The Clinton Gambit (UPDATE)

Round-ups are all over the place regarding Former President Bill Clinton’s interview with Chris Wallace on today’s Fox News Sunday and Allahpundit has a cut of same.

I haven’t watched the video yet and plan to watch the full interview when it comes on in less that an hour from now. I had considered doing a round-up myself, but I started thinking about a certain DVD that I finally got to watch last night: United 93.

From Byron York:

“All I’m asking is if anybody wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book,” Clinton said at one point in the interview. “All you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror,” he said at another. “All you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s findings and you know it’s not true,” he said at yet another point. In all, Clinton mentioned Clarke’s name 11 times during the Fox interview.

But Clarke’s book does not, in fact, support Clinton’s claim. Judging by Clarke’s sympathetic account — as well as by the sympathetic accounts of other former Clinton aides like Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon — it’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince — as opposed to, say, order — U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up.

(Emphasis mine.)

Juxtapose the dramatization of one of the greatest acts of collective heroism in battling our enemies against the idea that Former President Clinton was too afraid to risk unpopularity, to make the case for something in which he claims to have believed in—that Osama bin Laden was a grave threat to US national security and that he “needed killing”--and to exercise his prerogatives as Commander-in-Chief against that same enemy.

And juxtapose that against the fact that Clinton was manifestly not afraid to front the mild-mannered, mostly even-handed Chris Wallace. Little risk involved in that as opposed to the former. (Chris is definitely not his father, Mike. However Mike isn’t Mike anymore.)

I’m not really so upset about seeing the former president get raw on someone--and it’s playing quite well in some quarters. Like Jim Pinkerton, I now suspect that the confrontational attitude was a calculated two-pronged move to get Clinton’s message regarding his (in)actions against terrorism out into the public and to rally the faithful--those who believe that everyone who doesn’t agree with them is part of a conspiracy involving faxed talking points between a nebulous cadre of “right-wingers” taking their outlined and objective cues from talk radio and Fox News. He was quite successful on both counts.

The flaw in the tactic is this: no longer are we (meaning the average person with a modem) restricted to waiting weeks, months or years for governmental reports or interview transcripts. We can check such documents against the spoken word right now or, often, beforehand, as was the case here. Strip away all of the bug-eyed, physical finger-pointing, personal space-invading tactics which WJC deployed against his "fearsome enemy," Wallace; strip away all of the great theater contained the interview and strip away all of the great ratings which Fox News will accrue because of it. From there, all we are left with are words and action (or inaction) to read, observe, compare and come to conclusions.

Will update in a bit.

UPDATE:

Well, the interview was all it has been cracked up to be. A few points:

1. I copied and pasted the transcript from Think Progress and followed along as the interview progressed. As someone who has transcribed documents for a living, let’s just say that the transcriber needs to hone his/her craft a bit better. Oddly enough, however, the portions of the transcript which involved the former president’s altruistic Clinton Global Initiative were almost word-for-word.
2. When Wallace asked WJC about whether Osama bin Laden had been influenced in his summation of American troops by the Somalia debacle, it sent him into a long rant. He claimed that Wallace had said that bin Laden and al-Qaeda were responsible for Somalia, something Wallace never said or implied.
3. WJC said that if he had gone into Afghanistan, he’d have more than 20,000 troops. Well, GWB probably would to if the NATO troops weren’t there also.
4. Richard Clarke seems to be heavily on WJC’s mind, as he promoted Clarke’s book countless times as being the definitive bible on the Clinton Administration’s efforts regarding combating bin Laden and his terror network. Problem is that, if Byron York’s excerpt above is any indication, Clarke’s retrospective isn’t as flattering as WJC seems to think it is. (I’ll check the library to see whether the book is available there.)
5. The CIA, the FBI and the “entire military” hated the then commander-in-chief wouldn’t “allow” him to act against bin Laden. So why didn’t he and his administration have the discipline to make the president’s case if “killing bin Laden” was the most important thing ever? Never mind. Forget I asked.
6. The rightwing and the Bush Administration are selling fear, according to WJC. Interestingly said. In his way—and probably inadvertently…maybe—the former president accused the right of selling the same commodity that all terrorists are selling, by the very definition of the word.
7. Again with the “right-wing conspiracy.” That mode of counterattack on WJC’s part lets me know that I was right about this being a calculated move. It fired up the base, alright, because, more than being logical, more than attempting to do what’s best for the country, a good portion of the hardcore left wants the ability to “tell off the right.” (That’s what trolling is about.) And when their champion does it on live TV and all over the internet, that means more that whether the objective truth was told.

