Fox's Chris Wallace Gets Riled At Frost/Nixon Panel

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace spent his Monday night freaking out on the participants of a panel discussion that followed a screening of Frost/Nixon. According to the Washington Post's "Reliable Source" column, Wallace got frosty after the other panelists compared Richard Nixon's offenses to the actions of President George W. Bush:

At a screening of the new movie "Frost/Nixon" last night, the Fox News host jolted his fellow audience members by tearing into the A-listy panelists (including director Ron Howard and author Jim Reston) for comparing Richard Nixon's impeachment-bait misdeeds to George W. Bush's actions in the war on terror.

"It trivializes Nixon's crimes," an angry Wallace said from his seat at the National Geographic theater. "Whatever George W. Bush did was after 9/11. . . and in service of trying to protect this country." Scattered applause and boos from the media-political crowd.

This led to a sharp exchange between Wallace and historian Robert Dallek, who insisted that a similar paging through Bush's Presidential records would likely validate the comparison.

Wallace: "You're making suppositions based on no facts whatsoever."

Dallek: "Oh, come on, you read the New York Times."

Wallace: "I see no personal gain in what George Bush did after 9/11."

According to the Reliable Source, Wallace skipped out on the "post-discussion schmooze."

Comments

[toby25]

I dont see where Wallace "freaked out" on the members of this panel. He actually made some very good points. You can't compare Bush with Nixon. Think what you want of Bush but there is no actual proof of anything illegal like Nixon's acts. There is only speculation of wrong doing by Bush...ser­iously. He made some mistakes but don't compare him to Nixon.

[randyjet]

I see that Chris had NO problem accepting that what Bush did in attacking Iraq was based on NO facts either. It made NO difference to Chris that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or protecting the USA from terrorists. It had everything to do with invading before the Congressional elections and benefiting his oil buddies who were going to get Iraqi oil control. I see that he even forgets that the US military secured as their headquarters initially the Iraqi Oil Ministry. He cannot make that connection, so I think he is rather dumb and NOT a real reporter. They are supporsed to use their heads and ask hard questions, not smooze with those in power.

[b1rd67]

Wallace: "I see no personal gain in what George Bush did after 9/11."

Really... Haliburton, Blackwater, $140/barrel oil, billions in CASH MISSING in Iraq... no personal gain? Bush was just a finger puppet but Cheney and his cronies have made billions!

[zest]

Boy, there's one acorn that fell far from the tree. What must Chris's father think?

[chriss0114]

Nothing to gain?

W was given the presidency so he could invade Iraq for the price of making his supporters richer

On at least three occasions, W said he would invade Iraq when he first ran for president

[toby25]

more speculation without any proof...wh­ere did you get your conspiracy smelling info? Where was this said and who actually heard it? How did he gain from Halliburto­n....seein­g as Halliburton was the only company capable of handling the job at the time...gra­nted they used a subsidiary Kellogg, Root and Brown ( KKR) who made some huge screw ups while trying to handle such a huge task...but where is there proof Bush gained anything from using them?? There is none...jus­t speculation. Did this stuff even make the N.Y. Times?

[SEQUOIABISON]

Finally in a candid moment Mr Wallace reveals his Hawkish extreme right wing credentials, an apologist for the Bush war crimes, something we all suspected but clearly confirmed now.

Lets send Bush and Cheney to the Hague Court in Brussels and let the facts speak for themselves.

These two so-called patriots besmirched the good name of America by invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses and killed thousands of innocent civilians in their Shock and Awe bombardment of an ancient capital city.

Trying to justify this barbaric behavior by using the term 911 in the same sentence as the reason for declaring war on a country that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that dastardly act; is either revealing one's stupidity or an indifferent callous warmonger.

[Mikeeee]

If nixon had been impeached and jailed or hung( for the good of the country), I suspect reagan/bush/bush would not have done the things they did.
It's the very reason Obama "must" go after everyone in the bush admin who was involved in any aspect of the fiasco that is the war on terror, it's been completely and totally botched.

[toby25]

Just watch Obama isn't going after anybody. Let's see if Obama does a damn thing about these supposed "crimes" by the Bush gang. Obama has made promises and played a role in order to get elected and masses of people fell for it.

[Mikeeee]

wallace is as delusional as gw. ignore him, he has no valid thoughts.

[Nikola Tesla]

Let's compare body counts.

[TomTheAlmostUgly]

No personal gain for Bush after 9/11? Are you kidding me?

Bushie used 9/11 as a pretext to go after Saddam, whom his Daddy never captured. The whole Iraq War was about proving finally that Junior could do something better than Daddy. Dubya's plan was to capture Saddam, turn Iraq into a pro-U.S. "democracy," and get his face on Mount Rushmore. He totally bought into Rumsfeld's and Cheney's promises that it would be a "slam-dunk" and "we will be greeted as liberators­."

Where Bushie screwed up was that he, like Lex Luthor in _Superman II_, "never thought this thing would go the distance."

[NoSillyName]

Remember "He tried to kill my Dad." Revenge was also part of the mush-mix that is GWB's attempt at thought.

[Collielady]

Wallace is a right winger, Bush defender. Nothing new.

[lizziekw]

The problem with confining what Nixon did to Watergate and dismissing it is that it leaves out the biggest part of the story. There would have been no Watergate break in without the disaster that was the Vietnam War at that time. Breaking into the DNC offices at the Watergate complex was just the tip of the iceberg. The "dirty tricks" CREEP and the Plumbers (not Joe) got up to were not only against Nixon's election opponents, but to protect the lies he was telling to the American people about the war and target those who were exposing them.

As someone who lived through both presidencies, it's difficult to choose whose was worse. In some ways, I have to go with Nixon because between Vietnam and Watergate the damage he did to the country has yet to heal. With Bush, I don't know how long it will take to heal but it may be a simpler process than what Richard Milhouse Nixon put us through. Maybe not, time will tell.

[Vyvjala]

Wallace is a Murdoch maggot, expect nothing more......­..........­..

[realtalkingnow]

Actually I think Wallace may be the only clear eyed one over at thet dreadful News station.

[Nikola Tesla]

Too bad for you.

[Harryray]

come on, he had to expect someone would make that comparison. Its blatantly apparent. i don't understand why he freaked out about it. and, to editorialize, i think leading your country into a war with hundreds of thousands of casualties, a trillion dollars spent, and damages in foreign policy the extent of which still remains to be seen is a worse crime than authorizing a brake-in into the opposing party HQ. Not to say that's alright of course.

[batgirl71]

Bush makes Nixon look like an amateur criminal.