I seem to remember Bill Clinton catching a ration of shit from conservatives the times he did take action against Bin Laden? Remember the outrage and accusations over “wagging the dog” after the cruise missile attacks on the aspirin factory or whatever?
It’s a little weird to hear them now giving him a ration of shit for not doing more of what they were giving him a ration of shit for doing.
I hardly think NewBusters counts as a cite.
Not really weird. We’ve just seen that Starving Artist would rather believe Sudanese warlords over the dirty unwashed hippie 9/11 commission:
I do not expect George Bush to pay any actual price for the colossal errors of his administration. He’ll get the library, he’ll get the book deal, he’ll get the astronomical speaking fees. The most I could hope for is that he suffers some awareness and regret for the damage he has caused.
Never mind.
Perhaps because of U.S. deaths bin Laden was already responsible for and the fact that 9/11 may well not have happened at all had Clinton had the cojones to do the right thing and off him when he had the chance. I don’t have a cite handy but I do recall reading that he and his advisors decided not to kill (“assassinate”) bin Laden because it wouldn’t play well with the public and the fallout might be deleterious to his wife’s nascent health care scheme.
Correct. It was and is more important under Bush’s administration post 9/11. That does not mean it was of no importance under Clinton’s.
Well, we all know Bill Clinton (“I did not have sexyul relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski…Well, it depends on what the meaning of is, is”) and his lackeys are as good as their word, don’t well?
The difference between George Bush and Bill Clinton is that Bush does what he thinks is right and what his responsibilities demand, rather than Clinton’s approach which is to do whatever is polically expedient.
And Bush has come in for plenty of criticism from both sides.
I figured as much. That’s why I also included links to the article about the CBS program and to article from The Los Angeles Times.
But all that aside, do you believe the CBS program didn’t take place? Do you believe the interview with Charlie Gibson didn’t didn’t take place?
Is it all a fake?
If not, what difference does it make who reports it?
Frankly, yeah, but y’know, 1999 was before 9/11.
Plus, Tora Bora.
I keep hearing rumblings about The Hague. Could we dare hope that wheels will be set in motion on January 21, 2009?
Plus, Bill Clinton got a blow job!
Those rumblings are just your meds wearing off, dear.
Huh?
The Sudanese thing you’re talking about, according to your own link, happened between 1996 and 1998. Hillary’s “nascent health care scheme” was dead in the water years before that, as the Clinton administration tried to deal with a hostile Republican congress.
I never suggested otherwise. In fact, it was you who suggested they should be treated the same. Just over an hour ago, you asked:
Bolding mine. I sometimes wonder whether you realize that we can actually go back and look at your previous posts. I can think of no other explanation for the way in which you constantly act as if your contradictions and inconsistencies were invisible to everyone.
Completely irrelevant.
If the 9/11 Commission Report based its conclusions only on testimony from Clinton and his “lackeys,” you might have a point. But the Commission got information from many sources, and chased up many different leads and trails.
And now i find i’m dealing with Starving Artist as if he were actually a member of the reality-based community. I vowed recently that i was not going to dignify his dishonesty and duplicity with serious responses, and i think i should now proceed to honor that vow.
He also trashed the reputations of quite a few women who were only telling the truth.
Of course he got a pass from NOW and your ilk because he was on your team.
I have no doubt that if GWB’s name was Bill Clinton, and all else was the same, he’d be getting a pass on the war, too…from you, the press, Hollywood, etc., just like he is getting a pass now about not getting bin Laden, lying under oath, and using the power of his position to manipulate/accost young women sexually and then trash them publically once exposed.
Starving Artist, you’re pathetic.
I do not blame Bush for 9/11 even if it could be found that things could have been done better to prevent it. Sometimes shit happens and it could have happened under any president. What HE did after 9/11 is his responsibility and he has proven to be utterly incompetent and evil.
But all the blame is not his. I am not sure even most of the blame is his. The Congress went along with the folly. The press and other media cheered along and abdicated their most basic responsibility. The American people re-elected him and so endorsed the crimes and the evil. Other Western countries mostly looked the other way while the knew America was committing huge crimes. Some, quite a few, participated and helped with the rendition flights and with secret prisons. There is plenty of blame to go around. We are all guilty to one degree or another, if only for not having spoken up against all this loudly enough. But we will put all the blame on Bush just like we put it on Hitler after WWII.
The truth is the American people reject Bush’s legacy because it was a failure in every respect, not because it was criminal. Had the war in Iraq gone well and the economy too the American people would be cheering for Bush and McCain would be in the White House today and they could not care less about the crimes committed in their name in Guantanamo, Iraq or anywhere else. Sad but true. Just like Europpeans look the other way just because it is in their interest. Shameful.
No he doesn’t. I’m just making fun of you because it was so predictable that a right wing loonball would bring it up.
I’ve said before that I can’t stand Bill Clinton, never could, even before the Lewinsky thing. My scorn for him doesn’t negate my even deeper scorn for the right wing loonballs who spent millions of dollars and wasted so much time trying to find something, ANYTHING, to hang on him. When it came down to a blowjob, they went wild, titillated beyond their wildest dreams. The fucker shouldn’t have lied, and I hate him for that, but it really was nobody’s business besides him, Hillary and Lewinsky in the first place.
I was never a big fan of Bill Clinton’s while he was president, but in hindsight he really did a good job. Now that I’ve seen how badly an incompetent president can muck things up, I’ll take someone I personally don’t love who is competent over a sincere doofus any day of the week.
You’re mixing up the timeline. Hillary’s healthcare fiasco was in the early '90s. Bin Laden wasn’t even on the threat radar until the African embassy bombings in 1998. Clinton approved the cruise missile strike on Sudan and what were believed to be Bin Laden’s training camp in Afghanistan. It’s not like he did nothing. But after Somalia in 1993, neither the Democrats or Republicans in Congress would have supported any sort of large scale military response in '98-2000 that would have been required to find and eliminate Bin Laden.
Besides, if you’re going to do the time warp, why not blame Reagan/Bush I for even creating and then abandoning the country and environment that allowed Bin Laden to thrive? Would 9/11 have happened in a Gore administration or constitutionally-magic third Clinton term? No one will ever know. All we do know is that it happened on W’s watch.
Clinton will probably never be truly admired for having a large degree of political courage, but dumb and decisive is NOT better than smart and cautious.
He’s playing the ‘history will vindicate me’ card.
-has the ‘card’ thing jumped the shark yet?
I have been joking for a long time now that “I used to like disliking Clinton much better than I now like disliking Bush”.
Compared to Bush Clinton was 2^76 times better.
The way he’s performed over the last 8 years it was probably the missionary position (for him) and doggy style for everyone else.
Clinton was presented with numerous opportunities to kill bin Laden or have him apprehended. As I said, I’m going by memory and don’t have a cite, but I believe the incident involving Hillarycare predated the Sudanese offer.
I suggested no such thing. I asked Equipoise, in the wake of her condemnation of Bush for not listening to Richard Clarke, if she held Bill Clinton to the same standard since he was also listening to Richard Clarke.
That is far different than a general comment saying that the two should be treated the same.
I can tell you why that is. I tend to speak in generalities covering a wide range of topics and instances, whereas you try to limit/parse my comments so as to make them inconsistent with the point you then claim I’m trying to make. The Sudan/Hillarycare issue above is an example.
Not to moi.
Your post quoted “Clinton administration officials”, and that was what I responded to.
Yeah, you and Rubystreak both.
I’m looking forward to the time when you keep your word.
As I said to mhendo above, the article I recall reading, which described Clinton administration concerns over repercussions on Hillarycare, predated the Sudanese offer. If I had known this would become a point of contention I would have taken more care to separate the two. My apologies to you and mhendo (believe it or not), as it does seem that I’m responsible for the confusion.
Since I don’t have a cite handy I will not press the issue of the Clinton’s behavior re bin Laden/Hillarycare at this time. I have an early day tomorrow and have to bow out now anyway, but perhaps I can do a little research and come up with something more concrete tomorrow.