Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Bill Clinton Fights Back
Posted by: Dale Franks on Sunday, September 24, 2006

The Democratic national Committee praises President Clinton for his edgy response to Chris Wallace during the FoXNews interview where he was asked why the Clinton Administration didn't get Osama bin Laden.
In an interview with Fox News televised this morning, President Bill Clinton fought back against the right wing misinformation and smear campaign and stood up for the truth. He set the facts straight on his record fighting the war on terror. He also stood up against Fox News' propaganda, inquiring about the lack of tough questions being posed to the current administration.
Well, OK, but this really isn't rocket science. President Clinton had 8 years to capture or bump off Osama bin Laden. Despite being focused on terrorism "like a laser beam", he didn't do it. That's the bottom line.

Now, if the Democrats wanna say that's because OBL is a wily SOB, and they couldn't get it done, then, fine. But that means that George W. Bush gets a pass on that subject, too. On the other hand, if the argument is that Mr. Bush's failure to do so is a case of rank incompetence, then I think you have to re-evaluate Mr. Clinton's performance in that light as well. Either OBL is so devious that getting him is more a matter of luck than skill, or the political leaders we've had are just too timid or stupid to make it happen. One or the other.

You don't get to have it both ways.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
One or the other? Might be a little from column A, a little from column B. I don’t doubt that both Clinton and Bush have desired to get Bin Laden, but it’s also possible that their desire has been derailed by incompetence from others involved (bad decision making, bad intelligence, bad tactics, etc.).

Clinton sure seems to take any negative directed toward his legacy quite personally. I don’t see this as "purple faced rage", as Drudge is touting it, but he was obviously angry.
 
Written By: Joab
URL: http://joabsblog.blogspot.com
President Clinton had 8 years to capture or bump off Osama bin Laden....

Actually, OBL was not officially indicted by Federal Grand Jury until November 4, 1998. So technically, Clinton only had 3 years. That’s still less than Bush’s 5 years.
 
Written By: Jay
URL: http://
I think Bush gets a slight pass.

Here’s my rationale. The US had an opportunity to act after the terrorist incidents (WTC ’93, Cole, ...). There’s a certain window in which you can respond and be actually responding. Especially if you want the world to co-operate or at least stand back. After a certain time you are acting offhand or pre-emptively. Not that those are invalid, but was the country (or the world) really ready for us to make a major military op into Afghanistan before 9/11.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
There are major differences that makes Bush’s failure to catch OBL a much more of an issue than Clinton’s.

Clinton never went on national television and declared that OBL was wanted "Dead or Alive".
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/bush.powell.terrorism/

Beyond that, while it would have been great for Clinton to get bin Laden, you cannot argue that he had the same level of support in going after him. Bush had the whole f’ing western world backing him on finding bin Laden. That meant we could invade Afganistan in force. (It wasn’t until Bush stopped looking for OBL to invade Iraq that we lost the world’s support.) There is no way such an invasion would have even been remotely tolerated if Clinton (or anyone) did it before 9/11. (The R’s would have banged the "distraction from Lewinski" drum even louder than they already were.) And regarding the Cole Bombing, there is no way we could have used that as justification to stage a ground invasion

So, in summary:
A) Bush louldy proclaimed that finding bin Laden was a top priority
B) Bush had WAY more power to actually go after him

Yeah, it would have been great it Clinton had gotten him. But trying to equate Clinton’s not catching of bin Laden with Bush’s not catching total and complete f’ing bullsh!t.
 
Written By: Tito
URL: http://
Uh, yeah, but see: ’Clinton never went on national television and declared that OBL was wanted "Dead or Alive’" that statement kinda underscores Clinton’s less than seriousness on the issue. Don’t you think?
"Bush had WAY more power to actually go after him"

Yeah, that’s because Clinton was only Commander in Chief Monday thru Thurs., sometimes on Sundays. There was a temp the other days. What the hell are you talking about, Tito?
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
Bush had the whole f’ing western world backing him on finding bin Laden. That meant we could invade Afganistan in force. (It wasn’t until Bush stopped looking for OBL to invade Iraq that we lost the world’s support.)
Oh, brother, is this for real? No one stopped looking for OBL because of Iraq. The US military can operate on many different fronts and chew gum effectively while doing so! Funny, but I thought the world lost support for Iraq because we were gonna steal their oil or something like that. But maybe you are right. I mean, the antiwar left and right — Code Pink, Answer, Chomskyites, Deaniacs, Libertarian Party — are just so consumed with catching Bin Laden.
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
Clinton continued to roll his sleeves up to do his job during Lewinsky by sending cruise missiles in attempts to kill bin Laden. What did the conservatives say then? Remember "wag the dog"? Now, apparently they’re implying he didn’t wag enough.

In other words, hypocritical, dishonest baloney.

The tools aka intelluctually-starved neocons who spend most of their time making excuses for W’s incompetence. Considering how clueless a simpleton W is, it’s fairly obvious folks who denigrate Clinton don’t care about the facts and just like to believe and perpetuate their neocon fantasies as it burn down the world all around us.
 
Written By: theo
URL: http://rationecon.blogspot.com
sending cruise missiles in attempts to kill bin Laden. What did the conservatives say then?
Most supported the attack. A few accused Clinton of trying to distract away from the scandal. They were criticized by the GOP.
don’t care about the facts and just like to believe
Err...which one of us provided evidence?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
I do believe that the media had been relaxed for the Bush administration. When have they been asked about their action following the Cole bombing and the confirmation that AlQueada was involved? What was their action with regard to the 6-August PDB? How do they justify demoting Clarke and no longer having his participation at the cabinet level meetings?

Clinton has a point that Bush and his administration have been spared having to address these issues in a public way.

I think that one also must contrast the very different national mindset before and after the 9/11 attacks. Simply, aggressive actions adopted by the Bush administration against Al Queda and most certainly Iraq would have met much more resistance without the 9/11 backdrop.

Bush has had immense resources and power granted to him and his administration since 9/11 as well. Bin Laden has been "Wanted Dead or Alive" along with "hardly think about him."

The point is every presidency — especially when parties change — has to clean house and take stock of the situation they inherited from the past administration.

Likely the Clinton administration made mistakes. But, the real question is how the Bush administration worked to change the policies of Clinton with regard to Bin Laden, Al Queada, and terrorism in general in a tangible way.

I cannot see that any strong initiatives with regard to terrorism were put into place by the Bush administration prior to 9/11.

So, the Bush White House is reactive, not pro-active in that regard.

Finally, Bush was president when 9/11 ocurred — Bill Clinton was not.

 
Written By: sdk
URL: http://
Anybody that claims that Iraq somehow distracted the US military or Intel services from getting Bin Laden obviously knows nothing of the military or the capabilites of our other intel services. The country that fought a world war on two fronts against much more hostile and dangerous enemies in WWII has become incapable of fighting a low-intensity conflict against non-existant militaries while pursuing a terrorist leader (and sucessfully beheading the leadership of his group) clandestinely?

I’ve got a bridge to sell you, Mr. Lib.

"Clinton continued to roll his sleeves up to do his job during Lewinsky by sending cruise missiles in attempts to kill bin Laden."

Doing the hard work of blowing up powdered milk factories, slashing the military budget and not killing Bin Laden when he had several chances while getting hummers in the Oval Office?

No wonder Bin Laden survived as long as he did.

Courtesy of GWB and Co., he’s now forced to spend his remaining months of his life on the run, in caves and hideouts, with a target on his head.

Your comment is laughable.

"intelluctually-starved neocons who spend most of their time making excuses for W’s incompetence. Considering how clueless a simpleton W is, it’s fairly obvious folks who denigrate Clinton don’t care about the facts and just like to believe and perpetuate their neocon fantasies as it burn down the world all around us."

Easy there, leftwingnut! You’re flying off the handle like a certain ineffective ex-President did this weekend after being asked a single question about his past ineffectiveness. Clinton and his sycophants are one and the same, apparently.
 
Written By: Good Lt
URL: http://www.aredphishhead.blogspot.com
"Finally, Bush was president when 9/11 ocurred — Bill Clinton was not. "

And Clinton was President during WTC Bombing #1, the Khobar Towers bombing, the US Embassy bombings, the Cole attack, etc.

He wasn’t even reactive. He was inactive. What’s yer point here?
 
Written By: Good Lt
URL: http://www.aredphishhead.blogspot.com
If Bush had caught UBL, he’d been accused of "narrowly focusing on revenge instead of pursuing the larger war on terror". There’s really no way to win. Clinton’s own sound bite saying he let UBL go because there was no reason to hold him, just so completely obliterates his current ravings about how he did so much to kill the SOB. It’s the most suspisciously underplayed clip in history—still unheard by the vast majority of Americans—or anyone who doesn’t listen to talk radio. If a rebublican president had said those words on tape it would play on a constant loop on CNN.
 
Written By: sdfsf
URL: http://
I blame Bush’s father for not getting him when he had a chance. Come to think of it Reagan too. And I guess in fairness, Carter dropped the ball as well. In fact, OBL was born in 1957 which means that Eisenhower had 3 years to go after him and failed miserably.
 
Written By: whalt
URL: http://
hmmm, let’s see, what was the administration doing before 9/11 about terrorism.

Well, they were devising a plan to deal with it in a comprehensive way.

Why did they "demote" Clarke? Hmm, could it be his job performance?
the Khobar Towers bombing, the US Embassy bombings, the Cole attack
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://
Either OBL is so devious that getting him is more a matter of luck than skill, or the political leaders we’ve had are just too timid or stupid to make it happen. One or the other.
Either OBL is smarter than both Presidents or both Presidents are dumber than OBL. Take your pick.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
Oh, but Tito, don’t you see that 9/11 changed nothing? I mean yeah, it changed everything so that we could pass all sorts of anti-liberty laws and such, but it must have changed absolutely nothing when it came to presidents having the domestic or foreign political backing for their actions. Bill Clinton had all of the advantages that George W. Bush had, every opportunity to politicize a national tragedy for the sake of his own preexisting policies, a congress controlled by his own party, etc. When it suits neo-neanderthals to say so, we must assume that the two operated in absolutely equal environments. Consistency and honesty are for losers.

Ouch. I think I hurt something by writing such baloney even as satire. I just cannot imagine what kind of person makes a steady and serious diet of it, but I do know they earn no place in a serious civic debate by doing so.
 
Written By: Platypus
URL: http://pl.atyp.us
inquiring about the lack of tough questions being posed to the current administration.
Has he actually seen a Bush press conference?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
If you notice he pounds his finger on Chris Wallace chair while he is saying I tried to KILL OBL. Let research the ex President Clinton archives for finger pounding events, "I did not sleep with that intern" pound pound pound.

President Clinton has always known the sound bite is more powerful than the record (Truth) in his circle of friends, so why stop now. Step into the lair of the beast , pop the monster in the eye and then a quick retreat with a heroes homecoming.

President Clinton meet President Fillmore. You are going to be sharing space on the library shelves for eternity
 
Written By: coaster
URL: http://
Theo says:
Clinton... sen[t] cruise missiles in attempts to kill bin Laden. What did the conservatives say then? Remember "wag the dog"?
[...]
it’s fairly obvious folks who denigrate Clinton don’t care about the facts and just like to believe and perpetuate their... fantasies...
[...]
In other words, hypocritical, dishonest baloney.
From an AP story August 21, 1998:
"I think the president did exactly the right thing," House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said of the bombing attacks. "By doing this we’re sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists."
[...]
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) called the attacks "appropriate and just," and House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said "the American people stand united in the face of terrorism."
So Theo, just who is it who doesnt care for facts?
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
"Actually, OBL was not officially indicted by Federal Grand Jury until November 4, 1998."

