Sunday, September 24, 2006

Bill Clinton 
Digging his rhetorical grave.

Yeah. Let's blame the military, and the CIA and FBI for "failing to certify" that Al Qaeda was responsible for terror attacks.

Put aside the facts that Bin Ladin was identified as a terrorist financier in 1997 by Clinton's own intelligence services, and that Janet Reno's justice department was confident enough in Bin Ladin's evilitude to indict him in 1998.

The CIA and FBI wouldn't "certify."

Obviously, Karl Rove has taken over Clinton's brain from his secret mind control bat cave in West Transylvania and is forcing him to say stupid things.

Not quite as stupid as "Can I ask you about the Clinton Initiative?" but pretty stupid nonetheless.

Besides. I know that smirk. I get it myself when I'm trying to restrain a smile, because I know I've got a great, compelling interview going on.

Also - and good interviewers know this...sources open up more to people who smile than people who don't.

It's not because I think I'm smart. I try to go into every interview with an expert with the assumption that I don't know crap, but I want them to prove stuff.

I used to enjoy your blog, back when you were in Iraq. It was always like, "You may have read such-and-such. Well, I was there, and this is what I saw." It was a reality check.
Then it became "I read such-and-such, but I just know it's wrong and our President and the military are doing the right thing."
Now Clinton spends 15 minutes devastating Chris Wallace, pointing out facts that you yourself remember, and you post just a little clip you think you can pick apart.
Could you at least look up what actually happened and explain it to us? When Clinton said the CIA wouldn't "certify", what does that mean? I don't know this stuff. I look to people who know the military and politics (people like you) to explain it. Did Clinton draw up plans to get Osama Bin Ladin as he claims he did? Who or what prevented him from carrying out those plans? In January 2001 did the Republicans finally find themselves free to launch an all-out effort to hunt down bin Laden, with those obstructionist Democrats out of the way? Or were they hampered by Clinton's drastic reduction of the military and the $500 billion dollar deficit Clinton left us with in 2000?
I agree with Newfweiler: you are thinking less and blasting more.

The CIA, NSA, et al have been so screwed up and so bad for so long, that it's hard to know who to blame. They didn't drop the dime on Osmama, but they did certify the parma plant in Khartoum was a legitimate target. Wrong.
Well, that's easy... The President is the chief executive. Not the CIA head. The CIA doesn't "certify" crap.

But Bin Ladin was already under indictment by Reno's justice department in 1998. For what? Spitting in public? No, dumbass. For terrorism!

No. Clinton was weaseling. Clinton did not need the CIA to "certify" crap. Osama Bin Ladin had already publicly declared war against the United States prior to his indictment.

Clinton is throwing the CIA and FBI under the bus here. Why so many feel loyal to him I'll never understand. This canard that clinton needed the CIA to "certify" anything is utter crap.

Elsewhere in the interview, Clinton claims he had a contract out to kill Bin Ladin. So why not authorize the CIA to do it? Because they wouldn't "certify." Except that Bill Clinton was willing to contract to kill him even without this ridiculous "certification."

No. Both can't be true. He's lying about something. Why would he put out an assassination contract on Bin Ladin but claim that the CIA wouldn't certify?

Well, because he doesn't need "certification."

As for what happened in January 2001, the Bush Administration armed predators within a month. I just read that Clinton retreads are now trying to take credit for arming predators. That's ridiculous. They had years to arm predators, but hid behind the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty.

The first test fire by a predator came under Bush, not Clinton, even though unmanned aircraft had been in use for most of a decade.

Clinton also cut the military budget dramatically. But it's congress that has the power of the purse, and a Republican congress was going along with most of those cuts, or was corrupting them to preserve favored pork barrel bases and projects at the expense of overall readiness. But that's not really germaine to the debate here.

I don't recall Clinton leaving with a 500 billion deficit. Last I recall, the budget was balanced, at least in the short run, and we were actually buying back 30 year bonds.
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Meter

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!