WHILE CLINTON SLEPT (AND DID OTHER THINGS)

9-12-03 | DICK MORRIS

[SolutionsOnly]

Clinton cut and ran from Somolia like a coward. It only served to embolden terrorists by making us look weak - which I suppose we were with that sort of 'leadership'.

[soothsayer99]

I can name about 100 books that advocate and make arguments for eugenics. Doesn't make it true or a good idea.

You said that, "The charges against Bush are based on some event, then twisted and spun out of all recognition to truth, or lately charges are made up out of whole cloth."

I know people who could argue us both under the table who could make an excellent case otherwise. You know the drill, no WMD, no imminent threat, Halliburton, etc.

But no matter what you or I think the execs did/do wrong, shouldn't there be a more civilized way to have our concerns addressed?

What I am leading to is ... what do you think of a movement to bring the equivilent of "Prime Minister's Question Hour" to American government? That way we'd all get our concerns, suscpicions, questions, outrages and accolades out in one place where they could be addressed directly by the administration no matter what party is in power?

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Why didn't Clinton visit the site? The emphasis in his public statements and in the demeanor of New York officials in the aftermath of the attack was to avoid an "overreaction." Worried about public panic, and perhaps concerned that a presidential visit would get in the way of rescue and investigative efforts, New York officials told Clinton to stay away.

Okay, but what about afterward? President Bush let the smoke clear at Ground Zero for a few days after 9/11, but less than a week went by before he went and memorably addressed the rescue workers through a bullhorn, rallying them and reinvigorating America's sagging spirits. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, never visited the World Trade Center in the aftermath of the 1993 bombing.

Clinton didn't go to the WTC in '93, but he did go in 2001. WHY?

[soothsayer99]

Now, c'mon. Should we say Reagan "cut and ran" from Beruit? Simplistic and unfair, just like accusing Clinton of the same thing.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

...what do you think of a movement to bring the equivilent of "Prime Minister's Question Hour" to American government? That way we'd all get our concerns, suscpicions, questions, outrages and accolades out in one place where they could be addressed directly by the administration no matter what party is in power?

But, it is Parliament that questions Blair, not the public. If we let the Democrats in Congress start questioning Bush, they will never call a recess and the government will be in gridlock! :)

[Bob]

I think Bush Sr. didn't take Saddam out the first time because of fear of Democratic backlash.

Baloney. It had everything to do with the fact that the UN resolutions on the Iraq-Kuwait situation didn't authorize it. Doing anything more than liberating Kuwait from Iraqi occupation and establishing sanctions on Iraq would have been an international relations disaster.

Taking out Saddam was not an option. Had GHWB tried, the whole world would have gone nuts over his exceeding his UN authority.

[cyncooper]

I know people who could argue us both under the table who could make an excellent case otherwise. You know the drill, no WMD, no imminent threat, Halliburton, etc.

You may know people who could wield lies and "argue you under the table", but not I.

LOL

The book is as good as the documentation and witnesses it provides. I cited the number of just released books that all support the same premise. You're correct, the number doesn't indicate the fact of the matter---the documentation they provide does.

As to your last idea---I certainly enjoy watching Parliament, but I really don't think I want all the jeers and even howls of approval to be incorporated in our way of governance.

[soothsayer99]

As a New Yorker, the answer to that question is easy. The earlier WTC bombing hardly make New York stop and glance. Maybe if you watched it on TV you thought otherwise, but we're busy around here and it takes alot to get us to care about much of anything. The incredible power of 9/11 was that they got the attention of an entire city of people who don't stop any pay attention to anything.

[soothsayer99]

Just lick your chops and think of the next Democratic President your reps could grill.

[Dilbert56]

Bashing is as perennial as the grass (to quote Desiderata). Any use of the military is going to prompt criticism. Even the actions against the Taliban were protested. There is no free lunch in foreign policy, particulalry in the use of miltary force. Question is: Will you do what's right even though you're going to be criticized.

A perfect example was early in 1998. Madeleine Albright, William Cohen and Sandy Berger went to Ohio State to put forth the case that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed through the use of military force. They made, I thought, persuasive arguments. The McCains and Warners of the world were in full support. Well they were heckled by students and other attendees. The idea of going to war was now viewed as carrying too high a popularity hit and nothing was done.

That backtrack had two possible explanations:

• Saddam wasn't really a threat and these officials had been exaggerating/lying or
• Bill Clinton wouldn't address a national security threat because it would hurt his popularity.

I'd vote it was the latter case. From what we're now hearing, it appears Bill Clinton wouldn't address any national security concerns if it hurt his popularity.

IMHO "Character Counts" is too generic. It sounds like a holier than thou assertion. The real issue is whether a President uphold & defend the Constitution even when it hurts his own presidency, legacy, or chance of reelection.

[twigs]

And in another day in America, where the majority valued her institutions and freedoms, we would have executed this traitor.

[soothsayer99]

Ed is a homosexual. I just mention that for the character thing ya'll are so concerned about :>)

(I've been good as gold. Permit me one dig)

[grumple]

This article is about 95% true...Morris writes this from a standpoint that Clinton was mired in his own self inequities which prevented him politically from pursuing Saddam, Bin Laden and that really Ill guy in Korea. What a load of crap. The 95% true part relates to all the issues Morris points out in his article, but he fails miserably on the other 5%.

However, Morris misses some examples like this...Never once does he mention Clinton's pardoning of FALN T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T-S....

If Bush had pardoned former terrorists in the wake of an election, the media would be having a collective cow-gasm

I, to this day firmly believe, that Bill and Hillary Clinton are complicit in all of this terrorist activity. And there is too much information out there to think otherwise. And these people are still in our midst trying to assume power...

If Bill Clinton was mired in his own inequities as President, he would slink away and go back to Arkansas or Russia or Communist China.

Instead he continues to offer himself up as a center piece to solving America's problems by succesting we blame ourselves. These people know they are not popular.

If someone is not popular at something would they continue to subject themselves to it? No...not unless you had other plans...and those plans needed Osama, Saddam and that really Ill guy in pj's....

[spoiler2]

bttt

[soothsayer99]

Are you people serious? Clinton should have been executed as a traitor? The Clintons complicit in terrorist activity?

My goodness, I had no idea that some of you were, well, insane.

[grumple]

Do you know what complicit means?

[soothsayer99]

yes.

[duckln]

Amazing. Dick still has a little spin left. He fails, like all our 'pundits', conservatives included, to mention our getting in bed with terrorist Islamists in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Clinton's worst crime IMO, was the 78 day bombing of Serbia. Now Gen Clark, the mad General he put in charge, wants to be president.

Bush better get some smarts and support Russia in Chechnya, Serbia in the Balkans, and Israel in Palistine. I don't think we can contain the spread of the fanatics by ourselves. The UN is even on their side and NATO has been corrupted by neo atitudes of Germany and France.

[soothsayer99]

What do you mean by "neo attitudes"?

[Fawnn]

I think Bush Sr. didn't take Saddam out the first time because of fear of Democratic backlash.

That was not Bush Sr.'s decision alone. Saddad wasn't taken out because the first Gulf War was one fought by committee. It's my understanding that the huge UN coalition, but primarily Saudi Arabia, objected to going after Saddam. The coalition's objective was to get him out of Kuwait, period.