The “Meetings” Metric
Byron York has thoroughly destroyed Bill Clinton’s tantrum-speak from yesterday’s meltdown. My early and nearly complete thoughts on the melt-down are here, but one coda, please.
“Meetings” don’t matter.
Clinton’s indictment of the Bush Administration, launched moments into the furious exchange with Chris Wallace, contains this line of counterattack: “They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office.”
“Meetings held” is a metric Clinton wishes to use to evaluate his administration’s effectiveness in the war against Islamist fascism. It is also the metric he wishes to use to indict the Bush Adminsitration’s response.
Among the many lies large and small peddled by Clinton in this forever famopus exchange, spend a moment on this one.
You can be deep in debt and hold many meetings around the kitchen table, but “meetings held” won’t hild off the creditors, the IRS or nakruptcy.
If you are an addict, you can attend a thousand recovery group meetings, but unless you stop using, “meetings held” won’t help you a bit.
If “meetings mattered,” Social Security would be reformed and Medicare solvent until the 22nd century.
There have been, what, a thousand meetings at every level from platoon to the Office of the Secretary and the Oval Office, from the mid-ninties until today, and bin Laden is still not captured or known to be dead. By now the Bush Adminsitration has certainly passed the Clinton Adminsitration in “meetings held” by a factor unknowable but certain to be large.
“Meetings held” like the demotion of Richard Clarke are the parts of the Clinton narrative that most offend serious people, because neither mean anything.
Clinton’s defensiveness and churlishness, his paranoia and his histrionics remind us of George Will’s enduring estimate: “Clinton is not the worst president the republic has had, but he is the worst person ever to have been