[P-40]

President Clinton, in a February 2002 speech to the Long Island Association, said that the United States did not accept a Sudanese offer and take Bin Ladin because there was no indictment. President Clinton speech to the Long Island Association, Feb. 15, 2002 (videotape of speech). But the President told us that he had “misspoken” and was, wrongly, recounting a number of press stories he had read.After reviewing this matter in preparation for his Commission meeting, President Clinton told us that Sudan never offered to turn Bin Ladin over to the United States.President Clinton meeting (Apr.8, 2004). Berger told us that he saw no chance that Sudan would have handed Bin Ladin over and also noted that in 1996, the U.S. government still did not know of any al Qaeda attacks on U.S. citizens. Samuel Berger interview (Jan. 14, 2004).

[acapesket]

Hallucination on parade!
Go BJ

[A CA Guy]

"I tried harder than any man on earth before me to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden

[RedRover]

He was referring to the USS Cole, attacked by terrorists in Yemen in 2000...

Yeah! If Bush cares so much about national security, why doesn't he travel back in time, take over the Oval Office, and let Clinton focus on Monica? Idiot.

[hophead]

"We contracted with people to kill him."

Has anyone but me thought this line was the most thought provoking line in the interview? Who was "contracted"? Was that "contract" legal? Did those "contractors" fail or did they sabotage the effort? Where are they now? Are they still on the job? Did GWB stop that effort? I could think of many more questions but you get the point. I believe this line needs serious investigation.

[CaptRon]

"We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody's gotten since," he said.

Foreign policy by hit man

Leave it to Bill to come up with this.

[Candor7]

The Left Wing of the Dimocrap party wants Hillary gone.
1) They do not want any presidential candidate in favor of continued military intervention in Iraq , Afghanistan and possibly Iran and Israel.

2) Howard Deaniac, Vermont's Village Idiot, is in charge of the DNC purse strings and will see that Hillary gets very little money.

3) The MSM Slimes have congealed a uniform policy, prompted by Dimocrap leftists,to tell the truth about Slick Willy ( The Path to 9/11 and talk shows) so that his viability as a fund raiser for Hillary's presidential run will be weakened or destroyed.

Hillary Clinton will NEVER become POTUS.

We will get something much worse, if you can imagine that.

The Dems intend to nominate a socialist liberal for the Presidency, one who:

1) will preach the new age doctrine of Global Warming,

2) socialized control of industry,

3)socialized medicine,

4)the conversion of the US military into a minimally armed peace corps,

5)and the creation of hate speech laws which limit our freedom of speech(including blogs like free republic),

6) and a gun control policy which will require the registration of all firearms in the USA and a limitation on who can purchase guns ( only dems).

7) Lead an appeasement of Islamofascism policy through the UN.

8) Bring in an Equal rights Amendment to the Constitution for Women.

9) Make Lesbian and Homosexual Marriage a protected right

10) Allow continued unregulated migration by millions of Mexicans and South Americans into the USA.

That leftist Demoncrap Presidential candidate will be much worse than Hillary EVER hoped to be.

The Leftists Dims are now bent on the destruction of the Clintons for the benefit of their own leftist/socialist agenda.

But it also signals something far more ominous: militant leftist Democraps.

Watch for it.

Hillary and her husband are being destroyed politically as we watch, by the left wing of the Democrap party and their MSM running dogs.

I love it, but Beware the treacherous DNC.They have a leftist socialist agenda, and a candidate planned to foist it on the American people.

[DeweyCA]

I wonder if Mike Wallace thinks that his son, Chris, did a "hit job" on BJ. Also I wonder what Mike Wallace thinks of BJ's performance? And is any reporter going to ask Hillary what she thought of BJ's performance?

[oyez]

Aw Hell, Bill we just wanted you to use some of the audacity in the Oval Office that you did in the bedroom. Oh, wait.

[Neverforget01]

Was the former president attempting to blame the right wing for his lack of action against Bin Laden? He was the president--what kind of leader can't make tough decisions and take action when it isn't popular? Thank God this man no longer is in a place of authority.

[ConservativeGreek]

Putting Clinton on the front page again only helps Republicans get out the vote.

[LexBaird]

We contracted with people to kill him.

Unfortunately, he mixed up photos, and the contractor got a picture of Web Hubble or Ron Brown instead.

[P-40]

From the 9/11 Commission Report...

Beneath the acknowledgment that Bin Ladin and al Qaeda presented serious dangers, there was uncertainty among senior officials about whether this was just a new and especially venomous version of the ordinary terrorist threat America had lived with for decades, or was radically new, posing a threat beyond any yet experienced. Such differences affect calculations about whether or how to go to war.

Therefore, those government experts who saw Bin Ladin as an unprecedented new danger needed a way to win broad support for their views, or at least spotlight the areas of dispute, and perhaps prompt action across the government. The national estimate has often played this role, and is sometimes controversial for this very reason.10 Such assessments, which provoke widespread thought and debate, have a major impact on their recipients, often in a wider circle of decisionmakers.The National Intelligence Estimate is noticed in the Congress, for example. But, as we have said, none was produced on terrorism between 1997 and 9/11.

By 2001 the government still needed a decision at the highest level as to whether al Qaeda was or was not “a first order threat,” Richard Clarke wrote in his first memo to Condoleezza Rice on January 25, 2001. In his blistering protest about foot-dragging in the Pentagon and at the CIA, sent to Rice just a week before 9/11, he repeated that the “real question” for the principals was “are we serious about dealing with the al Qida threat? . . . Is al Qida a big deal?” One school of thought, Clarke wrote in this September 4 note, implicitly argued that the terrorist network was a nuisance that killed a score of Americans every 18–24 months.If that view was credited, then current policies might be proportionate. Another school saw al Qaeda as the “point of the spear of radical Islam.” But no one forced the argument into the open by calling for a national estimate or a broader discussion of the threat. The issue was never joined as a collective debate by the U.S. government, including the Congress, before 9/11.

We return to the issue of proportion—and imagination. Even Clarke’s note challenging Rice to imagine the day after an attack posits a strike that kills “hundreds” of Americans. He did not write “thousands.”

[jveritas]

What a POS this man is... anger, hate, crazy eyes, pointing his finger like a street guy... and of course lying and lying and lying.

If President Bush behaves BJ Clinton in did in the Foxnews interview, their will be zillions of stories from now until election day how bad mannered is President Bush and the democrats will be calling for his immediate impeachment.

[bray]

PravdABDNC never disappoints!! Nobody will ever accuse them of being fair and balance.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[Intolerant in NJ]

Clinton accused host Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job"...This was a set-up - Clinton would have accused Wallace of a "hit job" if Wallace had asked him if he thought the sky was blue - he was just looking for a chance to unload on Fox and conservatives after the drubbing he took in "Path to 9/11" - he wants people to read Richard Clarke's book to see what a great job his administration did on terrorism, but Clarke was up to his eyebows in the action, didn't get the job done, and in no way could have written a clear-eyed and balanced book about what happened - journalist Richard Miniter's "Losing Bin Laden" is a much better researched and objective book, and shows just how half-hearted and haphazard Clinton's efforts were.....

[MissAmericanPie]

Depravity on display. Now some dim bulbs want more of the same from his spouse that makes him seem reasonable?

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

BJ Clinton chose his chump well. I share the disdain and contempt for Clinton, but he walked all over Wallace and said every single thing he planned to......stupid Wallace still hasn't gotten it, LOL, he still thinks "he" made Clinton come unglued. Wallace was set up from the git, because Clinton had him pegged to a "T".

[Don Carlos]

Saw it! Was like deja vu all over again. Except this time, the bags under the bent one's eyes are way bigger.

You should put some ice on that, BJ!

[hinckley buzzard]

Wallace said Sunday he was surprised...

In that case, Wallace is an idiot. This is hardly the first time clinton has gone off the deep end during an interview. He did the same thing at the LIEbrary with Peter Jennings, I believe it was, and I suspect other times could be adduced. And his narcisssistic rage was well known during the time his regime was in power.

Hey Chris, here's a clue: when you interview a psychopathic twisted sickie, you should expect psychopathic twisted behavior.