True colors! The link below shows the actual Wallace/Clinton interview so you can judge for yourself whether you think Bubba lost it or not. I think probably that opinions will depend on your political persuasion, and whether or not you are a Clinton supporter.
I don’t see how anyone could watch that and say that he did lost it.
He was leaning forward. He clearly blew his lid. 
He was answering the question put forth to him and wanted to give his complete answer, so he wasn’t allowing Wallace to change the subject.
So what are the “true colors” he’s showing here?
I haven’t looked at the link, but have seen the interview. When you say “actual” are you saying the Chris Wallace interview we saw on TV was doctored in some way and this is the actual video of what actually happened?
It’s just the footage from Fox News. I doubt this clip will stay up fro long. Fox is pulling them all from You Tube, as they should, they own the footage, not the people who are posting it and checking off the box that says they own it.
Oh he lost it, alright, as well he should have.
Have you read Richard Clarke’s book, Terry? He was NOT a Clinton supporter, but he was the most experienced, relied-upon terrorism expert in our government. He was appointed by Reagan, and then employed by Bush-41, and then by Clinton, and then by Bush-43. He was obsessed about Al Qaeda as our most deadly enemy in the late nineties.
Clinton, with Clarke as his point man on terrorism, tried to pass anti-terrorism measures numerous times, but the Repub. congress stonewalled him and they and the press continually accused him of wagging the dog.
What did Condi and Bush do about Al Qaeda when Clinton et al handed over all their plans and intelligence docs to the incoming admin? They shelved the bipartisan Hart-Rudman report on terrorism, as Cheney said “preferring to do their own investigation”. (More business for Halliburton?)
Then they demoted Clarke, who subsequently resigned, and had ZERO cabinet level meetings about Al Qaeda, even after the infamous PDB “Bin Laden Determined to Strike America”. Heckuva job Bushie.
So Clinton lost it, and smacked Wallace down like the yellow journalist that he is. It was beautiful.
IMHO. 
I so miss President Clinton. He has a way of explaining things that just leaves you in awe. He has no equal.
no.
<< IMHO.>> Exactly.
Then if you weren’t trying to distinguish this video from some inauthentic one, what purpose did the word “actual” actually serve?
No purpose whatsoever. Ok?
It’s simple-if you’re a clinton fan, then you think he did well. But if your intellectually honest, you also could plainly see that he overreacted and did not look very “presidential.” He later threatened to fire the person who booked him onto the show. HE simply melted down in front of America and it made him look bad, even to many of his fans. And Chris Wallace is hardly a Conservative, and if you watch his weekly show he is quite even-handed and plays NO favorites. He routinely asks tough questions of both parties.
Well, I still think you had some reason for including it, but if you don’t want to divulge it, sure, OK.
Nope, no reason. Maybe subconsciencely I thought that maybe there were some “doctored” or edited versions out there and that this one was exactly as it appeared on Fox. Bu".again I had no particular reason to describe it as “actual.”
Actually Clinton is fleshing out that actual conspiracy theory. We’ll hear more about it in the next actual interview.
Supposidly when they re-aired it they re-arranged the questions so it seemed like he was asked about the fund raising earlier. I call shenanagins.
Either way, the unedited version is available here: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/24/clinton-video/
Clinton pwned fox news. I don’t see how people can see this as anything but a thorough romping and exposure of fox news and their shady tactics.
It only looked that way if you are not educated on the time line of events. Clinton flat out lied, and given time it will be responded to. Richard Clarke was still in the same position when the 9/11 attacks happened. Clinton said that Bush did nothing for 8 months, but that was not true either. I’m sure there is more.
The only opinion in my rant was that “smacked down” part at the end.
That the Bush admin was not as concerned as Clarke/Clinton is historically documented. (They DID shelve Clinton’s Cole retaliation plans and the Hart-Rudman Commission’s report on terrorism.)
