“Ah tried!” Point finger, point finger. “At least ah tried!” Point finger, point finger. “They had eight months to try,” but at least “ah tried.”
Do you think it would do any good to point out to him that he had, not just eight months, but eight years, and a whole bunch of incidents to spur him on, such as the first WTC bombing (months after he was sworn in) and the U.S.S. Cole incident? And do you think he realizes that many of us have figured out that most of his trying coincided with blue dress days at work?
Filed under: Uncategorized
[...] Bookworm Room [...]
The less attention he gets, the better I’ll like it.
Being ignored by anyone with half a brain would be the best payback of all for his years of “trying”……and no one could deserve it more.
He tried to fail, but then he said to hell with it, bad pr with the saudis and what not.
Although there were Republicans who said Clinton was wagging the dog with his operations in Afghanistan and otherwhere. If Clinton knew what he knew now, sure he would have nuked Bin Laden. But Clinton didn’t know back then, so he went with the flow more or less. Or to be more accurate, he let Sandy Berger and Clark go with the flow.
Clinton’s problem is not so much the decisions he made, but the people he appointed to enforce and execute those decisions. People like Berger and Clark, terrible, terrible people. Let’s not even get started on Janet Reno.
Y – you can’t really believe that a single thing was done during the Clinton years wasn’t vetted and approved by the missus?
It is debatable, but I tend to think Clinton and Hillary had a symbiotic relationship. They both benefited, and neither one was… let’s say dominant.
Like any political alliance, they melded together, true, but they also took great pains not to step on each other’s toes. Not only would Ms. Clinton vetting Clinton’s stuff be stupid, but it would also be inefficient. Was there collaboration? Of course, Clinton would have asked his wife for advice and knowledge on the DC political circle and social circle. But Clinton would not have treated his wife as his boss, that I think would have been out of line, and inconsistent with Clinton’s personality.
There were a lot of things done by the Clintons in their years, erp, I cannot truly tell you with honesty that I knew everything that was going on. I don’t run a spy agency after all. Although if I did, I could probably tell you much of what was vetted or approved.
Since I don’t, a lot of the crucial and sensitive information is unavailable, not least of all because blogs weren’t in full steam back then creating a backlog of real time analysis.
If there was a backlog of “real time analysis”, then it might know more of the Clinton machinations and subleties, but currently I really cannot state with any accuracy what specific tactics they used. I just know in general what they should or should not have been able to do.
So no, I don’t think a lot of things Clinton signed off on was vetted and approved by his wife. But Clinton probably did consult with his wife, ask for advice, and so forth. Coordinated, would be the right word i believe.
I’ll rephrase my question.
Do you think anybody in the employ of the Clintons did anything without expressly being ordered to do so by one or the other of the co-presidents?
For instance, do you think Reno sent the tanks to Waco or the Immigration agents to Miami on her own say so?
If you are refering to Berger when he canceled the assassination, that’s hard to say. One of the points the mini-film made was “plausible deniability”. Meaning, the buck stops at whatever underling you can get to take the fall.
It’s actually quite possible that there might be some cloak and dagger stuff going on, however I believe it to be more plausible that Clinton authorized something, and then Janet Reno tried her best to make sure that it got done, not well but from a distance so that she doesn’t get the blame. So this weakened the command protocols, and makes blunders more probable. If Reno was responsible and did the right thing in execution of Clinton’s intent, the damage would have been far worse. Clinton after all, would not have prefered many of the results that he got. However, because the people he chose were incompetents and scared of their own shadows in their little byzantine games, they were more worried about their own skins than doing the job well or taking responsibility.
So as far as I see, Clinton said to take care of a matter, his people were grab assing and trying to come out on top, so they just gave some ambiguous commands and let the situation explode. This indecisiveness was allowed by Clinton, so long as he didn’t get the blame for it. And given Clinton’s ability at speech and charisma, he could often times turn it into a positive. It probably got into a sort of habit, and his underlings just kept on piling up the same retarded operations.
Rulers don’t rule alone, after all, Their advisers, and their executors, do much of the ground work. If you have bad ministers and advisers, it doesn’t matter how good you are. Reagan faced some of that.
