Editorial by John Ziegler

Questions Chris Wallace SHOULD have asked Bill Clinton

9/27/2006

Despite the perception created by the vast majority of the pro-Clinton news media, the now infamous Fox News Channel interview of Bill Clinton by Chris Wallace was hardly a confrontation, but actually was a remarkably soft exhibition of kid-glove treatment typical of celebrity interviews in general and almost anything dealing with Bill Clinton in particular. Here are the top 10 questions (of many) that Wallace should have asked Clinton (in the order I would have asked them) that the former President has never been forced to answer.

You called the head of Disney to demand that a docudrama on 9/11 be edited or totally shelved because of alleged inaccuracies even though the essence of every questioned scene was totally substantiated by numerous sources, while the Bush administration never uttered a word about the movie even though dramatized scenes were also used to criticized them, why should anything said about your presidency in a docudrama be held to a higher standard than what is said about other public figures?

Why shouldn't people perceive what you did with "The Path to 9/11" as a former head of state using intimidation tactics to censure an artistic endeavor by a public broadcast outlet all in the name of protecting his legacy?

All but one of the edits you got ABC to make on "The Path to 9/11" dealt with mentions of your impeachment and its potential impact on your thinking and actions during the time period on which the movie focuses on your administration's reaction to terrorist activity. Why is it not more than legitimate to presume that your impeachment was an important context for what was happening at the time and since, you were indeed impeached during this period, how was demanding that those references be edited out have anything remotely to do with historical accuracy?

Why should we not believe that If you had resigned rather than putting the nation through impeachment, that Al Gore not have been far freer to take chances in fighting terrorism and getting Osama bin Laden because, unlike you, he would not have had to protect every once of his popularity in order to survive the political process of impeachment?

Why should we not presume that your angry reactions to benign questions about your record indicate that you are overly sensitive because the allegations are largely true?

The Bushes have been extremely kind to you and you have even said that Barbara Bush refers to you as her "son," and you claim to have never criticized the Bush administration even while being sharply critical their handling of the war while they have said nothing directly critical of your administration, why is it appropriate for you to be the first former President to criticize a sitting President on his handling of a war? Why should the "rules" for former Presidents different for you?

You consistently point to the 9/11 Commission report and its lack of blame towards your administration as the ultimate source of vindication and yet the commission itself says explicitly that it went out of its way to NOT affix blame and when you talk about the parts of the report you don't like you refer to it as a "political document," why then should the report be seen as the only relevant document in this matter?

Based on how your administration is perceived, a President is supposedly responsible for the nature of the economy. We are now almost six years into the Bush Presidency and we have come out of a recession that hit just after you left office and now, despite the 9/11 terror attacks and the Katrina disaster by almost every major indicator the current economy is just as good if not better than when you were president. Why should President Bush and Republicans get credit for that, and if they don't, why should you get any credit for the 1990's economy?

Since you were impeached, lost your law license, fined and held in contempt of court for lying under oath, why should we believe anything you say?

Why couldn't a charismatic President do better than Monica Lewinsky?

Return to Editorials >>


Search JohnZiegler.com