Text 40202, 191 rader
Skriven 2006-09-29 14:35:00 av BOB KLAHN (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av NOEL SHEPPARD
Ärende: Clinton and Wallace
===========================
 NS> Bill Clinton, Bin Laden, and Hysterical Revisions
 NS> September 25th, 2006

 NS> Last week, former president Bill Clinton took some time out
 NS> of his busy dating schedule to have a not so friendly chat
 NS> with Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday. Given his rabidity,
 NS> Mr. Clinton might consider taking a few milligrams of
 NS> Valium the next time he allows himself to face "fair and
 NS> balanced" questions, assuming once wasn't enough that is.

 When he faces "Fair and Balanced" (per Al Franken) questions he
 will have to worry about that. When he faces air head right wing
 questions, then it's another matter.

 NS> This wasn't Mr. Clinton's finest hour. In fact, it could be
 NS> by far the worst performance of his career, which is saying

 Actually, it was the best job of responding I can ever remember
 seeing from him. He was forceful, passionate, and in command. My
 biggest complaint about Clinton's dealings with his opponents
 was he never fought back very hard. This time he did it and did
 it well.

 My biggest complaint about his performance as president was, he
 was a republican passing himself off as a democrat. His economic
 policies were GHW Bush light. NAFTA, GATT, and not stopping
 illegal immigration have done major damage to this country.

 But his opponents and successor have not done any better.

 ...

 NS> From the onset, Mr. Clinton seemed ill at ease. This is

 I saw the video clip, not the orginal show. I don't see evidence
 that he is ill at ease. OTOH, why would he be when he was there
 to talk about his Global Initiative? That doesn't make sense.

 ...

 NS> volatility, as the fireworks started as soon as Wallace
 NS> brought up historically factual statements made in a new
 NS> book, The Looming Tower. In it, author Lawrence Wright
 NS> addressed how Osama bin Laden had indicated that when
 NS> American troops pulled out of Somalia in 1993, he and his
 NS> al Qaeda buddies saw this as an indication of American
 NS> weakness.

 Which would be stupid if true. I have not seen the interview
 with Bin Laden where that was allegedly said. However, since the
 US took fewer than 25 deaths in the entire Somalia
 operation, and Adide took around 1,000 deaths in the Blackhawk
 down incident alone, that hardly seems like weakness. Had Bin
 Laden paid attention to that at all, he would have seen that
 American soldiers fight like demons, and he wouldn't want
 anything to do with that.

 OTOH, I have also read Bin Laden said that about Reagan pulling
 out of Beirut. In that case the US took 10 times as many dead,
 and Reagan's retaliation was against Grenada. Damn that musta
 frightened Bin Laden.

 Ok, Bin Laden saw a pattern. Attack a republican administration
 and they will retaliate by attacking someone else entirely.
 Reagan, Bush II, same pattern. Grenada, Iraq. Yep.

 ...

 NS> Clinton, who lashed out in a fury akin to a president that
 NS> had just been accused of having sexual relations with an
 NS> intern:

 Clinton was in control of his facts and of himself all the time.
 The fact that you have to divert with that shows the poverty of
 your reasoning.

 NS>     I think it's very interesting that all the conservative
 NS>     Republicans who now say that I didn't do enough,
 NS>     claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of

 ...

 NS> Republicans claimed that Clinton was obsessed with bin
 NS> Laden? He did too much to try to capture the infamous
 NS> terrorist leader?

 True, some said he was too obsessed. Others said he was properly
 focused. I believe it was Cheney who said he was properly
 focused.

 NS> Do the facts support such assertions, or is this the
 NS> typical Clinton modus operandi: when questioned about your
 NS> own mistakes, bring up Republicans, neocons, and
 NS> conservatives - the liberal equivalent of lions and tigers

 Well, that is Bush's modus operandi.
 ...

 NS> Historically this line of attack has worked quite well with
 NS> an adoring interviewer that buys such drivel hook, line,
 NS> and sinker.

 Yes, that's why Bush does it.

 NS> However, what Mr. Clinton and his ilk seem to
 NS> forget regularly is a recent invention known as the
 NS> Internet. It is indeed odd the former president is unaware
 NS> of this, inasmuch as his vice president created it.

 And the fact that you have to resort to another republican lie
 is another indication of the poverty of your reasoning. If you
 actually knew how to use that invention, the internet, you would
 know Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. He did,
 accurately, claim to have taken the lead in congress in the
 creation of the internet. In case you forgot, the internet was
 both authorized, and built, by the government.

 NS> Regardless, this tool - with the assistance of search
 NS> engines and services such as LexisNexis - allows folks to
 NS> go back in the past to accurately identify the truth.
 NS> Sadly, as has often been the case with the rantings of the
 NS> Clintons, their grasp of the past is as hazy as their

 NS> understanding of what the word "is" means. At least that is
 NS> the charitable interpretation.

 Third time you demonstrate the poverty of your reasoning. Since
 clinton gave a dictionary definition of the word "is", his
 undertanding must be quite clear.

 NS> Nothing but GOP support for getting bin Laden

 Oh, yes, Rush Limbaugh jumped aboard the Clinton bandwagon. Ok,
 just pointing out you are only giving the congressional
 leadership response. All too many republicans were critical. Wag
 the Dog was not a democratic catch phrase.

 NS> With that in mind, a thorough LexisNexis search identified
 NS> absolutely no instances of high-ranking Republicans ever

 Notice, you limit yourself to *High ranking republicans*. There
 are a lot of republicans who are not high ranking, and many,
 those in the media, are much better known than the high ranking
 republicans. I'd bet far more Americans know who Rush Limbaugh
 is than know who Bill Frist is.

 NS> suggesting that Mr. Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden, or
 NS> did too much to apprehend him prior to the bombing of the
 NS> USS Cole in October 2000.  Quite the contrary, Republicans
 NS> were typically highly supportive of Clinton's efforts in
 NS> this regard.

 Those who were didn't get nearly as much press, and I don't
 recall one single top republican criticising the media for
 repeating the Wag the Dog accusations.

 NS> As a little background, prior to the August 1998 U.S.
 NS> embassy bombings in Africa, there is hardly any mention of
 NS> bin Laden by President Clinton in American news
 NS> transcripts. For the most part, the first real discussion
 NS> of the terrorist leader by the former president - or by any
 NS> U.S. politicians or pundits for that matter - began after
 NS> these bombings, and escalated after the American
 NS> retaliation in Afghanistan a few weeks later.

 Yep. A point Clinton made in the interview. Not from republicans
 or democrats. So, just why are republicans, or do you prefer
 'right wingers', saying Clinton was at fault for not making the
 link to the first WTC attack?

 Until 1996 the intelligence community thought Bin Laden was a
 terrorist banker, not a terrorist leader. Before that Bin Laden
 was a trainer of terrorists, or freedom fighters, under the
 sponsorship of the Reagan/Bush administration.

 NS> At the time, the former president was knee-deep in the
 NS> Monica Lewinsky scandal, so much so that the press was
 NS> abuzz with the possibility that Clinton had performed these
 NS> attacks to distract the American people from his
 NS> extracurricular activities much as in the movie Wag the Dog.

 Son of a bitch... you know this...

 Damned conservative MSM.

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Republican on race: Listing the failings of blacks to a white audience.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)