Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Fox News Promos Interview As ‘Clinton Gets Crazed’
thinkprogress.org — Clinton tells the truth about Fox News, his record on terrorism and the Bush administration’s record on terrorism. Fox gets defensive.
jlegum- 594 diggs
- digg it
- Pyronite, on 10/12/2007, -57/+11Bill Clinton UNHINGED!
- BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -21/+4He's a psycho:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UwJabtvSUQ - BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5Oops...forgot to mention that I was referring to Slick Willie.
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11good. its time for true americans to quit putting up with this *****.
- BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -21/+4He's a psycho:
- sithvicious, on 10/12/2007, -14/+44http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/23/fox-news-saying-clinton-gets-crazed/
Video where they talk about the interview. Also it seems like they changed the caption on the Fox News site. It must be a day of the week because Fox is already putting a spin on the story.- SimonKay, on 10/12/2007, -23/+70 I've read the transcript. Wow, they really put a spin on the interview. And this is after the guy raised billions for charity. Politics aside Fox News and the Republican Party have no class.
- Schug, on 10/12/2007, -38/+29@SimonKay
"MOST / SOME / MANY of the Republican Party have no class." Not "all" though. Sorry universal statements just annoy me. - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -9/+26Looks like Fox realized that their caption just demonstrated the spin and bias that Clinton was upset about.
- eleazar123, on 10/12/2007, -38/+11"Video where they talk about the interview. Also it seems like they changed the caption on the Fox News site. It must be a day of the week because Fox is already putting a spin on the story."
lol, oh you're right, other news services NEVER convolute the truth. Only the Republicans! doh! they are teh DEVIL! they support the deviL!~!#$!&*(#$@! zomg! - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -20/+14eleazar123, only a republican would consider using the term "devil" when describing someone. Namely, a conservative republican.
- eleazar123, on 10/12/2007, -28/+9mrassman: i was referring to mr. chavez calling bush a devil. get it?
oh and don't worry guys, i'm expecting to be dugg down very very far, what else would one expect on liberal digg.com especially on an anti-conservative post. - Colbert, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15"eleazar123, only a republican would consider using the term "devil" when describing someone. Namely, a conservative republican."
yeah, like chavez - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Yeah, I did get it, clever.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9By the way, how did you think Democrats responded to those remarks by Chavez?
Straight from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215037,00.html - foamweapons, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Viva Chavez! He's the left's closest thing to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. Calling Bush 'El Diablo' is definitely taking a page from their book.
Case in point... in 2001 Limbaugh referred to Democratic leader Tom Daschle, literally, as “El Diablo.” Along with “Devil in a Blue Dress” theme music, he said (July 2001): “Just yesterday, as Bush winged his way to Europe on a crucial mission to lead our allies into the 21st century…up pops ‘El Diablo,’ Tom Daschle, and his devilish deviltry, claiming that George Bush is incompetent.”
More Chavez love:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0706-32.htm - Dabellah, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2Republicans have no class? Funny cuz I see the Democrats as POSING as though they have class. Independent ftw
- ig33k010011, on 10/12/2007, -62/+15enough with the anti-Bush crap. we know that the bloggers and diggers are 99% lib. get a life. bury.
- spidermanspants, on 10/12/2007, -27/+11I'll bury yeeeeee
- mydigglogin, on 10/12/2007, -10/+48No, most digg users are fairly educated people, who can think and process information for themselves.
As Colbert said it, "the reality has a well-known liberal bias". - stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -8/+34It because intelligent people tend to be liberal. Don't worry though, there is a GOP state senator (Florida, of course) trying to pass legislation that allows students sue any professor that says a liberal statement. No oppression there.
It sounds real bad, but when I was down there he was a huge joke.
- heavensblade23, on 10/12/2007, -20/+25Why did Clinton even do the interview? He walked right into their trap. Fox News has NEVER been fair to any liberal politician they've interviewed.
- antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -33/+9I'm sure you watched every single interview to come to that conclusion, yea? Ohhhhh you are just pulling data out of your ass. How very fair of you.
- SIDSI, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23The interview was suppose to be a 50/50 split on the Clinton Initiative and anything else. Within about two minutes, Wallace turns to the Path to 9/11 and bin Laden.
- apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2never mind...
- steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@heavensblade-because unlike Bush who can't give a straight answer, Clinton felt like he had nothing to hide and decided to go straight to Fox to confront them
- FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Clinton knew exactly what he was doing. Chris Wallace and Fox are the ones who had a trap set for them. You think Clinton didn't know the second he agreed to that interview that an OBL question was coming?
- BigMucho, on 10/12/2007, -24/+6Well... at least he tried...
/clap
/yawn - infra172, on 10/12/2007, -48/+9Clinton had Osama handed to him on a silver platter and turned the offer down. Clinton caused 9/11.
- dholle, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23What are you talking about? Try reading this instead of watching O'Riley.
www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf - thatsmyaibo, on 10/12/2007, -17/+12I for one liked Clinton. A lot. And I'm not a fan of bush whatsoever. However, It is true that the U.S. was offered Bin Laden during Clinton's term. The war in Iraq is one of the worst decisions made in recent U.S. history, but the history of terrorism on our soil goes beyond the Bush administration. This was from the LA Times (a majority liberal newspaper).
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
You have to look at both sides. Not lean one way or another. I know digg has a vast amount of left wingers, but it's OK to admit faults. I'm a republican that despises Bush. That was a fault I'm more That willing to admit. - sgbooth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@dholle: From what I understand (I'm too lazy to do the research), Osama was offered in 1996 which was well before he was recognized as a terrorist threat behind Al Qaeda. Once recognized as a threat, Clinton prioritized killing Osama to the extent that he would allow the entire "wag the dog" incident to take place.
- KenLin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5thatsmyaibo:
The link you provided is for a five year old opinion piece - not a news story from L.A.Times. Mansoor Ijaz is a biased source. Digg users should search of his name and make up own mind on whether to rely on this source. - vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5As much as I dislike Clinton, he wasn't omniscient then and he isn't omniscient now. Omnipresent perhaps, but not omniscient. If you blame Clinton for 9/11, you really have to blame almost every other American. Perhaps you can blame Clinton a bit more since his policies led to slashing the intelligence budget to ribbons (which we are still feeling the effects of, by the way -- ask any civil servant in the DoD why there is currently a huge gap in the age distribution of the work force), but he had help from many others in doing that.
- Dipsomaniac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2More garbage. Every time you spread that lie you make yourself look like an idiot. I'd say it was funny, but it's really just sad.
Mansoor Ijaz *never* had the authority to offer bin Laden to anybody. Never. The entire story of that 'deal' is crap.
- dholle, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23What are you talking about? Try reading this instead of watching O'Riley.
- RUSSEL760, on 10/12/2007, -20/+5yeah what ig33k010011 said :)
- synaesthesia, on 10/12/2007, -10/+26Bill Clinton '08
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16..If only that were possible..
- pilot3033, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Gore '08 (if we get enough people they won't be able to fix this one like they did the last two)
- vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1Many wish that they had really fixed the election. They keep counting the votes and recounting and interpreting and reinterpreting. Private organizations, government organizations, etc. Lots of counting. Counting, counting, counting. Why isn't 3+3 greater than 7? Why?? If only 3+3 > 7! But alas, we live in the real world.
The biggest news story of a decade -- actual evidence of 'fixing' of the election would be printed, broadcast, flown via carrier-pigeon all over the world. It would be impossible to suppress. That is, if there were a shred of truth to it. Multiple recounts turned up nothing. They *wanted* to turn something up. Their very commission was aimed to discover something substantive. Yet we hear nothing.
Either there is a vast right-wing press conspiracy or perhaps Bush (gasp) actually won the election.
Go ahead, digg me down. Digg down hard. I want you to digg this post into the freaking mantle. There's a lot of truth and substance down there to keep me company.
- SavageGeek, on 10/12/2007, -18/+8Oh my god. He wagged his finger!!! NOOO!!! Next he will be saying "Ni" at old ladies on the street. (Monty Python reference; either you get it or you don't.)
In a country where people are getting arrested at King George's appearances for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts, maybe getting passionate about what you're saying and using your hands to animate is becoming tantamount to screaming and throwing things. - VMark, on 10/12/2007, -7/+32Rewind to 1997 and have Bill Clinton say we need to spend 500 million to fight a little group lead by this guy who lives in a cave. The backlash would have been unreal and you all know it.
- SIDSI, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29 He did launch operations against bin Laden, Republicans quickly questioned his motives. Arlen Specter and Dan Coats, were two very outspoken Senators who tried to associate Clinton going after bin Laden in 1998 with the movie "Wag the Dog" and that his bombing of an al Qaeda meeting was to divert attention from the Lewisky scandal.
- dan2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19This is very true, remember the rightwingers reaction to Kosovo calling for more diplomacy and an exit strategy. Oh how things just happen to change when you're in power.
- Silencer7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26"Republican Statements when Clinton Went to War"
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/republicans_clinton_war.html
excerpts:
"You can support the troops but not the president." --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." --Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." --Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
- SIDSI, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29 He did launch operations against bin Laden, Republicans quickly questioned his motives. Arlen Specter and Dan Coats, were two very outspoken Senators who tried to associate Clinton going after bin Laden in 1998 with the movie "Wag the Dog" and that his bombing of an al Qaeda meeting was to divert attention from the Lewisky scandal.
- Barbarino, on 10/12/2007, -33/+5People are talking about no class in the Rep party when Howard Dean runs the Dem party????
I'm officially never reading another digg political story, it's basically a bunch of kids bashing the Rep party on here 24/7 and I voted for Kerry...- stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19your teen angst is showing
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18You seem more immature than the "kids" that you are complaining of..
edit: stylerm beat me - SimonKay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20The common response from Republicans on Digg is to bring up the Lewinsky affair.
But consider:
The Republican party's strategy for this election so far has been to take advantage of 911 and terrorism, It was Republican strategists who started the "blame Clinton for 911" campaign. Republicans are trying to scare people into voting for them in November.
