Posted on 03/31/2004 6:56:12 PM PST by SwinneySwitch
If you have ever wondered about the far-reaching impact President Bill Clinton’s sexual affair with a White House intern had on the nation’s security, wonder no more. If you believe Richard Clarke, it had a direct bearing on the national response to terrorism and Osama bin Laden.
Clinton, according to Clarke, was hamstrung by concerns that the public generally and political enemies specifically would perceive a strong military effort to take out al-Qaida and capture its leader as a "Wag the Dog" scenario aimed at diverting their attention from his philandering. (In that movie, a fake war is begun to deflect attention from a presidential sex scandal.) As a result, opportunities that might have disrupted the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America were passed up.
At least that’s what the former antiterrorist chief who has become the nemesis of the current White House conceded on national television on Sunday in a bit of candor that belies the thesis of his book that the real culprit was George W. Bush, who failed to take the terrorists seriously while worrying about Iraq. Clarke should know about the Clinton problem. He was there for the full eight years of that presidency as well as the months of Bush’s before 9/11 and for some time after. His tenure in the Bush administration after he was put in a lesser position mainly seemed devoted to writing the book that has been selling like hotcakes.
Is there any other reason for voters to pay attention to the personal lives of would-be presidents even in a day when it seems that sexual exploits no longer count in measuring character or qualifications for the White House? One would have had to be anesthetized not to be aware of Clinton’s proclivities. They were a well-established fact during the years that he was governor of Arkansas, reported on and alluded to frequently both publicly and privately. He saved his campaign in 1992 by going on national television with his wife in a sort of mea culpa to counter accusations by Gennifer Flowers that they had a longtime intimate relationship.
Scandal colored his decisions
Should Clinton have been impeached for the Monica Lewinsky or Paula Jones scandals? He probably should not have been, but he probably should not have been elected in the first place, given the cost to the country of his irresponsibility. That is, if Clarke’s assessment is as accurate as the Democrats tell us it is about Bush.
The public exposure and the threat to Clinton’s presidency that these matters caused quite obviously colored his decisions at a crucial time. And while he sent some bombers over Iraq, used some cruise missiles and intervened in the Balkans, the real threat — bin Laden and his well-financed and -organized followers — wasn’t dealt with. To do so forcefully, the president would have needed enormous credibility. His had been badly damaged, nationally and internationally.
In its assessment of the failures leading to 9/11, the national panel investigating the tragedy can’t ignore Clarke’s latest statement and have any authenticity of its own. This is an investigation that Clarke has single-handedly politicized by his allegations against Bush in the midst of a presidential campaign. It is just plain stupid to argue as some have that Bush has aggravated the situation by attacking Clarke. After all, these charges go directly to the heart of his presidency and his efforts to win re-election. Allowing them to stand unchallenged would be an admission of their correctness.
Now it turns out that bin Laden and much of his network might have been put out of commission had Bush’s predecessor not been compromised by his own sexual immaturity. His concerns should not have been how he was perceived, but what was right for the country. Whether he would have had the public support for a major military operation is doubtful, but considerations of his own personal problems should not have entered into the equation. All this proves that character does matter.
Dan Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service.
As a result, opportunities that might have disrupted the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America were passed up.Translation: Clinton's blowjob cost us 3000 lives.
In other words his fear of political retribution made him derelict in his duties as CIC.
You two deserve each other.
His wifes politcal ambitions. You're guy Clinton is a puke, was a puke and will forever remain a puke.
Get lost.
From Larry King Live last night:
SHAYS: No, I won't read a letter. I just -- I want to say, I have no ill will against Richard Clarke, but I am troubled that I feel he's rewriting history. He came before my committee, we had 20 hearings before September 11, 2001. And he came in in a closed-door meeting, we asked him what our strategy was to combat terrorism and he said it would be silly to have a strategy. We know who the bad guys are and we go after them. And we were so stunned by it. We wrote him a letter a few days later saying, what do you mean it's silly. And asking him to explain what our strategy was. What I would have liked to have asked him was, during the eight years he was there, what was the strategy -- first off, what was the assessment of the terrorist threat that all three commissions said that we needed to develop. What was our strategy. And I don't think there was one. The commission's asked for it. And the administrations of both parties should have produced it.
And I loved this part:
SCHIEFFER: Well, I'll tell you, Larry, I think that all of us were slow to recognize this threat of terrorism. When Bill Clinton first began firing those cruise missiles into the Sudan, and into Afghanistan, he was immediately challenged. People wondered, is he doing this to distract and to try to divert attention from Monica Lewinsky. Every one of his actions at that point, rightly or wrongly, were being questioned. I think that had Monica Lewinsky had not come along, I think all of us might have come to understand the threat of terrorism a lot quicker than we did. I think we were all slow to recognize this.
Again:
SCHIEFFER: Well, I think there were questions about President Clinton's credibility. As I was just saying a while ago. I think the whole Monica Lewinsky thing brought into question the president's judgment. He was questioned about everything he did. And I think perhaps because of that, perhaps some of the things that the Clinton people did pass on to the Bush people were not taken -- I don't want to say were not taken seriously, but perhaps they were questioned in the beginning.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/30/lkl.00.html
And this was cyncooper's reply to me:
SCHIEFFER: Well, I think there were questions about President Clinton's credibility. As I was just saying a while ago. I think the whole Monica Lewinsky thing brought into question the president's judgment. He was questioned about everything he did. And I think perhaps because of that, perhaps some of the things that the Clinton people did pass on to the Bush people were not taken -- I don't want to say were not taken seriously, but perhaps they were questioned in the beginning.
A lesson in why character matters. If a president doesn't want his judgement questioned and wants to be able to lead he'd best not behave like a depraved pervert. And that is just referring to Monica and the rest of the bimbos. How convenient for the Schieffers of the world to pretend there weren't scads of other activities and events that evidenced that Clinton had no business in office with the responsibilities it has.
Sup, Moby.
Meow...
Then Clinton was a bigger fool than anybody ever thought.
What was Clinton afraid of, somebody knowing he was getting a blow job while he was discussing troop strengths with a congressman?
If I were to suggest impeaching Bush, you'd hit me with the "respect a sitting President" line in a heartbeat.
If George Bush did anything close to what Bill Clinton did, we'd demand he resign before any of you people knew what the real story was.
You had no respect for the sitting President when he was a Democrat.
What exactly was there to respect about Bill Clinton?
You crippled him with Whitewater and mistresses and anything you could lift
We did? Typical liberal; always blaming somebody else rather than put the responsibility where it belongs; God forbid Bill Clinton keep his penis in his pants for EIGHT YEARS.
and it kept him from using appropriate military action that might have crippled al Qaeda.
Complete and utter BULLS**T.
You were braying "Wag the Dog" when our President needed our support and respect.
You mean our support to divert attention away from his duplicitous actions?
This article is a criticism of you.
In your dreams.
Sweet heart .. if he could talk people into that war in Kosovo .. he could talk them into talking out Bin Laden
And just think .. if he had the balls to show real leadership by taking out Bin Laden ... his might have saved his presidency from being nothing but a stain in history
Gee .. ever think maybe if he wasn't busy getting blow jobs .. there would be no reaction?
Why don't you go ask lover boy why he kept avoiding Sandy Berger's phone calls .. you know the phone calls about hitting Bin Laden
</> The war in Kosovo was to protect the likes of Bin Laden.
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.