Bill Clinton Strikes Back

…with his finger pointed at the interviewer no less (Fox News’ Chris Wallace). It’s a fascinating clip to watch, especially for those of us who were paying attention in the 1990s when the United States sustained attack after attack from Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda while the former president seemed to want to act against bin Laden’s network of terrorists, but either displayed indecisiveness, put forth ineffectual tactics or spoke of trying to reason with the type of persons who demonstrably did not believe in reason.

If the clip is any indication of the flavor of the entire interview, Former President Clinton twists events around admirably. He claims that “rightwingers” did nothing about terrorism during his tenure in the White House and blasted him for his own efforts. True, without the context of said events: “Rightwingers” did nothing about terrorism in the nineties because they were not sitting in the Executive Office—it wasn’t their place to “do something” about terrorism. It was his. And he was ridiculed for his efforts not because of his failure--as he terms it--but because of his fecklessness which could have lead to no other outcome but failure: some slipshod missile strikes and failing to act when partisans offer to hand bin Laden over to America. These "actions" did indeed incite ridicule. He also claims that his Republican successor did nothing about terrorism in the eight months preceding 9/11. True. But what about the 92 months of the Clinton administration—the time span between the February 1993 World Trade Center attack and the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, a span which contained several more al-Qaeda attacks on Americans, including the bombings of two US Embassies--where either nothing was done, ineffectual measures were taken or opportunities were bypassed?

During his administration, the former president wasn’t alone in one area of magnitudinal proportions: he did not understand the cultural mindset of the enemy we now have turned to face. Like many of us back then, he thought that we could live in the manner in which we chose and not interfere (too much) when others chose to live in another way. Addtionally, he (and we) thought that we could carry on with inserting the typical American interventions which had been our staple since World War Two. Germans and Japanese didn’t attack American interests abroad; nor did even Koreans or Vietnamese, so why would some group of Arab/Muslims do it? If one thinks about the shocking visciousness of 9/11 and remembers the plaintive inquiry from numerous quarters who wondered “why they hate us,” the mindset of the attacked victim comes flooding back. We couldn’t comprehend the notion of a group of people hating America (and the West) so much that such a group could inflict such a horrible, large-scale death on so many people.

I couldn’t (though I had a hunch). And I suspect that, before 9/11, most other Americans couldn’t either, in spite of the attacks which heralded 9/11. Could Bill Clinton conceive of such hatred during his presidency? His actions during that time point to a ‘no’ answer. And if one thinks about it and is honest, there is no shame in that. But we understand now—well, at least some of us.

Where there is indeed shame is in President Clinton’s behavior right now. If the video clip is any indication, the former president isn’t about to concede that his acts against terrorists were ineffectual or non-existent. It isn’t that he can’t admit that he was wrong (though that’s part of it). It’s that he can’t admit that he is no longer the perfectly loved and trusted president by a good part of this nation—even by people like me who voted for him twice. His behavior for most of the Bush Administration had even begun to garner more respect for him—especially in contrast to that of his vice-president. But he’s beginning to throw it all away. And the most pathetic part about that is this: most people who were disillusioned by his brands of politics, policy, strategy and tactics with regard to fighting terrorism could even have a modicum of respect for him were he to admit that he had been wrong in that area. But, unless the video clip distorts the nature of the interview, I don’t think that a Bill Clinton mea culpa for his anti-terror measures is in the offing. It was an act that last longer than might have been expected, but it's over now.

Here’s the thing about decisions: sometimes they are wrong and if one is fortunate and canny, only about half of them are. The worst types of decision-makers are these: 1) the one who makes a decision and does nothing or makes only token efforts to see that decision through, and 2) the one who, in the face of the dire need to decide, dithers. (A lesser type of bad decision-maker is the type who makes a decision and does everything possible to see that decision through even in the face of evidence that the original decision was a bad one. Some say that President Bush’s decision to intervene in Iraq was an example of such. Perhaps, but my personal opinion is that the jury’s decision isn’t final on that particular “long, hard slog.”)

Former President Clinton’s decision-making skills, at least as far as the War on Terrorists goes—the war which started long before his presidency and for which it should be acknowledged that his immediate few predecessors, Bush the Elder, Reagan, Carter, and Ford, also didn’t comprehend--fall under those first two categories. And what does that say about him? Nothing, expect that, like most of the rest of us, he didn’t understand the nature of Islamists and that he had bad advisers and/or he didn’t listen to the good ones. But, am I surprised that former president isn’t able to acknowledge his horrid errors in this vital area of the presidency? No, given his demonstrable nature and given the fact that his wife is probably looking to become president in 2008. However, I’m still angered and saddened by it, nonetheless.

I will be watching when the full interview is broadcast on Fox News Sunday two days from now. Perhaps, the clip isn't what it seems to be.

Comments

[Teal Marie]

Sorry, Mr. Clinton, I can't afford to believe a word you say.
Just tell me this - was that hambone performance brought on by the Missus threatening to snatch him baldheaded or did he hear the rumors that Bin Laden died and it was "safe" to "come out"? I know he didn't do it for the good of the nation.
My money's on the Missus. She's scarier.

