quote: "I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him," Clinton said, referring to Afghanistan.
"We do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is one-seventh as important as Iraq," he added, referring to the approximately 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq
Maybe he went a bit far, but he's received a ton of crap recently over bin laden and AQ, when there's information everywhere that he DID in fact try to fight terrorism, but was hamstringed quite often by Republicans.
But here's my bigger question: Why is former President Clinton being asked harder questions, and being asked them more often, than CURRENT President Bush? And why do we accept the blow offs answers we DO get?
[ September 24, 2006, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Because the media system in this country is totally and completely borked. It's theater, nothing more.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Because the media system in this country is totally and completely borked. It's theater, nothing more.
Well, that is true for Fox News at least. Clinton probably should have known better than to do an interview with them...
Posted by seven (Member # 5367) on :
I have a lot of respect for Clinton.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why is former President Clinton being asked harder questions, and being asked them more often, than CURRENT President Bush?
He's not.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I watched the press conference Bush had a while back when he was pushing the "let's torture terrorists" so much. Some of the questions he was asked were tough, but he side stepped, ignored, or stonewalled them.
I don't know if he doesn't want to answer the hard questions, can't answer them, or is just so pig headed in his views that any other ideas simply don't make sense to him. It's pretty frightening to me, no matter which reason you pick.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Dag's right. He's really not. There are a ton of interviews out there right now--Clinton's playing up some type of summit he's doing. Watch them.
Then watch any Bush press confrence, or even any Tony Snow press confrence.
Then, see who's really being asked the tough questions.
In fact, read George Stephanopoulos's book All Too Human too see how Clinton is used to being treated by the media--it includes accounts of how 60 Minutes babied him through his first interview with them. Anyone think Bush would be treated like that?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Why is former President Clinton being asked harder questions, and being asked them more often, than CURRENT President Bush?
He's not.
Which brings us to my second point, they tie together really. There's no point in asking the question if you aren't going to press for a real answer. It's their job to get answers. Asking and then letting Bush spoonfeed them a junk answer that answers nothing is just as useless as not asking. They aren't there to give Bush a pulpit.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: Dag's right. He's really not. There are a ton of interviews out there right now--Clinton's playing up some type of summit he's doing. Watch them.
Then watch any Bush press confrence, or even any Tony Snow press confrence.
Then, see who's really being asked the tough questions.
In fact, read George Stephanopoulos's book All Too Human too see how Clinton is used to being treated by the media--it includes accounts of how 60 Minutes babied him through his first interview with them. Anyone think Bush would be treated like that?
When was that? Clinton was hammered in his second term. And considering the things Bush has done and said, I think he NEEDS to be hammered away at.
And I'll say it again, tough questions don't matter if they aren't getting real answers.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
You never will get any real answers from either of the two.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Watch the video. It's up at foxnews.com.
He asks one question--granted, it's a long one--but then Clinton says he's only being asked this question because he's on Fox News.
Clinton is obsessed with his legacy. This isn't just talk about now, this is part of his character.
My college history professor, right after Clinton was elected, talked about him. It was right after Clinton had got elected, few us knew that much about him, but this professor knew him pretty well--he'd been the producer of a news program in Arkansas while Clinton was governer. A Southern Democrat, in case that matters.
He said keep two things in mind about Clinton as we watched his presidency. He said the first one was that Clinton was extremely likeable--he had a way of making you feel like the only guy in the room whenever he'd talk to you, no matter who you were.
The other was that his legacy is the most important thing to him. He wanted to be the next FDR, and he wanted that bad. And he wanted that bad. (Again, this was right after he got elected.
Since then, everything I've seen or heard the President do has backed up that assertion.
So if there's something Clinton will defend like mad, it's his legacy. That's what he does here.
Watch the interview. Clinton's answers are good. His tone is unneccesarry. But that's understandable if you know how much his legacy means to him.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: You never will get any real answers from either of the two.
Not true. I think Clinton is very open, informative, and eloquent.
doc -
Tone? Bah. I think he got overly aggressive, but considering what they told him he was going to be interviewed about, it's no surprise he'd feel ambushed. The man doesn't venture forth with criticisms of Bush. He DOES talk about his presidency, but not Bush's.
The question asked is rather pointed, and I can see from the way it was worded why he'd be so annoyed. I read the transcript, and watched a chunk of it. The way he asked it: "but the question is, why didn't you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?" makes it look like he was trying to strike a nerve.
I rarely hear anyone but Clarke, Clinton, and some Democrats personally asking Bush himself why HE himself didn't connect the dots on 9/11. Not anymore anyways. They did after it happened, but he's smothered that since. But Clinton is right, look at the facts, he DID try, and he tried hard, and when he failed, he took responsibility. That right there earns him more respect for this specific subject than I could ever have for Bush.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
When he wants to be he can be, and I think he is one of the better presidents we've had in recent years, but a lot of times he speaks bs too.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: His tone is unneccesarry
I disagree. I think his tone is absolutely necessary, not least because it's about time someone called Fox News on this particular tactic: ambushing guests under the pretext of an interview on another topic. They do it all the time.
