Media Matters debunks Chris Wallace BS

[stevedeshazer]

Wallace falsehood: said in Clinton interview that he asked Bush admin officials "plenty of questions" about failure to catch bin Laden

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002

Summary: During his interview with former President Bill Clinton on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Clinton why he failed to "do more" during his presidency to put Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden "out of business," a question, Clinton said, Fox News "do ask the other side." Wallace denied the charge, responding, "That is not true."

<snip>

Here is a list of senior Bush administration officials interviewed on Fox News Sunday since September 11, 2001. (White House press secretary Tony Snow previously hosted the program. Wallace succeeded him in December 2003.):

* Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; 9/10/06
* National Security adviser Stephen Hadley; 8/6/06
* Rice; 7/16/06
* Rice; 6/4/06
* Rice; 5/21/06
* Rice; 3/26/06
* Rice; 12/18/05
* Hadley; 12/4/05
* Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld; 11/20/05
* Rice; 10/16/05
* Rumsfeld; 6/26/05
* Rice; 6/19/05
* Hadley; 5/15/05
* Then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card; 5/1/05
* Rumsfeld; 3/20/05
* Hadley; 3/13/05
* Vice President Dick Cheney; 2/6/05
* Rice; 1/30/05
* Rice (then-National Security adviser); 10/10/04
* Rice; 6/27/04
* Rice; 6/6/04
* Rice; 4/18/04
* Rumsfeld; 3/28/04
* Card; 12/7/03
* Rumsfeld; 11/2/03
* Rice; 9/28/03
* Rice; 9/7/03
* Rice; 7/13/03
* Rumsfeld; 5/4/03
* Rumsfeld; 3/30/03
* Rice; 2/16/03
* Card; 1/26/03
* Rumsfeld; 1/19/03
* Rice; 11/10/02
* Rice; 9/15/02
* Card; 6/9/02
* Rice; 5/26/02
* Cheney; 5/19/02
* Rice; 5/5/02
* Card; 4/14/02
* Rice; 2/3/02
* Cheney; 1/27/02
* Rumsfeld; 11/11/01

In the March 28, 2004, interview with Rumsfeld, Wallace did press him on whether the Department of Defense should have "been thinking more about" terrorism prior to 9-11 and asked him to respond to the "basic charge that, pre-9-11 ... this government, the Bush administration, largely ignored the threat from Al Qaeda." Referring to Rumsfeld's testimony before the 9-11 Commission regarding the Defense Department's anti-terrorism efforts, Wallace remarked, "t sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority."

But beyond this exchange, the Fox News Sunday interviews listed above have almost entirely ignored several key questions regarding the Bush administration's efforts to pursue bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

==========
In short, Bill Clinton was right.

[MadMaddie]

1. oops caught again in a lie.....they just keep forgetting the film

is rolling...or is it digitized now....?

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. I wonder who is going to get the golden opportunity to throw this

in Wallace's face on live t.v.?

[ComerPerro]

33. Gotta love that Republican arrogance

They can say things that they know are being filmed or recorded, usually several times over (audio, video, transcripts) and they still have the audacity to deny ever saying these things.

[Erika]

44. arrogance and ignorance n/t

[eleny]

2. K&R baby!

[Mr_Spock]

3. Of couse Bill Clinton is right

Clinton is a genius, Wallace is an imbecile.

[oasis]

4. Chris "Wannabe Like Daddy" Wallace is a poor excuse for a journalist.

:puke:

[stevedeshazer]

5. Chris couldn't lift Mike's jockstrap with Fox Security and a crane.

Clinton took him to the woodshed.

[calimary]

42. That's pretty damned funny!

LOL! That's what you get for playing with the BIG boys, li'l Chrissy...

[Moochy]

6. He's less than a hack

Hacks have skill, this fuckwad is just makeup and cue cards.

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. He has one very important asset

A journalistic name that once stood for honesty, integrity and truth. Without that, he'd be nothing.

[MsMagnificent]

35. More of a skeerdy-cat crybaby, look what he says:

Wallace: "I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me. "

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/networks/wallace_i_felt_as_if_a_mountain_was_coming_down_in_front_of_me__44380.asp

"The groundrules were simple--15 minutes--to be divided evenly between questions about the Clinton Global Initiative and anything else I wanted to ask.

