home

Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wallace

Updated Transcript here.

**********
Fox News' Chris Wallace thought he could pull a fast one of Bill Clinton during an interview that was supposed to be about Clinton's Global Initiative, which today announced the creation of a $1 billion renewable energy fund. Two questions into the interview, Wallace asked Clinton about his not having caught Osama bin Laden during his Presidency. Wallace got creamed.

Crooks and Liars has the transcript. You Tube has the video. Jane at Firedoglake weighs in. Here's the transcript:

WJC: ok, let's talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits but I want to talk about the context of which this...arises. I'm being asked this on the FOX network...ABC just had a right wing conservative on the Path to 9/11 falsely claim that it was falsely based on the 911 comission report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 commission report. I think it's very interesting that all the conservative republicans who now say that I didn't do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush's neocons claimed that I was too obessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn't have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn't do enough said that I did too much. Same people.

They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in black hawk down and I refused to do it and stayed 6 months and had an orderly transfer to the UN. Ok, now let's look at all the criticisms: Black hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Bin laden had anything to do with black hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew al qaeda was a growing concern in October of 1993.

CW: ...I understand...

WJC: No wait...no wait...Don't tell me. You asked me why I didn't do more to bin laden. There was not a living soul...all the people who criticized me wanted to leave the next day. You brought this up so you get an answer.

WJC: Let's look at what Richard Clarke says. You think Richard Clarke has a vigorus attitude about Bin Laden?

CW: Yes I do

WJC: You do?

CW: I think he has a variety of opinions and loyalities but yes

WJC: He has a variety of opinion and loyalties now but let's look at the facts. He worked for Ronald Regan. He was loyal to him. He worked for GHWB and he was loyal to him. He worked for me and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush; he was loyal to him. They downgraded him and the terrorist operation. Now, look what he said, read his book and read his factual assertions - not opinions, assertions. He said we took vigorous action after the African embassies. We probably nearly got Bin Laden.

....

WJC: I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him. The CIA was run by George Tennet who President Bush gave the medal of freedom to and said he did a good job.. The country never had a comprehensive anti terror operation until I came to office. If you can criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this, after the Cole I had battle plans drawn to go into Afhanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full scale attack search for Bin Laden. But we needed baseing rights in Uzbekistan which we got after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred special forces in helicopters and refuel at night. Even the 9/11 comission didn't do that. Now the 9/11 commission was a political document too. All I'm asking is if anybody wants to say I didn't do enough, you read Richard Clarke's book.

CW: Do you think you did enough sir?

WJC: No because I didn't get him

CW: Right...

WJC: But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn't..... I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke... So you did fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..

....

CW: I asked a question. You don't think that's a legitimate question?

WJC: 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. I want to know...

CW: We asked..

.... WJC: You didn't ask that did you? Tell the truth

CW: About the USS Cole?

WJC: tell the truth.

CW: I...with Iraq and Afghanistan there's plenty of stuff to ask.

WJC: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you'd spend half the time talking about...

CW: [laughs]

WJC: You said you'd spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion dollars plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don't care.

CW: But President Clinton...

...CW: We were going to ask half the question about it. I didn't think this was going to set you off on such a tear .

WJC: It set me off on such a tear because you didn't formulate it in an honest way and you people ask me questions you don't ask the other side.

CW: Sir that is not true...

....

CW: Would you like to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative?

WJC: No I want to finish this.

CW: Alright,

WJC: All I'm saying is you falsely accuse me of giving aid and comfort to bin laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew al queda existed then...

CW: did they know in 1996 when he declared war on the U.S. Did no one know in 1998...

WJC: absolutely they did

CW: When they bombed the two embassies...

WJC:

CW: Or in 2000 when they hit the cole.

WJC: What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. 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. Now I never criticized President Bush and I don't think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that think Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Queda with that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke's book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you've got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you're so clever...

CW: [Laughs]

WJC: I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin laden. I regret it but I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending special forces in to Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise...We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Queda was responsible while I was President. Until I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that's strange.

CW: Can I ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative?

WJC: You can.

CW: I always intended to sir.

WJC: No you intended to move your bones by doing this first. But I don't mind people asking me. I actually talked to the 9/11 commission for four hours and I told them the mistakes I thought I made. And I urged them to make those mistakes public because I thought none of us had been perfect. But instead of anybody talking about those things. I always get these clever little political...where they ask me one sided questions... It always comes from one source. And so...

