Only Fox's Wallace Raises Clinton's Opposition to Resolution Condemning MoveOn

Photo of Brent Baker.

Democratic presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton appeared on all five Sunday morning interview shows, but not all raised two controversies of interest to conservatives and, even when they did, not all took a tough approach to her lack of condemnation of MoveOn.org's “General Betray Us” ad and the donations gathered for her by now-captured fugitive Norman Hsu. ABC's George Stephanopoulos and NBC's Tim Russert brought up both matters -- though Stephanopoulos did so in the gentlest way -- CBS's Bob Schieffer asked about Hsu and not “Betray Us,” while Fox's Chris Wallace and CNN's Wolf Blitzer skipped Hsu but raised “Betray Us.”

No one pressed Clinton on how at the hearing with General Petraeus she said his report required “the willing suspension of disbelief.” Only Wallace, on Fox News Sunday, pointed out how Clinton had voted against a Senate resolution condemning the MoveOn ad: “Senator, you have refused to criticize the MoveOn.org ad about General Petraeus. And in fact, this week you voted against a Senate resolution denouncing it.” In contrast, on ABC's This Week, Stephanopoulos presumed Clinton was disturbed by the ad as he asked: “Why not speak out earlier?” On the Hsu case, Stephanopoulos approached the issue from the concerns of other Democrats: “A lot of people look at this and say they're afraid they're going to go back to the days of 1996 when there were some campaign finance violations that many Democrats feel cost President Clinton a couple of points in the final days of the election. How do you assure them that's not going to happen again?” Only NBC's Russert, on Meet the Press, used Hsu to remind viewers of Johnny Chung's illegal 1996 donations to the Bill Clinton campaign.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Whenever asked about the MoveOn.org ad, Clinton responded with how she voted for Senator Barbara Boxer's alternate resolution that went back in time to condemn Republican political campaign ads against Democratic candidates, a far different matter than impugning a sitting General running a war. An exchange on CNN's Late Edition:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

WOLF BLITZER: The President also this week blasted Democrats for in effect supporting or at least remaining silent in the face of that MoveOn.org New York Times ad questioning General David Petraeus as "General David Betray Us." Listen to what the President said.

BUSH AT THURSDAY PRESS CONFERENCE: Most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org, or more afraid of irritating them than they are of irritating the United States military. That was a sorry deal.

BLITZER: Is the President right?

CLINTON: Well, I thought it was pretty sorry when his campaign attacked Senator Kerry's record of service, and I thought it was pretty sorry when the Republicans attacked Senator Cleland. I don't condone attacks by anyone on the patriotism and service of our military. I am an admirer of General Petraeus, as I've said on numerous occasions. I don't condone it, and I joined in voting for a resolution that condemned such attacks. But let's be clear here. This debate should not be about an ad. This debate should be about the president's failed policies. The Republicans are very good at coming up with political strategies, but unfortunately, they don't seem to have a very adequate grasp of military or geopolitical strategies that will forward America's standing, position, values and interests in the world. So I think that we ought to stay focused on what's important -- the war in Iraq -- and not allow this debate to go off track. And I look forward to continuing to debate what we should be doing in Iraq, and I would invite the Republicans to join in that debate.

BLITZER: But quickly, do you want to disassociate yourself from that MoveOn.org ad?

CLINTON: I have voted against it. I mean, I've voted for Senator Boxer's resolution, which condemned that attack, and also condemned the attacks on Senator Cleland and Senator Kerry. I don't condone it. I voted to condemn it. But again, I would underscore, let's be clear what's going on here. This is an effort to focus on an ad that I condemned and don't condone in order to avoid having to deal with the tough questions about our policy in Iraq. The policy has failed. The president is able to hang on to it because he has enough Republican support. It's going to be an issue in the '08 election, and I hope that we will be electing more Democrats, because that is the way to really change direction in our country.

The relevant questions from Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week, where Clinton appeared for about 23 minutes:

Mayor Giuliani also hit you pretty hard for failing early on to condemn that MoveOn.org ad which called General Petraeus 'General Betray Us.' Why not speak out earlier?

Let me ask you a question about campaign finance and Norman Hsu, we're going to show him now, of course he's the gentleman who's now been arrested. You had to return about $850,000 that he raised for your campaign and I know that you returned the money, but a lot of people look at this and say they're afraid they're going to go back to the days of 1996 when there were some campaign finance violations that many Democrats feel cost President Clinton a couple of points in the final days of the election. How do you assure them that's not going to happen again?

Tim Russert on Meet the Press, which had Clinton for about 24 minutes:

Let me show you an ad that has caused a lot of controversy in this debate about Iraq. MoveOn.org took this ad out, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?: Cooking the Books for the White House." Do you believe that General David Petraeus has betrayed the American people?

