Tigermike 3,041 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Why Clinton "Lost His Temper" The former president knew what he was doing. by William Kristol 09/25/2006 11:16:00 AM LET'S DO A THOUGHT experiment: Perhaps Bill Clinton, an experienced and sophisticated politician, knew what he was doing when he made big news by "losing his temper" in his interview with Chris Wallace. Perhaps Clinton's aides knew what they were doing when they publicized the interview by providing their own transcript to a left-wing website as soon as possible Friday evening, and then pre-spun reporters late Friday and Saturday. Maybe it was just damage control. Or maybe Clinton did what he wanted to do when he indignantly defended himself, blasted the Bush administration, and attacked Fox News. What could Clinton have been seeking to accomplish? Three things. 1. Helping Democrats in 2006. In the Fox interview, and in other recent interviews (Meet the Press, the New Yorker), Clinton has shown himself well aware of Republican efforts (engineered by the dastardly Karl Rove) to paint Democrats as unreliable in the war on terror. Clinton would have known that these were doing some damage to Democrats, and that Bush and Rove have had a few good weeks on this issue. And he would know that the Democrats haven't fought back well (e.g., they're now in a difficult position on the Bush-McCain detainees legislation). In this interview, Clinton rallied Democrats. He reminded them of their talking points on Bush's alleged passivity in his first eight months in office (remember Richard Clarke!), and on the alleged distraction posed by Iraq from the more worthwhile war in Afghanistan. He nicely laid the predicate for the leaked portions of the National Intelligence Estimate that appeared in the press the next day. If the Bush-Rove war-on-terror offensive stalls out this week (and much of the media is committed to making this happen), and Democrats do well in November, Bill Clinton can take credit, at a crucial moment, for discrediting the terror issue as a mere political ploy, and showing Democrats how "to fight back" and how "to stand up to the right-wing propaganda machine" (in the words of Howard Dean). 2. Helping Hillary in 2008. Hillary Clinton has been having problems with the left wing of the Democratic party. With this interview, Bill Clinton has the entire left wing of the Democratic party rallying to him. Some of this solidarity can presumably be transferred to Hillary. And the dangerous move of the left-wing of the party toward Gore and Edwards, and their rise in national and Iowa polls respectively, can perhaps be stopped. 3. Intimidating Critics. Clinton wants to make it incorrect, or at least impolite, to criticize his record on terror. Chris Wallace stood up to him. Will others? Will his next interviewer raise the same set of questions? Will they be willing to take the criticism of being "conservative hit men" or part of the vast, Fox-centered right-wing conspiracy? Bullying and intimidation sometimes work. Clinton has used both effectively in the past. Now he wants to put out of bounds certain perfectly legitimate and straight-forward questions. Can we debate which party--based on their practice when in power--can better deal with the jihadist/terror threat? No, according to Clinton. That's illegitimate right-wing propaganda. Whose personal reputation benefits from putting such issues out of bounds? Which political party benefits? Which 2008 presidential candidate? Bill Clinton is a smart (and calculating) politician. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...12/743aibjn.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I'm almost to a point where it just doesn't matter who's to blame. Something has to be done, and the war on terra is not the solution. It's only worsening the whole Middle East. The only ones benefitting from this colossal failure are the contractors and oil companies. The middle class has yet the bear the brunt of inflation (+10%), while the smart and illegal money is overseas and non-taxable. This #### is getting ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Love him or hate him, there's little doubt that Clinton is one of the smartest and most savvy politicians to occupy the Oval Office this (or last?) century. I have little reason to doubt that he was expecting just such questions knowing he was going on Fox, and had carefully calculated his response before entering the studio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsixfive 328 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I liked how he further verified the claim against him. When asked why he didn't kill OBL, he repeatedly said that he was the closest anyone has ever gotten to him, the Bushes were never that close, ARGHHH!! No DUH! You were that close and you didn't kill him! That's the whole point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsixfive 328 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Love him or hate him, there's little doubt that Clinton is one of the smartest and most savvy politicians to occupy the Oval Office this (or last?) century. I have little reason to doubt that he was expecting just such questions knowing he was going on Fox, and had carefully calculated his response before entering the studio. I agree. He's a good speaker and debator (debater?)... why he occupied the White House for 8 years really. I don't think he was a very good president at the time, and a lot of his errs have come to fruition recently. However, he can talk a talk and I do think he knew he was walking into a "conservative hit job," or at least was going to get asked questions about something other than his and Gore's rediculous infatuation with amateur meterology and climatology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUloggerhead 2,241 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Love him or hate him, there's little doubt that Clinton is one of the smartest and most savvy politicians to occupy the Oval Office this (or last?) century. I have little reason to doubt that he was expecting just such questions knowing he was going on Fox, and had carefully calculated his response before entering the studio. I think it was Richard Gephardt that said of clinton, "he's an incredibly good liar." Pretty much sums up my assesment of him as well. Smartest & most savvy? Actutally, an argument could be made for him being the stupidest & most vain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otterinbham 0 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I hate to say it, but Clinton was a more conservative president than Bush is today. All you have to do is look at the expansion of government on W's watch. And I'm not talking defense or Homeland Security. I'm talking new entitlement programs, education, you name it. And Bottomfeeder, do you ever read anything but Mother Jones News? 10% inflation? Try 3% and you'll be closer to the mark. When you throw out easily refutable facts like that, it just undermines any other point you try to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,431 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I hate to say it, but Clinton was a more conservative president than Bush is today. All you have to do is look at the expansion of government on W's watch. And I'm not talking defense or Homeland Security. I'm talking new entitlement programs, education, you name it. And Bottomfeeder, do you ever read anything but Mother Jones News? 10% inflation? Try 3% and you'll be closer to the mark. When you throw out easily refutable facts like that, it just undermines any other point you try to make. We had a Republican Congress back then that had nads. All we have now is a namby pamby bunch of Drunken Democrat wannabes. As far as 10% inflation, you ned to put down the LSD and the Crack pipe. Not even the Lew Rockwell nut cases can halucinate that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 I liked how he further verified the claim against him. When asked why he didn't kill OBL, he repeatedly said that he was the closest anyone has ever gotten to him, the Bushes were never that close, ARGHHH!! No DUH! You were that close and you didn't kill him! That's the whole point! The point is Osama is a CIA asset, that's the point. Now, go back to your closet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,041 Posted September 28, 2006 Author Share Posted September 28, 2006 I liked how he further verified the claim against him. When asked why he didn't kill OBL, he repeatedly said that he was the closest anyone has ever gotten to him, the Bushes were never that close, ARGHHH!! No DUH! You were that close and you didn't kill him! That's the whole point! The point is Osama is a CIA asset, that's the point. Now, go back to your closet. Has anyone called you an idiot today? If not, let me be the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,041 Posted September 28, 2006 Author Share Posted September 28, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 I liked how he further verified the claim against him. When asked why he didn't kill OBL, he repeatedly said that he was the closest anyone has ever gotten to him, the Bushes were never that close, ARGHHH!! No DUH! You were that close and you didn't kill him! That's the whole point! The point is Osama is a CIA asset, that's the point. Now, go back to your closet. Has anyone called you an idiot today? If not, let me be the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.