Chris Wallace’s Hit Job…On Rumsfeld?
I would think Bill Clinton is really cursing Al Gore right now for inventing the Internet. Clinton’s rash of lies in his meltdown with Chris Wallace are really coming back to haunt him as the actual facts of history emerge.
The debate in the blogosphere has moved to the topic of whether Clinton exploded in rage on purpose — as a rallying attempt for Democrats. If so, he should have been very careful about his loose use of factual evidence and his hyperbolic rantings about “right-wing conspiracies.”
For example, Clinton’s charge that Chris Wallace was only targeting him with tough questions about al-Qaeda and not anyone in the Bush Administration….
CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked why didn’t you do anything about the Cole. I want to know how many you asked why did you fire Dick Clarke.
Wallace replied that such questions had been asked. Clinton replied: “I don’t believe you asked them that.”
…. isn’t holding up under the light of the information age.
Here’s what Wallace asked Clinton today:
[H]indsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?
And here is what Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:
I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?
What do you make of his [Richard Clarke's] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?
Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.
And this look back at this 1998 column (following the twin Embassy bombings) from The Weekly Standard shows that far from thinking Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden (as he stated with Chris Wallace), many conservatives believed he wasn’t doing enough to confront this growing threat.
Does the administration actually grasp the nature of the threat we face? Following the August 20 retaliatory strikes, secretary of state Madeleine Albright and national security adviser Samuel Berger rejected the predictable “wag the dog” accusations with solemn admonitions that, in terrorism, the United States has suddenly been confronted with a “new war” — one we would now have to be prepared to fight, alone if necessary. (GP Note: ALONE, if necessary!!! Berger and Albright. 1998. But now they want the world to love us. How hypocritical.)
This was exceedingly curious. There is nothing at all “new” about radical Islam’s terrorist war against the United States. It has been going on since the late 1980s. It has been openly declared since the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center in Manhattan, which killed six, injured over a thousand, and caused nearly $ 1 billion in damage. Its leaders, moreover, have been promising for more than five years that in pursuing this war, they would kill American civilians and bomb American military installations and embassies overseas….
Such an adversary will not be defeated by the techniques the president recommended at the U.N. — increased international cooperation in the prosecution and extradition of terrorists. These are necessary steps, but breathtakingly inadequate. A military threat calls for a military response….
In the main, international terrorism is a military problem, not a criminal-justice issue.
Two more Clinton lies from his conspiracy theory-driven FOX News meltdown are debunked. Was it really smart of Clinton to open up this can of worms?
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
36 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. No ones interested in debunking clintons lies about the interviewers interview history or one random editorial in the weekly standard, which in 1998 had a readership of the parents of the columnists. they tried to say he ignored the threat from al queda. we were all, I assume, alive back then and we know what he did bush’s blowing it can’t be pinned on him so stop trying. got it?
Comment by lester — September 25, 2006 @ 6:33 pm - September 25, 2006
Bull’s-eye, Bruce! You now have libtards switching from “clinton won the debate” to “the facts are inconclusive.” Such doublespeak means only one thing – you got ‘em.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 25, 2006 @ 7:40 pm - September 25, 2006
lester-of-the-lower-case-clan has always been a day late and a dollar short… but in this instance, it’s just as Peter rightly points out: they GayLeft is in serious retreat on the “Our SlickWillie won”.
What a pathetic bunch of losers –to have to count on Slick Willie to rally the troops just in time to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Thanks for pointing out the LiarNChief never changed his spots. Hillary must be awful tired of his nonsense by now? I wish his defenders here would get a life.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 25, 2006 @ 9:27 pm - September 25, 2006
The GOP Myth-Fact sheet on Clinton’s comments that you linked, Bruce, is devastating.
Here is the link again, for those commentors (you know who you are) who need remedial history: http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6591
Comment by Calarato — September 25, 2006 @ 9:59 pm - September 25, 2006
Bruce, you are obfuscating: you quoted Clinton asking two specific questions of Wallace:
“I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked why didn’t you do anything about the Cole. I want to know how many you asked why did you fire Dick Clarke.”
Yet, in your subsequent rant, you provide no evidence that these questions were asked of Bush officials by Wallace. I suspect that’s because they were never asked. Clinton was absolutely right and Wallace is a liar.
Comment by Ian — September 25, 2006 @ 11:07 pm - September 25, 2006
Ah, the moonbat left – when the facts are against them, THEY EAT THEIR OWN!
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 25, 2006 @ 11:29 pm - September 25, 2006
The part I love is Clinton trying the besto-of-all-Democrat-parlor games: I’m a Victim! I’m a Victim of a vast RightWing conspiracy!
First it was Bill saying that as President while WhiteWater and Monica and the other sexually abused women “attacked” Slick Willie… then it was Hillary “standing by her man” until the truth won out and she dumped his sorry butt onto the porch sofa in Martha’s Vineyard… and now it’s Slick Willie’s turn again to play out the VictimHood Card against a liberal Chris Wallace.
WALLACE: But, President Clinton, if you look at the questions here, you’ll see half the questions are about that. I didn’t think this was going to set you off on such a tear.
CLINTON: You launched it — it set me off on a tear because you didn’t formulate it in an honest way and because you people ask me questions you don’t ask the other side.
WALLACE: That’s not true. Sir, that is not true.
Clinton still deserves an Oscar. Can we get Barbara Streisand and Danny Glover to give it to him?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 26, 2006 @ 8:54 am - September 26, 2006
Those historic impeachment charges must really irk him.
100 years from now, all anyone will remember about Clinton is he (1) got impeached, (2) didn’t fight Islamo-fascism or prevent 9-11.
Comment by Calarato — September 26, 2006 @ 11:17 am - September 26, 2006
Wrong Cal,
They will remember that the zany hate filled rightists tried to kick Clinton out of office. They failed. Yet they succeeded in damaging his presidency, thus he could not effectively fight terrorism.
Face it Cal, Republicans are very culpable on this issue. I am surprised they want to bring it up.
It must be that their all consuming Clinton Hatred makes them blind…
Comment by keogh — September 26, 2006 @ 12:04 pm - September 26, 2006
#9 As I recall Clinton and his people said the blue stained dress was not hampering President Clinton and his folks from doing their jobs. As a matter of fact everytime someone asked him a question about lieing he’d say “HEY I’VE GOT TO GET BACK TO WORKING FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THEY’ RE THE ONES WHO SENT ME HERE!” And yes, he was shouting.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 26, 2006 @ 12:43 pm - September 26, 2006
And Gene, imagine our current president trying to say that nowadays, when we really DO have a war going on and he really IS doing something about it.
The Drive-By Media would be in hysterics…just like the libtards on this board.
MSM = Scribes, Pharisees and Hypocrites.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 26, 2006 @ 1:17 pm - September 26, 2006
keogh/lester, even our 10 and 3 year old sons know that Clinton was the only other impeached President in 230 years of natl history. Did you even attend a public elementary school??
Calarato is right –again.
The only two things Clinton will be remembered for is impeachment and failing America when the terrorist threat was growing.
Kind of like FDRoosevelt inciting the Japs to attack America and hoping to use it as a foil to get the isolationist Senate into the Atlantic War and help out Britian. Glad he did; just wish history would get the story right.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 26, 2006 @ 2:25 pm - September 26, 2006
the only thing REPUBLICANS will remembered for is losing to clinton in 96, using dirty tricks to impeach clinton on some bs, then stealing an election and having the absolute worst presdient ever.
clinton completely debunked the right wing fantasy that he didn’t attempt to fight al queda and was “pre occupied with blowjobs” as if he got thousands of them a day. clintons approval at the hieght of the impeachment was about 70%. bush has been at around 40 or lower since katrina. the people know the truth
Comment by lester — September 26, 2006 @ 2:35 pm - September 26, 2006
Oh, my, NDXXX must be teaching you well. In the post, you cite a lengthy bloviation from a blogger “Patterico” regarding what it claims that Wallace at Faux News asked Shrub malAdministration officials. None of which were the questions that Clinton was asking Wallace about.
Obfuscate, change the subject, etc., etc., etc. Apparently, NDXXX has trained you well.
BTW, it is interesting that Patterico ignores the “radical Muslim” attack on the US Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. I presume that that is because it was during the administration of St. Ronald, he of Reagan.
Comment by raj — September 26, 2006 @ 2:47 pm - September 26, 2006
raj the unworthy one taunts from the back of the class: “Obfuscate, change the subject, etc., etc., etc.”
LOL, what a moment of kettle worship from the pot! raj you are so far outside the loop of reasonable dialogue the only conversation you can net is in depositions.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 26, 2006 @ 2:58 pm - September 26, 2006
And even then, Matt, he has to define what “is” is. Shameful.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 26, 2006 @ 4:40 pm - September 26, 2006
I’m still amused that so many libtards don’t get it.
“Clinton taught Wallace a lesson.”
If so, it was a lesson on How Not To Win An Argument.
Bubba looked silly dismissing Wallace, his “nice little conservative hit job on me” and the Fox News network as conservative tools.
Sorry to tell you this, sockpuppets, but Fox News mogul Rupert Murdoch donated $500,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative last week and hosted a fund-raiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton this summer.
BUH-BYE.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 26, 2006 @ 5:08 pm - September 26, 2006
Yo raj and lester I’ve got a history question for you. Name the last Democrat President who got more than 50.1% of the popular vote?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 26, 2006 @ 10:21 pm - September 26, 2006
Yo, raj/Ian/blah/Bukko, I have a question for you: when did you guys decide to start using the word “obfuscate” with such… ummm… repetition? Are you guys no longer using unique writing styles given the soxpuppet identity was uncovered? Why don’t you just get over it… admit you’re the same person, stop the incredible nonsense that one lives in AZland and one in Germany or Boston or wherever it is this week.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 27, 2006 @ 11:29 am - September 27, 2006
here’s the easiest solution: simply have wallace interview Bus hand ask him the exact same question: how come you didn’t do more to connect the dots before 9/11 and take action against al queda. or whatever it was. would anyone have a problem with that?
Comment by lester — September 27, 2006 @ 3:58 pm - September 27, 2006
Actually, 401klestersockpuppet, Wallace did just that with Rumsfeld. And Bill O’Reilly’s interview with Bush clearly outlined that question as well. O’Reilly’s interview could hardly have been fawning, compared to the softballs that the Clintonistas received from the MSM in the 1990s.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 27, 2006 @ 4:22 pm - September 27, 2006
lester, there is no need. We all know what Bush would say. If you recall, he was elected primarily on a domestic platform and was strongly against “foreign adventures”.
He would say – awkwardly but honestly – that he, his cabinet, his administration, and the government bueracracy saw terrorism as a nuisance, not a serious threat. On 9/11 – shocked, apalled, and caught by surprise at a PR event – he quickly realized that he was wrong and changed course.
The Democrats – and a great deal of the bueracrcy – STILL think terrorism is just a nuisance (you also recall, I assume, Mr. Kerry and “terrorism is a law enforcement issue”). Bush – and most Republicans – woke up and smelled the napalm on 9/11. What happened before is pretty much irrelevant. It’s what happened afterward that matters.
Bush changed course. Democrats are, to this day, in “same ol’ same ol’” mode.
Comment by mrsizer — September 27, 2006 @ 7:44 pm - September 27, 2006
#18 Gene in Pennsylvania — September 26, 2006 @ 10:21 pm – September 26, 2006
Yo raj and lester I’ve got a history question for you. Name the last Democrat President who got more than 50.1% of the popular vote?
The relevance of this being–what?
I suppose that Shrub might have gotten more than 50% of the popular vote in 2004, but he certainly did not get more than 50% of the popular vote in 2000.
Yet, he was sElected president. Ain’t the Electoral College !wonderful. And the Republican party’s minions on the US Supreme “Court”.
/Sarcasm
Comment by raj — September 28, 2006 @ 7:47 am - September 28, 2006
Gene, you should know better than to ask raj-of-the-lower-case-clan a question… like usual, he avoids the truth. In your case, he asks a question to avoid answering your question and –at the same time– demeans the value of questioning.
No small wonder he’s a trial lawyer, eh?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 28, 2006 @ 11:16 am - September 28, 2006
mr sizer- that was actually a good answer. I don’t agree about democrats and the nuisance thing though. New York’s anti terror measures are on par with israels. did you see it on 60 minutes? I don’t know wherabouts you live but here on the east coast we are real cognitive of terrorism. I drive through the big dig just about every day. it wouldn’t take much to bring that thing down!!
democrats just have less overtly militaristic strategies for dealing with it. doens’t mean they are worse. or better neccasarily. I sometimes think republicans think if they stay in iraq for 5 years al queda will give them a certificate and leave them alone
Comment by lester — September 28, 2006 @ 5:58 pm - September 28, 2006
#25
” I sometimes think”
That’s one erroneous statement right there.
Comment by Attmay — September 28, 2006 @ 6:13 pm - September 28, 2006
Actually, democRATS have NO military strategies they like. They actually (to quote Slick Willie) “loathe the military.”
The proof of this statement was during the 1990s when military funding was cut from the federal budget. You can look it up if you like…
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 28, 2006 @ 6:14 pm - September 28, 2006
#27 Peter Hughes — September 28, 2006 @ 6:14 pm – September 28, 2006
The proof of this statement was during the 1990s when military funding was cut from the federal budget. You can look it up if you like…
I’m sure that you can provide links to web pages with reliable statistics.
Some of us are not going to play your game of “gotcha” or “go rooting around the web.” Put up or shut up.
Comment by raj — September 29, 2006 @ 6:42 am - September 29, 2006
Well, rajiansockpuppetevabraun, I’m not going to descend to your level of infantile whining and be demanded to show “proof” of how the military was underfunded in the 1990s.
The proof of that was September 11, 2001.
And as far as playing “gotcha” with anyone, you should try looking in the mirror first.
Your arguments are without merit and frankly, so are you.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 29, 2006 @ 10:37 am - September 29, 2006
Peter, good for you on your repsonse to the raj, general-of-the-lower-case-clan.
He’s been wrong so often and when called out on it, his favorite trick is to ignore his error, go on spinning in other directions, bait or taunt others, then withdraw from commenting here until he presumes most have forgotten he was tagged “Deficient”.
And putting his snarky strategy in play is always preceded by the GayLeft, limp-wrist “Oh dearie…” or “Oh sweeties…” or some other lightweight condescending entre.
You are right: raj’s arguments are without merit and so is he. Welcome to a growing club… you ought to MeetUp with the folks from other sites where the raj has been kicked off –it’s not exactly a fan club.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 29, 2006 @ 1:01 pm - September 29, 2006
And hopefully it will keep on growing.
Comment by Attmay — September 29, 2006 @ 1:08 pm - September 29, 2006
Although truthfully, I can see why Bruce and Dan keep him around…he gives us a perfect example of what is wrong with the GayLibLeft in this country. And it gives us a great way to educate them – one libtard at a time.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 29, 2006 @ 3:37 pm - September 29, 2006
ddemocrats have lots of military strategiesthey like. that’s why virtually all the iraq vets who are running for congress are dems except like one.
Comment by lester — September 29, 2006 @ 4:03 pm - September 29, 2006
Really? Name one antiwar demoncRAT Iraq war vet candidate running for Congress and a strategy they favor besides “cut-and-run.”
If you don’t think that’s fair, then obviously you’ve been paying way too much attention to rajiansybilevabraunsockpuppet.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 29, 2006 @ 4:44 pm - September 29, 2006
#29 Peter Hughes — September 29, 2006 @ 10:37 am – September 29, 2006
Poor baby. Regarding
The proof of this statement was during the 1990s when military funding was cut from the federal budget.
(from your #27) apparently, you are unaware of the fact that, during the last six years of Clinton’s eight years in office, it was Republicans who controlled Congress. If anyone was cutting military budgets–which I doubt actually occurred–it would have been Republicans who were doing the cutting. I know that Mighty Righties are usually impervious to or ignorant of facts, but them’s the facts.
NB: “cut from the federal budget” normally refers to “eliminate completely.” I doubt that even you would contend that military funding was eliminated completely from the federal budget.
Comment by raj — September 30, 2006 @ 9:10 am - September 30, 2006
http://www.democrats.org/page/content/fightingdems/nominees/
duckworth, murphy and a few others are iraq vets. and none of them favor cut and run. I assume you favor “run” as you aren’t in iraq.
Comment by lester — September 30, 2006 @ 2:29 pm - September 30, 2006