TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Holy God! Bubba just took Chris Wallace and Faux News to the clearners!
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo does this authority involve the tasking of our IA's, our DOD, and the DOJ?

Is that a rhetorical question? Are you stating that our Congress has such little authority to help shape and task our military and intelligence agencies in comparison to the Executive itself?

Uhh, and who exactly has the power to declare war again, just as a minor example?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Are you stating that our Congress has such little authority to help shape and task our military and intelligence agencies in comparison to the Executive itself?

in comparison to the Executive, yes. we are talking about the Executive branches aren't we?

quote:

Uhh, and who exactly has the power to declare war again, just as a minor example?

non sequitur.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Jesus, what you just described occurs in Baghdad in about 5 minutes flat, EVERY ONE OF THEM COMBINED.

you have a point. and Bush admits responsibility to that.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And what occurred in the 90's under Clinton AND the GOP Congress speaks volumes not just about Clinton but the Congress who fought him tooth and nail every step of the way. you're going to have to include the Congress that watered down and fought his efforts at all stops as well.

the "GOP" Congress backed Clinton on Afghanistan and even Yugoslavia.

Newsday, August 21, 1998:

quote:

Washington - Congressional leaders strongly supported President Bill Clinton's decision to strike targets in Sudan and Afghanistan yesterday, although a Republican senator raised questions about the timing and the motive of the attack. Some of Clinton's most consistent critics endorsed the decision to retaliate for the Aug. 7 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 200 people, including 12 Americans. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.Ca.), who had been alerted by the White House before the attack, praised the operation. "I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow terrorist groups to attack embassies and do nothing," Gingrich said. Lott called the action "appropriate and just." Helms struck a rare bipartisan chord: "Sooner or later, terrorists will realize that America's differences end at the water's edge and that the United States political leadership always has, and always will, stand united in the face of international terrorism." Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who has called for Clinton's resignation in light of his admission of an improper relationship with a White House intern, said the "timing is certainly suspect." "I believe, given the extraordinary situation we're now in, these are the questions that are on the minds of the American people," Coats said. "I'm raising questions . . . on what was the president's role on this, and whether the president was in a position to make a sound judgment call in light of the speculation that would arise worldwide and the consequences of that in calling for this strike . . . a day and a half after his speech," a reference to Monday's televised speech on the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who has been aggressively investigating Clinton's campaign-funding practices, took the opposite view. "I take the action for what it was - to stop the terrorists and to make them pay for what they did," Burton said. "And that was the right thing to do. That's coming from one of the president's severest critics."

Speaker Newt Gingrich, interviewed on CNN, August 28, 1998:

quote:

ALLEN: We are interrupting that story because we have now on the phone with us Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Speaker Gingrich, your reaction to the U.S. attacks today on Osama bin Laden's terrorist network. REP. NEWT GINGRICH (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do. We have not yet gotten assessments of the damage, but I hope that it's been very decisive. And I think it's very important that we send a signal to countries like Sudan and Afghanistan that if you house a terrorist, you become a target. And if you want to get rid of the target, you've got to get rid of the terrorist. ALLEN: So you say the right thing to do at the right time? Senator Arlen Specter said a moment ago he question the timing of this. GINGRICH: I think based on what I know, it was the right thing to do at the right time. And I think that it � I've been involved in briefings for the last two weeks, and I think it's been done in a methodical, professional way. And I strongly support the United States government having acted that way.

AP coverage, August 21, 1998:

quote:

Lawmakers from both parties rallied behind Clinton's decision. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., called it "the right thing to do." "We just had to do it, we just had to," said Rep. Ike Skelton, ranking Democrat on the House National Security Committee. "We're quite sure the attacks in Africa came from these two places, and we had to strike back." Clinton telephoned several congressional leaders before the strikes, including Gingrich and Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi. En route to Washington, Clinton again called congressional leaders as well as British Prime Minister Tony Blair, said White House press secretary Mike McCurry. In a confluence of dramatic moments, Clinton announced the U.S. bombings on the same day that former White House intern Monica Lewinsky testified for a second time to the grand jury investigating her relationship with Clinton. On Monday, Clinton had made a nationally televised admission of having had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinksy. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., suggested that Clinton may have acted precipitously in an attempt to "focus attention away from his own personal problems."

