The Clinton 'Bonfire Of Vanities'

'Nightmare' by Zhao Yannian (born in China 1924) 1989, Spencer Museum of Art, University of Kansas

 

I did not get a chance to write about the Bill Clinton/Chris Wallace interview on 'Fox News Sunday' (video), despite reading the transcript a couple of days ago and finally getting to watch the entire Fox program yesterday as opposed to the segment we all saw prior to the airing of the show.

I have mixed views on this, and was almost not going to take the ball and run with it, but being known for taking the bull by the horns despite being on the opposing side of certain issues, it's a difficult one to simply let slide, and besides, my readers have the opportunity to pulverize my arguments for a change of pace.

Whilst I appreciate that the entire conservative side of the Blogosphere has been spitting on Bill Clinton from a great height this weekend, I find too many inconsistencies in their criticisms to feel comfortable about standing behind them all the way on this one. And yes accusing Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job" is simply a part of the new raging 'culture of conspiracy', which the ex-President has fallen victim to, we shall have to put that aside.

The famous question from Chris Wallace that sent the former President into a spin was: "Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President.? There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called the Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops."

Well excuse me, since when do we give a hoot about what that monster of a human being says or thinks, unless it's to rearrange his sorry anatomy? Let's face it, ex-President or not, this is an infuriating question, obviously bringing up emotions greatly fueled by the assertions made in 'The Path to 9/11' ABC documentary. Especially if you feel that you have left "a comprehensive anti-terrorist strategy and the best guy in the country Richard Clark..." to carry it out, and for the next President to get on with.

We can all remember that we criticized his Administration at the time for being too obsessed with terrorism and bin-Laden. Despite conservative bloggers now quoting the U.S. Justice Indictment of bin-Laden dated 1998, to disprove Clinton's claim that "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." And yes, we all know how to read (from the Indictment):

At various times from in or about 1992 until the date of the filing of this Indictment, USAMA BIN LADEN and other ranking members of Al Qaeda stated privately to other members of Al Qaeda that the United States forces stationed in the Horn of Africa, including Somalia, should be attacked;

Beginning in or about early spring 1993, Al Qaeda members began to provide training and assistance to Somali tribes opposed to the United Nations intervention in Somalia;

On October 3 and 4, 1993, members of Al Qaeda participated with Somali tribesmen in an attack on United States military personnel serving in Somalia as part of Operation Restore Hope, which attack killed a total of 18 United States soldiers and wounded 73 others in Mogadishu;

We did not have a clue about al-Qaeda in October 1993, and "October 1993" is what Clinton repeatedly said and not November 4th 1998 when the Indictment came out, allowing all those years of hindsight and gathering of intelligence, accusing bin-Laden and al Qaeda's Muhammad Atef, of conspiring to kill Americans.

And yes, we knew about him in 1996 when he declared war on the U.S, and in 1998 when he bombed the embassies in Africa, and in 2000 when he hit USS Cole. But it is simply untrue that we knew about him in October 1993 when Black Hawk Down occurred. At the time we all thought that the Muslim war lord named Muhammad Adid, was murdering Pakistani Muslim troops in their thousands. We went in there with no agenda to establish new Governments or democracy, or investigate an at the time inconsequential bin-Laden, but simply to put Adid's nose out of joint, and eventually transfer power to the ever ineffective UN. As he quite rightly points out we also wanted a quick withdrawal, despite the ordeal having eventually taken six months at the insistence of his Administration.

For goodness sake does no one realize how the gathering of intelligence works. To quote an Indictment produced in November 1998 as proof, is simply naive.

In fact the conservatives and the entire military were jumping up and down when Clinton suggested the below, which he now of course does not mention was accompanied by an accusation by the opposition that he was attempting to divert attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. From the Wallace/Clinton transcript:

I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him. The CIA was run by George Tenet [...] The country never had a comprehensive anti terror operation until I came to office. If you can criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this, after the Cole I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full scale attack search for Bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan which we got after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred special forces in helicopters and refuel at night. Even the 9/11 Commission didn’t do that. Now the 9/11 Commission was a political document too. All I’m asking is if anybody wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book.

Well the Clinton defense "read Richard Clarke’s book" is much easier to challenge, as it simply shows a weak President unwilling to stand up against the U.S. Military, the FBI and the CIA, presumably overly preoccupied with the self-inflicted situation presented to him by the Lewinsky scandal. From the Richard Clark book, the very bible Clinton uses as his defense: 

Because of the intensity of the political opposition that Clinton engendered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in ‘Wag the Dog’ tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life. For similar reasons, he could not fire the recalcitrant FBI Director who had failed to fix the Bureau or to uncover terrorists in the United States. He had given the CIA unprecedented authority to go after bin Laden personally and al Qaeda, but had not taken steps when they did little or nothing. Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations they did not want to conduct. He had tried that in Somalia, and the military had made mistakes and blamed him. In the absence of a bigger provocation from al Qaeda to silence his critics, Clinton thought he could do no more. (h/t Powerline)

Clinton again reiterates in case we did not get it the first time round:

The entire military was against sending special forces in to Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise…We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. Until I left office.

No one can deny that Afghanistan is a 'Forgotten War', and that bothers me. But then am I conveniently using the 'hindsight gives me 20/20 vision' rule which is the very accusation I am hurling at us now.....

What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now I never criticized President Bush and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that think Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq.

We can blame Bill Clinton for not being a strong enough leader, to stand up to the military, the FBI and the CIA, who have all too long been a law unto themselves, but we cannot blame him for not trying. He may not have succeeded in killing bin-Laden, but in 'his mind' he did try.

