Hillary's pathetic defense of Slick Willy

[dddooo]

Quote from hapaboy:

So if you're not even willing to admit that there is fault to be blamed on both sides, and you want to insist that Bush could have prevented 9/11 if he did "what Clinton did in '98," be my guest.

I already admitted that in retrospect Clinton could have done more but hindsight is 20/20. Bush did not need hindsight though, he did absolutely nothing prior to 9/11 and failed after 9/11. Of course Bush had a friendly republican congress rubberstamping everything he wished, he had the entire military at his disposal, the entire nation supported his efforts, he had virtually unlimited budget to do whatever the hell he wanted to do. Most importantly he was trying to kill/capture the murderer of 3000 americans and he miserably failed.

Clinton on the other side had an extremely hostile republican congress to deal with, Osama Bin Laden was not yet the murderer of 3000 americans, the public would never have supported a major military campaign or even significant collateral damage to avenge 20 or so americans that Osama had killed by that time. Let alone the republican opposition with their "wag the dog, it's all about Monica" nonsense no matter what Clinton did or would have done.

Clinton did 100 times more than Bush did and yes you're right, Clinton could have done even more but accusing Clinton of not having post 9/11 mentality pre-9/11 is a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. Why am I not surprised that you don't expect your party to get anything done though, when it comes to results you expect them from the democrats, not from republicans.

Quote from hapaboy:

Guess you still don't want to address Clarke's comments?

Your link was broken.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from dddooo:

I already admitted that in retrospect Clinton could have done more but hindsight is 20/20. Bush did not need hindsight though, he did absolutely nothing prior to 9/11 and failed after 9/11. Of course Bush had a friendly republican congress rubberstamping everything he wished, he had the entire military at his disposal, the entire nation supported his efforts, he had virtually unlimited budget to do whatever the hell he wanted to do.

Clinton had the entire military at his disposal too. More importantly, he had the opporunities to get bin Laden that Bush did not.

Changing the strategy from one of rollback to eliminating bin Laden and increasing the funding five fold is not doing anything? And due to the change in leadership the principals didn't even get together until April (Clarke's comments, by the way, and I'll try to find a link for that).

Clinton on the other side had an extremely hostile republican congress to deal with, Osama Bin Laden was not yet the murderer of 3000 americans,

Republican congress or not, Clinton still had the ability - and the opportunity - to kill bin Laden. Bin Laden had still killed scores of Americans overseas. What, in your opinion, unless thousands of Americans are killed the CIC shouldn't pursue the killers?

the public would never have supported a major military campaign or even significant collateral damage to avenge 20 or so americans that Osama had killed by that time.

Much more than twenty, and you don't know if the public would have supported it or not. What does it matter? Clinton still had the opportunities to get bin Laden but failed to act.

Let alone the republican opposition with their "wag the dog, it's all about Monica" nonsense no matter what Clinton did or would have done.

That "Wag the Dog" urban tale has been utterly discredited, at least in scope. Even Newt Gingrich himself was supportive of taking action to get bin Laden, and told the few "Wag the Dog" GOPers to knock it off.

Why am I not surprised that you don't expect your party to get anything done though, when it comes to results you expect them from the democrats, not from republicans.

Why am I not surprised that you're making crass assumptions with no basis in fact?

Your link was broken.

Well, my post still had Clarke's comments that you in turn can address.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

I kinda' agree with you Hap. There is blame that fits both administrtations, and yes, President Clinton missed a couple of golden opportunities to kill bin laden. Presiedent Bush has not had the exact same kind of opportunites, but opportunites none the less. Where we may be in disagreement is that President Bush had some serious red flags going up in July and August of 2001 and he had a business as usual attitude. He and his administration most certainly could have, and should have taken preventative, agressive measures. It was the beginning of a distrubing trend that he has followed to date. Simply put, he's stubborn to a fault, won't listen to anyone but a very select few, and his whole, mission from God thing, is inappropriate behavior for a President. He's a well intentioned fuck up, but a fuck up none the less, and we all know the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Bush had one good opportunity - at Tora Bora. At least he took the opportunity.

Please elaborate on these "serious red flags."

Look, I don't dispute for a second that BOTH Administrations fucked up. What I do dispute are Clinton's rabid assertions he made with Chris Wallace, which have been discredited by a variety of sources, including the one he constantly referred to - Richard Clarke.