# Bill Clinton Has a Hissy fit! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 25, 2006, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067 "2006-09-25T14:24:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2006, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/221 "2006-09-27T19:29:26Z")
[QUOTE=Starving Artist] CW has physical facial features that give him the appearance of having a smirk. I’m sure that nervousness and perhaps an attempt to smile could cause this apparent smirk to grow wider, but it’s only a facial feature, not an actual smirk. Indeed. [/QUOTE] Um if this is true then BFD. Since you seem to think it is how about a cite. I googled some pictures and some show an odd kinda smile. So what. Perhaps he _was_ smiling out of nervousness and Clinton misread it. Again BFD. It’s probably the least important content of the interview. ---
**Author:** ![want2know](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@want2know](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/want2know)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2006, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/222 "2006-09-27T19:29:50Z")
OK, I finally watched the videos (the Clinton interview and the Olbermann commentary), so here goes with my $0.02: Re the Fox interview–Congratulations to President Clinton for being one of the first people in memory to actually stand up to the tactics of this allegedly “fair and balanced” pseudo-news organization. Chris Wallace tried to blindside Clinton with a question out of left field. I actually have no problem with this; I applaud spontaneous questioning from journalists–it is a great indicator of the poise of the interviewee. And the former President handled himself admirably, IMHO, delivering an impassioned and intelligent response while simultaneously handing a long-overdue “bitch-slap” to the neo-cons AND their toadies at Fox–in THEIR HOUSE! Priceless, I say, priceless! Compare this to _this_ response to a “tough question” a couple of weeks ago: [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag3QsL2hbXI) The part in question begins at approx. 2:25. Amazing, isn’t it? I mean, how much better someone sounds when stating facts rather than spouting rhetoric? I can only hope this “emboldens” more prominent Democrats (and moderate Republicans) to finally start giving this administration the public chastising it has deserved for so long! One more thing: Chris Wallace, SHAME ON YOU!!! Your father was also a political conservative (in fact, IIRC, he was once offered the position of Nixon’s press secretary), but never, I repeat , NEVER sacrificed his objectivity at the behest of any partisan propaganda machine. You, sir, do not deserve your father’s name! Oh, and: Keith Olbermann for President! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2006, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/223 "2006-09-27T19:30:34Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] I think that was his plan all along. [/QUOTE] Exactly! He ambushed Wallace (a physically much smaller man and more likely intimidated, btw) just like he did the journalist I mentioned previously (I wish I could remember who it was. I’m vaguely thinking it was Brian Williams or maybe Matt Lauer. Anyway, he very aggressively pointed his finger at the interviewer and said ‘you’ and the others in the media were the ones who are responsible for his problems in office.) Yep, it was the media alright…and the conservatives…and a vast right-wing conspiracy…and talk-show hosts…and Congress…who were the cause of all his troubles. Oh, wait…no, it was his reputation as a known liar dating back at least as far as his first presidential campaign…and it was all the bimbo eruptions (you know, the ones where he and his henchmen tried to destroy the lives and character of the numerous women he had dallied with during his career and which he lied about ad infinitum?)…and it was cigars and a woman named Monica (and a blue dress without which he would still be lying in that regard)…and it was about lying to a grand jury and getting impeached and disbarred…and it was about doing nothing in regard to bin Laden and letting the next guy deal with it, because to do _something_ would have been, like, politically inexpedient and damaging in the polls and stuff. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2006, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/224 "2006-09-27T19:33:27Z")
So…that was the proof? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2006, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/225 "2006-09-27T19:33:50Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] Um if this is true then BFD. Since you seem to think it is how about a cite. I googled some pictures and some show an odd kinda smile. So what. Perhaps he _was_ smiling out of nervousness and Clinton misread it. Again BFD. It’s probably the least important content of the interview. [/QUOTE] Uh…it was enough of a BFD for you to have posted the comments I responded to. Cute, that! Make critical comments about someone’s appearance and then pretend reasonable suggestions to the contrary are a BFD. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2006, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/226 "2006-09-27T19:38:06Z")
Uh, **Starv**? About that proof? When you have some time? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2006, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/227 "2006-09-27T19:39:39Z")
