My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

April 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

« NYT: Hugo Chavez says he regrets never meeting Noam Chomsky before Chomsky died | Main | Cut the partisanship: Give Clinton a break, and Bill, you do the same for Bush »

September 23, 2006



Now with the reported death by Typhoid of Usama bin Laden, this all seems either ironic or silly.

Karl Rove sure does work fast.

Frank Warner

Yes, if that report is true, and if Wallace talked with Clinton a few days later, Clinton might have found a better way to change the subject.

jj mollo

Blame management is the most significant work done by politicians. I agree with Clinton, and I'm not going to blame him, but I'm not going to blame the Republicans either. The government, collectively has been doing a bad job. Let's start doing a good job. Where do we go from here? That's the right question.

The first thing we have to do is recognize that neither Clinton nor Bush are to blame. The terrorists are to blame.

I think that going after Osama might have helped before 911, but afterward it was beside the point. Vengence is not a sensible war policy. We are fighting reactionary Islamist radicalism, a dangerous religiously inspired memeset with qualities akin to fascism. We need to use strategies and tactics that work. We need to address Rumsfeld's challenge of how we can prevent the cultivation of new radicals who use terrorism as a tactic, how we can shut down the madrassas.

I can understand why Clinton is so sensitive. He feels guilty. Bush too, I imagine. Bush is at least in a position where he can make up for his early laxity. Clinton can only sit on his hands. What Bush is trying to do is wage war the best way he knows how. We need to support him, and so does Clinton. And for the most part, Clinton has been reasonably supportive, especially compared to most other Democrats, including Al Gore.


You people really need to read the full transcript, the bits and pieces here spun by the columnist in no way shape or form can show you an objective picture.

Please visit:

then formulate your own opinions not one spun by a biase columnist.

Frank Warner

By all means, read the full transcript. I already had linked to the thinkprogress site for everyone to see.

Ask yourself this: How was it that Clinton was never asked Chris Wallace's simple question before?

Ask yourself, was the basic question, "Do you think you did enough, sir?" a legitimate question?

And is Chris Wallace a right-wing hit man? Should he have asked Clinton nothing at all? What's the point of a news interview?


Actually Wallace asked a few questions he claimed "people emailed him" which CONTRADICTED the 9/11 Commission finding.

And Clinton went off on Wallace because he would never think of asking Bush, Cheney and Rice why they did NOTHING for 9 months, right up to 9/11 on terrorism. While Clinton tried to kill bin Laden, they ignored him. And they KNEW he was behind the Cole bombing, during Clinton's time that wasn't known yet.

Actually, Clinton mops up the floor with Wallace. Exposes him as a FOX Right wing hack.


"Do you think you did enough, sir?" a legitimate question?

Sure it's fair, and Clinton answered it. What piss off Clinton was why FOX never bothers to ask the Bush administration that very same question. That was his beef. As you can see if you watch the interview (which is far different than reading the transcript. You can't hear Wallace squirming in the text version).


Waching the video it's a clear win for Clinton.

Nobody will be questioning the job he did on terrorism again.


"What Bush is trying to do is wage war the best way he knows how. We need to support him"

No we don't. His incompetent fumblings have hurt America.

"Iraq War Has Spread Terror, Agencies Say"

WASHINGTON — The war in Iraq has made global terrorism worse by fanning Islamic radicalism and providing a training ground for lethal methods that are increasingly being exported to other countries, according to a sweeping assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies.

The classified document, which represents a consensus view of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, paints a considerably bleaker picture of the impact of the Iraq war than Bush administration or U.S. intelligence officials have acknowledged publicly, according to officials familiar with the assessment.

Frank Warner

The Bush administration has been asked over and over whether it believes it did enough to stop terrorism, or if it believes it's doing enough now.


The Clinton meltdown is proof that the Democratic news media refused to ask Clinton the same obvious and important question. Clinton is so accustomed to softball questions from his Democratic friends in the press that he was shocked and insulted that someone actually asked him about his record.

A notice Clinton's paranoia. Chris Wallace a hit man for the right wing? Clinton obviously doesn't know Chris Wallace.

Why didn't CNN ever ask Clinton whether he thought he did enough to stop al-Qaida? It's not as if CNN never had a chance to ask Clinton a question.

Christopher Taylor

I think it's a fair statement that angering and fighting terrorists has made them more upset and frustrated, so they lash out more. The question is... is it the right thing to do, and will it ultimately make matters better?

Frank Warner

Clinton said: "You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change."

If Clinton truly believes that, he is plainly delusional.

Watch the interview, look at the whole transcript. To those Democrats trying to pretend Clinton made sense: At which point in the interview did Chris Wallace go too far for your taste? At exactly which point did the interview become a "conservative hit job"?

jj mollo

You're right Marko. We don't need to support the President. Not unless we want to get some sort of handle on the growth of Islamist fanaticism. Many people in the US think that Bush is more of a threat than the terrorists. This is the kind of thinking that causes crazy people to kill their own family members more often than any other victims.

If I were to agree that he is inept, naive, arrogant, elitist and religiously inflexible, I would still have to point out that he is the only president we have now and we're not going to get another for a couple of years. If we don't support him now, then nothing will get done -- at least nothing on our side of the ball. Bush is the Executive. He is moving in the right direction, and nursing your grudges over the results of the last two presidential elections is not going to make him any more effective.

The thing that makes fanatical movements prosper is not a just cause or anger or resentment or poverty or mighty grievances. It is success and the appearance of success. Bin Laden posed and strutted and passed out money after his successes, and all the wannabes admired him, copied him and scrambled to do his bidding. His early successes were caused by our neglect. The ongoing successes of his movement are part of a gathering momentum. The only way that they can be tamed is by regular, consistent, hard work and by our adamant refusal to permit any more successes. Every war protest in this country feeds the hopes of madmen in the Middle East and fattens their wallets. I believe in the right to protest and the necessity of a lively public debate, but it would be nice if people could come to understand what's really going on. Partisan paranoia does not make for good national policy.


To those Democrats trying to pretend Clinton made sense: At which point in the interview did Chris Wallace go too far for your taste? At exactly which point did the interview become a "conservative hit job"?

When he lied about Somalia?

When he lied about grilling the Bush admin?

Or when he asked, basically, when Clinton stopped being in love with Bin Laden?

Chris Wallace isn't a journalist,
he's a pundit. Example of question he asked Condi Rice..

"MR. WALLACE: The Democrats' number two man in the Senate, Dick Durbin, created quite a stir this week when he compared U.S. treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo to Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and the killing fields of Cambodia. Does it make it harder for you to do your job as you travel through the Mideast and push U.S. policy on human rights and democracy when a top American official says we are part of the problem? "

How about..."Do Abu Graib, Haditha, and Quantanamo make your job harder?"

One of those question implictly calls Democrats traitors. The other deals with reality.


CBS's "Early Show," September 25, 2006

Michael F. Scheuer, a 22-year veteran with the CIA, created and served as the chief of the agency's Osama bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center. Scheuer is now known to be the anonymous author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror.

Transcript of the relevant portion of the interview follows:

Harry Smith: "Elizabeth Palmer live in Pakistan this morning, thank you. I'm going to go back now to Michael Scheuer once again. Let's talk about what President Clinton had to say on Fox yesterday. He basically laid blame at the feet of the CIA and the FBI for not being able to certify or verify that Osama bin Laden was responsible for a number of different attacks. Does that ring true to you?"

Michael Scheuer: "No, sir, I don't think so. The president seems to be able, the former president seems to be able to deny facts with impugnity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That's the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men and women who risk their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden."

Harry Smith: "Alright, is the Bush administration any less responsible for not finishing the job in Tora Bora?"

Michael Scheuer: "Oh, I think there's plenty of blame to go around, sir, but the fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration had one chance that they botched, and the Clinton Administration had eight to ten chances that they refused to try. At least at Tora Bora our forces were on the ground. We didn't push the point. But it's just, it's an incredible kind of situation for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them."

Harry Smith: "And, and, and with this also further revelation that, in fact, the war in Iraq has only exacerbated the terrorist situation. Michael Scheurer, we thank you so much for your time this morning."

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)