28 Comments

1. David Thomson:

ìWhat he should tell his party, including his wife, is to come up with some concrete plans how to handle Ahmadinejad, et al.î

This is simply not going to happen. At the very best, Hillary Clinton might utter some banal comments about ìworking more closely with our allies.î Other than that, she is in a treacherous Catch 22 predicament. The disingenuous pacifists are too entrenched within the Democratic Party. Senator Clinton has no hope whatsoever of getting their support if she tries moving to the center. They prefer candidates like Ned Lamont.

How bad are things with the Democrats? So-called center left Democrats Rahm Emanuel and Bruce Reed recently released their book, The Plan: Big Ideas for America. They didnít devote a whole chapter to terrorism until page 148! The subject almost seems like an afterthought.

Sep 22, 2006 - 7:56 pm 2. Captain Hate:

Expecting Clinton to keep his big yap shut is totally out of the question. But to do something for the benefit of his party or country???? What imaginary occurance is this based on?

Is that interview on this Sunday? Clinton lying through his teeth about his failings is always hilarious, plus it reveals his complete lack of character. Must see TV.

Sep 22, 2006 - 8:27 pm 3. mikem:

I don’t think Republicans have played the blame game anywhere near as often and with as much intensity as Democrats. Democrats seem to react to even the slightest hint that Bush is not entirely responsible for 9/11 with cries that Republicans are blaming them. Along with “How dare you question our patriotism?” as a response to any criticism about Dems on national security issues, this strawman is getting very old.
With that said, I understand that Clinton is responding to the movie, but after 5 years of derisive “Where’s Osama, George?”, you would think they wouldn’t scream so loud.

Sep 22, 2006 - 8:48 pm 4. Dale Gribble:

You’ll get your hydrogen powered car before you get democrats to fight back. After all, all you need for the car is a couple of hundred new nuclear power plants to produce hydrogen.

Sep 22, 2006 - 9:31 pm 5. ForNow:

After 9/11/01, many Dems, even some leftists (one told me sotto voce), felt relieved that Bush, not Gore, was President. This was not because of the thought of what Bush had been doing to protect the USA, but instead because of what Bush was going to do now — basically, kick butt. The Dems had few at the time who could have been expected to do that, and certainly not Gore. (Imagine the tension in a Gore-Lieberman administration about Iraq after a 9/11-type attack! I’ve wondered whether part of Gore’s dislike for Lieberman has been because of the thought of what a VP Lieberman would have done, e.g., a public rift.)

Anyway, in the “normal” course of things, some Dem pols could have been expected to rise to the new situation, accompanied by a new valorization of serious military and strategic studies for talented young Dem activists, etc. But instead the Dem left felt the still surviving and cherished Vietnam Syndrome to be imperiled, and has worked like the dickens to morph it into an Iraq Syndrome and, in particular, has demonized, with indeed demonic intensity, the neo-cons who are the Dems’ own former Scoop Jackson wing. On the other hand, if a significant portion of the Dem pols are on the verge of seriousness about Iran, then I certainly don’t want to discourage them. But the time grows short and the Dem fundamentals are not in place. Even when real dangers are recognized, the “blame-Bush” reflex is activated and dominates discussion; it’s the emotional glue of the otherwise divided left; it’s pressed into service as compass and lodestar when multiculturalism is too ersatz to compensate for the collapse of socialist theory. The lib “narrative” of the past five and ten years is so different, there are so many things (like the Proliferation Security Initiative) unknown to many of them, that it’s difficult to talk at all. For my part I’ve just kept pointing to the dangers and evils which we face — Iran, Shari’a, terrorism gradually armed with more powerful weapons.

Sep 22, 2006 - 10:04 pm 6. Terrye:

I saw a snippet of the interview with Clinton and there he is going on about he at least tried to get Osama which is more than the right wingers can say for the first 8 months they were running things. 8 months, he actually said that.

