I believe Clinton has confused himself with Richard Clarke.
And, of course, he doesn't realize Richard Clarke changed everything he said about Clinton when he wrote his book.
What I don't understand is that Clinton has to know people are going to come out of the woodwork to contradict all these lies.
His has threatening body language. He acts like he is about to physically attack Wallace. He is barely in control. It's as though for the first time he doesn't think he can talk his way out of something and he's unglued.
Did you ever stop to think of what a fortune some reporter could make if they anonymously "leaked" the tape of that Clarke interview? The guy/gal would be so rich they could retire.
As Danton said of Robespierre "He'll go far, he believes everything he says."
In 18 months the guillotine claimed him too.
As I've said before:
If Clinton wants to emphasize Clarke, let's have a LOT MORE questions about the Clark-authored memos squirrled away in Sandy Berger's pants. It's beyond my comprehension how little we ever learned about what Berger took out of (or put in) the 9/11 record.
Republicans should hammer home a reminder to voters about Berger's role in "shaping" the Toon's legacy.