It will be interesting to see how the polls move after this episode. [The Gallup Poll](http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24733), taken Sept 21-24, shows more Americans blame Bush than Clinton for failing to get Osama, by a margin of 53-36. My guess is that the margin will grow larger because of the incident. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2006, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/228 "2006-09-27T19:41:33Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] So…that was the proof? [/QUOTE] No, your request came in while I was struggling, largely in vain, to post previous messages and dealing with ‘timeout’ dialog boxes. I’ve posted numerous cites around here as to Clinton’s impotency in going after bin Laden when he had the chance. I seem to recall that you yourself participated in the most recent one. However, given the fact that work now beckons, I’m pressed for time. If you truly want evidence that Clinton passed up opportunites to get bin Laden, a simple Google search will turn up mountains of it. If you would prefer that I do so…yet again…I can do so when I return. But we both know it will only come to such and stuff and that no one around here (the usual suspects, that is) will accept it, so really, what’s the point? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2006, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/229 "2006-09-27T19:48:38Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] I don’t. It’s called being a human being. What someone does when they become angry helps define their character. Losing control because you lost your temper tells us something. [/quote] Like I said, I can understand Clinton being frustrated with the question. I can also understand him getting angry. There’s nothing wrong with a forceful answer, and I think overall he did a good job with what he said. I just don’t think he should’ve attacked CW personally, that’s all. I don’t really think it’s that big a deal, and certainly of no consequence compared to the issue at hand. And I’m sure CW is a big enough boy that he can handle a little roughhouse. > [@](#): > > Clinton did not lose control. Eye of the beholder. > [@](#): > > He expressed his anger at the constant dishonesty and for CW and Fox being a political tool, and while doing it he presented facts and presented his arguments coherently. Eh. If he thinks CW is a political tool, he shouldn’t have agreed to the interview. > [@](#): > > Now we’ll see if the BS of “Clinton went ballistic” overshadows the factual content of what he said due to more of the same dishonest spin we’ve seen for years now. It probably will. People like drama more than they like factual news stuff. But who gave them the drama to focus on? > [@](#): > > I think it’s a shame if we as a culture see genuine anger as intellectual or emotional weakness. It isn’t. The measure is our ability to remain rational when we feel and express that anger. There’s a difference between being angry at the quesition, which I think is fine. He could be as forceful as he needs to be in dispelling any misinformation. But when he attacked the interviewer himself, that was a sign of weakness-- just like an _ad hominem_ in this forum is a sign of weakness. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2006, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/230 "2006-09-27T19:48:49Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Well, I can’t prove that Clinton made fun of CW’s looks, but that’s the way it came off to me. You, of course, can’t prove that he was actually smirking, either. But there can be no denying that Clinton attacked CW personally in addition to answering the question. I can understand Clinton’s frustration with the question, but I don’t see that as a justification for a personal attack. [/QUOTE] Have you watched the actual video yet? Let me know when you do. I’m curious exactly what, apart from the smirk-that-may-not-have-been was a personal attack. Pointing out that Conventional Wisdom was acting in a disingenuous manner to please Fox News’ administration and backers? Is that out of bounds? I mean, come on, if you think batting one’s eyelashes and saying “Shucks, this is what the viewers are emailing - I’m just asking the question” isn’t disingenuous, you aren’t as thoughtful about these issues as I thought. Are you suggesting that Wallace’s pretending that he had no idea that asking a question about Clinton’s “failures” re: bin Laden as described in a partisan book and spanning the decade of the 90’s _might_ just derail the discussion of the Clinton Global Initiative for more than a minute wasn’t disingenuous? The whole thing was a bullshit, hamfisted attempt to sandbag Clinton. I’m quite sure he was smirking because he thought he had “gotten” him, and that he knew that Fox could do one of their bullshit smear jobs with exerpts from it. “Clinton crazy?” “Clinton admits failure?” ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2006, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/231 "2006-09-27T19:50:07Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Well, I can’t prove that Clinton made fun of CW’s looks, but that’s the way it came off to me. You, of course, can’t prove that he was actually smirking, either. But there can be no denying that Clinton attacked CW personally in addition to answering the question. I can understand Clinton’s frustration with the question, but I don’t see that as a justification for a personal attack. [/QUOTE] I thought Clinton’s comment about the supposed smirk, was the least intelligent and most unnecessary thing he said. He had already covered it when he told CW that he had done his job and completed the conservative hit job. {correctly identifying him as an errand boy rather than a journalist} Perhaps he’s frustrated as many of us are that the right spends so much time spinning their dishonest take on everything and we as a nation seem to complacently accept it as politics as usual. Okay…and so what. It doesn’t detract from the other content of his arguments and the general dishonest approach by the right and CW in particular. Even when Wallace said he was going back to talking about the CGI and acted so shocked by Clinton’s reaction he used his next question to talk about Bush promoting democracy in the Mid East. What a load. They stage an ambush for Clinton and when he defends himself vigorously it’s the idea that he wasn’t nice about it that is offensive?? Holy crap. Honest, Deceitful self serving assholes who behave in completely dishonorable ways shouldn’t get extra points because “at least they didn’t lose their temper” If you have an objection then let it be to the real meat of Clinton’s response. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2006, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/232 "2006-09-27T19:52:56Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] I don’t. It’s called being a human being. What someone does when they become angry helps define their character. Losing control because you lost your temper tells us something. Making wild accusations and name calling, or maybe saying FU to someone as our VP did. Making bad judgements based on anger instead of rational thought would be a weakness. Clinton did not lose control. He expressed his anger at the constant dishonesty and for CW and Fox being a political tool, and while doing it he presented facts and presented his arguments coherently. What he didn’t do was let CW cut him off and move on after delivering his partisan message. That wasn’t a lack of control. I think that was his plan all along. He is way to smart to not realize what he might expect. He’s too smart to let them get away with it. Now we’ll see if the BS of “Clinton went ballistic” overshadows the factual content of what he said due to more of the same dishonest spin we’ve seen for years now. I think it’s a shame if we as a culture see genuine anger as intellectual or emotional weakness. It isn’t. The measure is our ability to remain rational when we feel and express that anger. [/QUOTE] Precisely right. On the DS a while back, Clinton gave advice about how to confront Republican liars. If Kerry had a “hissy fit” at the Swift Boat Liars he might be president today. If bullies are after you, you try to defuse the situation peacefully, but sometimes it is necessary to take action. Clinton rubbed dirt on CW’s face, bloodied his nose, and took his lunch money. Ambush? No way - it never would have happened if CW hadn’t asked the dishonest and leading question. And now the bullies and supporters of bullies are whining, as bullies do, about how mean Clinton was to them, about how it wasn’t fair. And it’s a nice side effect that this is reminding everyone of Bush and Rice’s lack of response to the memo warning of the attack. People don’t want to think that the attack didn’t get stopped because of incompetence. Maybe it couldn’t have been stopped, but they sure could have tried. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2006, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/233 "2006-09-27T19:56:04Z")
[QUOTE=BobLibDem] It will be interesting to see how the polls move after this episode. [The Gallup Poll](http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24733), taken Sept 21-24, shows more Americans blame Bush than Clinton for failing to get Osama, by a margin of 53-36. My guess is that the margin will grow larger because of the incident. [/QUOTE] Maybe, but I doubt it. I think the public is largely willing to give Clinton and Bush a pass on “not getting ObL” prior to 9/11. After 9/11, of course, things did change. We went after ObL big time, and Bush failed to get him. He deserves being blamed for that, and it makes sense that he would be. I suspect the 36% represents the party faithful who won’t disparage Bush for anything. Many of them still probably hate Clinton with a passion as they did when he was in office. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2006, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/234 "2006-09-27T20:06:02Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Like I said, I can understand Clinton being frustrated with the question. I can also understand him getting angry. There’s nothing wrong with a forceful answer, and I think overall he did a good job with what he said. I just don’t think he shoulda attacked CW personally, that’s all. I don’t really think it’s that big a deal, and certainly of no consequence compared to the issue at hand. And I’m sure CW is a big enough boy that he can handle a little roughhouse. Eye of the beholder. Eh. If he thinks CW is a political tool, he shouldn’t have agreed to the interview. [/QUOTE] Perhaps he was smart enough to know what they would try and then use the opportunity to state the facts and stand up to them in person. What a concept. Okay. I understand your objection to the personal comment. I wouldn’t call it a malicious attack if he called CW and by default Fox in general a political mouthpiece for the right. It’s true. That was the overall content of directed at CW. > [@](#): > > It probably will. People like drama more than they like factual news stuff. But who gave them the drama to focus on? > > There’s a difference between being angry at the question, which I think is fine. He could be as forceful as he needs to be in dispelling any misinformation. But when he attacked the interviewer himself, that was a sign of weakness-- just like an _ad hominem_ in this forum is a sign of weakness. YMMV. I understand and I don’t completely disagree on the concept. I agree it might have been better if he hadn’t gone there, but I think his comments, “you’ve got that smirk,” and “You think you’re so smart” was part of his commentary on the dishonest conservative spin and the CW and Fox role in it. You really should see it in context. Do you thiink that consistantly and intentionally, misrepresenting the actions of an individual might be considered a personal attack? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2006, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/235 "2006-09-27T20:07:40Z")
