Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

Clinton faults Bush for inaction on bin Lad

2006-09-24

Former President Bill Clinton, angrily defending his efforts to capture Osama bin Laden, accused the Bush administration of doing far less to stop the al Qaeda leader before the September 11 attacks. In a heated interview to be aired on Sunday on "Fox News Sunday," the former Democratic president defended the steps he took after al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and faulted "right-wingers" for their criticism of his efforts to capture Osama bin Laden.

"But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said when asked whether he had failed to fully anticipate bin Laden's danger. "They had eight months to try, they did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed."

Posted by:Fred

#28 Dubya wasn't POTUS until after he was officially inaugurated in January 2001. Interesting Legal premise - is a State Governor the superior of a national POTUS, and a national VPOTUS vying to be elected POTUS, and either after the November 000 elex andor before the 001 inauguration day??? ANd how does an alleged inferior national POTUS exceed his authority over the State Governor by "trying" to do "something"???

Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-09-24 20:35

#27 Please. Unka Bill obsessing about his fucking "legacy" is how we got into this mess in the first place.

"Oooh, there's no WARRNT oustanding!"

Fuckin' asshole.

Posted by: Sheretle Thruque5606 2006-09-24 20:29

#26 Don-cha think that Chris REALLY hit Bubba's last nerve with a couple of simple, direct questions? Bubba turned purple with rage. It's easy to imagine klinton "forcing" himself on Juanita Broaddrick (and others.) There are forces of evil in this world. Those forces swirl around incarnate Bill and Hillary Clinton, and their minions. May God Bless us All.

Posted by: Asymmetrical Triangulation 2006-09-24 20:17

#25 Sheesh - you're soooo right, Darrell. Time for me to STFU and go away.

Posted by: .com 2006-09-24 19:56

#24 That's Chris Wallace, .com, not Mike Wallace. Mike Wallace would have worn a blue dress for Clinton.

Posted by: Darrell 2006-09-24 19:53

#23 Shrinkwrapped: What joins all these stories is an antipathy and fear of aggression and its derivative, competition, which is the fundamental guiding force behind liberalism. For many years, the goal of liberalism has been to minimize the impact of aggression in the world. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this goal but when one's fear of one's own aggression is kept out of awareness, it exacts a terrible price in its drive for expression.

Managing and containing the aggressive drive is a prerequisite for civilization, yet when the civilized liberal becomes so frightened of his own aggression that he attempts to suppress every overt expression of aggression, even when it is appropriate and necessary for his survival, he invites greater and greater violence from those who are not similarly constrained. This is a lesson which tends to be forgotten during peace time and must be relearned periodically.

Liberalism and Aggression

Posted by: SR-71 2006-09-24 19:17

#22 The butcher of Serbia never fails to amaze me.

Posted by: gromgoru 2006-09-24 18:39

#21 Mike Wallace's career, probably regardless of anything he ever does in the future, will be defined by this interview. Imagine how many people will now be out to "get" him - and I'm not kidding in the least.

I've just finished watching the whole thing on Fox, Clinton was, indeed, gunning for any criticism and wouldn't let it go.

He's a complete pussy. I hope, and predict, he will be gutted by non-idolater historians.

Posted by: .com 2006-09-24 18:17

#20 *D'Oh!* Spemble!

Posted by: JDB 2006-09-24 16:04

#19 #8 Nimble Spimble wrote:

Before it is too late, he should consider the examples of GHW Bush and Gerry Ford who simply disappeared from the political scene, satisfied to let the historians sort it out over the next few generations and help the country quietly as their successors asked.

Excellent advice. Ford was so maligned for his pardon of Nixon in the 1970's but nowadays, quite a few historians agree it was a principled and intelligent decision. Ford's legacy, even if just as a place holder, is now one of being a decent and fair man.

That's better than what Clinton and Carter can expect if they keep running their mouths.

Posted by: JDB 2006-09-24 16:03

#18 From reading the transcript I concluded Bill wasn't side tracked. He was waiting for it. That rant was well composed and rehearsed. Wallace was the one caught off guard. If he'd been prepared, his answer to ths:

CLINTON: I dont believe you asked them that.

WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of

CLINTON: You didnt ask that, did you? Tell the truth, Chris.

WALLACE: About the USS Cole?

CLINTON: Tell the truth, Chris.

would have been "Mr. President I haven't been convicted of perjury. I do tell the truth."

Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-09-24 14:15

#17 Well, if Clinton feels the need to go after terrorists, the Dems must be starting to feel it by now, too. :-| (snicker)

Posted by: gorb 2006-09-24 14:15

#16 Freudian slip:

*unimportant*

Posted by: Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-09-24 14:05

#15 Ole Bill almost blew a gasket. He intended to discuss his Clintonian Global Iniative (CGI), but felt side-tracked and ambushed by FNC's Chris Wallace.

Good for him. After all, why trifle about something as seemingly unimpotant that the most dangerous phase of radical Islam's now 28-year war on the West and modernity having gained its lethality and "coming of age" under Bill's watch?

Posted by: Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-09-24 14:04

#14 "Now, I've never criticized President Bush..."

Pathological Liar

Posted by: Frank G 2006-09-24 11:12

#13 I did NOT have sex with Bin Laden.

Posted by: William J Clinton 2006-09-24 11:07

#12 Dave D: "They know damn well their policies get more Americans killed by terrorists-- and they don't give a shit."

So they're unconscionable, insane bastards.

Works for me.

Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-09-24 10:11

#11 The liberal followers are insane. I was down in Baltimore and my liberal friends (there was no other kind of Marylander till a few years ago) were tripping over themselves to tell me what a stupid empty suit Steele was and how brilliant Ben Cardin is. I know I always ask for the candidates SAT and IQ scores before I make my decision. Look how badly that dum actor screwed things up. Keep telling yourselves that, folks.

Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-09-24 10:10

#10 "Dave D - Isn't that the definition of insanity?"

Depends on whether you're talking about liberal leaders, or liberal followers.

For liberal followers, the people this stuff is concocted to appeal to, yes: it's insanity. Insanity augmented with huge doses of stupidity and ignorance.

For liberal leaders, though, it's simple politics, rampant greed and dishonesty. They know damn well their policies get more Americans killed by terrorists-- and they don't give a shit.

Posted by: Dave D. 2006-09-24 10:02

#9 Dave D - Isn't that the definition of insanity?

Oh, wait - it's the Dems. Insanity is a given.

Nevermind.

Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-09-24 09:46

#8 "And he sure ain't helping Hillary."

He probably isn't. But I suspect he thinks he is.

I figure we're going to be hearing more and more of this kind of stuff over the next 2 years:

"It's all about bin Laden. Iraq was a senseless distraction from the War On Terror. Bush hasn't caught bin Laden yet. Bush's war in Iraq has made us less safe. Bush has turned the WoT into a War On Islam. Now Muslims everywhere hate us because of Bush. The whole world hates us because we're so mean. Bush has alienated our allies by ignoring their advice. Bush is ignoring the Constitution. Bush is ignoring International Law. Iraq has made us less safe. Bush hasn't caught bin Laden yet...."

And on and on, ad nauseum. We're going to be hearing this crap, nonstop, right through the 2008 Presidential election, because the Democrats are desperate to end the "war" part of the WoT and revert to the "law enforcement approach" as it was under Clinton.

So it's not just Bill Clinton trying to influence what historians will say of his presidency years from now: it's that the Dems want to go back and resume Clinton's policies even though they were an abject failure.

Posted by: Dave D. 2006-09-24 09:03

#7 He really ought to consider how this adds to his "legacy". The more he whines, the more people will forget the charming rogue and remember the whiner who didn't grapple with the big issue, leaving it for his successor.

Look at Carter. When he was first out of office at Habitat for Humanity, people thought, "at least he is a good person even if that doesn't translate into being a good President." Now, people don't even think he was a good person, just a whiny, bitter, incompetent loser.

Before it is too late, he should consider the examples of GHW Bush and Gerry Ford who simply disappeared from the political scene, satisfied to let the historians sort it out over the next few generations and help the country quietly as their successors asked.

And he sure ain't helping Hillary.

Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-09-24 08:47

#6 How many opportunities did he have to take him out during his administration? And how many of them were shot down by his staff (like Sandy "Baggy Pants" Berger) before our military could follow through?

Somebody's sure tetchy about that ABC movie....

Posted by: Swamp Blondie 2006-09-24 08:27

#5 I love him too, I watched thru the keyhole.

Posted by: Bloominthrall 2006-09-24 08:01

#4 I love him, but I watched his inaction.

Posted by: newc 2006-09-24 07:45

#3 He should just STFU up already. Any look back at his adminstrations behavior towards koranimals is going to be unflattering to him, he's a smart if amoral guy he should realize that.

Posted by: JerseyMike 2006-09-24 07:10

#2 Clinton had eight years to do more than try.

Posted by: WTF 2006-09-24 05:59

#1 They had eight months to try,.

I see math is not your strong suit.

Posted by: Redneck Jim 2006-09-24 03:59

00:00