(Whoops, an earlier version of this somehow got published before I was through with it. Let's try this again.)
It's a shame that blogs weren't as popular back in the early 90's as they are now. There are tons of stories from Clinton's day that IMO got bum's rush coverage. And probably the worst case was the Middle Eastern ties to the OKC bombings.
I recall the early coverage, in which we suspected Middle Eastern involvement and we were looking for a John Doe who looked suspiciously Middle Eastern. Then that stopped abruptly and we wound up with a couple of white guys supposedly with right-wing ties.
Wasn't that convenient for Bill Clinton? He was in trouble. He didn't want to have to deal with foreign affairs, yet he might be forced into it if this were associated with Muslims. Far better that the perps should be "right-wingers" - he'd attempt to associate these with his political opponents. Next thing we know he's accusing Rush Limbaugh et al of inspiring the event.
Of course he had no evidence of this. But what evidence *did* he have?
Now I'm reading "The Third Terrorist", by Jayna Davis. I haven't read too much of it yet. But from what I've seen, Bill Clinton knew very well that he was lying when he was blaming "hate radio" for the terrorism.