An angry Clinton on Fox

Saying Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden but failed is like me going out the the corn field, throwing a rock into the rows, then going back to the house saying "I tried to kill the rabbit, but I failed."
What did GW do prior to 9/11 (the only fair comparison, I believe)?

ETA: that's a fairly rhetorical question on my part. I neither have the interest or the knowledge to debate it extensively.
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen the video yet, but if the descriptions I've read are accurate regarding him wagging his finger at Wallace, then he screwed up royally. Remember the last time he famously waved his finger around? It was when he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
Wow. Way to poison the well. What does that have anything to do with what he's talking about here?

And he really didn't need to act defensively, either, or blame Bush. He could have just said, look, we screwed up, we faced a lot of different threats and didn't prioritize that one enough, but we can only know that for sure in hindsight. And most people will accept that because most people felt the same way at the time. But the defensiveness makes him look like he's got something to hide (Sandy Berger stuffing documents down his pants doesn't help much with that perception either).
Lovely. You don't know what he said or did, but your blaming him for the actions you've heard he took and the things you've heard he said. :rolleyes:
 
What did GW do prior to 9/11 (the only fair comparison, I believe)?

ETA: that's a fairly rhetorical question on my part. I neither have the interest or the knowledge to debate it extensively.

I think he ignored a Richard Clarke memo with the obscure title; Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S. using planes (or something similar). But Condi Rice explained it all - Clarke didn't issue a particular DATE that Bin Laden would attack so they naturally didn't take it seriously. :)
 
I think he ignored a Richard Clarke memo with the obscure title; Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S. using planes (or something similar). But Condi Rice explained it all - Clarke didn't issue a particular DATE that Bin Laden would attack so they naturally didn't take it seriously. :)
Oh, we see that Condi has trouble with (getting) dates? ;) No wonder she was such a hawk as National Security advisor!

*ducks*

DR
 
What does that have anything to do with what he's talking about here?

So I forked the coversation - is the political wisdom of his response somehow a verboten topic?

Lovely. You don't know what he said or did, but your blaming him for the actions you've heard he took and the things you've heard he said. :rolleyes:

I just watched the video. It's worse than I thought. He says,
"So, you [Wallace] did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me."
Why? Because Wallace asked him why he didn't do more to get Bin Laden. Is that a hit job on Wallace's part? Hardly. But it is extreme defensiveness on Clinton's part, and it was unnecessary. And frankly, his picture of conservatives attacking him for "obsessing" about Bin Laden, and claiming his efforts to go after him were like "Wag the Dog" (the movie), doesn't match up at all with my memory of events. What I recall was that charge being leveled mostly by the press, and primarily in regards to Iraq, NOT Bin Laden. He also claims that Wallace never asked these kinds of questions of Bush administration officials. That's not much of a defense, since the question was legitimate regardless of whether or not Wallace asked anyone else. But it's also factually wrong, since Wallace asked pretty much the same questions of Rumsfeld back in 2004.
 
I think he ignored a Richard Clarke memo with the obscure title; Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S. using planes (or something similar). But Condi Rice explained it all - Clarke didn't issue a particular DATE that Bin Laden would attack so they naturally didn't take it seriously. :)

Um... I think you're refering to the Presidential Daily Briefing. Clarke didn't write it. The CIA writes those. I thought everyone knew that, but apparently not.

Edit: Oh, and the title is "Bin Laden determined to strike in US". Just for the record. You can read much of it here:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
 
More voices from the time on Clinton's actions...against alleged Bin-Ladin activities in Sudan.

Rep. Dick Armey, GOP majority leader: "The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."

Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.: "It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it," Solomon said in an interview with CNN. Asked if he was accusing Clinton of playing with American lives for political expediency, Solomon said, "Whether he knows it or not, that's exactly what he's doing."

GOP Sen. Dan Coats: Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack [on bin Laden] and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action."

Sen. Larry Craig, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee: "The foregoing, the premise of the recent film 'Wag the Dog,' might once have seemed farfetched. Yet it can hardly escape comment that on the very day, August 17, that President Bill Clinton is scheduled to testify before a federal grand jury to explain his possibly criminal behavior, Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton has ordered U.S. Marines and air crews to commence several days of ground and air exercises in, yes, Albania as a warning of possible NATO intervention in next-door Kosovo ...

