...At least he did try. Why isn't the MSM asking Bush why he didn't try for the first year of his presidency?
Also, I think one sign of Clinton's greater maturity compared to Republicans is that Clinton doesn't try to blame the 1993 bombing on Bush I, the way Republicans keep trying to blame 9/11 on Clinton instead of the guy who was actually in charge.
Also http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115896507286191947
"And back in the day Republicans were so concerned about encroaching federal police power that they routinely watered down Clinton's anti-terrorism proposals...
"Yes, they cared a lot about a police state when a Democrat was in office. So much so that looking back you'd have to conclude that by their standards today they failed to properly anticipate the threat." |
|
|
Thank you for continuing to remind us in that lying, in-your-face, me-thinks-thou-doth-protest-too-much fakery. Every time your face pops up in the news memories of rape accusations, sexual abuse, impeachment, lawsuits, punitive settlements and fines, disbarment, illegal campaign contributions from the Chicoms, nuclear facilities built for the North Koreans, missile technologies sold to your Chinese donors, pardons for criminals including Marc Rich, jack-booted thugs kidnapping Elian and the Waco holocaust pop up all around you. Keep it up, if you still can. There's your legacy! |
|
Even as a conservative I'm afraid to admit that Snapdigger made some good points though some of the rhetoric is just rhetoric.
The Repubs have also let us down.
I think it is time that we all knock the heads of both parties together and stop the politics and start the defense of our country.
I blame them both of blaming and attacking each other instead of kicking the arse's of the Terrorists. |
|
|
This interview/rant is a keeper for the VCR/DVD library! Another "I did not have sex with that woman moment" that so defines this bozo. |
|
You're re-writing history. In her testimony before the 9/11 commission, Rice stated that the information they had been receiving wasn't considered anything "new" in terms of threat as the prior administration(Clinton)had been receiving "threats" throughout their tenure.
Additionally, both Michael Scheurer and Robert"Buzz"Patterson have documented that on more than 10 times Clinton had Bin Laden in their sights and chose not to act,this fact cannot be disputed.
President Bush was NOT in office for a year, they took office on January 20th(I believe) and this happened 8 months later but the administration was developing their own foreign policy plan at that point anyway. You're being disingenous to try and put ANY of this on President Bush.
Clinton is angry, along with his former administration(remember Sandy Burglar stealing documents about bin laden from the National Archives in July 2004, ask yourself why would he do that? What does Clinton have to hide?)because now the scam of their tenure is a sham and everyone is onto their game. Clinton, and his administration are ALONE on being responsible for not getting bin laden for 8 years and at least 10 opportunities.
The war in Iraq does lay at their feet as well. On many occassions Clinton, Albright, and other known Democrats made their views known about the huge danger Saddam was during the 90's and again...DID NOTHING!
Lots of people want to play this politically correct game of "with all due respect" or "let's not lay the blame"...yeah...uh...no! Say it as it is - Clinton created this mess and fortunately we have a strong President NOW who was willing to take on the problem and try to solve it rather than to try and keep putting it off, for which we would have had more terrorism attacks until we finally responded.
When you lay your head down at night you can thank your lucky stars above that President Bush is in office, concerned for your safety and your family's, and the brave soldiers who are fighting the war on terror outside of the U.S. to keep this off U.S. soil. |
|
You might find this funny. On YouTube someone posted a comment to the affect, "the last time Clinton was pointing his finger in anger like that he was lying about having sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky". It was HILARIOUS!
When you watch the clip on YouTube, in the column to the right, the very next clip is from his press conference when he was lying about having sexual "relations" with "that woman".
BTW - in Buzz Patterson's book, he breifly mentions, since he was carrying the "nuclear football" that he inquired about why that "girl" was hanging around so often and was told to "let it go". |
|
If there is factual evidence, not speculation, about Bush I being responsible for not paying attention to the potential of a problem regarding the 1993 bombing, I will be one of the 1st people blogging about him taking responsibility.
