William Jefferson Clinton versus Condoleezza Rice -- WWFM

Rice Challenges Clinton on His Anti-Terror Record

NEW YORK (Sept. 26) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenged former President Clinton's claim that he did more than many of his conservative critics to pursue Osama bin Laden, and she accused President Bush's predecessor of leaving no comprehensive plan to fight al-Qaida.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice said Monday during a meeting with editors and reporters at the New York Post.
The newspaper published her comments Tuesday, after Clinton appeared on "Fox News Sunday" in a combative interview in which he defended his handling of the threat posed by bin Laden and said he "worked hard" to have the al-Qaida leader killed. more....

Who do you find more convincing?

Clinton - 62%
Rice 38%

Associated Press provided the story, AOL conducted the survey. I realize the survey was unscientific and is for entertainment purposes only, however, I was very surprised by the response. This was a survey by AOL. The question was comparing recent charges by former President Bill Clinton against the Bush administration to a defense by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. I was very surprised by the response of the readers. Usually, surveys like this are closer to 50-50, even on AOL which has a liberal bent. This is based on my analysis of titles compared to the article. A story may be the facts, but the title gives away the partisan perception.

This all began when Chris Wallace interviewed Bill Clinton. Many conservatives believed that by watching Clinton appear as if he was about to go ballistic, that they really have something. There is another side to the story that I think is more in context with the life of Bill Clinton. Clinton knew that Chris Wallace was going to ask him a question about his record on anti-terrorism and specifically Bin-Laden.

Chris Wallace could not have "served up" the question any better. In my opinion, Wallace is the best interviewer of the Sunday morning shows. Tim Russert is second. The other two are in a very distant tie for last. On this occasion, I thought Wallace made a mistake. He said he had a question his "viewers" wanted to know the answer to. I imagine Clinton's mouth started watering at this point. Viewers of Fox are for the most part conservative. So this gave Clinton even a stronger case to go after Wallace. Many Democrats feel that Clinton used the Fox interview as an example of how you are supposed to fight back at conservatives. The mistake was in the way that Wallace asked the question. The question was legitimate. However, he should not have couched it almost as if it wasn't his question. Because of this, Clinton hit it out of the park. Many of the things that Clinton said were not exactly accurate, according to the 911 commission and even Richard Clark's book. But that did not matter. Clinton accomplished something very valuable for the Democrats, he showed them how to fight. Although I would put William Clinton far down the list of great presidents I have witnessed or studied, I would put him at the very top as a politician.

Condoleezaa Rice is not a politician. Her achievements and credibility are beyond comparison of most of the White House administration, and some include the President. Even though she may have been more accurate in her statements, truth is almost irrelevant, as it was when Bill Clinton waved his boney finger at the American people.

Who even cares about the truth anymore. It is amazing how many politicians and presidents and world leaders said that Saddaam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and yet George Bush, using basically the same intelligence as others, is called the liar.

We live in an age that truth can be liability. Hopefully, this will change. Yet I am not too optimistic, because there is too much to lose.