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.
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:
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! 
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.
So…that was the proof?
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.
Uh, Starv? About that proof? When you have some time?
It will be interesting to see how the polls move after this episode. The Gallup Poll, 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.
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?
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.
Eye of the beholder.
Eh. If he thinks CW is a political tool, he shouldn’t have agreed to the interview.
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 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.
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?”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
: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. PDF, BTW.
Feel free to kiss whatever you hear talking.
Regards,
Shodan
Oops, not in the Pit, are we? Strike most of that last.
Regards,
Shodan
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.
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 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?
Poor little experienced professional “journalist”!
Ah, so, when I asked you a bullshit slanted question a few pages ago, you should have responded with vague generalities?
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Oooh! Oooh! I usually just lurk on these GD threads, can I pick the low-hanging fruit?