Ding! Ding! Ding! Wallace’s pappy owes his career to Murrow, and should know better than to try and pull this crap. Every newsman out there worth his/her salt looks up to Murrow, not only because of his smack down of McCarthy, but because of his coverage of London during the war. Murrow was responsible for the sterling reputation CBS News had (until Rather crapped all over it), and Olbermann was rather pointedly jabbing at Wallace that he was not following the standards that his father looked up to. Though it shouldn’t be too surprising that Wallace should do such a thing, I suppose, since rumor has it that he tried to have his father (Mike Wallace) declared incompetent, when he came out against Bush.
Them’s some fine family values there, ayuh.
And here’s yet more info on Clinton’s malfeasance as a leader charged with protecting the U.S. and his…ahem…disingenuous…performance before Chris Wallace the other night, that everyone around here will dismiss out of hand, Clothahump, but which remains true nonetheless. As you can see by contrasting what Clinton said in the interview vs. what really happened, they don’t call him Slick Willie for nothin’.
A few choice tidbits are as follows:
“From behind the benign façade and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris Wallace’s interview on Fox News Channel…the man those who have worked for him have come to know – the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch. The truer the accusation, the greater the feigned indignation.” [italics mine]
“His self-justifications constitute a mangling of the truth which only someone who once quibbled about what the “definition of ‘is’ is” could perform.”
“Clinton told Wallace, “There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down.” Nobody said there was. [italics mine] The point of citing Somalia in the run up to 9-11 is that bin Laden told Fortune Magazine in a 1999 interview that the precipitous American pullout after Black Hawk Down convinced him that Americans would not stand up to armed resistance.”
“Clinton said conservatives “were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day” after the attack which killed American soldiers. But the real question was whether Clinton would honor the military’s request to be allowed to stay and avenge the attack, a request he denied.”
“The president told Wallace, “I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill bin Laden.” But actually, the 9-11 Commission was clear that the plan to kidnap Osama was derailed by Sandy Berger and George Tenet because Clinton had not yet made a finding authorizing his assassination. They were fearful that Osama would die in the kidnapping and the U.S. would be blamed for using assassination as an instrument of policy.”
“Clinton claims “the CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible [for the Cole bombing] while I was there.” But he could replace or direct his employees as he felt. His helplessness was, as usual, self-imposed.”
“Why didn’t the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden’s involvement in terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center sufficiently seriously. He never visited the site and his only public comment was to caution against “over-reaction.” In his pre-9/11 memoirs, George Stephanopoulos confirms that he and others on the staff saw it as a “failed bombing” and noted that it was far from topic A at the White House.”
“The former president says, “I worked hard to try to kill him.” If so, why did he notify Pakistan of our cruise-missile strike in time for them to warn Osama and allow him to escape? Why did he refuse to allow us to fire cruise missiles to kill bin Laden when we had the best chance, by far, in 1999? The answer to the first question — incompetence; to the second — he was paralyzed by fear of civilian casualties and by accusations that he was wagging the dog.”
I fully expect the information quoted above – and its source – to be routinely dismissed by those engaging in the verbal blow-job Clinton is getting in this thread…but what can I say? The truth is the truth; one can only get it out there. If the ignorant and willfully duplicitous choose to ignore it in favor of their own politically biased point of view, the onus is not on moi!
Precisely what do the righties think Clinton should have done differently with respect to the 1993 WTC attack? The crime was investigated and those in charge arrested. Was he supposed to have bombed Baghdad? Declare war on Sweden?
Why is not visiting the site such a big deal? It was a building with minor damage. So he wasn’t a blood-sucking ghoul that visited sites of mass murder to drive up his political ratings. So what?
Gee, do you suppose that when two budding nuclear powers live next to each other in a state of uneasy peace, that it might be a good idea to tell one that missiles flying over their territory are NOT nukes from the other?
Absolutely! Ignore the intelligence you don’t like! Fire or force out those that won’t produce misleading/wrong information! Direct your intelligence staff to go back and try again until they goddamn give you the “facts” that will let you go in and start some shit UP!
That’s brilliant!!
As always, SA, you enlighten me and bring me out of the darkness.
