- Good. What more can I say? I just liked this story and I think Hugo is a putz. Let him find another country with the capabilities to process his oil into a useable resource. Meanwhile, I am sorry for those who have to live under this insufferable joke/jerk in the interim. Good thing there's another election coming up in December for these guys, maybe they'll vote him out this time (well, maybe he won't go tampering with the polls to keep himself in power.
- So we have this interview gone awry with a certain former president, right? We've got people out there saying how out of line Wallace was and wanting to spin the debate back to George Bush. GEORGE BUSH WAS NOT THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION FOR THIS INTERVIEW. The person facing Wallace was former president Bill Clinton who was asked to answer questions concerning shortfalls made during HIS administration. When Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice was on, he hardly held back on her (Check it out here) asking pointed questions concerning allegations of the Bush administration concerning the current state of affairs in the Iraqi insurgency. He was equally rough on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during his interview.
- Here’s what Wallace asked Clinton:
-Hindsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business? - And here is what Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:
-I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?
-What do you make of his [Richard Clarke’s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?
-Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority. - Did Donald Rumsfeld go on a tirade? Did Ms. Rice? No. Were they asked questions about how much more Clinton could have done to prevent this? No. It was not an interview about Clinton. These were interviews about THEM and THEIR (in)actions... and rightfully so.
- So here we have the leftist demagogues and want to be pundits calling Wallace a hack (along with quite a lot of other names) for doing his job. Now I know a lot of people (including myself mind you) who can see the bias from biased commentators as well as from the occasional reporter (yes there is a difference), but Wallace handled this as a reporter. He asked justified questions which he would have asked of anyone else sitting in the other chair and on this particular occasion, that person simply couldn't handle it. Too bad for him. He should be prepared to admit to and justify his shortcomings without turning tyrant.
Until next time,
tim