Now, I agree with you that Clinton's concerned about his legacy. But I also think that he believes the Initiative will to some extent be his legacy; he doesn't consider that his life ended once he left office. And so I believe he was also genuinely angry that a program which he considers essential to his "legacy" was used as a pretext to get him on a program where they'd then ambush him with questions engineered by Republican strategists.
BTW, does Fox News have the whole interview yet? When I looked at their site yesterday, they only had a few very unflattering clips pieced together; I had to go to other sites to see the interview in its entirety, and the comments in context.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Tom -
Don't have the video I don't think, but here's the transcript. Posted by Billy Joel (Member # 5357) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think his tone is absolutely necessary, not least because it's about time someone called Fox News on this particular tactic: ambushing guests under the pretext of an interview on another topic. They do it all the time.
I agree completely, Tom.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
clinton is my hero.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Not to make excuses for Fox news or anything, but I suspect Clinton fully expected this and was fully prepared to get his hands dirty.
Posted by HegemonsAcolyte (Member # 1468) on :
yeah... if they have a tendency to do those ambushes i doubt he was surprised by it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm pretty sure he anticipated the question, yeah.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I still love the fact that he called them on it. And wow, what a take down. Though he dragged it out a little bit.
I miss him. You never really appreciate what you have until it's gone. Ok, also he left office when I was still in like... 7th grade.
Posted by HegemonsAcolyte (Member # 1468) on :
i have missed him ever since he left.... i have never been a fan of bush, but from time to time i gotta say that i like him... sadly it is not too often.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: I still love the fact that he called them on it. And wow, what a take down. Though he dragged it out a little bit.
I agree.
The fact that he was prepared for it does not diminish the power of his rhetoric during that exchange.
Can you imagine Kerry or Bush pulling off something similar with ten times more preparation?
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
The whole video is up, in two parts, on the Fox News homepage.
After you watch it, click on the other video with Clinton's picture that says, "Strong Reaction" to see a brief discussion with Chris Wallace and a Fox News anchor about the interview, including Wallace's versison of what the terms of the interview were.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:WALLACE: And in March 2003, just before the invasion, you said, talking about Iraq, "and a very strong link to training Al Qaeda in chemical and biological techniques."
But, Secretary Rice, a Senate committee has just revealed that in February of 2002, months before the president spoke, more than a year, 13 months, before you spoke, that the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded this and let's put it up on the screen.
"Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin Laden any useful CB" that's chemical or biological "knowledge or assistance."
Didn't you and the president ignore intelligence that contradicted your case?
RICE: What the president and I and other administration officials relied on and you simply rely on the central intelligence. The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, gave that very testimony, that, in fact, there were ties going on between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back for a decade. Indeed, the 9/11 Commission talked about contacts between the two.
The 9/11 Comission talked about the contacts in the sense that they dismissed the idea that there was anything to them. Didn't see Mr. Wallace calling her on that though.
[ September 25, 2006, 03:40 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Clinton was entirely prepared for the ambush. It was a trap for Fox News.
God, you can just imagine the frantic hand-wavings and shouts of "ABORT! ABORT!" going on. The attempt at abrupt topic change is testament.
Heh, how silly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I have not yet seen the interview. I think it should be pointed out, though, that there is not necessarily much comparison between the kinds of questions and answers a former president, who cannot be re-elected, gets and gives, and the questions and answers a sitting president in a congressional election year gets and gives.
To expect the same levels of anything...well, OK, expecting is one thing. Being surprised when they aren't there, or criticizing the one while praising the other for them? That's just plain silly.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I have not yet seen the interview. I think it should be pointed out, though, that there is not necessarily much comparison between the kinds of questions and answers a former president, who cannot be re-elected, gets and gives, and the questions and answers a sitting president in a congressional election year gets and gives.
To expect the same levels of anything...well, OK, expecting is one thing. Being surprised when they aren't there, or criticizing the one while praising the other for them? That's just plain silly.
Clinton's point was as much a Stewart-esque criticism of the media as it was a comparison of his vs. Bush's foreign policy. He makes an extremely important point: why DOES the media continue to badger him about these things when it has given the folks in power every benefit of the doubt for five years?
In any case, while it certainly isn't surprising that Bush can squirrel out of any actual accountability in his interviews, I don't think it's at all silly to expect (nay, demand) otherwise. It's a sad state of affairs for a democracy when you cannot reasonably expect your leaders to deal with their constituents with candor and honesty.
(And all politics aside, damn is Clinton a helluva speaker.)
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Lyrhawn wrote:
quote:Maybe he went a bit far, but he's received a ton of crap recently over bin laden and AQ, when there's information everywhere that he DID in fact try to fight terrorism, but was hamstringed quite often by Republicans.
How did the Republicans try to "hamstring" Clinton's efforts to fight terrorism?
Is that the Clinotn defense? "I wanted to be more agressive with AQ, but the GOP wouldn't let me." Wow, now that's leadersship!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's precisely what I meant about 'expecting being one thing', Tarrsk.
