Clinton v. Fox--Who won?

[MavKikiNYC]

Just saw it. Think it's right for discussion.

[MavKikiNYC]

Clinton hasn't looked less presidential or worthy of office since he has his pants down with Lewinsky on the floor in front of him. Totally lost his cool in this interview....looked a bit hysterical.

The all-too-deserved criticism that his 'administration' is getting of late is really getting to him, really rattling him, really getting under his skin. He knows that the public knows, and that he and his worthless 'administration' are totally exposed.

Dubya ain't perfect. Not by a long shot. But he has had to spend about 5.5 years cleaning up the mess left by Clinton's negligence and inaction. He's done far more to counter and contain OBL than Clinton was ever able to even think about doing. And the world is and will be a better place for it.

Winner: George W. Bush.

[Mavdog]

yes, he was really aggravated at wallace. clinton must have felt he was ambused by the question , when the interview was labeled as about the clinton global initiave.

wallace looked as if he did not expect such a strong reaction. he also couln't muster much of a response to the clinton counter.

when asked if he had ever posed the same question of "why did you fail to get bin laden" to any of the current administration, wallace could do nothing but mutter.

clinton won, hands down.

[dude1394]

Dubya alwasy wins when bubba shows how classless he is. I didn't even see the interview, but bubba like all other ex-dem presidents just can't shut up.

[Drbio]

Clintoon looked like a fool. Figures mavdog would think he won.

[Drbio]

hahaha....from another site...

What a blast it was to watch Clinton in full meltdown mode. Lunging at Chris Wallace several times was a sight to behold. I loved this line...they had 8 months to find him (bin Laden) but he forgot to say that (he) Clinton had 8 long years and 32 terror attacks against American interests including the 1993 WTC attack, Kenyan and Tanzanian Embassy, the USS Cole and on and on in which he should have vigorously responded. What a joke Clinton is.

[kg_veteran]

Clinton must think that we're all stupid. It is well known that Clinton had at least one opportunity to capture Bin Laden when the Sudanese government had him in custody. From Power Line today:

Clinton, addressing an audience on Long Island on February 15, 2002:

We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

The astonishing thing about this is that February 1996 was not only after the first World Trade Center bombing--which Clinton never responded to in any meaningful way--it was also after the "Bojinka" plot to blow up eleven American airliners simultaneously over the Pacific Ocean was discovered and, just barely, foiled. The idea that we had no basis on which to "hold" Osama bin Laden is ludicrous, but indicative of the legalistic mindset that hobbled the Clinton administration in its efforts, such as they were, to deal with the threat of Islamic terrorism.

link

[Drbio]

Game. Set. Match.

Advantage: Dubya

[capitalcity]

W with the W.

[dude1394]

Of course clinton continues to sorta forget that his butt isn't covered by the MSM anymore. Bubba just can't quite thinking about bubba.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015364.php

In his interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News, Bill Clinton came across as embarrassingly low-class, as in this exchange:

So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you[r] nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..

WALLACE: Now wait a minute sir…

CLINTON:..

WALLACE: I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked why didn’t you do anything about the Cole. I want to know how many you asked why did you fire Dick Clarke.

When Wallace replied that such questions had been asked, Clinton responded: "I don’t believe you asked them that.”

The difference is that Republican officials like Rumsfeld are used to being asked tough questions; Clinton isn't. Also, Rumsfeld has good answers to those questions. Clinton doesn't.

[Drbio]

Dayamn Clintoon got owned.

Maybe I should have voted for Chris Wallace.

[chumdawg]

Someone should encourage Clinton to wear over-the-calf socks.

The substance of the debate aside, Clinton can still kick ass when he wants to. He's extraordinarily quick on his feet, so to speak.

[Drbio]

Professional bullshitters are always quick on their feet. It's a requirement.

[dude1394]

Actually I think that liars are really good on their feet as well. Since they have no qualms about saying just about anything, they are never at a loss for words.

[chumdawg]

What both you have said is true. I did not mean to imply that Clinton was telling the truth the whole time.

Just meant to say that he's awfully good in one-on-one situations, whatever his intentions are. It's one of things where it depends what side you are on. I am certain that folks who support Clinton were endeared by his pit-bull performance in the interview, and they ate the cheese and are now quite suspicious of Fox News if they weren't before.

And of course, the folks who dislike him saw him as defensive and graspping at straws. In this case, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Except for those calves. He really should cover those.

[dude1394]

Tough for bubba when he's old bud's go back and actually look at the record isn't it.

You know clinton's really lying when ABC calls him on it.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...uth_about.html

n the interview Clinton said that during the 1990s conservatives criticized him for "obsessing" over bin Laden and "they ridiculed me for trying" to kill bin Laden.

So let's examine the record...

How many folks raised the "Wag the Dog" scenario? (The idea, nicknamed from the David Mamet movie, being that the attack was unnecessary and only to distract from the president's troubles.)

After Clinton ordered the attacks in August 1998, ACCORDING TO THIS STORY in the Associated Press, "most lawmakers from both parties were quick to rally behind Clinton in a deluge of public statements and appearances yesterday, a marked contrast to the relatively sparse and chilly reception that greeted his Monday statement on the Lewinsky matter."

"I think the president did exactly the right thing," said House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said. "By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists." Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) called the attacks "appropriate and just," and House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said "the American people stand united in the face of terrorism."

The AP says: "Gingrich dismissed any possibility that Clinton may have ordered the attacks to divert attention from the scandal. Instead, he said, there was an urgent need for a reprisal following the Aug. 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. 'Anyone who watched the film of the bombings, anyone who saw the coffins come home knows better than to question this timing,' Gingrich said. 'It was done as early as possible to send a message to terrorists across the globe that killing Americans has a cost. It has no relationship with any other activity of any kind.'

Moreover, the story goes on to say that Gingrich adviser Rich Galen e-mailed to conservative radio talk show hosts that: "Speaker Newt Gingrich has made it clear to me" that the attacks were necessary and appropriate, Galen said. "This is a time to put our nation's interests ahead of our political concerns. I am asking you to help your listeners, your friends, and your associates to look at this situation with the sober eyes it deserves."

