Sunday, March 28, 2004
Clinton Let Lewinsky Scandal Influence His Decisions About Al Qaeda
Or so this piece of the Richard Clarke interview would have us believe...
"But let's talk about the Cole. The Cole was attacked in October of 2000. President Bush was running for office; he never mentioned it. Vice President Gore was running for office; he never mentioned it. The media hardly touched it. What were they focused on? They were focused on the election, and they were focused on the Middle East peace process. I thought it was a mistake...
... the FBI and the CIA refused to say who did it in October of 2000. And the president was, therefore, faced with the problem, 'Can I go ahead and bomb somebody in retaliation for the attack on the Cole when my CIA director and my FBI director won't say who did it?'
Now, this is the same president who, when he bombed Afghanistan, when he bombed al-Qaeda camps, because George Tenet and I and Sandy Berger recommended he do it in order to get bin Laden and the leadership team, where we thought they were going to be meeting, the reaction he faced to that was the so-called wag the dog phenomenon. No one in the media, Tim, no one in the media, no one in the Congress said, 'Oh, that's a great thing that you're retaliating for the attack on the United States,' they said, 'This is all about Monica Lewinsky, and this is all about your political problems.'"
Wow. I have always had a love/hate relationship with every Clinton and this definitely falls into the "hate" category. I guess my reaction to this would be - so what if the media focused on Lewinsky. So what if the election was coming up? If Clinton's decision making vis a vis Osama Bin Laden was in anyway compromised by the blow jobs he received from a 20 year old in the oval office, he probably should have resigned right there.
I wonder if September 11 could have been prevented if Clinton had kept it in his pants and not given the media any reason to believe that military actions abroad were intended to distract from the political mess at home?
P.S. - Of course Bush is just as bad and probably worse.
|
"But let's talk about the Cole. The Cole was attacked in October of 2000. President Bush was running for office; he never mentioned it. Vice President Gore was running for office; he never mentioned it. The media hardly touched it. What were they focused on? They were focused on the election, and they were focused on the Middle East peace process. I thought it was a mistake...
... the FBI and the CIA refused to say who did it in October of 2000. And the president was, therefore, faced with the problem, 'Can I go ahead and bomb somebody in retaliation for the attack on the Cole when my CIA director and my FBI director won't say who did it?'
Now, this is the same president who, when he bombed Afghanistan, when he bombed al-Qaeda camps, because George Tenet and I and Sandy Berger recommended he do it in order to get bin Laden and the leadership team, where we thought they were going to be meeting, the reaction he faced to that was the so-called wag the dog phenomenon. No one in the media, Tim, no one in the media, no one in the Congress said, 'Oh, that's a great thing that you're retaliating for the attack on the United States,' they said, 'This is all about Monica Lewinsky, and this is all about your political problems.'"
Wow. I have always had a love/hate relationship with every Clinton and this definitely falls into the "hate" category. I guess my reaction to this would be - so what if the media focused on Lewinsky. So what if the election was coming up? If Clinton's decision making vis a vis Osama Bin Laden was in anyway compromised by the blow jobs he received from a 20 year old in the oval office, he probably should have resigned right there.
I wonder if September 11 could have been prevented if Clinton had kept it in his pants and not given the media any reason to believe that military actions abroad were intended to distract from the political mess at home?
P.S. - Of course Bush is just as bad and probably worse.
Comments:
Post a Comment
