Clinton slaps down Fox, sets record straight on terrorism

Great video!


Fox responds, calls interview: “Clinton gets crazed!”

And the Free Republic (conservative rag), back in 1998, saying Clinton was “wagging the dog” (IE, trying to divert attention from Monica) when he bombed Afghanistan: … criticism/

And Richard Clark weighs in: “Terrorism considered top priority by Clinton, not by Bush”: … index.html

Some good links there Vay. I wasn’t sure how deeply people might follow them so I cut and pasted some feedback from the freerepublic website discussion board from during that time. Republicans claiming the whole affair was a Wag the Dog incident. The poignacy of alot of these comments is chilling in hindsight and goes to show stupidity in American politics cuts right and left.

Topic: White Water
Wag The Dog ! Wag the Dog! We are bombing Afganhistan


Last time it was Iraq, Now we are bombing Afghanistan and Sudan to deflect attention from Clinton’s troubles

Posted by: Wil H () *
08/20/98 13:58:32 EDT

To: Wil H
Remember, in the movie, it never actually happened.
From: Sandy ( *
08/20/98 14:00:53 EDT

To: Wil H
Not that I’m opposed to bombing terrorists–any terrorists, any time, no matter whether they are conncted to a specific event or not–but what a coincidence that he would do this on the day of Monica’s testimony.
I wonder if the WH got word that she was going to make a public statement.
From: Scott Munro ( *
08/20/98 14:01:08 EDT

To: Wil H
He set the whole damn thing up when he went to Africa. They blow up our embassies on command and Clinton gets to divert our attention away from his perverted crap. We need an investigation!
From: go star go (emailname) *
08/20/98 14:01:27 EDT

To: All
Please pray for our pilots and sailors and that this does not escacalate. This is so sad. Afgahnistan ought to be our ally.
From: Arthur Wildfire! March ( *
08/20/98 14:01:42 EDT

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Two points. One, was that the “Monica” tie he was wearing? Second, we’re not bombing Afganistan per se, but rather the headquarters of a Saudi millionaire they refuse to turn over to us.
From: R of Belesme () *
08/20/98 14:06:14 EDT

To: Wil H
No, Bill, it was supposed to be ALBANIA, not AFGHANISTAN you were supposed to bomb, don’t you remember? You didn’t read the script very well!
From: ziva ( *
08/20/98 14:06:52 EDT

To: Wil H
Low-risk targets with very little chance of retaliation or casualties for US personnel-how coincidental!! He’s banking on a “rally-around-the-flag” (and the president) response from the sheeple. Will it work?? Maybe for a short time! Sooner or later, they’ll run out of low-risk targets.
From: seeker (emailname) *
08/20/98 14:07:15 EDT

To: Wil H
It’s a sad day for America. THE POTUS IS A SOCIOPATHIC SCUMBAG.
From: Clinton’s a liar (treason@thewhitehouseis.sop) *
08/20/98 14:08:16 EDT

To: R of Belesme
I think I heard Sudan is another target (CBS)-- did I hear correctly?
Important point: Islamic extremists are Islamic first, very tight knit. I grudgingly respect their unity. This could spill over to many other countries. Our only hope is that the Islamics believe our administration was righteous in what it did. This is a litmus test of Clinton’s ability ot handle a diplomatic mess. PLEASE PRAY.
From: Arthur Wildfire! March ( *
08/20/98 14:11:15 EDT

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Clinton Orders Military Strikes
EDGARTOWN, Mass. (AP) – President Clinton said today he had ordered U.S. armed forces to strike at ``terrorist facilities’’ in Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation for the embassy bombings in Africa.

Clinton said he ordered the attacks because ``we have compelling information they were planning additional terrorist acts.’’

``Today we have struck back,’’ the president declared.

The president said the U.S. struck a terrorist base in Afghanistan and a chemical weapons facility in Sudan.

We have convincing evidence these groups played the key role in the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania,'' Clinton said. Terrorists must have no doubt that in the face of their threat, America will protect its citizens.’’

Clinton made his remarks before cutting short a family vacation on Martha’s Vineyard to return to Washington.
From: donna () *
08/20/98 14:12:16 EDT

To: Scott Munro
I’m with you. I think it’s the right move, but it’s a pretty drastic switch from Clinton’s established foreign policy on dealing with terrorists and terrorist nations: “You’d better behave yourselves, or by golly, I’ll warn you again!”
From: william clark () *
08/20/98 14:13:51 EDT

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
From: disgusted inFl ( *
08/20/98 14:14:25 EDT

To: donna
This brash act by a brash child-man is a direct threat to the security of every citizen inside our own borders for the people against whom he acted are non-forgiving and have no fear of death.
And, make no mistake, they are here!!!

By the time the helicopter gets back to D.C. we may well be witness to a reprise of 1814.
From: Old Professer (emailname) *
08/20/98 14:17:50 EDT

To: william clark
I’m all for killing terrorists, but when they first made the “National Security announcement” announcement, the first thing I thought was, “Monica’s testifying today. I wonder who he’s going to kill to distract us from that?”
That’s pretty sad.
From: Scott Munro ( *
08/20/98 14:18:40 EDT

To: seeker
FOX News has already joined in the obvious spin. They questioned whether the President should be bothered with such things as the current scandal during a “national emergency.” They even cited the “Founding Fathers” of all things! We’ve been saying he’s going to Wag the Dog, and that’s what he’s doing.
The General on right now said that these attacks are not a reaction to any specific events (like the African Embassy bombings) but an effort to protect the world and U.S. interests from this terrorist network. He said that this terrorist network as attempted to assassinate the president of Egypt and even the Pope. And recently, 3 months ago, he reiterated his “Fatwah” against the U.S.

The General just said that it should NOT be viewed simply as retaliation for recent events. It is an act of self defense.

Yeah, the Clinton self defense…

From: Spiff ( *
08/20/98 14:19:04 EDT

To: donna
“Clinton made his remarks before cutting short a family vacation on Martha’s Vineyard to return to Washington.”
Hillary probably kicked him out. Afganistan said this morning they would extradite the guy they wanted if the U.S. had any proof. Instead kliton put Americans lives at stake to show force and pretend he has leadership capabilities. He’s certified nuts.
From: 1Old Pro (( *
08/20/98 14:20:36 EDT

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
You heard it right - Sudan as well. We may have the entire Muslim/Arab world after us, but at least we can rest assured that “he did it for the children.” I guarantee we’ll hear that soon.
From: watchin ( *
08/20/98 14:21:47 EDT

To: Wil H
Stop being so cynical. This operation was planned long ago, like Monday night right after the first polls came back!
From: Henchster ( *
08/20/98 14:22:19 EDT

To: disgusted inFl
My take on the bombing has little to do with distracting the national attention away from his crisis but to allow him to get back to Washington for damage control. Note he is ending his vacation. It’s just one bomb strike.

From: mikeyd () *
08/20/98 14:23:30 EDT

To: Wil H
SEE!!! YOU DUMB A** LIBERALS. NOW HE IS PLACING YOUR PRECIOUS CHILDREN IN HARMS WAY TO SAVE HIS OWN BUTT. HIS GOING TO KILL YOUR CHILDREN. PLEASE GOD HELP US!!! I AM THE STUPID1 ----- please excuse me for yelling, but now I’m really scared of the lenghts this man is willing to go. I’m a 28 year old man with a beautiful family, may hands are shaking. nothing follows
From: stupid1 () *
08/20/98 14:24:40 EDT

To: disgusted inFl
Get this SOB out of there!!! What do we have to do??? The demoncrats have to do something NOW!!!
From: smiley ( *
08/20/98 14:24:43 EDT

To: Henchster
Cohen was asked about “Wag the Dog”. He says yada yada yada. But then again wasn’t he the one that lied about knowing about Linda Tripp’s privacy violations over at the Pentagon?
This is getting really scary. We now have the U.S. military being used for political purposes in much the same way that Clinton wanted the Secret Service to be his private guard.
From: go star go (emailname) *
08/20/98 14:26:45 EDT

To: Spiff
Chm.JCS Shelton also said even though it was bomber 7:30pm and 10pm to limit “collateral damage” READ: CIVILIAN CASUALITIES! there would be a “number” of them! These are innocents for Clinton’s reign of terror! CLinton is a terrorist!!!
From: DigR () *
08/20/98 14:28:47 EDT

To: DigR
THE man is a crazy lunatic…get him out of office…even if it’s in a straight jacket…!!!
From: spectre () *
08/20/98 14:36:54 EDT

To: All
I think there is a very good chance that this was a rigtheous act. However, how can we be sure? HOW can WE TRUST our President? I assume a car dealer is trying to fleece me. That’s why car dealers aren’t normally good candidates.
If the Islamics are too outraged, we need to get the bum out. If he doesn’t resign, he needs to be impeached. This is absurd. We have NEVER had a military leader asked if “this was wag-the-dog”. This can’t be good for foreign affairs or for our troops.
From: Arthur Wildfire! March ( *
08/20/98 14:37:44 EDT

To: go star go
Of course they didn’t get Ben Laden but they did get a couple of training sites(sand with tents)and a oil refinery in another country.Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC had the spin down before the WH put it out.She said of course they have been planning this for weeks but we couldn’t report it(BS).The Pentagon said they had been planning it for a FEW days,get you stories right guys.This is going to stop nothing now we will have to worry about every terrorist in the world.He did what we thought he would do.BUT IT WILL BE A FLOP,WATCH.
From: Big Ezy ( *
08/20/98 14:37:50 EDT

To: go star go, Sandy

We now have the U.S. military being used for political purposes in much the same way that Clinton wanted the Secret Service to be his private guard.

Precisely right. On ABC News, a reporter asked Secretary of Defense William Cohen who ordered the attack. Cohen said, “The president as Commander in Chief, ordered the attack…” The reporter asked when. Cohen said, “Within the past 24 hours.” Enough said. Madman in the White House. Repeat. MADMAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!

Thank you for posting that link Vay. Great vid!

Former President William J. Clinton* (*impeached)

Quite a guy…quite a guy…

[quote]Bill Clinton: Play It as It Lies
By Ronald A. Cass, September 25, 2006

Former President Bill Clinton, never one to let truth stand in the way of a good line, has decided to reincarnate himself as our tough, anti-terror President. The man who ran away from military service and displayed striking contempt for our armed forces has now announced that he did more - and would do more - to combat Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda than anyone else. In his view, he should be recognized as the best man to fight that enemy.

"Clinton blamed the Bush Administration for failing to stop the al-Qaeda terrorists before 9/11, saying that the Administration had eight months to get bin Laden and didn’t. That conveniently overlooks that Clinton’s Administration had eight years to do that job, with al-Qaeda using the last two of those years to plan 9/11.

"The man who was in the Soviet Union demonstrating against the American military during Vietnam, who as President left our armed forces short on so many fronts, now is - in his own 20/20 hindsight - The Defense President. Now he criticizes the Bush Administration for not doing enough, proclaims himself the champion of effective military action, and implies none too subtly that the fight against terrorism would go better if we had a Clinton in the White House instead of a Bush.

This isn’t mere spin. It’s full-scale invention."

Before anyone starts taking our most recent ex-President too seriously, let’s review the bidding. Clinton wasn’t the President who ordered the armed forces to go after bin Laden without reservation, to get him “dead or alive.” He wasn’t the one who sent thousands of troops after al-Qaeda and nations that harbor and support terrorists

Instead, President Clinton responded to attacks on our troops in Somalia by withdrawing, and responded to attacks by al-Qaeda on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya by bombing the aspirin factory of an innocent pharmaceutical firm in Sudan. He reacted to al-Qaeda’s bombing of the USS Cole by lobbing a few cruise missiles at empty tents in the desert. He turned down Sudanese offers to cooperate in tracking down and capturing bin Laden.

