As an Electrical Engineer and a Television Executive, I diminish my ability to deal with words and language. My spelling is dreadful, and my grammar is, if possible, worse then my spelling. Thus, I am not completely comfortable about basing a piece on my interpretation of the meaning of a word.
I, as a rule digress in the middle of what I write, but I thought that I would do this in the beginning as though it somehow matters less.
Many years ago, while in a live in relationship with my friend Carol, she and I had a moment of mild conflict, I raised my voice and she became upset with me, (hard to believe), and said "please stop yelling at me." This of course made me nuts in that I knew that I had raised my voice a bit and I replied "Yelled at you, yelled at you, do you want me to show you yelling?" I then gave her a "yelling" demonstration in what I considered an instructional moment. She was not at all pleased. This is an example of one persons view of "raising their voice" that become yelling to another person.
Now back on point.
Andrew Klavan wrote in the Los Angeles Times. "...Questioned mildly on his anti-terrorism record by Fox's Chris Wallace on Sunday, President Me went absolutely medieval on the newsman, leaning forward threateningly, rapping his fingers against Wallace's notes and proceeding to, well, lie -- and in a very angry voice too! ...Of course he panics and rages like a child when the spin goes the wrong way, when he is given his portion of the blame for encouraging Bin Laden through his military retreat from Somalia or for allowing the terrorist to escape by refusing to put a kill order on him."
Perhaps Klavan needs to hang out with me to find out the true meaning of "medieval, yelling, panics, or rages"
I read the transcript of the Chris Wallace interview with President Clinton. As a result I thought about one of what has become my favorite (not obscene words) CONTEXT.
Context: the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc
The interview took place on Fox News, and that certainly created a context for what happened in the interview. Clinton was not being questioned by National Geographic.
Now the "questions" expressed by Wallace:
"When we announced that you were going to be on Fox News Sunday, I got a lot of e-mail from viewers. And I've got to say, I was surprised. Most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaida out of business when you were president?"
It is difficult to believe that "most of them wanted..." to ask the President the same question almost 6 years after he left office. I wonder about the truthfulness of this.
Wallace continued "There's a new book out, I suspect you've already read, called The Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops. Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the Cole"
CLINTON: OK, let's just go through that.
WALLACE: "Let me -- let me -- may I just finish the question, sir? And after the attack, the book says that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around, because he expected an attack, and there was no response."
Wallace said all of this before asking the question purportedly suggested by his audience. He was not asking a question but rather he was "pre-framing" an indictment.
WALLACE: "... but the question is, why didn't you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?"
In conclusion, and summarizing, my notions of the context concerning the "Wallace issue" are the following:
It took place on Fox, The question at issue came from a majority of the emails, (if you can accept what he said), not Wallace, Wallace quoted a book as though he was quoting some authoritative source, and Wallace asked a "...why didn't you do more..." question, and he had no history of asking any member of the current administration the same type of "...why didn't you question..."
Was Clinton annoyed by this, apparently he was, but in a measured way, and I loved what he said to Wallace, and I love the way he expressed himself. He raised his voice a bit, but no more then that.
All of this seems to shout again that the event was not about the President answering a question, but was rather a covert attempt by "them" to PRE-FRAME AN INDICTMENT" of a two term American President. Many of "them" have said things like the ex-president's tirade on Fox News reveals a politician insisting on a legacy he doesn't deserve.
In my opinion, Fox and Wallace had an agenda, and so did Clinton. He was not at all taken back by the partisan question, and he used the event to speak out against this administrations policy of "we do everything, and the do nothing Democrats never did anything but raise our taxes and not protect us against terrorism."
Thank you President Clinton.
Thank you Rupert!