Now… About that Clinton - Wallace interview…
By paulseale Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Here is my take on the big to do interview with Bill Clinton and Chris Wallace: How dare Chris Wallace ask his royal highness a question and challenge Clinton's legacy.
It looks like a leaked trascript I saw was on the money. Bill Clinton goes absolutely ballistic when asked a challenging question regarding the Clinton administration terror policy because he has no real defense for it and he knows it. The only thing Clinton could respond is by trying to push Richard Clarke's book and to accuse Chris Wallace of being some sort of political hack. Yeah, like that really answered the question with substance.
Never mind the fact that Clinton had multiple times to kill Bin Laden. It all comes down to the fact that Clinton felt that it was a law enforcement problem and probably did not honestly get the scope of what was to come. Do you remember terrorism being a big issue in the 2000 election? There is a reason for that.
Here are a few other things I feel that should be pointed out:
- Chris Wallace did, in fact, ask Rumsfeld about why Bin Landen wasn't a high priority pre 9-11.
- "Right wingers" supported his cruise missile attack on Bin Laden.
- By Dick Clarke's own admission, there was no Clinton Team "plan" handed to the Bush administration and that the Bush administration did nothing.
RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
- Clinton had plans to "invade" afgahnistan.
QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?
CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.
Finally, Byron York has a really good pice at NRO on the interview and Richard Clarke. I would suggest reading it.
I would like to address the whole "politically boxed in" thing which Dick Clarke, in his book, lays blame for Clinton not going after Bin Laden at the feet of Republicans because they dared challenge him on issues of national security and the failure in Somolia (which Clarke blames on the army).
Lets play a little game with this item. Lets say its true for a moment. If that is the case, then isnt what the Democrats currently doing with our national security and blaming Bush for "misleading" the country on Iraq and the war on terrorism having the same effect?
Are these same individuals and media outlets like the Times not "boxing in" the defense options Bush and our military can use? Will this not lead to a similar event?
Cross posted from Arena of Ideas
I believe that we are not holding Bush to a lower standard. If there was any "lower standard" it is beause he had only been in office for eight months and more than likely did not have a real grasp on the subject.
Like I said in my piece, if terrorism was as important as Clinton says it was, we would have heard about it during the 2000 election. We did not.
Do I personally believe that actions could have been taken before 9-11 by the Bush administration? Probably. They do not have their hands completely clean of the subject.
However, contrary to what Clinton says in is interview and clark rants in his book, it was a heck of a lot more and more pointed. Why? Because Bush decided to fight the war like it is a war, not a law enforcement problem.
There is no logical way that you can claim Bush was porportionaly "more or equally" responsible than Clinton for not killing Bin Laden before 9-11. You simply cannot.
*Bush was not offered OBL a single time.
*The CIA/Military never gave Bush a single shot at killing OBL before 9-11.
*There were no plans or even a hint as to the extensive history with OBL.
"*There were no plans or even a hint as to the extensive history with OBL."
This lies at the heart of where I differ about the matter and very much affects the way I look at this issue.
I have come to the conclusion based a variety of info that this is simply not true. The work up to that point on OBL and AQ was a work in progress that intensified over the previous 2 to 3 years and was left to next administration after Jan. 2001.
Then different people with different priorities demoted it as a priority until 9/11 shoved it back to the forefront. I say back to the forefront because the issue seems to be a priortity behind the scenes though not in the media.
IOW, I've come to the conclusion that the fervor and attention paid to OBL lowered considerably after the Bush Adminstration took over and was not raised to the level of a major issue...let only the primary issue until after 9/11. That's my simple dispassionate assessment. From there, people take a lot of liberty with "coulda woulda shoulda" scenarios to pass more blame onto Clinton or Bush.
This is where the issue of a lower or higher standard comes into play.
Don't tread on me.
Clinton worked faithfully for years formulating plans. And they were, by far, the best plans ever formulated, but he had to leave office before he could do anything about them. Fortunately he left them for the next Commander in Chief to execute. Unfortunately, the next Commander in Chief was feckless and did nothing with those most excellent plans.
How in the world did Churchill and Roosevelt ever respond to the Japanese/Germans in days when our boy genius president couldn't pull anything off in years? Wonders will never cease. /sarcasm
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
on Clinton's terrorism performance (as Clinton certainly seemed convinced), Wallace had a lot more questions to ask. I'm sure Russert will get to them on the next interview.
By the way, good find on the Clarke quotes. I had the impression that he was not trustworthy, as he was peddling a book, but he does seem to be willing to criticize both administrations.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
It was while he worked for the Bush administration and before the 2004 election cycle when he decided to mount up on the Kerry campaign and become a partisan hack.
When asked, he said he didn't feel it was appropriate to be overly critical of an administration he was employed under. Once he was an uninvolved third party, he felt free to say more. It's a valid point for what it's worth.
Don't tread on me.
If Clarke later said that he was lying because GWB was signing his paychecks, but now believes thus and so, even though it contradicted his previous statements, I guess I would disregard anything he ever said. A liar is a liar is a liar.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
"We are so intelligent, we politicos. We have such an appetite for info, such an interest in world events and "facts", yet so little ability to arrive at truthful objective conclusions.
I really hate politics sometimes. Of course, I'm probably telling all this to the wrong crowd. There's little room for grey here when it comes to Clinton."
