Clinton ambushed on FOX and Olbermann's response
Bill Clinton just did something that every past President has avoided throughout the history of the US, to comment on a successor's performance. To be fair, the Bush Administration has also been breaking the rule of not blaming the current situation on their predecessor. As much as I didn't like the Clinton Administration, I think that the man is entitled to at least one return volley. Also to be fair, he did get ambushed. It's not like he went out of his way to set this up, although he probably foresaw it.
I don't get American TV here and have to rely on you all back in the States for links and leads to some of this stuff. I had to search to find the unedited vids of the actual ambush.
The video clips:
FOX v Clinton, Part I
FOX v Clinton, Part II
FOX v Clinton, Part III
Senator Hilary Clinton's defense of Bill
Olbermann's Response
I don't think that Olbermann is entirely correct there either. No matter how you spin the facts, Clinton lied under oath and he made the same lie on national TV. Arguably, he was manipulated into it and it should never have gotten to that point because it was an improper and impertinent question that should never have been asked of ANY politician. Faced with the same issue, a discovered mistress, President Mitterrand, of France, simply told the reporters and politicians to stop bothering his mistress and that his mistress and wife knew each other and that it's a private matter between himself, his wife, and his mistress, end! A further detail is that Mitterrand had a daughter by the mistress and she visits him and his wife, for holidays, regularly.
That's something like what Bill Clinton should have done. Instead, he had the lack of judgment to try and defend the action by covering it up. This eventually lead to him being placed in a position where he either had to lie or reveal the entire affair. The example of Watergate should have warned him away from that course. Had Clinton responded in the manner of Mitterrand, he might have had two more effective years to his second term and he would not have been placed in the position of lying under oath.
All of that said, as much as I disliked Clinton, he is a far better man than GW Bush.
I don't get American TV here and have to rely on you all back in the States for links and leads to some of this stuff. I had to search to find the unedited vids of the actual ambush.
The video clips:
FOX v Clinton, Part I
FOX v Clinton, Part II
FOX v Clinton, Part III
Senator Hilary Clinton's defense of Bill
Olbermann's Response
I don't think that Olbermann is entirely correct there either. No matter how you spin the facts, Clinton lied under oath and he made the same lie on national TV. Arguably, he was manipulated into it and it should never have gotten to that point because it was an improper and impertinent question that should never have been asked of ANY politician. Faced with the same issue, a discovered mistress, President Mitterrand, of France, simply told the reporters and politicians to stop bothering his mistress and that his mistress and wife knew each other and that it's a private matter between himself, his wife, and his mistress, end! A further detail is that Mitterrand had a daughter by the mistress and she visits him and his wife, for holidays, regularly.
That's something like what Bill Clinton should have done. Instead, he had the lack of judgment to try and defend the action by covering it up. This eventually lead to him being placed in a position where he either had to lie or reveal the entire affair. The example of Watergate should have warned him away from that course. Had Clinton responded in the manner of Mitterrand, he might have had two more effective years to his second term and he would not have been placed in the position of lying under oath.
All of that said, as much as I disliked Clinton, he is a far better man than GW Bush.