Monday, September 25, 2006

Revisionist Excuses

I find it embarrassing that former President Bill Clinton was so easily rattled by even a mild hardball question. When Fox News (a Republican propaganda media machine controlled by Bush according to liberals) reporter Chris Wallace asked the question "Why didn't you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President?" Clinton lost presidential composer.

He went into a nearly spitting and finger pointing rant about this question was a "conservative hit job" and that he did more than anybody else to get Bin Laden. He basically just made stuff up...which he is so adept at doing without scrutiny by most of the press.

Can you imagine if Bush had this kind of demeanor with a reporter who asked a mildly tough (and I'll explain why it's only a mildly tough question later) question and then proceeded to say things like "all the Democrats said this" or "all of the military told me that"....within minutes all media outlets would be doing Google and Lexisnexis searches. You would have to do a lot of searching because when you hear it you're saying to yourself...really, that happened?...hmm...lets get confirmation. So, of course, you can't find a partisan chorus of Republicans that complained that Clinton was obsessed with getting Bin Laden...will the main stream media point out this complete fabrication and parallel universe that Clinton apparently lives in? Of course not.

This was as undignified and as poor an interaction as I could imagine from an ex or sitting President as you can imagine. If you hadn't already seen it, see it on Hotair's video blog...the video and his fabrication are laid out plane as day.

Clinton had 8 years of mostly slobbering smitten press questions (with the exception of the Monica issue) during his time in office...and more constant love since leaving office....One little question and he has no class, no skill to deflect it! He could have simply said "you know, I wish I did more, I wish we had got him...but we didn''s not an easy thing and I'm sure the current administration would like to have gotten him by now as well"....then if the interviewer keeps pressing they look unreasonable...asked and answered. That's why this was a mild hardball and could have been easily handled.

And apparently Clinton, like many nutroots, blame Bush for his 8 months leading up to 9/11 and in no way Clinton for his 8 years prior to Bush. I guess Clinton was fighting terror in a big way without us knowing, handed Bush terrorism under control on a platter and Bush messed it up in his first 8 months. Clinton was just on the verge of killing off terrorism as we now know it when he had to leave was Bush who blew it.

Clinton can't handle even an occasional tough question....Bush handles questions tougher than this everyday from the entire press core.....Clinton only has to only handle it from FoxNews (the Bush media outlet).

Update: Before someone sends me examples of GOP complaints about Clinton's cruise missile assault on an Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan....keep in mind they were complaining he timed that attack to deflect the impeachment vote that was to happen the next was a question of was he wagging the dog.

Update 2: From Dick Morris who was close to Clinton during the time he could have nailed Bin Laden and could have taken the 1993 attack on the WTC more seriously.


Anonymous said...

Ya know, I've been arguing with J about this for years. Clinton did nothing in his presidency except worry about the interns. He didn't do anything to get Bin Laden, he didn't want anything to do with it. Bush comes in, Bin Laden decides to make his move and Bush gets all of the blame because he had been in office for 8 months by the time it happened? Nevermind the same attempt had been made in '93 (when Clinton was president). The only reason it wasn't on the 9/11 scale was merely because they [the terrorists] had messed up themselves!

I can't stand Clinton, I can't stand to look at him. Even as a high schooler (which I was during most of his term), I couldn't stand him and I couldn't put my finger on it - I still can't. All I know, is that man irks the hell out of me. He's just shady and everyone seems for fall for his "charm". And, if I hear one more time that he's a Rhodes Scholar, I think I'll have an aneurysm!

Okay, I'm done ranting.

Splash Two said...

Here are some actual republican comments about the cruise missile attack:

Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) said the following on August 20, 1998: 'Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do.'"

CNN’s Candy Crowley reported on August 21, 1998, the day after cruise missiles were sent into Afghanistan: 'With law makers scattered to the four winds on August vacation, congressional offices revved up the faxes. From the Senate majority leader [Trent Lott], 'Despite the current controversy, this Congress will vigorously support the president in full defense of America’s interests throughout the world.' Crowley continued: 'The United States political leadership always has and always will stand united in the face of international terrorism.'" Those are the words of Jesse Helms. (Guess that doesn't hold true anymore though.)

'Our nation has taken action against very deadly terrorists opposed to the most basic principles of American freedom,' said Sen. Paul Coverdell, a Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 'This action should serve as a reminder that no one is beyond the reach of American justice.'

Dan Quayle was quoted by CNN on August 23, 1998: 'I don’t have a problem with the timing. You need to focus on the act itself. It was a correct act. Bill Clinton took—made a decisive decision to hit these terrorist camps. It’s probably long overdue.'

Clinton is a pathological liar, he just can't help himself.

Tiny said...

Hi Guys,

Clinton is a polarizing person much like his wife. But much like you Michelle I never got how he charmed so many. I found it funny to see liberals and the press who would skewer a Republican for the philandering on the scale of Clinton's defend, deflect or ignore it with Clinton.

While I thought the special prosecutor stuff was bullshit you can't ignore the lack of integrity universally among liberals in giving Clinton a pass.

If you were going to start a business with a good friend and you needed a third partner and so an interested party was introduced to you. At some point before inking a deal you find out this guy was been having pretty visible affairs for around 20 years. If you say this doesn't bother you and you still have him in the deal you're dishonest or blinded by your affection for Clinton (or both).

A person willing to lie and break a promise as vital as a marriage over and over is VERY likely to apply that same level of integrity to ANY other part of their life. No, it's not a certainty they will have a low moral code for everything else if they're a serial philanderer...but it's a good bet.

Anonymous said...

"A person willing to lie and break a promise as vital as a marriage over and over is VERY likely to apply that same level of integrity to ANY other part of their life. No, it's not a certainty they will have a low moral code for everything else if they're a serial philanderer...but it's a good bet."

I agree with you 100%. J always says, "What does the affair have to do with what he does in office?" Well, uh, then why is it a big deal that Bush did drugs or drank alcohol when he was in college? If it's Clinton's "personal" life when he has an affair (which DOES say something about his integrity and values), then it should be Bush's "personal" life when it's released that he did drugs in college (over 20 years ago). And, I might add, Bush didn't get high or drunk in the oval office (okay, well, at least I hope not). Selective hearing and vision - that's what Dems have and it's very selective at that.

Tiny said...

Interestingly the Dems have historically given a pass to inappropriate sexual matters for fellow Dems. Whereas you will see plenty of people on the right historically and now in the Foley matter piling on asking for Republican leadership heads to roll.