I cannot imagine ever having any political leader as a role model
John Wayne and Gregory Peck were mine.
John Wayne and Gregory Peck were mine.Chris Wallace interviews Clinton
- Thread starter jimmoyer
- Start date
I never said Clinton was technically misleading about Clarke being fired. I said Clinton was technically incorrect when he said Bush fired Clarke.
Clarke had a much higher level of authority and responsiblity under Clinton than under Bush. That's a fact.
This Time article describes what went on during Bush's first eight months in office regarding terrorism
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html
...One of the first official acts of the current Bush administration was to downgrade the office of national coordinator for counterterrorism on the National Security Council - a position held by Richard Clarke. Clarke had served in the Pentagon and State Department under presidents Reagan and Bush the elder, and was the first person to hold the counterterrorism job created by President Clinton. Under Clinton, he was elevated to cabinet rank, which gave him a seat at the principals' meeting, the highest decision-making group for national security.
By removing Clarke from the table, Bush put him in a box where he could speak only when spoken to. No longer would his memos go to the president; instead, they had to pass though a chain of command of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, who bounced each of them back...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september1...177418,00.html
------------------------------------------------------earth_as_one----------------------------------------------------
The Guardian's source are the Clintons themselves.
Try looking at some of Clarke's criticisms of the Clinton way.
Clarke being at the table is subterfuge. He was at the table if Clinton wanted it.
And the quantity and quality of attention towards Clarke requires further evaluation,
and requires more empirical evidence, doesn't it ???
For some reason the CIA was demoted under Clinton, with far fewer perhaps just
two face visits.
And by the way, it IS THE PEROGATIVE of the President to lift up or lower whatever
piece of the staid bureaucracy they choose. Clinton hardly looking at the CIA chief's face
and Bush having much more contact with the CiA head is an example.
Clinton trumpeting and overblowing the power of Clarke is politics aimed at partisans, begging
for more suspicious analysis.
This is the beating breast rhetoric.
Further analysis.
What is true is plenty of mistakes to go around in both administrations.
One better than the other ???
I DON'T THINK SO.
By removing Clarke from the table, Bush put him in a box where he could speak only when spoken to. No longer would his memos go to the president; instead, they had to pass though a chain of command of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, who bounced each of them back...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september1...177418,00.html
------------------------------------------------------earth_as_one----------------------------------------------------
The Guardian's source are the Clintons themselves.
Try looking at some of Clarke's criticisms of the Clinton way.
Clarke being at the table is subterfuge. He was at the table if Clinton wanted it.
And the quantity and quality of attention towards Clarke requires further evaluation,
and requires more empirical evidence, doesn't it ???
For some reason the CIA was demoted under Clinton, with far fewer perhaps just
two face visits.
And by the way, it IS THE PEROGATIVE of the President to lift up or lower whatever
piece of the staid bureaucracy they choose. Clinton hardly looking at the CIA chief's face
and Bush having much more contact with the CiA head is an example.
Clinton trumpeting and overblowing the power of Clarke is politics aimed at partisans, begging
for more suspicious analysis.
This is the beating breast rhetoric.
Further analysis.
What is true is plenty of mistakes to go around in both administrations.
One better than the other ???
I DON'T THINK SO.
Last edited:
Holy Hope Arkansas - Bubba is getting more press over his tantrum than anything he's done for a while.
Clinton demonstrated both his cowardice and fear of the press while letting his need to "politik" override his common sense (well it is common if not sense)....
He ok'd Chris Wallace for the interview thinking it would be milk and cookies - rather than opting for Hannity or O'Reilly the pit bulls at Fox. Notice they rarely have women interview Bubba.
The great surprise was not Clinton's reaction - but his own surprise at Wallace...he must have thought Chris Wallace could be Bubba'd. Interjection of Clarke was obfuscation a la Bubba.
Just another Bill's Excellent Adventure into the world of international embarrassment.
Clinton demonstrated both his cowardice and fear of the press while letting his need to "politik" override his common sense (well it is common if not sense)....
He ok'd Chris Wallace for the interview thinking it would be milk and cookies - rather than opting for Hannity or O'Reilly the pit bulls at Fox. Notice they rarely have women interview Bubba.
The great surprise was not Clinton's reaction - but his own surprise at Wallace...he must have thought Chris Wallace could be Bubba'd. Interjection of Clarke was obfuscation a la Bubba.
Just another Bill's Excellent Adventure into the world of international embarrassment.
Chris Wallace on Wallace vs. Clinton
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/entertainment/4218893.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/entertainment/4218893.html
Former President Bill Clinton goes on the offensive against Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace last weekend.
Fox News
Sept. 28, 2006, 9:58AM
Just what went on behind the scenes?
Chris Wallace tells about confrontational Clinton interview
By MIKE McDANIEL
Houston Chronicle
Friday will be a week since former President Bill Clinton's angry, finger-pointing reaction to Chris Wallace's questions about his record on fighting terrorism. It's a story that continues to have legs — which Wallace considers a compliment.
We talked briefly with the host of Fox News Sunday to find out more about what went on behind the scenes during the interview, which was taped Friday and telecast Sunday.
Q: Chris, are you tired of talking about this?
A: Yeah, I'm getting tired of me.
Q: There seems to be a consensus that the interview did Clinton some good. What's your take?
A: I'm not in the business of doing the former president good or harm. I'm just doing my job, which is to ask questions.
Given the fact that we got our largest audience in the last three years, I think we did some good for the show and showed what we are all about, which is asking tough questions of both sides.
Q: But have the Clinton spinmeisters been at work?
A: Oh, absolutely. The Clinton spin machine is in full-wash cycle right now. They've portrayed this like he had planned it and had set a trap.
The fact is that, during the interview — and I was sitting with the (former) president, and he was genuinely angry, his emotions were somewhat out of control — things were happening off-camera. As (Clinton) went off, his press secretary was jabbing my producer in the shoulder, demanding the interview be ended and the cameras shut off.
After the interview, you could hear him yelling at his staff in the hallway for getting him into this situation. Preplanned?
I think not.
Q: Are you surprised that the interview wasn't ended?
A: When the cameras are rolling, it's hard for a politician to get up and walk out; they know it's not going to make them look particularly good. I think he had some things he wanted to get off his chest.
I was grateful he chose to do so on Fox News Sunday.
Q: Was it difficult for you to stay calm and civil?
A: No. There were three things going on. On the first level of consciousness, I was just astonished at the outpouring of emotion and anger. Sometimes amid the brilliant and cogent arguments, conspiracy theories were flowing out of the president. On another level, I'm thinking, how should I respond? I was thinking don't let him run over you and don't fight with him. I think I succeeded at both. And on a third level, I'm thinking I've got a hell of a story here.
Q: What are you hearing from colleagues and friends?
A: The response has been amazing. The public response continues to build. Even among colleagues and friends. They know I'm a straight newsman. This talk of right-wing is foolishness. Those who are familiar with me and Fox News Sunday know I ask probing questions of both sides. And secondly, that people felt I handled it about right, that I stayed professional and didn't try to get in a fight. My feeling is if you've asked a question and you're getting a good answer, don't interrupt it. I was getting a great answer.
Q: Have you heard from your father (newsman Mike Wallace)?
A: I have, and he thinks I did great and that the former president lost it.
Q: Have you heard from Clinton since?
A: No.
Q: Did you leave things in a bad way?
A: I wouldn't say so. He was ready to get up. He was still reeling from this outburst.
I didn't go into this interview wanting to get in a fight with him, and I didn't want to be in a fight with him. I tried to say to him that the last thing I was trying to do was to provoke him. But he was not to be mollified. He was angry. It wasn't unpleasant; he didn't stomp off.
He was upset, and he stayed that way.
Q: Is this the most combative or contentious interview you ever had?
A: Probably not. I've been an investigative reporter for years. We would track down crooks and confront them. I've had angrier or more unpleasant interviews, but never with a former president of the United States.
Q: Who should play you on the inevitable Saturday Night Live parody?
A: That's a good question. I would be happy to play myself.
mike.mcdaniel@chron.com
It is interesting political theatre. Another day in the life of our betters. We're so hard up for royalty this side of the pond we constantly reinvent it and pass the crown.
Clinton? Helluva smart guy! Just couldn't keep his pants up. Not uncommon in folks of his position. And especially when it's being offered by political groupies every day.
I remember when he was up in the north here for a book signing over a year ago. The women lined up. From the look of some of them I thought - ****, Bill's going to get lucky today! They had that look of unmitigated depravity even hardboiled cops are loath to face. Gave me chills!
Clinton? Helluva smart guy! Just couldn't keep his pants up. Not uncommon in folks of his position. And especially when it's being offered by political groupies every day.
I remember when he was up in the north here for a book signing over a year ago. The women lined up. From the look of some of them I thought - ****, Bill's going to get lucky today! They had that look of unmitigated depravity even hardboiled cops are loath to face. Gave me chills!
Tamarin
Neat post!! That captured the man so well. He and Hill really thought of themselves in royal terms.
Personally if he had wandered around the White House with his fly unzipped I could have cared less - we wasted too much time on that bit. I doubt his wife has ever received much physical pleasure from him.
Sex addicts are notoriously lousy lovers.....
It was the way his mind works which gave me the shivers. He and his wife are both devout followers of the credo: "if it ain't broke - break it, so's nobody will notice we stole the good stuff."
In earlier days of the history of the U.S.A. Clinton would have made a great slavemaster, operating a plantation, playing king to all the little people in his world.
Neat post!! That captured the man so well. He and Hill really thought of themselves in royal terms.
Personally if he had wandered around the White House with his fly unzipped I could have cared less - we wasted too much time on that bit. I doubt his wife has ever received much physical pleasure from him.
Sex addicts are notoriously lousy lovers.....
It was the way his mind works which gave me the shivers. He and his wife are both devout followers of the credo: "if it ain't broke - break it, so's nobody will notice we stole the good stuff."
In earlier days of the history of the U.S.A. Clinton would have made a great slavemaster, operating a plantation, playing king to all the little people in his world.
I doubt you could back up your assertion that the Guardian's source was the Clinton's.
But I agree with you that who sits at the President's table and who doesn't is the President's call. Obviously with all the bad decisions that have been made, different people should have been sitting at the President's table starting with the President himself.
Clinton says removing Clark was a mistake. In hindsite it appears he was right.
This is just silly. Neither the Brady Bill nor the Assault weapons bill had a thing to do with "automatic weapons", and it was ALREADY illegal for the persons you describe to possess weapons.
No, the intent of the Second Amendment is to allow the population at large to be armed in such a way as to make their oppression with impunity impossible.
I don't know if Clinton never violated them, but you are correct, Bush certainly has tried to destroy the Fifth, and others. I wish ALL Presidents would actually READ the Constitution they are sworn to uphold and defend.
Bush is trying to push the world into taking action in Darfur......the USA is a little busy elsewhere.........
I didn't say rape, I said "sexual assault". There is a difference. A big one.
And no, being a faithless creep is not illegal.
But I agree with you that who sits at the President's table and who doesn't is the President's call. Obviously with all the bad decisions that have been made, different people should have been sitting at the President's table starting with the President himself.
Clinton says removing Clark was a mistake. In hindsite it appears he was right.
----------------------------------------earth_as_one-----------------------------------------------------------
Who's to say ignoring a CIA chief through out his administration was any more the worse
than ignoring Clarke ?
Who?
Clinton ?
Clarke knows the truth is somewhere inbetween both spin camps, and his book
quite rightly details complaints on both administrations.
But he is one voice, himself. Ignoring the CIA was just as deadly.
Doesn't look like active involvement by either President in crucial areas.
Spin for your guy.
Clinton says removing Clark was a mistake. In hindsite it appears he was right.
----------------------------------------earth_as_one-----------------------------------------------------------
Who's to say ignoring a CIA chief through out his administration was any more the worse
than ignoring Clarke ?
Who?
Clinton ?
Clarke knows the truth is somewhere inbetween both spin camps, and his book
quite rightly details complaints on both administrations.
But he is one voice, himself. Ignoring the CIA was just as deadly.
Doesn't look like active involvement by either President in crucial areas.
Spin for your guy.