he could to get bin Laden. He attacked right-wingers--accused me of a "conservative hit job"--and even spun a theory I still don't understand that somehow Fox was trying to cover up the fact that NewsCorp. chief Rupert Murdoch was supporting his Global Initiative. I still have no idea what set him off.
Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward--wagging his finger in my face--and then poking the notes I was holding--I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me.
The President said I had a smirk. Actually--it was sheer wonder at what I was witnessing.
I tried repeatedly to adhere to the ground rules--to move the President along--and back to the CGI. But he wanted to keep talking about his record fighting terror.
When it became clear he wanted to throw out the ground rules--then I just went with the flow of the interview."
smurphy:
again, you focus on a detail and ignore the main. Let me do a few deletes in my statement above to bring out my main points:
"that quote was from a press conference where Bush was in a line of questioning about Bin Laden and he was clearly bit upset about the emphasis on this individual versus the wider issues and he said that ..... line for emphasis......
you can tell from his actions and speech he was rather concerned with Bin Laden in 2002."
the mere few paragraphs of the Bush quote detail an awlful lot of action he took against Bin Laden, and the concern he had for him.
but it has dropped off considerably since Bin Laden's was pushed "more and more on the margins".
So I don't think there is any "hook" to let Bush off on here. But yes, this is still (tho in a wider sense) odd and inconsistent 'cause we're talking about Fox News!
Some criticize Bush for his neglect of not intensively pursuing Bin Laden, but the cost of that would be high for such a marginalized individual.
It's just some MJ members in LV next week playing poker and hanging out. Meeting some members haven't met before. :toast: A lot of fun still. Point that hybrid up I-15, stab it and steer!
........
funny to read Chris Wallace's post interview comments:
"I was delighted to get the chance to interview former President Clinton. This was the first one-on-one sitdown he's ever given "Fox News Sunday" during our 10 years on the air.
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.
The President was clearly stung by any suggestion that he had not done everything he could to get bin Laden. He attacked right-wingers--accused me of a "conservative hit job"--and even spun a theory I still don't understand that somehow Fox was trying to cover up the fact that NewsCorp. chief Rupert Murdoch was supporting his Global Initiative. I still have no idea what set him off.
Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward--wagging his finger in my face--and then poking the notes I was holding--I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me.
The President said I had a smirk. Actually--it was sheer wonder at what I was witnessing.
I tried repeatedly to adhere to the ground rules--to move the President along--and back to the CGI. But he wanted to keep talking about his record fighting terror.
When it became clear he wanted to throw out the ground rules--then I just went with the flow of the interview."