I intended to keep to the groundrules. In fact--I prepared 10 questions--5 on the CGI and 5 on other issues.

I began the interview with 2 questions about Mr. Clinton's commitment to humanitarian causes. His answers were cogent and good-humored.

Then--I asked him about his Administration's record in fighting terror--fully intending to come back to CGI later (as indeed I did).

I asked what I thought was a non-confrontational question about whether he could have done more to "connect the dots and really go after al Qaeda."

I was utterly surprised by the tidal wave of details--emotion--and political attacks that followed.

The President was clearly stung by any suggestion that he had not done everything he could to get bin Laden. He attacked right-wingers--accused me of a "conservative hit job"--and even spun a theory I still don't understand that somehow Fox was trying to cover up the fact that NewsCorp. chief Rupert Murdoch was supporting his Global Initiative. I still have no idea what set him off.
Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward--wagging his finger in my face--and then poking the notes I was holding--I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me.

The President said I had a smirk. Actually--it was sheer wonder at what I was witnessing.

I tried repeatedly to adhere to the ground rules--to move the President along--and back to the CGI. But he wanted to keep talking about his record fighting terror.

When it became clear he wanted to throw out the ground rules--then I just went with the flow of the interview."

Don't you just feel for poor lil boy?
Somebody actually spoke out instead of licking his stanky RW butt.

WHAT is this world coming to when FOX can't cow them down?

Oh! The humanity!
(Thank God! : )

[bluescribbler]

51. There's a lesson here for Chris

Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

[usregimechange]

7. Kick!

[bridgit]

8. they're on it, and i say kudos to: Media Matters...

:patriot:

[stevedeshazer]

10. Indeed. They are great.

:hi:

[bridgit]

11. most agreed & cheers...

:hi: :toast:

[Erika]

9. Faux is as credible as a news source as the lady living

in the corner house. Or otherwise zilch.

[Quixote1818]

12. kick

[pnorman]

13. That's a very telling list!

Thanks, I'll use it to good advantage.

pnorman

[cboy4]

14. Poor Chris....thoroughly humiliated and embarrassed by the president

and now Media Matters adds to the humiliation and embarrassment.

I love it.

FAUX already had ZERO credibility but they should fire him anyway.

He's a liar and a disgrace.

[malaise]

16. Poor Fox

caught in its hen house of lies again.

[rrasile]

18. Fox or Faux TV

Thanks for showing me. Now I know why the only Fox TV I watch is football and that's because they have the dumbest pregame cast.

[slaveplanet]

19. Chris Wallace=Two face?

What I find so strange about all this is why did Wallace score the interview in the first place?

There is more going on here than meets the eye.

Another lie Wallace told on Sunday was contained in his comments in the round table session (which took place more than 24 hours after the interview taping) It was a lie of omission, I'll cover it at the tail end of the post.

but first here is something interesting that happened on September 8th. Chris Wallace appeared on Fox and Friends, and here's some interesting comments:

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/09/08/flash_chris_wallace_takes_dems_side_in_abc_flap.php

Flash: Chris Wallace Takes Dems' Side in ABC Flap
Reported by Judy - September 8, 2006 - 57 comments

Fox News' Chris Wallace was surprisingly angry about the ABC docu-drama that contains made-up scenes regarding President Clinton's attempts to capture Osama bin Laden, calling the action "unethical" and "lousy" and urging people not to see it so that ABC and its parent, Disney Corporation, lose money on the deal.


Wallace, appearing Friday (September 8, 2006) on "Fox and Friends" to plug his regular Sunday show, brought up the ABC series "The Path to 9/11."

"I have a very strong opinion about this. Disney, the parent company of ABC, did this to my father (Mike Wallace) a few years ago. They made a movie called 'The Insider' involving my father and the tobacco industry. And they had Christopher Plummer, a great actor, saying and doing things as my father that he never said and never did," Wallace said.

"I don’t know if it’s legal, but I think it’s unethical and its lousy and I think that’s what ABC, a child, a subsidiary of Disney is doing here. You know, it’s one thing to sit there and criticize the Clinton administration for what they did or didn’t do in the chasing of Osama bin Laden, but when you put somebody up on the screen and say that’s Madeline Albright or that’s Sandy Berger and you have them saying or doing something that they didn’t say or do, that’s unethical, it shouldn’t happen. They should take the scene out. I think it’s just wrong."

