The Fox and a Slick Willie (Not a Porn Story)

By Kanrei There is a huge deal being made about Clinton’s behavior on Fox last Sunday by the partisans and they are discussing it in a vacuum. They are talking about things Clinton says in a context free clip montage. The interviewer’s question is not even given in its entirety. No, this clip fest being shown on news shows around the world is custom designed to show Clinton as a raving madman. Even Chris Wallace is playing the part of the innocent interviewer being ambushed by an insane guest. He told the AP today in an interview that "All I did was ask him a question, and I think it was a legitimate news question. I was surprised that he would conjure up that this was a hit job."  He is surprised a “legitimate news question” would bring up an angry response. A quick examination of the question in question should reveal exactly what the fuss is all about. “Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?” I will say that the above would be a fair question if asked like that and the question did start off as Chris Wallace asserts, but it was not the innocent question he alludes to.  His question started off with a reference to The Looming Tower which is a book placing much of the blame for 9/11 at Clinton's feet.  It is also the book that ABC based parts of its Path to 9/11 miniseries that Clinton so protested.  His question then wandered and meandered from bin Laden and Al Qaeda to Somalia in 1993 to the Cole and the embassy bombings in Africa. Now the question is no longer about Clinton not doing enough to get Bin Laden. No, now the question is “why did you do nothing to get Bin Laden?” He is asking Clinton about the book “The Looming Tower” and its claims that Clinton is responsible for 9/11, and not the innocent question he claims to have asked about why Clinton did not do more. It was a brilliant ploy by Wallace and Clinton took the bait. I mean think about how Clinton first began his response and you see who he is talking to and what he is talking about quite clearly. He says “I'm being asked this on the FOX network. ABC just had a right- wing conservative run in their little 'Pathway to 9/11,' falsely claiming it was based on the 9/11 Commission report, with three things asserted against me directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report.” The three things (Somalia withdraw, the Africa Embassy bombings, and the Cole) were just put in the question asked of him as well. It is Fox backing up assertions made by ABC. Clinton is defending himself against two right wing networks in the interview. This is not something he is good at. I have always said that Clinton was not impeached for the affair or even lying about it; he was impeached for being a bad lawyer. Everyone knows you do not answer those questions when asked in court, or you plead the fifth, but you never lie. Clinton picked the third option which showed how well he handles pressure. He folds, panics, and reacts. That is what got him impeached and that is what got him in the Chris Wallace interview. Chris Wallace knew exactly what he was doing bringing up “The Looming Tower” so early in the interview and knew the reaction he would get. Most of all, he knew Fox was going to control the footage and would be releasing the clips. They had all the control over how this would look. It was a Sunday morning interview after all. 90% of the public will only see the montage of Clinton yelling without ever hearing Chris Wallace’s question. Who watches the Sunday morning talking head shows anyway? With Chris Wallace proclaiming it was such an innocent question however, I wonder where is the news reporting the full question and not just the “Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida” part. Liberal media, where are you? I am not exonerating Clinton at all. He should have known what he was getting into. If he really believes what he said about Fox, then he should have been on his guard and not surprised by the switch. It takes two to tango and Clinton is a willing partner once again in a mess. In context his anger is justified and it appears his opinion of Fox News is justified as well. Too bad the story will never be told fully. Besides, montages are more fun to watch.