Clinton redux

Sim is not the only one questioning the timing, the wisdom and just about everything else related to Bill Clinton's recent and pending temper-tantrums over the recent spate of anti-Clinton (or more appropriately, not glowing-pro-Clinton) commentary. Glenn Reynolds gives us a number of such takes.

Tom Maguire wonders why: Bill Clinton does the finger-wag again, this time with Chris Wallace of Fox News (transcript). And what has vexed Mr. "It's All About Bill"? The same thing that vexed him just before the airing of ABC's controversial "Path to 9/11", namely, the suggestion that his Administration was lax in pursuing Osama Bin Laden.

And does debating this topic really benefit the Democratic Party just now? In his current melt-down Bill Clinton demands that we read Richard Clarke's book, which lays out the pro-Clinton case.

Read Clarke's book? Please - maybe we can ask President Kerry how the Richard Clarke attacks worked for the Dems in 2004.

Not so well. Going for the jugular, Tom opines: And I will take this opportunity to repeat what I think was my only original contribution to this sprawling brawl about Clinton's priorities - Pulitzer Prize winner David Halberstam delivered "War in a Time of Peace - Bush, Clinton, and the Generals" in May of 2001. Although he covered Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, there is not a hint of a mention of Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden. That suggests that, in all his digging and interviewing on the topic of Clinton at war, Halberstam never uncovered Clinton's war on terror, or did not experience Clinton's people pounding the table and emphasizing its importance.

Well, if Bill Clinton wants to spend the next month discussing his slack pursuit of Bin Laden as we run up to the election, let's everybody blow the dust off their archives and get it on.

What is it about Democrats that can't control their anger? In Clinton's case, it's long been known that he's publicly pleasant but privately difficult. Ask anyone who's been on the receiving end of a dress-down or witnessed it.

In Clinton's case though it's also his own insecurities. I suspect the 'Clinton Legacy' that is not a legacy of anything historically meaningful eats at him. As a man with little self-control, should it be any wonder that it finds it's way out?