One last State of the Union note. I found this introduction to an NPR interview with a Clinton speechwriter and a Reagan speechwriter on Monday's Morning Edition on a two-term president's last SOTU a little odd:
STEVE INSKEEP, anchor: It's a moment for any president to reflect on his accomplishments, as President Clinton did in his last State of the Union in 2000.
CLINTON: Never before has our nation enjoyed at once, so much prosperity and social progress with so little internal crisis and so few external threats.
How is it that NPR plays that clip thinking that it represents Clinton's accomplishments, instead of his utter cluelessness in retrospect about the gathering storm of 9/11?
I think it's symbolic of the media's tunnel vision that Clinton is never in any way held responsible for the growth and growing confidence and daring of al-Qaeda on his watch.
It was a polite interview with both speechwriters (Clark Judge for Reagan, Terry Edmonds for Clinton), but when Inskeep asked Edmonds if it was hard for Clinton to draw attention for his last SOTU, Edmonds waxed: "I think it was never hard for President Clinton to catch people's attention because he was such a rock star president."















Comments Policy
Clinton to blame, not Bush
January 30, 2008 - 00:04 ET by jay_1975If Clinton would have actually cared about the 1993 bombing of the WTC, 9/11 could have been prevented. Because Clinton refused to acknowledge the external threat he left us open for attack. Did Bush have intel that al Qaeda wanted to attack the US? Yes. Was the intel specific enough to prevent 9/11? No. I am sick of seeing people that think that Bush could have stopped it. When you are told that some terrorists may someday attack with planes, what can you do. Before 9/11, no one would have stood for the types of security precautions we have today because of a "maybe". That being said, we were attacked in 1993 and all Clinton did was arrest those directly involved and ignore those who provided the training and direction. Then the Khobar towers, our embassies and the USS Cole were all attacked and what did Clinton do? He left us with enemies who felt that they could continue to attack without fear of response. Way to go Bubba.
Clinton's Legacy
January 30, 2008 - 00:25 ET by Tom1969caI've always said that, if Bill Clinton is a man in search of a legacy, he'll find it on the southwest corner of Church and Vesey in New York City.
It's a five-story-deep pit. You can't miss it.
~~~
The difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives believe liberals are wrong, while liberals believe conservatives are evil.
I'm not one to pound Bush,
January 30, 2008 - 02:45 ET by JerI'm not one to pound Bush, and I agree that Clinton must bear some responsibility, but they both dropped the ball on this one. The distribution of blame beween the two will be argued for generations and never resolved.
It will be a sad legacy they share together.
Jer
That's only true if you
January 30, 2008 - 09:34 ET by motherbeltIt will be a sad legacy they share together.
That's only true if you believe all of Richard Clarke's hogwash about how he tried to tell Condi Rice about bin Laden, but she looked like she "had no idea" what he was talking about. In typical Clinotnian fashion, they all sought to deflect attention from their own shortcomings. Clarke even admitted, on CNN, that Clinton didn't bomb (time after time) because he was hamstrung by the Lewinsky scandal and thought he had no credibility. That may be the absolute worst effect that his affair had on the security of this country.
Bush's "share" of the blame is that, after receiving a "threat assessment" that said "bin Laden determined to attack" he didn't use his magic vision to see that Muslim terrorists were going to fly planes into the WTC, and immediately bar all Muslim men from airplanes.
Hell, liberals wouldn't let him do that AFTER 9/11.
motherbelt...You mean the
January 30, 2008 - 09:46 ET by Jermotherbelt...You mean the CIA's August 2001 PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the U.S." to which Bush reacted by throwing more barbecues at his ranch?
As I said, both administrations dropped the ball. The difference is Clinton at least had his eye on the ball...Bush wasn't even watching.
Jer
Bush reacted by throwing
January 30, 2008 - 09:50 ET by motherbeltBush reacted by throwing more barbecues at his ranch?
Jer, that argument is unworthy of you.
It that's the best you've got, give it up.
motherbelt..maybe you
January 30, 2008 - 09:59 ET by Jermotherbelt..maybe you prefer Lame Cherry's "worthy" argument posted below. Look, I have tried to be fair and objective about the failures of both administrations with respect to confronting the growing threat of Islamic terrorism.
Are you suggesting the Bush administration is blameless?
Jer
→ Jer
January 30, 2008 - 10:06 ET by Cool ArrowI don't think there's any comparison between the Clinton Administration ignoring the cancer and the Bush Administration going for radical surgery.
♣ a seal
Cool...Clinton didn't
January 30, 2008 - 10:27 ET by JerCool...Clinton didn't ignore the cancer, but his method of treartment is open to criticism. Bush just stood by and let it aggressively metastasize for eight months, after which radical surgery was the only option.
Jer
→ Clinton's method
January 30, 2008 - 10:39 ET by Cool ArrowClinton's method of treatment was to treat each incident as separate individual acts. He knew about Al Qaeda, and their sponsorship of the 1st WTC bombing, and their declaration of war.
He treated a fire ant infestation by bringing two or three ants to trial.
♣ a seal
So we were first
January 30, 2008 - 10:52 ET by red_dragon311So we were first attacked in 1993 and were attacked at least 3 times in 7 years and Clintons "method's" are open to criticism.
Bush is being racked over the coals for not doing anything in 8 months.
so you have more faith in Bush to stomp out al Queda in 8 months then Clinton in 7 years??????
"Get off the phone you big dope!!!!!!!!!!" Mark Levin
I'm saying this: After a
January 30, 2008 - 11:12 ET by JerI'm saying this: After a slow start, Clinton recognized the threat posed by Al Quaeda and acted aggressively, but not always effectively.
Bush made a little bit of noise within the administration, but basically did zilch. The anti-terrorist Principles group--which should have begun holding regular meetings in January or at least by February, 2001--got together for the first time on September 4th, one week before the attacks.
Front Burner: Iraq and missile defense
Back Burner: Al Quaeda and terrorism
Jer
So much for your being "not
January 30, 2008 - 11:19 ET by PeskyDaneSo much for your being "not one to pound Bush..."
PeskyDane...If you want to
January 30, 2008 - 21:14 ET by JerPeskyDane...If you want to spend some time and track my previous posts, you"ll find that I have personally praised Bush far more than Clinton. I have spoken several times about my admiration for Bush, his father, indeed, his entire family. Contrast that with my recent description of the Clintons (paraphrasing) as self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing narcissists, and my criticism of his morally reprehensible, reckless, and inexcusable personal behavior while president. Maybe you also missed my intention--expressed here more than once--to vote for the Republican nominee over Hillary if she is the candidate...or my previous posts wherein I opined that Reagan was the best President in my lifetime--going back to Truman.
Does that sound like a partisan liberal ideologue to you?
Jer
Clinton recognized the
January 30, 2008 - 11:31 ET by motherbeltAfter a slow start Clinton recognized the threat posed by Al Quaeda and acted aggressively,
Slow start? That's a masterpiece of understatement!
Acted agressively??????
Surely, you jest.
(emphasis added)
"The Clinton administration failed to bomb the [al Qaeda] camps that were in Afghanistan, that we knew were there," ....... "Clinton bombed them once. The public reaction was negative to that. ... Everyone said Clinton's just bombing Afghanistan to divert attention from the Monica [Lewinsky] business, and so he didn't bomb them again.
"That was during a time when they were turning out thousands of trained terrorists. It was an assembly line."
That was from Richard Clarke...Bill Clinton's couterterrorism chief.
He was in a position to know, as he was in the Clinton administration.
People also like to ignore
January 30, 2008 - 12:32 ET by Hunter12People also like to ignore how Al Gore's efforts to steal the election in Florida (did they ever count the absentee ballots from overseas, i.e., the troops) hampered President Bush's ability to create a cabinet and replace Clinton's Intel staff. Don't forget that the people creating the PDBs were Clinton's people. Jer's cited PDB contains this quote, "Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America." Gorelick's wall between internal and external Intelligence agencies helped keep a specific connection between the 911 plotters and this piece of info being made. She should have been investigated by the 911 Commission, not seated on the panel. Another example of Clinton's ability to keep his arse covered.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Not Just Gorelick
January 30, 2008 - 18:10 ET by Del DolemonteThe Dems also snuck Hillary law friend Richard Ben-Veniste onto the 9/11 Commission. He and she worked together on the Nixon Watergate investigation.
