Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SentToStud
Moderate Republican here, traditional fiscal conservative/social moderate type.
I think Clinton ripped Wallace a new one. MIKE Wallace would NEVER have let that happen. That's one point. The second point is Chris Wallace is a smirker as are lots of the Fox people. Third, Clinton is right about a lot of the points he made. You certainly can't believe Clinton "made it all up" can you?
|
I have heard both sides of the story. I think there is some truth to some of the things Clinton said. As I said earlier, this is sort of like listening to a prosecutor or a defense attorney. They are usually only go to tell you half the story. It can be very misleading if you don't know the other half of the story.
If you read the 9/11 report, you see that Berger and Clinton dragged their feet on several occassions when it came to going after Bin Laden.
Incidentally, Wallace and Clinton did not have a debate so you can't say that Clinton ripped Wallace a new one. Wallace did not atempt to dispute anything Clinton said. If he wanted to, he certainly could have. He could have quoted excerpts from the 9/11 report. He could have quoted Clinton's formwer CIA director Woolsey who said that Clinton wouldn't even meet with him for a year. Clinton was so serious about fighting terrorism, that he wouldn't even meet with his CIA director.