2006-09-27 13:56:34 · 10 answers · asked by John G 5 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
Clinton was there under the impression that he was to be talking about his fundraising efforts,
Wallace, being quite biased, accused Clinton of not doing enough to catch Osama Bin Laden, He also, blindly accused Clinton of being responsible for 9-11.
Clinton quite rightly gave him a serve, I would have done the same aswell. Wallace was incredibly biased and prejudiced as an interviewer, Truth is, Wallace is a has been, this would have been his biggest interview in months, he just wanted to make a point for all the liberal fox viewers.
2006-09-27 14:00:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Wallace later played innocent, when in fact he was accusing Clinton of causing 9/11 by failing to get bin Laden. Typical Republican sleaze: accuse with a question, then pretend shock when answered back with a vigorous defense.
That Clinton did not get bin Laden - and his camp bombing in Afganistan nearly did - is not the reason for 9/11, and Bush hasn't gotten him either.
Republicans who answer here with distortions and history amnesia can shove it back up the butts they got it from...
2006-09-27 21:11:40 · answer #2 · answered by sonyack 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They were accusing him of not doing enough to prevent terrorism in our country during his presidency. They feel if he had done more, 911 could have been prevented.
I believe whole heartedly that the US would never had taken great steps to prevent terrorism, until something major like 911 happened in the first place.
No one believes things will happen until they do.
2006-09-27 21:17:14 · answer #3 · answered by pixles 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wallace got him there pretending that they were going to talk about a fundraiser then started to ask about other things. I personally think that Clinton is cool. yes he lied but what politican hasnt lied about something.
2006-09-27 21:37:54 · answer #4 · answered by Dorrie 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
An innocent question about the terror and those who were responsible for it during his terms as president set him off because he did not have a good answer.
2006-09-28 00:59:21 · answer #5 · answered by fatboysdaddy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
here's a recount of the incident.
Basically he didn't like getting asked a tough question about what he did to stop terrorism while Pres.
2006-09-27 22:57:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anthony M 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe, there was no mambo number 5. ;-0
2006-09-27 21:04:19 · answer #7 · answered by angstrom 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What Fairydust said
2006-09-27 21:12:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
He was cornered and a cornered liar is very dangerous. He showed himself, once again. Despite his bluster, he does not realize that we remember his inactions and his debacles in foreign affairs.
2006-09-27 21:03:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Probably exposed some more lies.
2006-09-27 21:01:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