Comments on: Rice: Clinton Claims 'Flatly False'

Secretary Of State Challenges Ex-President's Record On Fighting Terror

[shbinga]

[[Wallace said Sunday he was surprised by Mr. Clinton's "conspiratorial view" of "a very non-confrontational question, 'Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after al Qaeda?"']]

Except that is not what he asked. What he asked was "WHY DIDN'T YOU DO MORE ..."

Does Wallace really not see how much more confrontational that question is?

[urichhai]

Oh please What a bunch of ***. Clinton just blew for no reason except to mouth off again.
as far as republicans vs democrats there is no contest. NEITHER this country is screwed up enough we need someone who is going to stop worrying about every other 2 bit country and worry about our own.
STOP SENDING MY HARD EARNED CASH TO UNDER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES AND SPEND IT HERE TO FIX OUR PROBLEMS.

[nvhc]

President Bush has done more to combat terrorism that any other administration, plain and simple. Not only was he in a position to deal with terrorism on our own soil less than a year into his first term, he also had to deal with the economical blow of the sexual deviant he replaced during that same time. Clinton could have and should have done more with the global war on terror and he chose not to. It was not that he did not have the intelligence or ability to do so, he chose to turn a blind eye and work on issues that would allow him to prosper after he left the White House, he and his wife degrade the values and moral integrity of the USA

[fedora1958]

I saw Condi on 60 Minutes talking about her resentment that Americans feel misled when they were going on "the best intelligence" that Saddam was linked to Al Queda. An odd way of putting it, because we know now that there was plenty of intelligence to the contrary. In the real world, the "best intelligence" is the intelligence that turned out to be true?

After seeing Condi push this kind of absurdity so emphatically, I see no reason to take her at her word. Okay, maybe Clinton's charge was false, but the administration should find someone with more credability to make their case. Like Donald Rumsfeld. Okay, bad example. *** Cheney? No I guess not. The President?

Never mind.

[thgdriver]

He oviously expected to get the Democratic Party some mileage out of this interview, otherwise, why do it? He saw this mileage going over a cliff and just plain lost it.

Bill, forget the smoke and mirrors, just answer the *** questions!!

[drgoodwin12]

Condi is a liar,she stated in the 9/11 hearings that a plan was passed on from the previous adminstration.Second if anyone here has read AGAINST ALL ENEMIES they would know that it was not until 1999 that they figured out who was responsible for all the different attacks on U.S. soldiers and embassy's. The bombing of the Cole clinched it.Clinton went after Bin laden and Al Queda would have completed the job if the republican party would not have moan and groaned that it was an escape goat for the Lewinsky affair.So even though the democratic party got suckered gy the lies of WMD along with vast majority of Americans that Bush had fabricated(Colin Powell has almost completely confirmed this)lets give them a chance and vote Democratic because stay the course is like riding a blind horse down a mountain.Contribute whatever dollar amount you can afford to the Democratic Party and speak out armed with facts that Bush,Rove,Cheney and rumsfield cannot rebuke without putting their foot in their mouth.If the Democratic Party should failto deliver then let us start another party one that embraces American values and protects America from terrorist and greedy corporations.

[alanrobisch]

cut me a break he was asked a straight forward question and then had a temper tantrum. He went on fox for this very purpose. He used them to get his point across and help his wife politically. He knew questions would be asked like this and no one twisted his arm to go on fox. One comentator said it reminded him of when he denied having relations with monica.

[rbennet9-2009]

Clinton was right on! First he addressed Fox News' partisan ploy and their constant attempts to smear Clinton over al Quaida. Then he revealed that after Cole, he drew up battle plans to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban but could not get the CIA and FBI to certify that Osoma bin Laden was responsible for the Cole attack. Then when Clinton left office, the Bush administration downgraded terrorism and the al Quaida threat and fired Richard Clarke and totally ignored the threat until 9/11 happened. Not matter how much the right wing wants to blame Clinton, it was the Bush administration that did nothing for 8 months until 9/11 hit them in the face.

[rbennet9-2009]

Clinton was right on! First he addressed Fox News' partisan ploy and their constant attempts to smear Clinton over al Quaida. Then he revealed that after Cole, he drew up battle plans to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban but could not get the CIA and FBI to certify that Osoma bin Laden was responsible for the Cole attack. Then when Clinton left office, the Bush administration downgraded terrorism and the al Quaida threat and fired Richard Clarke and totally ignored the threat until 9/11 happened. Not matter how much the right wing wants to blame Clinton, it was the Bush administration that did nothing for 8 months until 9/11 hit them in the face.

[mwe3wm]

I want to thank CBS for this forum.

There was not a simple question asked by Chris Wallace to President Clinton. There were a series of questions that were positioned to imply blame and be confrontational. Instead of asking "Why did you not do more?" and phrasing it as "Could you have done more? or "What did you do to address terrorism? would have been better for an interviewee of such stature.

Michael Edwards
Texas