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo in comparison to the Executive, yes. we are talking about the Executive branches aren't we?

As Commander in Chief, of course I will concede that the President has perhaps greater powers over intelligence and military matters with as you point out the various branches that ultimately answer to him. I grant you that. However, that is NOT to take away Congressional oversight that should be taken in most instances and circumstances pertaining to both intelligence and military matters as they see fit.

The trouble with this current Congress is, however, that they're oversight is severely lacking and/or nonexistant, deliberately so. I'm digressing, and I must admit I'm forgetting what the larger point of this sidebar was in the first place.

quote:

non sequitur.

How so? The power to declare war is one of the biggest powers invested by our government, let alone the Legislative. It is a prime example of the power of Congress over our military, even over the Executive itself. How is that not relevant to my initial premise?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the "GOP" Congress backed Clinton on Afghanistan and even Yugoslavia. Newsday, August 21, 1998: Speaker Newt Gingrich, interviewed on CNN, August 28, 1998: AP coverage, August 21, 1998:

That really can lead us down to a pretty interesting path, considering how so many in Congress believed Clinton was wagging the dog or not having a post-war plan of any sort with Kosovo (the irony is so stinkin' thick it's like molasses). However I demonstrated earlier and in another thread how that GOP-led Congress watered down and hampered certain measures that Clinton was attempting to do, like his anti-terrorist Omnibus bill for example. Their actions of supposedly being on the same page or being so anti-terror is difficult to defend. But I do credit you for trying.......

geez. well heres the actual video

WMV

MOV

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 That really can lead us down to a pretty interesting path, considering how so many in Congress believed Clinton was wagging the dog or not having a post-war plan of any sort with Kosovo (the irony is so stinkin' thick it's like molasses). However I demonstrated earlier and in another thread how that GOP-led Congress watered down and hampered certain measures that Clinton was attempting to do, like his anti-terrorist Omnibus bill for example. Their actions of supposedly being on the same page or being so anti-terror is difficult to defend. But I do credit you for trying.......

look, i'm not defending Congress or anybody for that matter. what i'm pointing out is that your hiding behind a one seat Senate majority isn't helping Clinton's argument. even Clinton isn't trying to make that argument. he knows better.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 What kind of REALLY hardball cornering questions were they asked by Wallace or Snow?

this question stuck with me and i found something fairly interesting.

Here is what Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:

quote:

I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it�s more than an individual manhunt. I mean � what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that? . . . . What do you make of his [Richard Clarke�s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda? . . . Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo this question stuck with me and i found something fairly interesting. Here is what Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:

Yeah, sure. He probably told him 3 days ahead of time he'd ask him that question. It's all a set up I tell ya!



Alright, fair enough. I think in the larger context of things and viewing of this Administration, wouldn't you agree that Rummy has probably been the biggest punching bag (and perhaps rightfully so) out of the entire bunch? To be fair, Fox did have some folks go after him after Abu Ghraib (O'Reilly comes to mind), so I have to concede that point, even though we're talking al Qaeda stuff here.

Well let's not forget the comprehensive list of guests in which no such questions were asked:

Summary: During his interview with former President Bill Clinton on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Clinton why he failed to "do more" during his presidency to put Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden "out of business," a question, Clinton said, Fox News "do[esn't] ask the other side." Wallace denied the charge, responding, "That is not true."

In a taped interview with former President Bill Clinton that aired on the September 24 edition of Fox News Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Clinton why he failed to "do more" during his presidency to put Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden "out of business." Clinton responded with a vigorous defense of his administration's anti-terrorism policies, noting that he instituted a "comprehensive anti-terror strategy" during his tenure in the White House and that many conservatives had accused him at the time of being "too obsessed with finding bin Laden." He then told Wallace: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you've asked this question of. ... Tell the truth." Wallace replied, "Have you ever watched Fox News Sunday, sir? ... We ask plenty of questions." Clinton later stated, "[Y]ou people ask me questions you don't ask the other side," to which Wallace responded, "That is not true." In fact, in dozens of interviews over the past five years with senior Bush aides, Wallace and former host Tony Snow have repeatedly failed to ask pressing questions regarding the Bush administration's efforts to pursue Al Qaeda in the eight months prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- and in the years since.

