My Dog is Bill Clinton
So, Bill Clinton had a horrible interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace. Watching the interview, Tom Cruise immediately came to mind. (Hence the allusion in the title.)
Whether or not your a Clinton supporter, it is undeniable that he looks bad. He's overly defensive about Bin Laden and too aggressive about criticizing Wallace. He spent what I estimate was five minutes ranting in his defense and cutting off Wallace if he ever tried to get a word in. (Heaven forbid the interviewer should actually be allowed to say anything.) So what was Clinton ranting about? What strong defense did he present? Well, he told people to read a book.
No, he did not tell people about a book. He did not summarize it or present an argument from it. All Clinton did was urge people to read Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror by former national security adviser Richard Clarke. By the end of the interview Clinton managed to mention Clarcke's name eleven times.
Regrettably, Clarcke's book doesn't do so much to validate the claims of "The Comeback Kid". Instead, the book makes Clinton seem quixotic.
Clinton loudly claimed that he came the closest to killing Bin Laden. Clarcke paints a very different picture. According to Clarcke, Clinton was unable to get Bin Laden killed because of feet dragging by the FBI and CIA. It sounds like it would be more of an accident if Bin Laden was nearly killed during the Clinton administration, rather than the triumphant accomplishment of a strong president.
Clarcke also argues that Clinton was weak on terror due to strong Republican opposition. He writes, "Weakened by continual political attack, [Clinton] could not get the CIA, the Pentagon, and FBI to act sufficiently to deal with the threat." This claim also is not harmonious with the image of a strong presidential move against Bin Laden that Clinton wants. (Considering the amount of political opposition the Bush administration has faced waging the War on Terror, I think it is ridiculous to think that there was a strong Republican presence keeping the boot on Clinton's neck.)
This is, after all, a pro-Clinton book, and that is why it weakens Clinton the most. It is someone portraying him in a favorable light, yet still managing to undermine Clinton's revisions to his history.
Whether or not your a Clinton supporter, it is undeniable that he looks bad. He's overly defensive about Bin Laden and too aggressive about criticizing Wallace. He spent what I estimate was five minutes ranting in his defense and cutting off Wallace if he ever tried to get a word in. (Heaven forbid the interviewer should actually be allowed to say anything.) So what was Clinton ranting about? What strong defense did he present? Well, he told people to read a book.
No, he did not tell people about a book. He did not summarize it or present an argument from it. All Clinton did was urge people to read Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror by former national security adviser Richard Clarke. By the end of the interview Clinton managed to mention Clarcke's name eleven times.
Regrettably, Clarcke's book doesn't do so much to validate the claims of "The Comeback Kid". Instead, the book makes Clinton seem quixotic.
Clinton loudly claimed that he came the closest to killing Bin Laden. Clarcke paints a very different picture. According to Clarcke, Clinton was unable to get Bin Laden killed because of feet dragging by the FBI and CIA. It sounds like it would be more of an accident if Bin Laden was nearly killed during the Clinton administration, rather than the triumphant accomplishment of a strong president.
Clarcke also argues that Clinton was weak on terror due to strong Republican opposition. He writes, "Weakened by continual political attack, [Clinton] could not get the CIA, the Pentagon, and FBI to act sufficiently to deal with the threat." This claim also is not harmonious with the image of a strong presidential move against Bin Laden that Clinton wants. (Considering the amount of political opposition the Bush administration has faced waging the War on Terror, I think it is ridiculous to think that there was a strong Republican presence keeping the boot on Clinton's neck.)
This is, after all, a pro-Clinton book, and that is why it weakens Clinton the most. It is someone portraying him in a favorable light, yet still managing to undermine Clinton's revisions to his history.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home