Given the byzantine web of mutual arse covering that Reno, Clark, Berger, and Clinton had. It is quite hard to see with eyes unclouded just exactly who sent what to where. They designed it to be that way. What better way to evade a catastrophe then shutting their eyes and being somewhere else? True, that increases the chance for a catastrophe, but they didn’t really care so long as their careers were bolstered or just left alone.
If Reno was responsible and did the right thing in execution of Clinton’s intent, the damage would have been far worse.
Correction, far less.
Isn’t it ironic that the same type of attacks by Democrats against George W. Bush for his use of force in the last 4 years were also made by Republicans during Clinton’s presidency. I haven’t quoted Clinton, but I imagine his responses to Republican criticism were also very similar to Bush’s. My main point is that the hypocrisy is equal amongst both sides. And that blame for 9-11 should be equal (although I believe it is certainly a good point that Clinton had 8 years and Bush only had 8 months). That, however, should not be used as an excuse for Bush. If Bush somehow had more conviction about the fight against terror—why didn’t he start taking action against bin Laden the day he came to the presidency?
“President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a
foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has
yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not
informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from
home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)
“No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case
is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to
die for nothing. That’s why I’m against it.”
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99
“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the
administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
“You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo.”
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99
“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come
home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
“Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives
undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and
trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
#
Isn’t it ironic that the same type of attacks by Democrats against George W. Bush for his use of force in the last 4 years were also made by Republicans during Clinton’s presidency.
No.
Given Clinton’s charisma, his lack of convincing Republicans and trying to divide the country with stuff he thought he knew but didn’t want to tell anyone, was a breach of Presidential duty. Bush at least has the excuse that he made an honest attempt at convincing Democrats that his actions had a reason. Clinton just told the Republicans that they were part of the Vast Right Wing conspiracy, or had his wife do it with Monica.
My main point is that the hypocrisy is equal amongst both sides.
one of my more important points is that BigAl says both are equally bad, but the only one he seems to criticize is Bush and Cheney. When he had a chance to go against me, in attacking Clinton, he took to attacking Bush instead. How quaint.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but some things just don’t make logical sense.
Ymarsakar.
If Bush somehow had more conviction about the fight against terror—why didn’t he start taking action against bin Laden the day he came to the presidency?
Answer the question! It’s really the only question I posed in my argument and yet YOU DECIDED NOT TO ANSWER IT! WHY IS THAT?
Ymarsakar said “Bush at least has the excuse that he made an honest attempt at convincing Democrats that his actions had a reason.”
Ok, so he lied about the reason we went to Iraq (no al Qaeda ties to Saddam)and the president has admitted this himself (not to lying, but to the fact that no such relationship existed).
HOW IS THAT BEING HONEST? AND FOR GOD’S SAKE HOW IS THAT SOMEHOW AN EXCUSE?
“Clinton just told the Republicans that they were part of the Vast Right Wing conspiracy, or had his wife do it with Monica.”
You’re obviously stretching here. I’m not going to dignify that with an answer.
“one of my more important points is that BigAl says both are equally bad, but the only one he seems to criticize is Bush and Cheney. When he had a chance to go against me, in attacking Clinton, he took to attacking Bush instead. How quaint.”
This was one of your more important points? Well, first of all, it is wrong…here is what I said “blame for 9-11 should be equal (although I believe it is certainly a good point that Clinton had 8 years and Bush only had 8 months).”
How am I not attacking Clinton here? I am making it clear that I think it is ridiculous (regardless of his lame excuses) that he was President for 8 years before 9-11 and did not kill bin Laden. There is no excuse!!!!! I REPEAT, THERE IS NO EXCUSE!!! I REPEAT –THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR BILL CLINTON NOT RESPONDING MORE AGGRESSIVELY TO THE TERROR ATTACKS THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE 1990′S.
And I am also saying that Bush also does not deserve to have excuses made for him about the FACT that he did not go after bin Laden the day he became President—instead he was President for 8 months and received numerous intelligence reports during the summer of 2001 saying “bin Laden determined to strike in America”
—-AND HE DID NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FACT:HE ALSO HAS COMMITTED SOMETHING LIKE 1/6TH OR 1/7TH OF THE RESOURCES TO AFGHANISTAN AND FINDING BIN LADEN AS HE DID TO FIGHTING IN IRAQ. FACT: HE ALSO IGNORED REPEATED ADVICE FROM TOP MILITARY ADVISORS AND GENERALS THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO COMMITT EVEN MORE TROOPS AND RESOURCES IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ IF THEY WANTED TOI BE SUCCESSFUL.
AND THIS IS ALL STUFF THAT HAS BASICALLY HAPPENED IN THE LAST 4 YEARS. WHY AM I THE BAD GUY FOR TRYING TO HOLD THE CURRENT PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR RECENT ACTIONS OR INACTIONS? I DID THE SAME THING TO CLINTON IN THE 1990′S WHEN HE HAD THE POWER AND DEMS ACCUSED ME OF BEING A RIGHT-WING NUT!!!!
This is especially hypocritical of Bush considering he is trying to give the impression to the American people that HE HAD MORE CONVICTION IN THE FIGHT AGAINST TERROR THAN CLINTON — WHEN IN REALITY – HE ONLY HAD MORE CONVICTION AFTER 9-11 JUST LIKE, IN MY OPINION, 99% OF POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON AND MOST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Ymarsakar. I learned my lesson the last time we went rounds and I will not go back and forth with you like the last time. This will be my last post on the subject.
You seem frustrated that I seem to pick on Cheney and Bush and that it makes me obviously biased— but seriously “WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR THAT I BELIEVE CLINTON AND BUSH SHOULD EQUALLY SHARE RESPONSIBILITY FOR 9-11 AND NOT GETTING BIN LADEN?”
What, if I don’t pick a side am I somehow less informed?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO POLITICAL PARTIES IN THIS COUNTRY? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE TWO PARTIES THAT HAVE CONTROLLED OUR GOVERNMENT FOR SO LONG ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE GOTTEN US INTO THIS SITUATION?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THEY SAY THE SAME THINGS EVERY ELECTION FOR DECADES UPON DECADES? EACH PARTY JUST BLAMES THE OTHER FOR ALL THE PROBLEMS AND NEITHER ONE FACES ACCOUNTABILITY!!!!!!! HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND WE WONDER WHY OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS OUT OF CONTROL IN CORRUPTION? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Or if I choose to pick on the PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN IN POWER FOR THE LAST 6 YEARS DOES THAT MAKE MY ARGUMENT NULL AND VOID? They’ve been in power for 6 years? Did you not get the memo? They’ve had a republican controlled congress and a conservative supreme court majority during this time!!!! Why should we be making for excuses for the party with almost all the power? Doesn’t absolutely power corrupt absolutely?
Do you honestly believe Bush would not be under investigation as much as Clinton was if there was a democratically controlled congress? Did you ever stop to think that the reason Bush doesn’t want a democratic congress is because all of the hundreds of scandals that have surfaced over the last 6 years would actually be investigated? Just like with Clinton when the Republicans took control of congress—MARK MY WORDS–THE DEOMOCRATS WOULD DO THE SAME THING.
I see a pattern here. Both parties use the same tactics, both parties have major and illegal scandals, both parties deny, deny, deny, and accuse, accuse, accuse. When one party has a president that leads us to war the other party responds, for example, like tom Delay did in the 1990’s ““Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives
undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and
trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.”
AND HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE HEARD DEMOCRATS MAKE ALMOST THE EXACT SAME STATEMENT NOW THAT IT IS BUSH AND NOT CLINTON?????????????????????
Ymarsakar said “I don’t know about the rest of you, but some things just don’t make logical sense.”
This was about the only thing you said that made sense. I completely agree man, and THE THING THAT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE IS OUR TWO PARTY SYSTEM THAT VIRTUALLY MAKES POLICY DECISIONS ON EVERY ASPECT OF OUR GOVERNMENT YEAR AFTER YEAR AND DECADE AFTER DECADE.
I am begging people to realize that we need two things: (and I’ve said this before in my previous posts on similar subjects) and I’m going to add a third.
1) Elect people who will push for accountability (for example: Every single time the government gives money to a corporation (via a government contract), they must account for the actual goods and services provided (along with double checking the fair market value of the work). How is that not logical? How is that not a CONSERVATIVE value?
2)Elect people who will push for the reduction of government. HOW IS THIS NOT A CONSERVATIVE VALUE?
3) Elect people who will push for government staying out of our private lives!!!!!!!!! HOW IS THAT NOT A CONSERVATIVE VALUE???????????
I think there is a serious electoral crisis in this country and it starts with the FACT that there is not a powerful 3rd party in our political system.
We need a 3rd party to step up!!!!!!!!!!! We need the Goldwater conservatives to stand up!!!! We need people who thought Ayn Rand was pretty smart to step up!!!!!!!!!!
Our country is in desperate need of people who share the three values I mentioned above!!!!!
You know, I find it interesting that Barry Goldwater—who is widely credited for inspiring the modern conservative movement—along with playing a large role in the political development of Ronald Reagan—once said he predicts conservatives with his values will one day be accused of being “LIBERAL”.
I think Ymarsakar has proven Goldwater’s case for me!!!! He never called me liberal directly—but he sure thinks I am trying to pick on poor little Bushy and Cheney and that obviously makes me a Clinton supporter in his mind.
If Bush… what about If Clinton?
What’s it all have to do with Bush anyways. How much influence does Bush really have when the Democrats still follow Clinton’s lead?
You’re obviously stretching here. I’m not going to dignify that with an answer.
Ya right, like you can make the claim that his wife didn’t say there was a Vast Right Wing conspiracy out to get him, as well as making the claim that Clinton doesn’t think he has enemies amongst Republicans. A bit too much for most.
Look BigAl, you talk a lot about the two party system, but your problem is that you only focus on one party. You don’t practice what you preach, so it doesn’t make sense and isn’t convincing either.
“Ok, so he lied about the reason we went to Iraq (no al Qaeda ties to Saddam)and the president has admitted this himself (not to lying, but to the fact that no such relationship existed).”
The President did not lie. Big Al, use your brain. It’s why you have it.
You have not learned enough on the War On Terror. You suffer from a bad case of MSM disinformation.
You will have to do better to be an informed citizen. Your troops–the young men and women in Iraq and elsewhere–deserve better from you.
You have the duty to defend this country. They are.
So, as one Iraq in the field soldier recently put it: get behind us or shut up.
I hope you support them, and America, in Iraq. It remains our finest chance to combat terrorism.
You seem frustrated that I seem to pick on Cheney and Bush and that it makes me obviously biased— but seriously “WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR THAT I BELIEVE CLINTON AND BUSH SHOULD EQUALLY SHARE RESPONSIBILITY FOR 9-11 AND NOT GETTING BIN LADEN?”
let’s just make it clear that what you say and how you act are two different things, sometimes they are consistent sometimes not for an individual. In this case, all you’ve done is what I’ve illustrated. Said both are bad, but acted as if only one was. The truth is shown in darkness based upon a person’s behavior after all, not their honeyed words.
jg.
I support our troops 100%. I have close friends over there. I also believe in the warnings that President Eisenhower gave us during his last address as President of the USA in 1960. He warned us of the growing dangers of the Industrial Military Complex. I recommend you make yourself familiar with this term if you haven’t already.
By the way, I met this girl named Dorothy and she says she knows of a wizard who will help get me a brain. I guess it’s a really long walk but I am excited.
Al, you write: “He warned us of the growing dangers of the Industrial Military Complex.”
Eisenhower was partially right, Al. But that’s 70’s style political rhetoric which I studied in grad school. The Big Picture: We screwed up, Al. I agree.
We should have finalized Vietnam easily; upstaged Reagan by 2 decades (perhaps following the lead of JFK) and crashed Communism; and then moved on to the peaceful world that can still lie ahead.
Instead we declined. We partied 20’s-style with anti war drug dreams; pretended the Communists weren’t real, and just barely outlasted them; while spending trillions on the WELFARE STATE complex. I mean, have you seen racism, poverty eradicated as LBJ promised? Has welfare made us a better country? And the ‘Educational System complex’. Hundreds of billions and the result? Check the ed stats or–worse, the news from Colorado today.
Columbine was a horrific event which eclipsed Vietnam’s sins, and it was only the first.
What have we Americans been doing the last 50 years since Eisenhower? Bill Clinton had/has one answer. George Bush another. Osama B.Laden liked Bill’s.
Weak, stupid, divided, decadent.
It will take US longer to revive ourselves, than what Iraq will need to become a model state. And maybe it’s harder for us than them.
Al, you don’t need me to give you a brain. You have one already that you aren’t using. Stop sitting on it and put it back in your head where is belongs.