Thought it might be pertinent to the discussion to read the words of a journalist who is middle-of-the-road politically. Paul Greenberg is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who writes for the Arkansas-Democrat Gazette and a long-time Clinton watcher, as are most Arkansans.
In yesterday's column, entitled "Bill's Hissy Fit" he wrote:
Talk about Deja Vu all over again, there was something awfully familiar about Bill Clinton's hissy fit on Fox News last Sunday. What was it exactly?
The finger-pointing? The raised voice? The way he kept interrupting his interviewer? The mounting furor that threatened to reaach red-in-the-face levels despite the pancake make-up? The attribution of base motives to a reporter who'd dared question him about something he'd done? Or, in this case, what he'd not done to prevent a terrorist attack on this country?
It was an almost operatic performance. All the Sturm un Drank was there, if not the art. But what impressed most was the practiced quality of the "spontaneous" explosion. It sounded about as impromptu as one of the Three Tenor's great arias. Maybe Pavarotti's "Fuor del Mar" from Idomeneo. Full of emotion but never really out of control.
The only problem was that Fox's Chris Wallace, who was supposed to play the foil, didn't. The question that set off Bill Clinton was direct, but it was civil, even sympathetic at the end - and so was the tone in which Wallace the Younger asked it:
"When we announced that you were going to be on Fox News Sunday, I got a lot of e-mail from viewers. And I've got to say, I was surprised: Most of them wanted me to ask you this question? Why didn't you do more to put Bin Laden and al-Qaida out of business when you were president? There's a new book out I suspect you've already read, called "The Looming Towers. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said, "I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops." Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the Cole...And after the attac, the book says that Bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around, because he expected an attack, and then there was no response. I understand that hindsight is 20/20..."
That's when all Clinton broke loose, only beginning with an assault on his interviewer's integrity. It turns out that Chris Wallace, too, despite his Clark Kent manner, is just another tool of that infamous Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. Not only is Fox News out to get Bill Clinton but so is ABC, which ran a docudrama about the path to 9/11 that paints him (and the current administration, too) in a less than flattering light. "So you did Fox's bidding on this show," he told Chris Wallace. "You did your nice little conservative hit job on me..."
And that was just the beginning..... ... and so heatedly ony. How strange: It was Chris Wallace who remained the picture of presidential dignity.
The interviewee's temper tantrum wasn't just embarrassing, it was a little worrisome. Can this sort of thing be good for a cardiac patient? Not to worry. This was less a real meltdown than another of Bill Clinton's star turns.
As for the historical dispute, the facts according to the Book of Clinton naturally enough don't jib with the administration's. And after simmering for a while, the current secretary of state and defensive linewoman, Condi Rice, struck back in the same tone. ("Rice Boils over at Bubba/Rips 'Flatly False'/ Claim..." - New York Post, Tuesday, September 26, 2006.
Gosh, with the Clinton people blaming the Bush people for 9/11, and the Bush people blaming the Clinton people, do you thnk the terrorists might have had anything at all to do with it?
In the end, the only thing clear about this battle of fact versus counter-fact is that there's quite enough blame to go a round for this historical failure. What sticks in the mind isn't all the history-in-hindsight but the huffy-puffy tone of this whole debate and micturition match. It's not exactly Wendell Wilkie's discussing FDR's foreign policy during another war. The phrase Loyal Opposition had more basis then.
The approach of midterm elections seems to bring out the Bill Clinton I remember from his Arkansas period, when he tended to enjoy a resty exchange now and then at the Governor's Mansion. On one such occasion, all I'd done was make a mild suggestion, and Gentle Reader will know what a meek, non-controversial fellow I am, a regular Chris Wallace. I'd suggested that, by appointing his own quasi-judicial, yellow-dog Democrat commission to investigate the business affairs of his Republican rival Sheffield Nelson, Governor Clinton had committed an abuse of pwer comparable to those of the Faubus Years. Whereupon he flew into one of his rages. Imagine that.
When I remember most about that little blow-up so long ago was how programmed his fury seemed. His taking after Chris Wallace brought it all back. There didn't seem any authentic anger, any moral force, behind the words that long-ago day, just petty irritation expressed at high volume. Ditto, his interview Sundy on Fox News. He was making the same mistake the country's current president makes from time to time - substituting bluster for reason.
But there are few things more amusing in these dolorous days than Bill Clinton demanding that the truth be told? It's hard to take him seriously when he gets all righteous on us. No character, no real coler.
So this, too, will pass. When the show/press conference at the Governor's Mansion was over that long-ago day, Governor Clinton made a point of shaking my hand on the way out and even soliciting my political advice, as worthless then as it is now. But the guy never misses a chance to work the crowd.
