Clinton's Anger

(Barbarian observes that if Bush hadn't dismantled the defenses Clintoni set up against terrorism, 9/11 might not have happened)

True enough. But it sure would have been better if he had taken terrorism seriously, wouldn't it? We will never know for sure if Clinton's antiterrorism programs would have stopped 9/11. We will never know, because Bush scrapped them, and put nothing in their place.

We have the word of one FBI agent, who quit in protest against Bush protecting suspected Saudi nationals. We have the testimony of another who says he nearly fell off his chair when he learned that the Bush administration didn't consider terrorism a priority.

Kind of a tip-off, isn't it?

 

QUESTION: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.


QUESTION: So what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

- Richard Clarke, Aug 2002

 

Don't keep quoting these facts, Niteshift. You will only anger those whose minds are already made up.

 

Sort of adds fuel to the fire doesn't it

 

Apparently, citing the facts uncovered by the 9/11 commission angers the few remaining Bush loyalists.

But facts never made much of an impact on them.

 

I haven't seen anyone here argue with the facts presented by the 9/11 commission report. Of course, I don't read everything, so there may be some. But you seem not to agree with any facts that reflects even the least bit poorly on Clinton. That is a clear bias that doesn't reflect well on you.

There are a number of us here who are disgusted with much that Bush has done. But at the same time, we are honest enough to acknowledge that the responsibility for attacking terrorism prior to 9/11 does not belong to Bush alone. In eight months, Bush changed some things. There was a comprehensive strategy for terrorism due to be delivered on the week following 9/11. So they had been working on it.

You are a Clinton slappie. You are as bad about that as any Bush defender here has been, and you know how bad that is.

 

You, for example, are still in denial about Bush's actions in dismantling the programs Clinton set up to counter terrorism. FBI agents testified to those facts.

As you said, your reading is somewhat selective. I've criticized Clinton on a number of issues. But again, facts are not your friends.

Indeed. He shut down Operation Catcher's Mitt, that was tracking the financial dealings of suspected terrorists. He ordered the FBI to halt survellaince of suspected Saudi terrorists, which caused the agent in charge of the program to angrily quit in protest. And he took terrorism off the list of priorities. Yes, he did some things. And they made it easier for the terrorists.

Suppose he simply hadn't removed the controls already in place. Don't you think that would have been better than a program that "he intended to have in place just a little later?"

If so, I have a lot of company. The public rates him as one of our best recent presidents. You hate Clinton with such unreasoning fury that you have to believe that anyone who says anything good about him must be a "Clinton slappie."

I have on occasion been a Bush defender. I defended something he did just last week on this board. Credit where credit is due. You see things in such black and white cartoons, that you can't stand the thought that someone you hate might have done something right.

 

I am not in denial about that. You just made that up. There is no doubt that Bush changed some things, stopping some and doing others. What is wrong is to say that Bush did nothing.

BTW, why should he have continued Clinton's policies? They weren't working too well, given all the attacks.

A few here and there perhaps, but I can't recall any off hand, due to the largess of your praise for Clinton and your defense of him. Facts are always my friends. At least I get them right. I don't make them up.

He was tracking terrorists, developing weapons such as arming the drones, developing a comprehensive plan since Clinton didn't leave him with one.

But there is no dispute that Bush could have and should have done more. But neither is there dispute that Clinton should have done more. And that is the point here.

Perhaps ... perhaps not. As we can see, the plan in place didn't work too well. While that plan was in place, the USS Cole was bombed, as well as embassies, and other American interests. Is that really a plan we should keep following?

Yes, the public also thinks all kinds of others things that show the great lack of discernment.

I don't hate Clinton. Overall, he was a fair to middling president. He wasn't great. He had the advantage of an opposition congress and an economic cycle that benefitted him until the last year of his presidency.

My dislike of Clinton is primarily his lack of ethics and morals, particularly in the Lewinski matter, as well as his lack of sincerity. Clinton was a showman, who had little regard for the truth all too often.

His policies were middle of the road most issues, being a new Democrat. He could have done a lot better. He could have done a lot worse. While some won't admit the latter, you seem unable to admit the former.

Let's face it: Clinton did not do what he could have done and should have done about terrorism. That's undeniable for most. For others for whom truth is a side issue, it is deniable.

Whoa ... Stop the presses. Galatian defended Bush somewhere about something.

What?? This makes no sense? Black and white cartoons? I am the one who constantly sees the nuances of things that you overlook. You are the one who paints the black and white all the time. This coming from you is laughable.

But you never answered my question: Would you object if someone asked Bush, "Why didn't you do more to stop 9/11?"

 

Barbarian observes:
You, for example, are still in denial about Bush's actions in dismantling the programs Clinton set up to counter terrorism. FBI agents testified to those facts.

Sure youi are. You just denied it again, in this thread.

No kidding. If he had done nothing, where would have been some defenses in place. Bush dismantled the defences Clinton put in place. And "well, we were going to have a plan maybe the week after 9/11..." isn't much of an excuse for dropping the ball on terrorism, is it?

