Wallace v. Clinton

[Edie]

(Condi Rice) ... insisted U.S. forces must finish the job in Iraq and the wider Middle East to wipe out the "root cause" of violent extremism - not just the terror thugs who carry out the attacks.

 

I simply cannot let this go. The use of force has never ever worked in changing people's minds and hearts. Why in the world would she/they think it would here.

 

And the trotting out of Condi as the mouthpiece here is absolutely unconscionable. Talk about the loss of dignity -- the Bush administration and the republican party are really grasping at straws.

[MrRain422]

"These are people who want to fight against us, and they're going to find a reason. And yes, they will recruit, but it doesn't mean you stop pursuing strategies that are ultimately going to stop them," Rice said.

 

So she's really thinks that these people decided they didn't like us and then looked for a reason? That's just stupid. Now, I'm not saying that their reasons for hating us justify their horrible actions -- of course they don't -- but it's just insane to suggest that they hate us for no reason, and will find any reason that they can to continue feeling that way. I'm not even suggesting that they have good reasons for disliking us (I'm not saying they don't either -- just not commenting on the validity of their complaints at all right now). But to suggest that they decided to hate us for no reason at all is completely stupid and also counterproductive. What total nonsense.

[EL the Famous]

The use of force has never ever worked in changing people's minds

 

Are you kidding me?

[NightOfJoy]

Yeah,that's really sayin' something! And to think I thought Reagan was the AntiChrist.

 

I vividly remember watching the Inauguration in Jan '01 & being just profoundly depressed (esp. after that Election fiasco).I looked at my wife & said 'this is going to be the worst 4 years this country has seen in our lifetime'.Jesus,I thought it would be bad but never EVER in my worst nightmare would I have thought it would be this bad..it's just so beyond the pale it's almost hard to believe even though we watch the news every day.

 

 

Dang! I could have written that too. Are you sure you're not me?

[viatroy]

-->

Dang! I could have written that too. Are you sure you're not me?

 

 

No, Im you.

[Edie]

Are you kidding me?

 

No I'm not.

[viatroy]

And she didn't even address whether she's doing that canadian fellow...

 

dag, it was the NY Post too! Cagey bitch.

[EL the Famous]

No I'm not.

 

but there a few huge examples from previous World Wars that what state otherwise.

[MrRain422]

I'm guessing that you two are talking about two different things. No doubt that force can change someone's mind about what course of action to take (i.e. surrendering instead of continuing to fight). But I think that Edie probably meant that it won't change their opinions of us, or make them stop wanting to attack us. Correct me if I'm wrong...

[aricandover]

I'm guessing that you two are talking about two different things. No doubt that force can change someone's mind about what course of action to take (i.e. surrendering instead of continuing to fight). But I think that Edie probably meant that it won't change their opinions of us, or make them stop wanting to attack us. Correct me if I'm wrong...

 

 

who can say? it worked with Japan

[jakobnicholas]

Back to interview....

 

Here's some post interview quotes from Wallace:

 

 

 

 

WALLACE: You know, here's the interesting thing about this: He did a bunch of interviews over the course of this last week. He talked to [CNN's] Larry King for about a half an hour. He did Tim Russert [host of NBC's Meet the Press], Keith Olbermann [host of MSNBC's Countdown], [NBC's] Meredith Vieira on the Today show. I've looked at all these interviews. I was the only one to ask him about his record fighting Al Qaeda. I have to say, particularly after the controversy over ABC and the docudrama, The Path to 9/11, I find that astonishing. Not that I asked it, but that none of the others did ask it. And, you know, I didn't think it was going to be inflammatory. I thought he'd, you know, handle it for 30 seconds, we'd move on. He accused me of having a smirk at one point. Frankly, I was in wonder at this kind of tidal wave of emotion on his part.

 

WALLACE: You know, he said at one point that I had a smirk. What it really was was wonder because -- two points. First of all, all I did was ask him a question that I said a lot of viewers -- and, in fact, a lot of viewers had sent me, which was, did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaeda? And then, it just all spilled out. And the other thing is that -- you're a big man. He's even bigger, and he came forward in his chair, as you can see there. Sometimes he was sitting there with his finger and tapping the notes on my legs and some of my questions, and it's like a mountain is coming down on you. So it wasn't a smirk. It was more wonder at what I was seeing.