But when was he put on Clinton’s little list of those who won’t be missed?
************

"I cannot see that any strong initiatives with regard to terrorism were put into place by the Bush administration prior to 9/11."

And if you look at the first year of the Clinton administration, you will see that nothing much was accomplished there, either. The first year or so of any administration is preoccupied with nominations, appointments, and getting their act together. It took, for example, months for the Clinton administration to get George Stefanopoulos(?) a reliable razor.

***************

" Doing the hard work of blowing up powdered milk factories,"

You don’t actually believe that bit of Iraqi propaganda, do you?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Wow, imagine that, people that don’t like Clinton believe he did a bad job and people that don’t like Bush think he did a bad job.

Empirically, I think one would have to admit that Clinton had a better grasp of the threat. While Clinton named Islamic terrorism and specifically UBL as the greatest to US national security, and passed this determination on to the Bush administration, the Bush administration clearly lowered the priority of dealing with this threat.

I read the back and forth on Richard Clark, some suggesting that he was demoted because he was not doing a good job, but this is clearly sophistry, as the anti-terrorism group was removed from cabinet level priority. Obviously if they believed terrorism were a priority, but that Richard Clark was not the best guy to lead anti-terror efforts, they would have replaced him and maintained a cabinet level priority.

The Republican Party lost me between 1996 and 1998 because they were failing to do their job and instead had a laserlike focus on impeaching Clinton.

Imagine if the Republican party at THAT time were as focused on protecting America as they were on that blue dress?

This is not partisanship talking, though clearly I am supporting the Democrats now, but when I became disgusted with the Republican party it had nothing to do with favor for Democrats or especially Bill Clinton. I voted against Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 and only in retrospect did I decide that Clinton was a competent executive. But even when Clinton was not my choice to be President, I was disgusted to see my Republican Party focusing all of their efforts on reversing the results of a national election and ignoring their real responsibilities.

And now to George Bush... Imagine if these Republicans in Congress wanted GWB out, the articles of impeachment would be far more susbstantial than those charged against Clinton. I’ll post one suggestion of impeachment articles and we could debate the charges all day, but that they are more substantial than the charges against Clinton is beyond debate. (I am not recommending Bush’s impeachment, just pointing out hypocrisy) The truth is that even if these charges are true, I do not want our government admitting it officially as it would open a Pandora’s Box of negative unintended consequences across the globe and here at home. But if just ONE of these items is true, it is more substantial and significant than lying under oath about consensual sex.
ARTICLE 1.
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has conspired to exceed his constitutional authority to wage war, in that:
On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush invaded the sovereign country of Iraq in direct defiance of the United Nations Security Council. This constitutes a violation of Chapter 1, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter and a violation of Principal VI of the Nuremberg Charter. According to Article VI of the United States Constitution "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;". George W. Bush has thus acted in violation of the supreme Law of the Land by the following acts:

