Yes, when you think about the POTUS we might have had instead...
Posted on 09/26/2006 11:12:11 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
LOOK out, Hillary - Bill is off the leash.
The gobsmacking interview with Bill Clinton on "Fox News Sunday" is the first episode of reality television starring a former president of the United States. It's why God invented YouTube.
Liberals love it, especially the Fox News Channel-bashing.
Conservatives think it proves every insulting theory they've ever devised to encompass this gargantuan American personality.
In truth, the whole performance defies reason. It was especially odd to hear Clinton complain that "Bush's neocons" faulted him for being "too obsessed with bin Laden."
Really? All I ever heard from Bush's neocons - most of whom I know, several of whom I'm closely related to, and one of whom I see anytime I look in the mirror - was dismay from 1993 onward at Clinton pulling out of Somalia, worry about his not doing more against the bombers of Khobar Towers, relief and support when he finally took action against al Qaeda in 1998 after the embassy bombings in Africa, and dismay yet again at the failure to respond to the attack on the USS Cole. Weird.
It's true there were plenty of Republicans who didn't support Clinton's more activist foreign-policy efforts, but they weren't neocons.
Clinton's unreasonable jab is just one more piece of evidence that he hadn't decided to pitch a fit for effect but was actually having a full-bore tantrum on the small screen.
It's possible this is short-term good news for Hillary's presidential bid, since the left-wing nutroots of the Democratic Party are beside themselves with glee at his performance - and Hillary needs to boost her cred with those people a bit.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Why don't they just have a duel and give us all a rest!
Don't you mean a PUBLIC duel - I reckon the private dueling has been going on for years!
Of course public .. and here's hoping they both find their target!
Next to Slick, she looks weak. He sucks the air out of any room, including hers.
Bill's tantrum, his boorishness is a reminder that neither Clinton should ever gain the White House again. Hillary's "my husband...." bit fooled no one - they were not even on the same page as to which book to read...a little like Hillary's fib about where Chelsea was when the TT's were hit. Both are serial liars and decidedly below the salt...
What suprises me is why everyone is not talking about that line. That is the biggest piece of bullsh- to ever come out of that idiots mouth. "Too obsessed with bin Laden" bwa ha ha ha! I can`t believe this guy, on the other hand I can judging by who it is. He just does not care, he will just spew the biggest lying POS story.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
"It's true there were plenty of Republicans who didn't support Clinton's more activist foreign-policy efforts, but they weren't neocons."
Now we recognize he led us to support muslims in Albania, which we now ought to be smart enough to question.
At that time most failed to see all of the worldwide tentacles of islams advance goals.
I'd love to see the following fair and balanced interview. Clinton comes back for a rematch with Chris Wallace, but with new ground rules. President Bush has to be included in the interview and, as Clinton requested, the same questions have to be asked of Bush as of Clinton.
Wallace (to Clinton): Why didn't you take Osama Bin Laden when you were offered him several times?
Wallace (to Bush): Why didn't Clinton take Osama Bin Laden when he was offered him several times?
Concise summing up of the classic Clinton strategy. And the media, no matter how tired of carrying the water every which way for them, just keeps on carrying those buckets.
About time they finally got some serious negative press from all around for this little implosion. It absolutely works against Hillary. People, and not only conservatives, are saying today that it reminds them why they wouldn't like The Clintons back in the WH.
Hillary cannot be thanking Bill. This hurts her. If I were him, I'd let other people start my cars.
Hillary is following suit too. She comes out and praises Bill for what he did. It's the same old story. No matter what happens, treat it as good news. I guess it's called spin. In my day it was called lying, and if you got caught doing it there were usually consequences.
What suprises me is why everyone is not talking about that line.
What that line really means is the following - Clinton is too obsessed with blaming Bush neocons for his own faults. Looks like we know where all Clinton's 'children' have gotten their same current mental dysfunction.
"It's possible this is short-term good news for Hillary's presidential bid, since the left-wing nutroots of the Democratic Party are beside themselves with glee at his performance - and Hillary needs to boost her cred with those people a bit."
BOOM!!!! This says it all. Welcome back to the Left Hillary.
As Ann Coulter pointed out, the only two times Clinton responded "militarily" were the day Monica testified to the grand jury (missile attacks) and the day of the House impeachment vote (Operation Desert Fox).
Two facts that cannot be disputed. Two facts that would shut both Clintons up if the MSM bothered to remind them. I'm torn on this, though. Shut them up, or let them continue down this road.
ping
With that in mind, let us examine Mr. Clinton's war on terror. Some 38 days after he was sworn in, al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center. He did not visit the twin towers that year, even though four days after the attack he was just across the Hudson River in New Jersey, talking about job training. He made no attempt to rally the public against terrorism. His only public speech on the bombing was a few paragraphs inserted into a radio address mostly devoted an economic stimulus package. Those stray paragraphs were limited to reassuring the public and thanking the rescuers, the kinds of things governors say after hurricanes. He did not even vow to bring the bombers to justice. Instead, he turned the first terrorist attack on American soil over to the FBI.
In his Fox interview, Mr. Clinton said "no one knew that al Qaeda existed" in October 1993, during the tragic events in Somalia. But his national security adviser, Tony Lake, told me that he first learned of bin Laden "sometime in 1993," when he was thought of as a terror financier. U.S. Army Capt. James Francis Yacone, a black hawk squadron commander in Somalia, later testified that radio intercepts of enemy mortar crews firing at Americans were in Arabic, not Somali, suggesting the work of bin Laden's agents (who spoke Arabic), not warlord Farah Aideed's men (who did not). CIA and DIA reports also placed al Qaeda operatives in Somalia at the time.
By the end of Mr. Clinton's first year, al Qaeda had apparently attacked twice. The attacks would continue for every one of the Clinton years.
• In 1994, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who would later plan the 9/11 attacks) launched "Operation Bojinka" to down 11 U.S. planes simultaneously over the Pacific. A sharp-eyed Filipina police officer foiled the plot. The sole American response: increased law-enforcement cooperation with the Philippines.
• In 1995, al Qaeda detonated a 220-pound car bomb outside the Office of Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and wounding 60 more. The FBI was sent in.
• In 1996, al Qaeda bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the "no-fly zones" over Iraq, killing 19. Again, the FBI responded.
• In 1997, al Qaeda consolidated its position in Afghanistan and bin Laden repeatedly declared war on the U.S. In February, bin Laden told an Arab TV network: "If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters." No response from the Clinton administration.
• In 1998, al Qaeda simultaneously bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224, including 12 U.S. diplomats. Mr. Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response. Here Mr. Clinton's critics are wrong: The president was right to retaliate when America was attacked, irrespective of the Monica Lewinsky case.
Still, "Operation Infinite Reach" was weakened by Clintonian compromise. The State Department feared that Pakistan might spot the American missiles in its air space and misinterpret it as an Indian attack. So Mr. Clinton told Gen. Joe Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to notify Pakistan's army minutes before the Tomahawks passed over Pakistan. Given Pakistan's links to jihadis at the time, it is not surprising that bin Laden was tipped off, fleeing some 45 minutes before the missiles arrived.
• In 1999, the Clinton administration disrupted al Qaeda's Millennium plots, a series of bombings stretching from Amman to Los Angeles. This shining success was mostly the work of Richard Clarke, a NSC senior director who forced agencies to work together. But the Millennium approach was shortlived. Over Mr. Clarke's objections, policy reverted to the status quo.
• In January 2000, al Qaeda tried and failed to attack the U.S.S. The Sullivans off Yemen. (Their boat sank before they could reach their target.) But in October 2000, an al Qaeda bomb ripped a hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding another 39.
When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it. After the meeting, a State Department counterterrorism official, Michael Sheehan, sought out Mr. Clarke. Both told me that they were stunned. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"
"It's why God invented YouTube."
Sometimes, it's enough to make you believe in Al Gore!
In 1950, Boston U. president Daniel Marsh said: "If the television craze continues...we are destined to have a nation of morons."
Yes, when you think about the POTUS we might have had instead...
When he said that--I was thinking, What?? What are you talking about? NO ONE ever accused him of that, IIRC. Maybe I've been living in bizarroworld, but I thought that people think he was too obsessed with dealing with Monica-gate to go after Bin Laden.
We can now add a third: the night Chris Wallace interviewed him and he poked Wallace on the leg.
LOL! Yes, thank you, Al! ;)
Great article! It inspired a new tag:
THE ABOVE MASS MURDER OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT AMERICANS WAS THE INHERITANCE/LEGACY OF 8 YEARS UNDER THE CLINTOONS.
When it comes down to it, all this really did was remind the public what a loose cannon Billy boy is. I don't think people want to see him on the front page every day as the FIRST GENTLEMAN of America. Can you imagine???
Bump!
The only threats BJ Clinton ever took seriously were (1)the threat of being caught in the act by Hillary (2)Those flying lamps and ashtrays as Hillary screamed at him (3)Monica purring, "Not tonight, Big Creep, I have a headache"
There`s was an article today in the New York Post written by the son of one of the men killed by the FALN. It is absolutely DEVASTATING to any credibility Bill Clinton claims he had on fighting terror. I`m looking for the article now to post it. Wait till you read this thing.
Here you go, read this. I`m going to see if anyone posted it yet......
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/bill_pardoned_terror_opedcolumnists_joseph_f__conner.htm
It`s a thread, somebody posted it...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1709212/posts
This article should be mailed by every freeper to Hellary and Bill, mattter of fact I`m going to do it right now and ask the Clintons to get back to me when they can explain this "concern over terror" they had.
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.