 

WALLACE: Well, there were ground rules. Fifteen minutes -- half on the CGI, the Clinton Global Initiative, half on anything else. We started out -- the first two questions I asked him were about philanthropy and his efforts to raise money. And I wanted to mix it up. I didn't want it to just be seven and a half on this, and seven and a half on that. So then I asked him -- and I thought a very non-confrontational question -- could you have done more, and he went off on this. And I kept on trying to bring him back because I was trying to observe the rules, the ground rules. He would hear nothing of it. And at that point, I realized the script's off. You want to talk about this, let's talk about it.

 

WALLACE [video clip]: This was the third question I asked, and he just blew. And his communications director was jabbing my producer in the arm saying, "End this interview right away." When it was over, Clinton did not want to make up and be friends, he was still fuming. And as he left, he started yelling at his aides that if they ever put him in that kind of a situation again he would fire them. So I do not think this was preplanned. I think all this talk now is after-the-fact spinning by somebody.

Edited September 26, 2006 by jakobnicholas

[NightOfJoy]

-->

<!--quotec-->

Dang! I could have written that too. Are you sure you're not me?

No, Im you.

 

If you're me, then who am I?

[WilcoFan]

Back to interview....

 

Here's some post interview quotes from Wallace:

WALLACE: You know, here's the interesting thing about this: He did a bunch of interviews over the course of this last week. He talked to [CNN's] Larry King for about a half an hour. He did Tim Russert [host of NBC's Meet the Press], Keith Olbermann [host of MSNBC's Countdown], [NBC's] Meredith Vieira on the Today show. I've looked at all these interviews. I was the only one to ask him about his record fighting Al Qaeda. I have to say, particularly after the controversy over ABC and the docudrama, The Path to 9/11, I find that astonishing. Not that I asked it, but that none of the others did ask it. And, you know, I didn't think it was going to be inflammatory. I thought he'd, you know, handle it for 30 seconds, we'd move on. He accused me of having a smirk at one point. Frankly, I was in wonder at this kind of tidal wave of emotion on his part.

 

WALLACE: You know, he said at one point that I had a smirk. What it really was was wonder because -- two points. First of all, all I did was ask him a question that I said a lot of viewers -- and, in fact, a lot of viewers had sent me, which was, did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaeda? And then, it just all spilled out. And the other thing is that -- you're a big man. He's even bigger, and he came forward in his chair, as you can see there. Sometimes he was sitting there with his finger and tapping the notes on my legs and some of my questions, and it's like a mountain is coming down on you. So it wasn't a smirk. It was more wonder at what I was seeing.

 

WALLACE: Well, there were ground rules. Fifteen minutes -- half on the CGI, the Clinton Global Initiative, half on anything else. We started out -- the first two questions I asked him were about philanthropy and his efforts to raise money. And I wanted to mix it up. I didn't want it to just be seven and a half on this, and seven and a half on that. So then I asked him -- and I thought a very non-confrontational question -- could you have done more, and he went off on this. And I kept on trying to bring him back because I was trying to observe the rules, the ground rules. He would hear nothing of it. And at that point, I realized the script's off. You want to talk about this, let's talk about it.

 

WALLACE [video clip]: This was the third question I asked, and he just blew. And his communications director was jabbing my producer in the arm saying, "End this interview right away." When it was over, Clinton did not want to make up and be friends, he was still fuming. And as he left, he started yelling at his aides that if they ever put him in that kind of a situation again he would fire them. So I do not think this was preplanned. I think all this talk now is after-the-fact spinning by somebody.

 

 

The crazy thing about the lapdog press is that politicians and celeb's handlers set ground rules and the press follows them. I know that the subject matter was a tough one and I think that Clinton handled it well, but I'm sure that he was pissed that he was "ambushed" by this line of questioning. It's a shame but the press is not in control most of the time.

[Edie]

But I think that Edie probably meant that it won't change their opinions of us, or make them stop wanting to attack us. Correct me if I'm wrong...

 

This is correct.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I watched the clip, and I think Clinton was perfectly within his rights to go off on this tool. The fact that he kept interrupting a former president probably didn't help. Can anyone here imagine doing that? Even to Dubya? I think it's remarkable Clinton showed as much restraint as he did through that many interruptions.

In a sick way it's kind of funny how the right has now decided - after six years of fucking up the country beyond recognition - to go with a "blame Clinton" strategy on 9/11. That's wacked. Talk about a thin smokescreen.

[Tweedling]

Those were great quotes from Wallace. Clinton should have known sooner or later he was going to get some questions about all this.

Well, there were ground rules. Fifteen minutes -- half on the CGI, the Clinton Global Initiative, half on anything else.

Oh, surprise! Fox news is not going to ask the same luke warm questions he would get from Larry King or Meredith Vieira.

The real question is, were Wallaces questions out of line?

