The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Clinton gets even, heated with Fox

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Emily Friedman:

Tenure at paper teaches, changes (May 10, 2007)
Straight or gay, hire either way (May 3, 2007)
Tragedy provides opportunity to re-evaluate nation's violent culture (April 19, 2007)
Anti-abortion methods go too far (March 29, 2007)
'Don't ask, don't tell' hypocritical (March 15, 2007)

by Emily Friedman

Thursday, September 28, 2006

In yet another attempt to appear as a fair and balanced news source, Fox News has struck gold — and out — with their first-ever one-on-one interview with former President Bill Clinton.

If you haven't already seen it, you are not only possibly one of the few Internet users who hasn't helped make the video clip a top download in the last week, but you are also missing out. Big time.

The Fox News Channel Sunday interview with Chris Wallace was originally scheduled as a 15-minute segment that was agreed on by both parties. Half the time was to be spent discussing the Clinton Global Initiative, for which Clinton helped raise $7 billion for developing countries, and half the time on "anything else we wanted to talk about," according to Wallace's preamble. Needless to say, the guidelines were seemingly thrown out the window, and so ensued a war of words that has conservatives and liberals alike struggling to come out on top, or at least have the last word.

Conservatives have argued that Clinton lost his temper when he was questioned about his efforts to capture and kill Osama bin Laden. In a noteworthy phrase that is sure to live on in history, Clinton fired back, claiming that he did more about bin Laden than George W. Bush has done since the attacks of Sept. 11. Clinton added that while the former president was "ridiculed" for paying so much attention to bin Laden, Bush sat on a comprehensive package about the threats of bin Laden and his cohorts during the start of his first presidential term, arguably leaving the United States vulnerable to terrorists. Right-wing supporters have pegged Clinton's reaction as a temper tantrum and a foreshadowing of what another Clinton White House would be like, and have kept a close — and critical — eye on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's reaction to the situation.

Liberals, including party-favorite Howard Dean, have applauded Clinton's public outrage and see the incident as a big step forward to crushing propaganda against the Democratic Party. Wallace, they argue, was accusatory and didn't abide by the rules set forth for the interview. More important, though, has been the Bush administration's reaction, or lack thereof, to the entire fiasco.

Whereas Bush himself declined to comment on the Wallace-Clinton debacle during a recent press conference, his wingman, or woman, so to speak, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, took the bull by the horns and addressed Clinton's claims head on.

In an interview with the New York Post, Rice claimed that not only was she never given information about terrorism from the Clinton administration (a fact that is contradicted by the 9/11 Commission Report, but who's counting, anyway), but she also doubted Clinton's dedication to the bin Laden saga, and, predictably, defended Bush relentlessly.

It's time to cut to the chase, though, and recognize this interview for what it is: a liberal politician finally standing up for himself, his party, and his actions and sticking it to the man (in this case Chris Wallace and the Fox News team). Finally.

Perhaps Clinton got heated, yes, but why not? Having someone question your actions throughout your eight years of presidency is sure to hit a nerve, and rightly so. Who would like being lambasted by a right-wing crony eager to get attention from his viewers for a controversial interview?

Even more unfair, though, is how critical conservatives have been of his wife, Sen. Clinton. It seems more than a little unfair to criticize her for doing what any wife would do for husband, let alone a wife who is a public figure. The statement that is up for debate is nothing more than a supportive claim by Sen. Clinton concerning the interview: "…My husband did a great job in demonstrating that Democrats are not going to take these attacks."

If conservatives are going to insist on shifting the focus of the interview away from Clinton's warranted plea of self-defense, then so be it. If focusing on Sen. Clinton's reaction predicates that terrorism will now be an important issue up for debate during the 2008 presidential campaign, then so be it. This argument, like the one Clinton had with Wallace, will only be another lost amidst the conservative finger-pointing, and will only serve to further fuel the liberal agenda to steer voters away from a conservative president who threatens to follow in Bush's footsteps.

The Nation's John Nichols said it best in his blog when he wrote, "Love Bill Clinton or hate him, but understand that his appearance on Fox New Sunday was one of those rare moments in recent American history when a target of our drive-by media shot back."

So, Wallace, how does it feel?

