Bill Clinton interview with Chris Wallace

#1
GAVol

GAVol

Overrated
Staff member
Joined
Oct 24, 2003
Messages
115,046
Likes
66,893
#1
Did anybody see the performance that Bill put on? It bordered on being bizarre. I thought the veins were going to pop out of Clinton's head. He seems bound and determined to deflect any hint that his administration might not have done all it could to fight terrorism.
 
#2
#2
GAVol said:
Did anybody see the performance that Bill put on? It bordered on being bizarre. I thought the veins were going to pop out of Clinton's head. He seems bound and determined to deflect any hint that his administration might not have done all it could to fight terrorism.
Click to expand...


"I did not have sexual relations with that..." oops wrong question. His repsonse in the interview reminded me of that. He seems to get hostile when feeling he has to cover something up.
 
#3
#3
I saw it - it was wild. Especially when he trashed Fox and Wallace - certainly not very "presidential". He still has the old "finger wag".

I found it interesting that he said the 9/11 Commission Report was partisan or incorrect but then later used findings from the same report to defend himself.

Finally, I found it interesting that he indicated that virtually all accounts of the situation are incorrect except for Richard Clarke's book.
 
#4
#4
allvol123 said:
He seems to get hostile when feeling he has to cover something up.
Click to expand...

That's almost the feeling you get. I've seen defensive, but that was just unreal. I'd say he's clearly trying to protect his legacy.
 
#6
#6
I'm not the biggest Clinton fan, but that interview made me respect him more. Fox News is propoganda garabage, and I'm glad he stuck it to them in that interview.
 
#7
#7
volnuts said:
if he was a republican it would be no big deal
Click to expand...

Not sure if it really is all that big a deal as much as it was just odd seeing somebody erupt like that in a seemingly run of the mill interview. It wouldn't matter who it was, it would have been awkward. At one point Clinton is leaned over tapping his finger on Wallace's notepad. It was like he was in a 'roid rage or something.
 
#8
#8
TheGimp said:
I'm not the biggest Clinton fan, but that interview made me respect him more. Fox News is propoganda garabage, and I'm glad he stuck it to them in that interview.
Click to expand...


Exactly what did he do or say that made you respect him more?
 
#9
#9
TheGimp said:
I'm not the biggest Clinton fan, but that interview made me respect him more. Fox News is propoganda garabage, and I'm glad he stuck it to them in that interview.
Click to expand...

The question was legit. Wallace has asked equally tough questions of the current admin.
 
#10
#10
They probably just expected him to weasel around the questions like the current administration. They asked tough questions, and they got tough answers. Now, they act as though he went crazy.
 
#11
#11
TheGimp said:
They probably just expected him to weasel around the questions like the current administration. They asked tough questions, and they got tough answers. Now, they act as though he went crazy.
Click to expand...
He did go crazy. At one point, President Clinton in all his dignity was slamming his index finger into Wallace's leg. Wallace worked for ABC News for over 20 years and just recently started working for Fox. He is in no way someone who was attacking Clinton. He was asking a question that deserved a dignified response. Clinton became very defensive, loud, and irrational. The appropriate response was very easy to give:
"Well, Mr. Wallace, we did try to go after Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, we failed. Hindsight is 20/20 and it is easy for people to point out faults after 9/11. However, prior to 9/11 there was no urgent call from the populus to risk our military men in order to kill bin Laden. It is regretful, but it is the truth. I apologize to the American people and I, as well as the rest of my administration, will second guess our decisions for the rest of our lives."

I believe that the Bush admin could make the same statement.
 
#12
#12
The issue was that Clinton was brought on with the assurance that the questions would focus on his little endowment he's pushing on global aid and democracy. It was set up to be warm and fuzzy through Fox and his media agent. Then the bomb was dropped that something outside that domain was asked and that is when he exploded.

He should have learned not to trust the media. If he wants a monologue on his programs he's starting, go give speeches in front of various groups. Lining yourself up in front of any inquisitive Sunday morning talk show host is asking for trouble unless he was before Snuffalufigous.
 
#13
#13
I think he has a point when there were attacks outside America there was a half-hearted effort to go after him and then after 9/11 you see the same luke-warm response. Why is the leader of a group such as Osama still floating around? The GOP trashes Clinton for not doing anything and the result being 9/11. But then to defend Bush for doing the same effort, they say Osama is not really worth the effort with bigger fish to fry.
 
#14
#14
CSpindizzy said:
The issue was that Clinton was brought on with the assurance that the questions would focus on his little endowment he's pushing on global aid and democracy. It was set up to be warm and fuzzy through Fox and his media agent. Then the bomb was dropped that something outside that domain was asked and that is when he exploded.

He should have learned not to trust the media. If he wants a monologue on his programs he's starting, go give speeches in front of various groups. Lining yourself up in front of any inquisitive Sunday morning talk show host is asking for trouble unless he was before Snuffalufigous.
Click to expand...

That is not the issue. The deal was Fox would get 15 minutes from him. Half on his little project and the other half on whatever Wallace wanted to ask. Clinton had no reason to feel ambushed.
 
#15
#15
CSpindizzy said:
I think he has a point when there were attacks outside America there was a half-hearted effort to go after him and then after 9/11 you see the same luke-warm response. Why is the leader of a group such as Osama still floating around? The GOP trashes Clinton for not doing anything and the result being 9/11. But then to defend Bush for doing the same effort, they say Osama is not really worth the effort with bigger fish to fry.
Click to expand...
I would say Clinton and Bush faced the same decision: Do we, in effect, invade a sovereign nation to get bin Laden? Clinton had to deal with that while he was in Afghanistan, Bush has had to deal with it while he has been hiding out in Pakistan...
 
#16
#16
Isn't that the doctrine of 'preemption'? Didn't Bush promise "dead or alive" and didn't we already invade two nations to root out threats and terrorism? Clinton dealt with someone who was tied to several overseas attacks. Bush is sitting on someone who killed almost 3000 Americans on our soil. And has used that to his political advantage since.
 
#17
#17
Back to the topic of the thread -- Allvol is correct -- 1/2 for CGI and 1/2 for whatever.

Few here are saying it was Clinton's fault (9/11) and W's group has no blame. Plenty of poor decisions all around.
 
#19
#19
Forget the issues and who's right and wrong . . . the meltdown was just inexplicable to me. He really lost his cool at what was a seemingly benign question . . . Then he looked like a jerk when it became apparent that Wallace had planned to go back to the softball questions and Clinton just wouldn't let it go.
 
#20
#20
GAVol said:
Forget the issues and who's right and wrong . . . the meltdown was just inexplicable to me. He really lost his cool at what was a seemingly benign question . . . Then he looked like a jerk when it became apparent that Wallace had planned to go back to the softball questions and Clinton just wouldn't let it go.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
#21
#21
GAVol said:
Forget the issues and who's right and wrong . . . the meltdown was just inexplicable to me. He really lost his cool at what was a seemingly benign question . . . Then he looked like a jerk when it became apparent that Wallace had planned to go back to the softball questions and Clinton just wouldn't let it go.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
#22
#22
P.S. - Somebody needs to tell Bill that the "too short sock" look with the bare leg exposed between the sock and the bottom of the pants is not good.
 
#23
#23
GAVol said:
P.S. - Somebody needs to tell Bill that the "too short sock" look with the bare leg exposed between the sock and the bottom of the pants is not good.
Click to expand...

:lol: I was thinking the same thing. For a while, I thought he was going to stick his hand in his pants ala Al Bundy...
 
#24
#24
GAVol said:
P.S. - Somebody needs to tell Bill that the "too short sock" look with the bare leg exposed between the sock and the bottom of the pants is not good.
Click to expand...


I was thinking the same thing. He looked like some old retired guy sitting in his yard chair in Florida.

I was also thinking that perhaps he had not had his daily dose of skank when this interview took place. Perhaps that can explain his belligerence.
 
#25
#25
I find no fault in what he did. Plenty on the other side of the aisle explode as well. After the whole "Path to 9/11" experience Clinton feels as if any question puts sole blame on him. Considering very little is being done now comparative to 93-01, I'd say he has a perfect right to deflect criticism.

You can sugar coat it all you want saying there's plenty of blame to go around but when you deal with the present, the fact remains that the Taliban are resurgent, Mullah Omar is still on the loose, Dr. Zawahiri is, and so is Bin Laden. If it takes this nation 5+ years to seek justice on the killing of 3000 American civilians on its own soil, what room is there to accuse Clinton of not getting the job done?

Yes there is blame to go around for 9/11 but let's deal in absolutes with the current situation. Forget blaming someone for actions years ago. Where is Bin Laden now? Mullah Omar? Ayman Zawahiri? We've invaded two nations only to see the leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban still free, the Taliban making a strong comeback, and the second nation we invaded on the brink of implosion.

With all of the problems occurring here we're arguing over someone being rightfully agitated for being asked essentially why didn't you do more.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top