Bill Clinton, Fox News Interview

When the "mainstream media" decided to produce a so-called "docudrama" called "The Path to 9/11" and then loaded it with obvious falsehoods, completely fictitious occurrances, designed to convey the impression that the Clinton Administration was "asleep at the switch" they claimed it was perfectly alright because it was produced by their entertainment division, not the news division, and put a disclaimer of some sort that they had "fictionalised" parts of it.

Bull!

No sentient human being is deluded for for one second that there is not an agenda when a production like that is funded by known right-wingers, uses plenty of real historical fact, uses real people's names, and mixes in its fiction (I avoid using the term "lies", because according to them it is not lying if you call it fiction) without providing a key to the viewer to say "don't believe these three minutes; they are pure crap". The "entertainment" entity chose to show this exactly why? They did not sell advertising. Was it supposed to be a public service? Oh, no, they were paid by the scumbags who contrived it, so their hands are clean; they were just conducting their "entertainment" business. So what about the scumbags? Were they going to make money? Nooooo... so what was their motive? Just felt compelled to entertain the country on the fifth anniversary of 9/11? Somehow I think not.

They claimed it was based on the 9/11 Commission Report. That somehow it explained "the path to...". Gee, that sounds like it was meant to be INFORMATIVE! They didn't just want to entertain, they wanted to inform! Well, then, they crossed the line, because they presented stuff that was non-informative. If it was supposed to be true, then it should have been properly vetted and stand up to scrutiny, like, hmmm... let me see... the story Dan Rather did about the National Guard documents! Sure CBS blew it on that - they presented as fact something that was quickly proven to be fiction. The right wing howled about yellow journalism and Dan Rather lost his job over it. Even though it was a setup, in that CBS news did not produce the documents, they just acquired them and failed in their responsibility to check them out, perhaps even motivated (as many accuse) by having an agenda and thus not doing due diligence, the difference is ABC KNEW they were doing a propaganda smear, were called out on it in advance, and went ahead with it. Ok, so what's the award?

Bill Clinton agrees to  be interviewed on Fox News a few weeks after this travesty, ostensibly to talk about his Clinton Global Initiative and raising $7B in volunteer funding for progressive efforts to save people and the environment. Fox says they want to ask about other stuff too, so he agrees to a half-and-half format. Just three minutes into the interview Chris Wallace asks a "simple question" couched in a rambling diatribe over a book that is coming out, and several events starting in 1993 that Clinton is accused by Wallace of not addressing. To top it off, Wallace tries to hide behind "viewer email", that supposedly insisted he ask the question, even says he was surprised by that. Afterward Wallace sounds like Miss Piggy saying "Moi?" as he denies having tried to bushwhack Clinton. Clinton knew the question would come eventually in some form or other, and no doubt had plenty of "talking points" ready. But when Wallace used that smarmy technique, and then kept giving that (probably through embarrassment or nervousness) silly grin and occassional giggle, protestations of innocence, and attempted to, having laid out a broadside of accusations, limit Clinton to a short answer that could not possibly cover the accusations just presented against the broader backdrop of the ABC propaganda piece, Clinton gets up a head of steam. Had Wallace had the good sense to shut up and let him talk when he started to, he just might have accomplished some of what he set out to - Clinton's response muight have seemed inadequate. But he kept interrupting, shot off comments like "you seem upset", in an intentionally patronizing effort to goad him further.

So Clinton handed him his head, then sat back and smiled graciously and went on to answer questions about the CGI.

It is impossible to redress all the wrongs in out mainstream media in one event like this. You have to go with the moment and do what you can. What Bill Clinton did had some ragged edges, sure, and didn't win over all skeptics by any means. But what he did was at least say "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more", loud and clear. It reset the playing field. It may have slowed slightly the tsunami of right-wing disinformation that the once-responsible watchdog is now dragging home like so much roadkill and dumping at our feet like it is supposed to be news.

Text   Video