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?
posted
Because the media system in this country is totally and completely borked. It's theater, nothing more.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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?
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.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to Senator Bill Frist (in an interview on ABC’s 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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
