A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days

Look, I agree with the general perspective that says that it is less worth our while to go back and blame past Presidents for their perceived shortcomings in the War on Terror and more worth our while to go ahead and, you know, actually win the war. You can blame in part Ronald Reagan for having withdrawn from Lebanon and having encouraged terrorists to think that the United States lacked will. And as we know, bin Laden believed that the American withdrawal from Somalia indicated a lack of will as well. So the failure is likely bipartisan, and we have to face up to that. And that failure may be understandable as terrorism is a relatively new political phenomenon, even though it has been existent for most of our lives.

Furthermore, having seen this:

I suppose that my first reaction is that Bill Clinton is nowhere near as angry as I had perceived he was being advertised. But here's the thing. Clinton could have answered all of these questions in at least a somewhat cogent manner without getting angry and enraged at Fox News and "right-wing conservatives" and Rupert Murdoch. In other words, he could have been calm. Failing to be calm, all he did was encourage political enemies to attack him more along these lines, smelling blood in his defensive and angry response. You don't discourage people from attacking you by getting angry and agitated. On the contrary, oftentimes, you only egg them on.

And finally, anyone who attacks an Administration for not having gotten bin Laden in eight months when said person's Administration had years is treading on dangerously thin ice. I know some people dislike this conclusion but facts are facts and those facts would and should be applied as vigorously as though Bill Clinton were a Republican and George W. Bush a Democrat.