I have never heard Bush say anything about Clinton’s failure to get Osama. However, I have heard plenty of Democrats go on and on and on about Bush’s failure to get Osama, stop 9/11, make friends, etc.

Watching Clinton sit there and get all snarky and feign outraged indignation, when in truth all his own party has done thus far is bitch about the other party was…ironic. There is a lot of irony out there lately. Like Carter refusing to retire and instead getting out there in public and criticizing Bush, reminding us all that if only he had taken a risk or been bolder 30 years ago maybe we would not be dealing with the mad mullahs today.

It seems they are stuck in the 70’s.

Sep 23, 2006 - 2:44 am 7. HA:

The lesson from the Clinton era is not that he tried but failed to get Bin Laden. The lesson is that the law enforcement approach to terrorism failed. The problem for the Democrats is that they want to return to the law enforcment approach even after the failures of the Clinton administration. This explains their sensitivity on this issue, and why Clinton lost in this interview.

Sep 23, 2006 - 4:26 am 8. jedrury:

What I want to know, since we Americans are at the feet of the greatest politician of the 20th century [just ask Joe Klein], is what strategy are the Clintons employing here? Bubba interviews with Fox and explodes in outrage at the right wing suggestions that he was weak on terrorism. First let’s parse this. It is not the right wing alone. Lawrence Wright, a writer from the New Yorker, in his book “The Looming Tower,” makes the same charge. ABC and Disney in their recent movie make the same charge. So again, what are the Clintons doing here.

To every act, there is a purpose.

Sep 23, 2006 - 5:38 am 9. ahem:

Clinton’s downfall has always been his monumental ego. It screwed him before and it’s screwing him again. It’s a thing of Greek tragedy proportions.

Sep 23, 2006 - 5:46 am 10. Ray Zacek:

Greek tragedy? Oh come on, man. More like a little Southern potboiler penned by Tennessee Williams and directed by Elia Kazan.

Sep 23, 2006 - 6:21 am 11. patrick neid:

clinton has to live with the ongoing nightmare that 100 years from now he will only be remembered for a blue dress. it eats at him everyday. it causes him to travel the world giving ugly speeches about america in general and bush in particular. it leads his wife to stand at the podium after 9/11 holding the new york post in her hands asking when did bush know about 9/11 giving credibility to the now popular conspiracy theories.

it’s as if we are all witnessing clinton in a modern version of “Dorian Grey” glimpsing the mirror at odd moments. the recent 9/11 series was the most recent trigger.

Sep 23, 2006 - 7:07 am 12. Fausta:

I watched the Clinton video and heard him repeat his protestations of “I tried”.
As my friend used to say, “trying is not doing”.

Sep 23, 2006 - 7:53 am 13. Roger:

“To every act, there is a purpose.”

Yes, Jedrury, but that “purpose” can often be responding to one’s own neurotic impulses. Thatmay be operative here.

Sep 23, 2006 - 8:27 am 14. Mitch:

The French say “Qui s’excuse, s’accuse.” I think the American equivalent is “He who smelt it, dealt it.”

Sep 23, 2006 - 9:16 am 15. syn:

I know I blame myself for living the 1990’s in apathy despite the experience of living in Moscow Russia in 1991 where I heard all sorts of stuff about the Russian mafia in cohoots with Iran, Iraq, Syria and every other mid-eastern totalitarian state then returning to NYC in 1992 and a year later the WTC was bombed.

Instead of demanding my goverment do all that is necessary to protect America and her citizens I simply buried myself in the pursuit of self-serving narcisisstic theater; like most in this now absurd and worthless profession it was all about celebrity.

When I awoke Sept 11,2001 to an unprovoked yet devestating attack upon my fellow Americans I made a promise to myself to never return to that state of apathy again.

I joined a political party for the first time in my life, the one I chose was the party most prepared to deal with this war. After all that was said and done over the last five years I am relieved I did not join the Democrat Party.

