Another lovely evening at the gym. It really is becoming perhaps my favorite part of the day, although I admit, it feels good when I stop running, etc. The orange line has started running to Wellington again, where the shuttle now begins. This cuts a little bit of time off of the journey. It will give me an excuse to go to the new Kelly's Roast beef (at Wellington station) at some point too.
"Earlier Tuesday, President Bush angrily lambasted a media report that said the document asserted the Iraq war had increased the terrorist threat to the United States."-CNN
Hmmmm.... Just read about the article, then decide for yourself.
NIE: Al Qaeda 'damaged,' becoming more scattered
The following are the two halves of the controversial Clinton interview with Chris Wallace on Fox. It is excellent, and showcases just what a sharp guy Clinton was. The first part is the best, however, I especially like at the beginning of the second interview where Clinton brings up how the right accused him of a "Wag the Dog" scenario when he tried to go after Bin Laden. I remember because at the time I bought into the criticism. Hind sight is 20/20 and unfortunately it took George W. Bush to make me really appreciate Clinton, in light of his short comings.... which I might add are pretty much non issues comparatively. (I now wonder just how much truth there was to all of the crap and conspiracy theory that was out there)
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Tuesday & the Clinton interview
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hey George - like Dick Morris said, if Bush has to take the responsibility for eight months of not catching Bin Laden (which may or may not have disrupted the 9/11 attacks), then Clinton has to take responsibility for eight years of failing to do the same and failing to recognize him as the threat he was (is). Like you say, Clinton is sharp, yes, but I don't think he's as sharp as everyone says he is. I think it's laughable that he's trying to paint himself as a terrorism fighter. Yes, hindsight is 20/20, but his view of the first Trade Center attack was that it was a criminal act (which yes, it was) when in actuality it was a harbinger of things to come. If he was so brilliant he would have seen that.
Seems to me his over-the-top reaction to Wallace's inquiries were borne out of guilt more than anything else. Clinton's responses to the U.S.S. Cole, and the embassay bombings, and the disaster in Somalia were weak - weak. In fact, many people believe that the lack of an aggressive response to the events in Somalia emboldened Bin Laden and proved to him that we were not willing to fight against Islamic Fascism. Bin Laden admitted in '97 that al Qaeda was responsible for Mogadishu. Whey did we not make the full court press against him? Instead Clinton waited for ANOTHER attack (the Cole), and then was hamstrung by intel agencies that wouldn't "certify" that Bin Laden was involved. So what!! You already had Bin Laden on record saying he was responsible for Somalia. GO GET HIM! No, instead Clinton was too busy taking advantage of a young White House intern ("because I could") and then got himself impeached (and no, it WASN'T because of sex - it was because Clinton lied under oath to a federal grand jury. That's a felony, look it up.).
I don't think Bush is perfect - far from it. His border policies enrage me. But Clinton as a terrorism fighter? I just don't believe him. Methinks thou doth protest too much.
P.S. Another thought: can you imagine what they would be saying about W if he were the former president and he acted this way in an interview?
- Hayes
Funnily enough, Bush's Border policies are about the only portion of his recent efforts that I thought were worth anything.
Clinton lied under oath.. I agree, and this was worth punishment... However, the Lewinsky fiasco probably never should have seen the light of day. When they couldn't get the Clintons on Filegate, Whitewater, and Travelgate... they resorted to that.
The biggest abonomation of the Clinton administration was the pardons at the end of his term. That made me ill.
I'm not saying Clinton isn't a crook, I think they all are.
The difference is that Clinton was corrupt for selfish reasons. Bush and company have a reckless ideology that they continue to push despite the protests of the masses. Because it is a team effort for Bush, (rather than Clinton's personal moral weakness)they have a staff devoted to figuring out how to legally misuse the law and faith of the public to their advantage.
W wouldn't be in an interview post presidency with someone who was critical of him. He's barely in any interviews now.. because would not be able to answer questions without coaching. W would sit their tight lipped like a clam, or do the old diversion trick like most politicians rather than even attempt to explain.
I don't blame Clinton one bit for being excited. Someone was implying guilt for 911 on him, and that is definitely unfair in light of the facts. And I do agree with Dick Morris, on the following: It is just as unfair to imply that Bush was responsible pre-911 for the administrations non action.
My frustrations of the Bush administration are more along the lines of
A) Going to war on a complete gamble towards a non-aggressor with manipulated intelligence.
B) Not planning or considering the regional reaction (influx of al Qaeda, Increase in Islamic fundamentalism)
C) Completely ignoring the Geneva Convention, imprisoning countless non terrorists for indefinite amounts of time. (who probably will have reason to become terrorists once they leave)
D) Dropping out of the ABM treaty and starting new Nuclear weapons development plans while trying to tell other nations they can't do the same.
E) Bush & the Hastert/Frist era are 10X worse then the democrats of old when it comes to fiscal responsibility.... AND that USED to be the reason I'd vote GOP. It no longer exists, in fact there is no party for me. The only bill vetoes is one supporting stem cell research. Go figure.
I could go on and on....
But I'm going to call it quits here.
Post a Comment