« Bonfire of the Vanities - Week 111 | Main | Tipping in Cow Hampshire »

Clinton Ignored Bin Laden Warning During Lewinsky Affair

I knew when I saw that Leopold Stotch blogged this over at at OTB that there was a reason for the timing:

Clinton: I Would Have Attacked Bin Laden

Ex-president Bill Clinton now says he would have taken out Osama bin Laden before the 9/11 attacks - if only the FBI and CIA had been able to prove the al-Qaida mastermind was behind the attack on the U.S.S. Cole.

"I desperately wish that I had been president when the FBI and CIA finally confirmed, officially, that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole," Clinton tells New York magazine this week. "Then we could have launched an attack on Afghanistan early."

"I don't know if it would have prevented 9/11," he added. "But it certainly would have complicated it."

Despite his failure to launch such an attack, Clinton said he saw the danger posed by bin Laden much more clearly than did President Bush.

"I always thought that bin Laden was a bigger threat than the Bush administration did," he told New York magazine.

Why now? What was Clinton up to? Because if there is one thing we know about Clinton, he's always up to something. The New York Times provided the bombshell that Clinton was looking to defuse.

State Dept. Says It Warned About bin Laden in 1996

WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show.

In what would prove a prescient warning, the State Department intelligence analysts said in a top-secret assessment on Mr. bin Laden that summer that "his prolonged stay in Afghanistan - where hundreds of 'Arab mujahedeen' receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate - could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum," in Sudan.

The declassified documents, obtained by the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act request and provided to The New York Times, shed light on a murky and controversial chapter in Mr. bin Laden's history: his relocation from Sudan to Afghanistan as the Clinton administration was striving to understand the threat he posed and explore ways of confronting him.

Before 1996, Mr. bin Laden was regarded more as a financier of terrorism than a mastermind. But the State Department assessment, which came a year before he publicly urged Muslims to attack the United States, indicated that officials suspected he was taking a more active role, including in the bombings in June 1996 that killed 19 members American soldiers at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

So we now have proof of what was widely suspected. Clinton had every opportunity to stop bin Laden and was too busy... well, we all know what he was too busy doing in July 1996.

Perhaps had he been a little more concerned with the deaths of 19 service men then he was *ahem* himself, history might have been different.

Remember, this was at the exact time Clinton accused Lewinsky of telling people about the affair. Clearly he knew the Presidency was in jeopardy. Do you think maybe he was distracted?

Update Ironically, it was 6 years ago today he admitted to the affair.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Clinton Ignored Bin Laden Warning During Lewinsky Affair:

» Iowa Voice linked with Able Danger And 9/11 Pt III

» Mark in Mexico linked with Wall falls on 9/11 commission

» Another Rovian Conspiracy - MontereyJohn linked with I Give Clinton a (conditional) Pass

» Rip & Read Blogger Podcast linked with Rip & Read #137 - 2005-08-17

» The Jawa Report linked with Clinton and the Sleeping Giant




» In Search Of Utopia linked with Bang, Bang....

» Speed of Thought linked with Round the Reader - This Time Edition...

Comments (63)

Someone remind me again how... (Below threshold)

Someone remind me again how Clinton was a great president, how the country would be better off with any democrat in the White House, and why liberalism isn't so deeply rooted in dishonesty that you can't trust a single word coming out of a democrat's mouth. Please....

Hundreds upon hundreds of o... (Below threshold)

Hundreds upon hundreds of opinions in only the past fifteen, twenty hours about this, and they all say about one thing and one thing only (I'll paraphrase): "STFU."

Clinton could have, would have, might have, coulda maybe, oughta have, thought so, wondered about it, perhaps someday...it's all the same langauge of a very, very irresponsible guy in the White House who appears to have not even had the football, much less dropped it.

The Democrats are really, really trying, also, to pin this latest and undoubtedly far most awful error in judgement on the military, as if that's a surprise (thus, Cindy Sheehan and Tears, by Joe Trippi), but the only last bit of credibility that Clinton might have would be to hone up to this, to just stand up and say he failed, occluded, obfuscated or maybe just hid the information. Err, whatever. Whatever it was, he might as well hone up to the failure or else he's looking tonight like Number 12 responsible for 9/11.

Some <a href="http://corner... (Below threshold)

Some reading.

And, some more reading.

Sorry, last link requires s... (Below threshold)

Sorry, last link requires subscription...

You mean Clinton was too bu... (Below threshold)

You mean Clinton was too busy fending off attacks to his private life? Who was attacking him? Was he being attacked over how good a job he was doing running the country?

I seem to remember it was rather pathetic, really. Still, it's really easy to say what someone SHOULD have done, isn't it. With 20/20 hindsight and all...

Hey Nicholas,Thank... (Below threshold)

Hey Nicholas,

Thanks for showing us that most liberals don't think too clearly. This was before we knew about his "private life" as you call it, so clearly there were no "attacks."

But thanks for playing.

He wasn't exactly fending o... (Below threshold)

He wasn't exactly fending off attacks, he was luring an intern into his office for a game of epiglottal billiards. It wouldn't be nearly so bad if he wasn't still lying about both the billiards and whether or not he'd been given the information. Liberal 20/20 hindisght means attempting to rewrite history. just like you just did, by dishonestly claiming that Clinton was fighting off personal attacks about his private life life. That didn't start until 1998. It's a good thing we write this stuff down, if we didn't the liberals could get away with lying all the time.
From CNN:
Jan. 19, 1998: Lewinsky's name surfaces in an Internet gossip column, the Drudge Report, which mentions rumors that Newsweek had decided to delay publishing a piece on Lewinsky and the alleged affair.


Get yourself a clue Nicholas, that crap will work on a liberal sight, dishonesty gets nailed every time where truth matters.

epiglottal billiards?... (Below threshold)

epiglottal billiards?


dude...get some head? worry... (Below threshold)

dude...get some head? worry about some super terrorist...let me think about it for a few days...

Correction: That should hav... (Below threshold)

Correction: That should have said "liberal site" not sight but I have a hard time laughing and typing at the same time.

Well now. Bill Clinton was... (Below threshold)

Well now. Bill Clinton was a pathetic prick, let's be clear enough about that fact.