The problem lies in what it is that he "tried" to do? He tried to 'persuade' them, instead of issuing a command as a Commander-In-Chief should, and the President of the U.S. is expected to do. It's the same 'stop or I'll say stop again' appeasement strategy the Democrats have in mind for dealing with the War on Terror, and Clinton's narcissistic display does not help us alleviate those fears.

Comments

[nofate]

"the net result of Dubya's choosing Iraq (war of choice) as the second military action in the war on terror is negative...Dubya never did anything right in his entire life, save for sobering up when he was 40." Implication being that Bill did? Right.

Roach: thanks for the link. Ann is beautiful.

"Osama bin Laden told "ABC News" in 1998 that America's humiliating retreat from Somalia emboldened his jihadists: "The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

The sad thing is, that it isn't the American soldier that is the paper tiger, that "ran in defeat". It is the cut and run portion of the american public that the antique media has learned since Viet Nam how to stir up and use to drag us out of any engagement that will stengthen America. The American soldier is better than ever. And we finally got an American president with some testicular fortitude and where are the brave libs who took on Milosevic from 50,000 feet, and ran from Mogadishu??? When are the rest of our leaders going to fight back against this "fifth column" activity and start prosecuting the NYT and others that routinely give the enemy valuable information? I feel a lecture on the meaning of "fifth column" coming on.

[RunningRoach]

Ah, thank you Ann for spreading clarity over these dunes of donkey dust.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17265

JCC

[Ghost Dansing]

"Weldon and Shaffer are two rottweilers maintained in the collar by the hand of Donald Rumsfeld. The secretary is measuring the size of the trouble that to double is going to arm when he loosen them in the Democrat chicken-run. And it looks that he is beginning to like the idea."

Not exactly rottweilers...maybe some other breed...let's see

Royalty and The Rich used to like little dogs for an unusual reason. They would put the little lap dog under the covers before retiring so that bedbugs, fleas, etc., would go onto the dog instead of themselves!

[Ghost Dansing]

Oh nofate... whatever happens in Iraq, and it doesn't look like it's going to be pretty, the net result of Dubya's choosing Iraq (war of choice) as the second military action in the war on terror is negative.

We all make bad choices...some are just better at it than others. The Republicans should have known... Dubya never did anything right in his entire life, save for sobering up when he was 40.

[nofate]

GD: in the chaos, he created a new incubator for terrorists in Iraq now, and in the future. OK. Let's see:
Iran Hostage Crisis, November 4, 1979
I'm throwing this one in just for general interest - Mecca?? Grand Mosque Seizure, November 20, 1979: 250
Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut, April 18, 1983: 63
Bombing of Marine Barracks, Beirut, October 23, 1983: 242 American, 58 French. An interesting sidenote: Katherine Graham, the publisher of the Washington Post, admitted in a 1986 speech that the media were to blame for the bombing of the Marine barracks due to a leak that tipped off the terrorists we were onto their code. They stopped using the code prior to the bombing.
Kidnapping of Embassy Official, March 16, 1984: 1
Hizballah Restaurant Bombing, April 12, 1984: 18
TWA Hijacking, June 14, 1985: 1
Achille Lauro Hijacking, October 7, 1985: 1
Aircraft Bombing in Greece, March 30, 1986: 4
Berlin Discoteque Bombing, April 5, 1986:2
Kidnapping of William Higgins, February 17, 1988: 1
Naples USO Attack, April 14, 1988: 1
Pan Am 103 Bombing, December 21, 1988: 259
World Trade Center Bombing, February 26, 1993: 6
Attack on U.S. Diplomats in Pakistan, March 8, 1995: 2
Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996: 19
U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa, August 7, 1998: 12 U.S., 32 FSN's, 247 Kenyans
Attack on U.S.S. Cole, October 12, 2000: 17
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Homeland, September 11, 2001: 2997
This is disgusting. This is only a partial list, only counting attacks on Americans and the number dead. The number maimed and injured is even more. And you think the "incubator" is Iraq? When these people are taught from childhood that Jews are the same as monkeys and pigs, that killing a Jew will allow them to get into heaven? When it is a fact that UBL wanted to meet us in Iraq? When it is also a fact that the Clintonoids were saying and working toward the same goal, i.e. getting Saddam? They've been breeding terrorists in their schools, homes, and mosques for over a thousand years. Iraq is just a spot on the map. Maybe you would like us to be the next spot? Have the Dems get back in with their cut and run policy. That is just what they want. Wake up, please.

[Ernesto Ribeiro]

CIA, FBI and other agencies were investigating candidate Clinton's illegal apropriation given by China's army. The advisor that Clinton assigned for cover the channels of communication between the Service of Intelligence called itself Jamie Gorelick. Who is she? Well, between the favors lent by the government Clinton to the Chinese one in reward of the help of campaign, favors that the organs of Intelligence fairly were investigating, was the given permission to a subsidiary of the General Electric for sell the Chinese army equipment that, second was revealed afterwards, served for the making of intercontinental missiles directed to the American territory.

Jamie Gorelick was a lawyer of that subsidiary. But in 2003 she was a representative in the Inquiry Parliamentarian Commission whose main occupation was stifle the responsibility of the Congress by the statement of war based in inexact information and play fault of everything in George W. Bush.

Or it be: the maker of the general blockade that paralyzed the service of security and enabled the attack of 11 of September was in charge of investigate the same faults of security that enabled the attack of 11 of September. What she did? An important article is the disappearance of a DOSSIE file that, a year before of the 11 of September, revealed the presence in American territory of a cell of the Al-Qaeda led by the terrorist one Mohammed Atta, one of the mentors of the attack to the World Trade Center. In the epoch, the investigator of the Department of Defense that be following that trail, the lieutenant-colonel Tony Shaffer, simply was prevented from pass the information to the FBI, that could not dismantle the cell.

The lieutenant-colonel Tony Shaffer denounced all the filth, with the support of the representative Curt Weldon. To big media stifled the history until do it disappear completely. But Weldon said in the CNN that the secretary Rumsfeld is for liberate the Shaffer's testimony.

Weldon and Shaffer are two rottweilers maintained in the collar by the hand of Donald Rumsfeld. The secretary is measuring the size of the trouble that to double is going to arm when he loosen them in the Democrat chicken-run. And it looks that he is beginning to like the idea.

http://crime_perfeito.blig.ig.com.br/

[Ghost Dansing]

First, the NYT and others took what they were told by people who had read the NIE. I'm not even sure how that is a "leak".

Second, what has been declassified of the NIE substantiates what the NYT and others had been told, and the Democrats are pushing to have the whole thing declassified...something that probably can be done to a large degree by simply removing sources...

What did the Republicans want? That the NIE not be revealed to the American People because it contradicted the Republican administration's spin? The people who were "leaking" were also saying that the NIE simply confirmed the obvious... It was the "obvious" to me... the real question is why aren't the conclusions "obvious" to Republicans.

Karzai, unfortunately, is totally dependent on the U.S. and NATO at this point. The situation in Afghanistan is part of the reason the NIE is saying what it is saying... Taliban is having a resurgence, largely because Dubya redirected his effort from the Afghanistan-Pakistan, where bin ladin and al qaida existed, to Iraq... in the chaos, he created a new incubator for terrorists in Iraq now, and in the future... and that doesn't even go into the fact that Iraq has become an Shia-dominated Islamic Republic aligned with Iran.

One of the key findings of the National Intelligence Estimate, representing the consensus of the 16 intelligence agencies, was that the war in Iraq has greatly increased the threat from terrorism by “shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives.”

The NIE said Iraq has become “the cause célèbre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.”

Dubya decided to release a small, selected chunk of the report in reaction to an article on the intelligence assessment that appeared over the weekend. As a defense of Dubya's policies...it doesn't quite make the grade.

[nofate]

GD: Now Dubya's trying to spin the NIE of all things!
LOL! He's releasing it because the NYT, again, is taking one or two sentences out of context and spinning it to keep up the hoped for destruction of Bush. You're using your talking points too early, they're about to get cancelled. Karzai was asked by a reporter today in the press conference about the Iraq war creating terrorists, a key point in the NYT version of the NIE, and he put her straight, asking her if she did not remember that the terrorists have been attacking Americans for a long time prior to 9/11 and getting away with it. These people are out there, GD. They're not going away no matter how much the NYT and John Kerry and all the other libs think killing OBL would make it so. He's only a speedbump.

[Ghost Dansing]

"3. The attempt to paint Clinton as a mighty foe of terrorism, thwarted by unsupportive Republicans, is thoroughly unconvincing; but this is an argument lots of other people are waging effectively and I don't care enough about it to wade in whole-hog myself."

Didn't... but during the time period under discussion, the agenda was Lewinsky, not terrorism, or the Balkans or anything else... Clinton took military action, which was really really difficult to do in that timeframe.

"What is truly interesting to me is the damage Clinton is doing to his party every time he opens his mouth. There are a whole bunch of Democrats who hate the Clintons because they feel like the Clintons did what was best for the Clintons even though (these Democrats believe) they knew it was bad for the Democratic Party."

Understand the Democratic Party is nothing like the Republican Party... there's no sense of dittoism.

The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) is the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. We really don't need Republicans at all. What had been moderate Republicanism is totally serviced within the Democratic Party today... I can't say the same for the Republican Party... there are still those Republicans who think their Party is like it was with Ike, but they are deluded.

Republicanism is all about corporate plutocracy; the bone thrown to the so called "christian" right is just that... a bone.

I frequently say, "Catch a crooked Democratic politician, and you caught a crooked politician...Catch a crooked Republican politician, and you caught a politician practicing his Party's political philosophy, and he'll probably propose a bill making his actions legal during the trial".

There are Democrats that faulted Clinton on his right-of-center governance... in many ways, he was the best Republican President the Republicans ever had. NAFTA, Free Trade, deregulation, corporate profits, and a government surplus.

Republicans really don't see though that Dubya and his administration are demonstrably failing in all matters foreign and domestic.

Whenever authorative evidence is provided, they simply deny, and if possible fire or bury it. It is absoulutely ridiculous and possibly the greatest incidence of cognitive dissonance ever observed.

Now Dubya's trying to spin the NIE of all things!

The Clinton's are a lightening rod though... I was never quite sure why... the Republicans persecuted those two every chance they got for over eight years, only to come up with a sex scandal in the oval office, for which they proceeded to attempt impeachment.

Whatever that phenomenon is/was, it is well beyond a simple differences of political philosophy...it was visceral hate for these people. The persecution was merciless. Ostensibly Clinton was quite in alignment with Gingrich's contract on America... they could have been great pals. Clinton would have made a good Republican in many ways.

William J. Clinton
Statement on Signing the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996
March 29th, 1996

Today I have signed into law H.R. 3136, a bill providing for an increase in the public debt limit, an increase of the Social Security earnings limit, and increased flexibility for small businesses to comply with regulations.

I applaud yesterday's bipartisan congressional vote to maintain the Nation's creditworthiness and financial integrity. With the signing of this bill, millions of Americans will, once again, be secure that this great Nation will stand behind its obligations to pay not only beneficiaries of Federal programs but bondholders as well.

