From the WSJ Opinion Archives
You
Take My Self, You Take My Self Control
A guest on CNN's "Larry King Live" last Wednesday offered President
Bush some wise and mature counsel:
Look what President [Hugo] Chavez just said about President Bush. You know, we--and we try to teach our children to get over it. I mean, you've got kids. You know, one of the most important things you can teach a child is that not everything that happens to you will be nice. But you are in control of how you respond to everything that happens to you. You do not have to respond with violence or anger or hatred or bitterness or demeaning conduct, and you cannot be diminished by what someone else says about you.
There's no indication that Bush needed this advice, but it's good advice nonetheless. And the man who gave it speaks from experience. He is Bill Clinton, 42nd president of the United States.
One man who could use Clinton's advice is . . . Bill Clinton, 42nd president of the United States. Yesterday he appeared on "Fox News Sunday," where host Chris Wallace asked him the question he said was most on viewers' minds: "Why didn't you do more to put [Osama] bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?"
Clinton responded with anger and hatred and bitterness and demeaning conduct--though not with violence, so he's 1 for 5. He repeatedly interrupted Wallace, wagged his finger at him (oh, for the good old days of 1998), invaded his personal space, and offered paranoid theories as to why Wallace was asking this perfectly reasonable question. It has to be seen to be believed, and it can be, here and here.
"I still have no idea what set him off," Wallace tells MediaBistro.com. "Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward--wagging his finger in my face--and then poking the notes I was holding--I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me." Hey Chris, you better put some ice on that.
What set him off seems pretty obvious: Wallace had him dead to rights. His administration did fail to deal with the terrorist threat in more than a desultory way. In fairness, the same can be said of all pre-9/11 administrations going back to Jimmy Carter's, including George W. Bush's for the first 234 days. But history is likely to accord Clinton the bulk of the blame for failing to pre-empt the 9/11 attacks. Clinton had eight years to deal with the problem; Bush had less than eight months.
Clinton's outburst has drawn much online commentary and analysis; rather than try to deal with every point, we'll single out one about which we have a special interest. Clinton made this claim:
And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. . . . All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough said I did too much--same people. . . .
The people on my political right who say I didn't do enough spent the whole time I was president saying, "Why is he so obsessed with bin Laden? That was 'wag the dog' when he tried to kill him."
We didn't remember anyone faulting Clinton for being "obsessed with bin Laden," so we did a Factiva search. The closest we were able to find was this, from a Feb. 17, 1999, Washington Post story:
But skeptics abound. Yossef Bodansky, staff director of the House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, credited recent U.S. successes but said they would have little impact if U.S. counterterrorism remains obsessed with bin Laden to the point that it forgets about the states--including Sudan, Iran and Pakistan--where he has help financing and directing his followers.
"We're working with allies and not-so-allies and, yes, consequently, some people have been arrested and some operations have been thwarted," Bodansky said. "Having said all of that, bin Laden is an instrument of sponsoring states. He's not a lone ranger or free agent. Even if we whack bin Laden, we're not going to solve the problem, as long as these states have an interest. There will be more of them."
This criticism was not of Clinton personally but of the policies of his administration; and Bodansky's argument was that the administration was concentrating too much on bin Laden personally, not that it was too obsessed with the terror threat. (It must be said that Democrats today are doing exactly the same thing, constantly harping on the failure to capture bin Laden while obsessing over "civil liberties" and the Geneva Conventions at the expense of intelligence-gathering efforts.)
As for the "wag the dog" point, this refers to the Aug. 20, 1998, strike on Afghanistan and Sudan, which was a response to al Qaeda's bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania 13 days earlier. It is true that some Clinton critics thought the timing suspicious (as they did a few months later when Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox against Iraq just as he was being impeached). But it's certainly not true that all pooh-poohed his efforts against bin Laden.
As blogress Claudia Rosett notes, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial on Aug. 21, which, while acknowledging that questions about the president's motives were "hard to challenge," went on to say:
There is a reverse side to the coin. Terrorists and other foes of America stand warned that no matter how damaged, a President of the United States still is a force to be reckoned with. Unlike some king or dictator, he is not one isolated personage but the representative of a far broader society and political system, a system that does not depend on the individual on top in responding to crisis or lethal provocation.
The editorial also said, "We only hope that there is some follow-through." And that is what was sorely lacking for the remaining 29 months of the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the Bush administration.
As with all things Clinton, this has led to speculation about his political motives. Blogger Tom Maguire:
Bill's temper tantrum may not help any Dems in 2006 but the obvious beneficiary for 2008 is Hillary. If he bullies interviewers away from that question, she wins. Or if asked, any answer she gives will seem calm and sensible by comparison.
