Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Path to Chris Wallace- "Ten Lies told by Bill Clinton in his Interview on Fox News Sunday"

Full Interview Transcripts here

Bill Clinton Lie #1 " There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Bin laden had anything to do with black hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of 1993."

FACT CHECK> 1998 Indictment against Bin Laden

"At various times from in or about 1992 until the date of the filing of this
Indictment, USAMA BIN LADEN and other ranking members of Al Qaeda stated
privately to other members of Al Qaeda that the United States forces stationed
in the Horn of Africa, including Somalia, should be attacked"

"Beginning in or about early spring 1993, Al Qaeda members began toprovide training and assistance to Somali tribes opposed to the UnitedNations intervention in Somalia;"

Clinton Lie #2 "I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him. CLINTON: What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him."

FACT CHECK> Bill Clinton Speech February 2002>

"So I could have, on any given night, ordered an attack that I knew would kill
200 women and children that had less than a 50 percent chance of getting
him....Although I take full responsibility for it."

Clinton Lie #3 "Did you ever ask that? " It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question"

FACT CHECK: On March 28, 2004 Chris Wallace grilled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for 30 minutes about IRAQ & Pre 911 efforts against Terrorism. During the interview, Chris Wallace said to Sect. Rumsfeld:

"Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority. "

Clinton Lie #4 " I want to know how many you asked why did you fire Dick Clarke"

FACT CHECK: Richard Clarke was not fired he resigned as a NSC Special Advisor in January of 2003.

Clinton Lie #5 "And you came here under false pretenses and said that you'd spend half the time talking about.... (Clinton Global Initiative)"

FACT CHECK: Chris Wallace had 10 Questions written to ask Bill Clinton . 5 questions were strictly designed towards his Clinton Global Initiative. Bill Clinton decided to go off on a tear about the Sole Bin Laden Question.

Clinton Lie #6 "people on my political right who say didn' t do enough spent the whole time I was president saying why is he so obsessed with Bin Laden. And that was wag the dog when he tried to kill him."

FACT CHECK:
On August 21, 1998, the top level Republicans in House & Senate went on record commending and supporting President Clinton's response to the US Embassy Bombings.

"I think the president did exactly the right thing," House
Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said of the bombing attacks. "By doing this we're
sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists."

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."

"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." Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah)

"This administration for the last seven months has neglected compelling national
security threats besides this," said John McCain, a member of the Armed Services
Committee. "I cannot say that they've been neglected because of Monica Lewinsky,
but I can say unequivocally that they have been neglected."


Clinton Lie #7 "after the Cole I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full scale attack search for Bin Laden."

FACT CHECK: Richard Clarke background briefing August 2002

" I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was
passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration."

"There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that."


Clinton Lie #8 "And if I were still president we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now I never criticized President Bush and I don't think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that think Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq"

FACT CHECK: Bill Clinton never once ordered Military ground troops in either Afghanistan or IRAQ the entire time of his Presidency. Bill Clinton signed a Federal Law in 1998 to remove Saddam from Power. In 1999 the FBI placed Bin Laden on the Most Wanted List. Now ask yourself did Bill Clinton ever use Ground troops anywhere during his Presidecy?

FACT CHECK: From the first day following 911, the War in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban & Al Qaeda was a coalition of NATO Forces. NATO took command and co-ordination of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in August 2003. As of February 2005, ISAF currently numbers around 8,204 troops from 36 NATO, nine partner and two non-NATO / non-partner countries. The USA represents 1% of the NATO forces in Afghanistan clearly marking the huge coalition efforts.

Clinton Lie #9 "All I'm asking is if anybody wants to didn'tI did't do enough, you read Richard Clarke's book."

FACT CHECK: Richard Clarke background briefing August 2002 "

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course
of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid
elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline."


Clinton Lie #10 "But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t….. I tried."


FACT CHECK: Bill Clinton had 2922 days in office to catch or kill Bin Laden following the 1993 WTC Bombing, The 1993 Mogadishu Blackhawk Down, The 1995 Operation Bojinka Terrorist Plot, The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, the 1998 US Embassy bombings in Tanzania & Kenya and the 2000 USS Cole Bombing.

Comparatively, the Bush administration had 233 days to deal with terrorism prior to 911 and according to Richard Clarke the man Bill Clinton cited 10 times during the interview>

"the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January (2001).... And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline....that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go
after Al Qaeda."

24 Comments:

At 9/26/2006 6:12 AM, Anonymous Anna said...

Great post and excellent fact checking! Guess he didn't think anyone would check up on "his facts!" Thanks!

