Democrats & Liberals Archives

It's All Bill Clinton's Fault

We have lost 3,000 people on 9/11 and almost as many in Iraq. According to our own spy agencies, the Iraq War is seeding more terrorists than it is killing. In this horrible situation, what does our esteemed leader George W. Bush do? He repeats over and over “stay the course,” while his proxies in the media throw all the blame on Bill Clinton. President Bush is perfect. Everything that has gone wrong in the past 5 years is Bill Clinton’s fault!

As you all know by now, the 16 spy agencies issued a National Intelligence Estimate. One who knows its contents says:

It paints a fairly stark picture of what we all know, and that this is a movement that is spreading and gaining momentum around the world. Things like the Iraq war have given the terrorists recruiting tools and places to ply their trade and a training ground.

Bush answers with his usual bromides:

The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.

Pretty mild. But take a look at what his proxies in the media do. First, his friends at ABC give us a so-called docudrama - very little docu, mostly drama - called the Path to 9/11. The essence of this story is that all the terrorism we are being subjected to is the fault of Bill Clinton. George Bush is as innocent as a baby.

Then, another proxy, Fox News, takes over. Chris Wallace invites Bill Clinton to the studio and immediately unloads on him the new Republican line that terrorism is all the fault of Bill Clinton. Why didn't Clinton do more, he wants to know.

Many Democrats have taken a licking at the hands of Fox News. But Bill Clinton was not going to sit still while he is defamed. He let Wallace have it. He was angry and he let Wallace know that his interview invitation was a frame-up. Though he agreed he had not done enough, he left a plan to fight Al Qaeda, which Bush disregarded. Bush did nothing for 8 months, but get rid of the one person in his administration that was informed about Al Qaeda: Dick Clarke.

Bill Clinton's smackdown of Wallace is beautiful to listen to. Finally, we have a prominent Democrat answer the lies the Republicans have been spreading. You can enjoy the exchange at Crooks and Liars.

Bill Clinton, with his in-your-face retort to Wallace's distortions, showed Democrats how to respond to the lies, smears and distortions of Republicans during this election season. And they are doing it.

One person who was galvanized into action by what he calls the "Clinton ambush," is Keith Olbermann. Keith Olbermann attacked not only Wallace but Bush himself. He called Bush a liar and a coward who uses proxies to spread the blame for his own failures on other people, like Bill Clinton. Keith Olbermann gives a masterful indictment of a failed president. This is must-see video.

Here's a brief portion of his presentation:

After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts — that he was President on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to make the responsibility, entirely Mr. Clinton’s.

Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly.

As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him, by proxy.

Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News, Friday afternoon.

See the whole thing. Olbermann is great!

For too long Republicans have attacked Democrats without sufficient response from Democrats. No longer. Democrats will not be bullied and attacked just so Bush can escape from his depradations. This fall, we will hold him and his Republican cohorts accountable for their failure in protecting American security. This fall we will elect new representatives and senators who will work to improve our security.

Posted by Paul Siegel at September 26, 2006 7:45 PM
Comments
Comment #184143

You keep bringing up Keith Olberman like he knows what he is talking about. Nobody watches his show and there’s a reason for that. This guy started as a sportscaster in a local market and even then he was a grandstander. He used to make totally off the wall predictions and after a while even the station got tired of him being wrong.

Posted by: Keith at September 26, 2006 8:23 PM
Comment #184148

Keith Olberman has a good head on his shoulders, and like Clinton, he is not afraid to bring fire and brimstone.

Nobody watches his show and there’s a reason for that. This guy started as a sportscaster in a local market and even then he was a grandstander.

By the way, Rush started out as a sportscaster.

Posted by: europheus at September 26, 2006 8:59 PM
Comment #184157

Slamming Clinton’s interview performance to the Nth degree in no particular order:

#1: Europheus, and how many conservatives do you see referencing Rush’s website to look up “facts”. Can’t wait to hear that answer.

#2: Bill lost his cool. Chris Wallace had the same expression on his face he has every Sunday.

#3: Was Chris Wallace doing a “conservative hit job” on Rumsfeld when, referencing the Bush Admin pre-9/11, Chris said “Mr. Secretary, it sure doesn’t sound like you were focused on terrorism.”

#4: Richard Clark was not demoted. On 9/11 he was the head counter-terrorism chief for the USA.

#5: Expect lies when that gross little forefinger starts waving in people’s faces.

#6: Asking if Clinton did enough to fight terrorism was a fair, unemotional, unprovoking question especially in the light of the new ABC flick. David Letterman asked the same question awhile ago and Billy didn’t wig out. Why all the vim and vigor now?

#7: I love how calling Bush “Hitler” and demonizing him during a time of war is “dissent” but when we ask a Democrat President if what he did was right or enough it’s a “Conservative hit job”. … the hypocrisy just keeps on comin’!!!

#8: At the end of the day bringing up historical issues benefits the democrats since any talk of the future war on terror highlights the fact they have no plan for it.

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 26, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #184160

Oh, I’m sorry, the Dems do have a plan for the war on terror:

Step 1: Recall all troops from Iraq.

Step 2: Debate our presence in Afghanistan. Eventually decide the USA is indeed the world villain and pull our troops from there too.

Step 3: How’s Bosnia doing? Any more extremist Muslims we can help there?

Step 4: See Step 1.

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 26, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #184164

Its not the first time Clinton lost his cool. He did the same thing with Peter Jennings back during the Monica affair. He doesn’t like the tough questions and he attempts to intimidate his interviewer.

He now realizes America is finally seeing the huge role his administration played in leading to our problems with terrorism. His legacy is scared again and even his former sids are turning on him, its a bit sad.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at September 26, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #184166
#1: Europheus, and how many conservatives do you see referencing Rush’s website to look up “facts”. Can’t wait to hear that answer.
Rush and facts are two different worlds. The sad part is the number of listeners who regurgitate his opinion. He’s no wikkipedia, but he has more parrots than all the worlds pirates combined.
He now realizes America is finally seeing the huge role his administration played in leading to our problems with terrorism.
Let me know when Bush catches Bin Laden, I’m still waiting. Posted by: europheus at September 26, 2006 9:47 PM
Comment #184167

Ken
Dead wrong on the Afghanistan part. The biggest Democrat objection to bush is that he dropped the ball by LEAVING Afghanistan.

As far as the rest of the plan goes, the part about making war on terror, and not on a country that did not attack us? Well, that would be a good start. We don’t need to squander untold billions of dollars and our young peoples’ lives to fight terror.

How about port security? You know, making sure we don’t get nuked? Oh, that’s right, we’re too busy fighting them over there blah blah.

It boggles the mind that you don’t/cant’/ won’t acknowledge that we’re all americans, and that we ALL want to kick some terrorist ass.Maybe,just maybe dubya could use a few pointers in that area.

Posted by: Steve Miller at September 26, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #184183

This Republican strategy of making the election about the opponent and not the incumbent worked perfectly with the Swiftboat thing in 2004.

It worked once before it will work again.

Posted by: john doe at September 26, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #184185

Clinton kicked that Propaganda Weasel’s scrawny little ass from one end to the other. Well executed, Mr. President.
And Olbermann. Wow. Damn The Torpedoes! Full Speed Ahead! Just wish there were a few more like him in the media.
For that matter, I wish there were a few more Democrats who would defend themselves as eloquently, and as truthfully, and as fiercely as Bill Clinton did in that interview.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 26, 2006 10:27 PM
Comment #184191

europheus

Rush was not a sportscaster. He worked in music radio for a while then took a front office job with the Royals before moving to Sacramento and starting his talk show.

Posted by: Keith at September 26, 2006 10:34 PM
Comment #184192

Paul,
“Chris Wallace invites Bill Clinton to the studio and immediately unloads on him the new Republican line that terrorism is all the fault of Bill Clinton. Why didn’t Clinton do more, he wants to know.”


Wait a minute, Paul. Chris Wallace is a journalist who is conducting an interview. He asked the former President if he thought he did enough to get Bin Laden and Clinton went ape sh*t; pointing that finger and tapping it on Wallace’s lap. I would have knocked the arrogant, pompous prick out, believe that!


So, now reporters aren’t allowed to ask tough questions? Is that what the left is trying to say now?! That rule certainly doesn’t apply to the Bush Admin; that’s for sure. Weeks earlier, Condeleeza got drilled on Fox news; months earlier, Rumsfeld gets drilled on Oreilly; there was no outcry for them. Yet, (poor) Bill Clinton has to face a tough question b/c he went on Fox news rather than the “liberal” media. Boo Hoo!!!