But geez, is someone here surprised that Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan in 1996, and hello, he was considered dangerous? Are we shock shock shocked to find gambling in this establishment? It is rather uncompelling that some oooo "declassified" document would reveal this to us suddenly, as if we were are born yesterday. We all knew Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan and running terrorist camps, and most of you did a collective yawn about it.

I'm still laughing about, u... (Below threshold)

I'm still laughing about, uh, PEOPLE attacking Clinton because he was, um, like, "running the country" so well.

OT - Hi Suzy!In yo... (Below threshold)

OT - Hi Suzy!

In your link to NRO, I couldn't find the Clinton-related mess, but I did find this: "Intelligent Falling". Oh my, what a wonderful piece of levity in contrast to the gravity of terrorism!

If we all agree gravity is a hoax, we'll soon be levitating :)

Suzy, I found an accessible... (Below threshold)

Suzy, I found an accessible guest link to your 2nd one, the subscription link, here: Limbaugh 8/16/05 transcript on Clinton/Bin Laden.

Bubba is the poster boy for... (Below threshold)

Bubba is the poster boy for bullshit:

"...bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. Frankfurt concludes that although bullshit can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner's capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not. Liars at least acknowledge that it matters what is true. By virtue of this, Frankfurt writes, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.

What the New York Magazine ... (Below threshold)
Jim Kouri:

What the New York Magazine article shows is that Bill Clinton is a pathological liar. This man is hellbent on revising his shoddy legacy. Someday the American people will realize that B.J. Clinton and his cohorts in the Democrat Party are nothing but blowhards who talk a good fight -- talk being the operative word.

sounds about right.... (Below threshold)

sounds about right.

Holy Moses, here's somethin... (Below threshold)

Holy Moses, here's something else apparently missing from the 9/11 Commission Report: one of the documents stolen by Samuel Berger!

If one compares this testimony by Ashcroft to the 9/11 Commission, describing the Clinton/Berger NSC's March 2000 "Millennium After Action Review" with these">http://www.etherzone.com/2005/bish060705.shtml">these two descriptions of the 15-page NSC After-Action Report stolen by Samuel Berger from the National Archives, it seems like one and the same.

And yet, the 9/11 Commission only reported these four dates:

"… according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times — Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action."

Why was there no mention of that March 2000 "After Action Review" in the 9/11 Commission Report, despite Ashcroft's April 04 testimony?!

Paul,Let me see if... (Below threshold)


Let me see if I got this straight. Hillery was so busy trying to find some papers, that she took her eyes off of Bill, who was being distracted by Monica's lips, and therefore not paying attention to Bin Laden's where-a-bouts. And for this we get 9/11? Damn paperwork!

I seem to remember a claim... (Below threshold)

I seem to remember a claim -- Mansour Ijaz? -- that Sudan actually offered to turn over Bin Laden but the Clintonites said no. Has that ever been verified?

I have a question.... (Below threshold)

I have a question.

Might the original comments inked on the document "copies" of "drafts" destroyed by Sandy Berger (and hence lost now) be relevant to all this?

(I'm not fishing - I don't know the answer.)


I don't like to make partis... (Below threshold)

I don't like to make partisan comparisons but a 20 minute blow job in the Oval Office and back to work makes me feel more confident that the President was taking care of our country than a FIVE WEEK vacation while we are in the middle of 2 wars. All of us understand the concept of a coffee break or lunch hour. Clinton may have been hard to satisfy but lets face it he didn't waste the whole day with her. On the other hand, while of us get our coffee breaks and lunch hours -and who wouldn't want to spend it like Clinton- how many of you can walk into your boss in the middle of a life or death crisis and tell her that you are leaving on a FIVE WEEK "working vacation"? Trust me this country needs another Clinton in the White House to clean up the mess this one is leaving. Kind of a deja vu of 1992. The only mess Clinton made walked out on Lewinsky's dress. You can hardly blame him for that!

This 'vacation' stuff is a ... (Below threshold)

This 'vacation' stuff is a load of you-know-what. C'mon, who wouldn't rather work from home? Especially if the office is DC in the summer. I loved reading in the paper where they called his ranch in TX his 'vacation home'. Gimme a break, it's his house. Does that make the White House his house? No, no it doesn't. Cripes, it's not like he's doing anything different than he would be in DC as far as work goes, he just does different stuff in his spare time than he would in DC...like get to go outside and stuff. Really, the 'vacation' argument smells pretty ripe.

Jim, if I remember correctl... (Below threshold)

Jim, if I remember correctly, the National Archives staff did a sting on Berger after they realized he had removed documents. They provided more copies of what he had already stolen, the next time he came in, as bait. He took it again. Which tells me the National Archives still had originals or copies despite what Berger took. I just don't know which particular document that was. We already know some of what was in the margins of these:

The report cites a 1998 meeting between Mr. Berger and the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, at which Mr. Tenet presented a plan to capture Osama bin Laden.

“In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted,” the report says, citing a May 1, 1998, Central Intelligence Agency memo summarizing the weekly meeting between Messrs. Berger and Tenet.

In June of 1999, another plan for action against Mr. bin Laden was on the table. The potential target was a Qaeda terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. The commission report released yesterday cites Mr. Berger’s “handwritten notes on the meeting paper” referring to “the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties.”According to the Berger notes, “if he responds, we’re blamed.”

On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: “In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’ ”

In August of 2000, Mr. Berger was presented with another possible plan for attacking Mr. bin Laden.This time, the plan would be based on aerial surveillance from a “Predator” drone. Reports the commission: “In the memo’s margin,Berger wrote that before considering action, ‘I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.’ ”

In other words, according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times — Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action. Had he been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today.

End of excerpt.

So, if the March 2000 doc's content was so damaging that Berger would risk his future career to steal it in Sept 03, hopefully the Justice Dept knows what's in it and hopefully has a copy. Although Ashcroft testified he had not seen an actual copy, somehow its contents was known by him in April 04 when he testified.

John:The fact of the... (Below threshold)
The Anti John:

The fact of the matter is that it wasn't a twenty minute break for Clinton, it was an eight year break. The man accomplished absolutely nothing as President.