"Not too many years ago, it would not have entered the mind of even the worst of cynics to speculate whether any American president, whatever his political difficulties, would even consider sending U.S. military personnel into harm's way to serve his own, personal needs. But in an era when pundits openly weigh the question of whether President Clinton will (or should) tell the truth under oath not because he has a simple obligation to do so but because of the possible impact on his political 'viability' -- is it self-evident that military decisions are not affected by similar considerations? Under the circumstances, it is fair to ask to what extent the Clinton Administration has forfeited the benefit of the doubt as to the motives behind its actions."

GOP activist Paul Weyrich: "Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton's decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote 'is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress.'"

Wall Street Journal editorial: "It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment."

Sen. Trent Lott, GOP majority leader: "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."

Rep. Gerald Solomon: "'Never underestimate a desperate president,' said a furious House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.). 'What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?'"

Rep. Tillie Folwer: "'It [the bombing of Iraq] is certainly rather suspicious timing,' said Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Florida). 'I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office.'"

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: "First, it [intervention in Kosovo] is a 'wag the dog' public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the 'life is truer than fiction' movie 'Wag the Dog.' The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to 'move on' from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command."

Jim Hoagland, Washington Post: "President Clinton has indelibly associated a justified military response ... with his own wrongdoing ... Clinton has now injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy, and vice versa."

Wall Street Journal editorial: "Perceptions that the American president is less interested in the global consequences than in taking any action that will enable him to hold onto power [are] a further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in conducting the nation's affairs, and should be impeached."
 
More voices from the time on Clinton's actions...against alleged Bin-Ladin activities in Sudan.

OK, so you've specified that you're talking about the Sudan, which means Clinton's cruise missile strike against a suspected chemical weapons factory.

Rep. Dick Armey, GOP majority leader: "The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."

But that's Iraq, not Sudan. And it was Saddam, not Bin Laden. You pulled a bait and switch.

Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.: "It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it," Solomon said in an interview with CNN. Asked if he was accusing Clinton of playing with American lives for political expediency, Solomon said, "Whether he knows it or not, that's exactly what he's doing."

Doesn't specify what action it's refering to. The previous quote references impeachment, so does this one - might this one not also be refering to Iraq and not Sudan?

GOP Sen. Dan Coats: Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack [on bin Laden] and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action."

So you've got one so far.

Sen. Larry Craig, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee: "The foregoing, the premise of the recent film 'Wag the Dog,' might once have seemed farfetched. Yet it can hardly escape comment that on the very day, August 17, that President Bill Clinton is scheduled to testify before a federal grand jury to explain his possibly criminal behavior, Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton has ordered U.S. Marines and air crews to commence several days of ground and air exercises in, yes, Albania as a warning of possible NATO intervention in next-door Kosovo ...

Albania. Not Sudan, is it? Not Bin Laden either, is it?

GOP activist Paul Weyrich: "Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton's decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote 'is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress.'"

Well, we bombed Iraq, but we sent cruise missiles to Sudan. Sounds to me like this is referencing Iraq again, as the first impeachment-connected quote did.

Wall Street Journal editorial: "It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment."

Doesn't specify whether it's Sudan, Iraq, or Albania. My guess is Iraq, since again, the only quote that directly reference impeachment AND names the location of the strike refers to Iraq.

Sen. Trent Lott, GOP majority leader: "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."

The Sudan doesn't border the Persian Gulf. But Iraq does. Hmmm...

Rep. Gerald Solomon: "'Never underestimate a desperate president,' said a furious House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.). 'What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?'"

Doesn't specity.

Rep. Tillie Folwer: "'It [the bombing of Iraq] is certainly rather suspicious timing,' said Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Florida). 'I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office.'"

Not Sudan.

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: "First, it [intervention in Kosovo] is a 'wag the dog' public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the 'life is truer than fiction' movie 'Wag the Dog.' The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to 'move on' from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command."

Not Sudan.

