Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush dismisses Clinton critique as "finger-pointing"
Reuters ^ | 9/26/2006 | Matt Spetalnick

Posted on 09/26/2006 1:10:16 PM PDT by Uncledave

Bush dismisses Clinton critique as "finger-pointing"

By Matt Spetalnick 52 minutes ago

President Bush on Tuesday dismissed as "finger-pointing" criticism from his predecessor Bill Clinton of his counter-terrorism efforts in the months leading up to the September 11 attacks.

Clinton, angrily defending his own administration's attempts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, had accused the Bush administration of doing far less to stop the al Qaeda leader before the 2001 hijack plane attacks.

Bush, who is trying to stave off a Democratic takeover of Congress in November, seemed to bristle when asked about Clinton, only to sidestep his assertions.

"We'll let history judge all the different finger-pointing and all that business. I don't have enough time to finger-point," he said at a news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

"I've got to do my job," he added, "and that is to protect the American people from further attacks."

Bush spoke two days after "Fox News Sunday" aired a heated interview in which Clinton defended steps he took after al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and faulted criticism by "right-wingers" of his efforts to capture bin Laden.

"They had eight months to try, they did not try," Clinton said of the Bush administration response. The September 11 attacks occurred almost eight months after Bush succeeded Clinton.

Clinton also said when his term ended he left the new Republican administration "battle plans" for going into Afghanistan, overthrowing the Taliban and launching a full-scale search for bin Laden.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice disputed Clinton's statement. "We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," she told the New York Post.

Asked about Clinton's comments, Bush said, "I've watched all the finger-pointing and namings of names and all that stuff. Our objective is to secure the country. We've had investigations. We had the 9/11 commission, we've had the look-back this, we had the look-back that."

Bush also said it was "preposterous" for opponents of his Iraq war strategy to call for a swift U.S. troop withdrawal.

He has sought to rally public support for the unpopular Iraq war by framing it as an extension of the "war on terrorism" he declared after the September 11 attacks. Many Democrats say Iraq is a distraction from the broader fight.

(Additional reporting by Caren Bohan)


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last
Could the contrast between Bush and Clinton on this issue make Clinton look like any a bigger of a weenie?
1 posted on 09/26/2006 1:10:17 PM PDT by Uncledave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

Wagging..pointing... same difference!


2 posted on 09/26/2006 1:11:57 PM PDT by Paloma_55 (I may be a hateful bigot, but I still love you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

He's right. Let the Democrats become unhinged! Bush has more important things to do.


3 posted on 09/26/2006 1:12:45 PM PDT by areafiftyone (Politicians Are Like Diapers - Both Need To Be Changed Often And For The Same Reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
Bush, who is trying to stave off a Democratic takeover of Congress in November

No bias by Reuters here is there?

4 posted on 09/26/2006 1:14:46 PM PDT by Ben Mugged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

My guess is Bill won't be with GHWB for Thanksgiving.


5 posted on 09/26/2006 1:17:59 PM PDT by SF Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

Bristle? Did anyone think the president "bristled" at the question?


6 posted on 09/26/2006 1:18:06 PM PDT by Eagles Talon IV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
Bush, who is trying to stave off a Democratic takeover of Congress in November

Very wishful thinking on the part of Reuters.

7 posted on 09/26/2006 1:18:23 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

Has anyone written about Hillary's comments? In writing ... not YouTube.


8 posted on 09/26/2006 1:19:07 PM PDT by BunnySlippers (Never Forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SF Republican
My guess is Bill won't be with GHWB for Thanksgiving.

Why not?

9 posted on 09/26/2006 1:19:13 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Peace begins in the womb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

W's comment is priceless. Glad it made it into the headline.


10 posted on 09/26/2006 1:19:39 PM PDT by babaloo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
"President Bush on Tuesday dismissed as "finger-pointing"

Was that tongue and cheek humor on GW's part? Because Billy was sure doing a whole lot of finger pointing during the Chris interview.....
11 posted on 09/26/2006 1:20:00 PM PDT by Kimmers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged

You have to allow that Reuters believes all the news they print. Given that basis it is no wonder they believe that:

1) Al Gore won in 2000.
2) John Kerry won in 2004.
3) Democrats are going to win in 2006.
4) Bush's foreign policy is on the ropes.
5) Iraq is in a full blown civil war.

Of course, journalists aren't supposed to believe anything except the facts - but since when were journalists anything but human? The elevation of journalists to some level of inhuman impartiality is unintentionally disingenuous at best, and an outright fabrication and dishonest at worst. I vote for the latter. They're pulling their own tails and wagging themselves.


12 posted on 09/26/2006 1:20:03 PM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eagles Talon IV

Heehee. If they're trying to equate Pres. Bush's "bristling" with Clinton's angry tirade they're going to die trying.


13 posted on 09/26/2006 1:20:10 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers

What were Hillary's comments?


14 posted on 09/26/2006 1:20:43 PM PDT by Suzy Quzy ("When Cabals Go Kabooms"....upcoming book on Mary McCarthy's Coup-Plotters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
"We'll let history judge all the different finger-pointing and all that business. I don't have enough time to finger-point,"

Spoken like a true pro. Way to go Mr. Pres.

15 posted on 09/26/2006 1:20:52 PM PDT by Realism (Some believe that the facts-of-life are open to debate.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged
That's Reuters for you, all opinion, no news.
I didn't see and "bristling" or "side stepping" there, just Reuters inserting words into their story that have no relevance at all as to what Bush said.
16 posted on 09/26/2006 1:22:41 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: Uncledave
Bush, who is trying to stave off a Democratic takeover of Congress in November, seemed to bristle when asked about Clinton, only to sidestep his assertions.


Glad to see Reuters is so unbiased in their reporting. One can only imagine the slant if the President had described ol' BJs peccadillo's in flowery prose.
18 posted on 09/26/2006 1:27:59 PM PDT by crazyhorse691 (Diplomacy doesn't work when seagulls rain on your parade. A shotgun and umbrella does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Duckydoodledandy

What would be the point of that? All they ever do is spew out their conspiracy theories, then curse and swear when you set the record straight.


19 posted on 09/26/2006 1:30:06 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
"They had eight months to try, they did not try," Clinton said of the Bush administration response.

Is that a modern ex-presidential first? Sailing a brick right at your successor's head?

I know Carter said some things, and early in the last century, Theodore Roosevelt ruffled the waters by voicing his disappointment with the policy agenda of William Howard Taft -- but Roosevelt and Taft were of the same party, and I don't think Carter ever said anything this trenchantly partisan.

Memory check, anyone? I think this is a first -- and Slick, true to his nature, has not merely foot-faulted, but stomped what had been a modern presidential custom.

20 posted on 09/26/2006 1:30:36 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson