Replay of Clinton Interview on FOX On NOW!

[Doctor Raoul]

Quick, it's only 15 minutes long.

[Howlin]

You obviously missed my point; that's what HE thinks, not what WE think.

And even at that, he can't live with that.

[onyx]

In fact, he was caught so flat footed that he kept trying to interrupt Wallace to stop him from completing the question!

[PeskyOne]

Sometimes I question whether he has a soul, but I guess the question should be does he have a conscience, because it appears he has no conscience or sense of right or wrong.

He made many stupid comments during the interview, but I questioned the accuracy of this one: "And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough said I did too much — same people.

I don't remember hearing any Republicans accuse him of being "obsessed with bin Laden", rather they thought he neglected his duties because he was "obsessed with Monica Lewinsky". I think it's a baldfaced lie when he says the Bush Administration had no meetings on bin Laden for 9 months after he left office. In the first place 9/11 happened 8 months after he left office, so I'm sure there were discussions immediately after the attack. Furthermore, how in the heck does Clinton know what was going on in the Bush Administration? I think most of us thought Bush should have gotten rid of all the Clintonites, and this interview just solidifies that opinion.

[small voice in the wilderness]

I'm not buying it either. If he had planned this, his answers would have been more coherant. This clearly was a man not in control of his thoughts, arguments, or logic. Everyone is so used to clinton being *slick* that they cannot believe he is capable of losing it. He lost it. That wasn't an act.

[Howlin]

Mara looked genuinely perplexed, didn't she?

And of all of the panel today, she made the two best replies: the "why?" question, and the point about EVERYBODY thinking that Saddam had WMD.

It was quite honest of her.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Makes one wonder if he has always had the questions ahead of time.

[A Citizen Reporter]

No, Brian Kilmead did ask a similar question. Right after 9-11 when clinton was trying to hold court on the streets of NY. Kilmeade asked him if he felt responsible.

However, it wasn't a pre-set interview, the way this was, and he didn't go as ballistic.

The real set-up for this tantrum was "The Path to 9-11". That really got him, because he thought he controlled the entertainment media. But even when he had the RAT senators threaten ABC's license, he realized he doesn't control the media anymore.

That really upset his balance.

[Arizona Carolyn]

If he's basing that hypothesis on Clark... well, Clark was demoted and not privy to all the meetings.. at least that's what he indicated in his book and the interviews he gave to sell the book.

[Howlin]

I think you're right about that; he's going to have to refute the people who now refute them.

Remember, this is a man who, in a room of 1000 people, goes insane if ONE of them doesn't agree with him and spends all his time smoozing that person.

Clinton's problem is that people like me can refute him word for word. If I had been Chris Wallace, when he started ranting about the NEOCONS who demanded he take the troops out of Somalia, my next question would have been "Who?" but Wallace didn't pick up on that.

And I would have pointed out that Clarke was NOT fired.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Yes, it was a refreshing change. Brit seemed more reserved than usual.

[Howlin]

I think he thought he had "controlled" the 9/11 Commission and its report; I mean, LOOK at the people on there! And here was ABC contridicting him.

I'm thinking he thought he had put the nail in that coffin and now people are dregging up old facts that don't play well with that report!

[SoldierDad]

Gotcha.

[small voice in the wilderness]

We would probably be shocked(not really)if we knew the behind the scenes with clinton and the MSM.

[khnyny]

I can't watch anymore of Clinton. I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but Clinton has the ability to make me want to turn away from anything to do with politics. What a liar.

[Howlin]

rather they thought he neglected his duties because he was "obsessed with Monica Lewinsky".

Ding! Ding! See, he's trying to REWRITE history by characterizing that as "saying I didn't do enough," when what they were saying is "Why is he bombing all these places on pivotal days in this investigation."

BTW, Jamie Gorelick said today that Trent Lott was one of the ones who said Clinton was OBSESSED with bin Laden. I'm calling Lott's office tomorrow for a reply to that.

And whatever makes you think he doesn't have a soul?

FYI, that picture was taken as he was leaving the Paula Jones deposition, where he had spent the afternoon lying, thinking once again that he and his attorneys had locked down all the pesky bimbos.

Smug as chit, isn't he?

[A Citizen Reporter]

Oh absolutely, the 9-11 Commission was obviously supposed to snap-to his agenda, and no one must ever vary from the 9-11 commission report.

I must say I had to LOL at the clinton vision of the "old philanthropy" You know, those days when "the rich" just donated to "libraries".

Now, according to bubba, you just aren't ANYBODY, unless you 'donate' to one of HIS causes. HAHAHAHA!

[onyx]

Yep -- sure is and he has the haughty look of a VICTIM who has been grieviously wronged.
.

[nicollo]

Clintoon relying on Clarke? Happy retirement Dickie C. Your legacy is now secure.

Can you say, "Mon-i-ca"?

[Howlin]

Here is something I posted earlier today in response to this train wreck:

"I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack search for Bin Laden."

I wonder how long it will be before somebody comes forward to refute that little nugget; because, needless to say, it's an out and out lie.

"All of President Bush's neocons that said I was too obsessed with Bin Laden;

I'm still waiting for NAMES, Bill; who were there.

Or is it like technomage posted just a bit ago:

After watching the rant, oops, interview, Clinton slipped up. He showed his cards by uttering three little words: wag the dog. It was like a light bulb going off in my head. Now it made sense. Clinton is once again 'mixing' historical events to conform to what he wants the world to remember. Conservatives did use the wag the dog reference numerous times, not in reference to bin Laden, but in reference to Clinton's massive bombardment of Serbia, which had absolutely nothing to do with bin Laden.

Actually, it was Serbia AND Sudan that people were calling "Wag the Dog" because he ONLY used them when he was in political trouble."

they had no meetings on Bin Laden for nine months after I left office," Clinton said, that is, not until after 9/11.

Excerpts from the August 2002 press briefing by Richard A. Clarke:

RICHARD CLARKE: There was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration ... In January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. [They] decided to ... vigorously pursue the existing policy [and] ... initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years.
In their first meeting [the principles] changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding [for covert action against al Qaeda] five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance. [They] then changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaeda ... to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda.
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against ... the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with [the] terrorism issue ... There was never a plan [in the Clinton administration].
QUESTION: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?
CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. In the spring [of 2001], the Bush administration ... began to change Pakistani policy. We began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis ... [to] join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.
QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration ... prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way?
CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points ... to think about it. And they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.
QUESTION: You're saying ... there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?
CLARKE: You got it ...The other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the [policy] from one of rollback to one of elimination.

[Howlin]

It's that a hoot? There for a second, I thought Clinton was channeling Dick Clarke!