I'm a fan, and a participant, of expecting and demanding a high level of candid and straightforward speaking from elected officials. I'm just pointing out that it's maybe not all that surprising that Clinton socked it to the media this time around, and not because gee-wiz he's such an honest, up-front guy with guts.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: Is that the Clinotn defense? "I wanted to be more agressive with AQ, but the GOP wouldn't let me."
No, it isn't. Read the full transcript -- it's linked earlier in the thread.
Though I'm not American, I wasn't big on Clinton when he was in office. In any case, over the last 4-6 years I've grown increasingly impressed by him, particularly with respect to what he's been doing since he got out of office.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: clinton is my hero.
Well, he can add the Canadian Party of Communist Gamers support to his list anyway Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That's precisely what I meant about 'expecting being one thing', Tarrsk.
I'm a fan, and a participant, of expecting and demanding a high level of candid and straightforward speaking from elected officials. I'm just pointing out that it's maybe not all that surprising that Clinton socked it to the media this time around, and not because gee-wiz he's such an honest, up-front guy with guts.
Ah, fair enough. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So when do we get to the part about you making provably wrong-and ever more likely to be knowingly wrong-statements about President Clinton, Mig?
You know, like you did frequently in threads about this same general topic a week or so back, and never really responded to criticism about? And still haven't yet?
Still waiting.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So when do we get to the part about you making provably wrong-and ever more likely to be knowingly wrong-statements about President Clinton, Mig?
You know, like you did frequently in threads about this same general topic a week or so back, and never really responded to criticism about? And still haven't yet?
Still waiting.
If Clinton believes he so right on what he did to confront UBL and AQ, why get angry to such a simple question. I don't have time to research all this to refresh all the points but here's the basics: 1. Clinton never sought funding for the CIA to fight AQ. (Clarke says in his book that the CIA did not have funding for this as one of the reasons why they didn't get him.) Where was BC's leadership on this? 2. Last Nat. Est. Est. before 9/11 ('97?) didn't even mention AQ. Even after the bombing of the emabssies in Africa and the WTC in '93? Talk about failing to connect the dots. 3. In his book, Clarke discusses the refusal of the Clinton Admin to even blame the USS Cole on AQ. Great way to avoid the problem Bill!! 4. Other than bombing an asprin factory and a few tents in Afghanistan, what did Clinton do to confront AQ and to challenge the Taleban to stop supporting them?
I've read Clarke's book, but I doubt that BC did, or if he did he did read it, he did so selectively. Clarke's book doesn't really support BC's rant. If any thing it shows that the Clintonistas failed to appreciate the extent of the threat by failing to take AQ seriously and dedicating more resourse to combating it. It doesn't seem like too much to ask that they should have recognized the threat by mentioning AQ in the NIA and funding the CIA to fight AQ.
I'm not saying that the GOP is blameless here. Senate and House members should have tried to put pressure on the administration to recognize the problem, but I suspect that they were as distracted by Clinton's scandales as the Clinton's were. But the Primary responsibility was Clinton's and he failed us.
Rakeesh, you can keep calling all I say on the matter lies, but that would change the facts.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If Clinton believes he so right on what he did to confront UBL and AQ, why get angry to such a simple question.
I think he does a pretty good job of explaining why he got "angry" in the interview itself, actually. Have you seen it?
If you honestly don't understand why Clinton was upset by the question, let me know and I'll try to explain it to you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So now you're switching to an unassailable opinion about President Clinton's state of mind about his past performance as President concerning terrorism?
Well, that's quite different from what you repeatedly did before, suggesting that Clinton and 'Clintonistas'-boy, there's a term that gets someone to turn the ears off, by the way-did things that the 9-11 Commission has explicitly stated were untrue...
And then never responding to criticisms on that point. You still haven't, Mig. You cut and ran rather nicely from that particular series of conversations, and now here you are again, only now you've switched to a less concrete criticism of Clinton.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Mig, Most of your questions (accusations?) are answered by the interview. Others by the 9/11 Commission report. Also, I think it's important to note that Bill Clinton (alone, at least in my often faulty recollection, except for Richard Clarke) admitted to doing things wrong in this case.
But, whatever the case, wouldn't you then agree that your criticisms apply more strongly to the Bush administration? (edit, I'm going to bold that so you can't miss it.)
After all, the Bush administration witnessed all the same things that the Clinton administration did and during the transition was given a strong recommendation fom the departing administration that this is an important threat. But they responded by immediately downgrading efforts in that direction.
For that matter, some in the administration and many among the administration's supporters mocked the Clinton administration for their focus on bin Laden.
So, however bad you want to see Bill Clinton and his adminstration's actions (and inactions) on this, aren't George Bush and his administration's actions necessarily worse?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Why is former President Clinton being asked harder questions, and being asked them more often, than CURRENT President Bush?
He's not.
Oh really? Perhaps you could point to the press conferences where the media has demanded answers from Bush on questions about why they were unable to stop the 9/11 attacks, why they still haven't caught Bin Laden or brought even one Al Qaida leader to trial or why they spent so much more time, money and energy ousting Saddam Hussein than they have spent tracking down the masterminds of 9/11?
