Clinton

Chris Wallace’s interview with Bill Clinton this weekend was an extraordinary moment of television. When so much of what we witness on the Sunday chat shows is carefully scripted spin, it is quite a unique moment when a skilled politician goes “off script”. This is doubly so when that politician is the old Spin Meister himself, Bill Clinton.

There has been substantial debate on the right about whether Wallace was set up or not. Those who believe that it was argue that Clinton, for reasons that are unclear to me, wanted to exploit the interview as an opportunity to do one of several possible things:

• Criticize Fox News in an effort to reestablish his bona fides with the left
• Neuter any future criticism of his policies in an effort to protect his legacy
• Give his wife an opportunity to respond to the same questions and appear sane in comparison

None of these possible motives strikes me as particularly compelling, and anecdotal evidence coming out of Fox following the interview suggests that if it was a ruse, it was an unusually complete scheme.

We therefore, I think, can assume that Mr. Clinton did not intend to go berserk when he agreed to the interview. My guess is that he was “pre-sensitized” to any questioning of his administration’s failures due to the recently broadcast ABC mini-series that was highly critical of his lack of action. This was compounded by the fact that at Fox, he probably felt that he was “behind enemy lines”. Of course this second point is ridiculous, it was Chris Wallace after all not Sean Hannity, but none-the-less, Mr. Clinton’s persecution complex is, fairly well documented; which, by the way, is not to say that it is unwarranted.

The bottom line in all this is that it was an extremely poor decision for the ex Commander in Chief to make. His complaints to the contrary the fact is that conservatives have largely left Mr. Clinton alone when it comes to assigning responsibility for 9/11. While it is true that his actions in hindsight were woefully insufficient in the face of an avowed enemy, it is also true that given the political and cultural atmosphere in this country in the run-up to the millennium, Mr. Clinton would not have been able to do much more than focus on trying to get bin Laden. Any wholesale invasion, such as that undertaken by the Bush team, was only doable following the attacks and even then had strong opposition on the left.

Mr. Clinton was left with two choices in the coming weeks; keep his mouth shut and let the controversy generated by the ABC mini-series dissipate (indeed both sides of the political spectrum found the “fiction as fact” based movie too flawed to regard with credibility), or stake out a public position that is equally in opposition to the facts and declare his willingness to fight. Bizarrely, Mr. Clinton chose the latter, and he has done so at his peril.

Already, the Secretary of State has pointed out where Mr. Clinton is wrong on fact. Further, the authority that he sites as proof of his position, Richard Clarke, is at odds with him on several key points, not the least of which is that a “comprehensive strategy” was handed over to the Bushies as he left office.

Further compounding Mr. Clinton’s error is his insistence that his critics accused him of being “obsessed” with bin Laden while he was in office. While others have already demonstrated that nothing could be further from the truth in the public realm, I think it does give us some insight into the internal debate that must have been underway in the administration. That debate is the question of whether or not the U.S. should have focused on bin Laden, or on the states that sponsor bin Laden and his sort. Whatever the merits of either argument, it seems the side that won the debate in the Clinton administration was the former.

Following 9/11 there can be little doubt that many in the previous administration, perhaps Mr. Clinton himself, had second thoughts about whether they made the right choice. They may even have realized that there wasn’t a choice to be made, and that they should have pursued both options. Obviously this kind of second guessing is bad enough when others engage in it, and must be terrible to contemplate when looking back at one’s own actions. I cannot comprehend the incredible burden that some of these people must carry knowing the awful outcome. That burden is multiplied by the judgment of history that will be levied at some point in the future, and I think that this, more than anything else, is what plagues our former president.

I never thought I’d say this, but I feel a bit sorry for Mr. Clinton. While his foibles were certainly many, and his obsession with his legacy was in many ways damaging to world security, on this matter, I’m not sure he really could have done more than he did. I think the country is willing to agree on this point, and Mr. Clinton would be wise to let things lie as they are.

Watch Out! He's Going to Kill You!

"I don't have a last line yet....."

As far as I can tell it's because he's an talentless hack who looks more greasy than hot, and is unquestionably planning to use that mallet on his victim's noggin.

Not quite what the Brawny folks had in mind I bet, but it appears they aimed for sexy and came up with creepy.........just as Spinal Tap said, "It's a thin line between clever and stupid"

Welcome Back New Orleans......Can I Ask One Small Favor

Good to see everyone celebrating a big Saints game tonight, even if they have to endure the presence of the awful Joe Theisman as the price. If the citizens wouldn't mind, I do have one tiny request:

Could you please stop playing that "Oh When The Saints" Song?!

Redefining the Conventions

The global war on terror has forced Americans to think a lot about our role as the world’s sole super power, history’s leading light of human rights and self determination, and how we reconcile these exceptional positions with the need to win a war that not all of our citizens are willing to acknowledge exists. Of course this is not the first time that global conflict has forced this debate, as we saw a similar dynamic between the political left and right during the cold war. Indeed, I would be stunned at the level of self delusion the left has employed to deny the evil goals of Islamic terrorists had I not been witness to the left’s denial when it came to the Communism’s goals during the second half of the 20^th century. The more things change, they say, the more they stay the same.

Normally, I would think that it goes without saying that nobody is happy to go to war. I say normally because in some of the debates that have arisen around our tactics, members of the left, who are the first to cry foul when they think their patriotism is being challenged, have been quite willing, even eager perhaps, to impute the most nefarious of motives on those of us who see things differently. We’ve been accused of revoking the civil rights of citizens, sanctioning war crimes, and worst of all, desiring to turn the U.S. into a “torture state”. Such charges are obscene in both their exaggeration of legitimate war time tactics, and in what they say about the left’s willingness to politicize the debate for their own selfish goals. The great irony, of course, is that those on the left who look to gain politically by employing the aforesaid distortions, ultimately have the most to lose should we fail to win this, the battle of our generation.

Having said that, there has been, in recent weeks an honorable debate over how the U.S. will interpret the Geneva Conventions. Unlike the irresponsible left, a group of Republican Senators has led a principled charge against the administration’s attempts to more explicitly define what constitutes, “outrages against human dignity” in the treatment of prisoners. Because I believe in the senators’ good intent and concern for their country, I’ve thought quite a bit about what is and is not right in this new kind of war.

Their arguments, it seems to me are built around two basic premises. The first is concern that if we change our interpretation of the Conventions we will put our soldiers at risk in future wars with enemies who will use our precedent to justify their poor treatment of our POWs. While I fully understand the concern, I find myself unpersuaded after a simple review of the facts. The struggle for freedom that this country has led for over 200 years is replete with battles that had to be fought to turn back the spread of fascism and communism in foreign lands and to ensure our citizens’ basic human rights. It is a simple historical fact that in every single war since the Conventions were adopted (or before for that matter) our enemies not only violated the Conventions, but did so egregiously. Be it Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Germany, or virtually any other opponent, violations of the Conventions were sanctioned by the highest levels of government. No justification was required for the awful policies these countries followed, they did what evil regimes do when they want to win, and the “rules” were not even remotely considered.

To suggest that a more specific defining of the conventions to something more clear than “outrages against human dignity” will cause countries to torture our uniformed soldiers in future battles is not supported by historical fact or by application to today’s war. We must be clear here and remember that the Conventions are applicable to uniformed combatants fighting for legitimate countries. Terrorists are neither. They do not serve as a precedent justification for future countries engaged in battle, nor as evidenced by their own behavior, do they feel any particular need to follow the conventions themselves.Whether they are attacking civilian targets or mutilating the bodies of our soldiers who died from their pointless torture the terrorists’ very existence and modus operandi is an open defiance of the conventions.

The second argument that the Republican Senators employ is the suggestion that if we more clearly define the Conventions we will “become just like the enemy”. Forgetting the bizarre logic stream that suggests that a more specific set of rules, makes us less moral, I think it is fair to say that this argument relies on a very dim appreciation for what this country stands for, and for what we’ve contributed to the human experience throughout our relatively short history. Simply put, given our legacy of human rights, expansion of civil liberties and indeed our humane treatment of the worst of the terrorists captured in this war, to suggest that some extreme treatment in the pursuit of battlefield intelligence is a non-starter.Senator McCain is in fact deeply inconsistent on this point in that he has already suggested that we will need to violate the conventions from time to time, when the need for information is urgent. The difference, in his view, is that when you do, you will have to “do what you have to do. But you take responsibility for it”. This is a high price to ask our men and women in the field to pay so that a group of Senators in Washington can sleep better at night.

Having said that, I respect the Republican Senators’ views, and for the most part, am grateful for the dignity and honor that they’ve brought to the debate. I do not agree with them, and after lengthy consideration will not agree with them. I’ve read the hysterical descriptions of waterboarding temperature extremes, forced standing and other methods. Clearly none of this stuff is pleasant, but just as clearly, none of it is torture either.

More to the point, the suggestion by opponents of the administrations’ redefinition, is that in the past we never engaged in any extreme treatment of prisoners. While I have only anecdotal evidence to suggest that this view is both hopelessly naïve and absolutely wrong I cannot say with absolute certainty that this is not the case. Still anecdotal evidence suggests that in the past the approach that McCain outlines, (You do what you have to do) was exactly our policy.

The difference between past conflicts and this one is that in the past the left was not spending their time during the war talking about bringing war crime charges for our men and women in the field and members of the administration as they are today. In past conflicts we did what we had to do; we won the war, and then welcomed our enemies back into the brotherhood of nations. In winning those wars we pressured our prisoners for information, and I suspect treated some quite harshly. The difference is that we didn’t talk about it, and we didn’t suggest that those who were willing to put their lives on the line might have to spend some time in the hoosegow if they broke a few rules. The very reason the administration now suggests that our soldiers cannot live with a Convention that is quite “gray”, is because members of our society have decided to ignore the understanding that we had in the past.

Redefining the Conventions then is not an option, but instead our obligation, as a moral society to our men and women in the field. We must as a country agree on what we can and cannot do in order to gain intelligence from an enemy that has sworn to destroy us. Doing so is the only way we can stand behind our men and women in the field and ask them to do the things so many of us have chosen not to do.

I Need A Restaurant in Davenport Iowa

I will be spending the weekend in Davenport Iowa on a PD1 related excursion. On our last trip in the Spring to Indianapolis, another dad and I hung out at the hotel while the team and parents ate pizza and then after we had put in our time, we took leave and headed over to Ruth's Chris for the evening.

This weekend is Davenport; where should we dine?

Are You Ready For Some Football?!!!

It's been an exciting weekend here at the Pursuit household. Last night saw Mrs. P and I dining at our favorite local restaurant where we enjoyed a seven course dinner (with wine pairing) that began with an heirloom tomato salad with cilantro sorbet, jalapeno tempera and 25 year old balsamic, and ended with foie gras and molten chocolate cake. Quite the culinary tour!

Michele that was for you.

As for the rest of you, today we finish the weekend with PD2's soccer game followed by NFL football. Is there any wonder why the Fall is my favorite time of year?

The picks for this week are:

Bears -8.5
Falcons -5.5
Raiders +12
Bengals -10
Packers +2
Texans +13.5
Dolphins -6.5
Vikes +1.5
Giants +3
Rams -3
Cards +7
Broncos -10.5
Pats -6
Chargers -11.5
Cowboys -6
Jaguars +1.5

After going 8-8 last week, I'm a little worried about how many points I'm giving up this week, but the boys at the "Pursuit NFL Statistical Pick 'em" lab said I'm good to go so we'll see. If things don't go well, some heads my roll.

Rockin' Tune of the Weekend

An oldie but a goodie today; The Offspring.

I really don't have much to say about these guys, which is no doubt, a disappointment for a readership that hangs on my every word. All I really know is that back in '92 or '93 when this CD came out, I was one of the fevered fans that made their debut the largest selling independent label release ever at that time. It may still be for all I know, and why shouldn't that be the case? Dexter and the boys know exactly how to bring the rockin' tunes home for the listener, and now I'm bringing it home for you.

Enjoy.