An angry Clinton on Fox

[Darth Rotor]

What about Bush? He threw a little pebble into the corn field, then forgot about it and threw a boulder in a field a couple of miles down the road.

He killed a bunch of gophers. We expect to hear on the Bush White House tape transcripts, between the 18 minute gaps and VP Cheney's ribaldry, the following words intoned by Pres GW Bush:

"In the words of Jean Paul Sartre, au revoir, gophair!"

DR

 

[NoZed Avenger]

And maybe it was the honest reaction of someone whom the Kool-Aid drinkers have blamed for the deaths of 3000 Americans for the last five years. Wallace's lead-in, that his viewer e-mails were making him ask the question, is the classic Fox "Some people say . . ." technique. That weasel phrase is a hallmark of the faux journalism which they have raised to something resembling an art form.

By the way, if you think Clinton's demeanor was "flying off the handle," you should spend the holidays with my in-laws.

I don't see Clinton losing his cool that easily -- and he would be well prepared for exactly that type of question, which is pretty easily dealt with:

"We did a lot. With the benefit of hindsight, we did not do enough. I think the Administrations under the former President Bush, the current one, and even Ronald Reagan would say the same. Reasonable decisions were made based on the information that we had at the time; later evidence showed that we could have done more -- but laying the blame for this on any adminstration prior to 9/11 is more of a political blame-game that a real criticism."

etc.

My opinion -- and I stated up front that it is only my opinion -- is that he intended to become aggressive and react that way for a calculated purpose.

 

[Tricky]

A little late, but here is FactCheck.org's analysis.

eta: They more or less back Clinton on most of his points.

They also state plainly (as opposed to "more or less") that Rice's response was false.

Good site, Funky. Thanks.

 

[Upchurch]

They also state plainly (as opposed to "more or less") that Rice's response was false.

Well, yes. There is that aspect to the article, too. I thought about cross-posting it in the "Rice refutes Clinton" thread (or whatever it was called), but I figure 90% of the article focused on what Clinton said.

 

[SkeptiKilt]

When will folks learn that "contradict" =/= "refute" ?