Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
The claim that Wallace is not an ideologue. Maybe not, but he's not *not* an ideologue either. The right isn't content to bully its opponents, they have to make their victims look crazy for pointing out the bullying as well.
Want to really feel disgusted? Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBxoyotIOo for a brief clip of Wallace being interviewed (on Fox) about his exchange with Clinton. I love it. Note the clips of Clinton they decided to include.
Poor Chris, he's such a victim. All he did was ask one little "non-confrontational" question! What BS. He says he just asked him something like "could you have done more", when in fact he said - "why didn't you do more.." yeah - bit of a difference there....
-JL
Go President Clinton. I do have sympathy for him. Bipartisanship is a good thing even if it hasn't served him well, as Arianna Huffington points out. This administration has bungled so many more things than Clinton's administration ever had, and they are given a free pass. I've never seen anything like it, with the wire tapping, the secret prisons, the attorney general refusing to be sworn in at a congressional hearing, flagged draped coffins called unpatriotic, the callousness and incompetence during Hurricane Katrina and always. And yet, Bill Clinton is somehow the villain still in the mainstream media. It's about time he went off on somebody, and Chris Wallace really did have it coming.
The very best line: "This President thinks Afghanistan is one-seventh as important as Iraq!"
Well done, President Clinton!
Well, it’s pretty clear that the paragraph-long intro to this reveals the editor’s take.
“It certainly made for riveting TV.” That’s said as if, ‘golly, we don’t really know about what he said but it sure was riveting.’ But apparently you do have an opinion because you then go on to cite three reports that are critical of Clinton’s points, including that Wallace is a stooge, and not a word about the substance of much of what Clinton had to say was deadly (like 2700+ deadly) important and irrefutable.
WaPo is cited because Wallace isn’t considered to be part of the more biased journalists. Well, that’s the sort of bullshit that’s only said within media talking about itself (and apparently that includes Video Dog). You don’t have to follow much of Wallace’s work to know he’s partisan.
Then Huffington and Tapper are cited too, more criticism of Clinton. Nevermind all the valid points he raises. Let’s nitpick other things. Right editors?
This is why we have the mess our country is right now. We deserve it. Even in a small way, like the paragraph about this interview, it can’t for one fucking second be conceded that Clinton made a boatload of points about the obvious hypocrisy our pols engage in. Every stripe of media can’t seem to rally behind the stark truth or point out stark lies. It’s why I won’t be shocked come November the same jackasses that have been in charge for six years still will be.
Whatever Clinton’s faults as a president (and I have many bones to pick about his performance), this interview showed what a smart, articulate, capable leader he is. He gets angry for good reason and yet remains on-point and makes valid assertions in a manner that can be followed…he doesn’t turn into some little “I’m the Decider” bitch.
Jesus. It’s like you can’t read anything in any publication anymore that can be honest.
Nice going editor. Way to do your part in subtly reinforcing the media and political climate that’s lead to staggering national debt, never-ending attacks on gays/women/minorities, a colossally wrong war, etc. Grow enough fucking balls to concede a little truth once in awhile. Or just go back to commenting on videos of cute little kitty-cats.
Go Bill!
Fox was out of line and got a little of what they deserved!
So Go Bill!
Every fucking time FOX News or one of its talking heads has to deal with someone who isn't a stuffed suit they have their asses handed to them. It reminds me of Buckley V. Chomsky in '68. Suddenely Buckley was confronted by someone much more intelligent than he, and who wasn't intimidated by his ten dollar vocabulary. The result is thrilling for those who gnashed their teeth while watching "Firing Line" all those years (you can find the debate on YouTube).
Imagine President Bush defending himself so articulately. The very best line: "This President thinks Afghanistan is one-seventh as important as Iraq!"
One has to know fractions to make Clitnon's point.
I'm going to agree with Anonymous who was taken aback by the editorializing posing as referencing vis a vis the Clinton/Wallace clip. It reminded me of the "over the top" comment about Keith Olbermann's critiqe of Bush. Who writes these things anyway? Could they sign their names? That way the reader is clued in about how to contextualize the contextualization. The Fix too says that Clinton's anger was terrifying. (?). I'm still furious with Clinton--I don't blame Ken Starr as much as Himself for the distractions of his presidency--but whenever I see Clinton--in Wordplay, or here, I get so nostalgic for a smart President--a President who keeps knowledge and memory of knowledge, you know, with him. And in this case, I think Clinton was absolutely right to fight back about a faulty rhetoric that is surfacing with a vengence. And I loved his "little smirk" remark. I bet that Chris Wallace gets self-conscious about his facial responses now.
I haven't gotten this turned on by political porn since Monsieur Colbert publicly spanked GW. God I miss Bill--he's one bad-ass mother fucker.
Just a request for Salon, to follow up on President Clinton's point, could we please see a sampling of all the questions Fox commentators have asked members of the current administration about their response to terrorism/Al Qaida?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