One of the ditzy "Fox and Friends'" hosts asked Wallace if he were really upset, and Wallace said, "I am mad about it. Because this idea of docu-dramas, you sit there and you say, oh, it’s just a drama. No viewers look and when they see something and they say it’s based on the 9/11 Commission, and look there’s plenty, I’m not saying the Clinton administration didn’t do plenty wrong in the way they handled Osama bin Laden, but when you sit there and put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeline Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory, and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account."

"Fox and Friends"' resident village idiot, Brian Kilmeade, then tried to compare it to the British movie showing mock video of George Bush being assassinated, but Wallace noted that was different because "“Everybody know george bush wasn’t shot."

Wallace said that the movie about his father, "The Insider," was the least successful movie Disney made that year, and he said he hopes people punish ABC in the same way by not watching "Path to 9/11."

A surprising turn of events after two other segments on "Fox and Friends" in which the trio of co-hosts let supporters of the film have their say without balancing comment.

---------------------------------------

So...Is that one opinion of Wallace? Or was it a setup knowing he had the Clinton interview coming up, giving him(Wallace) some kind of backup, or could it have possibly been bait for the ambush?

Is there a possibility this whole ordeal was a lot more scripted than meets the eye?

Here's the other lie that Wallace offered up in the round table session.

I can't find a transcript of it, but basically Wallace was responding
to Clinton's assertion that he needs to read Richard Clarke's book.

He said he decided to take up Clinton's offer and started reading selected passages from Clarke's book. The first one confirmed what Clinton was saying, but the second part had to do with the failure of a targeted air strike on OBL in 1999. It was about how the military wanted to act but Sandy Berger said "NO". Wallace left it like that with his signature smirk.

What Wallace left out is that this not the whole truth. The decision could hardly be the sole action of Sandy Berger. The truth is, had that air strike taken place it probably would have murdered one or more of the UAE royal family(allies of Bushco and Dem honchos alike).
and therefore had no chance of being green lighted.

Here is Tenet in his own words:

"The third complicating factor here is you might have wiped out half the royal family in the UAE in the process, which I'm sure entered into everybody's calculation in all this."

So what's really going on here?

[republicansarewhores]

25. The simple answer is he's a self-serving a-hole.

When it personally effects Wallace, as it served him to slam Disney since he perceived they slammed his dad, he pulls out a toothpick and waves it at Disney and uses the controversy as an opportunity to take a swipe at Disney.

When he has the opportunity to try and use the show as a way to take a swipe at Clinton, he grabs for it.

He's a snivelling, dirty fighter who ought to be ashamed of how he uses his position as a journalist in the public trust to serve his own agendas (and those of his media-whore conlglomerate Faux).

RAW

[SammyWinstonJack]

20. !

:kick:

[subterranean]

21. Did Wallace ever ask any of them...

why Bush said in 2002 that he "doesn't spend much time thinking about" and is "really not that concerned" about Osama bin Laden?

[PinkyisBlue]

50. Good point.

The Democrats should be bringing this up over and over, along with the questions:

"What did the Bush administration do to prevent 9/11 before it occurred?"

"Why was Richard Clarke, the anti-terrorism expert who helped prevent other terrorist attacks, demoted after Bush came into office?"

"Why were Clinton's and Clarke's anti-terrorist policies ignored by the Bush administration after Bush came into office?"

[peabody71]

22. Can we see the video anywhere?!

[calimary]

41. Yes, you can. Here:

Crooksandliars has it, as does AOL - there's a "watch the video" link to click on, under the poll:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/bill-clinton-angrily-defends-bin-laden/20060923131109990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001


My take on the whole affair...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2845972&mesg_id=2845972

[lebkuchen]

23. Wallace has mastered smirking and lying at the same time

See? He and Bush CAN do two things at once!

[me b zola]

29. Smirking & lying @ the same time is a hallmark of the * cabal...

...and the cabal's minions---except for cheney, he sneers and lies @ the same time.

[oc2002]

24. Again, why does anyone give Faux news any shred of legitamacy?

Clinton should never have done the interview with Faux, period. That only bolsters Faux standing as a legitamate news agency, which it clearly is not.

