Clinton lays the smackdown on FOX’s Chris Wallace.

Did you guys catch Clinton ripping Chris Wallace a new asshole on FOX News the other day? I missed it myself, but have been watching the various news clips of it since then and I have to say it’s a thing of beauty! DOF sent me a link to the Think Progress transcript of the interview:

CLINTON: What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him.

Now, I’ve never criticized President Bush, and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only one-seventh as important as Iraq.

And you ask me about terror and Al Qaida with that sort of dismissive thing? When all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country against terror.

And you’ve got that little smirk on your face and you think you’re so clever. But I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it. But I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could.

The entire military was against sending Special Forces in to Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter. And no one thought we could do it otherwise, because we could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaida was responsible while I was president.

And so, I left office. And yet, I get asked about this all the time. They had three times as much time to deal with it, and nobody ever asks them about it. I think that’s strange.

I miss having a competent President like him. You can also watch the interview at the Think Progress website.

Update: Edited to correct the Chris Wallace’s name.

38 thoughts on “Clinton lays the smackdown on FOX’s Chris Wallace.

  1. I caught it. Unfortunately the mainstream (read: fucked-up) media is spinning it into Clinton “going wild” or “ranting”.

    It was a pleasure to listen to an orateur for a change. It’s too bad it was wasted on Faux News. They’re dumb enough to think they actually came out smelling like roses.

  2. I caught the arse-end of it on our PBS late last night.
    Was Bill jamming his finger on the interviewer (using the term loosely)‘s leg or did it just look like it?
    I have never before see a politician get into someone’s face like that and finished up saying that the current crop o’ pollies don’t get asked questions like that, do they … do they!?
    Yeah Sadie, I agree – pity he’s only remembered for getting a head job – reminds me of the joke – Just one goat.
    Speaking of Goats, didn’t Bull$hit get close and personal with one?
    A man was charged with having sex with a goat. The man didn’t have enough money to hire the best lawyer in town, so he hired another lawyer who was famous for picking a sympathetic jury.
    During the trial, the next door neighbour was recounting how she saw her neighbour having relations with the goat under the light of a full moon. She recounted that when the man had finished, the goat turned around and gave the man a big kiss right on the mouth.
    At this testimony, the man and his lawyer turned to look at the jury to see their reaction. Just at that moment, the foreman of the jury nudged the juror next to him and said, “A good goat will do that.”  LOL

  3. Whatever his name is, like most Fox News reporters, he is a pompous asshole.  Thank you Bill for taking it to them.

    Almost forgot, man was I ever impressed with how well Billy Boy handled himself.

    You know, I’ve really missed this guy.

    So do most other rationale people.

    Speaking of Goats, didn’t Bull$hit get close and personal with one?

    I thought it was a horse.  But funny ass joke thanks!!

  4. For all his faults, and he has a few (who doesn’t), Bill Clinton was a good president.

    The FOX presenter came out of it looking like an idiot.

  5. I caught it. Unfortunately the mainstream (read: fucked-up) media is spinning it into Clinton “going wild” or “ranting”.

    That’s because as far as any mainstream media outlet is concerned, it’s more important that he lost his temper than whether what he said was true or not.  If you needed a better example of how screwed up the media is than this, you’re hopeless.

    I despised Clinton in office, I think the man is a jerk and a liar (although no more than most politicians) and he looks and talks like a used-car salesman, but damnit! I was applauding him in that interview.

  6. I watched the interview and I was impressed with his remarks. I always liked Clinton and I especially despised the way Republicans demonized him after the whole Lewinsky incident. Although, I have to say, there was a man I knew in boot camp who made a damn good point about the whole affair. A Southern Republican and a West-Pointer to boot, our division leader thought Clinton was an excellent President, but his argument against him was that to hold such a public and esteemed post, a man has to have a sense of honor beyond reproach. Of course, at the time that would have been an appropriate remark, but given the shame that President Bush has brought upon the White House, I think it will be sometime before ANY President can entire the UN without ever other world leader laughing at him or her behind their back.

  7. and I especially despised the way Republicans demonized him after the whole Lewinsky incident

    The man NEEDED to be demonized for that.  The tragedy of the Lewinsky thing was not that Clinton was raked over the coals, but that Bush isn’t, and he’s done far worse than get a blow job in the Whitehouse.

  8. Sorry Neo but I have to disagree with your west-point friend.  To expect someone who wins a popularity contest for president to suddenly have a sense of “honour beyond reproach” is foolish in the extreme. 
        The U.S. and most western nations do not have a “moral apptitude” test in order to be allowed to run for office.  To expect the unwashed masses who choose whom looks best on T.V. to choose someone honourable for the office is not going to happen in this lifetime. Holding them to that standard as opposed to “How good a leader for myself and my nation and my allies is he?” is not wise.
        I understand the point of view of a man west-point educated and respect it but it’s not how the world works.
        Sure Bill acted fairly stupidly in regards to Monica but if it was the 1960’s and evidence Kennedy had been up to shenanigans in the O-office do you think his opponents would have used it for Partisan advantage to try to “publicly” remove the President.  I think not.
      Politician world wide are human and personal scandal happens all the time.  The handling of the situation by his oponents was poor at best and they brought as much shame or more to the whole situation.

  9. Oh you’re right, he should have been demonized for it, by his family, his friends, his wife, etc. However, it would not have otherwise affected his ability to lead. Only after he lost support because of this public “outing” did he falter. My point was that he was demonized for a private affair. No one was willing to focus on his abilities as a leader. I don’t agree with what he did. I believe it was despicable, but I don’t believe it should have been dragged through the court of public opinion. Case in point, George Washington’s remains show that he was infected with syphilis at the time of his death. His wife, however, was not. Which of course means that he had an affair at some point. We can all safely assume that one of our founding fathers would serve as an example of what a leader should be. This is my point, the entire episode was used to take the focus off the real issues at hand.

  10. The man NEEDED to be demonized for that.  The tragedy of the Lewinsky thing
    was not that Clinton was raked over the coals, but that Bush isn’t, and
    he’s done far worse than get a blow job in the Whitehouse.

    No, he didn’t.  I cared at the time but time and world events have changed my mind.  Powerful men have women throwing themselves at them all the time, and some of them will succumb.  I now more fully appreciate bipartisanship (Clinton did a creditable job of finding the best people regardless of party), a priority for a balanced budget (remember “paygo”?), and a cautious approach to international diplomacy. 

    A perfect president?  No.  But damn good and the Lewinski affair was blown waaaaaay out of proportion by a propaganda machine and $35m of our taxpayer money in a prosecutorial fishing expedition.

    Next president has my permission to have Mazola orgies on the West lawn if he’ll do the right things with his other pen.

  11. My point was that he SHOULD have a sense of honor beyone reproach, not necessarily that someone who holds that post will. Only that they should.

  12. To expect the unwashed masses who choose whom looks best on T.V. to choose someone honourable for the office is not going to happen in this lifetime. Holding them to that standard as opposed to “How good a leader for myself and my nation and my allies is he?” is not wise.

    I don’t believe that American voters select who looks best on TV, nor do I believe that they vote for the candidate that they think will be a good leader.  In the past two presidential elections, about half of voters voted for the candidate that their religious leaders told them to vote for—and the other half voted against him.

  13. Neo writes…

    My point was that he SHOULD have a sense of honor beyone reproach, not necessarily that someone who holds that post will. Only that they should.

    Well hell, as long as we’re playing the “What the President SHOULD have…” game let me add that he SHOULD have a decent command of the English language so people don’t laugh when he tries to say words like “nuclear.”

    Alas what a President SHOULD have and what he DOES have are often two very different things.

  14. Neo: My point was that he SHOULD have a sense of honor beyone reproach, not necessarily that someone who holds that post will. Only that they should.

    Well, I think we SHOULD each and every one of us live perfect happy lives free from any pain. Of course, we don’t.

  15. That’s because as far as any mainstream media outlet is concerned, it’s more important that he lost his temper than whether what he said was true or not.

    Unfortunately, the media does this frequently.  I remember a little while back when Gore gave a speech critical of the handling of the war in Iraq.  It was a good speech, and signaled a change in the direction of how Democrats would approach the war.  However, the only media coverage of the speech was speculation about whether or not Gore was intending to run for office again.

    Or even try to think of a news article that used more than a few fragments of sentences for quotes of speeches.  I know that they have limited room and need to summarize, but the summaries are often quite poor, contain no fact checking or analysis, and highlight anything (evn trivial) that will get attention.  Most media outlets seems more geared towards providing drama and entertainment than the news.

    That’s why I have mostly stopped watching TV news and no longer check cnn.com and some of the other mass-market news outlets.  I prefer to read transcripts of interviews and speeches, and to get in-depth coverage of a few issues rather than shallow treatment of a host of issues (i.e., NPR-style over CNN-style).

  16. That’s why I have mostly stopped watching TV news

    Indeed. Same here.

    Neo, I understand the sentiment, but I only act on should when hastening predictions about what is, and only when I can afford to be wrong smile. Besides, what should be is what is, or it is nothing at all.

    Swordsbane, I agree that Clinton’s blowjob was fair cause for impeachment, as is Bush’s incompetence. Both presidents have been roundly criticized regardless of doing right or wrong precisely because they have done both. Politics is a wasteful, messy, stupid business – but they (and we) knew that before ever getting involved. Ultimately, however, I think that having him removed from office would affect me and mine for the worse, even here in Canuckistan; the blowjob would not have. It is for this reason, and not for any “should”, that I supported Clinton’s stay in office.

    Of course, he still continues to do good outside the presidency, so I stand by his conduct as a human being, too.

  17. No, he didn’t.  I cared at the time but time and world events have changed my mind.  Powerful men have women throwing themselves at them all the time, and some of them will succumb.  I now more fully appreciate bipartisanship (Clinton did a creditable job of finding the best people regardless of party), a priority for a balanced budget (remember “paygo”?), and a cautious approach to international diplomacy.

    A perfect president?  No.  But damn good and the Lewinski affair was blown waaaaaay out of proportion by a propaganda machine and $35m of our taxpayer money in a prosecutorial fishing expedition.

    Next president has my permission to have Mazola orgies on the West lawn if he’ll do the right things with his other pen.

    Damn good??  Yeah right. Everything he did could have easily been done by another bozo with decent math skills and no axe to grind or special interest baggage.  I’m sorry, but I can’t agree with you there.  We don’t need someone who passed high school algebra but can’t keep the one-eyed wonder worm in it’s cave while he’s at work.  Committing adultery in the Whitehouse is not something I’m going to say “Well, he’s good for the country so here’s a free pass.”  Maybe trying to impeach him is going too far, but we should be holding our presidents to a higher standard than the rest of us instead of saying “Hey, he’s only human.”  Damnit! He’s not human.  He’s the president.

    I see all this “Oh we’ll never get someone honourable in the Whitehouse” all over this thread and it is very sad.  Sad that we don’t expect our preisdents to be leaders to look up to and sad that we try to tell everyone else not to expect it either.  To sick the dogs on Clinton when he get’s blown on the job and then to turn a blind eye to Bush when he lies to us to get us into a war means that something is fundamentally WRONG about how we get information on candidates and how we process that information, not just the fact that these bozo’s are in office.  One of the best bumper stickers I’ve seen reads “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”  Who is paying attention?  The one’s who dislike both parties.

    The fact of the matter is that neither Clinton nor Bush had any business being president.  Neither one of them is a good leader, very smart (no.. experience doesn’t count for brains) or honourable, but more than half of those who voted chose both of them, and chose Bush twice.  When you put up Clinton next to Bush, of course he seems like a great leader, but then I would take Zaphod Beeblebrox over Bush in a second.  Do I think Zaphod is a good president, not on your life.  I’d take Clinton over Bush in a second too, but we DO have other choices.  And to everyone here who is going to jump on my ass and say “You’ll never get anyone other than a Rep or Dem or MAYBE a 3rd party flavor of the month) in office” so what?  You’re supposed to vote for the person who you think will be a good president.  Not who is the best out of the choices they give you, or who has a chance of winning, or who looks good on TV.  Last I heard, there was still a place for a write-in.  I use it all the time, and the rules say that if he gets 51% of the voters, he’s in, assuming he’s stupid enough to take the job.  Of course there’s the whole Electoral College idiocy, but that’s another argument.

      Anyone who says “It sucks but what are you going to do?” is part of the problem.  If it sucks, then at least try to do something about it.  If you think I’m wrong and everything is fine, then tell me.  Otherwise, shut the hell up.
    [/rant]

  18. Getting down to it, I just don’t care anymore if the president has an affair.  That’s between him, his wife, and his mistress.  The only way I’d have improved on the Lewinski affair is if Clinton had looked straight into the camera and said; “Maybe I did and maybe I didn’t.  If that sort of thing fascinates you, speculate away; the rest of us have a country to run.”

    It was never a proper matter for congressional inquiry in the first place.  The question itself was improper, and deserved no answer let alone a truthful one.

    Honor is like intelligence; it has many variables.  You can have all the honor in the world and be great at math, and still be a lousy president.  It makes a much bigger difference what you lie about.

    But if you’re just determined to hate Bill Clinton, knock yourself out.  No law says we have to agree.

  19. If I were Bill Clinton I would have told the truth from the get go.  If he came on camera with that somber voice and the sad puppy dog look in his eyes, people would have blown up initially, but would have shrugged their shoulders eventually and forgotten about it.  His numbers were so high that a blow job was all it took to fuck things up.

    And to think if he did tell the truth Gore could have used Bill Clinton in 2000 instead of shunning him and he would have been president.  Holy Shit imagine that!!

    But Clinton, like all politicians, listened to his stupid advisor’s and tried to hide from it.  The truth always comes back to haunt you, and it will always set you free.

    Oh, and Swordsbane…

    Damn good??  Yeah right. Everything he did could have easily been done by another bozo with decent math skills and no axe to grind or special interest baggage.

    I think the average person would be surprised to say the least, if they took on the role of American President.  If you want me to elaborate just give me about a week to type up all the roles, responsibilities, and other bullshit issues the president has to deal with.

  20. Alright SB, I trimmed this down to the essentials.

    “What are you going to do?” is the question – what most people miss is that it is not meant to be rhetorical. There are people honestly concerned with such problems, but there has been little productivity because these represent complex problems, and relatively few resources dedicated to removing them. What “ought” to be is too often a bad premise and rarely a good tool.

    It’s a complicated issue, but the breakdown is, it takes a lot of resources to run a campaign to make someone president. You vote because you want someone to be president. That means you want other people to do the same. That means you need resources.

    Most people don’t have nearly the resources to campaign. We certainly can’t leave jobs, a house, or a family. We have a lot to lose. That, if anything, should be an excellent lesson on how good we’ve got it. We don’t have it good enough because we want access – we get access when we settle for less with our own lives.

    That’s the bottom line: being politically active has a rich pricetag. You can get rich, or you can settle for less. Both help buy a president.

  21. I like Clinton more now that he’s not president – he’s a likeable, charming kinda guy, and he’s done some good post-administration-wise, most notably in terms of disaster relief awareness.  If the dems could field a candidate as aw-shucks and personable as Clinton instead of a dried-up prune like Kerry, (or a shrew like Bill’s missus) maybe they could pull in enough centrist votes to win an occasional election.

  22. Not to sound shrewed or dismissive… but if the middle ground people would actually read about the candidates and understand their positions rather than listening to the mainstream media or watching TV ads, maybe it would be more obvious who to vote for.

  23. I was more or less addressing Lesser Pat, but it was also intended for a larger audience too.  My point about the mainstream media is that people think they need information force-fed to them and that is not true.  NPR is not mainstream, why can’t people get information from it?

    The other point I was making though was that people heard that McCain might have fathered illigitimate black children, he lied about his war medals, and about the time he spent in captivity.  As far as Gore, the obvious one was “I created the Internet”.  With Kerry the obvious one was “Oh that Kerry, he is a flip flopper”.  But also there was bullshit about his war merits. 

    All of this bullshit came from the Bush campaign machine.  None of it is true.  And all was reported by the mainstream media.  With the advent of the Internet, it would have been very easy for those in the middle to check if this was the case or not.  Thus making the decision of who to vote for a little simpler.

  24. Some more of what Clinton said: “I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn’t do enough said I did too much — same people.”

    Oh really?

    As Ilya Somin points out over at the Volokh Conspiracy, this http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/react082198.htm makes clear that Clinton is trying to talk up his track record.  The speaker of the house and top Republican at the time said:

    “I think the president did exactly the right thing,” House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.)

    Other leading Republicans had this to say:

    Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) called the attacks “appropriate and just,” and House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said “the American people stand united in the face of terrorism.”

    What about Orrin Hatch:

    Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who in recent days has been very critical of Clinton on the Lewinsky matter, also supported the bombing raids, noting, “In the past I was worried that this administration didn’t take this threat seriously enough, and didn’t take Osama bin Laden seriously enough; I’m going to support him, wish him well and back him up.”

    More chiding from neocons?

    And urge him on, a view supported bluntly by House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.). “If anything, this was somewhat overdue, and I’m not talking days, but months and years. This needs to be the first punch we land. We need to land more,” Goss added, warning that “now that we have struck back, it is sure to inflame them even more. All Americans need to understand that.”

    Simply not true President Clinton. They never said you did too much. 

    Les:

    A misstatement of fact is a thing of beauty?  That is what you miss?

  25. Clinton wasn’t making a statment of fact there, he was making a point.  And his point still stands that no one at the time (for the most part) gave a shit about Bin Laden except Richard Clark who was trying to get this Bin Laden taken out.  And Bush down-graded Clark’s authority to the point where Clark couldn’t get anything done.  So for Clinton to get slack about not going after the terrorists in the wake of 9/11 is bullshit.

    I know first hand that the dis-information campaign is working cause I still have friends that think Bush has done more to fight terror.  And they try to argue the point.  I pretty much just ask them if they read Richard Clark’s book…

  26. All the right-wingers who now say I didn’t do enough said I did too much — same people.

    Statement of fact.

  27. Here’s your rebuttal, Consi. From the folks at Think Progress. FLASHBACK: Conservative Lawmakers Decried Clinton’s Attacks Against Osama As ‘Wag the Dog’:

      In his interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, former President Bill Clinton noted that the political right, which now accuses him of not doing enough to stem the al Qaeda terrorist threat, criticized his 1998 missile strikes in Afghanistan as “wag the dog.” Clinton said:

      The people on my political right who say I didn’t do enough spent the whole time I was president saying, Why is he so obsessed with bin Laden? That was wag the dog when he tried to kill him.

      Originating from a 1997 movie, Wag the Dog was a phrase used by the right to suggest Clinton’s airstrikes were driven by ulterior motives in an effort to distract the public. Some examples below:

      Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV):

      ‘Look at the movie Wag the Dog. I think this has all the elements of that movie,’ Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said. ‘Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems.’” [Ottawa Citizen, 8/21/98]

      Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA):

      There’s an obvious issue which will be raised internationally about the response here as to whether there is any diversionary motive involved. … I have deliberated consciously any references to Ms. Monica Lewinsky, but when you ask the question in very blunt terms, the president’s current problems have to be on the minds of many people.” [CNN, 8/20/98]

      Former Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO):

      “‘We support the president out of a sense of duty whenever he deploys military forces, but we’re not sure – were these forces sent at this time because he needed to divert our attention from his personal problems?‘ Ashcroft said during the taping of a TV program in Manchester, N.H.” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 8/21/98]

      Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX):

      “I’m very supportive of the strike that has happened, but I will tell you that the timing is very questionable. This was the day that Monica Lewinsky has gone back to the grand jury, evidently enraged. Certainly that information will be overshadowed.” [Dallas Morning News, 8/21/98]

