Bill Clinton Strikes Back

(The Nation)  This column was written by John Nichols.

---

Regular readers of this column will know that it maintains no great affection for former President Bill Clinton. A Democratic Leadership Council stalwart, Clinton got elected president by promising health care and education for all and then proceeded to give the country fiscal conservatism and a corporate-sponsored free trade agenda. His missteps handed control of Congress to Newt Gingrich and the radical right, rendering the Democratic party largely dysfunctional at the legislative level to this day.

But there has never been any doubt that Clinton was more serious about combating terrorism than his successor, George W. Bush. Clinton actually worried about threats to the United States, while Bush dismissed warnings at precisely the moment when the threats were most serious. And, as the intelligence community now confirms, Bush's failure of focus and practice have made the Americans more vulnerable.

The fact that Bush's supremely political presidency treats "homeland security" as a slogan rather than a necessity is the fundamental flaw in the current commander-in-chief's deeply flawed tenure. And his handlers are well aware of the problem. That's why they have worked so hard, along with their amen corner in the media, to create the false impression that Clinton and the Democrats were somehow more responsible for the 9-11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon than Bush and the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

Unfortunately, the so-called "leaders" of the opposition party have done a lousy job of challenging the spin job ... until now.

Clinton used an appearance with "Fox News Sunday's" Chris Wallace to challenge the lies of the Bush administration and its media acolytes. The interview, which was broadcast over the weekend, got to the heart of what's wrong not with the Bush presidency but with a media that covers that presidency from the on-bended-knee position.

Clinton recognized that Wallace, one of the more competent members of the Fox team, was under pressure to mouth the Republican talking points that the network uses as its reference points. And the former president pounced on that vulnerability.

When Wallace started in on the "Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President?" line of questioning, Clinton leapt.

"Okay, let's talk about it," the former president began. "I will answer all of those things on the merits, but I want to talk about the context (in) which this (discussion) arises. I'm being asked this on the Fox network … ABC just had a right-wing conservative (program) on "The Path to 9/11" falsely claim that it was … based on the 9/11 Commission Report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission Report. I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn't do enough claimed (in the 1990s) that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. 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. All the right-wingers who now say that I didn't do enough said (then) that I did too much. Same people."

By now, Wallace was sputtering: "I understand...," "with respect, if I may, instead of...," "But Mr. President..."

But Clinton was on a roll.

Despite Wallace's stumbling attempts to interrupt him, Clinton went year-by-year, incident-by-incident, initiative-by-initiative through his anti-terror efforts.

• 1
• 2
• Next Page »

[ausmatt-2009]

Yes he stood up for himself, but what he said were complete lies. Clinton did not have a comprehensive strategy for Al-Qaeda and Rice is completely justified in saying "We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda,". Refer to this interview with Richard Clarke in 2002, the person that Clinton on numerous occassions refers to throughout the interview. It completely contradicts every Clinton says http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

[jakovo-2009]

I don't think it was a calculated reaction to Wallace. I think he (Clinton) knew he was going into hostile territory. I just think about the role of news, thier objectivity, how the 'Nation' can even be a part of the 'News opinion' team of CBS. How Fox is all about an 'agenda orientated ' spin of news. Not news. Why is there an 'opinion forum' in a straight news org? Where do we go not to hear 'spin'? Where is the news? Just the facts?

[energyecon]

What the Clinton administration left for Bushco, which they spurned...

snip

The January 25, 2001, memo, recently released to the National Security Archive by the National Security Council, bears a declassification stamp of April 7, 2004, one day prior to Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission on April 8, 2004. Responding to claims that she ignored the al-Qaeda threat before September 11, Rice stated in a March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."

Two days after Rice's March 22 op-ed, Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, "there's a lot of debate about whether it's a plan or a strategy or a series of options -- but all of the things we recommended back in January were those things on the table in September. They were done. They were done after September 11th. They were all done. I didn't really understand why they couldn't have been done in February."

snip

Clarke asked on several occasions for early principals meetings on these issues, and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. No principals committee meetings on Al Qaida were held until September 4th, 2001.

snip

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm

[energyecon]

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/

[mjv2944]

Dubya is a definite zero and Clinton did not get the name "slick willie" for nothing. Clinton could talk a penguin into buying a refrigerator. But remember he is the ultimate politician, he know what to say, when to say it, and when to shut up. I think he ended up not being the liberals champion because of his fiscal conservatism, but at least he left a surplus which the so called conservatives pi--ed away in a hurry.

[gina32203]

Wow! Congratulations President Clinton! I so happy that you didn't allow that little WEASEL to unload on you!!

[beacheshuman]

How naive to think that any administration could do anything to halt the spread of insanity in this current world. Powers greater than any man or nation controls will prove that we are all just observers as the universal stage plays out. Relax, get through it, its going to get better and there's not a thing anyone can do about it.

[mrcodpiece]

Six years after leaving office - Conservatives continue to obsess more over Clinton's *** than they do over finding Bin Ladin.
There's something mighty Freudian about that...

[jtkeefe]

Hooray Bill! We need a lot more of the same. We cannot let the opposition say anything they want and go unchallenged.

[walt1944]

Recently, me and the wife were eating at a resturant when this elder ditz came in and sat down, striking up a conversation with the people in the booth next to her. She claimed that George Bush was able to walk on water (what else would you expect from someone who talks to God in the White House Rose Garden and gets answers!) and his mother was the sweetest thing that walked the planet. Howard Dean, on the other hand, has totally screwed things up along with all the Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives who ever walked this planet. I suppose you could throw Jesus Christ, Buddha, and Ghandi into that crowd too! I came very close to walking up to this total airhead and asking her after 5 years, why don't we have Osama Bin Laden? Why are we in Iraq? Why is the entire world ticked off at us? Now that king George has us in a big mess, can't he and Rice do something more constructive than point fingers?