Lying Duck
What a lying little mallard Chris Wallace is. This is how Wallace describes his interview with Bill Clinton:
He just wanted to go back, eh? Let's look at the actual question Wallace asked:
Wallace asked him specifically about those events and is acting surprised about the fact that Clinton answered him. As if only an unprepared lunatic would discuss the events Wallace asked about. He actually brought the Cole up a second time halfway through the interview. Perhaps it did surprise him to learn that if you actually ask somebody about the Cole, you might get an answer. Or it might surprise him to learn that there are people who aren't paid shills and when you ask them about something, they won't talk about something entirely different. Some people don't need to dissemble, Chris.
Wallace also tries to frame the interview as though Clinton has some sort of paranoia:
What does Wallace mean by "He says this is all?" What is "this?" It sounds like Clinton is freaking about a conspiracy when he was talking specifically about the "context" of the questions coming out of Wallace's smirky little grill. Here's the first thing out of Clinton's mouth on the subject:
As if Clinton weren't justified in wondering why out of his entire media tour only FOX was asking him why he failed to capture bin Laden? The same FOX network that falsely reported that the ratings for "The Path to 9/11" were excellent.
Finally, Wallace tosses out this line of crap:
I guess that's why he said this towards the end of the interview:
He certainly was mindful of it all. But he's lying when he says that it was Clinton who was taking the interview off the topic of the Clinton Global Initiative. He's just flat-out lying.
These jokers at FOX News cannot even report the truth about a completely-recorded situation they themselves were in only a day before. It's hard to understand why any Democrat -- except maybe Joe Lieberman -- would ever agree to spend half a second talking to the stooges at FOX.
We started off fine, talking about the initiatives and his efforts and then I said, because I've gotten a lot of emails, "People want to know why didn't you do more to bring bin Laden to justice? Why didn't you, in your eight years in office, go after al-Qaeda?" And I gotta say, Brian... and you figure he would have been prepared to deal with that... he went off. He just... he wanted to go back to Somalia in '93 and the USS Cole.
He just wanted to go back, eh? Let's look at the actual question Wallace asked:
When we announced that you were going to be on FOX News Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I got to say I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question. Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and al-Qaeda out of business when you were President. There's a new book out which I suspect you've read called "The Looming Tower." And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said 'I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops.' Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole.
Wallace asked him specifically about those events and is acting surprised about the fact that Clinton answered him. As if only an unprepared lunatic would discuss the events Wallace asked about. He actually brought the Cole up a second time halfway through the interview. Perhaps it did surprise him to learn that if you actually ask somebody about the Cole, you might get an answer. Or it might surprise him to learn that there are people who aren't paid shills and when you ask them about something, they won't talk about something entirely different. Some people don't need to dissemble, Chris.
Wallace also tries to frame the interview as though Clinton has some sort of paranoia:
He says this is all basically an effort by right-wing critics to diminish his administration and that George W. Bush isn't held to the same account. That he did a heck of a lot better job in the two-to-three months after the Cole than George Bush did in the eight months that he had after the Cole as president before 9/11 happened.
What does Wallace mean by "He says this is all?" What is "this?" It sounds like Clinton is freaking about a conspiracy when he was talking specifically about the "context" of the questions coming out of Wallace's smirky little grill. Here's the first thing out of Clinton's mouth on the subject:
OK, let's talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits, but I want to talk about the context of which this... arises. I'm being asked this on the FOX network... ABC just had a right-wing conservative on "The Path to 9/11" falsely claim that it was falsely based on the 9/11 Commission Report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission Report. I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn't do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with bin Laden.
As if Clinton weren't justified in wondering why out of his entire media tour only FOX was asking him why he failed to capture bin Laden? The same FOX network that falsely reported that the ratings for "The Path to 9/11" were excellent.
Finally, Wallace tosses out this line of crap:
And the interesting thing is that I was mindful of the 15 minutes and the 50-50 rule and I kept on trying to bring him back. He wanted to get into it and we ended up doing 22 minutes.
I guess that's why he said this towards the end of the interview:
I know we're over but can I ask you two political questions. Let's talk some politics.
He certainly was mindful of it all. But he's lying when he says that it was Clinton who was taking the interview off the topic of the Clinton Global Initiative. He's just flat-out lying.
These jokers at FOX News cannot even report the truth about a completely-recorded situation they themselves were in only a day before. It's hard to understand why any Democrat -- except maybe Joe Lieberman -- would ever agree to spend half a second talking to the stooges at FOX.