The Bush administration is allowed to run campaign after campaign claiming that only they can fight terrorism and they are never called on the carpet to show what they have done and what they are doing that was not being done before they took office.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I haven't read Clarke's book, and I know some people have criticized Clarke for being inconsistent, but when he testified before the 9/1 Commission, Clarke's statements seem to conform to some of Clinton's claims:
quote:How did the Clinton and Bush administrations' approaches differ?
CLARKE: My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting al Qaeda, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration -- certainly no higher priority. There were priorities probably of equal importance such as the Middle East peace process, but I certainly don't know of one that was any higher in the priority of that administration.
I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue.
How does the war in Iraq fit into the war on terror?
CLARKE: The war in Iraq was not necessary. Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States. And by going to war with Iraq, we have greatly reduced our possibility to prosecute the war on terrorism.
quote:Perhaps you could point to the press conferences ...
Nah. You can make the case that he's not if you care to. I'm tired of doing the research in response to glib, unsupported opinions when the makers of such opinions can't bother to do it themselves.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I'd rather see Clinton talk his way out of quotes like Clinton lied about WMDs! "Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." We now know that the reasons for this attack were a complete lie. Clinton lied. Iraq had no WMDs. Where are the tough questions for him to defend his completely unnecessary attacks on innocents in Iraq?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We now know that the reasons for this attack were a complete lie. Clinton lied. Iraq had no WMDs.
*blink* Do we in fact know this, or even know that Clinton knew this?
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:He makes an extremely important point: why DOES the media continue to badger him about these things when it has given the folks in power every benefit of the doubt for five years?
Because. The Bush White House (and its allies in the conservative media) is largely about creating a reality -- specifically (among other fabrications) the claim that the most important thing America should be concerned about today is fighting terror.
In order for this claim to stand up (and in particular as a direct justification for bringing war to a sovereign country who posed no present danger to us), it's essential that one not get embroiled in discussions like "what is terror," "who are terrorists," "why are there terrorists," "what do terrorists want," "how do you tell a terrorist when you see one," "how do you fight a terrorist," etc.
And one of the oldest tricks in the book for getting an audience to tacitly accept a premise without examining its foundation is to accuse someone else of not upholding the premise sufficiently.
Meanwhile, what message reaches the heartland? Fighting terror is the most important thing around. Mission accomplished.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
1. Rakeesh, you keep trying to avoid the point I make by accusing me of avoiding the issue. We may disagree on whether what Clinton did or didn't do was enough, but the points above are hardly "less concrete" than the belief that Clinton failed to capitalize on opportunites to kill UBL. Resonable minds can differ on the later point, which was the subject of much of the debate on the ABC movie.
2. Mr. Squichy, that is a fair point you make about the Bush administration. I think that for the eight months b/4 9/11 the Bush administration took the AQ threat at least as seriously as the Clinton Administration, which is to say not seriously enough.
3. Vwiggins and Darkknight, good points.
4. TomDavidson, I don't understand why BC reacted the way he did. It makes no sense. I didn't watch the interview Sunday morning, but I've watched it online. I've been reading about BC interviews for hte past week or two, he's been on King, George S. interviewed him on ABC and Chris Mathews also interviewed him. None asked him to discuss the allegations that he didn't do enough to stop AQ. That alone is odd, considering all the recent controversy about the ABC movie. If I were Clinton and I thought that the right or the producers of the ABC movie were trying to slander me and my legacy, I'd be itching to discuss the issue at one of these interviews. Why did CB have to wait for Chris Wallace to ask that most obvious of questions in light of the recent controversy. It almost seems like Clinton was itching for a fight. None of the other interviewers broached the issue, so he was forced to go to Fox so he could act indignant. In light of the recent controversy why would Clinton be upset by the question: Why didn't you do more to connect the dots?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:None asked him to discuss the allegations that he didn't do enough to stop AQ.
I think that's probably because the work he's doing on his global initiative project is vastly more important, at least from my perspective.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
What is that law (legislation) that after X amount of time documents become declassified? How long is that? Will we have to wait that long to fully understand the extent of Clinton's search for Bin Ladin?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think that for the eight months b/4 9/11 the Bush administration took the AQ threat at least as seriously as the Clinton Administration, which is to say not seriously enough.
Why do you think this, since NO ONE in either administration says this is the case? Do you have any reason to believe that Bush took Al Qaeda seriously as a threat prior to 9/11? If so, why?
---------
quote:TomDavidson, I don't understand why BC reacted the way he did. It makes no sense.
Here's the reason: arguing that Clinton didn't do "enough" to fight Al Qaeda is currently a Republican pre-election talking point designed to get people thinking about the "War on Terror" (and, ideally, the concept that Republicans are more interested in it and better-equipped to fight it.) The whole "Path to 9/11" movie played nicely into this strategy.
Fox News has a reputation among most observers for parroting Republican talking points, and many people believe that certain shows on that channel make a habit of inviting guests under one pretext before "ambushing" them with questions related to the most recent talking point. (Note: this is NOT exclusive to Fox News, mind you.)
