It would do little good at this point to rehash the Clinton record on terrorism, especially given the almost impossible task of avoiding the introduction of hindsight into the analysis. Let's just say the record is mixed.
Overall, Mr. Clinton made a good case this morning on Fox News Sunday defending his record responding to terrorism in the 1990s. He admitted he didn't do enough, as the failure to get bin Ladin demonstrated. But no one had the view of the terrorist threat in the middle of the 1990s that we all have today, after 9/11.
Judging events then based on what we know today is unfair. It's unfair to judge Clinton that way, just as it's unfair to judge President Bush's actions in his first 8 months in office based on what we know today, or to judge the invasion of Iraq based on what we know today. But that's exactly what the slanderous "Bush lied us into war" crowd does every day.
Mr. Clinton really undermined his case in a couple of ways. First with the "they [the Bush administration] had 8 months" line. The obvious response to that is "you had 8 years, not 8 months." That comparison is an obvious loser for Clinton.
Second, he made his temper tantrum and crazed conspiracy mongering the story, rather than the defense of his record. He bizarrely admitted the question was legitimate, but then went on to attack the questioner because he works for FOX News. That's a line that will play well on the BDS-suffering* Angry Adolescent Left blogs [Link warning: left-wing blogs often contain material unsuitable for children or civilized adults], but not among normal Americans. Mr. Clinton would have defended himself much more effectively by simply answering the question without the red-faced conspiracy-theorizing and ad hominem.
More:
HotAir has video
Mark Levin has another view at NRO
Michelle Malkin has a roundup: "He doth protest too much"
And a rebuttal from Byron York at NRO:
"...in his interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, the former president based nearly his entire defense on one source: Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, the book by former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke. "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.
....
"...the bottom line is that Bill Clinton, the commander-in-chief, could not find the will to order the military into action against al Qaeda, and Bill Clinton, the head of the executive branch, could not find the will to order the CIA and FBI to act. No matter what the former president says on Fox, or anywhere else, that is his legacy in the war on terror."
UPDATE: Patterico fact-checks Clinton and ThinkProgress, and rather unsurprisingly finds them playing fast and loose with the truth. Good catch.
*BDS - Bush Derangement Syndrome
"First with the "they [the Bush administration] had 8 months" line. The obvious response to that is "you had 8 years, not 8 months." That comparison is an obvious loser for Clinton."
The comparison is not so obvious as you claim it to be. Clinton did not have 8 years to investigate the attack on the Cole. He had about 3 months. Bush had 8 months to continue the investigation after taking office and before the events of September, 2001.
"[I]t's unfair to judge President Bush's actions in his first 8 months in office based on what we know today..."
Then judge his actions by what was known at the time. Clinton actively pursued bin Laden and left Richard Clarke, the one person with the history and track record through 3 Presidents, to continue the quest. Bush downgraded both Clarke and the hunt for bin Laden. In the context of inheriting an on-going investigation into an attack on a United States Navy ship, that seems rather odd, don't you think?
"it's unfair ... to judge the invasion of Iraq based on what we know today."
How is it unfair? More and more information is being brought forth about the invasion of Iraq. Remember the Downing Street Memos? If we are limited to judging the invasion of Iraq solely on the information Bush wanted us to hear in the lead up to war, we pass judgment based on the propaganda machine of the government. Would you judge the actions of a criminal based solely on what was publically known about that person's crime before he actually committed the crime? If that were the case, prosecutors in this country would never be able to convict anyone.
It is inherently fair to have a full and complete investigation and bring all the facts to light, and then pass judgment. Would you add your voice to call for such an investigation? After all, we are talking about invading a sovereign country and killing tens of thousands of innocent children, women, and men. War is the most serious undertaking of mankind. The loss of life and property is horrendous. Because of this, going to war must be supported by irrefutable evidence and irrebuttable justifications. Anything short of this is mass-murder and wanton destruction of human life and property.
There are enough questions surrounding Bush's decision to go to war to merit an investigation. There are enough allegations of international war crimes to merit an investigation. Bush has even admitted to committing renditions, an international crime. Yes, it is fair to judge Bush on what we know thus far, and to call for a complete investigation. Whether the results of such an investigation will exhonorate or convict is unknowable at this time. But until such an investigation is made, and made public, there will always be a question over Bush's War.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — September 24, 2006 @ 10:21 am September 24, 2006
Briseadh,
First, thank you for your thoughtful response.