A few days ago when this story broke, Dean Esmay and Ed Morrissey opined that we other rightish bloggers should have disdained the Clinton story as old news. Obviously, I don’t agree. We all have had to deal with people who twist events around to suit their personal/professional agendas at some point in our lives; well, at least I have. In nearly all cases, I backed down and said “have it your way” and in all those cases, I wish I hadn’t. Well, the stakes are infinitely greater here and I’m not talking about Bill Clinton’s legacy. I’m talking about our national legacy--for which I think that Bill Clinton will play an ever shrinking role—one in which the truth keeps being told; no matter how much a given delusionist ex-president wags his/her finger or spouts paranoia about being ganged up on.

Because truth is part of the liberty that’s supposed to be so dear to us.

UPDATE: And the fact-checking begins. Tammy Bruce cites OBL's 1998 Grand Jury Indictment which asserts that the terror mastermind was indeed involved in Somalia.

(Thanks to Memeorandum)

Comments

[DarkJaWs]

I'm going to say the exact same thing I said here as I said in your first writing on the 22nd(which I suggest you read).

The "truths" that you want to hold so dearly is nothing but the nonsense that you want to believe. For example, lets go to Richard Clarke's book. Everything said in there and in the 9/11 commission clearly shows that Clinton [B]DID RECOGNIZE THE THREAT[/b] posed by Bin Laden, and wanted to go after him. The real problem that occurred was a matter of respect: Clinton is no authoritarian like Cheney and fellow neocons. You can blame him all you want for not being determined enough to get the job done, but that is completely besides the point. The very fact that he RECOGNIZED the threat, told Bush of it before he left office, with Bush COMPLETELY ignoring Bin Laden and Al-Qaida says a lot more than any of the nonsensical trash that you have written.

Richard Clarke's book obviously shows that it was really a bureacratic fault rather than Clinton's.

Which, again, leads me to the point I made in the posting on the 22nd....WHAT is the fucking point? Do you see liberals attacking Bush for 9/11 despite the fact that he COMPLETELY ignored Al-Qaida? Hell, George TENET SAYS THAT CONDOLEEZA RICE DIDNT EVEN RECOGNIZE THE OSAMA BIN LADEN back in I THINK IT WAS MAY OF 2001!!!

No, you don't. What you do have, however, is right wingers like yourself trying to further destroy this president's reputation. To blame him for 9/11 is an account of history that is morally treasonous. He knew of the threat, and wanted to stop it. A 9/11 hadn't happened so he couldnt do what he felt was necessary(and also didnt have an authoritarian will, which you can't really blame him for because that is a personality trait, not a leadership trait, and don't even attempt to argue with me on this point or I'll bring up hitler).

So the crux of what I'm saying is this: Clinton is being attacked for his personality trait, not on a fair and accurate depiction of what Clinton WANTED to do. IE, he is being attacked for being Bill Clinton, by those who hate him.

In my worldview, INTENT speaks more than anything. If you cannot respect a person based on their intent, then do not expect to receive respect in kind. That is why Bill Clinton lashed out, and why we live in a polarized America, thanks to right wingers like yourself. And, just to add a troll, give yourself a good pat on the back, ignornance sure must be a wonderful thing, living in your bliss.

[DarkJaWs]

"UPDATE: And the fact-checking begins. Tammy Bruce cites OBL's 1998 Grand Jury Indictment which asserts that the terror mastermind was indeed involved in Somalia."

