What a joke.
Was Bush offered Bin Laden by another country?
Clinton has been trying to re-write history before he was even out of office.
A very shallow man with very low Self Esteem.
Dem's like to blame Bush for everything, but you can not compare 8 years of failure and outright rejections of taking bin Laden to the first 8 months of a Presidency....
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Clinton faults Bush for inaction on bin Laden
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
I understand why Clinton is upset with Republicans, given they tried to undermine him at every point from the preemptive strikes against Hussein during operation Desert Fox in 1998 to the retaliation to the hundreds massacred in Kenya and Tanzania.
People have made mistakes in the past-- Reagan retreated to the Lebs in 1983, Carter stabbed the progressive yet corrupt Shah in the back in 1979 and supported Khomeni since he was a "man of God," Clinton retreated after Mohammed Farrah Aidid killed 17 people in Somalia in 1993. However, after 911, people should know that retreat emboldens the Islamofascists, and there is no excuse for the Democrats being so anti-Bush ***today*** in this regard.
We're fighting a movement and a philosophy. This isn't a manhunt.
Clinton is clearly trying to deflect his part in the failures of our government to deal with the terror situation. Despite the failures of the first 8 months of the Bush admin, Bubba has to be a man and take responsibility for his own failures. His shallow cries of "I tried" do nothing to dismiss the fact that nasty crap happened on his watch and his response was impotent. Nor does it overcome the idea that his notion of "I tried" was likely lame attempts and not truly "trying".
marshall said...
Despite the failures of the first 8 months of the Bush admin
Oh, so you admit that there were failures in the Bush admin? Nice to see you admit the truth.
Marshall said:
Bubba has to be a man and take responsibility for his own failures.
From Chris Wallace transcript:
WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?
CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him.
WALLACE: Right…
CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying [as Marshall does now]. They had eight months to try and they didn’t…I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke...
How many times, Marshall, does Clinton have to say he failed for it to count?
Marshall said:
Nor does it overcome the idea that his notion of "I tried" was likely lame attempts and not truly "trying".
Whose "notion" is that? The notion of you right wingnuts who absolutely loathe Clinton? Your "notion" is meaningless.
From Sunday's NY Times:
A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism [all emphasis mine] and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.
The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,'' it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.
An opening section of the report, "Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement," cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.
Oh it counts, Jim. But my point is that his saying "I tried" is a means to deflect responsibility rather than accept it. "try" is a very subjective term. As shown in the movie you and he wanted blocked, "try" wasn't even close to good enough by either administrations. The "trying" we see now is far more impressive to me. 9/11 shook up everyone and now we see some real "trying". So his lame "hey don't blame me, I tried" crap don't cut it. Eight years, damn it! Eight years and he couldn't get it right. And somehow his "comprehensive" strategy was supposed to be enough? Give me a break.
As to your following post, I've already seen it posted by some other lame lefty on another site and I'll tell you the same thing. Based on what you've posted, which was exactly what he posted, there's a whole bunch of unamed officials that, to me, leave much to be desired. To say that our righteous and necessary trip to Iraq has "helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism" is not in and of itself an indictment on the decision to go. The radicals don't like us in any Arab land, so it's no surprise that they'd be incensed over Iraq. It also helps to remember that OBL has called Iraq an important front in their "struggle". So as far as that report goes, big freakin' deal.
We surely know that you hate Bill Clinton and will never accept anything he says as valid or true. He can do no right for you. His entire presidency was illigitimate in your eyes. There is nothing he did do or could have done that you would ever accept. He deserves no credit for anything positive that happened during his presidency. The happiest day of your life was January 20, 2001.
Amazing that he left office with a better than 60% favorable job rating. Amazing that he is one of the most popular figures in the world today. Boy, the world has really turned to shit, hasn't it?
Eight years and he couldn't get it right? You may not be aware of this, but the problems of the middle east have been going on for hundreds of years. The Israeli/Palestinian problems have been going on since the late 1940s. Just who the hell HAS GOTTEN IT RIGHT? George W. Bush? Bush has ignored the fundamental cause of middle east instability. Instead, he has exacerbated it. He hasn't just not gotten it right. He's made things worse, and if you don't believe the people who have written and read the National Intelligence Estimate, then that is your loss. What you've seen quoted by me and others is from Sunday's NY Times, those lying SOBs. You can ignore it. You will ignore it. Can't be bothered by facts if they don't correspond to the Cult Of Bush.
Game, it is hypocritical for you to claim Clinton is trying to rewrite history when you, yourself attempt to do so. You repeat the Republic claim that Sudan offered to hand Bin Laden over to the US.
I will quote to you from the 9/11 Commission Report: "Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Laden over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so."
Obviously, the bi-partisan, but Republic lead and controlled 9/11 Commission is another bunch of lying SOBs since this statement refutes something you know to be "true."
His shallow cries of "I tried" do nothing to dismiss the fact that nasty crap happened on his watch and his response was impotent.....
To say that our righteous and necessary trip to Iraq has "helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism" is not in and of itself an indictment on the decision to go......It also helps to remember that OBL has called Iraq an important front in their "struggle". So as far as that report goes, big freakin' deal.
Whoa Marshall, Jason becomes reasonable and you turn into the hopeless case!
WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?
CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him.
You just ignored that didn't you. Didn't fit your reality so you just ignored it.
Righteous and necessary? A majority of Americans and a vast majority of the world would find you lacking mental clarity in that statement. We had nearly the whole world supporting us and our fight upon entering Afganistan. That was the righteous and necessary fight and we quit putting 100% into it before we finished. Al Queda is 500% larger now than before the misadventure. Irans greatest enemy, which we supported for precisely that reason a number of years ago is no longer balancing the power. Shit man, I could write reams on how badly this has been bungled and you want to find fault with Clinton!!!???? We had far less terrorism and so did the rest of the world. Yes it continued to happen and as Jim says, has happened, for many...well forever, and will continue forever. We need to protect ourselves at home and minimize the terror and ones that would do us harm abroad. None of Bushes policies are moving us to a strong position on any of that. I sometimes wonder why you guys fight the obvious. Are you that anxious to hate the liberals? Is that what it is all about? I am dumbfounded by the right.
ron--
Unlike Marshall, I'm not going to pile on Clinton, since there is more than enough blame to go around.
However, I do agree with Marshall that the global Islamist movement needs to be confronted. Diplomacy, negotiation, and retreat has been the status quo, and that led to 911.
Jason,
We all understand that Islamic radicalism needs to be confronted. You've reminded us of that time after time.
But you fail to tell us just how our military might is going to solve it. Are they to attack country after country where Islamic radicals exist? Is this your solution?
I have asked here before, if we can't use diplomacy and negotiation, and we can't partner with our allies to find, kill, and capture them, then we bomb or invade them one by one?
Or what is YOUR solution? Bomb and invade? Who?
Clinton was never offered bin Laden, either. That is a lie and I have debunked it here before, and Jim does so again. Stop repeating it, please; your credibilty--such as it is--shrinks ever smaller when you keep doing it.
I don't believe I "piled" on Clinton at all. I merely commented on his weak and shallow response to questions regarding whether he did enough. Apparently you folks are willing to take his word that he "tried" hard enough and copping to his failure now somehow lessens his culpability. I ain't buying it for a second. I would much rather "pile" on your willingness to give him a pass based on this interview, but still rip Bush a new one for HIS strategies. Who's the real kiss ass and who's really not giving any credit to the pres he doesn't like? If you can't see that Bubba trying to dance away from any blame, even with his hollow acceptance, you need to put down the kool-aid and pay attention. The guy's a proven liar and deceiver, but you're all ready to swallow it all.
" There is nothing he did do or could have done that you would ever accept."
Any time you care to list his "accomplishments", I'll be happy to point out which ones I dug.
"Amazing that he is one of the most popular figures in the world today."
There's no accounting for taste.
"Can't be bothered by facts if they don't correspond to the Cult Of Bush."
Hardly. I would prefer to look at such "facts" objectively. For example, what does it say about the possibility of AlQueda or other scumbag groups growing if we just stayed in Afghanistan? Anything at all? With the Muslim mindset against westerners on Arab soil, would it make a difference to them? Also, since terrorist attacks were ongoing since the Carter years, is the number of them more important than the fact that they happen? In addition, with the numerous examples of lying Democrats supporting Hussein's ouster during Willie's term, what other means of doing so could there have been with a depleted CIA? The bastard was playing games for years, sucking billions from oil for food, getting aid from France, Russia and Germany (this is called "containment" by the left), shooting at our planes, killing his own people, and, according to Clinton, looking to get his hands on WMD's. So you can interpret your NIE's to further sully Bush's efforts if you like (and I know you like), but I prefer to use objective reasoning to determine it's implications.
"You just ignored that didn't you. Didn't fit your reality so you just ignored it."
Re-read my stuff. BTW, we had nearly the whole world supporting us for about two days after 9/11 and then it began to disolve quickly. We get sympathy WHILE we suffer, not after. What freakin' world are YOU listening to, Mars? Even the French crap about "we are all Americans" was followed immediately by crap about us deserving what we got or having brought it upon ourselves. That whole world sympathy line is nonsense. Those that were with us went to Iraq with us. Everyone who went the first time except for two countries. Shit man, you couldn't write a page about how the war was bungled because you'd piss off all the guys who are making progress in the war. What you could write is every little problem that has occurred as if such has never happened in any other war ever freakin' fought. The fact is kids, it ain't that I wouldn't give Clinton credit for anything he's ever done, it's that you boys won't give shit to Bush for anything HE'S done. You are what you accuse me of being. Now there's a word for that...what could it be?...
jim--
I don't believe in solutions-- every action has its costs to go along with its benefits. To believe we can have it all is to think like a socialist.
In the near future, I would definitely give Israel the tools it needs to take out Iran's nuke program, and have the military ready to prepare with the ramifications that may entail in the Middle East.
When Iraq settles down, I would make Sudan a priority, given the sheer amount of human dead. Politically that would be difficult to do, given people like you would preach PNAC-conspiracy theories about how evil America is there is gobble natural resources. The theocratic regime there needs to go.
Sanctions have their time and place. Chavez in Venezuela will eventually have to be targeted, at cost to ourselves in this regard. He's not suicidal, but he's definitely revolutionary in the red sense.
Post a Comment