T Nation

Clinton Puts the Smack Down on Fox




Holy shit. The transcript for that is better than some books I've read. I would love for that to continue with a certain president on the other end of the conversation.


Clinton raises some important issues. There's a large number of cheerleaders who need to learn to think for themselves and hold BOTH sides to a strict critical analysis.

Unfortunately, that will never happen.



In all honesty, the guy did ask a perfectly fairy question, and didn't even ask it in a rude or accusatory way, and Clinton went off and got his panties in a wad pretty much out of the blue.

There's a loooooot of disagreement on whether or not Clinton was as foreward-leaning as he should've been against Bin Laden, so take everything you hear (especially from Bill himself, who is trying to defend his legacy) with a massive grain of salt.

My take? In hindsight, he probably wasn't aggressive enough, and might even have held back on opportunities to get Bin Laden (according to Michael Scheuer, who wrote "Imperial Hubris," Bill definately flubbed numerous chances), but at the same time, with 9/11 not having happened yet, I can somewhat see how he might not have thought it necessary to put forces at risk and stir up a "hornet's nest," if you will. Obviously, though, hindsight is 20/20.


On fear in politics:


Clinton should know better than to go on Fox for anything.


The GOP congress should carry as much of the blame as Clinton did if not more because they critized him for trying to bomb Bin Laden.

I thought he was wagging the dog at the time.

It is too bad that he did not drop more bombs.


The cheerleaders are certainly here.

His anger seems VERY calculated and is used to divert attention from the questions.

He knew the questions were coming, and it appears he planned to get pissed so his anger would be the story rather than his failures to defend the U.S. from Bin Laden.


To not even realize the heavy politics behind the questioning is more illustrative of your own blindness to issues of import than anything else...

Fox is incredibly blatant with asking questions that end up creating a political stance or impression. The daily show did a pretty funny piece on it just recently.

Your media groups are really letting you down with respect to providing professional journalism -- as opposed to political posturing.


You act like he didn't answer the questions...in detail. He did. He didn't say what you wanted him to?


Are you saying that unless I hate Clinton as much as you do then I am a cheerleader?


He said he was pissed because such question would never be posed to a member of the Bush administration, especially not in that way and not by Fox news.

That would be highly unlikely anyway since Bush does not do "free speech" with his 145 IQ, his Yale diploma and his decade of experience in public office.

Yay Clinton, he officially nailed him.


He's still old Slick Willy.

Democrats must have finally realized they needed a better mouthpiece than douchebags Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi.

"I was tough on terrorism. And I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

It's a riot watching all the Kool Aid drinking lefties get as moist as schoolgirls whenever he speaks. Must be some serious arousal going on for all of you.

Maybe if you ask real nice, Tim Patterson will allow you all to have a picture of him in the Powerful Images frame. Give you something to look at when you're Spanking the Monkey.

Talk about cheerleaders. Hilarious.


Perhaps so.


pox, mazilla,

What a man!!! What a tough stance against the press!!!

He really showed "faux" news who was the boss!!!

He wasn't defensive. There weren't any right wing conspiracy theories thrown out.

Pure logic.

He deserves none of the blame for bin laden. Remember, he had battle plans ready to go. It was the intelligence services that stopped him.

It wasn't like he could override them. Hell, I'm sure he wasn't even thinking about the aspirin factory bombing.

I LOVED how tough he was on murdoch. Remember people, murdoch is the evil genius who only stumps for Republicans. He is the guy who tells the "faux" news people what to say.

Finally, I want you all to remember that Wallace has never worked at a liberal leaning institution. He hasn't been in the business for 30 years. There is NO WAY he should quote a liberal author who contends that bill clinton didn't do enough during his 8 years in office to go after bin laden.

It's out of bounds to even think about questioning bill clinton about not connecting the dots between the WTC, the Cole, and the African embassy bombings.

Only "faux news" and murdoch in particular would think about questioning bill clinton about those things.

No one else even thinks that bill clinton deserves most of the blame for his many failures.

It's the vast right wing conspiracy out to divert attention from Iraq!!!
It's almost November, people!!!

That's it, after that interview, I've decided that al gore won in 2000 and john kerry was robbed in ohio.

I'm turning in my "faux news/halliburton" card and becoming a full-fledged member of moveon.org.



Totally agreed in general, however in the case of this specific line of questioning, I thought the interviewer was asking completely fair questions.


At least he admits to making mistakes...


I do not consider myself a "lefty" but if my life depended on the decisions of Clinton or Bush I knew who I`d choose and you would choose the same.


Not one of you yet has actually taken on what was specifically said in that interview and most of the transcript has been posted right here.