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded that - far from doing more than anyone to kill the brutal murderer who now is the international face of terrorism - President Clinton had flatly refused to allow the military or CIA to kill Osama bin Laden. Clinton’s instructions were that bin Laden should be taken, if at all, alive not dead. CIA officials reported that this instruction cut the chance of success in half."

“Evidence before the Commission showed that the Clinton Administration had live footage of Osama bin Laden at a camp in Afghanistan in the Fall of 2000, a year before the 9/11 attacks, but didn’t act. NBC’s Tom Brokaw, playing the tape on-air in 2004, noted rightly that this was an enormous opportunity lost. Having gotten bin Laden in your sights isn’t something to brag about if you weren’t willing to pull the trigger.”

"Clinton realizes that history’s judgments often are shaped as much by what is written in the aftermath of an event as they are by the facts of the event. The Kennedy family relentlessly spun the myth of Camelot to turn a failed presidency into the fantasy of an American Renaissance. Having long modeled himself after JFK (minus the fashionable, universally admired, classy wife), Clinton now seeks to redefine his presidency - and pave the way for his ultimate revenge: Hillary in office for “Clinton, Act Three.”

Presidents often find it hard to leave the stage. The day of Bush’s first inauguration, Clinton lingered for hours at Andrews Air Force base trying to hang on to the attention he had so enjoyed as President. He still seeks the limelight.

But desperation to be noticed after leaving office, to have the respect and affection Clinton craves, isn’t a substitute for doing the right thing when in office - any more than lies are a substitute for honesty, or indecision a suitable alternative to moral courage.

On the golf course, Bill Clinton is known for his dislike of playing his ball where it lies, scoring honestly, and taking his lumps as the rest of us duffers must. He makes his own score, always a good deal better than the real number.

Someone else should be trusted to do the scoring when it comes to Clinton’s time in office. In the history books, he deserves to be counted as the President who did not protect us against al-Qaeda, who left the impression they could attack us without penalty, whose wasted opportunities contributed to the travesty of 9/11.

Tough talk now should not be allowed to obscure that fact. Lies now should not go unanswered.

Ronald A. Cass is Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law, Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, and author of “The Rule of Law in America” (Johns Hopkins University Press). … t_lie.html[/quote]

Since it appears the knee-pads have come out of the closet, lets look at some other reviews of former President Clinton*

[quote]Bill Clinton, Bin Laden, and Hysterical Revisions
By Noel Sheppard, September 25, 2006

Last week, former president Bill Clinton took some time out of his busy dating schedule to have a not so friendly chat with Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday. Given his rabidity, Mr. Clinton might consider taking a few milligrams of Valium the next time he allows himself to face “fair and balanced” questions, assuming once wasn’t enough that is.

This wasn’t Mr. Clinton’s finest hour. In fact, it could be by far the worst performance of his career, which is saying a lot given that his acting skills were typically much more apparent than his policy-making acumen when he was in office.

"…the fireworks started as soon as Wallace brought up historically factual statements made in a new book, The Looming Tower. In it, author Lawrence Wright addressed how Osama bin Laden had indicated that when American troops pulled out of Somalia in 1993, he and his al Qaeda buddies saw this as an indication of American weakness.

Although this certainly couldn’t have been the first time he had heard this, it didn’t sit very well with Mr. Clinton, who lashed out in a fury akin to a president that had just been accused of having sexual relations with an intern:

I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much.

Republicans claimed that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden? He did too much to try to capture the infamous terrorist leader?

Do the facts support such assertions, or is this the typical Clinton modus operandi: when questioned about your own mistakes, bring up Republicans, neocons, and conservatives - the liberal equivalent of lions and tigers and bears…oh my - and how it’s all some kind of a conspiracy the complexities of which only Oliver Stone fully grasps.

Historically this line of attack has worked quite well with an adoring interviewer that buys such drivel hook, line, and sinker. However, what Mr. Clinton and his ilk seem to forget regularly is a recent invention known as the Internet. It is indeed odd the former president is unaware of this, inasmuch as his vice president created it.

Regardless, this tool - with the assistance of search engines and services such as LexisNexis - allows folks to go back in the past to accurately identify the truth. Sadly, as has often been the case with the rantings of the Clintons, their grasp of the past is as hazy as their understanding of what the word “is” means. At least that is the charitable interpretation.

Nothing but GOP support for getting bin Laden

With that in mind, a thorough LexisNexis search identified absolutely no instances of high-ranking Republicans ever suggesting that Mr. Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden, or did too much to apprehend him prior to the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000. Quite the contrary, Republicans were typically highly supportive of Clinton’s efforts in this regard.

As a little background, prior to the August 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, there is hardly any mention of bin Laden by President Clinton in American news transcripts. For the most part, the first real discussion of the terrorist leader by the former president - or by any U.S. politicians or pundits for that matter - began after these bombings, and escalated after the American retaliation in Afghanistan a few weeks later.

At the time, the former president was knee-deep in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, so much so that the press was abuzz with the possibility that Clinton had performed these attacks to distract the American people from his extracurricular activities much as in the movie Wag the Dog.

Were there high-ranking Republicans that piled on this assertion?
Hardly. As the Associated Press reported on the day of the attacks, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) said the following on August 20, 1998:

[i][b]Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing.[/b] We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do.[/i] [emphasis added]

Gingrich was not alone in his support. CNN’s Candy Crowley reported on August 21, 1998, the day after cruise missiles were sent into Afghanistan:

With law makers scattered to the four winds on August vacation, congressional offices revved up the faxes. From the Senate majority leader [Trent Lott], [i]"Despite the current controversy, [b]this Congress will vigorously support the president in full defense of America's interests throughout the world.[/b]"[/i] [emphasis added]

Crowley continued:

“[b]The United States political leadership always has and always will stand united in the face of international terrorism,[b]” said the powerful Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee [Jesse Helms]. [emphasis added]

It was vintage rally around the flag, just as they did for Ronald Reagan when he bombed Libya, for George Bush when he sent armed forces to the Gulf.

The Atanta Journal-Constitution reported the same day:

[i]"Our nation has taken action against very deadly terrorists opposed to the most basic principles of American freedom," said Sen. Paul Coverdell, a Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "[b]This action should serve as a reminder that no one is beyond the reach of American justice.[/b]"[/i] [emphasis added]

Former vice president Dan Quayle was quoted by CNN on August 23, 1998:

[i][b]I don't have a problem with the timing. You need to focus on the act itself. It was a correct act. Bill Clinton took--made a decisive decision to hit these terrorist camps. It's probably long overdue.[/b][/i] [emphasis added]

Were there some Republican detractors? Certainly. Chief amongst them was Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana:

[i]I think we fear that we may have a president that is desperately seeking to hold onto his job in the face of a firestorm of criticism and calls for him to step down.[/i]

Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) also questioned the timing at first. However, other Republicans pleaded with dissenters on their side of the aisle to get on board the operation, chief amongst them, Gingrich himself. As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Speaker felt the “Wag the Dog” comparisons were “sick”:

[i]"Anyone who saw the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, anyone who saw the coffins come home, would not ask such a question," said the House speaker, referring to the 12 Americans killed in the embassy bombings.[/i]

In fact, Gingrich did everything within his power to head off Republican criticism of these attacks as reported by the Boston Globe on August 23, 1998:

[i]Indeed, [b]Gingrich even saw to it that one of his political associates, Rich Galen, [b]sent a blast-Fax to conservative talk radio hosts urging them to lay off the president on the missile strikes, and making sure they knew of Gingrich's strong support.[/b][/i] [emphasis added]

That's the same Rich Galen, by the way, who is openly urging Republican congressional candidates to try to take political advantage of the president's sex scandal in their television advertising this fall.

Sound like Republicans were complaining about President Clinton obsessing over bin Laden? Or, does it seem that Mr. Clinton pulled this concept out of his… hat in front of Chris Wallace, and ran 99 yards with the ball, albeit in the wrong direction?