CW:...

WJC: And so...

CW: I just want to ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative but what's the source? You seem upset?

WJC: I am upset because..

CW: ...and all I can say is I'm asking you in good faith because it's on people's minds sir. And I wasn't...

WJC: There's a reason it's on people's minds. That's the point I'm trying to make. There's a reason it's on people's minds because they've done a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression. This country only has one person who has worked...against terror...under regan...only one, Richard Clarke. And all I'd say anybody who wonders whether we did wrong or right. Anybody who wants to see what everybody else did, read his book. The people on my
politicial right who say I didn't do enough spent the whole time I was president saying why is he so obsessed with bin laden. And that was wag the dog when he tried to kill him. My Republican secretary of defense - and I think I'm the only person since WW2 to have a secretary of defense from the opposite party - Richard Clarke, and all the intellegence people said that I ordered a vigorous attempt to get Osama Bin Laden and came closer apparently than anybody has since.

CW: alright...

WJC: And you guys try to create the opposite impression when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke's findings and you know it's not true. It's just not true. And all this business about Somalia - the same people who criticized me about Somalia were demanding I leave the next day. Same exact crowd..

....
CW: ....One of the main parts of the global initiative this year is religious reconciliation. President Bush says that the fight against Islamic extremism is the central conflict of the century and his answer is promoting democracy and reform. Do you think he has that right?

WJC: Sure. To advocate democracy and reform in the muslim world? Absolutely. I think the question is what's the best way to do it. I think also the question is how do you educate people about democracy. Democracy is about way more than majority rule. Democracy is about minority rights, individual rights, restraints on power. And there's more than one way to advance democracy but do I think on balance that in the end after several bouts of instability do I think it would be better if we had more freedom and democracy? Sure I do. ...The president has a right to do it? Sure I do. But I don't think that's all we can do in the muslim world. I think they have to see us try to get a just and righteous peace in the middle east. They have to see us as willing to talk to people who see the world differently than we do.

CW: Last year at this conference you got 2.5 bil in commitments, pledges, how did you do this year?

WJC: Well this year we had 7.3 bil as of this morning.

CW: 7..excuse me...

WJC: 7.3 billion as of this morning. 3 billion of that is. That's over a multi-year. These are at most 10 year commitments. That came from Richard Branson's commitment to give all his transportation profits to clean energy investments. But still that's over 4 bil. And we will have another 100 commitments and probably raise another billion dollars. We have a lot of commitments still in process.

CW: When you look at the 3 bil from branson plus billions that gates is giving and warren buffest, what do you make of this age of philanthropy?

WJC: I think that for one thing really rich people have always given money away. They've endowed libraries and things like that. The unique thing about this age is first of all you have a lot of people like bill gates and warren buffest who are interested in issues around the world that grow out of the nature of the 21st century and its inequalities - the income inequalities, the education inequalities, the health care inequalities. You get a guy like gates who built Microsoft and he actually believes that he can help overcome all of the health disparities in the world. That's the first thing. Second thing...there are a lot of people with average incomes who are joining me because of the internet. Take the tsuami for example we had 1.3 billion dollars given....by households. The third things you have all these ngo that you can partner with along with the government. So all these thigns together mean that people with real money in ways that help people that before would have been only the object of government grants and loans.

CW: I know we're over but can I ask you two political questions. Let's talk some politics. In that same nyer article you say you're tired of Karl Rove's BS. I' m cleaning up what you said.

WJC: I also say I'm not tired of Karl Rove. I don't blame Karl Rove. If you've got a deal that works you just keep on doing it.

CW: So what is the BS?

WJC: well every even number year right before an election they come up with some security issue. In 2000 right before the election ...In 2002 our party supported them in undertaking weapon inspections in Iraq and were 100% behind them in Afghanistan and they didn't have any way to make us look like we didn't care about terror. And so they decided they would...the homeland security bill that they opposed and they put some pill in it that we wouldn't pass like taking the job rights away from 170,000 people and then say that we were weak on terror if we weren't for it... This year I think they wanted to make the question of prisoner treatment and intercepted communications the same sort of issue until John Warner came and Lindsey Graham got in there and it turns out there were some Repbulicans who believe in the consitution and their convictions...some ideas about how best to fight terror.

