It’s Bill Clinton’s call, if in an interview with Fox News he wishes to give us a flash of his old red-faced grandiosity, telling his interviewer, Chris Wallace: “You did your nice little conservative hit job”; “You’ve got that little smirk on your face.”
But what absolutely does not deserve to stand is Clinton’s bizarre re-write of history in answer to Wallace’s question about why he didn’t do more to put Osama bin Laden out of business. Clinton scolded that “All the conservative Republicans who now say I didn’t do enough, claimed 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.”
All? Are we now supposed to believe that in 1998 Clinton’s critics on the right were hounding him for doing too much about bin Laden? Let’s take a moment to remember the late Bob Bartley, editor for three decades of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial-page, and for years one of Bill Clinton’s keenest critics. It is a huge loss that Bob is no longer among us to offer much-needed wisdom on the perils ahead. He died in 2003. But Clinton’s words brought back for me a memory of August 20, 1998 — the day Clinton announced he had launched attacks targeting Osama bin Laden’s “terrorist-related facilities” in Afghanistan and Sudan. Back then, I was working for the Journal’s editorial page. Bob was my boss. There was an editorial meeting at which a number of us debated what to say. There were arguments that this was a wag-the-dog moment, with Clinton trying to distract attention from his own grand jury testimony and impending impeachment. Bob settled the matter, saying that even if Clinton was targeting bin Laden for the wrong reasons, at least Clinton was finally doing something about terrorism — and it was important to encourage that.
The result was a Wall Street Journal editorial, published the next morning, August 21, 1998, which James Taranto, editor of Opinionjournal.com, has just been kind enough to retrieve and post at my request: “The System Strikes Back.”
In this editorial, the Journal praised Clinton’s action, saying “We’re glad to see him now striking back at terrorists and those who harbor them.” The editorial went on to note that: “By and large, Mr. Clinton’s critics have supported the actions,” mentioning, among the supporters, both Newt Gingrich (”the right thing to do at the right time”) and Jesse Helms (”the United States’ political leadership always has, and always will, stand united in the face of international terrorism”).
Far from criticizing Clinton for doing too much, the editorial advised — words we can only wish Clinton had heeded — “We can only hope there is some follow-through.”
There wasn’t. Bob Bartley is no longer here to speak for himself, but he was a man of principles and vision, and he left a considerable published record. It is unseemly for a finger-wagging former president to try to re-write that history — especially while sounding off about how to run the world today.



Digg This
del.icio.us

PJM Home


3 Comments
Brian:Instapundit points to two links which debunk two of Clinton’s main accusations.
The first (by Jake Tapper) is from the ABC blog, and contains a number of quotes from prominent conservatives supporting Clinton in his decision to use force against terrorists, with some of these folks also defending Clinton from “wag the dog” charges made by other conservatives. (Tapper suggests that the “wag the dog” accusations were largely a product of the MSM, not politicians.)
The second link is to Patterico, who debunks Clinton’s accusation that Chris Wallace never asked such pointed questions of conservatives by quoting questions Wallace asked Rumsfeld.
As if we aren’t contemplating enough horror in today’s world, consider the possibility of Hillary Clinton being President and Bill Clinton being Secretary General of the UN at the same time . . .
Brian
Sep 24, 2006 - 11:27 pm ELLIOTHZ:With respect to the August 1998 missile attacks on Bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan, there was every reason to believe that Bin Laden and his main staff would not be present at these camps at that time.
Here’s how Osama was tipped off to the missile attacks:
CNN August 13, 1998- “Terrorist base camps evacuated after embassy bombings”
NY Times August 18, 1998- ISLAMABAD “The American Ambassador told an anxious audience of some 150 Americans this afternoon that a charter plane would be arriving on Tuesday morning to evacuate dependents of embassy employees ………” “One man in the audience asked Ambassador Simons about rumors the US was about to launch an attack on bin Laden……………….. The ambassador would not comment on that.”
DAWN (Karachi English language newspaper) August 20, 1998 editorial- “Account must be taken of the rumours with which Islamabad is awash that the move to evacuate Americans from Pakistan is connected with a possible strike against bin Laden’s refuge in Afghanistan.”
In addition, on August 20th the cruise missiles were launched from warships more than 600 or so miles from their targets. They cruise at about 600 mph, at low altitudes to evade radar, but making loud sounds as they go. So, for an hour they were over Pakistan on their noisy way to Afghanistan, time enough for bin Laden to be alerted to the attack.
PS I have the articles referred to above.
Sep 26, 2006 - 8:32 am Ed Thomas:What an uncanny article you link to Claudia!
“We only hope that there is some follow-through…
Indeed, when dealing with terrorism the issue is whether the U.S. must wait until the killing and maiming of its citizens before taking action…
By and large, Mr. Clinton’s critics have supported the actions…
the United States’ political leadership always has, and always will, stand united in the face of international terrorism”
Everything right but the last point.
Thank you for posting this- I bet it makes you feel the worthwhileness of your profession, which is something that if anyone deserves, you do.
Sep 26, 2006 - 2:23 pm