Clinton Goes Off On Fox's Chris Wallace

Linked above is a very rough transcript of Bill Clinton's Fox News Sunday interview with Chris Wallace that will air tomorrow. In it Clinton admits that he had a plan developed to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taleban well before 911 confirming a small part of Nadir's 911 Conspiracy Non-Theory.

But the best part is that Clinton goes off on his critics (like SixStringSlinger) who claim that Clinton was to blame for not getting Bin Laden.

I'm no Slick Willie fan, but I think it's about time that someone jacked Fox News up for their one-sided so-called reporting. If you watch the interview tomorrow, be sure to watch for editing tricks that make Clinton look like he is going "crazy" as Fox is already accusing.


Paul Hue said...

I watch Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and the other cable shows regularly. Fox is no more biased than the other. But it does show facts and opinions (which are not evidence of bias) that the other networks do not.

Paul Hue said...

I watched this yesterday. Clinton did a great job of defending himself. If all he said is accurate, I consider it a shut case, but of course I'm open for how his critics respond.

Among his claims is that Bush II had 8 months to strike Bin Laden, and didn't. I'm curious about that. Other lefties have made that charge. Was 8 months long enough to get things up and running and to go complete what the previous guy had several years to work on? I don't know. Maybe the Clininistas tried to hand-off the project, and the Bushies blew them off.

Paul Hue said...

The Sunday Fox news show that I say played the Clinton interview uncut. But evening and this morning the interviewer Chris Wallace -- son of super liberal Mike -- presented clips on news shows, and defended himself. The clips did not make Clinton look crazy, to me, but Wallace claimed that Clinton when a bit nuts; I agree. Which doesn't mean that Clinton did a poor job with Bin Laden.

The critics of Fox News appear not to watch Fox News, and to not watch critically CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Headline News, ABC, NBC, and ABC. To the extent that Fox is ever biased, it is not so any more than all those other newscasts. Mostly, though, it is balanced indeed, though most importantly it presents info that would never otherwise see the light of day.

Paul Hue said...

Nadir: I don't understand how the pre-911 invasion plan for Afgahnistan indicates a set-up. As I have said repeatedly, if invading Iraq and Afgahnistan after 911 made sense, it made sense also (perhaps even more so) before.

Nadir said...


Here is a link to the first half of Clinton's interview.

Nadir said...

"I don't understand how the pre-911 invasion plan for Afgahnistan indicates a set-up. As I have said repeatedly, if invading Iraq and Afgahnistan after 911 made sense, it made sense also (perhaps even more so) before."

Clinton explains that the reason a full scale invasion of Afghanistan wasn't launched prior to 911 was because he couldn't get basing rights in Uzbekistan, which the US did get after 911. Why did they get it? 911 created the pretext.

What I would like to know is, what grounds did Clinton (or Bush for that matter) have for overthrowing the Taleban? Surely it wasn't because they were harboring Bin Laden. The FBI and CIA refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible for the African Embassy bombings while Clinton was president. They did so later. However, 5 years later, they still refuse to certify that Bin Laden was responsible for 911.

What was the rationale for invading Afghanistan and overthrowing the Taleban then? Oil and natural gas pipelines that would route through the country, and not Osama Bin Laden.

Clinton's administration didn't have any problems with the Taleban when they thought that oil pipeline was going to go through. After that deal soured you start to hear all these terrible things about women's rights in Afghanistan and soforth, but those terrible things were true when the US was wooing the Taleban leaders.

So why the change of heart? Just like with Saddam Hussein and Noriega, these dictators are fine as long as they are playing ball, but once they start thinking for themselves, they become terrorists. That's a hypocritical and jacked up values system, if you ask me.

Nadir said...

And again, 911 was provided as the reason we were going to invade Afghanistan. There was no other reason given. We had to go in and get Bin Laden whom both the CIA and FBI refused to say was responsible for these terror activities. Bullshit.

Both wars in the Middle East are about US control of the flow of oil from that region. Period.

"To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11."
Tony Blair. July 17, 2002 [Guardian]


Nadir said...

So there was motive for a broadbased consipracy for a 911/Pearl Harbor type attack. With all of the warning signs that a terror attack was going to happen, why wasn't something done to stop it?

The US had already planned fake terror attacks on US soil for Operation Northwoods (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html), but Kennedy nixed it.

The following is an exert from James Bamford's body of secrets, and government documents to support it are available at the site above.

"Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.

The idea may actually have originated with President Eisenhower in the last days of his administration. With the Cold War hotter than ever and the recent U-2 scandal fresh in the public's memory, the old general wanted to go out with a win. He wanted desperately to invade Cuba in the weeks leading up to Kennedy's inauguration; indeed, on January 3 he told Lemnitzer and other aides in his Cabinet Room that he would move against Castro before the inauguration if only the Cubans gave him a really good excuse. Then, with time growing short, Eisenhower floated an idea. If Castro failed to provide that excuse, perhaps, he said, the United States "could think of manufacturing something that would be generally acceptable." What he was suggesting was a pretext a bombing, an attack, an act of sabotage carried out secretly against the United States by the United States. Its purpose would be to justify the launching of a war. It was a dangerous suggestion by a desperate president."

Nadir said...

So is there evidence that the US or factions within the US orchestrated 911? Not completely. But the motive is there, the methodolgy (and pathology) is there and there are enough unanswered questions from too many corners.

This is why at least a third of US citizens believe the government knows something it isn't telling.

Paul Hue said...

"Preplan" isn't a word. Remember that when we reresume our beloved program.

Paul Hue said...


Clinton aid Dick Morris refutes Clinton's defense, and blames Clinton for not taking Bin Laden in particular, and islamic crusaderism in general, seriously.