Jim Hoagland, Washington Post: "President Clinton has indelibly associated a justified military response ... with his own wrongdoing ... Clinton has now injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy, and vice versa."

Doesn't specify.

Wall Street Journal editorial: "Perceptions that the American president is less interested in the global consequences than in taking any action that will enable him to hold onto power [are] a further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in conducting the nation's affairs, and should be impeached."

Doesn't specify.

You've got a few quotes that specify somewhere OTHER than Sudan, a bunch that don't specify what they refer to (but which, judging from the ones that do, most likely refer to Iraq), and only ONE quote that specifies Sudan. That was weak, headscratcher. Really weak.

Unless you're taking the position that Bin Laden and Saddam really were connected, and that a strike against Saddam was also a strike against Bin Laden.

Edit to fix quote tags
 
Last edited:
With the exception of Coats and Lott, those were all issues other than the efforts to kill or capture OBL. Clinton was not referring to Iraq or Somalia orKosovo. His claim was that when he tried to act against OBL in Afghanistan, he was criticized by "the right-wingers."
 
With the exception of Coats and Lott, those were all issues other than the efforts to kill or capture OBL.

I don't think the Lott quote refers to attacks against Bin Laden either. I'm pretty sure that the cruise missiles sent into Afghanistan were sent from the Arabian Sea, and flew over Pakistan en route, not from the Persian Gulf, where they'd have to fly a longer distance over Iranian airspace. I believe Lott is talking about the strikes on Iraq.
 
I just do not understand how this is supposed to play. Is Clinton really agruing that criticism of the President during times of armed conflict hampered his ability to protect the nation?
 
So I forked the coversation - is the political wisdom of his response somehow a verboten topic?
Not at all, but logical fallacies are never in fashion, not even in politics. You were not commenting on the wisdom of his response but on on a response he gave many, many years ago on a different topic.
 
I just do not understand how this is supposed to play. Is Clinton really agruing that criticism of the President during times of armed conflict hampered his ability to protect the nation?
No, I think he's arguing the hypocrisy of those who are arguing that he was too obsessed with OBL then are the same people who are arguing that he wasn't obsessed enough with OBL now.
 
Not at all, but logical fallacies are never in fashion, not even in politics. You were not commenting on the wisdom of his response but on on a response he gave many, many years ago on a different topic.

Huh? I'm pointing out that I think the way he responded this time is going to remind people of his previous response, and that will (rightly or wrongly) make people wonder if he's telling the truth. Had he responded differently, less defensively, I don't think anyone would make the comparison and would be less likely to suspect deceit on his part.
 
Huh? I'm pointing out that I think the way he responded this time is going to remind people of his previous response, and that will (rightly or wrongly) make people wonder if he's telling the truth. Had he responded differently, less defensively, I don't think anyone would make the comparison and would be less likely to suspect deceit on his part.
Uh-huh. Sure. You weren't going out of your way do draw a connection between the two largely unrelated events at all. :rolleyes:

He was also wearing a suit in both instances. Think that will remind people of the earlier situation, too?
 
I don't believe anything Clinton says. I don't believe anything Bush says.

Clinton's whole "right wing conspiracy" theory is b.s. I don't believe CLinton did enough during his presidency to prevent further terror attacks. He had 8 years to do so and blames everyone else. I think Clinton is more worried about his legacy. He was obsessed with approval numbers in office and was unwilling to take major risks.

I think Bush is less concered with appearences but he has made more major mistakes like going to Iraq.
 
Uh-huh. Sure. You weren't going out of your way do draw a connection between the two largely unrelated events at all. :rolleyes:

Beyond what I just said? No, I wasn't. Now, you can dismiss what I said as being of little to no importance, and I'm fine with that. But kindly refrain from telling me what I intended.
 
No, I think he's arguing the hypocrisy of those who are arguing that he was too obsessed with OBL then are the same people who are arguing that he wasn't obsessed enough with OBL now.
Damn you sir. Damn you and your logic.

FWIW, I'm not convinced that Clinton did all that he could but then I'm not convinced that a Republican would have either. There is a certain amount of hindsight reasoning in all of this.
 

Back
Top Bottom