Psst, BLD, your tightie rightie filter has slipped, letting in context. Here, let me fix that for you…
Its working so well for the current administration. “The Iraqi’s will welcome us with open arms.” “Saddam has WMD.”
Luckily that hasn’t concerned the current administration.
:rolleyes:
Zebra:
Well, to be fair, Bush also had some representatives of the Taliban to the White House as welcome guests. So it’s not like he was completely unengaged.
That may have been about the time Ashcroft was telling his staff, “I don’t want to hear any more about terrorism.”
God Bless President Bartlet.
-FrL-
Osama claims responsibility for Somalia. Please pay attention to the news, SA, before you try to counter issues. And do try to remember history as it happened. The first World Trade was a failed bombing. And quite reasonably far from topic A. Remember, there was a world before 9/11.
This is a very, very strange criticism.
It is too late at night, I am having trouble explaining why.
Do you not see, though, that this is a very strange criticism?
Do you really think it’s a good idea for the people in charge to get rid of people whose reports they don’t like?
I mean, many of us libs accuse Bush et al of having done this. I’ve never seen it questioned whether this would be a valid criticism of Bush were it true. Rather, the debate, I thought, would be over whether it’s true of Bush or not.
But with this criticism, the author seems to be saying it’s perfectly okay for a leader to do this, and in fact, the author is saying any good leader ought to do it.
I can’t comprehend how someone could think it’s okay, much less obligatory, to do this.
-FrL-
Well argued, Starving Artist, but it’s not like any of the Usual Suspects are going to allow any questioning of the stellar reputation of St. Willy, by a reporter or anyone else.
As ever, IOKIADDI.
Regards,
Shodan
It isn’t that we don’t allow questioning of Mr. Clinton, it’s that so many of the arguments being raised by the right are so easily refuted. Rather like shooting fish in a barrel.
Well, now that this has turned into a debate (arguably), I think we can send this off to GD.
Wallace brought up the Blackhawk Down incident, and Clinton’s response to it, as an example of weakness which emboldened Bin Laden. The question is whether the people who are now criticizing Clinton were urging him to be more or less forceful at the time.
And in this country, the military answers to civilian leadership. Policy is set based on the best interest of the nation, and the military is sometimes required to carry out that policy by force. It is not an instrument of revenge.
So, Dick Morris’ opinion is what passes for truth in your world? That explains a lot.
Let’s look at something else Dick Morris says in the piece you linked to:
“it is not because people are right-wingers that they criticize him over the failure to prevent 9/11. It was his failure to catch bin Laden that drove them to the right wing.”
Ah. So, now that Bush has failed to catch bin Laden, what wing have they been driven to?
Just out of curiosity, are you including SA’s post #91 in this thread as an example of something “well argued” ? As far as I can tell, his “argument” in post #143 consists solely of blaiming Clinton for not choosing to ignore FBI and CIA misgivings.
Your post, like his, is a sneer with no facts behind it. Bravo. [slow applause]
By the way, am I a “Usual Suspect”? What qualifies one as such? I really liked that movie.
There is a virulent bit of illogic that just refuses to go away. That is the assertion that, for 5 years, there has been no significant foreign terrorist attack in the US, so Bush’s strategy must be working.
By the same logic, there was no significant foreign terrorist attack in the US for the last 7+ years of Bill Clinton’s presidency. Doesn’t it also hold, then, that whatever he did worked? Hey, he even implemented a brilliant domestic terrorism strategy, since whatever he did after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 kept any significant domestic terrorism from happening for the last 5+ years of his presidency.
Or is it perhaps that significant terrorist attacks are low base rate events? Unless of course you are living in perpetual fear - then they seem like a daily part of our lives.
The question Wallace asked of Clinton which set him off was a good question. It was hard, but fair. It’s certainly nothing new. Many in the press hate Bush and ask him scathing, baited questions often. If Wallace’s question of Bush was a five on a one to ten scale than a typical Helen Thomas question to Bush would be a nine.
The thing I can’t figure out is if the hissy fit was contrived or real. Clinton is such a shrewd politician, nearly everything he does is calculated. This might have been. Or maybe it was real emotion. There’s no way to tell for sure when watching such a skilled liar.