Centerfield

Yes, but to quote my mom if he could just keep his fly zipped. Does that make him a bad politician?, no. Does it make him a bad leader, probably not. Does it tend to draw attention away from the critical issues at hand, definitely.

Spent many years in Colorado; Gary Hart had the same problem (and he wasn't nearly as likeable as Bill.)

I thought I was the only one who grew to like him a lot more after he left office. I could care less about his zipper though, I hated what he did to the military. Now that he is out of office I respect what he is doing and I agree with many of his veiws.

I heard him talk about both his Global Initiative and detaninee interrogation issues on NPR yesterday morning. He was rather statesmanlike, being critical of the administration without being nasty; that's something you rarely see these days.

Democrats seem to do a better job of being ex-presidents than being presidents. Jimmy Carter has done more out of office than in, and if his GI stays on track, Clinton may well do likewise.

Somehow, Bill will make it back into politics. I am troubled by his weak comments about Iran, Chavez, Hamas, Hizb’Allah, Russia, China etc. Of course, he has to keep Hillary's run in mind, but such softness limits his frankness at a moment when the Democrats are attacking the DLC. I believe he leads the DLC and has said little about the antiwar wing. He was in NYC recently meeting with the leading Leftist bloggers. My understanding of his remarks did not include any objections to their views (not that it would have done much).

He also refrains from commenting on cable and CNN regarding some radical proposals former Clinton administration officials have stated concerning North Korea (which seems today to be pulling fuel rods for nukes), Iran and the our policy towards Russia and China.

One would think the fight over the ABC docudrama would have been an opportunity for Bill to state how strong he is on national security issues (or wasn't). After all, he and Gore set the stage for Russia to bolster Iranian programs and the failed direct talks with North Korea. And the failed talks with Arafat.

Other Democrats should learn from Clinton's demeanor. He has charm and tact (zippers not withstanding). I do think he is setting the stage for the civility war when Hillary runs. Let the Republicans make it nasty and perhaps that might be the difference in the result.

Don't mistake glib charisma and a talent for facile rationalization for intellectual capacity--or for political wisdom.

Well Tully,
I just saw a less than glib reaction by Clinton to a Fox interviewer. As I said, I am surpised that Clinton has steered far from the issue of terrorism. Huffington told CNN that she hoped this Fox interview would be a wake up call for Bill. Perhaps it might be a wake up call in a way she doesn't intend.

You can't keep dodging the questions when your former terrorism czar says some pretty critical things. If Bill were to claim the Republican villification of him prevented strategic action, he brings up the reverse that is going on today. The best politicians go outside the box. Bill seems to have taken a Monica approach to a clear discussion of national security and the history that brought us to NK pulling fuel rods, Iran building a bomb and Hizb'Allah creating a state within a state.

I have a feeling Hillary has something to do here. After all, she put up with his crap.....

Yeah, he lost control and went WAY past glib in the Wallace interview. Looked like he was going to come across the gap and beat up Wallace. The problem with Clinton's angry ("Tom Cruise moment") rationalizations in the Wallace interview is that the very people he cites as supporting his defensive assertions, don't. Namely Richard Clarke, as Byron York points out.

The annoying thing to me is that Clinton goes overboard trying to show that bin Laden was a top priority for him, when the record shows otherwise. He's all over the map to do so, blaming absolutely everyone else, just about spraying spittle. He slams the Bush admin for doing little in eight months, when he did little in eight years. He angrily blames the right wing for "Path to 9/11" (LMAO there) and disputes its basis in the 9/11 Commission Report, then later dismisses the report itself. He misrepresents Somalia entirely (AQ was indeed supplying massive support to the warlords, and inciting them to ambush American troops). Heh. Frothing denial, bordering on mania.

He actually has my sympathies in the matter of bin Laden. NO ONE (other than John O'Niell) really made OBL a top priority until the towers came down. Before that he was a sideshow, a mid-level player and a secondary priority, and everyone was concentrating on the top-level players--nations. Then he MADE himself a #1 priority, and everyone's still busy dodging the blame for not stopping him before it happened.

But we're talking about Bill Clinton, ego machine. For all the good he can do now as an ex-President (and IS doing) it's still All About Bill. First, last, and always. Seriously challenging his self-image will evoke that type of raving defense-by-assault response every time. I saw it up close when he was governer of Arkansas. He hasn't changed that much. He showed all the signs of a somewhat-controlled Cluster B personality disorder then, and still does. The Wallace interview was almost textbook.

Perhaps Clinton was following this thread. Sorry I don't have the internet link for you but Tim Russert asked Clinton some good questions. Perhaps Hillary scolded him to give the right answers this time. I hope Democrats were listening to what Clinton said. He re-supports the very things the antiwar wing vilifies. It was a contrast to his "planned" outburst on Fox (my opinion). He warned of cut and running, defended a policy, which regards Jihadism (notice everyone’s using Jihadism lately) as a major threat. He said some of the tax cuts should have been used for security and warned of losing in Afghanistan. He clearly said going left without addressing the security issue was a huge mistake for Democrats. He explained how serious he thought it was and is. I can’t say he really believes that Democrats agree and have addressed it properly yet, but I still think he agrees with the idea circulating that maybe the Dems should loose again. It might put Hillary in a better position with the antiwar wing taking a third loss first. In general, Clinton’s rant was the very view that has brought scorn on Hillary, Joe, Joe and others from the Left Side. Fox blast for the partisans and Russert for the Centrists.

Gifts have their down sides. Bill can be a great leader when armed with the right strategies. It will always be about Bill, but in Bush's way, it is all about Bush. Six years has still not inspired him to speak in a less embarrassing manner.

I was impressed with Dan Danforth's interview that followed Clinton's and I think his claim about the Republican sell out to the Christian base is as important (if not more so) as Karzai's comments about the Taliban resistance and Pakistan's sell out to extremists.

Ironic, isn't it?

We need ya back at the helm, Big Dog. For all the vitriol his enemies threw at him, Clinton was indeed the man. Clinton had the vision that our current leaders can't quite recapture (save Lieberman and a few others). Why can't he run the DNC?

The Kos Komissars are unhinged in their Lieberman hatred. Lieberman is, and always has been a Liberal Dem. He just happens to apply his liberalism to foreign policy, in a muscular fashion.

Russert asked what Clinton wanted him to ask. Softballs and set pieces. I'll pass on a re-run of a narcissistic sociopath with lousy self-control in the Oval Office. We're pretty much doomed by the nature of the system to a narcissist, but there's no good reason to put up with the rest. Clinton is the Elmer Gantry of American politics.

You can read a rough transcript of the Wallace interview here, at that nasty right-wing blog ThinkProgress. Clinton frankly comes across as thoroughly unhinged, ranting directly off into vast-right-wing-conspiracy and demonstrable falsehoods. (To be fair, he may actually believe them.) You can read Wallace's impression of the interview here.

As flawed as Clinton obviously is, he has a far, far better mind and intellect than the incumbent president. More capability to grow and learn. Yes, he is a narcissist--so what? Who isn't in that job? Better a narcissist than someone out of touch with reality.

Marc, I'm saying that Clinton IS out of touch with reality. That he utterly suborns reality to his self-image and ego whenever it suits him. News flash here: towering intellect is almost irrelevant as a job qualification in the executive when compared to other qualities. Jimmy Carter was no dummy either, yet he was the worst president of the post-Nixon era as far as job performance went. Truman was certainly no genius, and he did quite well in exceptionally trying circumstances. I believe I also mentioned that narcissism is pretty much inescapable in the executive, the only question is the degree. In Clinton's case, it goes past "ordinary" into clinically pathological, IMHO. To Bill, it's ALWAYS all about Bill. Others have fisked through the list of (to be very kind) factual errors in his ranting screed with Wallace, so I'll pass, and leave it that Bill and truth remain at best passing acquaintances.

Not that he didn't have his good points as a President. He was quite nimble and adaptable, quick on his "feet," and with Hillary at his side was a master of political judo, even if opponents would call some of that "dirty tricks." I quite vocally defended him from the noisier and stupider of the CDS sufferers in his second term, when the far right rolled right over the edge of the cliff of reason and fell into the void (as the Left has done with Bush since Florida 2000). But I'm also well aware of his very real deficiencies.

No real argument with you Tully; certainly, pure intellect is no guarantor of leadership ability. I would add FDR to the list of great presidents that were not necessarily great intellects. And Clinton was by no means a great president. On the other hand, just because someone isn't an "intellectual" doesn't mean he or she can't have a nimble, quick, curious mind. I think that IS important in a leader. I think that was true of Truman despite the lack of education, FDR, etc. What disturbs me about Bush (and I know you will object me saying this) is that he doesn't seem to have any of these traits. Some of the lefty criticisms of Bush relating to his intellectual capacity are silly; the fact that he can't pronounce nuclear has little bearing on his intelligence of ability to make sound decisions. But what I don't see from this guy is any kind of intellectual curiosity, any sense of nuance or complexity with respect to the world. He is not dumb; I have frequently described Bush as having an MBA intelligence, ie, a very narrow, focused intelligence. I think Clinton, whatever his faults, seems to have a quicker, more active mind than Bush. To me, Clinton grew on the job while I think Bush has not. (Obviously, a value judgment on my part.)

Clinton, I thought, was rather deliberate and passionate. That comes out in the full interview on video. Definitely angry too at some points and why not?. He gets smeared with lies all the time and this was his turn to answer.
Chris Wallace will never hold a candle to his father and should drop the "journalist" moniker all the same. What kind of reporter would preface his question with "our audience" to cover his piss-poor ass? In the newsroom we would call that being a "pussy".
As far as Tully stating that Clinton is out of touch with reality I wouldn't mind some concrete examples. His economic policy was sound. His policies regarding strengthening the military and the way it was used was pretty sound. He left office with a lot of international goodwill towards this country.As far as I can see Clinton is a lot more grounded in the reality of international and domestic affairs than Bush has ever been. Bush has an international policy that is in shambles and economy that seems to have left the middle class angry and depressed enough to vote a number of Republicans out of office this November - despite the pork and the gerry mandering. He's pissed away so much good will internationally it'll take decades to repair the damage. Theres' also overturning US policy towards POW's, one well established during in the war of 1812 and won the respect of the British military (see T. Roosevelt's analysis the naval battles of the same)- now we are the bogeymen. Uh pay no attention to the agreement the news is reporting - it still means torture.

And who was that General that got forcibly retired because Bush didn't like what he said. The one that lives near Lake Oswego now, the one who said that removing Saddam would basically put a bullseye on every American soldier? The one Bush ignored?

So really Tully, who is out of touch?

Nice conflation and ad hominem, Marcus. Well, OK, actually it was pretty inept, but still....

Clinton teed off on Wallace with BS accusations. Watch the interview. Check the facts and compare them to the transcript. Unhinged.

Some choice quotes in the paranoia vein:

ABC just had a right- wing conservative run in their little "Pathway to 9/11," falsely claiming it was based on the 9/11 Commission report, with three things asserted against me directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report...So you did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me...tell the truth, Chris...You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch's supporting my work on climate change. And you came here under false pretenses...you didn't formulate it in an honest way...you falsely accused me of giving aid and comfort to bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia...you've got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever...

Here comes the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy! Better cut down on the caffiene, Billy Boy. Clinton goes in that vein, and every time Wallace tried to steer him back to the Global Initiative questions Clinton returned to rant.

"Unhinged" is as kind as I can get there. Bordering on pathological, if not several steps past it. Ask a shrink.

Re: economic policies--I don't argue with the unarmed, Marcus. You've shown time and again you don't know the subject, so spare me. Nor is it germane to Clinton's complete loss of control, his near-psychotic ravings at Wallace, or his inability to match his rants with the historical record. I give him a total pass on OBL, as indicated above. But not on being an assaultive ego-driven liar, which is a long-repeating pattern that I observed frequently well before he became President in the first place.

"You can't trust Republicans on national security -- and two things proved it yesterday:

1) In a powerful interview that aired yesterday, President Bill Clinton took on the extremist Republican propaganda about 9/11 -- and Fox News tried to cover up the fact that the Bush administration downgraded terrorism as a priority before September 11th and has failed to eliminate Osama bin Laden since the attacks.

2) An explosive report on the still-classified National Intelligence Estimate states that the "invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks" -- and Republicans have been trying to cover it up.

This is what we're fighting against every day -- an administration covering up of the Bush failure of 9/11 and covering up an honest look at the war in Iraq and the war on terror."

Howard Dean from a DNC letter I just received.

It is interesting that Clinton's rant fit nicely into this promo. Clinton struck a different tone with Russert even if the questions were slow balls. I do feel Clinton is annoyed that Republicans want to say he was weak while curbing him with Wag the Dog and impeachment hearings during a critical national security moment. Clinton did mention this breifly in his heated response to Wallace. I suspect Clinton was ready for the encounter as planned fodder for the Democratic struggle towards November. I think it was a bit staged and relied on a book that does debate some of Clinton's moves. There was also a lack of comment on Iran or North Korea. In the Russert conversation, he mentions the failure of Middle East negotiations, but they were derailed when Arafat rejected his proposal. Does Clinton advocate negotiating with Hamas or Hizb"Allah?

Ego aside, Clinton brought up FIASCO, which seems to be a decent book and in the Russert interview Bill takes a middle line which probably infuriates the Left. So was it a ying yang Sunday for Clinton, including Larry King? He seems to have tried pleasing both the middle and the left, both critical for a Hillary run in 2008.

JFK. LBJ. Nixon, Bush all have or had a tilted element to their behavior. Huge egos. A number of Republicans credit Clinton for several positive things, as do the American people. I suggest Clinton would win in November if running for President against anyone the Republicans pick. I do not believe this is because Clinton is the better liar, or his looks. But then I could be completely wrong.

Had Republicans demanded action against Bin Laden in the nineties, perhaps we could have nailed him before 9/11. There is plenty of blame to go around. One reason I was so against the Clinton witch-hunt was that it tragically distracted our attention. The same is sadly true today. Clinton has not blasted Bush over Iraq or his war on terrorism. I might be wrong, but I think this comes from the memory of his own domestic opposition, which even belittled his attempt to eliminate American terrorists right here at home. Imagine calling Gonzales, the nasty things Republicans called Reno. Behavior unfortunately leaves a mark more than a lesson.

Max, the idea that President Clinton never criticized President Bush 43 is not entirely true. Further, I think there's no comparison between the venom hurled against Clinton and Reno and the venom hurled against Bush and, say, Ashcroft. How many times was Clinton compared to Hitler? Burned in effigy? Painted as a vampire? Suggested that the 40 or 50 million Americans who voted for him were just stupid, moronic dupes? Clinton and his allies have either participated on sat silently by as the left became increasingly insane and vicious. It is only very recently that Clinton people like Lanny Davis have gone out to start trying to calm down the masses and bring a little sanity back to the process.

When Clinton had to weigh military strikes, the opposition said he wasn't fit to be Commander in Chief. The Democrats did not begin by calling Bush Hitler (which is twisted). Republicans accused Clinton of striking Bin Laden for Wag the Dog reasons. In fact, as Ricks points out, Desert Storm broke Saddam's army. Sanctions had ruined Saddam's WMD programs. Bill was chastised over Somalia (a gift from Bush) when later, the DOD took some responsibility. Now what is happening to Somalia and the Sudan? Not that Democrats care anymore.

Did the Democrats grind government down for years and come up with only sexual indiscretions to the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars? Clinton didn't run up such deficits or meet with energy CEOs to decide energy policy. Even Newt now fesses up that partisan demonization in his day was a damaging tactic. The Hitler comparisons are pathetic, but they do come from some controversial policies. Clinton was the only one to appoint a Republican SECDEF since FDR. He stabilized Bosnia. Why attack him from the start, focusing on preventing him from taking it to our adversaries?

Now I'm not blaming just Republicans. Democrats and intelligence organizations share blame. Bush however, did place Bin Laden below touting the end of the ABM treaty, making AIDS money conditional on contraceptive policy, offering billions to religious groups to distribute as welfare (he never delivered), flushing embryos down the toilet, and giving rise to one of the most corrupt administration and largest deficits. Anyone hear about the Kentucky mining spill and the money the government didn't demanded to clean it up? No, they tried to fire the lead EPA official on the site. Clinton did not roll out such behavior and claim a mandate after losing the popular vote. I think doing so is arrogant and not bi-partisan.

Things were smoother in the late nineties. No 9/11. The economy was moving upward. The partisan fear of a Clinton Dynasty was so strong Republicans attacked him from the start. Clinton was far from perfect, but the opposition was unduly fierce. Travelgate or abramoffgate?

I agree the Left has surpassed the Right in terms of denial, but these are different times. The world liked Clinton. His approval ratings were greater than Bush. Democrats are in great part still reacting to being marginalized because from the start they "weren't strong on security". They in fact, supported Bush in the beginning. The Leftists did not, but back in 2001, Democrats were more mainstream liberals, not Kosliberals. Clinton compromised with the Right. Bush has only done so recently (except with immigration).

Republicans control things and Democratic name-calling does not produce much policy. Republicans ruled Congress in Clinton's time and shut down government. I doubt they would have paid 400 billion to invade Iraq or Afghanistan. We heard instead the details of oral sex and not Bin Laden.

In any case, I agree that what's going on is bad. I don't find the comparison game getting anywhere. Democratic leaders could have taken a better position without rejecting everything Republican. The Supreme Court decision to appoint Bush, the rather arrogant foreign policy (see response to NATO offer after 9/11), the poorly managed Iraq policy feed the opposition, but does not warrant the nasty crap that ignores global realities other than the we don't like America factor. Clinton has said this is their big mistake (see Russert interview). I do not see what Clinton did that warranted the reaction he got. Protesting the Viet Nam war? Making fun of Reno's heath problems is cruel. Calling Bush a monkey or the Devil is rude. Let's just agree that Clinton and Bush both ran into fanatical opposition (whether warranted or not) that damaged or damage what is best for American security.

I don't support demonization. I just think it is ironic that as Clinton conducted Desert Storm with a Republican SECDEF, he was vilified as unfit and trying to take minds off of Monica. Part of Left rage comes from the realization that name-calling doesn’t stop policy mistakes. We all know that polarization was a tactic of Rove. I fault him because our security demands unity and such a tactic might now blowback Republicans at a moment they are trying to push ahead and confront our foes.

I concede Democrats over do it, but I do not see you take account of Republican crap. Are we wearing different colored glasses or just loyal to different political asses? At this point I just want a course that reasonably points in a better direction. Please tell me which way that is?

Max, Max...is it time for the conflation lecture again? Were you sleep-blogging?

When Clinton had to weigh military strikes, the opposition said he wasn't fit to be Commander in Chief. The Democrats did not begin by calling Bush Hitler (which is twisted). Republicans accused Clinton of striking Bin Laden for Wag the Dog reasons.

That's quite a selective memory there. In fact, as numerous others have shown, the Bush-as-Hitler jibes started coming out of the left-wingers before the dust of Florida had settled, and it's pretty damn dishonest to say the "The Democrats" didn't do it when the left was at it full tilt, then in the same breath turn around and equate the right of the '90s with "the Republicans." Consistency demands both or neither--no picking and choosing. And for the record, damn near the entire GOP in Congress came out in solid support of Clinton's cruise missile attacks on the bin Laden camps. Including the GOP leadership in both houses of Congress.

BTW, I'm pretty sure that Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, etc. would dispute that CLinton was the only president since FDR to appoint a Republican SECDEF. Also BTW, Clinton had diddly to do with Desert Strom. That was Bush 41. Clinton exhibited plenty of bad behavior without EVER "winning" the popular vote. And so on.

Yes, it was very late Tully and I appreciate your kind comments. I meant Desert Fox bombing campaign. I do believe that Republicans did accuse him of Wag the Dog over his bombing strike as well as his attempt to strike Bin Laden's camp.

Cohen just said on CNN that Clinton told him to take politics out of national security. Cohen is defending him right now. Rumsfeld has said it was improbable that public opinion would have gone along with invading Afghanistan before 9/11..

You are right that the Left was appalled with Bush before he was appointed. I did not hear Democratic leadership demonizing him (nor ranting about him failing to get Bin Laden).

Maybe my memory is wrong, but Republicans said some nasty things about Clinton. I don't hear Democrats saying Bush killed a former associate.

The point I was sleep-making was about the overall attack on Clinton that stymied national security issues. Perhaps Bush might have had Biden as SECDEF. I lament the damage Democrats are doing now in polarizing security, but to be fair Tully, America was sick of watching a Republican witch hunt while a Republican SECDEF had his hands tied in dealing with terrorism. Sometimes behavior sets the mark instead of providing lessons on what not to do.

I think we both agree Clinton's rant was probably planned. I will have to read Clarke's book to determine how Clinton fairs. And Clinton most feared a biological attack here. What has happened to that logic? I would love Gore to explain his agreement with Russia over technology transfer to Iran.

Your link above is interesting.....

The point at hand, though, Max, is that the GOP leadership did NOT do what President Clinton very specifically accused them "all" of doing, in very angry terms, this past Sunday. He did not accuse Republicans of distracting him with impeachment, or of creating a polarizing environment. No, he accused them of being hypocritical in their desire to fight Bin Laden, of criticizing him for not being aggressive enough against Al Qaeda. That is yet another bold-faced lie, from a self-confessed perjurer. It's just not true.

There may be other criticisms one can make of Republicans' response to Bill Clinton's perjury in the Paula Jones deposition, but Clinton didn't make those charges on national TV.

Which brings up something that always annoys me. With so many solid issues that any politician can be slammed for, why bother to make any up?

Yep, the right-wing loonies went way past the borders of sanity in their conspiritorial accusations against Clinton. As the left-wing loonies do with Bush. But Trent Lott wasn't accusing Clinton of killing kids on railroad tracks in Mena. The GOP leadership solidly supported Clinton's airstrikes against AQ. It was wingnuts and the MSM that beat the Wag The Dog drum. Clinton pointedly smears and attacks the wrong people, and that can only happen if he's either delusional or lying, or both. Your pick.

It struck me as a true Sid Vicious & The Skull re-run from the 90's. Pure venom, low on factual content, nut the other side with a rusty razor and let nothing resembling the truth stand in your way.

Tully and Pat,
Clinton did make a small reference to Wag the Dog during the Wallace rant, but he failed to make more of the one legit point he could have made. Perhaps it was too obvious. Instead, he took up the issue over who did more or less, which for reasons you have stated, is a washout at best. In that sense, you are both right that the Wallace interview fits more into partisanship, than any reasonable discussion of why he did not do more, or the "impartial speculations" see FIASCO, that the Bush administration has done worse by comparison.

I had hoped Clinton would have responded by saying something like;

"Chris, I tried my best to get Bin Laden. Clarke's book states it better than I can do right now. My record is from a different time and in a different political context. I was seriously hampered by a Republican effort to drive me out of office at any cost". (Then briefly quote what some Republican leadership had said about him while chuckling instead of being bitter)

“I condemn such motives then and I certainly condemn such partisanship now. While I did commit a serious lapse in personal conduct during my second term, which gave this partisan attack some rope, this nasty campaign to oppose the executive branch, encouraged by Republican leadership, hurt national security despite my best intentions to confront terrorism. Therefore, I certainly will not support any partisan effort, which in the name of defeating political opponents, once again, derails national conversation about our rational self-interests. This is a serious moment of history. I made mistakes and I made some smart moves as President. I believe the same can be said for President Bush.

I strongly object to any effort by Fox or other media, who claim to be fair and balanced, to unfairly condemn out of context, my record against terrorism in a dishonest and bias effort to deflect public criticism of President Bush's record. Unfortunately, Fox does this often. And Chris, let me state clearly: I reject ANY partisan attack or defense of our present policies by EITHER Party that merely puts forth demonizing and fear mongering to WIN, rather than sound thinking in making America SAFER.

It is time we take the high road in discussing how we move forward, which is what my present initiative is all about. Shall we get back to that?"

Ironically, the partisan struggle makes this an impossible thing to say. Clinton tried to get at this in the Russert interview, but fell short. The most frustrating thing is, here is the one guy who could say he was attacked and thus refuses to endorse such behavior. He has not really attacked Bush in the manner of MoveOn, but he refuses to stand up to the Left Wing attacks that are even aimed at his wife. Politics....politics.....

He actually has my sympathies in the matter of bin Laden. NO ONE (other than John O'Niell) really made OBL a top priority until the towers came down.

This was maybe an aside in your post above Tully, but IMo it's a good start (and end) point to focus on. I couldn't be more weary of the post 9/11partisan tit for tat hindsight blame game. "Bush didn't do enough in his 8 months. " "NO, Clinton dropped the ball."

Whatever. Prior to 9/11, the overwhelming majority of we Americans considered the threat of serious domestic muslim terrorism as little more than titilating fodder for action-adventure flicks. And we all straightened up a bit after 9/11, didn't we? Finger-pointing is a waste of time except insofar as it helps us do better in the future.

I agree that Clinton's ego lead him to suborn reality. We all do that to some extent, but Bill's head of the class. I DO think he's a pretty smart guy though, and that the ability to consider policy in depth and detail is useful in trying times.

I've been lately pleased that Bush has chosen to be more present and vociferous in defending our efforts in Iraq as crucial. Long overdue IMO, and so well needed. One aspect of this that I continue to find off-putting is the enduring unease of President Bush in public appearances. The guy is obviously scared to death of a misstep in such appearances, and quite often seems to me to be, inexplicably, on the verge of breaking out into a broad grin or even laughter during discussions of serious matters. Frankly, I'm worried he might crack. I'm praying for the guy to hang on.