Kurtz Falsely Implies that Chris Wallace Never Put the Same Questions to a Bush Official that He Put to Clinton
Howard Kurtz implies that Clinton was right when he accused Chris Wallace of one-sided questioning:
“It set me off on such a tear because you didn’t formulate it in an honest way and you people ask me questions you don’t ask the other side,” Clinton said.
“Sir, that is not true,” Wallace replied.
Asked about Clinton’s complaint, a Fox spokeswoman pointed to Wallace’s interview two weeks ago with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Wallace pressed her about the lack of prewar ties between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but he did not ask about U.S. efforts against bin Laden before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Kurtz’s clear implication is that Clinton was right — Wallace never put the tough questions to Bush’s aides about Bush’s pre-9/11 failures.
But, as I noted yesterday, Chris Wallace has put the same tough questions to Donald Rumsfeld that he put to President Clinton. Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:
I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?
. . . .
What do you make of his [Richard Clarke’s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?
. . . .
Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.
This is remarkably similar to what Wallace asked Clinton in yesterday’s interview:
[H]indsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?
I have written Kurtz about this.
How about it, Howie? Will you correct your false implication?