Let’s get it straight. The “question” was actually a rambling monologue covering a host of events, referencing a partisan attack book, and all presented by someone who is such a coward that he had to attribute the question to emailers. There was no question. There was a pit rant by a partisan coward.
And like many such things, there was a fact-based bitch-slap of a response. The only novelty was that it was done outside of the Dope.
As interim Political Commissar for the SDMB Revolutionary Front (Trotskyist), I can speak with a modicum of authority.
In short, no. You are Candadian. Not that there’s anything wrong with that! But the appellation “Usual Suspects” must be defined within the US, as it entails a special degree of contempt and disdain for The Leader that rightly is the province of actual 'Merkins.
Admittedly, this sounds somewhat arbitrary, but you have to keep in mind that this special holding of contempt ("…and the horse upon in which he rode…")defines a distinct group within our borders, whereas outside those borders its pretty much everybody. Which means the term loses all distinction.
Besides which, the term implies some nefarious cunning and skulking with intent. Canadians say “Excuse me” when run over in a crosswalk. I’m sure you see the problem there.
The timing of the question to Clinton is significant, though, coming as it does right after an ABC attempted hatchet job. Thomas is at least open about her hatred of Bush, while Wallace (and indeed the entire Fox News Division) makes claims of determined fairness. Clinton seemed to think the 9/11 Commission Report answered all the relevant, since he kept encouraging Wallace to read it and Richard Clark’s book.
I can’t figure out why anyone thinks it was a hissy fit, contrived or real.
Well, except for, y’know, everything that has taken place in the last three years.
And inre the OP, I’ve not seen the footage, just heard people bitch about or laud Clinton’s response. I’ll have to try and remedy that this eve. Although, considering the people claiming that he went batshit insane (IRL as well as here), I’m inclined to think that he handled himself well, and it’s being spun as, “OMG!!! Clinton is teh crazeeeee!!!11111!!!”
Standard stuff and nonsense that issues forth from the regular gang of idiots, IOW.
Ah, but you don’t understand.
When someone asks a hard question of a Republican, they are just doing their job. When they ask a hard question of a Democrat, they are partisan and unfair.
I tend to believe it was real. Slick Willie was never motivated by anything other than a desire for popularity and re-election, and now cannot be re-elected to anything. Thus all he has to defend is his image. Questioning his image is thus going to trigger an angry reaction, unless it is something the spin-meisters have already worked out a defense against (Monica-gate) or something he can dismiss as old news (lying under oath). It would be interesting to see how big a tantrum he would pitch if questioned about the pardon for money stuff he pulled at the end of his term, or if he participated in trashing the White House* and the rest of the stuff he thinks he got away with.
Regards,
Shodan
*Yes, it was - don’t bother with the denials.
Well, let’s ask a hard question, then:
Assuming Clinton had taken OBL more seriously (or at least as seriously as hindsight critics say he should have taken him), what concessions, if any, do you think he should have offered to Pakistan (a proven nuclear power, so threats of force are problematic) in order to get permission to use their territory as a staging area to invade Afghanistan?
It would be interesting to actually test this, but the problem is that nobody asks hard questions of Republicans. For example, as to the point raised by Clinton in the interview, he was, of course, correct. Wallace, nor his predecessor, Tony Snow, NEVER ONCE asked anyone in the Bush administration why they didn’t respond to the attack on the Cole. See here: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/23/wallace-cole/. If you disbelieve them, feel free to provide your own Lexus-Nexus search results to the contrary. I for one would be very interested to hear why the Bush administration did nothing about the Cole.
Another thing that is clear is that when anyone opposes George W. Bush, his minions will start suggesting that they are crazy or unhinged. They’re doing it to Clinton and they did it to John McCain. It’s about all they have. fortunately, it appears that it just isn’t working anymore. See this Gallup Poll.
Uh oh. Reality is setting in. At least the righties aren’t going out with dignity.
But Faux News doesn’t ask the hard questions of Republicans. Media Matters refutes Wallace’s claim that he had asked plenty of questions of Bush Administration officials regarding anti-terror efforts prior to 9/11. Media Matters lists 43 top Bush officials appearing on Fox News Sunday after 9/11 and only in the 3/28/04 appearance by Rumsfeld was anything remotely like the Clinton question asked of a Bush official. Now 1/43 isn’t zero but I think Clinton’s claim that these questions are not asked of Republicans is valid.
Underestimating Bill Clinton has never worked for the Republicans in the past, so do so at your own peril. To conclude that he isn’t motivated to promote the success of the Democratic Party, once again leaves you wide open for a well-deserved drubbing at the polls in '06 and '08.
“Why didn’t you do more?” is hard, but fair? If you can’t see the levels of presumption and spin in there, you’re not paying attention.
Debaser, why did it never occur to you to stop sexually abusing puppies and children?
Is that hard, but fair?
Actually, they list 43 appearances by top officials. Rice (as National Security Advisor, later Secretary of State) appeared 22 times, Rumsfeld 9, Cheney 3, among others.
Whatever you want to say about Fox, Chris Wallace is a even handed journalist. Clinton went ballistic probably because he’s still pissed about the ABC movie, but he shouldn’t have gone into attack mode like he did. He of all people should remember not to wag his finger in righteous indignation, taking personal swipes at CW instead of just answering the question.
What he was right about is that at the time, the nation wasn’t ready for an invasion of Afghanstan and the Republican Congress wouldn’t have allowed it. He got major criticism from the right every time he did try and retaliate. As for retaliation for the Cole incident, Bush had more time in office than Clinton after that attack. Why didn’t Bush retaliate?
Both Clinton and Bush could’ve done more, but we’re looking at this with 20/20 hindsight. At any rate, there is no way the American public would’ve stood for an invasion of Afghanistan before 9/11/01-- and nothing short of that would have been effective in going after al Qaeda.
Darn! Just when I was getting facts together, Shodan pulls a premptive strike, rendering all facts moot and silent! Such a mastery of rhetorical skills! Now we’re stuck with the glaring equivalence: prankish trashing of White House offices, as compared to sending our kids off to get killed and maimed to no purpose. I mean, really, tomato, tomahto, Bush, lying sack.
Outsmarted again! Curses!
You’re all making this way too personal.
Typical American response.
I’ve read the 1st 4 pages of this thread and found it very interesting. It parallels similar threads on Howard Dean.
Carry on. (pun intended)
Watch your mouth, or we raise your rent.
Because meme-ing it as a hissy fit degrades it from righteous indignation and a manly slapdown to whiny petulance, with a side order of limp-wristed nancy-boy.
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.
My belief is that Clinton went into the interview ONLY after he had seen (and agreed to answer) all of the questions. Wallace threw him a curve ball-and THAT is why Willie threw his hissy fit. It wasn’t because bill cared anything about his answer, it was the fact that he was (momentarily) out of control. That wagging finger-it was like when he stood up and said " ah did not have sexula relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"
Bill Clinto has two objectives now:
-securing his legacy
-getting Hillary into the oval office
So, all of his future interviews will be very controlled affairs.
Hey, you buy a billion dollars of stuff from us every day. You’re our bitch.