"Clinton did not have 8 years to investigate the attack on the Cole. He had about 3 months."
We were referring to the response to terrorism generally, not specifically to the Cole attack.
Incidentally, if President Bush had launched an all out war against Afghanistan in the first 8 months of his administration i nresponse to the Cole attack, how do you think the left/the Democrats would have responded? This is of course a rhetorical question.
We are all for full investigation, but not for partisan witch hunts by Democrats who agreed with the president and the international consensus before the invasion that Iraq was a threat, had WMD, and was a state sponsor of terrorism.
"After all, we are talking about invading a sovereign country and killing tens of thousands of innocent children, women, and men."
U.S. action has not killed tens of thousands, it the insurgents who are doing that. The U.S. military is trying very hard to stop that killing. U.S. action liberated millions of Iraqis from a murderous dictatorship.
"There are enough allegations of international war crimes to merit an investigation."
Such allegations are made only by nuts and opponents of the U.S.
But there's nothing wrong with asking these questions and investigating them. Thank you again for your comments.
Comment by The Editors — September 24, 2006 @ 10:37 am September 24, 2006
""Clinton did not have 8 years to investigate the attack on the Cole. He had about 3 months."
"We were referring to the resposne to terrorism generally, not specifically to the Cole attack.""
but that is not what they were talking about in the interview.
Being upset with Clinton for not making Bin Laden a priority before about 1996 is like being upset with Hoover for ignoring the rise of Hitler. There were a bunch of groups doing stuff like this... Everything that we now ascribe to Bin Laden was blamed on other groups until around 1998.
We know now that Al Quida was related to things like the 93 tower bombing and the U.S. military facility in Riyadh but we didnt know that then. The first thing that really got pinned on Bin Laden was the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, in Dhahran. But even that was ascribed to Hizbullah at the time.
The point Bill is trying to make and I agree with you that he could have made it better, is that Al Quida did not jump to the top of the threat list until 1998 with the African embasy bombings. It is only at this point that they began to try to get Ben Ladin. Its totally disinginuous to fault him for lack of effort before then.
What is sad is that he doesnt seem to get any credit for stopping 3 Al Quida plots in 1999 and 2000.
The point Clinton was trying to make is that as he left office he handed Bush a 3 month old invstigation of the Cole Bombing from Oct 1999 and Bush ignored the warnings. Then he later totally ignored and then fired the Richard Clarke who was working on the case and who was the governments most experiance official dealing with Terrorism. You should read "against all enemies" by Clarke to get a better understanding of the time lines involved.
Oh and by the way...
In the US occupation of Iraq way more than 10,000 innocent Civilians have been killed by US forces. Even the most conservitive estimates are around 30,000. Collateral damage during the first months of the war were higher than 10,000.
And dont write off the the allegations fo war crimes are coming from a much wider group that "nuts and opponents". Lots of Bush's supporters dont like this administrations official support of Torture techniques. We exicuted Japenses officers after WWII for the crime of waterboarding. This is serious stuff.
Comment by winterbear — September 24, 2006 @ 8:31 pm September 24, 2006
"We were referring to the resposne (sic) to terrorism generally, not specifically to the Cole attack."
So, Clinton was referencing the Cole attack and you come back with a non-sequitor. At any rate, Clinton created an anti-terrorism policy where none had existed before. If you're going to throw out insinuations, please have your research ready and include links to back up your assertions.
"We are all for full investigation, but not for partisan witch hunts by Democrats who agreed with the president and the international consensus before the invasion that Iraq was a threat, had WMD, and was a state sponsor of terrorism."
Yet the information the Democrats had available to them was incomplete, cherry-picked propaganda, designed to influence the march to war. "The facts were being fixed around the policy." Have you not read the Downing Street Memo? If so, then your citing Democratic agreement with the President is knowlingly presenting a fallacious argument. Bush began dropping bombs on Iraq the day before the IAEA report was due to be released. A report which showed Iraq had not been able to do anything under the UN sanctions.
What sort of investigation would not be cast as a partisan witch-hunt? Would you support a Democratic Congress holding an impeachment inquiry? Would you support a special prosecutor with a $40 million budget? Would you support an International Tribunal for War Crimes?
