FULL VIDEO: Bill Clinton and Chris Wallace

Posted by: ST on September 24, 2006 at 10:41 am

Greg Tinti has it.

He also has a link to an article by Byron York posted at NRO today that dissects Clinton’s responses.

You know what burns me up about the interview? Not the fact that Clinton gets uptight and defensive, but the fact that he says the Bush admin “didn’t try” (that’s who he meant when he referred to the “right wingers” who had several months to get OBL). Bush has never once blamed Bill Clinton for his failure to get OBL. Not once. This is an incredible cheap shot on the part of Clinton. Not entirely unexpected, but a cheap shot all the same.

Clinton will continue the Sunday talk show circuit by appearing on Meet the Press today at 1pm ET (special time due to NBC’s coverage of the Ryder Cup).

Update I 1:25 PM: Allah’s got the video, too, along with a link roundup of commentary on Clinton’s defensive posturing.

Update II 5:43 PM: Jim Geraghty does some fact checking on Clinton’s claims, as does The Corner .

Update III 5:56 PM: Here’s the transcript of the interview.


RSS feed for comments on this post.


  • The Political Pit Bull trackbacked with VIDEO: Clinton Bugs On Wallace (Full Clip)
  • Stop The ACLU trackbacked with Clinton Blaming Others For 911 (Video)
  • Wizbang trackbacked with That Clinton Interview and the Smirk
  • In Search Of Utopia trackbacked with Clinton Eats Fox New's Lunch
  • Flopping Aces trackbacked with I Tried And I Failed
  • 45 Responses to “FULL VIDEO: Bill Clinton and Chris Wallace”


    1. Lorica says:

      ON Bill Clinton’s interview I only have 1 word:

      D E L U S I O N A L

      pretty much sums it up.

    2. NC Cop says:

      I would expect nothing less from one of the worst Presidents this country has ever had.

    3. Severian says:

      Clinton should be really fond of and grateful to Carter, without him as an example Clinton would not have any competition for the title of worst president in the 20th century.

    4. sanity says:

      He did not look good in the interview.

      He doesn’t have the sauve charm he exuded when he was president. He truly looks like he has aged and not in a good way.

      I was watching part of the interview and kept thinking, man, he looks real bad now.

      And was it just me or did he have a bit of the “crazy eyes” going during the interview? The, make the emphasis by raising my eyebrows and bugging my eyeballs out a bit….not a good look especially how he looks already.

    5. Jayden says:

      I’ve read many blog posts regarding this interview, and the ones which are in opposition to President Clinton all have a common trademark: they all do not have anything of substance to say regarding the actual interview from beginning to end. All the criticisms resort to personal attacks on Clinton that have nothing to do with the topic of the interview at all.

      I’m not sure if these critics aren’t old enough to remember the Clinton presidency, but during his presidency the Conservative powers-that-be opposed him at every turn in his hunt for Bin Laden. They said he was obsessed. They said he was hunting Bin Laden because he wanted to change the topic from the Lewinsky scandal.

      Do you not think it odd that the same Conservatives back then are, today, saying that he didn’t do enough to catch Bin Laden?

      Do you not think it odd that the outgoing Clinton Administration told the incoming Bush Administration that Bin Laden and terrorism was the #1 threat to America, and everybody in the Bush Administration didn’t do anything about it? They ignored his advice completely and focused on a silly missile defense system?

      The context of this interview was supposed to be non-partisan about the Clinton Global Initiative and charity, yet FOX News dishonorably went back on their pre-interview agreement to discuss it.

      It doesn’t surprise me that negative critics of this interview cannot critique it as a whole and must resort to cherrypicking soundbite words out of context mixed with ad hominem attacks.

    6. Severian says:

      And the Clinton appologists start to come out of the woodwork with their collection of red herrings and straw men…|-)

    7. Baklava says:

      It is my opinion Jayden that Clinton was not presidential, lied as he has usually done and attacked. Questions have been tough by most interviewers of ALL parties on Fox News and other stations. There is no reason why
      bill couldn’t just answer the questions professionally and without attacking and implying motives to the questioner. It’s un called for and can’t be excused.

      Additionally, it is my opinion that missile defense is not “silly” and while there continue to be successful tests and systems that work on a smaller scale like the Patriot system… I applaud those with the insight to continue development and will vote against people and a party that label such efforts as “silly”.

    8. Severian says:

      Notice that his body language, manerisms, and finger wagging were EXACTLY the same as when he was lying about Monica? I’ve had the opportunity to study the body language and other subtle signals that people put out when lying, it was part of the forensics classes I took, and Clinton would make a perfect textbook example of what to look for.

    9. Severian says:

      You’re right Bak. Having worked in the SDI area, the system is anything but silly. But you know the mindset, why should we waste money on that, it’s not like the any rogue regimes will ever get nukes and missiles. Only a paranoid neocon would ever think that…North Korea and Iran and other evil countries will never get nukes and missiles.

    10. Severian says:

      On a related note, I’m going to be the first among the conservatives out there to thank Clinton for doing his part to help increase Fox News’s ratings…law of unintended consequences anyone?

      Either that, or Hilary told him to do it to pay Murdoch back for his recent support of her.

    11. NC Cop says:

      “I’m not sure if these critics aren’t old enough to remember the Clinton presidency, but during his presidency the Conservative powers-that-be opposed him at every turn in his hunt for Bin Laden. They said he was obsessed.”

      I’m certainly old enough to remember the Clinton presidency and I sure don’t remember anything like this comment. Perhaps you have a link to a site that could verify such “obsession” or the “obstruction” of conservatives? Or is it just that way because YOU say it is?

    12. Drewsmom says:

      Jayden. get real child, bill performed horribly on Fox and yall know it. He finger pointed, he seems to do that when he lies and he was critical of Bush, something Bush has NOT done once to him and his 8 years of NOTHING.
      Chris Wallace is allowed to ask one question, it is his show however, clinton is just not used to any HARD questions, and Wallace tried to get back on topic but bubba kept going beserk.
      So Jayden, go on back over to kos and codie pink and knock yourselves out.

    13. Lorica says:

      NC It is true that conservatives said he should quit wasting time with Bin Laden. You know bombing empty tents, aspirin factories, and even got in a Chinese Embassy, not quite bin Laden, but the waste was still the same. Useless and pathetic. Now 8 years later these apologists come out and screech about an evil vast right wing conspiracy. Clinton and that hag of a wife of his set the tempo of his Presidency, and yet there are still people out there deluded by Bill’s version of the facts 8 – 12 years later.

      Bill shot 400 cruise missles and didn’t hit nutin, where were you then Jayden?? Wondering what type of boxers he uses?? Good God man get some respect and stop kissing the ass of a man you have never met. He never even attempted to get bin Laden, he only made it look like he tried. There is a HUGE difference. – Lorica

    14. – It’s so much a basis for the whole panalope of Leftwing nutjobs to go on the attack, and start in with the RWC defense. the Libtards can call Bush every manner of stupid obscene garbage, without letup, but just let anyone dare question slick Willy, and the Left comes unglued. It’s all hyperbolic tripe.

      – The bottom line is that Clinton should be apologizing at every opportunity for his failures, Bush should be also, and neither should be wasting our time or insulting our collective intelligence with the finger pointing and obvious self-serving, egotistical legacy protection we see going on.

      – The Liberals are simply not going to accept ANY responsibility, which is in a word the hallmark of every damn thing they do. You would think to hear them talk they were on another planet when 9 long yeqars of attacks were going on. I actually had to litterily stop myself from screaming when I hear one of Clinton’s state department people answering the question: “why did the clinton administration put a wall between the FBI and CIA?”

      – Her answer: “That memo wasn’t ment to do anything to stop interdepartmental communication. In fact it was supposed to do just the oppisite, and Janet Reno ment to increase the contacts between departments when she issued it. Besides, Bush didn’t remove it after he got in office!”

      – With that sort of denial, and refusal to ever answer honestly a single question, how do you think you’ll fair under any sort of future with Democrats in office. We as the Conservative protecters of the American ideals, need more than ever to make sure we don’t let that happen. I can’t imagine how badly off we would be with 8 more years of Clintonesque do nothing non-leadership, and social engineering, while the whole world go’s to hell in a handbag.

      – The new Left spin is using the Afghanistan argument, to continue to rail against the Iraq situation. They simply do not want to face the Jihadists. they want to go where ever they are not. Cut and run. Cut and Run. Appeasement. Conciliation. Negotiation. They would do nothing, and in 5 years or less, Iran will have a workable bomb, and then we’ll have a situation 1000 times worse. the Left, as they’ve always been through history, are a clear and present danger to the safety of all of us.

      – Bang **==

    15. hnav says:

      Well said, Bill even implied Conservative Republicans don’t believe in the Constitution. Truly pathetic…

      I think it is worse than I previously imagined. This will be the focus on the internet for some time, and the image for Democrats is not good. Bill is actually appearing quite demented. It will be hard for Democrats to use him in the future, and bodes terribly for Hillary’s political ambitions.

      Having Americans reminded of the Clinton negligence from the past, failing to address serious threats prior to 9-11, enabling problems with inept weakness and appeasement, is a serious problem for Democrats with November looming.

      The Democrat Partisans have been promoting a silly political message, the disastrous Clinton effort was better for Americans. As if the threat of Islamic Radical Terrorism could simply go away, if ignored, appeased, or embraced. Like John Kerry’s effort in 2003, Liberal Democrats have been advocating a return to the dangerous denial of the 1990’s.

      Reporters on the other hand, might just begin to ask the Clintons more serious questions, imagining the ratings boom to Fox News this Sunday. Will we see Katie ask Hillary, why the Clintons lied about Genocide in Rwanda?

      No, but if they want ratings, they should…

      Watching this, I could not help but imagine the missed opportunities, to stop 9-11 during those 8 ugly years of malfeasance.

    16. Severian says:

      Check out Hot Air, they have a lot of links to what the real conservative/Republican reaction was to Bubba’s wrist slap of firing cruise missiles at aspirin factories. Here’s a hint, they supported it, from places like the National Review to Gingrich. All the “wag the dog” talk came from Clinton’s buddies in the MSM, not from conservatives in general with a very few exceptions.

      So, another Clinton interview, another pack of lies and half truths and dissembling.

      And it was noted on Hot Air that, despite Clinton whining that this was a VRWC plot from that evil ol’Fox news that never asks hard questions of Republcans, Chris Wallace has asked the exact same question of Republicans, including Rumsfeld. Oops, another lie.

      So many MSM reporters have lined up to kiss Bill’s butt, or other body parts ;) that he doesn’t know how to react to a real, unbiased, even handed but persistent reporter. The MSM doesn’t even lob him soft balls, more like helium ballons, while fawning over him. Fox has shown, once again, why it’s the only TV news worth watching.

    17. Yep, NRO’s done a lot of fact checking on Clinton’s claims (my link to The Corner was a general link since there were so many individual ones to link to) – poor Bubba can’t get away with lying to the media anymore.

    18. Severian says:

      Yup ST, Bill had better bend over, grab his ankles, and grit his teeth, the fisking to come is going to be severe and unpleasant. =))

    19. – All of this is hardly surprising. The ABC series, FOX interviews. This has Roves fingerprints all over it, and the obvious reason the Left is so unglued over it is the distinct message it sends the American voter. “You may not like everything we’ve done, or havn’t done, with or without all the Democtatic obstructionism, but here’s what you got for the last 8 years of a Liberal administration. with a cadre of killers hell bent on d4estroying us, is these the kind of people you want running our country?”

      – Of course the Left has steadily marched to the “blame America first”, cut and run appeasement drum ever since Bush took office, and most loudly since 9/11. So they’ve set themselves up for anything that happens. In the moonbat way it will all be Bush’s fault.

      – Bang **==

    20. Terri says:

      “It will be hard for Democrats to use him in the future, and bodes terribly for Hillary’s political ambitions.”

      Interesting thought. Somehow I bet the ratings for this interview will be through the roof. Interesting how the blogs will be, all Bill all week. The cable shows will pick it up and run with it. Wouldn’t surprise me to see Clarke on a few interviews. The Bush people will be out in force doing damage control. Rush and Hannity will have a mutual orgasm spinning this as a positive. Malkin and Coulter will compete for the vitriolic comment of the week.

      All in all, the Dems have a good week in their future watching the world turn upside down because a former president told his side of the story. Wow, what a concept.

      And ladies and gents…Hillary can take care of herself. She doesn’t need Bill.

    21. sanity says:

      Good read here:

      Bill Clinton: Play It as It Lies

      Writer of the article:
      Ronald A. Cass is Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law, Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, and author of “The Rule of Law in America” (Johns Hopkins University Press).

      Read it.

    22. Tom TB says:

      I’m sure Clinton accepts the Secret Service protection accorded to ex-presidents, so what would happen if he went moon-battery with a reporter like Chris Wallace, and physically attacked him, and the reporter fought back?

    23. – Sure Terri. You Dhimbulbs just keep propping up your national disgrace of a ex-president. It will make good bookends with that other total disaster Jhimmi Cahtah. I’m sure all that will go over really well with the electorate. The Left continues to confuse cheers in the moonbat colonies as a national reforendum. Good. As long as they play the “hate America” game, they won’t win anything. I’m loving it. Until the Democratic party distances itself from the “soft marxist”, anti-social left, they’re simply unelectable. Goodluck moonbats.

      – Bang **==

    24. Severian says:

      Only a liberal Dem, like Terri, could look at Clinton’s performance and be blinkered enough to see it as a positive. The only people who will look at him with admiration are the complete kool aid drinkers on the far left, Clinton has once again stuffed his foot so far in his mouth he’s crapping toenails.

      Hilary may not need Bill, but it’s obvious that Bill needs Hilary to keep him out of trouble.

    25. Mahkss says:

      I just have to smile every time something like this happens and the left and right are driven further out on their tangents. I really hope the neocons can find some new emotional issue to manipulate the emotions of the American masses for the next election. An extended mandate for the neocons would continue the totalitarianism growing in the US to a point where we may once again see students shot in the street by “security” forces. Which I hope will lead to my fondest dream.

      The Second American Civil War. If you were fighting yourselves, the rest of us may be left in peace. It would be an interesting conflict with all the money made though military expenditure, “re-building” Iraq and oil profits going to finance rabid rightwing fanatics, the blinded religious contingent and the brainwashed ignorant. The righteous left would have the intellectuals leading the vast masses of under privileged, immigrant and leftwing workers. Who will win? Who cares? As long as the empire is brought low and the rest of us are relieved of your arrogant blood sucking influence.

    26. Severian says:

      Let’s see Mahkss, the NYT’s leaks classified information, and nothing happens to them. Democrats perform seditious acts and make treasonous comments, nothing happens to them (other than not winning elections). Wilson lies thru his teeth and gets a book deal. The Venezuellan Twit comes to Harlem and gets a roaring welcome, nothing happens to the people who applauded him.

      Yup, sounds like a totalitarian state to me!

      Sounds like Mahkss is a tad jealous of American success to me. Try improving your own country rather than wanting the US to fail. You’d be amazed at how well it works.

    27. Severian says:

      Just wanted to add, people like Mahkss are exactly the ones who would whine and scream the most at the “injustice” of it all if the US actually did become isolationist and cut off all foreign aid to the rest of the world and let them starve.

    28. Mahkss says:

      Severian, I agree America is a success, and has done great good in the world. My point is that this is being undone by your increasing negative machinations. Its is natural that the rest of the world would want your help but not your domination.

      You will also note I did not say you were a totalitarian state, growing was the term I used. The Jews were aloud to walk around Germany in the beginning of the Nazi state. The neocons have to complete the capture of all power bases before they are able to start attacking their opponents physically. They cannot even torture foreign suspects, they still have a way to go.

    29. – Sure Mahkss… all sorts of possibilities. For instance I might wake up tomorrow and be elected beauty queen of America. World history is paved with all the “would haves”, and “could haves”. thats just a cover to continue the demonization of everything america has done, and tries to do for other’s less fortunate than ourselves. your only point I agree with, and it’s not really a principle problem, is all the nattering the rest of us have to put up with from the two wxtremes. Problem is the Left has hijacked the Dem party.

      -When you see people reject all responsibility, and refuse to apologize to those that have really suffered, all the families and people hurt deeply by loss over the years, and principly at the WTC, people who would rather protect legacies and play partisan politics, you see real fascism in action.

      – I reject your base premise that there’s anything like equivalency on both sides of the issues. The Left has fully embraced “the ends justifies the means” troupe, throwing any pretense of character, morality, or values and principles, overboard for want of political power. They are bereft of idea’s, and take a simple minded position that “We’re not bush”. No platform, no idea’s, antipithetic to almost every value of mainstream America, and yet they expect to win elections. It’s like watching a slow motion trainwreck.

      – We’re not France. Get it?

      – Bang **==

    30. NC Cop says:

      Its is natural that the rest of the world would want your help but not your domination.

      So, in other words, you’ll take our millions of dollars in aid, but won’t help us a bit when we need it, right?

    31. Lorica says:

      You know, I am just sitting here thinking about what Bubba said the other day. Now correct me if I am wrong but weren’t ALL of the 9/11 hijackers in this country long before President Bush took office??? Didn’t they have 1 of their number in custody prior to Bush taking office, or at least under surveilence??? How long is this fool going to believe that he can fool the American People. Bubba’s legacy is garbage, and he will always be considered one of our worst Presidents right along side Jimmy. – Lorica

    32. Kris says:

      Its seems that every republican is full of excuses on how Bush slept at the wheel the first 8 months in office. Clinton at least tried. But I think the biggest coverup is everyone believing Bush could actually read “My Pet Goat”. Have a good day and enjoy Fox News. Hopefully no reading is involved.

    33. Severian says:

      And another mindless BDS affected moonbat heard from…:-@

    34. Lorica says:

      Thanks Kris for adding absolutely nothing to the discussion. So basically you are saying Clinton couldn’t get OBL cuz GW can’t read. But we are the ones who are full of excuses. Sure, Sure, Don’t worry, the adults are here, and we understand. – Lorica

    35. Arminius says:

      I’m very concerned about the apparent revision of history by members of the Clinton administration. For example, Bill Clinton told the 9/11 Commission that he told Bush during the transition period in January 2001, “I think you will find that by far your biggest threat is Bin Ladin and the al Qaeda.” (p. 199 of the Commission’s report)

      However, there appears to be no contemporaneous statements from Clinton or members of his national security team to back up Clinton’s contention. In fact, public statements at the time suggest that they believed Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction was the biggest threat.

      On January 8, 2001, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said the following while paying a farewell visit to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan:

      “The United States will continue to press Iraq to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition of lifting economic sanctions, even after the end of the Clinton administration January 20.”

      Albright made no mention of al Qaeda during that visit.

      On January 9, Albright held a press conference concerning Mideast peace in which a reporter stated that “Iraq was the centerpiece of your foreign policy.” Albright did not take issue with that contention. Instead, she responded, “First of all, I am really sorry that we had the issue of Saddam Hussein on our plate when we arrived, and I am equally sorry to say that we are passing it on.”

      Albright’s press conference on Mideast peace included no statements about al Qaeda.

      To hear Team Clinton talk today, the issue of Saddam Hussein was off their plate by January 2001.

      On January 11 UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke held a farewell press conference. The press release from the State Department after the press conference had this headline: “Holbrooke: Iraq Will Be a Major UN Issue for Bush Administration.” Holbrooke said the following about Iraq:

      “Saddam Hussein’s activities continue to be unacceptable and, in my view, dangerous to the region and, indeed, to the world, not only because he possesses the potential for weapons of mass destruction but because of the very nature of his regime.

      “His willingness to be cruel internally is not unique in the world, but the combination of that and his willingness to export his problems makes him a clear and present danger at all times.”

      Holbrooke also discussed Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Angola, Burundi, Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea, and the Congo. However, he made no comments regarding terrorism and al Qaeda.

      As far as I can tell, the only member of Clinton’s national security team who made any public statements about the USS Cole during the transition period was Secretary of Defense William Cohen. That was on January 9 after Cohen met with Donald Rumsfeld. In addition to the USS Cole, that press conference covered “countries who are developing weapons of mass destruction” North Korea, and national missile defense (NMD).

      Cohen had also appeared at a Senate Armed Services Committee in July 2000 in which he addressed NMD. He made the following statement:

      “Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, members of the Committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss with you the US National Missile Defense (NMD) program. I cannot think of a more important issue to address than protecting the American people from the threat posed by states such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq who are seeking to acquire nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the long-range missiles to deliver them.”


      “From my perspective, the utility of considering active defenses against missiles from states like North Korea, Iran and Iraq does not depend on a judgment that their leaders are utterly indifferent to the prospect of retaliation. Rather it is based on a recognition that leaders of these isolated states might be prepared to use WMD attacks–and risk retaliation–in circumstances where more traditional, or at least more cautious, leaders would not.”


      There was nothing in Cohen’s January 9 press conference to suggest that al Qaeda had supplanted “the threat posed by states such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq” as the most important issue to address.

      If Clinton truly believed al Qaeda was by far the biggest threat facing the U.S. in January 2001, why did their public statements place a much greater emphasis on Iraq?