September 23, 2006

Bill Clinton steps up

President Clinton recently used the world-wide respect he enjoys to convene a historic meeting of world leaders from business and varied fields to actually DO SOMETHING about the perilous state of the world.

It doesn't take a genious to realize that this is quite a reflection on the utter abandonment of leadership on so many issues crucial to the world by this incompetent and war-obsessed administration.

Richard Branson, the renegade adventurer and mogul of Virgin enterprises pledged several billion dollars, all the profits of his airline and train companies, to the effort to address climate change, and other's addressed a host of pressing problems nearly ignored by Bush.

The effort got near universal praise and has inspired hope for millions around the world.

In this light, Clinton agreed to sit down with Faux News' Chris Wallace for an interview to discuss this important effort.

But for Fox, it was more imperitive to try to grill Clinton about the lies which have been told attempting to blame him and his administration for 9-11, essentially saying, falsely, that Clinton had many opportunities to take out bin Laden and purposely didn't.

This is provably false, and refuted by any number of courses, including the official government 9-11 report, the report which the propaganda laden ABC series purporting to tell the story of the lead up to 9-11 said it had based the show on, but much of the show was pure fiction, distorting history and attempting to blame Clinton administration figures for letting bin Laden escape, directly contradicting all official reports.

Yet when Clinton objected to this and asked that at the very least, that blatantly made up events not be presented as historical fact, the right had a fit.

Bill Clinton is not allowed to defend himself against anything, not even when provable lies are being aired as fact in an attempt to misrepresent both his role prior to 9-11 and history itself.

If Clinton says ANYTHING to even note that the right are LYING, the right simply goes nuts.

Now Chris Wallace disregards the fact that it was agreed that Clinton would be there to discuss his amazing and important effort to help the planet in positive ways, and instead REPEATS the right wing propaganda that he could have done more to take out bin Laden.

This is after weeks of press which showed beyond any doubt that such a claim is utterly FALSE.

So Clinton points out to little Chris that he did a hell of a lot more than Bush did in the 8 months he was in office prior to 9-11, and that as has been universally acknowledged, his administration briefed Bush and his people extensively and warned them that bin Laden and alQueda would be their number one threat and should be their number one priority.

The Bushies thumbed their noses at it and instead launched an effort to revive the star wars missle defense plan. They did NOTHING. Aschcroft even cut the budget for the FBI's counter terror unit.

A partial transcript of the interview can be read here. (Many thanks to alert reader tiz)

The interview is scheduled to be aired on Faux this Sunday. It will be interesting to see how they creatively edit it.

For an example of right wing frothing on this subject, see Paladin's comments on the post about Meet the Press below.

9 Comments:

At 9/24/2006 3:29 PM, Anonymous zopufila said...

just saw the video.

wallace=pwned.

 
At 9/24/2006 5:16 PM, Anonymous K.G.B. said...

I'm thankful that people like Paladin are in the minority. He/she really needs to stop spouting from the neocon for dummies handbook.

 
At 9/25/2006 10:11 PM, Blogger illinidem said...

I just watched the video as well. Clinton put the smack down on Chris Wallace. Wallace didn’t even have the guts to ask the question himself. He couched it in “I received this question in e-mails from our viewers” garbage. Clinton has been pretty easy on the current administration when asked. Wonder if this will “wake the sleeping giant”? A Clinton speaking out in public could be a devastating force. What are the R’s going to do? Dig up Monica again? It can show the ridiculousness of the Clinton impeachment hearings in contrast with the real crimes perpetrated by the incompetent and corrupt Bush administration. Bush and his cronies are so afraid of having any investigation of their actions that they cannot even stand the thought of accepting responsibility for their actions. When you have total disregard for government, is any wonder that they govern so poorly?

 
At 9/25/2006 10:28 PM, Blogger tiz said...

I saw Clinton speak a few years ago. A couple jackasses were able to scream their criticisms loud enough for him (and everyone else in Carver Hawkeye Arena) to hear.

Not only did he acknowledge them (something I think 99.9% of politicians would not do), he *addressed* them and actually admitted to being wrong in response to one comment about Rwanda.

Then and in this interview (which is on youtube if you haven't seen it yet) you see Clinton do two things you'll never, ever, ever see our current leadership do - think on his feet and admit he was wrong about something.

Of course they're already spinning it as Clinton being out of control, etc. (But it's okay for Bill O'Reilly to hang up on Terri Gross or Novak to yell bullshit and storm off of the set.) I heard one conservative talking head say "the last time he was that angry he was lying to the country about Lewinsky." They can spin it however they want - any normal person who actually watches that first 10-15 minutes of the interview would tell you Chris Wallace had his ass handed to him.

 
At 9/26/2006 1:28 PM, Blogger demgorilla said...

CNN went with a headline today (9-26) entitled, "Steamed Rice," in which Condaleeza Rice fired back at President Clinton, basically saying that in their first 9 months in office they were "at least as committed" to hunting terrorists as the Clinton-Gore folks were during their 8 years.
She also said Clinton did NOT leave a game plan for Bush for dealing w/ terrorists, a claim I think will be proven patently false in the days to come.


What continues to amaze me is how the right-wing cannot deal with Clinton's intensity and passion and standing up for himself. It drives them crazy that he did that, so they call Clinton fanatical or something. Can you imagine if we took examples of conservatives who show emotion?
You'd be watching the clips for months on end.

What a bunch of hypocrites. Fight back, Bill.

 
At 9/26/2006 6:59 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Amen DemGorilla,
And it occured to me today just how absoultely absurd it is for the right to go nuts every time a Dem so much as shows passion or intensity (Dean, Gore, Clinton).

Just look at nearly ANY time Bush gives a speech or appears at a podium. It's clear the guy isn't wrapped too tight. He's always leaning over the podium and trying to be menacing and forceful but coming off mean and frustrated that he can't manage the english language like the average 5th grader.

For the right to knee-jerk suggest that any Dem who shows even a trace of anger is insane or has "lost control" is ridiculous when you think of how brain Bush sounds and appears, and the barely disguised viciousness written all over him.

 
At 9/26/2006 7:02 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Amen DemGorilla,
And it occured to me today just how absoultely absurd it is for the right to go nuts every time a Dem so much as shows passion or intensity (Dean, Gore, Clinton).

Just look at nearly ANY time Bush gives a speech or appears at a podium. It's clear the guy isn't wrapped too tight. He's always leaning over the podium and trying to be menacing and forceful but coming off mean and frustrated that he can't manage the english language like the average 5th grader.

Right wing-nuts reflexively suggesting that any Dem who shows even a trace of anger is insane or has "lost control" is ridiculous. Just look at how brain Bush sounds and appears every time he speaks. His barely disguised viciousness is written all over him.

 
At 9/27/2006 8:29 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

First, I will admit that Bush is not very good on the stump. His verbals and non-verbals make him NOT the great communicator. With Dubya, what you see is what you get. And I will admit that Clinton was good. Oh how you must miss that way Bill looks you in the eyes...and it works every time because you believe any lie and piece of BS that comes out of his mouth...and a lot of it did!It was why he was impeached.

In choosing their spokesmen, I thought that Dems would stick true to their formula with passionless, technocratic people like Michael Dukakis. But they are getting more adventuresome. After all, the next House Speaker could be Nancy Pelosi with this botched eyelift "deer in the headlights" look etched on her face.It looks as if she is permamently in a state of wide-eyed wonderment.

I know this all seems trivial, but we have too much fun ripping on politicians based on their looks. Neither party and no hairpiece is exempt.

By the way, have you read yet the book "Dereliction of Duty" by Buzz Patterson? Patterson, Clinton's military aide describes what he didn't do when they had a confirmed target on OBL and the plane was ready to get the go- ahead to strike. Your precious Bill was farting around at a golf outing or something and he did NOTHING! Read the book. Patterson was there. You were not.

Also, any president who was impeached for LYING has a slight credibility problem. But you can believe whatever you want. By the way, Elvis is alive and my arse shoots cannonballs.

History works in strange ways. Sometimes really bad and embarrassing things do come out eventually. But it could take at least 50 years, if at all. Today I was teaching about one of my most fascinating topics, the Kennedy Assassination. I gave my student the History Channel tapes and I said "take it all in and form your own opinion". I have no idea who did it, but I don't think it didn't happened the way they said it did.

I am still struggling with the idea that FDR had us set up for Pearl Harbor. What seemed preposterous a short time ago now has some very strong evidence to support it. This is very unsettling.

Sorry for long post today. My pc is recovering from a meltdown but me feeling fine.

 
At 9/27/2006 9:27 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Nico,
Glad you're doing better than the computer.

But I must say, even though it seems to be right wing theology that's chiseled in stone that Clinton was some habitual liar and lied, lied, lied, about everything and anything, I have yet to hear anyone specify any of these rampant lies that the right always says he told.

He tried to split hairs by saying that BY THE SPECIAL PROSECUTORS OWN DEFINITION OF SEX, that he did not have sex with Lewinski.

That's not legally a lie, though you could say that he was trying weaseling out of it (who wouldn't?!)

But beyond that, just WHAT ARE ALL THE LIES that Clinton supposedly spouted all the time?

I mean, I could easily compile a list of dozens of lies, and verifiable confirmed lies, that Bush has told.

But it seems a matter of faith for the right that Clinton was a big, phoney liar.

It's been crammed down their throats so often that they just finally swallowed it whole, as you have.

But again, aside from the one lie the rabid right thought justified bringing the government to a stand-still and trying to remove a twice elected president, please, PLEASE tell me some of the other lies he told the country.

Since he was such a huge liar, it should be easy. There should be a list that immediately springs to mind.

I'd like to hear it.

Tell us just how horribly deceived we were by Bill Clinton.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home