[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it was wallace who spoke the statement, not the author.

yes, the inaccuracies of the wallace question- in fact, inaccuracy is mild, the question was a set up- do not have any bearing on if "all" or "some" of the conservative republicans thought clinton was "obsessed" with bin laden. it does however go far in explaining why clinton was so animated and aggressive.

Sure, assuming that it wasn't all just a calculated act by Clinton in the first place. Clinton's spokesperson indicated after the show that Clinton was ready for whatever Wallace was going to ask and came ready to fight back, or words to that effect. In other words, Clinton wasn't ambushed. He knew he was going to be asked about bin Laden and 9/11, and he used the interview as an opportunity to have a "controlled" eruption.

not yet, but there's ton of quotes to go through, and I'm comfortable trhat someone wll spend the time to find one.

Okay, well let me know....

you can attempt to minimize the gramm position as merely carrying water for the banks, yet it is a FACT that 1) the kyc banking regs were proposed by the clinton administration as a needed tool against al queda finances, and 2) gramm stopped the bill and took the position that it was an unnecessary piece of legislation. that has EVERYTHING to do with clinton's focus on al queda and a clear example of a conservative republican opposing the clinton administration's efforts.

I'm not trying to minimize anything. I'm trying to provide accurate context.

Gramm opposing legislation which Clinton said was a needed tool against al Qaeda simply doesn't equate to Gramm thinking Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden. Not even close. Also, it should be noted that Gramm is just one man, not "all" conservative Republicans.

what I am saying is don't focus on a minutia comment like "every conservative republican and neo-con" but focus on what he is saying....that the attempts by the conservatives to blame clinton and not apply the same criteria to bush is wrong.

It's not minutiae; Clinton is trying to rewrite history, as if he were the one that was strong on terrorism but was opposed at every turn by Republicans.

And, FWIW, Wallace's question really was pretty tame. I've seen Russert, for example, ask FAR tougher questions of Bush and Cheney.

so do you agree that bush has "lied" just like you accuse clinton of doing?

That's a pretty broad question, don't you think? Lied about what? No, my point was that you don't need to bring up Bush when discussing Clinton, because Bush gets more than his fair share of criticism.

I'm not sure it is fair to say "rationalize" as much as to understand the playing field he is on.

Sure it is. You're saying it's okay to lie because Bush did it.

apply the same citeria to clinton and bush. apply it to their public statements and apply it to their administrations. apply it consistently.

I'll say it again. Clinton has had a far easier time of it than Bush with respect to his record on terrorism and foreign affairs.

you and I agree that clinton, just like bush, should not have 9/11 laid at their feet. could the event have been stopped? sure, but only with a great deal of fortunate events happening. unfortunately luck was not on our side that day.

however, wallace was not embracing that "fair and balanced" view that we agree on. he was attempting to lay the blame on clinton, just as the wording of the lead off question revealed.

I don't agree with your take on Wallace's motivations or the thrust of his question. Either way, I agree that it's wrong to blame Clinton for 9/11. I think it might have happened even if bin Laden were already dead.