President Clinton I Know
First of all, the facts of the case are that no one took the threat of Osama Bin Laden seriously until September 11th, 2001 at about 11 o'clock in the morning. People did say that Clinton was playing a "Wag the Dog" in order to distract the country from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
However, I want collaberation on his assertion in the Fox News report interview that he did have battle plans after The USS Cole bombing.
And I wish that he would have controled himself in this interview. He looks ridiculous. Formulate in an honest way? Richard Clark is the savior? I still want an investigation into the papers he stole and destroyed from the library. That will never happen. But I really think that Richard Clark should be dropped out of this discussion.
Either way, I can see in the interview Wallace is nervous. And I do think that he caught President Clinton off guard by asking the email question first instead of the global intiative stuff. And that's where I give Wallace a little bit of a hat tip, a small one, he didn't do the huggy nice nice interview that was promised President Clinton to get him to appear on Fox News.
Let's point out that President Clinton has never done an interview with Fox News, I'm speculating but I'll guess it's because of the Right Wing biased that is percieved emulating from that channel. So Fox News is attempting to get an interview and rather than say they want to ask about the 9/11 Commission Report, they say they are going to talk about global iniatives that President Clinton has spearheaded and all the good work he is doing humanitarian wise around the world. I would not doubt that they had papers drawn up that Wallace had to sign stating he would ask these questions in a certain order and the interview would last for approximately 12 minutes. A lifetime in prime time news. And President Clinton, sitting in all his honor and glory and safe in his knowledge that this reporter will do as told, feels comfortable and rested knowing he will be talking about the millions of dollars he has garnered for the cause of starvation and AIDS.
Enter Wallace's question that was not on the list, and President Clinton loses his cool. He's inarticulate, he talks in circles, and he contradicts himself.
Now, to his credit, I do not think that going after Osama Bin Laden or Afghanistan was popular at the time of his Presidency, and like many good politicians, he chased the poll numbers. He chased the popularity rating that the current President is losing. Many would say and I partially agree that this is the right thing to do in a democracy, find out what the populace wants and do it. If they don't want it, don't. And that's how many politicians live out their terms. And when President Clinton says that many of the Congressman that were in office at the time told him they would not support going after Osama Bin Laden and that he was too obsessed with it, I would agree. I don't think I'd use the word obsessed, I don't think anyone could say he was obsessed. But I would agree that the Congress at the time did not want him doing anything about Osama.
What I would say though it, President Clinton, sir, please remember that you are a man of prestige and grace. Your administration did not capture Osama Bin Laden, through limited fault of your own I think because no one believed the threat to be so real. However, on a historical level, I do think 9/11 will be placed at your door.
You say you knew the threat was real. But that no one took you seriously. Or rather, that the American public and the United States Congress didn't take you seriously. Well, with all due respect and with hindsight in my favor, I'd have to say I wish you would have made your point more vehmently. And as the President of the United States, I would also say that it is your responsibility to protect the citizens of this country, and if you knew that Osama Bin Laden was a true threat, and you did not act, than you did not live up to your responsiblities. Even if it was not popular, it was your responsibility.
So rather than saying you knew the threat to be real, I would suggest that you didn't. And blinded by the turmoil that was afflicting your office at the time, you let him slide away. I don't really blame you. No one believed the threat to be real. We all felt safe in our complacency. But if you knew, as you say you did, than you did us a disservice.
On a personal level, of all the things that Al Qaeda did, attacking the USS Cole was a clear act of war. Had it been stationed in a harbor in prior days it would have put us at war. And nothing was done. Not a bomb was dropped, not a person questioned, nothing. 17 military men died and 39 others were injured. But I guess their lives were not as important as others. Again, hindsight is 20/20. And it was an election year. So...I'll just leave it at that.
I understand and do not blame President Clinton. He did the best he could with the knowledge he had and the congress he had and the abilities he had at the time. But all I will say is that even if the country didn't think Osama Bin Laden was an issue, if President Clinton believed the threat to be real and dire, he should have struck that point home with the populace, or acted in our best interest and safety, as a President is supposed to. Even when it is unpopular.
However, I want collaberation on his assertion in the Fox News report interview that he did have battle plans after The USS Cole bombing.
And I wish that he would have controled himself in this interview. He looks ridiculous. Formulate in an honest way? Richard Clark is the savior? I still want an investigation into the papers he stole and destroyed from the library. That will never happen. But I really think that Richard Clark should be dropped out of this discussion.
Either way, I can see in the interview Wallace is nervous. And I do think that he caught President Clinton off guard by asking the email question first instead of the global intiative stuff. And that's where I give Wallace a little bit of a hat tip, a small one, he didn't do the huggy nice nice interview that was promised President Clinton to get him to appear on Fox News.
Let's point out that President Clinton has never done an interview with Fox News, I'm speculating but I'll guess it's because of the Right Wing biased that is percieved emulating from that channel. So Fox News is attempting to get an interview and rather than say they want to ask about the 9/11 Commission Report, they say they are going to talk about global iniatives that President Clinton has spearheaded and all the good work he is doing humanitarian wise around the world. I would not doubt that they had papers drawn up that Wallace had to sign stating he would ask these questions in a certain order and the interview would last for approximately 12 minutes. A lifetime in prime time news. And President Clinton, sitting in all his honor and glory and safe in his knowledge that this reporter will do as told, feels comfortable and rested knowing he will be talking about the millions of dollars he has garnered for the cause of starvation and AIDS.
Enter Wallace's question that was not on the list, and President Clinton loses his cool. He's inarticulate, he talks in circles, and he contradicts himself.
Now, to his credit, I do not think that going after Osama Bin Laden or Afghanistan was popular at the time of his Presidency, and like many good politicians, he chased the poll numbers. He chased the popularity rating that the current President is losing. Many would say and I partially agree that this is the right thing to do in a democracy, find out what the populace wants and do it. If they don't want it, don't. And that's how many politicians live out their terms. And when President Clinton says that many of the Congressman that were in office at the time told him they would not support going after Osama Bin Laden and that he was too obsessed with it, I would agree. I don't think I'd use the word obsessed, I don't think anyone could say he was obsessed. But I would agree that the Congress at the time did not want him doing anything about Osama.
What I would say though it, President Clinton, sir, please remember that you are a man of prestige and grace. Your administration did not capture Osama Bin Laden, through limited fault of your own I think because no one believed the threat to be so real. However, on a historical level, I do think 9/11 will be placed at your door.
You say you knew the threat was real. But that no one took you seriously. Or rather, that the American public and the United States Congress didn't take you seriously. Well, with all due respect and with hindsight in my favor, I'd have to say I wish you would have made your point more vehmently. And as the President of the United States, I would also say that it is your responsibility to protect the citizens of this country, and if you knew that Osama Bin Laden was a true threat, and you did not act, than you did not live up to your responsiblities. Even if it was not popular, it was your responsibility.
So rather than saying you knew the threat to be real, I would suggest that you didn't. And blinded by the turmoil that was afflicting your office at the time, you let him slide away. I don't really blame you. No one believed the threat to be real. We all felt safe in our complacency. But if you knew, as you say you did, than you did us a disservice.
On a personal level, of all the things that Al Qaeda did, attacking the USS Cole was a clear act of war. Had it been stationed in a harbor in prior days it would have put us at war. And nothing was done. Not a bomb was dropped, not a person questioned, nothing. 17 military men died and 39 others were injured. But I guess their lives were not as important as others. Again, hindsight is 20/20. And it was an election year. So...I'll just leave it at that.
I understand and do not blame President Clinton. He did the best he could with the knowledge he had and the congress he had and the abilities he had at the time. But all I will say is that even if the country didn't think Osama Bin Laden was an issue, if President Clinton believed the threat to be real and dire, he should have struck that point home with the populace, or acted in our best interest and safety, as a President is supposed to. Even when it is unpopular.
Comments