Clinton-Wallace: Round One Goes To ....

By: Vaughn Ververs
Topics: In The News

(AP/Fox News Sunday)

Whether you agree with former President Bill Clinton in his assertion that he was the victim of a "nice little conservative hit job" this past weekend during his interview with "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace almost certainly depends upon where you sit on the political spectrum. But the outburst that came in response to Wallace's question about "connecting the dots" prior to 9/11 has not a few people talking – and wondering what was really going on. Was his angry reaction simply reflexive or was it calculated strategy on the part of one of our era's greatest political players?

One thing is for sure, the exchange is flying through the Web at warp speed and is unlikely to be missed by many – even those who routinely avoid political discussion. Seeing the former president sort of flip out this way is pretty riveting stuff, after all. I'm not quite sure what to make of the whole thing. Clinton did appear genuinely angry about being asked whether there was more his administration could have done to stop Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11. The incident also comes right on the heels of controversy over an ABC mini-series based on the 9/11 Commission Report, which angered Clinton and members of his administration by falsely portraying them as unwilling to strike bin Laden when the opportunity presented itself. So perhaps he's feeling a little under siege on that particular topic.

Then again, Clinton was sitting down with "Fox News Sunday" for the first time ever. It was part of the promotion for Clinton's Global Initiative forum but he had to know that his first appearance on the Fox show at least had the potential to be a little tougher than a cake-walk. That was confirmed by Clinton spokesperson Jay Carson who told the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz: "We're fully aware of Fox News's and Chris Wallace's agenda, and President Clinton came in prepared to respond to any attack on his record. … When Wallace questioned his record on terrorism, he responded forcefully, as any Democrat would or should."

Was Clinton genuinely so outraged by Wallace and his question that he lost a little bit of control or was there a some measure of a calculated strategy to rally Democratic stalwarts heading into the fall elections? We'll probably never know but it's a fun guessing game to play. What do you think?

76 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 76 Comments


by energyecon September 27, 2006 3:05 PM EDT: snip

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."

Two days after Rice's March 22 op-ed, Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, "there's a lot of debate about whether it's a plan or a strategy or a series of options -- but all of the things we recommended back in January were those things on the table in September. They were done. They were done after September 11th. They were all done. I didn't really understand why they couldn't have been done in February."

snip

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.

snip

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/; Reply to this comment


by bluestardad September 27, 2006 2:12 PM EDT: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has no more credibility now than when she was National Security Advisor in 2001. Then in August 2001 she could not find actionable intelligence in a National Security Briefing titled %u201CBin Laden Planning to Attack inside United States Using Passenger Aircraft%u201D. She has once again shown why she has her current job as she is loyal to President Bush and his administration no matter how messed up he is, nor how many lies he tells, or how many Americans Die because of their failed policies, she supports him. But Condoleezza Rice competing on an intellectual or moral level representing this administration against Bill or Hillary Clinton would be like Condoleezza bringing a rock to a gun fight%u2026

Michael Boetjer

Captain U. S. Army

Double Blue Star Father; Reply to this comment


by garyg23 September 27, 2006 1:07 PM EDT: I think those who would accuse President Clinton of grandstanding, or in any way having it in his mind to blow up at Chris Wallace should reread Wallace's "question". It wasn't a question, it was an accusation. "Why didn't you do more to find Bin Laden"? That's akin to the old "Have you stopped beating your wife" chestnut. Come on, folks, this was a typical Fox News scripted setup and Bill Clinton was too smart to walk into it. He opted to expose the ploy for what it was and rightly defend himself.; Reply to this comment


by kc0073 September 26, 2006 7:36 PM EDT: From One American in America --

Oh right, Phil-in-Fin. Like Finland is such a Valhalla, the whole world is rushing to live there. Must be a tough job running that country! ("Let's see...today I must remember to make sure we're exporting enough fish...and then figure out who I need to bribe to get the Winter Olympics up here in 2026..."); Reply to this comment


by sschroth September 26, 2006 4:30 PM EDT: It's about time that Clinton spoke out in response to all the innuendo and innacurate dramatization that have been so frequent lately. I don't think he "lost it" -- he was just expressing some righteous indignation.; Reply to this comment


by leemiller38 September 26, 2006 3:42 PM EDT: Some of the right-wing comments regarding Clinton's interview indicate a lack of reading capability of idealogical right-wing Repugs. Read the book on Terrorism and Al Qaeda by Richard Clarke and then sound off with some basis for the assertions about Clinton. Otherwise you do not know what you are talking about. Most of what I read on this blog is right-wing noise to cover up the Bush Administration's gross incompetence.
Clinton was justifiable outraged at the right wing blame-gamers and he did a great job of being honest and assertive. We are proud of you, Bill!

The only time Mr. Clinton has lied is when personal matters were involved which are no one else's business anyway- except, of course, if you are a moralistic fundamentalist politician, then you have to make it your business for political gain.; Reply to this comment


by adrasteia-2009 September 26, 2006 3:09 PM EDT: Mattmoe30...versus the neocon audience that still thinks Iraq had WMD, ties to al Qaeda and was responsible for 9.11? Clinton can only say he tried because no matter what he did he was ridiculed for and hindered at. The only administration that never has a "but..." is the current one. They admit no wrong because they and their audience are convinced nothing they ever do is wrong. History will judge them and their audience much more harshly.; Reply to this comment


by diamtool September 26, 2006 2:42 PM EDT: AWww shucks folks, it's no big deal, Big Dog Bubba jes' chased that Wallace boy back up on the porch--thassall, no teethmarks or nuthin, jes taught him a lesson. WOOF!
Way to go BIG!
watch and learn dems!; Reply to this comment


by mattmoe30 September 26, 2006 2:15 PM EDT: Was it calculated by Bill Clinton to blow up on Fox News? To me without a doubt everything done by both Bill and Hillary is scripted. He is one of the greatest politicians of modern political history. Granted I don't agree with his political or socioeconomic views but you have to give credit where credit is due. Yet with most politicians Clinton accepts responsibility with a but...... there is always somewhere else to point the finger. Whoever you believe is responsible, Clinton's arguement that 'at least he tried' is childish and unbecoming an experienced politician such as himself. Yet in all honesty you have only to look his audience he is trying to invigorate and the conduct matches perfectly.; Reply to this comment


by mattcat25 September 26, 2006 1:20 PM EDT: Condoleeza Rice's dissertation on Bill Clinton's claim that the Bush Administration didn't actively pursue Usama Bin Laden in a timely manner (it%u2019s been 6 years for Bush) has as much integrity as her statement that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that she didn't want the verification to be a %u201CMUSHROOM CLOUD!!%u201D

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.; Reply to this comment