Clinton defends his handling of Bin Laden

[QueenAdrock]

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted up yet:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500199.html

He does make a good point. The same people who ridiculed him then of trying now ask why he didn't do more. And all the media outlets are just focusing on how he was "combative." The Daily Show did quite a good job of making fun of that tonight. (y)

[yeahwho]

just 10 years ago we as a Nation were discussing what the definition of sex was, now we're discussing the definition of torture.

We are in a bit more serious trouble today than 10 years ago.

[yeahwho]

I did bring this up yesterday in my stupid Bin Laden Dead (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1307351&postcount=17) thread.

I can't blame anybody for ignoring it.

Bin Laden will always be alive in the hearts and minds of the hypnotized.

[Documad]

just 10 years ago we as a Nation were discussing what the definition of sex was, now we're discussing the definition of torture.

We are in a bit more serious trouble today than 10 years ago.
That's quite clever.


Can you imagine the shitstorm Clinton would have been subjected to if he had invaded Afghanistan? Remember what happened when he bombed the camp? He was absolutely correct about Bosnia and look how they crucified him.

[DroppinScience]

Clinton kicked some serious ass. I was impressed with him! (y)

[QueenAdrock]

Apparently he was foaming-at-the-mouth angry and therefore all the valid points he made have been since discredited. :rolleyes:

[QueenAdrock]

Condi responds. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/26/rice.clinton.ap/index.html)

What a bunch of lies. The Bush Administration DID sit there. Richard Clarke, the head of anti-terrorism for Bush and previous administrations (30 years of experience) said they didn't give a shit. They wouldn't give him the time of day. Wanna know why she wasn't aware of a "comprehensive strategy" to fight Al Qaeda? BECAUSE SHE AND OTHER OFFICIALS REFUSED TO MEET WITH DICK CLARKE. They could have had a comprehensive strategy in their hot little hands, if they just listened to his warnings. They wrote him off, and they didn't give a shit because they didn't realize, nor care about, the importance of Al Qaeda like Clinton did.

This shit boils my blood. What a crock. (n)

[Echewta]

Clinton goes into a "purple faced rage" and losses his "cool" but the current VP can still tell someone to fuck off on the Senate floor and thats ok. Oh, and to be drunk and shoot someone in the face. But look at Clinton!

[Documad]

The really funny part of the Daily Show was when they did the story on the kid who was suing because boys are disadvantaged in school. They hardly ever have a funny feature anymore so that was a nice surprise.

[sam i am]

just 10 years ago we as a Nation were discussing what the definition of sex was, now we're discussing the definition of torture.

We are in a bit more serious trouble today than 10 years ago.

Actually, we've grown up some, in my never to be humble opinion.

The whole Clinton sex thing was overblown and he shouldn't have been impeached for it.

Whether it was a distraction to the other duties of his job is an open question and one that is rightfully being explored now.

The underlying, and unasked, question to all of this is why Clinton feels he needs to defend himself. If he had just ignored all the "Path to 9/11" hoopla, it probably would have blown over and his "legacy" wouldn't have been dented.

As it stands now, with him out there fighting back as hard as he can, it reminds me of the whole finger-wagging, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" incident when he was still Prez.

Methinks he doth protest too much...

[abcdefz]

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted up yet:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500199.html

He does make a good point. The same people who ridiculed him then of trying now ask why he didn't do more. And all the media outlets are just focusing on how he was "combative." The Daily Show did quite a good job of making fun of that tonight. (y)


Playing devil's advocate here:

This has long been Presdient Clinton's problem, anyway: swayed whichever way the polls blow.

Frankly, I would've appreciated it more if, in hindsight, he could say "Despite the ridicule I faced, I pursued Bin Laden and made sure that fucker was DEAD DEAD DEAD. Say what you want, when you want, but I stay the course, no matter what public pressure says."

I can't stand it when politicians whine "yeah but people didn't LIKE meeeeee!!!" as a "legitimizing" excuse for why they didn't pursue their vision. That's weak. Weak weak weak.

[Echewta]

Clinton does say he made mistakes and takes responsibility for them.

[b i o n i c]

i found it interesting that by last night all the videos on youtube were deleted by "fox news, inc" and that the first video you saw on the subject, on fox's website, was wallace and some woman talking about it, before wallace ending it by congratulating her on the first episode of her new show. the promo did nothing for me, i still dont remember her name.

cbs news site's video of it was unavailable. bbcnews didnt have it. abc news had a link to the youtube video of it so it was unavailable. it just all smelled fishy to me. i hate it

without much thought, i think news should be free of copyrights for many if not all circumstances. i was really pissed last night, felt manipulated

[D_Raay]

Whether it was a distraction to the other duties of his job is an open question and one that is rightfully being explored now.

Of what relevance is it now? As I remember he is not the sitting president and this hit job on him is being carried out by the very people who caused the scandal to be a distraction in the first place.

So exploration will lead to what exactly?

[yeahwho]

Of what relevance is it now? As I remember he is not the sitting president and this hit job on him is being carried out by the very people who caused the scandal to be a distraction in the first place.

So exploration will lead to what exactly?

Clinton is just showing a little transparency, shining a flashlight on what history has already recorded. The current administration is like cockroaches whenever a light is shined on them, they scurry. (cockroaches are survivors)

Unfortunately some of the media is complicit in this action, Fox News is untrustworthy at best, but now seems to be actually phishing dems to appear on their network, then doing as they please with the story afterwards.

