WP, Dionne: Why Bill Clinton Pushed Back

[DeepModem Mom]

Why Bill Clinton Pushed Back
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, September 29, 2006; Page A21

Bill Clinton's eruption on "Fox News Sunday" last weekend over questions about his administration's handling of terrorism was a long time coming and has political implications that go beyond this fall's elections.

By choosing to intervene in the terror debate in a way that no one could miss, Clinton forced an argument about the past that had up to now been largely a one-sided propaganda war waged by the right. The conservative movement understands the political value of controlling the interpretation of history. Now its control is finally being contested.

How long have Clinton's resentments been simmering? We remember the period immediately after Sept. 11 as a time when partisanship melted away....But not everyone was nonpartisan. On Oct. 4, 2001, a mere three weeks and a couple of days after the twin towers fell and the Pentagon was hit, there was Rush Limbaugh arguing on the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page: "If we're serious about avoiding past mistakes and improving national security, we can't duck some serious questions about Mr. Clinton's presidency."...

***

Moreover, when Democrats, notably former House minority leader Richard Gephardt, finally put their heads up in the late spring of 2002 to ask questions about that Aug. 6, 2001, memo warning of the possibility of terrorist attacks, the Republican pushback was furious....

***

This is just a fragment of a long history of evasion and blame-shifting by the administration and its supporters. And the polemical distortions of history came roaring back earlier this month in ABC's fictionalized account of the Sept. 11 events that butchered the Clinton record....Clinton exploded. My canvassing of Clinton insiders suggests two things about his outburst on "Fox News Sunday." First, he did not go into the studio knowing he would do it. There was, they say, a spontaneity to his anger. But, second, he had thought long and hard about comparisons between his record on terrorism and Bush's. He had his lines down pat from private musing about how he had been turned into a punching bag by the right....Sober, moderate opinion will say what sober, moderate opinion always says about an episode of this sort....A genuinely sober and moderate view would recognize that it's time the scales of history were righted. Propagandistic accounts need to be challenged, systematically and consistently. The debate needed a very hard shove. Clinton delivered it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801454.html?nav=hcmodule

[jaysunb]

1. K&R

n/t

[grytpype]

2. More like this!

[Touchdown]

3. Good on you EJ.

:applause:

[Supersedeas]

24. I'll second that and recommend this

[bigbrother05]

4. K&R

[Andromeda]

5. K&R

[fujiyama]

6. dionne's petty decent

and understands why it happened...

[BlooInBloo]

7. Fuck him. Where was *he* when this was happening?

Shilling for republicans (in the guise of a "moderate")?

Now that Democrats are getting somewhere, he's just trying to be ahead of the wave, on the to-be-winning team's side.

[maxsolomon]

17. Dionne is not a GOP shill

please post proof of your assertion. his columns are widely distributed.

[blm]

18. I believe he's referring to Clinton supporting Bush's policies for 5yrs

publically while remaining silent for that 5yrs about the lies that were smearing him as responsible for what happened on 9-11.

Alot of problems in this world would have been averted had Clinton taken on the perception back when it was first formed, and when at least 8 books came out accusing him of coddling and protecting the terrorists. Clinton knew the truth about what did and did not happen in his administrationa AND Bush's, but consciously chose to protect Bush all these years.

Seems to me protecting Bush for 5 years was a priority over the 2002 and 2004 elections where every Dem candidate was necklaced with the meme that "Democrats are weak on terror - Clinton did nothing for 8 years" so they can't be trusted.

[maxsolomon]

20. oh... well

nevermind

[ms liberty]

8. K&R - EJ Dionne has it right here n/t

[DeeDeeNY]

9. Long Overdue for Clinton

This might be the only positive thing to
result from "The Path to 9/11" -- Clinton
finally had enough!!
Too many Dems think they needed to keep on
the "high road" and became punching bags.
So the right-wing lies kept escalating and
they have finally hit a nerve.

[On Par]

10. I Thought It More Of A "Controlled Burn"....

Anger - Certainly. But it was controlled. It was concise. It was delivered in small but powerful phrases. Clinton rocked the Bush Administration with this controlled burn.

[LiberalFighter]

11. Agreed! I didn't think Clinton erupted

He didn't yell. He didn't swear. He didn't call him names.

He was controlled with determination in his voice.

[VeggieTart]

13. True. But he was jabbing his finger at Wallace.

And I could almost see steam coming out of his ears. Just like when Keith Olbermann did his last comment on BushCo, he was a controlled rage.

And I say it's about fucking time the Dems and progressives got angry and started fighting back. Mistreat an animal long enough, and s/he will at some point tear your head off.

[Norrin Radd]

16. Yeah, isn't it unusual for him to point? He usually uses the debate

device of pointing with his thumb on his curled index finger, which looks more civil. You are correct--it's absolutely about time!

[blm]

12. Wouldn't ANYONE release pressure built up over 5 years of being smeared

with such a heinous lie like "9-11 happened because Clinton did nothing for 8 yrears"...... I couldn't have held it in as long as Clinton did AND publically support the people who made sure that lie was spread the whole time.

I'd say Clinton acted in an EXTRAORDINARILY BENEVOLENT manner towards the real enemy of this country and his legacy and did so for FIVE YEARS TOO LONG.

What a noble display to hold that resentment in for so long.

[On Par]

14. Controlled Rage My Ass....

Controlled rage is what Peter Finch did in "Network" when he wasn't going to take it anymore. Clinton leaned forward and leaned back. He smiled knowingly that he had the weasel Wallace cornered. Yes, he pointedly tapped Wallace on the knee, big faqing deal, to ensure that Wallace knew that Clinton knew that Wallace never ever asked the same questions of the Right Wingers.

BTW, does anyone think that Wallace would have attempted to interrupt Bush as he tried to manage a point?

[ProfessorGAC]

15. It Was Completely Measured

I agree. This wasn't any loss of control. He knew EXACTLY what he was doing, and he turned the valve and let the steam pour out onto Wallace and Faux. Like an expert boiler operator, he vented the exact right amount in the exactly correct way.
The Professor

[savemefromdumbya]

19. Maybe one will start to ask questions about the day of 9/11/01?

I wonder who the 'one' will be?

[madokie]

21. tell it like it is EJ

tell it like it is

recommended

[woodsgirl]

22. Maybe

Clinton's doing the war thing,"Don't shoot 'till you can see the whites of their eyes.' Maybe Clinton's thinking he might have a heart attck and have some explaining to do to Big Big Guy.maybe he's catapulting Hillary. I for one could not vote for a Clinton because of NAFTA. 3 strikes and you're out. mandantory minimum. Welfare reform with no jobs for welfare Moms because of NAFTA. Just wish he and Hill were democrats.

[blm]

23. Maybe EJ can next explain WHY Clinton WAITED 5 years to Push Back.

Now THAT would be worth reading.

[BootinUp]

26. Its in there, read it again.

But I'll expand on it:

Politics and the public mood of wanting to support heir Bush in a time of war led to an environment where fighting over responsibility for 9/11 was not going to help much.

But you know better, go ahead tell us again how Bill should have done it.

[blm]

30. That was fine until summer of 2002 - then what held him back?

.There is no real answer why Bush was willing to score all the political points for FIVE YEARS uncountered by the ONLY person who was being set up for blame - Clinton.

[NewJeffCT]

27. Not defending Clinton - but, I think his reasoning would be

that past presidents traditionally do not openly criticize sitting presidents.

[blm]

29. Tell it to the 9-11 families who had to fight tooth and nail for scraps

of truth.

[JohnnyRingo]

25. If Wallace was asking a question, he would have formatted it as such:

"Mr President, tell me what actions you took to contain, capture or kill Bin Ladin during your term"

Instead, Wallace chose to accuse Clinton by asking him why he didn't do anything to take out Osama.

That was a question based on a preconceived theory. That's why Wallace refered to e-mails from viewers who wanted to know.

Big difference

[madfloridian]

28. Meanwhile...we attacked the wrong country.

And killed their civilians by the hundreds of thousands.

And it only took him 5 years to defend himself.

So he apparently was aware that Iraq was under control as his admin had bombed them as late as 1999.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/223

Why could he say so, why were our Democrats put under such pressure to support the invasion of Iraq? I don't remember his speaking out then

I like him very much, we had good years with him as president.

But he should have said something sooner.