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
I guess his legacy could be called "The Vagina Monologues".
bump
Correct.
He would have us believe that when he bombed Baghdad on the day of the impeachment vote -- that was because he thought Bin Ladin was there in Bagdhad.
You'd think, that after the brouhaha of the PATH TO 9/11, Clinton would have had a stock answer to that question which would have invariably been asked of him. Something that made him LOOK GOOD...but not, TOTALLY CRAZY????
The people who take the time to educate themselves and vote are the "Americans" to which I refer. Thanks for your note, it causes greater definition and thinking.
I thought Clinton was “putting On” he did more bashing of the republicans, and the media having the gall to say”Media gave president bush a pass” Say What? Our president is bashed every day for petes sake. In my humble opinion his so called outburst was a political calculation as elections are in 6 weeks and republicans are closing the gap. He wanted to try and sway the publics opinion, much like Hillary and her “Right Wing Conspiracy” (the phrase coined by a columnist by the way)RWC is still used today. amazing!
I do not trust the Clintons or their groupies no matter what they say or do.
He never released his medical records while in office. Unless he can make political capital out of it now, we will never know unless he succumbs to something which he cannot hide.
I wonder what all those lefties who attacked Senator Allen for 'lashing out' at a reporter asking why his mother was a racist and why his family denied his jewish heritage are saying about Clinton lashing out .
Yes, and I think that even though Wallace was probably blanching at the point of Clinton's accusations, "tirade", whatever you want to call it, that Wallace was smart and savy enough to just let Clinton blather away, which of course, Clinton did. And unless you're a cynical hard-core Lefist Democrat (which may be a contradiction in terms), you would not have recognized what your "boy" was doing in losing whatever grace-under-pressure he may have had up until that point in time.
Those misspeaks sound like the result of actual brain problems. Wouldn't be surprised if they're the result of mini-strokes related to his heart surgery.
I recorded this on DVR. I also thought he sounded well "Fortified" with strong spirits.
Or something.
I have a left-wing relative, in her 70's, who clearly believes that. She still rants that Eisenhower (the guy who commanded the Allied forces in Europe) was an idiot and Stevenson was a genius.
You can imagine the rants I heard about Bush vs. Kerry and the uninaugurated one. Of course she is, like most lefties, unwilling to acknowledge inconvenient truths, such as Bush's marginally higher GPA at Yale than Kerry, his higher service IQ exams, and the similarity of Bush and Gore (a two-time grad school dropout) SAT scores. Oh, BTW, Bush has an MBA from Harvard.
I suspect you're right.
That is a perfectly reasonable conclusion but one with which I disagree. Clinton can lie on-the-fly with the best of them. His many misstatements of fact are a sign that he wasn't prepared but was winging it. He always lies in the same vein as that interview - he was great the rest were awful; he did all he could when no one else did; it is a VRWC to get him; yada yada yada - but with preparation he can twist the facts a little better than he did.
I see your "light" now....
Fair enough....
FRegards,
Bingo! I think alcoholic sums him up - have had experience with one and always everyone else is to blame.
If I were Wallace, I'd be worried.
People who get in Clinton's way end up "Fostered".
Watch it again. Wallace tried to interrupt him several times and get back on track but Clinton wasn't through ranting, even about "that smirk on your face" so Wallace eventually and meekly shut up. When Clinton got argumentative of the facts, though, Wallace jumped back in with questions.
There was more interaction, or attempts at it, than you may have noticed. However, the results will probably be as you note, a professional boost for Chris.
I wonder if there's a downloadable version of that tirade - YouTube's not downloadable (and the quality's a bit off)...
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.