As long as the American people believe that we take this seriously and we may have our differences over Iraq but I think we'll do fine this election. Even if they agree with us about the Iraq war we could be hurt by Karl Rove's new foray if we don't make it clear that we care about the security of this country. We want to implement the 9/11 comission rec which they haven't in four years. We want to...Afghanistan against bin laden. We want to make America more energy independent. If they want to talk about Iraq say what they really want about Iraq.

But Rove is good and why I honor him...I've always been amused by how good he is. But on the other hand this is perfectly predictable. We're going to win a lot of seats if the American people aren't afraid. If they're afraid and we get divided again then we'll only win a few seats.

CW: Do you think the Wh and the republicans want to make the American people afraid.

WJC: Of course they do. They want another homeland security bill and they want to make it not about iraq but some other security issue. Where if we disagree with them we are by definition endangering the security of the country. And it's a big load of hueey. WE've got 9 iraq war veterans running for house seats. President Reagan's sec of the navy is the dem candidate for senate in Virginia. A Three star admiral who was on my NSC staff - who also fought terror by the way - is running for the seat of kurt Weldin's in penn. We've got a huge military presence in this campaign and you can't let them have some rhetorical device that puts us in a box that we don't belong in. That's their job. Their job is to beat us. But our job is to not let them get away with it and if we don;'t we'll be fine.

CW: Mr. President thank you for one of the more unusual interviews.

< Dog the Bounty Hunter to Offer Apology to Mexico | Libby to Testify at His Criminal Trial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Holy sh%t!!!!! I wish I had seen it in real time. Billy handed him his ass! 'Bout friggin' time these scumbags get called on the carpet.

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#4)
    by roger on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 04:34:20 AM EST
    Oh, those were the days, when we had a REAL President............

    Can Clinton explain then, why he let bin Laden go when he had him? [links deleted, not in html format]

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 06:54:59 AM EST
    Clinton said:
    and I did everything I thought I responsibly could
    That has been the issue all along. Everything else is justifications and explanations.

    One Pissed Off Veteran
    It has been 1386 days since George W. Bush said that Osama Bin Laden could run but he couldn't hide, 1386 days since George W. Bush said that he would capture Osama Bin Laden, dead or alive, 1386 days since George W. Bush said he was going to "smoke out" Osama Bin Laden. A little perspective here: It was only 1347 days between Pearl Harbor and the end of World War II. So where is he? Where is Osama Bin Laden? I expect next week we'll being seeing his picture on a milk carton. Unfortunately, it has also been 1175 days since George W. Bush said: "I just don't think about him much; I truly am not that concerned about him".
    That has been the issue all along. Everything else is justifications and explanations. ---edger

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 08:34:51 AM EST
    edger - I checked the blog and posted a reply. It has not appeared. I won't hold my breath, because here is the gist of what I noted. As a veteran he should understand that strategies change in wars. What is important today is not important tomorrow. MacArthur showed that in WWII when, after defeating the Japanese on New Guinea and saving Australia from an invasion, he chose to not attack island by island, but to go around many and cut them off, thus taking them out of the picture and saving thousands of American troops from death and injury. It was a strategy that many didn't like because if not successful he would have had a strong Japanese fighting force behind him. Many of us, for very personal reasons, say, "Thank God he didn't pay attention to all the naysayers who were fighting the last war." So the question really should be, what is the current value of a dead or captured OBL, and how much should we be willing to pay in treasure and lives to accomplish that? But that is really not the subject of the post, nor is the fact that we haven't captured him. If you want to engage in a discussion, try answering my comment.

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 08:48:57 AM EST
    Uhhh, OBL was responsible for 9/11 and bush says he really doesn't care about him ... case closed.

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 09:07:16 AM EST
    All of President Bush's neocons claimed that I was too obessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn't have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn't do enough said that I did too much. Same people.
    --WJC (from the post) If you want to engage in a discussion, try answering my commment. I don't. There is a topic to this thread, that has been the issue all along. Your diversions and strawmen don't interest me. You're just background noise. But nice try. ;-)

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 09:07:16 AM EST
    So the question really should be, what is the current value of a dead or captured OBL, and how much should we be willing to pay in treasure and lives to accomplish that?
    Let's see...Hussein was worth several hundred billion dollars, 2500 lives, 10,000 casualties...and counting. Osama has to be worth at least that....since he orchestrated an attack against us and Saddam didn't.

