Text 40201, 305 rader
Skriven 2006-09-29 14:35:00 av BOB KLAHN (1:123/140)
Kommentar till en text av NOEL SHEPPARD
Ärende: Clinton and Wallace II
==============================
NS> Were there high-ranking Republicans that piled on this
NS> assertion? Hardly.
Again, you limit yourself to "high ranking republicans". Now,
just how many "high ranking republicans" of that time are now
leaders of the republican party? All too many had to leave
because of corruption or sexaul pecadillos, while criticising
Clinton for same.
Now, how many right wingers were shouting "Wag the Dog"? It sure
weren't democrats.
Perhaps you have a point, Clinton should have specified "right
wingers" instead of republicans. That way you couldn't spin it
to "high ranking republicans".
NS> As the Associated Press reported on the day of the attacks,
NS> Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) said the
NS> following on August 20, 1998:
NS> Well, I think the United States did exactly the right
NS> thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack
NS> American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have
Yes, but did he tell the right wingers shouting "Wag the Dog" to
shut up?
...
NS> From the Senate majority leader [Trent Lott], "Despite
...
NS> the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Jesse Helms.
NS> It was vintage rally around the flag, just as they did for
NS> Ronald Reagan when he bombed Libya, for George Bush when he
NS> sent armed forces to the Gulf.
And yet, now we have right wingers claiming Clinton was at fault
for not connecting the 1993 WTC attack. Why is that? Could it be
opportunism? Diversion from the failings of W?
...
NS> Were there some Republican detractors? Certainly. Chief
NS> amongst them was Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana:
...
NS> Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) also questioned the timing
NS> operation, chief amongst them, Gingrich himself. As
...
NS> reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Speaker
NS> felt the "Wag the Dog" comparisons were "sick":
NS> "Anyone who saw the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania,
NS> anyone who saw the coffins come home, would not ask
NS> such a question," said the House speaker, referring to
NS> the 12 Americans killed in the embassy bombings.
But the did, didn't they.
NS> In fact, Gingrich did everything within his power to head
NS> off Republican criticism of these attacks as reported by
NS> the Boston Globe on August 23, 1998:
...
NS> Sound like Republicans were complaining about President
NS> Clinton obsessing over bin Laden? Or, does it seem that Mr.
NS> Clinton pulled this concept out of his. hat in front of
NS> Chris Wallace, and ran 99 yards with the ball, albeit in
NS> the wrong direction?
Where is Trent Lott? Where is Newt Gingrich? Where is Jesse
Helms?
Two down, and one lower profile. However, Rush Limbaugh is still
out there attacking and smearing. And where are the republican
defenders of the Clinton retaliation today? We see right wingers
claiming he blew up some tents in the desert, and "Wag the Dog".
But I don't see republicans saying he did the right thing.
...
NS> As for "neocons," one so-called high-ranking member,
NS> Richard Perle, wrote the following in an August 23, 1998,
NS> op-ed published in the Sunday Times:
NS> For the first time since taking office in 1993, the
NS> Clinton administration has responded with some measure
NS> of seriousness to an act of terror against the United
NS> States. This has undoubtedly come as a surprise to
NS> Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi terrorist believed to have
NS> been behind the bombing of American embassies in Kenya
NS> and Tanzania, and to the regimes in Afghanistan and
NS> Sudan who provide him with sanctuary and support.
Since before 1993 no US govt struck back with any seriousness,
it would be reasonable for them to be surprised. Since before
1996 no one even considered Bin Laden anything but a terrorist
banker, the same applies. Which did *NOT* stop the Wag the Dog
comparisons.
NS> Until now they, along with other terrorists and their
NS> state sponsors in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and North
NS> Korea, have manoeuvred, plotted, connived and killed
NS> with confidence that the United States would do little
NS> or nothing in retaliation.
NS> So Thursday's bombing is a small step in the right
NS> direction. More important, it reverses, at least for
NS> now, a weak and ineffective Clinton policy that has
NS> emboldened terrorists and confirmed that facilitating
NS> terror is without cost to the states that do it.
You mean the weak Reagan/Bush I policies. Either of whom could
have retaliated, and neither did to any significant extent.
NS> Does that sound like a "Bush neocon" claiming that Clinton
NS> was "obsessed with bin Laden" to you?
It sounds like one neocon, in the immediate aftermath. Where is
he today? What does he say to those who call it blowing up tents
in the desert?
...
NS> Moving forward, conservative support for Clinton's
NS> Afghanistan attacks didn't end in the weeks that followed.
NS> On October 25, 1998, high-ranking Republican senator Orrin
NS> Hatch of Utah said the following on CNN:
NS> You've seen the great work of the FBI and the CIA in
NS> particular with regard to the Osama bin Laden matters.
Where is Clinton's name in that?
...
NS> In a one-hour, seventeen minute speech to the nation on
NS> January 19, 1999, this is all President Clinton had to say
NS> about such issues:
NS> As we work for peace, we must also meet threats to our
NS> nation's security, including increased danger from
NS> outlaw nations and terrorism. We will defend our
NS> security wherever we are threatened-as we did this
NS> summer when we struck at Osama bin Laden's network of
NS> terror.