Here is a list of senior Bush administration officials interviewed on Fox News Sunday since September 11, 2001. (White House press secretary Tony Snow previously hosted the program. Wallace succeeded him in December 2003.):

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; 9/10/06
National Security adviser Stephen Hadley; 8/6/06
Rice; 7/16/06
Rice; 6/4/06
Rice; 5/21/06
Rice; 3/26/06
Rice; 12/18/05
Hadley; 12/4/05
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld; 11/20/05
Rice; 10/16/05
Rumsfeld; 6/26/05
Rice; 6/19/05
Hadley; 5/15/05
Then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card; 5/1/05
Rumsfeld; 3/20/05
Hadley; 3/13/05
Vice President Dick Cheney; 2/6/05
Rice; 1/30/05
Rice (then-National Security adviser); 10/10/04
Rice; 6/27/04
Rice; 6/6/04
Rice; 4/18/04
Rumsfeld; 3/28/04
Card; 12/7/03
Rumsfeld; 11/2/03
Rice; 9/28/03
Rice; 9/7/03
Rice; 7/13/03
Rumsfeld; 5/4/03
Rumsfeld; 3/30/03
Rice; 2/16/03
Card; 1/26/03
Rumsfeld; 1/19/03
Rice; 11/10/02
Rice; 9/15/02
Card; 6/9/02
Rice; 5/26/02
Cheney; 5/19/02
Rice; 5/5/02
Card; 4/14/02
Rice; 2/3/02
Cheney; 1/27/02
Rumsfeld; 11/11/01

In the March 28, 2004, interview with Rumsfeld, Wallace did press him on whether the Department of Defense should have "been thinking more about" terrorism prior to 9-11 and asked him to respond to the "basic charge that, pre-9-11 ... this government, the Bush administration, largely ignored the threat from Al Qaeda." Referring to Rumsfeld's testimony before the 9-11 Commission regarding the Defense Department's anti-terrorism efforts, Wallace remarked, "[I]t sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority."

But beyond this exchange, the Fox News Sunday interviews listed above have almost entirely ignored several key questions regarding the Bush administration's efforts to pursue bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Linke to video of the interview btw: http://mediamatters.org/static/vide...924-clinton.mov

Personally I'm a fan of Wallace trying to ambush him and biting off quite a bit more than he could chew. "Umm well do you want to talk about your environmental initiative now?" Please, fucking man up and come prepared if you want to start shit. I enjoyed the comment about Wallace's stupid smirk. And when push came to shove Wallace let Clinton walk all over him with that remark. I mean come on, grow a pair.

Dammit why am I here. I'm on vacation in Grand Cayman now and I should be going to bed so I can dive tomorrow ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Personally I'm a fan of Wallace trying to ambush him and biting off quite a bit more than he could chew. "Umm well do you want to talk about your environmental initiative now?"

That was pretty damn funny.

quote:

Dammit why am I here. I'm on vacation in Grand Cayman now and I should be going to bed so I can dive tomorrow ...

Oh sure, rub that shit in a little deeper as to your wherabouts. You bastard.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Oh sure, rub that shit in a little deeper as to your wherabouts. You bastard.

It's midnight but I think I'll take a stroll along the beach and bask in the starry moonlight whilst enjoying the sounds of the crashing waves against the beach .

Well, I caught part of the interview last night and it was certainly pretty intense. However, let's look at Wallace's comments--there was a format in place that got thrown out the window the minute he opened the door to possible criticism of the Clinton Administration. Sounds more like Bubba being Bubba to me.

quote:

