Kohn claimed Bill Clinton "didn't have his facts straight" during Fox News Sunday interview, but Kohn was the one misrepresenting the facts
SUMMARY: Author Bob Kohn falsely claimed former President Bill Clinton "didn't have his facts straight" when he confronted Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. But Kohn misstated Clinton's assertions to Wallace.
On the November 27 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, attorney and author Bob Kohn falsely claimed former President Bill Clinton "didn't have his facts straight" when he confronted Chris Wallace during a September 24 interview on Fox News Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday. In fact, it was Kohn who misstated the facts while recounting the exchange.
Asked by host Joe Scarborough whether "Fox News" is "in trouble" because "Democrats that are taking charge of the [Capitol] Hill are saying" that "Fox News is nothing more than [a] mouthpiece of the White House and Republicans" -- an apparent reference to a rebuke of Wallace by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) -- Kohn replied "I'm not one to criticize another for complaining about media bias. But if you're going to do it, I think you ought to get your facts straight." Kohn then asserted that when Wallace had asked Clinton whether he "had done enough to prevent 9-11," Clinton "blew up" and "complained that Chris Wallace didn't ask that question to anyone in the Bush administration" even though, according to Kohn, "six months earlier, on March 22, 2006, Chris Wallace asked that exact question to [Secretary of Defense] Donald Rumsfeld."
But Clinton did not claim during the interview that Wallace "didn't ask that question to anyone in the Bush administration," as Kohn alleged. In fact, as Media Matters for America documented, Clinton stated: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you've asked this question of. ... Tell the truth." Wallace replied, "Have you ever watched Fox News Sunday, sir? ... We ask plenty of questions." Later in the interview Clinton stated, "[Y]ou people ask me questions you don't ask the other side," to which Wallace responded, "That is not true."
As Media Matters has documented, contrary to Wallace's assertion that "[w]e ask plenty of questions," the interview with Rumsfeld to which Kohn apparently referred was the only instance out of dozens of interviews over the five years prior to Clinton's interview in which Wallace and former Fox News Sunday host Tony Snow asked pressing questions of senior Bush aides regarding the Bush administration's efforts to pursue Al Qaeda in the eight months prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- and in the years since. Moreover, while Kohn claimed Wallace's interview with Rumsfeld occurred on March 22, 2006, "six months" prior to his interview with Clinton, the Rumsfeld interview actually took place two years earlier, on March 28, 2004.
Kohn is the author of Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted (WND Books/Nelson Current, 2003) and is a former columnist for the right-wing news website WorldNetDaily. In May 2004, as Media Matters noted, Kohn claimed in a WorldNetDaily article that "evidence suggests" Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) was having an affair with a New York Times reporter; that article has since been removed from the WorldNetDaily website.
From the November 27 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:
SCARBOROUGH: Bob Kohn, that's been, really, the left's talking points for some time, that Bill O'Reilly, Fox News is nothing more than [a] mouthpiece of the White House and Republicans. Now it looks like Democrats that are taking charge of the Hill are saying it too. Is Fox News in trouble?
KOHN: Well, I'm not one to criticize another for complaining about media bias. But if you're going to do it, I think you ought to get your facts straight. You know, when Clinton was on Chris Wallace, Chris Wallace asked him whether you had done enough to prevent 9-11, and that's when Clinton blew up. And he complained that Chris Wallace didn't ask that question to anyone in the Bush administration.
Well, six months earlier, on March 22, 2006, Chris Wallace asked that exact question to Donald Rumsfeld, OK? So Clinton didn't have his facts straight.
This little right-wing tweedle questioning Clinton's command of facts. Bill would chew this punk up and spit him out any day of the week.
The funny thing is how desperate they sound to assert their made-up "reality", the one voters rejected, over "actual" reality. Must be emotionally scarring to have Santa Claus not only exist but kick you in the crotch before he vanishes in a puff of logic.
Meant to say, "not only not exist".
Maybe Wallace adheres to Ambrose Bierce's definitions when it comes to asking questions of Bush failures. From TDD:
Once: Enough
Twice: Once too many.
Just as in jihad, it matters not who has the facts:
FoxLiesALOT is determined to "get" Clinton, and their imps are adequately sustained by these inept attempts.
Bill Clinton said to Chris Wallace why he didn't ask anyone in the Bush admin. why they didn't do anything about the USS Cole and why they fired Richard (Dick) Clarke, as well as why they didn't do more to put Al Qaida "out of business." By they way, when Wallace asked that question to Donald Rumsfeld, he let him answer without being confrontational. That is not what happened in the Rumsfeld interview.
more accurate.
If you remove the quotes, it becomes
Not jumble-tastic.
we're just dirty little posters here, not professional jouranists.
he'll ride that pony into the dirt too.
...or the other guest also claimed, during the course of this segment, that Bill Clinton's reaction, during that interview, was staged, a conclusion it's difficult to believe even the least intellectually honest Clinton-hater could honestly reach (the incident happened when Wallace violated the preestablished terms of the interview, Wallace claimed that Clinton fumed at his staff before leaving Fox, and Olbermann reported that Clinton was still fuming when he went over the MSNBC, immediately afterward).
More significantly, it's worth noting that last night's incident occured in the middle of a discussion of "liberal media bias" wherein the host and both guests were all conservatives, and that it occured on a right-wing program that was created as a replacement for MSNBC's only liberal show at that time, which had been cancelled because management didn't approve of the hosts' liberal views.
