I agree Clinton should say nothing and all those who seemed dedicated blaming the events on 9/11 on him should also say nothing. He has been out of office for nearly a year now and it is time for his enemies to get a life. However, as long as his enemies are obsessed with their hatreds and have a rather wanton disreguard for the truth we can hardly blame Clinton for defending himself against the frequent, false and vicious attacks about him, his family, and his administrtation. Certainly too many people spend too much of their time hating clinton, but that doesn't require any disreguard for the truth. There's simply too much well documented information on clinton -- his felonies, including perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering and rape -- to need to fabricate anything.
No -- the only people who had any disregard for the truth were the Clinton apologist.
You are correct that his enemies have a right to speak out. However I was responding to the article that suggested that Clinton should not speak out. Once somebody is attacked either in print or the electronic media they have a right to respond. If someone criticized you I think you would have a right to respond. If someone attacks Bush he has a right to respond. However, the author of the article is damning Clinton for responding to the various diatribes against him. Frankly I think the country has far better things to do than dwell on the sins of Clinton. His eight years are over. All of this was debated ad nauseum during the impeachment debate and he was found guilty of getting blow jobs beyond a reasonable doubt. My point is that it is time to move on to other things. I would prefer that both Clinton and his critics change the subject.