Promoted by Steven D.
O.k. MediaMatters, if you are reading this diary (which I hope is recommended), I encourage you to watch this video of Chris Wallace “before” the Clinton interview and Chris Wallace “after” the Clinton interview.
The Bill Clinton / Wallace interview, which is generating headlines in the American Corporate media, is now being played by Chris Wallace as a “surprise”. They are “surprised” and “bewildered” as to why President Clinton would react in such an angry matter.
This is curious, since it was the same Chris Wallace that went “off” on Fox & Friends a couple of weeks earlier — spitting bricks over ABC’s “docu-dramea”, The Path To 9/11.
(video and analyses below…)
Here is Chris Wallace (2 weeks ago) when “going off” on his attack on The Path to 9/11. He compares it to the movie “The Insider” which he views unfavorably:
I went to see it and I gotta tell ya — to see my father saying things that were not especially flattering — that he didn’t actually say — is very hurtful. And I can understand why these guys [the former Clinton administration officials] are mad.
and with regards to Madeleine Albright:
You know, if they want to say Secretary of State John Smith said something — that’s one thing. But when you say Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said something — then it better be what she said, or I think she’s got a heck of a case.
Here’s Chris Wallace on Fox after the Clinton interview:
I was the only one asking him about his record fighting Al Qaeda. I have to say, paticularly after the controversy over ABC and the docu-drama, “The Path to 9/11”, I find that astonishing [that no other interview has recently asked him about it]. Not that I asked it, but that none of the others did ask it — and, uhh…you know…I didn’t think it was going to be inflammatory. I thought, you know, he would handle it for 30 seconds and then we’d move on. He accused me of having a smirk at one point. Frankly, I was in wonder in this…kind of…tidle wave of emotion on his part.
It is very interesting to note that the Wallace’s main point in both discussions has changed dramatically. Look at the video 2 weeks ago. He associates the PT 9/11 movie very very loosely with, what he believes, are mistakes made by Clinton with respect to fighting Al Qaeda. He makes it a point as to not to confuse the two issues. That is:
- Criticism of the inaccuracies in PT 9/11 and
- Criticism of Clinton wrt fighting Al Qaeda in general
He condemns the movie and infers that these docu-dramas (which include major fictional distortions) is not being helpful to this overall discussion on where to place the blame. In one of his half-thoughts, he even says, “We should not do movies [like PT 9/11]…” and then he discusses the Reagan mini-series.
In the discussion after the Clinton interview, he places much importance on the PT 9/11 movie — and, in fact, tells the viewers that this same docu-drama should have sparked discussion about Clinton’s effectivenes with Al Qaeda:
I have to say, paticularly after the controversy over ABC and the docu-drama, “The Path to 9/11”, I find that astonishing [that no other interview has recently asked him about it].
Got that?
Before the Clinton interview:
Fox Host: Are you going to be doing a piece about this [the PT 9/11 controversy] on your big show?
Wallace: Nah! We’ll leave it up to you guys [Fox & Friends]
(laughter)
Wallace: On the big show, we’re going to be talking about 9/11…you know, frankly, there’s more important stuff than some silly ABC movie…
After the Clinton interview:
I have to say, paticularly after the controversy over ABC and the docu-drama, “The Path to 9/11”, I find that astonishing [that no other interview has recently asked him about it].
Furthermore, going back to this “surprise” at Clinton reacting this way. What exactly is Chris smoking? In the discussion rant he had with his Fox & Friends, he was very passionate about stating that Clinton and his people have every right to be upset over this smear job. And what does Wallace do in his interview with Clinton? He brings up Somalia.
To understand how wickedly slimy Chris Wallace is on this hack-job, listen to how he introduces the whole issue in the Clinton interview:
When we announced that you were going to be on Fox News Sunday, I got a lot of emails from viewers — and I gotta say, I was surprised — most of them wanted to ask you this question. Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were President?
There he goes with that “being surprised — oh, I’m a fair and balaned reporter” bullshit again. Listen to this quick slip of the tongue from the Fox & Friends discussion:
And look…there’s plenty…I’m not saying that the Clinton administration didn’t do plenty wrong in the way it handled Al Qaeda…
Surprised are you, Mr. Wallace? Did you think we wouldn’t notice your incredible disingenuity — there’s a thing called “YouTube”, you know.
Here’s the compilation of the two discussions that I’ve created:
(click HERE or on pic to watch)
Smears?
Way to go Bill. What puzzles me though is how cozy he is with the Bush Crime Family. Quite frankly, I just don’t get it!
Money.
Security.
Bill’s always wanted to shed his “poor boy from Hope” image and play with the big boys in the sandbox. So now he does. In fact, I’d say he never really enjoyed being the “first black president” except when in Harlem and he was getting accolades and shout outs. For him it’s always been about being liked and loved.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Big Dog is no exception.
The media talks out of both sides of its mouth.
The only people to whom they deign to speak ALSO talk out of both sides of their mouth.
I saw the tape of that interview.
Liars interviewing liars.
Fix fix fix fix fix fix fix fix fix fix fix fix fix fix fix fix FIX!!!
Clinton doesn’t want to be asked leading Bushit questions?
Why on earth would he grant an interview to Fuks News?
It is ALL bushit, aloha. All of it it.
Turn it off off off off OFF!!!
NEWSTRIKE!!!
MEDIASTRIKE!!!
VAYA!!!
AG
Arthur my dear, I don’t watch Faux News, I only viewed the interview here. IMHO…Clinton was set up. It is too bad he fell for it.
I don’t get it. What did this set-up achieve?
He wasn’t “set up.”
JEEZ, aloha…
Fox News HAS no “surprises.”
He knew where he was and who he was talking to.
He is a PRO!!! A damned good oner. Major league, Hall of Fame level.
It’s ALL politics.
Turn it all off.
In your mind, if nowhere elese.
The fix is in so deep…it’s part of the furniture now.
Clinton is running for Secretary of State.
Or at the very least, unindicted co-conPresident.
Bet on it.
The pardons he granted at the end of his run are sufficient proof of that, as far as I am concerned.
There ARE no “good guys” in this post-modern political drama. Not in featured roles, anyway.
A drama where where the main political strategist of one party sleeps with the main political strategist of the OTHER one. (Mr. + Mrs. Matalin-Carville)
Where both parties agree to easily hacked voting machines.
Give me a break.
Give YOURSELF a break.
If you take ANYTHING seriously that appears in the news, at least realize that whatever makes it to national screens is just symptoms of an ongoing disease.
NOT a possible cure.
Please.
AG
The whole idea was to get Clinton to lose his cool. That’s the neocon’s standard tactic when they don’t have anything of substance to bring to the table.
Which they seldom do.
To what end?
Primarily it’s the ratings. FOX’s demographic skews older and heavily GOP. An interview where they attack Clinton and he lashes back is red meat for their audience. And it reminds their audience how much they hated him, and how much they fear and loathe Hillary. It doesn’t really matter what Clinton said in response to this. The purpose of the interview was to generate controversy. From Fox News’ perspective it’s all good. If they are attacked by other media outlets they get to polay the liberal bias in the media charge, and their audience laps it up. The whole we’re the victims because of our traditional (i.e., conservative, sexist, racist) viewpoint.
If that was the plan, then why did Wallace lose control when Clinton followed the script? I think the idea was to catch Clinton off-guard early in the interview so he wouldn’t be able to respond coherently, thus playing into Fox’s all-Clinton’s-fault 9/11 narrative.
And he didn’t, but that won’t stop them from implying that he did.
But he did: he was passionate and pointed and mean.
There’s something very wrong with the US if, as people here seem to think, Clinton’s performance in that interview could possibly damage either him or the Democrats.