Any Comment, Clintonistas?
And now, another report from The New York Times -- this one about how the State Department warned the Clinton Administration about the dangers inherent in Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan . . . a move that the Clintonistas chose not to deter, and a warning they seemed to ignore.
Strange, isn't it, that "Several former senior officials in the Clinton administration did not return phone calls this week seeking comment on the newly declassified documents."
Can you imagine the feeding frenzy if documents had appeared that showed that President Bush had ignored an opportunity to stop Osama bin Laden -- and here, it's fully five years before 9/11?
Anyone thinking of supporting Hillary Clinton has to wonder: Do we want this gang back in The White House?
Strange, isn't it, that "Several former senior officials in the Clinton administration did not return phone calls this week seeking comment on the newly declassified documents."
Can you imagine the feeding frenzy if documents had appeared that showed that President Bush had ignored an opportunity to stop Osama bin Laden -- and here, it's fully five years before 9/11?
Anyone thinking of supporting Hillary Clinton has to wonder: Do we want this gang back in The White House?
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:06 PM
2 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'll take a stab at this...Hindsight is 20/20. As I recall, around 1998 (?) Clinton sent medium range missiles into Afghanistan which destroyed suspected Al Queda training camps. What would you have had him do? There was no 9/11 and he never would have had the public support to launch the type of ground war we are now engaged in and which has actually (as the London bombings recently reminded us) done nothing to deter terrorism.
Besides, Clinton didn't base his presidency on "winning the war on terror" he based it on fixing the economic mess he inherited from Bush's father. On every measure, jobs, growth, budget surpluses (remember them?) he was successful. Likewise, Reagan (who I am not a fan of) based his presidency on defeating communism. Again, successful. This President has chosen to base his presidency on the "defeating the terrorist". So far, every poll out there suggests that people feel less safe today and that his war on terror has been a dismal failure in this regard. So to start trashing Clinton at this stage of the game is just pathetic. I mean the republican playbook is getting a bit dog-eared don't you think?
Post a Comment
<< Home