Well that's what it was. And he was his 'ole self again, when he gets riled up. As he practically leaps out of his chair to get in Chris Wallace's face, and poking him with that famous finger, Bill Clinton said his piece in defense of his efforts to get bin Laden. Also accusing Chris Wallace of doing 'a conservative hit job' on him, as a 'right-winger.' Yup, poor victim Bill, that vast right-wing conspiracy again. All in all, it was a perfect display of a man on a mission to embarrass himself in making excuses and admissions in his 'obsession' with bin Laden. All over this legitimate question, 'Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida?'
 After complaining that the premise of the interview was ignored for not having asked questions about his fund raising campaign on some global climate issue, Clinton would not let Wallace return to the fundraising project he was there to talk about. Instead, Bill wouldn't let himself stop defending his legacy on terrorism and protecting the American people.
Clinton accused Wallace and Fox for not asking anyone in the Bush administration the so-called tough question that he was being asked. Questions like, in retrospect, do you think you could have done more, do you think you did enough? Oh how unfair of Wallace, NOT. Wallace did ask virtually the same question of Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld in March of 2004.
Claiming victim status, Clinton said no body asked Bush about retaliating for the attack on the USS Cole. Chris didn't either, he mentioned it in the broader sense of combating terrorism after a number of attacks. Patterico addresses this here:
Like Clinton, Think Progress shifts the argument to specific questions about the U.S.S. Cole, in order to argue that Clinton is correct:
Neither Chris Wallace, nor his predecessor, Tony Snow ever asked anyone in the Bush administration why they failed to respond to the bombing of the USS Cole, according to a Lexis-Nexis database search.
That may technically be true. If you simply plug the terms “U.S.S. Cole” and “Fox News Sunday” into a Nexis search engine, it may well be the case that Bush officials were not asked specifically about the response to the Cole. But that wasn’t Wallace’s question. Wallace had simply mentioned the Cole as part of a detailed question about terror acts that occurred on Clinton’s watch, culminating in a question asking why Clinton hadn’t done more — the same question Wallace asked Rumsfeld in 2004.
Clinton referred to Richard Clarke's book no less than 11 times demanding we read his book, that the facts are all in there, and they refute the notion that he didn't do all he could to kill bin Laden. I didn't read Clarke's book, but Byron York apparently did, and provides this among other quotes from Clarke's book, from page 225:
Because of the intensity of the political opposition that Clinton engendered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in ‘Wag the Dog’ tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life. For similar reasons, he could not fire the recalcitrant FBI Director who had failed to fix the Bureau or to uncover terrorists in the United States. He had given the CIA unprecedented authority to go after bin Laden personally and al Qaeda, but had not taken steps when they did little or nothing. Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations they did not want to conduct. He had tried that in Somalia, and the military had made mistakes and blamed him. In the absence of a bigger provocation from al Qaeda to silence his critics, Clinton thought he could do no more.
The Clinton show today answers the question as to why he hadn't done any interviews on Fox News Sunday before, and probably never will again. It's tough to defend the indefensible, and he doesn't posses the self-control necessary to have a sit-down conversation about tough issues.
10:59:01 PM 
|
|
