looks like Clinton wishes to challenge Jimmy Carter as the most pathetic ex-President title.

He did all he could to find Bin Laden...right.

The CIA and FBI could not link up with each other..right.

Jamie Gorelick ring a bell President Clinton? Or your grand plan for "scaring" Al Qaeda:

"It would scare the (expletive) out of al Qaeda if suddenly a bunch of black ninjas rappelled out of helicopters in to the middle of their camp. It would get us an enormous deterrence and show those guys we're not afraid."

He was more anxious in trying to get cash from China than he was trying to find Bin Laden.

All that was missing was the part where Clinton stood up and shouted "BLOOD FOR ODIN!"

What you have here is a man with a maturity level of a 10 year old. Plain and simple. Everything has to be about him. The man is a narcisist.

Everything is Chris Wallace' fault.

You can see that Wallace is flabbergasted at the total inmaturity of a former President.

The contrast between Clinton and Bush is clear. One is an adult and one is a little boy.

Where have we heard this before? It's all the fault of a vast right wing conspiracy!! Pathetic.

"The contrast between Clinton and Bush is clear. One is an adult and one is a little boy."

not just W, compare/contrast Reagan, HW and W compared to Clinton and Jimmah...how anyone in their right mind would consider voting Dem for Leader of the Free World is beyond me.

I want to chime in on this before the idiots arrive. Clinton learned that finger wag from his mother when she caught him lying, no doubt. Hard to believe that man was President of the United States. A search of the military history of the Clinton Administration will reveal many things, but not any mention of al-Qaeda or Osama. Clinton spent more time and effort getting the "W's" of the computer keyboards than they did in trying to get OBL. The Clinton administration truly was a criminal enterprize.

Are you kidding? Nobody outsmirks the current smirker-in-chief. He was born with a silver smirk on his mouth!

All I saw in this interview was a good smackdown of Chris "ferret-face" Wallace, who tried to punk Clinton and got more than he bargained for. I didn't hear much, if any, criticism of the current administration. He was wondering, as are many other Americans, why Bush didn't pay more attention to the intel they were given. A reasonable question.

The people who post on this website live in a bizarro world.

Anyone who can compare a man to a child and find George W. Bush more of a man is living in complete and utter denial of everything they see and hear.

George Bush has acted like a spoiled little child from the day he took office and has the articulation capacity of a 3-year-old.

Bill Clinton is - and always will be - an eloquent speaker, a sharp debater with a complete command of the facts and understanding of the complexities of any issue.

This is what comes from being curious, educating yourself and not falling down drunk until you're 40 years old.

Stop making apologies for the moronic man-child who inhabits the oval office. He's made a complete fool out of you people and the country entire.

And you want facts? Well, first of all, you won't find them on Fox News, The New York Post or the National Review.

Go ahead, fools. Live your lie. It's funny to watch - despite the horrid consequences of having the idiot in charge.

Well, I see the idiots have chimed in. So what you fools are telling me, is that I do not remember what went on from 1992 to 2000. I am sure I heard most of that liars speeches, and I do not recall one related to Osama Bin Ladin or al-Qaeda. I recall little if any response to that attacks on Somalia, the attacks on the base in Saudi Arabia, the attacks on the embassies in Africa, or the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. I did not hear about Richard Clarke until after Clinton left office. Give that MotherFu*ker a polygraph test. He is not on trial. Let him see his own lies. He lied to his wife, his child, his administration and the American People. He has not morals scruples or values any adult should display.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III you got it 100% correct. The democrats have been lied to and lied to each other for so long the don't reconize the truth. Their partents lied to them and the lies were continued by the education community. I never failed to correct my children when they come in with some lie by a teacher (democrat). The teachers didn't like it but as all cowards do they were scared to say anything to me when they were told they had been called a liar. I guess they figure that someone that hunts game every year has a gun and might just show up and lay them down.
What I can't figure out is why people don't kill more of these fools. Maybe they think it isn't right to kill a menatal retard, or like the old dats, take care of the drunks and mentally retarded. I really look for some mass slaughters in the school systems and government offices if the democrats take over again. I remember it happened quite a bit a few years ago.

I have a quick question.

Zeisdorf and Scrapiron, do you 2 share a padded cell or do you have separate ones?

Well that's some pretty scary stuff there, Scrappy. I'm sure you were a hit at all the parent-teacher conferences. Do you still beat your wife? What exactly does your deep seated pathological hatred have to do with the Clinton interview? I'll bet you'd like to "lay him down" too, wouldn't you, Scrappy?

He's pointed so many fingers over the years I can't keep count any longer. The one question I have though is this: If so-and-so was responsible for this, and so-and-so was responsible for that, etc etc etc, what was Bill doing for eight years? Wasn't HE supposed to be in charge, making the decisions? Why did he apparently let every so-and-so in Washington take over the Presidency?

Too bad Truman didn't nail his "The buck stops here" sign to the desk in the Oval Office!

Hugh, that is two questions, you idiot. No matter. Groucho, I don't like being lied to. Be it a former President of the United States, or some idiot on a Blog. If you had the balls to stand in front of me and lie, you would understand just how much I dislike it. Since you must have been in pampers when Clinton was President, I do not know why you post here at all.

its amazing the left still is lying and spinning clinton's "legacy"....wonder how Buchanan was spinning his presidency while Lincoln was handling war and low approval ratings?

I had the misfortune of living in Georgia when Jimmah was governor, and then watched in shock as a country was somehow duped into voting this man as President.

I thank God that I had the joy of watching the nation awaken and kick that old boy out in 1980 (and I'm a Georgia native, mind you, just nothing like that ignoramus). What a tremendous surge in pride came in with Reagan. The Left still hates him, and will go to their collective graves doing so, so it must really grate on their nerves that history is going to be orders of magnitude kinder to Reagan than their little spoiled heroes, jimmah and bubba.

Now we have an adult in the WH again, someone who doesn't lead by polls, but sees the greatest danger to Civilization in centuries and acts. Since I have children, I thank God we have GWB taking this was seriously, rather than "police action" bubba or "earth in a lurch" gore or "Hey, I served in Vietnam!" JK.

Zelsdorf,

You don't like being lied to? Look at your current President and, for that matter, look in the mirror - since you're obviously in denial about about the incredible number of lies you've ignored the last 5 years.

Oh, but Clinton. He's the DEVIL. He lied about an infidelity. How many people died due to his lie about a blow job? Sure, you don't have an answer for that and you never will. You'll probably try to turn this around on something I never said or insinuated, like I MUST be against all military action because I don't agree with your lame point of view. Just to set the record straight before you try to twist it, I've never had a problem with getting BL, going into Afghanistan, or, for that matter, going into Iraq - until I was lied to. And that's what it was, a lie. Iraq - sorry - was based on a lie and has put us in a worse position than we ever have been. But spin it however you want. It's your side's M.O.

Scrapiron,

You're a scary, angry fool - and you make my point better than I do. Thanks for posting, psycho.

I would really like to see someone answer his charge that the Bush Admin did nothing in the 8 months before 9/11....I have always wondered about that. Is it true or not?

IF ONLY, Clinton had gone after bin laden like he did all the right wingers. He thinks he saved lives as Pres. -- how many was that on 9-11 alone and just to start count of what he cost us!

All -

I am a simple person and we have a simpe saying where I live - "When you fling a rock it is the hit dog what yelps the loudest." I'd say Chris Wallace did an admirable job of flinging a rock....

i had written these thoughts earlier...

For Democrats, Bill's implosion poses a sincere problem. They have been using Bill to campaign for various Democrats for this Fall's election, (mostly to fundraise). Democrats seem to forget the Clinton impotency to influence anyone. The Clintons may drive more away, than they attract.

Having Americans reminded of the Clinton negligence from the past, failing to address serious threats prior to 9-11, enabling problems with inept weakness and appeasement, is a serious problem for Democrats with November looming.

The Democrat Partisans have been promoting a silly political message, the disastrous Clinton effort was better for Americans. As if the threat of Islamic Radical Terrorism could simply go away, if ignored, appeased, or embraced. Like John Kerry's effort in 2003, Liberal Democrats often advocate returning to the dangerous denial of the 1990's.