    Clinton doesn't like liars any more than most people. ---edger

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#13)
    by desertswine on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 10:23:38 AM EST
    This has been the reich-wing strategy for the past six years, anything you can think of, and it's Bill Clinton's fault. So what's new...? Junior Wallace just shows himself as just another fox propagandist.

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#14)
    by Sailor on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 11:30:46 AM EST
    I alway wondered why anyone except wrongwing extremists would go on faux news, now I understand. CW, here's your a$$, brought to you by WJC.

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 11:49:54 AM EST
    edger - My comment was that Clinton said:
    and I did everything I thought I responsibly could
    And that has been the issue all this time. What he considered "responsible." And "on subject?" It was you who linked to "One Pissed Off Veteran." Nice try, edger. You can't answer my question because we all know that Clinton missed several opportunities to grab OBL, but failed. Mostly because of political considerations. We also know, based on Richard Clarke's own words, that Clinton's strategy was in place on 9/11. Here's proof in the words of Richard Clarke, a guy Clinton wants us to believe As for Clinton's claim that you quote:
    when they didn't have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office.
    Again we have Clintons preferred source, Richard Clarke.
    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
    So they had all those meetings, and the one's after, and no one mentioned OBL? And, of course, since OBL is the head of al-Qaeda, no one mentioned him? That's ridiculous on the face of it, and I am surprised you bring it up. It's typical Clinton. An unsupported claim that no one challenges. kdog - The point was, "at this time." desertswine -

    I miss having a president who could think and speak in complete sentences. I really do.

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 12:26:27 PM EST
    yeah, but he lied about a bj in the oval office! (snark warning, avert your gaze!) damn, i wish he could run again, he'd run roughshod over whatever douchebag the repubs put up. this is the difference between someone with an actual functioning intellect, and george bush. although, it's an insult to mr. clinton to mention him in the same breath as bush, so i'll breathe again. after kicking chris wallace's ass all over the studio, what do you want to bet no other righty tv or radio show invites him on, ever?

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#16)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 01:36:53 PM EST
    Jim, War strategies change all the time. It's the war policy that is so amourphous as to not even exist.

    So they had all those meetings, and the one's after, and no one mentioned OBL? Apparently so, by Clarkes' account, as he never mentions Bin Laden in this briefing you linked to. However, it is a bit superficial, so you might want to do some more research and get back to us when you've determined what the answer to your question is, as you're the one who raised it in the first place.

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#18)
    by Sailor on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 02:12:53 PM EST
    Ahh, ppj once again quotes faux news, you know, like it's actual news. Whyatzamatta ppj, powerline didn't have something to lie about on that subject?
    And that has been the issue all this time. What he considered "responsible."
    Yeah, because a rethuglican congress would rather score political points that keep the country safe. Apparently ppj would rather have had clinton declaring the exec superior over the other 2 branches and committed war crimes like bush has. rethugs said clinton was wagging the dog when he tried to protect America, and now rethugs are claiming clinton didn't do enough wagging the dog. Thanks for playing, you lose again.

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 03:03:17 PM EST
    Sailor - What a guy you are. You take a link that features an interview, and you call it fake? Sailor, that just makes you look less than smart. Come on. Attack Clarke's opinions, but not the fact that he said what he said. Dark Avenger - So, Clarke talks about meetings changing the strategy against al-Qaeda and you want us to believe the meetings weren't about OBL, the head of al-Qaeda? Pardon me for laughing at you. Now, do you have anything to add? Or do you just want to keep making humorous staments?? Sailor - I wrote:
    And that has been the issue all this time. What he considered "responsible."
    You reply:
    Yeah, because a rethuglican congress would rather score political points that keep the country safe.
    So, you are agreeing that we need a discussion featuring a real critical look at how Clinton's actions, and how his strategy resulted in increased attacks against the US and its interests, ending on 9/11? I am astounded. Please provide your thoughts.

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#20)
    by Sailor on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 01:57:48 AM EST
    we had one ppj, it was called the 9/11 commission, you remember, the commission bush tried to suppress? regarding Clarke's statements on faux, he was in the admin at the time and so was loyal to them. Once he resigned and could speak his mind, including under oath, he was able to tell the truth. And since you reply on Clarke's words, here are 870,000 pages of links to them
    The National Security Archive today posted the widely-debated, but previously unavailable, January 25, 2001, memo from counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to national security advisor Condoleezza Rice - the first terrorism strategy paper of the Bush administration. The document was central to debates in the 9/11 hearings over the Bush administration's policies and actions on terrorism before September 11, 2001. Clarke's memo requests an immediate meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss broad strategies for combating al-Qaeda by giving counterterrorism aid to the Northern Alliance and Uzbekistan, expanding the counterterrorism budget and responding to the U.S.S. Cole attack. Despite Clarke's request, there was no Principals Committee meeting on al-Qaeda until September 4, 2001.
    The January 25, 2001, memo, recently released to the National Security Archive by the National Security Council, bears a declassification stamp of April 7, 2004, one day prior to Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission on April 8, 2004. Responding to claims that she ignored the al-Qaeda threat before September 11, Rice stated in a March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."
    [...]
    Clarke asked on several occasions for early principals meetings on these issues, and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. No principals committee meetings on Al Qaida were held until September 4th, 2001.
    here's Clarke's memo (pdf)

    Clarke asked on several occasions for early principals meetings on these issues, and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. No principals committee meetings on Al Qaida were held until September 4th, 2001.
    Heh. I see our pet bushlicker (who's probably only here because he'd give Free Republic and Powerline a bad reputation if they let him post there) has one more time painted himeself into a corner and given anyone wondering whether to support republicans in November an perfect example of the kind of intellectual vapidity and political bankruptcy gop/bush supporters bring to the table. I really wonder if he's a shill for the democrats. He seems so desperate to be able to turn the conversation away from bush's incompetence to a discussion of Clinton's actions and policies, but all of his twistind and spinning and evading and attempts at misrepresenting have succeeded in focusing attention where it belongs. On bush. On bush's failed sham of a presidency. On bush's incompetence... or more likely criminal negligence. There is a topic to this thread. Clinton nailed it:
    All of President Bush's neocons claimed that I was too obessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn't have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn't do enough said that I did too much. Same people.
    After the reports yesterday of the possible death of bin Ladin bush is probably hoping that no one else will think about him either. Oh well, I guess you can't blame the poor bastard.
    So where is he? Where is Osama Bin Laden? I expect next week we'll being seeing his picture on a milk carton. Unfortunately, it has also been 1175 days since George W. Bush said: "I just don't think about him much; I truly am not that concerned about him".
    ---edger

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 06:31:42 AM EST
    Sailor - Ah, so Clarke was lying during the interview, but not when he had been fired....and was promoting a book.. He said what he said, and you can argue about that until Hell is a skating rink, but the comment Clinton made was that there were no meetings. That is obviously incorrect. You know, the answer that could have been given to my point was simple, and I was suprised that it was not used, because it would have been accurate, acceptable and made my comment moot.
    Yes, Clinton mis-spoke himself on that, but he was angry and it is understandable.
    But instead you want to defend his statement, obviously wrong as it is, and allow me to introduce Richard Clarke's earlier statements, thus calling into doubt the comments of the man Clinton used to try and prove his other comments. So what we have is "he said-she said," only on one hand we have a man describing the actions of the administration in great and logical detail, verified by the requested increases in resources, and the same man later changing the story to an unbelieveable, "we never met." Logical thinking isn't your strong point.

    NYT July 4, 2006
    WASHINGTON, July 3 -- The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants...
    No use hunting for a dead guy, right? ---edger

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 06:57:44 AM EST
    Sailor - BTW Let's look at the link:
    SLADE GORTON, Commission member:.... Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11? CLARKE: No.
    Read that Sailor. Here we have Clarke telling the Commission that the plan, the strategy of the Clinton administration would not work. Now we find this quote, which agrees with what Clarke said in his FNC interview.
    Rice....We decided to take a different track. We decided to put together a strategic approach to this that would get the regional powers -- the problem wasn't that you didn't have a good counterterrorism person. The problem was you didn't have approach against al Qaeda because you didn't have an approach against Afghanistan, and you didn't have an approach against Afghanistan because you didn't have an approach against Pakistan. And until we could get that right, we didn't have a policy.
    So I guess we know what "responsible" meant to Clinton. Can you spell, "Do Nothing."

