I finally saw it and that was no hissy fit.
And the true nature of it was when Clinton asked to the effect, have you ever pressed somebody in the Bush administration whyt they haven’t gotten OBL or why they are spending 7 times the money in Iraq then trying to go after the real culprits of 9/11?
Does Wallace have a good response to that?
Clinton was clearly upset and rattled. Maybe it wasn’t a hissy fit, but he did lose his poise. The facts and the truth clearly bothered Clinton.
Clinton never answered direct questions. Instead he chose to spin things.
Cheers but I shouldn’t really be on that list. Not about US politics anyway.
My knowledge about Somalia is reading the book and watching the movie of Black Hawk Down for example 
Compare and contrast Mr Bush when put under a bit of pressure from Matt Lauer, not exactly a heavyweight. You’re family Matt, think of your family. Wooo…woooo…He’s behind you Matt. woooo…woooo
I say exactly the opposite. It’s the position of judging individual candidates by their own merits that has allowed politicians to pull the old bait-and-switch over and over again. In a governmental system structured such as ours is – with shared and divided power, and winner-take-all elections – you have to consider party as the primary indicator of what officials will be able to accomplish once in power.
This old “I’m a good man; ignore the party label” is a dodge. It’s a con game. We don’t give individual people power in this system; so the individual merits of an individual office holder are less important than the shared values of the party he belongs to. However, by voting for the “best individual,” you allow them to repeatedly come back to you with the same story (judge me on my individual merits) while ensuring that the policies they say they advocate will always be trumped by (what should not be a secret) agenda of the leaders of their party.
People should pay more attention to party labels and concentrate on what a party will do once in the majority, regardless of what some of its individual members might say they believe in.
That direct enough for you?
Cite please. This doesn’t even make any sense. The only facts in the conversation were introduced by Clinton himself. Wallace certainly wasn’t going to be bringing up any facts, knowing the probability that they’d backfire on him. All Clinton did was explain exactly what happened, what he was thinking and asking people to read Clarke’s book (a little too often, IMHO). And then he lambasted Fox in general for not holding their boy up to the same standards (or any standards, for that matter).
During an interview on the Daily Show during the 2004 campaign, Clinton gave this advice to Kerry - that you need to respond to attacks very strongly.
This interview was a great example of this advice in action. Clinton didn’t owe anything to Wallace after the attempted ambush. Remember this came right after ABC’s attempt to rewrite history. Clinton’s also very good about taking control of the interview. During the latest interview on the Daily Show, Clinton talked right over Stewart’s joke. Stewart wasn’t being negative, but Clinton wanted every second he could get for his message, and he made sure he got it.
Cheers back atcha.
Sorry for the misattribution of grandeur. 
I lurk in some of the political threads (trying to learn, really I am!) and thought I’d seen you 'round in there enough that your username looked right at home in a political thread.
Well, that’s gonna bug me now. I know I respect you for something, darn it! What was it?
So my fiancee and myself were at the mall and decided for the fun of it to buy a lottery ticket at the kiosk there. So of course the guy hands me the ticket and I jokingly say, “That’s the winning ticket, right?” The second the word “right” left my lips I did one of these :smack: mentally. Because he hasn’t heard that one before now has he? He just said, without enthusiasm, “You bet.” Can you blame him? My fiancee gave me the look of, “Must you?”
Ever been done in by the obvious joke?
Whoops! That was supposed to be a whole new post! SIGH
Nevermind.
And do you still respect him this morning?
Hey George, does Dick know you’re using the computer?
Why would he bring up Chavez’s tripe when it wasn’t the subject of the interview? That’s absurd. “Why didn’t Clinton denouce Stalinist Russia? Does this guy hate America or something?”
To the point, there was no hissy fit. He was cleary angry with the constant blame being thrown on him by supporters of the current administration, and who can blame him? He did try, and admits freely that he failed and tried to make his failings public so that they would not be repeated.
Clinton has a laundry list of faults, but this isn’t one of them.
I also have to withdraw my name from any list of the politically educated.
