September 24, 2006

Clinton on Fox

I just watched a replay of the much talked about Clinton interview on Fox News. Liberals are crying, "set up," while conservatives rally around Clinton's loss of control.

What a bunch of bunk.

This interview was just a regular interview like any other. No set up, no out of control ex-President. Clinton got angry, yes, but answered the questions put to him well. All of the talk centers around the questions put to former President Clinton about his efforts to kill Bin Laden and dismantle Al Qaeda. For those who are not up to speed, Clinton was promised that half of the interview would be spent on his efforts to combat global warming. The Al Qaeda question skewed the amount of time devoted to that issue, but the fact of the matter is that Clinton was responsible for the time lost due to the length and passionate nature of his answer.

I don't have a problem with that. Clinton accused the interviewer and Fox News in general of setting him up, and I think that was an irresponsible thing to say. That didn't stop him from answering the question in detail.

Maybe Chris Wallace should have asked that question first, but he didn't ask it that far into the interview, nor did he require Clinton to first outline how Republicans did things wrong before answering how he handled his role in facing Al Qaeda during his Presidency. I would agree with the setup talk if he had asked it last, but that didn't happen. The question itself was in no way irresponsible. It's the same question Bush and his administration has been asked every day for the past 5 and a half years, only without the accusations of torture and stupidity.

All in all, the interview was informative and interesting. My advice to anyone reading is not to form a judgment unless you've seen it, and even then to be careful to look deeper than the surface.

Nothing to see here, folks.

Posted by Andy at September 24, 2006 10:34 PM to the Politics category

I guess the question begs, how many attacks (resulting in the deaths of American civilians or soliders) on American interests occured while he was in office that went without reprisals?

Did leaving such challenges unanswered embolden the enemy into believing our resolve was weak and lead them to believe they could pull off a larger scale attack without consequences?

Posted by: Mei at September 26, 2006 04:31 PM

... but what does that question actually accomplish? Clinton has been out of office for 6 years now. Is there value in this question beyond the immediate political one (i.e. putting the hurt to Bill indirectly puts the hurt to Hillary)?

I sure as heck know that we're not going to change anything that he did or did not do regardless of how he answers.

Posted by: Andy at September 26, 2006 08:29 PM

Okay, it's a given the whole conversation does not change the way things are. I think what people get a kick out of is seeing the jovial ex-pres get angry, defensive, and all "vast right-wing conspiracy" on tv.

Posted by: Mei at September 27, 2006 08:23 PM

I think you're right. I think there might be more though, like built up anger put to a destructive purpose. I think we agree that Clinton went a bit over the edge in this one, but if you think about it, his reaction is not that different than the reaction we're talking about from the aftermath.

The trouble is that making this entire issue a big news point does nothing but inflame Democrats against Republicans and Republicans against Democrats. Both sides will then rant about how the other is totally unreasonable and full of hate. Who wins? Nobody, and definitely not moderates or voters in general.

Posted by: Andy at September 27, 2006 09:36 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?