Say Anything Blog

Clinton really did smack Wallace around didn’t he? That was an interesting interview.

Clinton is acting like it is a surprise to him--just like the “I did not have sex with that woman” rant.  His non-action was documented in the book:  Dereliction of Duty by Col Robert Patterson

His non-action was documented in the book: Dereliction of Duty by Col Robert Patterson

Patterson has said that ABC’s “The Path to 9/11” was correct.

But what does he know? Patterson was only the guy who carried around the nuclear football.

To me, Clinton is behaving just like a cornered animal in that video.

Clinton didn’t try and fail, he never tried.  He pussed out because his a spineless socialist that cares more about fame and control then doing the right thing.

He also got a lot of money from Indonesian Muslims.  He did take us to war for the Muslims against the Catholics in Bosnia on phony “mass grave” claims.

Actually, Clinton was ridiculed for attacks empty tents with cruise missiles.  Whatever he wants to say about that, it looked really dumb at the time.

Carrick can you really consider that a try?

Plus consider the fact that he admitted he didn’t accept OBL when he was offered.

Now if the Path to 911 was correct, we could have got him then.

I think that puts Clinton’s claim that he actually tried in serious doubt.

I still am not convinced though that getting OBL at that point would have stopped 911.

Clinton really did smack Wallace around didn’t he? That was an interesting interview.

I think it’s a LITTlE hard to say that after watching 10 seconds of an interview......

I still am not convinced though that getting OBL at that point would have stopped 911.

Neither am I.  I don’t blame 9.11 on Bill Clinton, I don’t really even blame him for turning down OBL back in the 90’s.  The Path to 9/11 showes very well how there was a mindset that EVERYONE had, with few exceptions, that the War on Terrorism was a legal battle not a military battle.  If Clinton had bombed OBL and killed 20 other people in the process, he would have been ridiculed from those on the Right and the Left. 

The only thing you can blame Clinton for is not being a leader before his time, but who alrady didn’t know that?  He rode the good economy wave while it lasted and did everything he could to not rock the boat.

Clinton really did smack Wallace around didn’t he? That was an interesting interview.

I think it’s a LITTlE hard to say that after watching 10 seconds of an interview......

I still am not convinced though that getting OBL at that point would have stopped 911.

Neither am I.  I don’t blame 9.11 on Bill Clinton, I don’t really even blame him for turning down OBL back in the 90’s.  The Path to 9/11 showes very well how there was a mindset that EVERYONE had, with few exceptions, that the War on Terrorism was a legal battle not a military battle.  If Clinton had bombed OBL and killed 20 other people in the process, he would have been ridiculed from those on the Right and the Left. 

The only thing you can blame Clinton for is not being a leader before his time, but who alrady didn’t know that?  He rode the good economy wave while it lasted and did everything he could to not rock the boat.

A quote from Tom Maguire at justone minute…

“Pulitzer Prize winner David Halberstam delivered “War in a Time of Peace - Bush, Clinton, and the Generals” in May of 2001.  Although he covered Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, there is not a hint of a mention of Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden.  That suggests that, in all his digging and interviewing on the topic of Clinton at war, Halberstam never uncovered Clinton’s war on terror, or did not experience Clinton’s people pounding the table and emphasizing its importance.”

Proofreader.  Clinton wasn’t concerned about terrorism during his administration.  The reason why I think it’s worth blogging about is that he now claims that we was.

What do you expect from a professional liar?

claims that he (clinton) was.

The question of Clinton’s nonchalance towards terrorism is hardly open. The question is why, in the light of all the evidence that exists, he would wag that finger one more time.

And Clinton chiding the Bush administration for “doing nothing” for “eight months"… might just remind the American people that the Sore Loserman wing of the Democratic party was actively obstructing Bush’s appointees, for partisan political reasons, during most of those eight months…

I thought the “8 months” was a great reminder that 8 years is greater than 8 months.

Having seen the entire interview, the first word that comes to mind is “delusional”. Chris Wallace asks him to compare the power of being president vs. being a former president. Clinton implies that they are the same, except that he can focus on individual causes better, because he’s no longer responsible for things “in the headlines”. (Compare Jimmy Carter pounding nails in a two by four vs. the Leader of the Free World doing virtually anything… Yep! Nearly the same!)

The whole “right-wing conspiracy, Rupert Murdock told you to do this” routine sounded, for all it’s insanity, mildly rehearsed...as if he was anticipating a question he would not want to answer and wanted to emulate Ronald Reagan’s “There you go again!” line. Unfortunately, Clinton lacks the wit and credibility to pull it off.

Clinton’s continually references to Richard Clarke made me think that perhaps Clarke would have made a better president than the one we had.

On further reflection, people still call Clinton “Mr. President”, he still has a Secret Service guard, apparently still chases skirts and is making approximately the same effort to stop global terrorism as he did while in office. So, I guess in his mind, nothing has changed!