Fox news gave a false pretense to get an interview with Clinton. It's one way they get ratings.
Clinton did a very good thing by telling that liar off. And he showed how Fox really works.
Should President Clinton flipped them off too?
I think he should of. About time someone did
2006-09-27 02:36:48 · 17 answers · asked by Villain 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I would of done it in a second!
2006-09-27 02:40:56 · update #1
I agree with you 100%, with the exception of flipping them off. That would only lower us to the Neocons Laval, and believe me that's not a good place to be.
To have Fox New's slogan as "Fair and Balanced" is an insult to all intelligent life forms. Yes, they are Fair and Balanced, but only if you are a hard line, right wing extremist who believes every word they feed you. The Nazis had a slogan at the entrance of Auschwitz to greet the condemned Jews arriving in boxcars. It read "work is freedom" Their idea of work was to force starving Jews to burn the bodies of their family and friends for 20 hours a day. After 30 days on average they would also be put into the ovens.
So if the Nazis could say 'Work is Freedom" , then Fox News has every right to say "Fair and Balanced"
"War is Peace" - George Orwell
"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." —George W. Bush, June 18, 2002
2006-09-27 02:41:17 · answer #1 · answered by Kwan Kong 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Fox didn't give a false pretense. Wallace prepared 5 questions regarding Clinton's Global Initiative and 5 other questions and let Clinton know that he expected to talk about the Global Initiative for only half of the interview.
I think Clinton was out of line for blowing up like that, that question really wasn't that out of line and was actually what I would expect any responsible journalist to ask. This whole thing reminded me of when he wagged his finger and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". I gave him the benefit of the doubt then, I don't think I will this time. The guy is a liar, and the way he blew up coupled with the mannerisms that remind me of previous times when he lied just make me think he has something to hide.
Why is it that Sandy Berger stole documents from the national archives (stuffing them in his pants and socks according to eye witness accounts) and then destroyed them before the 9/11 commission could've gotten to them? There is something wrong with this picture.
2006-09-27 02:43:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
i'm a Democrat and voted for bill Clinton two times. i does no longer bypass back and alter my votes. yet while he have been to run for election back i might have 2nd suggestions. He appeared emotionally disturbed and volatile. This tirade ability i won't be able to evaluate vote casting for Hillary. i think of she is is "no bill Clinton" at first yet now understanding that she might have an volatile better half it would be devastating to our u . s . to have her interior the Whitehouse. i'm no super fan of Fox information yet Chris Wallace is trully a "truthful" interviewer and did no longer deserve the abuse that President Clinton laid on him. It become embarassing to work out President Clinton act like a spoiled brat. He could have addressed the question. Wallace become fairly well mannered. It seems to me like President Clinton will bypass the Carter way. he will do good issues interior the charity realm yet isn't in all probability seen good while conversing in public on different themes.
2016-10-18 01:45:25 · answer #3 · answered by freer 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clinton was quite justified to be upset. An entire miniseries was devoted to demonizing him 6 whole years after he left office, and Fox wasn't going to let him go without beating him over the head with it.
While it did show that we was agitated, he did handle it well. The media tried hard to discredit him by advertising the interview where he "went off" on Wallace. If he did flip Wallace off, it would have severely damaged his credibility. I'm glad he didn't.
Dubya, on the other hand, already has an old video of him flipping off the camera.
2006-09-27 03:10:47 · answer #4 · answered by orpheus 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Did you watch the interview? They did speak about the Clinton Global initiative for half the time as stipulated in the rules. The other half was open to any questions. Mike Wallace seemed to try to change the subject, but Clinton would have none of it. He wanted to talk about this and apparently went over his own time limit doing so. Should people only ask Clinton easy/soft questions? Is that what you're implying?
2006-09-27 02:39:59 · answer #5 · answered by MEL T 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
It was all made up and scripted. Clinton knew the questions he was going to be asked. So he just took the opportunity to try to score some votes from the democrats that are starting to wise up and realize they've been on the wrong side all the time.
Note: Clinton's act was the only false pretense going on there.
2006-09-27 03:28:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No. That would make him appear as low as Bush. Clinton did GREAT without going overboard and making a fool of himself like Bush often does.
2006-09-27 12:38:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
He is just classless enough to do it...it was probably edited out and FOX was threatened by the Clinton Mafia if they used it. Seems a reasonable explanation.
2006-09-27 02:43:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
So, how many times have you posted now, praising the impeached whoremonger coward Clinton for his insult-strewn temper tantrum?
I see your blue dress has a stain on it...
2006-09-27 02:44:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Any person that can think knows that FOX is an arm of the right.
I personally do not believe any thing they say.
2006-09-27 02:41:54 · answer #10 · answered by cbmw95 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