The promos for Fox News Sunday's interview with Bill Clinton (rough transcript is here) have been good teasers. The Right has been clamoring about how Bill lost his cool with host Chris Wallace; the Left has been uptight at the "sandbagging" of the former president.
Both ought to friggin' relax.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Hindsight is 20/20 people. Clinton surely could have done more about nabbing Osama bin Laden. But back during the 90s the Right was ragging on the [former] president's every move -- whether that move was right or wrong -- culminating in the silly impeachment.
I did find it ... telling, though, how upset Clinton got at what was a really simple, fair -- yet tough -- question. Wallace even uses the "hindsight is 20/20" line, too, yet Bill gets really fired up:
"I’m being asked this on the FOX network...""All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office."
"They (Bush admin.) had eight months to try and they didn’t….."
"So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me."
"I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked why didn’t you do anything about the Cole. I want to know how many you asked why did you fire Dick Clarke. I want to know…"
"You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about…"
"And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…"
I have to inject: Eight months vs. eight years??
I really fail to see how Clinton's anger here will satisfy anyone but the Kos crowd (and Keith Olbermann). Wallace's question was fair, and Bill could've handled it much better. This thing almost bears a similarity to the classic Dan Rather-George HW Bush debacle back in '88. But back then, even though Rather's questions were tough (and fair), it was Rather who lost his cool because Bush was evasive. Wallace, by contrast, was calm, polite and collected; it was Clinton who kept raising his voice, wagging his finger at Chris, even getting physically right in Wallace's face.
Clinton has many facts on his side. He also made many mistakes. He could easily have addressed both in this interview, calmly and cooly, and if he did he'd have garnered a lot of respect from the other side of the aisle. But he did not. After watching the entire show, Wallace was more than equitable, and Clinton came off as self-righteously angry. That's a shame.
I like Bill Clinton. He's incredibly smart, extremely articulate, and possibly the best politician of our time. (He, of all prominent ex-politicians, does not lambaste President Bush or the current admin.) But, unfortunately, Bill slid into the trap in which the GOP needed him to fall (Lewinsky). If he had not, his legacy (which many on the Right believe he is obsessed with) would be much more positive.
Further analysis: Blogcritics, LA Times, News Hounds, Powerline. (Above image courtesy Newsbusters.)
UPDATE: Did Republicans really roundly criticize Clinton for his attempts to "get" bin Laden? Ace has some interesting tidbits.
Elsewhere, Michelle Malkin thinks Chris Wallace was "terrific. Unflappable. Unrelenting. Unapologetic." I surely wouldn't go that far, but he didn't get Clinton's "foot up his hiney" either, to quote commenter dan. He remained calm, kept focused on the question, and didn't falter.
I also don't get some lib bloggers calling Wallace out for "welching" on the deal to stick to a time schedule. As Wallace explained, the pre-interview deal was to spend half the time on the Clinton Global Initiative, and the other half on anything else. It was Clinton that kept on the subject of bin Laden, not Wallace, if you watch the interview.
Hube,
I agree with much of what you write here....
He could easily have addressed both in this interview, calmly and cooly, and if he did he'd have garnered a lot of respect from the other side of the aisle.
...but not that. Clinton could no sooner get an ounce of credit from his right-wing detractors than Bush could get credit for anything from MoveOn.org. That's just hooey. And he didn't exactly "lose his cool." I mean, he didn't pull a Jim Everett or anything. ;) He simply defended himself and shot back. I doubt he regrets it. He's spent a lot of time being quite respectful as he's shat on. I know we're not accustomed to seeing Democrats do that, so...
As you say, Clinton has a lot of facts on his side. I have never been one to heap all the blame on the Bush Administration for not stopping 9/11. But no one on the right should ever imply what Wallace did (I know, it was just a "question"!) , when the far right lambasted Bill for actually going after OBL in the first place.
And I certainly don't see how the Left could be upset at the "sandbagging of Clinton." Bill Clinton can't be sandbagged. He put his foot right up Chris Wallace's hiney, and I thought it was pretty darn funny.
Posted by: dan at September 24, 2006 11:47 AMClinton is a master speaker and person handler. I don't think he "put his foot up Wallace's hiney;" on the contrary, he came off as a bit threatening. There was no need for this. He could have dissected Wallace w/o resorting to that, IMO.
And maybe you're right, dan -- Clinton may not have "won over" many hardcore Righties...I probably should have said moderates or independents. But I'm fairly conservative and I think a lot of the Clinton hassling is overboard. ;-)
But keep that "lambasting" part in mind when other network talk show hosts "imply" to Bush that he did this or that, or didn't do this or that. I mean, come on -- you can't see Tim Russert or Chris Matthews -- or even Wallace -- asking a similar question of Bush? Something like, maybe, "A lot of people believe Iraq had a hand in 9/11. Aren't you, or didn't you, help perpetuate that myth by invading Iraq?"
Posted by: Hube at September 24, 2006 01:24 PM"when the far right lambasted Bill for actually going after OBL in the first place"
fantasy land delusions.
Clinton was criticised for the timing of his missle launches (the day before his Monica deposition and the day before the begining of his impeachment trial)and for their inefectualness.
No one criticised him for going after OBL. never happened.
Posted by: steamboat willy at September 25, 2006 03:17 PMNow Clinton is Re-Writing his las Re-Write of history:
It is telling to note that in his autobiography, which I reviewed for NOR in 2004, Clinton’s first mention of terrorism does not appear until page 574. Al-Qaeda does not appear until page 797.
At no point is there a serious discussion of Militant Islamist ideologies or of the potential effectiveness of terrorists armed with advanced Western technologies. Had Clinton spent a lot of time working on such issue during his years in office, would that not have found its way into his 957-page door-stopper?
Curtis May
(Slick?) Willy,
I'd suggest a bit of simple research...or trying to unclog your mind and remember things how they actually happened, since I'm assuming we both remember 1995. Look up the reaction to Clinton's Omnibus Counter Terror bill in 1995, for instance.
Clinton said at a White House News Conference pushing the bill: "We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue." Meantime, the Republicans were "hardening their responses to some of the counter-terror measures," calling some 'phony' and pushing for delays. They also expressed concern that we don't want to live in a police state, and that we have to balance individual rights with security. Man, they must have *really* hated Clinton to say that crap with a straight face!
But the most hilarious fact, Will? Orrin Hatch's opposition to Clinton's provisions TO EXPAND WIRETAPPING!
I wish there were something larger than capital letters, 'cause it's just so gosh darn funny.
Posted by: dan at September 25, 2006 05:56 PMHarry Smith:
President Clinton basically laid the blame at the feet of the CIA and the FBI for not being able to certify or verify that bin Laden was responsible for a number of different attacks. Does that ring true with you, Michael Scheuer?"
SCHEUER: No, sir, I don't think so. Former president seems to be able to deny facts with impunity.
Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That's the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men who risked their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden.
Harry Smith: "Is the Bush administration any less responsible for not finishing the job in Tora Bora?"
SCHEUER: There's plenty of blame to go around, sir, but the fact of the matter is the Bush administration had one chance that they botched, and the Clinton administration had eight to ten chances that they refused to try. At least at Tora Bora our forces were on the ground. We didn't push the point.
But it's just -- it's an incredible kind of situation for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them.
http://newsbusters.org/node/7871
Posted by: steamboat willy at September 29, 2006 12:16 AM