The only negative--do we want a First Spouse complaining about right wing media bias? Been there, overcame that.
Somehow we doubt that calling attention to the failures of one Clinton is going to persuade Americans to elect another one, even if she seems calm and sensible by comparison. Most likely, Clinton's anger and defensiveness were genuine. He accused Wallace of sandbagging him--"So you did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me."
Blogger Edward Morrissey argues that "it's time to give it a rest":
The time has come--it has long since come--for that history to become just that: history. None of us can pretend that Bill Clinton could ever have declared war on al-Qaeda in the manner Bush did without having a 9/11-type event as a catalyst. Not only would the Left have screamed much as they do now, albeit without the Hugo Chavez-type conspiratorial thinking, Republicans would have never given Clinton the kind of support needed to send American troops into Afghanistan. The political climate had been thoroughly poisoned by the time of the African bombings and Congress would never have put aside its deathmatch with Clinton to unite in a war effort, especially against a band of terrorists most Americans didn't know existed.
It's telling that a conservative blogger is able to offer a much more persuasive defense of Clinton's antiterror record than Clinton himself is. In the interview with Wallace, the ex-president seemed unprepared for the question. Probably he is more used to answering questions like these from Larry King:
Now, the purpose of your initiative overall is to make the world a better place, right? . . .
And the four things it covers is to make the world a better place. . . .
Is it a better place? . . .
How's your health? . . .
The greatest thing you almost did was peace in the Middle East. . . .
Want to just briefly discuss some of the initiatives at this conference. We love coming here every year. Poverty alleviation. Possible?
It's another example of how liberal media don't really help liberals. Years of this sort of sycophantic treatment left Clinton unable to answer the sort of tough question that Republican politicians have to face all the time.
Evildoer
Death Watch
Has Osama bin Laden joined the ranks of the still dead? Officially no, Reuters
reports:
Saudi Arabia said on Sunday it had no evidence Osama bin Laden was dead, shedding further doubt on a secret document leaked in France that said Saudi secret services believed he died last month.
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said that as far as he knew the Saudi-born al Qaeda leader was still alive.
"To my knowledge Osama bin Laden is not dead," he said on LCI Television. But he added he had not seen a French secret service report, printed by a newspaper, which said Saudi Arabia was convinced bin Laden died of typhoid in Pakistan last month.
United Press International has some intriguing background:
The news of the death of al-Qaida's chief was reported in the Saturday edition of l'Est Republicain, a respected regional daily. The French paper cites a memo they claim was obtained from the French counter-espionage agency, the Direction Générale des Services Extérieurs, or the DGSE.
Bin Laden, the world's most wanted terrorist is believed to have died last August as a result of typhoid fever while he was in a remote part of Pakistan, according to the French newspaper. . . .
Making the report all the more credible was the choice by those in French counter-intelligence of where to leak the Saudi report, the regional L'Est Republicain, rather than one of the larger Paris-based dailies.
"There is a history with that paper," the Saudi source told UPI. The newspaper is known to have had intelligence reports leaked to it in the past. "They are very reliable," said the Saudi official.
Agence France-Presse, meanwhile, reports that Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam "has stepped aside due to illness":
Farrakhan, who visited Cuba in March, likened his illness to that of Fidel Castro and said that just as Cuba did not fall apart without its leader, neither will the Nation of Islam.
Oh, this just in. New photographic evidence proves bin Laden is alive:
An
Invidious Equivalence
You had to know this was coming. From the Associated Press Friday:
Now the death toll is 9/11 times two. U.S. military deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan now match those of the most devastating terrorist attack in America's history, the trigger for what came next. Add casualties from chasing terrorists elsewhere in the world, and the total has passed the Sept. 11 figure.
The latest milestone for a country at war comes without commemoration. It also may well come without the precision of knowing who is the 2,973rd man or woman of arms to die in conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, or just when it happens. The terrorist attacks killed 2,973 victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
Not for the first time, war that was started to answer death has resulted in at least as much death for the country that was first attacked, quite apart from the higher numbers of enemy and civilians killed.
We have three points to make, one glib, one obvious and one really important.
Glib: Why are they counting the deaths in Iraq, which, as we keep hearing, had nothing to do with 9/11?
Obvious: Were there any news stories noting the "milestone" of World War II deaths surpassing those at Pearl Harbor?
Really important: This comparison is an insult to the servicemen who've made the ultimate sacrifice. They volunteered to do a dangerous job, knowing that it might cost them their lives. They deserve to be remembered as heroes, not victims like the civilians who were murdered on 9/11.
Not a Good Reflection
"Ramadan Offers Time for Muslims to Reflect"--headline, Lansing (Mich.) State Journal, Sept. 23
"Ramadan Bomb Kills 34 in Iraq"--headline, Reuters, Sept. 23
He's
Always in the Last Place You Look
"Christians Pray That Muslims Find Jesus"--headline, Associated Press,
Sept. 22
Most
Horrifying Image Ever
"Provide Lapham[*] with a blond wig, stiletto pumps
and a copy of 'The Fountainhead,' and I suspect he wouldn't look much different
from Ann Coulter."--Jennifer Senior, New York Times Book Review, Sept. 24
* "This is Lapham, Lewis H., an author and a human being. He is part of Authors, which is part of Human Beings, which is part of Connections, which is part of Harpers.org."
Damning
With Faint Praise
"Falwell: Hillary Better Than Lucifer"--headline, NewsMax.com, Sept. 24
Not
Exactly a Ringing Endorsement
"Most Voters Say Governor Should Live"--headline, Peoria (Ill.) Journal
Star, Sept. 24
Isn't
That How Tiger Woods Got Started?
"Dad Accused of Letting 4-Year-Old Drive Faces Trial"--headline, Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette, Sept. 22
'Knock
Knock.' 'Who's There?' 'Vicente.' 'Vicente Who?'
"Mexican Leader Knocks U.S. Crime Rates"--headline, Associated Press,
Sept. 23
This
Always Happens in the Weeks Before Thanksgiving
"Turkey Abuse Claims 'on the Rise' "--headline, BBC Web site,
Sept. 22
A
Rake's Progress
"Health Tip: Rake Leaves Safely"--headline, HealthDay.com, Sept. 22
What
Would We Do Without Paris Hilton?
"Paris Hilton: I'm Not That Smart"--headline, Sun, Sept. 22
Thanks
for the Tip!--CVII
"Health Tip: Calm the Itch of Chicken Pox"--headline, HealthDay.com,
Sept. 25
Bottom Stories of the Day
- "Ancient Pet Cemeteries Found in Peru"--headline, Associated
Press, Sept. 23
- "Gay Priest Not Picked as N.J. Bishop"--headline, Associated
Press, Sept. 23
- "Upstate Lacks Clout in N.Y. Politics"--headline, Star-Gazette
(Elmira, N.Y.), Sept. 25
- "Cat Stephens [sic] Criticizes Pope Over Islam Comments"--headline,
Agence
France-Presse, Sept. 24
- "Democrats Use Report to Blast GOP Over Handling of Iraq War"--headline, FoxNews.com, Sept. 25
A
Conspiracy So Vast
"A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted last weekend found that 42 percent of
the roughly 1,000 adults surveyed nationwide said they believed the Bush administration
had 'deliberately manipulated the price of gasoline so that it would decrease
before this fall's elections,' " the New York Times reports:
Tangible reasons cited for the dip in prices include the end of the Israeli-Hezbollah war, which had raised tensions across the Middle East. Also, forecasts of a severe hurricane season that could disrupt oil supplies from the Gulf of Mexico have not, so far, panned out.
So in an election year, the Bush administration is able to stop hurricanes. We guess the president likes winning even more than he hates black people. Of course, the New York Times might have anticipated that, as the Associated Press notes, "cooler ocean temperatures" this year would lead to fewer hurricanes and thus cheaper gasoline. But instead they suppressed this news! Can there be any doubt that the Times's editors are taking orders from Karl Rove himself?
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Charlie Gaylord, Evan Slatis, Ed Lasky, Samuel Walker, Chris Scibelli, Ethel Fenig, Thomas Reardon, Dan O'Shea, Scott Wright, Phil Hord, Steve Prestegard, Ruth Papazian, Sam Wakim, Rick Marsh, John Williamson, Jamie Arntz, Monty Krieger, William Love, Lewis Sckolnick, Gad Meir, Linda Kidwell, Kelly Kost, Patrick Lamasney, William Schultz, Kyle Kyllan, Kevin Bloom, Mark Schulze, Jack Archer, Raymond Hull, Peter Iorio, Craig Ray, John Sarna and Michael Segal. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- John Kerry: We're not adequately fighting the war we should be fighting.
- John Fund: A Mormon from Massachusetts wows social conservatives.
- Kim Strassel: Corporate America takes on Spitzerism.
- The Journal Editorial Report: A transcript of the weekend's program on the FOX News Channel.
