Centerfield

I know Tully and I were hardly fooled by the staged outrage. Attack a partisan media outlet and avoid real discussion. On the open thread (before the web problem) I asked some questions which included Sandy Burger lifting papers some claim were Clinton's terrorism strategy. Anyone know about the content of Sandy's theft?

I wish Clinton would also answer the questions about the "Gore agreement" concerning Russian imports to Iran. Any comment from Clinton on the Carter inspired bi-lateral agreements with NK? I posted some thoughts by Clinton's former officials who recommended blasting NK before their last missile tests.

I don't expect any straight answers for the next several weeks. Media on both sides is manipulating information in a rather pathetic manner.

how could anyone see the interview and conclude that Clinton went off because Wallace merely mentioned that Clinton did not capture bin Laden? Clinton's kicking of ass / meltdown occurred after Wallace accused him of not trying to get Osama bin Laden. (Debatable, and a fair issue for an interview.) Solomon surely watched the infamous interview before speaking to Wallace. So why pretend that Clinton blew his stack at the mere mention of not capturing bin Laden?

Because that's exactly what Clinton did--jump down Wallace's throat before he even finished asking the question. And it's a pure ischaracterization of that question to call it an "attack" or an accusation. The exact question was: I understand that hindsight is always 20/20... [Clinton interrupts with "No, let's talk about it."]...but the question is, why didn't you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

He didn't "accuse" Clinton of anything. He asked a legitimate question, and left the "hindsight" escape hatch out there for him, a direct invitation to defend his actions and place them in context. Before he could get past "hindsight" Clinton was already off on a tear, and directly into paranoid accusations that Wallace was doing a hit piece on him for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

The transcript is here. Try using the actual source material, instead of propagandized rhetorical mischaracterizations. I don't know that Clinton's outburst was staged. I suspect it wasn't, that it caught even him by surprise. In any event, it was IMHO a disgraceful display by Clinton. If he planned it, even more so. And as I've said repeatedly, I don't "blame" Clinton for not getting OBL. Until there were three thousand dead American civilians, he wasn't a Tier 1 threat, and there was no shortage of Tier 1 threats that they were dealing with.

Tully.
Sorry to have spoken for you. I think it was staged in the sense Clinton probably knew he would get some “Fox” grilling in light of the recent attacks on his role in 9/11. And Fox did air these complaints. Furthermore, I think his outburst reveals a selective thrust at the Right Wing conspiracy which many Democrats include Fox.

I don't blame Clinton either for OBL, but he didn't lay down a case. He went into a rant and then pulled back having made his charge. Didn’t he do this in the Monica case? He is smart enough to defend his actions as he did a bit in the Russert interview. This is why I think it was partially pre-meditated and makes me a bit angrier (not that like Fox). It plays to polarization instead of intelligent discourse.

It also helped Hillary with Democrats and may have been politically smart if not intellectually insincere.

Oh, I think his self-rationalizations were scripted or sincere or both, but definitely pre-existing. But the rant they came in didn't seem to be. He looked genuinely finger-pointing spittle-flinging angry.

Chris Wallace--Democrat.

My guess is that Clinton came prepared with the act. His accusation that Fox News Sunday didn't ask the same questions of administration senior officials made me feel that he'd had one of his staff do a Nexis search.

Tully -- your comments make no sense to me.

You write: Try using the actual source material, instead of propagandized rhetorical mischaracterizations.

Wha??? I didn't just read a transcript. I watched the actual video, several times. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF MY POST.

And I said clearly in my post I thought it was A FAIR ISSUE for Wallace to bring up. But Wallace did much more than "mention" that Clinton did not capture bin Laden.

Let's review the transcript:

--------------------------------------

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 Qaida 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?

---------------------

Okay, maybe I went too far in saying Wallace "accused" Clinton. But the way Wallace phrased the question, followed by a length set of statements, sounded pretty much like an accusation to me.

And I'm not saying it was a bad thing. Wallace is supposed to challenge the person he's interviewing. That's journalism. (Though he was kind of a wimp for acting like he's only asking because his viewers wanted him to).

All I'm saying is I can not understand how anyone could watch the interview (or just read the transcript) and act like Clinton melted down over the mere mention that Clinton did not capture bin Laden.

His accusation that Fox News Sunday didn't ask the same questions of administration senior officials made me feel that he'd had one of his staff do a Nexis search.

Except that Wallace did ask much the same questions of admin officials.

WALLACE: But looking back, sir — and 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.

RUMSFELD: Which is the only way to do it, in my view. I think you simply have to go after....

WALLACE: And the question is, pre-9/11, should you have been thinking more about that? --March 29, 2004

He didn't "accuse" Clinton, he asked a perfectly legitimate question, one he had asked admin officials previously, one that a whole lotta people have been asking. Obviously Clinton is used to softballers like Larry King, but any quick search (or a positive nueron balance) would have let him know it was coming. If his staffers didn't bother, their bad. Wallace hooked the lead-in to viewer feedback and a current book. (He could have referenced the ABC film instead--but that would have meant mentioning another network, something networks discourage.) That's simply being topical, not "accusing." He handed Clinton the perfect set-up line for the (no doubt expected) face-saving contextual answer, one that should be a standard in the Clinton stock book by now. He handed Clinton the opportunity to go on record with the obvious in the face of recent media buzz and events. And instead Clinton went off like a paranoid pitbull.

The only way to characterize that as an "accusation" is if you believe that ANY questions to Clinton about his failures (real and perceived) are attacks and accusations. That one word is all the mischaracterization needed. "Accuse."

CLinton also whined that half the interview was supposed to be about the CGI, then he hisself kept coming back and chewing the OBL/Iraq bones rather than talking about the CGI. That's a prime reason I believe the anger and over-the-top response was genuine, as there's absolutely nothing Clinton loves more than polishing his ex-prez do-gooder creds, and he wasted an opportunity. But the question was so obviouly going to be asked that it's tough to believe he didn't expect it.

Tully:

1. Well, questioning someone about failures, real or perceived, often seems like an accusation to me. Maybe it's because I'm an attorney. But your point is well-taken and I've revised the post.

2. I didn't say Clinton was correct when he accused Wallace of not asking the same questions of Bush admin officials.

Oberon, your suggestion that Deborah Solomon's interview with Chris Wallace is an example of some conservative (or at least anti-Clinton) bias is sorely misplaced. Here's the whole interview by Solomon.

[the link is getting blocked by the new evil spamlist. Here it is, replace the * with an "a": http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/mag*zine/08wwln_q4.html?ex=1317960000&en=50e41ad6290b31a9&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

She went on to say of Clinton's outburt: "I didn't see it as bad or ugly. I saw it as a genuine expression of feeling." To which Wallace replied: "You weren't in the room."

In my view, the interview reveal Solomon as a complete jerk, someone with an extreme liberal bias trying to get Wallace for having the temerity to go work for Fox News. ("But why go to Fox News, of all channels...?"

Not only did she try to "expose" a rift between Wallace and his famous father by bringing up a joke the younger Wallace had recently made, but she very oddly and tactlessly brought up the death of Wallace's brother Peter, 40 years ago, not to mention his parents' divorce.

But however you slice it, Solomon, who used the "melt-down" language to describe Clinton, was clearly a big fan, not critic, of the former president.