Posted on 10/04/2001 7:15:45 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Back in August 1998, as he prepared to inform the nation that he'd lied when he said he'd never had sex with Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton was suddenly faced with a much more serious crisis. Terrorists had just killed more than 300 people in bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. So, Mr. Clinton took time out from his meetings with lawyers and spin-control specialists and declared that he was really really mad about terrorism. "No matter how long it takes . . . or where it takes us, we will pursue terrorists until the cases are solved and justice is done," Mr. Clinton declared.
Several weeks later, Mr. Clinton decided to take action sort of getting the military to fire 75 cruise missiles at suspected terrorist training camps run by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan (bin Laden escaped unharmed) and destroying the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, which the Clinton administration said was really a nerve gas factory. "But it turns out somebody goofed," William Safire of the New York Times subsequently wrote. "The plant really was making medicine, and we are now quietly paying the Sudanese compensation."
Today, more than three years and 6,000 deaths later, Americans are paying dearly for Mr. Clinton's Clouseau-like war on terrorism. And, now, in the wake of the horrific events of Sept. 11, even Clinton administration officials who were supposedly in charge of this campaign against terrorism have come out of the closet to admit they did a pretty lousy job. "Clearly, not enough was done," said Jamie Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general, to the Boston Globe. "We should have caught this. Why this happened, I don't know. Responsibilities were given out. Resources were given. Authorities existed. We should have prevented this." Mrs. Gorelick said that, even though Mr. Clinton doubled the size of the FBI's counterterrorism budget, the bureau was so slow to hire agents to fight terrorism that the money was never used.
"In hindsight, [the administration´s effort] wasn't enough, and anyone involved in policy would have to admit that," acknowledged Nancy Soderberg, a senior National Security Council aide.
Sen. John Kerry, a staunch ally of the administration, says that "it is entirely possible" that the Lewinsky scandal was "a distraction" for Mr. Clinton, which may have undermined U.S. efforts to target bin Laden's terror network. The terrifying events of Sept. 11 might have happened regardless of Mr. Clinton's legal and personal problems. But it is undoubtedly true that much of the time Mr. Clinton spent fighting to save his own political hide would have been far better spent fighting the bin Ladens of the world.
That was a brutal blow against terrorism if I have ever seen one.
Clinton declared war on terrorism...he just never fought back
So he had his opportunity for greatness, and just blew it. Maybe Monica gave him that advice
Yeah, 9/11 was all Monica's fault... or Ken Starr's fault... or the vast right wing conspiracy's fault... It was never, ever Bozo's fault. If only all those other people hadn't "distracted" him, he could've been the hero of the century.
Excuse me while I throw up my breakfast.
Yeah, it's called a TOTALLY INADEQUATE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
Here was my "lucky" guess at Reply 7:
The writer misses the essential "liberal" mind.
To the socialist, the socialist is NEVER at fault; and instead, the fault is ALWAYS external.
The "liberal" mind at work:
"'President' Clinton was pre-occupied by the personal attacks having nothing to do with his responsibilities, but which, out of his care for the American people, he took upon himself to address, thus being robbed of what otherwise would have been his attention to the nation's business."
"Clearly" the vast right-wing Taliban-Republican conspirators are to blame.
firm
committed
determined
resolute
going about the nation's business
moving foward
leading the charge
A real "President."
But when we look back, there was nobody but the Clinton Dog Pound salvating over the pieces he would toss them, and they, themselves.
Indeed.
They threw money at it.
The interest stuck, but the principal didn't.
I have heard these referred to as the Monica missiles and being the event that brought Osama a lot more followers.
Okay, I'll be the one to say it.......didn't they tell us it was just about sex?
The headline above the picture of the WTC at the moment of impact should have been :
WE KNOW WHAT 'IS' IS
I am getting real tired of posting this. Let's go over it one more time.
They are not 'socialists'. Neither are they 'progressives' or 'leftists' or liberals or any other such bullshit playnice newspeak.
They are correctly and properly referred to as hardcore, unrepentant 'neo-Stalinists'.
Everybody got it? Good.
I could REALLY use some help down here in the language war.
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.