And of course, Mr. B-V was the one who started the firestorm about the TV movie "The Road to 9/11" by complaining it was showing Slick in a bad light.
Del...The 9/11
January 30, 2008 - 22:50 ET by JerDel...The 9/11 commission--which, as you may recall was long resisted by the Bush administration--was, along with its staff, controlled by Republicans.
And complaints from Mr. B-V and others about the TV movie "The Road [Path] to 9/11" were voiced, not because its politcal slant showed "Slick in a bad light", but because there were portions of the docudrama which were flatly inaccurate.
Jer
Bush just stood
January 30, 2008 - 10:56 ET by PeskyDaneBush just stood by...
That statement is beyond stupid. Bush didn't even have his own people in place until August because of the confirmation hearings being needlessly delayed.
Well if reality lies
January 30, 2008 - 11:23 ET by JerWell if reality lies somewhere beyond stupidity, then I guess you're right.
There were plenty of anti-terrorism experts and assets already in place. Alarms were being sounded, but not adequately heeded.
Jer
And those alarms
January 30, 2008 - 12:06 ET by motherbeltAnd those "alarms which were not adequately heeded" were..............?
Jer, you have been hoist on your own petard.
If Clinton was so tuned in to the threat, why did he say, in his last SOTU address (which is where this whole discussion started)?:
Never before has our nation enjoyed at once, so much prosperity and social progress with so little internal crisis and so few external threats.
Anyone? Anyone? Jer??????
motherbelt? motherbelt? it's me...Jer
January 31, 2008 - 00:28 ET by JerRelax...motherbelt, I'm not going anywhere--actually I can't, since I'm stuck up here on my petard. I'm not even sure what a petard is [something for naughty sailors?], but it is a little painful.
[I generally try to get back..although I do think I still owe you some info on Kerry and the Swiftboaters. On the other hand, I'm still waiting for you to reply to my three separate requests weeks ago asking that you review the NYT archives containing scores of anti-Clinton editorials during his presidency. I'll give you another six months. Fair enough?] <wink>
With respect to alarms not adequately heeded by Bush, and Clinton's SOTU claim of few external threats, some thoughts and observations:
--It can be argued, I suppose, that Clinton's statement was technically correct--there were "few external threats". However, I agree that he should have alluded to at least the one major threat which did exist, i.e. the rise of Islamic terrorism. And I think he should have referred to it--and emphatically so--more often throughout his presidency.
--But the burgeoning threat was communicated privately, frequently, and forcefully by several sources to the Bush people during the transitional period of the administrations in late December, 2000 or early January, 2001. Those sources allegedly included Richard Clarke, Madeline Albright, William Cohen, Sandy Berger, and Gary Hart. The consensus view from those individuals is that Condi Rice, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and others just didn't accept the view that Al Quaeda was the developing, ominous, and imminent threat which the Clinton people believed it to be. Not that they completely dismissed it...just that they didn't attach a similar since of urgency to the issue.
--Clinton had appointed the Hart-Rudman bipartisan committee on terrorism before he left office, and its final report was released [I believe in the latter part of 2000] with some rather dire predictions. Hart has stated he virtually went door to door with the warnings, but seemed unable to generate any real concern among the Bushies.
--I earlier referred to Clarke's problems in convincing Condi Rice to take action and set up regular meetings for the anti-terrorist Principles group. He had raised the issue in January, 2001...the first meeting wasn't until September 4.
--There was an effort to get $800 million transferred from the Pentagon budget for anti-terrorism purposes but Rumsfeld blocked it.
--Bush never talked about terrorism in the campaign, and was virtually silent [puplicly] about it prior to 9/11. The Republican platform had nothing about Al Quaeda or bin Laden directed terrorism (but it did have a lot about Iraq).
--When Rice testified before a committee prior to 9/11 about the major threats faced by the U.S., she didn't even mention terrorism. Nor did Attorney General Ashcroft.
--Tenet at CIA was also sounding warnings. The intelligence chatter indicating potential terrorist attacks was virtually off the charts in the summer of 2001. But Bush apparently didn't change the security or alert levels at airports, as Clinton had done in response to even lower-grade intelligence chatter a few years before.
I don't hold Bush responsible for 9/11, although I don't believe he took the threat seriously enough...and less seriously than did Clinton. Furthermore, I thought his response to the attacks was magnificent, and I--and other Democrats (including the Clintons--rallied behind him, while simultaneously listening to the Clinton haters on talk radio say "the blood of the thousands murdered was all on Clinton's hands." It disgusted me that they would resort to cheap partisan smears in the immediate aftermath of this awful tragedy.
I have some links, which I will cite in my next post to you...whether you respond to this one or not.
Jer
Alarms? Oh, you must
January 30, 2008 - 11:43 ET by PeskyDaneAlarms? Oh, you must mean THESE alarms:
1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000.
1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel.
1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel.
1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000.
2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors.
Of course, after every "alarm" Clinton promised that "those responsibe would be hunted down and punished." Now, since some of the morons who did the first WTC bombing were still in the U.S., this was one promise he was able to keep to a degree. It also helped that the FBI was able to read the serial stamps off the axels of the van that blew up. Basic stuff, really.
As far at "hunting down and punishing," those responsible for all the other attacks which occured througout his presidency, well, those promise were kept as well, but by a different president.
motherbelt..maybe you
January 30, 2008 - 11:12 ET by motherbeltmotherbelt..maybe you prefer Lame Cherry's "worthy" argument posted below.
I didn't even read Lame Cherry's post, because I'm talking to you. Is that your answer: either agree with Lame Cherry or with you?
Again, that's not an argument.
Clinton: WTC 1993, Khobar Towers, Somalia, embassies in Africa and Tanzania, all bungled by Clinton. Where is your list of attacks that Bush ignored, or bungled the response to?
You can keep repeating, with "as I said", your contentions. They don't gain any weight with repetition.
As I said, both
January 30, 2008 - 10:27 ET by pbanks7As I said, both administrations dropped the ball. The difference is Clinton at least had his eye on the ball...Bush wasn't even watching.
Yeah, I agree. If you mean that Clinton had 5 years to deal with al qaeda and gave them lip service, and Bush had less than a month to come up with a plan, when his new CIA director hadn't even been confirmed yet, they shared responsibility - 99% Clinton, 1% Bush.
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe.
Wrong, pbanks7...Bush was
January 30, 2008 - 10:31 ET by JerWrong, pbanks7...Bush was asleep at the wheel. The actual percentages are...65% Bush, 35% Clinton.
Jer
You are staggeringly
January 30, 2008 - 10:57 ET by PeskyDaneYou are staggeringly unqualified to take part in this debate.
PeskyDane, why don't you
January 30, 2008 - 11:43 ET by JerPeskyDane, why don't you and pbanks and Pawpaw--in fact everybody on this thread whose username starts with "p"--run along and let the grownups talk this over. Or, if you prefer, just slide on down the thread a bit and marvel at yet another of Lame Cherry's masterful analyses. We should be finished by lunch.
Jer
Didn't take long for you to
January 30, 2008 - 11:49 ET by PeskyDaneDidn't take long for you to resort to a personal attack, did it? LOL. You are truly uninformed on this subject.
Sure, PeskyDane...after you
January 30, 2008 - 21:36 ET by JerSure, PeskyDane...after you call my comment "beyond stupid" and then that I am "staggeringly unqualified" to take part in the debate, I make a slightly dismissive suggestion to run along and let the grownups talk.
And yet you accuse me of resorting to personal attacks. Here's a bulletin for you...I never resort to personal attacks unless directly provoked, and even then they are pretty mild compared to much of the verbiage that gets tossed around here. That said, I do apologize for and withdraw the "grownup" quip.
Jer
Alright, Jer... We'll
January 31, 2008 - 09:57 ET by PeskyDaneAlright, Jer... We'll call it Pax. I did not call you stupid, I will admit that I called your assertion stupid - hard not to since its in writting. We'll just havc to agree to dissagree on the ratio of culpability between Bush/Clinton. I did read all your posts on this thread, and yes, nothing is served by attempting to pigeon hole you.
Also - your re-cap of the Hart-Rudman committee obviously shows that you know how to research a subject, even though we may interpret the events and results differently - so I'll withdraw my earlier assertions of you being uninformed.
Thanks, PeskyDane...and
January 31, 2008 - 15:52 ET by JerThanks, PeskyDane...and I'll continue to work on becoming better informed. <wink>
Later, Jer
If Clinton would have been
January 30, 2008 - 11:05 ET by Hero SquadIf Clinton would have been on the ball as you said, then none of this would've happened, and coming up with some phantom percentages of blame would be an unnecessary pursuit.
But I agree that Bush bears some responsibility; he should've been more aware of Clinton's weak "ball-handling ability" on matters of national and international security. Clinton spent too much time trying to be liked and looking for ways to create a more favorable legacy.
I think that in a pre-9/11 world, being able to predict when, where and how an attack within our borders was going to occur is a difficult thing for any administration.
The fight should've been taken away from our borders long before Clinton left office.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
I'll gladly debate with
January 30, 2008 - 12:37 ET by JerI'll gladly debate with anyone whose tagline quotes one of my two favorite conservative intellects. [Buckley, of course, the other.]
The fight should've been taken away from our borders long before Clinton left office.
I don't disagree, but it would have required a level of public and political support which was simply unavailable and unattainable during Clinton's presidency,
Remember, this was a Commander-In-Chief who faced enormous ridicule for attempting to blow bin Laden to bits with cruise missiles. Andrew Sullivan later [but before 9/11] wrote in The New Republic that the attack would most likely be viewed as the single most imprudent action taken by Clinton in the foreign policy arena during his entire time in office. Just think if he had tried to pre-emptively invade Afghanistan. The Republicans would have been tripping over each other racing to file more articles of impeachment.
In fact, I have read comments by a foreign policy expert in either Reagan's or Bush 41's administration who gave Clinton generally high marks in international affairs except that he thought Clinton was too focused on terrorism. [I know you will want a link for that, so I'll try to find it for you.]
But you are correct, Hero Squad, 9/11 presented a clear line of demarcation and caused a seismic change in the thinking of nearly all Americans, including George W. Bush. He had campaigned against the whole notion of nation-building, but became a staunch advocate after 9/11.
But, I'm not exonerating Clinton by any means--it was his own reckless conduct that created an atmosphere where almost any action he took would be viewed with cynicism. Of course, I also have problems with an extraordinarily hostile Repulican congress which seemed to be afflicted with an almost monomaniacal "get Clinton" mentality. [Those dynamics are the major reason I can't fathom the Clintons being back in the White House, unless invited--not elected.]
Anyway, I will be back later this afternoon, and hopefully have that link and maybe others for you.
Jer
Jer, Since you can take
January 30, 2008 - 13:24 ET by Hunter12Jer, Since you can take broad generalizations about what might happen and divine actual events, e.g. "Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America." = 911, I've decided to make you rich.
"In 2008, some stocks will increase in value."
Hint: It won't be NYT.
Spend your new found wealth in good conscience.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Since Jer has taken his
January 30, 2008 - 13:43 ET by Hunter12Since Jer has taken his feeble arguments and slunk away, with the promise of non-existent documentation for them upon his return, I thought it might be fun to revisit Bill's attempts to rewrite history:
"Compare and contrast Clinton. Questioned mildly on his anti-terrorism record by Fox's Chris Wallace on Sunday, President Me went absolutely medieval on the newsman, leaning forward threateningly, rapping his fingers against Wallace's notes and proceeding to, well, lie — and in a very angry voice too!
"And you got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever," Clinton told Wallace, sounding for all the world like a 6-year-old girl scolding her playground rival. He then proceeded to try to rewrite his coulda-woulda-shoulda presidency by claiming to have had a much more focused and hard-lined approach to terrorism than any reading of his administration can support. Even Clinton counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke's book — which Clinton cited repeatedly during his tantrum — shows the president as too weak to order Osama bin Laden's death. Other accounts are much less favorable."
Jer's expert, who said Bill was too focused on terrorism, turns out to be Bill.
"And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough said I did too much — same people."
-- Former President William Jefferson Clinton, September 24th, 2006
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
ROFL!!!!!
January 30, 2008 - 14:10 ET by motherbeltBill Clinton as the "expert" on Bill Clinton....now there's a reliable source!! LOL
They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office.
This is just jaw-dropping.
How on earth would he have any idea what meetings the Bush Administration had, on bin Laden or anything else??????
SWAG
January 30, 2008 - 15:04 ET by Hunter12"How on earth would he have any idea what meetings the Bush Administration had, on bin Laden or anything else??????"
Probably Clarke or Tenet reporting back, as ordered.
Out to Lunch, for a few.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
How...
January 30, 2008 - 14:11 ET by Del Dolemonte"Remember, this was a Commander-In-Chief who faced enormous ridicule for attempting to blow bin Laden to bits with cruise missiles"
Well, he also had chances to take him out using guns. He passed.
If Bush had tried to prevent the 9/11 attacks from happening, the Democrats would have impeached him. See my comment below.
Jer, you have BDS caused by your love of "BJ"C
January 30, 2008 - 11:10 ET by PawpawNJer, you have BDS caused by your love of "BJ"C and wanting it all to be like it was in the 90's[which were like the love fest of the 60's]! You bring nuthin', yes nuthin', to this table!!
Ball dropped 90 out of 100 feet by BJC, Bush couldn't stop last
January 30, 2008 - 11:08 ET by PawpawNBall dropped 90 out of 100 feet by "BJ"C, Bush couldn't stop last 10 feet and I dare say anyone could have with the block in sharing of info. You ever try to stop a car out of control for 90 feet when you have only 10 feet left!
Excellent metaphor.
January 30, 2008 - 11:50 ET by PeskyDaneExcellent metaphor.
Clinton could not see the external threats
January 30, 2008 - 00:26 ET by Lame CherryBecause he was burning all those terrorist babies in Waco, blowing the brains out of that terrorist mother at Ruby Ridge and let us not forget about GIVING Tim McViegh and his control Terry Nichols from FBI sources bomb making material.
Why worry about al Qaeda, giving Putin the Sunburn missile and the Chicoms our nuclear codes when that dangerous Rush Limbaugh is talking on the radio.
There were just too many dangerous people inside America for Bill and Hillary to see terrorists outside of America. Lest we forget the Janet Reno memo which stated that Christians who believed in the Second Coming of Christ were enemies of the Clinton state.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
I can only hope there is a
January 30, 2008 - 09:16 ET by JerI can only hope there is a collective cringe by the NewsBusters editors every time you spew your hallucinatory bile.
Jer
Jer, I can only hope that
January 30, 2008 - 11:22 ET by PeskyDaneJer, I can only hope that one day you take the time to inform yourself. Stop getting all your news from the Daily Show.
PeskyDane...Wrong again.
January 30, 2008 - 12:40 ET by JerPeskyDane...Wrong again. I have never watched a single episode of the Daily Show. I mostly watch Fox News.
Jer
Jer, Jer, Jer...
January 30, 2008 - 19:18 ET by PeskyDaneAgain? You have yet to prove me wrong a first time, pal. If you truly watched FNC, then you might be a little more informed and have a command of the facts that rises above a grade school level. Since I had to do this thing called work all day, I was unable to check back earlier.
I realize that it's getting late and you have to have give the computer time cool down before mom gets home, but feel free to show us how brilliant you are tomorrow.
Sorry, Wrong
January 30, 2008 - 14:07 ET by Del DolemonteRuby Ridge happened in August of 1992, 3 months before Clinton was elected.
Absolutely chilling. It's
January 30, 2008 - 00:55 ET by Chris NormanAbsolutely chilling. It's too bad that it's way too politically incorrect to superimpose those smug, hubristic words over a picture of the WTC. BTW, what if Bush had uttered those same words?
But, but...
January 30, 2008 - 00:58 ET by sherlock1But if there were no serious external threats, how come Bill made such a big deal about the importance of killing OBL when his people briefed Bush's people? How come Bill told us just recently that "at least we tried"? Did those cruise missiles actually wipe out OBL after all, Bill? Then who was that bragging about 9-11 on video if it wasn't OBL? And didn't Bush ignore dozens of warnings from the Clinton people? That is certainly what I recall hearing on NPR in the months after 9-11. Now NPR is telling me that Clinton was not faced with any serious external threats???
Gosh, I'm confused... it's almost like they think they can say one thing to make Bush look bad and then exactly the opposite to make Bubba look good after a year or so, and assume we won't remember! What's with that?
Bill Clinton
January 30, 2008 - 01:21 ET by well99Always seem to have his head up
http://www.wimp.com/ass/
Social progress
January 30, 2008 - 02:30 ET by KC MulvilleIt's also a little hard to swallow him talking about social progress, he who was so willing to play the race card.
KC
January 30, 2008 - 14:52 ET by well99You must remember he filled key cabinet positions with minoritys.There was Madeline Dimlight and well someone else I am sure.
The unmitigated gall of
January 30, 2008 - 02:32 ET by Gary P JacksonThe unmitigated gall of these people. And you and I are paying for this mess! And what's even sadder, the nimrods that listen to this crap are just stupid enough to fall for it.
Now I know what the Germans experienced just prior and during WWII! Man this is sickening!
Bill Clinton, asleep at the
January 30, 2008 - 04:15 ET by mastersofdeceitBill Clinton, asleep at the wheel.
Let's face it
January 30, 2008 - 08:17 ET by c5thenClinton was so preoccupied with staying out of jail and preventing mutli-million dollar law suites against him in his last couple of years, not to mention trying not to be impeached, that The Taliban and Al Qaeda could have invaded Maxico and set up an Islamist totalitarian regime there and he would not have noticed.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
"How is it that NPR plays
January 30, 2008 - 10:13 ET by mattm"How is it that NPR plays that clip thinking that it represents Clinton's accomplishments, instead of his utter cluelessness...?"
Because they're a bunch of idiots.
Simple Fact
January 30, 2008 - 14:04 ET by Del DolemonteHow, exactly, could Bush have "prevented" 9/11? Let's look at the possiblities.
1. The so-called "20th hijacker" was arrested a month or so before the attacks. Bush could have waterboarded him to get the plot.
2. The 9//11 hijackers could have been racially profiled and never have been allowed to board their planes. In fact, one of the people at the Jetport in Portland, where Atta and his crony flew via a connecting flight to Boston that morning, almost did prevent them from boarding. But of course he bowed to political correctness and let them on.
Face it, if Bush had tried either of those things, the screams of outrage from the Dems would make their crying over Floriduh 2000 look like a murmur.
I once read a great satirical piece theorizing how Bush was impeached for preventing 9/11. Wish I could find it online, but Google is hiding it. The impeachment trial took place at Windows on the World.
What If?
January 30, 2008 - 15:19 ET by Tom1969caHere ya go:
http://www.tfproject...
~~~
The difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives believe liberals are wrong, while liberals believe conservatives are evil.
That's It!
January 30, 2008 - 15:30 ET by Del DolemonteMany thanks.
That was
January 30, 2008 - 15:38 ET by Hero SquadThat was fantastic!
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
Alternate Scenario
January 30, 2008 - 15:33 ET by Tom1969caFrom the same page:
Either way, Bush can't win. He's been damned by what happened, but he would've been damned by doing the only things that could've prevented 9/11.
~~~
The difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives believe liberals are wrong, while liberals believe conservatives are evil.
Yeah, There Were 2 of These
January 30, 2008 - 18:04 ET by Del DolemonteI had forgotten there were two of these. This may have been the one I was originally thinking of.