      Former Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN):

      “Coats (R-IN), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, ‘While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack and why it was ordered today, given the president’s personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action.‘” [CNN, 8/20/98]

      Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL):

      ‘The obvious question is, are the two connected?’ asked Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), who chairs the National Security Committee’s research subcommittee. ‘That’s the unthinkable, and I would hope it would never occur in America, but I can tell you, a lot of people are wondering about it today.‘” [Los Angeles Times, 8/21/98]

      Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA):

      “All I’m saying is if factors other than good intelligence, military necessity, being prepared for the consequences entered into it, then it is wrong, and it appears that one of those factors that may have entered into it is to take something that could have been done a week ago and do it today in an effort to divert some attention.” [Fox News, 8/20/98]

      Much more at Salon’s War Room.

  28. “What are you going to do?” is the question – what most people miss is that it is not meant to be rhetorical. There are people honestly concerned with such problems, but there has been little productivity because these represent complex problems, and relatively few resources dedicated to removing them. What “ought” to be is too often a bad premise and rarely a good tool.

    What ‘ought’ to be is the only thing that matters.  If something is right, then you should be supporting it, even if you’re the only one doing it.  It’s not up to the candidates to convince us they are the best people for the job so much as our responsibility to decide who’s the right person for the job.  There’s no shortage of information out there.  The problem is that there is too much rhetoric and snow jobs.

      If your question is what ought to be done, then the answer is simple, don’t vote for who they give you.  Vote for the best person you can find.  It really is that simple.

    That’s all the time I’m going to spend on that considering it’s drifted too far off topic.

    What Clinton said is very true, but that doesn’t change my opinion of him.  I don’t hate him.  I just think our sights should be a lot higher is all.  Of course a blow job is much better than going to war for oil, but I don’t think we should tolerate either.

  29. Chris Wallace ambushed Clinton. He flew his planes into Clinton’s buildings, but did you spot that Chris Wallace inadvertantly called him President Clinton when under Clinton’s return fire? Or did it seem so natural that you didn’t notice it either? That’s because we were all enjoying being reminded what a real US President should sound like.

    :::[Clinton shows how real Presidents handle ambush]

    How refreshing, especially after a long 5 years when it has been needed most.

  30. Actually I think it’s common practice to continue to refer to former presidents as Mr. President when addressing them even after they’ve left office.

  31. Actually I think it’s common practice to continue to refer to former presidents as Mr. President when addressing them even after they’ve left office.

    This is true.

  32. I was going to second what you said about referring to former Presidents as Mr. President, Les, but I was beaten to the punch so I will third it, and add that is why I referred to him as such.

    Les, suggesting Wag the Dog does not ipso facto mean that those who made such suggestions were against the act or thought it inappropriate.  Is there something more directly on point where there are influential office holding Republicans saying, “Hey, Mr. President, what’s your hang up with Osama?”, as Clinton suggests with his quotes, but for which I can find nothing?

    Furthermore, the addition of the Wag the Dog quote that you added, does not turn Clinton’s misrepresentation that I set forth above into an accurate representation. He still has misrepresented the facts.

  33. Perhaps I spoke too soon about giving up on the mainstream media.  I just watched two news clips on crooksandliars.com and was very impressed.  The first was a report by Keith Olbermann on how the Bush administration handled terrorism in the lead-up to 9/11:
    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/27/keith-olbermann-takes-a-look-back-at-bushs-first-months-in-office-leading-up-to-911/

    and the second is Chris Matthews (who I normally can’t stand), who actually stays on topic in an interview and presses for an answer about the benefits of the Iraq war:
    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/27/john-boehner-still-believes-saddam-was-tied-to-911-and-had-wmd/

    If tv news was like this more often, then I’d consider re-ordering cable.

    Now I’m sure that some people will say that I just like the coverage because it was “left-leaning”.  Wrong- I like in-depth reporting, and I really like political leaders being held accountable for their actions (or at least being forced to justify their actions).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.