He’s a former President that dropped the ball on terrorism, he owes us an explanation; just like Bush has had to do, for five years now. Get over it.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 26, 2006 10:36 PM
Comment #184196

Did you ever see the elder George Bush sink so low as to start attacking Clinton while he still office? With obvious howling lies to boot? No.

I can’t imagine anybody being impressed with Clinton’s melt-down who wasn’t already smitten with him like a ditsy star-struck teenage girl. Which has been the prostrate posture assumed by most of the media towards him for his entire career, explaining why he’s unable to fathom anybody in the media standing up to him and actually asking him a single tough question.

I never disliked Clinton as much as some on the right, but it’s truly pathetic to see somebody so obsessed with his own legacy and place in history that he has to tell so many giant whoppers in such a tone of self-righteousness.

The man is the very definiton of an empty suit.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 26, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #184197

“David Letterman asked the same question awhile ago and Billy didn’t wig out. Why all the vim and vigor now?”

“billy” has been “wigging out” about the Letterman thing on his own show for months. He’s had hit peices about all late night “liberal” hosts, etc.

Posted by: Observer at September 26, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #184199

Keith:
Rush was not a sportscaster.
Correct, my apologies for relying on word of mouth and google results.
Rahdigly:He’s a former President that dropped the ball on terrorism, he owes us an explanation; just like Bush has had to do, for five years now. Get over it.
While I am not convinced that Clinton himself dropped the ball, I believe that both Clinton and Bush owe us an explanation and a resolution to the fact that Bin Laden is still at large.

Posted by: europheus at September 26, 2006 10:51 PM
Comment #184201

“Did you ever see the elder George Bush sink so low as to start attacking Clinton while he still office?”

Clinton was responding to attacks FROM THE RIGHT. He didn’t start the attacks, he just finished it.

“Which has been the prostrate posture assumed by most of the media towards him for his entire career, explaining why he’s unable to fathom anybody in the media standing up to him and actually asking him a single tough question.”

Yeah, he basically got a pass on the whole Monica thing, right? Barely hit the news.

“The man is the very definiton of an empty suit.”

Coming from an “empty post”.

Posted by: Observer at September 26, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #184204

“I believe that both Clinton and Bush owe us an explanation and a resolution to the fact that Bin Laden is still at large.”

I believe he clearly answered the question during that interview.
What did you not understand?

Posted by: Observer at September 26, 2006 10:55 PM
Comment #184210

Clinton didnt “finish” a thing. In fact, if he had just said what everybody knows to be truth, that there were mulitiple oversights at all levels of government and nobody really knew what was coming, there would be nothing to talk about.

As it is, by telling a half-dozen howling whoppers, whining, losing his dignity and almost assaulting a member of the press, his real record is being scrutinized and criticized.

And what’s more, except to those who have cartoon valentines dancing in their heads whenever they lay eyes on Bill Clinton, the man looks like an ass.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 26, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #184211
I believe he clearly answered the question during that interview. What did you not understand?

How any of what he said matched up with the facts?

For example, he never left a plan for Bush. Berger and Clarke both refute this as well as Bush administration officials. He’s the only one pushing this nonsense.

And saying that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Somolia, even then we knew different, surely he did as well having the resources of Richard Clarke at his disposal? Clarke convinced him to attack Al Shifa because of the WMD being produced in the Al Qaeda / Iraq joint effort (oh yeah, no links ever, I forgot).

And suggesting that congress was calling for him to pull the soldiers out of Somalia, Newt Gingrich and Richard Lugar for example, where aghast that we were thinking of pulling out of Somolia “the next day”.

Sen. Lugar: “It would be a disgrace to cut and run in a way in which we lost more lives and put more people in jeopardy simply because we went into a national panic.” (Tom Raum, “Clinton Says U.S. Must ‘Conclude Our Role’ In Somalia,” The Associated Press, 10/6/93)

Then-Speaker Gingrich: “If Clinton is determined to protect the people of Somalia and defeat General Aidid, we should use overwhelming power and get the job done. If not, we should admit the limitations of power and withdraw.” (“The Furor Over Somalia Voices,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/7/93)

When Clinton can open his mouth without telling a lie I might start listening to his explanations. But when they are filled with the same type of self-preserving bunk that Clarke is famouse for, I’ll stick to looking the facts up before swallowing them whole.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 26, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #184214

Bill Clinton did a nice job sticking it to Fox “news”. I Can’t wait to hear our current president try to explain his actions a few years from now. Imagine him speaking contemporaneously. Is Bush really an idiot or does he just play one on TV? I think the former.

Posted by: KaChucka at September 26, 2006 11:14 PM
Comment #184216

How did he stick it to ‘fox news’ other than increasing their ratings and getting their logo splashed all over their competitor’s networks?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 26, 2006 11:17 PM
Comment #184217

“I can’t imagine anybody being impressed with Clinton’s melt-down who wasn’t already smitten with him like a ditsy star-struck teenage girl.”

:^D I find this hilarious. You guys never stop talking about Clinton, mentioning him day after day ad nauseum, but now anyone who respects the way he stood up to that buck-passing (claiming his question came from “viewers e-mails”, gimme a break!) slimy little rightwing propaganda operative must be a ditsy, star-struck teen!
It’s just too funny!

Posted by: Adrienne at September 26, 2006 11:19 PM
Comment #184218

“I believe he clearly answered the question during that interview. What did you not understand?”


What he answered was the fact that he gets a pass when he goes on other news networks, not the Foxnews channel. Unbelieveable, Clinton debunked himself on national tv and all the person did was ask “did you think you did enough to catch Bin Laden”. Thanks Slick Willy, you toolbag!!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 26, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #184219

Ken Strong, your comments are so far out of this world. Billy as you call him dimuntively, replied honestly and very straightforwardly - He said, he failed but tried. And there is ample documentation demonstrating the efforts he tried. They were as Clinton said, insufficient for they failed their objective. It just doesn’t get any more honest and straightforward than that.

My, what a refreshing bit of candor after listening to Bush for 5 years.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #184221

The low inteligence level of our country is catered to by splashy Fox. Their self assured spinmasters give snake oil away for free. I guess they didn’t like their interviewee telling it w/o spin. Do you think our current leader, be it GWB or Super Dick, believe what they say?

Posted by: KaChucka at September 26, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #184222

Really, is that all you look for, someone who displays contriteness?

Nevermind his completely lack of the facts, many of the things he said have been shown to be incorrect before he had the interview. It’s just like Clarke apologizing to the american people for 9/11. Why was he apologizing? Why, because he couldn’t make enough people listen to him. If only he was listened too it all would have been ok…

There was little honesty coming out of his mouth at the time, it was staged and planned. I can’t believe you are giving him a pass…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 26, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #184226

Adrienne

As the song goes “How can I forget you if you won’t go away”. If Bill would lower his profile which is not likely given his love of the spotlight, we might be able to forget him.

Posted by: Keith at September 26, 2006 11:35 PM
Comment #184229

Fox is the propaganda machine for the replubican party period… ABC is starting to use their business model. If you want fair and balanced, I like cnbc and cnn. They have both conservative and liberal news and opinion shows. Not fox,they slam the dems 24/7. It was a pleasure to see Clinton take that twerp to task.

Posted by: Allen at September 26, 2006 11:41 PM
Comment #184231

Really, what conservative news and opinion programming does CNN have?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 26, 2006 11:44 PM
Comment #184233
If Bill would lower his profile which is not likely given his love of the spotlight, we might be able to forget him.

“We” being the American right wing… love or hate him, many in the world still find him to be one of America’s champions. Comparing against Bush, I suppose that is easy.

Posted by: europheus at September 26, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #184235

‘many in the world’

I see you caught the key phrase there…

Here in the US? Not as much. I wonder why that is?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 26, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #184238
Here in the US? Not as much. I wonder why that is?

America’s Puritan mentality.

Posted by: europheus at September 26, 2006 11:56 PM
Comment #184239

Oh, here I thought it was that Americans know better what is best for Americans than those living in other countries. Silly me.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 26, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #184242

Why are there so many rightwing nuts at this site? I thought this site was for demacrats and liberals. Do they enjoy high blood presure?

Posted by: allen at September 27, 2006 12:10 AM
Comment #184244

Allen,

This blog is not your normal vent-fest blog like DailyKOS or freerepublic where only those of like minds come to stroke each other’s egos trying to convince each other that their view is the only one.

No, here moronic and outlandish accusations are forced to be held up to scrutiny to those who might actually view the world a little differently. It also means that some actual dialog can occur, provided those who expect to be able to jump on that tired old vent-fest realize it soon enough to understand and start debating instead of spewing bile and venom in what they think is a like minded arena.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2006 12:14 AM
Comment #184246
Oh, here I thought it was that Americans know better what is best for Americans than those living in other countries. Silly me.

