Clinton Unhinged

[NEOCON1]

Originally Posted by DennisAJC

It would be interesting to see what a woman could do for the USA as President.

CONDI 08


will that work for ya

[DennisAJC]

Originally Posted by NEOCON1

CONDI 08


will that work for ya

WOW! Kill three barriers with one rock! A black gay woman president!!!!!

[NEOCON1]

Originally Posted by DennisAJC

WOW! Kill three barriers with one rock! A black gay woman president!!!!!

i only discriminate against democrats ask anyone who knows me

[f5fstop]

I only discriminate against Liberals; I have met some very conservative Democrats while living in the South.

[GeorgeSSSS]

The only thing he cares about is himself. That's why he lost it; because the question was about him. His legacy is he's a bad joke.

[HummerHippy]

Condoleezza is going to be the NFL Commissioner when she's out of the political arena.

I like Bush because I think he's a Who fan...
"There's an old saying in Tennessee ? I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee ? that says, fool me once, shame on ? shame on you. Fool me ? you can't get fooled again." ?President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by GeorgeSSSS

The only thing he cares about is himself. That's why he lost it; because the question was about him. His legacy is he's a bad joke.

Exactly. As Morris stated:

From behind the benign fa?ade and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris Wallace?s interview on Fox News Channel. There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know ? the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch. The truer the accusation, the greater the feigned indignation. Clinton jabbed his finger in Wallace?s face, poking his knee, and invading the commentator?s space.

But beyond noting the ex-president?s non-presidential style, it is important to answer his distortions and misrepresentations. His self-justifications constitute a mangling of the truth which only someone who once quibbled about what the ?definition of ?is? is? could perform. ...

Why didn?t the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden?s involvement in terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center sufficiently seriously. He never visited the site and his only public comment was to caution against ?over-reaction.? In his pre-9/11 memoirs, George Stephanopoulos confirms that he and others on the staff saw it as a ?failed bombing? and noted that it was far from topic A at the White House. Rather than the full-court press that the first terror attack on American soil deserved, Clinton let the investigation be handled by the FBI on location in New York without making it the national emergency it actually was.
In my frequent phone and personal conversations with both Clintons in 1993, there was never a mention, not one, of the World Trade Center attack. It was never a subject of presidential focus. ...

President Clinton assumes that criticism of his failure to kill bin Laden is a ?nice little conservative hit job on me.? But he has it backwards. It is not because people are right-wingers that they criticize him over the failure to prevent 9/11. It was his failure to catch bin Laden that drove them to the right wing.
The ex-president is fully justified in laying eight months of the blame for the failure to kill or catch bin Laden at the doorstep of George W. Bush. But he should candidly acknowledge that eight years of blame fall on him.
One also has to wonder when the volcanic rage beneath the surface of this would-be statesman will cool. When will the chip on his shoulder finally disappear? When will he feel sufficiently secure in his own legacy and his own skin not to boil over repeatedly in private and occasionally even in public?

[PARAGON]

It was also very curious to hear a former President continously talk about "killing" someone. He used the word "kill" in reference to Bin Laden numerous times. It's typically a word that is not used.

[MarineHawk]

A few more rants:

What bothers me most about Clinton's recent interview is the dishonesty.
To be fair and give the benefit of the doubt to everyone, few, if any, really anticipated anything on the scale of 9-11 ahead of time. It was unprecedented. I could give some credit to Clinton, if he would just say that:

Our perspective changed after 9-11. After the attacks, everything changed. Before then, we just saw Al Qaeda as a potentially harmful nuisance – not a serious national security threat. Just like the Nazis and Japanese in the 1930’s – we didn’t really wake up until Pearl Harbor.

Whether or not we should expect more perceptiveness and aggressive responses to such materializing threats from our leaders (we should), I could basically buy that defense. Instead, Clinton simply lies by trying to change history by ludicrously claiming that he made strong efforts to kill Bin Laden and Bush didn’t. It’s a lie. Why can’t he, for once, just make an honest defense?

Further, the focus NOW should be on what we’re facing NOW. I, for one, would choose to invade Iraq again if we could go back in time to March 2003. I still believe it was the right thing to do. Of course, I’d do some things differently, with all the benefit of hindsight, but that can be said of any war we have fought (we made countless blunders in the European theatre during WWII and still won).

The bottom line is that we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq now, and it’s probably the best place to fight them (e.g., the Brits just killed the Al Qaeda leader of S.E. Asia – instead of plotting and causing death and injury of Americans and others in S.E. Asia, he’s lying dead in Iraq). As the more-fully released excerpts of the recently-leaked intelligence report confirm (and it’s obvious to anyone with any awareness of what’s going on), if we win in Iraq and permit the emergence of a stable, moderate regime there, Al Qaeda is screwed. If we retreat, they will be emboldened. We Americans (and hopefully our allies) should commit ourselves to “winning.” We’ve never come close to losing a war when we have really tried to do so. Retreat or “exit strategy” will cause us tremendous heartache in the years to come. Bickering about how we got here doesn't really help either.