[lebkuchen]

26. Or ABC

MSNBC had Bush wearing a halo again today.

Jesus, what a screwed up mess the US is in.

[progressoid]

27. Well, I'm sure Fox will issue a correction immediately!!!

[neuvocat]

28. Oceana is at war with Euraisa.

Oceana has always been at war with Euraisa.


Catch my drift, anyone?

[file83]

30. The TRUTH is on Bubba's side.

:woohoo:

[file83]

31. Rush Limbaugh was trying to prove Wallace right by playing an interview

with Rumsfeld where Wallace asked him an open ended question about his efforts to get Osama - Rummy dodged the question (as usual) and Wallace just let it go at that.

Wow, tough questioning there Wallace, and nice try Rush. You now get your treat of another oxycotin for being a good little lap dog...

[Hidden Stillness]

32. This has Become a Very Strange, Coordinated Story

This has become a very strange "news" story. I have noticed many different channels, both cable and local or national broadcast, covering this "story," all of them telling it the same way, and all of them with the same editing tactics. Yesterday, "NBC Nightly News" had the story, which began with the onscreen caption headline, "Defending the Record," and anchor John Seigenthaler (whose father, by the way, was an assistant to Robert Kennedy, Sr.), telling "us" how there were always "rumors" that Pres. Clinton had a "terrible temper," and now, apparently, "here it is." I was flabbergasted by this characterizing of the story, as this had nothing to do with the subject, which was Bush/Cheney's failure to get Bush family business partner Osama bin Laden, and the claim that the Clinton Admin. could have gotten bin Laden but did not.

They then showed a partial clip, with Clinton answering a question, but Little Chris "Will Never Be Mike" Wallace kept smiling and talking, and talking--this taunt tactic that they use--and keeping this practiced "bland/I'm Not Mad, You Are" look. Then, they referred to the ABC fictional story "Path to 9/11," implying that only Clinton was complaining about it, claiming that the ABC story was "from" the Sept. 11 Commission report, which it was not. Then, as a counter opinion showing how "far overboard" Clinton was, they played a clip from the illegal-prescription drug addict, multiple-divorced Rush Limbaugh (?), who apparently is still alive, and then, to wrap it up, they went back to the theme of "angry/mad Clinton," with a bizarre tag line, like even though there is debate as to what had happened under Clinton and what the record was, (paraphrase), "the only thing many people will remember is a President" having an angry explosion of temper; words to that effect.

Then, oddly, all kinds of other stations started up the same routine, the same attack: CNNHeadline"News" "Clinton contentious"; all my local "news" stations, "Clinton mad," all with credited Fox clips (so much for their claim that they are "competitors"); then this morning, some slut on CNNHeadline"News" named Mike Galindos or something like that, ended with another swipe at "angry" Clinton, with a strange, taunting, "pretending to be neutral observer" comment, that (the good people) considered Wallace's questions to be "legitimate news." All of them did exactly the same thing--all had the type of editing that cut Wallace's snot-assed smirking and smiling, all cut the parts where Wallace kept talking and talking, and would not let Clinton answer, or challenged everything Clinton said, all claimed Clinton "accused" Wallace, but Wallace "explained" what the facts were. This is typical media treatment now: they do not actually cover stories, they "characterize" them, so you will be told what to think. The story was--did Bush or Clinton fail to catch bin Laden when they might have; the story NOW is "Clinton's angry temper tantrum, 'as we all know.' "

This reminds me of a filthy tactic used (always) by John Stasshole of ABC (FAIR/Extra, "The Stossel Treatment," http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1134 ):

"Particularly troubling is Stossel's 1997 report about a rape allegation at Brown University. The controversial sexual assault charge was prominently covered by Brown's newspaper--it also generated stories in the Associated Press, Boston Globe and USA Today, among other outlets--and sparked rallies on campus, along with intense debate about sexual assault and Brown's disciplinary system.

"In 1996, Brown student Sara Klein charged that she had been raped by a fellow student, Adam Lack, while she was too drunk to consent or remember the event. Lack maintained that the sex had been consensual. Klein filed a complaint with Brown's disciplinary council and Lack was suspended for sexual misconduct. On appeal, the judgment was reduced to "flagrant disrespect" and the suspension reduced to probation (Providence Journal-Bulletin, 1/30/97). Lack later sued both Brown and Klein, a case which was settled in December 1997 (Brown Daily Herald, 10/25/00).

"The facts behind the Lack/Klein case remain unclear, but Stossel's 20/20 report about it--"When Yes Means No" (3/28/97)--exploited the incident to make some disturbing claims about sex and rape. The way 20/20 told it, the questions about consent and assault raised by the case were problematic primarily because of Brown's "political correctness."

" "There is something of an authoritarian atmosphere surrounding women's issues on this campus," Stossel announced, adding this memorable bit of wisdom: "If nobody had sex except when they were totally sober, I bet there would be a lot less sex on this campus."

"The report consisted of an extensive interview with Lack (Klein reportedly declined to be interviewed) and footage of a verbal fight between Stossel and students at a campus rally against sexual assault.

"As portrayed in the segment, the rally was angry and combative. "I got a feeling for the intolerance when the activists asked if anyone else wanted to speak," Stossel said, introducing his own entrance into the story, in which he took the stage to ask the crowd to define rape. According to Stossel's report, students were unwilling to consider his questions even though he was "just trying to educate" himself, and so drowned out his innocent inquiries with hostile chanting.

"An article in a local paper, the Providence Journal-Bulletin (1/30/97), told a different story. According to the paper, the "orderly rally" degenerated into a "free-for-all" only after Stossel stepped out of his journalistic role to take the microphone.

"Stossel reportedly "responded with an obscenity" when a student questioned his journalistic integrity, mocked a student who quoted Brown's discipline code--"I'm glad for $30,000 you learned to read"--and tried to provoke one woman by asking her, "If I were dating you, and put my arm around you and put my hand on your breast…."

"Stossel's cursing and innuendos were not included in his 20/20 report."

[MsMagnificent]

34. In their own attempts to debunk

'they' being the KAD's (Kool-Aid Drinkers), on the appropriately named Hotair.com is a reference to the 3-28-04 Rumsfeld interview "Update: Wallace asked Rumsfeld same question in ‘04" (*See note.)
And in big red letters no less!

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/24/video-clinton-vs-%20wallace-on-fox-news-sunday/

Doing a search on the page for 'Rumsfeld' , as I didn't want to waste my time with all their crapulent hysteria, the funny thing is 'Rumsfeld' only comes up once -- and that was in the big red-letter title!
Too bad they couldn't get it to /blink! :D

*Note that the specified "same question" is never defined! I guess that even to mention that the difference between "thinking more about (terrorism in general)" and "Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business" is even too obvious for their viewers, so best not to point it out!

Hotair indeed! :rofl:

[stevedeshazer]

37. Best-named website ever

What a cesspool. Thanks for the link, it was at least worth the laugh. :)

[indepat]

36. Give Fox a chance for Criss sakes: they've had only 40+ opportunities on

Fox News Sunday to ask the hard questions of top administration officials since 9-11: Fox will get around to it in a timely fashion.

[spanone]

38. Shit they need to give Condi her own show.

[dogday]

40. I thought they did, she has been on so much nt

[brettdale]

39. Send this out to all

Journalists from all media groups including Faux.

Everybody you know.

Post it on everyweb site.

Get this story out there.

I dont think one mainstream media outlet has mentioned this.

[proud patriot]

43. Okay , will do

:hi:

[brettdale]

45. kick

kick

[Erika]

46. I've sent out to newspapers, party activists, local media

Yes, the word needs to get out.

[Raffi Ella]

47. ah,TRUTH

don't ya' love it!! :kick:

[The Wizard]

48. Bill Clinton's smack down on Pox (deliberate typo)News

was like a wooden stake through a vampire's heart. Expect the layoffs and job shifting to begin soon. The Big Dog struck a blow at the propaganda loudspeaker of the fascist Bush Empire. The Bushistas are all in a tizzy.
Condi is on the defensive. The generals are after Dumbsfeld. Bush can't find his crayons and coloring books. And Cheney is still a major league asshole.

[exlrrp]

49. Wallace threw his own dad under a bus!!

Figuratively, of course. A GREAT diary on this at Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/25/93944/4030?detail=f
It takes a conservative wingnut to call his own dad senile for thinking up realistic questions to ask Bush.
Family values are NOT Republican property