Skip to comments.
Clinton Missed Chance at Greatness?
EIB ^
| Rush Limbaugh
Posted on 09/17/2001 3:49:19 PM PDT by VinnyTex
When the first sentence of a column begins, "Lucky though he was, Bill Clinton never had his shot at greatness," what exactly do you interpret that to mean? Chris Matthews wrote it, and proceeded with the following two sentences. "He could lower the jobless rate, balance the budget, console us after the Oklahoma City bombing. But he never got the opportunity George W. Bush was given this Tuesday: the historic chance to lead." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you interpreting this the way I am? He seems to be lamenting the fact that Bill Clinton never had a national tragedy in which to display his magnificent leadership characteristics. As though George W. Bush is thanking God and his lucky stars that thousands of Americans are dead so that he can get a couple of favorable columns from Johnny Apple of the New York Times and Howard Fineman of Newsweek?
This is just so typical of how some in the media look at news and what they think the purpose of a news event is. It's all about them! It's all about an opportunity for them to shine and look good. I guess I shouldn't even be surprised by this, but I am nevertheless disappointed. The fact that presidential greatness is measured by a president's handling of great challenges is true. But that's not the same as saying in the context of recent events that Bill Clinton was unlucky because, in essence, this carnage didn't happen on his watch and thereby give him his chance at greatness.
I mean, what are we supposed to do here, be sorry that the terrorists didn't hit when Clinton was president so he'd have his chance at greatness? This is just Bush's dumb luck? Why, Clinton might finally have had a chance to win the Nobel Peace Prize had the terrorists done this nine months ago?
The simple fact of the matter, Chris, is that they did do this before. They hit us in Africa. They hit us in Saudi Arabia. They hit the USS Cole. And Bill Clinton didn't do anything about it. Bill Clinton, in fact, bombed innocent people on the day that Monica Lewinsky was testifying before her grand jury. This is outrageous. This is simply unbelievable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sunday night, on 60 Minutes, Lesley Stahl reported that in 1998 Bill Clinton issued a directive allowing the use of force to apprehend Osama bin Laden, and that one such effort had been tried but failed. She said that Clinton decided that there was a self-defense exception to the legal prohibition against assassination.
Dan Rather, to his credit, asked Stahl why this is coming out now. She said she didn't know why, but assumed that her sources didn't want the public to think that Clinton was asleep at the wheel back then while bin Laden was going bonkers. So you've got damage control going on by Bill Clinton right now. Very interesting.
The Associated Press reported last week that Clinton passed up an opportunity at the end of his administration to take another military whack at bin Laden. The Washington Timesand others have reported that in 1995 Clinton restricted the CIA's human intelligence capabilities by prohibiting the CIA's use of any spies who had dirty hands. We're not going to do business with former terrorists, in essence, is what Clinton said, which would make it impossible to infiltrate these groups. And there's more, which I point out in the audio link below.
It's unfortunate that national security was never a priority in the Clinton administration. They cut the defense budget below acceptable levels, and as recently as two weeks ago, the Senate was preparing to hold back the defense appropriations bill for partisan political purposes. Think about that.
|
|
TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-140 next last
To: VinnyTex
I think he's lookin at Laura.... I think he's worried about Barbara taking off one of her pumps and repeatedly beating him over the head with it...
21
posted on
09/17/2001 4:15:31 PM PDT
by
dirtboy
To: VinnyTex
the historic chance to lead So, Matthews here is implying that BillyBob was NEVER a leader...something we knew all along.
To: VinnyTex
... assumed that her sources didn't want the public to think that Clinton was asleep at the wheel back then while bin Laden was going bonkers. Clinton's still putting ice on his legacy. Give it up, Bill. It's not working.
23
posted on
09/17/2001 4:18:53 PM PDT
by
Strider
To: VinnyTex
He seems to be lamenting the fact that Bill Clinton never had a national tragedy in which to display his magnificent leadership characteristics.Clinton was a national tragedy.
To: VinnyTex
Sandwiched between two wars, Clinton will become a footnote in history. In a hundred years only a few presidential scholars will know anything about him.
To: VinnyTex
X42 did NOT miss a chance at greatness. To have a chance for that, one must be a great person. He never was, is not, and never will be.
26
posted on
09/17/2001 4:23:53 PM PDT
by
kayak
To: Mrs.Liberty
Bill had a chance to be great!
He "blew" it, or rather Monica did it for him.
Because of his lack of character, he ended up spending the majority of his time in office soliciting illegal campaign contributions and doing damage control.
Now, as former head of the Democratic pary, he is the fitting symbol of greatness.... A great big A$$.
27
posted on
09/17/2001 4:24:00 PM PDT
by
Hal.009
To: VinnyTex
Clinton was a true dot-com era president - asleep at the wheel in drug-induced euphoria.
Chris Matthews is just another libomoron with too much of testosterone in his blood.
28
posted on
09/17/2001 4:24:07 PM PDT
by
alex
To: VinnyTex
Clinton - nothing but a male slut.
I will never understand how he charmed the 18% of the country that elected him.
And I believe it is Providence that GW Bush is President now, with his team, instead of what Gore would have had on staff.
To: VinnyTex
Please!! Clinton, when he joing that very exclusive fraternity of United States Presidents, had every single opportunity to end his term(s) as a GREAT President. The problem is he was far too self absorbed to realize the potentials that were in front of him. He lacked the integrity, honor, maturity and guts to be considered great. As we learned through his terms, if it did not provide instant gratification, it wasn't worth bothering with. Clinton will forever be the epitome of just what we do NOT need in a President. I hope that he figures it out before he passes, although I doubt that he has the snap to get it.
30
posted on
09/17/2001 4:25:31 PM PDT
by
Howie66
(Pkrbkr66@hotmail.com)
To: kayak
You're absolutely right. How great was that letter he wrote when he was supposed to be drafted? How great was the treatment the military received after he became President? He was - and is - a little man, in spite of his height and girth.
31
posted on
09/17/2001 4:28:10 PM PDT
by
pollyshy
To: SunStar
He's got his eyes on Laura.
To: VinnyTex
I hate Bill Clinton. For victory & freedom!!!
To: billorites
It looks to me like he is looking at GWBush.
To: good1
Yes, the economy was good during the past 8 years, but Clinton wrote checks on this country that the economy can't cash.
What a fine way of putting it! He kept talking about "The Children" throughout his eight years, and now it's clearer than ever that his policies have condemned "The Children" to a lifetime of fear, and possibly a death sentence.
To: VinnyTex
Hey Chris, you've got a spot on your dress.
To: VinnyTex
Clinton may have liked to think that greatness could have been seized by him, but the truth is,only those with the strength of character can see it for what is it, and act accordingly.Like Reagan.At no time has Clinton ever shown courage, bravery, wisdom and the ability to do anything beyond expediency.The great seize greatness, it isn't the events that mold the people, but the people themselves.Its only the event that enables that inner character to emerge.It has to be present all along.
And no honest person can say that Clinton has that.
To: VinnyTex
POWERbump!
To: VinnyTex
Rush and Falwell were definitely the Right's casualties this week. Falwell crossed a rhetorical line and Limbaugh invented a quote by Peter Jennings. Though he retracted it, there is lingering damage to his credibility. Falwell, on the other hand, is being unfairly criticized, in my opinion.
39
posted on
09/17/2001 4:36:01 PM PDT
by
Havisham
To: VinnyTex
Clinton would have been a disaster under the same circumstances. The first thing he would have done is go into complete damage control to try to pin the blame on some surrogate at the CIA/Pentagon, even though his Administration cut their funding to the bone. And I suspect the next thing he would have done is waste a lot of cruise missiles in order to pump up his poll numbers without doing any damage to Bin Laden or his forces. After the cameras came around, he would have bit his lip, faked tears, put his arms around some of the female mourners, slipped them a note telling them to meet him at his hotel, and gotten serviced while on the phone with Congress. Some leader. The guy was and remains a pathetic waste of skin.
40
posted on
09/17/2001 4:37:47 PM PDT
by
Bush2000
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-140 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson