Clinton Unloads on Faux News
As anyone who's seen a brilliant trailer and then gone to find out that the movie was total crap knows, it's easy to give a false impression with a few simple editing tricks. For the past couple days, the Drudge Report and other right-wing sites have been downright orgasmic over a 50-second clip that they claimed showed Clinton coming unhinged and being forced by Fox News to admit he failed to prevent 9-11. Watch a longer version of that interview, which has just a little bit more substance following the "I failed" part than the Fox promo would suggest.
4 comments:
I didn't believe Clinton when he said he stayed in Somalia for nine months after Black Hawk Down. But I looked it up at the Washington Post site and couldn't find any reference to pulling out. All I found was reference to transfering authority to the United Nations, six months later.
Why did I think all this time that Clinton had pulled out right away? Because of Fox News. They say it all the time, and until a couple years ago I was polluting my mind by watching ass "journalists" like Shepard Smith. Even I, a Democrat who should know better, ate it all up. I'm never watching that "fair and balanced" network again.
I'm glad Clinton finally went on their show, because he totally called them for the partisan hacks they are.
Paul, Shep Smith has alluded to a pullout a few times, and Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity mention it all the time. I never realized Clinton actually refused to pull out and stayed until the UN could take over.
About killing a foreign national, I'm pretty sure that's always been acceptable to Americans if that person's a threat to the United States. Isn't that the kind of thing we assumed our spies were doing overseas for the past 60 years?
That order was originally issued in response to the discovery that the CIA had made repeated attempts on the life of Fidel Castro, a person who had never directed any attacks agains the United States. Presidents from Reagan through Bush Jr. have held that acting in self-defense -- killing in response to attacks upon us -- is not a "political assassination" and therefore isn't restricted by that executive order, or by Carter & Reagan's affirmations of that order. I agree with that opinion.
Furthermore, if it were Bush rather than Clinton, I don't believe for a second that it would be a topic of discussion right now. In fact, Bush has made the same assertion, ever since 9/11. Bush has made no secret of the fact that he's contracted with the Northern Alliance in the past, and the Pakistanis now, to bring in Bin Laden "dead or alive." Nobody has a problem with that.
I don't get it. The current president has said that, over and over again. The only thing his opponents criticize him for is failing to do it.
Post a Comment