Patterico's Pontifications

9/24/2006

Chris Wallace Has Indeed Grilled A Bush Official About Failing to Get Osama Before 9/11

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 4:56 pm



In an interview aired on Fox News Sunday today, Chris Wallace asked Bill Clinton why he hadn’t done more to get Osama bin Laden. Clinton’s furious answer lasted several minutes, and included finger-wagging reminiscent of Clinton’s angry declaration that he had not had sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.

According to Clinton, this was all a right-wing hatchet job, and Wallace had never asked similar questions of Bush officials:

So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you[r] nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..

WALLACE: Now wait a minute sir…

CLINTON:..

WALLACE: I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked why didn’t you do anything about the Cole. I want to know how many you asked why did you fire Dick Clarke.

Wallace replied that such questions had been asked. Clinton replied: “I don’t believe you asked them that.”

I believe he did.

In 2004, Wallace asked almost the exact same question of Donald Rumsfeld that he asked Clinton today.

Here’s what Wallace asked Clinton today:

[H]indsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

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.

Like Clinton, Think Progress shifts the argument to specific questions about the U.S.S. Cole, in order to argue that Clinton is correct:

Neither Chris Wallace, nor his predecessor, Tony Snow ever asked anyone in the Bush administration why they failed to respond to the bombing of the USS Cole, according to a Lexis-Nexis database search.

That may technically be true. If you simply plug the terms “U.S.S. Cole” and “Fox News Sunday” into a Nexis search engine, it may well be the case that Bush officials were not asked specifically about the response to the Cole. But that wasn’t Wallace’s question. Wallace had simply mentioned the Cole as part of a detailed question about terror acts that occurred on Clinton’s watch, culminating in a question asking why Clinton hadn’t done more — the same question Wallace asked Rumsfeld in 2004.

Clinton’s charge that Wallace hasn’t asked these sorts of questions of Bush officials is false.

More in the extended entry.

[Extended entry.]

P.S. Clinton said today:

They had eight months to try and they didn’t….. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke.

Let me remind you what Dick Clarke once said about what Clinton left behind, and whether the Bush Administration tried to do anything in eight months:

[T]here was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Now, Clarke did say that there was a “strategy” in place, if not a “plan” — and in the spring of 2001, Bush ordered a review and some changes to the strategy, which had essentially been stale since October 1998. Fox’s Jim Angle summed it up this way, and Clarke agreed:

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you’re saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of ’98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That’s right.

Of course, Clarke said some different things after his book came out . . . but Clarke has a habit of changing his story. Which brings us to the next point:

P.P.S. Clinton today repeatedly touted Dick Clarke’s book as the final word on what really happened. In Wallace’s interview of Rumsfeld, Wallace noted “apparent contradictions in [Clarke’s] story” — an obvious thing to bring up because, indeed, there were numerous contradictions. Clarke has serious credibility issues, as I have explained before, many, many times. As these links show, Clarke has elaborated his claims of Bush’s fixation on Iraq. He has at times claimed that he approved the request for bin Laden family members to be flown out of the country, and at other times that he denied the request.

P.P.P.S. Why didn’t Fox News Sunday ask Bush officials why Clarke was fired? Gee, could it be because he wasn’t?

This piece, which is very supportive of Clarke, takes issue with an assertion by Dick Cheney that Clarke was moved out of counterterrorism:

[Clarke] wasn’t “moved out”; he transferred, at his own request, out of frustration with being cut out of the action on broad terrorism policy, to a new NSC office dealing with cyberterrorism. Second, he did so after 9/11. (He left government altogether in February 2003.)

Clarke was not fired; he was, in effect, demoted. When Bush took over, Clarke retained his title as “National Coordinator on Counter-terrorism” but Condi Rice demoted the position. After 9/11, Clarke requested a transfer out of frustration, and later left government and wrote a book, which contained bitter recriminations against Bush — and whose stories were elaborated and dressed up by Clarke as he hit the talk-show circuit.

So I’m left a bit baffled why Clinton thinks Clarke was “fired.” And it’s clear why Fox News Sunday never asked a Bush official why Clarke was “fired” — he wasn’t.

UPDATE: Thanks to Instapundit, Power Line, Michelle Malkin, Allah, and others for linking this. I hope new readers will bookmark this site’s main page and/or subscribe via Bloglines:

Subscribe with Bloglines

Reading Allah I found this tidbit from Tammy Bruce showing that Clinton was wrong about whether Osama’s Al Qaeda had anything to do with our soldiers’ deaths in Mogadishu.

UPDATE x2: A commenter notes that my original title, which referenced grilling of “Bush Officials,” was an overstatement. Perhaps he has, but I haven’t proven that. I have altered it to read that Wallace grilled “A Bush Official.”

223 Responses to “Chris Wallace Has Indeed Grilled A Bush Official About Failing to Get Osama Before 9/11”

  1. […] Update: Patterico discovers, contrary to Clinton’s belief, that Chris Wallace has asked these questions of Bush administration officials. So “conservative hit job” really is Clintonspeak for “tough but fair.” Surprise. […]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Clinton vs. Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” Update: Wallace asked Rumsfeld same question in ‘04 (d4224a)

  2. shifts the argument

    Shifted it to… “I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked why didn’t you do anything about the Cole. I want to know how many you asked why did you fire Dick Clarke.”

    shifty indeed.

    actus (10527e)

  3. shifty indeed.

    It depends on what your definition of shifty is.

    mano (9676ec)

  4. Patterico

    Check out Jeff Harrell’s take on a tidbit that has slipped attention

    But one little aspect of the interview left me surprised, confused and concerned.

    When Wallace asked President Clinton what he did during his two terms about Osama bin Laden, Clinton replied, “What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him.”

    If true, this is a very troubling statement. Because you see, during President Clinton’s term in office, ordering the CIA to kill Osama bin Laden would have been an overt violation of U.S. law.

    Whoa.

    Darleen (03346c)

  5. There is only one explaination for such a visceral and defensive reaction from Clinton…he is guilty as sin and he knows it.

    CharlieDontSurf (998caf)

  6. On Bill Clinton: “I felt like a mountain was coming down in front of me” … Updated…

    Have you had more about Bill Clinton’s meltdown, childishness and finger pointing than you can stand at this point? I have had no respect for Bill Clinton since the first time I saw him as the person tapped to introduce Michael Dukakis at the 1988 Dem…

    Squiggler (72c8fd)

  7. Gee, y’mean Biily-bob’s a lying schnook? Whoda thunkit?

    mojo (de518f)

  8. Look guys, Clinton is nothing if he isn’t a supreme narcissist, everything focuses on him no matter what. He fits the description of an actor as offered by Marlon Brando: “An actor is somebody that if you’re not talking about him, he ain’t listening.” And that’s Clinton—only in his case he thinks you are ALWAYS talking about him. He agreed to that interview because he cannot resist a spotlight. And he wants to be the author of his legacy, without anybody filling in the facts.

    Howard Veit (28df94)

  9. Not to mention all the helpful stuff the Clinton staffers left behind.

    Like keyboards without the letter ‘W’, for instance.

    Birkel (477f8a)

  10. […] Patterico found it, of course. (I really, really would not go up against him in court.) Clinton's Fox News Sunday appearance that is generating so damn many spilled pixels and barrels of ink included a number of interesting things. Including this one: In an interview aired on Fox News Sunday today, Chris Wallace asked Bill Clinton why he hadn’t done more to get Osama bin Laden. Clinton’s furious answer lasted several minutes, and included finger-wagging reminiscent of Clinton’s angry declaration that he had not had sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. […]

    Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » First Outright Lie Caught (a177fd)

  11. I think, now, when Bob Kerrey said that Clinton is “an incredibly good liar” (or preternaturally or whatever superlative he used), he meant that Clinton lies easily, not well. His lies are not especiatlly believable,but he does obsfucate well, which is hardly the same. He is good, as many lawyers are, not at telling an outright lie but at making the lie difficult to ferret out. Thus, “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

    His physical reaction to being caught out it telling, indeed.

    JorgXMcKie (4068d7)

  12. Clinton Goes Off on Chris Wallace…

    When I saw the interview it was all I do to not throw something at the TV, but since I’m not yet ready to get a new one I valiantly restrained myself. Mainly I was mad because I was sure…

    Sneakeasy's Joint (72c8fd)

  13. Like keyboards without the letter ‘W’, for instance.

    Indeed a promising beggining to the W presidency.

    actus (10527e)

  14. Bravo, Darleen, Comment #4. He’s probably lying about it, in any case. I have always thought him a borderline sociopath and pathological liar. To what extent do these creatures come to believe their lies?

    nk (bfc26a)

  15. […] Patterico discovers, contrary to Clinton’s belief, that Chris Wallace has asked these questions of Bush administration officials. So “conservative hit job” really is Clintonspeak for “tough but fair.” Surprise. […]

    Right Voices » Blog Archive » “I remember a lot of criticisms of Clinton, but the criticism that he was ‘too obsessed’ with bin Laden isn’t one of them.” (1466f5)

  16. Here’s Sandy Berger’s testimony to the 9/11 commission:

    http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/hearings/911hearing-trans-sept19b.htm

    BERGER: Now, the second question you asked — which comes off of the “Time” magazine story, I think — was there a plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition? I could address that.

    The transition, as you will recall, was condensed by virtue of the election in November. I was very focused on using the time that we had — I had been on the other side of a transition with General Scowcroft in 1992. But we used that time very efficiently to convey to my successor the most important information — what was going on and what situations they faced.

    Number one among those was terrorism and Al Qaida. And I told that to my successor. She has acknowledged that publicly, so I’m not violating any private conversation. We briefed them fully on what we were doing — on what else was under consideration and what the threat was. I personally attended part of that briefing to emphasize how important that was.

    But there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect.

    Ursus (aaff98)

  17. Once again, actus pounces laser-like on the key substance of the discussion.

    Or not.

    Robin Roberts (56a273)

  18. Very weak Patterico. You found one example in several dozen instances where Wallace asked Rumsfeld three questions. Good for you, but don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back. If I was in the jury box hearing your arguments, I’d have to laugh. Fox is all about covering Bush’s ass. Your one exception just proves the rule.

    As to all the mind readers posting on your blog, I wonder if they would just sit back, grin and bear it if they felt they had been wrongly accused on national television of being responsible for the deaths of three thousand people. According to them they would, because if they vociferously defended themselves, they would be “admitting” guilt or “trying to hide something” or some other such nonsense.

    Why don’t you put those research skills to work and find one example of something Bush did Jan – Sept. 2001 vis a vis terrorism? If you want this juror to buy your case, prove Clinton wrong on the substance. Good luck. I’ll check back in a couple of days to read your post admitting you couldn’t find one example of anything meaningful Bush did.

    Thanks,
    johnny

    big johnny (6b8dd0)

  19. Actually, that’s a bit of a gray area. Right in the 9/11 Commission report it talks about how Berger and the NSC had White House lawyers review whether it was “legal” to kill bin Laden. And they concluded that yes, it was legal. If they could take him out with a missile, why wasn’t covert action sanctioned? He was not a head of state:

    **********

    Senior legal advisers in the Clinton administration agreed that, under the law of armed conflict, killing a person who posed an imminent threat to the United States was an act of self-defense, not an assassination. As former National Security Adviser Berger explained, if we wanted to kill Bin Ladin with cruise missiles, why would we not want to kill him with covert action? Clarke’s recollection is the same.

    But if the policymakers believed their intent was clear, every CIA official interviewed on this topic by the Commission, from DCI Tenet to the official who actually briefed the agents in the field, told us they heard a different message. What the United States would let the military do is quite different, Tenet said, from the rules that govern covert action by the CIA. CIA senior managers, operators, and lawyers uniformly said that they read the relevant authorities signed by President Clinton as instructing them to try to capture Bin Ladin, except in the defined contingency. They believed that the only acceptable context for killing Bin Ladin was a credible capture operation.

    “We always talked about how much easier it would have been to kill him,” a former chief of the UBL Station said.

    **********

    I’ve posted on this a million times.

    But the far more interesting quote is from the head of the CIA’s bin Laden Unit (click my name for related post if you’re interested, otherwise feel free to ignore):

    Mr. Clarke, of course, was at the center of Mr. Clinton’s advisers, who resolutely refused to order the CIA to kill bin Laden. In spring 1998, I briefed Mr. Clarke and senior CIA, Department of Defense and FBI officers on a plan to kidnap bin Laden. Mr. Clarke’s reaction was that “it was just a thinly disguised attempt to assassinate bin Laden.” I replied that if he wanted bin Laden dead, we could do the job quickly. Mr. Clarke’s response was that the president did not want bin Laden assassinated, and that we had no authority to do so.

    Mr. Clarke’s book is also a crucial complement to the September 11 panel’s failure to condemn Mr. Clinton’s failure to capture or kill bin Laden on any of the eight to 10 chances afforded by CIA reporting. Mr. Clarke never mentions that President Bush had no chances to kill bin Laden before September 11 and leaves readers with the false impression that he, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, did their best to end the bin Laden threat. That trio, in my view, abetted al Qaeda, and if the September 11 families were smart they would focus on the dereliction of Dick, Bill and Sandy and not the antics of convicted September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.

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

    Now *there’s* an interesting perspective on the Clinton legacy… heh.

    Especially given all the blather about how the Bush administration has supposedly “marginalized” the CIA. Those with long memories may remember back in the early 90’s when that deranged wacko crashed a Cessna on the White House lawn.

    Unkind wags said it must be the Director of the CIA – desperate for an audience with Bill Clinton.

    Cassandra (c9069a)

  20. As to all the mind readers posting on your blog, I wonder if they would just sit back, grin and bear it if they felt they had been wrongly accused on national television of being responsible for the deaths of three thousand people. According to them they would, because if they vociferously defended themselves, they would be “admitting” guilt or “trying to hide something” or some other such nonsense

    …You mean like jagoffs like you do to President Bush, VP CHeney, and Don Rumsfield pretty much every day, little johnny?

    And what do YOU say when they defend themselves against your self-serving lies?

    The nice thing about Dollar Bill melting down on camera is we can see exactly what the Democrats never tire of holding up as an ideal in a President: Incoherent, mendacious, confused, out of control of his own emotions and with only a tenupous grip on reality…. and deeply unserious about anything except his own ego.

    Character is destiny.

    DaveP. (9b577c)

  21. Has there ever been an instance of an ex-President charged with attempted murder?

    Daniel (f98289)

  22. johnny,

    Click the link in the post about Dick Clarke’s statements before he wrote a book.

    Patterico (de0616)

  23. […] UPDATE: Patterico fact-checks Clinton and ThinkProgress, and rather unsurprisingly finds them playing fast and loose with the truth. Good catch. *BDS – Bush Derangement Syndrome posted by: The Editors @ 9:36 am September 24, 2006 […]

    The Unalienable Right » Bill Clinton goes wild on FOX (7644ea)

  24. Patterico writes:


    Clinton replied: “I don’t believe you asked them that.”

    I believe he did.

    If we want to figure out whether Clinton’s statement is true, we need to clarify what was meant by “that” in his statement “I don’t believe you asked them that”. Here’s a clue from the transcript:


    CLINTON: I don’t believe you ask them that.

    WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of…

    CLINTON: You didn’t ask that did you? Tell the truth

    WALLACE: About the USS Cole?

    So Wallace himself seemed to understand that “that” referred to the Cole incident.

    Foo Bar (84727c)

  25. You must see this if you’re following this story… the behind the scenes truth about the confrontation between these two men.

    Whether you’re left, right or John McCain, this is what you’ve got to see to believe:

    The Truth Behind the Chris Wallace / Bill Clinton Interview

    Christoph (9824e6)

  26. As to all the mind readers posting on your blog, I wonder if they would just sit back, grin and bear it if they felt they had been wrongly accused on national television of being responsible for the deaths of three thousand people.

    What an idiotic comment. Wallace didn’t “accuse” Clinton of “being responsible for the deaths of three thousand people.”

    When leftards have to start posting strawmen you know you’ve won.

    Ursus (aaff98)

  27. The more Bill Clinton tried to blame others for his failure to act against the terrorists, the more excuses he made, the more guilty he revealed himself to be. His bluster and accusation were actually tantamount to a confession.

    Shame on Bill Clinton, America deserves better.

    Black Jack (507b6e)

  28. If we want to figure out whether Clinton’s statement is true, we need to clarify what was meant by “that” in his statement “I don’t believe you asked them that”.:

    So Chris Wallace didn’t ask a direct question about the Cole of Bush Administration officials. Nor did he of Clinton.

    But he did ask a general question about actions after 9/11 of Bush Administration officials that could easily be read as encompassing the Cole — just as with Clinton.

    Patterico (de0616)

  29. clinton reminded me of humphrey bogart in the movie, ‘mutiny on the bounty’. all he needed were the little metal balls!

    meryl (71415b)

  30. actus:

    Indeed a promising beggining to the W presidency.

    And a fitting end to the Clinton one.

    Flash (feda82)

  31. Fisking Bill…

    I’ve been occupied today, and so it was left to more energetic go-getters to rip the shroud of truth from former President Clinton’s interview on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace in order to expose the bodice of distortions and…

    Joust The Facts (72c8fd)

  32. Clinton went on to say the CIA / FBI would not support the “legal basis” for going after UBL when they had the chance. This was evident in the docudrama as well.

    I remember hearing something in the few months after 9/11 (or potentially during the 9/11 Commission) that Clinton only met with Tenet – the director of the CIA ONE SINGLE TIME IN THE EIGHT YEARS OF HIS PRESIDENCY. I have not heard much more on this lately, so I’m not complete sure it is true.

    If it is, its an incredibly damning assertion that he NEVER – and I mean NEVER took terrorism as a priority – and now tries to cover his butt by blaming the CIA. Yet he ONLY ONCE met with George Tenet and/or Tenet’s predecessar – CIA Diretor James Woolsey. I should get this book to see if it tells more details:

    David N. Bossie, author of “Intelligence Failure: How Clinton’s National Security Policy Set the Stage for 9/11” (Thomas Nelson/WND)

    Lastly, I also remember that the W’s were taken from computer keyboards when the Clinton admin left office – just a small sign that reinforces the administration NEVER thought terrorism a priority nor effectively ADVISED the new Bush administration to take it seriously.

    miller (2ecaa4)

  33. But he did ask a general question about actions after 9/11 of Bush Administration officials that could easily be read as encompassing the Cole — just as with Clinton.

    You mean before 9/11, of course.

    Fine, but you’re using Clinton’s “I don’t believe you ask them that” as evidence that Clinton falsely alleged that Wallace had not asked even a general question about pre-9/11 vigilance of Bush officials. Yet it’s pretty clear that Wallace himself interpreted “that” to mean the reaction (or lack thereof) to the Cole incident. So your conclusion that Clinton’s “I don’t believe you ask them that” falsely alleges inconsistency in Wallace’s questioning of the 2 administrations relies on an interpretation of the “that” in “I don’t believe you ask them that” that is broader than how Wallace understood it at the time.

    Foo Bar (80574b)

  34. so I am confused. I have looked up the transcript on fox news website. The interview with Rumsfeld was hardly combative. In fact at some points he even makes helps the Secretary with his questions, like this one.

    Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.

    RUMSFELD: Well, Chris, if you look at how our government is organized historically, the Department of Justice has the responsibility for law enforcement in the United States. The Department of Defense is, in fact, by law, under the Posse Comitatus law, prohibited from engaging in front-line, law-enforcement, police- type activities.

    WALLACE: But the terrorists were based overseas. These are…

    oh and by the way. Rumsfelds response leads me to believe that fighting terrorism was not a priority. I don’t blaim bush or clinton for 911. We were in a transitional time, people were getting used to a new government. We were caught unaware. I don’t believe that accusing either side does anything.

    I do find it intersting though, that we can invade a country (iraq) on a shred of evidence, but going after bin Laden in Pakistan requires certainty.

    confused (506715)

  35. meryl at #29, it was The Caine Mutiny. But your insightful observation of Blll Clinton as Capt. Queeg, eyes darting, accusing everyone in sight of eating the strawberries is right on target.

    Black Jack (507b6e)

  36. Meryl,

    The movie with Humphrey Bogart clicking the steel marbles was “The Caine Mutiny.”

    The interview was wild, though.

    Elm Creek Smith (c3e588)

  37. Tammy Bruce utterly refrutes many of Bill C.’s points, including that not a soul alive believed Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Somalia… and that that’s all, “… a bunch of bull”.

    She offers much more than that. Check her out here.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  38. Great post. You’d make a fine journalist, Patterico.

    DRJ (ccb97e)

  39. foo – Clinton clearly asked Wallace had he asked the Bush Administration the same question. He started by saying – “I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of”

    “this” question clearly has to be the question wallace asked Clinton in the interview.

    Clinton then adds his own list of questions: “I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked why didn’t you do anything about the Cole. I want to know how many you asked why did you fire Dick Clarke”

    Those were not questions wallace asked Clinton, and thus Wallace’s confused response “About the cole?”

    John (9e4236)

  40. The Clinton Freak-Out: ‘Um, Wow.’…

    Watch the delicious highlights over at Hot Air. It’s really quite amazing.
    I think K-Lo nails it when she calls it Clinton’s “Tom Cruise” moment. I would not have been very surprised to see him jump on the couch.
    Marshall Manson is……

    Mary Katharine Ham (95d97e)

  41. […] Nobody’s better than Bill to look ya dead in the eye, with just the right patina of faux gravitas while he shovels the baffling bullshit that is carefully blended to be the center of attention. Well, maybe not the center, as long as it has enough of an odor to distract or send whatever discussion he’s trying to derail off on a sufficiently muddled tangent – to the point that most people either tire of following the details (never underestimate the short attention span of a quasi interested public), or will skip all the details except for the sound bite of his lamentations about how unfair it all is, and figure there must be something to it – the “it” being something they’re to busy to really check in to…maybe after “Dancing with the Stars” is over… […]

    Silent Running » Blog Archive » Err, you’re actually surprised by this? (5c3a8d)

  42. If “that” refers specifically to the Cole incident, Clinton may be right. If “that” refers to al Qaeda BEYOND OSAMA, then Patterico’s post supports the claim that Fox did not give the Adminstration a pass on pre-9/11 inaction.

    As FooBar notes, it all depends on whether “that” means “this that” or the “other that”. Clinton would probably be the first to admit that one man’s ‘is’ is another man’s ‘is’.

    Greg Miller (3660a8)

  43. It depends on what the meaning of “that” is.

    But it’s undeniable that Wallace asked the same types of questions of Rumsfeld that he asked of Clinton.

    If Clinton wants to point to a different question that Wallace didn’t ask him, and claim that Wallace didn’t ask that of Bush officials either — why, he may be right.

    But so what?

    Patterico (de0616)

  44. Liveblogging The Clinton Interview…

    First, before I get into the Clinton interview, let me say that I watched a lot of the talk shows and the other news stories that were playing throughout the day on this. Besides the usual things, the one thing that stuck with me is Chris Wallace hims…

    Iowa Voice (075f33)

  45. Miller:

    The GAO said the “w” typewriter incident never happened. Pure smoke from Rove, look it up. If it never happened, it would lead one to believe the Bush/Rove were only interested in smearing Clinton. To borrow your “logic”, that would just be a “small sign” that the Bush administration never took what Clinton was trying to tell them seriously and not until 9/11 did they show any interest in the issue of terrorism or protecting the US from a threat identified by Clinton.

    Patterico:

    Does the link say anything about Wallace? I’m just arguing that your post gives an example of one official (singular) whom Wallace has questioned a vein similar to his questioning of Clinton, while your headline says “officials” as in more than one. If you have a moment to give a quick take on the Clarke link you are suggesting I’ll be glad to look at that, but can’t read the whole of the link now as it is time to retire.

    Thanks for the forum. Disagreement and dialogue are what democracy is all about.

    best,
    johnny

    big johnny (6b8dd0)

  46. In all fairness to President Clinton, he was awfully busy granting all those pardons in the fall of 2000. There’s only so many hours in a day!

    eddiehaskell (959fea)

  47. Does the link say anything about Wallace? I’m just arguing that your post gives an example of one official (singular) whom Wallace has questioned a vein similar to his questioning of Clinton, while your headline says “officials” as in more than one.

    “I’m just arguing” implies this is the argument you’ve made before. But it’s not. The argument you made before is that Bush did nothing about terrorism. Dick Clarke said he did. Read the link.

    I’ll address your arguments one at a time; I’m not going to let you shift the debate like Clinton did. We’ll handle the argument you made first, first. Admit that Dick Clarke said Bush was working on terrorism, as per the link I gave on the post. Then we’ll move on to your next argument, which you are pretending you made all along.

    Patterico (de0616)

  48. […] You would wait forever for someone in The 527 Media to do what blogger Patterico did earlier today. In the course of a longer entry dispelling other myths and falsehoods in the Clinton interview, Patterico busted a central Clinton claim about the War on Terror transition from his administration to the incoming Bush Adminstration. He located this interview of Richard Clarke in early 2002 that was cleared for distribution by the White House in 2004 and published at Fox News’ web site in March of that year. […]

    Bizzyblog » BUSTED: Bill Clinton’s Bogus Claim of Leaving Bush a ‘Comprehensive Anti-Terror Strategy’ (34f45e)

  49. Foo Bar,

    John has it just right. Read his comment.

    Patterico (de0616)

  50. If Clinton wants to point to a different question that Wallace didn’t ask him

    But Wallace did ask him about the Cole, among other things. Let me see if I have this right: Wallace asks: there was Somalia, the African embassies, the Cole- why didn’t you do more? Clinton asks Wallace: how many Bush officials did you ask “why didn’t you do anything about the Cole”? And you’re saying that Clinton is pointing to a completely different question that Wallace didn’t ask him?? That this is a non sequitur on Clinton’s part? Obviously Clinton’s restatement of the question is not identical to the original (it’s narrower) but there is certainly a good bit of overlap, is there not?

    Look, it’s a legitimate point you’ve made by pointing out Wallace’s question of Rumsfeld, but I don’t think you’ve really nailed Clinton here for making a completely false allegation of bias. Clinton hardly makes an unambiguous declaration that Wallace never asked anything the least bit similar of Republicans. As I said before, Wallace seems to understand Clinton’s statement as referring to Wallace’s failure to ask Republicans about the Cole.

    Foo Bar (80574b)

  51. Did you see the interview? Clinton got furious at Wallace for being a right-wing hack. It’s crap. I don’t even know whether Wallace is conservative or not. His dad is Mike Wallace and he seems as down the middle as they come. He questioned a Bush official harshly last week, and does so all the time — which is why I was confident I’d find similarly harsh questioning of someone from the Bush Administration on the Bush pre-9/11 terror fight. Clinton got his panties in a twist and accused Wallace of being a hack, and it was total B.S.

    Total B.S.

    Patterico (de0616)

  52. Yes, I read John’s comment. Here is the excerpt from Clinton:

    It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked why didn’t you do anything about the Cole

    Apparently, John wants me to think that there is an implicit “Furthermore, additionally, and quite apart from my previous sentence, …” at the beginning of the second, “how many Bush people did you ask about the Cole” sentence. That’s a little hard for me to buy when the original question mentions the Cole.

    Foo Bar (80574b)

  53. MR. WALLACE: I think a lot of people in Washington are trying to figure out, to understand, Richard Clarke; to make sense of what he has said and of apparent contradictions in his story. Is he telling the truth or is he pushing an agenda? What do you make of his basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda? – Fox News Sunday

    Patterico skips the “Is he [Clarke] telling the truth or is he pushing an agenda?” set-up, which endowed Rumsfeld barn door leeway.

    This *was* one tough “grilling.”

    steve (1f7e30)

  54. Patterico skips the “Is he [Clarke] telling the truth or is he pushing an agenda?” set-up, which endowed Rumsfeld barn door leeway.

    Not only did I link the interview, I explicitly noted: “In Wallace’s interview of Rumsfeld, Wallace noted “apparent contradictions in [Clarke’s] story.'” Then I noted that there were good reasons to note this.

    Am I wrong, steve?

    Let’s have this debate, steve. *Were* there apparent contradictions in Clarke’s story? Yes or no? Was it bias on Wallace’s part to bring them up?

    Let’s talk about Dick Clarke’s consistency. I want to get you on record as saying that there were no apparent contradictions in his story.

    Do you want to take that position, steve?

    Somehow I think you’re too smart for that.

    Please show me I’m wrong.

    Patterico (de0616)

  55. I would think that if they were real questions Rumfeld might have answered them. But he didn’t. And the Fox patsy didn’t follow up or press him about it.

    So in effect he really didn’t get asked those questions.

    padcrasher (984994)

  56. Quote: “…Clinton’s furious answer lasted several minutes, and included finger-wagging reminiscent of Clinton’s angry declaration that he had not had sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.”

    Hmmm! Makes you wonder if Clinton’s finger-wagging is not indicative that he, Clinton, also had sex with Osama Bin Laden, while on one of his visits to Saudi Arabia, and that is why he was so reluctant to catch him!!!

    I mean, after all, he must have felt some kind of bond to the man if Osama indeed gave him a BJ like Monica!

    Talk about engaging in “oral” diplomacy!!!

    Althor 🙂

    Althor (d8da01)

  57. […] Update:  Chris Wallace is far from having a conservative bias, as he has also lobbed tough questions at Bush administration officials for failing to capture bin Laden before the 9/11 attacks. Patterico has the details. Filed in: In: Headlines, Links, Blogosphere  &#8226   &raquo One Response to “Clinton’s Conniption” […]

    dcthornton.com » Clinton’s Conniption (033b74)

  58. Chris Wallace Has Indeed Grilled Bush Officials About Failing to Get Osama Before 9/11 – Patterico

    The thread head is a stretch.

    Notwithstanding subsequent “Power of the Jump” detours into Clarke’s lack of ‘consistency’.

    steve (1f7e30)

  59. Which, I see, you wisely have no desire to defend.

    Patterico (de0616)

  60. Implying defending Richard Clarke is my lot.

    steve (1f7e30)

  61. I have altered the title to make it “official” (singular) rather than “officials,” to respond to the concern raised by johnny. I have noted the change in an update.

    Patterico (de0616)

  62. Implying defending Richard Clarke is my lot.

    Wuhbuh huh?

    You made it so when you criticized Wallace for attacking Clarke’s credibility.

    Patterico (de0616)

  63. Keep your eye on the ball.

    Clinton made so many references to Clark’s book and very few to the 911 commision report.

    Think ABC will make another docudrama fron the Clark book?

