[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Good points. As for this one, I guess it partly depends on whether you believe, as many on the left in this country do, that Fox news is merely the mouthpiece of the Republicans and the Bush administration--in which case Wallace's critique of Clinton was not just bad journalism, but him acting as a proxy for other politicians who want to cover their butts during what may be a difficult time as the implications of the intelligence estimate start to sink in. If indeed, Wallace was acting as a proxy for the Bush administration, then Clinton's critique of Bush is appropriate. Maybe less so if you just see Wallace as a bad journalist.

However, what Clinton said has the added advantage of being true. That doesn't mean that 9/11 was Bush's fault--but it does mean that he ought to quit pointing fingers at Clinton and start working on the problem before he too is a lame duck.

The problem with that theory, and I mentioned this earlier, is that Bush has declassified the rest of the estimate. The documents in question were cherry picked portions only.

Even so, I don't have a problem with those responses because they are fair questions to be asking Wallace given his antagonistic approach to the interview.