And we should, but how many Americans truly pay attention to politics beyond the daily injection of MSM? I’ll step to a lower level, how many out of the mass populous can point to Louisiana on a map? I think you know what my point is.

Posted by: europheus at September 27, 2006 12:18 AM
Comment #184248

allen,
It’s our blood pressure they are trying to raise.
Never feed a troll — they aren’t interested in actually reading or discussing what you’ve said, instead, their goal is your anger.
Of course, not everyone on the right is like that, thank goodness. FYI, people of all political persuasions post to all three columns in this blog — feel free to comment on whatever article interests you.
Welcome to Watchblog!

Posted by: Adrienne at September 27, 2006 12:23 AM
Comment #184254

europheus

Is your point how bad our public education system is?

Posted by: Keith at September 27, 2006 12:37 AM
Comment #184256

I am afraid that Europheus’ point is that we should just listen to what the Europeans say we should do since we are too daft to comprehend the hard and confusing subjects like self-rule and individual rights…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2006 12:39 AM
Comment #184260

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 26, 2006 09:31 PM

Ever tried thinking for yourself…..you write like a mindless echo.

Turn off the television if you can think your way through that task.

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at September 27, 2006 12:48 AM
Comment #184263

I would be afraid too if that was my point.

Posted by: europheus at September 27, 2006 12:49 AM
Comment #184267

Here in the US? Not as much. I wonder why that is?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 26, 2006 11:49 PM


You do a reasonably good job of answering that every time you post something.

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at September 27, 2006 12:53 AM
Comment #184280
You do a reasonably good job of answering that every time you post something.

Thank you, being an American and having a good grasp on the ideals the country was founded on and not being swayed by those outside of the country who wish to force their views onto America is hard work. I’m glad to have it recognized.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2006 1:08 AM
Comment #184300
And what’s more, except to those who have cartoon valentines dancing in their heads whenever they lay eyes on Bill Clinton, the man looks like an ass.

If looks are what are important, guess who looks like Alfred E. Newman? Mr. “What Me Worry?”

Just that thought brought a smile to my face.

Posted by: womanmarine at September 27, 2006 2:00 AM
Comment #184309

It’s Clinton’s fault. It’s Bush’s fault. It’s my fault. It’s our fault. Let’s stop pointing fingers and figure out how to win the war.

Posted by: trublu at September 27, 2006 2:39 AM
Comment #184311

Now there’s a cool head!

Posted by: Stevie at September 27, 2006 3:44 AM
Comment #184316

Everyone tends to forget Bin Laden was in Afganistan and not Iraq. How can we not catch a 6’4 Arab on a dialysis machine and a 25 million dollar price on his head. We didn’t even need a bounty to catch Saddam. If a terrorist organization from Britian had done 9/11 would we invade them? We would be fighting them in the streets just like the Iraqies who believe they are fighting for their freedom. If the U.S were invaded we would have patriots fighting in the streets, myself included. How about Bush wanting to sell our ports to the Arabs? They are the enemy? Why do they own all our gas stations? Why do we let them continue to immigrate since they are the enemy? I once read a newspaper article written by one of Ronald Reagan’s sons and he said we need to kill all Musleums. So which U.S city do we nuke first? In Nov. I’m voting with the majority of Patriotic Americans who love their country. Gas will drop to 6 year lows by the Nov. elections and will be back at $3 a gallon by New Years.

Posted by: Brian at September 27, 2006 4:46 AM
Comment #184318

“Your fault! No, *your* fault. No no, that’s your fault! No way, that’s your!”

OH MY GOD!

Who is in charge of this country, for %$& sake!?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 27, 2006 5:12 AM
Comment #184335

Clinton did a great job of responding to the so-called “journalist” on Faux news. He dealt with facts and listed them quickly and assertively. He did not lose his cool, wig out, or any other thing that right-wingers like to say. He was assertive; that’s all.
It’s interesting that all of these wingnuts say, “what? WE said anything about him? What did WE ever say? WE didn’t do nuttin’.” Wingnuts have been hammering Clinton every single day; blaming him for every wrong this country has ever had since his administration. So he finally fired back in a grand way. It was AWE INSPIRING to say the least.
Then Condi has the audacity to lie about it and say that there was no plan, when documents show otherwise. She’s just another bushco shill, like faux news.
So the smear machine is in full gear now, trying to make one of faux news’ worst moments look good. But it can’t happen, because they never looked so bad. They can’t handle the truth, except to spew out more lies.
Chris Wallace is a smarmy little weasel who deserves a real smackdown; a physical one. He’s lucky that I wasn’t in the room, because I would have knocked that snot-nosed little brat right out of his chair. His father, a fine example of a journalist, must be extremely ashamed of his wayward son. Most of America is.
So the wingnuts can say whatever they want. They can try to lie and spin their way out of this one. But the truth is, they got it in the gut from a fine American, and it was about time.

Posted by: Cole at September 27, 2006 7:08 AM
Comment #184358

it is amazing how much time and energy both Clintons and Condi and the rest are putting into this blame game. Clearly, CLinton and his staff did the best they could with what they knew at the time. At least Clinton cared enough about this country and doing a really good job, to pick in his cabinet the best possible person for the job(s) regardless of political party. I wish the current admin displayed more curiousity re: “what is the right thing to do?” by looking and considering all the ideas, all the possiblities, instead of only listening to one or two people and refusing to hear anyone with a different idea or point of view. We might not be in this mess if he had done that from the beginning.
The real problem to be solved now is what to do……..if Iraq is in fact increasing the cause celeb for expremists and 3/4’s of the people in Bagdad feel less safe with US troops there and want the foreign troops out of there, then why don’tr we find a graceful way of doing that and focus our attention instead on Afghanistan and on promoting the goodness of AMerica—-

how about we show what a great place this is to be a part of—-re-affirming our human rights commitment, our global committment to the earth re:global warming and pollution (in 10 yrs drs expect 80% of children to have allergies and asthma. isn’t that enough of a reason to think that our emmisions and dirty fuel comsumption is bad—-do we have to have geographic catastrophies that kill thousands at a time to convince us that pollution and dirty fuel is bad?), our integrity, our openess to religious and ethnic and life style freedom and our praise of freedom of speech, and refusing to allow our admin or anyone else to try to limit free speech by harrassment or intimidation or name calling.

Posted by: judye at September 27, 2006 9:19 AM
Comment #184361

Re: Condi’s “retort” to Bill Clintons assertions
John Stewart did an excellent job last night
Showing Condi’s Hearing statement whereby she shrilly states that they were “left with no plan”, but goes on to say
“there were only a list of ideas” and that there was only a list of possible actions to take.
Hmmmmm sounds sort of like a plan, but I guess she expected — Schedule, Gantt chart, assigned leaders, — You know — fully fleshed out so that they didn’t have to do any work.
One point I found
Clinton said he left a comprehensive “Anti-Terrorist” plan
Condi’s response was
“There was no plan to address Al-Queda”

I noted the careful wording, so once again the Wrong-wingers by careful wording promote a lie that is “technically” not a lie

Perhaps the plan that was left was not specifically addressing Al-Queda — but was a comprehensive anti-terrorist plan (that covers Al-Queda, but goes beyond, and therefore is a SUPERIOR plan to one that merely addresses the one threat!! — I GET IT — CONDI WAS COMPLIMENTING BILL ON HIS FORESIGHT IN CREATING A PLAN BEYOND AL-QUEDA!!!!! AHHHH, AND HERE I THOUGHT SHE WAS A LIEING DECIETFUL SHILL FOR A CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION — MY BAD!!!)

Posted by: Russ at September 27, 2006 9:32 AM
Comment #184370

“I believe he clearly answered the question during that interview. What did you not understand?”

Observer,

His answer was he failed. We already knew that now if only his supporters would acknowledge such. Now I think we deserve an apology. Especially to guys like me who desperately wanted to go after OBL in 1999.

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at September 27, 2006 10:04 AM
Comment #184389

Steve Miller,

If you want to kick some terrorist ass then please understand you are a very very moderate democrat. The left’s money from places like MoveOn.Org have no inkling to act outside of the US. They (i.e. John Kerry) prefer police actions which mean (cover your ears) a terrorist strike has already occurred most likely. That’s just not that smart in my opinion.

In any case, if Dems do take over the House then I hope they’re like you. And I hope we don’t leave Iraq until the job is done. When Al Qaeda calls it their main battle ground then we need to finish business there too.

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 27, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #184391

Russ,

Thanks for quoting John Stewart, a fake news host on a fake news program and the absolute King of “Out of Context”. The man banters to his audience which is even more liberal than Stewart is.

What next, news from Doonesbury?

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 27, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #184401

Pop Quiz! Who said this?

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”

Or this?

“I don’t know where he is. I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.”

Or this?

“Deep in my heart I know the man’s on the run, if he’s alive at all…I just don’t spend much time on it, really, to be honest with you.”

And who disbanded the CIA unit dedicated to finding bin Laden?

Hint: It wasn’t Bill Clinton.

(taken from The Nation’s website)

Posted by: bobo at September 27, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #184424

bobo,
“Pop Quiz! Who said this? “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” Or this? “I don’t know where he is. I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.” Or this? “Deep in my heart I know the man’s on the run, if he’s alive at all…I just don’t spend much time on it, really, to be honest with you.” And who disbanded the CIA unit dedicated to finding bin Laden? Hint: It wasn’t Bill Clinton.”


He has (also) said “Wanted Dead or Alive” and people on the left went nuts; complaining that it was too “cowboy” and uncalled for. The quotes you posted were facts that his tactics of taking it to Al Qaeda (capturing and killing their leaders, finances, training camps, foiling terror plots, etc.) to the point where he doesn’t have to think about Bin Laden anymore; we’ve pigeon holed him to the point where he’s so insignificant now.


That’s great for America that Bin Laden is insignificant; except for the MSM, they probably feel he’s very significant with all those “empty” videos he “used” to put out.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 27, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #184432

How twisted the is Bush administration? No matter how hard they try to deflect attention, the remaining truth is: We WERE ATTACKED DURING YOUR ADMINISTRATION!!! While you were playing golf, and vacationing here and there trying to get used to your job, the terrorist were in the U.S. under your nose and not only planning the attacks, but actually attacking us. Don’t go too far back in history, you will find that another republican administration funded OBL. These facts you will never escape.

Now, for those still with me, there will be an increase in “suspicious packages” and “airport scares” up until the election. Terror activity will be increased in hotly contested political areas. Coincidence? No. It will only be the republican machine spreading fear, and hate all the way to the election booth.

Tired yet of them playing with your emotions? Say no to the republicans, vote them all out.

Posted by: mar at September 27, 2006 1:46 PM
Comment #184435

Some one said this the other day here and I just think it is a very profound statement and pretty much nails down the right wingers who blog here. “the purest form of hatred is selfishness as long as I’m ok everyone else can go to hell”. Who ever said that really has a grasp of where the hearts and minds of the right wing party truly are. They are filled with hatred and obviously too selfish to open their eyes to any truth that is presented to them. How sad a group they are.

Posted by: Vic at September 27, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #184453

rahdigly writes:

we’ve pigeon holed [Bin Laden] to the point where he’s so insignificant now.

Do you think he’s less dangerous to America now than Saddam Hussein was in January 2003?

Posted by: bobo at September 27, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #184458

“It’s Clinton’s fault. It’s Bush’s fault. It’s my fault. It’s our fault. Let’s stop pointing fingers and figure out how to win the war.”

Well, the problem with that is were not even fighting the right war. Were in the wrong country and executing it the wrong way.
Sorry, but blame IS important as we NEED a change of leadership before anything positive is going to get done. One thing the report released yesterday made clear is that were creating a new generation of terrorists with our current strategy. IF that doesn’t change, we really will be fighting for our lives.

Posted by: Observer at September 27, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #184463

“to the point where he doesn’t have to think about Bin Laden anymore; we’ve pigeon holed him to the point where he’s so insignificant now. “

So, the man responsible for killing 3000 americans isn’t important to find since we have him “pigeonholed” (yet he has no trouble communicating with the outside world), yet the guy we had “pigeonholed” in Iraq, Sadam, who NEVER attacked us, was somehow important enough to lose ANOTHER 3000 lives and half a trillion dollars to get.
Hmmm, sorry, not buying the logic.

Posted by: Observer at September 27, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #184466

“As a liberal”

You sir, are no liberal.

Posted by: Observer at September 27, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #184467

bobo,
“Do you think he’s less dangerous to America now than Saddam Hussein was in January 2003?”


Yep! They’re both less of threat to everyone now. Sucks for them, doesn’t it?!!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 27, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #184469

“His answer was he failed.”

No, his answer was that he ‘tried, and failed’, a MUCH clearer, more honest answer than we’ve heard from bushco for the last 6 years.


“We already knew that now if only his supporters would acknowledge such. Now I think we deserve an apology.”

Your sides position was that Clinton ignored Osama, now, since your quoting Clinton, it’s clear that HE WAS focused on him, and it was bush that ignored the threat. Condi’s blatant lies about not receiving a plan or warning about Al Qaeda further proves that bushco is a lying machine. When will you quit buying the bullsh*t?

“Especially to guys like me who desperately wanted to go after OBL in 1999.”

NOBODY on the right supported going after Osama, nobody on the right supported slapping down Saddam, The ONLY thing the right was interested in was getting Willy. I think YOU owe us an apology.

Posted by: Observer at September 27, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #184472

“Unbelieveable, Clinton debunked himself on national tv and all the person did was ask “did you think you did enough to catch Bin Laden”.”

SO, your criticizing a politician that answered a tough question honestly?
Does that make sense to anyone?
Perhaps your so used to be lied to you’ve come to need it?

Posted by: Observer at September 27, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #184474

“Yep! They’re both less of threat to everyone now. Sucks for them, doesn’t it?!! “

Yep, thanks to the right for creating an even bigger threat than we could have imagined in 03.
And it ONLY cost HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS!
Wonderfull accomplishment.

Posted by: Observer at September 27, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #184485

Hillary Kerry

Liberal? You’re not fooling anyone.

Posted by: mark at September 27, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #184487

Observer:

My viewpoint on Clinton is that he did have a measure of focus on Osama bin Laden. But if you look at his tenure, he had a measure of focus on a number of issues that he didn’t succeed at, such as health care, gays in the military, and a MidEast peace proposal. It wasn’t that he didn’t try—-he did. But I don’t think he was persistent enough in his efforts in many areas. I saw that as a lack of political fortitude.

Compare this to Bush regarding Social Security. It was unpopular to take on SS, and his “plan” was incomplete at best and horrible at worst. But he took on an issue that he thought needed to be taken on. And I agree with him that SS does need to be addressed, if not now then certainly in the very near future.

My point is not to talk about SS, but to show that Bush has the courage of his convictions. Many disagree with his convictions, but he still goes with them. The difference I saw with Clinton was that he would push something as long as it was politically expedient or convenient, but would drop it if it got too difficult.

I didn’t like Clinton in many ways, and I liked some of what he did. But I didn’t see him having the political spine that I wished he had.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 27, 2006 3:47 PM
Comment #184493

JBOD,

Please…really…

Health Care - He was blocked by the republi-cons

Gays in the military - Don’t ask don’t tell was implemented.

The mid-east - He SUCESSFULLY NEGOTIATED OSLO ACCORD!!! Did you want him to take control of both Isreal and Palestine and do what, exactly?
Oh, yea…ruling the world is on the agenda for the righties! We’re the World ‘Cops’ now.

Clinton dropped NADA. You have pulled that one out of your backside.

Posted by: RGF at September 27, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #184498

Cliunton said it himself. He tried. He also failed. He never had a cohesive policy. He just stuck his finger in the dike. Bombing pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities in Africa doesn’t count as a response to terrorism. It counts as a stupid assault by an un- or under-informed president. But, he’s a democrat, so let’s just say, “Oops!”

Posted by: someoldguy at September 27, 2006 4:29 PM
Comment #184504

RGF:

I recognize that Clinton was blocked by republicans on health care. Actually, not many from any party really liked Hillary’s plan back then. But the fact that Bill dropped it showed me that he wasn’t all that persistent.

Don’t ask/Don’t tell was a huge compromise and not what Clinton had wanted. It was what he settled for.

The Oslo Accord was implemented—that much is true. But it failed to do much, and if you recall, in the end of Clinton’s term, he spent a frenzied few months trying to gain new ground in the MidEast, but it was too little too late.

Some of what I refer to can be looked as good compromise, and should be looked at that way. Bill was not going to win on the gays in the military issue, so he compromised. Not necessarily a bad thing to have done.

My assessment of Clinton stands. He had great promise, but squandered much of it due to his carnal urges. Whether people should have gone after him as much as they did is up for debate. What is NOT up for debate is that a President having phone sex and oral sex with an intern young enough to be his daughter is one of the most politically stupid things he could have done.

Clinton by and large was a pretty good President. While I disagreed with a number of his ideas, I found that he went along with a number that I agreed with, such as welfare reform and Operation Desert Storm. He could have been much better, if he had more control over his urges and if he had more political courage. That’s my opinion, not fact, but it stands as is.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 27, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #184514

When the WTC was bombed the first time Clinton had been pres, for about 30 days and he did not blame bush 41. Now we have neo-cons trying to rewrite history to fit there twisted view of what happened on 9/11. They must take some kind comfort in not facing the truth that bush has failed by blaming Clinton for all there partys mistakes.

Posted by: Jeff at September 27, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #184521

So, Bush got as tough with the Taliban and Al Queda as Clinton…??? Hmmmm, so we know that the CIA had proof that Al Queda bombed the USS COLE in DEC. 2000, and that left Clinton less than a month to take action. What did Bush do to try and force the Taliban to give up Bin Laden in the 9 months leading up to 9/11?


He gave them $128 million - including $43 million in May 2001.

He’s one tough bastard… that’ll show ‘em!

Posted by: tony at September 27, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #184526

I don’t think “republicans” in general blame Clinton that much for 9/11. Left wing political hacks here repond to the rights politcal hacks so you can have a fight.

Clinton obviously didn’t do enough. That is because he had a pre 9/11 mentality. (So did Bush prior to 9/11).

It was obvious to all in the world that the pre 9/11 strategy did not work. I don’t think he is to be blamed, unless you want to spread blame to everyone. We (as in Americans) didn’t think a person would hijack four planes and fly them into buildings. Clinton and pre 9/11 Bush didn’t have that mentality.

So on 9/12 the policy changed to be far more aggressive. There is good news and bad. The good news is that (knock on wood), there has not been another attack since 9/11. The bad news is Iraq, and our standing in the world community.

Those on the left who want to go back to the Clinton years, I think is a false choice. We can’t go back. If we do, we will get the same results as in the pre 9/11 days. We obviously can’t stay here for ever either. Iraq has to change for the better.

The answer is a third approach. The next step is yet to be created. I think it will take a new president. I also don’t think it is a matter of partisenship. Whether the next president is Republican or Democrat probably wont matter much. What WILL matter is the creative ability both in visualizing the next option and admistrating the next option.

The answer does not lie in Bush/Clinton debating who screwed up the least. Neither administration or party has the answer right now from my view. There is an answer. It is probably being discussed even as we speak by those serious about the presidency. I can imagine contenders speaking with Generals and diplomats off the record and building the foundation of the next foreigh policy.

I think this thread and trying to uncover who screwed up the least is a loosers game. We as a country can only get where we need to go by creating a third alternative in policy from what we have seen.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 27, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #184538

The bigger question, once asked by Ronald Reagan, must be asked today: “Are you better off today than you were six years ago?” The honest answer is a resounding, “NO!!!”.

Only a Lying Liar of the Far Right could possibly answer in the affirmative.

Posted by: Marvin at September 27, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #184540

No doubt I am better off today. Three beautiful grandchildren, a son at UCLA. Oh and more income and a house that is worth 3 times what is was when I bought it 6.5 years ago.

Posted by: Keith at September 27, 2006 6:45 PM
Comment #184546

Guy’s,

I won’t speak for Clinton or why in my opinion he went a little overboard in his interview. But the reason for Clinton being upset may be, he was asked by Wallace for an interview about his 3 billion dollars he had just raised for a foundation. It was suppossed to be about what he was doing now, not what he was doing 8 years ago.

Clinton is not in power now and it does no service to anyone to go back in time. Besides it may chap your hide but Clinton today is more popular and get’s higher ratings than Bush. THAT MUST SUCK! In fact lets throw more gas on the fire. Even George Bush SR., Ronald Reagan and JIMMY CARTER have higher approvel raiting than does little Bush.

Many of you talk about the lies of Bill Clinton, I admit it he is a liar. But what lie did he tell that killed 3,000 US Troops? What lie did he tell that cost us 300,000,000,000.00+ to fight a war against a country that didn’t attack us?

I don’t know about you guy’s but I remember back when Clinton was president many on your side would say, “once a liar, always a liar.” Hold the same standard to your leader and maybe your arguments would hold more water.

I’m tired of both sides to tell you the truth. But I really liked our country when we had Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton in office. What did the three have in common??? That’s right, we had split government. Reagan and Bush had a democratic house and senate and Clinton had the republicans to deal with.

Power corrupts enough, but absolut power corrupts absolutly. Let’s get back to split gov’t. It helps keep both sides more honest.


Posted by: Rusty at September 27, 2006 6:58 PM
Comment #184549

Keith,

It also costs you 22 1/2% more today to send your son to UCLA than 6.5 years ago.

It costs you $1.25+ more per gallon for gas than 6.5 years ago.

Medical costs are 37% highter today than 6.5 years ago.

Our country has a deficit that is 300 billion + more today than it was 6.5 years ago.

The list goes on and on. Now with that said, inflation averges about 3% a year. So all of the numbers listed above are way above inflation numbers. Plus you list your house as being way more than you paid 6.5 years go. I live in the LA area too, well I own a rental on So-Cal. Yes it has appreciated over the past 4 years with this housing bubble. However, the bubble now has a leak in it and the price of homes is starting to go back down. YES, even in So-Cal.

The houseing market in our country has a little better than 8% yr. return on investment. So don’t be jumping for joy too soon. It will reset itself just as the stock market does. Buy the way, both the Dow Jones and the S$P 500 have better yearly averages on return than does owning a house. Well, except under this president.

By the way, everyone is starting to jump for joy because the DOW is about to reach an all time high. WOW! Imagine that, the market for Bush has to go over the high time high for him just to get back to where it was 3 months after he took office. So before we all start getting happy faces, remember the market doesn’t get better for Bush until it goes over and then continues to climb before we can say he did a good job on the economy. All this hoopla is just to get him back to where it was…

Wow, and you Republicans think he has done such a great job…

Posted by: Rusty at September 27, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #184554

“My point is not to talk about SS, but to show that Bush has the courage of his convictions.”

Sorry, but I dont’ get your point. bush pushed SS reform, lost, and has dropped it. How is that more persistent than Clinton??
Clintons health care initiative was shot down by a republican house and senate, and a multimillion dollar propaganda campaign by big money HMO interests. In contrast, bush couldn’t get SS reform pushed through with his own party in charge of everything.
Sorry, I disagree.

Posted by: Observer at September 27, 2006 7:30 PM
Comment #184555

“My assessment of Clinton stands. He had great promise, but squandered much of it due to his carnal urges. Whether people should have gone after him as much as they did is up for debate. “

Uh, now, in hindsight, if you still have to “debate” whether the Clinton witch hunt was bad for the country, then you just havn’t been paying attention.
And, last time I checked, Monica the Mouth was an adult, as was Bill, and what they did was legal, if somewhat nauseating, and had NOTHING to do with distracting him from his job.
What DID distract him was the incessant, nonstop, petty assault from the right, hell bent on destroying him at ANY COST.
What bush has had to face is a tea party in comparison.
As for liar presidents:
“I do not recall”
“Read my lips”
“I am not a crook”
All bigger, more important lies than:
“I did not have sex with that woman”.

Posted by: Observer at September 27, 2006 7:37 PM
Comment #184560

Craig;

Very well said. Perfect, in fact!

Observer:

You’ll note, upon cessation of hyperventilation, that I never once called Clinton’s fling with Monica illegal. What I said was that it was incredibly politically stupid. Care to disagree with what I said? Or would you prefer to argue what YOU said….I know its much easier to do that, but really, the rules of discussion call for you to comment on what I say, rather than what you wish I would have said.

There was plenty of evidence that Clinton’s dalliance with Monica distracted him from other issues. I doubt that Sonny Callahan of Alabama felt Clinton paid him full attention, knowing only afterwards that Monica was “servicing” Bill while they spoke on the phone of troop deployments in the Balkans.

The point was simply that Clinton did a really stupid thing. What happened after could have been stupid or could have been a good thing—-that’s a different debate. But had Clinton, as President, used judgement befitting the Presidency more than befitting a horny 17 year old adolescent, the issue never would have occurred. End of story.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 27, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #184566
And whats more, except to those who have cartoon valentines dancing in their heads whenever they lay eyes on Bill Clinton, the man looks like an ass.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 26, 2006 11:06 PM

I’m sorry to respond to your post so late but I was watching the Bill Clinton Interview then Keith Olbermann’s report, then I had called my kids in to watch them.