    Marty (9e3106)

  64. Pat says: Ill address your arguments one at a time; Im not going to let you shift the debate like Clinton did.

    Yet, this discussion is focused on a loaded question that Wallace throws at Clinton that implies Clinton, as conservative spin has it, didn’t do anything about Somalia, the African embassies or the Cole – numerous topics with in depth explanations about all Clinton actually did do regarding each. Wallace did so early in an interview knowing the length was to be 15 minutes with half of the time to be devoted by agreement to the Global Initiatives. It was done to score cheap points with believers in the conservative myths.

    Pat, of course, has all the time in the world on his blog to address more than one topic.

    Hypocritically, he recognizes a multi-topic question to be unfair – FOR HIMSELF. Too funny.

    When can we expect the correction that the Cole was, in fact, mentioned in Wallace’s question?

    [When you can show that I claimed it wasn’t. If you’ll peruse the post and comments you’ll see I never said any such thing. The Cole was mentioned as part of a larger question about anti-terror efforts. That question was indistinguishable from what Wallace asked Rumsfeld — as anyone not blinded by partisanship can plainly see. — P]

    Macswain (2aadc0)

  65. Dude, it was an interview with the caveat half the time be devoted to Clinton’s charitable work and the other half to whatever Fox wanted to ask.

    An interview where the reporter could ask whatever question his viewers happenned to be interested in: it’s not a scandal.

    The reporter asked two questions related to Clinton’s charitable work, then one question (what difference does it make what question? it was within the ground rules, what viewers such as myself are interested in, and completely fair to ask such a question… even Clinton acknowledged during the interview that it was a legitimate question)… then Clinton went off on a ten-minute rant where he was literally touching the reporter.

    Macswain, I’d hate to think you’re really so closed minded as to think that asking this question was unfair.

    And as far as Patterico wanting to keep it on topic, even Bill Clinton insisted on going on this line of discussion for 10 minutes even when Wallace tried to change the topic, including to Bill Clinton’s charitable fundraising among other things.

    So certainly asking someone you’re debating with to remain on topic until you’ve hashed out a point is fair.

    The problem from Clinton’s point of view is that he took a completely legitimate question… a question he said is legitimate… and turned it into a grand conspiracy with his as the persecuted victim.

    This is absurd. And most people will see it that way.

    You can’t talk about what a privileged, successful, and blessed life you’ve lived rising to the level of President of the United States… and then go on like they’re out to get you because a reporter asked you ONE question… any one question.

    This is nonsense. It didn’t help him. Some people have asked whether Clinton was under the influence of something because of his aggressive behaviour, his “wipe that smirk off your face” kind of attitude that drunks are famous for, his slight slurring of words, and his falling back in his chair and putting his face in his open hand… I have no idea, but I DO know he was not on his game at all and lost it.

    This interview don’t define the man completely, but it sure ain’t helpin’ any.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  66. *him as the persecuted victim

    Christoph (9824e6)

  67. Quote: Hmmm! Makes you wonder if Clinton’s finger-wagging is not indicative that he, Clinton, also had sex with Osama Bin Laden, while on one of his visits to Saudi Arabia, and that is why he was so reluctant to catch him!!!

    Comment by Althor — 9/24/2006 @ 10:26 pm

    Darn! What a dour bunch!!! No one here seem to have a sense of humor!

    Althor 🙁

    Althor (d8da01)

  68. Hey Johnny #45, the W typewriter key incidents and a hell of a lot more happened, and you’re not going to rewrite history around here:

    Newsmax Jan. 25, 2001

    The cost of cleaning up the effects of the deliberate vandalism caused by Clinton and Gore White House staffers could exceed $250,000, according to an official of the General Services Administration (GSA).

    The American Spectator quoted an inspector who was called in to assess the vandalism as saying that several executive desks were damaged to the point that they must be replaced, and several more offices must be repainted because of graffiti. Entire computer keyboards will have to be replaced because the damage to them is more extensive than simply missing keys.

    The White House had to respond when Dems and Salon started claiming that the vandalism never happened. This WorldNetDaily story from June 5, 2001 addresses items covered in a contemperaneous Washington Post story (June 3, I believe) that is no longer available:

    Pushed against the wall, the Bush White House responded by doing what it refrained from doing last January – and issued late last week an extensive list of damage done by outgoing Clinton staffers. The list includes obscene graffiti in six offices, a 20-inch-wide presidential seal ripped off a wall, 10 sliced telephone lines and 100 inoperable computer keyboards, according to the Washington Post.

    (Comparing WND January and Post June coverage)

    ….. Post (June 3, 2001): “Fleischer said that workers were able to affix new ‘W’ caps to many computers but that 100 keyboards had to be replaced.”

    WND (Jan. 26, 2001): “Based on a preliminary survey, an estimated 50 to 60 computer keyboards were actually destroyed, and not just temporarily disabled as originally believed, after outgoing aides removed the plastic key with the letter ‘W’ — President Bush’s new famous middle initial.

    “‘We’ll actually have to replace the whole keyboards, because they also gouged out the contacts underneath (the plastic keys),’ said a White House computer technician in an exclusive interview with WorldNetDaily.”

    So you see Johnny, your claim is full of baloney. I suspect it’s not the only one.

    Tom Blumer (ac1462)

  69. One expects breathtaking dishonesty from modern Democrats and one is not disappointed. From the Democratic Party website:

    “In an interview with Fox News televised this morning, President Bill Clinton fought back against the right wing misinformation and smear campaign…”

    A smear compaign that consisted of being asked a single question by a reporter, then going off on a 10-minute wild rant including pointing at and touching the reporter in his chair.

    Astonishing.

    Lies, distortion, and modern Democrats go together like peas, carrots, and corn.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  70. […] Patterico points out that Wallace has asked Republicans about their efforts to get Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11, contradicting Clinton’s claim that Wallace is doing a “conservative hit job.” […]

    Hoystory » Blog Archive » Clinton vs. Chris Wallace (322185)

  71. “I thought it was a fair, balanced and not especially inflammatory question,” Wallace said….

    Bullshit.

    That goes double for everything on this site. Nobody “grilled” any Bush officials on Fox News you fucking spinfucks. Learn to use the American language for a fucking change. Fucking Nazis.

    Bloodstomper (97ee5b)

  72. Ha ha, your “alleged” multi-rapist admitted perjurer impeached president embarrassed himself.

    Too funny.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  73. That goes double for everything on this site. Nobody “grilled” any Bush officials on Fox News you fucking spinfucks. Learn to use the American language for a fucking change. Fucking Nazis.

    Do you think he gets the irony?

    Because I don’t.

    😉

    Christoph (9824e6)

  74. “Do you think he gets the irony?

    None of them do – they’re too lathered up at the thought of Clintoon’s questionable credibility and honesty being challenged in front of an audience of millions.

    You know – doing the job Keith Olbermann can’t seem to do.

    Good Lt (cf8676)

  75. Ah, the fury of BDS sufferers ……

    one would think you guys would have the basic human decency to be embarrassed by Clinton.

    If Clinton had any decency, he would have said something unmemorable & the question would disappear into the black hole of the MSM.

    But, no, Bill’s ego won’t stand for it – so he goes on a rant making a fool of himself.

    And the fools in his audience applaud him.

    There’s a reason you guys are in the minority –

    you take yourselves too seriously, and the country not seriously enough.

    BD (0d5109)

  76. […] Patterico’s Pontifications “But the bottom line is that Bill Clinton, the commander-in-chief, could not find the will to order the military into action against al Qaeda, and Bill Clinton, the head of the executive branch, could not find the will to order the CIA and FBI to act. No matter what the former president says on Fox, or anywhere else, that is his legacy in the war on terror.” […]

    The Silver & Blue » Blog Archive » Clinton’s Finger Wagging Whopper of an Interview (672c3e)

  77. Chris Wallace was just on Fox & Friends and he says after the interview Clinton chewed out his staff, too.

    So it was quite the temper tantrum over an entirely predictable and legit question. Not that Clinton hurling abuse at his staff when they’ve done nothing wrong is anything new for him.

    (But at least he hasn’t raped anyone recently, so maybe he’s trying to control himself better.)

    LoafingOaf (a90377)

  78. […] The real problem for Clinton was that the rest of the world didn’t believe him, not Republicans in Congress. And Patterico has a post that knocks down another Clinton/liberal charge; that Fox News never asked Bush Administration officials any of the same questions they asked him: […]

    Right Wing Nut House » CLINTON VS FOX: THE FALLOUT (5ada7f)

  79. What’s up with all the lawyers coming in and trying to split hairs (Cole vs. Al Qaeda in general, singular vs. plural, etc.)? It’s like they are trying to win on a technicality in the court of public opinion. It just doesn’t work, and it makes your side look desperate and unreasonable. Sorry. Even more desperate and unreasonable. I’m no fan of the Republican leadership nowadays, but the self-inflicted blindness of the smarter-than-thous on the other side scares the daylights out of me.

    Neil (316be3)

  80. […] Clinton’s finger-wagging moment Clinton’s excuses; Ace fact-checks Wallace did challenge Bush admin Photoshop by David Lunde […]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Slick Willie’s Day of Rage (d4224a)

  81. “It was done to score cheap points with believers in the conservative myths.”

    Or maybe it was done because it’s the single most important thing Clinton didn’t do during his 8 years in office. And that’s his legacy regardless of the number of temper tantrums he throws.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  82. The first thing that struck me was the defensiveness of President Clinton’s response. No one had *forced* him to be on FNS and he *knew* what he was likely to step into. He did this voluntarily. To then turn around and attack the network and the interviewer is an attempt at misdirection. If President Clinton believed FNS to be so very biased then he should *not* have agreed to be interviewed by Mr. Wallace.

    Mr. Wallace was trying to get to a question about why President Clinton did not do *more* to get al Qaeda. He does a preface on his remarks pointing to the things that President Clinton did *not* respond to which includes the voluntary sending of troops to Somalia and then pulling them out. The actual question is why did the President not do more to connect the dots and put al Qaeda out of business.

    It is not a pointed attack on the litany of things listed in a book that are common and well known events. It is a fair retrospective question to the President to look at a major problem that was growing during his Administration and then help Americans understand what was going on. President Clinton is not the *first* president to have such questions asked of him and he will not be the *last*. I fully expect that President Bush (43) will have many questions asked of him to tell the American People about the problems he had during his time in office and why he did not do a better job at those things.

    President Clinton feels that his actions need defending and he thus hides behind the actions of his subordinates. President Clinton attacks the messenger for asking such a fair and summary question of a President about his Administration. President Clinton attacks the network he is on, and perhaps he would have been wiser to say ‘no, thank you’ if he *believed* FNC to be unfair. President Clinton attacks ABC and uses the 9/11 Commission Report as basis for that attack and claims it was an unfair reading of events. The he later turns around and attacks the 9/11 Commission Report *itself* and claims it to be a politically biased document. If he believes *that* then why try to hold *anyone* to an accurate rendition of it as the facts of his Administration’s capabilities should stand on their own.

    In point of fact President Clinton is attempting to rewrite history to make his abdication of responsibility and duty to protect the Nation and have the American People believe that he actually *did* do something against al Qaeda. I have taken the briefest of looks, a mere scratching of the veneer on the events and find the President’s attempted re-write and glossing over of events to be counter-factual. Even his talking point on Somalia is wholly out of context of real world *events* including: the slaying of CIA personnel at a stoplight in Virginia, the WTC bombing and the NYC Landmarks bombing plot which was stopped. Each of those took place *months* before the Black Hawk Down incident. And if Somalia was such a swimming success, then why was an operation needed in 1995 to evacuate everyone from there?

    President Clinton could have given a sharp, short summary of his Administration that would encapsulate events, ensure that he admitted to his mistakes and owned up to them, and then told us how to ensure tha future Administration will learn to take such events and understand them. President Clinton has had some years to figure out that short, sweet paragraph. He has not done so. His politics belongs to himself, but his Administration and its actions belong to the Republic and a fair and even accounting of deeds, misdeeds and oversight is expected of ex-Presidents by the Citizenry. President Clinton evades responsibility which is an ill thought out idea for any individual wishing to *become* President.

    ajacksonian (03662a)

  83. Did anyone notice that when Clinton referred to Mohammad Aidid

    he said Mohammad Ali?

    rab (fb89bf)

  84. Clinton or Carter? Clinton or Carter? Lord, what ever happened to X-Presidential ethics? I believe we now know the talking points demanded of Clinton at his blogger meeting on the 12th.

    krusher (92fd6d)

  85. […] Jake Tapper has the rest of your introductory lesson in Loyal Opposition 101, for you Dems who seem to be having trouble with the concept. He makes an interesting point at the end of his post, too. And Patterico has the skinny on who’s truly “fair and balanced.” […]

    Cold Fury » Blog Archive » Loyal opposition (6f4592)

  86. Re-writing history from the bully pulpit…

    Bill Clinton was on Fox New Sunday yesterday. Chris Wallace asked him why he didn’t do more to get Osama Bin Laden. Clinton went off. In usual Clinton fashion, he totally dodged the question by accusing Chris of being part…

    Moonage Political Webdream (72c8fd)

  87. Fox News Sunday, May 19, 2002:

    SNOW: Last August 6, the president got a briefing, and among the other items discussed was the possibility that Al Qaeda would hijack jets. It’s now known that for years people had been assuming that Al Qaeda might be hijacking jets and flying them into buildings someplace.

    Why didn’t we connect the dots?

    CHENEY: Well, I think if you go back — first of all, put the briefing in context. Every day the president and I and our other senior…

    SNOW: So you were in this meeting, correct?

    CHENEY: I was actually in Wyoming at the time, but I got the same briefing. It’s a written — written briefing. It covers the world. It deals with all kinds of issues. A portion of which, from time to time, deals with threats against the United States.

    And I’ve gone back and looked at that particular issue of August 6, and even after the fact, it didn’t give us any actionable intelligence. It basically was based on earlier reporting. There wasn’t anything really knew in it. The idea of hijacking by terrorists, that goes back 30 years. The PLO was doing that in the 1970s. The idea that Al Qaeda was after us wasn’t new. We’d seen the USS Cole attack, East Africa bombings.

    So there was — it sort of pulled things together in the sense that it reviewed the bidding, but it didn’t really give us anything knew or anything precise or specific. It did not talk about hitting buildings. It did not talk about time, location or anything like that. It was one more sort of rehash, if you will, of the material that was out there.

    SNOW: So…

    CHENEY: From that standpoint, it doesn’t give you anything you could have acted on.

    SNOW: So when Senator Richard Shelby said that, based on information we had available plus that particular briefing, we might have been able to prevent September 11, he was wrong?

    Ron (d8da01)

  88. Clinton: Conspiracy Theorists Out to Get Me…

    by Scott Ott

    (2006-09-26) — The morning after Fox News aired reporter Chris Wallace’s interview with a feisty Bill Clinton, the former president
    today said, “Right-wing, neocon conspiracy theorists are out to get me.”
    Mr. Clinton dism…

    Scott Ott (95d97e)

  89. “A right-wing hatchet job”…

    The oh-so-respectable Clinton interview dominates the Internet this morning. In case you need to catch up from the weekend, go here, here, and here.Pay special attention to Mary K’s link to this blog [emphasis from original post]:
    According to……

    Katie Favazza (b5f39f)

  90. […] See Also: Patterico’s post the Clinton interview, and Richard Clarke’s take on pre-9/11 planning. Devastating stuff. […]

    FISHKITE » Blog Archive » addressing Al Qaeda, pre-9/11 (41253b)

  91. Chris Wallace grilled Condi Rice hard only two weeks ago:
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213211,00.html

    WALLACE: Meanwhile, there is Afghanistan, which used to be the safe haven
    for Al Qaeda and where some of its leaders are still at large.

    On Friday, a suicide bomber – and we have the pictures here – attacked an
    American military convoy in Kabul, killing 16 people. The Taliban, which
    most Americans thought we wiped out back in 2001, is back on the march in
    the south. And NATO forces, this week, are asking for more troops.

    Secretary Rice, why didn’t we finish the job in Afghanistan?

    and:

    WALLACE: But, again – and just this week, the head British commander in
    Afghanistan, Brigadier Ed Butler, said – and let’s put it up on the screen –
    “The fighting is extraordinarily intense. The intensity and ferocity of the
    fighting is far greater than in Iraq on a daily basis.”

    I’m sure a lot of Americans are saying, isn’t it a – we had them on the run.
    We had the Taliban completely disrupted. Isn’t it a failure to have allowed
    the Taliban to regroup?

    and:

    “But, Secretary Rice, a Senate committee has just revealed that in February
    of 2002, months before the president spoke, more than a year, 13 months,
    before you spoke, that the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded this – and
    let’s put it up on the screen.

    “Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin Laden any useful CB” – that’s
    chemical or biological – “knowledge or assistance.”

    Didn’t you and the president ignore intelligence that contradicted your
    case?”

    Tom (29f8e0)

  92. […] Are you ANGRY!?! By Snoop Clinton’s finger-wagging moment Slick Willie’s Day of Rage Clinton’s excuses; Ace fact-checks Wallace did challenge Bush admin Viera gushes; Olby drools Newsmax audio tape of BC […]

    politicalpartypoop.com - Politics and other stuff in life that stinks » Are you ANGRY!?! (ef3398)

  93. That’s good digging, but the bottom line is still that Clinton did a whole heck of a lot more to try to stop bin Laden than Bush’s people did. Clinton’s main point was that at least he tried. Bush, with the same tools and data at his disposal, did not even try. It was not a priority for him.

    Billrog (85537e)

  94. Billrog- What did the Easter Bunny bring you?

    eddiehaskell (97d6f6)

  95. That was an intelligent response. But the facts support my statement, and that is what history will reflect.

    Billrog (85537e)

  96. […] 2. When Clinton asserted that Wallace hadn’t asked these questions of Republicans, I just knew the blogosphere’s fact checking machine was going to kick in to high gear. Patterico’s got the goods. Does the “evil” Rumsfeld count? That should quell any argument about the interview being some sort of right-wing hit piece, but of course many on the left will not be deterred from that pre-conceived notion. Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]

    Considerettes - Conservative commentary served up in bite-sized bits » The Clinton Meltdown (685f85)

  97. The plain fact is that both Bushes were criminally negligent when it came to responding to terrorist attacks.

    At the end of the Reagan presidency, Libyans blew up an airliner full of Americans. Our intelligence agencies conclusively proved Libya’s involvement during GHWBush’s presidency, and he did nothing to retaliate for those murders.

    At the end of the Clinton presidency, Al Qeada attacked the Cole in Yemen. At the very start of the Bush presidency, US intelligence agents determined it was backed by Al Qeada. In February 2001, they obtained a videotape of Bin Ladin bragging about the attack on the Cole. Bush not only failed to retaliate, he didn’t bother holding a meeting to discuss it.

    The Right always needs a Big Enemy, and in early 2001, they were dressing the Chinese up to fill that role. Al Qeada didn’t seem scary enough at the time to justify multibillion dollar payments to their weapons industry friends.

    pj (2120d6)

  98. Wallace got his ass kicked. Malkin is in a faux fury! It’s fun to watch.

    Kevin (f6a08b)

  99. “Wallace got his ass kicked.”…. riiiight..

    Lets see if we have this right. the Libtards gio on and on 24/7 calling Bush every name in the book and blaming everything on earth on him, but let anyone have the temerity to ask Slick willy why he blew it with Bin Laden, and the moonbats come unglued. Got it.

    – Clinton, and bush should both be apologizing to all the families that have been deeply hurt by the attcaks from al Qaeda all these years, instead of monumental, lying efforts, to CYA, legacy protect, and just generally should how little respect they have for the people who have made the REAL sacrifices in the WOT.

    – Everything else is disembling bullshit.

    Big Bang Hunter (9562fb)

  100. Shorter Patterico: It’s always Clinton’s fault.

    Kimmitt (80218d)

  101. Billrog said, “Clinton’s main point was that at least he tried.”

    Please, permit me to doubt. Did Bill Clinton really try to kill Osama bin Ladin?

    I know he says that now, but we know way too much about Bill Clinton’s reputation for twisting words to take anything he says at face value. Recall his problem with the word “is.”

    When a guy, any guy, but especially the President of the US, stoops to that level to weasel out of an obvious lie, well, at a minimum, you just can’t put much credence in anything he says, especially when he’s trying to avoid responsibility for something.

    As Commander-in-Chief President Clinton had vast resources at his disposal. Instead, Clinton played golf and ducked the phone calls which would have authorized the CIA to assassinate bin Ladin.

    Or, he could have taken one of Sudan’s offers to hand bin Ladin over. But, again, no, Clinton says he didn’t want the terrorist, he wanted the Saudis to take him, but they didn’t want him either. So, for all Clinton’s talk of trying, nothing was actually accomplished.

    So, the conclusion is, if Bill Clinton really tried to get Osama bin Ladin, he sure didn’t try very hard.

    Black Jack (507b6e)

  102. Why the hell did Clinton decide to re-launch this useless debate? Isn’t the impact simply to divide us even more? Did Bill really think minds will change towards his side with his overly defensive response to the question?

    If you put that interview on a TV crime show’s police interview room you would think that Clinton was about to cop to the crime. He certainly reacted like a caught perp – angry and paranoid.

    Sweetie (901f54)

  103. “So, the conclusion is, if Bill Clinton really tried to get Osama bin Ladin, he sure didn’t try very hard”

    Possibly true. But sadly, thats still far more then W Bush did prior to 9/11.

    rapchat (19f087)

  104. He didn’t ask the question of Bush. That would’ve been fun. He asked the question of Rumsfeld who as per usual evaded it. Did you read the interview in question?

    jorge arbusto (26591e)

  105. And the Dems want to put Bill and his co-president back in charge – God help us!

    Ray Simpson (ffddf3)

  106. OK, Blackjack, let’s look at what you said. Because of Clinton’s “is” quote, everything he says is a lie. First of all, specious logic. Did you apply that same test to everyone in your life?
    Second, Clinton is not dumb enough to try to redefine the most basic of verbs. He was clarifing the tense of the verb as it was used. Go ahead and read the context. It’s a great sound bite, but check out the reality.
    Third, you cite various things purported to have been done or not by Clinton. Maybe some are true, maybe not. Maybe he could have done more. He even admits his failures. But have you checked what he DID do? He tracked bin Laden, fired 60 cruise missiles at him, had a drone surveillance plane going and substantially increased anti-terror resources in general. He did a hell of a lot. Compare that with Bush’s willful negligence. Bush had all this handed to him on a platter and did not even try. It’s one thing to try and to fail; it’s worse to not even try.

    Billrog (85537e)

  107. So you guys rail Clinton for asking “How many people in the Bush administration you asked, “Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole?” and “Why did you fire Dick Clarke”. Wallace says we asked “plenty of questions” about that. And Wallace offers ZERO examples and you offer one, FROM 2004. Faux News has had hundreds of chances to take Rice, Cheney, Bush, Powell, etc. to task on this question since Sept. 11. And you have one example, despite the fact that Wallace said,”plenty”? Plenty means plural. More than one. Fox asks softballs to Bushites and hardballs to Clintonites. If you deny that you are delusional.

    [What a bizarre complaint. Wallace asked Clinton once about his 8 year record, and Rumsfeld once about his 8 month record. But you want Wallace to have done nothing but grill Bush officials about this, again and again?! Nonsense. Wallace asks Bush officials tough questions all the time, which was the thrust of Clinton’s dishonest attack. If you don’t know that, it’s because you don’t watch the show. — Patterico]

    Chris (8074f4)

  108. Billrog, what silly prattle you spout. Bill Clinton’s reputation for disingenuousness isn’t based on “clarifying the tense” of verbs. No, that’s not it at all. You really can’t expect to pass off idiot nonsense like that and have anything else you say be taken seriously.

    But, OTOH, I hadn’t heard that one before. It’s pure poppycock, of course, but it is good for a laugh, ROTFLOL. And, for knee splapping whoppers, it ranks right up there with Clinton’s admission that he somked pot, but didn’t inhale. Thanks, you made my day.

    Black Jack (507b6e)

  109. A message for you, the reader:

    Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

    Elijah (c84c3b)

  110. Patterico said “What a bizarre complaint… Wallace asks Bush officials tough questions all the time, which was the thrust of Clinton’s dishonest attack. If you don’t know that, it’s because you don’t watch the show”

    My comment is directed towards the entire network of Fox News. I don’t catch Wallace’s show. I am specifically addressing the fact that here you have a chance to really nail Clinton to the wall by listing the supposedly many examples debunking BC’s “dishonest attack” and all you give is ONE, from 2004, in which he phrases the question by first questioning Clarke’s integrity by using the word “agenda”, etc.

    You talk about the 8 year Clinton record vs. 8 month Bush admin record, but what is the 5 year and 8 month terrorism record since 9/11? We invaded Afghanistan and did not get Bin Laden and we created a 51st state in the Middle East, on which we spend more of our tax dollars than on any state within our borders. Quite a record your cowboy idiot has there. All we have done is destabilized two major countries and created safe havens for terrorists from around the world. Is that better?

    Chris (8074f4)

  111. Clinton has a point, but it becomes less relevant when filtered through the exigency of terrorist acts that had not yet happened. Hindsight is always 20/20.

    [If only Chris Wallace had said that! Oh, wait . . . he did. — P]

    Elliot Essman (df3bd0)

  112. Blackjack, if it isn’t based on that, why did you mention it?
    I can handle your insults. What I don’t understand is how you refuse to look at a simple comparison of what Clinton did — not said — and what Bush did, or did not do, and be objective. Is that too much to ask?
    Or does the right’s irrational hatred of Clinton blind them to objectivity?

    Billrog (85537e)

  113. May I suggest that anyone who uses the phrase “cowboy idiot” has marked themselves as categorically unserious about the issues at hand, and certainly should take their dinner at the kids’ table while adults attempt to come to come to grips with an ideology that is as much a threat to us in the 21st century as fascism was in the 20th.

    Darleen (03346c)

  114. Learn to use the American language.

    Bs, please re-read your post, then have a good long introspective look in the mirror and make a conscious decision to follow your own advice. Your excessive use of profanity rather than a logical cogent argument illustrates dramatically your own lack of ability with the English language. I suppose, though, that this is what passes for leftist “thought” these days?

    Harry Arthur (5af33b)

  115. Or does the right’s irrational hatred of Clinton blind them to objectivity?

    My, my … speaking of irrational hatred of a president that blinds one to objectivity …

    Harry Arthur (5af33b)

  116. This comment is much too long. Please feel free skip it if you don’t have a dog in this fight. BJ

    Billrog, you can’t possibly be serious.

    I used Bill Clinton’s quibble over the meaning of the word “is” to show the lengths to which the man will go to evade responsibility for his misbehavior. The point should be obvious.

    It was you who made yourself silly defending him by offering the lame excuse that Clinton was only “clarifying the tense” of a basic verb. It’s absurd on its face. Laughable and absurd.

    I did make fun of what you said, but I didn’t attack you personally. There’s a difference, and the things you said, and have since said, are shockingly wrongheaded, and deserve to be mocked.

    As for your suggestion I objectively “look at a simple comparison of what Clinton did — not said —and what Bush did, or did not do.” Well, where to start, where to start.

    I’ve been looking objectively at Bill Clinton for a long time, since his first national election. Early in his first term I watched him on TV when he was caught cheating on his taxes suddenly “remember” he had loaned him Mother $20,000 and I also saw where Hillary had taken charitable tax deductions for donating Bill’s used underpants to the deserving needy.

    I watched as Bill Clinton as he went after the Branch Dividians and killed 86 people, 26 of them children. I watched as the death of Vincent Foster was too quickly ruled a suicide and the investigation assigned not to the FBI, but to the Park Police.

    I watched as WH Travel Office employees were sent unceremoniously packing and Hillary’s Hollywood pals were given the lucrative jobs. I watched as Ron Brown was killed in a suspicious aircraft crash. Then he got a slapdash autopsy, a quick funeral, and since then little has been heard about the round 45 caliber hole found in the top of his head.

    I watched objectively as it was revealed that hundreds of J Edgar Hoover’s private FBI files were sent to Hillary’s basement operation in the White House, and copied.

    Yes, I watched all that and so much more. But, toward the end of Bill Clinton’s second term, I watched as Bill’s brother and Hillary’s brothers were out selling Presidential Pardons to dope dealers and international fugitives. I watched, closely, and objectively.

    Then GWB was elected, and I watched as Algore tried to steal the election, I watched as his army of lawyers tried to invalidate the votes of US solders and sailors serving overseas. I watched week after week the long arguments about “chads” and I watched as one recount after another failed to shift the victory to Democrats. I watched as they tried everything they could think of to overturn the election.

    Then I watched as Democrats tried to call the legitimacy of GWB’s presidency into question, and I watched as the terrorists attacked the Twin Towers. I watched as Democrats immediately started attacking not the terrorists, but George Bush. They criticized him for not jumping up from reading to a group of school children, they criticized him for not returning immediately to the White House, even though hijacked aircraft where still in the air and unaccounted for.

    I watached as Democrats criicized the American people for their show of patriotism. Democrats seemed to think that wawing the flag was somehow the wrong thing to be doing. I watached that rather carefully.

    So, yes, Billrog, I’ve had a long and objective look at Bill Clinton and compared what he’s said to what he’s done, and I’ve also compared Bill Clinton’s accomplishments to those of our current president.

    Here’s my conclusion: George W Bush isn’t a perfect man, but he’s an honorable man, a good man, and one who can be counted on in an emergency. America is lucky to have him at the helm at this point in our history. I respect and admire George Bush, I can’t say the same for Bill Clinton.

    Black Jack (507b6e)

  117. […] Some guest on Fox News this morning–I don’t remember who–also wisely noted that of course Clinton doesn’t sit around watching Fox News all the time (nor do the typical left-wing hacks that attack “Faux News”), but that he knows what “his people” tell him, thus explaining his reaction to Chris Wallace as though he was being interviewed by Sean Hannity. As for me, I was pissed at Clinton’s foreign policy impotence LONG before 9/11 or the 2000 election. It’s one of many reasons why I voted for Bush: in Bush, I saw (and still do) a man who wasn’t driven by polls, one who would do the right thing regardless of whether it’s the popular thing. None of us could have predicted 9/11, but we had already had the Cole bombing, the embassy bombings, Osama bin Laden’s “declaration of war,” among countless other things that Clinton was too afraid to confront, for fear of seeing a dip in poll numbers. Furthermore, his assertion that “right-wingers” didn’t LET him act is pure, unadulterated bullshit. If anything, THIS right-winger was happy that he had at least done something when ordering the cruise missiles on Sudan and Afghanistan. Not ecstatic, though, because it obviously was not enough. He can kiss this right-wing conspirator’s ass. Finally, can you even imagine the howling that would erupt if Bush reacted to a question from the New York Times or CNN or MSNBC in this way? Mind-boggling. (Update: What if Donald Rumsfeld had answered Wallace this way?) Lots of links, reactions and fact-checking over at Hot Air. And of course, the video (like you haven’t already seen it two thousand times!). The Clinton hysteria is also the topic in today’s Vent. Pffft. He’s a fool. You didn’t think I was going to pass up making another demotivation poster, did you? (”Blame” line ripped from here.) Dave in Texas is on a Clinton kick with these, too. […]

    MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Clinton’s vast “right wing conspiracy” tirade (1b383c)

  118. […] Among the things he got wrong, that Chris Walllace didn’t ask these tough questions to Republicans. Patterico corrects the record. […]

    Pundit Review » Blog Archive » Pundit Review Radio: Bubba blows his top (b68cb9)

  119. – A man go’s through the miserable, tough, almost impossible process of gaining the presidency. Then for reasons we’ll never know, he decides diddling a WH intern is just the ticket for a true statesman, and leader of the most powerful country in the world to be doing. Another Nixon in different stripes. What the hell possesses people we trust with the leadership of our country to do the things these two did. Is this the best we can do?