Some Democrats these days, actually blame President Bush for Muslim Radical Militancy, with generic accusations of 'growing terrorism around the World'. They have tried to obstruct essential measures, which have protected Americans from attack ever since 9-11. The Democrat Party has attempted to 'kill' the Patriot Act, close Gitmo, block interrogations and surveillance of terrorists, even undermine the admirable Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, Bill Clinton is personally offering an admonition, a sincere warning against this foolishness with his conceited presence.

But now, I think it is worse than previously imagined. This will be the focus on the internet for some time, and the image for Democrats is not good. Bill is actually appearing quite demented. It will be hard for Democrats to use him in the future, and bodes terribly for Hillary's political ambitions.

Reporters on the other hand, might just begin to ask the Clintons more serious questions, imagining the ratings boom to Fox News this Sunday. Will we see Katie ask Hillary, why the Clintons lied about Genocide in Rwanda?

No, but if they want ratings, they should...

Watching this, i could not help but imagine the missed opportunities, to stop 9-11 during those 8 ugly years of malfeasance.

i had written these thoughts earlier...

For Democrats, Bill's implosion poses a sincere problem. They have been using Bill to campaign for various Democrats for this Fall's election, (mostly to fundraise). Democrats seem to forget the Clinton impotency to influence anyone. The Clintons may drive more away, than they attract.

Having Americans reminded of the Clinton negligence from the past, failing to address serious threats prior to 9-11, enabling problems with inept weakness and appeasement, is a serious problem for Democrats with November looming.

The Democrat Partisans have been promoting a silly political message, the disastrous Clinton effort was better for Americans. As if the threat of Islamic Radical Terrorism could simply go away, if ignored, appeased, or embraced. Like John Kerry's effort in 2003, Liberal Democrats often advocate returning to the dangerous denial of the 1990's.

Some Democrats these days, actually blame President Bush for Muslim Radical Militancy, with generic accusations of 'growing terrorism around the World'. They have tried to obstruct essential measures, which have protected Americans from attack ever since 9-11. The Democrat Party has attempted to 'kill' the Patriot Act, close Gitmo, block interrogations and surveillance of terrorists, even undermine the admirable Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, Bill Clinton is personally offering an admonition, a sincere warning against this foolishness with his conceited presence.

But now, I think it is worse than previously imagined. This will be the focus on the internet for some time, and the image for Democrats is not good. Bill is actually appearing quite demented. It will be hard for Democrats to use him in the future, and bodes terribly for Hillary's political ambitions.

Reporters on the other hand, might just begin to ask the Clintons more serious questions, imagining the ratings boom to Fox News this Sunday. Will we see Katie ask Hillary, why the Clintons lied about Genocide in Rwanda?

No, but if they want ratings, they should...

Watching this, i could not help but imagine the missed opportunities, to stop 9-11 during those 8 ugly years of malfeasance.

OK I've read the comments here and NOT one was specific about what was wrong with the content and factuality of Clintons response.

Bottom line from my perspective is Clinton KICKED THE CRAP OUT OF WALLACE. I ENJOYED this interview thoroughly. He exposed Fox News for what it is and made them and Chris look like a total fool.

So all you neocons with nothing but innuendo give me one thing that Clinton said that is not supported by the facts or tell me what he should have done different to effect the war on terror.

Bottom line if you put Bush and Clinton in a room with no moderator and let them discuss this issue Bush would either be crying or attacking Clinton physically....Bush would get his pea brain smashed and the facts would tear him a new one as he stuttered to explain ONE thing he did between 1/21/2001 and 7 minutes after the second plane hit.

Chris Wallace did a pretty good job but Clinton did a good job brow beating him. At least from what I saw in the Hot Air clip. Hopefully i'll be able to catch a repeat of the performance later tonight and see the whole thing.

But what Clinton did was effective in one sense. He established that anyone who asks him these questions will get a finger in the face and an accusation of being "Right Wing".

When was the last time you saw someone wagging their finger at a reporter and accusing them of being "Left Wing"?

A lot of media folks absolutely adore Bill Clinton, even so much that they've admitted publicly they'd like to have sex with him. They don't want to get on his bad side. So he's let them know loud and clear, through this interview, what they are allowed to ask him about and what they are not allowed to ask him about.

This is one of the reasons I love President Bush so much. He doesn't play any of these games. You know exactly what you are getting with President Bush, love him or hate him.

May God Bless George W. Bush.

So Bill, how much quality time did you spend with W convincing him how important it was to get OBL?

Hmmmm?

Maybe Wallace is smirking because Clinton is making a complete ass of himself. Along the lines of "This f***er has fliped his lid. Damned hillbilly has no couth", while listening to Clinton scream in the background.

I supported Clinton until the end. I was his second most ardent supporter behing Geraldo. I thought the impeachments were complete BS, and set politics in this country back 50 years. I think the Republicans knew he would not be convicted in the Senate, but did it to undermine him. That is borderline criminal.

With that being said, how does a former president give 200+ interviews since leaving office 5 years ago, and no one asks him the question on everyone's mind: "What went wrong with your efforts to catch Bin Laden". Instead we get a bunch of panty-throwing klatches over coffee i.e. Meredith Viera white-knuckling it through the interview to keep her underwear on her backside and off Clinton's head. Also note Clinton's appearance on Meet the Press, Good Morning America and so forth. Also absent are any questions from the same media who asserts Bush lied (mislead) the country into war are the same media that do not challenge Clinton Administration officials making the same statement as Bush concerning Iraq'a WMD's

And what is up with Dan Rather? The only person I've seen him treat better than Clinton was Sadaam

Ketih Olberamnn gets mad respect from me. He gives Clinton a check for his foundation on camera. Somehwere Dan Abrams was screamin' "WTF IS UP WITH THAT?!" It takes balls to show everyone you are a biased idiot. Olbermann is literally telling the world "I'm Clinton's knob warmer and anyone with a problem with that can watch that Nazi-hack O'Reilly"

Bush gets raked over the coals on the regular, and I am one who thinks he should because that should come with the office for every president.

Clinton gets more grapefruits lobbed at him than a middle school girls softball team. I thought you were better than William. The recent media frenzy is another effort to rehab his image/legacy after the debacle of Path to 9/11.

Somewhere the Clinton limo rounded a curve in Manhattan and clipped an old lady with her walker, trying to get to Larry King's studio with Clinton in the phone saying "Larry, I need some positive affirmation. See you in 15 minutes".

It's a shame the Democrats can't find someone with the fortitude to be asked tough questions without having a meltdown.

Clinton is comical. He is so defensive about his record because it is a truly horrendous record.

Somebody dared to question King Bill --- who never once got a majority, mind you --- and he lost it. He loses it whenever he is asked a question that doesn't fawn over him.

I'm stunned the Dems avoided threatening FNC's license.
-=Mike

Fordrill,

Oh, but Clinton. He's the DEVIL. He lied about an infidelity. How many people died due to his lie about a blow job? Sure, you don't have an answer for that and you never will.

I'd say the answer is 3000 people on September 11, 2001. While President Clinton was focused on the contents of a certain blue dress, Osama Bin Laden attacked again and again, with nary a credible response from the U.S. So, while Bill tried, people died.

And the numbers will unfortunately continue to mount as GWB must clean up the mess of decades of misguided "why don't they like us" root-cause policy.

Rest easy and spout nonsense if you need, those of us on the right side of history will spare you the responsibility of the defense of our civilization. A responsibility you are unwilling to bear.

But I suppose GHW Bush and Reagan don't bear any blame for leaving the Muj in Afghanistan in 1991 and arming them to the teeth in the first place, respectively?

Look at the main incidents laid down at Clinton's feet.

1993 WTC -- who would you have gone to war against? Islam in general? Al Qaeda (who didn't exist then)?

Khobar -- Iran was responsible. Should Clinton have declared war against Iran?

African Embassies -- Clearly Al Qaeda. But if Clinton bore responsibility for not declaring war on terror, why do you excuse Reagan for not doing anything after the airplane hijackings in the 80s, Beirut or the spate of hostage takings?

Cole -- the 2000 elections were a month away. A new President 3 months away. Even after 9/11, it took 3 months to get the logistics squared away before attacking Afghanistan. How could this have been achieved?