Excellent point. I think therein lies the reason, or some of the reason why Clinton flew into such a rage. There are a whole host of questions, that if asked, will pull the rug out from under the horrible house of cards that is the so-called Clinton legacy. Deep in his core, Clinton knows this. Blowing up at Chris Wallace was his attempt to keep the heat off.
"SLIMY AFFAIR" . . . That is a perfect description of the "Sandy Berger Affair", and the biggest question that has never been seriously asked by anyone in a position to do anything about it is WHY did he do it? So many of the corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle are too absorbed in trying to cover each others' personal political tails to care much about the truth. Democrat Presidents become their sacred cows, and Clinton is no exception. They are determined that the Republicans will not be allowed to make Clinton what the Democrats made Nixon in history. (In truth, Nixon was a choir boy compared to Clinton.) Of course, with Republicans that's easy. Sparing each other "embarrassment" is the hallmark of the Republican gentlemen in the Senate particularly. Does anyone seriously think for a second that the Democrats would not have rode a Republican President out on a rail and tarred and feathered him for much less? Ironically, a young Hillary Clinton was the biggest (though less powerful at that time) rabble rouser of the entire bunch against Nixon.
No wonder terrorist leaders look at us and laugh, thinking we are all like the corrupt leaders of this country.
the Sandy Berger question
What did he take and what did he put back???
I think the republican leadership is waiting for the democrats to start asking the Sandy Berger question. LOL
http://www.cafenetamerica.com
Then they move on to the Clinton melt down.
See the Chris Wallace preview Coming Up on FOX News Sunday for all of the pre-show skinny. Here's the portion on their review of last weeks interview:
Then we will speak to a trio of terrorism experts to discuss President Clinton’s assertions during his FOX News Sunday interview last week, in which he argued that he "got closer to killing" Usama bin Laden than the Bush administration has.
How close did the Clinton administration come to killing the al Qaeda leader, what was the extent of his administration’s military planning for Afghanistan, and what was done to bring down the "wall" between the FBI and CIA during the 1990s? Additionally, did the Bush administration do everything it could have done to address the threat from al Qaeda during its first eight months in office? We will debate the facts with a member of the Clinton National Security Council, Daniel Benjamin, former head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer, and Lawrence Wright, acclaimed author of the new book "The Looming Tower."
This sounds very promising. I think it may be so promising that the Dhimmicrats decided to use their biggest weapon against the Republicans, the Foley matter, which I'm betting they were saving for only a week or two out from the election. They seem a bit desperate to push this Foley story out to drown out everything else and all of a sudden don't want to talk about Clinton anymore. They also have way too much material prepared on the Foley matter to not have known about it for quite some time.
Foley's guilty. Everything else about this affair is a distraction.
Pay attention to what goes on on Fox today.
We may never know for certain, but I've always felt Burglar replaced original documents with forgeries trying to make Clinton look better in the eyes of the 9/11 committee. Wonder what Clinton held over his head to get him to commit a crime that "could" (should) have sent him to prision for a long time?