Sunday, September 24, 2006

Clinton on Fox

Chris Wallace faced an irate Bill Clinton on Fox News Sunday when Wallace brought up the topic of the way the Clinton Administration had handled terrorism in the 1990's. It wasn't pretty. The former president went on a temper-tirade, resurrecting the "vast right-wing conspiracy" argument as to why his administration was being criticized.

While he made some arguable points as to why the Republicans were as negligent as he was, his insecurity, paranoia, and defensiveness were palpable.

Now I understand that his legacy consists of a degrading sexual encounter and impeachment - and that this legacy can ill-afford the labels of negligence and incompetence. But appearing to go a little bonkers and attacking Chris Wallace and the media for questioning his greatness is not very becoming in a former leader of the free world, and added nothing to the defense of his administration.

My general impression of the interview was that - it's still all about Bill. There's no room in the spotlight for anyone but Bill. There's no room in Bill's life for criticism - unless he's deflecting it onto others. In fact I think Bill will spend the rest of his life talking about and defending... Bill.

If I had embarrassed and shamed myself as he did I would have left office and avoided the public spotlight just as Richard Nixon did after his resignation. But I believe former President Clinton needs attention like most people need air.

Still, taking responsibility and exhibiting a little humility would have played much better in the interview.

Do I think that if George W Bush had been president during the World Trade Center Bombing, the embassy bombings, and the attack on the USS Cole - would he have been much more aggressive in going after Bin Laden?

Absolutely.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

That interview was pure torture. For the "Clintonistas", it will further their belief in a "vast-right wing conspiracy." As for the rest of us who watched as our country was attacked while Bill was busy -- well, getting busy, it confirmed the fact that it's all about Bill. What Bill wants, does and the truth as Bill sees it!

Malott said...

You're right, JT.

Don't you just wish the guy could accept the fact that he himself is responsible for his troubling legacy? But personal responsibility is not in the liberal lexicon.

Anonymous said...

So true Chris.
He's so narcissistic I wonder how he stayed married for all these years. She must view him as a vehicle to the white house.

I wish they both could just feel the guilt that normal folks would feel having been involved with
a life such as theirs. They should just "slink" away into the sunset!

janice said...

JT - their ability to pass the buck is the Clinton's trademark. They'll never accept responsibility for their actions or Bills inaction.

People like that are shameless!
Great post Chris.

Anonymous said...

Had Bush been president during Clinton era, we would have been still with the cold war mentality. Major portion of federal budget would be going into pet projects like Star Wars etc. They would be more agressive to work out oil pipeline deal with Taliban.

Thing to remember is both political parties did not think there were any votes in bringing the focus on terrorism. This would have required visionary president. Pre-9/11 Bush administration proved that he was not such a visionary.

Malott said...

Anonymous,

It's impossible to know for sure, but I believe George W Bush would have acted with a much heavier hand in each situation in which America was attacked in the 1990's.

Would it have led to: 1)The capture or death of Bin Laden? Quite likely. 2)The invasion of Afghanistan? Only if Bush's responses triggered an escalation in activity and attacks.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

Anonymous said...

There is sanity in what Guliani says in this news article.