The blogosphere is all agog at ex-president Bill Clinton's apparent melt down on Chris Wallace's Fox News show.
I believe they're misjudinging Mr. Bill.
First of all, nothing our ex-president does is by accident. This screed by Clinton was designed to counteract the very real perception by many Americans that the Democratic party is `weak on Islamic terrorism' and energize the base in the run up to the November midterms.
I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton rehearsed this.
Second, by asking the question, Wallace played neatly into Mr. Bill's hands quite nicely, giving weight to the absurb position that Clinton and many on the left have had all along..that we only have a conflict with al Qaeda and with Osama bin-Laden and it's all just a law enforcement problem.
Our fixation with Osama and al Qaeda is a real indication of how little we're taking this war seriously.
Magically eliminate Osama bin Laden from the face of the earth and would anything change? Is the jihad against America and the west suddenly going to be called off? Will Iran's leaders forego their nuclear weapons program and join with Dubbya in singing `kumbaya' in Farsi at a barbecue in Crawford? Is Hezbollah going to disband its cells in Europe and America? Are the Saudis going to foreswear Wahabism and stop importing jihad through the mosques and madrassahs they control in the west because Osama is now highfiving with Mo' and Allah?
I don't think so.
The reality is that Osama and the boys from al Qaeda are little more than subcontractors for jihad, and they would be unable to operate if they weren't being harbored, funded, aided and abetted by certain Islamic nations, just like a number of other Muslim groups operating as a spearpoint in service of the great war against the west. Until we see that, understand that al Qaeda is merely one of the poison branches rather than the whole tree and are willing to act on that reality, we haven't a hope of pursuing this war successfully.
Oh, just for the record, here's a nice quote from Richard Clarke's book, the one Mr. Bill kept insisting that Chris Wallace read courtesy of the NRO's Byron York:
" [I]t’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince — as opposed to, say, order — U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up.
Clinton did not give up in the sense of an executive who gives an order and then moves on to other things, thinking the order is being carried out when in fact it is being ignored. Instead, Clinton knew at the time that his top military and intelligence officials were dragging their feet on going after bin Laden and al Qaeda. He gave up rather than use his authority to force them into action."
Mr. Bill obviously had other priorities.
13 comments:
I agree, I didn't have time to finish posting this morning. Bill Kristol lays it out nicely. It is calculating.
if klinton went after terrorists like he does his critics, we would not be having this discussion.
only thing is terrorists don't give a rat's behind about court rooms and int'l law.
they shoot back.
unlike six year old cubans snatched from closets in the middle of the night.
Hi Soccer Dad, Louie, Nazar...pleasure to have you drop by, as always.
Nazar, You asked me to elaborate what Mr. Bill may have had on his mind.
I can't say, but it wasn't America's security.
Islamic terrorism is only the half of it.
I urge you to research and find out about Clinton's connections with the Riyady family, who owned a bank in Arkansas, have extensive connections with the Chinese government and who rescued Clinton's candidacy with an emergency $1M `loan' after he lost the New Hampshire primary in `92.
The Chinese government contributed millions to to the Clinton campaigns in `92 and `96 through `envoys' like John Huang and Charley Tri and were rewarded with the declassifying and the OK for shipment of billions of dollars worth of defense technology, notably in supercomputer missile guidance systems, mainly dealt to them by Loral, another heavy Democratic party donor.
The Chinese made up two and a half decades of progress in the eight years Clinton was in.Before that, they werer unable to even get a missile to US shores.
This also impacted on North Korea's nuclear programs (also done under the large nose of Mr. Bill) and thus on Pakistan, Iran and possibly Saudi Arabia as well.
China also recieved Most Favored Nation status and thus were the recipient of billions of dollars worth of US commercial transactions.
Mr. Bill was also negligent when it came to the Soviet Union, not insisting on any oversight or control of the Soviet nuclear weapons arsenal at a time when they were desperate for our help and we had considerable leverage.
The result is that numerous nukes `left' the Soviet Union and are unacounted for, including 250 warheads from the Ukraine which may have gone to Iran.
Finally, Mr. Bill did his `bit' for Middle East peace by interfering in an Israeli election (to the extent that the laws were changed there to prevent it from happening again)to get a government that would cooperate in putting Clinton's favorite terrorist, Yasir Arafat in charge of the Palestinian Authority via the Oslo Accords..which allowed him to create a terrorist enclave there, and still provides a rationale for Islamic jihad against the west...not that they need one other than the Qu'ran and the Hadiths.
Mr. Bill was also noted as the only president ever to lose the codes that can provide the authorization for an American nuclear strike.
As you know, Nazar, I'm no fan of a lot of what the Bush Administration has done, so this is hardly partisan...but Mr. Bill was in a class all by himself. He inherited a nation free of threats and totally changed that scenario.
Give it about a decade and you may end up agreeing with me.