[QUOTE=GLWasteful] Fair enough, no denials from me. Just a request for something to back this up. Otherwise I’ll have to think that you’re speaking out of your ass. Y’know, like you customarily do. So, even though I seldom ask for one. Cite? I’ll be waiting right over here. [/QUOTE] _:shrugs:_ I’ve provided it a couple of times in the past - one more won’t hurt. > [@](#): > > Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks occurred in the White House > complex during the 2001 presidential transition. Incidents such as the > removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft of various items; the > leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and written messages; and > the placing of glue on desk drawers clearly were intentional acts. [As if anything as mundane as facts will make a diiference.](http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf#search=%22GAO%20report%20vandalism%20White%20House%22) PDF, BTW. Feel free to kiss whatever you hear talking. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2006, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/236 "2006-09-27T20:08:46Z")
Oops, not in the Pit, are we? Strike most of that last. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2006, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/237 "2006-09-27T20:16:41Z")
Distraction. Tighty righty media wants to pretend that the real substance here is Clinton’s foam-flecked finger jabbing meltdown. Not even close. It wasn’t even hitting Bill with a gotcha, you don’t gotcha the Big Dog, the Big Dog gotchaya! Bill Clinton can remember the details of policy from ten years back, while dancing the two-step in high heels and full drag! No, the bigger news is focusing attention on Bush’s action/inaction before 9/11, a topic for which he has a recieved a _wholly_ undeserved pass. The “story” of Clinton’s passivity and Bush’s vigorous, manly leadership has been passed around for so long, its become part of the Conventional Horseshit. As, for instance, the high level terrorism panel that “Big Dick” Cheney headed up that, somehow, never got around to actually meeting. Admitting you were caught flat-footed wouldn’t be a crime, hell, it wouldn’t even make the top 100 for this clown-cluster. But they didn’t, they tried to shuck it off on Bill, and were getting away with it. Until now. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2006, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/238 "2006-09-27T20:22:41Z")
[QUOTE=Starving Artist] Exactly! He ambushed Wallace [/quote] Wallace was the one who invited Clinton on his program and the one who asked the questions. How in the world could Clinton’s _response_ to his question be considered an ambush? > [@](#): > > (a physically much smaller man A large percentage of people are “physically much smaller” than Clinton. Does Clinton only get to speak forcefully and with conviction when faced with the smaller proportion of the population who are bigger than him? > [@](#): > > and more likely intimidated, btw) Poor little experienced professional “journalist”! > [@](#): > > Anyway, he very aggressively pointed his finger at the interviewer and said ‘you’ Ah, so, when I asked you a bullshit slanted question a few pages ago, you should have responded with vague generalities? > [@](#): > > and the others in the media were the ones who are responsible for his problems in office.) Please quote Clinton’s statements blaming “his problems in office” on Wallace “and the others in the media.” What Clinton did was accuse Wallace and Fox of being politically biased and slandering him to his face in the form of a biased “question.” > [@](#): > > Yep, it was the media alright…and the conservatives…and a vast right-wing conspiracy…and talk-show hosts…and Congress…who were the cause of all his troubles. Again, cite. Oh, and on the one hand you criticize Clinton for singling out Wallace (“you”) as behaving dishonestly, but then criticize him for criticizing a wider group of dishonest “journalists.” So, in your view, Clinton should refrain from responding directly to someone trying to sandbag him to his face and also should refrain from commenting on dishonest criticism of him by others not present? How lucky for those who dislike Clinton that he should thus be precluded from accusing anyone of bad behaviour! Luckily, conservatives apparently aren’t subject to such strictures. > [@](#): > > Oh, wait…no, it was his reputation as a known liar dating back at least as far as his first presidential campaign And after which he was successfully elected twice. Apparently the preponderance of voters didn’t care that he was less than candid about his personal life. > [@](#): > > …and it was all the bimbo eruptions (you know, the ones where he and his henchmen tried to destroy the lives and character of the numerous women he had dallied with during his career and which he lied about ad infinitum?) Yes, they were innocent victims of Clinton’s random viciousness. None of them worked with Clinton’s political opponents to spread rumours about his personal life in order to interfere with the political process. > [@](#): > > …and it was cigars and a woman named Monica (and a blue dress without which he would still be lying in that regard)…and it was about lying to a grand jury and getting impeached and disbarred…and it was about doing nothing in regard to bin Laden and letting the next guy deal with it, because to do _something_ would have been, like, politically inexpedient and damaging in the polls and stuff. You’re up to your eyes in spin and revisionism here. So the Republicans first get to go on a rampage against Clinton’s personal life using all the powers of government at their hands in order to damage him politically and then when Clinton’s ability to push through his policy positions is hampered by such tangential shenanigans (to the extent that it was – the evidence is that _despite_ everything, Clinton responded to the information at hand as best as anyone could under the circumstances), and then the Republicans get to say “Hey, see, you failed to do anything!” without acknowledging that “Well, whatever you did fail to do was largely because we made it impossible for you to do anything”? Again, it’s very convenient for the Republicans that these are the rules of the game. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2006, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/239 "2006-09-27T20:25:04Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] By the way, the second part of the interview ([Google video](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6620818158935418334)) starts out hilariously: Wallace: One of the main parts of the Global Initiative this year is religion and reconciliation. President Bush says that the fight against Islamic extremism is the central conflict of this century. And his answer is promoting democracy and reform. Do you think he has that right? Clinton: [three second pause] Sure. [three second pause] To advance — to advocate democracy and reform in the Muslim world? Absolutely. From Clinton’s posture, head resting on his hand, his patience with Wallace already at low ebb, I can just picture him thinking _what kinda dumb-ass question is that?_ [/QUOTE] Of course, he should have capped his reply with what is even more obvious: “But that’s not the kind of thing you can accomplish with an army.” ---
**Author:** ![Airblairxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Airblairxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airblairxxx)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2006, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/240 "2006-09-27T20:25:58Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] _:shrugs:_ I’ve provided it a couple of times in the past - one more won’t hurt. [As if anything as mundane as facts will make a diiference.](http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf#search=%22GAO%20report%20vandalism%20White%20House%22) PDF, BTW. Feel free to kiss whatever you hear talking. Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] Oooh! Oooh! I usually just lurk on these GD threads, can I pick the low-hanging fruit? [Salon.com: A GAO report on vandalism during Clinton’s exit shows that Bush administration pettiness cost the nation more than its predecessor’s pranks.](http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2002/06/13/scandal/index.html) > [@](#): > > The General Accounting Office’s meticulous 217-page report (cited by **Shodan** , above) on allegations that outgoing Clinton staffers vandalized the White House, based on charges by the incoming Bush administration, practically begged to be simplified. And in early news coverage – a Tuesday AP wire story (picked up by Salon) and a wide-eyed Wednesday New York Times dispatch – it was. > > Both early stories skipped right to the report’s “conclusions,” which reveal that, in fact, the Clintonistas caused some trouble. “Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks occurred in the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition,” the report duly notes. . . . > > The GAO report does persuasively show, with some corroboration by former Clinton staffers, that the most extensive damage came from the juvenile idea of popping the “W” key off computer keyboards, rendering them unusable. > > The GAO affixed a $4,650 cost to replacing 62 keyboards (which, at $75 a pop, is **about six times what a basic keyboard runs for at Office Depot** ). It’s unclear whether all 62 keyboards that were replaced actually had the missing “W” – the White House bookkeeping is unclear on this point. > > It’s also a mystery what happened to 26 cellphones and two cameras, which the White House says it spent $2,769 to replace. Add to that a $1,150 cleaning cost, and some other costs that seem negligible ($221 to replace 15 TV remotes, for example, that some Clinton staffers told the GAO never existed), the GAO came up with a **$9,324** total “spent to repair and replace items that were observed broken or missing in specific locations” where complaints of vandalism had been made. > > So it’s safe to say that a close reading of the GAO report doesn’t validate the charges of wanton, widespread destruction by the Clinton team. What it does show is the lengths to which the Bush administration went to try to make the scandal charges stick. > > . . . The White House made 78 staffers available for interviews with the GAO, and clearly spent an enormous amount of energy just to try to stick another scandal to the Clintons. (Gonzales’ time alone, billed by the hour, might cost more than the $9,000-plus the GAO blamed on the Clintons.) After 11 months, and an investigation that Democrats told the Washington Post cost **$200,000** , one somehow expected more. Now that all the facts are in, it seems pretty clear which administration should get the blame for the White House vandal scandal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067.md?page=13)