Have you had more about Bill Clinton's meltdown, childishness and finger pointing than you can stand at this point? I have had no respect for Bill Clinton since the first time I saw him as the person tapped to introduce Michael Dukakis at the 1988 Democratic convention. When he became a "serious" (no I never considered him serious) candidate in 1992, I could barely stand to look at the man. His arrogant smirk drives me crazy. Then I heard that he'd written that letter to get out of the draft, the one where he says "I despise the military," and that did it for me. I would have voted for anyone else but Bill Clinton at that point. That he managed to fool the people for not only one but two elections is still a mystery to me. He is a sleaze and his actions while in the White House bear me out and so do his actions since he left. As for fighting terror, the dems and Clinton still don't get it ... you can not fight worldwide terror and take out the terrorists by treating it as a domestic criminal case (1998 U.S. Grand Jury Indictment against bin Laden).
So, it you must, Hot Air has the video and Sweetness and Light has the transcript and Byron York sums up and Jonah Goldberg says: "Bill Clinton in his interview today seemed to be suggesting that conservatives uniformly opposed and denounced him when he launched his "wag the dog" strike in 1998. For the record, here's the NR editorial in response to the attacks, dated 9/14/98," also Newsday 8/21/1998, Gingrich (CNN) 8/23/1998, AP 8/21/1998. Jim Geraghty does some fact checking:
Bill Clinton, in that Fox News interview:
OK, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaida was a growing concern in October of ‘93.
Not a living soul in the world... except for President Clinton's own Justice Department. The U.S. Justice Department's indictment of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda's military commander, Mohammed Atef, on Nov. 4, 1998, for conspiring to kill Americans: (if you are a truthseeker, you'll read it all)
And via Drudge, here are the after interview remarks by Chris Wallace:
Following today's buzz generating conversation with Bill Clinton, Chris Wallace shared some of his post-interview thoughts with FishbowlDC:
I was delighted to get the chance to interview former President Clinton. This was the first one-on-one sitdown he's ever given "Fox News Sunday" during our 10 years on the air.
The groundrules were simple--15 minutes--to be divided evenly between questions about the Clinton Global Initiative and anything else I wanted to ask.
I intended to keep to the groundrules. In fact--I prepared 10 questions--5 on the CGI and 5 on other issues.
I began the interview with 2 questions about Mr. Clinton's commitment to humanitarian causes. His answers were cogent and good-humored.
Then--I asked him about his Administration's record in fighting terror--fully intending to come back to CGI later (as indeed I did).
I asked what I thought was a non-confrontational question about whether he could have done more to "connect the dots and really go after al Qaeda."
I was utterly surprised by the tidal wave of details--emotion--and political attacks that followed.
The President was clearly stung by any suggestion that he had not done everything he could to get bin Laden. He attacked right-wingers--accused me of a "conservative hit job"--and even spun a theory I still don't understand that somehow Fox was trying to cover up the fact that NewsCorp. chief Rupert Murdoch was supporting his Global Initiative. I still have no idea what set him off.
Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward--wagging his finger in my face--and then poking the notes I was holding--I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me.The President said I had a smirk. Actually--it was sheer wonder at what I was witnessing.
I tried repeatedly to adhere to the ground rules--to move the President along--and back to the CGI. But he wanted to keep talking about his record fighting terror.
When it became clear he wanted to throw out the ground rules--then I just went with the flow of the interview.
And this comment just about says everything I have to say on the subject of Bill Clinton:
Why Don't Ex-Dem Presidents Ever Go Away?!!
09-24-06 | cww
Posted on 09/24/2006 1:49:46 PM PDT by CWW
What is it with former Democrat Presidents? They are like those guys in your fraternty 20 years ago that keep trying to create the good 'ol days.
The sad thing about it is that they are dangerous because they have a sort of "government in exile" type mentality. It's almost as if they are waiting for America to beg them to come back, that we should just collectively apologize to Carter for kicking him out of office and to Clinton for impeaching him.
What's worse is that they and their sychophantic minions, e.g., Madeline Albright, Ramsey Clarke, etc., really undermine the present administration by constantly publicly second guessing and monday morning quarterbaking everything.
I mean think about it -- does anyone give a rats a$$ what President Carter has to say about foreign policy issues? This is the same guy who the Soviets duped on Afganistan, Salt II, etc., not to mention the Iran hostage crisis.
And Clinton on terrorism? Oh please spare me!!! Can anyone say World Trade attack #1, the USS Cole, Somalia, the embassy bombings.
Are they so narcissistic that they think we really care what they have to say?
Carter -- I liked you better working on Habitat for Humanity houses, and you, Clinton, when helping Tsunami victims.
President Clinton, President Carter -- you had your shot. Now please sit down and shut up!!
I highly recommend the Anchoress piece I agree with the Captain - UPDATE. Although she takes some exception to one Clinton claim, she is level-headed and actually quite generous to our former CofC. A snippet from today's update, but worth your time to go read the whole thing:
:::UPDATED:::SCROLL DOWN FOR ORIGINAL POST:::
Update: One thing that did offend me about Clinton’s statement was that “right wingers” didn’t support him, or something like that. Annoying revision of history. Ace is still angry and he puts it to rights with this NY Times story from 1998:
Congressional leaders were briefed about the planned raid Wednesday night and Thursday morning. For the most part, Republican leaders praised Clinton’s decision and urged more aggressive action against terrorism.
House Speaker Newt Gingrich expressed firm support, and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, said, “Our response appears to be appropriate and just.”
Did some “right wingers” fuss? Yes. But the “head right wingers” supported the president as did the majority of conservatives.
But while the Republican leadership rallied to support the raids, some members of Congress reacted suspiciously, noting that the action followed by three days Clinton’s acknowledgment to the public and a grand jury of his relationship with former intern Monica Lewinsky.
Oh, my goodness…isn’t that harsh? President Bush has never had to endure such rudeness and opposition!
Ace has more wet blankets to throw on Clinton here. I’m making a note to myself: never tick off Ace!
END UPDATE:::
Patterico's Pontifications says:
"Clinton’s charge that Wallace hasn’t asked these sorts of questions of Bush officials is false." So what else is new?
In 2004, Wallace asked almost the exact same question of Donald Rumsfeld that he asked Clinton today.
Here’s what Wallace asked Clinton today:
[H]indsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?
And here is what Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:
I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?
. . . .
What do you make of his [Richard Clarke’s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?
. . . .
Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.
Be sure to check out Gateway Pundit's great link roundup from around the blogosphere. We especially like this quote, but take a look at all the links:
More from Dr. Sanity... "In spite of all the self-serving BS delivered up in his interview with Chris Wallace, there is no indication that Osama ever felt the need to hide himself when Clinton was US President."
-As evidenced by the above 1998 video!
Hat Tip Larwyn
Comments