# 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:** 15\ **Page:** 23
**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:** [October 1, 2006, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/441 "2006-10-01T07:37:24Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] I think you’re close here. Does Clinton wish he had gotten him? Of course. That still doesn’t make the question a fair one without any perspective or context. [/QUOTE] Well, if Clinton said the question is fair, I don’t see why you should think it wasn’t. But even if it wasn’t a fair question, so what? Do you think journalist try to be fair? They try to be provocative. I’ve seen some posters say that Chris can’t hold a candle to his dear old dad. But dear old dad is the king of “gotcha”, in-your-face jounalism at _60 Minutes_. If a journalist is grilling someone you like, he isn’t being fair. If he’s grilling someone you don’t like, he’s asking the tough questions that need to be asked. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2006, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/442 "2006-10-01T08:02:09Z")
**Age Quod Agis** , you appear to keep insisting that every assertion that actions taken were not sufficient to achieve their optimal results must be construed as an admission. When we insist that Clinton’s assertion is not an admission, you pretend that we are claiming that he made the opposite assertion, and not that an assertion is not necessarily an admission. That’s just dishonest, guy. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/443 "2006-10-02T00:11:58Z")
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99] **Age Quod Agis** , you appear to keep insisting that every assertion that actions taken were not sufficient to achieve their optimal results must be construed as an admission. When we insist that Clinton’s assertion is not an admission, you pretend that we are claiming that he made the opposite assertion, and not that an assertion is not necessarily an admission. That’s just dishonest, guy. [/QUOTE] Holy cow. This is well past ridiculous. An “admission” is [an acknowledgment of the truth of something](http://www.wordreference.com/definition/admission). Clinton acknowledged the truth of the allegation that he didn’t do enough to catch Bin Laden. If you’ve got some definition of “admission” that excludes what Clinton did, please share it with us. Otherwise, spare me the accusations that I’m being dishonest. It’s obvious that you’re personalizing this argument and probably just trying to distract from what Clinton actually said, but I’d prefer it if you found another distraction other than flinging ad hominem attacks with no basis in reality. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/444 "2006-10-02T02:30:14Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Well, if Clinton said the question is fair, I don’t see why you should think it wasn’t. [/QUOTE] If he did. He didn’t. > [@](#): > > But even if it wasn’t a fair question, so what? Do you think journalist try to be fair? They try to be provocative. I’ve seen some posters say that Chris can’t hold a candle to his dear old dad. But dear old dad is the king of “gotcha”, in-your-face jounalism at _60 Minutes_. If a journalist is grilling someone you like, he isn’t being fair. If he’s grilling someone you don’t like, he’s asking the tough questions that need to be asked. You’ve been here the entire thread right? Of course I don’t expect journalist to always be fair. I also don’t expect them to the puppet arm of a particular political party but I guess they can be. The point was that Clinton didn’t expect them to be either. I am pretty sure he knew they would try something like that and was ready. The point he made was that they should ask that question of the opposition as often and as clearly. They don’t. Why is that? It’s not just about a gotcha on Clinton by asking the tuff questions. It’s about Fox “news” being a conscious cooperating arm for propaganda. So fuck them. Clinton walking into the studio was the equivalent of “bring it on biotch” They brought it and he kicked their ass. Of course the propaganda war goes on and they spin it how they will. In the end I think more people will consider what Clinton actually said rather than how he said it. That’s a win for him. ---
**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:** [October 2, 2006, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/445 "2006-10-02T07:25:12Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] If he did. He didn’t. [/quote] You’re right. He said it was a “legitimate” question. What’s the diference? > [@](#): > > You’ve been here the entire thread right? Of course I don’t expect journalist to always be fair. I also don’t expect them to the puppet arm of a particular political party but I guess they can be. The point was that Clinton didn’t expect them to be either. I am pretty sure he knew they would try something like that and was ready Well, a lot of people have made an assertion that CW is a “puppet arm”, but no one has demostrated that he actually is. Would you care to do so? Frankly, Clinton’s complaint that CW didn’t ask the exact same question to anyone in the Bush administration is a strawman. Why does he have to? I’ve already noted several times that he asked a very similar question to [Rumsfeld](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115436,00.html). Here’s the exact quote (I’ll just give you CW’s questions): > [@](#): > > **WALLACE** : I think a lot of people in Washington are trying to figure out, to understand Richard Clarke, to make sense of what he has said and of apparent contradictions in his story — is he telling the truth, or is he pushing an agenda. > > 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? > > \ > > **WALLACE** : But let be follow up on that, if I canion, the staff, this is what you told them in private. > > Let’s put it up here if we can: “He,” Rumsfeld, “did not recall any particular counterterrorism issue that engaged his attention before 9/11, other than the development of the Predator unmanned aircraft system for possible use against bin Laden.” He said that, “DOD, the Department of Defense, before 9/11, was not organized or trained adequately to deal with asymmetric threats.” > > **WALLACE** : But looking back, sir — and I understand this is 20/20 hindsight — it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean, what you ended up doing, in the end, was going after Al Qaeda where it lived. > > Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority. > > \ > > **WALLACE** : And the question is, pre-9/11, should you have been thinking more about that? Now, there seems to be the assumption here that simply because Wallace works for Fox, that he’s a Republican stooge. I don’t accept that assumption, and neither do Wallace’s peers in the business. If you’d like to prove that he’s a stooge, please go ahead and do that. But you’ll have to offer more evidence than the fact that he works at Fox. > [@](#): > > New York Times Week in Review > > [In Taking On Fox, Democrats See Reward in the Risk](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/weekinreview/01manley.html?_r=1&ref=weekinreview&oref=slogin) > > By LORNE MANLY > Published: October 1, 2006 > > THE Fox News Channel doesn’t officially turn 10 until this week, but the Democrats have already begun doing their best to spoil the celebrations. > > \ > > Democrats do not view Chris Wallace as a partisan gunslinger, as they do some other Fox News personalities. But his questions about whether Mr. Clinton did enough to destroy Al Qaeda ignited simmering Democratic and Clintonian anger. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/446 "2006-10-02T07:51:53Z")
Dude, this was totally staged. CW and Clinton were in cahoots. [/tinfoil] -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/447 "2006-10-02T16:19:22Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] You’re right. He said it was a “legitimate” question. What’s the diference? [/QUOTE] Taken all by itself without context it is a legitimate question. Taken in context it was not fair. > [@](#): > > Well, a lot of people have made an assertion that CW is a “puppet arm”, but no one has demostrated that he actually is. Would you care to do so? I’m sorry. I don’t have time to really go into this. I do concede the point that it is unfair and unfounded to consider Wallace a stooge simply because he works at Fox. My own experience from watching Fox {not CW specifically} is that they are far from fair and balanced. I transferred that to CW. I’m sure there are degrees of conservative influence within the network. I made my call because of the way in which the question was phrased and the suspiscious nature of his {the people want to know} preface Frankly, Clinton’s complaint that CW didn’t ask the exact same question to anyone in the Bush administration is a strawman. Why does he have to? I’ve already noted several times that he asked a very similar question to [Rumsfeld](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115436,00.html). Here’s the exact quote (I’ll just give you CW’s questions): Thanks for the link I’ll try to read that later. This seems to refute the specifics but not the spirit of the question. Clinton asserted there was an active political campaign to spread a false notion about him and Fox had cooperated. According to the link to Media Matters provided earlier that appears to be true. The question is how often do they offer something. How often did they ask similar questions of the main players in the White House vs. the Dems. Or how often did they phrase the question in order to imply the conclusion as they did with Clinton? Thats how propoganda works. Look at the first question he asks Rummie. “apparent contradictions” was that nessecary for good unbiased journalism? “Was he telling the truth or pushing an agenda?” which happens to be what the white house smear machine asserted. The White House needed to respond to Clarke so Rummie had the chance. Lots of others were on Wallace program. How often did he ask them. > [@](#): > > Now, there seems to be the assumption here that simply because Wallace works for Fox, that he’s a Republican stooge. I don’t accept that assumption, and neither do Wallace’s peers in the business. If you’d like to prove that he’s a stooge, please go ahead and do that. But you’ll have to offer more evidence than the fact that he works at Fox. As I said. I agree more evidence is required and I shouldn’t make the assumption without it. ---
