Equals
Posted on 09/25/2006 7:41:31 AM PDT by DocFarmer
Bill Clinton's Terrorism Temper Tantrum Written by Doc Farmer Monday, September 25, 2006
Bill Clinton Gets Mad About Terrorism (Finally!)
We all get ticked off occasionally. It happens. We even lose our temper and chew people out from time to time. I understand that, and I'd wager that most people do. We get upset when we make mistakes -- usually with ourselves, although it is natural to get a bit honked off at the person(s) who point out our mistakes. Normally, we accept their criticism (if we're honest to ourselves) and learn to correct those mistakes and prevent them in the future. If our mistakes harm others, we usually apologize for those errors and do our best to try and fix that harm if possible. I think everyone expects folks to behave in a mature and honorable fashion, and for the most part folks live up to that expectation.
Unless your name is William Jefferson Clinton, that is.
Now, you may have heard that Slick Willie was interviewed on Fox News Sunday (that evil bastion of right-wing, neo-con, fascist Dubya-supporting boneheads) by Chris Wallace. Mr. Wallace, last I checked, was NONE of those things, but let's set that aside. Slick was there to talk about his "global initiative", which is a fancy term for "Slick Trek IV -- The Search For A Legacy". Chris Wallace had a list of questions, about half of which were about Clinton's work on Global Warming (which doesn't exist as a man-made entity), and Global Heath, and mitigating religious/racial conflicts, etc. Generic but worthwhile issues, except for that global warming crap (another excuse to blame America). Be that as it may, the Clinton Foundation was getting a bunch of "experts" together to talk about these issues. Not fix them, but talk about them. You know, kinda like the UN.
Mr. Wallace recognized, however, that his viewers had a lot of questions about that ABC miniseries that Clinton tried to scotch, The Path To 9/11, which was critical of his administration (and also the Bush administration, frankly) and the handling of Usama bin Laden. (As we all know, last week a Cheese-Eating-Surrender-Monkey newspaper stated that bin Laden was dead. Over the weekend, however, his condition was upgraded to "alive"). No sooner had Mr. Wallace gotten to the point of his question, Slick Willie got mad. I mean mad for a politician, anyway. He was defensive, he was sputtering answers, interrupting Wallace, and basically trying to sell Richard Clarke's book over and over again, as if that absolved him of all sins.
Clinton then went on to accuse Wallace of being a neo-con. I think anyone who knows Mr. Wallace (and his famous father) can rest assured that he is not ANY kind of rep/con/tair. However, Mr. Wallace does work for Fox News, and they do have a reputation of trying to be "fair and balanced" (which is anathema to lib/dem/soc/commies). Frankly, Fox News does a hell of a lot better at that than most other news organizations. Since Chris Wallace is doing his best to cover all points of current import, he asked the tough questions. And Clinton tried to rip him a new one for it.
For roughly ten full minutes, Clinton went into full diatribe mode. Accused everybody else of messing up. Blamed rep/con/tairs for not getting bin Laden in 8 months, while not mentioning that he himself didn't get him in 96 months. Said that bin Laden wasn't even on the radar screen, although he himself said in his presidency that bin Laden was. Blamed the military for not giving the go-ahead to retaliate for the USS Cole attacks, while apparently forgetting what the term "Commander In Chief" actually stands for.
Clinton was red-faced. Clinton was finger-pointing. Clinton was leaning forward in his chair toward Chris Wallace. Frankly, I half expected Clinton to throw a punch at one point.
Clinton was lying.
As usual.
Look, let's face facts here. Clinton screwed up on getting bin Laden prior to 9/11. So did Bush. That's a fair and honest assessment. Not a very flattering one, but it does have the benefit of being the truth. Nevertheless, Clinton lied about his efforts to get bin Laden in particular or terrorists in general. He did LESS in his presidency to reduce the risk of terrorism. He did LESS to respond to actual acts of terror against US citizens and US interests. He let bin Laden get out of the gun sights on three separate occasions. He even ADMITTED this, on audio tape, saying he didn't have legal authorization when he actually DID.
But all Clinton can do is blame everybody else. He cannot accept his own failure. He may have said he failed, but it is obvious that he cannot and does not accept that he had any FAULT. Therefore, he lashes out at a reporter, and incidentally at the American People, to indict everyone except himself.
If it weren't for the fact that he is a former President of the United States, such a sustained outburst would be viewed as almost humorous. In his case, though, Clinton just came across as pathetic, panicked, and furious at the wrong person. He should have taken responsibility for what he DIDN'T do on his watch. Instead, he has taken every opportunity to disrespect the current President for all the things he HAS done to fix the grievous errors that Clinton left in his administration's wake.
Clinton calls the Wallace's Fox interview and the ABC miniseries "a misinformation campaign." Well, that's also a lie. It's an information campaign. It's the truth. It goes beyond politics here, despite what Clinton may wish to pretend in his partisan-ladened mind.
Frankly, I have to wonder -- if Clinton acts this way now, just how did he act during his presidency? I think we all remember that "apology" he gave after he got caught committing perjury (and no, it wasn't all about sex -- it was all about judicial malfeasance on his part). He spent about 90 seconds apologizing and the rest of the time coming up with excuses and blaming everybody else. He skirted issues, obfuscated responsibility, and basically decided that it was just a political attack on him.
We all remember as well his famous "finger-wagging lie" when he was speaking about a former intern. He was wagging that finger again at Chris Wallace during his overly-defensive diatribe. One could infer that you know Clinton is lying when he wags his finger. Others claim that you know Clinton is lying when he moves his lips. Either way, it's hardly the type of behavior we should expect or tolerate from any high government official, current or former.
Clinton's narcissism is still amazing to watch. It's all about him. He actually said after 9/11 that he wished it had happened on his watch. Think about that. He was so concerned about his legacy, that he wished 3,000 innocent people could have been slaughtered so HE would look more "presidential."
Well, it very easily could have, considering his pathetic and weak-willed actions.
And now, all he can do when confronted with the truth is lose his temper, attack a reporter, and have a ten-minute on-air tantrum.
I think we've found his true legacy, folks.
About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in the Midwest. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.
This Article Was First Published On ChronWatch At: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=23907
Posted on another thread...
I'm sure this has already been noted on the thread, but I caught
several slurs in Clinton's speech patterns. He may have been looped.
"Rithdraw" (withdraw) from Somalia.....
"Lonts" (launch) a full scale attack and search for Bin Laden...
Special "Forshez" (Forces)....
"Shradegy" (Strategy).....
If I were "shtill" (still) President we'd have more than 20,000 "troots" (troops)...
Special "Forshez" (Forces)... (twice)
Mistakes I "sot" (thought) I made....
Drugs that make the tongue fat?
IMO, Carter is a more dangerous ex-president because of his extreme self-righteousness (which covers for his failed presidency - the worst of the 20th Century). Clinton is a narcissistic liar who wants to have a better legacy than he deserves. There are enough sycophants in the Clinton camp that he is probably told on a daily basis that he's the best we ever had. Anyone who questions that is bound to provoke his rage.
Compare these two with the class that GHW Bush and his son have shown. They have taked ten times the crap and faux news from the Media/Democrats, but act like gentlemen secure in themselves. Can anyone out there not wonder about liberalism being a form of mental disease or personality disorder?
Great point, among many other great points.
Equals
Do blood pressure meds make you loopy? Anyone know?
I think he was having a mini-stroke. Both my parents have had them and I recognized the symptoms first by their slurred speech.
His body language and defensive position lets everyone know that there is truth to the allegations and that Clinton has been in the hot seat for the last several weeks. America has always known that Clinton left no decent legacy as President. His need to defend his name is going to benefit the Republicans in November. Americans are smart enough to see that the Democrats have nothing new to offer except increased taxes and spending, that they cannot defend America because their leaders are in such disarray.
Yes. Probably drugs.
We mercilessly ridicule Bush because of a natural
(and endearing) quirk in his speech pattern, yet
Clinton's "obvious" and self induced handicap is
minimilized.
I wonder how Carter would like it if Bush showed up at his Habitat house "raisings," then criticized Carter's efforts and tried to convince suppliers not to co-operate with Carter, etc.
Should be fun on seeing who's show this guy goes on for his rebuilding show... Oprah, larry king - he needs a far left nut case that never challanges anyone to the truth.
Clintoon is trash. Normally I'd say we at least escaped his 8 years without much harm, but I can't - he harmed this country considerably.
BP meds don't make you loopy, but they do cause Erectile
Dysfunction. Hmmmm. Now we know why Clinton is so angry.
Maybe slightly off subject, but President Bush was trying to set up his Administration and the RATS were blocking almost every nomination and effort he was trying to make. It was a huge job. He still believed that the RATS that saturated the left over Clintoon Administration would still believe in American and would join in rebuilding what Clintoon and his RAT followers messed up.. He was wrong. That was the only failure our President could be accused of, his mistaken belief in RATS. These were the same RATS that supported Clintoon destruction of the CIA, FBI, and in general the military.
Can't attest to the effects of all BP meds, but the ones I take don't have any negative cognitive or motor function effects.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.