I believe Clinton "got angry" because:
1) He wanted to promote his Initiative, because it's important to him. 2) He's embarrassed and upset by accusations that he didn't do enough about Al Qaeda, because he feels that he tried as hard as he could -- especially in light of distractions from the opposition party at the time -- to stop them. 3) He's annoyed that the Bush Administration, which by the admission of their own people took Al Qaeda less seriously than he did at the start of Bush's presidency, seems to get a free pass from the media on this issue. 4) The whole "Path to 9/11" bit is fresh on everyone's mind, so he's especially sensitive to this question right now. 5) He's aware that Republicans are attempting to bring up this issue as a way of getting people to start thinking about the "War on Terror" prior to the upcoming election, and isn't keen on being used for that purpose by a media outlet he believes is hostile to his party.
But here's a MAJOR caveat: I put "got angry" in quotes because I don't think Clinton really got angry. I think Clinton fully expected to be "ambushed," and came prepared.
So the question we SHOULD be asking is "why did Bill Clinton think it useful to appear angry in this situation." And the answer to THAT question -- or, at least, the answer that I've come up with -- is very interesting.
Basically, there is a feeling among many Democrats that we've been pushed around too long, and that we've permitted the Republicans to play dishonest media games without getting excoriated for it. We'll point out those games as we see 'em, but we do so in a way that's interpreted as whining by our critics, as just another example of our lefty mushiness and general lack of fortitude.
But there's a whole chunk of the populace that simply doesn't hear when someone else calls out "point of order." That absolutely hates "victim politics," and tends to disdain "victims" in any case. And right now, that chunk is being fed, watered, and tended by the Republican Party; they're doing their best to grow it, since it almost exclusively votes Republican even though many of its people don't actually have a single opinion on policy. This chunk cares about "integrity" a great deal, and doesn't recognize a failure of integrity unless people are yelling about it -- and not, I might add, whining about it; this yelling has to come from a position and attitude of strength, of disappointment and disdain rather than dismay.
And look at the reactions people like Jon Stewart have received; when Stewart pretty much single-handedly killed "Crossfire" by insulting its hosts to their face, almost the entire world lauded him. When he told off Novak recently in response to Novak's supercilious dismissal, the Internet roared with approval.
There is clearly a "market" for people who are willing to speak "truth" to "power" (and I put scare quotes here because I think a lot of this sort of speech can be untruthful AND targeted at people who aren't in fact powerful without losing its effectiveness at marketing.)
So Clinton, who's both an excellent speaker and a very passionate one -- and is promoting a global initiative that no one with a heart wants to see fail -- comes out and makes a speech full of anger that makes it clear that he's not going to tolerate having his record distorted by the media, and particularly not members of the media acting as agents for the Republican Party...?
I think that's very, very deliberate. And I think the timing is deliberate.
IMO, the Democrats are thinking about fighting back this year, and this is being used as a test case.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
According to Senator Bill Frist (in an interview on ABCs This Week) the American people say to our leaders, Just keep me safe. I just want to be safe.
I am getting really tired of having our leaders consider us such cowards.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I think both sides do this, it's just a question of subject matter.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Nah. You can make the case that he's not if you care to. I'm tired of doing the research in response to glib, unsupported opinions when the makers of such opinions can't bother to do it themselves.
Considering that this was basically an assertion made by Bill Clinton, I don't think your description of the people making it is accurate. Regardless of what you think of the former president, I don't think that you could say that he generally offers glib, unsupported opinions and can't bother to do research himself.
I tried searching for a Chris Wallace interview with any of the major players (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Rice) that asked the sort of questions he asked President Clinton. I couldn't find one. I expanded that search to just Fox news. Still couldn't find them.
To be fair, though, I could only find I think 7 interviews and a couple were really on different topics. I did, however, post a link to an interview with Condoleeza Rice, who was National Security Advisor during the lead up to 9/11/2001. This interview was done on the anniversary of 9/11 as part of the media coverage of this 5 year anniversary. It was also done during the time that the "Path to 9/11" thing was going on, which was, as Chris Wallace said, one of the main reason he asked Bill Clinton these questions. And in that interview, not only didn't Mr. Wallace as Secretary Rice any questions of the type he said he has asked to people in the Bush administration, but he also let her get away with seriously misrepresenting the findings of the 9/11 Commission.
I did the research for that specific claim. Since you've represented that (granted not directly to this specific claim) this can be definitely said to be false, I think sharing the information you have that allows you to claim this would kinda be incumbent on maintaining that position.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Mig, So do you agree that President Bush and his administration really screwed up in a reasonably preventable way in regards to 9/11?
The way I see it, if you're saying that President Clinton should be expected to have done more, then the people who took over for him, knowing what he knew, who had the support of a Congress that was pretty hostile to President Clinton, and who also received a strong urging from the departing administration that this was a threat they should take very seriously, should obviously be expected to have done even more than he had. Instead of much less, which, despite you're belief otherwise in the face of statements made in the interview, several people on this thread, and the findings of the 9/11 Commission, is what they did.