Funny to me is that before 9/11 I was like most artists who believed that the Christians were simply uptight, intellectually stagnant puritans but then I broke away from the collective groupthink and recognized that it is the Christian who are most prepared to insure that liberty and freedom will survive the 21st century becasue they have always been the ones who have sacrificed the most so that I and all other artists could engage in the some self-serving narcissistic pursuit of ridiculous entertainment.

Sheeley once remarked that ‘the poet is the unacknowledged legislator’, well, these days the poet needs to get over its over-blown self and recognise it is part of the problem and not the solution.

Sep 23, 2006 - 9:34 am 16. Sandy P:

–As my friend used to say, “trying is not doing”.–

Do or Do not, there is no try……….Yoda

Not 100 years, Patrick, the Senate Judiciary files will be unsealed in 45 or less…….

Sep 23, 2006 - 9:34 am 17. Terrye:

Well the truth is no one was really on top of this a decade ago and that includes a lot of Republicans.

Sep 23, 2006 - 1:26 pm 18. Godzilla:

The most damning point in the snippet of the interview shown today on Fox is that Clinton’s remarks about the Cole. It IS true that he only had two months left in office at that point. And it IS true that Bush did nothing (overtly anyway) about the Cole during his first 8 months in office. But we saw what Bush did after 9/11.

And we do KNOW what Clinton did in his two terms, a full 7 years of which occurred after the first WTC bombing in 1993. Zilch. For 7 years, nothing but zilch. That little factoid is immutable, non-erradicable.

As is Waco. If Clinton’s adminstration had exerted one fifth the energy on chasing down leads after the WTC 93 bombing as they expended on pulverizing the Branch Davidians to smithereens, we would not have had a 9/11.

Clinton is nothing but a pathetic self-serving bastard. Being elected President does not change that. Consider the source that elected him, and that, what’s his name guy, the billionaire with all his charts running for president, stealing away votes (a good number of votes too, if I’m remembering correctly).

Sep 23, 2006 - 1:29 pm 19. Sissy Willis:

I think it depends upon what your definition of “as intelligent a he is” is . . .

Sep 23, 2006 - 3:08 pm 20. vnjagvet:

And the picture of Janet Reno’s Justice Department tracking down and taking possession of Elian Gonzales so he could be returned to Castro is another example of using federal resources for trivial pursuits.

Sep 23, 2006 - 3:15 pm 21. JBR:

Fair point on Janet Reno/Elian, but if that had not happened Al Gore would have been President on 9/11. So maybe we owe Janet Reno just a bit.

Sep 23, 2006 - 6:26 pm 22. Pierre Legrand:

Roger I am sorry but before you can work on keeping your eye on the ball you have to fix what got your eye off the ball. It is absolutely obscene that Tenet recieved the Freedom Medal. Trillions of dollars spent and a pick up gang of Angry Arabs took two of our tallest buildings down in the middle of our most powerful city, attacked our military headquarters and if it werent for the brave actions of a few regular citizens those same Angry Arabs would have directly attacked our capital. So we gave Tenet a medal…and we allowed Gorelick onto the 9/11 commission.

The idea that people should not be held responsible for their failure even when it seems unfair to some insures that more failures are on the way. After 9/11 the entire executive branch of the CIA, DIA, FBI and Justice Department should have been fired. And remember that Former Senator Moynihan suggested just that about the CIA. Yes it would have been unfair to some but the point would have gotten across, if you fail there will be a penalty. My god their failures led to our friends and neighbors jumping from burning buildings, fighting desperate fights in the Sky.

Sadly we won’t be serious about this war on terror/radical islam/extremism until a few more thousands of us die. This is a terrible thing to say but perhaps only if an attack on Washington succeeds will we see Washington actually get serious about fighting this war. Right now it isn’t their families dying, it isn’t their homes being destroyed, it doesn’t involve them outside getting re-elected. That just pisses me off…regardless of the label attached to the politician.

Sep 23, 2006 - 7:51 pm 23. Luther McLeod:

“The idea that people should not be held responsible for their failure even when it seems unfair to some insures that more failures are on the way.”

That is, among the largest fallacies of the last 60 years. There is always an excuse. A way to shirk responsibility. Craven and cowardly is what it is and what it should be called, but it is not.

Personal integrity, what a concept.

Sep 23, 2006 - 9:12 pm 24. Captain Hate:

This interview is even more hilarious than I thought possible; Whoreyweird should just pull that train-wreck of a remake of “All the King’s Men” and just show this real-life egomaniacal sociopath melting down in public. If the Donks don’t wake up and toss him away, they don’t deserve to be taken seriously as a major party.

Sep 24, 2006 - 6:18 am 25. jedrury:

I just watched the Clinton interview on the FOX news Sunday morning talkshow. He uses Richard Clarke as the gold standard of truth and accuracy which is always suspect. “Read Dick Clarke’s book,” he says repeatedly. I think not.

Beyond that, it is pure Clinton; half truths, bombast, mixed with a smary good old boy “awh shucks” attitude.

It is precisely for that reason that his elevation to First Husband is so toxic.
I am fed up with the big picture presidency. Nothing more exemplifies he and his ineffectual time in office as his appearance on the lawn of the White House with Arafat and Rabin; arms outstretched as they sit and sign some worthless piece of paper. Recall the hours that the world waited as he and Arafat and Barack dithered away at Wye Island and Camp David.

All big picture baloney.

Sep 24, 2006 - 7:03 am 26. markus:

jedrury — “”To every act, there is a purpose.”

First of all, let’s be honest and describe the act: the manhandling of a typical right-wing hack by the only top Democratic politician that has a clue about how to respond to Republican hit jobs in a way that sounds credible to swing voters.

Why?

1. Defend his presidency against previously unanswered attacks. You know, what successful politicians of all stripes do.

2. Neutralize growing liberal disillusionment with Hillary.

3. help Dems in the ‘06 cycle a bit, by neutralizing the GOP terrorism message.

He can sell the Democratic message better than any other Democrat alive. Basically, he manhandled Wallace.

Sep 25, 2006 - 8:17 am 27. Rick Ballard:

“Basically, he manhandled Wallace.”

Wallace is just lucky he’s not a woman, overwise the manhandling could easily have turned to rape – big tough Bill knows how to do that, too.

Sep 25, 2006 - 9:22 am 28. Neo:

CBS’s “Early Show,” September 25, 2006

Michael F. Scheuer, a 22-year veteran with the CIA, created and served as the chief of the agency’s Osama bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center. Scheuer is now known to be the anonymous author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror

Transcript of the relevant portion of the interview follows:

Harry Smith: “Elizabeth Palmer live in Pakistan this morning, thank you. I’m going to go back now to Michael Scheuer once again. Let’s talk about what President Clinton had to say on Fox yesterday. He basically laid blame at the feet of the CIA and the FBI for not being able to certify or verify that Osama bin Laden was responsible for a number of different attacks. Does that ring true to you?”

Michael Scheuer: “No, sir, I don’t think so. The president seems to be able, the former president seems to be able to deny facts with impugnity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That’s the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men and women who risk their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden.”

Harry Smith: “Alright, is the Bush administration any less responsible for not finishing the job in Tora Bora?”

Michael Scheuer: “Oh, I think there’s plenty of blame to go around, sir, but the fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration had one chance that they botched, and the Clinton Administration had eight to ten chances that they refused to try. At least at Tora Bora our forces were on the ground. We didn’t push the point. But it’s just, it’s an incredible kind of situation for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them.”

Harry Smith: “And, and, and with this also further revelation that, in fact, the war in Iraq has only exacerbated the terrorist situation. Michael Scheurer, we thank you so much for your time this morning.”

Sep 25, 2006 - 10:01 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: