Remember the Cole

[Guest]

Bill and the Clintonistas are scrambling for damage control about their lack of attention to Osama bin Laden throughout the 90's. Clinton started worrying about his legacy about 43 seconds after he took the oath of office. Now he’s very worried that history will pile much of the blame on him for the September 11 attacks.

So, what’s Clinton’s defense? Word is that he was worried about a loss of American life that would result from any wholesale offensive against Bin Laden. He also wasn’t sure the American people would back a strong military acton.

Know what? He’s probably right. Clinton’s inability to do something about terrorism and Bin Laden is rooted not in policy developed while he was president, but in his status as a draft dodger – a man who lied to those who trusted him to avoid the draft – and as a person who wrote of his loathing for the military. This is not a good foundation on which to build military leadership.

Clinton is floating various face-saving defenses. How about this quote? "I tried to take Mr. bin Laden out of the picture for the last 4 years-plus I was in office and before any Americans had been killed by him. I don't think I was either stupid or inattentive, so he is a formidable adversary."

Amazing! Here we have a former president having to step forward and claim that he wasn’t stupid! Not that’s a first.

This morning Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, appeared on CNN. When asked about Clinton’s failures in addressing terrorism she turned the tables ---- and seemed to blame Bush? After all, he’s been in office from January to September, and just what has HE done?

Some people – especially Clinton fans – might step up now and say that we need to look forward, not behind us … and that all of this finger pointing is just a continuation of right-wing Clinton bashing. Well, as the old saying goes, you must learn from history or you are bound to repeat it. The history here is plain. Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States and all Americans, military and civilian, about one month after Clinton took office (The first bombing of the World Trade Towers). We responded to his uppercuts with ineffective jabs .. and he finally landed a real blow. We can never again take threats from people like Bin Laden lightly … and we can never afford another president who does.

Now … for a good look at what Clinton did and did not do, here’s yesterday’s cover story from USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/acovmon.htm

 

[Problem Child]

That USA Today article is pretty good. Thanks Todd.

 

[Weevil]

Clinton’s inability to do something about terrorism and Bin Laden is rooted not in policy developed while he was president, but in his status as a draft dodger – a man who lied to those who trusted him to avoid the draft – and as a person who wrote of his loathing for the military. This is not a good foundation on which to build military leadership.

Hold the phone, a president who doesn't actively serve in the military? What in the world!? Well, at least that won't happen again.

 

[lavender]

 

[Weevil]

This is not a partisan thing. This was not brought on by Clinton or Bush. I could just as easily make the case that Bush Sr. and Jr. were instrumental in allowing something like this to happen. However, if you will read ALL of my posts since September 11th, I have remained extremely non partisan about this whole thing. Most rational posters on this board have.

Don't blame Clinton for September 11th. First, it's in incredibly bad taste. Secondly, it's blatantly false. Third, go fuck yourself.

Damnit, Lav why you gots to be are seriousness when jocularity is the best weapon? Ah phooey.

Fuck it, Bush Sr. allowing this to happen? How about being pretty friggin (in)directly responsible for funding these goons in the first place? But jeezum crow why bitch slap at a time like this amongst your fellows. You'd have to be a pretty sad Mofo or Jerry Falwell(and if that isn't redundant, then, well, whatever) to want to say "This is all your fault"

 

[pabloback]

i believe that by not taking saddam out during the gulf war it sent a message that the west would not take out terrorists in middle eastern countries . this time the west MUST take out binladen .even if it takes years the message must be there is no hiding place

 

[Problem Child]

I felt the collateral damage from that "go fuck yourself". (paste smilie here).

The opinion is obviously Boortz, and I agree it's biased and unfair. I thought the USA today article was more balanced, and shed a lot of light on what many past administrations have and haven't done regarding terrorism. I think the way we slinked out of Somalia was a disgrace, and Clinton's handling of the military overall was disappointing to me to put it mildly, and his bombing of the aspirin factory in the Sudan was pure wag the dog.

On the other hand, Reagan had a rather poor record on combating terrorism, especially regarding the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon. He redeemed himself somewhat with the strike on Libya.

I don't blame Clinton or any past president for Sept. 11th. I am a little tired of Clinton's repeated explanations that he did everything he could. Shut up already.