I don't see that this is something that can be brushed aside with just a "that's a fair point". If what they did was worse than what President Clinton did, how can you still support them as strongly as you do? If they really dropped the ball this badly, how can you expect people to trust them? In my view, this is especially relevant in that, unlike Richard Clarke and President Clinton, the Bush administration has and continues to maintain they were not at fault.
[ September 25, 2006, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Considering that this was basically an assertion made by Bill Clinton
It was an assertion made by Lyrhawn that I replied to.
quote:I did the research for that specific claim. Since you've represented that (granted not directly to this specific claim) this can be definitely said to be false, I think sharing the information you have that allows you to claim this would kinda be incumbent on maintaining that position.
No you didn't. The specific claim was "Why is former President Clinton being asked harder questions, and being asked them more often, than CURRENT President Bush?"
You've apparantly researched this with respect to a single interviewer and to a single network. Not remotely enough to support the claim in question.
Since Lyrhawn represented that it can definitely said to be true, I'll wait for someone to provide some evidence before I waste my time doing the research.
Suffice it to say I've heard and seen such questions asked of Bush and of high-level administration officials, and I didn't bother to take notes of the dtae and time.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, My mistake. I was, for I think understandable reasons, focused on the bit I researched. Ultimately, I find the idea of comparing how "hard" the questions people are getting asked to be just about a big snipe hunt. Except by comparing specific cases, such as I did, I don't even know how or why you'd go about it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My mistake. I was, for I think understandable reasons, focused on the bit I researched.
My blanket denial was very specifically targeted at a specific assertion which was not specifically targeted.
quote:Ultimately, I find the idea of comparing how "hard" the questions people are getting asked to be just about a big snipe hunt. Except by comparing specific cases, such as I did, I don't even know how or why you'd go about it.
Which would be why making such a claim is fairly ludicrous to start with.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I was watching The Daily Show and I really do love Jon Stewart, he does a very good job of pointing out the idiocy in others. He showed Bush at a Church on Martin Luther King Day where prominant people got up supposedly to speak about Dr. King and instead we got Jimmy Carter mentioning "illegal wire taps being installed in Dr. Kings home, hint hint Bush! Followed by appaluse." And some reverend (sorry I do not remember his name) in a southern baptist revival build up spouts off nonsense about "But we know there were no WMD's in Iraq!" What!? It sure is nice to know that people felt the need to put Dr. King's posthumous stamp of approval on their opinions regarding foreign policy.
At least Clinton (to the best of my knowledge) does not have to put up with that garbage when he attends similar functions.
"We know that Martin Luther King was unfaithful to his wife, just like old Slick Willy behind me! They would have gotten along just great!"
Dagonee: If I find myself trying to prosecute somebody, can I pay your plane ticket and hire you to come down and represent me?
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Mr. Squicky, I don't think that either administration took the AQ problem seriously enough, but Clinton had eight years to react, Bush only had eight months before the first attack under his administration. Clinton failed to act or to take the AQ threat seriously despite several attacks during his term. But the focus here is on Clinton. If he thought that AQ was a threat, why did his administration final national treat assessment (prepared by Clarke I believe) not even list AQ.
Seeing as Clinton is relying on Clarke to defend himself hears another interesting quote from Clarke. The Bush team had to start from scratch when it took over. Why? Clarke said:
quote:Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. 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.
quote:QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?
CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.
QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...
CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.
ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?
CLARKE: In October of '98.
QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?
CLARKE: Right, which was in September.
QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...
CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.
QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?
CLARKE: There was no new plan.
QUESTION: No new strategy I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...
CLARKE: Plan, strategy there was no, nothing new.
Clinton was working so hard on AQ that he didn't even have a plan to pass on to the new administration! Is that what you call paying attention to a threat? See FOX interview with Clarke interview here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html
But it sounds to me that the Bush team was trying to come up to speed before 9/11 from the dead stop Clinton had put the country in:
quote:JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that's correct.
Mr Squicky, you should have looked harder. I did a quick seach and found that Wallace asked Rummy essentially the same question in 2004:
[QUOTE]What do you make of his basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?[QUOTE]
Notice that Rummy didn't have to fake a tantrum to avoid the question. Clinton would rather fall back on the "vast right wing conspiracy" defense that served him so well with monica and and his serial abuse of women than to be honest about his record.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dag -
I stand by it, and what I followed it up with.
Asking questions and letting the answerer to use your question as a bully pulpit is worse than not asking the question at all. It gives them a chance to be intentionally misleading.
I've said in other threads that I wish the Legislature treated the President much the same way that the House of Commons treats their PM. They ask him hard questions, often, and if he tries to stonewall them they spend about 2 seconds pausing before they call him/her on the BS. Democrats are starting to get serious about asking the hard questions, some, but not many newscasters are doing the same thing. The media is getting better bolder in Press Conferences, and I think their badgering is part of why Scott McCllelan is gone, mostly because he couldn't deal with it, and was much better dealing with a tame media.