Let's see... tracking financial dealings of Al Qaeda might have tipped us off as to who was paying for those flying lessons, um? Keeping an eye on suspected Saudis in the US might have tipped us off to the people who did 9/11, right? Even keeping terrorism as one of the main priorities would have been better than ignoring, it, no?

And yet, Bush stopped all of that. Did that in itself cause 9/11? We'll never know for sure. But it sure would have made it harder, wouldn't it?


As you said, your reading is somewhat selective. I've criticized Clinton on a number of issues. But again, facts are not your friends.

Now, there's a surprise. :laugh: As I said, the facts aren't your friends.


Indeed. He shut down Operation Catcher's Mitt, that was tracking the financial dealings of suspected terrorists. He ordered the FBI to halt survellaince of suspected Saudi terrorists, which caused the agent in charge of the program to angrily quit in protest. And he took terrorism off the list of priorities. Yes, he did some things. And they made it easier for the terrorists.

Bush couldn't track a wounded elephant in four feet of fresh snow. Thank God he didn't run off all of the people working to keep us safe. But he did considerable damage to the effort.

Yeah, that helped to stop terrorism, all right.

Rather, he dismantled the one that was in place. He did such damage to it, that the FBI agent in charge quit in protest.

We'd have been better off, if he hadn't done anything. At least there would have been some defenses in place. Bismark once remarked about officers:

A lazy and brilliant officer is a good commander.
An energetic and brilliant officer is a good exec.
A lazy and stupid officer at least does little harm.
An energetic and stupid officer is the real menace.

Which explains the mess we are in.


Barbarian on his respect for many of Clinton's accomplishments:
If so, I have a lot of company. The public rates him as one of our best recent presidents.

Yeah, you're a paragon of discernment, Larry.


Barbarian on Larry's irrational hatred of Clinton:
You hate Clinton with such unreasoning fury that you have to believe that anyone who says anything good about him must be a "Clinton slappie."

Your denial is on the board, but your behavior is much more eloquent. You hate the guy, and you can't stand that he succeeded where Bush is failing.

I have on occasion been a Bush defender. I defended something he did just last week on this board. Credit where credit is due.

Several things in the past year. And I said he was a pretty good governor. You are astounded that someone could recognize Bush as a failure, and still say some good things abouit him. That's true of most people, Larry. Most of us can do that. You can't, because you're such a partisan, the entire idea is alien to you.

Yes. They should ask "why did you remove the defenses we had against terrorism?"

 

No I didn’t.

This is a totally silly response from you. Absolutely silly. Bushy did not dismantle the defenses. He changed some of them. They obviously weren’t working, as you can tell by looking at the terrorists attacks.

If Clinton was doing that, then why didn’t it work?

Actually, I am the one who constantly harps on the facts. It is you and others who want to ignore them.

There was no comprehensive plan in place.

I am hesistant to toot my own horn, but I am better than most. I have the added benefit of objectivity since I am not tied to politics, and in fact, don’t care that much about it. My biggest concern is for the truth. Politics isn’t the answer to anything.

Where? I don’t hate Clinton and you won’t find any place that I do. I have criticized him for his failings.

That is a riot. I am not partisan.

Hilariou. You complain about a loaded attack question, and then recommend asking one. And the worst part is that you apparently don't even see it. You truly believe this nonsense you spout.

I am sure that Bush changed some things, but there is no evidence that it hurt anything. The things he changed apparently weren’t working too well, given the fact that they hadn’t stopped anything in eight years.

You are well known as a Clinton defender. Your “praise” of Bush is negligible and inane, if what you said was praise was actually praise. The reality is that Bush has been a pretty poor president. He had the added burden of a terrorist attack and the cycle of the economy hung over from the close of the Clinton era. He has not lead well, or kept his priorities as he promised to.

And none of that let’s Clinton off the hook for his failures to address terrorism. And that is the issue. You would rather defend Clinton’s failures than acknowledge that he failed miserably when he had the chance to do something about it. He was probably distracted by his own political problems brought on by his stupid choices.

And there’s not much of a way around that for most people. You on the other hand are so dispassionate about truth that it simply doesn’t matter to you. All you seem interested in is spouting off about your political biases. Which is certainly your prerogative. Just don't think that all of us mistake for for truth and informed opinion.

 

Sorry Larry, repeating your evasions and denials isn't going to help you any.

Be honest with yourself, at least. You hate Clinton, and so you are unwilling to accept the facts.

 

I have evaded nothing, and the only thing I have denied is your inaccurate statements about what I said. You are in the wrong and you have been exposed, and teh best you can do is come after me, which shows the weakness of your position. Your inconsistency and political bias has been shown yet again.

I don't hate Clinton. He was a mediocre to fair president. He was and is a tremendously immoral man with little regard for the truth and apparently little practice of self-control. Those are the facts and I have accepted them.

In the end, this thread was about Clinton's inappropriate anger. He got upset at a perfectly legitimate question that deserves to be asked, that has gotten little attention over the past five years. He should have remained composed and dealt with it professionally and presidentially. Instead, he responded poorly and came off looking bad.