I saw the FOX interview-whew! That Bill Clinton-he can be nice as a boyscout-till you hit him with something he doesn’t like! What’s behind this outburst-he has a good alibi (about not persuing Osama Bin Laden0, so why the bluster? A few hundred dead in African embassies? really, why is ol bill so hot under the collar?
Now, i would have asked him about badmouthing sitting presidents–or why he (Clinton) didn’t denounce Chavez-oh well! Didja see that wagging finger? :smack:
Here’s the transcript, since you (strangely) didn’t link it.
I saw the interview. I didn’t see any “hissy fit.” I saw Clinton rationally (and vigorously) defend himself against an ambush by a right-wing Fox News interviewer. Since the interview, I’ve seen a lot of conservative commentators try to spin this as some sort of “hissy fit” or “temper tantrum,” presumably in an effort to distract from what Clinton actually said.
But I know you wouldn’t play that game, ralph124c. :dubious:
Wallace is so insencere. From an article I read,
What a load of shit.
These guys still have a daily hard-on for Clinton, 6 years(!) after he’s left office. More reliable than morning wood. And Wallace acts like, “what? Poor little me. All I’m doing is asking a question.”
Nothing but a load of fucking shit from that loudmouth. How does anyone take their crap seriously?
Related. . .did anyone watch Clinton with Russert yesterday? Forget democrat or republican. It just makes you long for a day where the leader of our country could actually THINK about a topic. Bring back Bush I, even.
It’s up on YouTube, if anyone wants to see it in context, with body language and all that.
Just search for Clinton Fox and it comes right up, several times, in fact.
Wow, Trunk, don’t have a heart attack-but I agree with you 100 percent, here!
I thought Clinton was awesome! He was entirely correct-when he DID go after Bin Laden, the Republican opposition bitched that he was “wagging the dog.” And now it’s totally disingenuous of the right to go on about how he “didn’t do enough”, when they actually had opposed him at every turn. And all because of stupid petty partisan bullshit.
And let’s not forget the crap about how “We can support the troops, but not the president” that was the attitude of the right during Clinton’s tenure. How quickly times have changed!
Hypocrites, everyone of them. Watching that interview, I really, really miss President Clinton. I didn’t agree with him on everything-he was actually leaned a little too far to the right for my tastes. But damned if we weren’t one of the biggest jokes of the international community.
(slightly off-topic-does he have a cold? His voice seemed rather scratchy)
Wallace admits in the first place that he had agreed in the ground rules not to talk about anything other than the Clinton Global Initiative in the first fifteen minutes, but then doesn’t seem to cop to the fact that he was the one who violated it. I didn’t see the smirk Clinton castigated him for during the interview, but I’ve been seeing the smirk he’s giving in other places talking like he didn’t do anything to bait Clinton.
The fact is that Clinton gave a very good answer. He did try, and was fought in that effort by the very people criticizing him now. He was also right that Wallace and his ilk were not asking the Bush administration why they had ignored terrorism until 9/11, why they drove Richard Clarke out of the administration when he was their number one guy on these issues or why Bush did nothing about the bombing of the Cole. He clearly was ready for the question, and fought back like he had the right to do. And Wallace tried to cut him off from giving that damning critique. Looked to me like Wallace saw his ambush backfiring and was trying to avoid the consequences, but ultimately he came to act as though Clinton had ‘flown off the handle.’
I’ve seen hissy fits, and I’ve dealt with people having hissy fits. That was no hissy fit.
There certainly was a tone of anger and annoyance. But while he was president, Clinton took a whole lot of unjustified abuse from the right wing. And after his term, Clinton was blamed for not doing enough about terrorism. Clinton had to set the story straight. He did what he could at the time. It was the right wing that didn’t want him to do anything. And if there is anyone who should be blamed for 9-11, it’s them. So while Clinton’s tone was more aggressive than what we’re used to seeing from him, he provided facts and rationale for his thinking at the time. Sometimes when you’re explaining your actions to people that purposely and self-servingly ignore facts, you have to speak a bit louder.
I’m not the biggest fan of Bill Clinton, but the guy has had a few years of people accusing him of not doing enough to prevent terrorism/get Bin Laden… regardless of whether there is any basis for those accusations, I can’t blame the guy for getting a bit touchy about it.
I didn’t see the interview (will watch it later on YouTube), but I heard a portion of it on the radio this morning; I wouldn’t say he had a hissy fit.
Now if only Bush had been treated like that for the last few years it would have been very interesting indeed.
Fair play to BC. It’s nice to see a US leader (albeit a former one) sounding like a leader and intelligent to boot. I couldn’t give one shit about Dem or Rep as that’s mostly a internal matter. They’re all right wing from my perspective 
He was Irish TV a good bit over the weekend as he was over here for the Ryder Cup. Every interview he gave he reminded me how good of a communicator he actually was.
It made me long for the days when the leader of this nation was well-versed and knowledgeable about what was happening in the world. I recently saw Bush on CNN doing an interview… and it made me think, we went from Clinton to this? And this is absent his disastrous foreign policy and embarrassing domestic response to Katrina…
I though Clinton was brilliant and it showed the old guy’s still got spunk.
Okay, that was an unfortunate choice of words.
It’s an absurd accusation. Guinastasia has it right: if Clinton had gone after bin Laden with guns blazin’, he would have been accused of “wagging the dog.” And correctly so – our government did not have enough intel to justify any such action. Clinton did nothing wrong in this instance; he acted reasonably and prudently.
Mr. Clinto was clearly justified in his remarks; Mr. Wallace, not so.
But I’m glad to see a Democrat doing more than just taking a right-wing pundit’s unjustified whipping for a change.
Similar questions, but very different tones.
Give up. That dog no longer hunts.
You guys really need to dump the 22nd Amendment and put that guy back in office.
That was no hissy fit - that was a guy angrily but articulately responding to people who tell lies about him. Go, Bill!
This isn’t Cafe Society material. Off to MPSIMS.
I thought it interesting to look back to see the cooperation that Republicans gave Clinton regarding terrorism in 1996.
What a difference 10 years makes.
Woo-hooo!! Hot damn, Bill kicked ass!
Hee hee – I bet that didn’t go at all as envisioned by that smirking little toad interviewer.
Yes, the Days of Swine & Roses are over!