Over 8 months ago, Secretary of the Treasury Rubin wrote to the leaders of the Congress, urging them to pass an increase in the debt limit sufficient to extend through the current political season. Secretary Rubin pointed out that attempting to use the prospect of a Federal Government default to achieve leverage in a budget debate was not in the best interests of the American people. Now that we no longer need to focus our efforts on avoiding a default, we can turn our full attention to continuing to bring down the budget deficit as we have successfully done for the last 3 years.

When I took office, the deficit was $290 billion—and rising. By the end of fiscal 1995, the deficit was $164 billion. As a share of the economy, we have cut the deficit by more than half. And just yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office announced its estimate that the deficit for the current fiscal year will fall to $140 billion—thus cutting the deficit that I inherited in half and fulfilling my commitment to do so in my first term.

We should now continue this progress—and limit future increases in the public debt—by reaching an agreement to balance the budget by 2002. Over the last several months, I have worked closely with congressional leaders to reach agreement on balancing the budget. In fact, we have about $700 billion in common savings, enough to balance the budget and provide a modest, targeted tax cut. Let me reiterate: I am committed to reaching an agreement with the Congress to balance the budget—and to reaching that agreement this year.

I also am pleased that this legislation increases the Social Security earnings limit. Currently, retired workers ages 65 through 69 who earn wages above a certain amount have their Social Security benefits reduced by $1 for every $3 in earnings. Over 900,000 Social Security beneficiaries lose some or all of their benefits. This reduction in benefits discourages work by senior citizens who are able and willing to do so. Raising the earnings test will increase the standard of living of the elderly and help the Nation's economy.

This legislation also responds to the legitimate concerns of small businesses regarding regulatory burdens. The bill includes several recommendations of the White House Conference on Small Business that I have supported. In addition, it codifies a number of my reinvention initiatives that will help small businesses comply with Federal regulations and, just as important, enable them to become meaningful partners in the regulatory process.

Finally, this legislation increases congressional accountability for regulations, providing expedited procedures for the Congress to review those regulations. I have long supported this concept, and my Administration endorsed the Senate's efforts of last year in this regard. I am, however, concerned about changes that the House made to this bill, which will unduly complicate and extend this congressional review process. We will work with the Congress to resolve these concerns.

William J. Clinton
The White House,
March 29, 1996

[Kenny]

nofate,

I liked the link, thanks. That was interesting. Now, Ghost, if you want to insult the bejeebers out of Bush for the state of affairs described in Farah's post, go to it with my full support.

[Kenny]

Ghost,

1. Always have detested the whole special prosecutor thing, and I certainly agree that massive amounts of taxpayer money was spent and the return probably wasn't worth it. On the other hand, it did generate a whole bunch more convictions amongst the Clinton inner circles than the man's defenders like to remember. If nothing else the Clintons appear utterly incapable of judging character -- a weakness somewhat uncommon among persons in possession of sound character themselves.

2. Clinton lied under oath. He didn't get impeached for screwing around on his wife, which is not an impeachable offense. He got impeached for lying under oath, which he unquestionably did. Now, whether or not you think he should have been kicked out of office for it, there's one thing that is unmistakably and undeniably true -- and that is that the man is a liar. Therefore anybody who trusts a single man word the man says, is a fool.

3. The attempt to paint Clinton as a mighty foe of terrorism, thwarted by unsupportive Republicans, is thoroughly unconvincing; but this is an argument lots of other people are waging effectively and I don't care enough about it to wade in whole-hog myself. I think the historical records of actual interviews and published articles from the Lewinski period show that many Republicans praised such actions as Clinton was taking, and that criticism consisted of saying, "Based on the last eight years, it's even though Clinton's finally doing the right thing, he's doing it for the wrong reasons." Which, it seems to me, is more likely true than not. Still, for Clinton to attempt to pretend that he wanted to take a harder and more effective line against terrorism but was undercut by Republican opposition, is so absurd as to almost more hilarious than contemptible.

And that's all I'll say about that because I really don't care much about that old buffoon of a liar, whom history will (as his desperation proves that his heart already understands) regard with apathetic contempt.

What is truly interesting to me is the damage Clinton is doing to his party every time he opens his mouth. There are a whole bunch of Democrats who hate the Clintons because they feel like the Clintons did what was best for the Clintons even though (these Democrats believe) they knew it was bad for the Democratic Party. Now, in an election that is going to go down to the wire for control of the house, where the very last thing that Democratic candidates need is for people to be discussing national security and comparing the Democratic record on terrorism to the Republican one, President Clinton starts running needlessly around, making a complete ass of himself, and doing everything in his power to make every voter in America think, "Oh, yeah, it's probably a good idea to compare Democrat Clinton's performance to Republican Bush's performance on terrorism." I swear that Rove's infamous mind-control rays must be aimed directly at Slick Willie's brain, and the dial must be all the way up to eleven. What the hell does the old fool think he's doing?

Unless, of course, Hillary and Bill -- who have a much better grasp of what's required to win national elections than do the Kossite lunatics who would run the House if the Democrats were to take control -- have realized that a Democratic victory in the House in 2006 practically guarantees that after two years of insane partisan antics by Pelosi et alia, the country will flee at a dead run back to the relative incompetence, but at least marginal sanity, of the Republican Party, and there goes Hillary's place in Presidential history. The worst thing that could happen for the President Hillary '08 crowd, would be for the Speaker Pelosi '06 crowd actually to win. So maybe Bill's out to make sure they don't.

Otherwise...what the hell does the old fool think he's doing?

[Ghost Dansing]

... but we don't need take Clinton's word for it, do we liquid...we know the truth about this matter...we know what Clinton did, and we know what the Republicans were up to... and we all know tha the Lewinsky matter was a set up involving a very big waste of taxpayer's money to discover that little lie... don't we? I guess you'd want me to believe Republicans aren't crooks either? As I said, he's not lying... he was counterpunching... and what he said is all a matter of record, verified by investigation.

