Clinton's Finger-Wagging Moment

Tom Maguire of JustOneMinute: "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."

Joe at Americablog : "Chris Wallace was out-smarted and out-witted, so Fox [has] been in anti-Clinton spin mode all weekend. Who knew Fox would provide the forum to finally blame Bush for his 9/11 failures?"

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff : "Bill Clinton is desperate to be remembered by history for something other than the Lewinsky affair, perjury, and impeachment. And he will be. It's becoming clear that the Clinton legacy will also include eight years of inaction, broken by rare instances of ineffectual action, towards the mounting threat posed by Osama bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists that culminated in 9/11.

"That this prospect horrifies Clinton is evident from the rough transcript of the former president's interview with Chris Wallace. Clinton has no defense for his feckless response to the mounting terrorist threat other than the honest and very limited defense that he just didn't imagine these guys could successfully attack us on large-scale at home. Clearly that defense won't do, so instead he lashes out at Wallace, Fox News, ABC, and the 'right-wing.' Somehow, I don't think history will be very impressed with this sort of flailing."

But it was great television.

The devil is making a number of appearances on the political scene lately. First it the name that Hugo Chavez used against Bush, and now, reports the L.A. Times , Hillary is the latest target:

"Nothing will motivate conservative evangelical Christians to vote Republican in the 2008 presidential election more than a Democratic nominee named Hillary Rodham Clinton -- not even a run by the devil himself.

"That was the sentiment expressed by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the longtime evangelical icon and founder of the once-powerful Moral Majority, during private remarks Friday to church pastors and activists as part of the Values Voter Summit hosted this weekend by the country's leading Christian conservatives.

"A recording of Falwell's comments was obtained by The Times, and his remarks were confirmed by eyewitnesses. 'I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate,' Falwell said, according to the recording. 'She has $300 million so far. But I hope she's the candidate. Because nothing will energize my [constituency] like Hillary Clinton.' Cheers and laughter filled the room as Falwell continued: 'If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't.'

"At that moment in the recording, Falwell's voice is drowned out by hoots of approval. But two in attendance, including a Falwell staff member, confirmed that Falwell said that even Lucifer, the fallen angel synonymous with Satan in Christian theology, would not mobilize his followers as much as the New York senator and former first lady would."

That's pretty hellish rhetoric for a guy who's hardly an angel.

The pundits and others are still poring over the Bush/McCain terror deal. Craig Crawford :

"The faux debate over torture between the White House and some Republican lawmakers serves both sides in their common goal to keep control of Congress. Not only does it sideline Democrats and allow the GOP to showcase independence from an unpopular president, but it also focuses national attention on the overall war against terror instead of the ever-worsening situation in Iraq.

"Things are so bad there that the military could not go along with an election-eve pretense of withdrawing troops, making the torture debate all the more useful to Republicans."

National Review's Byron York :

"Who won? Before the final deal came out, there had been speculation that the White House had 'blinked' in the much-hyped confrontation. By the end, though, representatives of both sides professed satisfaction. 'I think there is every reason for both sides to be happy,' the source says. 'This was a situation where both the Congress and the administration shared a common objective,' Hadley told reporters afterward. 'And what we did in a fairly creative way was come up with ways that we could all support to achieve that objective.'

"Is one or the other -- or both -- spinning? Perhaps a little, but it does appear that both sides did, in fact, get the main things they wanted. And that raises questions about whether the showdown was ever quite as fundamental as the hype suggested. The Republican 'dissenters' never wanted to cripple the CIA's interrogation program -- a program hated by many of the administration's critics on the left. Rather, they wanted to work out a way to make most of the program legal using existing American law, not the Geneva Convention. And in that, they appear to have succeeded."

No way is this debate over.