Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers

Bill Clinton erupts when Chris Wallace makes the gentlest of inquiries about the new book The Looming Tower. 

Watch the whole thing, and bookmark Bill's admission that the 9/11 Commission Report was a "political document."  It was, of course, but only in the sense that it bent over to attempt to keep the Clinton Adminstration from suffering too much scrutiny.

But books like Lawrence Wright's cannot be manipulated, and so Clinton launches into a furious counterattack on Wallace, Fox and ABC, the Bush Administration and right wing critics and media. This fascinating bit of theater --part paranoia, part panic-- distills Clinton's argument to: "Who you going to believe, Dick Clarke and his memoir, or everybody and everything else?"

Bill Clinton's record vis-a-vis Osama cannot withstand even two minutes of sharp questions-and-answers.  He's obliged to tightly control every encounter with the press, denounce every serious work of history, obfuscate by pointing to meeting after meeting or to non-sequitors like the fact that no one knew at the time that Osama was connected to Mogadishu (but when, Mr. Clinton, did you become aware of his connection), legal tap dancing --the FBI and CIA wouldn't let me do it-- and the worst of all, chest thumping about how he'd be waging the war if he was still president.

Whatever Clinton hoped to accomplish with this childish filibuster and tantrum, it guaranteed the opposite:  No such fury is required when the facts are on your side.  You don't have to control every encounter and explode with anger and accusations when asked if you would like to comment on a new book.

Here's just one relevant excerpt from my interview with Lawrence Wright on Friday:

LW: You know, it’s actually…and I see this as kind of a paradox, Hugh. Sudan was an open country for terrorists. You know, they had an Islamic revolution, and they opened their doors to anybody, any Muslim who wanted to come. And naturally, the ones who came were the ones that weren’t invited anywhere else. And so even…you had Carlos the Jackal there, and Abu Nidal, and all these different terrorist groups. And you had bin Laden, who had some money to give them. And it was in…during the Clinton administration, in 1996, that it was decided that bin Laden posed a threat by just being there. And so American authorities put pressure on the Sudanese to expel him. And the Sudanese first of all said well, do you want him? And you know, we didn’t have an indictment on bin Laden. There wasn’t very much that we could do with him. At the time, it may be that he hadn’t killed any Americans yet. So we said no.

HH: We being who?

LW: We being the State Department, and the NSC.

HH: Quite a lot of debate over whether or not President Clinton was involved in that decision. What do your researches tell you?

LW: Well, they did want to…you know, the Clinton administration clearly wanted to force bin Laden out of Sudan. They thought it was dangerous for him to be there. But the Sudanese argued, listen, he’s going to go to Afghanistan. Here, he’s under watch. Here, he has investments. You know, at least you know his address. If he goes to Afghanistan, nobody will be in control.

HH: But when…let me press you on this point. When Sudan offered bin Laden to the United States, and we said no, and you said State Department and NSC, do you think President Clinton was involved in that decision?

LW: Well, you know, it certainly reflects his administration’s policies.

Bill Clinton audio confirming this account can be listened to here.

What is astonishing is that in the five years since 9/11, the Democratic Party and the nation's media has become even more feckless about the threat from Islamist terror than Bill Clinton was --and remains.