Former president criticizes 'FOX News Sunday' host Chris Wallace for asking about handling of Al Qaeda threat

Question

Do you think he has the right to be Angry

Answer 1

Democrats don't need anyone to make them look bad -they do that well on their own .Clinton's "job" since he left office was to create a false impression of the impeached ;disbarred;perjuring cheat that he was when he was in the White House . That is why he is bent on philanthropic projects to enhance his pathetic trail of victims left in his wake..( those business partners who went to prison-instead of he & Hilary ); various mistresses that he & Hilary went out of their way to defame after Clinton's debauchery in the Arkansas Governors mansion and again in the White House ) ; and all those victims on 9/11 who died because Clinton refused bin laden when Sudan offered the U.S. his capture . The fact that the Clintons have ANY RIGHTS at all is contemptable , because they both belong in prison -not amongst the public , trying to create a "legacy" . They are protected by their comrads on the left-because if Clinton goes down , they all go down . What does Clinton have to be angry about ? Because Chris Wallace asked him a real question instead of playing "soft-ball" with him , like the usual treatment he gets from the liberal drive-by media ?

Answer 2

He apparently went on the program on the premise that he was to be asked about other subjects, including his current work to try to deal with AIDS and other real-world problems, but the interviewer opted to direct his questions to other subjects, which is generally considered highly discourteous in such contexts because it permits the questioner but not the responder to prepare for the subject. That was what seemed to upset Clinton, as it does any public figure who is treated in such a fashion.

And other respondents who wrongly assume that this was a stunt by Democrats have clearly lost all contact with reality. Remember, Clinton was the one ambushed, not the one who set the whole thing up. Fox did the set-up, and it was apparently a stunt intended to make people forget about this Administration's failure to live up to its post-9/11 promises to capture OBL and bring him to justice. Now, I suppose we're meant to believe that Bush's failure to accomplish anything in respect to the 9/11 attacks is somehow all the Democrats' fault or Bill Clinton's -- despite the GOP's hold on the Presidency and Congress during this entire time since the attacks. Bill Clinton, like all Americans, has a right to be angry, both with the incompetent policies of the radical right and with the dishonest tactics of its propaganda machine at Fox News.

Answer 3

Chris Wallace is a international-class Demagogue -- curiously extremely the flexibility participant in FOX information institutions he only isn't requested to be a moderator for both-party Presidential Debates -- he's a FOX type of "interviewer" (softball questions for those on the "Conservative" wing of issues)

Answer 4

Former Presidents are part of an ultra exclusive club. They should remain on the perhipreal of the public eye, not directly in the spotlight. Former Presidents should stick to what they do best. Speaking engagements, fundraising, charity, and writing books. Blatenly political comments should be reserved for books, not the current front page headlines. But then, the Clintons were never known for class and dignity.

Answer 5

Unfortunately, I only saw the tail end of the show, and I am sorry I missed the bulk of it.. It's about time someone speaksup honestly. I am sure Clinton has the right to be miffed. The Republicans are on a campaign to make the Dems look like crap and the Repubs look like humanistic angels. Did you notice that they are trying to promote Condoleeza as a real woman? Who the f_ck cares if she dates or hangs upside down in the closet at night?

Answer 6

Absolutely. First, his facts were correct. Second, since when is a former president not entitled to anger? The current president used his to start a war. I think if politicians were more animated we wouldn't think they are so disconnected from the rest of us. They are so concerned about offending someone and losing a couple of votes, most of their answers seem to come from being told to act like a piece of cardboard.

Answer 7

Of course he should have been angry.

I didn't see the interview (no Fox channel here), but I sure heard the same sound bytes over and over and over on the talk shows (Drudge and Limbaugh). Hannity was preempted here. He probably did it too. About the 20th time it was played, I was tired of hearing it. That's what made me angry, because I know what they're trying to do.

Answer 8

Over-reacted? No! I don't think so. Wallace falsely accused Clinton of screwing up the operation to kill Bin Laden and implied that he didn't do enough. Clinton, quite rightly, got angry and gave Wallace a dose of reality. I would get angry too. Why should he be blamed for everything? Wallace was shockingly biased and prejudiced as an interviewer. Wallace got what he deserved !!!

Answer 9

Not if FOX were truly "Fair and Balanced". Not if commentators didn't regularly attack leftys.
O'Reilly can go on a rant and tell his guests to 'shut up', but a former president can't question a network that has lambasted him for trying to take action against a threat, then say he didn't do enough.

Answer 10

Yes