Clinton v. Bin Laden

* Wag the dog? Clinton has it all wrong, as Jake Tapper has it on the ABC News blog Political Punch. After Clinton ordered attacks on Bin Laden in 1998, most Republicans supported him:

- "I think the president did exactly the right thing," said House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said.

- Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) called the attacks "appropriate and just," and House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said "the American people stand united in the face of terrorism."

- Wall St. Journal's Paul Gigot called any Wag the Dog accusations "frivolous."

- "Whatever one thinks of Bill Clinton, surely Sandy Berger and Bill Cohen would not take part in any wag-the-dog scenario. Republicans who suggest otherwise--including, to our astonishment and his embarrassment, the usually sober Sen. Dan Coats (R., Ind.)--should be ashamed of themselves. President Clinton should instead be commended for finally responding appropriately to a terrorist attack," wrote National Review.

On the other hand:

- DATELINE NBC devoted a December 1999 piece directly using clips from the film to question the basis for the bombing.

And Frank Bruni of the New York Times devoted A WHOLE STORY TO THE NOTION.

What do you think of that?

See also American Thinker.

No comments: