Wednesday, September 27, 2006
CLINTON TELLS IT LIKE IT IS -- CHRIS SMIRKS
The republican front persons are on the air regularly giving forth their poison rhetoric in bombastic fashion, filled with name calling, accusations, and inflammatory pet phrases. The President goes before audiences and the press waving his arms, leaning forward, repetitively shouting his scripted answers and talking points. Mr. Rumsfeld does everything except flip the bird to the press and the public, refuses to answer direct questions, and belittles reporters and their questions.
But along comes Mr. Clinton, who has just experienced a biased and untruthful presentation of his administration's responses to Al Quaida by the ABC network, and he grants an interview to the reporter from the Fox republican network with an understanding that he is to talk about his recent achievements in bringing huge private resources into the humanitarian projects that have occupied his time for the last few years. Bingo! Right off, the smirking Chris Wallace asks him the accusative and provocative question, "Why did you not connect the dots and do more to combat Al Quaida during your administration?" The question was accusative.
Sure, he felt like he was set up. David Gergen, prominent journalist and statesperson, said that he was "sandbagged." And, Mr. Clinton reacted accordingly. He let off the steam which had been built up by the false presentation of ABC, carried on by partisan pundits, and aired by the partisan Fox network talking heads. The accusation of Fox's smirking Chris Wallace was the last straw.
Mr. Clinton has a right to defend himself. He has the right to the same very direct approach that others use regularly. This writer listened carefully to his answer and his extended comments. He was correct in what he said. He had the right, and even the obligation, to say it and to say it directly and strongly.
Democrats have too often allowed republicans, in their discourteous and sometimes obnoxious way, to bully them on television. Mr. Clinton has ordinarily been quite restrained in his manner and his comments, although clear in his phraseology if one listens carefully. No one has endured the public persecution that this man has had to take. He has a right to hit back. It was great to behold an intelligent leader in action.
On wonders about all this "outrage" from republicans. Do they really expect the man to stay still and quiet while they slap him around?
Could anyone honestly characterize Fox's O'Reilly as anything other than a bully? How about Hannity, or Clear Channel's Limbaugh? They are all bullies. This Chris Wallace is different. He tends to be pushy but sneaky in his attacks. And, he smirks at his interview subjects. He did not get by with it this time. Bravo for Mr. Clinton!
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
But along comes Mr. Clinton, who has just experienced a biased and untruthful presentation of his administration's responses to Al Quaida by the ABC network, and he grants an interview to the reporter from the Fox republican network with an understanding that he is to talk about his recent achievements in bringing huge private resources into the humanitarian projects that have occupied his time for the last few years. Bingo! Right off, the smirking Chris Wallace asks him the accusative and provocative question, "Why did you not connect the dots and do more to combat Al Quaida during your administration?" The question was accusative.
Sure, he felt like he was set up. David Gergen, prominent journalist and statesperson, said that he was "sandbagged." And, Mr. Clinton reacted accordingly. He let off the steam which had been built up by the false presentation of ABC, carried on by partisan pundits, and aired by the partisan Fox network talking heads. The accusation of Fox's smirking Chris Wallace was the last straw.
Mr. Clinton has a right to defend himself. He has the right to the same very direct approach that others use regularly. This writer listened carefully to his answer and his extended comments. He was correct in what he said. He had the right, and even the obligation, to say it and to say it directly and strongly.
Democrats have too often allowed republicans, in their discourteous and sometimes obnoxious way, to bully them on television. Mr. Clinton has ordinarily been quite restrained in his manner and his comments, although clear in his phraseology if one listens carefully. No one has endured the public persecution that this man has had to take. He has a right to hit back. It was great to behold an intelligent leader in action.
On wonders about all this "outrage" from republicans. Do they really expect the man to stay still and quiet while they slap him around?
Could anyone honestly characterize Fox's O'Reilly as anything other than a bully? How about Hannity, or Clear Channel's Limbaugh? They are all bullies. This Chris Wallace is different. He tends to be pushy but sneaky in his attacks. And, he smirks at his interview subjects. He did not get by with it this time. Bravo for Mr. Clinton!
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
