What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.609 Comments
- DjOverEZ, on 10/12/2007, -69/+602I love how Clinton is able to finally speak his mind now that he doesn't have to tiptoe around. Can you imagine Bush even attempting to be as articulate as Clinton?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -92/+470i just want to punch that annoying smirk off the reporter's face
- ScottyQuest, on 10/12/2007, -45/+417I agree, Clinton was very articulate. I would say that he *hardly* went beserk. He wasn't happy about the things the interviewer was doing, but he answered his questions in a thoughtful, articulate, if somewhat pissed off, manner.
- farfromsubtl, on 10/12/2007, -59/+338FOX NEWS GETS BITCHSLAPPED!
How sweet it is. - Bleek-II, on 10/12/2007, -55/+289The title of the story should read something like "Clinton is the man!" I hate Mass media, BTW.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -57/+271Marked as inaccurate
"Clinton Goes Berserk" is total BS. He didn't get all Mel Gibson or strip down and fling poo everywhere. He simply unloaded a little - the title is simply wrong. - DjOverEZ, on 10/12/2007, -15/+206My bad. I used an improper adjective to describe Clinton in this video. Berserk likely wasn't the right word to use. It had nothing to do with my partisan feelings or anything of that nature. I just wanted to get people's attention to the video and how Clinton really let Wallace have it. My apologies.
- Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -23/+209These kinds of questions are ridiculous.
Is FDR responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor because he didn't attack Japan first?
Is Ronald Regan responsible for the crash of Pan Am Flight 103 crach in Lockerbie because he didn't kill Muammar Qaddafi and bomb Libya?
Clinton hits the nail on the head here. This is the Republican party trying to pin 9/11 on Clinton so they don't have to share any blame. The fact is that there's a lot of blame to go around. Enough for both parties, and 3 Presidents. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -73/+216it's funny, reading al these comments and seeing who gets dugg down it's pretty clear that most users on this site are anit-Bush. i just wish the rest of america would realize what a great president Clinton was. i think it goes back to the type of members of digg.com: mainly college students, you know the EDUCATED people.
- rhinopig, on 10/12/2007, -14/+149Nice one. Also note how they say "Someone asked you If you thought you could do more good as a president or former president..." That "someone" was John Stewart, but fox news apparently chose not to cite him as the source. Interesting.
- mrsark, on 10/12/2007, -26/+140seems to me if the republicans hadn't made Monica such a big deal, he could have focused on important things like keeping the country safe.
- logic6, on 10/12/2007, -20/+105Why do I get the idea that Clinton could make President Bush cry?
- spyres, on 10/12/2007, -14/+95He didn't go "beserk", he merely didn't let himself get steamrollered.
- mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -43/+114"First, Clinton says that the ABC movie wasn't true to the 9/11 Commission report. Then later, he says that the 9/11 Commission report contained a lot of errors."
How does the latter preclude the former? I can say that B is not like A, and that A is also incorrect. They don't logically preclude one another.
Clinton is one of the great orators of out time. I had a chance to see him speak at a rally when I was 16 or so, and it was very captivating. He plays a crowd, and is nearly never at a loss for something intelligent to say.
While I am sure that he is in bed with same corporate overlords that are using bush to gain more and more control of the country, he's at least much more effective decoy. The Dems NEED someone like him, and I am in awe they haven't found one in the last 8 years. - AppleLuva, on 10/12/2007, -11/+80You know what's funny about this? Everyone looking at his reaction to the question but no one is ask why he reacted this way. It's clear that this isn't what he was told the interview would be about. He was there to talk about his Global Initiative, you know, the one that raised close to 5 BILLION dollars! So Clinton is there to talk about the good that he and his organization is doing and he get hit with this question and then is completely disrespected by Chris Wallace in the manner he asks the question and how he address the former President.
Fox should be called to the carpet on this. I understand that they have an agenda but you don't do that to a former President. Especially under false pretenses! - tslag, on 10/12/2007, -9/+72@mrsark: I think the Republicans actually created a monster with the M. L. thing and impeachment. It was Clinton's only really big political problem that anyone will remember, and it was humiliating for him. I might be way off, but it seems to have made him pretty humble about his mistakes. I think if Clinton would have reacted as most other politicians would have, Fox News and Chris Wallace would have eaten him alive. But after the whole humiliation of the impeachment, Clinton knows where he stands and what his mistakes where.
Side note: Watching this made me long for the days of having leaders that where smarter than me. And I'm not very smart. - Detritus, on 10/12/2007, -24/+80@Charlotte_Web: If you're wondering why you got dugg down so hard, so fast, it is not a liberal digg conspiracy. It is the fact that you cited a known tabloid blog, Drudge, as your source. If you have any more credible sources I'm sure they would be better received.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+59>>i mean, he didnt chainsaw Wallace in half or anything
All Partisan politics aside, I would definately digg video of any president chainsawing anyone in half. Someone go search Youtube and set us up the link. - charlescheese, on 10/12/2007, -55/+106Personally, I believe this was a foolish move by Clinton. Wallace asked a question a LOT of people have been looking for an answer to. CLEARLY the rest of the liberal media was interested in his answers. If you go read their stories on the Clinton rage, you'll see that they printed much of what he said? Why? Because Wallace asked a question that nobody else has asked Clinton directly. Bush gets asked tough, mean spirited questions all the time, why are we so scared to have Clinton and other liberal leaders answer ONE tough question.
Clinton's answer to Wallace's question was articulate, when you threw out the anger and finger pointing. He actually has good answers for what went on, and he certainly does NOT deserve the blame for 9/11. Bin Laden loves nothing more to see us blaming Bush or Clinton for 9/11. Face it, the terrorists are responsible for 9/11. We never saw an attack on that scale coming. Nobody did. Al Qaeda is to blame, nobody else.
Again, Why are all of you so afraid of a tough question? That is a question that we have a right to have an answer to as Americans. Clinton has a good answer! So why the freak out?
Ah, JunkMail02, so educated people are liberals. That says something about your own arrogance and superiority complex, and nothing about conservatives ability to make good decisions. Were the uneducated people who went to take down Hitler in WWII worthless and stupid, and unworthy of having an opinion because their background differs from yours? Should we require a doctorate in being an arrogant jerk before we allow people to vote? When people hype their level of education, they tend to be dumber than the average bear. Just my 2c. I think it's rude, arrogant, self righteous, and pathetic when people have to tout their education level to win an argument. As if that gives your opinion more merit or something.
And to say that the Digg readership isn't overwhelming liberal is extremely dishonest. It is, you can look at the olberman clips that make it to the front page, and the ability to get this marked as inaccurate, when it's BILL CLINTON'S OWN WORDS, merely because the readership here finds it damaging to Bill (because he looks like a mean bully). - TheWorm, on 10/12/2007, -31/+78One of the differences between Clinton and Bush is that, Clinton is genuinely intelligent. I can just picture Bush sitting there being asked these questions and making noieses like "Uuuuuhhhh" and "Heheheheheh" and talking about his ranch. I miss the days when our president knew what he was doing.
Conservitive Fox and their viewers won't admit it, but Clinton just beat them on their home turf. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -13/+59@Charlotte_Web
"Do your worst, moderation nazis!"
I wonder why you get modded down when you post such well thought out balanced opinions. I mean, comparing everyone that disagrees with you to Nazis, what could possibly be more rational and constructive? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+53Hindsight is always 20/20: http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
- pushmouse, on 10/12/2007, -12/+56Nice try revising some more history. Clark didn't drop the ball. Bush dropped Clark.
Clark worked for Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Bush Jr. demoted him after coming to office and refused to have a single meeting involving terrorism during the first 8 months of his administration despite a clear and imminent threat. But somehow that must be Clinton's fault too. - thewebguy, on 10/12/2007, -14/+55anybody have Part 2?
- logic6, on 10/12/2007, -2/+42A president can be elected a maximum of 2 times, but may also serve as president for up to 2 years prior to ever being elected as president. Maximum time as president is up to 10 years.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am22.html - threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -8/+48Saying Clinton is to blame for 9/11 is a lot like saying Reagan is to blame for all the hell Saddam Hussein has done (remember? During his presidency Saddam was receiving a key to the city of Detroit).
- repins, on 10/12/2007, -12/+52You might want to take a civics class and/or a math class.
Presidents are elected for 4 year terms and no more than 2 consecutive so that would be 8 years maximum. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+50is 'berserk' the right word?
i mean, he didnt chainsaw Wallace in half or anything, he spoke his mind. - M4tt3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+39Part 2:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6620818158935418334&q=Clinton+Interview&hl=en - Smiff2, on 10/12/2007, -11/+49I think you should read what really happened. Wallace asked *no* questions about the charity before getting into the terrorism issue. He only brought up the charity in (what looked to me like) trying to change the subject, after getting verbally smacked by Clinton.
You are also in the minority in thinking Clinton was rude. He had every right to respond forcefully to those serious and false allegations, and he did it with class. I think you are just not used to seeing centre or left wing people being strong on Fox.
Perhaps the clip you saw was edited. Here's the transcript in the original order:
http://thinkprogress.org/clinton-interview
I want to say only one more thing on this matter (and forgive the use of quotes).
Wallace: "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"
What an incredibly weaselly and dishonest way for a "journalist" to frame the question. How many emails? Who asked? Who really chose these questions? What's Fox, ahem "news"' agenda? As Clinton said, similar questions are not being asked of the other side, just watch any of the many Cheney "interviews".
'Nuff Said. - charlescheese, on 10/12/2007, -18/+54I'd also like to add that if liberals like Clinton were asked more tough questions like this, that they have good answers to, they might just win more elections. Getting answers to tough questions actually helps liberals, but instead liberals are usually cushioned and protected by the media, from Russert, to Olberman, to Matthews, to Rather, to Couric, to Stephanopolis, they were all liberal political activists at one point, and most of them served with former democrat presidents in one capicity or another.
There was a pretty thorough and telling poll of people in the mainstream media done a few years back, and more than 85% of the people in the media said they were democrats. God forbid there is one station on the air that isn't liberal, that actually holds liberals to a higher standard than the other networks, who like Rather and Mapes passed damaging info on Bush and the timing of its release to the Kerry campaign in 04.
All of the liberal diggers like free speech until you say something they don't like, or a single news station exists that represents the majority opinion in this country. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+50my local Fox news has been airing this constantly and trying to rip on Clinton about it. In my opinion Clinton is pwning Fox right now especially how he says something to the effect of "you have your little smirk on your face, and you think you're so smart..." and just completely goes off on him is great!! It's about time someone put Fox News in their place!
I wish Clinton could be re-elected into office. So what if he gets a blowjob from an (ugly&fat) intern like that hurts anyone!? - readme, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37I am not a Democrat and did not like Clinton when he was in office, but I have to give him enormous credit on how articulate and charismatic he is. Bush would have choked and died under that level of scrutiny. Props to Bubba!
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+35Jackkeruoac: Neo-con = Liberalspeak for 'dirty jews'
***** you. I'm Jewish and liberal and a supporter of Israel. "Neo-con" means "***** who thinks America should own the world without understanding that the world will eventually resist the idea."
Don't pretent to speak for liberals or anyone else. You know *****. - Vermifax, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33Fox News is a "news source"...? On what planet...!?
Clinton raised this Foxbitch Wallace's skirt over hishead and exposed his wannabe-neocon ass to the world!
I just wish it was that soiled diaper Hannity that did the interview...
Note to Fox News: Don't ***** with Bubba! - repins, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33Yea but you are watching it so Fox is winning, this will get them better ratings. News today is not about the truth it is about what gets people to watch. It has become a business and is no longer about getting the real story.
- habpro, on 10/12/2007, -26/+53I like how Fox news points the finger at Clinton for 9/11. Do you think they will say anything to Bush? Because it did happen on his watch, and didn't condi and rumsfeld get a report in the summer of '01 saying something like "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States". And why did Bush invade the wrong country?
My apologies, my typing grammar gets really bad when my blood pressure goes up!!! - AppleLuva, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30So then Bush is.......?
Really, you want to dismiss him because he had sex in the oval office. I mean really, he was impeached because he had sex with his intern in the oval office, that's what you want to focus on? Sex? Get real, do you realize what has happened in this world, this country, with the current administration in the office? Did you feel safer in you home, your world, while Clinton was getting a hummer or now that Bush has turned the world against us? - smedrick, on 10/12/2007, -7/+32He didn't say Clarke was great; he simply stated that Clarke is the most knowledgable source on the topic because he's been in the game the longest.
- nightsweat, on 10/12/2007, -15/+40@chriskzoo
"Everyone knows that the only reason he lobbed those missles at Bin Laden was to distract from Monica Lewinski."
Yeah. And he didn't do enough to get bin Laden, too! This is laughable and a typical rightist comment. So many of those now claiming that Clinton did nothing to stop bin Laden obstructed or castigated him for going after the man during his administration.
The hypocrisy is palpable. - 4bit, on 10/12/2007, -12/+37@ Charlotte_Web
"Actually, I have a master's degree. Is that enough education to have a valid political opinion? I don't think Clinton was the devil, and was thankful that his governance was much more moderate than his liberal views. Great orator, yes. Great "politician"? He's definitely got game. Great president? I don't think so. The man used the IRS to attack his political enemies. He sexually assaulted women in the Oval Office. He was obsessed with public opinion polls, his popularity and his legacy. Everyone knows that the only reason he lobbed those missles at Bin Laden was to distract from Monica Lewinski."
I think you need to give your degree back if you're going to make comments like "Everyone knows" about anything. A masters degree should have taught you to do a little research before you open your mouth.
As for 'everyone' knowing that. Apparently the 9/11 commsion didn't, since they came to the conclusion that his administration knew they'd get blasted no matter what move they made and went with that choice regaurdless of how it looked on the dress... I mean... in the press... - tobyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30"Can anyone think of a former president besides Clinton who has continued to shoot his mouth off about politics and keep himself in the press after he left office?"
Carter
G. H. W. Bush
Gerald Ford
Richard Nixon
Reagan (not as active as others)
Those are just off the top of my head.
Your criticism is that a citizen who reaches the pinnacle of civil duty in our country should effectively stop being an active participant after no more than eight years. That's absurd. How on Earth could someone who has worked so hard and dedicated themselves to the public interest and to the fulfillment of their civic duties stop? And what would compell them to do so? There is a reason you're not president, nor a presidential scholar. - manicdvln, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28Yes, lying about your personal sex life is worse than lying about an entire war that costs hundreds thousands of lives.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29The question was essentially "when did you stop beating your wife" and is inappropriate under any circumstances. An appropriate question, inside the 1/2 of the interview devoted to foreign policy, would have been "do you think you could have done more?" or "what else could you have done?" not "why didn't you do more?" It's a presumption, not a question, and Clinton was right to get angry about it. As for "Berserk," submitter has a problem with his/her reality filters.
- Lone1, on 10/12/2007, -16/+39Republicans are trying to rewrite history and put the blame on Clinton for 911. No wonder he's "unhinged".
but the curtain is coming down, history will not be kind to the Bush admin. - MKREdit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Your right Bill lied about Monica, now lets take a moment and count how many people were injured and killed because of that lie? "0"
Well "W" lied about iraq, now lets take a moment and count how many people were injured and killed because of that lie? I'd like to give an answer but the tally is still running on that one.
And for the record don't kid yourself by thinking "W"'s not getting "serviced" as well - mickeleh, on 10/12/2007, -11/+31The Bush apologists are asking us to choose between two positions: "Blame Clinton," and there's enough blame for everyone." Not very comfortable with the fact that the Bush administration came into office with a) anti-Clinton blinders; b) an abiding love for building and anit-missile defence, and c) an obsession with toppling Saddam. Yep, Clinton failed to get the guy. But he left a note on the fridge and the incredibly competent Richard Clarke. The Bushies ignored the warnings. They took no shot. They demoted Clarke, and took discussions of Terror into a back burner.
When will the press actually press the administration on there lack of interest in Osama for the first eight months of their admin. - willistg, on 10/12/2007, -13/+33How'd Clarke Drop the ball? you got sources? I mean credible ones outside of your imagination?
- thatkidrich44, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23FOX is pathetic! I work for the government, and all the political appointee's seem to be required to do two things:
1.) Watch FOX news in their office
2.) Have a picture of George W. Bush on their desk.. some people have more pictures of Bush and Cheney than they do of their families...you see a problem?? - mt066, on 10/12/2007, -16/+35Yea it's a perfect publicity stunt for Wallace. Ask misleading questions to Clinton: He either (a) gets suckered in and looks stupid, causing a media circus, or (b) defends himself forcefully, causing a media circus.
It's nice to see Clinton defending himself, but I guaruntee Wallace and all his network buddies are high fiving each other all over the office, further encouraging such "get you attention by SHOCKING you" journalism, rather than actual facts or unbiased presentation. -
Show 51 - 100 of 604 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is