I couldn't agree with D_Raay more, I wish the democrats would begin putting real pressure on this administration. George Bush is fond of saying he'll let history decide his tenure, he now has some history democrats, expose it!

[QueenAdrock]

Frankly, I would've appreciated it more if, in hindsight, he could say "... Say what you want, when you want, but I stay the course, no matter what public pressure says."

You mean like Bush?

I personally think that the president should stand for what the people stand for. I like a president who gives public opinion consideration. Presidents who say "Fuck what America thinks, they don't matter, they're not me," are crap presidents in my mind. Leaders should be representative of the people, not just turn a blind eye and deaf ear on public input.

I don't think being diplomatic is weak.

[yeahwho]

I don't think being diplomatic is weak.

Or giving tax breaks to U.S. corporations who create U.S. jobs.

Or keeping a budget.

Or challenging healthcare.

Or abiding by the Geneva Convention.

Or respecting 231 years of the Bill of Rights

Clinton polled at well over 70% approval during impeachment proceedings, whilst running the biggest economic boom in history. The only records Bush broke were for most vacations taken by a sitting president and borrowing more foreign debt than all previous presidents combined.

[sam i am]

You mean like Bush?

I personally think that the president should stand for what the people stand for. I like a president who gives public opinion consideration. Presidents who say "Fuck what America thinks, they don't matter, they're not me," are crap presidents in my mind. Leaders should be representative of the people, not just turn a blind eye and deaf ear on public input.

I don't think being diplomatic is weak.

Blah blah blah.

I'm sure glad Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, JFK, and Reagan didn't think the way you do.

Leadership means doing what you think is right and best, not endless dithering over what the "polls" or the masses think (people are dumb and led to the trough, individuals are the smart ones).

The Revolutionary War, the Louisiana Purchase, the Civil War, the conquest of the West, WWI, WWII, the Cold War, Kennedy's tax cuts, and Reagan's were all unpopular at one time or another. Seeing through one's vision as a President is often difficult, unpopular, and slammed at the times they occur, but prove, after the fact, to be the RIGHT thing to do.

Clinton will be seen through history's visage as Carter was : weak and ineffectual, hounded by self-doubt and recriminatory activities, unable to make up his mind, and lacking in basic self-confidence and self-esteem.

[fucktopgirl]

Clinton will be seen through history's visage as Carter was : weak and ineffectual, hounded by self-doubt and recriminatory activities, unable to make up his mind, and lacking in basic self-confidence and self-esteem.


i wonder how bush will be seen??

[sam i am]

Or giving tax breaks to U.S. corporations who create U.S. jobs.

Name one Prez who's done this consistently. Show the results of such protectionism.

Or keeping a budget.

Name Prez's who have balanced budgets : show the ramifications of such a budget on the economy after said balanced budgets. Describe the government's ability to stimulate the economy through surpluses or deficit spending.

Or challenging healthcare.

A la Hillary Clinton's plans? Hmmm....that went over well.....

Or abiding by the Geneva Convention.

Show how terrorists are subject to the Geneva Convention, which specifies treatments available to armies for "enemy combatants" and the distinction made for those in uniform versus those not in uniform....bet you'll be surprised at what you find.

Or respecting 231 years of the Bill of Rights

Name one Right that has been denied you as a US citizen. Just one, please.

Clinton polled at well over 70% approval during impeachment proceedings, whilst running the biggest economic boom in history. The only records Bush broke were for most vacations taken by a sitting president and borrowing more foreign debt than all previous presidents combined.

See above post for the efficacy of doing what is "correct" by governing via polls.

[sam i am]

i wonder how bush will be seen??

History will judge with a much clearer eye than those who attempt to do so through the prism of their own biases (whether pro or con).

[QueenAdrock]

Blah blah blah.

I'm sure glad Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, JFK, and Reagan didn't think the way you do.

Leadership means doing what you think is right and best, not endless dithering over what the "polls" or the masses think (people are dumb and led to the trough, individuals are the smart ones).

So what's your stance on dictatorships then? They certainly don't give a shit about what others think, they do what they think is right and don't listen to the people. Is that admirable?

[sam i am]

So what's your stance on dictatorships then? They certainly don't give a shit about what others think, they do what they think is right and don't listen to the people. Is that admirable?

If you think you'll trap me with that amateur argument, you're wrong.

Again, see my post above when I replied to Schmeltz : name one RIGHT from the Bill of Rights you've been denied.

Show how the Democratic Republic has been turned into a dictatorship.

Dictators do not have the constraints of our system : if Congress disagrees strenuously enough, they can defund wars. The Judiciary can deem actions unconstutional (as it has recently) and stop excesses.

We have a system of checks and balances for a reason.

[QueenAdrock]

I'm not talking about US. I'm talking about how YOU feel personally, about dictatorships. I don't think we're in a dictatorship now. But the point remains, you seem to admire leaders who "do what they think is right." So what is YOUR stance, on OTHER dictatorships? Think they're strong leaders, doing the right thing?

[sam i am]

I'm not talking about US. I'm talking about how YOU feel personally, about dictatorships. I don't think we're in a dictatorship now. But the point remains, you seem to admire leaders who "do what they think is right." So what is YOUR stance, on OTHER dictatorships?

Hmmm.....

A query that deserves a serious reply.

Historically, dictatorships have proven to be effective in handling short-term crises, but horrific in any kind of long-term way.

