Your place in history is sealed with protein-stain.
Posted on 09/24/2006 3:51:57 AM PDT by Oakleaf
Bill Clinton is desperate to be remembered by history for something other than the Lewinsky affair, perjury, and impeachment. And he will be. It's becoming clear that the Clinton legacy will also include eight years of inaction, broken by rare instances of ineffectual action, towards the mounting threat posed by Osama bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists that culminated in 9/11.
That this prospect horrifies Clinton is evident from the rough transcript of the former president's interview with Chris Wallace. Clinton has no defense for his feckless response to the mounting terrorist threat other than the honest and very limited defense that he just didn't imagine these guys could successfully attack us on large-scale at home. Clearly that defense won't do, so instead he lashes out at Wallace, Fox News, ABC, and the "right-wing." Somehow, I don't think history will be very impressed with this sort of flailing, or with all of the meaningless inside baseball Clinton tosses around (e.g., "the CIA was run by George Tenet who President Bush gave the medal of freedom to and said he did a good job").
Nor will the fact that President Bush was slow off the mark help Clinton. First, failures by one administration do not excuse failures by another (although they would help support the honest defense that Clinton is unwilling to make -- that it was difficult to comprehend the true extent of the threat). Second, Bush was in a position to create a post-9/11 legacy of fighting terrorism and he'll be remembered for that legacy. Clinton's effort to pull Bush down with him is a fool's errand.
The inescapable fact is that Bill Clinton, for all of his strengths, gave the country an unserious presidency, and it turned out (not surprisingly) that we needed more. Clinton savored the popularity that came with that presidency, but now he must live with its unfortunate and unflattering legacy.
JOHN AGREES: That's right. I'd go farther in defense of President Bush, too. The record is clear that he believed more effective, definitive action needed to be taken against al Qaeda and ordered a plan for such action to be prepared early in his Presidency. As I recall, such a plan was either just complete or almost so, when the terrorists struck first. Also, while one can argue that Bush didn't act aggressively enough soon enough, he didn't pass on an opportunity to collar bin Laden, as Clinton did. How do we know this? Clinton said so, and you can listen to him say it here.
Clinton, addressing an audience on Long Island on February 15, 2002:
We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.
The astonishing thing about this is that February 1996 was not only after the first World Trade Center bombing--which Clinton never responded to in any meaningful way--it was also after the "Bojinka" plot to blow up eleven American airliners simultaneously over the Pacific Ocean was discovered and, just barely, foiled. The idea that we had no basis on which to "hold" Osama bin Laden is ludicrous, but indicative of the legalistic mindset that hobbled the Clinton administration in its efforts, such as they were, to deal with the threat of Islamic terrorism.
Posted by Paul at 02:47 PM
Your place in history is sealed with protein-stain.
Clinton is not alone in his fecklessness over Islamofacism. And I'm afraid that had the Muzzies continued to just blow up our people and stuff overseas Bush would have been no better. 9/11 changed that, of course, and I feel sure Bush did a better job than any dem pres would have. However, I think the "infidel" world remains divded and is still not taking our mutual assualt by the Jihadists with the seriousness it deserves.
And thus the anger displayed at the interview with Chris Wallace. The ball is now rolling downhill and lying, denying and blaming others cannot stop it. Calling him an unserious president is being kind.
It was never about the U.S., but all about him (Clinton)!
Oh, I agree. Frankly, I'm no better, either. It's not like I realized terror should be a major national focus until 9/11. I'd be willing to give Clinton a bit of a pass on this, if he weren't such a lying jackass about it now.
What was really pathetic was his attempt to defend himself by pointing to a book. He was President. If he had a defense, he could point out his own actions, instead of criticisms leveled in someone else's book.
Ah-hem...
Everyone needs to remember how the Clintonistas attempted to steal the 2000 election. In the processes of subverting the Constitution and rule of State and Federal election laws, they preventing President Bush from accessing necessary resources required to establish a functional government. The rats denied President Bush funding and access to government facilities while attempting to stage a coup over the will of the American people and regain the power the people denied the rats.
When the rats finally gave up on their criminal attempt to steal the election, the Clintonistas sabotaged and damaged tax payer funded government equipment so severely, it had to be completely replaced before President Bush's staff could even begin the real work of governing.
They probably didn't have a chance to even consider what they were actually going to do about the current situation at hand until March 2001, when most people were severely hurting from the effects of the Clinton recession. President Bush immediately promoted economic relief for the nation in the form of tax cuts that took affect that summer. I remember the perfect timing of my check. Of course President Bush was engaged in addressing the threats of terrorism, but being delayed by some 5 full months by the rats, it's awfully difficult to cast much blame in his direction.
(the following was contributed by taildragger) Not only that, but after the inauguration, does anyone remember how long it took to get Cabinet and other key players through Congress? Wasn't it something like 4 months respectively for both Colin Powell and Condi Rice? Refresh my memory here but wasn't that schlub of a Senator from my state of MI, Levin who ran the block?
The point is they just didn't stop by trying to steal the election, they formed a resistance to allowing an elected administration from function by thwarting the congressional part of the process.
The rats were the ones who caused us the most damage up and until the attack itself.
All the while Osama laughed and called the DNC "my friends"...
You got yer legacy, Bubbah! It's two smoking holes at "Ground Zero", a burning Pentagon and a flaming wreck of an aircraft in PA. You can't escape how history will remember you, scumbag.
Thanks for any commentary to contribute to this rant. These are very important threads. We are the keepers and attendants to history. The truth will be remembered and passed on to following generations.
so many cigars, so little time.
Far from kind, the term "unserious president" is just the sort of twist-the-knife dismissive understatement Clinton deserves. As a kid, I recall my parents' term for people they liked least -- "unsavory."
Clinton admitted twice that he gave Osama a pass...His administration is responsible for 9/11. Bush has been attempting to clean up the mess since...Clinton is a failed president...He should carrying on by continuing to try to do good works...end!!
The legalistic mindset is still hobbling us.
Thanks for reposting the summary. I didn't see it earlier.
Clinton tries to blame President bush for not doing anything for the 8 months he was in office. The fact is 8 months into office the democrats were stonewalling President Bush on his choices for a Cabinet and doing whatever they could to add to Mr. Bush's problems.
President Bush made the mistake of not clearing out the offices of CIA and State the day he was inaugurated. He should have fired every Clinton appointee on that day. That was his mistake.
Someone with talent in photoshop needs to put Monica's picture in a tombstone with Clinton Legacy as the name. That and also the pictures of the plane hitting the WTC. We could use them as we did the pictures of the crying baby the last election.
"for all of his strengths........................."
What strengths?
For an ex president, in a time of national crisis, to go overseas, and back stab and cheap shot the president, undermine the military, spread and encourage hate america, blame americaism are the actions of a total lightweight.
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.