 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:49 pm Post subject: Clinton > preview of Fox News Sunday |
 |
|
Whoa, Clinton is one angry man in the interview wth Chris Wallace, doing that pointy finger thing and veins poppin'. Is he seething from The Path to 911?
snip
| Quote: | | 'At least I tried. That's the difference between me and some, including all the right wingers. They ridicule me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed'... |
You had eight years,
Bush had eight months
Okay., we see your logic,not
watch a snippet from the interview coming up on Chris Wallace's Fox News Sunday
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UwJabtvSUQ
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Snipe
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 03 Jun 2004
Posts: 574
Location: Peoria, Illinois
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sounds like Karma has bitten him on the butt. Hey, it's just a movie,
right? 
_________________
Tin Can Sailor |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm a bit curious how Hillary took his televised tantrum. 
Will Fox be threatened later today with their broadcast license if they show this in full tomorrow?  
_________________
Clark County Conservative |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
baldeagle
PO2
Joined: 27 Oct 2004
Posts: 362
Location: Grand Saline, Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Watching a "Legacy" as it gets flushed down the terlet. And it ain't over by a long shot. As the years pass, more and more of the truth will out about the 8 year frat party that was the Clinton years.
Karma's a b*tch, ain't it?
Edited to add;
I read on a blog forum somewhere yesterday that Billy Boys real legacy will be as the 1st "First Hubby". Much as I would like to see him emasculated, I am not willing to see either of those two in the Whitehouse ever again.
_________________
"In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home." --George Washington |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I guess we'll find out more tomorrow, but if this source:
MyWay.com
[moderator, please fix long link. Thx] [Fixed]
is correct, I predict the pundits will have a field day for weeks and months to come with the transcript of the Clinton interview.
| Quote: | | "Now if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: after the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan -- which we got after 9/11," Clinton said. |
Gosh, those pesky Uzbekistanis fouled it all up, huh? But wait, does this suggest that Clinton would have gone to war on the Taliban without the UN's permission? But, but, but... what about the "Global Test"? etc., etc.
| Quote: | The former president complained at the time the CIA and FBI refused to certify bin Laden was responsible for the USS Cole attack.
"While I was there, they refused to certify.... |
Refused to certify???? Mr. Clinton, did you want that certification on parchment paper, and did you want a gold embossed seal affixed as well? Or, the general to the sentry: "Sorry, private, but we cannot defend ourselves unless you can personally certify that it is our gosh-by-God enemy sneaking up on us"???
| Quote: | | ...So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred special forces in helicopters, refuel at night," he said. |
Huh? Say what? He was planning on attacking the Taliban with a "few hundred special forces in helicopters..."? And this was his "battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden"?
Methinks that if the rest of the interview goes as the few snippets above suggest, Clinton can kiss goodbye to his cherished legacy as pseudo Commander-In-Chief. Clinton didn't have a clue! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
homesteader
PO3
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 294
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| How Telling!! In his mind the important thing is that he tried. The fact that he failed, which he admits, is irrelevent. Then he follows up with excuses for why he failed. What a piece of work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Curtis H.
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 143
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Guess censorship of Path To 9/11 wasn't enough. Sorry Bubba. You failed America. And folks like myself won't allow you to rewrite history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One of the jewels I heard in the previews dealt with Clinton's bug-out from Somalia after the Blackhawk incident. His excuse was, remarkably, that Al Qaida didn't exist at the time! Of all the many non sequitors uttered by this feckless sociopath, this takes the cake.
1. What difference should it have made if Al Qaida existed or not? We were attacked trying to distribute food to starving people. Retribution should have been swift and terrible.
2. The spectacle was observed by Bin Laden and added to his conviction that the US was weak and would run from a fight. This has been confirmed by Bin Laden.
Clinton will vie with Carter as the worst president ever produced by this country.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bill Clinton makes all the excuses--blaming the military, CIA, etc. (even those nasty Republicans who constantly attacked him) for not wanting to take action. But HE was the COMMANDER IN CHIEF!! It was up to him to ORDER IT DONE!
Byron York nails it.
| Quote: | Excerpt:
That came later. But in October 2000, what would it have taken? A decisive presidential order — which never came.
The story was the same with the CIA. On page 204, Clarke vents his frustration at the CIA’s slow-walking on the question of killing bin Laden. “I still to this day do not understand why it was impossible for the United States to find a competent group of Afghans, Americans, third-country nationals, or some combination who could locate bin Laden in Afghanistan and kill him,” Clarke writes. “I believe that those in CIA who claim the [presidential] authorizations were insufficient or unclear are throwing up that claim as an excuse to cover the fact that they were pathetically unable to accomplish the mission.”
Clarke hit the CIA again a few pages later, on page 210, on the issue of the CIA’s refusal to budget money for the fight against al Qaeda. “The formal, official CIA response was that there were [no funds],” Clarke writes. “Another way to say that was that everything they were doing was more important than fighting al Qaeda.”
The FBI proved equally frustrating. On page 217, Clarke describes a colleague, Roger Cressey, who was frustrated after meeting with an FBI representative on the subject of terrorism. “That fucker is going to get some Americans killed,” Clarke reports Cressey saying. “He just sits there like a bump on a log.” Clarke adds: “I knew he was talking about an FBI representative.”
So Clinton couldn’t get the job done. Why not? According to Clarke’s pro-Clinton view, the president was stymied by Republican opposition. “Weakened by continual political attack,” Clarke writes, “[Clinton] could not get the CIA, the Pentagon, and FBI to act sufficiently to deal with the threat.”
Republicans boxed Clinton in, Clarke writes, beginning in the 1992 campaign, with criticism of Clinton’s avoidance of the draft as a young man, and extending all the way to the Lewinsky scandal and the president’s impeachment. The bottom line, Clarke argues, is that the commander-in-chief was not in command. From page 225:
Because of the intensity of the political opposition that Clinton engendered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in ‘Wag the Dog’ tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life. For similar reasons, he could not fire the recalcitrant FBI Director who had failed to fix the Bureau or to uncover terrorists in the United States. He had given the CIA unprecedented authority to go after bin Laden personally and al Qaeda, but had not taken steps when they did little or nothing. Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations they did not want to conduct. He had tried that in Somalia, and the military had made mistakes and blamed him. In the absence of a bigger provocation from al Qaeda to silence his critics, Clinton thought he could do no more.
In the end, Clarke writes, Clinton “put in place the plans and programs that allowed America to respond to the big attacks when they did come, sweeping away the political barriers to action.”
But the bottom line is that Bill Clinton, the commander-in-chief, could not find the will to order the military into action against al Qaeda, and Bill Clinton, the head of the executive branch, could not find the will to order the CIA and FBI to act. No matter what the former president says on Fox, or anywhere else, that is his legacy in the war on terror. |
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
homesteader
PO3
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 294
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| "There he goes again" pointing that finger in my face. This is great! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Clinton UnHinged. There was so much in that interview it's hard to know where to start.
So all the proof is in Clarke's book? Did he forget that Richard Clarke changed what he said about Clinton when he wrote that book, and Clarke even contradicted himself in the book. Perhaps the only person more discredited in DC than Joe Wilson IS Richard Clarke.
This is a good one ""I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him.""
Anyone ever heard a President say that he authorized the CIA to kill someone? Most try to at least claim the CIA doesnt do that type of thing. Is Clinton saying he ordered a political assasination?? Is that legal? Libs get in a huge twit over Bush wanting to listen in on phone calls from terrorists and here we have Clinton ordering a hit?? LOL Oh, the irony.
wonder, was that hit ordered before - or -after Clinton turned down the offer from Sudan (1996?) to turn over Bin Laden, and Clinton declined.
Clinton, addressing an audience on Long Island on February 15, 2002:
| Quote: | We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.
They released him. At the time, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan. |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvo2lQe81xk&feature=RecentlyWatched&page=1&t=t&f=b
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NortonPete
PO2
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 385
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kate wrote: | | Clinton UnHinged. There was so much in that interview it's hard to know where to start. |
My wife's first reaction was "This guy was President for 8 years?"
Referring to a book is pathetic when you were in charge.
| Quote: |
This is a good one ""I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him.""
Anyone ever heard a President say that he authorized the CIA to kill someone? Most try to at least claim the CIA doesnt do that type of thing. Is Clinton saying he ordered a political assasination?? Is that legal? Libs get in a huge twit over Bush wanting to listen in on phone calls from terrorists and here we have Clinton ordering a hit?? LOL Oh, the irony. |
Agreed.. What happened to that Congressional legislation that we can't go around assasinating people? Wasn't that something dating pack to Allende in Chile? This tied the hands of the CIA.
| Quote: |
wonder, was that hit ordered before - or -after Clinton turned down the offer from Sudan (1996?) to turn over Bin Laden, and Clinton declined.
|
Sandy Berger has that document in his sock drawer.
My thoughts on this claim that GWBush had 8 months and did nothing are
these: What part did the nearly Constitutional level crisis caused by Al Gore refusing to admit defeat play in this 9/11 attack? How far back did
this set the transition. I recall computers being destroyed and GWB not even being able to form his Cabinet until June.
I'm sure I read that Clinton gave GWB a One Hour briefing on the entire International situation.
We need to start blaming Gore for 9/11 along with Clinton. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NortonPete wrote: | | .. What happened to that Congressional legislation that we can't go around assasinating people? Wasn't that something dating pack to Allende in Chile? This tied the hands of the CIA. |
I could be wrong, but I think the legislation applied to heads of state. Since these terrorists are stateless, the rules may be looser.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A good article at Newsmax
From the transcript:
| Quote: |
~snip~
But at the time we didn't think he had the capacity to do that. And no one thought that I should do that. Although I take full responsibility for it. You need to know that those are the two options I had. And there was less than a 50/50 chance that the intelligence was right that on this particular night he was in Afghanistan.
Now, we did do a lot of things. We tried to get the Pakistanis to go get him. They could have done it and they wouldn't. They changed governments at the time from Mr. Sharif to President Musharraf. And we tried to get others to do it. We had a standing contract between the CIA and some groups in Afghanistan authorizing them and paying them if they should be successful in arresting and/or killing him.
So I tried hard to - I always thought this guy was a big problem. And apparently the options I had were the options that the President and Vice President Cheney and Secretary Powell and all the people that were involved in the Gulf War thought that they had, too, during the first eight months that they were there - until Sept. 11 changed everything.
But I did the best I could with it and I do not believe, based on what options were available to me, that I could have done much more than I did. Obviously, I wish I'd been successful. I tried a lot of different ways to get bin Laden 'cause I always thought he was a very dangerous man. He's smart, he's bold and committed. But I think it's very important that the Bush administration do what they're doing to keep the soldiers over there to keep chasing him.
But I know - like I said - I know it might be frustrating to you. But it's still better for bin Laden to worry every day more about whether he's going to see the sun come up in the morning than whether he's going to drop a bomb, another bomb somewhere in the U.S. or in Europe or on some other innocent civilians.
(END OF TRANSCRIPT) |
But it's still better for bin Laden to worry every day more about whether he's going to see the sun come up in the morning than whether he's going to drop a bomb, another bomb somewhere in the U.S. or in Europe or on some other innocent civilians. HUH???
We had a standing contract between the CIA and some groups in Afghanistan authorizing them and paying them if they should be successful in arresting and/or killing him
This is exactly the scene from "The Path To 911" that Clinton and Burger said NEVER HAPPENED. A few of our CIA with a bunch of Afghani's had his compound surrounded. Clintoons said it never happened, but Scheuer who headed the Bin Laden unit said it did, along with TEN other occasions.
Notice how Clinton says "I take full responsibility" while faulting everyone else--"but the CIA wouldn't approve" or other times that the military wouldn't, or somebody else wouldn't.
But YOU were the CinC Mr Clinton, and you didn't have the chutzpah.
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NortonPete
PO2
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 385
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Schadow wrote: | | NortonPete wrote: | | .. What happened to that Congressional legislation that we can't go around assasinating people? Wasn't that something dating pack to Allende in Chile? This tied the hands of the CIA. |
I could be wrong, but I think the legislation applied to heads of state. Since these terrorists are stateless, the rules may be looser.
Schadow |
You are probably correct here, but what if the "rules" are being interpreted by Gorelick and Berger? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
