Clinton destroys critical questions on Fox News

[garbagemanlb]

On FNC this morning they were talking about the interview and the 'question' on the bottom of the screen was something like:

'Clinton interview: meltdown or calculated?'

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I have no idea what you are talking about. When did the "conservatives" say Clinton was obsessing over terrorists?

the Bush team thought the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism. "It was clear," says one, "that this was not the same priority to them that it was to us."

"Terrorism wasn't on their plate of key issues."

TIME Magazine: Before Sept. 11 — The Secret History

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

On FNC this morning they were talking about the interview and the 'question' on the bottom of the screen was something like:

'Clinton interview: meltdown or calculated?'

Earlier, Fox was teasing the interview on its website with the headline, "Clinton Gets Crazed." They have now changed it to "Strong Reaction."

[lew]

Just watched it.




Clinton was about to kick his ass.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by lew

Just watched it.




Clinton was about to kick his ass.

There's already people fact checking his statements on the blogosphere. It's not looking too good for Clinton right now on that end.

In fact it seems he put all his eggs in one basket with Clark and apparently in Clarks book he disagrees with Clinton and was critical of Clinton...

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by JaJae

In fact it seems he put all his eggs in one basket with Clark and apparently in Clarks book he disagrees with Clinton and was critical of Clinton..

for what? way to be specific...

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Think Progress » VIDEO: Clinton Sets The Record Straight On Terrorism, Smacks Down Fox News

here's part of the video for those who missed it

Why does anyone need part of it when I've given the whole thing?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

On FNC this morning they were talking about the interview and the 'question' on the bottom of the screen was something like:

'Clinton interview: meltdown or calculated?'

That's because of this:

Wallace: "I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me. "

I was delighted to get the chance to interview former President Clinton. This was the first one-on-one sitdown he's ever given "Fox News Sunday" during our 10 years on the air.

The groundrules were simple--15 minutes--to be divided evenly between questions about the Clinton Global Initiative and anything else I wanted to ask.

I intended to keep to the groundrules. In fact--I prepared 10 questions--5 on the CGI and 5 on other issues.

I began the interview with 2 questions about Mr. Clinton's commitment to humanitarian causes. His answers were cogent and good-humored.

Then--I asked him about his Administration's record in fighting terror--fully intending to come back to CGI later (as indeed I did).

I asked what I thought was a non-confrontational question about whether he could have done more to "connect the dots and really go after al Qaeda."

I was utterly surprised by the tidal wave of details--emotion--and political attacks that followed.

The President was clearly stung by any suggestion that he had not done everything he could to get bin Laden. He attacked right-wingers--accused me of a "conservative hit job"--and even spun a theory I still don't understand that somehow Fox was trying to cover up the fact that NewsCorp. chief Rupert Murdoch was supporting his Global Initiative. I still have no idea what set him off.
Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward--wagging his finger in my face--and then poking the notes I was holding--I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me.

The President said I had a smirk. Actually--it was sheer wonder at what I was witnessing.

I tried repeatedly to adhere to the ground rules--to move the President along--and back to the CGI. But he wanted to keep talking about his record fighting terror.

When it became clear he wanted to throw out the ground rules--then I just went with the flow of the interview.

[Diesel66]

FOXNews.com - Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02 - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Clark's talking to foxnews

Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent. And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

Final decision was to rapidly shut down al-qaeda instead of the slow method Clinton had and it was given to the President on Sep 10th

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

[garbagemanlb]

So Clark is critical of clinton too...if anything, that makes what he says in the book all the more legit.

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by JaJae

There's already people fact checking his statements on the blogosphere. It's not looking too good for Clinton right now on that end.

I'm sure Little Green Footballs will find the truth.

[motivez]

Just got done watching it.. to Clinton

I can't wait until we have a President who isn't afraid to admit mistakes and speak candidly about things like this again..

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Just got done watching it.. to Clinton

I can't wait until we have a President who isn't afraid to admit mistakes and speak candidly about things like this again..

Yea if only it wasn't bullshit

Woulda been great if what he said held some merit.

Fact is he didn't dispell anything that's been said about him. And with Clarke getting on TV now essentially correcting Clinton's interview...

It took some balls though. I hand it to him for that. He leaned in and got real aggressive like I've never seen a President do with a reporter before.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yea if only it wasn't bullshit

Woulda been great if what he said held some merit.

Fact is he didn't dispell anything that's been said about him. And with Clarke getting on TV now essentially correcting Clinton's interview...

link?

[JaJae]

Link

[Thorgrim]

Like Clinton said the CIA/FBI couldn't work out deals with neighboring countries

WJC
"I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden.
But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got after 9/11."
RC
"The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea."

WJC
So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti- terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke,
RC
"Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years."


Stories match up...

[JaJae]

No he said the FBI/CIA refused to listen to him and he wasn't willing to use our military. So he just gave up... which is what everyone faults him for. He requested the FBI/CIA do something, when they told him his plan was FUBAR'd (after he fucked up previous missions and got people killed), he just gave up and didn't do anything further about it.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

No he said the FBI/CIA refused to listen to him and he wasn't willing to use our military. So he just gave up... which is what everyone faults him for. He requested the FBI/CIA do something, when they told him his plan was FUBAR'd (after he fucked up previous missions and got people killed), he just gave up and didn't do anything further about it.

You can't just go in guns blazing without fuel depots and local support, the region itself wouldn't understand...Pakistan might have thought it was being invaded for its nuclear developments

and previous fuckups...jesus we launched how many thousands of missiles and I am sure a lot missed their targets and you are complaining about Clinton screwing up?

How can you say "well when he tried it was messy" and in same breath say he should have tried more? I'm sorry he wasn't St. Clinton II

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You can't just go in guns blazing without fuel depots and local support, the region itself wouldn't understand...Pakistan might have thought it was being invaded for its nuclear developments

and previous fuckups...jesus we launched how many thousands of missiles and I am sure a lot missed their targets and you are complaining about Clinton screwing up?

How can you say "well when he tried it was messy" and in same breath say he should have tried more? I'm sorry he wasn't St. Clinton II

Wait, he went guns blazing in Somalia.. no? How many times did he send troops to regions of the world?

If he put the order through to make it happen the CIA and FBI wouldn't send our troops in blind.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Wait, he went guns blazing in Somalia.. no? How many times did he send troops to regions of the world?

If he put the order through to make it happen the CIA and FBI wouldn't send our troops in blind.

jesus...back to somalia...

I am not going to play leaping games through the entire 8 years of Clinton's presidency, he is not the patron saint of liberals (we have bones to pick with him for not building up the national party)

the bottom line is, if he was calmer, not instigated, perhaps he could have stated things more clearly and less aggressively, but all the points he made stand up, only if you nitpick and take things out of context like this was a state of the union address can you rack up some points against him

it was a home run by Clinton, and the facts are with him, Fred Barnes is part of the extreme right Republican machine and he had the transcript for days and he said NOTHING against Clinton on the facts, because he knew he was right

this reminds me of the WMD thing...the republican machine won't touch it because its BS but the extreme rightwing blogs will because they have nothing to lose