Ok, this is called nitpicking. This has nothing to do with any question that was posed to Clinton. Also, Clinton was stating the reason why we were there to begin with. He said that not a SINGLE person knew anything about Bin Laden and his involvement bacin in 1993, and he said that was besides the point anyway. He says we were there on a humanitarian mission, not any particular mission to establish a government.

God this is fucking pathetic, and this is just pissing me off now. Here we have you, and many others like you, attacking former president clinton with nothing more than rhetoric, when President Bush invaded Iraq and has created a terrorist haven and created more enemies of the United States. Seriously, what the fuck are you thinking? I'm sick of right wing talking points when the real issues at stake are completely ignored or dismissed. You call yourself a responsible person? Why don't you grow some fucking brains and use it to get things done rather than create more divisiveness throughout the United States, not to mention the world.

[DarkJaWs]

I forgot to mention this one other point: You and Byron York are both wrong in stating that Clinton gave up.

After the Cole bombing, Clinton wanted to invade Afghanistan, but couldn't because there were no operations base that they could operate from(they couldnt get the rights from the FBI or the CIA to get basing rights or whatever in Uzbekistan, we did after 9/11 however). There is nothing Clinton could have done about that.

[DarkJaWs]

Posted on other Blogs by others(and again, this is just to show the idiocy of your argument):

AFTER 9/11 BUSH WANTED TO GET BIN LADEN
2001: After Attacks Bush Wanted Him "Dead or Alive." "We will win the war and there will be costs," President Bush said shortly after the attacks. He said that he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." [Associated Press, 9/15/01; Associated Press, 9/17/01]

THEN FOR THE NEXT 5 YEARS, HE WASN'T "CONCERNED" ABOUT THE 9/11 MASTERMIND
2002: Bush: "Not That Concerned" About Bin Laden. In a news conference, President Bush was asked about Osama bin Laden. "I don't know where he is. I-I'll repeat what I said. I am truly not that concerned about him." [White House Press Conference, 3/13/02]

2005: Bush "Hardly Ever Utters" Osama Bin Laden's Name. "The White House has sought to play down the significance of bin Laden to the global anti-terror battle. As a result, Bush hardly ever utters the name of the man he.repeatedly promised would be caught." [Associated Press, 3/3/05]

* A statement from any Republican prior to 1996 stating the need to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden.

* A statement from any Republican between 1996 and 1998 stating the need to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden.

* A statement from any Republican between 1998 and 2001 praising Bill Clinton's efforts to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden.

Of course, you won't find any of these things because...

* Prior to 1996 (thats 4 years after Clinton was elected) nobody in the Republican party or the public at large gave a damn about Bin Laden.

* Between 1996 and 1998 (from Bin Laden's stay in Sudan to the African embassy bombings) the Republicans were far more obsessed with Whitewater.

* Between 1998 and 2000, the Republicans were far more obsessed with blowjobs and interns, and when Clinton launched cruise missiles at OBL, the Republicans tore him a new asshole.

Again, during the Clinton years, WHAT DID THE REPUBLICANS DO ABOUT OSAMA BIN LADEN?

The answer is:

Not a god-damned thing.

[baldilocks]

DarkJaw-jackin', I'll respond to your distortions later. And save the profanity and the caps for some other blog--especially the GD stuff.

[torchy]

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/networks/wallace_i_felt_as_if_a_mountain_was_coming_down_in_front_of_me__44380.asp

[torchy]

I concur Juliette,DarkJaWs would do well to clean up their language and behave like a decent guest of Baldilocks blog

[Tully]

DarkJerk is doing just what Clinton was--attempting to rewrite reality.

[DarkJaWs]

Wrong...you people are the ones wanting to distort reality. Especially when you have nothing but rhetoric on your side. What are the facts you have? Give me details of why Clinton is to even be brought up at this point in time. Just like goldilocks, I doubt you could come up with more than "clinton was a pussy".

[Tully]

What a maroon. Clinton brought himself up this week, storming the interview lines and going unhinged on Wallace. But thank you for a lovely display of BDS.