Strange, all this comparison of Bush to Clinton. Clinton couldn’t control his labido, but he was an extremely hard working president. He worked 12 and 16 hour days, read five newspapers, had his hands in all his cabinet member’s jobs. He was continually shaking up the groups and people working for him.
Bush, well he just works the 8 hour day, with a 1-hour bike ride as part of it. Oh, and he’s the presidential vacation chump, er, chimp, er, champ. I personally don’t like to work longer than 8 hours, but it seems to me the president should be a workoholic, especially in times of wars and disasters.
In interviews, Bush repeats prepared talking points, and when he strays from them, he says stuff he’s not supposed to say, like “Iraq had nothing to do with 911”. He couldn’t speak extemporaneously like Clinton did for 15 minutes, with references, dates, names. And he would certainly NEVER say the words “I failed”.
Clinton lied about what?
Clarke was in the same position on 9/11, but Clarke wrote (and nobody has disputed) that when Condi Rice took over the NSC, she kept him onboard and preserved his title but demoted the position. He would no longer participate in, much less run, Principals’ meetings. He would report to deputy secretaries. He would have no staff and would attend no more meetings with budget officials.
So he wasn’t demoted, per se, but Condi and Bush certainly were not giving a high level of concern to Al Qaeda by dropping Clarke (the obsessed-by-Al Qaeda, conservative republican, top-terrorism-expert) out of cabinet meetings, right?
Clarke’s book was sour grapes. He wanted to be the one in charge of Homeland Security, and when he wasn’t put there, he quit. Then wrote a book that made him look the hero/victim. This book has some truth as seen through his eyes, colored by his perception of how things happened. Just like any other book of this type, there is his side, their side and the truth. That applies to what he said about all administrations.
That fact remains that the CIA had Bin Laden in their sights and could not get approval to take him out. If Clinton was serious, there would have been a standing order to take him out at any and every opportunity. Not only did that never occur, but everyone in the chain of command refused to make the decision. I really think that is the biggest failure in the operations. Clinton wanted it done without his knowledge, and everyone else was seemingly afraid to take responsibilty for the decision following Clintons lead.
Do you think anyone having the opportunity to take out Bush in the entire Al Queda operation would need to call back and get Bin Ladens approval? Heck no, fire away. We on the other hand have to answer for every little choice we make. Fear of prosecution after the fact seems to paralize everyone in the chain of command. It is unfortunate that those on the ground aren’t given a clear set of orders from the chain of command. That is the way it was, I am not so sure how it is now. If he agents on the ground still have their hands tied, then Bush is equally to blame.
Not being able to find Bin Laden, and having him in your cross hairs with no authority to follow through is a little different in my book. Agents in the field may have minutes to make an operational decision, or the entire situation can change. With out the 100% support of the administration how is a field agent supposed to be successful? Calling and waiting for approval isn’t always possible.
Maybe what he meant by “actual interview” was “whole interview.” Though that wasn’t the entire thing, I believe it’s enough to get the big picture. Too often we see things on news shows that are taken out of context and even chronologically re-arranged to fit a sound-byte amount of airtime. If you want to take apart a conversation, you really need to hear the whole thing to know the full context. In this case, part of the context is the pre-stated intent to talk about other topics as much as this one, then trying to push Clinton over onto that topic when he wouldn’t let go of the first one.
It’s true, he’s no longer the President. But even when he’s on the verge of blowing his stack he’s still a hundred times better at expressing himself than our current President. I’m not a Clinton fan, but I think he was AWESOME. There was a point to be made, and he was simply fed up with all the suggestions his administration hadn’t done enough. He admits they didn’t, but at five years after 9/11, his main point is WHY IS BIN LADEN STILL ALIVE TODAY? That’s a valid point to me. The mission to find him is apparently a much lower priority than setting up a stable government in Iraq (where the oil is).
Is this some kind of disrespectful, cheap dig at the famous “Wallace/Gromit interview”?