Emily Friedman (efriedman@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in journalism and legal studies.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (September 28, 2006 @ 8:12am):

Hilarious, Emily. The only flaw in your fantasy is that the American people know the truth about what Clinton did and did not do in his presidency. The problem with the Democrat's position on the war and terrorism is not that they aren't angry enough-- the problem is that they are wrong.

Anonymous (September 28, 2006 @ 10:56am):

Bush is God. Democrats are evil. End of story.

Anonymous (September 28, 2006 @ 11:48am):

My comments on your article:

1. "the guidelines were seemingly thrown out the window" ...not true. Wallace told the Clinton staff the questions would be mixed together throughout the interview. And he did try to get President Clinton back to the Global Initiative topic.

2. "a liberal politician finally standing up for himself" ...I'll agree with that. I'm not a liberal, but your policians and party need to stand up for thier actions and beliefs with more gusto.

3. "question your actions throughout your eight years" ...that's silly. The whole purpose of the media, including yourself, is to question the actions/words of others.

4. "lambasted by a right-wing crony" ...while Wallace may be on FOX, he is not a right-wing crony nor was Clinton lambasted (to attack verbally). Really now, did Wallace verbally attack President Clinton? No...

5. "will only serve to further fuel the liberal agenda" ...I'm not too sure about that idea. Many viewers were a bit shocked by President Clinton's behavior, although he certainly deserves the right to defend his position.

I appreciate your furvor on this topic, but your editorial should be more indepth and less reactionary in my opinion. Thanks...

Anonymous (September 28, 2006 @ 11:57am):

This is the first time I read your column and i completely agree with you. It is totally unfair the neoconservatives keep harping on Clinton's fault and trying to make us to beleive that his 8 years have accomplished nothing and it is also his fault that caused the 9/11. the sad thing is their attack mode is as good as it gets, and the democratics are no match to it, case in point, look at John Kerry. Yes, Clinton has every right to be angry. Of course, Fox is out to nail him. good for you, President Clinton, show them how to fight and get to the essence of things.

Anonymous (September 28, 2006 @ 12:00pm):

Interesting editorial. Unfortunately, what is also missing is a little background for parts of that interview. In Fox interview, Mr. Clinton did say that he came closer than GWB ever got to killing Osama bin Laden. On SEVERAL occasions, it was known exactly when Osama was going to be someplace. Osama was still alive after GWB took over as President. That should tell you something. Bin Laden was a known threat towards the end of the Clinton administration. There was opportunity to take him out. Bill Clinton says that he wanted Osama dead. Why did that not happen?

If you look at Bill Clinton's mannerisms during both this interview and when he was answering press questions about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, his mannerisms are the same.

Research what Bill Clinton said in his interview and compare and contrast it with the 9/11 report. Did you watch the ABC movie? It was based on the bipartisan 9/11 report. I remember the attacks against the US by terrorists during the 90's. We had a lot of them. Our military response... we bombed a suspected terrorist base ONCE. With ONE missile.

It is not uncommon for the US military to "wargame" various scenarios. I highly doubt that a comprehensive anti-terror plan was left for GWB. There is ample evidence in the 9/11 commission report that refutes Mr. Clinton's claim that such a report was ever done. It was simply not done.

The only reason OBL is still alive today is that he went into hiding in areas that are friendly to him after the 9/11 attack. He stays undetected because he practices good operational security. The Al Qaeda tapes are hand delivered, not emailed or beamed to Al Jazeera by a satellite truck.

There are some facts in this, and some personal opinion in this response based on fact. It should be pretty clear which is which.

Anonymous (September 28, 2006 @ 12:46pm):

Clinton was living in a pre-9/11 world with pre-9/11 thought. According to the pre-9/11 mentality, Clinton cannont be held responsible at all, since we only "woke up" to our new reality 5 years ago.

Bush also cannot be held responsible for anything that happened before 9/11.

Score: Clinton 0, Bush 0

Bush, however, flushed worldwide support for the "war on terror" with is detour into Iraqi quicksand. Clinton's war in the Balkans is long since ended, in contrast.

Score: Clinton 1, Bush -1

Anonymous (September 28, 2006 @ 2:44pm):

Are we forgetting the drive-by media's finger pointing of the Bush Administration for NOT responding in like fashion to liberal's many past critical, and often untrue, attacks on conservatives and their actions? How could this happen if ONLY liberals are the ones always being picked on?
I see Liberals as Reactionists and Conservatives as Responders on issue that need addressing. To do the former is immature, whether in parenting children or parenting a nation. To do the latter is the MATURE response! I also believe that Americans are smart enough to know the difference when they see it!

Anonymous (September 28, 2006 @ 2:47pm):

The glassy-eyed Clinton cultists are insisting their idol's on-air breakdown during a "Fox News Sunday" interview with Chris Wallace was a calculated performance, which is a bit like describing Hurricane Katrina as a "planned demolition." Like an Osama tape, they claim he was sending a signal to Democrats to show them how to treat Republicans. Listen up, Democrats: Let's energize the undecideds by throwing a hissy fit on national television!

The Clintonian plan for action apparently entails inventing lunatic conspiracy theories, telling lots of lies, shouting, sneering, interrupting and telling your interlocutor, "(Y)ou've got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever" -- all for asking a simple question. To wit: "Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and al-Qaida out of business when you were president?" The only thing Clinton forgot to say to Wallace was, "You'd better put some ice on that."

Let me be the first to welcome Chris Wallace to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy! If the son of Mike Wallace is a member, can Chelsea be far behind?

According to Wallace, Clinton's aide, Jay Carson, demanded that the interview be stopped a few minutes into Clinton's tantrum -- just before the part where he threw the lamp at Wallace. The last time Clinton got that red in the face, the encounter ended with a stained dress. Even Muslims thought Clinton overreacted. But the Clinton Kool-Aid drinkers tell us this was a masterfully planned set-piece by their leader.

Clinton shouted so many lies during his televised meltdown, only the World Wide Web can capture them all. These are just a few.

Clinton yelled at Wallace: "What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since."

This is so crazy it's worthy of an Air America caller. Clinton has consistently misrepresented the presidential directive about political assassinations. Clinton did not order bin Laden assassinated. He did not even lift the ban on intelligence agencies attempting to assassinate bin Laden.

What he did was lift the ban on political assassinations -- provided that assassinating bin Laden was not the purpose of the mission. So if U.S. forces were engaged in an operation to capture bin Laden, but accidentally killed him, they would not be court-martialed.

Clinton said, "All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough said I did too much -- same people." As proof, he cites his humiliating withdrawal from Somalia, claiming, "They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in 'Black Hawk down,' and I refused to do it."

He added, as if it mattered, "There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with 'Black Hawk down.'"

In fact, what Republicans objected to was Clinton's transforming a U.N. mission in Somalia to prevent mass starvation into a much grander "nation building" exercise -- something the Democrats now hysterically support in Darfur, yet oppose in Iraq.

Osama bin Laden told "ABC News" in 1998 that America's humiliating retreat from Somalia emboldened his jihadists: "The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

If this is the message that Clinton is hoping to telegraph to the American people, I hope the voters are listening.

Anonymous (September 28, 2006 @ 3:09pm):

"Clinton's war in the Balkans is long since ended, in contrast."

Are you clueless? or is your irony intentional?

Attentive Americans now know that the 9/11 hijackers' motivation was... Bubbah's Balkans War!
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/08/root-causes-911-hijackers-vow-on-video-to-avenge-bosnia/

That's right, they hated us for stopping the genocide of fellow Muslims.

So much for Left's "root cause" theory.

Anonymous (September 28, 2006 @ 4:15pm):

OH MY GOSH! Thank you, attentive American, for that ridiculous assertion. Bosnia, BOSNIA? Holy crap, you're out there.

You've obviously been hitting a dangerous combination of Viagra and Oxycontin, Rush Limbaugh style.

Anonymous (September 28, 2006 @ 11:22pm):

Actually,the 9-11 commission says nothing about a terror plan being passed to the Bush administration. Richard Clark in both his book and in his testimony to the 9-11, commision as well as Sandy Berger in his testimony to the commission deny that there was a terror plan. They also deny that terror information or a an anti-terror plan was passed to the Bush adminsistration. Sometimes it's helpful to check the facts. Being on the team designated as the "good guys" by your professors is no excuse for thinking.

Anonymous (October 28, 2006 @ 3:56pm):

President Clinton avoided confrontations during his presidency and was content to "kick the can down the road" and let the next president handle the problem. His temper tantrum was infantile, and Chris Wallace was a class act. Loved the interview!