[Free the USA]

Good Article

[weepnomore]

Great article but a terrifying title !

[MJY1288]

BTTT

[techcor]

The title is an automatic "Barf Alert" right? I'm sure you figured everybody realized that already.

[Landru]

Ahhhh...one of the *bimbos* had an epiphany?

[YaYa123]

Man oh man, this is quite a wonderful article. Kudos to York!!

Clinton's excuse filled book will have to be of record setting length to answer all these charges....and York didn't even mention the Waco bungling and how that disaster might have adversely impacted Clinton's decisions back in early 93.

[Texican72]

I don't care which Clinton this article is about, the mental image the title placed in my head is too much to handle.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

You are my supehero. You transcend time and space. How you can post things that aren't published for 3 more weeks is amazing. :)

[Freemyland]

"Clinton Has No Clothes"

Must be intern hiring time at the Harlem office.

[Howlin]

the lessons of Vietnam were ingrained far too deeply in him. He lacked a faith that it would work,

Wonder what lessons HE learned in Vietnam?

[Calpublican]

So Clinton talked tough. But he did not act tough

The Clinton doctrine in a nutshell.

[chainsaw]

So Clinton talked tough. But he did not act tough.

He was too busy getting lewinsky's in the oval office of white house to be tough.

[mlo]

"Clinton Has No Clothes"

I was afraid there were pictures.

[stands2reason]

Thanks for a profound article. The title doesn't seem to fit, though. I see actually see Clinton as the opposite: an empty suit. All he was was the "clothes," there was no man inside.

Remember campaign 2000 and all the talk on Bush's lack of foreign policy experience? Does anyone remember any similar questions about Clinton's inexperience in '92? I sure don't. But it was President Bush who got tagged "inexperienced," not Clinton, whose foreign policy blunders will end up haunting us for years to come. This is the "legacy" that Clinton leaves us.

[RaceBannon]

Great Article!!

[mombonn]

We will not resist" — the president corrected himself — "we will not rest . . .

Hmmmm, if President BUSH had misspoken, it would have been the LEAD on abc/cbs/nbc/cnn/pmsnbc.

[walden]

When I read this I thought back over the years to all those events, and remembered how busy I was with kids and job, and realized something about myself then that I'm sure is true of most Americans (perhaps not those on this forum, but most others): I want the President to be a LEADER. I don't want him to poll ME on what to do. That's why he's elected, he's supposed to know the best course, to understand war and diplomacy and law and all that stuff that I'm not an expert in. And, he's supposed to have the best minds in the country around him-- plenty of help to chart the right course and carry it through.

It took me quite a long time to wise up to Clinton-- I probably didn't get it at all until the re-election campaign, but certainly by the time of impeachment I definitely got it. But what I really hadn't done much of was what this article did-- walk back through that Presidency and really understand how AWOL he was on terrorism.

[leadpenny]

".....and, in an interview on MTV, described the bombing as the work of someone who "did something really stupid."

And the American People did something really stupid when they put you in office for 8 long freakin' years.

This is an article for the ages. An article to be used for teaching future generations about a corrupt presidency that failed the American People.

Thank you, Byron York. It has been almost exactly one year since I noticed you and your beautiful wife standing back in the crowd across from "Cheney's House" at 34th and Mass. Ave. If I didn't thank you for being there then, I do now.

[NYC GOP Chick]

And that is the key to understanding Bill Clinton's handling of the terrorist threat that grew throughout his two terms in the White House: It just wasn't his thing. Clinton was right when he said history might care little about the prosperity of his era. Now, as he tries to defend his record on terrorism, he appears to sense that he will be judged harshly on an issue that is far more important than the Nasdaq or 401(k) balances. He's right about that, too.

I will personally make sure that the world doesn't forget about his cowardice. I was nearly murdered (on 9/11) because fighting terrorism didn't poll high enough for him to get off his fat ass and do something about it.

I'm sure that I don't have to remind anyone here about how the bastard spent most of 1998 avoiding tough questions by sanctimoniously telling us that he "had to get back to doing the work of the American people."

Well guess what, Sink Emperor? YOU FAILED! "Doing the business of the American people" was protecting us from terrorism, no matter how indifferent the public was to it at the time, and it was NOT hopping planes all over the country to shake down wealthy donors on behalf of the DNC.

My hope is that he lives a long and healthy life -- long enough to go down in history as a colossal failure whose selfishness and utter incompetence helped cause the largest one-day mass murder in American history.

Suddenly, all of that "eight years of peace and prosperity" line of bullclinton we've been getting rings rather hollow, doesn't it?

[ladyinred]

What a find, great article.

It is obvious that Clinton did not want to arrest terrorists, if we need further proof, we can see how many of them he pardoned at the end of his Presidency.

I had no idea that #41 was called in to intervene by the FBI. That says how much Clinton was trusted! Wow!