.... More from the same post..

ON THE OTHER HAND...there's the mainstream media.

The conservative Media Research Council NOTED that "every network did raise the "Wag the Dog" scenario." And indeed, according to the MRC story linked above, CBS ABC and NBC all raised the notion -- with Senator Coats as a leading voice.

DATELINE NBC devoted a December 1999 piece directly using clips from the film to question the basis for the bombing.

And Frank Bruni of the New York Times devoted A WHOLE STORY TO THE NOTION.

So...quite frankly, it looks as though the "mainstream" media did a lot more to question President Clinton than did the GOP leadership apparatus, along with Ashcroft, Specter and Coats. The mainstream media along with conservative media such as WORLDNETDAILY.*

[George Gervin]

Clinton owned Fox News .. he asked Wallace if had asked any of the people in office the same questions. Wallace said yes..well there's a problem with Wallace's answer:

I know Fox is fair and balanced...

Wallace falsehood: said in Clinton interview that he asked Bush admin officials "plenty of questions" about failure to catch bin Laden

Summary: During his interview with former President Bill Clinton on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Clinton why he failed to "do more" during his presidency to put Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden "out of business," a question, Clinton said, Fox News "do not ask the other side." Wallace denied the charge, responding, "That is not true."

---

Here is a list of senior Bush administration officials interviewed on Fox News Sunday since September 11, 2001. (White House press secretary Tony Snow previously hosted the program. Wallace succeeded him in December 2003.):

* Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; 9/10/06
* National Security adviser Stephen Hadley; 8/6/06
* Rice; 7/16/06
* Rice; 6/4/06
* Rice; 5/21/06
* Rice; 3/26/06
* Rice; 12/18/05
* Hadley; 12/4/05
* Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld; 11/20/05
* Rice; 10/16/05
* Rumsfeld; 6/26/05
* Rice; 6/19/05
* Hadley; 5/15/05
* Then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card; 5/1/05
* Rumsfeld; 3/20/05
* Hadley; 3/13/05
* Vice President Dick Cheney; 2/6/05
* Rice; 1/30/05
* Rice (then-National Security adviser); 10/10/04
* Rice; 6/27/04
* Rice; 6/6/04
* Rice; 4/18/04
* Rumsfeld; 3/28/04
* Card; 12/7/03
* Rumsfeld; 11/2/03
* Rice; 9/28/03
* Rice; 9/7/03
* Rice; 7/13/03
* Rumsfeld; 5/4/03
* Rumsfeld; 3/30/03
* Rice; 2/16/03
* Card; 1/26/03
* Rumsfeld; 1/19/03
* Rice; 11/10/02
* Rice; 9/15/02
* Card; 6/9/02
* Rice; 5/26/02
* Cheney; 5/19/02
* Rice; 5/5/02
* Card; 4/14/02
* Rice; 2/3/02
* Cheney; 1/27/02
* Rumsfeld; 11/11/01

In the March 28, 2004, interview with Rumsfeld, Wallace did press him on whether the Department of Defense should have "been thinking more about" terrorism prior to 9-11 and asked him to respond to the "basic charge that, pre-9-11 ... this government, the Bush administration, largely ignored the threat from Al Qaeda." Referring to Rumsfeld's testimony before the 9-11 Commission regarding the Defense Department's anti-terrorism efforts, Wallace remarked, "it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority."

But beyond this exchange, the Fox News Sunday interviews listed above have almost entirely ignored several key questions regarding the Bush administration's efforts to pursue bin Laden and Al Qaeda...hummm..

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002

[Mavdog]

here's the partial transcript from fox (CGI discussion not included). clinton puts chris in his place, and gives a good shot at "fair and balanced" fox news:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON — The following is a partial transcript of the Sept. 24, 2006, edition of "FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace":

"FOX NEWS SUNDAY" CHRIS WALLACE: This week [President William Jefferson Clinton] hosted his second annual Global Initiative forum in New York. More than $7 billion was pledged to tackle some of the worst problems in developing countries, such as poverty, disease and climate change.

As part of the conference, Mr. Clinton agreed to his first one-on-one interview ever on "FOX News Sunday." The ground rules were simple: 15 minutes for our sit-down, split evenly between the Global Initiative and anything else we wanted to ask. But as you'll see now in the full, unedited interview, that's not how it turned out.

WALLACE: Mr. President, welcome to "FOX News Sunday."

BILL CLINTON: Thanks.

WALLACE: In a recent issue of the New Yorker you say, quote, "I'm 60 years old and I damn near died, and I'm worried about how many lives I can save before I do die."

Is that what drives you in your effort to help in these developing countries?

CLINTON: Yes, I really — but I don't mean — that sounds sort of morbid when you say it like that. I mean, I actually ...

WALLACE: That's how you said it.

CLINTON: Yes, but the way I said it, the tone in which I said it was actually almost whimsical and humorous. That is, this is what I love to do. It is what I think I should do.

That is, I have had a wonderful life. I got to be president. I got to live the life of my dreams. I dodged a bullet with that heart problem. And I really think I should — I think I owe it to my fellow countrymen and people throughout the world to spend time saving lives, solving problems, helping people see the future.

But as it happens, I love it. I mean, I feel it's a great gift. So, it's a rewarding way to spend my life.

WALLACE: Someone asked you — and I don't want to, again, be too morbid, but this is what you said. He asked you if you could wind up doing more good as a former president than as a president, and you said, "Only if I live a long time."

CLINTON: Yes, that's true.

WALLACE: How do you rate, compare the powers of being in office as president and what you can do out of office as a former president?

CLINTON: Well, when you are president, you can operate on a much broader scope. So, for example, you can simultaneously be trying to stop a genocide in Kosovo and, you know, make peace in the Middle East, pass a budget that gives millions of kids a chance to have afterschool programs and has a huge increase in college aid at home. In other words, you've got a lot of different moving parts, and you can move them all at once.

