I Love That Man!
I am sure Wallace is just making up for some childhood inadequacies, or he hates his father. His father, by the way, is the longtime CBS journalist Mike Wallace. He was a man who actually fought the "good fight" with the whole Murrow and Friendly gang. His reward for being inquisitive? To watch his own son grow up to become everything that they stood against and despised. Can you just imgaine Thanksgiving Dinner at Mike's house?
Chris: Dad, can you pass the yams?
Mike: (Taking a sip of Jameson's out of a translucent tumbler) Shut the fuck up you lousy shill !!!
He problably hates him with all his heart. Either that or he has absolutely no sense of moral dignity. How else can you explain the complete whore-job he pulls whenever he tells you the latest fart from the White House don't stink?
Well, Mr. Wallace found out that the former President was not one of his usual clowns that he pushes around. Here is a portion of the transcript from their heated exchange:
Fox News Sunday/Clinton Interview
Wallace: When we announced that you were going to be on FOX News Sunday, I got a lot of email 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 which I suspect you’ve 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 US troops." Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole
Clinton: Okay…
Wallace: …May I just finish the question, sir? And after the attack, the book says Bin Laden separated his leaders because he expected an attack and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is 20/20…
Clinton: No, let’s talk about…
Wallace: …but the question is why didn’t you do more? Connect the dots and put them out of business?
Clinton: Okay, let’s talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits, but 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 on "The Path to 9/11" falsely claim that it was falsely based on the 911 Commission Report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission Report. I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough claimed (then) that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said (then) that 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 UN. Okay, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk Down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that 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 1993.
Wallace: I understand…
Clinton: No wait…no wait…don’t tell me. You asked me why I didn’t do more to Bin Laden. There was not a living soul…all the people who criticized me wanted to leave the next day. You brought this up, so you get an answer.
Wallace: I’m perfectly happy to. Bin Laden says…
Clinton: And secondly…
Wallace: Bin Laden says…
Clinton: Bin Laden may have said that…
Wallace: Bin Laden says it showed the weakness of the U.S. …
Clinton: It would have shown the weakness if we 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…thousand Pakistani Muslim troops. We were all there on a humanitarian mission. We had not one 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…
Clinton: You asked, you. It (was) you (who) brought it up.
Wallace: May I ask a general question that you can answer? The 9/11 Commission, which you talk about–and this is what they did say–not what ABC pretended they said…
Clinton: Wait, wait…
Wallace: …They said about you and 43 and I quote, "The U.S. government took the threat seriously, not in the sense of mustering anything like that would be….to confront an enemy of the first, second or third rank"…
Clinton: That’s not true with us and Bin Laden…
Wallace: …the 9/11 Commission says…
Clinton: Let’s look at what Richard Clarke says. You think Richard Clarke had a vigorous attitude about Bin Laden?
Wallace: Yes, I do.
Clinton: You do?
Wallace: I think he has a variety of opinions and loyalties, but yes.
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 and 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: [inaudible]
Clinton: Now, wait a minute…
Wallace: …cruise missiles…
Clinton: I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him. The CIA was run by George Tenet, who President Bush gave the Medal of Freedom to and said he did a good job. The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came to office. If you can 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 (only) 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 have had to send a few hundred Special Forces in helicopters and refuel at night. Even the 9/11 Commission didn’t do (think we should have done) that. Now the 9/11 Commission was a political document, too? All I’m asking is if anybody 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 and they didn’t. 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. So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..
Wallace: Now wait a minute, sir…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’ve 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…
Wallace: We asked…Do you ever watch FOX News Sunday, sir?
Clinton: I don’t believe you ask them that.
Wallace: We ask plenty of questions of…
Clinton: You didn’t ask that, did you? Tell the truth.
Wallace: About the USS Cole?
Clinton: Tell the truth…
Wallace: I…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 is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about…
Wallace: [laughs]
Clinton: You said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.
Wallace: But, President Clinton…We were going to ask half the [interview time] about it. I didn’t think this was going to set you off on such a tear.
Clinton: It set me off on such a tear because you didn’t formulate it in an honest way and you people ask me questions you don’t ask the other side.
Wallace: Sir, that is not true…
Clinton: …and Richard Clarke…
Wallace: That is not true…
Clinton: 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.
Wallace: All right…
Clinton: All I’m saying is you falsely accuse me of giving aid and comfort to Bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew al Qaeda existed then…
Wallace: Did they know in 1996, when he declared war on the U.S.? Did no one know in 1998…
Clinton: Absolutely, they did.
Wallace: …when they bombed the two embassies? Or in 2000, when they hit the Cole?
Clinton: What did I do? I worked hard to try and 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 never criticized President Bush, and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive theme 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. It looks like you’re so clever…
Wallace: [Laughs]
Clinton: 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 into Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise. We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. [Not] until I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. 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 to move your bones by doing this first. But I don’t mind people asking me. I actually talked to the 9/11 Commission for four hours 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…where they ask me one-sided question. It always comes from one source. And so…And so…
Wallace: I just want to ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative, but what’s
the source? You seem upset…
Clinton: I am upset because…
Wallace: …and all I can say is, I’m asking you in good faith because it’s on people’s minds, sir. And I wasn’t…
Clinton: 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 they’ve done a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression. This country only has one person who has worked against terror…[since] under Reagan. Only one: Richard Clarke. And all I’d say [to] anybody who wonders whether we did wrong or right; anybody who wants to see what everybody 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?’ And that was ‘Wag the Dog’ when he tried to kill him. My Republican Secretary of Defense, - and I think I’m the only person since WWII to have a Secretary of Defense from the opposition party - Richard Clarke, and all the intelligence people said that I ordered a vigorous attempt to get Osama 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. Same exact crowd.
Wallace: One of the…
Clinton: So if you’re going to do this, for God’s sake, follow the same standards for everybody.
from Crooks and Liars.com
Did you notice that the reporting of this exchange was categorized as "ranting" by the "Liberal Media" after it aired? I didn't see ranting at all. I saw it as Bill laying down some truth. I think the President deserves congratulations for just walking into that cesspit of feces because it was about time these jerks had someone stand up to them.
After reading this transcript and putting it into the context of the past six years, a time period filled with all those blunders, all those fuck-ups, all that pain and sufferring, all performed in front of a backdrop constituted of fear, loathing and contempt for the intelligence of the American citizen, I drew one conclussion. I decided that the proper response to anyone who still supports this absurd administration, or their policies, can only be one thing.
"You got it kid...
...you got it!"
I don't have a hard head...
...so I can't keep knocking it against a wall.
Larry
posted by Larry B | 2:55 PM
5 Comments:
thanks Lar, great post,
some relatives of mine on the right could only say that the President lost control and ranted on and on, that's all they got from it unfortunately,
so i was glad to read the full dialogue and see that although the President did get a bit emotional, i think he tried darn hard to get some truth out there about many things including right wing propaganda,
....a good reading like usual,
larry m.
Larry,
Having served in Somalia and a few other places I feel quite confident in stating that Clinton is counting on your ignorance. Those Rangers and others, who died, did so because Clinton and his grossly incompetent SecDef, Les Aspin pulled the M1 tanks out of Somalia. If we had had just two tanks, less than half the troops would have died or been wounded. They also reduced troop strength from a high of 30,000 to less than 2,000. He turned it over to the UN 5 months before the Blackhawk down mission. Not after as he says in the interview. And they did there normal cock-up. Aspin had enough honor to resign shortly there after. People may have wanted to leave, but the military wanted to continue the mission. A mission that was largely on track.
As for a NeoCon NeoNazi, that is like saying he's a Communist Nazi.
As every true NeoCon is former far left liberal who has changed. I only know of one Nazi who turned into a Communist. He was the darling of the left. Unless you mean Wallace is Jewish. This is the current Arab preferred term for the Cabal to keep the Arabs down. I think you are a better wordsmith than this current effort.
Wallace's father is Mike Wallace not his grandson. But good old Mike left the 1 year old Chris. Chris was then raised by the future head of CBS news and was so conservative Walter Cronkite hired him for balance. Perhaps he tricked Rather into that stupid memo thing?
Joe
Hey Joe
Your comment about Wallace confused me. I know Mike Wallace is Chris’ father. Did I say otherwise? As far as Mike leaving him at a very young age I didn’t know. But now that I do I would describe dad as “Reagan-esque.” It certainly would explain Chris’ completely whorish behavior. Doesn’t it seem like that most people who are working as prostitutes have either been abused or neglected as children?
Regardless, you are very critical of Clinton’s incompetence in Somalia. You were there so I will take your word for it. But how would you characterize the Bush’s administration handling of the invasion/reform/occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq? Competent? Great? Majestic? You are there so your opinion has weight.
And I think that was Clinton’s point. Here it is in 2006 and the contrived topic of conversation in the national news gathering services and paper press is “Did Clinton do enough to get Bin-Laden?” while no one, in the national news gathering services and paper press is asking the current President that same question. I remember Bush saying “Dead or Alive” over and over again, which made good copy and caused many high-fives in local drunk tanks across the country I’m sure, but what came of that hyperbole?