In any case, let’s examine some the facts that allegedly bothered Clinton. Referencing the 1993 “Black Hawk Down” Somalia event in relation to Osama is ridiculous; at the time, who’d’ve made any connection to Al-Qaida? I’ll bet Osama, if he noted the event at all, cheered the American deaths. So what? There are earlier decisions made in the Reagan and Bush41 administrations that affected Afghanistan directly which in hindsight had hugely greater influences (Reagan’s withdrawal from Beirut after the barracks bombing was arguably much much worse, since it demonstrated the asymmetrical principal that one suicidal guy with a truck bomb could kill hundreds and shape American policy, while the Rangers and Delta Force in Somalia died in combat, inflicting at least 1000 casualties in the process), so if you’re going to dig into the past and find reasons to blame someone, why not start there? Or decades earlier during any past president’s dealings with Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia?
As for “spin”, I actually found Clinton’s responses to be refreshingly candid and direct, with little or no euphemism or rhetoric. He has the freedom to be candid, of course, being a former president. Clinton described this freedom pretty casually, right up until 4:07 in the video (linked in post #5) when Wallace, claiming rather disingenuously how “surprised” he was that many of the e-mails he received prior to this interview were asking him to ask Clinton “why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and Al-Qaida out of business when you were president?” Since this is supposedly unedited footage, Wallace is more than ten minutes ahead of schedule since he’d promised Clinton that 15 minutes would be spent on Clinton’s Global Initiative. Clinton thought about his answer, started to respond at 4:45, backed off to let Wallace finish his question (such as it was) and restarted at 5:07. I remember at the time the calls to get the heck outta Somalia, and I see Clinton does as well. Wallace tries to backpedal at 7:16 but Clinton won’t let him.
Clinton’s pretty frank about his desire to kill OBL as well as his failure to ultimately do so. No spin, there. Wallace, seeing Clinton isn’t going to back down or throw a hissy fit, tries to invite Clinton to talk about his Global Initiative at 11:26 but Clinton refuses, determined instead to answer the 4:07 question completely, as he said he would do. At 11:56, Clinton starts to slide into veiled and not-so-veiled criticisms of the Bush43 administration, which I think is understandable in those circumstances. Sprinkled in throughout are negative comments about Fox’s own bias, which I also find to have merit. At 15:34, after the first segment of the interview ends, Wallace rather unconvincingly says: “When we return we [half-smile, chuckle] finally get back to the Clinton Global Initiative…” as though Clinton was the one who sidetracked the discussion in the first place.
Beyond the fact that Clinton’s pants are too short, showing part of his ankles, I can’t fault him for a single thing during the interview. The overall impression I’m left with is an increased interest in reading Richard Clark’s book. If anything, Fox inadvertently did Clinton a favour, giving him a venue in which he could convincingly crush ABC’s fictionalized Path to 9/11 broadcast.
There are people in this thread who say Clinton lost his cool. I’m not seeing it, and I’d like them to cite timings in the video when they think this has occurred.
Dude, the whole freakin’ rest of your post indicates that you are, at least, more politically informed than I am.
(there was a barracks bombing in Beirut?)
Sorry, you stay on the list, buddy! 
It’s obvious to me that this was just one more attempt to sell the neo-con claim that democrats are weak, therefore republicans must stay iin control or the U.S. will be in future danger. Bush’s shoot first, might makes right, mentality has failed miserably and anyone who can’t see that, especially at this stage in the game, is either totally clueless, or in denial. If you’ll recall, the military establishment wasn’t particularly endeared of Clinton, but many of them were eager to do Bush’s bidding. Despite that, Clinton used military force very judiciously and w/ fairly good effect, whereas Bush has squandered military lives and resources w/ disasterous results.
I loved how Clinton was getting very specific, as he was asked to do, then Wallace back peddled and tried to ask, just a general question. Obviously the specifics, didn’t suit Wallace.
It was in all the papers. 
1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing. On October 23rd, a suicide bomber drove a delivery truck loaded with explosives estimated as roughly equivalent to 12,000 lbs of TNT into the headquarters the US Marines had established at Beirut International Airport. Nearly simultaneous (and wildly under-reported in the press at the time, at least in North America) was a similar attack against the Sixth French Parachute Infantry Regiment. Among the dead were 241 American servicemen (including 220 Marines) and 58 French paratroopers.
The immediate aftereffects of Beirut and Mogadishu don’t matter - what is remembered is only that relatively soon after both, the Americans were gone. Reagan was criticized at the time, and then it was Clinton’s turn. I’m just saying that if you insist on blaming Clinton (and you’d be wrong in any event), it’s only fair that you at least mention Reagan because what happened in Beirut was a heck of a lot worse, and both events found their way into the rhetoric of extremists.
Which makes me wonder how many members of the military who once despised him are now having second thoughts about it?