Bill Clinton Defends Handling of Bin Laden

WeAz · **Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:13 pm**

Ok....I'm not defending him this time. He should ahve gone after Bin Laden.

Republican_Man · **Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:15 pm**

Yeah, and yet he has the nerve to say this of Chris Wallace:

Republican_Man · **Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:31 pm**

I just finished watching the interview, and I've got to say, what a jerk. Clinton really was a jerk. What an exciting, often humorous interview, but still, he was nothing short of a jerk.

WeAz · **Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:35 pm**

I just finished it too. He really is a jerk, at least now. But you have to agree, it is a good point to ask why we didn't we do anything about the Cole.

Starbuck · **Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:38 pm**

I'm not going to defend Clinton on this. Although I thought this an interesting place to pose a question. In my poli sci class a girl said "NOTHING happened in Clinton's presidency." Would you agree?

Republican_Man · **Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:02 pm**

I've said he did "nothing" before, and I'd say it again, but I don't say it as fact that he did nothing. I state it as hyperbole. I exagerate that he did nothing, because he did do something (though I do think his Afghanistan strikes may yet have been motivated by Lewinski, but I'm not going to state that as what I definitely think), but he hardly did anything compared with what the urging was, all the warning signs were, etc.
He had 8 years in office and did hardly anything whereas Bush had 8 months and did hardly anything. And not only that, but both presidents did some bad things regarding terrorism. I don't place all the blame on Clinton. Bush was at fault too.
But we can't harp on either of them too much because no one could have predicted the grandeur of an attack such as 9/11. It wasn't until after then that it really clicked in that something needed to be done.
That said, Clinton had numerous chances to go after the terrorists, but he instead considered it a law and order matter, not a national security matter, which was wrong. He needed to do more and he had more opportunities to do more than Bush. He admits that he didn't do enough, but he plays up that he did something like he really tried to do something hard, which he did not. A plain and simple fact.

So, to answer the question, no, he didn't do "nothing," but he didn't do nearly as much as he should have. He failed us more than Bush, IMO, but that's not to say I don't critique Bush for all those things he did--or, rather, didn't--do.

Founder · **Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:21 pm**

Clinton has done something. He screwed over Cubans and denied asylum. Even RM, the man that does not want illegals here, said that people fleeing dictators should be allowed here.

Starbuck · **Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:27 pm**

the discussion happened when we were talking about 9/11. She ment "Nothing happend" as in nothing terrorist wise happend. I disagree, but am I the only one?

Republican_Man · **Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:29 pm**

Founder · **Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:30 pm**

My apologies, I thought you meant "nothing" as in his entire presidency.

I don't like Clinton, but I do admit he was tough in that interview.

Republican_Man · **Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:35 pm**

Ah, okay. And he was tough alright, but not in a good way. He was assaulting, agressive, offensive, detestible, and all that, hence he was "tough." But being tough doesn't necessarily mean you did any good there. He was an absolute jerk and his defense became incredibly weak when he brought up the old Hillary mantra of "right-wing conspiracy." Hah, that's a laugh.
I didn't buy into his deceit, and I won't ever. He's really just trying to keep his reptuation from being shown for what it truly is--bad. Any good Clinton did in his presidency was because of the Republican Congress. That was it.

Jeff Miller · **Sun Sep 24, 2006 10:35 pm**

Bill should have done something. Than again when he didn't Bush should have. It just shows that not every president is Perfect. Each one has made mistakes in the past and they will in the future.

Republican_Man · **Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:59 pm**

Update:

Link, the Hero of Time · **Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:13 am**

Republican_Man · **Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:25 am**

And you watched the same interview I did? Something's telling me you watched a different version. I saw the interview, and that's just not so.

Valathous · **Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:38 am**

Actually, I watched it on youtube today and I have to agree with Link. Wallace was constantly interupting him. Clinton had to tell him to stop and let him finish on several occassions. Clinton was getting annoyed.

Republican_Man · **Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:46 am**

The reason why Wallace was interrupting was because he was trying to get back onto the Clinton Global Initiative, but Clinton wanted to keep talking about terrorism. Then Clinton wasn't answering the proper questions and Wallace pressed him on it. Clinton just didn't like his reputation to have the chance for being tarnished and he doesn't like the tough questions, hence his frustrations.
As I said before, you can't get more fair than Chris Wallace. If you watch his interviews with Democrats, Bush administration officials, and other Republicans alike you'll realize that he is incredibly fair. For instance, in 2004 he pressed Rumsfeld on pre-9/11 intelligence hard. He's not a partisan by any stretch of the means, and his dad, Mike Wallace, is a prominent media figure and, indeed, a liberal. I can't tell you how many times I watch Fox News Sunday and I'm like to Chris Wallace, "Will you cut it out!?"
He's an exceptionally fair journalist who asks tough, legitimate questions to both sides--questions which both sides do not want to answer. There was nothing wrong about how Wallace conducted the interview. All that was wrong was Clinton's reaction, how much of a jerk he was because he was asked a question about his failures before 9/11. He just can't handle anything that might tarnish his reputation. IMO, he worsened it with this interview by proving himself to be a jerk that even WeAz admited was so (at least him being a jerk in the interview), as did my parents. My dad, that isn't surprising, but my mom kinda liked Clinton. She abhored him in this interview.
And apparently the last time he blew up like that on TV was back during the Lewinsky thing, and he was lying then. What makes one think he's trustworthy now? I believe he did some things, but not even close to good enough, and he was misleading in the interview.
All Wallace did was (A) try to get him to answer the question right, but he just kept going on and on spilling propaganda and attacking Wallace, and (B) try to get him back onto the global initiative, but Clinton just kept on wanting to continue with terrorism. He was a jerk who attacked Wallace unnecessarily, and in an idiotic way. There was nothing wrong with what Wallace did--only what Clinton did.

Link, the Hero of Time · **Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:14 am**

Yep, fair and balanced. This of course, is the same man who doubted his own father's competence for his views and said that "He's lost it."

And the entire question asked was about Bin Laden and terrorism RM, Since I cant post the transcript, I'll link to it. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215397,00.html

And he took you through the time line from '93 up to the attacks, which you would have seen if you watched the whole thing. The entire "Clinton Global innitiative was well after Clinton was answering and getting constantly interrupted, And even then, Wallace interrupted Clinton asking if he wanted to talk about it.

TrekkieMage · **Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:28 pm**

Reading the transcript I'd say they both fumbled. But Wallace more so than Clinton.

The point of an interview (as near as I can figure out) is not to get every single question answered in a short amount of time. If one question becomes really interesting and there is a lot to say about it, let the person being interviewed continue. If need be, promt them nicely during a pause back on track.

Also, in response to Clinton's "conservitive hit job" comment, yes it was immature, but yes I see where he's coming from. He was specifically asked on the interview to talk about his charity efforts (which have been phenomenal), and suddenly he was slammed with a major politically charged question. I think his initial attempt to answer it was very graceful - from the transcript it looks like he tried to answer where the question seemed to end.

In Wallaces position I would have let Clinton answered, then continued the question. But Wallace interuped him and cut him off. I find that incredibly rude and can see why Clinton started to get aggitated.

Then Wallace doged the question when Clinton asked him one.

Overall they both acted like children, but Wallace even more so since Clinton was his invited guest.