 
At 9/26/2006 4:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In response to fact check #8, Clinton used ground troops in Somalia and in Europe in Yugoslavia

 
At 9/26/2006 7:36 PM, Blogger The Right Winged Male said...

In response to FACT #8 Bill Clinton did not use ground troops in Somalia. The mission was a Special Ops mission comprised of Delta Force commandos and 100 ARMY rangers dropped by (AIR) aka Blackhawk Helicopters to capture two top lieutenants of a Somali warlord. The special ops mission was botched and during the battle, 18 American soldiers were killed. Operation Allied Forces in Former Yugoslavia was a NATO Coalition. Operation Allied Force relied almost exclusively on the use of a large-scale air campaign to destroy Yugoslav targets from high altitudes. Ground units were not used, although their use was threatened near the end of the conflict.

 
At 9/27/2006 12:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Supposed Lie #7

"after the Cole I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full scale attack search for Bin Laden."

Where does this say he left the plans for the Bush Administration? It doesn't. The fact check is completly irrevant

 
At 9/27/2006 6:44 AM, Blogger The Right Winged Male said...

Like a good liberal, you failed to read the entire transcripts where Bubba said "When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke"

 
At 9/28/2006 8:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

First I would like to say that Clinton had every right to get bother by Wallace’s question of whether he did enough to kill Bin Laden. Clinton signed up for the interview to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative but instead Wallace felt compelled to bring up the issue of Bin Laden. Clinton has been out of office now for about six years now but he is still made to carry the burden of not getting Bin Laden. In all honesty every member of congress should bears that burden, specially now. Did Clinton do enough? I don’t know for sure. Did Bush do enough? I don’t know. I do know one thing for sure and that is that Bin laden is responsible for 9-11 not Clinton and not Bush. So instead of having this in-fighting we should all work together to get the man responsible for 9-11. United we stand and Divided we fall.

 
At 9/28/2006 8:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, the reason to why this is you latest “bright” moment since Clinton lied to us is because you have been swallowing all the lies from Bush about Iraq, where Bin Laden is, and so on. The difference is that he refuses to comment on HIS (Bush) faults, and continue blaming it on bad intel, even though it is his own intel (Candy Rice also keeps whining, blaming someone else, hmm and now Wallce blaming Clinton for not capturing Bin Laden…).

Bush, if he had been in Clinton’s seat, would have been quite cool, since he’s got nothing smart to say or do, just like “that day” when he stayed in his chair listening to children telling stories. Or in that other video, when he laughs, right as he’s talking about 3000 ppl getting killed.

President Bush is not very bright.

 
At 9/28/2006 8:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fox News has a conservative bias that borders on ridiculous - actually, it doesn’t border on it, its stepped way over that line a long time ago. Now I like President Clinton. I think he’s one of the best Presidents we’ve had and I love the way he slaps Chris Wallace’s hand here. I’ll admit I don’t watch Fox News much (read that almost never) but it seems that when a Fox News pundit has a liberal newsmaker on the question is likely to be a commentary in the form of a question. Kind of a “let me tell the audience what they should think and then I’ll ask you a question.”

 
At 9/28/2006 8:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you read this?

PRINCETON, NJ — The recent firestorm over former President Bill Clinton’s culpability for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was fueled on Tuesday when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice contrasted President Bush’s efforts to pursue al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden with Clinton’s efforts. Clinton has strongly denied various suggestions that his administration missed key opportunities to kill bin Laden and left the Bush administration without a comprehensive anti-terrorism strategy. However, Bush — whom Clinton says did nothing about al-Qaeda for the first eight months of his presidency — has the bigger image problem with Americans on the issue.

According to a recent Gallup Panel survey, the American public puts the primary blame on Bush rather than Clinton for the fact that bin Laden has not been captured. A majority of Americans say Bush is more to blame (53%), compared with 36% blaming Clinton.

However, a larger number, 53%, assign a great deal or fair amount of blame to Bush for failing to track down bin Laden.

Partisanship in High Gear
It is hard to know whether the ongoing war of words — including a highly publicized outburst by Clinton over the weekend in an interview with Fox News anchor Chris Wallace — is changing any minds, or merely inciting partisan loyalties. Republicans and Democrats are largely divided into opposing camps on the question of who is more to blame for bin Laden’s ability to evade capture: 71% of Republicans say Clinton is more to blame while 83% of Democrats hold Bush more responsible. While a small minority in both cases, Republicans are more than twice as likely to blame Bush as Democrats are to blame Clinton (18% vs. 7%).Clinton’s strong advantage among the general public on this question comes more from the fact that political independents are closer to the Democratic side in their attitudes, with a solid majority blaming Bush more than Clinton (58% vs. 31%).Perceptions of the degree to which each president deserves some blame for bin Laden’s whereabouts are similarly partisan. The overwhelming majority of Republicans assign a great deal or fair amount of blame to Clinton, while only 24% assign this much blame to Bush. Conversely, 77% of Democrats assign high blame to Bush, versus only 23% blaming Clinton. Again, independents align more closely with the Democrats.

PEOPLE ARE WAKING UP

 
At 9/28/2006 9:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me tell you something, Bush and the republicans told us they were going to help us after the hurricane in New Orleans and THEY DO NOTHING NOTHING!!! so could you tell me please who lied here?

What did Barbara Bush said referring to the evacuees :”And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this–this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them.”
“Those people who lived under privilige before and now have it better”
By E&P Staff
Published: September 05, 2005 7:25 PM ET updated 8:00 PM

Could you tell me WHO lies here?

 
At 9/28/2006 9:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was a Republican before and I no longer feel that this administration represents the Republican party. I am so disgusted with the policies of this current administration that I feel shame for being a republican.
For Clinton’s few fault’s, at least he seemed to care for the American People and the only lie I can think of that he said was about Monica Lewinsky and that had nothing to do with the safety in America.

BUSH AND HIS ADMINSITRATION LIE ON ALMOST A DAILY BASIS AND MANY PEOPLE HAVE DIED BECAUSE OF IT AND THROUGH THEIR ACTIONS PROOVE THEY DO NOT CARE FOR THE AVERAGE AMERICAN THEY ONLY SEEM TO CARE FOR THE WEALTHY.
THE FACT THAT HE CUT TAXES FOR THE VERY RICH DURING WAR IS UNBELIEVABLE AND INEXCUSABLE!
I REALLY DO NOT CARE IF THE NEXT PRESIDENT IS REPUBLIC OR DEMOCRAT AS LONG AS HE IS NOTHING LIKE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

 
At 9/28/2006 9:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everyone should see this and come to the conclusion that it is ridiculous to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11. Obviously Clinton tried harder to capture Bin Laden even though this was before 9/11 even happened.

Bush has had over 5 years and he has only made things worse in America and the HORRIBLE MESS that is Iraq.

 
At 9/28/2006 9:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Republicans think that they are owners of the truth and they waste time talking and changing words and facts instead of trying to solve real problems in the cuntry.

And I agree, Bush admministration through their actions prooves they DO NOT care for the average American.

 
At 9/28/2006 9:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those of you who continue to support Bush you still don’t get it.
Our economy is not strong, especially when you factor in the deficit. Comparing the deficit to a home buyer’s debt is the most ludicrous of analogies I have heard yet.
You don’t have the basis of a healthy budget because you don’t own anything. You owe everything. When a financial crisis hits, you have no security in that loan because you end up either losing your home because you can’t pay for it or, I suppose, you can continue to mortgage it, and swell deeper in debt. That is not a sound economy. That is a false economy.
We live in a credit card society and when you factor the deficit with a decline in manufacturing of wholesale goods, etc…that cannot continue to support the underpinnings of economic growth which is slowing because of that deficit. We are living on borrowed time in all aspects economically.

To say that the deficit is not important is ludicrous and fraught with errors in thinking.
During the Clinton administration, our economy was in the black, robust and healthy.
Bush spent the surplus and placed us back into a debtors economy. As the interest on the debt continues to climb and we outsource our monies to projects that bring absolutely NO RETURN ON OUR MONEY (the Iraq War) we continue to fall miserably into that dark vortex of poverty.
Just ask those who work longer hours for less or those whose jobs were cut over the course of the past 5 years and can’t get a decent job for decent wages or who can’t draw unemployment because of the Bush hairbrained policies. Get real.

 
At 9/28/2006 9:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You still don’t get it. Our economy is not strong, especially when you factor in the deficit.

Comparing the deficit to a home buyer’s debt is the most ludicrous of analogies I have heard yet. You don’t have the basis of a healthy budget because you don’t own anything. You owe everything.

When a financial crisis hits, you have no security in that loan because you end up either losing your home because you can’t pay for it or, I suppose, you can continue to mortgage it, and swell deeper in debt. That is not a sound economy. That is a false economy.
We live in a credit card society and when you factor the deficit with a decline in manufacturing of wholesale goods, etc…that cannot continue to support the underpinnings of economic growth which is slowing because of that deficit. We are living on borrowed time in all aspects economically.

To say that the deficit is not important is ludicrous and fraught with errors in thinking. During the Clinton administration, our economy was in the black, robust and healthy. Bush spent the surplus and placed us back into a debtors economy just like his father did.
As the interest on the debt continues to climb and we outsource our monies to projects that bring absolutely NO RETURN ON OUR MONEY (the Iraq War) we continue to fall miserably into that dark vortex of poverty. Just ask those who work longer hours for less or those whose jobs were cut over the course of the past 5 years and can’t get a decent job for decent wages or who can’t draw unemployment because of the Bush hairbrained policies. Get real.

 
At 9/28/2006 9:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In some way, I do regret Bill Clinton even bothering with Fox News. It’s unfortunate that this gave Fox News and Chris Wallace so much publicity. They don’t deserve to be taken seriously anymore than their idiot mousepiece Hannity.

We’re never going to reform Fox News into ever doing any kind of Honest Journalism.

The worst thing that could happen to any news program is to be considered insignificant.
So let’s just keep left them behind as the right-wing rag that they are. Don’t bother watching or caring about what they say - they aren’t credible so who cares.

 
At 9/28/2006 9:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only thing that I can say is that I miss Clinton as a President.

Sarah from Fort Lauderdale, Fl

 
At 9/28/2006 9:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only thing that I can say is that I miss Clinton as a President.

Sarah Harrison from Fort Lauderdale, Fl

 
At 9/28/2006 10:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Check this website:

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

It shows the real truth.

We need Actions not pure retoric!

Allison Schwarz from Boca Raton, Fl

 
At 9/28/2006 9:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a stupid and hateful blog. Instead of going after Clinton, who was the best president we've had in ages, you should go after W, who is easily the worst president in US history. Just face it, EVERYTHING was better when Clinton was president, and the country is being systematically ruined, the same way stupid Bush Jr. ruined all of the companies that were handed to him before he was handed the presidency by the supreme court.

 
At 9/28/2006 10:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do-Nothing Congress
What has Congress done for you lately?

WASHINGTON, June. 25, 2006

(CBS) Weekly commentary by CBS Evening News anchor and Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer.

Before long, Congress will be leaving on its Summer Vacation. My question is, how will we know they are gone?

It's been so long since Congress did anything I have to stop and think to remember what it is they are supposed to do.

Oh I remember now, improve the lives of the people who elected them. Can't think of another reason, can you?

Don't misunderstand me. Congress does stay busy. The debate on the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage took a lot of time. Of course, all sides knew there was no chance it would pass. Did the debate improve your life?

The debate on immigration policy took up more time, but the House and Senate never came close to consensus so they have basically thrown in the towel and decided to hold hearings around the country. Maybe they could appoint a Blue Ribbon Commission and waste even more time.

This week begins perhaps the greatest time waster of all: yet another debate on a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, which has as much chance of passing as I have of pitching in the World Series.

Nevertheless, both sides love it because its an excuse to raise campaign contributions. The Conservatives can appeal for money to help them protect Old Glory, the Libs to protect free speech.

But even those in Congress expect nothing to happen. "it's an election year," one Senator told a friend, "nothing is going to fly this year, but we all have to do a lot of flapping."

Funny, except it's our time and money they're wasting.

 
At 9/29/2006 9:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Right Wing you had to change your website adding "the full interview transcript here" for your republican friends to see because you didn't expect so many comments against Bush.

 
At 9/30/2006 11:42 AM, Anonymous strmclouds said...

Excellent blog wing!The left really hates when you expose their golden boy like that.It amazes me their inability to see the truth.The problem with the left is that they are like owls the more light you shine on them...the less they see.Keep up the great work.If you were not right why would there be so many petty little,ranting responses to your blog?

 
At 12/29/2006 2:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whoops! I guess had you waited a week it would've saved you the trouble:

http://www.factcheck.org/article444.html

Oh, but you both came to different conclusions. Hmmm. For the more thorough fact check, does the reader go with the non-partisan research group or the blog of a guy named "the right winged male"? Tough choice, it is.

Don't try to check facts yourself before you've learned how to even make logical/factual argument. Join a research group, take a graduate course, or at least read a short book like Weston's "A Rulebook For Arguments."

...then post. Otherwise, you're just contributing to the big pile of manipulative, out-of-context, biased, opinionated crap already out there. And, wouldn't you rather stand away from the big pile of crap than in it?

Good luck to you.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home