The key words you miss in your attack on Bush are "working vacation". We have technology these days that lets him be briefed, communicate, do everything he would do in DC from the ranch or wherever he is. Congress is not in session, what would he be doing in DC that is any different from what he is doing in Crawford?

BR -Thanx!<p... (Below threshold)

BR -


That helps, I think. I just feared/suspected that Sandy B took stuff BEFORE the staff could ensure they knew what it was, etc. I keep encountering phrasings on the Left and MSM that he took "only copies" while seeing mentions on the Right and blogs that the material he took contained hand-written notes on copies. Notes of that latter sort transmogrify "copies" into "originals".

So, I think your post indicated that the "Sandies" were Clinton/Berger-bad, but did not contain refutation of Clinton's latest USS Cole posturings. Is that right?

RE: john's post (August 17,... (Below threshold)

RE: john's post (August 17, 2005 10:28 AM)

...Trust me this country needs another Clinton in the White House to clean up the mess this one is leaving. Kind of a deja vu of 1992. The only mess Clinton made walked out on Lewinsky's dress. You can hardly blame him for that!

Oh, brother. Where to begin? Let's just focus on that last part.

Yes, let's play kick the can with national defense while, technically, being on the job. Who, really, is cleaning up whose mess? Clinton had the good fortune of good timing to coast on the post-Reagan peace dividend and temporary success from the Gulf War. Look where his subsequent "leadership" led. While you're at it, why not canvass for J. Carter? I hear he was pretty committed to work too and sported a nice sweater to economize. Maybe that dynamic duo could tag team bin Laden since their successes in the ME were so apparent.

Sarah wrote:<... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Sarah wrote:
I seem to remember a claim -- Mansour Ijaz? -- that Sudan actually offered to turn over Bin Laden but the Clintonites said no. Has that ever been verified?

Yes it has. Here is an MP3 of Clinton confessing it to a group of businessmen in Long Island in February 2002. Listen for yourself.

Transcript of relevant excerpt:

Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again.

They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here, because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato.

Sorry - I didn't mean to st... (Below threshold)

Sorry - I didn't mean to step on anyone's tail. My point was that Clinton's sex life did not cause 9/11 any more than Bush's vacation- this one or the one he took in 2001 caused 9/11. Bin Laden was a bad guy that Clinton didn't get and so far neither has Bush. The world will definitely be a better place when Bin Laden is gone. In the mean time my world will be a better place when my personal friends are home from Afghanistan and Iraq. I will feel much better when my 18, 15 and 11 year old sons are not at risk to spend time there. I fully understand Cindy Sheehan problem How can she reconcile her loss for a war of questionable purpose. Bush made the comment that he is sorry for her but he needs to move on with his life. In Afghanistan it is clear that the risk to our soldiers and the loss of life is an unfortunate but necessary price to stop Bin Laden. I value our soldiers and totally support the military. But, I still don't get why we picked a fight in Iraq. It was a political choice not a security imperative. As such we must weigh the political gain against the loss of our soldiers. Saying it loud, demeaning Cindy Sheehan, changing the message does not give Bush's position political weight. It is sad and confusing. I am sure that its not worth the life of one of my children. Bush certainly wouldn't make Cindy Sheehan's sacrifice. In 100 years we will all be dead and history can judge it more clearly. I look forward to having another Clinton in the White House so we can reset our moral compass.

I look forward to having... (Below threshold)

I look forward to having another Clinton in the White House so we can reset our moral compass.

What can you say to this? I mean really...what possible come back can you resort to when someone has just said that they want someone like Clinton so that we can set our 'moral compass' straight? I mean, I'm not even laughing because it's not really funny. It's sad, but not in a make-you-cry way. I just don't know what to make of such a statement. Do you just shake your head and walk away...do you keep banging your head against the wall explaining how cheating on your wife at the office with the help then lying about it in court is not and never has been 'moral'? How do you respond to such a remark? If made in person, I think my eyes would go wide, I would stutter, and probably walk away talking to myself. There is a language being spoken that I just don't understand, is what I would conclude.

RE: John's post (August 17,... (Below threshold)

RE: John's post (August 17, 2005 12:07 PM)

My point was that Clinton's sex life did not cause 9/11 any more than Bush's vacation- this one or the one he took in 2001 caused 9/11.

OK. I agree somewhat with that. However, Mr. Clinton's sexual escapades were interfering with his job in that it was a behavior he had to hide, had to worry about concealing, and had to plan for his next fix. I don't know how much it detracted him but it certainly, ultimately, effected his Presidency. At which point it overwhelmed his life is not knowable by us.

Nobody could have predicted 9/11 though some of the information that is coming out now sure is looking like it has a few targets on it from the Clinton era. With the caveat that no one, on the whole, performed perfectly, I think we can dispense with the notion that Bush hasn't done his best to secure this nation in view of past shortcomings. I don't see how anyone can make that claim vís-a-vís the Clinton/Berger/Gorlick reaction to national security and ME policy.

I'll address the "moral compass" of Clinton on some other occasion but I'm sure I'd not trust that needle.

If Clinton had done his job... (Below threshold)

If Clinton had done his job in 1996 the chances that other people's then 9-13 year old kids would be a lot less likely to be fighting terrorism today. There's no draft, if you don't want your kids to be fighting terror by all means discourage them from enlisting. If Bill Clinton or his wife is your idea of magnetic north for the nation's moral compass you're advocating a hopelessly lost United States.

Again I am misunderstood. ... (Below threshold)

Again I am misunderstood. You cannot bathe in holy water and remove the stink of death created by Bush's ill-conceived Iraq initiative. The Iraq War is the result of an immoral unethical political decision that has caused too many good Americans to die.

Hillary has had to deal with the personal pain caused by her husband's infidelity. It is a personal problem and not the nation's problem. In my view, Ken Starr was a pompous Pee Wee Herman, who derived pleasure from someone elses sex life. I have trouble distinguishing between the two. Except one is funnier than the other. Saying you are righteous doesn't make you righteous. Whatever distractions were caused by Clinton's sex life can be laid at Starr's door. Make sure you are wearing a raincoat when you leave it there.