    Yes, that Clinton guy never did enough, did he? Then again, maybe if he had invaded Iraq we'd be making some progress against terrorism? Just like bush is now... bless his pointed little head. Mark Mazzetti, NYT September 24, 2006
    WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 -- A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks. The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document. The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,'' it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.
    ---edger

    From the same NYT article:
    ...the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, ["Preliminary Report of the Council on Global Terrorism"] assigned a grade of "D+" to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism.
    And or course, people should support bush and the gop in the November because they are "strong on national security". Right... ---edger

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 09:30:07 AM EST
    edger - So what? They were there before, and will continue until we either put them in prision or kill them. You know, it fascinates me to watch the Left try and blame the US on all of the problems in the ME. I'm going to go back and ask the question I asked earlier. Let's assume OBL is alive. How much is killing him and/or capturing him NOW worth? And another question. Do you think Bush PERSONALLY let him escape? Did the CIA tell Bush that they had him in their siights, only to be fed a bunch of quasi-leagal and political mumbo jumbo? And can you understand that the real issue is that if we put enough resources to do the job into Pakistan, we are likely to create enough problems for their current government that it might very well be overthrown? Rice, paraphrasing Clarke's words about the Clinton administrations lack of plans:
    and you didn't have an approach against Afghanistan because you didn't have an approach against Pakistan. And until we could get that right, we didn't have a policy.
    Edger, radical Islam has existed for years, with the bloom first shown in Iran in 1979, thanks to the failure of Jimmy Carter. Every adminsitration from then until Bush arrived, quibbled and weasled and demonstrated a lack of will that fed the terrorists belief that they could win a great battle over the west by using the west's strength, tolerance and a belief in diversity, against the west. Time to look around and say, "If you're not with us, you're against us."

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#21)
    by cpinva on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 11:08:10 AM EST
    jim's just bent because this interview shows what a shallow person bush truly is, by comparison to someone able to actually think. of course, jim also conveniently neglects to note that, as of the '94 mid-terms, the GOP controlled both houses of congress, and spent the rest of the clinton presidency expending millions of dollars proving that he (clinton) got a bj in the oval office. this was considered far more important than anything any terrorist might attempt. to deal in facts would cause jim's head to explode, and then someone would have to clean up the mess.

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 11:08:10 AM EST
    Clarke asked on several occasions for early principals meetings on these issues, and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. No principals committee meetings on Al Qaida were held until September 4th, 2001.
    Heh. I see our pet bushlicker (who's probably only here because he'd give Free Republic and Powerline a bad reputation if they let him post there) has one more time painted himeself into a corner and given anyone wondering whether to support republicans in November an perfect example of the kind of intellectual vapidity and political bankruptcy gop/bush supporters bring to the table. I really wonder if he's a shill for the democrats. He seems so desperate to be able to turn the conversation away from bush's incompetence to a discussion of Clinton's actions and policies, but all of his twistind and spinning and evading and attempts at misrepresenting have succeeded in focusing attention where it belongs. On bush. On bush's failed sham of a presidency. On bush's incompetence... or more likely criminal negligence. There is a topic to this thread. Clinton nailed it:
    All of President Bush's neocons claimed that I was too obessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn't have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn't do enough said that I did too much. Same people.
    After the reports yesterday of the possible death of bin Ladin bush is probably hoping that no one else will think about him either. Oh well, I guess you can't blame the poor bastard.
    So where is he? Where is Osama Bin Laden? I expect next week we'll being seeing his picture on a milk carton. Unfortunately, it has also been 1175 days since George W. Bush said: "I just don't think about him much; I truly am not that concerned about him".


    Heh. I guess he really does want to see the gop lose control of the house and senate in November. It shouldn't be long now before he starts calling for a war cimes trial for bush.... ---edger

    PPJ, it's absolutely incredible to watch you try and spin this into a Clinton's-fault thing. Do you deny that the republican congress attacked him at every opportunity for overreaching? Have you read Clarke's book? Is his book all lies because he's somehow less credible after he doesn't have to maintain loyalty to the administration he serves? Can you imagine Bush EVER being as honest as Clinton? Can you imagine him saying "I failed?" No, because he can't think of any mistakes he's made. Lawyers often talk about the laugh test. None of your arguments pass it.

