The Republican “News” Network Blames Clinton for 9/11
If one has not been convinced by now that Fox “News” is nothing more than a GOP propaganda machine, check out the coverage of when Chris Wallace tried to slander Bill Clinton as ably presented by Judd at ThinkProgress. Chris Wallace wants to pretend he’s gone after Dick Cheney and Condi Rice but that’s not true. I wonder how Mike Wallace feels about his dishonest son who masquerades as a journalist but is really a partisan hack.
Update: Jane Hamsher have evidence that Chris Matthews was only following a coordinated GOP smear campaign on the Clinton years including this “laffer”:
President Bush asserted that if Democrats won control of Congress from Republicans it would mean higher taxes and damage to the economy.
The free lunch supply-siders suggested that the 1993 tax increase would slow long-run growth, but they were wrong as average annual real GDP growth during the Clinton years was 3.7%. The same crowd is telling to tell us all those Bush tax cuts have increased growth even that average annual real GDP growth during the Bush years so far is around 2.6%. What is it with George W. Bush and this issue – stupidity or mendacity?
Update II: Crooks and Liars has more proof that Chris Wallace is a liar. Among other things – in the past interview recap where Wallace says Clinton went off, Wallace claims that Clinton brought up Somalia and the Cole but in his opening question, here is Mr. Wallace bringing both topics up:
There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called the Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops. Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole.
Speaking of liars – Byron York promises a few of his own:
Clinton’s answers raise many points that call for answers. More tomorrow.
Update III: Byron York utterly fails to deliver:
Judging by Clarke’s sympathetic account -as well as by the sympathetic accounts of other former Clinton aides like Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon -it’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince – as opposed to, say, order U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden.
What – the President was supposed to fire the gun personally? York suggests these agencies did not try to carry out the President’s order and that Clinton “gave up”. That’s a lie, which York tries to support with this misrepresentation of history:
Examples are all over Clarke’s book. On page 223, Clarke describes a meeting, in late 2000, of the National Security Council “principals” – among them, the heads of the CIA, the FBI, the Attorney General, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the secretaries of State, Defense. It was just after al Qaeda’s attack on the USS Cole. But neither the FBI nor the CIA would say that al Qaeda was behind the bombing, and there was little support for a retaliatory strike.
The CIA and FBI did confirm to President Bush in early 2001 that Al Qaeda hit the Cole. By then, Clinton’s power was turned over to Bush – who failed to act. And Bush failed to having meetings of the principals.
York’s goal was to show Clinton was a wimp per Al Qaeda. What he delivers is more evidence that Bush was the wimp.