I had an opportunity to comment on air last night on the Hugh Hewitt show about Charlie Rose's interview with Bill Clinton in Davos, Switzerland. Kudos to Radioblogger for his adept Tivo'ing of the ridiculous exchange...a masterpiece to be preserved for the ages.
I will elaborate on my main "on-air" points. Foremost, it seems that Bill is auditioning for the Chauncey Gardiner role in a remake of "Being There." He adds about as much depth to a conversation as adding water to broth would thicken a soup, but Charlie is hanging on his every word as if he was gaining insight from Pythia at the Oracle at Delphi, or was that the Dalai Lama? His rambling comments left me open-mouthed as I was driving home. I am sure those in the fast lane could count my full set of teeth. I simply cannot understand how Clinton can get away with his slack comments on Tianemen Square, have them lapped up by the audience, and not pounced on by Charlie Rose.
Some potential follow-up questions...What pressure did you put on the Chinese government post-Tianemen Square to insure expansion of human rights in China? Do you view China's inclusion into the WTO as appropriate based on their human rights performance? How can Charlie not ask tougher questions?
Bill Clinton is not a fountain of accurate historical, political, or geo-political discourse, but because he is who he is...the only bright light for the Dems since, hmmm, JFK (the first one)...he gets the hanging fastball every time. And even with this advantage, he fails to impress with his embarrassingly shallow and inane answers.
Secondly...the increasingly more frequent and biting attacks that he launches at GWB, via America, are a sign that the Dems are about out of useful political ammunition. The fact that they are relying on JC (not that one, Jimmy Carter) and BC to engage in post-presidential politics to carry their water is a sign of their desperation. If the Dems HAD political capital they wouldn't be relying on delaying nominees in the Senate, nor would they have to trash America to get to the President and his policies. When former Presidents have to carry the fight for the party it is a sure sign that they are running out of tools in their tool box. The VIABLE end of the Democrat Party is near. They will hang on and suffer for some time, but their viability is diminishing along logarithmic lines.
And lastly, it is shcoking to me how little a two term President understands about about the intricacies and delicacies of nuclear weapons and their influence on foreign policy. His glib comments about an exchange with Boris Yeltsin, are near criminal. While certainly no one expected Bill Clinton to launch an unprovoked attack into Russia, we certainly expected him to have the capacity to do it if required. The crux of nuclear deterrent policy for nearly fifty years was that sane men would not initiate the irrational, BUT it was made clear that these same sane men would respond in kind if required. Clinton leaves in question whether he ever understood this basic premise of nuclear deterrence...a strategy, while tenuous, proved to be the correct mechanism for guiding us through and eventually winning the cold war. Scares the bejeeezus out of me. I recommend that Hillary take a few sophomore foreign policy and history courses before she runs...I certainly wouldn't be relying on Bill for any meaninful help with complex issues.
I won't be posting over the weekend, unless my pool team is eliminated early from our 8-ball tourney (not impossible, but not expected).