Monday, September 25, 2006

The Clinton Rage

guilty_bill.jpg

I never voted for Bill Clinton

I don't blame Bill Clinton for not killing Bin Laden
This entire nation is guilty of a failure of imagination

This entire nation was not ready to kill thousands because a few people in anti-terrorism intelligence BELIEVED Bin Laden was ready to directly attack the USA

With that said ...It was Bill Clinton's job to hire those people who had the brains and guts to make the deicsions to kill offhand if necessary, a killer in the desert on those kind of semi proofs, and beliefs and if needs be sacrifice their careers in govt (and for an honored future if nothing else appearing and collecting public speaking fees... I mean if Scott Ritter can make money doing it....really)

Mr. Clinton was clearly guilty of feeling guilty.

I don't think in terms of national security Mr Clinton is more guilty than those dems TODAY who cannot see the preeminent, primordial acsendant importance of these issues versus Rx prices, and hysterically 'progressive' definitions of "social justice". In fact those idiots have far more to answer for than he does. People like John Kerry, John Conyers, and Jack Murtha.

Continue reading "The Clinton Rage" »

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ummm, they blew up a federal building (at least I think there is good evidence McVeigh and Nicols were aided and abetted by Muslim terrorists) and tried to blow up the WTC while he was in office. Not to mention all the foreign attacks. And maybe even TWA 800 (hey look if the libs can drop the conspiracy bombs, I can). Uh, and yet you can't blame him for not being more motivated. Right.

Can we still blame him for giving military secrets to China? On that alone we could hang Clinton's record on national security. That alone would be enough to cement him as an awful President in terms on national security.

So now, we take China and then add on Oklahoma City and the failure to follow up the Middle East leads ASAP, and then we add the WTC bombing, and then we add the embassy bombings, and then we add that Clinton was very much aware of OBL...yeah, he really does have a lot to answer for. Sure Kerry et al. also do. The guy doesn't feel guily because of a "right wing hit machine", he feels guilty because he straight up fucked up and dropped the ball (over and over and over again) and it cost lives, will cost us more lives in the future, and, especially with China, has dramatically hurt our long term position as a superpower.

Anonymous said...

Ummm, they blew up a federal building (at least I think there is good evidence McVeigh and Nicols were aided and abetted by Muslim terrorists) and tried to blow up the WTC while he was in office. Not to mention all the foreign attacks. And maybe even TWA 800 (hey look if the libs can drop the conspiracy bombs, I can). Uh, and yet you can't blame him for not being more motivated. Right.

Can we still blame him for giving military secrets to China? On that alone we could hang Clinton's record on national security. That alone would be enough to cement him as an awful President in terms on national security.

So now, we take China and then add on Oklahoma City and the failure to follow up the Middle East leads ASAP, and then we add the WTC bombing, and then we add the embassy bombings, and then we add that Clinton was very much aware of OBL...yeah, he really does have a lot to answer for. Sure Kerry et al. also do. The guy doesn't feel guily because of a "right wing hit machine", he feels guilty because he straight up fucked up and dropped the ball (over and over and over again) and it cost lives, will cost us more lives in the future, and, especially with China, has dramatically hurt our long term position as a superpower.

Gormless Norman said...

I might be even more generous than you, Epiminondas, I wouldn't even blame Clinton for not surrounding himself with wise people who would see the right course on national security: in the 90s, nobody really saw the threat. People imagined it, but that was on the order of how today people might "imagine" the polar ice caps melting and the east coast of the US being submerged: a bizarre what-if, not a real possibility. The notion that people would hijack planes and crash them into the WTC would have sounded like something from the X-files.

The only people I truly blame are those who still don't see it, after 9/11: who speak of "al Qaeda" or "terrorism" or "bin Laden" rather than the Jihad or Islamofascism, and who still have the ridiculous idea that we should be fighting this war with subpoenas and warrants.

That's why I blame Clinton: it's obvious he's one of these. Did you hear his excuse for not getting bin Laden? We had him, but no, we couldn't do anything, because the FBI and CIA would not "certify" it. Bill didn't have a certificate of some sort in his hand. Stupid that he thought that way then, now it's just pathetic and inexcusable that he thinks this is a valid reason to let 3000 people be murdered, because he didn't have a little certificate in his hand.

Kiddo said...

I couldn't really give a rat's ass if Clinton felt like defending himself in an interview or not. He was the President, a reporter called him on how he did his job, and he defended himself. Big freakin' rah. What bothers me is the fact that now this story is being pounded on my the MSM at the expense of all of the other stories out there that are the reason people like us started blogs in the 1st place. I mean, come on. Didn't we all sort of have this debate after 9/11? We all know where we stand on this already. It's just more of what the MSM loves to drool over relentlessly. They prefer this story and any minor election related story here in the US to anything else, and it shows. The Pope story is too multifaceted. Ditto on the UN, Iran, North Korea, and Nukes all Over The Place. So they drop everything and latch onto a few sentences falling out of Clinton's mouth in one interview. Please. Move along. Sorry, do I sound pissy? LOL

mts said...

Clinton, for me that's the name for a total waste of opportunity.

He had the ability, and for his first two years a Democratic Congress, to set forth a plan and a vision. But he let himself get sucked into the petty minutia.

A great schmoozer and salesman, for sure. He could charm the shine off a brass monkey. But as a leader? Feh.

Reagan took a party on the ropes, and after he left office in 1988, his VP won President, his party became a majority party once again after 50 years, and his policies and vision were able to carry on. And how many people ran as Reagan Republicans in the 80's. Now how many ran as Clinton Democrats in the 90's? How's Clinton's party now he's gone? His VP was defeated, his party gets more marginalized daily. Some might say his legacy is eight years of Bush and 12 years of a Republican Congress. Ike started the superhighways, JFK the moon mission. Clinton had the budget surplus, and what great public works project or social program did that start that we could point at? None that I know.

Heath care reform? Give the wife something to do to look important, so what if his back-seating this allows it to fail. Terrorists attacking? Apply bug spray, i.e. send the Air Force in for a bombing run to bounce rubble, and forget it when the public does. Have a chance to overthrow Saddam in a coup in 1996? Piddle that away.

No wonder he's angry, and lowers himself to quibbling with a reporter that a stronger leader would just blow off. His lack of anything bold or successful during his terms is ruining his JFK or FDR style "legacy". Not some right wing conspiracy.

Cubed © said...

Hmmm... Is there anyone else who noticed a profound similarity between Clinton's expression, body language, and tone of voice on this occasion and the time he stated with such conviction, "I did not have sex with that woman!"?

And Anonymous,

There are a lot of people - and I am one of them - who agree with you that the Oklahoma City bombing was the work of ME terrorists, not the work of the not-too-bright Mcveigh et al. I think Jayna Davis' book is very compelling. On one occasion, there was going to be a documentary based on her investigation, but it was "somehow" obstructed; on another occasion, a Congressman was going to demand to see all the documents that had been taken out of circulation, but that was also suddenly not done. Someone, somewhere, really doesn't want a lot of documentation of events to come to light.

Gormless,

You are right on. First, Islam uses "religion" as a shield for its actions, knowing that as a "religion" people who respect the right to believe whatever you want will hesistate to name the belief as an enemy. We had no problem with other forms of imperialistic and expansionist totalitarianism such as Communism, Fascism, etc., but then, they didn't hide behind the mantel of religion.

We have to get over that.

Second, we have neither declared war officially, via the Congress, since WWII. It's no coincidence that we haven't won any "conflict" we've participated in since then, either.

The reason for both of these is the so-called "Just War" theory, a theory of war that is now taught at all our military academies and wherever the ethics of war is taught at all our higher institutions of learning.

The "Just War" theory fundamentally states the Augustinian/Comte idea that the other person's life is worth more than your own. Virtually the entire theory is drawn from this insane idea, and that is why, at best, we have come to a "draw" (as in Korea) or we have flat out lost (as in Vietnam). It's why Hezbollah defeated Israel recently. The original Israeli plan would have blasted Hezbollah (and a goodly portion of Syria) out of the picture for a very long time to come, but unfortunately, the PM is a dedicated Leftist.

Concern over the ethics of war goes back to antiquity, but it was only after WWII and the establishment of the UN that the "Just War" theory was made "official;" it guarantees that there will be no winner (unless the other side ignores it, as happened in Vietnam and is happening now with Islam).

It's not very different from the attitude we have re: the Geneva Conventions. They were a series of meetings between parties which had a painful history of repeated wars, and the need to have some sort of agreement in place about how prisoners etc. should be treated was recognized. All those who signed on did a reasonable job of respecting the rules. Non-signatories, such as Japan, did not, and non-signatories such as the Muslim countries, do not. Yet we continue to insist that we treat them as if they had signed on, and as if by following the Conventions' rules to the letter (or better) that "somehow," it will inspire them to act as if they had been signatories.

Yeah, sure, right - they would never THINK of burning civilian contractors and suspending their bodies from a bridge, or sawing off the heads of civilians, or gouging out the eyes, cutting off the genitals, and breaking the shoulders of captured soldiers. Never! Thank GOODNESS the fact that we signed on to the Conventions protects our people from atrocities like that!

I wouldn't suggest that we routinely make life miserable for Islamic terrorists, but to treat them as if they were college kids on vacation who partied too hard and got drunk is overdoing it.

Political Correctness is the biggest weapon of the postmodernists (an umbrella term for those who oppose the principles found in our Constitution - Leftists, socialists, Communists, Fascists, Nazis, Muslims, etc.) in our day-to-day lives, and the "Just War" theory is merely "political correctness applied to war."