The moral compass should point toward helping the poor, empowering minority Americans and others who are different, we could even try to help ensure that all Americans have affordable health care, and that all children have an opportunity to be part of the American Dream. We are not making their situation better by sending them to Iraq to get blown up.

It was a political decision to fight Iraq not a security decision. Saddam was already contained and we didn't need to spend billions of dollars and countless lives lost to stop his form of terrorism.

John:Wake the F up... (Below threshold)


Wake the F up! 9/11 happened because of Clinton's failed foreign policy, not Bush's. It has nothing at all to do with vacation or blow jobs. It has to do ignoring a dangerous problem when it presented itself.

If you believe Mrs. Clinton is a "moral compass" you need your freakin head examined.

On your next post: Iraq is the result of your government, the President, Congress, the checks and balances, that people seem to have forgotten about. The same "Democracy in action" that re-elected the President for a second term.

Perhaps if you didn't support total losers like Kerry, or Clinton, you might get some of your moonbat ideas implemented. God help us.

So what you're saying is th... (Below threshold)

So what you're saying is that Bill Clinton lack of morals empowered the poor Ken Starr? Ken Starr is a pervert because Bill Clinton didn't have a humidor? Ken Starr made Bill Clinton do several version of "it"on numerous occasions? We should feel sorry for Hillary because she made a poor personal decision when choosing slimebags to marry? And liberating millions of Iraqis from an undeniably cruel and murderous tyrant is wrong? The Iraqis we liberated and brought democracy to are all rich? We have children serving in Iraq? You failed the moral compass test, I'm blaming it on your choice of teachers....

<a href="http://www.seeingt... (Below threshold)

What about this?
Clinton strikes terrorist bases

THE United States launched cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan yesterday against centres allegedly linked with the terrorist bombings of two American embassies.

... With about 75 missiles timed to explode simultaneously in unsuspecting countries on two continents, the operation was the most formidable U.S. military assault ever against a private sponsor of terrorism.

Yep, another liberal idea t... (Below threshold)

Yep, another liberal idea that if you ignore the facts the can justify your twisted reasoning. Here's why that fails any reasonable test:

"Three days after admitting a sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton authorized cruise-missile attacks on suspected terrorist sites in Afghanistan and Sudan. Was this attack intended to divert attention from Monicagate?"

"Aug. 17, 1998: President Bill Clinton becomes the first sitting president to testify before a grand jury investigating his conduct. After the questioning at the White House is finished, Clinton goes on national TV to admit he had an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky."

So Clinton fired the missiles 3 days after he admitted he was responsible for a stain on Monica's dress, August 20th 1998. He did nothing about information given him 25 months earlier until he needed to play a little CYA:

" State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show."

You think it's valid to complain about republicans accusing Clinton "wagging the dog"? How effective was that missile attack? Face it, Clinton could have and should have acted on the information in 1996, not 1998. Because he was otherwise occupied he didn't see any need to do it. I doubt a single missile would have been fired if it wasn't for Zippergate.

bullwinkle-My teache... (Below threshold)

My teachers were nuns and dedicated Catholic educators who taught that our role as good Christians is to care for and be responsible for the poor, the oppressed, and the infirmed. We also learned that forgiveness and not judging is key to our salvation. You should stop judging Bill Clinton.

I did not say that Bill Clinton was virtuous or moral. I did say that Hillary will put our country back on a more moral path when she is president than the path we are on today.

I did not say that Bill Clinton caused Ken Starr to become a voyueristic pervert like Pee Wee Herman. He did it by prying into Clinton's PERSONAL LIFE. Clinton did not invite him to watch or participate. It is like trying to blame the movie for Pee Wee's indiscretions. The difference is Pee Wee bought a ticket. Starr made all of us pay for his perverted voyuerism.

I don't think you should support Hillary because she had to deal with infidelity. You should support her because of her character and leadership on important issues.

The decision to change the regime in Iraq was a political decision not a security decision. If Iraq ends up as a democracy and the Iraqi people are free from oppression that will be a good thing. It does not make up for the dead Americans who went to fight on false pretenses. We should try to make lemonade out of the sour bitter lemons of Bush's ill-conceived and immoral decision to pick a fight with Iraq. Iraqi freedom and democracy will be the lemonade.

Finally, I did not say that we are sending children to Iraq as in little children. The children I reference are the offspring of other humans. For example, you are your parents child. If you had a brother or sister, then together you would be your parent's children. If you and your sibling went to Iraq and got killed you would be some of the children that I refer to in my previous post. I hope that doesn't happen to you or to your offspring.

I am trying to make my posts as succinct and as clear as possible. Read them for what they say and not what you want to read into them. We disagree politically I think. But there is no need to distort and exaggerate what I have written.

For Clinton, it all just ke... (Below threshold)

For Clinton, it all just keeps coming to a head........

John -

Put the kool-aid back in the fridge. In fact, just pour it down the drain. Clinton has been a liar for decades. Before he was President, before he was governor. And like any liar, they have to believe the lie themselves. Soon, they don't know what is truth or the lie. Partly because most lies contain an element of truth. But that's another topic. The fact remains that Clinton was distracted. The only ball he had his eye on were his own bouncing off of....I'll stop.

Regardless of whether he was caught or not, regardless of the fact that he then had to exert further effort to conceal his activities, regardless of the morality of any of it, he was distracted. The fact that he was engaged in a pursuit that required conspired active deception, on many many levels, is what forced him to look away from the duties of his office. And, in my humble opinion, that is reprehensible. Then, the denials - read "more lies".

I would like to go on to address the rest of the topics you raise in your responses but the digression would be infinite. The topic was Clinton letting Bin Laden slip away not Bush stopping terrorism or 9/11 or Iraq.

And why is it that when a topic is raised that anti-Bush folks just start spraying assertions around like the entrails of a suicide bomber? Are they trying to see what sticks? Is it a game of trying to repeat it enough times then maybe they'll believe it? Or is it simply a way to distract and keep things out of focus? Or are they just pissed off? There I go digressing again.

So please, enlighten me all knowing sayer - Why is it that going into Afghanistan to get rid of the Taleban was good but going into Iraq to get rid of Saddam was bad?


You think? BTW I'm Jewish, ... (Below threshold)

You think? BTW I'm Jewish, that gives me the latitude to call a scumbag a scumbag and not feel guilty about it and it doesn't mean I should accept a scumbag as my moral compass. If I ever do start feeling guilty about I'll just find a priest and confess, tell him a Catholic did it.

I guess Bill Clinton's lega... (Below threshold)

I guess Bill Clinton's legacy can now be summed up as "I woulda...[had I only known] coulda...[but didn't] shoulda." Well scratch "shoulda". I doubt there are many of those that he'd state in the media.

Bullwinkle-If it mak... (Below threshold)

If it makes you feel better to call Bill Clinton a scumbag call him a scumbag. Forget about him. Our future is with Hillary. She can lead us back to a higher ground. I am not asking you to accept her or Jesus as your personal savior. I am just trying to give you a hand out of the muck. BTW I am not a Jew hating Catholic like Mel Gibson. I respect all faiths that adhere to the basic principles of human dignity. You guys bought into the Old Testament just didn't care for the sequel. I respect that. Some people liked Godfather 1 better than Godfather 2. We can both agree that Godfather 3 was not so good.

Clinton was not distracted by Lewinsky. He was distracted by the pervert Ken Starr. I do not believe that it caused him to do a poor job as President. When he left office he had a higher job approval rating than Bush has right now.

Afghanistan was a war to eliminate the Taliban and Bin Laden who were responsible for attacking us on 9/11. That was not a political choice it was a security decision. The cost of American lives to preserve our freedom is weighed on a different scale.

I am not all knowing. If I was I would not have to work for a living. Its too easy to blame Clinton or Bush II for Bin Laden. In reality, we need to look at Reagan and Rumsfeld during the Russian Afghanistan War and the first Iraqi War with Bush 1 to explain Bin Laden.

If it was right to finish off Saddam then why didn't Bush 1 do it? That was a rhetorical question. The rhetorical answer is that it wasn't worth the risk to American soldiers in the political equation. Bush 1 made the right choice as unpleasant as it was.

I hate to think where you a... (Below threshold)

I hate to think where you are located right now if Hillary can lead you to higher ground. Must be the bottom of a well in Death Valley. I personally don't believe she could lead hungry wolves to fresh meat and there's certainly no proof to the contrary. What exactly has she lead? What are her accomplishments short of being incapable of selecting a decent husband and then relying on his legacy to become the carpetbagging senator from a state she never bothered to live in before running for the office? Can't you admit that she got elected solely by name association? What effective legislation has she introduced and passed in her career as a senator? Don't hesitate to list it all, I can spare 15 seconds from my busy schedule to read it.

Just my luck, I issued a ch... (Below threshold)

Just my luck, I issued a challenge to the slowest typist in the world. Now I gotta keep checking back all night....

Hey Bullwinkle-I rep... (Below threshold)

Hey Bullwinkle-
I report to a higher authority and she wants me to do her bidding for awhile. I will try to get back later tonite. Sorry for the delay. Its just my luck when I am about to save another soul dishes and homework get in the way. I think I have you on the fence. H08

To expand on my earlier pos... (Below threshold)

To expand on my earlier post at August 17, 2005 11:05 AM:

"Although Ashcroft testified he had not seen an actual copy [of the March 2000 Millennium After Action Review written by Richard Clarke], somehow its contents was known by him in April 04 when he testified."

Ashcroft had not seen it prior to 9/11/01. But by the time of his testimony to the 9/11 Commission in April 2004, he had. [See Mark Levin's 4/15/04 article.]

Perhaps Berger's Sept-Oct 2003 thefts and subsequent Justice Dept. criminal investigation brought it to light for the first time? The data the Clinton cabal tried so hard to hide, exposed by the very act of hiding it!

My point was simply that Cl... (Below threshold)

My point was simply that Clinton was distracted. And name calling of Mr. Starr, really. Why does it always go to name calling. Mr. Starr was only doing his job. I'm sure he was being as thorough as anyone else would have been. And he how quickly it is ignored that he wouldn't of had to delve into the sorted, inappropriate and distasteful behavior of our President if said President were focused on his job instead of the one he was receiving.

Hillary. What's that supposed to be. Bill 2?!? As they say in New York - Forget about it! She has no moral fiber. She is more insidious than Bill. She jumped on his band wagon and never got off. Even after being repeatedly and repeatedly dishonored and humiliated by Bill's indiscretions. This is a wise person? An honorable person? Someone I would leave my fate to? I think not. But it's just "turn the other check" I suppose. Good Catholic. Me too.

And what has she done with her opportunities to better this country? Wasn't she going to fix the medical system back when Bill was steering the ship? Failed. And what has she done as a Senator other than campaign? Hell, even Bill isn't on that bus. The only thing that she has been able to make over was her face.

Now don't get me wrong. They do work well as a team. They were quite successful in making that Whitewater thing go away. A star(r) for you both. And what about all those many, many people with ties to Whitewater that mysteriously met their fate. So timely for the Clintons. No, I'm sorry. That's rude. Those we close, personal friends and business associates. It must have been devastating to have to deal it all. The passing of friends, the investigations into Whitewater and Zippergate, the endless right-wing attacks, the media, the pressures of the Presidency and living in the White House. Not to mention an adolescent daughter to raise. Hillary must have just internalized it while Bill just let it fly.

Oh, I just crack myself up!

Bill's gone. Won't be back. Hillary will forever be an also-ran in the DNC. Stick to your guns John. Hope is all we have sometimes.


That's not me on the fence ... (Below threshold)

That's not me on the fence John, that's you on the ropes, winded from a fruitless search for one single accomplishment of Hillary's. Might as well throw in the towel, you lost before you started.

Hee, bullwinkle, it's all a... (Below threshold)

Hee, bullwinkle, it's all a game of distraction, distraction on the part of the culprits. They think if they scream loud enough, long enough, we'll look away.

In memoriam of Elvis...
"If they're lookin' for trouble,
they've come to the right place!"

Re Berger's theft of approx... (Below threshold)

Re Berger's theft of approximately 50 documents: that must have been quite a shopping list.

By comparing Mark Levin's article with descriptions of the 15-page Clarke memo stolen by Berger (all linked above), we now know that stolen March 2000 "Millennium After Action Review" included data on the 12/14/99 arrest of Al Qaeda terrorist Ahmed Ressam at the Canadian/US border by a bright border patrol official. She single-handedly prevented a terrorist bombing of LAX. So Ressam was arrested in 1999. He was part of coordinated millennium terror plots such as the failed attempt to bomb the USS Sullivan in Yemen on 1/3/00. (10/12/00 attack on USS Cole then succeeded.)

By 2001, before 9/11, Ressam starts spilling his guts on sleeper cells in the US. Why did the Clinton administration not get that data from him as early as 1999? Or did they, and then suppressed it? Is that what was in the stolen "Millennium After Action Review"?

During that same period, 1999-2000, the Able Danger staff discovered Al Qaeda sleeper cells within the US. We now know their data was suppressed.

In 1999 Iraq made overtures to buy uranium from Niger, as Wilson himself admitted. (Italy first reported it to the US before Wilson ever went on his Feb 02 Niger fact-hiding trip.) If the pro-terrorist CIA faction had not obstructed proper investigation with their "French" forged Niger docs, and the murder of Danny Pearl who was investigating the other end of the uranium & technology transfers to Al Qaeda via Pakistan, who knows what else may have been preventable. Hopefully, it's not too late.

As Mark Levin wrote, it's time the public be told what was in that March 2000 Millennium After Action Review that the Clinton cabal so desperately tried to hide. But most importantly, let the corruption be cleaned out of our security agencies, especially the CIA and State Dept., and those responsible at the top for causing it, be indicted.

[Links to earlier research by Wizbang commenters AD and BR on these subjects, here.]

Clinton seemed distracted b... (Below threshold)

Clinton seemed distracted by the inappropriate prying into his personal life in the same way most people are distracted by flies at a picnic. It did not stop him from enjoying himself and it didn't stop him from being a good president. It didn't cause him to miss Bin Laden. If Bin Laden was so easy to stop why haven't we found him with Bush's approach. He is a tough guy.

My message is different than yours. Its based on the obvious facts. I am not obsfucating reality. We have poor people in the United States that need our help. We have sick people - decent people- who cannot care for themselves because they can't get insurance or affordable health care. They need our help. We are putting young American soldiers in harms way to pay the price of poor political decisions. Many of them have died. Don't get me wrong we are locked in for the long haul in Iraq. The initial decision was not justifiable but it is equally unjustified to walk away. At the same time - We cannot afford to aggressively assist people with adoption but we will spend millions to change the rules on abortion. I am against abortion but I am in favor of making sure babies live with people that want to raise them. If someone gets pregnant and doesn't want the child we need to find a place for that child. We cannot make someone want that child anymore than I can convince you to vote for Hillary. She speaks to these issues in a sensible and sensitive way. If my message seems to be loud maybe you should listen. If you think it is distracting -understand it- and be distracted.

Four times last Fall i went to high school football games where dead children who had played in the past few years there honored for being dead in Bush's political war. When I look at my boys and imagine them dead because of Bush's war I get angry. When I think of Cindy Sheehan and the moms and dads at those football games I am truly saddened.

If you believe it is a noble cause tell me that you would be willing to sacrifice your son or daughter so that Iraq can be where it is. If you say you would I will call you a liar. If you change the subject you are a fraud. If you say no help me and others find a better alternative to Bush. We were lucky to have Bill Clinton as president.

RE: john's post (August 18,... (Below threshold)

RE: john's post (August 18, 2005 12:12 AM)

john, you're giving me a headache. I don't know which comment causes the worst pounding, but this one seems pretty good:

If you believe it is a noble cause tell me that you would be willing to sacrifice your son or daughter so that Iraq can be where it is. If you say you would I will call you a liar.

I can no more "sacrifice" a son or daughter as Bill Clinton can tell the truth. We have a VOLUNTEER military of ADULTS. They choose for themselves what is noble which is what makes our military so special. If I had a son or daughter serving in our military (I choose to keep this impersonal/anonymous and not disclose whether I do, don't, or am even of age to have mature kids or grandkids), I cannot think of a decision that would make me more proud. Other professions are certainly worthy and meritable... but I would not endure the slightest hesitation in endorsing my offspring's voluntary service in our military whether it be Bosnia, South Korea, Germany, Somalia, Afghanistan or, egads, Iraq. However, it would matter not one whit what I thought. The soldier volunteers. There is no altar. There is no knife. There are no sheep. There IS a patriot.

Well, back to your Starr fetish and Clinton lovefest.

If you can't find any of Hi... (Below threshold)

If you can't find any of Hillary's accomplishments to list just say so. There's no need to rehash what's already been claimed about Starr digging into Clinton's sex life. That's already been proven to have happened after he got the information that he didn't act on. You've totally sidestepped my questions and and tried to distract us, that's just plain dishonest. You're going to owe some Hail Marys and Our Fathers for that one John, you're moral compass has failed you again.

BR: the <a href="http://co... (Below threshold)

BR: the NRO linked information I'd intended looks like it scrolled quickly off that page due to frequent updates.

I have a copy of it saved to document but I am not sure I can reprint it here given the copyright restrictions, and Wizbang's policy as to not reprinting protected content.

IF you can go to that link at NRO and locate a section by John Podhoretz called, "OKAY, HERE IT IS," that's the portion I was referring to here earlier. Pretty much sums up the essence of the events of late as to Clinton and Janet Reno's suppression of the military intelligence information.

I am also willing to bet th... (Below threshold)

I am also willing to bet that Sandy Burger Pants was busy trying to "borrow" unloanable classified documents because others wearing Pants and Pantlettes knew what was coming otherwise.

O.K., reading on through th... (Below threshold)

O.K., reading on through the comments, I see BR has already noticed the Sandy Burger Pants rip.

O.K., I've now read through... (Below threshold)

O.K., I've now read through the later commments (bullwinkle, BR, Jim, eLarson, AnonymousDrivel, pvaughen...) and I feel compelled to make this observation:

-- Clinton's seemingly now being DEFENDED by his apologists BECAUSE he launched missiles? But President Bush (and us conservatives) are being flamed because we support the War in Iraq, and the War on Terrorism? But the Left reviles "war," but Clinton fired his missiles, but the Left wants peace, but Clinton was busy, but the economy was good under Clinton but the economy is better under President Bush and that's bad...

Clinton singlehandedly deconstructed, or tried to, the U.S. Military. He reduced funding overall, eliminated troops, reduced recruitment...IF he has ANY legacy in any "constructive" (his perspective, not mine) fashion as President it is that he deconstructed (tried to) the U.S. Military, because we "no longer needed" a large defense (his words were very close to that, if not those, although this morning I don't have an exact quote).

Clinton allowed U.S.military to be truly butchered in Kosovo out of deflection to the bombastic U.N., which tells you where Clinton's loyalties were and probably still are, what with him now hyped as possible new head of that organization (few find that matchup startling, I dare to guess).

And, just think, if Gore had landed in the White House (thank God he did not), the Left would have had him to blame for the "bad economy" just as it was tanking in Clinton's final years in the Executive. But, no, same conditions, different Admininstration by different party and the Left instead blames Bush for a bad economy that is now better than it ever was while Clinton was in office.

Just saying here, there are a lot among the Left who seem to believe the spin and memes and have no firsthand familiarity or knowledge about the actual events of the first Bush White House after Reagan, or even of the Reagan years, and seem to have immortalized Clinton based upon what they're reading written by other people who also have no firsthand experience, etc. It's as if the Left has just created a nice tidy world out of thin air and called that "the Clinton Golden Age" or something similarly ludicrous, out of touch with what actually took place during Clinton in the W.H.

I continue to read that it was the fault of Republicans who "attacked" Clinton due to Clinton's sexual behaviors...I mean, that was the final evidence of a man with bad morals and poor character, but it was not the reason. I can tell you, however, that the exposure of Clinton's stupidity was the eye opener for me about just who was in the Presidency...I could barely look at him after that "I did not have sex with that woman..." appearance, so obvioulsy lying.

It wasn't that Clinton had "sex" (or not "sex") (but, jiminy he had sex with Lewinsky) but that that was the final straw of him dallying around with such huge issues taken into demeanment. Hearing Clinton now on his expensive speaking tours is a sad thing to behold.

And Hillary? The only moral authority she ever had she lost when she danced on the beach and ponied back up to "the cute guy." Give.me.a.break. They deserve each other. America does not.

Now as I stated befo... (Below threshold)

Now as I stated before, I was raised Catholic. Irish-Catholic. Hardcore. Nuns in grade school, Jesuits in high school and college. I don't equivocate. You're preaching to the choir. I don't accept failures of "personality". That's bullshit frankly. I was raised to be a man that took responsibility for my actions. I was raised to do the right thing first. To respect others and to respect what I was given. I was raised to work (read "earn") what I receive and to appreciate it. I was also raised with the idea that one should help their fellow man. And I do I know are those less fortunate.

While you washed your dishes tonight and were helping tutor your offspring, I wonder if you had considered that. You suggest that we should drop everything and focus on the fact that there are poorer and less fortunate people in OUR country the truely need assistance. I couldn't agree with you more that they need our assisatnce. But the issues run deeper than who is in office.

People are living on the door step of my office. Ther are several steps that lead to a nice sheltered area at the door. There are services out there that can provide them with a bed and meals, but they decline. In fact, one is right across the street. They live on the door step because they don't want to participate in society. They don't need to. They have you and everyone that hands the change from their ashtray. You know, it's the only time I wished more people smoked.

"Men for others!" I was told. Yeah, nice slogan. I got off the bus when the people I was trying to help said "I'm voting to Clinton". No that was cheap. I'm sorry. But really, I got off the bus when the people I was trying to help found a more profitable way by using the system. I never said they were stupid! And neither are you!

I wouldn't begin to suggest that the issues of poor people in our country can be fixed by the person in office. That is no their job. That is the job of the Congress. They need to create law, not hand outs. When did it become a bully-pulpit. Petulant, spoiled children. I know politics is politics but really.

John, you said:

"Clinton seemed distracted by the inappropriate prying into his personal life in the same way most people are distracted by flies at a picnic." First of all, the inappropriate part what that he had an affair. And my point was that the lying is second nature to him. Your suggestion that because it is so common for him that an affair would not be distractingis not only disturbing but dis graceful?

And how can you be a True Catholic if you are down with the party the finds it acceptable to terminate a fetus? Cold ain't it!?!

I have three brothers. A fireman, a fed and a Marine. The fireman works in a major US city. The fed, and former Marine and Border Pator Agent, works for I.C.E. (Immigration, Customs Enforcement - part of Homeland Security). He kicks a-holes out of the country. The Marine is a Marine. Has been for twenty years. He has been through both Bushes and Clinton. He has been to Saudi Arabia and Iraq a few times. He trained some of those who have been killed. He was in Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He was most recently in Iraq last year. I know many military personel who consider it an honor to do what they do. I know an Army commander who was in a Humvee that got hit by an RPG. It killed the man behind him and left him nearly dead with shrapnel wounds to his arms, legs, torso and head. His hearing is severly diminished. He spent nearly a year recovering. Guess where he is now......Iraq. How do they do that? Freaks me out! I'm an architect. I don't get the motivation. But I understand the person; the purpose.

Maybe you don't. It's not about our willingness to kill them. Its about their willingness to kill indescriminently. They don't want stability. Until they do, we are all at risk no matter where we are.


Oh, my humblest apologies f... (Below threshold)

Oh, my humblest apologies for not knowing exactly what your president was doing on a particular day in 1996... obviously that's the sort of thing everyone should know.

And I'm not a "liberal", so you can stop applying your stereotypes to me, OK?

Pvaughn-It is amazin... (Below threshold)

It is amazing that we have such similar backgrounds and come to such different conclusions.

I am a very conservative democrat. I do not support the party position on abortion. I made that clear above. I think that people have to make choices and be accountable. You and i were fortunate to be born to parents who were mentally, physically and fiscally able to give us everything we have used to succeed. I know you know better than to think the poor people who "live" at your doorstep do it by choice.

If you do not aggressively support the programs necessary to help the poor and unwanted children that are not aborted today, the problem will mushroom out of control when abortion is no longer the norm.

The majority of abortions are not middle class white mothers they are poor minorities who don't have any prospect for their own lives let alone the life of their unborn child. Studies have shown the easiest way to stop abortion is to provide alternatives.

We spend billions in corporate welfare allowing businesses to shelter profits offshore. We allow corporate executives to rape and pillage the pensions of workers who built their wealth. We have Congress worried about steroids in baseball and for all their "Christian fervor" the best we get from this administration is leave it to the private sector to care for the poor etc.

John McCain is the exception. He adopted an orphaned child that was darker than him and the Bush used that and race baiting to beat him in the South Carolina primary.

The history of failed social programs are as long as the failed foreign policy we have today. Dems and Reps. You are right it doesn't matter who is in office. Neither party has given a truly moral man that we should be proud to follow to church. I will be the role model for my children. I want the government to adhere to Judeo/Christian principles that guides or laws and programs to support what is going to improve conditions for our most poor.

We are closing mental hospitals and putting those people on the street. The bad cases end up in prison. The guy on your doorstep is probably one of those who should be hospitalized not criminalized. Certainly it is not his expression of rugged individualism.

We are building more and more prisons to accomodate the growing number of "criminals". A significant amount of the crime that has landed them in prison is related to drug addiction and drug use. If it is our children or Rush Limbaugh they end up in a treatment facility and go back to prosperous lives. If they are poor minorities they go to prison with no hope of ever prospering.

I don't have the answer but it isn't in Iraq and it isn't the brand of wicked mean spirited "christianity" being touted by the current administration and Congress.

I will switch when I see meaningful support for adoption and the end of race baiting by the republican party.

When Bill Frist can see life in Terry Schaivo but can't see his way to support family services to aid adoption it is clear that leadership is blind to Christian values.

You seem like a thoughtful guy. We both have work to do in our respective parties. Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle. The Dems are bad in other areas. I can take that for now because I feel the core issues are better addressed by them. Peace

pvaughn-About the Ir... (Below threshold)

About the Iraqi War...When I say it was a political decision rather than a security decision I mean the decision was based on the policy that a potential democracy is better than a contained tyrant and the financial and human cost to America must be weighed against the potential benefit of that democracy. I do not think it is worth throwing away volunteer soldiers or conscripted soldiers to effect the regime change. We are far from certain whether life will better in Iraq in the long run. The liberation of Iraq opens Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria to many years of destabilized governments -democratic or otherwise. The ethnic tribes that were cut to pieces when those states were originally created still exist. Without cooperation in the area from those other countries the Kurds, Baathe, and Shiites and a few other groups will try to develop self rule and defeat the political entities we are trying to create. There is no incentive for a Turkish Kurd to remain loyal to Turkey when there is the prospect of an oil rich Kurdistan if they can wage a successful civil war. Why will the Iraqi Kurds "naturally" embrace the Baathist's who tried to eradicate them under Saddam. In all that turmoil which is inevitable and present today we have created a breeding ground for terrorism that will be much harder to contain than Saddam. We can't just wave our flag and say democracy and expect it to stick. We have a short history with our democracy and we have our problems being inclusive with minorities and mostly we want to be inclusive. The political states in Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria only been around since the 1920s when Britain abandoned their colonial rule. Before that the Kurds, Baathists, and Shiites had a thousand years to fight each other and develop their identities as nation states. Our attempt at democracy in a part of that region does not take into account the true nationalism and legitimate interests of those people. Especially since the groups exist across the political boundaries of other sovereign nations.

There is a reason Bush 1 did not fight this good fight. The cost to America without world support and participation is too great. Our soldiers are not supposed to question the decisions made by our political leaders. They are doing what they are told to do. Their voluntary sacrifice for the wrong cause is still noble. Their voluntary sacrifice does not make the cause noble.

In addition, we are not asking our military to fight a war in Iraq at this point. We are asking them to be the security police force and bear the brunt of attacks rather than inflicting them. Our soldiers are not trained to do that.

Its a lot like asking you as an architect to build a daycare on a toxic land fill only you have to be the engineer and contractor as well. I am sure that the design would be superior, the engineering would be adequate - I assume you are not a trained engineer or contractor for purposes of this example - and the construction might be okay. Just because it is well designed does not mean it is well placed. Just because you can muddle through the engineering and construction does not mean you are the best person to do that job.

Iraq is a toxic land fill and we are asking soldiers to do things they are not trained to do.

In the end the ill-conceived political war in Iraq will not be worth the cost.

When I suggest you think about one of your children being sacrificed for this cause is it worth it? I am trying to take it from the abstract of someone elses child and sacrifice and see if the political answer still works. For me it does not.

The service and sacrifice will always be noble but that has nothing to do with cause.

I agree with John.... (Below threshold)

I agree with John.

This war was a political choice and not a security imperative. Comparing the morality of a sex act between two consenting adults to the deaths of 100,000+ Iraqis and almost 2000 Americans is bizarre and symptomatic of the right wing as represented by Smirky the Lesser and his cohorts.

The selectivity of facts surrounding many of these arguments that Clinton is responsible for 9/11 is astounding. Let's not forget that Osama was created in large part by the US under Ronnie Raygun. Let's not forget that Smirky and Condi were give SPECIFIC warning in August 2001 that Al Queda was going FLY PLANES INTO BUILDINGS. In fact, I think that Smirky looks far worse than Clinton for not capturing Osama. Many of you are in such deep denial about this President, I am surprised your heads don't explode. Where are the sane Republicans I used to know? Where is the small government, isolationist GOP? WHy are we nation building when Smirky promised not to do that?

"Clinton Ignored Bin Lad... (Below threshold)

"Clinton Ignored Bin Laden Warning During Lewinsky Affair"
Bush Ignored Specific Bin Laden Warnings During August 2001's Annual Vacation and Brush Clearing Photo-Op Tour
I'm no Clinton fan either guys, but not everything is the fault of his libido.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy