Sunday, September 10, 2006


Not that I watched it, but the 9/11 TV movie aired tonight with a few key edits apparently aimed at appeasing former Clinton administration officials.

The issue: anger over an implication that the Lewinsky nonsense might have either distracted Clinton or made it impossible to attack bin Laden at a time when the public (read: Republicans, their spinners and hacks) would have seen such action as a Wag the Dog type deflection of attention.

Crazy thought . . . .

Everything seems phrased in terms of making the Clinton administration look bad - but from the examples offered in the coverage I've read, it seems like the blame goes right back to those that chose to crap up the White House with nonsensical Lewinsky crap. At the time, many commented that our national fixation with the topic indicated just how good we had it. Perhaps now it shows how good we thought we had it and how blinded we allowed ourselves to become toward all kinds of Big Bad in the world.

I'm sure the Clinton admin missed stuff. But that's kind of besides the point, now, isn't it?

1 comment:

jvgordon said...

In retrospect, I often wonder if Clinton would not have invaded Iraq to take out Saddam when the UN weapon inspectors were kicked out. Operation Desert Fox happened just as the impeachment was breaking, and Clinton was widely (though in my opinion mostly unfairly) accused of wagging the dog. Though I have many negative things to say about the Clinton administration, I do actually think that an unfettered administration would have done something more meaningful than the three days of bombing, if Saddam had not capitulated. And perhaps Saddam would not have been so emboldened without the distraction of Lewinsky. Still, it is wrong to harshly judge the leaders of that time who do not have the benefit of our hindsight and additional information. Now, if they had information at the time that should have led them to act differently, that's another matter...