"The man said something trying to protect his family," Carville asserted. "I have a hard time blaming somebody for something I've been tempted to do myself. I'm not in an awkward position. I'm a Frenchman, man. I don't see any crime here for all this 24-hour news coverage and $50-million investigation. To tell you the truth, I was five times more upset about the welfare bill cutting illegal immigrants off benefits than this nickel-dime stuff."

There are lies, and then there is Modern Republicanism.

Amen.

[Liquid]

---The guy doesn't look like he's lying, because he's not lying.

ummm,IMHO, the past proves that when Clinton is pointing his finger in your face in an emotional way, it means he is lying.

[Ghost Dansing]

Wallace asked a question in the "When are you going to stop beating your wife?" format that belied the innocence of his intentions. Clinton was counterpunching, and he did a real good job on that Fox beanbag.

I keep seeing the word "liar" and lines like "...he really believes the lies he's telling...".

I'm wondering "what lies?". Anybody who was there knows that it was all Lewinsky, all the time, when it came to evaluating the actions of Clinton.

The Republicans wanted to then, and continue to paint Democrats as "weak" when it comes to taking military action... the Clinton administration was very militaristic... fought with the DoD and Pentagon and Congress over every military action... Balkans, Somalia, Terrorism...

Again I say... the Dubya and his Republican administration flushed everything Clinton was up to down the toilet when they took office... anything that Clinton did, they un-did... including active prosecution of bin ladin and al qaida.

The guy doesn't look like he's lying, because he's not lying.

He also left office with a Nation that had a surplus economy... And dubya campaigned on namby-pamby neo-isolationist foreign policy in 2000...

Then he took to his guns he shot himself squarely in the foot. Oh... "let's go criticize Clinton... just like the old days"... maybe there's too much water under the bridge to get any traction there.

It's not enough to wear a cowboy hat and talk big... you have to be competent too.

[gringman]

Re the now famous or infamous interview: Whether you think Clinton came across as Impassioned Victim, counter-punching the Right-Wing Conspiracy, or as a Guilty Hack---dotty, defensive and really foxed-up, he invited the world to test his credibility.

Complaining about a Chris Wallace "smirk," finger jabbing away, he implied that conservatives were trying to revise the historical record and thereby impugn his legacy, trying to make us think that an idol of a fat girl in the Oval Office was weak on national security, limp on terrorists, and dreadfully impotent on Osama bin Laden. Au contraire, you all! You see (as he tried to make us see) it was just the opposite. Don't you all see? The conservatives said he was "obsessing" over OBL. In fact they "ridiculed" him for his concern and attempts to deal with the threat. Got it now?

So what does the audience do with that? Lap it up, as a good liberal, rejoice with the Leftniki, or just deride it, as a good conservative? Go along with Rush Limbaugh's take on the slickest bubba in town: "He's a pathological liar"? Or the arguably more nuanced gringo "Clinton is Yale's greatest example of a parsing narcissist"?

Fortunately (but probably not for Clintonistas), Jake Tapper, ABC News National Correspondent, did his homework (OK, his well-paid staff did it.) Results? The record does show some back-biting by Republicans, like RINO Senator Arlen Specter, but it shows, far more significantly, support from major Republicans, including House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Mississippi Senator Trent Lott, who, far from "ridiculing" him, very clearly supported and tried to encourage Clinton action against Islamic Terror and OBL. Tapper's findings are laid out here......

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2006/09/the_truth_about.html

Pathological liar? Or just a parsing narcissist? You decide.

ps Does anybody know why Chris Wallace, in the middle of the physical and vocal blustering he took on camera, didn't say to Clinton, "Sir, would you mind getting your ----ing finger out of my face?"

[RunningRoach]

Alexandra,

I’ve said it before…I’ll say it again.

Ever since that self-inflated overblown buffoon stepped into the White House, the Presidency entered an eight-year hiatus from any vestige of character, integrity, dignity or voracity. Without another election to win, except for the former First Madam who has a firm hold on her Senate Seat, he will tend to shed more light into that dark hole of narcissism in which he exists.

Regards,

JCC

[nofate]

Ernesto: I just watched your video link. Absolutely chilling. There is no doubt that a virus-like culture of hate has re-emerged. If you didn't see it before, you might find this series of articles interesting, especially the third, which not only goes into the relationship of the mufti and Hitler, but states that Yasser Arafat considered the mufti his mentor.
Alexandra, I apologize for getting so far off subject, I'm not trying to hijack your blog. I think it's Ernesto's fault for putting up that Hitler/Mufti link. Seriously, I am almost in a continual state of awe at the ability of the antique media to defend a liar, while completely ignoring and even spinning in the islamist's favor, readily available information that they should be informing the American public about. Unbelievable.

[nofate]

Alexandra: thought provoking as usual. While watching Clinton poke at Chris Wallace with his finger, I told Mrs. nofate "to look at his eyes, he believes the lies he is telling. He is living in the world he has created for himself." Aided and abetted by the hacks he surrounds himself with, and the jello questions he has been "hit" with by the fawning antique media since forever, it seemed that he was not expecting the question. If he was, he certainly let out a lot of seething anger at being criticized about his lack of action regarding Bin Laden. And of course, the spinners have shown up here, too. People believed Hitler, right up to the end. Ahmadinejad has come to our country and the press is loathe to criticize him, too. Please don't read into this: I am not trying to equate Clinton with Hitler or Ahma..., just wondering what it is about "bad boy" liars that allows so many people to be taken in by them?
Kenny: didn't answer over on "Hope in Fear", couldn't think of a suitable reply, but thought of you (and Ernesto) when I read this over on Counterterrorism Blog by Douglas Farah. I followed the link to his full blog with comments, and was struck not only by the posting, but by the comment of Dale in Atlanta. The gist of the post is that jihadists cannot be separated from the "perfect political framework" given in the Koran. Islam is political to jihadists. Sharia and politics are the same thing.
Also, I read an amazing interview of Brigitte Gabriel on FrontPageMagazine.com called "Because They Hate". Just a short quote: I had to live in an 8 by 10 bomb shelter for seven years of my life between 1975 and 1982 in pitch darkness for lack of electricity, freezing cold for lack of heat. I had to drink stale water which I collected from a near by spring crawling on my stomach in a ditch dodging sniper bullets. We had very little food, and resorted to collecting grass and vegetation that grew around the bomb shelter to eat. I was 13 yeas old when I dressed in my burial clothes going to bed at night waiting to be slaughtered, and by the age of 20 I had buried most of my friends who were killed by radical Muslims.
Both worth a look.

[Barry Meislin]

Despite the exquisite pleasure that some may derive from it, this is certainly NOT the time for partisan recrimination from either side.

("This" meaning from 2001.SEP.11 14:30:00 GMT, or thereabouts, and onwards.)

[Ernesto Ribeiro]

YOUTUBE: HITLER AND ISLAM

historic documentary videos filmed by the German and Muslim nazis:

1941: The historical meeting of Adolph Hitler with the head nazist muslim leader Amin el-Husseini – Yasser Arafat's uncle - getting from the German Nazist Party leadership this office: Führer der Arabischen Welt, Leader of Arab World.

Hitler, The Mufti Of Jerusalem And Modern Islamo Nazism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d51poygEXYU

[Ghost Dansing]

U.S. Long Underestimated Qaeda's Scope, Officials Say
The New York Times ^ | June 9, 2002 | JUDITH MILLER and DON VAN NATTA Jr.

"WASHINGTON, June 7— A re-examination of years of terrorist plots and attacks around the world, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, suggests that American intelligence agencies profoundly underestimated Al Qaeda's reach and aspirations for more than a decade as it grew from obscurity into a global terrorist threat, lawmakers and investigators said this week.

As Congressional investigators look back far beyond the series of signals missed before the Sept. 11 attacks, they are seeking answers to many questions about Al Qaeda that law enforcement and intelligence agencies still cannot answer themselves, officials said.

In particular, they said, Congressional investigators are trying to determine whether the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. overlooked a possible Qaeda connection to the World Trade Center bombing in February 1993. The United States has still not officially blamed Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden for that operation.

Law enforcement officials acknowledged this week that they did not know how and when Al Qaeda was created, or whether it was connected to a tangled array of terrorism plots and plotters, including Abdul Hakim Murad, a Pakistani who told the police in the Philippines in 1995 of a plan to assassinate Pope John Paul II, blow up 12 American jetliners over Asia and fly a plane into C.I.A. headquarters.

But with the benefit of much hindsight, investigators are seeing potential clues that went virtually unnoticed almost a decade ago. In particular, they are looking closely at the man convicted of masterminding the 1993 attack, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, who in interviews with F.B.I. agents in the mid-90's seemed obsessed with the notion of hijacking airliners and attacking vulnerable targets, and who had clearly studied the inner workings of airport security."
http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/696886/posts

In 1993, bin laden was as likely to be remembered as a "hero" of the war in Afghanistan, as a terrorist threat to the United States.

Clinton was true in everything he said to Wallace. And the oncoming Bush administration really did have other priorities... dubya didn't want to "...continue swatting at flies..." was Rice's testimony... we know the new focus was Iraq all along.

[David]

*sigh*

By encouraging Clinton to frame his lack of attention (or lackadaisical "attention") to Islamic terrorism in terms of bin Laden, Wallace helpfully allowed Clinton to deflect attention from the entirety of his failures to pay attention to a serious security risk.

Why focus on October 1993 when February 26 1993 should have sounded the tocsin for the Clintoonistas? Was that not a credible attempt by Islamic terrorists to attack the U.S. on our own soil? (Answer to that rhetorical question: Yes, of course it was.) Was any credible attempt made to take seriously the threat of Islamic terrorism from that point out in the Clinton administration? (Answer to that rhetorical question: No, of course there was not.)

Why then should anyone have been surprised by all the other islamic attacks upon U.S. citizens, property and interests over the next eight years (and eight months)?

Bin Laden, bin Laden: let him focus on one he can engineer some wiggle room with. How about the pattern of Islamic attacks for eight long years, starting in the second month of his administration? A pattern that went largely unanswered except by ineffectual mouthings and bombings of goat herders and medical conventions.

Clinton: now there's a devil in a blue dress... With Chris Wallace's help in the interview, we were able to see how Clinton was able to “...bring more brain-power to bear on being a fool than most men could exert in the profoundest philosophical inquiry.”

Quite an accomplishment. What a legacy.

[Ghost Dansing]

In 1938 Zhao entered the Shanghai College of Fine Arts, where he studied both Western and Chinese art. He began to learn woodblock carving informally in 1939 and joined the All-China Association of Anti-Enemy Woodcutters in 1941.

Throughout the 1940s Zhao worked as both a teacher of fine arts and a fine arts editor and, after 1949, as an illustrator for the Shanghai People's Art Press. In the mid-1950s he began teaching at the East China branch of the Central Academy of Fine Arts (aftenwards, the Zhejiang Academy of Fine Arts and now the National Academy of Arts), where he is a professor.