    "If you're not with us, you're against us."
    Yes, the whole country, and the rest of the world, has been saying that to "bushco and the lickers" for some time now. ---edger

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#34)
    by Mike on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 11:08:10 AM EST
    I'm a Republican, but I must say, Bill Clinton made Chris Wallace look like a women. Bill stomped his ass!

    the terrorists belief that they could win a great battle over the west by using the west's strength, tolerance and a belief in diversity, against the west
    They won that battle long ago. They managed to terrify enough people to keep bush in power for six years... long enough to accomplish this. ---edger

    Quoted from JimakaPPJ: "....As a veteran he should understand that strategies change in wars. What is important today is not important tomorrow. MacArthur showed that in WWII when, after defeating the Japanese on New Guinea and saving Australia from an invasion, he chose to not attack island by island, but to go around many and cut them off, thus taking them out of the picture and saving thousands of American troops from death and injury. "It was a strategy that many didn't like because if not successful he would have had a strong Japanese fighting force behind him...." But if the strategy changed, the goal was still to shut down the Japanese war machine, was it not? And the Allied military did accomplish this goal, did they not? How is this analogous to Bush's dismissal of the importance of capturing bin Laden?

    that silly theme again-like, dude, let's just ignore the bad guys, they'll go away. please make clinton the focus of the Novmember elections. the republicans will love you.

    Clinton - shame on him for making network movies and World News present facts that can't be challenged. The Path to 911: Poor ABC! They had to change their docudrama "BASED" on the 911 Commission Report (most likely frightened by libel). They were forced to remove the lies about Clinton from the movie, poor things. Poor FOX! - they tried to do their usual slanting of the facts. Clinton has (I hoped) opened up America's eyes today. The panel afterwards was so shocked by their network being exposed for what it is - they were scrambling (and very ineffectually) to discount the whole thing. Their tactics backfired in a History Making Event. Oh wait, let's (Wallace) go back to the "original" reason Clinton was on the show - $7.3B he has been instrumental in raising for Global issues (to deflect from this can of worms we (FOX) opened on ourselves) . Wow! I must say this is the first time I've ever watched FOX News Channel. The commercials are absolutely subliminal! Brainwashing? No wonder their regular viewers are so messed up!

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#39)
    by Sailor on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 06:26:19 PM EST
    Ah, so Clarke was lying during the interview, but not when he had been fired
    There is absolutely nothing that ppj won't lie about. KnightRidder:
    Until his resignation 13 months ago, Clarke held senior positions under Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and the younger Bush.
    Whitehouse.gov:
    Q Okay, just one other quick thing. His status was demoted -- he was demoted, his status was reduced. He was not replaced by anyone else. Why isn't it a fair conclusion that that reflected a lower level of attention and concern about terrorism than the previous administration --
    MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think actually he suggested that his position be split off and that there be a cyber-security --
    Whitehouse.gov:
    Dick Clarke of January 30th, 2003, who submitted a letter of resignation on that day to the President of the United States.
    BTW, it sure was lovely to see clinton kick CW's a$$, nothing like the facts to counter idiots with only an agenda and absolutely no regard for the truth.

    Chris Wallace is an As*. Just a wannabe. Not 1/10 of what his father is !!!

    Chris is no Mike. When he did his wide eyed, Who me? routine regarding his lame "hit" question, we got to see what a real panty waist he is. None of this will make a hoot when the dust settles but Chris Wallace's reputation as a fair jounalist will be forever dimenished. Good job Mr. Clinton.

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jay on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 09:17:25 PM EST
    Did any of you actually see this interview? The fact is Wallace walked into a trap. He did nothing to cause Clinton to go off like that. Clinton was looking for an excuse to rant. I kept waiting for Bill to pull a bat out from behind his chair and start beating Wallace over the head with it. It goes to show how much of a self-absorbed sociopath Bill Clinton really is.

    Chris is no Mike. When he did his wide eyed, Who me? routine regarding his lame "hit" question, we got to see what a real panty waist he is. None of this will make a hoot when the dust settles but Chris Wallace's reputation as a fair jounalist will be forever dimenished. Good job Mr. Clinton.

