Abu Wabu

Clinton’s performance, his defenders say, was planned in advance to stiffen his party’s spine and teach it how to fight back. Was it planned? “Absolutely not,” Wallace told me. Off camera, during the interview, he said he saw Clinton’s public relations man waving his arms, demanding that the interview be terminated immediately. At the end of the interview, Clinton was still visibly angry and threatened to fire his PR man if he ever had to endure another interview like that one.

Why is this worth thinking about? Every Bush policy that arouses the ire of the anti-war set - the Patriot Act, renditions, detention without trial and pre-emptive war - is a departure from the Clinton years. Where Clinton and Bush policies overlap - air attacks on terrorist infrastructure, secret presidential orders to kill terrorists, intelligence sharing with allies, seizure of terrorist bank accounts, using police to arrest suspected terrorists - there is little friction. Should America return to Clinton policies or soldier on with Bush’s? While finger-pointing is pointless, this debate is important because it is about the future as much as the past.

So it is vital that this debate be honest, but so far it hasn’t been.

Clinton’s outrage at Wallace’s question is an attempt to polarise America’s memory, to drive partisans to his side. This may be good for Clinton’s reputation (and his wife’s political prospects), but it is ultimately unhealthy. What we need now is a cold-eyed, dead-sober reckoning of what works against terrorists and what does not.