Invading Iraq with United States military forces.
Sacrificing the lives of thousands of American troops.
Killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and conscripts.
Rejecting possibilities for peaceful resolution of the conflict by rejecting acts of compliance by Saddam Hussein with the United Nations Resolutions, and ignoring the findings by Hans Blix that inspections were working to disarm Iraq.
Violating the Geneva Convention by abducting and transporting human beings to prisons in foreign countries where they can be tortured and subjected to inhumane treatment.
Article II
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has subverted the principles of democracy, by the following acts:
Providing misinformation to the United Nations Security Council, Congress, and the American people overstating the offensive capabilities of Iraq, including weapons of mass destruction, as justification for military action against Iraq.
Repeatedly manipulating the sentiments of the American people by erroneously linking Iraq with the terrorist attacks of September 11th by Al-Qaeda.
Repeatedly claiming that satellite photos of sites in Iraq depicted factories for weapons of mass destruction in contradiction with the results of ground inspections by United Nations teams.
Stating that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" in his State of the Union Address after being told by the CIA that this was untrue and that the supporting documents were forged.
Influencing, manipulating and distorting intelligence related to Iraq with the intention of using that intelligence to support his goal of invading Iraq.
Repeatedly ordering the NSA to place illegal wiretaps on American citizens without a court order from FISA.
Retaliating against whistle-blowers who try to point out errors in statements made by President Bush.
Directing millions of dollars in government funds to companies associated with White House officials in no-bid contracts that pose serious conflicts of interest. One example is Halliburton, of which Richard Cheney was once CEO.
Article III
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has threatened the security of the American people, by the following acts:
Diverting military resources from pursuing known terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden who have repeatedly attacked the United States of America.
Generating ill will among the peoples of the world with an offensive and aggressive foreign policy.
Weakening the effects of International Law by defying the United Nations thus encouraging other nations to violate International law by example.
Diverting the National Guard to foreign wars where they are unavailable to serve the needs of American citizens at home who, for example, are suffering from Hurricane Katrina.
Appointing unqualified personnel to critical government positions as political favors where their incompetence places American citizens at risk. An example being the appointment of Mike Brown as head of FEMA.
Proposing military strategies involving the first use of tactical or low yield nuclear weapons in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, which is an inherently destabilizing strategy that encourages participants in a conflict to strike before the other side can do so.
Wherefore, George Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
There’s some good ones in THAT list Captin....Laughable, good ones.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
When America is attacked on 9/11, Liberals reaction:

"Why do they hate us"
"War isn’t the answer"

When Clinton is attacked over 9/11, Liberals finally spring into a ferocious defense against their enemies.

I rest my case.

Thank you.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
There’s some good ones in THAT list Captin....Laughable, good ones.
I agree, some are pure crap. But then there are the others...

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
When America is attacked on 9/11, Liberals reaction:

"Why do they hate us"
"War isn’t the answer"

When Clinton is attacked over 9/11, Liberals finally spring into a ferocious defense against their enemies.

I rest my case.
Do you have any factual basis for your assertion, or did you just like it way it sounded when Karl Rove said it?
Oct. 10, 2001 — Americans are putting a brave face on the uncertainties of war, voicing record levels of support for the president; endorsing further, broader military action; and even expressing majority confidence that the nation could deal with a chemical or biological attack.


George W. Bush’s job approval rating soared to 92 percent in this poll, the highest on record in ABCNEWS polls, and Gallup polls before them, dating to the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Seventy-six percent approve "strongly" of Bush’s performance.
While jitters exist, their intensity has eased. Thirty-six percent express a "great deal" of worry about more major terrorist attacks — but that’s down from 49 percent the night of Sept. 11. Thirty-seven percent express high-level anxiety specifically about a biological or chemical attack.

While high-level concern has moderated, people aren’t in denial: Eight in 10 do express worry about more attacks, if not necessarily a "great deal" of worry. But that has not increased lately. Despite the airstrikes on Afghanistan and news coverage of two cases of anthrax exposure in Florida, the public is keeping reasonably cool.
Seems to me that your assertion applied to possibly 8% of Americans. If when you say liberals, you mean that fringe, fine, but the vast majority of AMERICAN liberals are not opposed to the use of force and in fact supported our invasion of Afghanistan. Contradicting your smoke blowing assertion that liberals were asking, "Why do they hate us" and/or "War isn’t the answer".

You want to take another swag at it and see if you come up with an actual argument? Or do you just want to keep posting RNC taking points?

Cap


 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
Contradicting your smoke blowing assertion that liberals were asking, "Why do they hate us" and/or "War isn’t the answer".
So that never happened? Down the memory hole it goes I suppose...I must’ve hit a nerve to make you take time out from writing fantasy impeachment charges...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Seems to me that your assertion applied to possibly 8% of Americans. If when you say liberals, you mean that fringe, fine, but the vast majority of AMERICAN liberals are not opposed to the use of force and in fact supported our invasion of Afghanistan.

Well the LEADERSHIP of the movement certainly didn’t or did you miss Walzer’s article in Dissent?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Frankly, I begin with the proposition that every politician is a lying, power-hungry, self-serving creep. To that I add that not only will every politician cheerfully do anything necessary in pursuit of power, they will equally do anything possible to attack and undermine their domestic opposition. In other words, neither set of labelled politicians gets a moral pass.

So we come to issues, or really sets of issues, and on that, the Republicans generally align more with my political views than the Democrats, though it’s hardly an across-the-board case. I don’t trust either party, though, to carry out their rhetoric, and with few exceptions, they haven’t done so. So that leaves me generally unable to point to declared agendas as reasons to vote for one or the other party.

I normally vote in a sort of hierarchy of determinations, with the candidate’s personal character being first, declared positions second, and so on down the line. But lately I’ve been thinking strategically about voting: if the political control is necessarily going to be split between Republicans and Democrats, and if neither can be trusted, perhaps the best way to handle things is to have the Republicans in control of the Executive and Senate, and the Democrats in control of the House.

But after reading those proposed articles of impeachment, and recognizing what a silly circus we will have — in the midst of a war, no less — with the Democrats having any power at the national level at all, I am now determined to avoid any action that would allow a Democrat into office, including voting for a third-party or write-in candidate. I will absolutely vote Republican for Senate and House, unless there is some character flaw in the Republican that is so overwhelming that I cannot sully myself with voting for the Republican, in which case I will either vote third-party or write-in.

Thank you, Captain Sarcastic, for clarifying matters for me.
 
Written By: Jeff Medcalf
URL: http://www.caerdroia.org/blog
When America is attacked on 9/11, Liberals reaction:

"Why do they hate us"
"War isn’t the answer"

When Clinton is attacked over 9/11, Liberals finally spring into a ferocious defense against their enemies.

I rest my case.
Oh please Shark. "Why do they hate us" is a very legit and important question. It doesn’t imply "so we can appease them", though that’s how it is used. It is important because from there we can say "what do they want"? And "what will it take to stop them"? If we know what they want, it doesn’t mean we have to give it to them or roll over. It means that we understand them better and are able to fight them better. (e.g. if they want the destruction of Israel, then we say "alright, that’s their goal, let’s stop them".)

As for "War isn’t the answer", almost no one wat against invading Afghanistan. (Ok, I’m sure there were 1 or 2.) Pretty much everyone (including all those other nations whose support we no longer have in this "global war") was behind us on that. It wasn’t until Iraq that the divisions begain, both within and without.

And I was wrong to say "STOPPED" looking for OBL. It was hyperbole to the point of actually being incorrect. However, we did divert a large number of troops, attention, etc, away from Afghanistan to invade Iraq. This significantly reduced the ability to catch OBL and has made the situation there much worse.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14975282/site/newsweek/

And tell me again, what did invading Iraq gain us in the fight against Al-Quaeda? (Some snark, but really looking for a list we can go down point by point.)
 
Written By: Tito
URL: http://
A different take on the hysteria...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/743aibjn.asp
LET’S DO A THOUGHT experiment: Perhaps Bill Clinton, an experienced and sophisticated politician, knew what he was doing when he made big news by "losing his temper" in his interview with Chris Wallace. Perhaps Clinton’s aides knew what they were doing when they publicized the interview by providing their own transcript to a left-wing website as soon as possible Friday evening, and then pre-spun reporters late Friday and Saturday. Maybe it was just damage control. Or maybe Clinton did what he wanted to do when he indignantly defended himself, blasted the Bush administration, and attacked Fox News. What could Clinton have been seeking to accomplish? Three things.

1. Helping Democrats in 2006.

2. Helping Hillary in 2008.

3. Intimidating Critics.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://
So, basically Clinton f’ed up for setting loose ground rules.

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/networks/wallace_i_felt_as_if_a_mountain_was_coming_down_in_front_of_me__44380.asp
I was delighted to get the chance to interview former President Clinton. This was the first one-on-one sitdown he’s ever given "Fox News Sunday" during our 10 years on the air.

The groundrules were simple—15 minutes—to be divided evenly between questions about the Clinton Global Initiative and anything else I wanted to ask.