Regardless, in the end, sanity prevailed, and both Specter and Coats got on board the operation:

[i]After reviewing intelligence information collected on bin Laden, [b]Specter said: "I think the president acted properly.[/b]"[/i] [emphasis added]

As for “neocons,” one so-called high-ranking member, Richard Perle, wrote the following in an August 23, 1998, op-ed published in the Sunday Times:

[i]For the first time since taking office in 1993, the Clinton administration has responded with some measure of seriousness to an act of terror against the United States. This has undoubtedly come as a surprise to Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi terrorist believed to have been behind the bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and to the regimes in Afghanistan and Sudan who provide him with sanctuary and support.

Until now they, along with other terrorists and their state sponsors in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea, have manoeuvred, plotted, connived and killed with confidence that the United States would do little or nothing in retaliation.

[b]So Thursday's bombing is a small step in the right direction. More important, it reverses, at least for now, a weak and ineffective Clinton policy that has emboldened terrorists and confirmed that facilitating terror is without cost to the states that do it.[/b][/i] [emphasis added]

Does that sound like a “Bush neocon” claiming that Clinton was “obsessed with bin Laden” to you?

In reality, the only person that appears to have said that Clinton was fixated with the al Qaeda leader was Richard Clarke, who stated the following on CNN on March 24, 2004:

[i]Bill Clinton was obsessed with getting bin Laden. Bill Clinton ordered bin Laden assassinated. He ordered not only bin Laden assassinated but all of his lieutenants.[/i] 

Well, at least somebody felt Clinton was obsessed with Osama. But Clinton referred to Clarke quite favorably during his tirade.

Moving forward, conservative support for Clinton’s Afghanistan attacks didn’t end in the weeks that followed. On October 25, 1998, high-ranking Republican senator Orrin Hatch of Utah said the following on CNN:

[i]You've seen the great work of the FBI and the CIA in particular with regard to the Osama bin Laden matters.[/i]

Yet, maybe more curious than the delusion by Mr. Clinton that Republicans were claiming he was obsessed with bin Laden is the fact that he believes he was. After all, if Clinton had been so focused on this terrorist leader that Republicans would have thought it was over-kill, wouldn’t there be indications of this obsession in the record?

Quite the contrary, much as there is no evidence of any Republican expressing such an opinion, there is no evidence that anti-terrorism efforts were a huge focus of the Clinton administration. For instance, just five months after the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Africa, President Clinton gave a State of the Union address.

Think terrorism or the capture of bin Laden was a central focus to the supposedly obsessed former president? Hardly. In a one-hour, seventeen minute speech to the nation on January 19, 1999, this is all President Clinton had to say about such issues:

[i]As we work for peace, we must also meet threats to our nation's security, including increased danger from outlaw nations and terrorism. We will defend our security wherever we are threatened--as we did this summer when we struck at Osama bin Laden's network of terror.

The bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania reminds us again of the risks faced every day by those who represent America to the world. So let's give them the support they need, the safest possible workplaces, and the resources they must have so America can continue to lead.

We must work to keep terrorists from disrupting computer networks. We must work to prepare local communities for biological and chemical emergencies, to support research into vaccines and treatments.[/i]

Furthermore, twelve months later, even though he spoke for almost an hour and a half during his final State of the Union address on January 27, 2000, according to a Nexis-Lexis search, the name Osama bin Laden was never mentioned. This appears almost impossible to believe given revelations that very morning about a connection between the individual apprehended trying to cross the Canadian border with explosives in December and bin Laden.

So much for obsession.

Sadly, this entire incident speaks volumes about how the press have given Clinton a pass for his transgressions, and, maybe more important, the danger of such negligence. When one watches this interview, it is easy to see a man that is unused to challenging questions from the media. After all, this is the first time that Clinton agreed to be on Fox News Sunday, and, as a result, he’s become so accustomed to the softballs fed to him by folks like Tim Russert and George Stephanopoulos that he feels it’s his right to not be challenged.

Just look at some of the disdain Clinton showed for his interviewer all because he was asked a question he didn’t want to answer:

[i]You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you'd spend half the time talking about...You said you'd spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion dollars plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don't care.[/i]

Or, how about this wonderful statement by a former president:

[i]And you've got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you're so clever...[/i] 

Or this one:

[i]So you did FOX's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me.[/i]

Just imagine President Bush speaking this way to a member of the media when he is being grilled either during a press conference, or in the middle of any of his interviews since he became president. Or getting in the face of his interviewer and tapping on the host’s notepad that’s sitting on his lap.

Would this be acceptable? Not a chance. However, such was the behavior of America’s 42nd president. And, as much as he and his troops appear to be aggressively defending his actions to preserve his legacy, they have failed to recognize that such displays in front of a well-regarded member of the press will defeat their purposes no matter how much they try to rationalize them.

In the end, it’s not clear which is more surprising: Mr. Clinton once again lying to the American people and disgracing himself so, or that he didn’t realize that in his self-absorbed desire to revise history for the benefit of posterity, he was actually doing himself more harm than good.

Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and contributing writer to the Business & Media Institute. He is also contributing editor for the Media Research Center’s Noel welcomes feedback at … d_hys.html[/quote]

Political tactics from a major playa in the game…

[quote]Why Clinton “Lost His Temper”

The former president knew what he was doing.
by William Kristol, 09/25/2006 11:16:00 AM

Clinton wants to make it incorrect, or at least impolite, to criticize his record on terror. Chris Wallace stood up to him. Will others? Will his next interviewer raise the same set of questions? Will they be willing to take the criticism of being “conservative hit men” or part of the vast, Fox-centered right-wing conspiracy? Bullying and intimidation sometimes work. Clinton has used both effectively in the past. Now he wants to put out of bounds certain perfectly legitimate and straight-forward questions. Can we debate which party–based on their practice when in power–can better deal with the jihadist/terror threat? No, according to Clinton. That’s illegitimate right-wing propaganda. Whose personal reputation benefits from putting such issues out of bounds? Which political party benefits? Which 2008 presidential candidate?

Bill Clinton is a smart (and calculating) politician.

–William Kristol … 3aibjn.asp[/quote]

And a fairly good summation from SLATE

Fox in the Henhouse- Clinton’s strategic TV blowup.
By John Dickerson

** and acquitted

“Clinton sets the record straight”…

Good one! :laughing:

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]And a fairly good summation from SLATE

Fox in the Henhouse- Clinton’s strategic TV blowup.
By John Dickerson

Bush had more information than Bill Clinton did about the threat posed by Osama Bin Laden but did less about it. Your own senior ranking anti-terrorism expert said this. Even after 911 Bush was half drunk at the wheel and started a war in one too many countries. Not even Fox network’s professional obfuscators are going to be able to hide these facts forever. The neo-con movement is composed of one part liars and ninety nine parts people too stupid recognize liars. If you are still supporting Bush and his crew this far into the mess he has created the only question remaing is: Which are you?


Clinton could have known LOTS more about OBL and al Qaeda had he accepted offers from the Sudanese to take files and files on OBL and al Qaeda.

The Sudanese even offered to hand bin Laden over to the US. Clinton rejected the offer because he was worried about whether or not such might contravene US law.

That’s one of the major differences in the way the Dems and the GOP have looked at the problem of terrorism… the Dems regard the problem as a legal matter to be dealt with primarily throeugh laws and police actions, while the GOP regards terrorism as a military threat to be dealt with primarily via military means.

Had Clinton regarded OBL and terrorism as a military threat (al Qaeda had long previously declared war on the US), then he might well have accepted the Sudanese offer to take possesion of OBL.

How might that have changed future events?

When Republicans blame Clinton for the failures of Bush, you know they have no arguments left.

When Democrats blame President Bush for the failures of former President Clinton* you know they have no arguments left.

"As a Democratic presidential candidate in 1991-92, Clinton successfully fended off
nagging allegations of marital infidelity, pot smoking, and draft dodging. He was
elected President with 43 percent of the popular vote, becoming, at age 46, the
youngest President since John F. Kennedy. After his election, Clinton promised to
lead “the most ethical administration in history.”

“The Whitewater controversy would eventually spark a federal investigation of
President Clinton and the First Lady, that through a strange and remarkable series
of political maneuverings and personal failings, would ultimately lead to the first-ever
impeachment of an elected President.”

