Do not trust this show of anger - it was done for some purpose.
You, sir, are correct.
The point of the calculated "outrage" was to reinforce the idea that FoxNews is not "fair and balanced" but is a right-wing partisan player masquerading as a news organization.
Note for example, the personal reference Clinton made to Rupert Murdoch. Also, he repeated at least a couple of times the accusation that FoxNews does not ask similar "tough questions" of the Bush administration.
But in fact, the questions asked by Chris Wallace were not really "tough" at all. Clinton has been asked much more pointed and heavily spun questions by journalists from other networks.
Furthermore, practiced liars like Clinton will often use something to distract from the substance of their answers - occasionally, in the case of Clinton, affected outrage. The story becomes not a point-by-point debate of Richard Clarke's assertions and what the Clinton administration did or did not do on terror, but the spectacle of the former president "showing anger" and the question of whether FoxNews was "caught in the act" of perpetrating a partisan hit on Clinton.
Even the "anger" at the staffers afterward for having booked the Wallace interview was calculated.
Notice that at the very top of the Rat pyramid, Clinton, Hillary, and Kennedy NEVER go on FoxNews for interviews, and people like Kerry do so extremely rarely.
The boycott of FoxNews, the spin by Clinton as to Rupert Murdoch and the accusation that FoxNews does not ask tough questions of Bush administration figures, the pretension by Clinton that what Wallace asked was unfair or even unusual, the "outrage" at the staffers for having booked him at all, was all intended to make the "story" of this interview the "bias" of FoxNews and not the substance of what the Clinton administration did to fight terror.
Had Clinton NOT gotten outraged, then FoxNews would even have gained a slight bit of credibility on the left, which vilifies FoxNews, by the act of Clinton taking them seriously.
Clinton's act may have backfired on him, but not with the Left and probably not with the Middle, who may actually give some credence to his accusations of FoxNews bias.
I'm afraid you might be right. What I thought was amusing was the terminology he used. It was almost as if he has been hanging out on the left wing blogs since retirement and has absorbed their crazy rants. Either that, or his staff fed him those terms, specifically so he would appeal to the those types of lefties.
Cogent and astute. I think Fox should go full speed ahead. Issue public invitations and let Britt interview all of them!