“I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!”
Sometimes the only rational response is to get angry, to show the other side that it can no longer take advantage of one’s willingness to try and see both sides.
Howard Beale, from Network, is becoming the prophet of our times–for liberals, at least, for the people who have tried to respond rationally to questions framed in such a way that no answer is possible, except one that puts the responder in the worst possible light. And Clinton is becoming his acolyte.
Many of us have been saying, louder and louder, that discussion is impossible with people who abuse the very groundwork that allows debate–as the right has been doing, now, for decades. We on the left have found ourselves looking bad simply because we’ve tried to seriously answer questions that were not seriously asked.
Chris Wallace’s question to Clinton yesterday on Fox, the one that triggered such an angry reaction, was dishonest. He tried to insert unwarranted assumptions into the question, one being that people wanted to know–when it was Fox News that wanted people to “want” to know. Another was that the debacle in Somalia had a direct connection to Osama bin Laden, and that Clinton was responsible alone for the disaster there (that Clinton pulling our troops out was the problem–and insinuating that Republicans had opposed that pull-out–they had not).
There’s more: somehow Clinton, by not succeeding in killing bin Laden, is responsible for 9/11… and he somehow should have done something about the Cole. Matthews was laying on Clinton all the failures of the Bush administration, one of the favorite moves of the right today.
Clinton could not answer Wallace’s question without accepting those assumptions.
Is it any wonder he reacted in anger? Especially since he had recently been slandered along the same lines in ABC’s The Road to 9/11?
No. Clinton’s anger is justified.
I was proud of him as I watched. Though I voted for him twice, I have never been a big fan of his. Yesteray, finally, he did me proud.