Clinton and Al Qaeda

Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish ^ | Sept. 16.'02 | Andrew Sullivan

[Molly Pitcher]

Limbaugh mentioned this Sullivan piece today in connection with Hillary's appearance on a Sunday talk show, and her claim that the previous administration had done sooooooooooooo much to fight terrorism & the record showed that. Ha!

The New Yorker, usually liberal to leftist, came thru on this one.

[Molly Pitcher]

FYI!

[billorites]

I like what Sullivan said about the Democrats.

"How many Democrats have come out clearly either for or against a war with Iraq? Very, very few. Daschle bravely said yesterday that the Democrats were "not prepared to make any commitment" to voting on a war resolution until yet more questions are answered. He's scared shitless."

[Schmedlap]

I wouldn't purchase the New Yorker if it had next week's lottery numbers.

[angkor]

There was a time when the New Yorker was reasonable and thoughtful, not leftist. It was a good magazine for actually reading rather than grazing.

But it changed dramatically, and insufferably so, when Tina Brown became editor. My single letter-to-the-editor was responded to personally and insultingly.

I cancelled my sub only months into Tina Brown's tenure. Apparently she stacked the editorial desk for some time to come.

[Paul Atreides]

It's funny how Bubba was "obsessed" with getting Bin Laden, and all he did was bomb an aspirin factory. Yet, under W, we have seen terrorist cells exposed in our own country.

[M. Peach]

Carl Limbacher from Newsmax.com also wrote a great book on it -

http://www.newsmaxstore.com/nms/showdetl.cfm?&DID=6&Product_ID=876&CATID=1&GroupID=1

[Molly Pitcher]

Pretty blunt (and correct) statement by Sullivan.

Know what you mean about buying the magazine....haven't bought one in years.

I probably should have photocopied the article at the library, but that was off my route this afternoon, and I was impatient to get hold of the piece, so bought it I did.

[IncPen]

I wouldn't purchase the New Yorker if it had next week's lottery numbers.

The NY'er has had some very worthy reading of late, not the least of which is a damning article about the demonization of DDT, and how we'd all be better off if it were still in use.

I know, I know... I was as amazed as anyone...

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

President Clinton later explained that one of the strikes had been aimed at a "gathering of key terrorist leaders," but the meeting in question had occurred a month earlier

I thought Clinton just said he missed bin Laden by only an hour. Maybe he meant an hour in a different galaxy. It's all relative, you know.

[Molly Pitcher]

I don't suppose that this particular issue, with this exposé, flying off the shelves would convince the editors toward a rightward tilt???????

Nah....

[Humidston]

Can you see the history lesson in about 30-40 years?

Student: So, are you saying President Clinton acted just like Chamberlain, and for the same reasons?

Teacher: Well, not exactly. You see, President Clinton was more interested in BJ's and just didn't have time to bother...

==We are vindicated and now the libs should see why that man disgusts us so much! (But of course they won't...;-)

[Molly Pitcher]

Ha, ha! A minor detail to be sure!

Yes, that's one of the points Limbaugh was bringing up too..

[Molly Pitcher]

No...not holding my breath....Nor am I likely to be around in 40 years;^)

[livius]

Interestingly enough, Neal Boortz (a libertarian radio show host down here in the South with whom I have many disagreements) read off statements made by Dems at that time, ranging from Daschle to - well, all of them - supporting Clinton's feeble gestures. Those are the same people who are now opposed to attacking Saddam.

Clinton was lousy, weak and timid, and he was enabled by partisan politics that never demanded that he actually produce results.

[PoisedWoman]

Thanks. I just forwarded Sullivan's piece to all my demonrat friends.

[Diva Duck]

BTTT for later read

[NorCoGOP]

her claim that the previous administration had done sooooooooooooo much to fight terrorism & the record showed that.

Yep. The record does show that, in several distinct, unmistakeable areas:

1) A crater in a field in Pennsylvania (Flight 93)

2) The crumbled walls of the Pentagon.

3) The pile of rubble that was once the World Trade Center

4) The piles of rubble that were once US Embassies in Africa.

5) The pile of rubble that was once barracks for US Air Force personnel in Saudi Arabia.

6) The gaping hole in the hull of the USS Cole.

7) The big hole that was once a parking garage for the World Trade Center.

8) The pile of rubble that was once the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Yes - the record is VERY VERY clear on how much the Clintons had done to fight terrorism....

[aristeides]

Under its current editor, David Remnick, the New Yorker runs much better articles than it did under Tina Browne.

[Molly Pitcher]

Now why didn't Russert - or whoever's show it was, I forget - come up with that list???? Hmmmmmmmm........