" You did your nice little conservative hit job on me."

"And you came here under false pretenses and said that you

[ikol]

I think Clinton's response was perfectly dignified and appropriate (if he were Bill O'Reilly).

[viatroy]

-->

<!--quotec-->

If you're me, then who am I?

 

what's on first

 

 

One of the things I like about Clinton is his ability to speak extemporaneously, with intelligence and substance.

A little intellectualism couldn't hurt in our elected officials. I think history (if it still exists as something other than Big Brother propaganda) will show the difference between the Rhodes scholar and the legacy Yale cheerleader.

 

 

What was the term in "1984" -- newscleaning?

[John Smith]

Rice can say 911 report all she wants. With this administrations records she has to prove that what she says is what is in the report. They no longer have the benefit of the doubt. They have twisted the 911 report many times before, for instance the "Iraq/AlQueda relationship" that dirty dick seems to be unable to let go of, he continually cited the 911 report, which says no such thing only that Al Queda was in Iraq @911. Dirty dick leaves out that they were in areas not under Sadaams control and under US no fly zones. By dirty dick's reasoning his administration had a relationship with AlQueda because they were in our country prior to 911.

 

From Froomkin in todays WAPO, very interesting stuff...

 

Indeed, the 9/11 Commission Report very diplomatically concluded that both Bush and Clinton could have done more to prevent the terrorist threat.

 

But up until now, it's remained a mystery what exactly Bush said to the commissioners when he grudgingly consented to an interview with them in the Oval Office, back in April of 2004.

 

Pretty much all we knew about that interview was that Bush insisted that it be held in private, unrecorded -- and with Vice President Cheney at his side. (See, for instance, my April 8, 2004, column , and this Tom Toles cartoon .)

 

But yesterday afternoon, Democratic former commission member Richard Ben-Veniste dramatically broke

his silence about that meeting in an interview with CNN's Blitzer. Here's the transcript . Forgive me for quoting so extensively, but it's fascinating stuff.

 

"BLITZER: All right. You, in your questioning in your investigation, when you were a member of this commission, specifically asked President Bush about efforts after he was inaugurated on January 20, 2001, until 9/11, eight months later, what he and his administration were doing to kill bin Laden, because by then it was certified, it was authorized. It was, in fact, confirmed that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the USS Cole in December of 2000.

 

"BEN-VENISTE: It's true, Wolf, we had the opportunity to interview President Bush, along with the vice president, and we spent a few hours doing that in the Oval Office. And one of the questions we had and I specifically had was why President Bush did not respond to the Cole attack. And what he told me was that he did not want to launch a cruise missile attack against bin Laden for fear of missing him and bombing the rubble.

 

"And then I asked him, 'Well, what about the Taliban?' The United States had warned the Taliban, indeed threatened the Taliban on at least three occasions, all of which is set out in our 9/11 Commission final report, that if bin Laden, who had refuge in Afghanistan, were to strike against U.S. interests then we would respond against the Taliban.

 

""BLITZER: Now, that was warnings during the Clinton administration. . . .

 

"BEN-VENISTE: That's correct.

 

"BLITZER: . . . the final years of the Clinton administration.

 

"BEN-VENISTE: That's correct.

 

"BLITZER: So you the asked the president in the Oval Office -- and the vice president -- why didn't you go after the Taliban in those eight months before 9/11 after he was president. What did he say?

 

"BEN-VENISTE: Well, now that it was established that al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole bombing and the president was briefed in January of 2001, soon after he took office, by George Tenet, head of the CIA, telling him of the finding that al Qaeda was responsible, and I said, 'Well, why wouldn't you go after the Taliban in order to get them to kick bin Laden out of Afghanistan?'

 

"Maybe, just maybe, who knows -- we don't know the answer to that question -- but maybe that could have affected the 9/11 plot.

 

"BLITZER: What did he say?

 

"BEN-VENISTE: He said that no one had told him that we had made that threat. And I found that very discouraging and surprising.

 

"BLITZER: Now, I read this report, the 9/11 Commission report. This is a big, thick book. I don't see anything and I don't remember seeing anything about this exchange that you had with the president in this report.

 

"BEN-VENISTE: Well, I had hoped that we had -- we would have made both the Clinton interview and the Bush interview a part of our report, but that was not to be. I was outvoted on that question. . . .

 

"BLITZER: Now, you haven't spoken publicly about this, your interview in the Oval Office, together with the other commissioners, the president and the vice president. Why are you doing that right now?

 

"BEN-VENISTE: Well, I think it's an important subject. The issue of the Cole is an important subject, and there has been a lot of politicization over this issue, why didn't President Clinton respond?

"Well, we set forth in the report the reasons, and that is because the CIA had not given the president the conclusion that al Qaeda was responsible. That did not occur until some point in December. It was reiterated in a briefing to the -- to the new president in January....

 

"BLITZER: Well, let me stop you for a second. If former President Clinton knew in December. . . .

 

"BEN-VENISTE: Right.

 

"BLITZER: . . . that the CIA and the FBI had, in his words, certified that al Qaeda was responsible, he was still president until January 20, 2001. He had a month, let's say, or at least a few weeks to respond.

"Why didn't he?

 

"BEN-VENISTE: Well, I think that was a question of whether a president who would be soon leaving office would initiate an attack against a foreign country, Afghanistan. And I think that was left up to the new administration. But strangely, in the transition there did not seem to be any great interest by the Bush administration, at least none that we found, in pursuing the question of plans which were being drawn up to attack in Afghanistan as a response to the Cole.

 

"BLITZER: Now, as best of my recollection, when you went to the Oval Office with your other commissioners,

the president and the vice president did that together. That was a joint interview.

 

"BEN-VENISTE: At the request of the president.

 

"BLITZER: Did the vice president say anything to you? Did he know that this warning had been given to the Taliban, who were then ruling Afghanistan, if there's another attack on the United States, we're going to go after you because you harbor al Qaeda? And there was this attack on the USS Cole.

 

"BEN-VENISTE: The vice president did not at that point volunteer any information about the Cole.

 

"BLITZER: So what's your -- did the president say to you -- did the president say, you know, 'I made a mistake, I wish we would have done something'? What did he say when you continually -- when you pressed him? And I know you're a former prosecutor, you know how to drill, try to press a point.

 

"BEN-VENISTE: Well, the president made a humorous remark about the fact that -- asking me whether I had ever lost an argument, and I reminded him that -- or I informed him that I, too, had two daughters. And so we passed that."

[Sir Stewart]

I just watched the clip, maybe this has been addressed, but - did Clinton get braces? What's with the voice?

[kamera]

Wallace even prefaced his question by saying he'd been getting tons of emails about the subject.

 

 

From Brit Hume.

[Tweedling]

I watched the clip, and I think Clinton was perfectly within his rights to go off on this tool. The fact that he kept interrupting a former president probably didn't help. Can anyone here imagine doing that? Even to Dubya?

Check Wolf Blitzers interview with Bush. There were interruptions.

[viatroy]

It blows my mind that anyone could possibly still defend this Administration.

This has gone far beyond the early humorous stabs at Bush and "the emperor's

new clothes."

 

Guess the dems starting to fight back. About time.

[mountain bed]

-->

Dang! I could have written that too. Are you sure you're not me?

I don't know...am I? After reading about your Zeppelin 'experience',I think the term might be synchronicity

[John Smith]

Here's a little food for thought on this Wallace/Clinton thing. I am one of those who considers the Fox News Network to be little more than a cheerleading propaganda machine for the Republican party. I am not ow the opinion that the Wallace/Clinton interview was scheduled and carried out in the manner that it occured in order to provide cover for the republican party. They are voting on the torture wishes of the president this week, but where is the media's attention focused? It's focused on Wallace and CLinton. A very nice diversion away froma topic that should not even be debated in America today.

 

Consider this too. The republicans this week have passed, at the presidents direction one of the most un-american disgraceful pieces of legislation in our countries history. They can seemingly do this with ease and a total lack of conscious. Every election cycle however they bring up social issues, abortion, gay marraige, flag burning etc... If they can get this repugnant torture bill passed (which if you read the bill you will see that it can be applied to any American because it leaves a great deal of room for interpretation, so much for clarity that the president asked for.) you would think they could pass a billl on any of these other issues, but they never will, they need these issues to stay alive so they can keep the undereducated base riled up. I say undereducated because I have never seen a group of people who are so absolutely unaware of what America is supposed to stand for and what our constitution represents.

 

I should clarify a little, anyone who is deemd to have supported the enemy can be siezed and thrown into prison. Over the last few years the republican party has had a campaign of "the press is aiding the enemy" Or "Anti war types are aiding the enmy" Now the president has the power to say, yep that is true and toss any of those who oppose his policies into prison without the right to a trial, without the right to hear the evidence against them, and without any rights normally granted by the constitution. The right will invariably say that will not happen, but how much protest was there when Miller and cooper were in jail? How much protest was there when the Bonds reporters were jailed? It is a very real possibility that I would never have thought could occur in this country.

Edited September 28, 2006 by John Smith