This is the same idiot who on that same broadcast whined about how "The Daily Show" isn't "fair and balanced."
Hey Kohn, "The Daily Show" is a *HUMOR* program, not news!
What a Kool-Aid drinking idiot.
throw spitballs at a wall and see what sticks. This guy looks just right for Marine Corps boot camp and get real facts.
when he said march 22, 2006? nah, since he says it was "six months earlier" but gave the exact date, but wrong year, it was obviously an attempt to deflect away from the fact that one interview, which they constantly offer as proof of how rough they are on the bushies, was two and a half years ago. damn, boys, if you are going to talk about how fair and balanced you are, try not to be spreading more lying propaganda at the same time. kind of undermines your argument.
and it was pretty funny, Actually debating whether Fox Nooz is "Republican Friendly".
And pointing out the bias of the Daily Show.
Here's the deal; Humor and satire generally are directed at hypocrisy and absurdity and the status quo. Conservatism and specifically our current leadership are pretty ripe targets, and funny as hell.
Same reason Mallard Fillmore and Rush Limbaugh are rarely funny. Defending the power structure and those in charge at the expense of average people is not a good foundation for humor.
"Here's the deal; Humor and satire generally are directed at hypocrisy and absurdity and the status quo. Conservatism and specifically our current leadership are pretty ripe targets, and funny as hell."
Now that Pelosi and gang are in charge, we'll see if Jon Stewart dishes it out to them.
"Same reason Mallard Fillmore and Rush Limbaugh are rarely funny."
Rush is a Blowhard but Mallard Fillmore is priceless!
Rush is a Blowhard but Mallard Fillmore is priceless!
- rubdwrong7211
Which Police Academy movies do you think are the great ones?
"Mallard Fillmore is priceless!"
Mallard Fillmore is one of the most effective recruiting agents for Progressives.
seeing ones ideology completely explained by a duck with a press pass in his hatband might embarrass some of the more salvageable cons into reality.
I do think Mallard Fillmore might gain some GOP votes though.Like maybe the people who call in to Rush Limbaugh and say megadittos- suppose they have a friend who can't keep up with Rush. They consider him too thoughtful,and don't have the attention span needed to survive an El Rushbo 10 minute tirade.
Now imagine these same people see a duck who's dressed up like a reporter,along with his foils (the liberal professor with the bifocals and bald on top with long grey hair, the oafish angry woman with the page-boy hair and the NOW button, the conventional wisdom brontosaurus).
I know it's hard to imagine, but I'll bet there are people in this great country of ours for whom Hannity and Rush haven't dumbed down world affairs and social issues enough.
Hello, Mallard Filmore!
Mallard Fillmore is priceless!
I agree. Not worth a nickel.
Mallard Fillmore is priceless! "I agree. Not worth a nickel." - rusty shackleford
You're entitled to your opinion. What do you think of Oliphant?
"Did you mean priceless or worthless? Which Police Academy movies do you think are the great ones?" -HuntingtonBeachLefty
I've never seen any movies called "Police Academy." I take it they're not very good. How much time have you spent watching them?
"Mallard Fillmore is one of the most effective recruiting agents for Progressives." - darkmass
"Progressives" are "recruited" via cartoons? Interesting.
Well, now we know why rubdwrong7211 thinks "Mallard Fillmore" is priceless. His debating skills are on a second grade level (his entire post above is "I know you are, but what am I?"), so his humor level is there, also. "Fillmore" might be a bit below his grasp, but he tries.
I'm afraid you're projecting again.
is good but Tom Toles is, in my opinion, the hands-down best political cartoonist working today.
Toles is clever about 5% of the time. I guess he's OK if you like political cartoons with almost no thought put into them.
Wow, here is a clue, just because it is miles above your head doesnt mean no thought went into it, just that you arent bright enough to GET it. Thus you think Mallard Fillmore is actually funny.
As a fan of Mallard Fillmore, your opinion on this topic has no validity. Thanks for playing though.
Dan Perkins (Tom Tomorrow) with This Modern World.
Modern World is one I emeail to my Repub ma-in-law often. Manages to get the point across without being TOO vicious, just funny.
Non-Sequitir is pretty good sometimes as well.
Sorry, can't respond to rubdwrong, thanks for doing it while I was gone.
Mallard Fillmore?
they have picked at Democrats in the past, and they will pick at Democrats in the future.
The reason TDS has been heavy on the Republican-picking, IMO, is that they've been far more obvious about their idiocy and hypocrisy in the past few years.
I seem to remember a few years back, just before the 2000 election, and listening to a left-leaning cartoonist talk about the election during a presentation he was making at UC. He was asked by an audience member who he supported for the Presidential election. The cartoonist responded, "I'm torn on this. As a Progressive, I'd like to see a Democrat stay in the White House, but as a cartoonist, George Bush would give me great job security."
I have to think TDS & Stewart are in the same camp there.
Very good, MMFA. I saw the Scarborough program last night and Kohn's comment didn't smell right to me, either. I cast a jaundiced eye at anything this guy says.
Let's see if Scarborough makes a correction tonight.
is the same troglodyte who said one night on Scarborough Country or some show on MSNBC "I dont know how you can think that Judith Miller is anything but anti-Bush." He has to be either delusional or dripping with dishonesty. Judith Miller is the one who wrote those stories about non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction which helped make the case for war against Iraq. You have to be at the zenith of dishonesty to say that Judith Miller was "anti-Bush."
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
but he looks like one of them there A-rabs.