"U.S. action has not killed tens of thousands, it the insurgents who are doing that. "
Here's an article from before the insurgency began in earnest:
At least 20,000 civilians were injured in the Iraq war: Why are the occupiers ignoring their suffering and their needs? August 7th 2003 http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial_aug0703.php
And in a story about the Lancet article:
"Iraq death toll 'soared post-war'
Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim.Violent deaths were mainly attributed to coalition forces - and most individuals reportedly killed were women and children. Friday, 29 October, 2004" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm
Now, do you have any support for your assertion that the insurgents caused these deaths?
"Such allegations [of international war crimes] are made only by nuts and opponents of the U.S."
Then you dismiss me either as a nut and an opponent of the U.S.? I have studied International Law, including a course in Fundamental Rights taught by a Supreme Court Justice. I have been to on-site seminars in the Peace Palace in the Hague, the Council of Europe, and the European Court of Human Rights. I was one of 5 members of my law school's International Law Competition Team. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Bush's treatment of detainees violates international law. Rendition, torture and secret prisons are all international crimes which Bush has already publically admitted.
If the regime in control of the United States condones torture, condones renditions to secret prisons, condones holding a person without a hearing nor charges for years, condones cluster bombs in civilian populated areas, condones white phosphorous in civilian areas, places itself above international law and human rights, and initiates a war of agression against a sovereign country based on pretext, then I will oppose such a regime.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — September 24, 2006 @ 10:04 pm September 24, 2006
"Clinton was referencing the Cole attack and you come back with a non-sequitor."
That is false. The discussion between Wallace and Clinton was not solely about the Cole. It was about Clinton's response to terrorism more generally.
"Yet the information the Democrats had available to them was incomplete, cherry-picked propaganda, designed to influence the march to war."
Also false. The consensus about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was bipartisan and international even before Bush was president. Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. The Clinton administration listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism for eight years. It is the anti-war left that is doing the cherry-picking.
The Lancet "study" was thoroughly debunked shortly after it came out. The link from the biased partisan site "iraq body count" says nothing about "tens of thousands" of deaths caused by U.S. actions. Talk about a non sequitur.
The fact remains it is the insurgents who are murdering innocent Iraqis today, who are deliberately targeting innocent Iraqis today, and it is U.S. (and coalition) forces who are trying to stop them.
False. President Bush has specifically rejected the use of torture, he has not condoned it. But the lBDS-sufferers on the left will continue repeating the lie, of that we have no doubt. The rest of that nonsense about white phosphorus, etc., is just the same tired anti-war boilerplate that has all been dealt with before, ad nauseum, so we won't rehash it again here.
Comment by The Editors — September 25, 2006 @ 7:47 am September 25, 2006
Note: Richard Clarke was not fired by the Bush administration.
Here's a tip: don't believe anything Clinton says without checking it out first.
Comment by The Editors — September 25, 2006 @ 7:50 am September 25, 2006
I am still reeling from this comment:
"Such allegations are made only by nuts and opponents of the U.S."
Wow, are you delusional....the photos were taken by and turned in by our military.
I think you might be the nut and opponent of the US
Oh, and here's a tip, don't believe anything Bush says without checking it out first - his lies led us to war, what did Clinton's do?
Comment by astonished — September 25, 2006 @ 8:17 am September 25, 2006
astonished,
We didn't mention any photos, and are not aware of any photos of any "international war crimes" committed or authorized by the Bush administration.
President Bush did not lie about Iraq, and regurgitating lame anti-war bumper sticker slogans will not change that fact. The international, bipartisan consensus before the invasion was that Iraq was a threat, had WMD, and was a state sponsor of terrorism.
Comment by The Editors — September 25, 2006 @ 9:03 am September 25, 2006
There is a lot of groping in the dark when it comes to the story of 9-11. As sad as it sounds, I'm not sure we will be able to piece the blame or credit together in my (or your) lifetime. I'm a history buff and it sometimes amazes me that it is almost impossile to learn about certain aspects of the Second World War because the people involved were sworn to secrecy and that oath was never reascinded. And that was so long ago it is almost impossible to imagine the secrets they won't tell are protecting anything more than pride. I'm not talking about the Manhattan project and sophisticated a-bomb stuff, just operational stuff from long ago in a war of propeller planes.
What ever the truth, I'm proud to be American and will even own my sad weaklings from the Bush family that the political right can't help themselves from electing when they might choose better and probably comprable to the Kennedys other way round.
Comment by Bob_L — September 25, 2006 @ 11:15 am September 25, 2006
Note your headline for this particular subject
"Bill Clinton goes Wild on FOX" That's funny
I didn't see him going wild, as you say.
I saw him call a Spade a Spade. I heard Ted Turner, former owner of FOX, a week or two ago talk about how FOX is just a mouthpiece for the Conservatives, and something to the effect that their news always includes the slanted, opininated right-wing view. If anyone would be able to see it Ted would, but when he points it out, you write him off as a nut case. Doesn't work with me.
Now in so far as Chris Wallace later on saying and implying that Clinton thought there was a right wing conspiriacy against him. Who is Wallace trying to fool? Clinton called out this little Demon and brought him up front and center on it.
The only thing Wallace can do now is try and get people like you to back him up that Clinton is so deluded that he is now paranoid about being persecuted.
I agree with Clinton and Ted Turner FOX is a corporate conservative junk media tool now. They would definitly use Wallace for a ''conservative hit job'' and tried but it didn't work. To tell the truth it did look like Wallace had that little smirk on his face until the Alpha Male Clinton, showed himself and ripped away the whole screen that the right wing owned media has been trying to pass off as non objective reporting.
Come now, you've seen all of the blogs and even put a few there yourself about how Clinton failed us all. I've seen it on interviews with conservatives, read it in news stories and many other places for the last couple of years.
So don't be so angry that you got your demonic little butt paddled, like any good demon should.
Daniel Springhill
Comment by Daniel Springhill — September 25, 2006 @ 5:36 pm September 25, 2006
Anyone who believes this needs to go and watch the full actual interview.
That is all.
Comment by Andy — September 25, 2006 @ 11:17 pm September 25, 2006
Wow... you really need to do some reading and turn off fox news.
Show me where the Lancet study was "discredited" by anyone but Fox news. Show me any credible organization that claims that US caused civilian casualties in Iraq is under 25,000.
And as far as Clarke is concerned... You really need to read his book. You are correct.... Someone as honorable and long serving as Richard Clarke doesn't get "fired". He is "made to resign". In the end, the result is the same. Bush and his administration chased off one of the most experienced and competent anti-terrorist experts in history after ignoring everything he had to say.
President Bush has only specifically rejected his own definition of torture. The definition that most of the world have been using for 60 years is just to inconvenient for him right now because under that definition he is a war criminal. His own attorney general warned him that he better change the definition of torture or he would be brought up on war crimes.
I will let someone else tackle your comment about "President Bush did not lie about Iraq". That one is so well documented that only someone that is blinded by the right wing propaganda machine could even try to make that point.
I think I understand why you would be getting tired of "rehashing" the long list of crimes and incompetence's of this administration. Rendition and Secret CIA torture camps? Uh.. George admitted they exist a few weeks ago. Condones holding a person without a hearing nor charges for years? Are you seriously arguing that this isn't happening in Guantanimo Bay today? Your positions have become much harder to support as the evidence piles up. I am sure that is why you are feeling so uncomfortable.
Comment by winterbear — September 26, 2006 @ 1:00 am September 26, 2006
[...] Previous: Bill Clinton goes wild on FOX posted by: The Editors @ 10:28 am September 26, 2006 [...]
Pingback by The Unalienable Right » Rice Rebuts Clinton — September 26, 2006 @ 10:28 am September 26, 2006
READING YOUR ARTICLE IT IS UNCLEAR WHETHER YOU ARE QUOTING CLARKE OR WALLACE. I READ CLARKE'S BOOK OVER A YEAR AGO AND DONT REMEBER IT AS NOW PRESENTED. IF YOU ARE QUOTING CLARKE CAN YOU PROVIDE THE PAGE NUMBER(S)? MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT CLARKE SAID THE WAG THE DOG COMMENTS FROM THE RIGHT CAUSED CLINTON TO BACK OFF WHICH WOULD BE CONSISTENT IN A GENERAL SENSE WITH CLINTONS POINT. IT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WTIH WHAT I REMEMBER LIMBAUGH SAYING AT THE THE TIME CLINTON WAS BOMBING BIN LADEN CAMP. DO YOU THINK THE RIGHT DESERVES ANY BLAME FOR DISCOURAGING THE ATTEMPT THAT WAS MADE BACK DURING THE MONICA SCANDAL?
Comment by john henry — September 29, 2006 @ 11:08 am September 29, 2006
We didn't quote Wallace or Clarke. We did quote Bill Clinton and Byron York.
Comment by The Editors — September 29, 2006 @ 2:47 pm September 29, 2006