No wonder we never get anywhere.
Don't tread on me.
If Clarke idicted his own honesty about his Bush administration testimony, then what makes his opinion of the Clinton administration any more valid?
Bottom line is what I said before, Clarke is an opportunist. Had Bush decided to appoint Clarke as the head of Homeland Security instead of (name escapes me) then the story we would be hearing now would undoubtably be different.
Even recently after ABC's "path to 9-11" Clarke admitted that the Clinton administration did not do what it could and had no real plan.
"Chris Wallace did, in fact, ask Rumsfeld about why Bin Landen wasn't a high priority pre 9-11."
Just for some further context on this point, while Wallace did bring this up to Rumsfeld in March 2004, Fox News Sunday hosts have interviewed Bush Administration officials 42 other times and did not ask any of the following questions, according to MediaMatters.org:
- Why did the White House not respond more forcefully to the August 6 CIA memo warning of an impending bin Laden strike against the United States?
- Why did the Bush administration demote Richard Clarke?
- Why didn't the Bush administration do anything in response to the bombing of the USS Cole?
- Why did Bush not heed the CIA's call for more troops to help catch bin Laden at Tora Bora?
The Media Matters summary of these issues hilights the relevance these questions would have had at various times and that obvious opportunities to ask them were missed.
You can imagine why Clinton would harbor some anger at Fox News for this double standard, which is so obvious that it seems deliberate.
So, does it still seem that Wallace asked "plenty of questions" of Bush officials about the failure to catch bin Laden, as he claims? No, not to me.
Media Matters did some great work with their research, as usual. For example, if you visit the link, you'll find a list of all 43 interviews of administration officials and their dates. Still, am I being paranoid by expecting someone to trash Media Matters (just because Bill O'Reilly slanders the organization)? For the record, I welcome disagreement with this information if it helps us uncover the truth, but not a general baseless dismissal of the report.
Really out of the woodwork today aren't they? Media Matters research?? I think you mean "research".
You may welcome, for the record, what you wish. Dismissal of a Media Matters "report" cannot be baseless. By virtue of it's being a dismissal of Media Matters it is, by it's nature, on grounds.
"You can imagine why Clinton would harbor some anger at Fox News for this double standard, which is so obvious that it seems deliberate."
Ridiculous nonsense. What were you and your cronies crying about at Kos and Americablog et al so recently? Why, it was Clinton's record with regard to Bin Laden. And why? Because of the controversy and questions following the ABC mini-series. And what was a central point? What did Clinton fail or not fail to do.
Do you wish to talk about things that are so obvious that they seem deliberate? Then explain the Faux Reporters who failed to ask Clinton the questions Wallace asked. Questions that logic dictates Clinton should have welcomed in the wake of the above-mentioned controversy.
Liberals just can't STAND that there are reporters who fail to cower before them. That is the sum total of President Clinton's, and your, objections.
Psh. Media Matters. Hilarious!
and I mean a hyper left wing source.. lets go down each one of these democrat talking points.
- Why did the White House not respond more forcefully to the August 6 CIA memo warning of an impending bin Laden strike against the United States?
If you actually knew that the memo said you would know that some actions were taken, but the context was so broad that no one could predict where, when or what. Just like the show trial put on by some of the 9-11 commissioners who wanted JUST THE TITLE READ, your point faulters. This point has been defeated many, many times and yes, it has been asked and answered.
- Why did the Bush administration demote Richard Clarke?
This is another out right lie. Clarke wanted to be the head of home land security. He did not get that appointment so he decided to take his football home and align him self with the opposition. My guess is so he can get more power. He is nothing more than an opportunist.
- Why didn't the Bush administration do anything in response to the bombing of the USS Cole?
Why didnt the Clinton administration do anything? From what I have read, both presidents failed to respond the Cole. We can speculate from there.
- Why did Bush not heed the CIA's call for more troops to help catch bin Laden at Tora Bora?
Bush left the call to his generals on the ground. Remember this is the same CIA who said there were WMDs in Iraq. Intellegence is seldom hard. Read Tommy Frank's American solider for insight into this little scuffle.
thanks for playing, mr troll.
Having read Clarke's book, Plan of Attack the book about Paul O'neil and "Because He Could" by Dick Morris, numerous reviews of all of them plus numerous opinion articles on this hazy matter, I come away discouraged that the "truth" on this matter is somewhere between them all and that this "truth" will always be suppressed and/or spun for the simple and basic reason that Clinton was Dem and Bush a Republican. Yes, this is the 800lb Gorilla in the Room.
On Fox yesterday, they had a panel discussion on this interview. Hume and the younger Wallace arrived at a simple question that lies at the heart of it all...politically:
Do we hold Bush to a lower standard in terms of how we evaluate policy and actions vis a vis Al Qaeda than we do for Clinton?
Barnes and the rest of the panel tossed it around and never addressed it. The Liberal on the panel said yes...as would expected. Big surprise. But Barnes and the others almost seemed embarrassed at the questions and talked around it.
We are so intelligent, we politicos. We have such an appetite for info, such an interest in world events and "facts", yet so little ability to arrive at truthful objective conclusions.
I really hate politics sometimes. Of course, I'm probably telling all this to the wrong crowd. There's little room for grey here when it comes to Clinton.
Don't tread on me.