I stand by my opinion that he isn't being asked good questions (I'll modify that from hard, because it's even more subjective), not often enough, not good enough, and that even when he does, he isn't being pressed well enough to provide quality answers that actually address the question.
I won't ask you to provide evidence to the contrary, though the fact that he's only given a tiny fraction of press conferences to what Clinton gave during his term in office is an indicator of the direction I'd head in if I were to look it up myself.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wow, Mig, you're so intellectually dishonest that it hurts. Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:
quote:Ultimately, I find the idea of comparing how "hard" the questions people are getting asked to be just about a big snipe hunt. Except by comparing specific cases, such as I did, I don't even know how or why you'd go about it.
Which would be why making such a claim is fairly ludicrous to start with.
Yes. And contradicting such a claim, likewise.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes. And contradicting such a claim, likewise.
Not if it forces someone to actually make an attempt at providing analysis and reasoning for it.
There's still an ideological lopsidedness to the tolerance for ludicrous political statements on this board. I thought I'd fill in the gap, since it seems the pouncing on the ludicrous conservative statements happens quickly enough without me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I stand by my opinion that he isn't being asked good questions
That's not the opinion I've challenged. Specifically, I've challenged the factual assertion that Clinton is being asked questions of hard more often than Bush.
Same challenge applies to "good," too.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I've challenged the factual assertion that Clinton is being asked questions of hard more often than Bush.
You know, I'm almost game for this one. Can you quantify "hard" for me, so I know which questions to discount? Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Wow, Mig, you're so intellectually dishonest that it hurts.
I love how he thinks that setting up just about the same explanation for why Clinton went for it in an interview as was posited by YOU, (albiet, he did it first here, but its the same thing many people are saying/thinking), but couching it all in his biased language is going to change what it means.
"Clinton had to go to Fox to get mad," is pretty funny, since its exactly what you said, but just spun into a negative thing. Sure he had to go to fox to confront an interviewer who he knew was going to act a certain way- that's what everyone does- that's why people go on the Daily show, or Larry King, or anywhere. Of course you go in with an idea of where the interviewer is going to go- there is nothing dishonest in accepting the interview you know is going to go a certain way. Or if there is, then every celebrity, politician, author and artist, pretty much ever, has been dishonest in this regard- a certain amount of theatricality and DUH politics are to be expected. Beyond that, the interviewer should have been so dumb as to play into Clinton's deck if he DID get set up as a strawman! You'd be stupid not to prepare yourself when you're going to play hardball with a President.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Part of what makes a question hard, is the insistance of the interviewer that the person being questioned actually gives a straightforward, honest answer.
I've very rarely seen Bush given those kinds of questions. Lobbing up a softball for him and letting him use the interview as a personal address to the nation is useless, the interviewer might as well not even be there.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:
quote:Yes. And contradicting such a claim, likewise.
Dagonee wrote: Not if it forces someone to actually make an attempt at providing analysis and reasoning for it.
You have a point there, but as a matter of fine reasoning you have to admit your contradiction was ludicrous to the same degree and for the same reason as the original point. You could have as easily said "Prove it" or the like.
I do sometimes wish you wouldn't so often lob in your assertions (sometimes argued, sometimes not) that the poster is wrong or misled or whatever, without actually stating what you believe (on the topic), and why. It comes across to me as a kind of hands-off refereeing, which feels arrogant.
But this is arguing at the fringes, and I am guilty of it as well. I think I deplore illogical thinking as much as you deplore related sorts of intellectual dishonesty. (And there's a role for that kind of post, as well.)
quote:There's still an ideological lopsidedness to the tolerance for ludicrous political statements on this board. I thought I'd fill in the gap, since it seems the pouncing on the ludicrous conservative statements happens quickly enough without me.
I see an interesting parallel between this comment and the themes in this thread. And you may be right; I'll watch for that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I do sometimes wish you wouldn't so often lob in your assertions (sometimes argued, sometimes not) that the poster is wrong or misled or whatever, without actually stating what you believe (on the topic), and why. It comes across to me as a kind of hands-off refereeing, which feels arrogant.
Why? Because it's 'arrogant'? I'm genuinely curious. He didn't make up the rules. Perhaps he is reluctant to do as you ask, because so often when he does what he does, it gets somewhat or completely ignored in the rush to focus on what he 'must' believe because he states the rules.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
"And, like that... he's gone."
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: *blink* Do we in fact know this, or even know that Clinton knew this?
Does it matter? What did Clinton do to find out if Iraq had WMDs? If Clinton couldn't have known then Bush couldn't have known. Of course that doesn't stop you from calling Bush a liar
quote: I AM ticked that Bush lied to me about something as important as WMD
quote: doc, the simple truth is this: Bush lied, and was less than diligent in pursuit of the truth.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
This is the transcript of the really tough question Clinton was asked "WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on "Fox News Sunday," I got a lot of e-mail from viewers. And I've got to say, I was surprised. Most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?
There's a new book out, I suspect you've already read, called "The Looming Tower." And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, "I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops." Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the Cole.
