I stay away from the political on this blog, as I stated on my September 11 post, because since that day in 2001 I have felt that there is so much that I and everybody else in the country doesn't know that just to air one's emotional response is not only unlikely to have any effect, it is beside the point in just about every situation and could even be counterproductive to our ends. There is no one above being manipulated by the right hands.
The outburst by Bill Clinton when asked in an interview with Chris Wallace is a case in point. I suppose easily 75 per cent of the blogs have gotten fodder from the scene, as so much of the television news has. Was Wallace baiting him? Was Clinton, as now it is being spun by the Democratic mouthpieces, prepared to leap into the fray himself in order to change the subject? Who won?
For what it's worth, which is less than nothing, my opinion is that neither scenario is real. It was good television, because the interview was live and the eruption was not in the script. What occurred was spontaneous and interesting. Wallace's question was not provocative. But Clinton had come to discuss something else, something that would win praise for him. He was doing interviews on all other networks, including cable. Every other interview had been controlled by him, but Wallace threw him a curve by asking the least soft question first. He took the bait and responded emotionally. Probably he expected that the Fox Network would be laying for him, but even so, he lost it and made things worse.
Like Richard Nixon before him -- and maybe a few other Presidents -- Clinton has a thin skin and a tendency to believe only his good notices. The whole thing kind of reminded me of the old "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more" when Clinton came out with the "hit man" line. Of course there are big differences between him and Nixon, one of which is that Clinton has the media in his pocket.
One reason I avoid writing about this is that I cannot be objective, particularly about either of the Clintons. I just don't like them. I was one of the Democrats who found them not Liberal enough, and, much as I resent the fact that politics is always personal, I guess it is with me too, so I feel unqualified to give an objective opinion.
As to Al Qaeda and 9/11, I always thought that Bill Clinton was aware of the danger of bin Laden, but didn't act because polls said it would be an unpopular move. Notice that "I always thought"? This is based on no information except that which was reported in the press and available to everyone. I have no real knowledge, and no way to get any that is not just a matter of somebody's opinion.
He just strikes me as a guy to whom being popular is everything, and he's certainly gotten his way in this life. My daughter, as extreme a Liberal as anyone in the country, defends him with, "Mom, if you met him at a party..."-- an argument that sends me climbing the wall.
We don't even know what we know. You take sides based on which story you like best; here was one that happened in front of all of us, yet we really don't know what happened or what it will mean in the long run.