There is no doubt that Clinton has created serious trouble for this nation by the actions you previously named. However, I can not, no matter how he may have connived in the past, give him credit that he was "ready" for this interview. Why did he chew out his staff unless he needed someone to blame? He wasn't that smooth in this interview.
He is doing something behind the scenes.
I don't trust that man I didn't trust him when he was president and I damn sure dont' trust him now.
Hello Anonymous and Lifefeathers.
Anonymous, please keep in mind that we have only Mr. Bill's word for it that he `cheed out his staff.'
I think I've made it pretty clear what I think his word is worth.
A good comparison to Mr. Bill's performance was George HW Bush's `kicking ass' on Dan Rather in 1988, also done in response to a relatively inocuos query to combat the `wimp' image.
Clinton didn't take Islamic terrorism seriously, and as a result, didn't go after bin laden like he should have. You could argue that no one took it seriously back in the roaring 90s, but we should expect more from our nation's top leader. He really had no excuse after the 93 bombing of the WTC.
That being said, you can't blame Clinton for everything. Wasn't it George Bush who said during the 2000 election "I'm not gonna shoot a $10 million missile at a camel's ass"? And the Republicans tried to impeach him for...what, getting blown? Perjury my ass, it was all political. And let's not forget how the republicans reacted when Clinton bombed Kosovo. "Nation-building" they called it, if I remember correctly. Imagine their reaction if Clinton bombed bin laden and killed some civvies.
Just for the record, giving China Most Favored Nation status is a brilliant move. Free trade will bring democracy to China, like it brought democracy to Chile. Furthermore, you could make a good case for saying that Bush's ties to the Saudis are far more damaging to American security than Clinton's to China.
ff, i think it is lil-feathers.
as in small feathers.
i could be wrong.
i like the way he/she phrased their comment.
your grasp on past history of the chinese connection is amazing. i have often wondered if the klinton/wal-mart/china connection wsa the most dangerous of all.
nazar,
starting at the end and moving backward.
have you forgotten that bush was ambassador to china before he was DCI?
i think there is enough intrigue there for everyone.
have you noticed how much time klinton spends in UAE & saudi, not to mention gore?
if nothing else can be said about the web you tried to weave, it is that klinton is trying to get some of that saudi influence money too.
you are naive of chinese society if you think democracy will ever take hold there. we will have another boxer rebellion first. the second and third generation chinese "princes" in the military won't let it happen. that is why you see generals saying they will bomb the US if we interfere in taiwan. they would not have done that under mao.
i thought it odd that the day the bombing of kosovo started was the day monica began her G/J testimony. but that's just me. as for killing civies trying to get UBL how about those 8, count 'em, 8 chinese killed when we bombed their embassy.....using an outdated map, i believe they said, and i still don't believe that one.
as for blame i don't think you went back far enough. nixon did not even consider the reaction of the m/e as a result of the '72 munich olympics. he was more concerned with how the soviets would view our reaction than the reaction of the m/e if we did anything. and i totally disagree with numerous actions during the reagan administration. there were some times i thought jimmah cautah was advising reagan on what to do.
Louie, it's impossible to please you. I think democracy will happen in China because of the simple fact that a free market and a stable society makes democracy inevatable. Also, China doesn't have religious fundamentalism, like Iraq.
The middle class will overthrow the oligarchs that made them. It happened first at Athens.
Hi Nazar,
I don't `blame Clinton for everything', but the truth will out.
Even if I allow your premise that most favored nation status will bring democracy to China (which I regard as speculative on your part) that has NOTHING to do with declassifying and shipping sensitive military technology via a defense company heavily involved with contributions to the democratic party. or quid pro quos to a foreign nation for campaign cash.
As for Clinton's impeachment, please keep in mind that perjury and obstruction of justice are felonies. Not only was Clinton impeached for it, he was disbarred...an unlikely occurance if it was all merely politics.
I agree with you about Bush's ties to the Saudis, but please keep in mind that Mr. Bill received a 7 figure gift from the UAE and from the Saudis for his `presidential library', and was hired on retainer by the UAE as an advisor at an undisclosed fee to influence things like Portgate.
The rot is bi-partisan indeed, but I maintain that President Bush has at least done a few things to fight this war..while Clinton seems to have done literally everything he could to avoid doing anything on national security.
And since Clinton inherited an America free from threats and the conflict began on Clinton's watch, along with the other points I mentioned that you chose not to address, I do think he is more culpable.
Like I said, take a decade and see if you agree with me.
ff
You probably know more about this than me, but I stand by my point. Clinton could and should have done more, but the blame doesn't rest solely on him. About his impeachment, let's face it, Clinton cheating on his wife was a great way for republicans to score political points in congress. In Britian, they laugh these kinds of things off.
I think I'll take my decade, thank you very much.
You're quite welcome...
ff
Post a Comment