Damn, Uncle Dave sure wishes we had had a man of Clinton’s intellectual caliber and understanding of history, foreign relations, politics — well, everything — in the White House these past 6 years. The quality of this intervew shows alot about both sides.
And when WILL the White House be asked/made to answer these questions, Fox News?
Fox News Sunday, Interview With President Bill Clinton, 9/22/06 (Rough Transcript)
CLINTON: What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now I never criticized President Bush and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that think Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…
WALLACE: [Laughs]
CLINTON: I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin laden. I regret it but I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending special forces in to Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise…We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. Until I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that’s strange.
I miss the clinton years in general…..
still kudos to him he mopped the floor with wallace he’ll never measure up to this dad
bullshit
Hopefully, come the next election we will have candidates from both major parties that are closer to his level. So that no matter which parties candidate gets elected we have a chance of regaining a bit of respect, and getting our country back on track.
Agree with #1. Clinton didn’t drag the reputation of the U.S.A. in the dirt on the international area, like the current President has managed to do.
I love “when political ambushes backfire” on Faux!..It’s my favorite show.
found a preview via Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UwJabtvSUQ
“I tried,….I tried and failed”
Fits in with all his other famous quotes doesn’t it? 😉
Pres. Clinton had what, 8 years and how many attacks on American citizens, and only used cruise missiles an S.F.?
Pres. Bush had 8 months, one attack, and went after the Taliban with the full force of American might in what, a week or two.
tried and failed is right.
Uh, what did Clinton do? He blow up an asprin factory, which we paid for. He got a ship blown up, which we paid for. The WTC was bombed and he treated it as a criminal matter, and we paid for in 2001. Clinton got our soliders killed Somolia and then dragged through the streets. Clinton used US Troops to pick up garbage in Hati, we paid for this. Clinton used US planes to kill Christians in Eastern Europe for Muslims, which have since paid us back with beheadings, again we paid. Clinton had a chance to kill Bin Laden, but instead was get felicia from an intern. Oh yeah he also put a cigar up her vigina.
Not what exactly did Clinton do to make us safer. Enron and many other corporation began and culminated their crimes under Cliton. Clinton and Gore both took and flauted campaign election laws and took money from the Commic Chinese. Satilite tech and Submarine tech was transfered throught the Clinton adminstration. Clinton moved the control of such tech trade laws from State to the Trade Dept.
I don’t like Bush, or the Mexican invasion he is responsible for, but I don’t see Hillary or Clinton as an answer. I also have no desire to be part of the North American Union. But Uncle Dave, where exactly have you been to forget the above stuff. Dislike Bush, but Clinton did nothing and would do nothing now. Hillary won’t change anything she’s just another Globalist and will follow the same policies. You need to rethink the political realities of today. It’s Nationalist versus Globalist. If you’re a Globalist then you are going to see many more Iraqs and you’re going to see UN Troop here also. Different minorities already have petitioned the UN for troops ot protect them here in the US, so don’t think this is just another conspiracy theory.
Lol
traaxx
I have always suffered fools poorly.
You have just affirmed my stance.
You must’a read a different story than me. The man did nothing about national security while he was president (other than bring it down).
Whatever Bush’s failings, that’s no ‘get out of jail free’ card that Clinton can use to validate his inaction.
When are people going to stop paying taxes to these fools?
As a moderate conservative, I’m no fan of Clinton and I never thought I’d be defending Clinton but the man deserves more credit than he’s getting. During Clinton’s administration, no one in Washington, on either side of the isle, took terrorism seriously. We were at peace and did not perceive terrorism as a real threat. The signs were clearly there but no one paid attention. During later part of Clinton’s administration, he began to mobilize parts of the country in regards to terrorism. He set up task forces to study terrorism. He worked with cities like NY to prepare for chemical and biological attacks. He did set in motion many efforts that Bush built upon. However, he didn’t have the backing to simply drop troops into another country because of a perceived threat.
IMO, the single greatest cause of 9/11 and failing of Clinton was allowing the Gorlick memo which prevented the intelligence agencies from sharing information.
Q: “How many Republicans does it take to screw in a light bulb?”
A: “None – Clinton did it!”
The quality of this intervew shows alot about both sides.
Reminds me of one of my co-workers printing this article – from 2005?! – just a couple of days ago, and posting it on our group’s cubicle wall.
http://tinyurl.com/qpuyh
Apparently to rebut the notion that Bush isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed by stating – in effect: “Well…, neither is Kerry!”. 🙁
I thought it was amusing that the article does seem to imply this – initially – when it starts with:
During last year’s presidential campaign, John F. Kerry was the candidate often portrayed as intellectual and complex, while George W. Bush was the populist who mangled his sentences.
But newly released records show that Bush and Kerry had a virtually identical grade average at Yale University four decades ago.
But, the article later mentions that Kerry’s grades improved – and he later graduated from law school – while Bush went on to get a Harvard MBA.
So, what does “virtually identical” grade averages during their first few years at college mean? Not a godamn thing, as far as I can tell.
Bubba-bashers love to make jokes about Monica, but the guy was a Rhodes scholar – regardless of any problem he had keeping his fly zipped.
All the complaints about him not doing anything against terrorists omit any reference to distractions, like:
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm
On August 5, 1994, … replaced Fiske with staunch Republican Kenneth W. Starr, …Thus began the four-year-long Starr investigation of the Clintons
4-years takes us up to 1998…
The next month, September 1998, would be worse for Clinton. On September 9, Ken Starr delivered his 453-page report and 36 boxes of evidence to the House of Representatives… On September 11, the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee began releasing the Starr report to the public via the Internet.
Kind of eerie that 3-years – to the day – before 9/11, Clinton was seeing the beginning of the official impeachment proceedings.
My favorite paragraph:
The House of Representatives had been scheduled to convene on Thursday, December 17, to begin considering the four articles of impeachment. However, on Wednesday, President Clinton ordered a series of military air strikes against Iraq, following the failure of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors. Clinton’s timing drew an immediate chorus of criticism from Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott who stated: “I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time. Both the timing and the policy are subject to question.”
2nd favorite:
Democrats wanted to postpone the impeachment proceedings until after the conclusion of the joint U.S.-British military operation, claiming it would be improper to debate removing America’s Commander in Chief while U.S. pilots were “in harm’s way.” Republicans, however, allowed only a 24-hour delay, noting that impeachment proceedings had been held against President Richard Nixon while U.S. troops were still in Vietnam.
Damn Republicans, giving aid and comfort to the enemy… 🙂
Everything is subjective…Uncle Dave. Clinton tried? How many time could he have tried and chose not to take advantage of an opportunity? Clinton failed! Clinton is a failure. Republicans may not be the answer but Democrats are a major part of the problem. When this country is attacked again and again and again perhaps the liberals will awake from their 60’s generation drug induced stupor.
The biggest reason to not think that Clinton was serious about terrorism is that he says so. Are you really going to believe his finger wagging? The most obvious lie is when he says he never criticized President Bush. I can grant that he tried and failed, since he was never that high on civil liberties protections for terrorists. The problem is his methods of trying. Does anyone really think Bush would have passed up an opportunity to take custody of Bin Laden just because they didn’t have enough for an indictment? Strangely, I’ve read recently that maybe Bin Laden wasn’t guilty of the major terrorist plots before 1998. This may have been only Khalid Mohammed’s family prior to joining forces with BIn Laden.
Also, Dick Morris wrote about Bill Clinton’s inattention to terrorism in 1997, when he was still on Clinton’s side(Getting reelected against all odds). This makes sense given Clinton’s preference for signing peace agreements and getting joint statements rather than concrete action.
the most amazing thing about the video is the Fox News coverage. I am continually amazed at the wholesale corruptness of their operation. Not even Pravda was that over the top. Still more amazing is that there are still people out there dumb enough to continue viewing that network.
He sounds like a failed hitman.
Yea, he finally found the right bs and forum to try and vindicate himself.
If we had presidents with a rational foreign policy we wouldn’t need to hear this crap. Nothing but diversions to lead away from what we really should be doing or not doing.
Trying and failing is Clintons trademark
Despite the fact that Free World has been in a massive moral, political, economic and social decline because Clinton cheated on his wife and had sex in the White House it’s still the job of the current President to catch and kill Osama Bin Laden and his gang of thugs.
So what’s Bush’s excuse besides the fact that his father is on the payroll of the Saudis as a consultant and his family in general has done millions of dollars of business with them? Oh I forgot the fact that the 9/11 highjackers were all Saudis isn’t material. Let’s also ignore all the documented material on the Saudi’s continuing financial support of terrorists including Al-Queda.
I guess we will just have to continue blaming everything that’s wrong in the world on Bill’s penis.
“I guess we will just have to continue blaming everything that’s wrong in the world on Bill’s penis.”
It makes sense for neocons to do this since their own is so drastically under utilized.
>> #2 “bullshit”
“bullshit” is the GOP talking point, repeated endlessly on Faux, that “Clinton did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about terrorism”
Check this out:
———–
Bill Clinton’s record on counterterrorism
· Bill Clinton developed the nation’s first anti-terrorism policy and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
… and that’s about half the list. Here is the rest:
http://liberalgrace.com/2006/09/bill-clintons-record-on.html
What’s amusing here is that the GOP is not merely accusing Clinton of failing to protect national security during his term, but that somehow he is responsible for the fact Bin Laden is still no more verifiably dead than he was during Bill’s term.
Clearly, however pathetic it might seem to attempt to blame Clinton for the failure of the current administration, it is by far preferable than for anyone to realize they’re admitting they have been unable to better the efforts of a do-nothing pushover.
We kind of figured out you guys suck at war, dudes. How bad you suck has made us forget that you’re pretty sucky at non-war stuff too. Instead of trying to figure out who is responsible for causing you to suck, though, you’d be better off spending the time finding something you can not suck at for a while. Most of us would prefer you to accomplish some useful work during the eight years you’ve been alotted to find some. Even if finding the guy directing all your suckiness from his hidden lair prevents him from ever doing so again, clean out the garage or something instead. No matter if this guy is real or not, the worst thing he did was make you suck more when you weren’t that great in the first place.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
Wrong, that was the police of the Philippines.
Ditto the 12 airliners (the “Bojinka” plot).
Just thought you Republican Bush apologists ought to know that my circle of “independent voter” friends…middle-of-the-roaders, all of us…think you guys have got to be on the payroll.
It’s way too late to convince anyone other than your own selves, now, but I”m betting you’ll understand better come November.
Washington Post headline this morning: “Intelligence Analysts Say War Spead Terrorism”.
From the article: “A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the ‘centrality’ of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda.”
Thanks, President Bush!
Thanks, Congress!
Washington Post headline this morning: “Intelligence Analysts Say War Spead Terrorism”.
Read the article…
Thanks, President Bush!
Thanks, Congress!
Again the issue is entirely the manner in which Bill Clinton went after terrorists. Dick Morris said he didn’t care too much about it, but I think that was the mindset for the whole country at the time. The only reason to pay any attention to Morris on this point is that he published it in 1997. However, there were several actions taken by President Clinton.
The problem is that Bill Clinton saw it as mostly a law enforcement issue, and left several options on the table. He had a chance to pick up Bin Laden, which even he admitted at one point.
http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=mcelligott1.htm
Some things about the list. Despite what Richard Clarke says, the millennium bombing plot had nothing to do with his 24ish ‘battlestations’ planning, and instead it was a border cop at the Canadian border who decided to search a van, something that would have gotten airline workers fired for racial profiling.
Also, look at the full list. Some of these items would have gotten angry blog posts from John Dvorak and co.
· Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
· Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
· Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
I’m guessing 2 out of 3 objections from this group.
Bill Clinton understands what the other Bush haters don’t: that George Bush will be remembered by history because of his war on terrorism. Clinton even said that he wished Sept 11 had happened on his watch. Clinton is trying to fight off his legacy as a caretaker president by claiming all sorts of actions.