    After the Lewinski deal I can’t imagine what sort of hell it must be trying to defend a characterless asshole like Clinton. Carter isn’t any better. He’s “Bad, bad America” all the time. Where the fuck do we get these people. It’s like the prisons in Europe were emptied of every nutcase Anarchist, Fascist, or Commie, and they all showed up here in the 70’s.

    – Since the old Democratic party has now become the “Marxist party”, anybody out there that wants to restart a true “Democratic” party in our country would have my complete support. The Left, as they’ve always shown through history, is a clear and present danger to everyone’s safety and well being.

    Big Bang Hunter (9562fb)

  120. […] But, as I noted yesterday, Chris Wallace has put the same tough questions to Donald Rumsfeld that he put to President Clinton. 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? […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Kurtz Falsely Implies that Chris Wallace Never Put the Same Questions to a Bush Official that He Put to Clinton (421107)

  121. Wallace, again NO tough questions of the Bush Admin:

    “WALLACE: President Bush did not mention Usama bin Laden in his State of the Union address. Do you have any idea where he is, even what country he’s in?

    CHENEY: That would be just speculation. And if I did know, I obviously couldn’t talk about it.

    WALLACE: I mean, the current speculation is that he’s somewhere in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    CHENEY: I don’t want to elaborate on where he might or might not be.

    WALLACE: How much operational control do you believe he still has over Al Qaeda? And 3 1/2 years after 9/11, why haven’t we still caught him?

    CHENEY: Well, we have done enormous damage to Al Qaeda. The attacks that we’ve been able to mount, the work we’ve done with other nations, the Pakistanis, the Saudis and others, we’ve had an enormous and, I think, devastating impact on the organization — captured or killed literally thousands of them around the world.

    The organization, at this point, is, I think, very diffused. I don’t think there’s a hierarchical chain of command there; there never was much of one.

    But I think nonetheless the threat’s still out there. You see the kind of attacks that we had in Madrid, in Casablanca and elsewhere, Istanbul. These oftentimes are attacks that are launched by what you might call affiliated, Al Qaeda-affiliated groups, but they work on their own timetable, plan their own attacks. Some of them have been trained in Afghanistan and then go back, as is true of the group in Indonesia, Jemaah Islamiyah. Then they go out, and sometimes with financial resources, but launch their own attacks.

    In other words, attacks can occur without Usama bin Laden giving the order that an attack occur. I think he is in hiding. I think he finds it very difficult to communicate with his organization.

    WALLACE: Why can’t we catch him?

    CHENEY: Well, we’re doing our level best, and I think eventually we will. But he’s very good on his operational security, obviously. He’s found good places to hide. And so far it’s been a difficult task. But I think eventually we will get him.”
    Monday, February 07, 2005
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146546,00.html

    Enlightened (af3db1)

  122. I watched as Bill Clinton as he went after the Branch Dividians and killed 86 people, 26 of them children. – Black Jack

    Bill Clinton did not “kill 86 people.”

    Four BATF agents were shot and killed by Davidians in February, 1993 as they served a warrant. The agents’ return fire killed six Davidians — weeks before the fire that consumed Mt. Carmel.

    steve (c65a01)

  123. “Like keyboards without the letter ‘W’, for instance.”
    >>>
    complete fabrication by moonbat rumor whores from the right. Keep drinking the kool-aid

    Dean Moriarty (cdb234)

  124. – You’re no “Sherlock” Moriarity, if you think that sums up the Clintonesque clown car antics. What a bunch of fucking losers. If I was one of the WTC families, I sue Clinton and the entire Democratic party. All your loser ass’s.

    Big Bang Hunter (9562fb)

  125. I have read a considerable amount of comments here about Clinton and Bush in regards to getting Osama. Unless I missed it I didn’t read anything about Sudan’s offer to Clinton to turn Osama over to the U.S.. That offer went over a month on the table, practically on a silver platter and Clinton finally nixed it with the excuse that he was too distracted with the Monica Lewisky scandel and just blew the offer off. That’s as close as he ever got to doing anything but didn’t in getting Osama bin Laden. I have the actual text of the offer so I could enter it here in actual context but can’t access it now as it will blow this site away. Nevertheless, Sudan was concerned about the U.S.-Sudan relationship and was trying to sooth the situation but in true, typical, Democrat style Clinton screws up (AGAIN)and passes his misdeeds off on Bush. As for me I am glad Bush stuck his neck out and went after Saddam. Yes, many or our men and women heros died in this war but Freedom was never free. I believe I have what I am to write is correct…anyway it is close if not accurate. ” Sometimes the TREE OF LIBERTY has to be refreshed by the blood of HEROS and tyrants alike~Thomas Jefferson.

    Who cares what these know-nothing demonstrators and flip-floping Gutless, cut and run Democrats think or say. Today, the Irag Kurdish people are greatly thankful for the U.S. and what allies they had for the freedom they have today and have stated so.. What a moment when they dragged Saddam’s butt out of a hole in the ground. “From a murderous Dictator to a “Cowering Ground Mole”.

    Too bad the biased media doesn’t tell everything that is really going in Irag besides bombings. killings, and shootings. It would be a great eye-opener. GO TO My site: http://www.reclaim-americas-heritage-now.org. Check the whole site out . I am in the process of updating due to the Elections but there are issues there I feel you might find interesting …..with more to come.

    Although making comments here are good reading we have a greater problem to prevent- keeping the ‘Commie” Democrats from gaining control of congress. We need to focusing our full attention in that direction and as a major priority. Now let’s kick some Democrat Butt in November. We have a lot cut out to pull it off but I believe if we all work hard we can do it with the LORD’S help and our prayers as well!. Lets git-er-done!

    The Hangman

    George Krauss (c875b7)

  126. Black Jack, guess you misunderstood me. Since this topic is about anti-terrorism, when I asked you to compare Clinton vs. Bush, I meant on terrorism, specifically on 9/11. That is the subject, and it is a very important question. Beat up on Clinton all you want on other things, fine, but please respond to that. And beyond what the previous president did or did not do, what I really want the right to do is answer whether the sitting president did enough to prevent 9/11. That goes for Patterico and all the other right-wingers out there. Can you do that, please?

    Billrog (2ddfe8)

  127. – So now we hear that the excuse that he “got legal advice from his people not to go after Ben Ladin” is also false. The state department had handed down an indictment on Usama 8 months earlier. The man’s a veritable walking filing cabinet of mis-statements.

    – Chris Wallace’s said on FOX today that Clinton’s press sect. was trying desperately to end the interview. Wonder why. He also said that Clinton was heard to say on the way out, yelling at his staffers; “If any of you ever set me up like that again you’re all fired”.

    – Contrite, childish, narcissistic nut job. But then we all knew that way back in the Lewinski days.

    Big Bang Hunter (9562fb)

  128. […] Contrary to Bill Clinton’s claim, it seems that Chris Wallace has asked Bush administration officials why they didn’t get Bin Laden before 9/11. […]

    In Defense of Wallace at Miscellaneous Objections (252418)

  129. Billrog, you continue to amaze me.

    So, when you tried to apologize for Clinton’s quibble over the meaning of the word “is” you were actually leading up to a question about ‘terrorism, specifically on 9/11.” That’s what you’re saying now, right?

    So, let’s be crystal clear, is that actually your position and do you agree not to to dodge around any more? As you noted, I’m having some difficulty getting at just what it is you’re going on about.

    Your tap dancing around the issues has cost me more time than I’m willing to spend on pointless blather. I really don’t expect you’re going to read my comments and suddenly see the light, change your voter registration, and start pushing the Conservative cause.

    Nor should you expect your question, whatever it eventually turns out to be, will persuade me to march in Bill Clinton’s parade.

    So, before we go any further down this dead end road, take a few moments and form your question in clear and unambiguous terms. Promise to live with my response, and acknowledge I can’t guarantee others will give you the time and consideration I have.

    Those are my terms, and they are not negotiable. I have to go now, there’s only 2 minutes left in the game and I’d like to see the if Vick has any magic tricks he can pull out of his bag.

    Black Jack (507b6e)

  130. Once again Faux news shows its bias. Never mind the quotes taken out of context and the answers never given and not followed up on.

    That is not to mention the outright fabrications.

    Funny, all the conservatives forget the lie upon lie of the Bush administration.

    WMD, the Jessica Lynch lies, things are getting better, things are getting better, and things are getting better…

    Under Clinton no one died due to a lie (never mind it was a lie to a question that should never have been asked).

    Under pResident BullShit, thousands of Americans have died, not to mention hundreds of thousand of Iraqis.

    How has creating 5 terrorists for every one killed made us safer?

    Where was The Bush terrorism juggernaut after the Cole Bombing?

    Where was The Bush terrorism juggernaut before 9/11?

    This is an administration of ideologues that cannot ever admit that maybe, just maybe they got something wrong, so in consequence not only are they so terribly wrong, but they will repeat the same mistake until there is no more US of A.

    When will the conservatives wake up and accept every single scarp of evidence that has any basis in reality and admit that they are “Dead” wrong. When will the conservatives stop putting all of us at risk for their ineptitude and stop continuing to sacrifice Americas best for a fools mission, not to mention not being willing to pay for the equipment that the soldiers need, not to mention the troop strength that everyone knew was needed.

    In the end we are in a situation without any possibility of success due to the failures of this administration. We will be paying the price for the next 100 years.

    What is it about the Republicans that they hate the American soldier so much that they fail to support them. Why won’t the Republicans find a mission that can be successful? Why won’t the Republicans give the American Soldiers what they need to be successful? Why does the right wing want the American soldier to die and not succeed?

    TruthNJustice (009cfe)

  131. TruthNJustice,

    In response to your widdle rant above:

    Funny, all the conservatives forget the lie upon lie of the Bush administration.

    Keep flogging that meme, but that dog still won’t hunt. Just because the administration’s views are not DNC speaking-platforms doesn’t make them lies. Keep repeating it long enough and … nope, still won’t be true.

    Under Clinton no one died due to a lie (never mind it was a lie to a question that should never have been asked).
    You really want to go there you unhinged ‘tard? I don’t.

    Under pResident BullShit, thousands of Americans have died, not to mention hundreds of thousand of Iraqis.

    So the death rate of America and Iraq during Clinton’s 8 years in office was a phenomenal zero percent? I assume you are referring to deaths from combat. Well, lot’s more died in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War for the cause of freedom. Perhaps you don’t consider it worth the cost. Your party doesn’t seem to, but it’s a free country.

    How has creating 5 terrorists for every one killed made us safer?
    Link? Or did you pull this figure out from where you got the rest of your uninformed, idiotic ranting?

    Where was The Bush terrorism juggernaut after the Cole Bombing?

    Where was The Bush terrorism juggernaut before 9/11?

    Being held back by the policies of the previous administration, that’s where it was. Come up with a hard one.

    What is it about the Republicans that they hate the American soldier so much that they fail to support them.

    I’m one of those soldiers and most of us (not all, granted) appreciate the efforts of the Republican party and recognize the respect and support we have been given by our leaders. We also appreciate those Democrats who break with their party line to actually support us rather than give it lip-service and stab us when we turn our back.

    Why does the right wing want the American soldier to die and not succeed?

    Can’t we do both like the Democrats want? Fortunately, the Republicans want us to live and succeed. I like that much better.

    You’re just like the Superman Movie I guess, all for Truth and Justice (in your eyes), but not the American Way. Feel free to be a dhimmi dummy, we’ll stand between you and the islamofascists who want to use you, then kill you.

    Stashiu3 (0da7ed)

  132. Where was The Bush terrorism juggernaut after the Cole Bombing?
    Where was The Bush terrorism juggernaut before 9/11?

    Being held back by the policies of the previous administration, that’s where it was. Come up with a hard one.

    Please come up with a better answer, Stash–in what way(s) were the Bush Aministration held back?–they had the CIA, NSA, Military Intelligence Community, etc, etc, etc. Are you suggesting that the Clinton regime was still in control of the government at the time of 911? No? Well, then what are you saying?

    DudeAsInCool (70dd4b)

  133. What about the separation between intelligence and criminal investigation set up during that administration? Takes time to undo 8 years of obfuscation and the dismantling of our military and intelligence functions. How much time do you think there was between the Cole and 9/11… maybe a little less than between the 1993 WTC attacks and 9/11?

    That was easy enough I didn’t think I needed to go into detail. Sorry for the over-estimation. Glad that was the only thing you could find to nit-pick though, means you agree with the rest, right?

    And BTW, Olberman’s critique was his usual outbreak of BDS pile-‘o-crap™. He couldn’t find objective in a dictionary.

    Stashiu3 (0da7ed)

  134. I wasn’t nitpicking, I was trying to follow you logic; and no, I don’t agree with the rest of your responses, do you really want me to do a rat-a-tat on each and every one of them?

    If the Clinton administration dismantled our military and intelligence functions, how come Clinton’s army was prepared enough to roll through Afghanistan and Iraq so quickly afer 911?

    As to Olbermann’s critique, he astutely laid blame at 3-4 President’s, not just one. I could be wrong, but this forum seems to be overly fatuated with just one administration, so disagreeing with Olbermann on his objectivty, is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black, don’t you think? 🙂

    DudeAsInCool (70dd4b)

  135. Learn to use the American language….Your excessive use of profanity rather than a logical cogent argument illustrates dramatically your own lack of ability with the English language. I suppose, though, that this is what passes for leftist “thought” these days?

    Come on, Mr. Harry Arthur, certainly you can do a better sleight of hand than to suggest our fellow poster has leftist thought leanings simply because he uses profanity in his posts. Perhaps Houdini might be a better name for you. It will probably go over your head, but the use of one’s language has nothing to do with one’s political leanings. Ooops, I almost forget–any time someone disagrees with a conservative’s opinions, conservatives must reflexively throw out “leftist” or “liberal” as if not not only some great intellectual pronouncement, but a permanent wound in the intended victim. You make me laugh with your pathetic dribble.

    DudeAsInCool (70dd4b)

  136. do you really want me to do a rat-a-tat on each and every one of them?

    Why not Sparky? I took the time to make my counterpoints, can’t you? But it seems as though I answered your question. Let me answer your new ones…

    If the Clinton administration dismantled our military and intelligence functions, how come Clinton’s army was prepared enough to roll through Afghanistan and Iraq so quickly afer 911?

    You seem to assume, unlike most Democrats, that Afghanistan and Iraq are pretty much going great. Glad to hear that because I get tired of the “quagmire” rhetoric from “I need instant-gratification because I say so” Democrats. Very refreshing.

    I have to disagree with the “roll through” portion however. It’s been hard work with much more to come. I’ve been in since 1983 and saw the Clinton drawdowns. I have experience in how damaged we were. Have you been alive that long kiddo?

    As to Olbermann’s critique, he astutely laid blame at 3-4 President’s, not just one. I could be wrong, but this forum seems to be overly fatuated with just one administration, so disagreeing with Olbermann on his objectivty, is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black, don’t you think?

    No, I don’t… and not only could you be wrong, you are wrong. Go back to reading Kos if you prefer feelings over facts. I blame the terrorists, not Presidents Bush or Clinton. Olberman’s ranting against Bush is tired and pathetic. The only ‘critique’ of anyone else was that he thought Bush was worse.

    Besides, it’s his job to objectively report news, isn’t it? Worry about my objectivity when I start getting paid for it and you see something that doesn’t appear objective. Until then, you can judge my objectivity by responding to my arguments like anyone else. I would suggest a course in logic first though. And BTW, ‘fatuated’ isn’t a word. Just sayin’.

    Stashiu3 (0da7ed)

  137. PS Forgive, my pathetic typing above. I wish you could review your posts before posting.

    DudeAsInCool (70dd4b)

  138. 136. … You make me laugh with your pathetic dribble.

    LMAO… Pot, meet kettle. Kettle… pot. That’s irony for ya.

    You’re another of actus’s sockpuppets, aren’t you? No argument, no critique… just middle-school snark.

    The overuse of profanity does indicate that an argument is weak. And does your mom know her little troll is on the computer this late? Buy a vowel and start over, this is just not your night.

    Stashiu3 (0da7ed)

  139. I can forgive pathetic typing easily… it’s your lack of logic I’m really having trouble with.

    Stashiu3 (0da7ed)

  140. Stash, have you been smoking some? The overuse of profanity does weaken an argument, but my point was that does not determine one’s political leanings. Please learn to READ what is stated in a sentence–that means all the vowels and consonants in that sentence–instead of reinterpreting them to your own liking. Last but not least, the “troll”, “middle-school smirks” lables severely weaken your argument…which was?

    DudeAsInCool (70dd4b)

  141. Pure.Comedy.Gold.

    Ignoring trollish behavior.

    Stashiu3 (0da7ed)

  142. Stash, I see I have missed some important posts of yours. First and foremost, you understand my abbreviation ‘BTW’ for “by the way”, just sayin’, so what’s your point?

    I have to disagree with the “roll through” portion however. It’s been hard work with much more to come. I’ve been in since 1983 and saw the Clinton drawdowns. I have experience in how damaged we were. Have you been alive that long kiddo?

    I wasn’t addressing the aftermath–see Mr. Rumsfeld for the rest of the plan. And BTW (lol), I am not a kid–I’m probably older than you. I grew up in the town where the Army War College is and know a lot more about the military than you think. I don’t think you should attempt to test my knowledge there, or my academic credentials…you are playing with someone out of your league.

    DudeAsInCool (70dd4b)

  143. And Stash, “fatuated” falls under my “typos” declaration. Just sayin’, BTW. Seriously, it would be nice if this forum allowed the poster to review his posts before posting–most liberals arent born with the mental facilities to type out a coherent sentence without a spell or grammar check 🙂

    DudeAsInCool (70dd4b)

  144. Really? You sound like a high-schooler. I was stationed at Carlisle, love the car shows. But your knowledge and academic credentials are useless if you can’t express yourself better than you have been. Now, I can step down to your league if you like, but you’ll never get better if you don’t learn to stretch yourself. Go back to Kos if you can’t play with the big kids.

    Now, if you weren’t addressing the aftermath, what were you addressing?

    If the Clinton administration dismantled our military and intelligence functions, how come Clinton’s army was prepared enough to roll through Afghanistan and Iraq so quickly afer (sic) 911?

    Seems like aftermath to me. Fair warning, if you come back something idiotic again (like “snark” and “middle-school” being profanity… sigh), I will have to ignore you forevermore. You’re beginning to waste my time.

    Stashiu3 (0da7ed)

  145. Although troll-bashing is fun, I gotta admit it.

    Stashiu3 (0da7ed)

  146. And the name DudeAsInCool doesn’t smack of academia. Just sayin’

    Stashiu3 (0da7ed)

  147. Stash, I am really surprised at the number of crude handles you have thrown at me–“you sound like a high schooler”–“does your mom know her little troll”–and “middle-school snark” was your comment to me, so if you want to call someone an idiot, look in the mirror, as I was paraphrasing your comment!

    I didn’t hang out at the “Car shows”–I did Know a fair number of officers at the War College and a lot of the professors at Dickinson, personally–I doubt if we passed each other on the way.

    DudeAsInCool (70dd4b)

  148. Ignoring trollish behavior… permanently.

    Stashiu3 (0da7ed)

  149. LOL – you can give it out, but you can’t take it. Peace out.

    DudeAsInCool (70dd4b)

  150. Clinton explodes, right-wing media to blame…

    If you missed Fox News Sunday’s interview with Bill Clinton, then you avoided a political tsunami of extraordinary proportions……

    Doug Ross @ Journal (59ce3a)

  151. “LOL – you can give it out, but you can’t take it. Peace out.”

    Morons.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  152. I just want to say that I’m a moderate Democrat and what I saw on Fox news Sunday was unprofessional, unneccessary and unacceptable behavior on the part of YOUR comentator, Chris Wallace. If, anything, it would have been better if Clinton slugged him (Wallace) but the finger pointing did just fine. This was a smear tactic on your networks’ part to make Clinton look bad (you didn’t succeed). That weasal Mr. Wallace (as I see him now) should be fired for asking such a miniscule and rediculous question to a former U.S. president (Democrat or Republican) in an attempt to rehash what wasn’t necessary to bring up in the first place. Then Mr. Wallace, embarrased and attempting to retract to cover his ass, stated that this question was posed by the readers is such a cop-out (Talk about cutting and running). I have even less respect for your network with your band of neocons and right-wing reporting. And I don’t care if you post this message or not but it’s time these unprofessional right-wing smear tactics stop. Robert in Pa.

    Robert C. (5cf7c0)

  153. Black Jack, I have been consistent. My first post said “the bottom line is still that Clinton did a whole heck of a lot more to try to stop bin Laden than Bush’s people did.” Check and you’ll see that every one of my posts has been about responsibility for 9/11, which I presumed was the central topic of this thread. You have been the one to go off message with talk about lying, murder conspiracies, Branch Davidians, underpants, Al Gore, etc. I guess I made a mistake by reponding to your side remarks, but my main point remains, and it is in the form of a question: Do you believe Bush, the “accountability president,” did enough to prevent 9/11? The right has tried to squelch any discussion of this question like the plague, except to blame it on Clinton. C’mon, all you righties. What do you say?

    Billrog (85537e)

  154. Nice to hear from the Moderates. 😉

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  155. Thanks for posting the link to the full transcript of the Rumsfeld interview. If you read the whole thing it’s pretty clear that Wallace waa actually giving Rumsfeld an opportunity to rebut the charges then in the news that Richard Clarke made.

    In fact, there were a couple of instances where Rumsfeld didn’t rebut the crahges FORCEFULLY ENOUGH! And where Wallace. Acting like Rumsfeld’s attorney, tried to steer him back to the White House talking points!

    So, thanks for posting a transcript of this interview, pretty much proving that Chris Wallace is a rightwing political hack.

    Hesiod (102ea3)

  156. […] Clinton gave the MSM talking points they will repeat ad nauseam, and no they won’t fact-check a word of it or report on the extensive fact-checking that has gone on – all over the blogosphere – and has more than proved Clinton’s “facts” as lies. […]

    The Anchoress » Clinton vs Condi; the limits of alt. media (1b383c)

  157. Billrog, seems Condi Rice has already responded to your question.

    Now, let me ask you one: Was Bill Clinton derilict in his duty to protect the nation while he prolonged the Lewinsky scandal?

    Black Jack (507b6e)

  158. it’s amazing how quickly people are apt to isolate supporting symantics (to their own opinions) in a debate and completely ignore the illustrated facts.. which in most cases shed light on a totally relevant idea.

    fact is, Clinton TRIED to take action. no one would let him, republicans impeached him, took over congress AND the white house (in 2 controversial elections, mind you), did NOTHING until we were attacked, then sent our troops into a war against an enemy of our enemy under false pretenses to ultimately kill off more of our soldiers than civilians were killed in 9/11.

    now we’re stuck in a war with no apparent end, we’re running out of money to fund it and all we’ve done is given the terrorists opportunity to modernize their tactics against us and gain political momentum.

    all the while NONE of us can get the actual truth of the matter because everything gets “classified” and the only democrat who has the balls to “check” the current administration is the very president they impeached.

    James M (abb20d)

  159. -Maddy non-too-bright: “….what we left was the “feeling” that the fight on terrorism was important, and needed to be pursued actively….”

    – Crafty Clarke: “….We turned over no plan for fighting terrorism to the Buah administration….”

    – Something seems to be slightly out of tune here. Seems Clinton picked the wrong person to site in his assinine arrogant self-serving defense.

    “now we’re stuck in a war with no apparent end, we’re running out of money to fund it and all we’ve done is given the terrorists opportunity to modernize their tactics against us and gain political momentum.”

    – Last week, due to the Bush tax initiatives, and a booming economy, with oil prices FALLING, the treasury department collected an all time record of 3 billion+ in a single work day.

    – All you’ve managed to do is prove in so many ways why you wouldn’t be able to find you ass with both hands and a flashlight in the WOT.

    – Did you idiot Democraps think the Jihadists would just sit there as targets and NOT make counter moves. Thats as naive and idiotic as it gets. As far as “breeding” terrorists, thats another tail wagging the dog strawman. Of course they’ll make counter moves, and use any excuse they can to promote their murderous cause. This isn’t a high school playground argument. they want to use any means to bring down the democratic West. If you don’t understand that you shouldn’t be bragging about it. It’s the worst reason you could come up with, and shows just how ill-equiped you would be to deal with the terrorist threat. That you can’t see that just proves the point. The position you’ve taken ii using that argument bellows loud and clear to everyone:

    “Don’t do anything to fight terrorism because that will make them mad at us.”

    – They’re already dedicated to our death Dembulbs. Who gives a flying fuck how mad they get.

    – You guys are using grade school arguments against a grown-up, serious, life and death problem. Do you have any idea how childish, and stupid you look?

    – Guess not, because nothing stops your anti-American screeds.

    “All the while NONE of us can get the actual truth of the matter because everything gets “classified” and the only democrat who has the balls to “check” the current administration is the very president they impeached.”

    – So lying as usual, and showing you’re “above it all” arrogance, and atacking a reporter simply for asking a question is showing balls huh. Bullshit. He’s an narcissitic asshole.

    – You think continuously leaking our operational secrets is a good thing. America will be lucky if we can survove your aide to our enemies, and tratorous acts against your own country you mind dead Marxist fuckers. If you idiots lived in any other country in the world you’d all be sitting in prison by now. You don’t deserve to call yourself Americans.

    Big Bang Hunter (9562fb)

  160. Maybe you’ve already seen this, Pat. Congratulations. You made Michael Barone’s blog on the USNews & World Report site. “But the Patterico blog prowls through the transcripts and discovers that Wallace asked similar questions of Donald Rumsfeld in 2004.”

    TNugent (58efde)

  161. BlackJack: I did see the brief story about Condi, and I welcome it. Finally. She says Bush was as aggressive as Clinton. That’s good. Now all we need are some specifics. For example: clearing 60 acres of brush was equivalent to firing 60 cruise missiles. Sorry, that was a cheap shot. But seriously, if she can show they were indeed on the ball, beating the bushes (no pun), demanding full alert from all agencies, retaliating for the Cole, putting money into terrorism, etc., I will stand down humbled. Just as Clinton has outlined the steps he took, and his aides have confirmed them, I will accept as evidence Bush and/or his aides describing in the same detail their actions. I just wonder why they have not done so in the past five years.

    But meanwhile, you still haven’t answered. What is your opinion on Bush’s 9/11 responsibility? Do you give him the benefit of a doubt while awaiting Condi’s evidence, or do you go with what is public to date and reach the only logical conclusion: He dropped the ball.

    As for Clinton again, he did attack bin Laden with missiles in the middle of Monicagate, and all he got for it was scorn from the GOP. They said he did it just to distract attention. I guess now we know they were wrong. So no, to answer your question, I believe that proves he was still fulfilling his duty even while being hounded 24/7.

    Billrog (85537e)

  162. I think there is a misprint. Perhaps someone else pointed it out. At first it says Dick Cheney said Clarke was fired. I think it means Bill Clinton.

    RLA Schaefer (cc15bd)

  163. I tend to look at the simpler side of things, then try to dig farther. So, I start with a simple question and that is: How on earth do you blame a president who has been in office 8 months, for not doing something that you had 8 YEARS to deal with?

    Whether you agree with each and every decision Bush has made, or every tactic he has used, at least HE did something!!! He has stuck to his convictions,he has maintained what he has believed to be the “right thing”. He doesn’t let polls, or politial games make his decisions for him, he stays the course.
    The Democrats could learn alot from Bush.
    Maybe if they would learn these lessons, they would stand a chance of eventually winning an election (god help us).
    I enjoyed Condi’s comments on Clinton.

    Susan (a91ef5)

  164. Rewriting History; Eight Months vs Eight Years…

    This is obviously the Bill Clinton “Rewriting History and Damage Control Tour” in response to ABC’s movie The Path to 9/11. With all the protesting taking place one would have to wonder why so much attention is being payed to this if…

    BIG DOGS WEBLOG (c6ff99)

  165. […] Now where might Brit have picked up that bit? […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Patterico: Tipster to Brit Hume? (421107)

  166. Susan, eight months is plenty of time to prepare for an attack like 9/11, especially given the fact that most of the groundwork had already been done by Clinton’s team.
    Now repeat after me: 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch, not Clinton’s. I want to hear one right-winger acknowlege that fact, and pair it with the Bush claim of being the “accountability president.” The result should be some acceptance of responsibility, not a parade of excuses.

    Billrog (85537e)

  167. So, Billrog, are you suggesting that Bush knew that 9-11 was going to happen? In which case, it was either incompetence or treachery that kept him from acting?

    But that Bill Clinton, as of January 19, 2001, did not know that 9-11 was going to happen?

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  168. Of course not. That’s a ridiculous interpretation of what I said. No one knew for certain it would happen, but there was plenty of reason to be as vigilant as possible. Bush chose not to be as vigilant as possible.
    If a defensive back is advised to cover a certain wide receiver and does not, and the receiver scores a TD, who is at fault? Is something that just happened? Is it the fault of the DB who was playing on the previous set of downs? Does the DB say “I thought it would be a running play”?
    Bush has often said protecting the American people is a president’s no. 1 job. If so, he failed to do his job. Plain and simple. Quit making excuses for him. Stand up and take responsibility like an adult.

    Billrog (85537e)

  169. How is that a “ridiculous interpretation” of the statement

    eight months is plenty of time to prepare for an attack like 9/11, especially given the fact that most of the groundwork had already been done by Clinton’s team.

    If 9-11 occurs, then Bush is a failure. The only way he is not a failure is if 9-11 doesn’t occur. And since Clinton had already done the groundwork of determining that it was going to happen, the attack could only fail if Bush was incompetent (not vigilant enough) or if Bush deliberately let it happen (not vigilant at all).

    Or is there some way, according to you, that Bush could be vigilant, yet 9-11 nonetheless happens?

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  170. Yes. Very good point. Bush could have taken Clinton seriously and done all the preparations, and it still could happen. The receiver scores even with the DB hanging all over him.
    In that case, I say OK. At least he tried.
    But he did not try. And that is his crime.

    Billrog (85537e)

  171. Of course, Billrog.

    You would know, of course.

    I mean, there’s the plan that was handed over by Richard Clarke, except Clarke himself says that there was no such plan.

    This was the same plan that specified responses to the incident involving the USS Cole, except that no memo mentions the USS Cole.

    And I’m still wondering, Billrog. According to you, did Bush not try hard enough, despite knowing about 9-11 (because, as you said, Clinton had already done the spadework), or did Bush not try at all?

    Because you’ve just ruled out any possibility (again) that Bush tried and Osama pulled it off anyway.

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  172. You did not read my post. I said if he tried and Osama succeeds anyway, I say OK.
    Does Bush have to have a plan handed to him, or is he not capable of creating his own based on the mountain of information given him? Does he also need Clinton’s plan in order to retaliate for the Cole? Of course not. He gets into office, says Clinton should have retaliated, it’s something that still needs to be done, and he does it. He doesn’t NOT do it just because Clinton did not give him blueprints.
    Bush did not try hard enough.
    Does the football analogy work for you, or would you like another one?

    Billrog (85537e)

  173. Billrog said, “…eight months is plenty of time to prepare for an attack like 9/11, especially given the fact that most of the groundwork had already been done by Clinton’s team.”

    It’s easy to talk about groundwork, but it’s difficult to find evidence for it, unless you count things like Clinton’s 1999 pardon of the FALN terrorists.

    While using his presidential authority to release convicted terrorists certainly counts as “doing something” rather than just “talking about doing something,” it hardly counts as fighting terrorism, it’s more like, well, encouraging terrorism. That’s the sort of groundwork Bill Clinton was doing prior to 9/11.

    The FALN terrorists were involved in 130 bombing attacks on the US. But, Hillary was running for the Senate and needed Hispanic votes, so Bill Clinton met with FALN representatives and offered to pardon the terrorists. (He refused to meet with the families of their victims.)

    Rather than explain what he had done and why, Clinton invoked “executive privilege” and arrogantly declined to discuss the matter.

    That’s Bill Clinton in action, doing the groundwork for 9/11.

    Black Jack (63943a)

  174. All of you keep talking about Clinton so you can avoid talking about Bush.
    You know what? Forget Clinton. He is irrelevant to the real issue. He is only here because he is the GOP’s 9/11 scapegoat. Pretend Clinton did zero on terrorism. Doesn’t matter. That does not absolve Bush of having his head in the sand and not AT LEAST TRYING to protect his nation against a known threat.
    The phrase “the buck stops here” has not been spoken by the GOP since 9/11. People used to believe that if something is your responsibility and you don’t act, when something bad happens, guess what? It’s your fault.
    Clinton admitted he failed, in those words. Why can’t Bush do the same?
    For a party that stresses personal responsbility, you guys sure have a hard time understanding it when it happens to one of your own. I don’t believe you don’t understand it. You’re too smart. You just don’t have the guts to admit it.

    Billrog (85537e)

  175. Billrog:

    You keep saying Bush didn’t try.

    How do you know?

    What is your basis for that assessment?

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  176. It is common knowledge that non-state-sponsored terrorism simply was not a priority for the incoming Bush team.
    1. Berger told Rice that Osama would be her top priority. I would like someone to give me some evidence that it was. Maybe you guys can find something. You know a lot of details about what Clinton did.
    2. Bush got the newly released Hart-Rudman panel findings in Feb. 01. It warned that “Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers” from terrorism. It stressed urgency and was a detailed blueprint of actions. Even Newt Gingrich said: “The administration actually slowed down response to Hart-Rudman when momentum was building in the spring.” In May, as hearings were about to begin, the White House announced that instead of adopting Hart-Rudman, which had just spent two-plus years studying the issue, that it would have its own task force headed by Cheney to study domestic terrorism. That group did not even convene before 9/11. Word was that they did not want to be seen endorsing anything with Clinton’s fingerprints on it.
    3. The White House opposed three other congressional terror efforts in spring 2001, preferring instead the Cheney task force.
    4. Conservatives keep pointing to Clinton’s lack of retaliation on the Cole attack. If that was so important, why did they not do something, even if it was just symbolic? They came into office just two (three?) months after it happened.
    5. In May 01, Bush announced a new Office of National Preparedness for terrorism at FEMA. At the same time, he proposed to cut FEMA’s budget by $200 million.
    5. Hart-Rudman recommended changing the poor interagency communications. Seven months after 9/11, Tom Ridge said the agencies were communicating better, which proves it could have been done in the 8 months before 9/11.
    6. The nation’s top terror guy, Clarke, was denied the access and clout he had under Clinton.
    7. Clinton’s team had weekly top-level meetings on Osama. Bush people may have discussed him from time to time, but I have seen nothing that attaches much urgency to it.
    8. Bush allegedly responded to the infamous Aug. PDD by ushering the staffer out the door, saying “You’ve covered your a$$.” That’s about the only response to it he had.
    9. Acting FBI chief Pickard said Ashcroft did not want to hear any more about terrorism.
    10. Pickard also said Ashcroft rejected his request for more terror funds — on Sept. 10.
    11. Ashcroft’s priorities at the time were well known: fighting gun control, abortion, suicide laws, medical marijuana and hookers.

    You get the picture. If you guys can give me evidence of more substantial actions taken before 9/11, let me know.

    Billrog (85537e)

  177. Sorry about the mis-numbering.

    Billrog (85537e)

  178. “That does not absolve Bush of having his head in the sand and not AT LEAST TRYING to protect his nation against a known threat.”

    Americans were not taking the terrorist threat seriously because it hadn’t happened on American soil. Period. You can dress it up and try to point the finger at George W. Bush if it makes you feel better about supporting finger-pointing Bill. But trying to compare 8 months of George Bush with 8 years of Bill Clinton is laughable. Did George Bush take OBL seriously? Maybe not. He was taking seriously that most Americans were narcissistic and wanted it to be all about domestic policies. Remember education reform? It was domestic items like that that occupied President Bush. That and trying to wash away the disgusting smell of Bill Clinton’s 8 years of scandal.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  179. Clinton’s team had weekly top-level meetings on Osama.

    And?
    So now “meetings” indicate some sort of seriousness on the matter?

    Are you even bright enough to see the stupidity in typing this?

    If you guys can give me evidence of more substantial actions taken before 9/11, let me know.

    OK:

    The government moved on several fronts to counter the threats. The CIA launched “disruption operations” in 20 countries. Tenet met or phoned 20 foreign intelligence officials. Units of the 5th Fleet were redeployed. Embassies went on alert. Cheney called Crown Prince Adbullah of Saudi Arabia to ask for help. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice asked the CIA to brief Attorney General John D. Ashcroft about an “imminent” terrorist attack whose location was unknown.

    The Ace (22647b)

  180. Clinton’s team had weekly top-level meetings on Osama.

    And?
    So now “meetings” indicate some sort of seriousness on the matter?

    Are you even bright enough to see the stupidity in typing this?

    The Ace (22647b)

  181. OK, I should have expected this response. You guys are great at cherry-picking, looking at a tree instead of the forest.
    Sharon: Just because the American people were not focused on it does not mean the president should not be. He should be ahead of the people and, I repeat, his job is to protect them, whether they know about it or not. Bush was not doing his job.
    Are you saying he was right to not be focused on terrorism? That’s what it sounds like.
    The Ace: A cherry-pick. They did not JUST hold meetings, of course. Holding meetings in and of itself is not necessarily doing anything. But you do have to hold meetings as part of getting something done, and the important point of this is the top-level part. The top guys were in on it under Clinton, people who could get things done. Under Bush, what meetings were held involved lower-level people.
    Under your logic, anyone who holds meetings is not serious? Does Bush hold meetings? Have you ever been in a meeting? Sure, some are useless. But some are important and necessary. Communication is essential. Do you believe they should have text-messaged each other instead?
    So, to answer your question, yes. In the real world, holding top-level meetings does indicate seriousness.
    There were other items in my post, by the way. Did you read ONLY that one item, Mr. Cherry? Did you take what you saw to be the weakest link and use it to represent the entire argument, a la Rush et al?

    Billrog (85537e)

  182. They did not JUST hold meetings, of course. Holding meetings in and of itself is not necessarily doing anything. But you do have to hold meetings as part of getting something done, and the important point of this is the top-level part. The top guys were in on it under Clinton, people who could get things done.

    Except they got nothing done.

    So again, what is your point?

    The Ace (22647b)

  183. The Ace: A cherry-pick. They did not JUST hold meetings, of course. Holding meetings in and of itself is not necessarily doing anything. But you do have to hold meetings as part of getting something done, and the important point of this is the top-level part. The top guys were in on it under Clinton, people who could get things done.

    Except nothing got done.

    So you’re saying that meetings aren’t the measurment metric while ignoring they accomplished nothing only to say “the important people were there.”

    So what is your point?

    There were other items in my post, by the way.

    Yes, silly bullshit all.

    The Ace (22647b)

  184. The Ace: A cherry-pick. They did not JUST hold meetings, of course. Holding meetings in and of itself is not necessarily doing anything. But you do have to hold meetings as part of getting something done, and the important point of this is the top-level part. The top guys were in on it under Clinton, people who could get things done.

    Except nothing got done.

    So you’re saying that meetings aren’t the measurment metric while ignoring they accomplished nothing only to say “the important people were there.”

    So what is your point?

    The Ace (22647b)

  185. My point, I will repeat, is that the Bush admin put a low priority on anti-terrorism.

    Billrog (85537e)

  186. In May 01, Bush announced a new Office of National Preparedness for terrorism at FEMA. At the same time, he proposed to cut FEMA’s budget by $200 million.

    Er, proof?

    Further, does that mean the office of terrorism at FEMA wouldn’t get funded?

    You really, really aren’t intelligent enough to understand the lack of logic that is going on here.

    Conservatives keep pointing to Clinton’s lack of retaliation on the Cole attack. If that was so important, why did they not do something, even if it was just symbolic? They came into office just two (three?) months after it happened.

    Well gee, I don’t know, maybe because the disloyal opposition was busy whining about the “stolen” election maybe?

    What would this “retaliation” have looked like?
    You would have supported it then, right?

    The Ace (22647b)

  187. My point, I will repeat, is that the Bush admin put a low priority on anti-terrorism.

    Because they didn’t sit around in meetings?

    Too funny.

    The Ace (22647b)

  188. You tell me what the retaliation should look like. Your side is the one that demanded it. And yes, I would have supported it.
    And you are stating that all the talk about the stolen election prevented Bush from taking action. That doesn’t speak highly of Bush’s ability.
    OK, then. Do you think Bush put a high priority on terrorism? If so, prove it.

    Billrog (85537e)

  189. And you are stating that all the talk about the stolen election prevented Bush from taking action.

    No, the talk of the “stolen” election, and the subsequent actions of elected Democrats – holding up the transition and political appointees – made it practically impossible for Bush to govern effectively.
    Which was the point of it all.

    The idea Bush should have just started bombing Afghanistan in response to the USS Cole, or bomb wherever, in that political climate, given that the left now questions the timing of Bush’s actions re: terror plots & alerts, is a laughable joke.

    And demonstrates the intellectual vacuity of liberals.

    The Ace (22647b)

  190. It is amusing to posit what reactions a bombing campaign regarding the USS Cole would have precipitated.

    We now know that the 9-11 bomb plot had been in the works for several years. Short of arresting Mohammed Atta and the other conspirators (on what charges, one wonders, flying while Arab??) prior to 9-11 and keeping them incarcerated, it is therefore difficult to imagine how 9-11 could have been avoided by the Bush administration (something Billrog has yet to enlighten us on).

    So, in May 2001, the Bush Administration bombs, say, Afghanistan for the USS Cole. And in September 2001, the WTC and the Pentagon are attacked.

    Are we to presume that the Democrats and the Left would have failed to “connect the dots”? That they would not have promptly proclaimed that Bush’s cowboy attitude and unilateral attacks (b/c who would have assisted?) had precipitated 9-11?

    This is, after all, the same bunch who were busily claiming, in the wake of our retaliation for 9-11 that:

    1. The Bush Administration had paid off the Taliban (remember that business about $43M).
    2. The Bush Administration was intent on helping Unocal build a pipeline across Afghanistan.
    3. The Taliban would have handed over Osama, but the Bush Administration wouldn’t provide them with “proof.”

    Do we think the “Loose Change” crowd wouldn’t be more rabid, if 9-11 was seen as “retaliation” for our response to the USS Cole?

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  191. He should be ahead of the people and, I repeat, his job is to protect them, whether they know about it or not. Bush was not doing his job.

    Does the current NSA data mining of international phone calls with one nexis in the US fall withing your definition of protecting the American people whether they know about it or not? I’d like to know whether you think Bush is doing his job now particularly WRT the classified NSA activities recently revealed by the MSM.

    Harry Arthur (5af33b)

  192. Shoot, Harry, let’s see about the SWIFT program, which even the NYT reported as being legal, above-board, and incorporating both the advice-and-consent of Congress and obtaining all the relevant subpoenas.

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  193. LO, don’t you know that Bush stood down the air defense assets to allow the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon? Don’t you know that Bush had the towers brought down by intentional implosion? Don’t you know that we attacked the Pentagon with a drone or a cruise missile? Don’t you know that we did all this to convince the American people that we needed to attack Iraq so that Bush’s buddies in the defense industry could get richer? Don’t you understand that he had the voting machines reprogrammed so he could steal the 2004 election like he stole the 2000 election?

    Don’t you know anything at all? You really need to check out all the web sites that detail these multiple conspiracies in detail, then you’ll understand what’s truly going on. Bush is creating a fascist state and will abrogate the constitution when his term is up, installing himself as king.

    I can’t believe you right wing nuts fall for all this stuff from the WH.

    facetious/off

    Harry Arthur (5af33b)

  194. […] Great humor from Scrappleface: The morning after Fox News aired reporter Chris Wallace’s interview with a feisty Bill Clinton, the former president today said, “Right-wing, neocon conspiracy theorists are out to get me.” […]

    Clinton: Its Wag the Finger « Colorado Right (71c0e9)

  195. Harry, are you sure you’re giving us the straight skinny? I’m not questioning your sources, of course, but I must say that some of what you report seems a bit far fetched.

    Like, why waste an expensive drone or cruise missile on the Pentagon when simple and more cost effective ordinary high explosives were good enough to bring down the Twin Towers?

    Additionally, I thought we attacked Iraq in order to grab their oil, if Bush’s buddies in the defense industry managed to make a quick buck on the invasion, wasn’t that just a lucky wind fall, and actually beside the point?

    As for the so-called “reprogramming of the voting machines,” wasn’t that unnecessary because of all the strong-arm measures taken to suppress the ethnic vote? Since the fix was already in, I can’t see why anyone would go to the trouble of doing the same job twice.

    According to recent polls, most Americans are already supportive of abrogating the Constitution if it would help prevent GWB making himself king of a fascist state here.

    So, all taken together, I don’t see why we should swallow your nutty pronouncements. Can you explain that?

    Black Jack (63943a)

  196. Say what you will, you still haven’t shown that Bush put terrorism at a high priority pre-9/11. And that is the central question.

    Billrog (85537e)

  197. Wait. I just saw this.
    It is therefore difficult to imagine how 9-11 could have been avoided by the Bush administration.
    How about this scenario. Bush uses Clinton intel to locate Osama, fires missiles at him and kills him and most of his top team. No 9/11. Catches international heat, but he can handle it.
    Or this one: Bush demands all Justice and Defense agencies put prevention as job one. Shake every tree, put together dots, share information. Send it all to the top. Moussoui, Arizona and Fla. flight students are discovered. FAA orders locks on cockpit doors and delayed boarding of anyone with one-way tickets paid by cash. He catches tremendous heat, but he prevents 9/11. No one knows he did, but at least he doesn’t go down in history as the man who lost the towers.
    These are the kinds of things one assumes a more creative president would do, say someone who was part of the administration that fired the 60 missiles.

    Billrog (85537e)

  198. Bush uses Clinton intel to locate Osama, fires missiles at him and kills him and most of his top team

    Um, if Clinton had “intel” as to Bin Laden’s location that could have been passed to Bush, why didn’t Clinton kill him?

    Or this one: Bush demands all Justice and Defense agencies put prevention as job one. Shake every tree, put together dots, share information. Send it all to the top. Moussoui, Arizona and Fla. flight students are discovered. FAA orders locks on cockpit doors and delayed boarding of anyone with one-way tickets paid by cash. He catches tremendous heat, but he prevents 9/11

    When was he supposed to do this, exactly?

    And again, why didn’t Clinton do this?
    Clinton had the “intel” didn’t he?

    The Ace (22647b)

  199. These are the kinds of things one assumes a more creative president would do, say someone who was part of the administration that fired the 60 missiles.

    Who fired 60 missiles?

    Say what you will, you still haven’t shown that Bush put terrorism at a high priority pre-9/11. And that is the central question.

    Comment by Billrog

    You haven’t shown Clinton put terrorism as a high priority pre-9/11.

    The Ace (22647b)

  200. When was he supposed to do this, exactly?
    I don’t know… maybe instead of taking three weeks vacation?
    It’s that kind of urgency that nailed the Milennium bombers.
    Who fired 60 missiles?
    Clinton did. Page 116-117, 911 Commission Report. I assume you have a copy. From hearings: “Let me go to another question, and that is August ’98 — the missile attack, 60 Tomahawk missiles more or less, 20 to 30 al Qaeda killed, bin Laden escaped, according to your intelligence with only hours to spare.” http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/24/se.01.html
    You haven’t shown Clinton put terrorism as a high priority pre-9/11.
    I just did. See above.
    Now the question, again, that righties fear most: What did Bush do? Why won’t you answer it?

    Billrog (85537e)

  201. I don’t know… maybe instead of taking three weeks vacation?
    It’s that kind of urgency that nailed the Milennium bombers.

    Hilarious.

    Um, the President isn’t on “vacation” at any point in time.

    hearings: “Let me go to another question, and that is August ‘98 — the missile attack, 60 Tomahawk missiles more or less, 20 to 30 al Qaeda killed, bin Laden escaped, according to your intelligence with only hours to spare.”

    The problem is, even Sandy Buglar admitted this strike did not target Bin Laden.

    Now the question, again, that righties fear most: What did Bush do? Why won’t you answer it?

    I’ve already answered it.
    Multiple times.

    The Ace (22647b)

  202. I’d like to know whether you think Bush is doing his job now particularly WRT the classified NSA activities
    I do approve of the financial records surveillance. In fact, Bush squelched a similar program pre-9/11. And Sen. Kerry did a good bit of that kind of work in his BCC probe in ’92. He should have promoted that more in his campaign.
    As for the wiretapping, there is already a system in place that allows Bush to do everything he says he is trying to do with it. He has never explained why he needs to avoid FISA court approval.
    And the issue, again, is not what he has done post-9/11, but pre.

    Billrog (85537e)

  203. I just did. See above.

    So a single strike, that did not target Bin Laden mind you, shows Clinton was “serious” about terrorism?

    Why didn’t he do more?
    What did he do after he got a PDB on the matter?

    The Ace (22647b)

  204. In fact, Bush squelched a similar program pre-9/11.

    Proof?

    The Ace (22647b)

  205. Um, the President isn’t on “vacation” at any point in time.
    This one is all the time. But seriously, what’s your point? That he didn’t have time to mobilize his resources? Eight months is not enough?
    The problem is, even Sandy Buglar admitted this strike did not target Bin Laden.
    The Commission Report begs to differ. In any case, missiles were fired at al Quaida. You can’t deny that.
    I’ve already answered it. Multiple times.
    Please provide post numbers.

    Billrog (85537e)

  206. The Commission Report begs to differ.

    Actually it doesn’t.

    I suggest you learn to read.

    That he didn’t have time to mobilize his resources? Eight months is not enough?

    No, the talk of the “stolen” election, and the subsequent actions of elected Democrats – holding up the transition and political appointees – made it practically impossible for Bush to govern effectively.
    Which was the point of it all.

    The idea Bush should have just started bombing Afghanistan in response to the USS Cole, or bomb wherever, in that political climate, given that the left now questions the timing of Bush’s actions re: terror plots & alerts, after 9/11, is a laughable joke.

    Please provide post numbers

    #180.

    The Ace (22647b)

  207. The Ace:
    In fact, Bush squelched a similar program pre-9/11.
    Proof?

    “…suspended U.S. participation in allied efforts to penetrate offshore banking havens…”

    So a single strike, that did not target Bin Laden mind you, shows Clinton was “serious” about terrorism?
    Yes, it does. For more, ask an eye-witness. And at least you now acknowledge there was a strike. How much lethal objects did Bush launch? The score is still 60 to 0.

    I suggest you learn to read.
    That attitude is part of what gives the right a bad name.

    The 9/11 Report: I even gave you page numbers, but I guess you want me to prove I can read. “Berger … concluded that the strikes had killed 20-30 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours.” Bin Ladin was a target, Ace. Fact.

    …made it practically impossible for Bush to govern effectively.
    If Clinton could strike during the Monica circus, Bush could have in early ’01. That’s just an excuse. And I dispute that it was that bad. Most people said put Floridatheft behind us, including Gore, who cut off the Senate challenge to the electors. It’s not as if Bush was being denied the reins to power. He could have done it if he had wanted to. It’s a matter of setting and focusing on priorities. And, again, he did have eight months plus the world’s best military.

    Post number 180.
    Hey, I missed that. I had never seen it before, so I need to give credit where it’s due. That is at least a response to the PDB, even if they forgot one continent. I will ease up a bit on Bush, but I still say he did not do enough, and that 9/11 might have been prevented had the same priority level under Clinton been carried over under Bush. And that Clinton gets smeared instead of thanked for being the first president to really give anti-terrorism some muscle.

    Billrog (85537e)

  208. Billrog:

    Killing Osama would not have prevented 9-11. From all accounts, the planning had been ongoing for years, and killing Osama would not have prevented the plans from being executed (especially since the “go” code did not have to come from Osama).

    Now, it’d be real interesting if you could have arrested Moussaoui and company as you propose. What crimes would you have charged them with? Flying while Arab? It’s useful to remember that flying with boxcutters was perfectly legal on 9-11. And anyone who proposed otherwise would’ve been accused of racism.

    Of course, if you were arresting Ay-rabs for flying while Muslim, and bombing countries for no apparent reason, and 9-11 happened, you’d wind up w/ the reaction you got from the Left—without either countervailing international support and with most of the Left up in arms about “what did you expect?”

    So, Bush squelched a program that looked at bank records? This would put him in line with the NYT, which blew the SWIFT story after 9-11. Are you going to agree, then, that the NYT isn’t serious about stopping terrorism or al-Qaeda?

    Finally, citing Blumenthal, a man whose smears of George HW Bush’s war record make Swiftboating look like love-taps just shows the kind of seriousness you bring to the table. Especially when the whole point of the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush policy was to not engage in tit-for-tat, but to do what Clarke himself was advocating—a larger effort that would get beyond tit-for-tat and go for changing the very terms of the debate.

    The fallacy you are operating under is similar to the one that persuades folks that Pearl Harbor could have been avoided. Ex post facto examination of the record, coupled with information that leaps out at you after the event, “proves” that all that was needed to prevent a horrific incident was glaringly obvious in front of leaders all the time. Radio intercepts, radar returns, past naval exercises involving attacks on a fleet at anchor in Pearl Harbor, all “prove” that FDR knew, and it was either allowed or incompetence.

    You might consider reading “Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision,” and applying it to the events of 9-11.

    Or not.

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  209. Bin Ladin was a target, Ace. Fact

    So why did Sandy Berger say he was not?

    SAMUEL BERGER: We did not target bin Laden, specifically, in this strike. We didn’t know whether he would be in this camp or not. We consider this camp to be a military target. And under these circumstances, we believe that what we did was both appropriate and lawful

    And I dispute that it was that bad.

    Well guess what, I don’t.
    See, I live and work in DC, and at the time was working in the Capitol.

    I’m right.
    Period.

    The Ace (22647b)

  210. It’s a matter of setting and focusing on priorities. And, again, he did have eight months plus the world’s best military.

    Whatever.

    I do find it amusing I’m here answering your questions but you ignore all of mine.

    So again:
    Why didn’t President Clinton “lock down” any cockpits when he received a PDB saying Bin Laden wanted to hijack aircrafts?

    You expressly said Clinton had “intel” that Bush could have used to kill Bin Laden.
    Why didn’t Clinton just do this?

    The Ace (22647b)

  211. Ace:

    Now, that’s a tough one. To believe a scumbag like Sid “Bush didn’t deserve a medal, he abandoned his men” Blumenthal, or a known felon like Berger?

    Hmmmm.

    Can I phone a friend?

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  212. And that Clinton gets smeared instead of thanked for being the first president to really give anti-terrorism some muscle.

    Absurd.

    Launching cruise missles one time isn’t “some muscle.”

    It’s a grossly underwhelming response.

    The Ace (22647b)

  213. And at least you now acknowledge there was a strike.

    I never said or implied otherwise.

    How much lethal objects did Bush launch? The score is still 60 to 0.

    Logical fallacy.

    See, Clinton was acting in response to us being attacked (allegedly).

    So Clinton post-attack:
    60
    then waffle and do nothing.

    Bush:
    Thousands/decimate al Qaida.

    Not only are you keeping the wrong “score” you’re looking at the wrong game.

    The Ace (22647b)

  214. And that Clinton gets smeared instead of thanked for being the first president to really give anti-terrorism some muscle.

    From the link you provided:

    The standby force gave Clinton the option, never used, of an immediate strike against targets in al Qaeda’s top leadership.

    The Ace (22647b)

  215. Bin Ladin was a target, Ace. Fact.
    So why did Sandy Berger say he was not?

    So now you’re trusting one Berger quote as the definitive source vs. the Commission Report? That’s funny. In any case, it’s a distinction without a difference. For the sake of argument I will yield on this point, argued by you with Clintonesque word-parsing. The larger point is that C sent 60 missiles at a prime al Quaida target. That still qualifies as being serious.

    Re smears of Blumenthal: He was an eyewitness and a respected journalist. It really saddens me when anyone subverts political discourse with the Rovian tactic of when you don’t like the message, smear the messenger. And I resent your many snide remarks aimed personally at me.

    Logical fallacy. So you’re saying it’s better to wait until an attack to do something. Three thousand souls beg to differ.

    …standby force… There’s a real logical fallacy for you: Find one tree and use it to represent the forest. Your quote does not disprove mine. It’s like saying because the Yankees lost one game, that means they’re not a great team. (And I hate the Yankees.)

    The bottom line remains that the 9/11 attacks happened on Bush’s watch, not Clinton’s. W’s legacy forever is the loss of America’s twin towers.
    Not to mention almost another 3,000 US service and 40,000 Iraqis dead in a pointless, dangerous war. But that’s another topic for another day.

    Billrog (85537e)

  216. So now you’re trusting one Berger quote as the definitive source vs. the Commission Report?

    Um, the commission report never said Bin Laden was the or a target. Merely that he was “missed.”

    I would think you’re intelligent enough to read and comprehend, but apparently not.

    So you’re saying it’s better to wait until an attack to do something

    No, I never said that.
    Again, reading and comprehension.
    Not your strong suit.

    Find one tree and use it to represent the forest. Your quote does not disprove mine.

    Huh?
    I never said it “disproved” anything?
    It is representative of the Clinton approach.
    Plan, not act.
    Or more appropriately, talk about plans, don’t
    act.

    W’s legacy forever is the loss of America’s twin towers.

    Well, considering you can’t read simple sentences, I’ll take this with a grain of salt.

    The Ace (22647b)

  217. […] Or, beyond calling the Clinton/Wallace debacle the soap opera it is, Meyer might have addressed how no one in the mainstream media – those “mediating intelligences” – thought it necessary to do a little fact-checking on Clinton’s claims (and heaven knows the blogs would have made the checking very easy for them) beyond reporting that he “defended himself vigorously.” Nope. No reason to check up on a Clintonian claim. If he said it, it must be true! […]

    The Anchoress » Dick Meyer: talkin’ ’bout his g-generation… (1b383c)

  218. Bush’s legacy will be “Responsibility without Accountability.” Adolf had twelve years to muck about
    and George will have eight.

    Whether Bill had a “meltdown” on camera depends on your news source and POV. Looking for bitching points about either party makes everybody stupider than ever daily. Odds are you will be killed by your appendix or a drunk driver long before Al Quaida ever takes a shot at you. Neither party has their priorities straight or you best interests in mind as they worry about upcoming elections.

    Art (a2ffb8)

  219. […] And lie Clinton did. Lied and lied and lied again.  Read the links for a more in-depth analysis, but for one example of those many lies, Clinton repeated the mantra that Clinton left behind a “comprehensive war plan” against al-Qaeda for the Bush administration when he left office. In fact, according to both former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and former Clinton and Bush official Dick Clarke (who Clinton cites as an authority on his terrorism record elsewhere in the interview), that isn’t true. […]

    EJ Dionne: Clinton’s Falsehood-Littered Blow-Up On FOXNews Was Fighting Propaganda « The Hippy Conservative (b543cc)

  220. Featured on BuzzTracker…

    BuzzTracker.com (db9469)

  221. […] What the hell? Excuse me, but where on earth did Al Snore get the idea that the President was more concerned with his legacy than whether or not we win in Iraq? The only president in recent history obsessed with his legacy was the chap Gore was second in charge to: former Prez. Bill Clinton. Clinton was (and is) so obsessed with keeping the lid on his administration’s counterterrorism failures (afterall, the 9-11 Commission all but gave him a pass) that his lawyers demanded that ABC not just change but pull the 9-11 docudrama Path to 9-11 because he thought it unfairly portrayed the Clinton record on counterterrorism (it didn’t). This is also the same guy who expected softballs about his charity work be thrown at him when Fox News’ Chris Wallace did an interview with him back in September. When the topic of the interview switched to the Clinton administration’s record on counterterrorism, Clinton became red-faced and essentially accused Chris Wallace of a ‘conservative set-up’ – simply because Wallace asked him the same type of tough questions about Al Qaeda under his watch that he did of then-Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. […]

    Sister Toldjah » Al Gore confuses Bush with Bubba (1466f5)

  222. […] irony to those affected by 9-11. That is based largely on her husband’s various actions or lack of action which directly provided terrorist the ability to perpetrate those […]

    Obama Administration Provides Visas for Terrorism Suspects - Marcus_Traianus’s blog - RedState (2dbb8b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4076 secs.