Clinton Interviewed on Fox News Sunday
Holy Cow! Did you see this folks? It's worth watching.
| This is the first 20 minutes of Bill Clinton’s interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. In this clip, Wallace asks Clinton why he didn’t do more to capture or kill Osama bin Laden while he was in office. Clinton clearly feels like he has been set up and doesn’t hold back in telling Wallace just how he feels. First of all, it's amazing that Clinton would even go on Fox News but he's all about crossing lines as a former president so maybe I shouldn't be that surprised. Second of all, he unleashes a Jon Stewart like assault on Chris Wallace. Finally, did I say "Holy Cow!" yet? Depending on who you watch, listen to and/or read Clinton either A) lost his cool and made an idiot of himself or B) spoke the truth and owned Wallace and Fox. What's your take? And oh yeah, Clinton isn't the only one getting all heated when confronted. Check out our current pres when Lauer pushed him a bit on torture: - | |
posted by jch at
9:45 PM
6 Comments:
Crack me up. I watched it Sunday night online. I think someone needs to spoof the whole interview, and make a video out of it with that old song, "Why's everybody always pickin' on me?" running in the background. Whether he had a right to be pissed or not - hmmm. Maybe he did. But he made a fool of himself by refusing to let it go and move on with the interview. I was totally cracking up. Finger in Wallace's face, pounding Wallace's clipboard with his finger, coming out of his seat again and again. It was a legitimate question, and he overreacted. Why??
I learned all I needed to learn about Clinton's temper in the golfing book excerpt from SI several years ago called (i think) First Tee. Clinton lambaisting a poor caddie for picking the wrong club or telling him incorrectly how to hit a ball. Please.
Well, (extracting foot from mouth) having actually watched the video now - I wonder what all the hubub is about?
It must be frustrating to do all you can do to stop a person and then watch the next administration fall down on the job. It must be even more maddening to be blamed for their failure. Yeah I'm be pretty ticked off too. Why aren't more people vigorously questioning our leaders?
When does the war on terror end? I have never heard an end strategy for this . . . do we just keep killing and threatening random countries until . . . until when? I'm pretty confused about what the end goal was. I've heard Taliban, Bin Laden, WMD, democracy in Iraq, Saddam Hussein, insurgents, etc. What is it and how do we quantify when it should end?
What's interesting to me is the way both reporters handled themselves. Chris asked this long question, and when he got a long answer he didn't really seem that interested in hearing it. Lauer, on the other hand had tremendous gravitas to do an interview with the current President, STANDING UP, on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, and challenge the President directly about how the US was treating criminal combatants picked up amidst the War on Terror.
Substantively, Chris' questions was just plain worthless. Matt's question was timely and a very important discussion for our country to be engaged in.
Even if Clinton was "flying off the handle" he is still more articulate and passionate than any other Democrat has been about these issues. Wake up Dems, Bill is trying to show you how to do it!
I am amazed that "so many people" really care about the question "Did Bill Clinton do enough to get Osama?" It doesn't matter and it never will. I highly doubt that if Osama had been killed in the late 90's that it would have prevented a 9/11 type attack.
There was an article I read that puts forth the idea that if 9/11 hadn't happened we might have delayed a big attack by a couple of years, but might have set ourselves up for an even bigger event than what happened on 9/11 (link).
Ally, I think the War on Terror will never be over. There hasn't been another major attack partly because of luck and the policies of the Government. But we could re-define the terms of how the war looks and takes place. This is the speech that I would like to hear from the President.
Thanks for the link to the article J-Wild. You answered my question just as anyone should. There is no end. Terrorism didn't begin on 9/11. For people all over the world, it was/is a scary reality and we could look at countries like Great Britain, France, Spain, Sri Lanka, etc and understand that.
Instead it was the end of the idea that no group or government had the balls or audacity to launch a major attack on United States soil. For many of us in this country, the bubble burst that day and we were forced to see who hated us and why.
Fanatics who will convert anyone to their twisted thinking scare me and should be stopped, whether they hijacks planes to murder people or blow up government buildings in Oklahoma City. I'm just worried about the lack of accountability right now and how goal-less the whole anti-terrorist program seems. There have been other terrorist attacks since 9/11, but since they haven't happened in the US, people seem to forget them. I think that those who perished in Madrid and London died as needlessly as our own countrymen and those attacks were every bit as tragic as 9/11.
I guess my point is, are we going to blame former presidents or are we going to examine what we're doing at this point, what the potential blow-back is for this plan 10 to 20 years from now? Are we currently training some leader who will turn on us later on down the road (like we did with Bin Laden)? I don't want to be afraid or scared into voting for anybody of any party. Torturing prisoners and toying with the wording of the Geneva convention isn't going to protect me or my children, if anything it compromises who we are and what we want to accomplish.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home