But you're also more at the mercy of events. That is, President Bush did not run for president to deal with 9/11, but once it happened it wasn't as if he had an option.

Once I looked at the economic — I'll give you a much more mundane example. Once I looked at the economic data, the new data after I won the election, I realized that I would have to work much harder to reduce the deficit, and therefore I would have less money in my first year to invest in things I wanted to invest in.

WALLACE: So what is it that you can do as a former president?

CLINTON: So what you can do as a former president is — you don't have the wide range of power, so you have to concentrate on fewer things. But you are less at the mercy of unfolding events.

So if I say, look, we're going to work on the economic empowerment of poor people, on fighting AIDS and other diseases, on trying to bridge the religious and political differences between people, and on trying to, you know, avoid the worst calamities of climate change and help to revitalize the economy in the process, I can actually do that.

I mean, because tomorrow when I get up, if there's a bad headline in the paper, it's President Bush's responsibility, not mine. That's the joy of being a former president. And it is true that if you live long enough and you really have great discipline in the way you do this, like this CGI, you might be able to affect as many lives, or more, for the good as you did as president.

WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on "Fox News Sunday," I got a lot of e-mail from viewers. And I've 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, I suspect you've already 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 U.S. troops." Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the Cole.

CLINTON: OK, let's just go through that.

WALLACE: Let me — let me — may I just finish the question, sir?

And after the attack, the book says that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around, because he expected an attack, and there was no response.

I understand that hindsight is always 20/20. ...

CLINTON: No, let's talk about it.

WALLACE: ... but the question is, why didn't you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

CLINTON: OK, let's talk about it. Now, I will answer all those things on the merits, but first I want to talk about the context in which this arises.

I'm being asked this on the FOX network. ABC just had a right- wing conservative run in their little "Pathway to 9/11," falsely claiming it was based on the 9/11 Commission report, with three things asserted against me directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report.

And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough said I did too much — same people.

They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in "Black Hawk down," and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations.

OK, now let's look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Usama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of '93.

WALLACE: I understand, and I ...

CLINTON: No, wait. No, wait. Don't tell me this — you asked me why didn't I do more to bin Laden. There was not a living soul. All the people who now criticize me wanted to leave the next day.

You brought this up, so you'll get an answer, but you can't ...

WALLACE: I'm perfectly happy to.

CLINTON: All right, secondly ...

WALLACE: Bin Laden says ...

CLINTON: Bin Laden may have said ...

WALLACE: ... bin Laden says that it showed the weakness of the United States.

CLINTON: But it would've shown the weakness if we'd left right away, but he wasn't involved in that. That's just a bunch of bull. That was about Mohammed Adid, a Muslim warlord, murdering 22 Pakistani Muslim troops. We were all there on a humanitarian mission. We had no mission, none, to establish a certain kind of Somali government or to keep anybody out.

He was not a religious fanatic ...

WALLACE: But, Mr. President ...

CLINTON: ... there was no Al Qaeda ...

WALLACE: ... with respect, if I may, instead of going through '93 and ...

CLINTON: No, no. You asked it. You brought it up. You brought it up.

WALLACE: May I ask a general question and then you can answer?

CLINTON: Yes.

WALLACE: The 9/11 Commission, which you've talk about — and this is what they did say, not what ABC pretended they said ...

CLINTON: Yes, what did they say?

WALLACE: ... they said about you and President Bush, and I quote, "The U.S. government took the threat seriously, but not in the sense of mustering anything like the kind of effort that would be gathered to confront an enemy of the first, second or even third rank."

CLINTON: First of all, that's not true with us and bin Laden.

WALLACE: Well, I'm telling you that's what the 9/11 Commission says.

CLINTON: All right. Let's look at what Richard Clarke said. Do you think Richard Clarke has a vigorous attitude about bin Laden?

WALLACE: Yes, I do.

CLINTON: You do, don't you?

WALLACE: I think he has a variety of opinions and loyalties, but yes, he has a vigorous ...

CLINTON: He has a variety of opinion and loyalties now, but let's look at the facts: He worked for Ronald Reagan; he was loyal to him. He worked for George H. W. Bush; he was loyal to him. He worked for me, and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush; he was loyal to him.

They downgraded him and the terrorist operation.

Now, look what he said, read his book and read his factual assertions — not opinions — assertions. He said we took vigorous action after the African embassies. We probably nearly got bin Laden.

WALLACE: But ...

CLINTON: No, wait a minute.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: ... cruise missiles.

CLINTON: No, no. I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him.

The CIA, which was run by George Tenet, that President Bush gave the Medal of Freedom to, he said, "He did a good job setting up all these counterterrorism things."

The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came there.

Now, if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: After the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden.

But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got after 9/11.

The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would've had to send a few hundred Special Forces in helicopters and refuel at night.

Even the 9/11 Commission didn't do that. Now, the 9/11 Commission was a political document, too. All I'm asking is, anybody who wants to say I didn't do enough, you read Richard Clarke's book.

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough, sir?

CLINTON: No, because I didn't get him.

WALLACE: Right.

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried.

So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted.

So you did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me. What I want to know is ...

WALLACE: Well, wait a minute, sir.

CLINTON: No, wait. No, no ...

WALLACE: I want to ask a question. You don't think that's a legitimate question?

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question, but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of.

I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, "Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?"

I want to know how many you asked, "Why did you fire Dick Clarke?"

I want to know how many people you asked ...

WALLACE: We asked — we asked ...

CLINTON: I don't ...

WALLACE: Do you ever watch "FOX News Sunday," sir?

CLINTON: I don't believe you asked them that.

WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of ...

CLINTON: You didn't ask that, did you? Tell the truth, Chris.

WALLACE: About the USS Cole?

CLINTON: Tell the truth, Chris.

WALLACE: With Iraq and Afghanistan, there's plenty of stuff to ask.

CLINTON: Did you ever ask that?

You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch's supporting my work on climate change.

And you came here under false pretenses and said that you'd spend half the time talking about — you said you'd spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7-billion-plus in three days from 215 different commitments. And you don't care.

