Bill Clinton Takes On Fox News

I think the dark skinned ones should be made to spell Pachycephalosaurus, recite the Preamble to the constitution and the Gettysburg address, and have 5 pieces of picture ID.

Osama Bin Missing: Who's Tried Hardest to Tackle Top Terrorist?
Clinton interview on Fox News leads to spitting match over which President did most to bring Bin Laden down.
October 3, 2006

Summary

In an extraordinary interview with Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace on Sept. 24, former President Bill Clinton took on critics who have questioned why he didn't do more during his time in the White House to eliminate Osama bin Laden. Wallace raised the question because, he said, viewers had demanded that he do so, and Clinton let loose. His responses were a mix of assertions about what his Administration did to rid the world of bin Laden and blasts at conservatives who have criticized his efforts as insufficient. He took a few shots at his host in the process.

Since Wallace's interview, we've received a number of e-mails requesting that we look at Clinton's claims and those of some who have responded to him. We find Clinton's specific factual assertions to be mostly correct, though we neither endorse nor dispute his statements of opinion. It is true for example that Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden, and probably missed him only by hours with a cruise-missile barrage in 1998. But we can't judge whether that means Clinton came "closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since," given the Bush administration's near-miss at Tora Bora, Afghanistan in 2001, and the possibility that there have been other, still-classified attempts.

We'll leave it to our readers to judge the accuracy of Clinton's statements that Wallace wore "a little smirk" during the interview, or whether the ABC movie "The Path to 9/11" was the product of a "right-wing conservative."

Analysis

Clinton appeared more than ready to take on his critics. (Transcript available here.) We'll take his statements in order, comparing what he said to the factual record laid out in the final report of The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (The 9/11 Commission), and other specified sources.

Also, Clinton himself said "Mr. Bin Laden used to live in Sudan ... And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America." And remember Clinton shooting off a token missile or missiles into an aspirin factory close to the time of his grand jury testimony?

[Damned if he does, damned if he doesnt, isnt he, in your world?

I admit I read over it quickly but FactCheck.org gave Clinton way too much credit although they mention he might have been wrong now and then. I read over it quickly but FactCheck should have mentioned all we need to know by telling of Clinton pardoning dangerous terrorists just before leaving office. Then remember Berger stuffing classified documents in his pants preparing for the 911 Commission. Also, Clinton himself said "Mr. Bin Laden used to live in Sudan ... And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America." And remember Clinton shooting off a token missile or missiles into an aspirin factory close to the time of his grand jury testimony?

So people, face the obvious, Clinton could not have cared less about terrorists unless focus group polling said he should, and there was not much pressure to make any waves about it while he was in office, so he did essentially nothing, and in fact pardoned some. Clinton knew this and that is why Wallace got under his skin, or possibly it was all a show he put on to fake his passion about it. I don't know which because the man is a fraud, he had biting his lip down to an art. Remember the laughing that went into instant sorrow at the Ron Brown funeral when he realized the camera was on him?

I guess what America really needs is a FactCheckAccordingToOkie.org and then we'd actually have the facts

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I guess what America really needs is a FactCheckAccordingToOkie.org and then we'd actually have the facts

Are any of the points I used in my reasoning not facts? To repeat:

1. - Clinton pardoned terrorists just before leaving office.

2. - Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, was caught stuffing classified documents into his pants in preparation for testifying before the 911 Commission.

3. - Clinton said in his own words in regard to the availability of Osama Bin Laden in Sudan: "Mr. Bin Laden used to live in Sudan ... And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

4. - A missile or missiles were fired into an aspirin factory very close to the time that Clinton testified before the Grand Jury.

As cjhsa pointed out, common sense comes into play. In regard to point #1, it indicates Clinton did not regard terrrorists as very dangerous. In regard to point #2, it indicates the Clinton administration may have had things to hide from the 911 Commission. In regard to #3, it indicates Sudan likely would have handed over Osama Bin Laden to Clinton if Clinton would have accepted him. And #4, we know Clinton did almost everything by focus grouping, and he knew he needed a bump in his image about the time of his lying before the grand jury, so he gave the go ahead to fire the missiles. If the grand jury had not occurred, his previous behavior indicates he likely would not have fired the missiles. Call it wag the dog, whatever, but its a plain common sense evaluation of a twisted personality.

Only the above points are sufficient to come to a conclusion, but obviously the common sense conclusion is based on all events and news, as monitored for 8 years, by okie ,

which includes far more history than FactCheck.org includes in their little summary.

They attempt to put their best foot forward to overcome their own bias, but they come up short. Even with their bias, they admit Clinton was either wrong or very questionable on some points in the interview with Wallace.