If you want to see an American President look like an ass watch the video of George W. Bush reading My Pet Goat while the twin towers were being attacked.

As far as those who have cartoon valentines dancing in their heads its whenever they laid eyes on Ronald Reagan (the guy who collapsed the savings and loans and cost us hundreds of billions).

I was reading Keith Olbermanns book the other day about the 202 worst people and Barbara Bush’s name popped up… turns out she made a very large donation to the Hurricane Katrina Victims. Unfortunately her donation had to be used specifically toward the purchase of computer software… sold by her son Neil. (You remember Neil Bush… he stole $20 - $40 million from the Savings and Loans).

Posted by: Pat at September 27, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #184572

“There was plenty of evidence that Clinton’s dalliance with Monica distracted him from other issues. “

So, list some for us, minus hyperbole.

Posted by: Observer at September 27, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #184586

Rusty,

The reported ground rules on the interview were 15 minutes on Clinton’s initiative and 15 minutes on anything else. After Clinton’s name calling and finger waving Wallace said they need to start talking about the CGI (Wallace was gracious in trying to exit the ex-Prez from his embarrassing episode) but Clinton demanded they continue the Bin Laden discussion.

Stupid emotion is as stupid emotion does. I just hope for Clinton’s sake he had someone to play “cigar peekaboo” with when he got home.

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 27, 2006 9:47 PM
Comment #184590

And this concept that the only thing Bill Clinton did wrong was the Lewinsky thing is laughable. First, he decimated the military. As an active duty member at the time I watched squadron after squadron and battalion after battalion get de-commissioned. (It’s why I have a good chuckle now when I hear dems say “we need more troops, they’re over-stressed”. Well no kidding Sherlock.) We also received only menial (read: less than inflation) percentage raises during the “great” economic times of the 90’s (I hope you all enjoyed it at least). His whole treatment of the military in general was disgraceful.

The stock market kept going up and up and many companies financial reports went unchecked for years and years. Why challenge good news, right? The stopping of N.K. from building nukes, well, we all know what a joke that is now. The number and the particular people he pardoned was absolutely abhorrent. Europe had the military and the cash to be the main thrust in Bosnia, why couldn’t Clinton make that happen?

All in all, as a democrat I found him to be middle of the road and it could’ve been worse (Algore). I appreciate him signing the Contract With America and coming to his senses on welfare. But to think his only error those 8 years was Monica … that’s a la la land of epic proportions!

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 27, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #184681

Observer:

The list is quite extensive, but I’ll give you just a few tidbits to chew upon.

First, it has been documented that Clinton was with Monica alone in the Oval Office while he took a phone call from Alabama Representative Sonny Callahan regarding the Balkan situation. At the kindest level, Monica certainly had no security clearance to be in the Oval Office for such a conversation. At the worst level, Clinton’s grunts of approval to Callahan might not have been intended for Callahan after all.

Second, the fact that Clinton spent so much of his time in damage control makes it obvious that the Lewinsky situation, along with the Jones situation, were distractions from his time. You can make your case that it was overzealous prosecution that caused the distraction, but it was nonetheless a distraction from the real duties of the Presidency.

Thirdly, here’s an example of specifically how it distracted:

When the story broke of Clinton’s alleged relationship with Lewinsky on Jan. 21, it nearly rendered moot the separate visits of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Arafat’s photo session with the president bordered on farce. As Arafat stood by, reporters bombarded Clinton with questions about matters most undiplomatic.

It was deeply humiliating to Arafat and, in the
view of some Palestinian officials, at least temporarily damaging to the Middle East peace process… Arafat was concerned about the distraction, says Ashrawi. “He did allude to the fact that though they were there to talk politics, he felt that President Clinton had to deal with this issue and not foreign policy. He feels things should be given the weight they deserve,” she said.”

Observer, you requested examples without hyperbole. There you go. But remember, my point has not been to pillory Clinton for his misdeeds. It was simply to state my opinion that he could have been a great President had he been better able to control his urges, and he could have been great had he shown more political courage when facing shifting political winds. My intent was not, and is not, to debate the entire sordid Lewinsky issue. That’s been dealt with and will be dealt by historians.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 28, 2006 6:00 AM
Comment #184716

Joe,

If you think Clinton would’ve been great minus his primal urges, I suggest you read my post directly above yours.

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 28, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #184734

Ken:

I didn’t like lots about Clinton. But I do give him credit for the things I did like. Probably shouldnt have used the word “great” because in my mind, my dislike for his policies would have prevented me from ever thinking that.

I did like his actions in Kosovo, Operation Desert Fox (stopped too soon), and welfare reform, which he sort of co-opted from the Republicans. I give him credit for not messing with a good economy, though I don’t consider the PRes the most important person regarding the economy, and I did see it going down at the end of his term.

My point was really to say that Bill allowed himself to get distracted because of his dalliances, and also because of his desire to please or perhaps appease everybody. He’s been called a narcissist, and narcissists like to be liked….need to be liked.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 28, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #184744

Ken,

I did say I thought Clinton went overboard in the interview. I also do agree he kept the conversation on OBL going longer by his own actions.

joebagodonuts,

As a financial advisor I do find your comment on Clinton,
“I give him credit for not messing with a good economy, though I don’t consider the PRes the most important person regarding the economy, and I did see it going down at the end of his term.”
I am wondering how you saw that? Clinton left office in January of 2001. The stock market was in about the same numbers we are looking at today.
I will tell all of you, we want split gov’t. As a democrat I don’t really care who is in the white house as long as we have the rest of the power (congress/senate) in the oposite party. Split gov’t works best for all of us.
I can ventrue to say if the congress was in democratic control in 2002, we would be better off today. There is a reason we have checks and balances. However, for the past 6 years we havn’t had any checks and balances at all.

Posted by: Rusty at September 28, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #184753

Rusty:

We all know the tech stocks boomed during Clinton and that bubble burst at the end of Clinton’s term. We also know that a recession began 3 months into Bush’s term. Since a recession is not considered a recession until 6 months of decline in real GDP occurs, the math is pretty simple. The economy had started down by the time Bush got into office.

As a financial advisor, you know that the stock market is just one aspect of the economy. Its sort of a thumbnail of how the economy is doing, but its by no means a complete picture.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 28, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #184765

Yes, Bill Clinton is to blame.
And, so is George Bush.
And, so is the government.
And, so are the terrorists.
And, so are the voters.

Yes, the government is irresponsible. There is absolutely no doubt about it.

But, the real truth is, WE are all to blame.
WE can blame Clinton, Bush, and government, but WE, the voters, picked that government.

So, WE The People, are irresponsible too, because WE know government is irresponsible, WE have known it for a long time, and WE keep right on re-electing those very same irresponsible incumbent politicians over and over, giving incumbents a 90% re-election rate (98% in the House), forever securing their cu$hy, coveted seats of incumbent power, for years (and decades).

WE all know intelligence was ignored, which warned of the very things that happened. The subsequent excuses that “we never dreamed” that could happen are lies. WE all know that.

So the fact is, WE are ALL responsible.

Democrats AND Republicans.

Neither is lilly white, and the partisan-finger pointing should be quite revealing to all voters.

The solution to this problem is for all of US to do the one simple thing to make it better, to get to the real root of the problems in this nation. Stop lazily pulling the party-lever (i.e. voting straight ticket), stop being seduced into the distracting, petty partisan warfare, and stop re-electing those very same irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians that use and abuse US.

Reject the petty partisan warfare, and the do-nothing, crooked, FOR-SALE, bought-and-paid-for, pandering politicians that fuel the partisan warfare, and start doing the one simple, common-sense, logical, no-brainer, non-partisan, peaceful, inexpensive, safe, and responsible thing that WE voters should have been doing ALL along, always:

  • Stop repeat offenders.

  • Don’t re-elect irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians

Not just this coming election. Never re-elect irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, corrupt, pandering, “look the other way”, incumbent politicians.

There will be more 9/11s, more Iraqs, more Katrinas, and more monstrous government blunders (by both parties) as long as WE, the slumbering voters, keep right on re-electing (i.e. empowering) the very same irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians, election after election. WE can’t protect against all dangers, but WE shouldn’t make it easy or help it along with massive irresponsibility and negligence. The point is, things can be, and should be much better. But it is high time slumbering voters start being more responsible.

If WE really want to help, stop re-electing irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians, regardless of so-called party affiliation, because the well-meaning newcomers to congress will never be able to pass any badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms as long as those newcomers are vastly out-numbered by many, long-time, irresponsible, incubment politicians that like things just they way they have perverted them. Irresponsible incumbent politicians will prevent newcomers from ever passing any reforms that might even remotely reduce the incumbents’ power, opportunities for self-gain, or the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbency.

  • 90% of elections are won by the candidate with the most money; usually, an incumbent;
  • 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more) come from a tiny 0.1% of the U.S. population)
Posted by: d.a.n at September 28, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #184829

“Second, the fact that Clinton spent so much of his time in damage control makes it obvious that the Lewinsky situation, along with the Jones situation, were distractions from his time.”

I never denied the distractions, only pointed out that they came from the right.
If his perjury was so important, why was the case thrown out for lack of any substance? How could Paula jones, someone making 35k a year, be driving a new Mercedes and sporting 50k worth of plastic surgery, and retaining high price lawers?
Cmon, get real. Admit the distractions came from his enemies, not his actions. If not Monica, it would have been something else.

Posted by: Observer at September 28, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #184832

Observer:

The smart politician does not put themself in a position where their political oppponents can easily throw stones at them. A while back, Gary Hart was a strong presidential candidate when he dared the press to follow him to see if he was having an affair. Well, they took him up on it, and served Gary up on a platter.

Bill Clinton did the same thing. You simply cannot tell me that a man having an affair does not have an unneeded distraction in his life. Forget the press, the Republicans, world leaders, Congress, and all of that. Simply having to keep his affair secret from Hillary would have been a distraction.

If you want to intelligently try to explain how an affair is not a distraction to a married man, please do so now. Even as compartmentalized as Bill was, it simply cannot be done.

Also, you picked one of the three examples I gave you to chew on. Take a whack at the others, especially the report where Arafat says it was a distraction. And if its a distraction to the people Clinton was trying to work with, then its a distraction to the political process Bill was trying to impose.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 28, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #184860

“The smart politician does not put themself in a position where their political oppponents can easily throw stones at them.”

True, the mistake was his, the distraction THEIRS.

“You simply cannot tell me that a man having an affair does not have an unneeded distraction in his life.”

“If you want to intelligently try to explain how an affair is not a distraction to a married man, please do so now. “

You’ll have to ask the other half of the married men on the planet. I havn’t had one, dont plan to.

He got BJ’s at his desk, while at work. Distracting? Yes, for about 10 minutes a pop. The republican sponsored hysteria about it was distracting for about 2 years.

“especially the report where Arafat says it was a distraction. “

Once again, your putting the cart before the horse. The distraction Arafat reffered to was the hysteria, NOT the act. I don’t think Monica was under the desk during any meetings with foreign dignitaries.
99% of the negative impact from Bill’s affair was caused by his enemies and their zeal to get him at any cost.

Posted by: Observer at September 28, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #184874

It was a pretty open secret that FDR and Eisenhower were having affairs (not with each other!) yet they didn’t seem to be distracted. No one seemed to care. The right made Clintion’s liason a distraction for him. They beat the proverbial dead horse so much that Clinton couldn’t help but be distracted by it. I’m not condoning what he did but I really think they overreacted.

If Hillary was the one under the desk (I said IF!!!), the republicans still would have made a big deal about it.

Posted by: Catherine at September 28, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #184878

When all gets said and done:

1. it is true that Clinton did not get Bin Laden when the sent missles into Afganistan.

2. He most probably got a “blow job” from Monica.

HOWEVER:

He, Clinton, did not provide the clear opportunity to out a CIA Covert to cover up his knowing lies and distortions for the reasons to go to war in Iraq. Neither did he send , i’d call it MURDER, American soldiers by sending them on an unjustified, unethical, immoral WAR against a non-threatening soverign nation just to appease his ego and his own personal and political self-aggrandizement.

BUSH, CHENEY, RUMSFELD, ROVE, LIBBY, RICE , HADLEY and all the Congressional syncophants,especially DeLay, Hastert, Stensenbrenner, Frist, Allen, et.al. have done that precise thing since bush came to office.

Fifty years from now, when history has had a chance to digest all of the facts of the bush jr. presidency, the name “Bush” will be a permanent epithet for all of the most dispicable, lying, dishonorable,treacherous immoral,unethical,tyranical, and treasonist actions any one in Government service can commit and fall into.

Posted by: Dylan at September 28, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #184881
The smart politician does not put themself in a position where their political oppponents can easily throw stones at them. A while back, Gary Hart was a strong presidential candidate when he dared the press to follow him to see if he was having an affair. Well, they took him up on it, and served Gary up on a platter.

Bill Clinton did the same thing. You simply cannot tell me that a man having an affair does not have an unneeded distraction in his life. Forget the press, the Republicans, world leaders, Congress, and all of that. Simply having to keep his affair secret from Hillary would have been a distraction.

I’ll remember that when Guiliani is running for President in 2008. The man had an affair for years and the press knew about it and never reported it. One day Guiliani send a bunch of reporters to show microphones in her face to ask her about a divorce the Mayor is seeking. Definitely Presidential Material wouldn’t you say.

Posted by: Pat at September 28, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #184884

CBS fires Dan Rather after 25+years of good honest reporting because he went with a bad story that turned out not to be true.

Fox News hires a convicted liar and gives him a one hour TV show a week, plus uses him as a so called political expert. OLLIE NORTH!

You tell us who is the more honorable station.

My point is that the Right, Limbaugh, Fox News, and the republicans in the house went after Clinton for lots of things that took time away form Clinton being able to do his job. Not just Monica. How about FosterGate, WhiteWater and what not. They too were all distractions from his day to day job. All of the distraction that the Right put Clinton through he was not to be found guilty of anything except with Monica. Just imagine how many more good things could have happend during Clinton’s watch if congress wouldn’t have ordered all of the investigations.

Where would Bush be now if we were having congressonial hearings on the lead up to the war. Prisoner abuse, no bid contracts etc. etc. My guess is he wouldn’t be doing very much either.

Observer is right, 99% of the so called distractions Clinton had to face were due to the republican controlled congress. After all, even in the heat of the Monica case, the majority of Americans didn’t think it rose to the level the house was taking it. Over 60% of the people didn’t think Clinton should have been impeached.

Posted by: Rusty at September 28, 2006 6:54 PM
Comment #184962

Yeah right, It’s all Clinton’s fault, It’s always someone else’s fault, man don’t you ever get tired of hearing that? If it was Clinton’s fault you would’ve heard heard it from the get go!! It would’ve been numero uno priorty. Do these guy’s get an easy pass every single f-ing thing, every f-ing time? I guess they do when you f-ing scare the you know what out of everyone. Hey think about it,even Nixon went down for less!!! I’m waiting for someone who can tell the truth without white washing it away, or should I say…white housing it away.
But hey, what do I know? At least with Clinton no one died for his lie.
sincerely,
a voter.

Posted by: another Voter at September 28, 2006 10:13 PM
Comment #184981

Observer:

You’ve missed the point several times now. I’ll give it to you one last time: Clinton allowed the distraction to happen by his actions. If you’d asked Clinton, or ANY politician in the last 30 years, whether they would face political problems if they had an affair and it became public knowledge, each and every one of them would say yes, it would cause problems. It doesn’t have to be fair, but its part of the political game. I don’t make the rules, nor do you, but at least I understand that they exist. And so did Clinton, which is why he evaded the truthful answer for so long. Yet he could have avoided the entire problem by just not having the affair.

Pat:

You should definitely factor Giuliani’s affair into your consideration of him as a candidate. It’s a part of who he is, and its an action he undertook of his own accord. What people do gives a window into who they are, and voters cast votes based on who the candidate is.

Hold Rudy to a high standard, by all means. Better yet, hold him to YOUR standards, whatever your standards are. If his affair causes you to not vote for him, so be it. If his affair makes no difference to you, so be it. I plan to do the same.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 28, 2006 11:34 PM
Comment #184999

Dylan,

Madeline Albright told a small town in Ohio during a speech in 1998 that their biggest threat was Saddam Hussein. Bill Clinton told the Pentagon in 1999 that if they took some “ambiguous 3rd route” of inaction that it would embolden Saddam and eventually cause harm to the US. Kerry told Chris Matthews in 1998 that he was ahead of the Clinton Administration on pressing for military action in Iraq. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden both warned of the serious Iraqi WMD threat in 2002. France and Germany were co-signers of repeated UN resolutions which blatantly deemed Saddam was not living up to his agreement of disarming.

So go spew your vitriol on a website where people have no clue about recent history.

… non-threatening sovereign nation? Tell that to Kuwait. Tell it to the Kurds. Tell it to Iran. Tell it to all the Americans who heard “Death to America” from Saddam time after time after time. I personally don’t care about WMD, after 9/11 I lost my patience with all leaders saying “Death to America”. He was the closest alligator to the boat, and I’m as happy as spiked punch that he sits in a courtroom every day getting told to shut up and sit down. I’m also glad his rape room sons are fertilizing daffodils.