[Tully]

A Leis-Nexis search shows that Clinton didn't even notice OBL until after the 1998 embassy bombings. The only person who ever accused Clinton of being "obsessed" with OBL was his buddy Richard Clarke--in 2004. The same Richard Clarke who shot down several CT unit proposals to get OBL. When Clinton ordered the cruise missile strikes on AQ targets, he was loudly supported by the entire right wing of the GOP, including those trying to impeach him. Only the Specter/Danforth centrist brigade tried to hold it against him. And the MSM, which rattled the Wag The Dog scenario for all the ratings it could get.

OBL was barely on the radar anywhere outside of the intel establishment before the embassy bombings. That's the executive branch, not the legislative branch, and the Dems were in charge of the executive branch. Horses for courses, as they say.

And since DarkJerk seems to have completely missed civics class, I'll pound that one home. The President is in charge of the armed forces and the intel agencies, not Congress. Congress can't order military strikes. Congress can't order covert action. It was up to the President to take those actions, to overcome objections among the executive and military, if he was so intent. But he did not. Faced with those objections and that obstruction, he folded in the face of it. He didn't make OBL any kind a priority at all until after the embassy bombings, missing several opportunities before that to take action.

[DarkJaWs]

One of the posts I made was just something I copy/pasted from elsewhere, comments MADE BY OTHERS. Don't give me your BS plz I'm in no mood.

Of course, FatTully, all of this leads to the ultimate point: you have nothing that shows Clinton did not want to attempt to get Bin Laden. And to say that "only richard clarke" backs him up is quite laughable, considering he is the only one who COULD back him up. There is not a person from anywhere within his administration that say he was soft on terror. Loser.

[Tully]

Fat? LMAO. He don't know me very well, do he? :-)

you have nothing that shows Clinton did not want to attempt to get Bin Laden.

Other than his apparent inability to impose himself on agencies under his control and command to do so, the 9/11 Commission Report, his eight years of not getting OBL, his refusal to accept him gift-wrapped in '96, etc. But I really don't blame Clinton. As I've said, I give him a pass on OBL because until the embassy bombings no one thought OBL a major threat, and even after that he never cleared mid-level until the towers fell. The only person to REALLY take him seriously was John O'Niell. Who died at the WTC.

BTW, even Clarke doesn't back up what Clinton said in the Wallace interview. Not in his book, he doesn't. Quite the opposite. But facts aren't your forte, are they?

Mood? Mood is for cattle. Moooo! What a maroon.

[Teal Marie]

Wait!
What was this? -

"One of the posts I made was just something I copy/pasted from elsewhere, comments MADE BY OTHERS. Don't give me your BS plz I'm in no mood."

Well. bless his plagarizing little heart! And not even embarrassed to admit it. Was it Alan Colmes?
Don't tell me about moods. I'm in a footstool-out-of-trollhide sort of mood, myself. I haven't heard such nincompoopery since Bill O went to Banning via Morongo.

Tully, is it not astonishing how well LoonyToons prepare one to argue with a noisy brat? I congratulate you on your fluency in that venacular.

And hi there Torchy! Ever the gentleman.

[DarkJaWs]

What are you babbling on about Teal Marie? Oh whats that? You don't know how to read? Here, let me copy/paste what I said first in the post that I copy/pasted from elsewhere, since you obviously do not know how to read everything.
"Posted on other Blogs by others(and again, this is just to show the idiocy of your argument):"

What was that you were babbling on about? THat you're a retard? How about you get yourself a copy of the new edition of Hooked On Phonics, tell mommy not to be stingy and get it for you:)

[DarkJaWs]

Oh, and for reflection, Tully, if you look at the whole Bin Laden situation in the same way that I do in regards to Clinton, then why are you are you even arguing with me? Just to turn this into a flame war?

[Teal Marie]

DJ,
What other Blogs and whose comments did you copy? And why? Not overly burdened with eloquence yourself?

You arrived with your pants on fire, don't try to blame Tully.

[baldilocks]

Well, you know what, Jaws? You are the flame-thrower here and you can be in an even worse mood elsewhere.