[og]

I was taught to give everyone's character the benefit of the doubt until they proved they had none. I no longer have to give Mr Clinton the benefit of the doubt.

[Tully]

He had the exact same tone of voice and facial expressions as when he assured us he didn't have sex with "that woman." The same psuedo-paranoid angry denials.

I was exposed to Clinton back when he was governer of Arkansas, and was flabbergasted when the Dems nominated him. He hasn't changed, other than having better clean-up crews. He consistently exhibits clear symptoms of undifferentiated Cluster B personality disorder. The Wallace interview was textbook--you could use it for a psychiatry interview training film.

I actually have some sympathy for him re: OBL. AQ/OBL was a mid-level threat/player at best before the towers fell, and no one took him nearly as seriously as they did the top-level players, namely nations such as Iraq and Libya and Iran. Hindsight is always 20/20. But hey, Willy? You had eight years, so quit whining about eight months.

[DarkJaWs]

Balilocks,

It is quite evident that did not pay special attention to anything Clinton said. I'll point out a few things Clinton said and what you CLAIM he said, just so that I can dismiss all of your irrational comments off-hand.
"“Rightwingers” did nothing about terrorism in the nineties because they were not sitting in the Executive Office—it wasn’t their place to “do something” about terrorism. It was his."

He says they did nothing in the first 8 months of Bush's presidency, and not only that, they completely dismissed the terrorist threat once they came into office. Richard Clarke said this himself, who was demoted by President Bush.

"And he was ridiculed for his efforts not because of his failure--as he terms it--but because of his fecklessness which could have lead to no other outcome but failure: some slipshod missile strikes and failing to act when partisans offer to hand bin Laden over to America."

How can you make such comments when YOU don't have any such evidence regarding what Clinton actually tried to do?

"It’s that he can’t admit that he is no longer the perfectly loved and trusted president by a good part of this nation—even by people like me who voted for him twice. And the most pathetic part about that is this: most people who were disillusioned by his brands of politics, policy, strategy and tactics with regard to fighting terrorism could even have a modicum of respect for him were he to admit that he had been wrong in that area."
....So he should admit that he was wrong based on what you and other right wingers say is the truth, is that correct? Listen up, you obviously have a problem wanting to listen to anyone with whom you already have a predisposition against. Clinton clearly tried to debate all of the facts on Fox, yet it seems that you have not even mentioned this and only bring up the fact that he was combative.

And of course he would get angry because of how people view him. Wouldn't you get a little angry if you tried your best to look like a reasonable person who tried to do the right thing, but is later smeared to a point where people will believe things off-hand? It's also a bit ridiculous when someone phrases a question in a way that assumes you guilty first, and then you respond to it.

"But what about the 92 months of the Clinton administration"
What about them? If you listen to what Clinton said, nobody even knew of Al-Qaida until 96-97. That makes it 3-4 years. Regardless, the facts of that time period written by observors speaks for itself. Not your flabbergasted opinion on what you think is true.

"Here’s the thing about decisions: sometimes they are wrong and if one is fortunate and canny, only about half of them are. The worst types of decision-makers are these: 1) the one who makes a decision and does nothing or makes only token efforts to see that decision through, and 2) the one who, in the face of the dire need to decide, dithers. (A lesser type of bad decision-maker is the type who makes a decision and does everything possible to see that decision through even in the face of evidence that the original decision was a bad one."

Wow that's nice I even get your intellectual opinions. Am I supposed to believe this and apply it to any situation I believe in like you have? Should I waste my time like yourself to write this all out, when I really have no evidence to make such accusations? I think I'll follow your example, you really know how to lay it all out.

[DarkJaWs]

One more comment, cuz the other post was way too long:

The whole purpose of Clinton's commentary and his "failures" to 9/11 is really shady. I have taken particular notice of all of the attacks and misinformation that has been attached to Clinton's handling of Al-Qaida, and quite ironically most of it has taken place since 2004, and especially since the start of 2006. It's actually quite ridiculous: you hear accusations leveled that Clinton didn't do anything, that he didnt do anything for 8 years, but the comments made by the 9/11 commission and Richard Clarke presents a very different picture.

So then the question arises, just what are you basing your accusations on? The answer is partly ignorance, and partly personal/political destruction of a former president.

Which leads me to my ultimate point: exactly why are we talking about this when comments made against Clinton are not based on any solid facts or evidence? Does it lead to any particular goal to attack Clinton? Is it useful? Absolutely not. I find it quite shameful that you have people like yourself nowadays that stoop so low to attack a president that dealt with events quite unlike 9/11, then blaming him for 9/11 taking place.

Did liberals blame Bush for 9/11? Do they blame him now? No. That speaks far more volumes than what right wingers and yourself have been capable of showing.

The comments you make are disgraceful. I can't believe you have the nerve to make such comments and not expect to account for it. Every person has a responsibility to be fair and accurate, but unfortunately, it seems people like yourself look at everything from a political standpoint instead of thinking of ways to work together and make this world a better place for everyone.

[DarkJaWs]

"But hey, Willy? You had eight years, so quit whining about eight months."

He doesn't want to whine at all. He's being smeared by right wingers, he is absolutely right in this respect. And the whole 8 years thing is nonsense, I already pointed this out in my first post.