Chris Wallace

[bascule]

Chris Wallace has become something of a controversial figure of late.

 

First he was chastized by hardline conservatives for rebuking the ABC special The Path to 9/11 for ficticious depictions of members of the Clinton administration with ficticious dialogue.

 

Then he was simultaneously lauded by the right and chastized by the left for his interview with Bill Clinton, where Clinton accused him, among other things, of supporting the ficticious allegations purported by the ABC special which directly contradicted the findings of the 9/11 Commission, among other factual inaccuracies including alleging the wrong airline was responsible for the security breeches of the 9/11 hijackers and confusing the Washington Times with the Washington Post.

 

The combination of the Wallace interview (which asked a number of pointed questions) and The Path to 9/11 special certainly struck a nerve with Clinton. There was plenty of invasion of Wallace's personal space to be seen with Clinton, somewhat reminiscent of the recent Matt Lauer interview of President Bush where Lauer can be seen poking the president on several occasions. (Watch out conservatives! Liberals are invading your personal space! Of course we can't forget Bush invading the personal space of a certain German Chancellor)

 

So what's your take on Wallace? Did he attempt a conservative "hack job" on Clinton, or did he simply ask the kinds of questions which were on any conservative's mind after watching The Path To 9/11, even if he disputed its factual accuracy?

[GutZ]

In the context that it was asked no. Wallace was smirking like a stereotypical smug Conservative though. Clintons reaction was over the top, and it wasn't needed but I can understand. I can't really say it was a "hack job" but I wouldn't be suprised if it was.

[Martin]

Chad Orzel liked Clinton's reaction

http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2006/09/what_mightve_been.php

 

===quote from Chad===

...where he lights into Chris Wallace for asking him about Osama bin Laden:

 

CLINTON: 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. And if I were still president' date=' we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him.

 

Now, I've never criticized President Bush, and I don't think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only one-seventh as important as Iraq.

 

And you ask me about terror and Al Qaida with that sort of dismissive thing? When all you have to do is read Richard Clarke's book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country against terror.

 

And you've got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever. But I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it. But I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could.

 

The entire military was against sending Special Forces in to Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter. And no one thought we could do it otherwise, because we could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaida was responsible while I was president.

 

And so, I left office. And yet, I get asked about this all the time. They had three times as much time to deal with it, and nobody ever asks them about it. I think that's strange.

[/quote']

 

God, he's good. Even when he loses his temper, he's good.

 

I knew we were taking a step down after the 2000 election, but I had no idea how big the step was.

===endquote===

 

here is the full transcript:

http://thinkprogress.org/clinton-interview

[ParanoiA]

So what's your take on Wallace? Did he attempt a conservative "hack job" on Clinton, or did he simply ask the kinds of questions which were on any conservative's mind after watching The Path To 9/11, even if he disputed its factual accuracy?

 

Neither. He asked the kinds of questions you ask when you get the former president of the united states to do an interview for you. This is what reporters do. This is what we tune in for when watching the news. When a movie like The Path to 9/11 comes out and reminds everyone that Clinton dropped the ball long before anyone could blame GWB for it, and then you get Clinton in a chair in front of you - you'd better ask him just like you do everybody else.

 

This is why I don't like hindsight witch hunts. The current administration and all conservatives have had to field these kinds of questions - and delivered far more personally and vindictively in the process. I didn't see any of them lose control of themselves and get pissed off about it. It's interesting watching how the other side reacts when the tables are turned...

 

But honestly, there are hundreds of people that could have prevented 9/11. Lots of people make mistakes. And if any of those people had any idea this was going to happen, they wouldn't have made those mistakes. If Clinton believed this was going to happen, he would have got him. If GWB thought it was going to happen, he would have killed him before he knew to run.

 

These people we are so intent on burning at the stake aren't the ones that attacked us. No one knew 9/11 was going to happen. I don't care how much they dramatize it on TV or how many conspiracy theory books you read. It just wasn't part of our reality then. It's just that simple. I wish we would just pick up and move on and quit roasting people to make ourselves feel better.

[Severian]

Clinton wiped the floor with him. He was sincere and passionate without being aggressive, countered Wallace point for point (despite Wallace's attempts to stop him) and showed what a load of rubbish the ABC 'special' really was.

 

I wish he was still President rather than GW.

[Sisyphus]

Clinton wiped the floor with him. He was sincere and passionate without being aggressive, countered Wallace point for point (despite Wallace's attempts to stop him) and showed what a load of rubbish the ABC 'special' really was.

 

I wish he was still President rather than GW.

 

The contrast really is amazing, isn't it? In that situation, GWB either puffs out his chest and acts like a ten-year-old bully, or gets all smirky and evasive. Childish, really.

[Martin]

Clinton wiped the floor with him. He was sincere and passionate without being aggressive, countered Wallace point for point (despite Wallace's attempts to stop him) and showed what a load of rubbish the ABC 'special' really was.

 

I wish he was still President rather than GW.

 

Agree!

[ParanoiA]

Clinton wiped the floor with him. He was sincere and passionate without being aggressive, countered Wallace point for point (despite Wallace's attempts to stop him) and showed what a load of rubbish the ABC 'special' really was.

 

I wish he was still President rather than GW.

 

He didn't wipe the floor with anything other than maybe his own ass. He was asked a question and he got bent out of shape about it because he hasn't had the media exposure or relevance to counter these issues that have come into the limelight recently.

 

I certainly don't blame him and I've always liked him better when he gets in the substance of debate. But come on, he's just as bought and paid for as GWB. They call him slick willy for a reason. My memory is bad, but it isn't that bad.

[Pangloss]

Well in terms of verbal sparring I think Clinton did, as Severian eloquently put it, wipe the floor with him.

 

This is the side of Clinton, however, that I think is unfortunate to see in a former president. I understand it, but I think he should stand above it. He's wallowing with pigs, and as the old saying suggests, it's fair to say that Chris Wallace quite thoroughly enjoyed it.