« On 'Infidel Documents, Intelligence, jihadists and the Iraq war debate' | Main | Iraq Al-Qaeda Leader Recruiting Scientists For Unconventional Weapons, 'Whether Biological Or Dirty' »
September 28, 2006
Some Times "Tried And Failed" Just Doesn't Cut It!
Topics: Political News and commentaries
Last Sunday, on "Fox News Sunday" with Chris Wallace, ex-President Clinton went ballistic when asked about his Administration's failure to "connect the dots" and capture or kill Osama Bin Laden when it had him in the cross-hairs, which thus would have prevented the attacks on our Embassies, the Khobar Towers attack, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and ultimately the attacks of 9/11 saving thousands of innocent lives.
Clinton's unseemly tantrum, was over the top, and outright abusive of poor mild-mannered Chris Wallace, whom he called "dishonest" (this from the President who perjured himself on TV in front of the whole nation...indeed the world! Amazing!), accused him of having concocted some sinister plot to discredit him, saying "...you did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me...," while he kept on jabbing the bewildered Wallace with his finger, aggressively gesticulating, and wagging his finger in front of the stoic reporter's face! We must remember that the last time Clinton "wagged" his finger in a similar rage before the cameras, was when he told the nation "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" referring to Monica Lewinsky. Perhaps Clinton's "finger wagging" is indicative that he also "didn't have sex with Osama Bin Laden" in a "similar" manner! What a "he-goat" that Clinton is!
But all sarcasm aside, what could be gleaned from the interview, as well as from the ensuing discussions about it all week, is the very fundamental difference in which the Clinton Administration, as well as Democrats in general, viewed, and still view the threat posed by Islamic terrorists, which is that of a "Law Enforcement Issue" bound by all sorts of legalistic and bureaucratic intricacies in their eyes, rather than that of a National Security threat to our very survival! And amazingly as it may seem, Democrats insist stubbornly in keep on treating the Islamic threat in such a manner in spite of all that's happened! As if by sticking our heads in the sand, and singing "Cumbaya" hand in hand with the local Mullahs, the threat will simply go away.
"I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him....The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible [about the Cole] while I was there. They refused to certify."The President of the United States being held up by a "certification" in order to proceed to remove an eminent threat to our national security?!?! How crazy is that?!?! That is why, bogged down in all sorts of legalistic intricacies, and other bureaucratic minutiae Clinton failed to nab Bin Laden, and look at the end results!
But one of Clinton's comments during the interview, is the one that sent a chill down my spine, when all self-righteous he spluttered out to Chris Wallace: "...I didn't get him [Bin Laden]...but at least I tried...I failed, but I tried..."
Is that the same excuse that Democrats will come up with if being elected in November history repeats itself, and in their obsession with safeguarding the rights of terrorists more than the safety of our own citizens, of striking down the "Patriot Act," of dismantling the NSA Wiretapping Program and the Data Mining, closing Gitmo and freeing most of the terrorists, coupled with their unrealistic "Law Enforcement," bureaucratic, approach to dealing with the Islamist terrorist threat we face, their tenure results in one of our cities laying in ruins due to a nuclear 9/11?!?! Is that what they'll say then, just like Clinton: "We failed, but hey, at least we tried..." ?!?!
For the sake of America, voters should take that very seriously into consideration come this November!!!
Related: Richard Miniter: "Clinton's grand failure: No wonder the ex-president is so defensive - he had Osama within reach."
Every Bush policy that arouses the ire of the anti-war set - the Patriot Act, renditions, detention without trial and pre-emptive war - is a departure from the Clinton years. Where Clinton and Bush policies overlap - air attacks on terrorist infrastructure, secret presidential orders to kill terrorists, intelligence sharing with allies, seizure of terrorist bank accounts, using police to arrest suspected terrorists - there is little friction. Should America return to Clinton policies or soldier on with Bush's? While finger-pointing is pointless, this debate is important because it is about the future as much as the past.
Posted by Althor at September 28, 2006 10:51 AM
Articles Related to Political News and commentaries:
- The Truth About Tuskegee And The Lie Of Black Left-wing Paranoia - May 02, 2008
- Bad News (For Democrats): Jobless Rate Falls - May 02, 2008
- Here We Go Again: Meet Obama's ''New'' Pastor - May 02, 2008
- Contrary To What Democrats And Jeremiah Wright Want Americans To Believe - May 02, 2008
- Accepting Michelle's Invitation - May 01, 2008
- On 'Wright's Wrong' And Obama's Response - May 01, 2008
- Despite Claims To The Contrary, Obama 'Did Inhale' - May 01, 2008
- The Party of Defeat - Apr 30, 2008
- Obama Counsels With New Radical Minister - Apr 30, 2008
- Obama Runs Grandmother Under The Bus, Then Runs Rev. Wright Under The Bus, Who In Turn Ran Obama Under The Bus, Who Then Ran The Bus Over The Reverend - Oh My, What A Mess! - Apr 30, 2008
