I was watching Fox News for a second tonight, Bill O'Reilly. I really don't know exactly his take on Clinton, but there was a very conservative woman who was talking about him "losing control like her 2 year old" in his interview with Chris Wallace.
Wow. Talk about how two people can look at the same thing and have two very different reactions. Here he's just come off of a very successful fund raising tour that raised a billion I think for a good cause, but that's not really what the interview turns out to be on. Second, it's at the same time that a very important intelligence report--the highest level intelligence report--has concluded that the War in Iraq, which the Bush administration has sold as important to help with the war on terror, has actually hurt the war on terror.
Now everyone who knows anything about anything has been saying this forever. Certainly these were the kinds of things that the State department was in tension with the Pentagon over. These are the things that the UN has been telling us forever but we wouldn't listen because we are smarter than everyone else. It would not be hard to absolutely castrate the credibility of Fox News by playing back arrogant and dismissive clips from 2003, 2004, 2005 before the evidence was so compelling. Show all the snide remarks they made about those who questioned the war and who argued that it would simply make more terrorists.
I saw an intelligent man refusing to take inane accusations lying down. And "out of control"? This woman must have a 2 year old that is a leader in the making. I saw a man with righteous indignation standing up for the truth. A man who was willing to admit that he tried and failed at something. Not an administration that is trying to blame something that happened 8 months into their presidency on the presidency before.
In Clinton's words, "I got closer than anyone has ever since." And "at least I tried. This administration had 8 months to try and didn't." And "If I had been president I'd have put 20,000 troops into Afghanistan looking for bin Laden." And "I wouldn't put 1/7 of my interest in Afghanistan."
I'm sorry, if things look at all fuzzy now, our grandchildren will smile if we dare say bin Laden was Clinton's fault or that Bush was a great president. They'll smile like I did when my grandmother protested because the history books were saying that it is not at all likely historically that Washington chopped down any cherry tree.
Smile and wave, boys, just smile and wave...
6 comments:
You might convince me that Clinton had planned to "go off" when the topic came up--I can believe he's that sneaky. Of course I suspect he really is angry at the TV movie and such.
As far as Iraq accentuating the war on terror, this is so obvious to me that I can hardly imagine a scenario in which this is not the case. I will willingly hear how the rest of the document presents a "more nuanced" conclusion.
Actually, my dad has read up on Mr. Clinton some, and he's found that he has a pretty bad temper.
Maybe we should grant Craig the benefit of the doubt, that he doesn't believe what he wrote. It's just too silly to presume that one must either adore President Clinton and accept 100% of what he says, or despise him and disbelieve a single word. Can you say "false dichotomy"?
Has the report been released in its entirety? I thought that President Bush responded by publishing more portions of it, and even then it generally supported the thesis that the the war in Iraq is creating some unintended and harmful side effects by inciting more support for terrorism around the world.
Craig, I don't know who you're rebutting by pointing out there were some serious problems in the world before Bush or before 9/11. That's a matter of record. But instead of setting up strawman arguments, how about sticking to what Ken actually said? Consider dropping the ad hominem attacks. You should also think what principles you hold dear and make sure that you apply them fairly to all sides if you want anyone to take you seriously. Sure, you can criticize Clinton for having a temper and being overly concerned with image. But how would you grade Bush-Cheney-Rove on the same criteria? Honestly!
Before you fall back in love w/ Clinton again or put too much credence in the NIA report let me make a few points:
1) The NIA (Nat'l Intelligence Agency) is a South African organization which seems to be involved in govermental security there (like the Secret Service). You seem to be talking about the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate)
2) While you appear to put a lot of credence in the information reported about this recent NIE report, you seem to take scant notice of administration claims that the leaked parts of the document have been taken out of context. Where there are differences of opinion, the NIE includes them--the leaked portions are likely the contrarian views held within the U.S. intelligence community.
3) Most importantly, this is the same report which concluded that Saddam had biological and chemical weapons and was seeking to renew its nuclear program. If you wish to trumpet the latest report as accurate and reliable, you should be prepared to accept that the Bush administration was justified in accepting it prior to the invasion.
Happy blogging!
Thanks for the NIE correction--I didn't double check. I actually didn't vote for Clinton either time and voted for Bush the first time. The second time I voted to fire the CEO of the company, so to speak.
It's not so much that I put all my stock in this report or in Clinton. I honestly can't hardly understand how anyone thinks that our actions in Iraq, no matter how well intentioned, has not seriously aggravated the terrorist situation of the world. I find it almost incomprehensible that anyone would even try to argue this.
I suppose my thoughts here are intensified because I was visiting Greece and Turkey in the days just before the war started and then spent three months in Germany when Madrid was bombed. We just don't seem to have any idea how angry practically the whole world is at us right now. Does anyone seriously think that we have made more friends around the world from Iraq or that a climate of burning anger helps diminish terrorism?
Bush's attempts to say Iraq has helped the "war on terror" leaves me speechless in amazement!
These are old blogs but - if anyone looks back...Clinton's history is laid out - no pun intended - because, no pun would work. The Presidency of Clinton wasn't about morality- it was about economy. President Clinton made decisions, some bad, some good, some awesome to both extremes, but he is, as was President Ford, a President- it's not for us to say what levels of temptation we're capable of escaping, but it is, interestingly enough, seldom that they are newsworthy, and media enhanced? Just a thought folks...smiling and waving..just smiling and waving...
Post a Comment