“About two hours after his acquittal, President Clinton made a brief appearance in
the White House Rose Garden and stated: ''Now that the Senate has fulfilled its
constitutional responsibility, bringing this process to a conclusion,
I want to say again to the American people how profoundly sorry I am for what I said
and did to trigger these events and the great burden they have imposed on the Congress
and on the American people.”

Mena Mena Mena…Where’s Vince?

I fail to understand why we have to jettison our principles because we’re at war with al Qaeda. Was the attack on the World Trade Center really more heinous and abominable than the attack on Pearl Harbor? Are Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden really more of a threat to the United States than Adolf Hitler and Tojo were?

I think the real reason neoconservatives want us to jettison our principles is not because it’s necessary in order to win the war with al Qaeda but because they want to expand the war into something else entirely – a clash of civilizations itself – and the only thing constraining them is our traditional principles which prohibit aggression, domination and the melding of church and state aims into a neoconservative-style theocracy.

[quote]That’s one of the major differences in the way the Dems and the GOP have looked at the problem of terrorism… the Dems regard the problem as a legal matter to be dealt with primarily throeugh laws and police actions, while the GOP regards terrorism as a military threat to be dealt with primarily via military means.

So when Clinton bombed Afganistan to get OBL (when Bush thought the Taliban was a rock band) he was using the police force. Anyway it is a legal problem. It is in Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Palestine, Syria, America, Australia, England, France, … It’s the nut jobs who see it differently. The dopes that can be roped.

I find it quite amusing people supporting either one and lambasting the ‘opposition’ when the same backers were/are funding them.
They are also buddies who vacation together.

Jon Stewart’s take: wmv

Also, add these for reference. Its old news, but interesting to read. Condi’s bubbling response in her address to congress is amusing. How could they not know? Richard Clarke laid it all out for them. They they got rid of him instead of facing the truth.

Aug 6 brief
Condi’s bumbling

I had to put my beavis/butthead avatar back up to remind some people about our (US) leadership.

OK Tiger but perhaps that is where they made their mistake.

A big difference between Clinton and Bush can be found in the last paragraph of your quote.

[quote]Thirdly, for all the attempts by his advisers to downplay the sincerity
of the Sudanese offers, the simple fact is that former President Clinton
displayed considerable courage in describing the refusal to accept
Sudan’s 1996 offer as “the biggest mistake” of his presidency.

(9) Rather than desperately trying to distance themselves from their role in
Clinton’s “biggest mistake”, his national security and foreign affairs
team should have the courage to admit that their advice to the president
was simply wrong. Those who advised him to ignore Sudan’s offers,
Albright, Berger, Pickering and Rice, are ultimately responsible for
putting their deeply questionable Sudan policy and spin before the
national security of their own country. They were all party to one of
the most serious foreign policy failures in American history. Had they
not put spin before truth the events of 11 September may well not have

How long will we wait before Bush admits that invading Iraq was the biggest mistake of his presidency I wonder?

[quote=“Fox”] [quote]That’s one of the major differences in the way the Dems and the GOP have looked at the problem of terrorism… the Dems regard the problem as a legal matter to be dealt with primarily through laws and police actions, while the GOP regards terrorism as a military threat to be dealt with primarily via military means.

So when Clinton bombed Afganistan to get OBL he was using the police force.[/quote]

No. Read my statement above again. Note the bolded text.

Well, its partly a legal problem. The difference in opinion is with respect to how much the problem is military and how much it is police.

Our enemies clearly regard the problem as a military problem. They might be nutjobs.

But, IMO, its the nutjobs at home who fail to understand that when an entity declares war on you, the problem turns from primarily a police problem to primarily a military problem.

Its the dopes who send the police to fight a war. That’s like showing up at a gun fight armed only with a knife.

Well, I guess we’ll have to wait to see whether it was in fact a mistake at all. I don’t think it was a mistake.

However, for what its worth, Bush has already admitted that there have been many mistakes made in the invasion and subsequent occupation.