Clinton: It Depends Upon What the Definition of "The Truth" Is

The Democrats are trying to claim some kind of victory with former President Clinton's eruption on his FOX interview, but Dick Morris, who worked for the Clinton's and knows the score, disassembles Clinton and his claims.

The real Clinton emerges
By Dick Morris, 09/26/06

From behind the benign façade and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris Wallace’s interview on Fox News Channel. There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know – the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch. The truer the accusation, the greater the feigned indignation. Clinton jabbed his finger in Wallace’s face, poking his knee, and invading the commentator’s space.

But beyond noting the ex-president’s non-presidential style, it is important to answer his distortions and misrepresentations. His self-justifications constitute a mangling of the truth which only someone who once quibbled about what the “definition of ‘is’ is� could perform.

Read the balance of the article to see how various Clinton claims on fighting terror come apart once truth is defined by standards other than his; i.e., the honest truth.

Once again, we're seeing a former Democratic President working hard and after-the-fact to resurrect his legacy years later, ala Jimmy Carter. Do they think that we can't read history? Maybe some can't, but their failures are being exposed. And, it's too bad that the media cares more about protecting the reputations of these men than in exposing their failures to protect Americans.