Firestorm Over Clinton Post From The Kool-Aid Kids

The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party

I wrote a post and it was published at Blogcritics. The post was about former President Clinton and his interview on Fox news. In that post, which was also posted here, I took Clinton to task for some of the statements he made, statements which were out and out lies. As one can predict, the Clinton sycophants came out in full force in support of the anointed savior of the Democratic Party. Interestingly, while many refuted what I had to say, the comments generally turned into a Bush bash-fest. Bush derangement syndrome runs high and those who hate him have found unique ways of blaming him for all the woes in the world, from increased terrorism to increased opium production in Afghanistan. While many tried to deny or counter what I had written about Clinton and his blatant attempt to rewrite history, they fell short of providing any credible evidence that what I wrote was wrong. With talking points right out of Fahrenheit 9/11, they attacked Bush and put the blame for 9/11 squarely on his shoulders. In my post I wrote that Bush was not blameless but that he had eight months to accomplish what Clinton could not do in eight years. Clinton himself admitted that he felt it should have been done in the eight months when he said that they had eight months and did nothing.

Dick Morris wrote a piece today discussing the Clinton interview. Morris was a political consultant who worked with Bill Clinton in his bid for the Governor’s seat in Arkansas and eventually helped him win that seat. Morris then helped Clinton with his reelection in 1996. Morris is no stranger to Bill Clinton’s anger having been assaulted by the former President who tackled him in rage and tried to beat hell out of him. Hillary intervened and pulled Bill off (something she failed to do with Lewinsky). Morris indicates this is the reason that he did not work on the 1992 campaign.

Morris does a great analysis of Clinton’s anger filled performance on Fox.

From behind the benign façade and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris Wallace’s interview on Fox News Channel. There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know – the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch. The truer the accusation, the greater the feigned indignation. Clinton jabbed his finger in Wallace’s face, poking his knee, and invading the commentator’s space.

Because He Could

As Morris points out, the truer the accusation, the greater the feigned indignation. I made this point by likening the response to Wallace to the way he acted when confronted with the Lewinsky scandal. He looked into the camera and lied to America while wagging his finger and claiming,”I did not have sex with that woman.” As it turns out, that angry, forceful statement was a lie. The people who, to this day, defend the man will claim that they would rather have a man in office who had sex with a subordinate than a man who lied us into war (a claim that is false as well). They ignore the fact that Clinton’s modus operandi is to deny, deny, deny, lie, lie, lie and then blame it on the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Anyone who watched the Fox interview saw those very tactics. He denied that he was lax on getting bin Laden, he lied about aspects of his role in the threat posed by terrorists, and he blamed it on the “right-wingers.” It was typical Clinton speak. Remember, Bill Clinton denied having sex with Gennifer Flowers and we were supposed to choose between this “honorable” governor and the loose slut. Turns out the slut was telling the truth as Clinton admitted to the affair during the Lewinsky scandal.

The former president became irate when Somalia was mentioned. For the few folks who did not read the book or see the movie Blackhawk Down, American soldiers in Mogadishu tried to extract a warlord and one of their Blackhawks was shot down. In the ensuing tangle another bird was shot down and 18 American soldiers died in the fighting. The withdrawal of our troops was cited by Osama bin Laden as the reason he decided to attack America, a country he saw as a paper tiger. Morris sheds some light on this issue:

Clinton said conservatives “were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day” after the attack which killed American soldiers. But the real question was whether Clinton would honor the military’s request to be allowed to stay and avenge the attack, a request he denied. The debate was not between immediate withdrawal and a six-month delay. (Then-first lady, now-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) favored the first option, by the way). The fight was over whether to attack or pull out eventually without any major offensive operations.

Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War

The conservatives did not want to withdraw the next day. They were debating whether we should attack or withdraw gradually without a response. The Clintons were the ones who wanted to leave immediately. The favorite tactic of the left is to tuck tail and run when things get tough and Clinton, ever the politician, decided this was the best way to save face (I will resist the Lewinsky reference). The Army wanted to go back in the very next day and attack the Somalis. Our military wanted to wipe up the streets with the people who attacked them and killed 18 of their comrades. Bill Clinton denied this course of action and brought them home in quick order. A show of weakness that emboldened OBL and led to the attack of 9/11.

Bill Clinton failed to see the writing on the wall. He refused to see the first WTC attack as an act of terror and initially attributed the blast to an electrical malfunction. Only after evidence mounted did anyone label this threat a terrorist attack. Clinton never visited the WTC and he did not discuss it with the urgency that it required. He viewed the issue as largely a law enforcement one and let law enforcement handle it. Morris addresses this in his piece:

Failure to grasp the import of the 1993 attack led to a delay in fingering bin Laden and understanding his danger. This, in turn, led to our failure to seize him when Sudan evicted him and also to our failure to carry through with the plot to kidnap him. And, it was responsible for the failure to “certify” him as the culprit until very late in the Clinton administration.

The former president says, “I worked hard to try to kill him.” If so, why did he notify Pakistan of our cruise-missile strike in time for them to warn Osama and allow him to escape? Why did he refuse to allow us to fire cruise missiles to kill bin Laden when we had the best chance, by far, in 1999? The answer to the first question — incompetence; to the second — he was paralyzed by fear of civilian casualties and by accusations that he was wagging the dog. The 9/11 Commission report also attributes the 1999 failure to the fear that we would be labeled trigger-happy having just bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by mistake.

Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA\'s Key Field Commander

While many of the Clinton supporters will label Dick Morris as a turncoat or hack, he has an insight that many of us do not. He was there and he knows what happened. He cites the 9/11 Commission Report to show that it did not exonerate Clinton, as he and his toadies would have you believe. As an interesting aside, Clinton was up in arms about the movie The Path to 9/11 and said it contradicted the 9/11 Report (though the movie disclaimer indicated it was based in part>/em> on the report. When he had his chance to discuss it on Fox he rarely mentioned the Report and instead urged us to read Richard Clarke’s book. We are urged to read this book, as opposed to any other on the subject (including the Report) and believe it because it reportedly confirms what Clinton has been telling us, though some have suggested the book is not easy on CLinton.

When I wrote the original piece, I was not looking to place blame on one person or the other and I indicated that there was enough blame to go around, though I admittedly pointed more fingers at Clinton. That was not sufficient to the Clintonites who will only accept a version of the events that leaves their savior in the clear. My piece was designed to point out the lies that Clinton told. Morris has pointed those out as well and he has added others based on his familiarity with the Clinton clan. Not long ago politicians like Clinton could get away with this because there was not a global network where information is provided nearly instantly. Now that Clinton has spoken, many people are coming out to tell different stories. Obviously, I was not there and my writings are based on what I read from people who were. In that light, former workers are speaking up and refuting Clinton’s claims. There is a piece today in the New York Daily News and in it former advisers are saying that Clinton did not tell the truth when he said he had a plan to invade Afghanistan, topple the Taliban and kill Osama Bin Laden after jihadists nearly sank the destroyer Cole.

Former advisers ridiculed ex-President Bill Clinton yesterday for saying he had a plan to invade Afghanistan, topple the Taliban and kill Osama Bin Laden after jihadists nearly sank the destroyer Cole.

“The only order we got from [Clinton] after the Cole was to put together a target list for air attacks,” said Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA’s hunt for Osama Bin Laden under Clinton.

“What I was involved in could in no way be called a full-fledged plan to attack and overthrow the Taliban,” he said.

I drew a lot of ire from people for what I wrote and that is all well and good. Why should Clinton supporters believe the word of a blogger who can research and write? But when people like Dick Morris and the folks cited in the Daily News come out and call him a liar, and when Condi Rice and Richard Clarke both say Clinton never gave the Bush Administration a terror plan contrary to his claim, one would expect people to at least consider the possibility that Bill Clinton is trying to cover his rear.

Unfortunately, when it comes to an anointed savior, it is difficult to pry people away from the kool-aid long enough to see the truth for what it is.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Comments are closed.