NS> The bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
NS> reminds us again of the risks faced every day by those
NS> who represent America to the world.
NS> So let's give them the support they need, the safest
NS> possible workplaces, and the resources they must have
NS> so America can continue to lead.
NS> We must work to keep terrorists from disrupting
NS> computer networks. We must work to prepare local
NS> communities for biological and chemical emergencies, to
NS> support research into vaccines and treatments.
NS> Furthermore, twelve months later, even though he spoke for
NS> almost an hour and a half during his final State of the
NS> Union address on January 27, 2000, according to a
NS> LexisNexis search, the name Osama bin Laden was never
NS> mentioned. This appears almost impossible to believe given
NS> revelations that very morning about a connection between
NS> the individual apprehended trying to cross the Canadian
NS> border with explosives in December and bin Laden.
NS> So much for obsession.
Now you say the state of the union speech is the indicator of
policy? Why would he mention Bin Laden in the state of the Union
speech? Why not just terrorism? I looked it up, he did mention
terrorism in his 2K speech. Sounds like the complaint that he
didn't mention Al Qaeda in his final report, but he did mention
Bin Laden's terrorist organization. IOW, he didn't speak the
magic words. Republicans are the true masters of spin.
NS> Sadly, this entire incident speaks volumes about how the
NS> press have given Clinton a pass for his transgressions,
His Transgressions? Since when is starting with nothing from his
predecessors, building a functioning anti-terrorism system,
turning it over to his successor, and having it ignored by the
current administration a "transgression"?
NS> and, maybe more important, the danger of such negligence.
NS> When one watches this interview, it is easy to see a man
NS> that is unused to challenging questions from the media.
He is used to attacks in the media. Do your nexis/Lexis search,
and compare the number of attacks reported against Clinton
compared to any of his opponents, or critics.
NS> After all, this is the first time that Clinton agreed to be
NS> on Fox News Sunday, and, as a result, he's become so
Since Wallace interrupted Clinton 4 times in his attempt to
answer the compound question Wallace asked, and Wallace reframed
the question a couple times, why would he agree to appear at
all?
NS> accustomed to the softballs fed to him by folks like Tim
NS> Russert and George Stephanopoulos that he feels it's his
NS> right to not be challenged.
Just like George W. Bush gets softballs all the time. I would
love to put both of them in the dock, and make them answer
questions under oath.
NS> Just look at some of the disdain Clinton showed for his
NS> interviewer all because he was asked a question he didn't
NS> want to answer:
It appears it was a question he very much wanted to answer. The
fact that he had his answer so well framed and his facts so well
learned suggests he did want to answer that question. What he
probably didn't want was to be ambushed.
NS> You set this meeting up because you were going to get a
NS> lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert
NS> Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your
...
NS> Or, how about this wonderful statement by a former
NS> president:
NS> And you've got that little smirk on your face. It looks
NS> like you're so clever.
On that he was probably wrong. It looks to me like Wallace is
smirking all the time.
NS> Or this one:
NS> So you did FOX's bidding on this show. You did your
NS> nice little conservative hit job on me.
True. Framing he question so it is a pure accusation is a
conservative hit job. Why didn't you do more is an unaswerable
question. There is always more you can do. If you go 1000 miles
you can always go 1001. If you spend 1 billion, you can always
spend 1billion and 1. It was a stupid question, and he had to
answer it as if it actually meant something.
NS> Just imagine President Bush speaking this way to a member
NS> of the media when he is being grilled either during a press
NS> conference, or in the middle of any of his interviews since
Bush isn't capable of defending his record without a script.
Which is why Cheney had to be there with him when he was
interviewed by the 9-11 commission. Which is why he spoke so
badly in the presidential debates, and which is why it is so
widely believed he was being fed his answers. Remember the bulge
in the back of his coat?
NS> he became president. Or getting in the face of his
NS> interviewer and tapping on the host's notepad that's
NS> sitting on his lap.
No interviewer gets that access, other than the press lapdogs.
NS> Would this be acceptable? Not a chance. However, such was
Hell, he gets away with it all the time. He turns any
challenging question into an accusation against the questioner's
patriotism. Everything become 9-11, and if you aren't with him
you are a traitor.
...
NS> In the end, it's not clear which is more surprising: Mr.
NS> Clinton once again lying to the American people and
Please show where he lied before. I'll bet you can't. Nor can
you show he lied in the interview. Your entire commentary is a
mass of spin and deception.
NS> disgracing himself so, or that he didn't realize that in
NS> his self-absorbed desire to revise history for the benefit
NS> of posterity, he was actually doing himself more harm than
NS> good.
I am not much impressed with Clinton's record in office. I felt
he was weak in defending himself against his enemies while in
office, and weak in defending his record since. He was too
republican in his trade policies, and not aggressive enough in
advocating for the working people.
In all that he was still vastly superior to Bush, either I or
II.
And his interview with Wallace was the first time I felt he did
a really good job of defending himself, and taking on the
critics. He should do it again.
BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn
... Democrat on race: Listing problems black people face to a black audience.
* Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)
|