I saw the Mike Wallace interview and then read this perfect piece out of the NRO and have to take back what I said about being nice. Yes, the world changed on 911 and hindsite is 20/20 but Byron York makes a great point about who exactly was the “commander in chief”.
Clinton said during the Wallace interview that he couldn’t get the CIA on board. Um, wasn’t he the boss? There was a time when the answer was “the buck stops here”. vs “what does this look like?”. I really believe that right or wrong, for the most part, President Bush does what he thinks is best rather than what he thinks will look the best.
Clinton did what he thought was best also, but in a different manner. It mattered to him that everyone believe him. They didn’t and he couldn’t take the criticism.
Republicans boxed Clinton in, Clarke writes, beginning in the 1992 campaign, with criticism of Clinton’s avoidance of the draft as a young man, and extending all the way to the Lewinsky scandal and the president’s impeachment. The bottom line, Clarke argues, is that the commander-in-chief was not in command.
Clinton is a different man than Bush. Different things mattered to him vs Bush. And though Clinton wasn’t “evil”, Bush is better. Clinton’s defense of himself did not come across very well in my opinion.