Let me turn to campaign fundraising, because it's been -- politics and money has been an issue that is of grave concern to the American people. As you well know, this gentleman, Norman Hsu, was a big fundraiser for you. This is how the Wall Street Journal reported on it. "Senator Hillary Clinton will return $850,000 in campaign contributions raised by a major fund-raiser who has come under federal investigation on multiple fronts. Clinton said she would refund contributions to about 260 donors who were recruited by Norman Hsu, a businessman and Democratic fund-raiser. The $850,000 is the largest ever returned by a candidate because of questionable fund-raising methods." Also, Mr. Hsu gave free trips to Las Vegas for several of your campaign aides, all expenses paid. You talk about the politics of change. Is this changing the way Washington does business?

But, Senator, as you well know, back in 1996 campaign, this man, Johnny Chung, a -- very similar circumstances and he plead guilty to illegally funding of money, and he was quoted as saying, "I see the White House is like a subway. You have to put in coins to open the gates." How do you convince the American people that you have changed, that you are not going to be the recipient of this tainted money?

Chris Wallace, on Fox News Sunday, where Clinton got about 17 minutes:

Senator, you have refused to criticize the MoveOn.org ad about General Petraeus. And in fact, this week you voted against a Senate resolution denouncing it. President Bush said that you and other Democrats are more “afraid” -- his word -- “afraid” of irritating the left wing and MoveOn than you are about insulting the American military. Does he have a point?

But, Senator, I want to follow up on this question of the real debate, and I want to put up an article by liberal columnist Richard Cohen this week. He wrote, “When the entertainment mogul David Geffen, once a Clinton supporter, called both Bill and Hillary liars, Hillary not only decried the remark as a particularly vivid example of the politics of personal destruction, but she demanded that Barack Obama do the same and return a $2,300 donation Geffen had given him. Yet when Clinton herself was asked to repudiate the abuse of Petraeus, she either saw no reason to do so or, much more likely, was afraid to alienate an important constituency, the 3.3 million members of MoveOn.org.” So let me ask you specifically. Do you repudiate the MoveOn.org ad?

HILLARY CLINTON: I have said, and I have voted for, condemning anyone who goes after the patriotism and service of any American.

Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation, where Clinton's appearance last about 16 minutes:

Earlier this month your campaign had to give back $850,000 in contributions that had been given, or gathered up for your campaign by a fundraiser who turns out to be an indicted swindler. Senator, what happens when these people come to you with these enormous sums of money? Do you just take it with no questions asked and is this going to change the way you do fundraising in the future?

—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Republicans will not suspend dis-belief

Beware Senator, don't appear at a Presidential Debate with a Republican, It will require a suspension of Dis-belief to expect the Republicans will ignore your votes in the Senate, or ignore your comments to General Petraus, or your lack of condemnation of the discounted "Move on Ad"...

The day of debate is coming.......and if you can't stand up to a Fox news debate, you can't stand up to the Republican candidates.

Surround yourself with "yes" people from the MSM, but don't get too comfy, it's a hard cruel world out there, filled with American patriots and troop Supporters....some of them Democrats.

And by the way...if you have a good Idea on "healthcare" legislation...remember, you're a Senator whose job is to propose legislation.  Waddayawaitingfor ?  

We gotta elect you as president so you can propose health care legislation ? ?           

What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ?   David Foote  GoE

The day of debate is

The day of debate is coming.......and if you can't stand up to a Fox news debate, you can't stand up to the Republican candidates.

The potential problem with this whole debate scenario is in who will be moderating. The ONLY fair debate is one where the moderators are balanced. How is that EVER going to happen? 

Moderators are not an Issue to...

Who is moderating, is not an issue to Candidates with Strong positions backed up by principles and reason.

Who is moderating, is not a problem for Strong candidates who "can take it".

This goes both ways......enduring MSM by Republicans, and Democrats enduring FOX news and tough questions undiluted by the MSM.....(well, it's one way now, we're waiting for Dems to show up on Fox )   

I'd like to see Fred and Company take on an MSM commentator....we're used to seeing "politically correct" responses to the press by Tony Snow and President Bush....we need some "free Speech" un-encumbered by political correctness....we need some warning shots fired at MSM by an American Candidate, not an MSM Candidate endorsed by ex-Clinton staff posing as Journalists.         

What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ?   David Foote  GoE

I watched this yesterday

I watched this yesterday morning. Hillary was busted on more than one point and never answered a direct question directly.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Shocked at Media Helping Clinton!

