I would think Bill Clinton is really cursing Al Gore right now for inventing the Internet. Clinton’s rash of lies in his meltdown with Chris Wallace are really coming back to haunt him as the actual facts of history emerge.
The debate in the blogosphere has moved to the topic of whether Clinton exploded in rage on purpose — as a rallying attempt for Democrats. If so, he should have been very careful about his loose use of factual evidence and his hyperbolic rantings about “right-wing conspiracies.”
For example, Clinton’s charge that Chris Wallace was only targeting him with tough questions about al-Qaeda and not anyone in the Bush Administration….
CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but 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.
Wallace replied that such questions had been asked. Clinton replied: “I don’t believe you asked them that.”
Here’s what Wallace asked Clinton today:
[H]indsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?
And here is what Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:
I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?
What do you make of his [Richard Clarke’s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?
Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.
And this look back at this 1998 column (following the twin Embassy bombings) from The Weekly Standard shows that far from thinking Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden (as he stated with Chris Wallace), many conservatives believed he wasn’t doing enough to confront this growing threat.
Does the administration actually grasp the nature of the threat we face? Following the August 20 retaliatory strikes, secretary of state Madeleine Albright and national security adviser Samuel Berger rejected the predictable “wag the dog” accusations with solemn admonitions that, in terrorism, the United States has suddenly been confronted with a “new war” — one we would now have to be prepared to fight, alone if necessary. (GP Note: ALONE, if necessary!!! Berger and Albright. 1998. But now they want the world to love us. How hypocritical.)
This was exceedingly curious. There is nothing at all “new” about radical Islam’s terrorist war against the United States. It has been going on since the late 1980s. It has been openly declared since the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center in Manhattan, which killed six, injured over a thousand, and caused nearly $ 1 billion in damage. Its leaders, moreover, have been promising for more than five years that in pursuing this war, they would kill American civilians and bomb American military installations and embassies overseas….
Such an adversary will not be defeated by the techniques the president recommended at the U.N. — increased international cooperation in the prosecution and extradition of terrorists. These are necessary steps, but breathtakingly inadequate. A military threat calls for a military response….
In the main, international terrorism is a military problem, not a criminal-justice issue.
Two more Clinton lies from his conspiracy theory-driven FOX News meltdown are debunked. Was it really smart of Clinton to open up this can of worms?