CLINTON: OK, let's just go through that.
WALLACE: Let me let me may I just finish the question, sir?
And after the attack, the book says that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around, because he expected an attack, and there was no response.
I understand that hindsight is always 20/20. ...
CLINTON: No, let's talk about it.
WALLACE: ... but the question is, why didn't you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?" THAT is the really tough question? I think it was a nice softball question that he could easily hit out of the park.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:
quote:I do sometimes wish you wouldn't so often lob in your assertions (sometimes argued, sometimes not) that the poster is wrong or misled or whatever, without actually stating what you believe (on the topic), and why. It comes across to me as a kind of hands-off refereeing, which feels arrogant.
Rakeesh wrote: Why? Because it's 'arrogant'? I'm genuinely curious. He didn't make up the rules. Perhaps he is reluctant to do as you ask, because so often when he does what he does, it gets somewhat or completely ignored in the rush to focus on what he 'must' believe because he states the rules.
Why does it feel arrogant? Well, certainly not because I think it IS arrogant -- otherwise I would have said so. I was merely stating how it feels to me, and he can take my feelings into account next time, or not. Probably not. No problem.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'rules.' Do you mean rules of debate? Like, don't make unsupported assertions, or blanket claims for which you are not prepared to supply references and data?
I can't comment on what "so often" happens. I'm sure what you describe does happen sometimes. Person A makes an impassioned point, Person B points out their illogic or flawed debating style, and Person A mistakenly believes that Person B is on the other side of said argument.
Sometimes Person B is forced to explain "no, I might even be on your side, Person A, but in this case I'm not committing to a side, I'm just pointing out your deficiencies as a debater."
In a macro view, for Hatrack as a community, that's a valid role. For any given thread, I sometimes feel a frisson of annoyance, that an otherwise very wise and reasoned and intelligent voice has participated without either furthering the ideas under discussion or committing their weight to a direction.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
DK -
It's hard in the sense that it forces Clinton to objectively look back at his past performance and point out, recognzie, and admit to mistakes he thinks he made during his presidency. Now for Clinton, that actually isn't all that difficult. He's honest when it comes to these things, and he isn't afraid of saying he was wrong.
But this is how Bush responds to hard or difficult questions:
quote: In December, the commission slammed the Bush administration for failing to implement many critical recommendations from that report.
President Bush sidestepped the controversy Tuesday when asked about it at a news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who came to power after the U.S.-led coalition ousted the Taliban following 9/11.
"I've watched all this finger-pointing and namings of names and all that stuff," Bush said. "Our objective is to secure the country.
"And we've had investigations, we had the 9/11 commission, we had the look-back this, we had the look-back that. American people need to know that we spend all our time doing everything we can to protect them. I'm not going to comment on other comments."
It's a serious question. Why, even years after that report came out with it's recommendations has Bush STILL not made the changes necesssary to make us safer, especially given "America's Safety" seems to always be in the forefront of his mind? He didn't even give us his usual BS answer, he gave us "no comment." Accepting that kind of answer means there's little point in even asking it. Presidents can't just be held accountable by elections every four years. The media is there to hold him accountable ALL the time. And from what I've seen, that isn't happening. Certainly not with questions and responses like that.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
After the recent interview, Media Matters, a left-leaning website, has analyzed Fox News Sunday's (I think all interviews were by either Wallace, the current host, or Tony Snow, the former host and current WH press secretary )questions of top administration officials, and concluded that many tough and relevant questions were not asked, or asked only rarely. "Wallace falsehood: said in Clinton interview that he asked Bush admin officials "plenty of questions" about failure to catch bin Laden" http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002 Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Interesting point, DarkKnight.
So, it's safe to say that Bush and his administration also lied when they attacked Iraq?
We've all pretty much agreed here (in fact, Bush himself has agreed) that the "intelligence" they used was inaccurate--certainly no better than what Clinton relied upon (and for which you support the claim that "Clintion Lied!")
Or maybe I missed the thread where you acknowledged that the reasons for the US attack on Iraq (George W Bush era) were totally bogus.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo:
After the recent interview, Media Matters, a left-leaning website [...] concluded that many tough and relevant questions were not asked, or asked only rarely.
Well of course they're going to come to that conclusion. They lean left. Do you expect a left, or for that matter, right leaning news source to ever pass up an opportunity to try and hurt the other party? I wouldn't put it past either left or right leaning sites to try and put their own spin on things.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Hitoshi, just because it's left-leaning doesn't mean everything they write is a self-serving lie. If the questions weren't asked, they weren't asked.
There were 35 Fox News Sunday interviews with top administration officials since September 11, 2001, and Media Matters found specific topics were routinely ignored.
quote: But beyond this exchange [one Rumsfeld interview--Morbo], the Fox News Sunday interviews listed above have almost entirely ignored several key questions regarding the Bush administration's efforts to pursue bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
Anyway, if we accept your premise, it follows directly that right-leaning Fox would not press the Bush administration on it's failures and shortcomings, right? Therefore the Media Matters conclusions have to be valid.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)