That recent interview when Bill Clinton lost his temper with Chris Wallace grew out of the former president's irritation with a "docudrama" that didn't distinguish fact from fiction. But that's the nature of docudrama. (You could ask Oliver Stone.) The Fox interview probably drew more media attention than any interview the president has given since he left office, and we still aren't sure whether he was telling the truth. We never are; this was the same Bill Clinton, after all, who shook his finger at us when he lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. His supporters, ever eager to enable him, argued that lying about sex isn't the same as lying about government. But the wall between the personal and the public is particularly porous. (You could ask Mark Foley.) A wise man once observed how easy it is to tell a lie, how hard to tell only one.
Mr. Scheuer scolded Bill Clinton for saying he lacked the authority to authorize the decision to kill bin Laden. "It's not for a simple, dumb bureaucrat like me; that's not my decision. It's his."
It's hard not to believe someone who calls himself a "dumb bureaucrat," but David Benjamin, former member of Clinton's National Security Council, blames the lack of confirmed intelligence as the reason the Clinton administration failed to get bin Laden. The point is not whether Bill Clinton lied, but how disarming Michael Scheuer can be in forcing our attention to a moral issue crucial to the trust of the people. The higher the stakes, the lower a man can stoop to protect himself. When the facts determine a presidential legacy, the conduct of a war or a midterm election, the stakes are very high.
Otto von Bismarck knew what he was talking about. "People never lie so much" he said, "as after a hunt, during a war or before an election." You don't have to be "a dumb bureaucrat" to understand that.