Clinton Goof
Watching "Reliable Sources" on CNN today, only one out of six people though that Chis Wallace's questioning of Clinton was in any way inappropriate. And that one happened to be a far left liberal web site guy, John Aravosis. Even Arianna Huffington thought it was just fine.
And Aravosis could not even back up his claim that Wallace did something wrong. Instead, he talked about how it's refreshing that Clinton went into some detail about the issue. Well fine, but that's entirely beside the point that Clinton raised, which was that Wallace was somehow out of bounds to ask the question.
When pressed for a defense of Clinton's claim that Wallace's questioning was a "conservative hit job," he blurted out the tired old ad hominem refrain of the left, "well, it's FOX News!" Except, of course, that this is not merely FOX News, it's FOX News Sunday, a show that existed long before FOX News ever did, and is aired on the main FOX network, and is widely considered to be very fair (by people who actually know something about it, anyway).
And the rest of Aravosis' defense amounted to, well, the right is always attacking Clinton, so this is how he responds to that. Kurtz asked the obvious question: "Why is it in an attack?" Aravosis had no answer. It was amazing. He misrepresented what Wallace did (said Wallace claimed a certain book attacked Clinton, when he in fact did no such thing), and then went on to talk about the ABC movie from a few weeks ago, which Wallace was not a part of, and didn't bring up.
It was just amazing watching Aravosis accuse Wallace of things he didn't do, and blame Wallace for things other people have done, in an attempt to justify Clinton's actions.
I thought Wallace did a very good job in the interview, except for two points. First, his first question, I thought, should have had more detail in it, been more specific. Anyone who knows the real facts (as best they can be known) knows Clinton didn't do a lot that he could have, and there are many specific examples.
My second problem with Wallace's interview is that once Clinton opened the door to all this and then came back with incorrect statements of his own, I wish Wallace would have challenged Clinton. Clinton said, "I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him," but there are many examples where he explicitly refused to give such authorization. Clinton said, "The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible (for the Cole attack)," but Clinton had the authority to act regardless, or to go to Congress if he felt he needed to. Clinton said Clarke got demoted, but most people (other than Clarke) didn't think so at the time. And finally, and most importantly, Clinton kept bringing up Clarke, yet Clarke said -- more than anyone else, before or since -- that Clinton's administration repeatedly bungled opportunities to get Bin Laden.
Clinton's main problem (he even said the questions were legitimate!) was that, as Aravosis said, the questions came from someone at FOX News. Well, boo hoo. Sorry, but saying "I don't mind being asked that, but not by YOU" of a journalist that you agreed to sit down with makes you look like a baby or a moron.
And Aravosis could not even back up his claim that Wallace did something wrong. Instead, he talked about how it's refreshing that Clinton went into some detail about the issue. Well fine, but that's entirely beside the point that Clinton raised, which was that Wallace was somehow out of bounds to ask the question.
When pressed for a defense of Clinton's claim that Wallace's questioning was a "conservative hit job," he blurted out the tired old ad hominem refrain of the left, "well, it's FOX News!" Except, of course, that this is not merely FOX News, it's FOX News Sunday, a show that existed long before FOX News ever did, and is aired on the main FOX network, and is widely considered to be very fair (by people who actually know something about it, anyway).
And the rest of Aravosis' defense amounted to, well, the right is always attacking Clinton, so this is how he responds to that. Kurtz asked the obvious question: "Why is it in an attack?" Aravosis had no answer. It was amazing. He misrepresented what Wallace did (said Wallace claimed a certain book attacked Clinton, when he in fact did no such thing), and then went on to talk about the ABC movie from a few weeks ago, which Wallace was not a part of, and didn't bring up.
It was just amazing watching Aravosis accuse Wallace of things he didn't do, and blame Wallace for things other people have done, in an attempt to justify Clinton's actions.
I thought Wallace did a very good job in the interview, except for two points. First, his first question, I thought, should have had more detail in it, been more specific. Anyone who knows the real facts (as best they can be known) knows Clinton didn't do a lot that he could have, and there are many specific examples.
My second problem with Wallace's interview is that once Clinton opened the door to all this and then came back with incorrect statements of his own, I wish Wallace would have challenged Clinton. Clinton said, "I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him," but there are many examples where he explicitly refused to give such authorization. Clinton said, "The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible (for the Cole attack)," but Clinton had the authority to act regardless, or to go to Congress if he felt he needed to. Clinton said Clarke got demoted, but most people (other than Clarke) didn't think so at the time. And finally, and most importantly, Clinton kept bringing up Clarke, yet Clarke said -- more than anyone else, before or since -- that Clinton's administration repeatedly bungled opportunities to get Bin Laden.
Clinton's main problem (he even said the questions were legitimate!) was that, as Aravosis said, the questions came from someone at FOX News. Well, boo hoo. Sorry, but saying "I don't mind being asked that, but not by YOU" of a journalist that you agreed to sit down with makes you look like a baby or a moron.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment