Say It Isn't So!
Bill Clinton lying?! No - say it isn't so!
But Condoleezza Rice contradicts his account of his alleged efforts in the war on terror -- and she isn't alone. Ex-Clinton "advisors" are weighing in, too.
More inconvenient facts here.
But Condoleezza Rice contradicts his account of his alleged efforts in the war on terror -- and she isn't alone. Ex-Clinton "advisors" are weighing in, too.
More inconvenient facts here.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:50 AM
8 Comments:
You're quibling over minor points and missing Clinton's larger point, which is that it is wrong to put sole blame for 9/11 on him, which is what lots of right wing partisans are attempting to do.
The fact of the matter is that no one really understood the threat Al Qaeda posed prior to 9/11(excluding very few men like John O'Neill at the FBI and Michael Sheuer at the CIA.) Any other man in Clinton's position most likely would have pursued similar policies on terrorism, and, indeed, Bush's anti-terror policy pre-9/11 was remarkably similar to Clinton's.
People on both sides are going to attempt to try to shift blame to the president of the other party, but those attacks must be understood as based only in partisan hate, not an unbiased analysis.
Clinton and his administration was and is criminally negligent for their eight years in the White House, where we were attacked on numerous occasions and they did little of NOTHING, to stop it!
Excuse me, but what the fuck are you talking about? Are you aware that Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan that came within a hair of killing Bin Laden? How is that "nothing?"
I'm so glad josh has joined the debate. He raises the IQ of the moonbat trolls to 2 pts.
Everyone with a brain knows, "Clinton is a liar" editor counters that with Bush is gay. editor, you are a hypocrite and a bigot.
josh says that OBL was hiding in that asprin factory...Also, how do you condone that? Wasn't that a unilateral show of force? France didn't approve it first.
They don’t call Clinton “Slick Willie” for nothing. Had he chosen a different profession, he could have been the most successful used car salesman in American history.
The democrats are less certain now of gaining control of the House or Senate, as the recent foolishness at the U.N., plot to put liquid explosives on planes, etc. remind Americans of how dangerous the world is.
Slick’s “angry” attacks on Chris Wallace were planned,and were calculated to convince middle America that the democrats will keep them safe.
The angry tone insured widespread publicity and that people would remember what he said.
I'm so glad josh has joined the debate. He raises the IQ of the moonbat trolls to 2 pts.
I'll choose to take that as a compliment.
Everyone with a brain knows, "Clinton is a liar" editor counters that with Bush is gay. editor, you are a hypocrite and a bigot.
josh says that OBL was hiding in that asprin factory...Also, how do you condone that? Wasn't that a unilateral show of force? France didn't approve it first.
When the hell did I say that? The bombing of the aspirin factory was obviously a fuck-up based on faulty intel. Cliff made the statement that Clinton did "nothing" to combat Bin Laden in the '90s(He even capitalized the word nothing). I was pointing out that that statement was categorically false, as the missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan show.
eddy never fails to show what a putz he is. He insists on adding unrelated crap to the thread, just to smear the prez. Now he gets info from Kitty Kelley? He can find info just as deep and dependable on the wall of a toilet stall, and probably does.
Now Josh is a totally different story. As COPioneer may have been a might sarcastic, I sincerely appreciate Josh's visits. I don't agree with him, but he's a refreshing change from the usual suspects. He seems a man in charge of his faculties and brings some thought to the debate. Kudos to him.
But I think the debate is going astray. I don't see too many putting ALL the blame on Clinton. In fact, it's been made pretty clear that pre-9/11 anti-terrorist activity was insufficient. The only difference is the time available to each admin before 9/11. It must be taken with some degree of certainty that Bubba will embellish to say the least. (My favorite line of his was, "I never worked so hard as I did on..."whatever. His interview with Wallace seems a variation on that theme.) And now, there are those, including some who worked in one agency or another during Clinton's term, who contradict his rants from the interview. This is the point of the thread, and what doesn't seem so surprising to hear.
BTW Mr. Putz, everyone remembers that actionable intel is that which contains enough details upon which action can be taken. In other words, time, place, number in the party, smoking or non-smoking vs. someone's coming to a restaurant. That an attack was being planned is not enough info to take action. I don't believe I've heard that the Bush admin had anything really specific. Seek professional help for your BDS.
Cliff made the statement that Clinton did "nothing" to combat Bin Laden in the '90s(He even capitalized the word nothing). I was pointing out that that statement was categorically false, as the missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan show.
Yeah, that's true. "NOTHING" was incorrect. However to say that Clinton did "nothing of any consequence with respect to Al Qaeda" is perfectly appropriate.
Marshall, as always, you are too kind to people like Josh that throw around the f-word like it was candy that somehow increases the intellectual level of the debate. Using language like that simply proves you have fed the evil thoughts between your ears for too long and are filled with rage at anyone that disagrees with you.
Post a Comment
<< Home