Remember last September when Bill Clinton railed at Chris Wallace? The former president said that Wallace was merely doing the right's bidding? Wagged his finger at Wallace, tapped his knee for further emphasis? As if Chris Wallace were somehow Rush Limbaugh, or even Sean Hannity, to name two out-of-the-closet conservative commentators?
Anyway, there was a lot of noise about that interview; some argued that Chris was being unfairly maligned, others insisted that Clinton had put on a bravura performance, in defense of his own presidency--under attack from that made-for-TV movie on ABC, "The Path to 9-11"--and, of course, in advocacy of his wife's future presidency.
But what seems to have been neglected is that the premise of Clinton's argument that day was a lie.
Don't take my word for it. Take the word of Michael Isikoff, the ace Newsweek reporter, who just told Dennis Miller that new CIA documents show Clinton's argument that he had led the charge to kill Osama Bin Laden when he was in the White House, was, well, not true.
"What Clinton authorized...was ambiguous and muddled." Speaking of the CIA, Isikoff continued, "They did not have a clear directiveto kill Bin Laden."
Chris Wallace, keep your cell phone handy. I am sure that the 42nd president will be calling soon to apologize.