American life and treasure lost is indeed great, but multiply it by 10 or 100 or 1000 in the year 2016 when Saddam or one of his rape room sons financed an Al Qaeda or Hezbollah terrorist strike in the US. I’ll be happy to tell my 2 year old son in 16 years that one thing he doesn’t have to worry about is a dictatorial family of lunatics in Iraq with a lot of money and a lot of hate for the US.

And if Iran keeps trying to build nuclear weapons … trifecta it is.

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 29, 2006 12:38 AM
Comment #185047

The Bushies try to slam Mr. Clinton for not having done anything about Osama bin Laden. In case they forgot, Mr. Clinton fired a missile at OBL, and missed him only because he had recently departed from that location. Meanwhile, the Bushies haven’t tried to find out where OBL might be hiding, let alone tried to nab him or kill him.

Posted by: Dragon at September 29, 2006 10:50 AM
Comment #185055

bill clinton is busy these days trying to rewrite the history of his presidentcy. It’s not that hard, billy. Your presidentcy will be best remembered with four simple terms; IMPEACHED, COWARD, PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, and CUM STAINS. Sorry to be so mean to you but, you’re an evil person……

Posted by: Matt at September 29, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #185130

Dear Matt - You are fooled. The truly evil start wars with lies, and justify with them too. Truly evil for cumming on an interns dress? Really, enough already.

I guess that this president’s mantra will be “I helped other countries vote”. Big flippin deal! And like always, 9/11 is this administrations, the economy and extreme debt is this administrations too. Bush’s book would read “My friends truly got rich while I was in the white house”.

Would be a nice read if you were one of his “friends”.

Posted by: mar at September 29, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #185146
bill clinton is busy these days trying to rewrite the history of his presidentcy. It’s not that hard, billy. Your presidentcy will be best remembered with four simple terms; IMPEACHED, COWARD, PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, and CUM STAINS. Sorry to be so mean to you but, youre an evil person……

Posted by: Matt at September 29, 2006 11:00 AM

Don’t drink the kool-aide matt.

Clinton WAS a great president and doesn’t need to have history re-written. There were shrinking deficits and growing surpluses, the economy was great, unemployment was at its lowest and they were real jobs.

Bush has destroyed our unions, sent our jobs overseas, given tax breaks to the rich and burdened the poor and middle-class, started an illegal war with a country that never killed even one American, destroyed scientific research, ended medical research that could save millions of lives, destroyed forests with allowing logging on federal land, stolen 2 elections… need I go on.

Bush is trying to rewrite history… does the ABC 6 hour propganda movie “Path to 9/11” sound familiar.

Posted by: Pat at September 29, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #185151

TYPE ON PAT!!!!

Posted by: mar at September 29, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #185155
with a country that never killed even one American

bzzzt, that statement is incorrect

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #185157
Truly evil for cumming on an interns dress?

No, truly evil for commiting sexual harassment and then lying under oath in order to prevent his accuser of having a fair trial.

And in doing so breaking a law that you signed.

Yeah, that’s pretty evil in my book.

Or, is sexual harassment not a problem in the US anymore?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #185159
with a country that never killed even one American bzzzt, that statement is incorrect

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2006 04:39 PM

No it isn’t. The statement most certainly was true before Bush went to war.

By the way there is a book you should read call “The Greatest Story Ever Sold

Posted by: Pat at September 29, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #185160
Truly evil for cumming on an interns dress? No, truly evil for commiting sexual harassment and then lying under oath in order to prevent his accuser of having a fair trial.

And in doing so breaking a law that you signed.

Yeah, that’s pretty evil in my book.

Or, is sexual harassment not a problem in the US anymore?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2006 04:42 PM

You mean lying to the American people about mushroom clouds and WMDs to start an illegal war is less evil than lying about oral sex, then you’ve got a future working for the RNC and Ken Starr.

Posted by: Pat at September 29, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #185163

Pat,

I don’t think I mentioned Bush or ranked his level of evilness against Clinton’s, did I?

Are you willing to say that Clinton was evil for what he did or not? That’s all I’m talking about here. You can go on later and try to compare the two if you want, I personally find that type of conversation something to leave for someone who is a member of the two parties, they are good at deflection like that…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #185175
No it isn’t. The statement most certainly was true before Bush went to war.
Nope, if you read my blog post here : http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001765.html

You’ll see the link that lists out the 50+ americans killed and more injured.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #185176

Oh, and that doesn’t even take into account the American military men and women killed in the 1991 Gulf War. Or do they not count?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2006 5:44 PM
Comment #185187

I would appreciate it if you would stop acting like democrats do not care for the miliary personnel. We will remember each and every one that has answered the call and fought for our country.

Now, once and for all just because I do not support this war does not mean I do not support our troops. I pray for them daily, and their families too. I further wish that republicans would stop acting (and I mean acting) more patriotic than democrats.

Oh yeah, I do not support terrorism either - and that is the new all time low for the republican machine.

Posted by: mar at September 29, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #185217

Ken,
After the first gulf war, Iraq was pretty much washed up. They got sanctioned half to death to boot. When we invaded them for no good reason, they weren’t going to mount any resistance militarily. Come to think of it, that’s exactly what happened.

Posted by: Steve Miller at September 29, 2006 8:03 PM
Comment #185437

The incoming Bush administration was warned by the outgoing Clinton administration that al Quaeda would be one of their biggest concerns. They were briefed multiple times by Richard Clarke, among others, about the growing terrorist threat. I’d like to hear JUST ONCE from those in here who blame Clinton what SPECIFIC actions the Bush Administration undertook in the seven plus months before 9/11, after hearing those warnings.

Before you go blaming Clinton, show me that Bush did something - anything - after being told that al Qaeda was a growing threat.

Posted by: ElliottBay at September 30, 2006 6:47 PM
Comment #185542

This was a sad afternote to the morally bankrupt Clinton presidency. Here you have Clinton poking away at a good reporter trying to intimidate him. Clinton rewritting history and freaking out. Bill Clinton even claimed to have handed Bush some new Bin Ladden plan that apparently Bush could have used to save America! A plan that his own people are left saying…”duhhh, What plan? there was no new Bin Laden plan!”

Hillary then comes out and declares her husband was not melting down but making a bold political statement that it was no ok for democrats to attack Republicans on these issues. That it was really a carfully crafted signal, a brilliant political move from a political genius! As if the democrats don’t attack republicans night and day and a melt down is a great thing!

It very much reminded me of the lame cover-up that progressives put out when Teresa Heinze-Kerry melted down just before John Kerrys big night at the convention. There you saw Teresa on national TV lying and attacking this reporter who referenced her speach and she denied she said the words and went nuts! Hey, what is “unAmerican Teresa! The lying damage control quickly put the word out on the convention floor. Tell the press that Teresa is “A modern woman who speaks her mind, an example for all modern women”. You see, she’s not nuts and a liar disconnected from reality….she’s MODERN. LAUGH.

Flash forward…..Bill Clinton melts down and attempts to rewrite history…and Hillary tells us it’s a bold signal to the democratic party.

Sorry Hillary. It was a MELT DOWN. When he left the stage Bill was screaming at his own people “How could you let this happen to me”.

No planning went into his melt down, it was not a brilliant political move…it was just a weak, corrupt, dishonest man melting down on national TV. It was sad. Even more sad is that the main stream liberal press once again circled the wagons to protect the corrupt Clinons.

And Hillary’s lame Bush Bash….if Bill had known what Bush had known Bill would have responded better them Bush! Well, Hillary, we have the proof that Clinton was told that Bin Laden wanted to attack the US on US soil and guess what Hillary….Bill did not do what you said he would have done “had” he known this.

Posted by: Ste at October 1, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #185554

Ste,
Sorry, but I saw one of the two men in that interview leave the room with smoke emanating from his nether regions, and that man was not Bill Clinton.

More people in this country believe that the war in Iraq is misguided and harmful than do not. This despite the fact that the mainstream media are controlled by big business, who in turn have a decided right wing bias. Not to mention that the carefully controlled news coming out of Iraq is turning out to be mostly spin to try and keep up a good front for the prez.

Can you say “chickens coming home to roost”?

Posted by: Steve Miller at October 1, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #269253

It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if Cheney was involved in 9-11. Bush, Cheney and PNAC needed the public outrage created by 9-11 to launch their Iraq war which Bush was planning since he seized office.

Posted by: Ray at November 2, 2008 11:34 PM
Post a comment