Did you catch Clinton on Fox News?

[lukster]

If you haven't watched the interview then your opinion of it is meaningless to me. Clinton used the forum to lash out with much venom at all the "right wingers" he knew would be watching. I think he figured his supporters don't watch Fox News or else feel the same as he does. Didn't change my opinion of the man as I mentioned.

[ByeBye]

Originally posted by Toad
Actually, if you get down to the meat of the article, past the cheap shot funnies, he does make some valid points Clinton probably doesn't want to hear

That's why I say that Clinton is an arrogant handsomehunk. He thought he was "above" everyone else and couldn't possibly be made to look bad by a stupid FOX reporter.

[Toad]

Originally posted by lukster
Didn't change my opinion of the man as I mentioned.

Do you think he'll make a good First Lady?  

[lukster]

Originally posted by Toad
Do you think he'll make a good First Lady?  

Wasn't it Falwell that just said that even Lucifer wouldn't galvanize the GOP more than Hillary if she runs? He may be right. If Hillary runs I may call up a local Republican campaign office to see what I can do to help. I've never done that before.

[bj229r]

Byron York has a nice take on this:

Clinton did not give up in the sense of an executive who gives an order and then moves on to other things, thinking the order is being carried out when in fact it is being ignored. Instead, Clinton knew at the time that his top military and intelligence officials were dragging their feet on going after bin Laden and al Qaeda. He gave up rather than use his authority to force them into action.

Examples are all over Clarke’s book. On page 223, Clarke describes a meeting, in late 2000, of the National Security Council “principals” — among them, the heads of the CIA, the FBI, the Attorney General, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the secretaries of State, Defense. It was just after al Qaeda’s attack on the USS Cole. But neither the FBI nor the CIA would say that al Qaeda was behind the bombing, and there was little support for a retaliatory strike. Clarke quotes Mike Sheehan, a State Department official, saying in frustration, “What’s it going to take, Dick? Who the **** do they think attacked the Cole, ****in’ Martians? The Pentagon brass won’t let Delta go get bin Laden. Hell they won’t even let the Air Force carpet bomb the place. Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?”

That came later. But in October 2000, what would it have taken? A decisive presidential order — which never came.

The story was the same with the CIA. On page 204, Clarke vents his frustration at the CIA’s slow-walking on the question of killing bin Laden. “I still to this day do not understand why it was impossible for the United States to find a competent group of Afghans, Americans, third-country nationals, or some combination who could locate bin Laden in Afghanistan and kill him,” Clarke writes. “I believe that those in CIA who claim the [presidential] authorizations were insufficient or unclear are throwing up that claim as an excuse to cover the fact that they were pathetically unable to accomplish the mission.”

Clarke hit the CIA again a few pages later, on page 210, on the issue of the CIA’s refusal to budget money for the fight against al Qaeda. “The formal, official CIA response was that there were [no funds],” Clarke writes. “Another way to say that was that everything they were doing was more important than fighting al Qaeda.”

The FBI proved equally frustrating. On page 217, Clarke describes a colleague, Roger Cressey, who was frustrated after meeting with an FBI representative on the subject of terrorism. “That ****er is going to get some Americans killed,” Clarke reports Cressey saying. “He just sits there like a bump on a log.” Clarke adds: “I knew he was talking about an FBI representative.”

So Clinton couldn’t get the job done. Why not? According to Clarke’s pro-Clinton view, the president was stymied by Republican opposition. “Weakened by continual political attack,” Clarke writes, “[Clinton] could not get the CIA, the Pentagon, and FBI to act sufficiently to deal with the threat.”

Republicans boxed Clinton in, Clarke writes, beginning in the 1992 campaign, with criticism of Clinton’s avoidance of the draft as a young man, and extending all the way to the Lewinsky scandal and the president’s impeachment. The bottom line, Clarke argues, is that the commander-in-chief was not in command. From page 225:

    Because of the intensity of the political opposition that Clinton engendered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in ‘Wag the Dog’ tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life. For similar reasons, he could not fire the recalcitrant FBI Director who had failed to fix the Bureau or to uncover terrorists in the United States. He had given the CIA unprecedented authority to go after bin Laden personally and al Qaeda, but had not taken steps when they did little or nothing. Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations they did not want to conduct. He had tried that in Somalia, and the military had made mistakes and blamed him. In the absence of a bigger provocation from al Qaeda to silence his critics, Clinton thought he could do no more.

In the end, Clarke writes, Clinton “put in place the plans and programs that allowed America to respond to the big attacks when they did come, sweeping away the political barriers to action.”

But the bottom line is that Bill Clinton, the commander-in-chief, could not find the will to order the military into action against al Qaeda, and Bill Clinton, the head of the executive branch, could not find the will to order the CIA and FBI to act. No matter what the former president says on Fox, or anywhere else, that is his legacy in the war on terror.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDM4N2E1MzU5ZjQ0YTA3YmJiYzEyYjQ2ZDBiNWJlYjE=

[lukster]

One of the last things that Clinton said in the interview was that the CIA and the FBI wouldn't certify it was Al-Qaeda behind the attacks and so he left office. Those were his words or very very close. If you watched the interview you would have gotten the impression that he resigned because the CIA and FBI would not support him against Al-Qaeda.

I don't believe anything the man says but I'm sitting there thinking is there really anyone stupid enough to believe what he just said. The sad thing is, there is.

[lukster]

After writing that out it occured to me that Clinton probably meant  "and so I left office (without doing squat)". He just couldn't bring himself to say that last part.

[storch]

Originally posted by ByeBye
Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are two of the worst presidents the US has ever elected.

I can name others

FDR
Harry Truman
John Kennedy
Lydon Johnson

these immediately come to mind as very poor examples of POTUS

[midnight Target]

Bush will go down in history as the worst 2 term President since Grant..

[storch]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Bush will go down in history as the worst 2 term President since Grant..

in 20 years or so you'll be saying the same thing about dubya that dems say about reagan now.  besides billy jeff will probably be the all time worst.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Thanks for posting that.  I would have gotten very angry listening to slick willy and would have woken my room mate.

Kicked a dog and flipped off a hippe, too, eh? Ahem.

[Hap]

Originally posted by storch
I can name others

FDR
Harry Truman
John Kennedy
Lydon Johnson

these immediately come to mind as very poor examples of POTUS

hap

[Shuckins]

The single most important duty of the federal government is to secure the nation against its enemies, foreign and domestic.

The Chief Executive has always been assumed to be the leader of the government in implementing that duty.  When a threat emerges the nation can ill afford to have a man in that office who goes all wobbly.  In such a situation, the president should act decisively.  If a Ben Laden is offered to him on a silver platter by a foreign government the appropriate course of action should be a no-brainer.

Likewise, the president does not allow the CIA or the military to dictate policy or second guess decisions necessary to protect U.S. citizens.  He gives the orders...period.  He accepts no ifs, ands, or buts.  He sets a course of action and insists on it being followed.

Thus, Clinton's assertion that he couldn't persuade the CIA or the military to take out a dangerous enemy is an enormously f-e-c-k-less statement.

Ole Slick is the polar opposite of the ideal ruler envisioned by Machiavelli's "The Prince."

[Debonair]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Bush will go down in history as the worst 2 term President since Grant..

i think that in 200 years bush sr. will go down as the only five termer:O its true, maybe even six

[BTW]

Rush Limbaugh went off about a pathological liar. This from a person who harps on personal character and does so much Oxycontin that he loses his hearing. If my mama was still alive, she would not approve of me hanging around with Rush Limbaugh. He's a dope head.

 If I'm going to listen to someone preach about personal responsibility and character it won't be from an oxy head (an oxymoron if you will. ).