Are these high moral principles? Can you honestly say this is a noble way to win an election? - archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Uh, no, you didn't vote for Kerry. You're just saying this to give yourself some credibility.
- Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Bill Clinton's BJ in the white house is every American conservative's fantasy...they're so enraged about it because Clinton makes them feel inadequate.
- diggeredoo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18blah...who cares what FOX says.
- peter78, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Just another case of where Fox news proves that people don't want news, they want spin and opinion. People want truthiness. (And by people I don't literally mean everyone, but the majority of folks who make Fox the #1 "News" network.)
Another glorious day in America. - bcardarella, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Fox News has already changed the headline for this to "Strong Reaction". Do they read Digg.com?
- JackHallows, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Fox News sucks, why even care about it.
- diggmaddy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10perfectly right. But i'm really looking forward to this interview just to see Clinton kicking Wallace's ass. That'll be fun.
- triath, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Any news station would have done the same thing. They are all the same, step off the bandwagon people.
- Moonpig, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7American mainstream media is infotainment not information.
- tastethevenom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…"
Wow, go Clinton. I truly hope they show this interview in its entirety, uncut. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6go bill. tell'em. dumb *****... i mean fox... are working hard to rewrite history. *what bill saId on the vid...* anybody that was paying attention knows that is exactly right. if you think there is some equality of left/right spin then you we're paying attention and don't know what you are talking about. there is no other side.
chris wallace on fox? man... how low can a guy go. i'll never consider him a journalist again. - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Fox News is all of whats evil in this world. I generally tend to think that theres some good to everyone, but not Fox. They are just the scumm of the Earth. If there is any justice in this world, the earth would open up and swallow up this disease.
- wackyg, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Clinton is as unhinged as his supporters.
- jackimhoffer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Here's a question from someone who only saw the title on the website: Does Fox News always spell bin Laden, bin Ladin? If not then someone has created a story. It wouldn't surprise me if they had used that title but I didn't see it for myself and that potential typo seems pretty glaring.
- garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Seeing as how there is no literal translation from Arabic to English, IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW IT IS SPELLED
- skeptictank, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Even if you're conservative or republican you would have to admit that Clinton is far more a statesman than Bush could ever be. Have you listened to Bush at all? My God, how could a man than can barely utter a coherent sentence on his own be in charge of the most powerful country on the planet? Answer: Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle.
- ColdChilli, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Both of the fox reports showed no respect to President Clinton. You still refer a former president as Mr. President or President Clinton.
More than once they refered to him as Mr. Clinton.- kberrien, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Actually, everyone (media, cbs, nbc, etc..) has been refering to Bush as Mr. Bush for a long time now.
Good for Clinton. At least there are a few democrats that can stand up for themselves these days. Hopefully he'll take the opportunity and appear on more reputable networks, or good news shows when he's invited because this is all a story now. - gwolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Actually, everyone (media, cbs, nbc, etc..) has been refering to Bush as Mr. Bush for a long time now."
Thats just wishful thinking.
- kberrien, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Actually, everyone (media, cbs, nbc, etc..) has been refering to Bush as Mr. Bush for a long time now.
- successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Fox News---"We Distort, You Comply"
- zackz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2tHE right headline would've been 'Wallace gets p0wned'
- gwolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The vermin at Fox have gotten very adept at hammering away at the same lies until they are accepted as truth. They do it consistently and in unison like some evil Vienna boys choir. When they go too far they quickly adapt, as they have here, but soon they will return to the same distortions of the facts they started with.
It surprises and disheartens me that people’s opinions can be so easily and predictably moved. I understand that Bush’s popularity has been on the rise since gas prices started falling, just in time for the elections. Do people not understand that prices have been manipulated and are being fixed to sway how they may vote? Of course it will go back to the way it was after they get what they are after. They have fooling most of the people most of the time down to a science. - zackz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I feel sorry for the keyboard thumping, frothing at the mouth cons here
- piznut, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Interviewees who are interested in having honest debate on issues really need to boycott fox news and all other illegitimate 'news' organizations.
- Flyingv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2At least Wallace had the balls to ask some relevant questions. If you watch the love fest that the raging douchebag Olberman had with Clinton, or any of the other interviews, not one of the reporters brings up 9/11 and Clinton's roll in it. Come on now, BC had 8 years to deal with this issue and Bush had 8 months. Both are complicit, but the majority of blame rides squarely on Clinton's shoulders.
- garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, because the billions of dollars Clinton raised to help end hunger, aids, etc. isn't anything to praise.
- lagger19, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why is it impossible for news organizations like Fox News to remain unbiased reporters of the news? Every story they do is so laced with biased political opinion and editorializing that it's simply sickening. What happened to news channels prefacing editorial comments with the "These comments do not represent the views and opinions of this station..." It's come to the point that every "news" organization spews their political opinion as "news" stories that the only reliable place to get your news is from great places like Digg. If I wanted to hear the Republican Talking Points for the day I would get them directly from the conservatives.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by