All Hail CLIN-TON!

I watched with much amusement last night as former president Bill Clinton quickly and aggressively knocked Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace off balance in a 15-minute taped interview that aired for the first time yesterday.

At times, it reminded me of the Matt Lauer interview of George W. Bush, with Clinton leaning toward Wallace and using aggressive and intimidating body language. Clinton referred to the interview as a "conservative hit job" and blasted Wallace for having a smirk on his face and thinking he was "so clever". The difference between the Clinton and Bush interviews, however, is that what Clinton said actually makes sense, as well as the minor detail that he has the truth on his side. And while Lauer was tough with Bush, he was not nearly as dismissive and disrespectful of the president as Wallace was with former president Clinton.

Wallace started off the interview with some innocuous questions about Clinton's Global Initiative Conference, but then thought we would throw in a quick sucker-punch in the traditional Fox News 'not me, but some people are asking' style highlighted in Robert Greenwald's documentary Outfoxed.

Wallace: When we announced that you were going to be on "Fox News Sunday," I got a lot of e-mail from viewers. And I've got to say, I was surprised.Most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?

Clinton wasted no time in responding in simple terms, if perhaps in a somewhat agitated and overly defensive manner. He raised and repeated three points:

1. That the neocons who bring up Clinton's withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 as a decision that emboldened Al-Qaida, were the same ones who criticized him for waiting a month after the Blackhawk Down incident to withdraw the troops from that region. Also, no one knew of Al-Qaida in 1993 and there was no real evidence that the U.S. pulling out of Mogadishu aided their cause.

2. That Richard Clarke, who worked to combat terorism in four White Houses, three of which were Republican, said in his book, Against All Enemies, that Clinton was obsessed with getting bin Laden, especially after the African embassy bombings. And that Clarke, who was obviously an invaluable resource in combating terror, was ignored and eventually demoted by the Bush administration.

3. The CIA wouldn't certify that bin Laden was behind the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole before the end of Clinton's presidency (it didn't until after Bush took office in 2001) so he could only send special forces to Afghanistan, a move which the military argued would be ineffective.

Clinton also chided Wallace for repeating the neocon talking points, blaming Clinton for 9/11, while never pressing Bush administration officials on why they put counter-terrorism on the back burner for the first nine months of his presidency, or why they didn't follow up on the Cole bombing once the CIA certified that Al-Qaida was responsible, or why they decided to demote Richard Clarke. Wallace claimed that he had done so, a claim quickly and easily refuted (as is often the case with Fox News claims) by Media Matters.

I would also ask why the Bush administration ignored the Hart-Rudman Report or why they ignored the infamous Aug. 6 President's Daily Brief. But apparently, the more important question for CNN is: Why did Bill Clinton Blow His Top?