I intended to keep to the groundrules. In fact—I prepared 10 questions—5 on the CGI and 5 on other issues.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://
So Clarke was "demoted???"

I guess someone forgot to tell, umm, Mr Clarke.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015366.php
Clinton claimed that Richard Clarke had been demoted and then later said he was fired.

On page 234 of "Against All Enemies," Clarke writes:

"I had completed the review of the organizational options for homeland defense and critical infrastructure protection that Rice had asked me to conduct. There was agreement to create a separate, senior White House position for Critical Infrastructure Protection and Cyber Security, outside of the NSC Staff. Condi Rice and Steve Hadley assumed that I would continue on the NSC focusing on terrorism and asked whom I had in mind for the new job that would be created outside the NSC. I requested that I be given that assignment, to the apparent surprise of Condi Rice and Steve Hadley."

If Clarke was demoted, he requested the demotion.

Clinton also seems to imply that Clarke was "demoted" prior to 9/11. However, on page 239 of Against All Enemies, Clarke writes the following:

"Roger Cressey, my deputy at the NSC Staff, came to me in early October, after the time that I had intended to switch from the terrorism job to Critical Infrastructure Protection and Cyber Security. The switch had been delayed by September 11."

In other words, the Bush administration kept Clarke at NSC beyond the period Clarke had planned on being there.

In a footnote on page 240, Clarke makes it clear that he left the administration under his own volition:

"Cressey and I did spend over a year working on the cyber security problem, producing Bush’s National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, and then quit the Administration altogether."
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://
I guess Chris Wallace is "fair and balanced" via patterico...

http://patterico.com/2006/09/24/5187/chris-wallace-has-indeed-grilled-bush-officials-about-failing-to-get-osama-before-911/
And here is what Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:

I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?

. . . .

What do you make of his [Richard Clarke’s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?

. . . .

Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.
People can judge for themselves if he was light on Rice...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213211,00.html
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://
Keep in mind that after 9/11, OBL would be much harder to get, even though the USA would have more resources devoted to getting him. The enemy gets a vote, and I’m sure OBL redoubled his defensive measures after 9/11 and then again after Afghanistan was taken down.

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
"While Clinton named Islamic terrorism and specifically UBL as the greatest to US national security, and passed this determination on to the Bush administration, the Bush administration clearly lowered the priority of dealing with this threat."

Given Clinton’s propensity for lying, why should the Bush administration have taken their word for anything without reviewing the evidence themselves? Even with a more trustworthy predecessor, most people would want to assess the evedence themselves. And let us not forget that the Bush administration was new, and preoccupied with staffing and appointments with a hostile congress, anong other chores.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
But after reading those proposed articles of impeachment, and recognizing what a silly circus we will have — in the midst of a war, no less — with the Democrats having any power at the national level at all, I am now determined to avoid any action that would allow a Democrat into office, including voting for a third-party or write-in candidate. I will absolutely vote Republican for Senate and House, unless there is some character flaw in the Republican that is so overwhelming that I cannot sully myself with voting for the Republican, in which case I will either vote third-party or write-in.
God forbid there should be ANY oversight in our government.

Interesting that you ignored my point and chose to pretend that there is an impending impeachment should the Democrats gain power.

Also interesting that you believe that the President should be protected from POSSIBLY having to answer for his actions BECAUSE we are at war in Iraq, and it is a result of his actions that we ARE at war in Iraq.

Reminds me of the tale of the young man who killed his parents and asked for leniency because he’s an orphan.

Do you ever wonder why the consistent theme describing this administration is hubris, arrogance, authoritativeness, high-handedness, bombast, braggadocio, swagger, cockiness, egotism, smugness?

And of course, chutzpah.

The FACT is that only the REPUBLICANS have ignored their responsibilities to create a circus such as you mention, not the Democrats, and you seem to have had no difficulty in voting for them???

My opinion is that you have never had any intention of doing something as practical as electing a divided government, but liked the idea of pretending you have a reason to flee from a sensible course.

Just stay home, let the rest of us handle this one.

Cap

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider