Temper, Temper

Well, what can I say? I think this time words speak louder than actions. I'm speaking of course, about ex-president Bill Clinton's Sunday morning interview on FOX News with Chris Wallace.

What the hell was that? I've never seen such bold-face lies. Now, I assume President Bush probably hasn't been completely forthright about more than a few things (don't start going on about "Bush lied, kids died" and all that crap) but I believe Slick Willy was really at the top of his game with all his paranoia and what not. "Right-wing conspiracy?" "You've got that smirk on your face?" "You think you're so clever?" "No one knew al Qaida existed then?"

Now we know what happens when Democratic ex-presidents go on right-leaning interview programs (as opposed to left-leaning ones) and aren't handed softball questions, especially when those questions will expose your total incompetance. Once again people, Clinton had eight years in office to take care of not only Usama bin Laden but any and all terrorist or terrorist sponsors, Bush had eight months.

Now, of course the Bush administration could have and should have done more to get bin Laden, but as far as I know, he never declined to take him, on a silver platter, from any country that either had him in custody or was in a good position to make that happen. Bush would never let attacks like the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the car-bombing in Saudi Arabia, the truck-bomb at the Kobar Towers, the U.S.S. Cole bombing and of course the first World Trade Center bombing happen with absolutely no response (save for Clinton's lobbing a few cruise missles into empty Taliban traing camps.) And hasn't.

That's exactly what Clinton did between 1993 and 2000. Absolutely nothing. He can point his finger and accuse people of being conservative, right-wing shills all he wants, he didn't do a thing and he was simply being asked why didn't he? Another takes a closer look at this.

In all the interviews and press conferences that President Bush has had to endure against the biased, left-leaning mainstream media, he did not once loom in on anyone and try to physically intimidate them or make them feel so; espeacially the media. And an ex-president at that.

Now that you've stopped laughing, think about that.
Sorry, now that you've stopped laughing for a second time, think about what Clinton was saying in the interview. He "had attack plans drawn up", that were never used, he "got closer to anyone to killing him than anyone else."
Except I believe he by-passed a golden opportunity when the Northern Alliance had bin Laden litterally in their crosshairs (not the special ops that ABCs "Path to 911" showed us; strangely enough, that is one of, if not the only thing I agree with Mrs. Clinton's husband on.)
And Bush in the very early days of the war in Tora Bora was estimated to have been litterally hundreds of yards from killing bin Laden while indiscrimanantly shelling caves.

And what could Clinton do even if he wanted to? Nothing. The wall that he put up between the CIA and the FBI, not to mention the Justice Dept, the NSA, Secret Service, U.S. Marshals and any other two or more arms of National Defence that would have tried but failed at keeping tabs on suspected al Qaida operatives, much less compare notes with each other.

If Wallace hadn't been side-tracked by a paranoid, rabid, revisionist, he could have asked what "attack plans" he had "drawn up". He also could have asked what or who can co-oberate this story, because history surely won't. You notice he lets Willy rant his lies upon history (oh, that's right he wasn't found guilty of pergery and impeached, what was I thinking) and tries to turn the interview towards Clinton's "Global Inititive", but Clinton would have none of it. He also quite clearly got combative when Wallace asked him about bin Laden's decree of "jihad" against America in 1996, demonstrating we were quite well aware, as was Clinton, that al Qaida existed.

But judge the evidence for yourself. But be warned, this is really trippy.
Anyways, I knew this was going to be good when I first heard about it. I wonder if Clinton would have tried to intimidate Brit Hume like that? This guy has a legacy of disgrace and he will do anything to re-write that. Trust me, his claims of going after bin Laden, as well as the rest of the B.S. he was trying to pass off as a "conspiracy", will be torn apart by the intellectual historians. And, I suppose, by anyone who was paying attention during the 90s.

P.S.
Just for fun, check out what's passing for truth acording to over-the-top lefty, Al Franken This guy's always good for a laugh. Unfortunately for him, not intentionally.