WALLACE: But, President Clinton, if you look at the questions here, you'll see half the questions are about that. I didn't think this was going to set you off on such a tear.

CLINTON: You launched it — it set me off on a tear because you didn't formulate it in an honest way and because you people ask me questions you don't ask the other side.

WALLACE: That's not true. Sir, that is not true.

CLINTON: And Richard Clarke made it clear in his testimony...

WALLACE: Would you like to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative?

CLINTON: No, I want to finish this now.

WALLACE: All right. Well, after you.

CLINTON: All I'm saying is, you falsely accused me of giving aid and comfort to bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew Al Qaeda existed then. And ...

WALLACE: But did they know in 1996 when he declared war on the U.S.? Did they know in 1998 ...

CLINTON: Absolutely, they did.

WALLACE: ... when he bombed the two embassies?

CLINTON: And who talked about ...

WALLACE: Did they know in 2000 when he hit the Cole?

CLINTON: What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him.

Now, I've never criticized President Bush, and I don't think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only one-seventh as important as Iraq.

And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive thing? When all you have to do is read Richard Clarke's book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country against terror.

And you've got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever. But I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it. But I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could.

The entire military was against sending Special Forces in to Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter. And no one thought we could do it otherwise, because we could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was president.

And so, I left office. And yet, I get asked about this all the time. They had three times as much time to deal with it, and nobody ever asks them about it. I think that's strange.

WALLACE: Can I ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative?

CLINTON: You can.

WALLACE: I always intended to, sir.

CLINTON: No, you intended, though, to move your bones by doing this first, which is perfectly fine. But I don't mind people asking me — I actually talked to the 9/11 Commission for four hours, Chris, and I told them the mistakes I thought I made. And I urged them to make those mistakes public, because I thought none of us had been perfect.

But instead of anybody talking about those things, I always get these clever little political yields (ph), where they ask me one-sided questions. And the other guys notice that. And it always comes from one source. And so ...

WALLACE: And ...

CLINTON: And so ...

WALLACE: I just want to ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative, but what's the source? I mean, you seem upset, and I ...

CLINTON: I am upset because ...

WALLACE: And all I can say is, I'm asking you this in good faith because it's on people's minds, sir. And I wasn't ...

CLINTON: Well, there's a reason it's on people's minds. That's the point I'm trying to make. There's a reason it's on people's minds: Because there's been a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression.

This country only has one person who's worked on this terror. From the terrorist incidents under Reagan to the terrorist incidents from 9/11, only one: Richard Clarke.

And all I can say to anybody is, you want to know what we did wrong or right, or anybody else did? Read his book.

The people on my political right who say I didn't do enough spent the whole time I was president saying, "Why is he so obsessed with bin Laden? That was "wag the dog" when he tried to kill him."

My Republican secretary of defense — and I think I'm the only president since World War II to have a secretary of defense of the opposite party — Richard Clarke and all the intelligence people said that I ordered a vigorous attempt to get bin Laden and came closer, apparently, than anybody has since.

WALLACE: All right.

CLINTON: And you guys try to create the opposite impression, when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke's findings and you know it's not true. It's just not true.

And all this business about Somalia — the same people who criticized me about Somalia were demanding I leave the next day. The same exact crowd.

WALLACE: One of the ...

CLINTON: And so, if you're going to do this, for God's sake, follow the same standards for everybody ...

WALLACE: I think we do, sir.

CLINTON: ... and be flat — and fair.

[MavKikiNYC]

Sorta reminiscent of those Kerry/Bush debates, where EVERYONE was sure that Kerry had dominated Bush, but Bush came out ahead because Kerry showed himself to be a blathering, dithering, indecisive, unprincipled blowhard do-nothing.

Clinton comes out all wild-eyed just this side of Zell Miller because he feels very vulnerable to the (very valid) criticisms that his presidency is receiving. Maybe he out-blustered Wallace a bit in this exchange, but file it under winning a battle/losing a war. At best. Clinton also opens himself up to less deferential treatment in future interviews because of his undignified, un-presidential beahvior.

If only he governed as well as he bullshits. What an utter complete waste of intellect and charisma.

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

Sorta reminiscent of those Kerry/Bush debates, where EVERYONE was sure that Kerry had dominated Bush, but Bush came out ahead because Kerry showed himself to be a blathering, dithering, indecisive, unprincipled blowhard do-nothing.

Clinton comes out all wild-eyed just this side of Zell Miller because he feels very vulnerable to the (very valid) criticisms that his presidency is receiving. Maybe he out-blustered Wallace a bit in this exchange, but file it under winning a battle/losing a war. At best. Clinton also opens himself up to less deferential treatment in future interviews because of his undignified, un-presidential beahvior.

If only he governed as well as he bullshits. What an utter complete waste of intellect and charisma.

Compared to George "stockpiles of wmds" Bush.. And he lacks intellect and charisma.. what a waste..

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

If only he governed as well as he bullshits. What an utter complete waste of intellect and charisma.

So true.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

Compared to George "stockpiles of wmds" Bush.. And he lacks intellect and charisma.. what a waste..

I don't personally completely identify with Dubya's charisma or the domain of intellect in which he excels, but he has both. And they don't prevent him from acting decisvely in defense of the country's interests.

Clinton's entire presidency was a farce. No way he was ever going to be seen as a legitimate commander-in-chief. Because of his status as a draft dodger, because of his anti-military history, because of his personal gross moral shortcomings he was NEVER going to have the moral stature or the political backing to send troops into battle.

THAT was a wasted presidency.

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

I don't personally completely identify with Dubya's charisma or the domain of intellect in which he excels, but he has both. And they don't prevent him from acting decisvely in defense of the country's interests.

Clinton's entire presidency was a farce. No way he was ever going to be seen as a legitimate commander-in-chief. Because of his status as a draft dodger, because of his anti-military history, because of his personal gross moral shortcomings he was NEVER going to have the moral stature or the political backing to send troops into battle.

THAT was a wasted presidency.