Wallace: "I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me. " wallaceclinton2.jpg Following today's buzz generating conversation with Bill Clinton, Chris Wallace shared some of his post-interview thoughts with FishbowlDC: I was delighted to get the chance to interview former President Clinton. This was the first one-on-one sitdown he's ever given "Fox News Sunday" during our 10 years on the air. The groundrules were simple--15 minutes--to be divided evenly between questions about the Clinton Global Initiative and anything else I wanted to ask. I intended to keep to the groundrules. In fact--I prepared 10 questions--5 on the CGI and 5 on other issues. I began the interview with 2 questions about Mr. Clinton's commitment to humanitarian causes. His answers were cogent and good-humored. Then--I asked him about his Administration's record in fighting terror--fully intending to come back to CGI later (as indeed I did). I asked what I thought was a non-confrontational question about whether he could have done more to "connect the dots and really go after al Qaeda." I was utterly surprised by the tidal wave of details--emotion--and political attacks that followed. The President was clearly stung by any suggestion that he had not done everything he could to get bin Laden. He attacked right-wingers--accused me of a "conservative hit job"--and even spun a theory I still don't understand that somehow Fox was trying to cover up the fact that NewsCorp. chief Rupert Murdoch was supporting his Global Initiative. I still have no idea what set him off. Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward--wagging his finger in my face--and then poking the notes I was holding--I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me. The President said I had a smirk. Actually--it was sheer wonder at what I was witnessing. I tried repeatedly to adhere to the ground rules--to move the President along--and back to the CGI. But he wanted to keep talking about his record fighting terror. When it became clear he wanted to throw out the ground rules--then I just went with the flow of the interview.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Dammit why am I here. I'm on vacation in Grand Cayman now and I should be going to bed so I can dive tomorrow ...

dude, get the f**k outa here. i'm sure there is a bar on the beach within stumbling distance.

Now that this is all over talk radio, I think it's safe to say that this hurt Clinton's image Considerably. No one is going to take him seriously if he gets defensive on a question he hasn't truely been confronted about on national television.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Well, I caught part of the interview last night and it was certainly pretty intense. However, let's look at Wallace's comments--there was a format in place that got thrown out the window the minute he opened the door to possible criticism of the Clinton Administration. Sounds more like Bubba being Bubba to me.

This doesn't dispute Clinton's assertation that Fox news has consistently avoided asking Bush administration officials this hard ball question when it's clearly much more pertinent of a question to officials of the Bush administration in the present than it is to ask of Clinton in hindsight. I really don't buy Wallace's explanation. He asked a question challenging Clinton's job in office, and when the answer didn't go as he expected Clinton went 'overboard'. Come on, Wallace challenged Clinton's first and second responses ... why would he do so if he wanted to steer the discussion back to the environment or if he felt Clinton's responses went overboard? Please, Wallace asked a question and, like the guy or not, Clinton soundly answered it. I guess I can understand how foreign of a concept this is to Bush administration supporters ...

quote:

dude, get the f**k outa here. i'm sure there is a bar on the beach within stumbling distance.

I'm on Cayman. It's great for diving but crappy for drinking/partying. Everyone here is an upper class geriatric patient. It's too expensive for young people (unless you're coming here explicitly for the diving) and the geriatrics didn't bring their daughters . If there was a place I could drink at I would be there.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I'm on Cayman. It's great for diving but crappy for drinking/partying. Everyone here is an upper class geriatric patient. It's too expensive for young people (unless you're coming here explicitly for the diving) and the geriatrics didn't bring their daughters . If there was a place I could drink at I would be there.

Cue the violins, please. Im seriously weeping over your misery, you bastard!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider This doesn't dispute Clinton's assertation that Fox news has consistently avoided asking Bush administration officials this hard ball question when it's clearly much more pertinent of a question to officials of the Bush administration in the present than it is to ask of Clinton in hindsight. I really don't buy Wallace's explanation. He asked a question challenging Clinton's job in office, and when the answer didn't go as he expected Clinton went 'overboard'. Come on, Wallace challenged Clinton's first and second responses ... why would he do so if he wanted to steer the discussion back to the environment or if he felt Clinton's responses went overboard? Please, Wallace asked a question and, like the guy or not, Clinton soundly answered it. I guess I can understand how foreign of a concept this is to Bush administration supporters ...

I was linked to a www.freerepublic.com archived thread earlier, which happened to be posts about how Clinton was "Wagging the Dog" by bombing Afghanistan in 1998 to distract from Monica. Oh how the enemies are the same, but attacks have completely reversed in 8 years.

Anyhow, I decided to check out what's new. You should see what those morons have to say about this... I wish at least a few could sound somewhat educated like Q5, but you wouldn't be so lucky. They take blind partisanship to a new level.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.