The facts so far do not point to that, but, again, if you have FACTUAL EVIDENCE of such, I'm sure we'd all like to hear/see it. No one is interested in "speculation" or "conspiracy" ideas which lend nothing to the subject. The information I listed above if FACTUAL and can be CHECKED and VERIFIED by the sources I listed. |
|
|
sorry about the confusing write. |
|
Supposedly originating with General Matthew Ridgeway, 101 ABN, prior to Normandy Invasion-"Flys spread disease, so keep yours closed."
Episode three, "Carentan".
Too bad "Slick Willie" wasn't listening. |
|
Can you imagine what would have happened if that was GWB ranting and raving and wagging his finger and (GASP!) actually touching a reporter?
I thought Clinton's eyes were about to explode out from his big fat head. Talk about thin skinned!
And it's about time a democrat gets a tough question asked of them. Republicans are always treated like suspects at a crime scene.
Also Clinton said he needed permission from the CIA and the FBI to do anything--ex-squeeze me but he was prez was he not? The criticism of him during the Lewinski brouhaha was that he did what all liberals do--just threw some half-assed window dressing at a problem and then POOF!--problem solved.
In reality if they did get UBL back then and thwarted the 9-11 attack they just would have tried something else at a later date and found another figure head with money and a big mouth to replace UBL--he's just one man.
|
|
Clinton does make some valid points, especially about how Clark was loyal to both parties. And, you know Wallace just wanted to pin 9/11 on him by asking him that question. Now, don't get me wrong: I think Bush is a saint, I thank god everyday for that man! and I want to waterboard and electrocute Clinton and all the other Democrats just as much as you. . .
|
|
The truth and facts have exposed Clinton for the failure his presidency was. So, he turned to bombast and pretense - and a heavy dose of in-your-face intimidation - to sway those who emote rather than rely upon fact, I guess.
I believe Clinton would have punched Chris Wallace in the face if he wasn't on camera. Clinton certainly and aggressively did get in Chris Wallace's face! Clinton kept poking Wallace in the leg or knee, too.
Stay away from any grassy knolls, Chris.
Woody |
|
|
There are some blogs that have transcripts from Clark's book dealying with what Clinton did NOT do . So Clinton claiming Clark vindicated him is another Clinton lie. I believe Chris Wallace is a reporter and he asked a relevant question and Clinton has proved he's the ne in need of psychological help - not Bush! |
|
|
|
|
Once again the ex-president has shown just how egotistical he really is. Clinton does not take criticism well, he thinks too much of himself to accept even the slightest barb. It's always someone elses fault, never his. I guess he will never grow up, he's a spoiled brat. |
|
If, after watching this whole interview, you can't come to the conclusion that Bill Clinton is the biggest waste of eight years, I don't know what else to say to you. It's apparent from the get go that it was all about Me (what I did, etc.). And call me silly, but did the interviewer even bring up Somalia? Nope, but that was Bill, ignoring the question to pick one issue. The comment about what Bush did about Somalia was fascinating in itself, as Bush was owner of the Rangers at the time. Perhaps he raised beer prices at the game, I don't know. We need to check on that though. Further, that is as close to a Howard Dean moment as I've seen. That needs to be played for all to see, as he's still viewed as the head of the Democratic party. That's the difference between Bush and Clinton. Bush gets called a devil and it goes ignored...Clinton gets challenged and threatens back. Makes you glad Bush is a better man.
And another thing, if I were the reporter, I probably would have had to call him on getting in my face...a little threatening and overbearing if you ask me. |
|
|
it's the "neo-cons" fault I did not catch Bin Laden! |
|
While listening I felt compelled to call in and made the statement that Clinton is Histrionic, "it's all about me" which is how he presents himself. I found it interesting that he was endorsing Clark's book so much, clearly he must feel that Clark's book vindicates him which then makes me suspect of Clark's writing.
He even made the comment himself, "...they tried for 8 months and didn't get him, I tried for 8 years..." He said it himself! Does he think that this statement is one to be proud of?!!
The man needs help. |
|
|
|