Zhao has also been a standing member of the councils of the Chinese Printmakers' Association and the Zhejiang branch of the Chinese Artists' Association, honorary chairman of the Hangzhou branch of the Chinese Artists' Association, and director of the Chinese Artists' Association.

His special genius lies in psychological portraits, which often take the writings of Lu Xun for their subjects.

Inspired by the New Chinese Woodblock Art Movement, Zhao began by criticizing social problems and depicting ordinary people's suffering.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Zhao created a large number of works based on Lu Xun's novel The True Story of Ah Q, faithfully depicting the image of Ah Q, who is considered the personification of the negative traits of the Chinese national character.

In 1989, Zhao created the Nightmare series and demonstrated his genius in capturing the full complexity of the social and political turmoil of the "cultural revolution" (1966-76).

Despite his age, in 1999, he created his monumental work, The 1990s, to depict China's opening up and its growing urbanization.

Alexandra's picture for today appears to be "Nightmare #2".

Nightmare # 2 is part of a daring series that criticized the Cultural Revolution.

http://www.artgallery.sbc.edu/exhibits/00_01/chinesewoodblock/zhaoyannian.html
http://www.spencerart.ku.edu/printedart/yannian.htm
http://www.newsgd.com/culture/art/200405310019.htm

WIKKI STUFF

The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (Simplified Chinese: 无产阶级文化大革命, Traditional Chinese: 無產階級文化大革命; pinyin: Wúchǎn Jiējí Wénhuà Dà Gémìng; literally "Proletarian Cultural Great Revolution"; often abbreviated to 文化大革命 wénhuà dà gémìng, literally "Great Cultural Revolution", or even simpler, to 文革 wéngé, "Cultural Revolution") in the People's Republic of China was a struggle for power within the Communist Party of China, which grew to include large sections of Chinese society and eventually brought the People's Republic of China to the brink of civil war.

It was launched by Communist Party of China Chairman Mao Zedong on May 16, 1966 to regain control of the party after the disasters of the Great Leap Forward led to a significant loss of his power to rivals such as Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping. Though Mao himself officially declared the Cultural Revolution to have ended in 1969, the term is today widely used to also include the period between 1969 and the arrest of the Gang of Four in 1976.

Between 1966 and 1968, Mao's principal lieutenants, Vice-Chairman Lin Biao and Mao's wife Jiang Qing, acting on his instructions, organised a mass youth militia called the Red Guards to overthrow Mao's enemies and seize control of the state apparatus. In the chaos and violence that ensued, millions died and millions more were injured or imprisoned.

The True Story of Ah Q, or Ā Q Zhèngzhuàn (Traditional Chinese: 阿Q正傳, Simplified Chinese: 阿Q正传), is a long short fiction by Lu Xun, first published between December 1921 and February 1922. It was later collected in his first short story collection Nahan (呐喊) in 1923, and "The True Story of Ah Q" is the longest of all the stories.

The piece is generally held to be a masterpiece of modern Chinese literature, and one of Lu Xun's most important works; it is certainly his most famous.

The story traces the adventures of Ah Q, a man from the peasant class with little education and no definite work. Ah Q is famous for "spiritual victories", Lu Xun's euphemism for self-talk and self-deception even when faced with extreme defeat or humiliation. Ah Q is a bully of the less fortunate but fearful of those who are above him in rank, strength or power. Lu Xun exposes Ah Q's extreme faults as symptomatic of the Chinese attitudes of his time. The ending of the piece - where Ah Q is carted off to execution for a lowly crime - is equally poignant and satirical.

Ah Q is known for deluding himself into believing he is the victor every time he loses a fight. In one scene, Ah Q is beaten and his silver is stolen. He slaps himself on the face, and because he is the person doing the slapping, he sees himself as the victor. This deep-rooted need to maintain a victorious status even when actually defeated shows the Chinese obsession with maintaining a good appearance to all outsiders to be ridiculous at times.

Ah Q is often close-minded about petty things. When he ventures into a new town and sees that a "long bench" is called a "straight bench," he believes their way to be instantly inferior and totally wrong. Traditional China had long held to the belief that those outside of China were barbarians, and were close-minded about accepting the accomplishments of other countries.

There is a scene in which Ah Q harrasses a small nun to make himself feel better. He pinches her and blames his problems on her. Instead of crying out at the injustice of Ah Q's bullying, the crowd nearby laughs. This symbolizes the "mob mentality" that Lu Xun so detested in the Chinese people which led to their extreme apathy in the face of injustice.

One day the news of Xinhai Revolution comes into town. Both landlord families, the Chaos and the Chiens, become revolutionaries to keep their power. Some people, under the name of "revolutionary army," rob the houses of the landlords and rich folks. Ah Q also wants to join them and also claim himself a revolutionary, but is too afraid to act when the time comes. Finally, Ah Q is arrested as a scapegoat for the robbery and sentenced to death by the new governor.

When Ah Q is asked to sign a confession, he worries that he cannot write his name. The officers tell him to sign a circle instead. Ah Q is so worried about drawing a perfect circle to save face that he is unaware he might be executed until it is too late.

The China Lu Xun was writing about around the turn of the century was facing an enormous clash between traditional thinking and more modern Western ways. Enormous social pressures brought on by group punishment and the rigidly-interpretted Civil Service Test both encouraged conformist ways and social homogeny in the Chinese culture. According to Lu Xun, its people were obsessed with saving face, proud of its past without any new accomplishments, and accepting without question the injustices imposed by authority. But the criticism offers no solution to the problems it points out.

[Mark]

If I hadn't seen the video, I'd agree with you, but Shakepeare would have said,"I think thou dost protest too much"? More here than meets the eye.