In 2001 Mr. Bush, and his cohorts, had at their disposal the indisputable military means, a signed “blank check” from the Senate and the overwhelming support of the general public to get bin Laden. It is now the end of 2006, did they accomplish that mission?
He is still out there.
In 1998 Bill Clinton had none of those things and yet he still tried. Was the opposition-party supportive? No. Instead of national security they were obsessed about cock sucking and yelled “wag the dog.”
You must find this “blame anyone but us” media blitz that has been going on for the last five plus years a tad disquieting, right? Or, if not alarming, at least funny? Not really ha-ha funny mind you, but more of a sad-to-see-how-far-we-have-fallen type of funny.
Which brings me to my last point.
Yes, the neo-con/neo-nazi comparison was based more on the sound of the word rather than on philosophical fact because they both have “neo” as a prefix. But in making the reference, I was thinking not of the literal doctrine of the Kristols, Cheneys and Wolfowitzs and more of the actual character and behavior that their policies have brought forth.
In my zest for metaphor, I became guilty of doing the same thing that many people have done over the years when they called anyone from Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union “communists,” or equated “Christianity” with the Roman Catholic Church.
In the Church’s case, the rigid rituals and hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with the faith itself. So whenever I am in an ecclesiastical debate, and I have been in quite a few over my years, I totally reject the argument that “the religion is bad because look at all the hypocrisy in its leaders” etc. as if the actions of the practitioners disprove the righteousness of the principles. It would similar if you thought that someone said something wrong because they are fat and bald.
The same with communism. The nations behind the iron curtain prior to 1989 adhered only vaguely to Marxist ideology. If you read his actual texts, such as the Manifesto or Das Kapital, you immediately realize that these countries were, in reality, little more than totalitarian dictatorships using the notion of a proletarian utopian ideal as a veneer to keep the masses in line.
So when I used the short-hand “neo-nazi” I was not suggesting that they use “Mein Kampf” or “The Doctrine of Fascism” as their road map, although the one PNAC paper I read hinted at a new world order under American Hegemony complete with American spheres of influence all around the world that was reminiscent of somebody else’s call for Lebensraum.
No, I was thinking more along the lines of the recent chain of events:
A fanatical man, who believes he is an instrument of God, is chosen by the industrial and corporate leaders to lead one of the most advanced modern nations on Earth because he is probably “easy to control.”
This fanatical man comes to power although he never receives anywhere near a majority of votes from a relatively educated electorate.
After a brutal attack upon a governmental building, elected officials, representatives of “The People” peacefully give away their control and consolidate the fanatic’s power, confirming his ability to prosecute policies, both foreign and domestic, that run contrary to the basic principles of his nation’s constitution, which he either ignores or rewrites.
He maintains this power through powerful centralized 24 hr media outlets that glowingly confirm and never contradict the correctness of his decisions.
He authorizes a concentration camp system that perpetrates highly questionable conduct in direct violation of the Geneva conventions and any moral objection to these practices is laughed at or dismissed as unpatriotic.
He invades a sovereign nation under the pre-text that it was for the safety and security of the country that contains a population which, by this time, he has completely lost all contact with.
He alienates every other educated nation on Earth who, at first, deal with him out of fear but then unite to destroy him.
The end result is at least 60 million dead and a nation, a continent, a civilization, in physical, financial and spiritual ruin.
Yeah I know, I know.
It can’t happen here because we’re special.
Good to hear from you Joe.
Stay safe man.
Corection !!!!
I just caught what you were talking about. That "son of" thing was a cut and paste typo. I changed it to read corectly. I apologize for that.
Larry,
Lots to respond to, little time. So I will take the topic I know about. The Afghan/Iraq invasions. Afghanistan was a near flawless operation. Fewer than a thousand dead in over 4 years. That is historically astounding. As for Iraq, the intial invasion allowed for up to 10,000 US dead. We are well short of that. Could it be a better run op? Of course, all wars lend themselves to better decisions, in hindsight. Should we have more troops? Not really. More troops means more supplies. More supplies require more convoys. More Convoys means more targets for IED's. To stop that you need more troops........ So is this the right mix? I'd say most bases are secure. I can't go into detail but I can say Iraq is moving in the right direction. And the pace is increasing. That said, we won't be leaving Iraq anytime in the next 20 years.
Oh, I said Aspin was incompetant not Clinton. Most conservatives would agree that Clinton was good at what he did. They have a problem with what he didn't do. Like put missles on the Predator. Rumsfeld is doing a once in a century job.
Keep up the good work. I enjoy reading your thoughts. It beats PFT's
Post a Comment
<< Home