Now there's been a big event. And despite the fact that Clinton is not president, some want to use it to recast his legacy. That is, for some in the conservative media, last month's attacks have become an excuse to engage in their favorite game: Clinton-bashing.
Ex-Presidents Should Be Not Seen and Not Heard
Clinton's first sin was to appear in public and open his mouth. This line of criticism was nicely summed up by Mark R. Levin in the National Review Online, who listed virtually every public appearance Clinton has made since September 11, and concluded that "Clinton can't stop hogging the spotlight
And the mainstream can't stop obsessing over him." Those who have watched the mainstream news cover virtually every public statement by a Bush Administration official -- and rightfully so -- may be a bit surprised to hear this. For Levin, though, "hogging the spotlight" consists of an ex-president who works in the city that was attacked actually attending funerals, participating in some press conferences (though never giving any of his own), and even consenting to an interview with Tom Brokaw.
Perhaps the problem here lies in one's conception of "mainstream media." As always, it's what most would consider the conservative media that has dissected Clinton's every move and utterance. The Weekly Standard, in fact, has a regular feature, "Clinton Chronicles," devoted to the important task of providing a detailed narrative of the ex-president's every alleged misstep. Amongst associate editor Lee Bockhorn's shocking findings are that Clinton spoke to someone at an airport about his attempts to capture Osama bin Laden, that he talked to people after the memorial service at National Cathedral longer than any of the other ex-presidents in attendance, and that he extended his press conference with Rudy Giuliani by ten minutes answering reporter questions. Conservative pundit Cheri Jacobus, meanwhile, took time out of her appearance on Politically Incorrect to let Americans know that Clinton referred to Bin Laden as a "worthy opponent." If the mainstream media is obsessing over Clinton since September 11, conservative commentators must qualify as stalkers.
Much of the Clinton obsession since the terrorist attacks, however, has focused on his presidency. On its face, this is certainly much more legitimate, as Clinton dealt with numerous smaller terrorist attacks and could arguably have done more to address the problem. Indeed, public comments by former National Security Council officials and a New Yorker article by Joe Klein have raised significant questions on this count. Some conservative pundits, to their credit, have deconstructed Clinton's actual policies on terrorism. Some have even done so with legitimate criticisms. Many have not.
If It's Bad, It's Clinton's Fault
"The Clinton administration had at least seven years to do something about the Bombintern [an invented term for terrorists]," Hoover Institution research fellow Arnold Beichman wrote in the National Review Online. "The WTC wreckage tells us that Clinton & Co. did nothing." Given the numerous reports about attempted terrorist attacks that were stopped by the government, this argument is improbable. More importantly, it's the laziest swipe possible at Clinton -- because X happened after he was President, Clinton is responsible.
A similar line of attack came from the editorial board of The New York Post, which also twists logic to make Bill Clinton look like a do-nothing on terrorism. "Clinton promised to track down the architects of bombings at the World Trade Center (1993), Khobar Towers (1996), American embassies in Africa (1998) and USS Cole (2000) -- and he didn't," it editorialized. "This sent a signal that U.S. interests at home and abroad were open to attack." The most obvious flaw in this reasoning is, of course, that four individuals were convicted and sentenced to 240 years in prison for the 1993 World Trade Center attack.
The Post, however, didn't just rely on unproven accusations. Its attack came on the same day Clinton was disbarred from the Supreme Court for lying under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. It made this soaring leap of logic: "Never mind Monica. Never mind the impeachment. America is living . . . with the former president's fecklessness regarding international terrorism, too."
Byron York wrote in The National Review, that the Clinton "administration's record is a richly detailed manual of how not to conduct a war on terrorism." York's evidence consists largely of innuendo and ad hominem attacks. On the subject of the 1993 World Trade Center attacks, for instance, he says the Clinton Administration "discounted evidence pointing toward Iraqi involvement," and cites an unnamed government official who says, "They effectively put blinders on, and they found it convenient not to confront a state, because then they would have had to do something." In some instances, York criticizes Clinton for not retaliating following terrorist attacks. In the instances when he actually did so, York calls them "hapless."
York, of course, never tells us what this evidence implicating Iraq was, or even what he thinks Clinton should have done that wouldn't be "hapless." And he conveniently fails to address the fact that Clinton reportedly came very close to hitting Bin Laden with one cruise missile attack, and that numerous attempts to capture him with covert forces, or have him arrested in Sudan, failed due to problems with international cooperation. Can these policy choices be debated? Absolutely. Ignored? Absolutely not.
Joining York is Rush Limbaugh, who wrote an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal. Limbaugh summarizes an interview York did with an ex-general who indicated that it is less clear how close the 1998 cruise missile attacks came to killing Bin Laden. What Limbaugh fails to note, however, is that this general still supported the attacks, saying that at the least they could "maybe cause [Bin Laden] to go off balance and set him back a little bit."
Perhaps the most ironic part of the latest wave of Clinton-bashing is that virtually every piece includes an accusation that Bill Clinton is once again taking the spotlight, or re-shaping his legacy, or being fawned upon by the media. In fact, it's the conservative media that has been making Bill Clinton the center of attention. Poor things. Will they ever get over him?