Temporary abrogation of powers (such as Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habaeus corpus during the Civil War) have also proven to be efficacious in the short term.

Generally, I abhor dictatorships due to the preclusion of citizens' rights during such dictatorships.

[fucktopgirl]

Name one Right that has been denied you as a US citizen. Just one, please.

the first amendement is sometime bordeline: i read many story where people radio hosts had their show cancelled because of the contenue, journalists, scientifics were banished from their position for having said their view on things.

So, do you consider that a right denied?

[sam i am]

the first amendement is sometime bordeline: i read many story where people radio hosts had their show cancelled because of the contenue, journalists, scientifics were banished from their position for having said their view on things.

So, do you consider that a right denied?

As usual, you didn't answer the query.

Name one right YOU, as a US CITIZEN, have been denied.

The government is in the business of PROTECTING the First Amendment : elsewise why it would put up with irrational diatribes throughout the media?

[fucktopgirl]

.

Name one right YOU, as a US CITIZEN, have been denied.

well, personaly as a canadian citizen, no US right has been denied to me.

The government is in the business of PROTECTING the First Amendment : elsewise why it would put up with irrational diatribes throughout the media?

Protecting by taking that right away from people who have a different view on things then them? They protect in regard of their own agenda, they protect their nonsense.

I mean if you say free speech, it is suppose to be FREE SPEECH and everybody should be allow to have their own opinion on things, no?

And thoses irrationals diatribes is what they want people to hear...not meaningfull opinion, not illuminates views.










Bush and companies should have the first amendment denied......

[QueenAdrock]

Agreed, about citizen's rights. However, I disagree with dictatorships not only because of rights, but because I would hate to be ruled with an iron-fist where my opinion means nil.

Hindsight is 20/20, and presidents such as FDR did need to exercise his own judgement when it came to WWII, especially since he did what was against popular opinion at the time...though he wanted to get involved beforehand, he just knew he wouldn't be able to because of the American public's stance on the war. He knew what was right from the get-go, he just needed an excuse to do it.

Either way, I do appreciate Clinton's concern for the American public. And it's not true that he just listened to polls; he had input from everyone before he could make an informed decision. He had many advisors from all different political backgrounds so he could get a full picture of what everyone thought before he made his judgement. He surrounded himself with informed, intelligent people who could offer opinions and advice, he would take this into account and ultimately, HE would be the one at the end of the day to make the decision.

I really don't get about how taking others opinions into account is seen as WEAK. Clinton was a strong president, like it's been said before, his approval rating was through the roof so apparently the American public thought he was doing a good job. And I also don't remember such a partisan split, or such hatred from other countries then, either.

[yeahwho]

Dear sam i am, rather than engage you in some point by point quote by quote debate of lunacy, I would much rather you show me all the great things Bush has done since leading this Great Nation. Statistics from our own Department of debt (http://home.att.net/~mwhodges/debt.gif) (interesting how it climbs during Reagans tenure and the two Bushs') show how a balance budget works. You fail to impress me with any rosy news about our current path.

Permanent imprisonment without charges or trials? Check.

Torture people? Check.

Use "confessions" — by people who would have said absolutely anything on account of being tortured — not only against the confessors but against anyone they point their broken fingers at? Check.

Secret prisons? Check.

Making a mockery of due process, the court system, and the Bill of Rights? Check.

One-man rule by a proto-fascist? Check.

Make a mockery of 231 years of American history in the service of institutionalizing a Permanent War against "Terror"? Check.

Delude tens of millions of American lemmings into charging over a cliff with a minimum of explanation? Check.

In 20 years, this President will be remembered with greater embarrassment by his hick followers than any President of their lifetime. They will insist they never supported him or voted for him. And why? Because he will have destroyed the right in this country for a generation, as Jimmy Carter destroyed the left, and he will have proven his incompetence in strategy, in tactics, and in execution. He is the Mussolini of our time: a man who fancied himself the executioner of the Bill of Rights who will instead be remembered as a comic figure, unworthy even of disgust.

[D_Raay]

If you think you'll trap me with that amateur argument, you're wrong.

Again, see my post above when I replied to Schmeltz : name one RIGHT from the Bill of Rights you've been denied.

Show how the Democratic Republic has been turned into a dictatorship.

Dictators do not have the constraints of our system : if Congress disagrees strenuously enough, they can defund wars. The Judiciary can deem actions unconstutional (as it has recently) and stop excesses.

We have a system of checks and balances for a reason.
Yes yes but does it seem rational to you that an administration would fight in such a way to blur these rights given to us by much greater men and women than those who currently roam the halls of the White House?

The arrogance is apparent, the transparency is nil, and what our men and women have fought for since our inception(not just this pointless war) is being besmirched by a lasting legacy of hate and kill first, seek to understand why the reason that could ever be necessary second.

It's a barbaric administration you're trying to defend sam, and if they could they certainly wouldn't mind us losing our rights.
Bush said it himself. It would be a whole lot easier if this were a dicatorship.
One of his classic gaffes. But wait he is just a bad public speaker right?

[Documad]

[My post is about Clinton trying to be popular -- not the rest of this thread]

I agree with Sam I Am to some extent. I ALWAYS thought that the worst thing about Clinton was that he did what was popular rather than what was right. I've come to appreciate him more since he's been out of office because I've come to realize that some things were more difficult than I realized and that everything wasn't his fault. But he did start his presidency by squandering a lot of opportunities, and then he made his issues things that were popular with republicans in order to make himself looks better. In the meantime, he provided no leadership to the democratic party (which should have been part of his job). I blame him for a lot of the problems democrats have in a lot of states today. [He also made some good and tough decisions that weren't popular, but it's the ones that Dick Morris and his polls were responsible for that get to me.]