**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:** [October 2, 2006, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/448 "2006-10-02T17:04:08Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] Clinton asserted there was an active political campaign to spread a false notion about him and Fox had cooperated. According to the link to Media Matters provided earlier that appears to be true. [/quote] Can you remind which link this was-- I’m curious how they know there is some conspiracy going on. > [@](#): > > The question is how often do they offer something. How often did they ask similar questions of the main players in the White House vs. the Dems. Or how often did they phrase the question in order to imply the conclusion as they did with Clinton? Thats how propoganda works. > Look at the first question he asks Rummie. “apparent contradictions” was that nessecary for good unbiased journalism? “Was he telling the truth or pushing an agenda?” which happens to be what the white house smear machine asserted. > The White House needed to respond to Clarke so Rummie had the chance. Lots of others were on Wallace program. How often did he ask them. Well, I don’t know how much more incriminating you can get than saying (not asking!) “Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.” But why is there an insistance that Wallace ask similar quesitons to mulitiple Republicans? He only asked it of one Democrat, right? I hate to play these silly numbers games in the first place , but if we are going to play them, let’s keep it fair, to use a word that pops up in this thread a lot. I have no doubt that if Clinton had been interviewed by Hannity or maybe even O’Reilly, he would’ve been in for a partisan attack. But I don’t think CW is cut from the same cloth as those guys. I don’t watch his show a lot, and I’m not going to claim it’s in the same league with _Meet the Press_, but it’s usually pretty good, and he does a good job of asking questions to both sides. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/449 "2006-10-02T21:59:23Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I’m curious how they know there is some conspiracy going on. [/quote] There doesn’t have to be a conspiracy - all it takes is one news organization to learn that Clinton-bashing is profitable and for other organizations to notice this and emulate it, discarding journalistic integrity in the process. ---
**Author:** ![OneCentStamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/13edae/32.png) [@OneCentStamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OneCentStamp)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/450 "2006-10-02T22:13:33Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I have no doubt that if Clinton had been interviewed by Hannity or maybe even O’Reilly, he would’ve been in for a partisan attack. [/QUOTE] As a side note, I would _ **love** _ to see Clinton interviewed by O’Reilly, simply because O’Reilly responds so poorly to people who stand their ground against him. He goes from “smooth and smug” to “stuttering and blotchy red” in a hearbeat. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2006, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/451 "2006-10-03T06:25:54Z")
[QUOTE=OneCentStamp] As a side note, I would _ **love** _ to see Clinton interviewed by O’Reilly, simply because O’Reilly responds so poorly to people who stand their ground against him. He goes from “smooth and smug” to “stuttering and blotchy red” in a hearbeat. [/QUOTE] He also has a tendancey to want to get physical with people who can smack him around verbally. So the question then becomes: How much of a crime is it to physically assault a former President? If Clinton still has his SS detail (Gore doesn’t seem to have his around too much) would they shoot O’Reilly first and ask questions later? Or would they just pummel him into pulp? ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2006, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/452 "2006-10-03T06:31:08Z")
Naw, the Big Dawg would just grab the yappy little mutt in his jaws and shake him till his teeth fell out. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2006, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/453 "2006-10-03T10:41:20Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] He also has a tendancey to want to get physical with people who can smack him around verbally. So the question then becomes: How much of a crime is it to physically assault a former President? If Clinton still has his SS detail (Gore doesn’t seem to have his around too much) would they shoot O’Reilly first and ask questions later? Or would they just pummel him into pulp? [/QUOTE] Does it have to be either/or? Can we not see our way to a win-win situation here? Even if pummelled to a pulp can we really take the chance that he does not have an anthrax laden suicide belt on? I submit we cannot. Best to err on the side of caution. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2006, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/454 "2006-10-03T14:14:12Z")
[QUOTE=tagos] Even if pummelled to a pulp can we really take the chance that he does not have an anthrax laden suicide belt on? I submit we cannot. Best to err on the side of caution. [/QUOTE] But what if the SS agent fires into Bill’s bloated body and sets off an explosive cloud of falafel? What then, huh? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2006, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067/455 "2006-10-03T14:26:04Z")
[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy] But what if the SS agent fires into Bill’s bloated body and sets off an explosive cloud of falafel? What then, huh? [/QUOTE] It’s a chance I’m willing to take. Being on the other side of the Atlantic and all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-has-a-hissy-fit/374067.md?page=22)