[sofla]

If you don't think Clinton did enough, fine, but at least admit the things that he did do, and caused to happen.

Increased the FBI anti-terrorism budget 5-fold, to nearly $1 billion a year.

Authorized CIA death warrants on OBL.

Stationed a nuclear powered submarine off shore with cruise missiles, and flew the Predator surveillance drone over suspected al-Qaeda camps, in order to kill OBL with those cruise missiles upon sighting by the drone. One strike was made with these assets, and others authorized by Clinton were aborted by DCI Tenet on account of uncertainties in intelligence. (Bush called the submarine off station, and failed to fly the Predator during 2001).

Commissioned paramilitary death squads out of Pakistan to hunt and kill OBL, hired and trained and deployed them. (The military coup in Pakistan prevented this group from going forward with their plans).

Sought the enhanced surveillance measures and money tracking powers eventually granted the government by the Patriot Act (he was denied these powers by the GOP majority Congress).

Tasked first VP Gore, and then the blue ribbon commission led by former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart, to address the issues of terrorism. The Gore Commission's recommendations were proposed by Clinton as legislation-- things such as requiring much stronger cockpit doors to prevent hijacker access-- and blocked by the GOP majority Congress. The Rudman-Hart Commission's report only came out in Dec '00 or Jan '01, so Clinton had no chance to try to act on it, but Bush asked the GOP majority Congress to set aside hearings and proposed legislation stemming from that years' long study, so that VP Cheney could start a review of his own from scratch. Which Cheney never started, and never had a single meeting of his review board upon.

Had a domestic program to track al-Qaeda in this country, called Operation Catcher's Mitt (cancelled by Bush).

And, etc.

[gringoman]

We'll leave aside whether Slick Willie, the most adroit and accomplished pol in MSM/Yuppie America, is, as partisan opponents like Rush Limbaugh claim, a "pathological liar". (My suspicions can't indict. Besides, it might be more accurate, and less libelous, to call him Yale's greatest example of a parsing narcissist.)

As Michael Scheuer, former chief of the CIA bin Laden unit(and no friend of Team Bush) indicates, the Clinton bunch, including Sandy Burglar, had 8-10 chances to get bin Laden, and Bush had essentially one, the botched Tora Bora episode. You can find the details easily enough if you don't already know them. As already pointed out, the fact is inescapable: for eight years, in this regard, Clinton failed and for six years Bush has failed. Make excuses if you like. Ignore accountability if you like. Make believe that Beltway Dems and Pubs and their pullulating bureaucracies aren't both full if it, if you like.

Meanwhile, in this context and for the larger picture, let's turn the mini-podium over to Michael Scheuer, whether or not one agrees with every seasoned point.......

================================================================

Michael Scheuer: I’m very much frustrated, certainly so, with the inability of our leaders to make more than a superficial effort to understand the enemy, not because we need to sympathize with them or empathize with them, but because he’s so dangerous -- we really need to take the measure of the enemy and why the enemy is fighting us. There’s just such a reluctance to get into the whole discussion of religious motivation or the chance that our policies and Americans are hated for some reason.

I guess fortunately, and unfortunately, at the same time, I was educated by Jesuits. They always said it’s sometimes necessary to manipulate others, but never fool yourself. That’s kind of where I am on this. At a very selfish level, I have four kids and three grandchildren. And they’re not being adequately protected. Islamic militancy is a complex issue, but it’s not impossible for Americans to understand if they’re talked to directly and frankly. So far, we’ve gone through 12 or 15 years with not a single frank discussion with the American people.

BuzzFlash: What do you believe is the greatest security threat facing the United States?

Michael Scheuer: Our failure to understand what we’re facing. The President, the Vice President, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Kerry -- most of our political leaders continue to identify bin Laden as a thug and a gangster and a deviant personality, and nothing could be further from the truth. He is, in every sense, a great man, without a connotation of positive or negative, but in the sense of a man who has changed the course of history. Already, since 2001, if you just try to take your children’s grammar school class to visit something in Washington, whether it’s the White House or the Congress, and you see the security guards first passing these fourth graders through electronic detection, and then running the wand over them and making them empty their pockets. Try to get on an airplane. Look at the concentric rings of defense around the White House. It’s like it’s under siege.

The American way of life has changed, and bin Laden’s activities and our fear of him is directly responsible for that. Look at the spiral in the budget deficit. All of that is attributable either to Osama bin Laden or the gift we gave him by invading Iraq. To me, the most dangerous thing is that Americans think we’re on the verge of winning this war when indeed we have barely started to fight it.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/01/int05001.html

[Angel]

Ah.."in his mind, he did try"..perhaps herein lies the problem...in his pathological self delusional mind he may have attempted many feats..but few accomplished. Outstanding post as always! ;)

[John Sarich]

I think you got a chance to see narcissim in action with Clinton. His defense of himself and what he perceives as "his legacy" was in word, odd. The main problem that Clinton has with OBL and 9/11 is that the events of terrorism have been chronicled, detailed, reported on, and accepted by the public as historical fact. No amount of spinning by Clinton can change such a well documented history. Oh, he is trying, but it ain't gonna happen.

And, as some of the blogs have reported today, Chris Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld the exact same question in 2004. Rummy did what you would expect: he answered the question, no spinning, no fudging, no shooting of the messenger.

While on the subject of the past, go to the Weekly Standard website. There is a fantastic article by Stephen Hayes on the ties between al Qaeda and Iraq/Hussein that takes apart, sentence by sentence the recent report by the senate intelligence committee where the committee failed to see any links between Iraq and 9/11. Hayes has been on hiatus for a couple of months working with arabic linguists on translating thousands of documents found in Iraq. It is basically the Verona Papers all over again.