Uh what about the chickenhawks in Bush's administration? They have the moral stature to lead a country to war? The same folks who ignored warnings from their own military about the issues regarding post war Iraq? Draft didger vs a guy who deferred 5 times? Explain the difference. So since Bush has 'morals' this disaster in Iraq which has caused thousands of deaths is ok..because Bush has morals? Bush's stubborness, sorry 'backbone of steel' , is a commendable trait? Anti-military history? I would assume you could provide a couple of examples? Now only Bush's base supports his war while no one else in the country would allow for Bush to start another war..I mean his war in Iraq has been such a success why would anybody question his judgement..?


By the way Gen. George Armstrong Custer was a decisive leader who was acting in defense of his country..

[purplefrog]

Bottom line is that the pre-9/11 political climate would not allow our present war initiatives so it is absurd to blame Clinton for anything related to 9/11 - period. We have serious problems that need to be solved and playing the blame game (on either side) does not help solve them. Wallace is only throwing gasoline onto the fire by bringing this up. Clinton is trying to do something good with his Global Climate Initiative and that should have been the focus of the interview.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

Bottom line is that the pre-9/11 political climate would not allow our present war initiatives so it is absurd to blame Clinton for anything related to 9/11 - period. We have serious problems that need to be solved and playing the blame game (on either side) does not help solve them.

If Clinton had simply given an honest answer by saying something to the effect of, "I don't think anyone realized the nature of the threat we were dealing with...", then he would have come off just fine. But lying and trying to paint himself, after the fact, as having been thwarted in killing Bin Laden despite his best efforts is nothing short of self-aggrandizement. To try and throw it back on Bush was downright shameful.

[Mavdog]

kg, would you outline what "lying" clinton engaged in?

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

kg, would you outline what "lying" clinton engaged in?

and expand on how 'you know' he was lying..

[Flacolaco]

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

you mean that lying? or the other lying?

(im sorry I couldnt help it)

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

kg, would you outline what "lying" clinton engaged in?

Sure. He said that "all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden." That's demonstrably false. Additionally, he went on and on about how much he did to try and "get" bin Laden. As I pointed out above, that conflicts with the reality of what actually happened.

[kg_veteran]

Bill Clinton: Play It as It Lies
By Ronald A. Cass
link

Former President Bill Clinton, never one to let truth stand in the way of a good line, has decided to reincarnate himself as our tough, anti-terror President. The man who ran away from military service and displayed striking contempt for our armed forces has now announced that he did more - and would do more - to combat Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda than anyone else. In his view, he should be recognized as the best man to fight that enemy.

Speaking to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Clinton made a bevy of startlingly anti-factual remarks. He announced, for instance, that conservatives had criticized him for obsessing about bin Laden during his presidency - rather than the truth that he was roundly condemned for doing next to nothing about this serious threat to American security. Clinton blamed the Bush Administration for failing to stop the al-Qaeda terrorists before 9/11, saying that the Administration had eight months to get bin Laden and didn't. That conveniently overlooks that Clinton's Administration had eight years to do that job, with al-Qaeda using the last two of those years to plan 9/11.

One of Clinton's bigger whoppers was this declaration about the fight against bin Laden: "I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have 20,000 more troops [in Afghanistan] trying to kill him."

The man who was in the Soviet Union demonstrating against the American military during Vietnam, who as President left our armed forces short on so many fronts, now is - in his own 20/20 hindsight - The Defense President. Now he criticizes the Bush Administration for not doing enough, proclaims himself the champion of effective military action, and implies none too subtly that the fight against terrorism would go better if we had a Clinton in the White House instead of a Bush.

This isn't mere spin. It's full-scale invention.

**********

Before anyone starts taking our most recent ex-President too seriously, let's review the bidding. Clinton wasn't the President who ordered the armed forces to go after bin Laden without reservation, to get him "dead or alive." He wasn't the one who sent thousands of troops after al-Qaeda and nations that harbor and support terrorists

Instead, President Clinton responded to attacks on our troops in Somalia by withdrawing, and responded to attacks by al-Qaeda on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya by bombing the aspirin factory of an innocent pharmaceutical firm in Sudan. He reacted to al-Qaeda's bombing of the USS Cole by lobbing a few cruise missiles at empty tents in the desert. He turned down Sudanese offers to cooperate in tracking down and capturing bin Laden.

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded that - far from doing more than anyone to kill the brutal murderer who now is the international face of terrorism - President Clinton had flatly refused to allow the military or CIA to kill Osama bin Laden. Clinton's instructions were that bin Laden should be taken, if at all, alive not dead. CIA officials reported that this instruction cut the chance of success in half.

That is not to say that the Clinton Administration wasn't in a better position to eliminate bin Laden. Evidence before the Commission showed that the Clinton Administration had live footage of Osama bin Laden at a camp in Afghanistan in the Fall of 2000, a year before the 9/11 attacks, but didn't act. NBC's Tom Brokaw, playing the tape on-air in 2004, noted rightly that this was an enormous opportunity lost. Having gotten bin Laden in your sights isn't something to brag about if you weren't willing to pull the trigger.

Clinton, like all presidents, had some top-notch advisers, including some thoughtful advisers on military and foreign affairs. But he is quintessentially a temporizer, one who always has had difficulty reaching a conclusion and sticking to it, and not someone who was terribly interested in either preserving our military power or using it effectively in world affairs. He'd much rather talk one on one with world leaders, persuaded he could convince them to do what he wanted by the concerted application of charm.

Talk and compromise - not clear moral principles and the will to do whatever is needed to support them - were the hallmarks of the Clinton Administration, reflecting the person at the top. Nothing Clinton says now can change that, though he still evinces conviction that he can talk us into anything - just as he thought he could when he denied point blank having had anything to do with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton always has been the one who, caught in a compromising position, would disarmingly ask, as the parody has it, "what are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" His instinct for lying, even under oath, earned him the second presidential impeachment in American history.

Contrast Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Consider, for example, their different approaches to Yasser Arafat.

The Clintons cozy relationship with the Arafats was symbolized by Mrs. Clinton's embrace of Mrs. Arafat - on stage immediately after a speech by Mrs. Arafat condemning Israel. President Clinton's relationship, though less picturesque, was no less close. Arafat was the world leader Clinton met with most often. Clinton was certain he could talk Arafat into making peace in the Middle East - and secure Clinton's legacy. Clinton invited Arafat and Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak to the now infamous Camp David summit meeting of 2000. He pressured Barak to offer heroic compromises, only to have Arafat at the last minute turn to Intifada to try to get more. In the end, Clinton's charm wasn't enough.

President Bush, in sharp distinction, saw Arafat as a terrorist and refused to meet with him unless he renounced the destruction of Israel as a goal and terror against civilians as a means. Bush, not Clinton, assured Israel of our full support against terrorism - and meant it.

**********

Clinton realizes that history's judgments often are shaped as much by what is written in the aftermath of an event as they are by the facts of the event. The Kennedy family relentlessly spun the myth of Camelot to turn a failed presidency into the fantasy of an American Renaissance. Having long modeled himself after JFK (minus the fashionable, universally admired, classy wife), Clinton now seeks to redefine his presidency - and pave the way for his ultimate revenge: Hillary in office for "Clinton, Act Three."

Presidents often find it hard to leave the stage. The day of Bush's first inauguration, Clinton lingered for hours at Andrews Air Force base trying to hang on to the attention he had so enjoyed as President. He still seeks the limelight.

But desperation to be noticed after leaving office, to have the respect and affection Clinton craves, isn't a substitute for doing the right thing when in office - any more than lies are a substitute for honesty, or indecision a suitable alternative to moral courage.

On the golf course, Bill Clinton is known for his dislike of playing his ball where it lies, scoring honestly, and taking his lumps as the rest of us duffers must. He makes his own score, always a good deal better than the real number.

Someone else should be trusted to do the scoring when it comes to Clinton's time in office. In the history books, he deserves to be counted as the President who did not protect us against al-Qaeda, who left the impression they could attack us without penalty, whose wasted opportunities contributed to the travesty of 9/11.

Tough talk now should not be allowed to obscure that fact. Lies now should not go unanswered.

Ronald A. Cass is Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law, Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, and author of “The Rule of Law in America” (Johns Hopkins University Press).

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Bill Clinton: Play It as It Lies
By Ronald A. Cass
link

Former President Bill Clinton, never one to let truth stand in the way of a good line, has decided to reincarnate himself as our tough, anti-terror President. The man who ran away from military service and displayed striking contempt for our armed forces has now announced that he did more - and would do more - to combat Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda than anyone else. In his view, he should be recognized as the best man to fight that enemy.

Speaking to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Clinton made a bevy of startlingly anti-factual remarks. He announced, for instance, that conservatives had criticized him for obsessing about bin Laden during his presidency - rather than the truth that he was roundly condemned for doing next to nothing about this serious threat to American security. Clinton blamed the Bush Administration for failing to stop the al-Qaeda terrorists before 9/11, saying that the Administration had eight months to get bin Laden and didn't. That conveniently overlooks that Clinton's Administration had eight years to do that job, with al-Qaeda using the last two of those years to plan 9/11.

One of Clinton's bigger whoppers was this declaration about the fight against bin Laden: "I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have 20,000 more troops [in Afghanistan] trying to kill him."

The man who was in the Soviet Union demonstrating against the American military during Vietnam, who as President left our armed forces short on so many fronts, now is - in his own 20/20 hindsight - The Defense President. Now he criticizes the Bush Administration for not doing enough, proclaims himself the champion of effective military action, and implies none too subtly that the fight against terrorism would go better if we had a Clinton in the White House instead of a Bush.

This isn't mere spin. It's full-scale invention.

**********

Before anyone starts taking our most recent ex-President too seriously, let's review the bidding. Clinton wasn't the President who ordered the armed forces to go after bin Laden without reservation, to get him "dead or alive." He wasn't the one who sent thousands of troops after al-Qaeda and nations that harbor and support terrorists

Instead, President Clinton responded to attacks on our troops in Somalia by withdrawing, and responded to attacks by al-Qaeda on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya by bombing the aspirin factory of an innocent pharmaceutical firm in Sudan. He reacted to al-Qaeda's bombing of the USS Cole by lobbing a few cruise missiles at empty tents in the desert. He turned down Sudanese offers to cooperate in tracking down and capturing bin Laden.

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded that - far from doing more than anyone to kill the brutal murderer who now is the international face of terrorism - President Clinton had flatly refused to allow the military or CIA to kill Osama bin Laden. Clinton's instructions were that bin Laden should be taken, if at all, alive not dead. CIA officials reported that this instruction cut the chance of success in half.

That is not to say that the Clinton Administration wasn't in a better position to eliminate bin Laden. Evidence before the Commission showed that the Clinton Administration had live footage of Osama bin Laden at a camp in Afghanistan in the Fall of 2000, a year before the 9/11 attacks, but didn't act. NBC's Tom Brokaw, playing the tape on-air in 2004, noted rightly that this was an enormous opportunity lost. Having gotten bin Laden in your sights isn't something to brag about if you weren't willing to pull the trigger.

Clinton, like all presidents, had some top-notch advisers, including some thoughtful advisers on military and foreign affairs. But he is quintessentially a temporizer, one who always has had difficulty reaching a conclusion and sticking to it, and not someone who was terribly interested in either preserving our military power or using it effectively in world affairs. He'd much rather talk one on one with world leaders, persuaded he could convince them to do what he wanted by the concerted application of charm.

Talk and compromise - not clear moral principles and the will to do whatever is needed to support them - were the hallmarks of the Clinton Administration, reflecting the person at the top. Nothing Clinton says now can change that, though he still evinces conviction that he can talk us into anything - just as he thought he could when he denied point blank having had anything to do with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton always has been the one who, caught in a compromising position, would disarmingly ask, as the parody has it, "what are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" His instinct for lying, even under oath, earned him the second presidential impeachment in American history.

Contrast Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Consider, for example, their different approaches to Yasser Arafat.

The Clintons cozy relationship with the Arafats was symbolized by Mrs. Clinton's embrace of Mrs. Arafat - on stage immediately after a speech by Mrs. Arafat condemning Israel. President Clinton's relationship, though less picturesque, was no less close. Arafat was the world leader Clinton met with most often. Clinton was certain he could talk Arafat into making peace in the Middle East - and secure Clinton's legacy. Clinton invited Arafat and Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak to the now infamous Camp David summit meeting of 2000. He pressured Barak to offer heroic compromises, only to have Arafat at the last minute turn to Intifada to try to get more. In the end, Clinton's charm wasn't enough.

President Bush, in sharp distinction, saw Arafat as a terrorist and refused to meet with him unless he renounced the destruction of Israel as a goal and terror against civilians as a means. Bush, not Clinton, assured Israel of our full support against terrorism - and meant it.

**********

Clinton realizes that history's judgments often are shaped as much by what is written in the aftermath of an event as they are by the facts of the event. The Kennedy family relentlessly spun the myth of Camelot to turn a failed presidency into the fantasy of an American Renaissance. Having long modeled himself after JFK (minus the fashionable, universally admired, classy wife), Clinton now seeks to redefine his presidency - and pave the way for his ultimate revenge: Hillary in office for "Clinton, Act Three."

Presidents often find it hard to leave the stage. The day of Bush's first inauguration, Clinton lingered for hours at Andrews Air Force base trying to hang on to the attention he had so enjoyed as President. He still seeks the limelight.

But desperation to be noticed after leaving office, to have the respect and affection Clinton craves, isn't a substitute for doing the right thing when in office - any more than lies are a substitute for honesty, or indecision a suitable alternative to moral courage.

On the golf course, Bill Clinton is known for his dislike of playing his ball where it lies, scoring honestly, and taking his lumps as the rest of us duffers must. He makes his own score, always a good deal better than the real number.

Someone else should be trusted to do the scoring when it comes to Clinton's time in office. In the history books, he deserves to be counted as the President who did not protect us against al-Qaeda, who left the impression they could attack us without penalty, whose wasted opportunities contributed to the travesty of 9/11.

Tough talk now should not be allowed to obscure that fact. Lies now should not go unanswered.

Ronald A. Cass is Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law, Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, and author of “The Rule of Law in America” (Johns Hopkins University Press).

Nothing mentions what he lied about? What did he lie about? The Bush's have a cozy relationship with the Saudi Royal family wasn't mentioned? Odd considering they were involved in funding the 9/11 attacks and 15 of the hijackers were Saudis..And to top it off Bush allowed the Bin laden family to leave the US..

[MavKikiNYC]

What do George Gervin and Bill Clinton have in common?

They both scored a lot, but neither ever played a lick of defense.

[George Gervin]

I know this must just be an oversight but I have noticed none of you Iraq war whores have touched on the NIE assessment about the Iraq war making things worse..I guess you must not have caught that on the news. Seems you would rather blame Clinton for some+thing that happened under Bush's watch. I don't blame you from ignoring the fact that Bush screwed up invading iraq and has made things worse.. but hey you still have Clinton to beat on..

[George Gervin]

hello?..hello?... anyone ?

[kg_veteran]

George - Read the article again, then answer your own question. Also, please stay on topic. The NIE estimate has nothing to do with this thread. Open another thread if you want to discuss that.

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

George - Read the article again, then answer your own question. Also, please stay on topic. The NIE estimate has nothing to do with this thread. Open another thread if you want to discuss that.

It's already open! I think that if we are going to play arm chair QB on Clinton we must be fair and do the same for Bush.. wouldn't that be the fair thing to do?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

It's already open! I think that if we are going to play arm chair QB on Clinton we must be fair and do the same for Bush.. wouldn't that be the fair thing to do?

Sure, that's fair to do. Just not in the same thread.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Bill Clinton: Play It as It Lies
By Ronald A. Cass
link

Former President Bill Clinton, never one to let truth stand in the way of a good line, has decided to reincarnate himself as our tough, anti-terror President. The man who ran away from military service and displayed striking contempt for our armed forces has now announced that he did more - and would do more - to combat Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda than anyone else. In his view, he should be recognized as the best man to fight that enemy.

Speaking to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Clinton made a bevy of startlingly anti-factual remarks. He announced, for instance, that conservatives had criticized him for obsessing about bin Laden during his presidency - rather than the truth that he was roundly condemned for doing next to nothing about this serious threat to American security. Clinton blamed the Bush Administration for failing to stop the al-Qaeda terrorists before 9/11, saying that the Administration had eight months to get bin Laden and didn't. That conveniently overlooks that Clinton's Administration had eight years to do that job, with al-Qaeda using the last two of those years to plan 9/11.

in my view clinton "running away from military service" is no different than receiving a cushy appointment to the national guard...yet that isn't anything clinton lied about to wallace.

I'd appreciate reading some of the comments that "condemned [clinton] for doing next to nothing" about bin laden. not comments post 9/11, but comments pre-9/11.

I can't remember them.

clinton didn't "blame the bush administration for...9/11", clinton said hold my administration and the current administration to the same standard.

no lies there.

One of Clinton's bigger whoppers was this declaration about the fight against bin Laden: "I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have 20,000 more troops [in Afghanistan] trying to kill him."

how is that a "whopper"? for all we know it's true! has the current administration come any closer?

no lie there.

all this criticism heaped on clinton's failure to get bin laden, while ignoring the current failure, is getting old. thnk about this: the current administration has had MORE time to get bin laden than clinton did. that's right, more time. bin laden issued his fatwa in 1998.

The man who was in the Soviet Union demonstrating against the American military during Vietnam, who as President left our armed forces short on so many fronts, now is - in his own 20/20 hindsight - The Defense President. Now he criticizes the Bush Administration for not doing enough, proclaims himself the champion of effective military action, and implies none too subtly that the fight against terrorism would go better if we had a Clinton in the White House instead of a Bush.

This isn't mere spin. It's full-scale invention.

conjecture yes, but at the same time credible nonetheless.

Before anyone starts taking our most recent ex-President too seriously, let's review the bidding. Clinton wasn't the President who ordered the armed forces to go after bin Laden without reservation, to get him "dead or alive." He wasn't the one who sent thousands of troops after al-Qaeda and nations that harbor and support terrorists

Instead, President Clinton responded to attacks on our troops in Somalia by withdrawing, and responded to attacks by al-Qaeda on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya by bombing the aspirin factory of an innocent pharmaceutical firm in Sudan. He reacted to al-Qaeda's bombing of the USS Cole by lobbing a few cruise missiles at empty tents in the desert. He turned down Sudanese offers to cooperate in tracking down and capturing bin Laden.

it's absurd to argue that clinton would not have done the same actions in afganistan as bush did in response to 9/11.

that is blatant dishonesty on the sudanese episode. saudi arabia wouldn't take bin laden.

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded that - far from doing more than anyone to kill the brutal murderer who now is the international face of terrorism - President Clinton had flatly refused to allow the military or CIA to kill Osama bin Laden. Clinton's instructions were that bin Laden should be taken, if at all, alive not dead. CIA officials reported that this instruction cut the chance of success in half.

That is not to say that the Clinton Administration wasn't in a better position to eliminate bin Laden. Evidence before the Commission showed that the Clinton Administration had live footage of Osama bin Laden at a camp in Afghanistan in the Fall of 2000, a year before the 9/11 attacks, but didn't act. NBC's Tom Brokaw, playing the tape on-air in 2004, noted rightly that this was an enormous opportunity lost. Having gotten bin Laden in your sights isn't something to brag about if you weren't willing to pull the trigger.

the "dead or alive" report is a twist, as the commission heard testimony stating that no request for the use of force against bin laden was ever denied by clinton. when the people in charge of an operation wanted to pull the trigger, clinton agreed. what was clinton to do in 2000 with the sighting by the drone, go and pull the trigger himself?

Clinton, like all presidents, had some top-notch advisers, including some thoughtful advisers on military and foreign affairs. But he is quintessentially a temporizer, one who always has had difficulty reaching a conclusion and sticking to it, and not someone who was terribly interested in either preserving our military power or using it effectively in world affairs. He'd much rather talk one on one with world leaders, persuaded he could convince them to do what he wanted by the concerted application of charm.

Talk and compromise - not clear moral principles and the will to do whatever is needed to support them - were the hallmarks of the Clinton Administration, reflecting the person at the top. Nothing Clinton says now can change that, though he still evinces conviction that he can talk us into anything - just as he thought he could when he denied point blank having had anything to do with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton always has been the one who, caught in a compromising position, would disarmingly ask, as the parody has it, "what are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" His instinct for lying, even under oath, earned him the second presidential impeachment in American history.

surprise, the words "monica" and "lewinsky" appear!

in regard to the comments about clinton perfering a personal "one on one" approach with world leaders....I wonder, is this author applying the same criteria to bush and his relationship with lets say, putin?

I expect not.

Contrast Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Consider, for example, their different approaches to Yasser Arafat.

The Clintons cozy relationship with the Arafats was symbolized by Mrs. Clinton's embrace of Mrs. Arafat - on stage immediately after a speech by Mrs. Arafat condemning Israel. President Clinton's relationship, though less picturesque, was no less close. Arafat was the world leader Clinton met with most often. Clinton was certain he could talk Arafat into making peace in the Middle East - and secure Clinton's legacy. Clinton invited Arafat and Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak to the now infamous Camp David summit meeting of 2000. He pressured Barak to offer heroic compromises, only to have Arafat at the last minute turn to Intifada to try to get more. In the end, Clinton's charm wasn't enough.

President Bush, in sharp distinction, saw Arafat as a terrorist and refused to meet with him unless he renounced the destruction of Israel as a goal and terror against civilians as a means. Bush, not Clinton, assured Israel of our full support against terrorism - and meant it.

the bottom line in both dealings with arafat...clinton came closer to acheiving an agreement between the israelis and the palestinians than bush has.

I've never read nor heard of any crticism of clinton by israel.

in fact, it's this simple: clinton has tried, bush hasn't even tried.

no lie there either.

Clinton realizes that history's judgments often are shaped as much by what is written in the aftermath of an event as they are by the facts of the event. The Kennedy family relentlessly spun the myth of Camelot to turn a failed presidency into the fantasy of an American Renaissance. Having long modeled himself after JFK (minus the fashionable, universally admired, classy wife), Clinton now seeks to redefine his presidency - and pave the way for his ultimate revenge: Hillary in office for "Clinton, Act Three."

Presidents often find it hard to leave the stage. The day of Bush's first inauguration, Clinton lingered for hours at Andrews Air Force base trying to hang on to the attention he had so enjoyed as President. He still seeks the limelight.

But desperation to be noticed after leaving office, to have the respect and affection Clinton craves, isn't a substitute for doing the right thing when in office - any more than lies are a substitute for honesty, or indecision a suitable alternative to moral courage.

On the golf course, Bill Clinton is known for his dislike of playing his ball where it lies, scoring honestly, and taking his lumps as the rest of us duffers must. He makes his own score, always a good deal better than the real number.

Someone else should be trusted to do the scoring when it comes to Clinton's time in office. In the history books, he deserves to be counted as the President who did not protect us against al-Qaeda, who left the impression they could attack us without penalty, whose wasted opportunities contributed to the travesty of 9/11.

Tough talk now should not be allowed to obscure that fact. Lies now should not go unanswered.

and a dump on JFK just for the fun of it, huh?

jeesh, the author even conjures up a cheating golfer.

but he still hasn't told us any "lies" clinton told to wallace.

[Drbio]

Gervin appears to be ignoranus mavdogs padawan learner.

There should be a stay on topic test.

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - I'm tied up at work at the moment, but I'll be sure to come back and spell things out for you this evening, if I have the chance, since your memory seems so foggy.