I didn’t see it — not live, anyway — but President Bill Clinton’s exquisite hit (and here) on Chris Wallace gained him new respect in my eyes. Wallace, a moderate among fanatics on the conservative network, was preparing to follow the same script as was followed by ABC’s inane TV movie about 9/11.
What Wallace never expected was that the president would strike back and strike back hard.
Clinton laced into Wallace and the conservative and lapdog press that has allowed the canard of Clinton complicity in 9/11 to fester. The reality, as the ex-prez points out, is that Clinton made some efforts at capturing Osama bin Lade, ultimately failing; Bush, on the other hand, went into Afghanistan with the intention of tracking him down, got bored and opted to turn the Middle East into a chaotic blood bath.
I am no fan of Clinton — all anyone needs to do is read what I’d written during his eight-year tenure to know where I stand on his failed presidency — but now, six years into the disaster that is the Bush administration, the Clinton years look a whole lot better. (Check out Keith Olbermann on the verbal tussle.)
Another thing that struck me about the Sunday slugfest was the way it unmasked the press corps’ obsequiousness in the face of Bush — read John Nichols on this in The Nation:
The interview, which was broadcast over the weekend, got to the heart of what’s wrong not with the Bush presidency but with a media that covers that presidency from the on-bended-knee position.
It was boffo TV — but, unfortunately, it’s not likely to awaken the sleeping giant of the American press corps.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
Hank Kalet 