Posted on 09/29/2006 5:47:44 AM PDT by kellynla
YESTERDAY I asked Chris Wallace if he was surprised. Wallace is the Fox News host who has become the talk of Washington for simply asking Bill Clinton if he thought he did enough to stop Osama bin Laden before the September 11 attacks.
The former president had exploded in a rage at Wallace's question, alleging a conspiracy by America's most watched cable news outfit. He leaned deep into Wallace's personal space, jabbing his finger in his face. And it lasted minute after embarrassing minute. Yes, Wallace was surprised by both the intensity and the answer.
Clinton's performance, his defenders say, was planned in advance to stiffen his party's spine and teach it how to fight back. Was it planned? "Absolutely not," Wallace told me. Off camera, during the interview, he said he saw Clinton's public relations man waving his arms, demanding that the interview be terminated immediately. At the end of the interview, Clinton was still visibly angry and threatened to fire his PR man if he ever had to endure another interview like that one.
Why is this worth thinking about? Every Bush policy that arouses the ire of the anti-war set - the Patriot Act, renditions, detention without trial and pre-emptive war - is a departure from the Clinton years. Where Clinton and Bush policies overlap - air attacks on terrorist infrastructure, secret presidential orders to kill terrorists, intelligence sharing with allies, seizure of terrorist bank accounts, using police to arrest suspected terrorists - there is little friction. Should America return to Clinton policies or soldier on with Bush's? While finger-pointing is pointless, this debate is important because it is about the future as much as the past.
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.news.com.au ...
In 1994, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (who would later plan the 9/11 attacks) launched Operation Bojinka to down 11 planes simultaneously over the Pacific, killing about 3000 people. A sharp-eyed Filipina police officer foiled the plot. The sole American response: increased law-enforcement co-operation with the Philippines.
In 1995, al-Qa'ida detonated a 100kg car bomb outside the US military's Office of the Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and wounding 60 more. The FBI was sent in.
In 1996, al-Qa'ida bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the "no-fly zones" over Iraq, killing 19. Again, the FBI went in.
In 1997, bin Laden repeatedly declared war on the Western world. In February 1997, bin Laden told an Arab television network: "If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters." Clinton did not respond.
In 1998, al-Qa'ida simultaneously attacked US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 people including 12 American diplomats. The FBI team arrived within days. But this time the law enforcement did not seem sufficient. Thirteen days after the attacks, Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan. Here Clinton's critics are wrong: the president was right to retaliate, irrespective of the Monica Lewinsky case. "
Narcisitic rage. My ex wife was a narcisist. I had to endure many such rages before I left her.
Do we really want to go back to the time when we ignored the attacks on our nation? We know that the RATs are more concerned about civil rights for al-qaeda than in protecting the American people.
This bumper sticker courtesy of Rush Limbaugh sums it up. I know RATs, the truth hurts.
Much as I like and respect the Aussies, what they think about U.S. policy is pretty much irrelevant! But you have to dig deep to find an analysis like this in the MSM.
Buying two presidents for the price of one, was a fatal mistake.
Another moral of the story:
Don't elect a President who will work ten times as hard to create a positive legacy after leaving office, as he did while in office.
I didn't know this but I have read that Clinton only met with his National Security Advisor once a month. This is telling as to how important security was to Clinton. BTW, Bush meets with his National Security Advisor every day!
I heard someone theorize on the radio that it's possible Bill did it so Hillary would have a reason to never appear on Fox and face questions.
Maybe, Clinton is able to walk and chew gum at the same time; but he isn't able to "be President" and "act presidential" at the same time.
he only sat down face to face with Tenet, CIA head, twice over a three year period, during all that was happening in the mid 90's...so we have Woosley, who said he only met with him three or four times, tenet twice...a span of 5 to 6 years......guess he figured if the heads of agencies can't meet with him, he can say he never heard from them...or was it let the minions (Berger,Clarke,and the like) take the heat for any decisions, or indecision's. Notice how Reno was the target for Waco...but keep in mind Reno, at the time, didn't sharpen her Rosie O'Donnell pencil without his OK
Doogle
"Much as I like and respect the Aussies, what they think about U.S. policy is pretty much irrelevant! But you have to dig deep to find an analysis like this in the MSM."
forget which newspaper the piece appeared in,
the authorship is the relevant factor.
Richard Miniter is THE MAN!
One thing for certain, Bill would never unload on Hillary like that ...she would have jerked his leash but good.
Another moral of the story: Don't ever elect a lawyer to be president of the U.S. Lawyers have two basic characteristics that might work well in the U.S. legal system but which are miserable traits in an elected leader or in any other venue where executive-style leadership is required: 1) predilection for obscuring the facts in any situation in favor of outright political spin; and 2) an unhealthy faith in agreements among multiple parties just because they are written down on pieces of paper and signed.
The Left abandoned honesty--viz. truth for its own sake--long ago.
The Left includes its Political Machine, i.e. the Democrat Party, and its Propaganda Machine, i.e. the "Mainstream Newsmedia", as well as academia, Hollywood, the Leftist enclaves, et al.
This is the basic failure and the basic immorality of the Left--its scorn of truth and its embrace of mendacity as a means of furthering its agenda. In the final analysis, the agenda of the Left is greed for power.
The "new morality" of the Left is nothing more than greed for power and scorn for truth because it interferes with the greed for power, i.e. the Leftist agenda.
Clinton killed a lot of terrorists, burned them to death in a M1A1 mechanized assault using chemical weapons; men, women, and children, sorry but they were dangerous terrorists and they had to go.
Oh, that was Waco...
Poop
marking
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.