Posted on 09/25/2006 11:27:07 AM PDT by Republican Red
Pugnacity meets impunity.
"Pugnacity meets impunity."
And, not having used a condom, can it be held responsible for the result?
Thank You this is as good as the Wallace/Clinton face off!!!
Who is responsible in that case?
Will I get banned if I say it? From his
From NRO Corner: http://corner.nationalreview.com/
Re: Michael Scheuer [Jonah Goldberg]
From a reader:
Keep in mind that he hates Richard Clarke
Just to refresh your recolletion, Scheuer was the CIA HQ Chief of the "Bin Laden" desk. He viewed Clarke as an amatuer poseur who really knew nothing of significance about counter-terrorism, and was simply an obstacle at the White House who gave Sandy Berger cover from making hard decisions.
Scheuer has always been highly critical of Clarke's book as revisionist history taking for himself many of the accolades that really belonged to the work and intuition of John O'Neill. So, to see Clinton glom onto Clarke's book as a basis to defend his performance was just too much for Scheuer to take, especially given the way O'Neill was thrown under the bus by the Clinton Administration in Yemen.
I am amazed Smith even had Schuer on in the first place. He is consistent in his blame on Clinton. You will see him less and less in the future, unfortunately. FoxNews had the actor Vince Curatola on today, who plays "Johnny Sack" on the Sopranos. He and his wife were close friends of John O'Neill, the FBI guy and Bin Laden expert, God rest his soul. Curatola said whever he and O'Neill would be out for a drink, or dinner, O'Neill would rail on about how "I tell them to get bin Laden, but HE won't listen", or
"I can't get HIM to do a damned thing about Bin Laden", etc. Curatola said in every single case the "HE" O'Neill was angry about was BILL CLINTON. Needless to say the Hillary staffer on the panel was not pleased, and tried toi quickly divert the conversation to Richard Clarke.
I've listened to both sides of the 'Clinton got mad on purpose' argument and after watching the video many times, I do not think this was planned at all.
Oh, I think Clinton had planned to make some stronger points about HIS "obsession" to kill bin Ladin, but I really believe that he let his inner insecurity take over his mouth.
He seemed to almost rise out of his inner space when he turned purple. And I think Clinton knows instinctively that political independants in the US almost never accept a politician leaning over and pointing a finger menacingly inches from a reporters face, especially one so unassuming and polite as Chris Wallace. Maybe someone like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, but not Chris Wallace.
Also consider that Clinton's 'manager' or press-agent or whatever he is was just off camera trying desparately to get Fox to stop the interview, or at least to change the subject to Clinton's effort to raise money for charity.
Bottom Line: I think Clinton went bonkers, and on the whole, will wish he never brought up the subject of his administration's (non) effort to stop terror.
Surprised a Black Screen didn't pop up?? Harry may not get invited to HilaryCare's next party!
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.