Monday, September 25, 2006
Bill Clinton Unhinged Fallout Continues
Well, we know today - and yesterday - the answer is none of the above, nor any other of the likely liberals from the Land Of Oz. This time, it was The Bubbster.
Who's saying what today:
William 'Bill' Kristol of The Weekly Standard subscribes to the theory that it was a purposeful act on Clinton's part to rally the Democratic base for the November election, helping his wife in 2008 and intimidating critics.
I dunno - I wouldn't discount that theory, but I don't find it likely. I think Clinton, much like the Ron Brown-funeral-laugh-to-cry moment, showed who he really is by his reaction to Chris Wallace's questions.
A clinical psychologist asks 'Will The Real Bill Clinton please stand up':
A good Davenloonian therapist would cut to the chase with this man, and believe me, "the real Bill Clinton would stand up."
Over the years, it has been reported that Clinton has quite a temper. However, you wouldn't know it with Clinton mugging for the cameras and his omnipresent smile; and his bowing gracefully to his audience, while the cameras run. There are some people who have a problem with the word "Anger." It has been my experience that people who have a problem with another person exhibiting anger is "Transferring His/Her Feelings On To This Person."
Bubba lauded by fellow
Bubba went ballistic.
And, in response to all those cries from the Left, accusing Chris Wallace of NEVER asking the same hard questions of the Bush Admin., that he asked of Bubba, they somehow dismiss or ignore Donald Rumsfeld being INTERVIEWED by Chris Wallace in March, 2004:
MR. WALLACE: But looking back, sir, and I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it's more than an individual manhunt. I mean -- what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Which is the only way to do it, in my view. I think you simply have to go out --
MR. WALLACE: -- pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, we were thinking about what to do about al Qaeda. Any suggestion that the administration was not would just be incorrect. Now, as I think it was Rich Armitage said, were we able to stop that attack? The answer is no. Were we ahead of those particular terrorists and what they were doing? Obviously not. George Tenet put it well, I thought, when he said, "Look" -- they said, "Why did it happen?" He said, "Because we didn't have a source inside that particular terrorist cell." That would have enabled it to being stopped.
MR. WALLACE: Clarke makes one other specific charge that I'd like to give you the opportunity to respond to here today. He says that on September 12th, the day after the attack, that when all the evidence was pointing to al Qaeda that you wanted to hit Iraq. Let's look at this.
MR. CLARKE: Rumsfeld said "There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan, and there are lots of good targets in Iraq." I said, "Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it."
MR. WALLACE: Mr. Secretary, true or false?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, I don't know the context that he said that. I said publicly at one stage during our effort in Afghanistan, which was, of course, a highly successful effort to deal with the al Qaeda there and run them out and deny them that haven, that Afghanistan had run out of targets. That is a correct quote. It's out of context here, but it is a correct quote.
If you think about it, the United States government made a decision to go into Afghanistan, not into Iraq, after 9/11. So the implication of what he is saying obviously misunderstands what actually took place.
MR. WALLACE: But, specifically, if I may, sir, what he is saying is on the afternoon of September 12th, when all the evidence was pointing to Afghanistan, that you wanted to hit Iraq, and he compared it to attacking Mexico after the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Yes, he also quotes me as -- September 4th -- as saying some things in a meeting that I didn't attend. So it's hard for me to explain a person who would characterize a conversation in a meeting that I was not even in the room or the building when it supposedly took place.
Try again, Libs - try again. You're so pathetic...
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.