Bill, Condi, Hillary, Where Will It Stop?

WASHINGTON, D.C. Sept. 26, 2006 — -- The one-sided slugging match between former President Clinton and Fox TV newsman Chris Wallace has evolved into "he said, she said."

"He" is Clinton.

"She" is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Speaking to The New York Post, Rice took issue with Clinton's angry remarks on "Fox News Sunday," when he defended his response to the threat of al Qaeda.

Clinton said that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for his successor's team to follow.

Rice told the Post: "We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda."

That's about as direct a denial as you could get. No mealy-mouthing there.

Now, the argument has ratcheted up another notch with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton entering the fray.

She told reporters on Capitol Hill: "I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team."

Clinton was referring to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, briefing that President Bush received at his Texas ranch.

Until now, her husband's televised outburst on Sunday seemed to be a case of a former president trying vigorously to protect his legacy from even the suggestion that he was tepid in dealing with the likes of Osama bin Laden.

Political observers opined that Clinton might also have been signalling his party to defend itself equally strongly this fall against insinuations that Democrats are weak on terrorism.

Legacy or politics? Or both? What was Clinton up to?

Now, his wife is in the mix, and that tips the scales.

She is both a candidate for re-election to the Senate and a possible contender for the presidency in 2008.