When Clinton and other Democrats say that Republicans attacked the service or patriotism of former Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA), they are lying through their teeth.  Cleland lost because he chose to represent the Democrats rather than the people of Georgia.  There were no attacks against his military service.  This is a lie that the Democrats started and that the media lets them perpetuate through repetition.  Oh, wait.  Democrats lying? The media helping the Democrats?  Who would have guessed?

Cleland

My problem with Cleland is that they make him out to be a big hero. He lost his legs and an arm from horseplay with a grenade.

 

A bona fide and certified member of the beer guzzling, NASCAR watching middle class.

Sorry Woody, but you're

Sorry Woody, but you're incorrect.  I live in Georgia and saw the ads which depicted Cleland alongside Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein while questioning Cleland's "courage to lead".  They were so offensive that Chambliss eventually pulled them.  Of course, in the meantime, Chambliss had issued press releases claiming Cleland was "breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution".  I also recall Bush campaigning in Georgia and questioning Cleland's commitment to national security, as well as Ann Coulter's tasteless quips about Cleland's loss of three limbs.  To suggest there were no attacks on Cleland's service or patriotism is disingenuous at best.

A new definition for the

A new definition for the Democrat Newspeak English Dictionary:

Attack (v) 1. when Republicans tell the truth about the positions of a Democrat on various issues, esp. if they quote the Democrat in context. 2. when Republicans tell the truth about the service, non-service, dis-service of a Democrat, esp. when talking about military service

"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan

Reminder about MoveOn

MoveON was started as a response to all the Clinton scandals.  It was designed to get the country to "move on" from the scandals. Thus, no one should expect the former co-president to denounce any outrageous thing MoveOn.org does. However, the media should still ask. 

Although I would preface any question regarding MoveOn.org with something like: "Since we all know MoveOn was a Clinton Administration PR organ designed to take focus off the many Clinton scandals we wouldn't expect you to denounce their 'betray us' ad, but do you think.....?"

Memory overloaded...

 MoveON was started as a response to all the Clinton scandals.  It was designed to get the country to "move on" from the scandals. Thus, no one should expect the former co-president to denounce any outrageous thing MoveOn.org does.

The problem is, people either don't know this fact, or they have completely forgotten it.

Uh?? I thought the Dems

Uh?? I thought the Dems were boycotting that "evil" FOX News..and yet I've seen Obama and now Hillary on FOX shows..so they really don't have any excuse not to appear at a FOX sponsored debate now do they?

 

 

"If the mothers ruled the world there would be no god**** wars in the first place." Sally Fields

Yea Mothers like Susan Smith and Andrea Yates.

The Dems only boycott when told to

By their handlers and rulers, the ones with all the $$ and power. You know, Moven, Daily KOS, etc. When those organizations tell would be Dem Presidntial nominees what to do, they damn well listen.



The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com

I did not remember until now

I did not remember until now that is a know fact that Hillary did not want the Marines that guard the White House to be in uniform. I think her hate for the military is DEEP. It is not a good idea to have someone like her as "commander and chief.” 

Any comments an what the Muslim world/ Islamofasits would view a woman in the White House. I’d think they’d view us as weak, and corrupt.

That's Probably True

Did Gary Aldrich mention that in his book?

Del

My source for this was Blogs for Bush, if I am not mistake. What their source was I do not recall. Perhaps via the Marines that had been asigned their? 

Aldrich

Gary Aldrich is a former FBI Agent who was assigned to the Clinton White House when the co-pResidents moved in. His book is called "Unlimited Access-An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House", and came out in 1996. They of course tried to suppress it.

It's well worth a second read, especially now. If more people had read it when it first came out, Mr. Hillary may have lost the 1996 election.

"...fact that Hillary did

"...fact that Hillary did not want the Marines that guard the White House to be in uniform."

I can't believe that myth is still floating around...well, maybe I can.

Jer

I posted about this

I posted about this yesterday...the only thing that still gives me the creeps is she has done something with her face besides botox...maybe a real face lift...

 

....BUT....

It was that incessant screechy phony loud laugh of hers....Lord that hurts.

As far as anything else with Hillary goes as far as expecting answers that are honest....

FORGET ABOUT IT.

She or her partner in crime would not know what that is if it kicked them in their fat arses...they both belong behind bars.

Instead she is going to be the leftist candidate....I can't wait to see her defeated...going to be worth every single torturous lie they have gotten away with, along with the help from the msm....can't wait to watch their faces either.

Btw....throw in Trump too...he is putting President Bush down at the moment on Wolfie's show. I detest him, he really loves the Clinton's...isn't that sweet? He is making the mistake we care who he is going to vote for out here in the real world...the arrogant fool. 

BT, I suspect that Trump,

BT,

I suspect that Trump, like a lot of liberals of his ilk, loved the "fun, fun, fun" of the Clinton years, when nasty things, like terrorism were ignored or glossed over, in favor of letting the good times roll.

Click After Eating

Here ya go, BT, today's hottest mp3 download, of Hilly's screech from yesterday:

http://drudgereport.com/laugh.mp3

Del.... LOL....Gee...Thank

Del....

LOL....Gee...Thanks friend...

That laugh is still stuck in my head...she did it just about everywhere...but that one right off the top with Wallace was the worst and the phoniest....perfect witch cackle. 

Cockle

WALLACE: Why do you and the president have such a hyper-partisan view of politics?

Sen Clinton on FNS- FOX

JDW

CFR: Chung, Riady, Hsia, Trie, Huang, Hsu, Paw... Who's looking?

 

JDW... That was rich

JDW...

That was rich wasn't it?

Anyway I thought it was. 

Cockle

Unable to find it this morning.

The 'richest' aspect to all of the slop is the fact that this terrorist is doing nothing more than repeating what the libs are campaigning on. Which party is calling which stupid?

JDW

CFR: Chung, Riady, Hsia, Trie, Huang, Hsu, Paw... Who's looking?

 

If you're looking for the

If you're looking for the laugh audio, I've posted it below in a reply to bigtimer. And the link still works.

Evil laugh

Found a better one here

JDW

CFR: Chung, Riady, Hsia, Trie, Huang, Hsu, Paw... Who's looking?

 

JDW... That you did

JDW...

That you did sir.

Video and all.

Cockle

A triple cockle

I am looking for a story which indicates feelings based upon facial expressions, cannot wait 

JDW

CFR: Chung, Riady, Hsia, Trie, Huang, Hsu, Paw... Who's looking?

 

bt, in case you missed it

bt, in case you missed it where I posted it in the Open Thread, check this out:

Warning, it might give you nightmares!!

Clinton's Cackle

I posted in a thread yesterday that you can always tell which questions she really doesn't want to answer, or to have people pay attention...she uses the laugh to pretend that it's just so absurd.

This one came after Chris Wallace asked her why she and the President have such a hyperpartisan view of politics.

Get ready to hear it a LOT.

Hi mb... You and Del have

Hi mb...

You and Del have both given me this link...as if I could get that witch's cackle out of my head!

LMAO!

Btw...It is seared, seared in my brain!

Of course she uses the phony arse cackle to avoid any situation she wants to avoid.

She thinks all people are as stupid as those that vote for her.

Not Tough Enough

I watched the interview and thought CW was to easy on her. She tended to skirt the questions and kept saying how I, I, I, can make things better. "it's all about meeeeeee". She's a disgrace and I can't understand how anyone could even think of voting for her.

 

I guess she'll still avoid the Fox sponsored debates. Just plain spineless.

Slight Correction

She doesn't "skirt" the questions, she "pants-suits" them.

And don't worry-there are plenty of people who will vote for her. After all, Al Gore got over 80 percent of the high school dropout vote in 2000

Questions that should have been asked.

WALLACE: Senator, you have refused to criticize the MoveOn.org ad about General Petraeus. And in fact, this week you voted against a Senate resolution denouncing it.President Bush said that you and other Democrats are more afraid — his word — afraid of irritating the left wing and MoveOn than you are about insulting the American military. Does he have a point?

H. CLINTON: No, he doesn't. But I think it's clear I don't condone attacks on anyone who has served our country with distinction and with honor, and I have been very vocal in my support of and admiration for General Petraeus.

WALLACE: Does this mean then that you are prepared to condemn the scandalous attacks on Pres. Bush regarding his military service?

H. CLINTON: I have said, and I have voted for, condemning anyone who goes after the patriotism and service of any American.

WALLACE: Does this mean that you condemn Murtha’s reprehensible attack on active military personnel as well as the negative comments made by John Kerry and many others who have actively accused our military of vile acts?

H. CLINTON: If  I could be honest, Chris, which I can't, I would answer that like my husband, I despise the military.

Brady.... Well put! You

Brady....

Well put!

You said it all.

I watched some

I watched some Clinton/Wallace interview clips on OR'eillys "body language segment" last night and I was dumbfounded with Hilarry's body language. She was laughing hard at Wallace's line of questioning, and it wasn't even close to being funny. My 12 YO girls were watching with me and asked me, "what was funny, and why is she laughing?" Really, Clinton was pathetic and spinning her answers wildly, as expected. But then again, at least she appeared on FOX. Trying to insult FOX's audience, maybe....