Clinton was a much better president than George W. Bush, but that's meaningless because I'm absolutely certain that W is going to go down in history as one of the worst presidents of all time. Just because he does what he thinks is right doesn't mean that he's a good president. Because he's nearly wrong about what is right and he doesn't consider all the information and a lot of his decisions are made for political effect (i.e. energizing his base). W is maybe the best example of bad decision making and bad management skills. I hated Reagan but Reagan was a good manager.

I agree with Sam I Am that the best presidents went out on a limb and bucked public opinion sometimes because they had a vision. That always gives me pause. FDR got involved with WWII even though this country didn't want him to. What he did was maybe even a bit illegal. I'm not a JFK fan, but I'd agree with many of the others in that list. In fact, I think that we have a president and a senate because our forefathers realized that popular opinion would be wrong and that the people sometimes needed to be protected from majority rule. I also adore Churchill and he was right when others were wrong. I think of that sometimes when I'm looking at the state of the world today.

So it gave me pause after 9/11 and I was willing to give W some benefit of the doubt. Maybe he knew more than me, maybe he had better information. Turns out that he didn't. I knew more about muslims and the mideast than he did. As tragic as that is.

[yeahwho]

[My post is about Clinton trying to be popular -- not the rest of this thread]

Clinton was a much better president than George W. Bush, but that's meaningless because I'm absolutely certain that W is going to go down in history as one of the worst presidents of all time.

Thats all I'm saying too. I feel like a sucker getting into some debate with any person over the two presidents. It defeats any positive outcome. It distracts and demeans. This is a tactic I see employed over and over by conservative talk radio and even political strategists.

I feel dirty for jumping into the fray. But damn Clinton at least had enough smarts to trust his countrymen and do their will. Bush sneers at us. Bush feels he has our best interest at hand, when really, he doesn't.

Fucking Clinton has every right to defend his record. He did try to do something about Bin Laden, it's on the record, someone was going to deny him this on National TV? Where the fuck is Bush to defend him? Instead of statesman like behaviour, he's silent then sends out Condi with a turd to the table.

Bush is an ass.

[D_Raay]

Where the fuck is Bush to defend him? Instead of statesman like behaviour, he's silent then sends out Condi with a turd to the table.
Which illustrates my point exactly.

I agree with documad and sam too, however it is woefully pithy to put W anywhere near that.

[D_Raay]

History will judge with a much clearer eye than those who attempt to do so through the prism of their own biases (whether pro or con).

The Justice Department declared that the president may effectively exempt government officials from federal criminal law, noting that “Congress cannot compel the President to prosecute outcomes taken pursuant to the President’s own constitutional authority. If Congress could do so, it could control the President’s authority through the manipulation of federal criminal law.”

The memo’s absolutism would have brought a smile to despots everywhere: “As the Supreme Court has recognized ... the President enjoys complete discretion in the exercise of his Commander-in-Chief authority and in conducting operations against hostile forces.... we will not read a criminal statute as infringing on the President’s ultimate authority in these areas.”

Thus, the “commander-in-chief” label automatically swallows up the rest of the Constitution. Yet, as Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh observed, “If the president has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution.”

This is the doctrine that the Senate-White House deal largely codifies. It will be up to the president to declare which interrogation methods U.S. agents can use — almost regardless of the Geneva Conventions. It will be up to the president to decree who will face “rough” interrogation.

The details of the torture deal vivify how our politicians no longer give a darn about maintaining even a pretense of due process. The agreement will permit the use of coerced confessions in military tribunals — turning the judicial clock back to the 1600s. The Washington Post noted that the agreement permits “defense attorneys to challenge the use of hearsay information obtained through coercive interrogations in distant countries only if they can prove it is unreliable.” Thus, there is a presumption of correctness to whatever accusation is bludgeoned out of people in secret prisons around the world.

And it will be almost impossible to disprove an accusation when a defense lawyer is not allowed to question — or perhaps even know — who made the charge.

But that is fair enough for the U.S. Congress.

[Dr Deaf]

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted up yet:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500199.html

He does make a good point. The same people who ridiculed him then of trying now ask why he didn't do more. And all the media outlets are just focusing on how he was "combative." The Daily Show did quite a good job of making fun of that tonight. (y)


agreed. crazy that bill was on the show the night before. i was really impressed with the clinton global inititative thing. i love how bill exploded on fox news. that's real emotion right there. i applaud him.

[EN[i]GMA]

Leadership means doing what you think is right and best, not endless dithering over what the "polls" or the masses think (people are dumb and led to the trough, individuals are the smart ones).

Yes, and good leadership means actually doing what is right.

Any dumbass can be A leader. Not everyone can be a good leader.


Clinton will be seen through history's visage as Carter was : weak and ineffectual, hounded by self-doubt and recriminatory activities, unable to make up his mind, and lacking in basic self-confidence and self-esteem.

So he was 'weak' and 'unable to make up his mind' when he bombed that pharma plant in Africa?

That was him being 'weak'? Actually, that was him being 'tough' and fucking up. You should adore him for that.

"He totally fucked up that drug plant, go leadership!"

[b i o n i c]

i was gonna email these to my friends... thought i'd post 'em here for you guys in case no one else did.

