This was completely riveting. But it made me feel extremely sad about the leadership currently "leading" our country.

Thanks for posting this. There's an interesting piece on Huffington Post about the Fox's wily editing of the piece.

You don't think he came across a little over the top? Wallace wasn't exactly endearing, but President Clinton's huffing and puffing and failure to get his own facts straight make this a pretty unimpressive interview on both sides of the ledger.

Should also check out Hanlon's Razor, who was told he had to take down the clip after FoxNews made them cease and desist basically.

http://www.hanlonsrazor.org/2006/09/25/fox-and-the-clinton-interview/

cp

No, Andy, I do not think Clinton's over the top here. In the run-up to elections, Republicans are trying once again to swiftboat the Democrats by, this time, rewriting the history of events that led up to 9/11. But there are huge differences this time, and they do not play in the Republicans' favor. First, there's a hell of lot more documentation of those events than of John Kerry's military service. Second, and most vitally, they're picking not on John Kerry, who, God knows why, rolled over and took it until it was far, far too late, but on Bill Clinton. The desperation of such a move is stunning when you consider the political savvy of Karl Rove's heyday. The incompetence of their efforts to pull it off would be unfathomable if we hadn't seen it (in)action over the past five years.

Clinton knows what they're up to. At a time when national security is the foremost issue on American minds, intelligence reports are leaked confirming what's been obvious since 2003: by creating a vast, vacuous, chaotic, bloody terrorist training ground smack dab between Iran and Syria as well as by practically handwriting the recruiting pamphlets, with images of Abu Ghraib on the cover, no doubt, the war in Iraq has made America more vulnerable, not less. When the next attack comes - and it will - we'll know who's got American blood on their incompetent hands.

I was just getting warmed up, but I see that Joe Leydon is pointing to Keith Olbermann's commentary on all this. He's a bit melodramatic about it, and I could do without the clips from 1984, but he does say what needs to be said.

So just one more thing about Clinton, then. He was to be interviewed about the Clinton Global Initiative, to which he'd invited Laura Bush, for heaven's sake, to deliver the keynote address - in other words, here he is, reaching out across the partisan divide - and then, the ambush. Over the top? He exhibited far more self-control that I would have been able to muster.

On a far, far more trivial note, I suppose bringing this back to movies for a moment wouldn't be the worst thing to do on a movie blog. As I watched Clinton keep plugging Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies, I was wondering of Sony and Paul Haggis weren't sorry they'd abandoned their adaptation just days before. To hear Jeffrey Wells tell it, the project probably won't be picked back up again, either. Too bad.

A few items via Truthdig: "The National Review's Jonah Goldberg claims that only a handful of right-wingers accused Clinton of using his 1998 missile attacks on bin Laden to draw attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. That's simply false, as evidenced here."

Secondly, Glenn Greenwald: "Who wanted to 'cut and run' from Somalia?"

And of course, the Daily Show on media coverage of the interview.

Since this site provides links to them now and then, I'll do the same:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/dems-s27.shtml

Clinton said many times that he supported the Iraq war - he and his wife STILL support it - and his presidency had its fair share of bloody times. The guy is hardly a saint, people.

Oh, of course not, Kris. But then, I don't know of too many saints in politics in or out of office.

I completely agree - and here, I should interject that my opinions expressed here don't necessarily reflect or represent GreenCine, etc., etc. - that both Bill and Hillary Clinton were dead wrong to support the war in Iraq in 2003 and they're dead wrong to carry on supporting it now. I also find the notion floated in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago that Senator Clinton would best serve the country by not running for president but aim for leadership of the Senate instead a thoroughly welcome but highly improbable one.

That said, I disagree with the gist of her challenger here, Bill Van Auken at the WSWS. This just infuriates him: "'After the [the October 12, 2000 bombing of the US destroyer] Cole,' Clinton said in the interview, 'I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden.' ... Clinton continued by declaring, 'If I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill' Osama bin Laden."

"Capture" would have been a better choice of words than "kill," but it doesn't distract from how wrong Van Auken is about the mission in Afghanistan. This argument regarding "longstanding US ambitions to exert hegemony over the oil-rich regions of Central Asia and the Middle East" may well apply to the neocons who drew up plans to overthrow Saddam Hussein long before Bush II entered the Oval Office, but: though the Bush administration botched it entirely - by going it alone, alienating professed and potential allies and squandering the groundswell of worldwide support for the US after 9/11; and by depending too heavily on air power to route out a mobile target infiltrating the civilian population (and surely Israel has shown the futility and immorality of such a strategy by now) - the essential mission in Afghanistan, as opposed to Iraq, was right and necessary. (My friends to the left of me, and yes, I have more than a few, may commence their usual groaning.)

What's more, it was succeeding. Looming Tower author Lawrence Wright said the other day (on the Leonard Lopate Show, if you must know) that by December 2001, Al-Qaeda was 85 to 90 percent kaputt. Many of their leaders had been killed, they couldn't communicate with each other, it was a rout. And then, of course, we turned right around and pretty much did exactly what it'd take to revive their efforts for generations to come.

So, no, Bill Clinton's not a saint. But he was on the right track, basically, and his response to 9/11 would not have led to the catastrophe we're dealing with now and our kids and kids' kids will be dealing with in the future.

I'm so proud of Bill Clinton's performance and behavior during the Wallace interview. On the other hand,I found Wallace rude and disgusting. If you are interviewing someone, ask them a question and then continue to interrupt them while they are trying to answer you, maybe you should review the mechanics and etiquette of your chosen career. What's more, to have the audacity to observe "you seem upset", was simply a ploy to antagonize his guest futher.
I believe Bill Clinton is probably one of the most intelligent politicians alive [maybe the best],and I truly miss his leadership as "thee president". However I agree with David Hudson's comment in his post that "capture" would have been a much more acceptable term than "kill".Which brings me to my final observation/question pertaining to both parties [dems and reps] and current issues,such as the war in Iraq, abortion,death penalty, torture and basically this country's distorted veiw of religion.Why is it O.K.to kill anyone? AND why is it O.K.for a bunch of right wing nuts to kill adults [or torture them]they don't agree with [or want their oil] , but it's not all right for a woman to decide [for possibly a sane reason] to have an abortion? I personally do not support any form of killing, and yes I know someone always will, and even though I'm somewhat disappointed with Bill Clinton's choice of word, he's still got "IT" worldwide and I do desire for him to live the long life he wishes, and to do the work he is so inspired to do. Bless us All.