I warned you about your language. You can also go have your temper tantrum and post the work of others without attribution elsewhere. By the way, that last is called plagiarism and it's a form of thievery. However, I'm not surprised that a small-time, foul-mouthed burglar is a fan of Clinton's. Bye-bye!

[DarkJaWs]

My god, do you people not know how to read? Let me quote what I said AGAIN,
"Posted on other Blogs by others"
Shall I copy paste again?
"Posted on other Blogs by others"
There. I only copy pasted it becuase I felt their comments were useful and could be attributed here.

Also, where did you warn me about my language before? I'll try and keep it toned down, but I'm not going to be nice if I feel the person doesn't deserve it. I don't hide any of my feelings or any of my thoughts just so that everyone stays happy in their own ignorant world.

[DarkJaWs]

Oh and by the way, flaming is, as you could guess, is not a big deal to me. If there are strong disagreements and one party is being dishonest, language to make the argument personal is perfectly legimate, as that is the only tool to have everyone stay honest. However, if there is no disagreement and someone still wants to attack you, I would call that flaming. One is being serious, the other is trolling.

[Tully]

if you look at the whole Bin Laden situation in the same way that I do

Sorry, they don't have those color spectrums in the real world. If you're honest, you're both nuts and dim. If you're not, you're a troll, and a thoroughly inept one, lacking any "tools" but mindless rant and ad hominem, failing-grade kindergarten stuff. We know. We've seen the finest. We don't mind a battle of wits, but it's just no fun when you absolutely insist on showing up unarmed.

[DarkJaWs]

Or if you actually decided to look past my ad hominem and look at the actual message, you will see that I do both. People like yourself seem to think that this is incomprehensible that you could do both at once, and honestly I find that quite strange.

To those that said that Richard Clarke didn't agree with Clinton, here is a quote fROM CNN.COM--
""I would argue that for what had actually happened prior to 9/11, the Clinton administration was doing a great deal," he said. "In fact, so much that when the Bush people came into office they thought I was a little crazy, a little obsessed with this little terrorist bin Laden. Why wasn't I focused on Iraqi-sponsored terrorism?""

[Tully]

Wow. Comprehension deficit disorder too. Amazing. So you're both completely nuts AND a thoroughly inept troll? I can buy that. :-)

[DarkJaWs]

Stop trolling, I responded to this assertion by you:
"lacking any "tools" but mindless rant and ad hominem"
I fail to see how that is incomprehension. I've said plenty of things to support my argument in favor of Clinton. I'm sorry if you don't have the basic reading skills to catch that in addition to catching the voracious ad hominem.

[DarkJaWs]

Why were my comments erased?

[Tully]

Comprehension deficit disorder.

[DarkJaWs]

You really like to troll don't you?

[Tully]

Oooh, projection! Just two check-marks shy of the complete Troll's Handbook© masterlist.

[torchy]

SnarkJaws said:
"....all of this leads to the ultimate point: you have nothing that shows Clinton did not want to attempt to get Bin Laden."

So his ultimate point is that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Yawn.......snort.

Hi Miss teal marie, Bill O, Banning and Morongo neatly sums it up, lol. I've been working out of state and dealing with some health issues so I haven't been online since July but now I'm here to stay. BTW, Happy belated birfday darlin', mmuah :D

[Tully]

Note also that the assertion offered cannot be disproven without reliable psychic abilities, Torchy. Not only is absence of evidence offered as evidence, but the absence of evidence itself is a categorically irrefutable and irreducable datum, a null program.

(I've got nothing to show that Napolean didn't secretly want to be an Atlantic cod fisherman instead of an emperor, so I guess it's true.)

[DarkJaWs]

Oh, I'm sorry!! I hadn't realized that assertions could be presented as fact regardless of whether or not you have any substance to support them.

I think I'll start following Wubya's example as well. Looks like I can accomplish anything with that kind of logic.

[Teal Marie]

"(I've got nothing to show that Napolean didn't secretly want to be an Atlantic cod fisherman instead of an emperor, so I guess it's true.)" - Tully

No, but we've long suspected that Napoleon kept a kipper in his cuirass. :-)

Thanks, Torch! Sorry to hear about health issues. Are you all better now? I hope.

[Tully]

THAT explains the hand in the jacket! (I've also heard he had a cuttlefish in his codpiece, which is likely where that cod-fishing rumor came from...he was trying to correct the fit!)

[torchy]

To carry the Bonaparte codfishing connection into the the realm of the ridiculous here's a bit of hitherto unknown history. The explorer John Cabot discovered enormous cod fisheries off Newfoundland. The Newman family of England became involved in the salted cod trade. They were widely known for their trade in the finest port wines. It was Newman port that was imbibed on the HMS Bellephron ro celebrate Napoleons surrender.Therefore Clinton wanted to attempt to kill or capture Bin Laden.
My heart is slowing down for some reason, will keep you updated.

[Tully]

No foolin', Torchy? My g'g'g'g'grandad (if I got all the g's right) served as a Royal Marine on the Bellerophon during Trafalgar. I'm sure he wanted to kill or capture bin Laden also.

Take care of that ticker. The bionics are getting better, but original equipment is best.

[torchy]

Ha Tully, and the degrees of seperation keep clicking onward. Thanks for the encouragement,heart failure is a scary outcome to contemplate. I probably have a g'g'g-somebody to thank for my faulty, though original, equipment.

[Tully]

They've gotten pretty good at re-wiring and tuning up the original equipment as well, Torchy. Hope it's not something more serious than that.

Steering back towards topic, a vetted and accurate transcript of the Wallace/Clinton interview can be found HERE. What struck me when I first saw it stands out--Clinton tees off directly on Wallace, accusing him of being a charter member of the VRWC (2.0)®, in as personal a manner as one can get.

As near as I can figure, he was actively trying to set off Wallace--and he failed.

[Constantine]

Just a technicality:

Clinton says "nine months" regarding Pres. Bush administration's time to act before 9/11.

Actually it was slightly more than 7 months, less than 8 months from Jan. 20th 2001 to Sep. 11th, 2001.

And realistically, nothing gets done in any bureacracy in 7 months, much less the largest bureacracy in the world...

[baldilocks]

Just a note: I had unpublished DJ's missives following his/her failure to follow my rules of commentary here. However, I realized that the comment thread made no sense without those comments.

By the way, DJ, you're unbanned. Now do put forth your *own* opinions minus the obscenities. And when you cut and paste the opinions of others, please note that, along with a link, if available. This site does accept html.

[Justin]

Good lord, if Bush supporters would spend 1/100000 of the mental energy analyzing Bush's statements as Clinton's, Kerry would be President. That's why I love Clinton--rightwingers still get into a tizzy whenever her speaks, and he hasn't been politically relevant for six years.

Nobody really took OBL as seriously as they should have before 9/11--not Clinton, not Bush, not Bob Dole etc.

[baldilocks]

Welcome back, Justin. :-) I've missed you, seriously.

[Teal Marie]

As in shot at and missed? That would be serious! 0:-)

[Tully]

Nobody really took OBL as seriously as they should have before 9/11--not Clinton, not Bush, not Bob Dole etc.

Yep. On the button. Except for John O'Niell, of course. I might put it a little differently. While they took him seriously, they didn't take him seriously enough to elevate him to the "Do RIGHT NOW" list. Already a bunch of folks on the list ahead of him at the time. Then he cut in line.

Hiya Justin! Just remember, if someone sends you a shirt with a big red dot on the back, don't put it on.

[Tully]

[PS--I've no idea what her range scores are, but I suspect she doesn't miss much...]

[Justin]

As in shot at and missed? That would be serious! 0:-)

I don't think Baldilocks would miss! (-:

[Teal Marie]

You don't think? I never, not even once, supposed you do, but thanx for the backwards smiley.

[Teal Marie]

I beg everyone's pardon. I meant to leave with phat razzberry to indicate I was horsing around.
Pfbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbt!

Better late than never, or out than in.

My bad!