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.
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.
Comments:
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.
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.
# posted by 
: 10:09 AM
: 10:09 AM
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
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.