    A great interview. I firmly believe it exposed Mr. Clintom for what he truly is. His entire response and finger wavings all sounded like "I did not have sex with that woman." All persons who are honest with themselves understands what his obsessions were during that critical period in time.

    First, it's important to remember that there's nothing "leftist" about Bill Clinton. He's as Corporatist DLC Neo-Liberal as they come. The thing that's unmistakable about Bill Clinton is that he apparently doesn't have a cynical bone in his body. His willingness, post-tenure, to continue sparring with his "opponents" is incredible. For comparison, go over to Democracy Now's website and view Amy Goodman's telephone interview with Clinton back on election day 2000. Two very different perspectives, same Bill Clinton. I don't understand how he can be so blind to the abuses our Military-Industrial complex is inflicting on the rest of the world, but it's clear that inside Clinton is an empathetic character that cares what Americans believe about him and what he tried to accomplish. Quite the opposite of Mr. Bush.

    Chris Wallace underwent the quickest sex change operation in history. If John Kerry had responded to the "Swiftboat" ambush the same way he would now be President.

    Love the transcript. Thank you! It should be checked for spelling errors, though. Ronald Reagan is spelled incorrectly, as is Warren Buffet. There are also a few words that I couldn't decipher. Just an FYI.

    What is Chris Wallace's eamil address at FOX?

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#52)
    by Sailor on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 02:16:01 PM EST
    Did any of you actually see this interview? The fact is Wallace walked into a trap.
    How can the interviewee set a trap for the interviewer? Ahh, never mind, that's the difference between 'true believers' who believe regardless of the facts and the rest of us who just search for the facts regardless of our 'beliefs.'

    perhaps he does protest too much.... Bill should go quietly into retirement.

    It is long overdue for Clinton to speak his mind about the corruption, the lies, the disgrace the Republican Party - and current administration is all about. They will do *anything* to stay in power - *anything*. They are liars and thieves and only care about themselves and money. Greed to the Nth Degree. We best hope and pray hard that a new direction is felt in this years midterm elections. We need a Democratic controlled Congress and House - and a Democratic President in 2008 to get us out of the biggest mess in the history of politics. This administration is the biggest joke on the face of the planet. Go Clinton! I am very impressed with what you did - it had to be done - like I said - long overdue. Fox is a biased network - 150% Rebublican. They deserve all the negative publicity they can get.

    Re: Friday Fight Club: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wall (none / 0) (#54)
    by weezie on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 05:53:04 PM EST
    I wish HIllary had told Bill to wear knee length socks. Those ankles were disconcerting.....

    Why do these postings have to be all about "hooray for out side" instead of discussing intelligently and rationally? If you read Chris Wallace's statements after the fact, the ground rules (which can be verified from Clinton's side as well) were that half the time should be devoted to Clinton's economic initiatives and half to any other subject. I agree that this was a trap Clinton set and that he wanted to pop off like that. Personally I was interested in hearing what the president's response would be, it was a chance for him to defend himself as well against his critics. Instead, he launched into an angry tirade that raises more questions than it answers. Now apparently both sides of politics will try to use it to their advantage to either say "look how insane he is" or else "wow, he really smacked down Chris Wallace, look how tough he is". Neither makes our country a stronger place. As for OSB, I actually can see tactical advantages to NOT killing him, odd as it may seem. If he is killed he becomes a martyr and ten will rise up in his place. If he remains alive and discredited, then radical Islam has a greater chance of withering. Instead focus on cutting off his financial and other resources to make him ineffective. THAT is the analogy to what MacArthur did against the Japanese.

    Speaking of lying presidents... I remember something about WMDs and pictures of mobile bomb labs... Also, and this applies to all presidents, they get their job because they love power. Some love it to try and help others, others for more selfish reasons. But when you give any one person that much power, they are bound to have it go to their head and do dumb things like get bjs or torture prisoners, and they will definitely lie to help themselves. All politicians lie... it sounds cliche, but it's true, at least on a national level. Most cheat on their wives too, and steal, and lots of other little crimes people tend to ignore when they say things like "Bush has a good character and is a man of God." And for the record, I believe Clinton here. The 911 report. Clarke's book. Tough to ignore all that. But I also think no one thought 9/11 could happen. We were too invincible. I think that's part of the reason Clinton didn't do as much as he'd have liked to in hindsight, and Bush, too.