VIDEO LINKS:

Clinton Schools Wallace on Fox - 1 (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/launchPage.html?092506/092506_fns_clint_redo1&Heated%20Discussion&FNS&President%20Clinton%20gets%20defensive%20on%20%27F OX%20News%20Sunday%27&Politics&-1&Heated%20Discussion&Video%20Launch%20Page&News)

Clinton Schools Wallace on Fox - 2 (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/launchPage.html?092506/092506_fns_clint_redo2&%27At%20Least%20We%20Tried%27&FNS&President%20Clinton%20continues%20animated%20defen se%20of%20administration%20response%20to%20terror&Politics&-1&%27At%20Least%20We%20Tried%27&Video%20Launch%20Page&News)

Clinton Schools Wallace on Fox - 3 (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/launchPage.html?092406/092406_fns_billclinton2&Upward%20Mobility&FNS&President%20Clinton%20talks%20about%20solving%20pr oblems%20in%20developing%20countries&Politics&298&Upward%20Mobility&Video%20Launch%20Page&News)

Clinton on Meet The Press, sun 9/24 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-ET06FoJoQ)

[yeahwho]

Didn't she say something along the lines of "We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda"

More on the Turd Condi delivered (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/2001_memo_to_Rice_contradicts_statements_0926.html ) to the American people via President Bush, our leader and decider.

[sam i am]

GMA']That was him being 'weak'? Actually, that was him being 'tough' and fucking up. You should adore him for that.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth when you shouldn't.

Covering up for his impeachment by firing rockets from afar : yeah, real manly.

[D_Raay]

Thanks for putting words in my mouth when you shouldn't.

Covering up for his impeachment by firing rockets from afar : yeah, real manly.
Pure unestablished speculation. The man who would or should know is Richard Clarke who doesn't support your point of view.

[sam i am]

Pure unestablished speculation. The man who would or should know is Richard Clarke who doesn't support your point of view.

Richard Clarke is not an unimpeachable nor completely unbiased source.

Seems like quite a coincidence, doesn't it, D_Raay, that he ordered the missile attack at the same time as his impeachment?

C'mon, man, you're the one into the 9/11 conspiracy and global warming being caused by humans despite many facts pointing to the contrary - seems to me you'd be all over the Clinton conspiracy to distract from his impeachment with that missile attack....

[DroppinScience]

Richard Clarke is not an unimpeachable nor completely unbiased source.

Seems like quite a coincidence, doesn't it, D_Raay, that he ordered the missile attack at the same time as his impeachment?

C'mon, man, you're the one into the 9/11 conspiracy and global warming being caused by humans despite many facts pointing to the contrary - seems to me you'd be all over the Clinton conspiracy to distract from his impeachment with that missile attack....

What makes Clarke "biased"? The guy was a civil servant who served under Republican AND Democratic administrations. There isn't partisanship on his part when he does his job, he only wanted to defend America the best he could.

And sure, the whole "wag the dog" theory has merit when it came to Kosovo. But it's not as if that was the first (or last) time it was used. The 1991 Gulf War and the Iraq war are their very own "wag the dogs" too (war being used as an electorale tactic).

[D_Raay]

Richard Clarke is not an unimpeachable nor completely unbiased source.

Seems like quite a coincidence, doesn't it, D_Raay, that he ordered the missile attack at the same time as his impeachment?

C'mon, man, you're the one into the 9/11 conspiracy and global warming being caused by humans despite many facts pointing to the contrary - seems to me you'd be all over the Clinton conspiracy to distract from his impeachment with that missile attack....
I wouldn't call Clarke a biased source at all, and neither would most inside the beltway.

Which makes your second point irrelevant.

[sam i am]

My final word on the whole Clinton "thing" :

After Mr. Clinton blew up, stating "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, 'Why didn't you do anything about the (attack on the USS) Cole,' You didn't ask that, did you? Tell the truth..." he also added that the questioner, Mr. Wallace, was just doing the bidding of "all the rightwingers who are attacking me now."

In FACT, the Cole was attacked in October 2000, three MONTHS before Mr. Clinton left office. FBI investigations on the ground in Yemen, led by the noe legendary bin Laden hunter John O'Neill, were frustrtaed not only by uncooperative authorities there, but also by the interference of Mr. Clinton's ambassador, Barbara Bodine, who seemed more concerned with not ruffling local feathers, and who eventually barred Mr. O'Neill from the country.

Meantime, other Clinton statements on Fox have also drawn scrutiny, The Washington Post reported. The ex-president said that after the bombing of the Cole, "I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan."

The Sept. 11 commission, which y'all seem to hold in such high esteem, though, founmd no plans for such an invasion - only more limited scenarios, such as plans for attacks with cruise missiles (see a pattern here, hmmm?) or Special Forces. And, nothing in the panel's report indicated that a lack of basing rights in Uzbekistan prevented a military response.

Democrats almost certainly know Mr. Clinton is lying, again, but, darn it, he does it so well.

Rewriting history to pretend that Bill Clinton, Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright, and a revolving door of mighty-warrior defense secretaries from Les Aspin to William S. Cohen spent the 1990's taking dramatically effective, scorched-earth action to isolate, neuter, or crush the burgeoning threat of al-Qaeda terrorism?

Oh, please. As the lady from Texas used to say (a little shout out to recently departed Ann Richards there) : that dog won't hunt.


Now, the real question from all of this, as it has been from the beginning, is why is Clinton so doggedly attempting to burnish his tarnished image on terrorism?

Could it possibly be that Democrats, depsite all the perceived flaws and failures of the current administration, are still not viewed by the wider electorate as capable and strong enough on the war on terrorism and national defense as the Republicans and President Bush? Is there a bit of an inferiority complex going on here?

The even greater problem is that the core Democratic constituency cannot award their party a working majority. To gain ground in the Fall elections, Democrats must appeal to independents and even some Republicans. They still don't have the numbers they need on their own. Most independents and Republicans, however, stand appalled at the idea of Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy running the war on terror.

So, their new approach is to assert that the Democratic Party, and Bill Clinton as their continuing standard bearer, was, at least, "tougher on terrorism" six years ago than anyone is today. At least in part, that is why Clinton is out on the stump, taking substantial public umbrage at recurrent assertions that he didn't do enough to forestall al-Qaeda back before Sept. 11.

Contextually, and with that bit of history in mind, I again reassert my point above that Richard Clarke is certainly not incapable of having views on this subject that are without coloring or the possibility of error. Additionally, with the above in mind, it is also easy to see a "connect-the-dots" between Clinton's overweening capabilities to distort, mangle, and outright lie about the truth of what occurred during the specific timeframe we're talking about.

Yes, Bush deserves criticism, but trying to make Clinton look better at his expense does not detract from the pervasive culture of non-truth and inability to do what was right when Cinton had the opportunity to do so - but would rather lie about it.

[DroppinScience]

I really don't know. This whole Bush vs. Clinton on terrorism is a bunch of "he said, she said" crap (only there's two he's... hmm, maybe I'll have to work on that) at the end of the day. It's his word against theirs and the only satisfactory answer for either side is "President X was vigilant, President Y was asleep at the wheel." Apparently there's no room for blame and ineptitude on both sides.

Whatever the true record on terrorism, Clinton's team actually got to foil the millennium bombings, Bush didn't foil the 9/11 plot. They caught the perpretators of the '93 WTC bombings. Bush, however, did not catch the perpretators of the '01 WTC plot.

[bilbo]

Clinton is and will coninue to be seen as one of the best and most popular Presidents of all time.
Bush on the other hand is the polar opposite. Worst. Ever.
It takes a lot to tarnish the good image of the States. Bravo to the drunk faux cowboy!

[sam i am]

Clinton is and will coninue to be seen as one of the best and most popular Presidents of all time.
Bush on the other hand is the polar opposite. Worst. Ever.
It takes a lot to tarnish the good image of the States. Bravo to the drunk faux cowboy!

History will judge this just the opposite.

Clinton will be a footnote, unable to point to any great accomplishments.

Bush, even if he is currently perceived as a failure, will be vindicated by the war on terror eventually falling the way of the US and the free world.

Mark my words...

[Echewta]

Who is this "history" that you and Bush seem to rely on so much as knowing better than other people? History is written by those in power. Thats all.

[sam i am]

Who is this "history" that you and Bush seem to rely on so much as knowing better than other people? History is written by those in power. Thats all.

Really?

There's never been revisionists, who go back and rewrite history, despite being on the losing side of an ideology?

Hmmm.....Richard Hofstatder is turning over in his grave.

[QueenAdrock]

Bush, even if he is currently perceived as a failure, will be vindicated by the war on terror eventually falling the way of the US and the free world.

You mean like Nixon and Vietnam?

You know, I'm not anti-war because I'm a "bleeding-heart liberal" or whatever labels conservatives slap on me. I'm anti-war because I believe we're losing. I believe we're draining our resources and will continue to, and we're not fighting a noble cause or hell, even a cause that can be won. How do you win a war on TERRORISM? How do you win a war on an ideology, a war where the other side believes that it's God telling them to wage it? How does one go about making sure that the other side has no more recruits, they're all happy as pigs in shit and don't hate the American infidels enough to want to hijack more planes and run 'em into buildings? We're fighting an invisible enemy. They're not wearing obvious Nazi symbols tacked to their jackets - you can't go up to someone and see that they're a terrorist. Hell, there's white terrorists out there, we've all seen that. So how do you know who you're fighting? When do you know each and every last one of them is dead, with no chance of return? How can you fight a war like this, without giving them more fuel for their holy war?

PS I hate how "the war on terror" and the "war in Iraq" are used interchangeably, since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and it's misleading to call it the "war on terror" but since that's what the Bush admin has labeled it, that is what I'm arguing in this context.

[yeahwho]

I loved Clinton's performance in this interview. It is how the Democrats should have been responding to the Bush administration and its media ass lickers for the last five years.

What is it with the neocons that they can't let go of Clinton? How much more can you guys blame on Clinton's penis? And WTF is this obsession with his penis the neocons have?

[D_Raay]

I loved Clinton's performance in this interview. It is how the Democrats should have been responding to the Bush administration and its media ass lickers for the last five years.

What is it with the neocons that they can't let go of Clinton? How much more can you guys blame on Clinton's penis? And WTF is this obsession with his penis the neocons have?
They are apparently a bunch of closet homosexuals, although I thought they preferred their men younger.

[DroppinScience]

How do you win a war on an ideology...

Do as you did in the Cold War. Be a BETTER nation. The other side will just crumble to pieces.

[Schmeltz]

What, directing the execution of dozens of coups, propaganda campaigns, and direct military interventions across the globe at the expense of millions of people was being a better nation?

Radical Islamic fundamentalism is a much different enemy than the USSR, which was a centralized nation state and formally acknowledged political entity. The USA was able to interact with the Soviets on terms much more direct and negotiable than those that define its interaction with terrorist movements like al-Qaeda, and able to defeat them by exploiting their participation in world politics, economics, and military affairs. Islamic terrorists have no use for the cultural model of the nation-state and they move through a world of subterfuge in which formal centralized governments have little ability to participate. When the USSR crumbled to pieces it did so through a formally negotiated process of political discourse completely lacking in the culture of terrorist groups like al-Qaeda; in fact, it's likely that al-Qaeda has already crumbled into pieces, at least in the sense that Osam bin Laden probably maintains little to no control over its widely dispersed member cells, which all act essentially on their own independent initiative.

I don't know that it is possible for Western military or economic power to defeat such an enemy. The undoing of Islamic terrorism has to come from within the Islamic world itself: the people flocking to the banner of fundamentalist terrorism have to consciously choose to reject such a course of action in favour of democracy, egalitarianism, non-violence, and tolerance. Unfortunately they are unlikely to do so as long as their interaction with the Western world continues to take the shape that has yielded situations like the mess in Iraq, which in all probability will get worse before it gets better.

Bush and his cronies have set this cause back decades, if not generations. That's the real historical legacy Bush will leave for future scholars to consider. But I guess as long as people like sam can get their daily dose of reality TV without having to worry about any real consequences of their government's misdeeds, things will keep going down the same rosy path.

[QueenAdrock]

Do as you did in the Cold War. Be a BETTER nation. The other side will just crumble to pieces.

But that's the thing. The USSR crumbled, but communism is still around today. Just like how the Taliban may have been defeated in Afghanistan, but terrorism is still around (well, that and the Taliban are slowly coming back...but let's ignore that fact right now). We may have won that singular war, but we didn't "defeat" communism altogether.

[D_Raay]

The undoing of Islamic terrorism has to come from within the Islamic world itself: the people flocking to the banner of fundamentalist terrorism have to consciously choose to reject such a course of action in favour of democracy, egalitarianism, non-violence, and tolerance. Unfortunately they are unlikely to do so as long as their interaction with the Western world continues to take the shape that has yielded situations like the mess in Iraq, which in all probability will get worse before it gets better.

Bush and his cronies have set this cause back decades, if not generations. That's the real historical legacy Bush will leave for future scholars to consider. But I guess as long as people like sam can get their daily dose of reality TV without having to worry about any real consequences of their government's misdeeds, things will keep going down the same rosy path.

You must be great with a hammer Schmeltz...

[sam i am]

Radical Islamic fundamentalism is a much different enemy than the USSR, which was a centralized nation state and formally acknowledged political entity. The USA was able to interact with the Soviets on terms much more direct and negotiable than those that define its interaction with terrorist movements like al-Qaeda, and able to defeat them by exploiting their participation in world politics, economics, and military affairs. Islamic terrorists have no use for the cultural model of the nation-state and they move through a world of subterfuge in which formal centralized governments have little ability to participate. When the USSR crumbled to pieces it did so through a formally negotiated process of political discourse completely lacking in the culture of terrorist groups like al-Qaeda; in fact, it's likely that al-Qaeda has already crumbled into pieces, at least in the sense that Osam bin Laden probably maintains little to no control over its widely dispersed member cells, which all act essentially on their own independent initiative.

I don't know that it is possible for Western military or economic power to defeat such an enemy. The undoing of Islamic terrorism has to come from within the Islamic world itself: the people flocking to the banner of fundamentalist terrorism have to consciously choose to reject such a course of action in favour of democracy, egalitarianism, non-violence, and tolerance.

Truly brilliant analysis and well-said.

Couldn't agree with you more.

The conclusions you reached at the end of your statement, however, were contrived and pointless in the face of the grandiloquence of the above.

[sam i am]

But that's the thing. The USSR crumbled, but communism is still around today. Just like how the Taliban may have been defeated in Afghanistan, but terrorism is still around (well, that and the Taliban are slowly coming back...but let's ignore that fact right now). We may have won that singular war, but we didn't "defeat" communism altogether.

Soviet style communism was defeated.

The closest thing still available in the world is in places like Cuba, Central Asia (think Lushashenko), and Venezuela/Bolivia.

Even China is only "communistic" in it's approach to government control of political and military power. Even they've conceded that capitalism is greatly better for economics.

[QueenAdrock]

Exactly, but my point is not all communism was defeated. Switch the wars. If terrorism isn't defeated in its entirety, that will have much more dire effects than communism. Terrorism is not an economic system, or a way to run government - it's an ideology that incites murder, violence, and pain all in the name of their god. ALL forms of terrorism must be stopped in order to be safe, and I don't see a way to defeat it.

[sam i am]

Exactly, but my point is not all communism was defeated. Switch the wars. If terrorism isn't defeated in its entirety, that will have much more dire effects than communism. Terrorism is not an economic system, or a way to run government - it's an ideology that incites murder, violence, and pain all in the name of their god. ALL forms of terrorism must be stopped in order to be safe, and I don't see a way to defeat it.

You defeat it by giving the people it festers in a better way of life.

Liberal democracy has proven a strong way to overcome the kind of terrorism and warfare that have infected humanity's history.

[Schmeltz]

The conclusions you reached at the end of your statement, however, were contrived and pointless


How do you figure? The Islamic world does not exist in isolation; how can you expect its citizens to choose between fundamentalism and humanism when the alleged proponents of humanism send armies to destroy their countries? Do you think that the American invasion has given the Iraqi people a "better way of life"? How can you say such a ridiculously stupid thing with a straight face?

Imagine if forty people were kidnapped from downtown New York by masked gunmen and were found, hours later, in Central Park, bound and gagged, shot execution style, with marks of torture on their bodies. What would the American reaction be?

Imagine if persons unknown launched a dozen mortar shells at the Hilton in Boston, killing a dozen women and children. What would the American reaction be?

Imagine if somebody detonated a car full of explosives outside the unemployment office in Houston, killing fifty people and injuring twice that many. What would the American reaction be?

Imagine if everybody in your country had only off-and-on access to fresh water and electricity; if the oil and gas pipelines were attacked daily by armed extremists, damaging both the domestic infrastructure and export economy; if unemployment stood at ten times its current level; if troops from a foreign power occupied American cities and instituted curfews and fired on civilians and occasionally raped teenage girls and murdered civilians, including children. What would the American reaction be?

If you honestly thought about what it means to be an Iraqi thanks to your own elected leadership, I highly doubt you would value your quality of life or consider this invasive, brutally destructive war to have given you reason to consider liberal democracy as a means of solving your society's ills.

It boggles my mind that you can be so detached from reality. And people accuse liberals of being idealistic? Wow.


You must be great with a hammer Schmeltz...


Only against nail-sized targets... I often find that I'll miss completely against a pinheaded one. Thanks, though. :)

[QueenAdrock]

You defeat it by giving the people it festers in a better way of life.

Liberal democracy has proven a strong way to overcome the kind of terrorism and warfare that have infected humanity's history.

So do we do that for every country that has terrorism? Because we're gonna have to invade a whole lot more countries if we want to bring democracy to countries that have terrorist organizations.

[yeahwho]

So do we do that for every country that has terrorism? Because we're gonna have to invade a whole lot more countries if we want to bring democracy to countries that have terrorist organizations.
Only the ones with WMD, get with it would ya?

:rolleyes:

[sam i am]

How do you figure? The Islamic world does not exist in isolation; how can you expect its citizens to choose between fundamentalism and humanism when the alleged proponents of humanism send armies to destroy their countries? Do you think that the American invasion has given the Iraqi people a "better way of life"? How can you say such a ridiculously stupid thing with a straight face?

Imagine if forty people were kidnapped from downtown New York by masked gunmen and were found, hours later, in Central Park, bound and gagged, shot execution style, with marks of torture on their bodies. What would the American reaction be?

Imagine if persons unknown launched a dozen mortar shells at the Hilton in Boston, killing a dozen women and children. What would the American reaction be?

Imagine if somebody detonated a car full of explosives outside the unemployment office in Houston, killing fifty people and injuring twice that many. What would the American reaction be?

Imagine if everybody in your country had only off-and-on access to fresh water and electricity; if the oil and gas pipelines were attacked daily by armed extremists, damaging both the domestic infrastructure and export economy; if unemployment stood at ten times its current level; if troops from a foreign power occupied American cities and instituted curfews and fired on civilians and occasionally raped teenage girls and murdered civilians, including children. What would the American reaction be?

If you honestly thought about what it means to be an Iraqi thanks to your own elected leadership, I highly doubt you would value your quality of life or consider this invasive, brutally destructive war to have given you reason to consider liberal democracy as a means of solving your society's ills.

It boggles my mind that you can be so detached from reality. And people accuse liberals of being idealistic? Wow.



Only against nail-sized targets... I often find that I'll miss completely against a pinheaded one. Thanks, though. :)

Wow.

I agree with you and you jump down my throat.

I was referring to this statement you made : Bush and his cronies have set this cause back decades, if not generations. That's the real historical legacy Bush will leave for future scholars to consider. But I guess as long as people like sam can get their daily dose of reality TV without having to worry about any real consequences of their government's misdeeds, things will keep going down the same rosy path.

Your CONCLUSION is, again, based on what you have preconceived, divorced from reality itself.

Just because you SAY that Bush has set back the cause decades doesn't make it so.

Conventional wisdom such as yours predicted that the Soviet Union wouldn't collapse. History has proven such assertions incorrect.

All I'm saying is that history will likely prove your hysterical ravings about the Middle East incorrect as well.

[Schmeltz]

Just because you SAY that Bush has set back the cause decades doesn't make it so.


Right, and just because the NIE SAYS that Bush has made the global terrorist situation worse doesn't make it so either, right? Because... well... because YOU say so, I guess. You haven't really offered anything of substance yourself; all you have to go on is your personal belief that "history will prove you right."

Would you care to explain exactly how it is that the current situation in Iraq constitutes an improvement of any kind over the situation that prevailed before? You are the one who refuses to take into account the reality of what is happening in the world, you simply parrot the Republican party line, over and over, giving nobody any real reason to put any confidence in what you are saying.

Your refusal to address the practicalities of reality merely serves to further confirm that conversing with you is a complete waste of time.

[DroppinScience]

It should be noted that this isn't the first time Clinton "lost his cool" in an interview.

Here's an interview with Amy Goodman from Democracy Now! done on the morning of election day in 2000 to get the vote out for Gore and Hillary Clinton.

He described her as being "hostile" and "combative."

Take a listen:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0244240&mode=thread&tid=5

Unlike the conservative hitjob, you can tell that this left-wing hitjob asks far more pertinent questions.