Or did both of them have to much coffee?
2006-09-26 14:01:04 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Wallace is fair and unbalanced right wing pundent but Clinton had a little too much coffee.
2006-09-26 14:03:57 · answer #1 · answered by a4140145 4 · 1⤊ 6⤋
Neither. Fact is, Clinton is getting pissed that the general public is now finally realizing that Bin Laden was active during his presidency. He knew about it, and did nothing. Maybe he didn't realize what a threat he was at the time, but the truth is, Clinton did nothing to stop Al Queda, despite the fact that they bombed the US Cole, attacked American embassies in Africa, and bombed the garage of the WTC all during the Clinton years. The average American has no idea about this, but check the web; you'll find it all there. Fast forward 6 years and Clinton is feeling the heat. He lashed out at Chris Wallace because he's frustrated. He doesn't normally lose his composure like that, so I think he feels paranoid and defensive. Chris Wallace asked the tough question, and Clinton over reacted from frustration.
2006-09-26 14:10:52 · answer #2 · answered by Taffi 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Ladies and Gentlemen, have you ever heard the expression--let a sleeping dog lie? Uncle Bill gave us the greatest economic prosperity this nation has seen in over fifty years and left the people that Chris Wallace roots for a surplus in the treasury. Since then, he has not made one critique of the Bush Adm. in like a respect between presidents type gesture. The other day Wallace tried to kick the sleeping dog and he got bit! Don't be suprised if you see other Dems get after these republican puppet commentators when you see them on their shows, that is if they let anyone else on considering what just happened. The point being--Clinton is retired, W is the nutjob in charge that is ruining our country as we speak that we CAN do something about!!!
2006-09-26 14:12:37 · answer #3 · answered by scottyurb 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
I think only one man in the room had a smirk on his face. It was like having the Joker from Batman interviewing Clinton. Clinton's anger was a result being confronted with complete lies by Wallace. The strategic plans one in 1998 and another in 2000 against Al Qaeda is available for all to see at the US State Departments archive website. These were extensive plans that had significant resources dedicated by the Clinton Administration. Three separate sources; the 9-11 commission, the CIA and Richard Clarke clearly intoned that the Bush administration did absolutely nothing and shuttled the Clinton efforts to get Osama. What is documented from the beginning of the Bush administration was the commitment to invade Iraq; reliable sources inside the government and out are practically to many to count.
It's much like Chavez's speech; the indignation of him calling our dear leader a "devil". I mean Bush called Iran, Iraq and North Korea the "axis of evil"; a virtual hat-trick of insulting all three countries leadership of having some inside track with the devil. What hypocrisy...Reagan called the USSR the "evil empire". Apparently it's acceptable for our Presidents to associate our enemies d'jour with demonic properties but to be called devils ourselves is inconceivable.
When you compound the fact that Bush has tried to have Chavez assassinated three times in the past five years might invoke a few school yard insults from Chavez.
2006-09-26 14:26:00 · answer #4 · answered by markfuller2000 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Chris Wallace is a bully and was trying to anger Bill Clinton for the sensationalism of it. I think Clinton had every right to go off. He's as sick of the media as I am, he just has the opportunity to say so.
2006-09-26 14:03:12 · answer #5 · answered by i have no idea 6 · 5⤊ 4⤋
Chris Wallace is a bully. Shame the media made Clinton out the way they did. FOX news in a joke
2006-09-26 14:03:18 · answer #6 · answered by cyndisource 2 · 4⤊ 5⤋
This morning I heard all the wonderful rebutals to Clinton's misrepresentations during the interview, but as usual - the original lie is seen and the truth is a neglected after-thought.
2006-09-26 14:18:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Wallace rightly pointed out on hannity that he had half his notes devoted to the agenda and half to current news (which would include Clintons apparent failure to want to get Bin Ladin)
Clinton got visibly shaken and was way outta line. We expect more from an ex-president. (But apparently not much from one that disgraced the office to begin with throuh his infidelity)
2006-09-26 14:11:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
anyone who calls him an "easy" interviewer... has problems... that wasn't an easy question... any way you cut it...
but I don't fault either of them... the simple fact is... he asked a hard question... and he got a heated response...
I don't have a problem with either part of that... I think they should be allowed to ask the hard questions... but if you ask hard questions... don't be surprised if someone takes it personally...
I mean, that was Clinton's life for 8 years and I would get pissed too if someone asked me that...
but I don't have a problem with him asking...
2006-09-26 14:09:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I've never seen Chris Wallace as a bully. Clinton can't stand facts being thrown at him.
2006-09-26 14:03:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 5⤋