That is all.

[DennisAJC]

Originally Posted by HummerHippy

Condoleezza is going to be the NFL Commissioner when she's out of the political arena.

I like Bush because I think he's a Who fan...
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

OMFG!!!! I remember that one. Like watching a train wreck. Even Canadians knew that saying.

[DennisAJC]

Originally Posted by Mrs.ssippi

I thought you liked Bush?!?!?!

I like Bush. He's a cool kick ass President. But I do believe Clinton did a better job at running the country.

[NewHummerGuy]

Originally Posted by DennisAJC

I like Bush. He's a cool kick ass President. But I do believe Clinton did a better job at running the country.

That to is open for debate. He was a charismatic president who was well liked. But one needs to remember that during his tenure is when the countries finances went completely out of whack.

Companies were screwing the public and their employees left and right with accounting fraud. Enron and MCI happened under Clintons watch. No one blamed him for this. Rather they blamed Bush. Bush came into a complete and utter nightmare when his presidency started. A ticking time bomb. Take the enron and mci bankruptcies and sprinkle on 9/11.....I am surprised he didnt call Gore and go "hey buddy, i think the votes were miscounted. You want the job??"....

I know I would have.

And today the country I feel as a whole is running along strong with more accurate economic indicators than the false ones which were running rampant during the 90's.

[MarineHawk]

I hate to pile on, but this one is brutal:

The Unartful Dodger
Bill Clinton's Sunday-show rant.

By Ed Morrow

The spark to Clinton’s rant was a question Wallace said many of his viewers had e-mailed him to ask the ex-president. After the airing of the ABC docudrama The Path to 9/11, it was the obvious question of the moment and Clinton should have expected it. “Why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?” In response, Clinton went nova, spinning a strange conspiracy theory. It’s hard to follow his logic but it appears to go like this: Wallace was giving him a hard time because Fox boss Rupert Murdoch was about to support Clinton’s global-warming campaign and Fox’s viewers would be annoyed. To placate these fanatical right-wingers, who, we must suppose, are all pro-global warming, an ambush of Clinton was plotted by Wallace and Fox big wigs. This plotting presumably excluded Murdoch, the biggest wig at Fox, because he could have avoided offending Fox viewers by not supporting Clinton’s cause in the first place. As with a lot of paranoid reasoning, the gaps in logic don’t have to be closed for the paranoid thinker to reach his conclusion. In this case, that conclusion was that Wallace was part of a “serious disinformation campaign” meant to blame Clinton for 9/11.

Clinton could have simply said I did X, Y, and Z to get bin Laden and al Qaeda, then the questioning would have moved on to other matters, but the former president is accustomed to the most gentle media treatment. As Wallace noted in the Washington Post after the incident, he was surprised that no other television interviewer had already asked Clinton the question during Clinton’s recent round of interviews conducted as part of his publicity campaign for the Clinton Global Initiative. No one at CNN, CBS, MSNBC, or anywhere else asked him anything so rude. They were more apt to ask, “Do you get angry when your critics unfairly attack you?” Or “Why do you think your critics want to destroy America and kill all the puppies and kittens?”

Instead of a calm, presidential answer, Clinton lashed out at Wallace. Among other things, he said, “You’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever.” This criticism was undercut by Clinton’s own smirking and I’m-so-smart insinuation that he had Wallace’s plan all figured out. “So you did Fox’s bidding on this show,” he said. “You did your nice little conservative hit job on me.” He leaned into Wallace’s face and wagged the same finger he wagged back when — well, you remember when. He then employed it to angrily poke the notes Wallace had on his knee. He even contemptuously accused Wallace of intending “to move your bones.” I suspect he meant to employ the gangland euphemism, “making your bones,” for a mobster committing a murder in order to be initiated into the mafia. The Sopranos may be a hit show but being compared to a hitman is still pretty insulting.

Clinton asserted, “There is not a living soul in the world who … was paying any attention to it or even knew terrorists associated with al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of ’93.” Clinton seems to have forgotten that al Qaeda was identified as the group behind the February 1993 attack on the World Trade Center that killed six while injuring over a thousand. Later, Clinton’s national-security adviser Anthony Lake was quoted as saying that it was after this attack that he first heard the name Osama bin Laden. He said he then briefed Clinton about bin Laden. Rep. Bill McCollum (R., Fla), chairman of the House Taskforce on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare wrote several letters to Clinton, beginning in 1993, warning him about bin Laden. Apparently, both these gentlemen are zombies, bereft of living souls.

In 1993, Clinton downplayed the WTC bombing, treating it as a law-enforcement issue and not an act of war. He was so intent on minimizing what might be seen as a failure that, when he visited New York City shortly after the attack, he didn’t even bother to stop by the blast site. If no one was “paying any attention” to al Qaeda, Clinton was doing the opposite of alerting them.

In the interview, Clinton used rhetorical devices he has often employed. These included:

The declaration that he had tried to do something while others hadn’t and that he’d been ridiculed for trying;

The claim that he had a “plan,” here to destroy bin Laden and al Qaeda that would have worked perfectly if others had only been wise enough to do what he told them to do;

The invocation of how hard he had worked on the problem and how this was more than anyone else did or is now doing;

The announcement that he wasn’t going to criticize Bush followed by a savage criticism;

Shifting the blame to others, here the “entire military,” the CIA, and the FBI, for not giving him the go ahead to get bin Laden;

Playing fast with numbers, such as claiming Bush had “three times as much time to deal with it [bin Laden and al Qaeda]”;

And the flat statement that if he were still president (serving his fourth term?), he would be doing so much better than Bush.

These are all rather tiresome, simple-minded devices that, if employed by any other politician not so favored by the media, would provoke parodies. Are we to feel sorry for him because he worked hard but ineffectually and with horrific consequences? Wasn’t he the boss of the entire military, the CIA, and the FBI? Weren’t they supposed to jump when he yelled “Frog?” How does eight months become three times greater than eight years? And what was that “comprehensive anti-terror strategy” he left behind in the White House? Can we see a copy? Probably not. Clinton’s own national-security adviser Sandy Berger told the 9/11 Commission “there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect.” Lest, this be thought the product of a mistaken Berger, Richard Clarke, the man Clinton invoked over and over as an authority, said the same thing to reporters in 2002: “There was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.”

When all the drek angrily spewed by Clinton is reviewed, one question remains. It’s the question that set Clinton off. “Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?” Since, Clinton didn’t answer, let’s speculate. The kindest explanation and the one I suspect most Americans, even conservatives who detest Clinton, might accept is that very few anticipated that terrorists could mount an attack as sanguinary as 9/11 and the warnings were believed to be warnings of lesser dangers. Clinton didn’t take terrorism as seriously as he should have but Bush didn’t reverse Clinton’s policy soon enough. Unfortunately, there is another explanation that Clinton’s defensive fury suggests. From 1993 on, he was warned over and over that bad things were going to happen. He could have done something proactive but was afraid to spoil his presidency by going to war. Taking action, such as an invasion of Afghanistan to dislodge al Qaeda, would be difficult and filled with political danger. There would be flag-draped coffins of young soldiers and grieving family members blaming Clinton for their losses. There’d be civilian casualties that would also be denounced as his fault. There’d be reverses in the struggle and mistakes made. The fight might expand to other nations, like Iraq. His popularity polls would plunge. The media would question the struggle. They would stop giving him positive coverage and start exposing his faults. There would be peace demonstrations, such as those Clinton had participated in during the Vietnam War, which would mock him and compare him to Hitler. Movie stars would roll their eyes and comics would tell jokes about how stupid he was. Foreigners would tut-tut at his simple-minded, “cowboy” foreign policy that used war instead of diplomacy to defend America. Clinton wouldn’t have enjoyed any of that at all. He would remember that Lyndon Johnson was a liberal hero till he went to war. Better to kick the can down the road, hope nothing too bad would happen, and let some other president take the heat.

I prefer the first explanation because I don’t want to think an American president would be so self-indulgent. I’d like to think Clinton is just dodging responsibility as he has in other matters but the defensive anger Clinton displayed and his twisting of the truth when questioned about his actions makes me wonder.

[ROX]

Let's not forget, under Clinton, Janet Reno sent Special Ops guys to Miami to get that one little Cuban Refugee boy and send him back.

Oh and Waco, and Ruby Ridge. Clinton was not a great leader.

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

I hate to pile on, but this one is brutal:

Truth is brutal sometimes

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by PARAGON

Truth is brutal sometimes

I guess that depends on what you mean when you use the word "is."

[HummerHippy]

Originally Posted by PARAGON

It was also very curious to hear a former President continously talk about "killing" someone. He used the word "kill" in reference to Bin Laden numerous times. It's typically a word that is not used.

Yea, that was a little freaky huh?

[HummerHippy]

Originally Posted by H2 Rocks

Let's not forget, under Clinton, Janet Reno sent Special Ops guys to Miami to get that one little Cuban Refugee boy and send him back.

Oh and Waco, and Ruby Ridge. Clinton was not a great leader.

Who can deny the right of a father to get his child back? Are we the world police and dictate what culture has the right to raise its own children and what culture does not?

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by H2 Rocks

Let's not forget, under Clinton, Janet Reno sent Special Ops guys to Miami to get that one little Cuban Refugee boy and send him back.

Oh and Waco, and Ruby Ridge. Clinton was not a great leader.

Worst of all: He permitted the sale of intercontinental nuclear missile technology that helped the Chinese to develop ICMBs aimed at middle America. Clinton did this after he was asked in writing to do so by big Democrat campaign donors heading defense contractors standing to make money off the deals.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=30294

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by HummerHippy

Are we the world police and dictate what culture has the right to raise its own children and what culture does not?

Yes.