thinkprogress.org — President Bill Clinton taped an interview with Fox News which is to be aired Sunday. He was told the interview would focus on his nonpartisan efforts to raise over $7 billion to combat the world?s biggest problems. Wallace attempted to smear Clinton with the same misinformation contained in ABC?s Path to 9/11. Clinton was having none of it.
Sep 23, 2006 View in Crawl 4
galoreSep 23, 2006
Yeah, because YOU would just scream the truth, were you caught in a sex affair.
cooperjonesSep 23, 2006
To DEUT in the UKYou find it amazing our press is so partisan? You ever read George Orwell? If not, start, because your BBC is so LEFTWING they wouldn't know what the word "fair" means. How do they get money from your government to run that drivel? UN talking points, pushing the OIL FOR FOOD scandal, leaking all the crap about the lead up to Iraq -- your comment that the US press is partisan is just too much of the pot calling the kettle black... Scary dumb to believe the BBC isn't the most biased organization -- really online with Orwell's predictions.
corvidaeSep 23, 2006
Wallace would probably swallow his own tongue before saying Jon Stewarts name. It's truly sad that a second rate comedian like Stewart has better interview skills and integrity than a newscaster. I love the Daily Show myself, but when a half hour comedy skit is putting out more hard hitting news than our newscasters, ever, let alone on a regular basis, it's just a sad sign for our media.
Closed AccountSep 24, 2006
Did I miss the flame war? I got here too late :(
cooperjonesSep 24, 2006
anonydig:The things I was accusing the Europe of can of course co exist in one EU mentality. Bush may be inarticulate, but Clinton lacked the balls to take on Terror. END OF STORY.And that's why Clintoon is so mad when reporters quiz him about it. He KNOWS he did nothing. He never even met with the CIA or FBI chiefs during his eight years! And he says he was doing a lot to get Bin Laden? What, Bill? What were you doing to get Bin Laden? Bush can't talk but you failed the test of leadership. Again, at least Bush has balls.
foneguy2Sep 24, 2006
Please back up your claim that 'Fox News lies' with at least one factual example.
jrgurlSep 24, 2006
Your bias for Bill has blinded you- he has lost his mind, He did not own Chris, he got owned by his own lunacy
wacchemanSep 25, 2006
Check out this scurrilous rag re: Sandy Berger. Berger Will Plead Guilty To Taking Classified Paper. By John F. Harris and Allan Lengel. Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A01 ...www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.htmlInternet -- liberal lie detector.
wacchemanSep 25, 2006
Or the tantrum on national television.
wacchemanSep 25, 2006
Berger Will Plead Guilty To Taking Classified Paper. By John F. Harris and Allan Lengel. Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A01 ...www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.htmlAh! Google--the liberal lie detector.
pyrexSep 26, 2006
maybe if you actually paid attention to what he said you'd understand. despite what mr. bush would have you believe the executive branch DOESNT have complete control of the gov. as he said he WANTED to, but the ENTIRE MILITARY and the CIA were AGAINST IT.i find it hilarious, that when he was commiting so much time to TRYING to hunt down OBL, the republicans were CRITISIZING HIM FOR IT. saying he was trying to distract the media from the lewinsky bj.goes to show you, Clinton = interested in protecting the US people. Republicans = interested in winning elections.the end
crymphidiusOct 2, 2006
WeccmanHe didn't answer it because it was a loaded question you nitwit. Let me ask you this; Why are Republicans so f**king stupid?Since you're going to act like some kind of body language expert I'm just going to say that Wallace was giving off nervous reactions because he was getting his ass handed to him. A little reading could have helped Wallace and people such as yourself.Why are Republicans full of s**t?
Closed AccountOct 11, 2006
@ PYREXIF, I repeat, IF, the conspiracy theorists are correct, this invokes a startling thought...I personally believe that the Bush/Clinton administrations 'created' Osama bin Laden and terrorism, shortly after they overthrew Iraqi government and put Saddam Hussein into power.. He clearly states in this interview that before him there had never been a defense program tailored to handle terrorism. It seems to be fairly well documented among theorists that OBL was a CIA asset and was called on many times throughout the 80's and 90's.Theorists contend that Clinton is a very close friend of the Bush family and was very much involved in the CIA along with Bush Sr.See the Bush memo: <a class="user" href="http://www.tomflocco.com/Docs/Jfk/PresJfkBush.gif">http://www.tomflocco.com/Docs/Jfk/PresJfkBush.gif</a>If this is true then it would mean that the republicans would have been right back in the day when they told Clinton his terrorism program was a crock of s**t. There's a lot of other research that indicates that the alleged terror attacks on the Oklahoma City building prior to 9/11 were also carried out by the CIA (Where are the video tapes??)I'm not going to say this is the way it is. This is merely conjecture based on things I have read. Digg me down if you wish, but if anyone has any opinions (aside from flaming) I would love to hear them.I am neither republican nor democrat.