Gingrich: Clinton Blow Up and Debate Over Bin Laden Premeditated

ABC News ^ | Sept 27, 2006

[jdm]

Sept. 27, 2006 — Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich believes former President Clinton's blow up during an interview on "Fox News Sunday" — and the escalating war of words over whether he or President Bush mishandled opportunities to catch or kill Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11 attacks — was premeditated to shore up support for Democrats ahead of the November midterm elections.

"I think that as the most experienced professional in the Democratic Party, he didn't walk onto that set and suddenly get upset," Gingrich said. "He probably decided in advance he was going to pick a fight with Chris Wallace."

This, Gingrich said, may have been a good strategy.

"I think as a calculated political decision, it's reasonably smart," he said.

War of Words Heats Up

The debate over whether the Clinton or Bush administration did more to catch bin Laden reached new heights Tuesday when New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton defended her husband.

"I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team," she said.

"Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" is a classified brief that was given to Bush in August 2001 that Democrats say showed the Bush administration did not do enough to combat the growing threat from al Qaeda.

The senator took aim at Bush and Condoleezza Rice after the secretary of state told The New York Post that the Clinton administration did not have an extensive plan to catch bin Laden.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice told the Post. "What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years."

Could the Debate Backfire for Democrats?

The debate even dogged Bush at a news conference with an Afghan leader.

"I've watched all this fingerpointing and naming of names, and all that stuff. Our objective is to secure the country," he said. "The American people need to know that we spend all our time doing everything that we can to protect them. So I'm not going to comment on other comments."

Despite the brouhaha, Gingrich thinks battling over which president or party could have conquered terrorism is pointless, considering the midterm elections are more than a month away.

If Democrats don't drop this debate, he said, their chances of winning back Congress in November are slim.

"I think their chances are much less today than they were a month ago," Gingrich said.

[cripplecreek]

It may have been his strategy but I don't think it was very smart if it was. It reignited a debate the democrats can't win and brought up a lot of questions they can't answer.

[camle]

ti would fit right in with a montage of democrats yelling, throwing hissy fits and qacting like immature babies, and perhaps a tad unhinged a-la- the dean scream.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I don't buy this. Bubba lied too many times in his attack on Chris, plus he had to know it would dredge up all the Monica sex videos. If this was premeditated, he would have had a better collection of "facts."

[HarleyLady27]

If Newt thinks klinton did this for show, he's wrong....this man is mentally ill....to blow up over something like that is seriously unstable...

Klinton has to have a legacy in his mind greater than GWB or he thinks he's a failure, which he is...the only legacy klinton will get is 'Monica'....

[bwteim]

Read yesterday on FR that perhaps it would provide that needed excuse for Hillary not to be interviewed on Fox anytime soon.

[ShandaLear]

I don't understand this as a strategy. Are the Dems running against Bush? Do they have a plan to get bin Laden? Is it a distraction from the fact they have no plan for anything?

Seems they are opening a big can of worms here as this is a debate they have little chance of winning.

[YdontUleaveLibs]

The demonrats are not going to win back anything. They may even lose those seats that have been vacated by the likes of Daytonl. This November is going to hold surprizes for everyone.

[old-ager]

> If Newt thinks klinton did this for show, he's wrong....this man is mentally ill

Both.

[SR 50]

Newt gives this man too much credit for a "planned/staged" event during the interview.

He was having a bad day, was told the questioning would only be about his work with his Global Initiative (ripe off) Program, and really isn't a quick thinker on his feet.

[Senator Goldwater]

"I don't buy this"

Me either.

Clinton instinctively understands that bin Laden is his achilles heel.

And his reaction proves it.

Weak on Terror is what Democrats are. This brouha with Clinton has cemented it in the minds of the electorate.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

Whatever Slick does or says, it is not credible. Every time I see him on TV, I think "Liar, Liar, pants on fire."

[Wolverine]

Bill Clinton stop lying to yourself

and the American people!

[old-ager]

> I don't understand this as a strategy

They are fueled by Billary's rage.

[mtbopfuyn]

And again, he just doesn't know when to go away.

[old-ager]

>> I don't understand this as a strategy

>They are fueled by Billary's rage.

"They" being the cancerous leftist rabble in this country.

[truthandlife]

I hope Gingrich doesn't actually believe this. I think Gingrich is wrong or he is just playing "dumb like a fox" and wants the Clinton and Dems to continue these kinds of attacks because he knows it only helps Republicans.

Does Gingrich think Clinton set this up?

Chris Wallace: Clinton Chewed Out His Staff After Interview While Still at Fox-TV Studio

Also see this that is right on target:

Clinton Narcissism Killing the Democrats

[HawaiianGecko]

"I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team," she said.

I'll have to look again but I'm quite sure he did get a report in 1998 that Bin Laden was going to attack inside the U.S. including the use of airplanes. Hillary is leaving herself open to a blindside tackle on this.

[pabianice]

I welcome anything that makes the rabid moonbats show the public even more insane anger.

[ClearCase_guy]

Newt is, of course, entitled to his opinion. Personally, I think Clinton lost control -- maybe he planned to be aggressive, but when the floodgates opened, he lost it.

In any case, I think there is an opportunity to portray Clinton in two different ways:

A) An agressive, strong leader. A man of passion, who defends his honor the way he defended our country. He's a wise political strategist who understood that taking the fight to the enemy (Fox News) was the best way to make his case.

B) An unhinged lunatic who is a pathological liar. A man is is desperately defending his presidency against the current understanding that he was a disaster for this country.

Regardless of how Newt might really feel, I think that verbalizing Clinton as B) is a smart move for Republicans.