Political Punch

Quoting:

"Clinton's election in 1992 was due solely to Ross Perot draining near 12% of center-right votes from Bush I. Then in 1996, the Republican Senate establishment annointed Bob Dole, arguably the weakest opposition candidate since 1936. In neither case did Clinton win more than 48% of the popular vote. He was a minority President, in office solely due to Electoral College majorities stemming from big-city Democrat machines with long-standing records of corrupt manipulation. (See Daley's Chicago in 1960, which even LBJ admitted had fraudulently awarded Illinois to Kennedy.)"
More people voted for Gore than Bush. But he still won by manipulating the Constitution and the Supreme Court. And Clinton did not win by corrupting evil big cities full of horrible minorities in the 60s. By that logic, Bush is guilty of wiretapping and conspiracy and all sorts of other horrible things Nixon did.

"Clinton's draft-dodging;"
I forgot the Texas Air National Guard was serving your country... I'd hate for Vietnamese bombers to blow up a steer ranch

"his record as a Soviet KGB agent in 1968, when he traveled the East Bloc ratting out student dissenters during the "Prague String";"
That is a completely ridiculous statement... try to read some history books not by Rush Limbaugh

"his extraordinary trail of sexual predation,"
Do you want a president who can't keep it in his pants, or one with personal business ties to Middle Eastern oil?

"extortion ("Red" Bone in Arkansas), blackmail (threatening to publish FBI files through "Hustler" magazine's Larry Flynt), treasonous corruption (Riadi oil rights, selling highly-classified nuclear-engineering data from Livermore Labs to Red Chinese military intelligence)"
Some of these are obscure, so I'll have to see what ol' Rush has to say on them... but most presidents are guilty of such things. Believe it or not, you have to beat up a few people to become the most powerful man in the world. Maybe even kill em. And saying "Red Chinese" is so Cold War... we're fighting the Towelheads now.

"-- all dwarf his foolish incompetence in addressing the Islamist threat."
Bush is not an all-star here either. Osama is still out there. There have been continued attacks around the world since 9/11. The administration's own analysis says we have made the terrorist problem worse by going to Iraq. Also, the Islamists are not a threat. It's the terrorists who are threats. The Islamists are 99% peaceful, and don't think murdering Americans is holy. But I suppose lumping an entire religion into the "dangerous" category makes the world simpler for you... dangerous big city minorities, dangerous leftists, dangerous islamists... you do like Rush Limbaugh, huh?

"Now those latest chickens are roosting comfortably, and Big Bill has the astounding arrogance to foist excuses
on every contemporary but himself."
Yes, admitting he tried and failed is an excellent excuse. Saying "I did not get the job done when I had a chance" sure clears his name. Of course, his point was that Bush didn't even try to do the job, not that he was innocent, so I guess it doesn't matter.

"Alas, this wretched little twerp is all too typical of extreme-left Democrat partisans today (there are no moderate Leftists). Their intentions are not honorable, meaning they (Dean, Pelosi, Reid et.al.) will say or do literally anything to regain executive power."
There are moderate leftists, and many other flavors of leftists, just like there are rightists (if that's a word). I know how you like to lump people into simple groups though, so how about we just have left, center, and right, the way it was before the modern media turned every debate into a struggle between the Light Side and the Dark Side of the Force. The center has a large majority of the American population...because that's how the center is defined. The middle. The average. Take a political science class... you'll be surprised what it is like to think. Don't just read some bestseller on it though... those are all propaganda anyway. Oh, and being a Democrat doesn't automatically put you on the left... same for Republicans and the right. There are in fact different issues, and politicians can be liberal on some, conservative on others. Like John McCain. Or Giulianni. Also, if doing anything to stay in power means violating the Constitution, instilling fear in your own people, and starting needless wars, Republicans are guilty of being ruthless in their quest for power too.

"As becomes increasingly obvious, bin Laden and Hugh Chavez, with Kofi Baby and his Rwanda Brigade, are merely mouthing Democrat Party talking points."
You've found the conspiracy... bin Laden, Venezuela, the UN, and the Democrats... I guess it has become increasingly obvious, what with the sleepover party they had at the Rwanda Brigade's tree house last week. Or maybe that's just another ridiculous comment trying to lump together people you think are against you.

"Like "Peace Democrats" in 1864, willing to accommodate the South's slavocracy while dismembering the American Union, today's far-Left agitators in academia, entertainment, and mass media know nothing, care nothing, and like Bill Clinton himself, spout conspiracy theories of how 3,000 innocents "really" perished, never heeding Muslim murderers' own words, repeated ad infinitum with nauseating self-importance."
Yes, just like those Democrats 140 years ago... Bill Clinton Sr. Sr. Sr. Sr. Sr. is laughing his ass off at his plan finally coming together. As to the "far-Left agitators," the right brings plenty of their own. Ann Coulter, Gerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, the entire Fox News cast(yes, cast. it's not news, it's a soap opera), and many more. If you take the words of these types of people over academics, you are crazy. I'm not saying all professors are right, but a lot are, and they know a lot more than a lot of people. It can be shocking, listening to intelligent people after listening to Bush. But it's worth it. Also, stop saying whole groups of people are bad. I am positive there are academics, entertainers, and news organizations who are right up your alley. And your last little thought about conspiracy theories was unreadable, but if it is something about leftist 9/11 conspiracy theories, nobody seriously believes those. We just say em to make the vast right-wing conspiracy go crazy.

"Thanks, Bill. Tear up the pea-patch any time."
Same to you. In fact, why don't us city folk trade you for Bill Clinton like an exchange program? Maybe you can tear up some asphalt? Or show us city folk how to vote against our interests like you Republicans?

And seriously, stop grouping people together on the basis of one trait or one Limbaugh or O'Reilly tirade. It's just ignorant. You wrote pretty well, good diction and stuff. Even almost used et al. (it's Latin, short for et alii, "and others") correctly. If you get some knowledge to go with those fancy words, you'll be going places.

But are you prepared to give your life and your tax money for oil company profits and lies?

Please, come back alive. Your life is worth more than what this president is doing with it.

I wish you people would focus this much attention and energy fighting terrorism. Rather than researching for hours and hours on who's right or wrong, we should stand united but we do not! I am an active duty service member and damn proud of it. I have served overseas during the war and feel that people in our country just dont get it.

The terrorists are in Iraq, Iran, Europe, South and North America because they are united. We spend way too much time on crap! It doesn't matter if you believe the president or not. He is trying to do the right thing and that is preserving our country. The economy, spending, healthcare, the homeless, do not matter if we have no country! The terrorists have one mission and one mission only; to spread thier beliefs and convert you and I by any means possible. That's it, plain and simple. Until the public gets on board with this, they win.

So these are your options: Convert to Islam and be left alone, continue to bicker with one another until the terrorists strike here or open your mind and educate yourself. People need to become objective and ponder the possibility that perhaps we are currently engaged in the most important issue of our time. That is, the battle against Islamic Facism, Islamic Militants, Islamic Terrorists, or whatever you want to call it.

Remember, we were attacked and we responded and are still responding. As for me, I am prepared to give my life in defense of my country, my family, and my God.

God Bless You
2nd Lt Adrian A. Reyes

So why doesn't the MSM ask the current administration the difficult questions instead of assisting the administration in hiding the facts?

This administration has owned every branch of government for several years now. Its own intel report shows that terrorism has increased under this administration's watch and we are NOT safer.

Why isn't the MSM concerned with that? Why isn't the MSM concerned with what is going on NOW instead of years ago?

Instead of doing a darned good imitation of Pravda, why doesn't the MSM inform the people of the truth of this administration?

Here, here, JAFDC. Props for correcting your gaffe and excellent points in your most recent post. We all remember the current pResident's touting his "humble" foreign policy plan, contrasting it with the nation building engaged in by the Clinton administration.

House Members attempted to use section 5(c) to obtain a withdrawal of forces from Somalia. On October 22, 1993, Representative Benjamin Gilman introduced H.Con.Res. 170, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, directing the President to remove U.S. Armed Forces from Somalia by January 31, 1994. Using the expedited procedures called for in section 5(c), the Foreign Affairs Committee amended the date of withdrawal to March 31, 1994, (the date the President had already agreed to withdraw the forces), and the House adopted H.Con.Res. 170.
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html

H.CON.RES.170 "Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from Somalia by January 31, 1994."
Sponsor: Rep Gilman, Benjamin A. (Republican) [NY-20] (introduced 10/22/1993) Cosponsors (1)
Related Bills: H.RES.293
Latest Major Action: 11/10/1993 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from Somalia.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM SOMALIA.

Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), the Congress hereby directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from Somalia by March 31, 1994 (unless the President requests and the Congress authorizes a later date), except for a limited number of members of the Armed Forces sufficient only to protect United States diplomatic facilities and citizens, and noncombatant personnel to advise the United Nations commander in Somalia.
Passed the House of Representatives November 9, 1993.

MAJOR ACTIONS:
10/22/1993 Introduced/originated in House
11/5/1993 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. H. Rept. 103-329. Filed late, pursuant to previous special order.
11/9/1993 Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.
11/10/1993 Referred to Senate committee: Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

In response to my earlier comment, it has been pointed out that Iraq is not al Qaeda and that this fact might arguably justify Mr. Tapper treating the Dec. 1998 Iraq attack as a 'side note' from a story on Republican reactions to the Aug. 1998 attack on al Qaeda. This is true, and I in haste focused only on the different timing, not the different target, so I humbly apologize to Mr. Tapper for my unkind words (and I promise not to seek employment with either ABC News or the Washington Post). But I will add a few points.

First, the fact that the Republican leadership supported an attack on al Qaeda in August 1998 and opposed an attack on Iraq in December 1998 certainly wasn't based on their liking Saddam Hussein more than Osama bin Laden. It was purely and simply because Clinton was in more trouble in December than in August. If Clinton had attacked al Qaeda instead of Iraq in Dec. 1998 then he clearly would have got the same negative reaction from the Republicans at that time. So, although the Republican reaction to the Dec. 1998 Iraq bombing does not itself prove Clinton's point, it certainly supports it, and does not deserve to be treated as merely an 'interesting side note' that is irrelevant to the issue under examination.

Second, examining public statements by the Republican congressional leadership following a single high profile military strike is a remarkably weak way to test Clinton's assertions that 'conservatives' accused him of obsessing over bin Laden and ridiculed him for trying to kill the man. Of course the congressional leadership of either party ordinarily will (and as a practical political matter, almost has to) support a public military strike ordered by the president. (It was utterly astounding, and a measure of just how bad things were, that the Republicans refused to support the Iraq bombing in Dec. 1998.) The fact that Republican leaders publicly supported Clinton's military leadership on a single occasion when they had almost no other choice does nothing to disprove former President Clinton's assertions that 'conservatives' generally thought he was off base on bin Laden.

Third, anyone who lived through the 1990s knows that conservatives generally considered the Clinton administration to be trigger-happy nationbuilders -- with respect to bin Laden as well as to Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, and other places -- and that they criticised him for it (and no doubt, on the talk show circuit and from time to time elsewhere, ridiculed him for it). The issue came up, among other places, in the Bush/Gore debates where Bush emphasized his humility and caution in contrast to the Clinton/Gore administration's more interventionist approach. It has also been reported (I'm not sure if it was in the NY Times, the W.Post, or the New Yorker) that bin Laden and al Qaeda were near the top of the Clinton administration's priority list when they handed things over in Jan. 2001, but that they didn't even make the top ten on the Bush administration's list before Sept. 11, 2001 -- and that during that 8 month period Bush administration officials dismissed the outgoing administration's priorities as resulting from an obsession (whether or not they used the exact word) with bin Laden, terrorism, and foreign policy in general. So former President Clinton's assertions, if possibly a little overinclusive, are essentially accurate.

I wrote to Ken Hughes this:
AMEN! The moment I caught a glimpse of Clinton 'attacking' Wallace, it did not fit the normal Clinton well manicured in control speeches. At first glance, I thought that Clinton was finally caught off guard and that he it may be due to senility. Clinton? Off guard? Senile? Naaahhh. The only alternative was it being staged. Clinton went in there with an agenda, as he always does, and waited for the bait that he knew would come. Your article is right on the money Ken.
Ken Hughes article: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=13948

Uh, JAFDC, I think it's an interesting "side note" because we have now attacked Iraq, with the full support of the party that once objected to an attack on Iraq. It's a "side" note, because it's interesting (see above), but does not have any relationship to Clinton's claim about the Republican Party, since bin Laden was not in Iraq. So it's off to the "side."

Jake,

In light of today's NYP story with Rice's denial of Clinton's charges, could someone ask why after Richard Clarke's January 25th memo on Al Queda, no Principals Meeting was held until September 4th?

Sounds like the Bush Administration dropped the ball to me, how about you?

Clinton goes Wacko tells a bunch of lies and says there all out to get me... It sounds like someone was exposed at being the incompetent one and is trying to throw enough mud to hide behind. Is any of the Mainstream Media going to have an interest in the story yet???

Sorry, make that "Why is someone like you employed by ABC News?" The Washington Post has higher standards.

Let's get this straight, Jake. Former President Clinton "said that during the 1990s conservatives criticised him for 'obsessing' over bin Laden and 'they ridiculed me for trying' to kill bin Laden." So, you say, "let's examine the record... The most aggressive strike the Clinton Administration launched against al Qaeda was in August 1998...." You then document at length the fact that most (although not all) of the Republican establishment supported the cruise missile strike in 1998. But then at the end, just by the way, in a parenthetical footnote, you add "An interesting side note -- Clinton WAS slammed by Republicans for using 'Wag the Dog' tactics after he authorized a strike against Iraq in December 1998, during impeachment" -- and you note that Lott, Armey, and Barr (i.e., the Republican leadership) all refused to back that military action. In other words, Clinton's claim, that in the 1990s the Republicans ridiculed and opposed his attempts to strike at bin Laden and al Qaeda, which you have just "examined the record" in order to discredit, is in fact accurate. But, since it would completely undermine your argument, you don't have the honesty or decency to state this fact clearly, and instead you cast the additional information as a "side note." (Or are you somehow distinguishing between an attack on bin Laden and an attack on al Qaeda? Clinton said that the Republicans ridiculed his attack on bin Laden, not his attacks on al Qaeda....) Have you no shame or professional pride? Why is someone like you employed by the Washington Post?

It's a shame that those still analyzing Clinton's mistakes from over 5 years ago, can't put those same brain cells for critical thought into use to analyze Bush's mistakes for the last 5 years.

But then...Bush doesn't think he's ever made any mistakes, does he?

I remember the last time Clinton "wagged" his finger and lied to us. Same ole, same ole. Its legacy spin gone mad.

My memory tells me that the majority of the links you shared is the far leftists’ sites and their comments which mostly concluded as a political talking point. Common sense thinking people look at the NYT and decide after they verify what they read there. On huffing ton PoST, one can go to some of their links and end up w/ activist’s sites which many are out of the USA… (the blog brings out the nuttiest sentiments, doesn't it).

The only time the liberals will prop up a conservative -when the person's comments can be used to help them politically and 2/ the person they used is basically a liberal w/just that (R) by their names. They think its traction (for the uninformed, that’s why they do it) so, when liberal republicans speak don't try to say they speak for the entire party just like the leftists, do not speak for the DNC party (or maybe they do these days). The way I see it the GOP allows opposite points of view. The GOP, not the best by no means but the elected officials do not know what the CIC has been informed to in the private briefings. The political pundits do not know everything; they spin the news and make events. Pat Buchanan is all over the map w/ideas at times. The pundits work for a network or paper; until their job is over they are pretty much loyal to the boss. Clinton cannot go away so he will be examined closely for his latest comments. He lost control on the Wallace interview. I watched the movie Black Hawk Down with several veteran friends last night, took me a long time to want to even see it. Mr. Clinton did let our guys down. He brings up the open wounds.

.
.
.
Can someone tell me one single thing "President" bush did to prevent 9/11 after receiving the following Presidential Daily Briefing on August 6, 2001:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html
.
.
.

It's so clear that the Republicans in Congress obstructed Clinton's effort to combat terrorism, including legislation to help track money, to better track and id explosive materials and on and on. Having put partisanship above national security for 8 years, they have a lot of nerve trying to cast the fruits of their efforts on Clinton while excusing Bush's idiotic obsession with SDI that prevented his administration from doing one damn thing to fight terrorism before 9/11.

Talk about Wag the Dog....why is it the Republicans always trot out an attack on Clinton, who has been out of office for 5 YEARS, whenever they want a distraction from such things as, say, the disaster in Iraq, the budget crisis, the Republican culture of corruption, etc?

And since Clinton likely isn't going to be enough distraction until November, anyone taking bets that Bush invades Iran before the election?

My analysis is set forth in the Salon post. Following are the full excerpts providing the factual support for that analysis:

GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, speech on the Senate floor October 6, 1993

I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option.

GOP Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, speech on the Senate floor, October 6, 1993

Mr. President, the mission is accomplished in Somalia. The humanitarian aid has been delivered to those who were starving. The mission is not nation building, which is what now is being foisted upon the American people. The United States has no interest in the civil war in Somalia and as this young soldier told me, if the Somalis are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then it is absolutely time that we go home. . . It is time for the Senate of the United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the American troops home.

GOP Minority Leader Sen. Robert Dole, Senate speech, October 5, 1993

I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with--I do not know how many Members were there--45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close. . . .

GOP Sen. Jesse Helms, Senate floor speech October 6, 1993:

All of which means that I support the able Senator from West Virginia--who, by the way, was born in North Carolina--Senator Robert C. Byrd, and others in efforts to bring an end to this tragic situation. The United States did its best to deliver aid and assistance to the victims of chaos in Somalia as promised by George Bush last December.

But now we find ourselves involved there in a brutal war, in an urban environment, with the hands of our young soldiers tied behind their backs, under the command of a cumbersome U.N. bureaucracy, and fighting Somalia because we tried to extend helping hands to the starving people of that far-off land. Mr. President, the United States has no constitutional authority, as I see it, to sacrifice U.S. soldiers to Boutros-Ghali's vision of multilateral peacemaking. Again, I share the view of Senator Byrd that the time to get out is now.

President Clinton's speech, on October 8, 1993, arguing against withdrawal

And make no mistake about it, if we were to leave Somalia tomorrow, other nations would leave, too. Chaos would resume, the relief effort would stop and starvation soon would return. That knowledge has led us to continue our mission. . . .

If we leave them now, those embers will reignite into flames and people will die again. If we stay a short while longer and do the right things, we've got a reasonable chance of cooling off the embers and getting other firefighters to take our place. . .

So, now, we face a choice. Do we leave when the job gets tough or when the job is well done? Do we invite the return of mass suffering or do we leave in a way that gives the Somalis a decent chance to survive? Recently, Gen. Colin Powell said this about our choices in Somalia: "Because things get difficult, you don't cut and run. You work the problem and try to find a correct solution." . . .

So let us finish the work we set out to do. Let us demonstrate to the world, as generations of Americans have done before us, that when Americans take on a challenge, they do the job right.

Sen. John Kerry, Senate floor speech, 10/7/93, supporting Clinton's anti-withdrawal position

But, Mr. President, I must say I have also been jarred by the reactions of many of our colleagues in the U.S. Senate and in the Congress. I am jarred by the extraordinary sense of panic that seems to be rushing through this deliberative body, and by the strident cries for a quick exit, an immediate departure notwithstanding the fact that what we are doing in Somalia does not bear any resemblance to Grenada, to Panama, to Iraq, and most importantly, to Vietnam. . . .

We must recognize that any decision that we make about Somalia is not just a decision to get our troops home. It is not just a decision about looking out for the interests of the United States. There are extraordinary ramifications attached to the choice that we make in the next days in the Congress and in this country. . . .

Mr. President, we are in a situation now where withdrawal would send the wrong signal to Aidid and his supporters. It would encourage other nations to withdraw from the U.N. effort in Somalia and no doubt would result in the total breakdown of the operation and possibly the resumption of the cycle of famine and war which brought the United States and other members of the international community to Somalia in the first place.

Rightly or wrongly, the Bush administration committed us to this operation. We, as a nation, have accepted this responsibility. We should not panic and flee when the going gets rough. If we are going to withdraw, we have an obligation to do so in a responsible manner, in a way that does not undermine the operation or leave the Somali people to a worse fate. I think the President's plan, as currently outlined, will allow us to step aside responsibly.

New York Times article, October 6, 1993, by then-reporter Thomas Friedman

As hundreds of additional United States troops with special weapons and aircraft began heading to Somalia, a wave of hostility toward the widening operation swept Congress. . . . But Mr. Aspin and Mr. Christopher were besieged by skeptical lawmakers, who scorched them with demands for a clear road map for an exit from Somalia, coupled with bitter complaints that the policy goals were unclear or unrealistic.

It is not clear whether the critics can assemble sufficient votes to pass a law requiring Mr. Clinton to stop the operation. But Congressional anxiety, already high, has been fueled by a wave of constituents' telephone calls reflecting outrage over the prospect of a new hostage crisis, and television pictures of Somali crowds dragging a dead American servicemen through the streets. . . .

Mr. Christopher said the United States wanted to withdraw its forces when possible, "but not before our job is done of providing some security."

New York Times, October 6, 1993

Washington Times
October 5, 1998

Former President George Bush said yesterday that scandal distracting the Clinton presidency is hurting America's ability to deal effectively with foreign crises that threaten U.S. security.

"It's hard to separate the two crises," he said in an exclusive interview with The Washington Times.

.....

It's the speculation about Mr. Clinton's motives that hurts U.S. interests, he said.

"For example, after the [Aug. 20] counterterrorism action that was taken against camps in Afghanistan and the building in the Sudan, there was this 'Wag the Dog' reference," Mr. Bush said, citing the movie in which a U.S. president, portrayed by Dustin Hoffman, creates a phony war to distract public attention from a sex scandal enveloping his administration.

"I don't happen to agree with that," Mr. Bush said of "Wag the Dog" comparisons. "I don't see how the Defense Department and the Joint Chiefs and others would go along with such a thing."

....

"But the very fact that it is debated sends a message to some of these other countries that is counterproductive for the United States. I'm not buying into that scenario personally, but my point is that [the Lewinsky scandal] caused that kind of question to be raised. That is not good for us."

Washington Post
August 23, 1998
Andrew Krepinevich

While the president's decision to retaliate against terrorism is clearly justified based upon the evidence at hand, the propriety of this course of action is undermined by doubts as to the motives for the strikes, coming so close to the president's Monday night scandal speech, and the continuing scandal coverage on the front pages of the national press.

It has been noted that after the antiterrorist military strikes, the president did not shy away from using the opportunity to appear "presidential," giving two speeches on the matter, one after flying back dramatically to Washington from his vacation on Martha's Vineyard. These actions may have been appropriate. Yet a president who lacks credibility must be careful not to present even the appearance that he may be acting out of a personal, rather than a public, interest.

Washington Times
August 21, 1998
Wesley Pruden

A few politicians, privately contemptuous, ran for the nearest camera to make cheap and insincere rah-rah for the lobbing of a few missiles, as if this were the morning after Pearl Harbor or Omaha Beach, to attempt to burnish their bona fides. One who didn't was Arlen Specter, the Republican senator from Pennsylvania, who was careful but honest. "Let's give the president the benefit of the doubt," he said. Then he gave Mr. Clinton the benefit of his doubts.

"I think we have to raise certain concerns and look for evidence because those questions will be raised around the world. They're being raised around the world as we speak."

Yes, they are. Bill Clinton insisted on taking enough rope to hang himself, and yesterday he was in full flight from the gallows.

O'Reilly Factor
October 17, 1998

eased Segment - Missile Attack. Was the missile attack on the factory in the Sudan last August a botched mission?
Graphic - Botched Mission. Some journalists are saying yes.
Studio Interview - Sheryl McCarthy, "Newsday" Columnist, said the missile attack on the factory in the Sudan appears like a botched mission. McCarthy said there was evidence brought by the Human Right's Group that it was a bogus attack. McCarthy said if you've watched "Wag The Dog", and "Primary Colors" it is hard not to make that connection.
Visual - Bombed Factory In Sudan. McCarthy said the factory was bombed on the pretense that it was making chemical weapons, and as it turned out, it was a pharmaceutical plant that was making medicine for TB and veterinarian medicines. One person was killed, and several others injured. McCarthy said it was done on flimsy evidence.

Hardball
August 21, 1998

Professor LARRY SABATO (University of Virginia; "Dirty Little Secrets"): Yeah, Chris, two things strike me about it. The first is--and I think this is an amazing figure--36 percent of Americans believe that the Monica Lewinsky scandal had something to do with the president's action to strike in Afghanistan and the--the Sudan. That is an amazingly high percentage. That's a product of cynicism, and it's cynicism that Bill Clinton has helped to create and to stoke. He is, after all, a self-certified liar now.

The Hill
September 23, 1998
David Silverberg

"Wag the Dog" is now more than a fictional movie depicting a president facing a sex scandal ordering trumped-up military moves in an effort to divert attention from his political troubles. It has become a veritable syndrome. The necessity of any military move in a time of political troubles will be suspect, particularly from a president who has been proven to be an emphatic, direct liar.

This could already be seen in the wake of August's Tomahawk missile attacks against sites in Afghanstan and Sudan. Though the initial attacks on American embassies that prompted the cruise missile response were well-documented and irrefutable, numberous questions were raised about the political motivations of the counter-attack, so much so that intelligence officials went to extraordinary lengths to reveal the evidence that led them to pick those particular targets.

New York Post
September 21, 1998
editorial

Well, the bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan to destroy international terrorism didn't manage to hold off the growing list of critics calling for Bill Clinton's removal from office. Nor, apparently, did his irresponsible declaration of a world economic crisis. Or his bewildering offhand warning of a humanitarian crisis in Kosovo.

Is there another dog left for this president to wag? You bet!
New York Post
Andrea Peyser
August 22, 1998

And so, the burning question will always remain: On the day Monica Lewinsky was testifying before a grand jury, did the president of the United States send innocent people into harm's way for the ugly purpose of changing the subject of national discourse from oral sex and semen-stained dresses to battle scars and blood-stained uniforms?

New York Post
Deborah Orin
August 23, 1998

ONLY DEMS TRUST BILL'S MOTIVES: POLL

Only a majority of Democrats believe President Clinton launched missile strikes primarily to act against terrorism - while everyone else is more likely to suspect a case of "the tail wagging the dog," a new Post Poll shows.

New York Post
Arianna Huffington
August 25, 1998

FORTY percent of Americans surveyed by Newsweek felt that the U.S. military attacks against terrorist sites in Afghanistan and Sudan were a diversion. Whether or not they were, this is a staggering vote of no confidence in the Commander in Chief.

There are many questions President Clinton must answer before the nation can unequivocally accept the wisdom of these particular strikes against these particular targets on that particular day. The need to answer these questions is in no way obviated by the fact that some of the president's harshest critics, from Newt Gingrich to Gary Bauer, rushed to praise the military action.
New York Post
August 24, 1998
letters to the editor
BOMBING THE TERRORISTS -STRONG STANCE OR CLEVER DANCE?

Just when you thought that Kenneth Starr's four-year investigation was a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money, comes the payoff - an uncharacteristically swift and decisive bombing of suspected terrorist targets in Sudan and Afghanistan. The connection is unmistakable.

But if this is what it took to finally get Clinton to do something that remotely resembles executing his presidential duties, my hat's off to the cast and crew of "The Monica Lewinsky Story."Josh GreenbergerBrooklyn

So, what else is new? Bill Clinton is desperate. Didn't many of us know that when Clinton hit the lowest point of his depravity, he'd attack one of these terrorist countries, to suit his own agenda?

If Americans accept this as an act of patriotism on the part of this president, this once great country deserves the worst of what is yet to come.Sal PediEastchester (via e-mail)

I am absolutely outraged that Bill Clinton is dropping bombs in order to deflect attention from the bombs being dropped about him the same day by Monica Lewinsky.

He is as dangerous as a cornered dog and will stop at nothing to save his own skin. We must throw this liar out of the White House before he gets us into a global war the next time he needs a distraction from his disgusting behavior.Mara KurtzManhattan

(around 20 other emails and letters published in that article mostly attacking Clinton)

Cal Thomas
August 25, 1998

Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., was one of the few brave enough to say what others were thinking. Coats said he thought about the cruise-missile attack "long and hard," and he concluded that "once the president has deceived the American people and broken the bond of trust, one wonders about his motives."

That is the point made by a number of America's critics around the world. How can this president be believed? How can we know whether his resolve is genuine or just more political manipulation? We want to believe him because he is the president, but why should we?

The Times Union (Albany, NY)
August 21, 1998

But a strong Clinton critic outside Congress, conservative politician and Reagan administration official Oliver L. North, said, ''Given what we know about this commander-in-chief, one has to wonder if the theme song for this operation comes from the score of 'Braveheart' or 'Wag the Dog.' ''

Jonah Goldberg
National Review 5/5/99
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg050599.html

I refused to believe at the time that Clinton wagged the dog; not so much because I give him any credit, but because I gave the armed forces and intelligence community the benefit of the doubt. Now, the Clinton Justice Department says it won�t fight the suit by the Saudi owner, because to do so would jeopardize American intelligence assets.

This is totally unacceptable and outrageous. At the time the administration insisted that the proof would be forthcoming and conclusive. The White House insisted, on the record, that the evidence was so overwhelming that the plant produced VX nerve gas that critics would be humiliated. They have since revised downward these claims at every opportunity. Christopher Hitchens and Seymour Hersh, among others, have written that Clinton did indeed wag the dog.

Now, it seems reasonable to me that the President of the United States should be required to show some proof that his action was warranted. If the proof was overwhelming, a little slice couldn�t cause more harm than leaving the accusation unchallenged. The charge being bandied about is that the President of the United States committed an act of war on an innocent nation as a fig leaf for his personal sins. For the United States government to allow that (credible) assertion to stand unchallenged is a smear to the good name of the United States, or a cover-up of a High Crime. It is disgusting either way.

Byron York
National Review 12/17/01
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york-issueprint112901.html

Instead of striking a strong blow against terrorism, the action set off a howling debate about Clinton's motives. The president ordered the action three days after appearing before the grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair, and Clinton's critics accused him of using military action to change the subject from the sex-and-perjury scandal — the so-called "wag the dog" strategy. Some of Clinton's allies, suspecting the same thing, remained silent. Even some of those who, after briefings by administration officials, publicly defended the strikes privately questioned Clinton's decision.

now that you've confirmed what Clinton said about "wag the dog", would you please also confirm what he said about fox and wallace refusing to ask these questions of the current administration? I'm pretty sure he was right on that one too!
mark

Clinton's draft-dodging; his record as a Soviet KGB agent in 1968, when he traveled the East Bloc ratting out student dissenters during the "Prague String"

I laughed out loud.

What a shame that in a time of many important things happening in our country that I see name calling and things of the past being run through the mud by our politicians. This does seem to be more prevalent on the conservative side and it makes me wonder if this is all they have to run on. Let us be honest FOX NEWS is an arm of the conservative party fiar and balanced? please give me a break. I wonder in my own way if all the politicians had to rely on Social Security for their retirement plan would it get fixed? I think it would be solvent in a heart beat. If they had to go to the public for raises would the minimum wage be increased? (overnight) If it was their children going to war would there be an exit plan? Bill Clinton was correct in stating that there is a conservative agenda of attack and name calling but I feel there are more important issues on the minds of the public why can't Congress address the issues at hand. a Government of the People for the People let us make them accountable for what they do not what their aganda is. I appeal to voters to ask the tough questions,(What have you really accomplished in your last 2 years Senator/Representative and vote on results not promises.)

Democracies survive only about 200 years. I think we are seeing in real time why that is. This "my team is better than your team" mentality, where neither side can see the flaws in the arguments of anyone on "my team", is bringing about the rapid decline of America.

Each side now has their quarterback, never to be questioned no matter how many times he might fumble the ball, and each side has their nemesis to hate with irrational fury.

One day American citizens will wake up and realize that all along they were the ones who were being played.

I just wonder who the next superpower will be when America is left sitting on the couch next to Great Britain, reminiscing about the glory days.

If you listen back to the president speaking on FOX News, you should pay more attention to who he is citing as the chief critics of his anti-terrorist campaigns of the late 1990's. His references are not directed towards the House or Senate Republicans, but instead towards the Neo-Conservatives that came to power at the advent of the Bush Administration and the overly skeptical, and conservative leaning news media.

If anyone is to blame for the rise to power and elusiveness of Osama Bin Laden it is clearly the FBI and CIA. They trained him, they funded him, they armed him, and then they refused to implicate him in attacks on the US. Doesn't it seem logical that these two institutions would stonewall any attempts by Clinton to kill Bin Laden? Perhaps they were trying to avoid the inevitable bad publicity that would spring from the acknowledgement that they had trained a terrorist that now was setting his sights on the US.

At the same time, I am firmly behind Clinton's assertions that the news media, particulary FOX News, would have the nerve to implicate his responsibility in 911 when it still refuses to acknowledge the volumes of missteps that the Bush Administration took before, during, and after the attack. I find it absolutely abhorrent that we have yet to question why important members of the administration were given warning not to board commercial airliners in the weeks before the attacks, but american citizens were not. Abhorrent that after the first plane hit the WTC, no defenses were scrambled to New York to prevent the second plane from flying in over 20 MINUTES LATER! Abhorrent that there has been no investigation into the blackout shutdown ordered in the upper floors of the WTC by security czar and GW brother, Marvin Bush, in the weeks and days prior to 911.

Why will our media not question this administration? Why does our media villify any politician that makes an attempt at questioning this administration? Why is our media dead set on pointing the 911 finger at everyone but the parties and persons that were in power when it happened?

not quiet anymore, huh...

It is about friggin' time that someone stood up for Clinton's efforts to get bin-Ladin...I clearly remember the 'Wag the Dog' allegations...not to mention that 43's people ignored the outgoing administration's advice that bin-Laden should be a priority

So Jake,

Do you see from the comments the type of Wingnuts that having ABC host Bill O'Reilly and Path to 9/11 is attracting?

Get out now while you still have some credibility to defend. Disney's thrown it's support to the right. Do you really want to go down that path also?

I believe that by now, the presumption in Mr. Clinton's case is that he can't distinguish between truth and spin.

The FACT remains that NO ONE knew Bin Laden was part of Al Qaeda, and no one knew what Al Qaeda even was, in 1996, or even for a couple of years later.

Also, I clearly remember footage of Bill Clinton striding around Bosnia in a flak jacket, talking to the troops, and bolstering their spirits. Can you imagine Bush doing such a thing? Unless he can pull off a carefully stage-managed, ridiculously secure photo op, Bush does not "do" troops. He has not even been to a single one of the nearly 3,000 military funerals he's caused by the Iraq war. Clinton, on the other hand, was there, and he was really "there", as in present, as in not just there for a glad-handing photo op.

On the general issue of Republican support for Clinton foreign policy, I clearly remember Rush Limbaugh making fun of the Administration's efforts to capture the warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid in Somalia.

The collective amnesia is pretty astounding.

The "wag the dog" accusations against Clinton were strong, vocal and frequent. It's was also well funded.

Anyone here remember the Jesse Helms founded Conservative Caucus? They pushed the wag the dog scenario to the limit.

A few tidbits from that brain trust, from 1998.

AT LEAST TEN REASONS TO OPPOSE INITIATION OF WAR ON IRAQ

1) President William J. Clinton lacks the moral authority to function properly as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States.

2) Let's not change the subject. The Number One business of the nation at this time should be the removal from office of William J. Clinton.

3) It is unconstitutional for America to go to war without a Congressional declaration of war.

Those are only the first three.

And, here's a great one:

Wag the Dog?
U.S. Policy on Iraq

DID CLINTON LIE OR ABUSE POWER IN ORCHESTRATING RATIONALE FOR PRE-IMPEACHMENT WAR?

The Washington Times (12/18/98, p. 1) reports "The White House orchestrated a plan to provoke Saddam Hussein into defying United Nations weapons inspectors so President Clinton could justify air strikes, former and current government officials charge.

"Scott Ritter, a former U.N. inspector who resigned this summer, said yesterday the U.N. Special Commission (Unscom) team led by Richard Butler deliberately chose sites it knew would provoke Iraqi defiance at the White House's urging.

"Mr. Ritter also said Mr. Butler, executive chairman of the Unscom, conferred with the Clinton administration's national security staff on how to write his report of noncompliance before submitting it to the U.N. Security Council Tuesday night.

"The former inspector said the White House wanted to ensure the report contained sufficiently tough language on which to justify its decision to bomb Iraq.

"‘I'm telling you this was a preordained conclusion. This inspection was a total setup by the United States,’ Mr. Ritter said. ‘The U.S. was pressing [the U.N.] to carry out this test. The test was very provocative. They were designed to elicit Iraqi defiance.’..."

TIMING IS EVERYTHING

"The White House knew by Dec. 9, when U.N. inspectors were in Baghdad, that the House had planned to debate impeachment as early as Wednesday, Dec. 16. Air strikes began that day."

EVIDENCE CONFIRMS THAT CLINTON'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK ON IRAQ WAS A LONG-PLANNED POLITICAL PLOY

Robert Novak points out that (The Washington Post, 12/21/98, p. A29) "As Clinton took Palestinian applause in Gaza last Monday [December 14], secret plans were underway for an air strike coinciding with the House impeachment vote. The president had time to consult with Congress and the U.N. Security Council but took no step that might stay his hand.

"As whenever a president pulls the trigger, Clinton's top national security advisers supported him. But majors and lieutenant colonels at the Pentagon, whose staff work undergirds any military intervention, are, in the words of a senior officer, ‘200 percent opposed. They disagree fundamentally.’ They know the attack on Iraq was planned long before Butler's report and consider it politically motivated."

U.N. VIOLATIONS PROP WAS A CLINTON-SCRIPTED PROP

According to Rowan Scarborough (The Washington Times, 12/17/98, p. A1), "The White House notified the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Sunday that President Clinton would order air strikes this week, 48 hours before he saw a United Nations report declaring Iraq in noncompliance with weapons inspectors, it was learned from authoritative sources last night....

"Pentagon sources said National Security Council aides told the Joint Chiefs to quickly update a bombing plan that was shelved in mid-November and were told that a strike would be ordered in a matter of days.

"Israeli spokesman Aviv Bushinsky said yesterday in Jerusalem that President Clinton discussed preparations for an attack with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just minutes before Mr. Clinton flew home from Israel's Ben-Gurion Airport on Tuesday, ending a three-day peace mission...."

There's more where that came from...

http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm

http://www.conservativeusa.org/iraq-war.htm

Amnesia...

Yes, that’s the difference between the majority of the republicans and democrats, no matter who is the CIC, when our guys have been put in harm’s way, they do not go against the CIC, and they try to show unity.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess. (1.6 MB AIFF or WAV sound)

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

Taggants value disputed
Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.

"What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don't let it overcome the areas of agreement," he said.

The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would help move the legislation along. The president stressed it's important to get the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.

"The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out -- that they give us as much help as they can," he said.

Hatch blasts 'phony' issues
Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for about an hour in response to the president's call for "the very best ideas" for fighting terrorism.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders.

Bravo, Jake. You are square to the mark (as ever) in your reporting and this is a rare amd wonderful thing.

Let me pitch in the NY Times lead from Aug 21, 1998:

EXCERPT:
The most cherished axiom of American foreign policy is that politics stops at the water's edge, meaning that political opponents support the President when missiles are flying. Today, it mostly worked, but the challenge of President Clinton's latest crisis crystallized when some critics uncharacteristically cried foul.

Most Republican Congressional leaders, from Speaker Newt Gingrich to such frequent Clinton adversaries as Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, rallied around the commander in chief, with Mr. Gingrich declaring, ''I think, based on what I know, that it was the right thing to do at the right time.''

Yet in the surreal and cinematic atmosphere that suffused Washington all week, some voices that would usually be reliably hawkish suddenly sounded just plain hostile.

''The danger here,'' said Senator Dan Coats, Republican of Indiana, ''is that once a President loses credibility with the Congress, as this President has through months of lies and deceit and manipulations and deceptions, stonewalling, it raises into doubt everything he does and everything he says, and maybe even everything he doesn't do and doesn't say.'' Not quite 72 hours earlier Senator Coats had called for President Clinton's resignation over the Monica Lewinsky issue.

''I just hope and pray,'' he added, ''the decision that was made was made on the basis of sound judgment and made for the right reasons, and not made because it was necessary to save the President's job.''

Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, was only slightly softer in questioning Mr. Clinton's air strikes on what officials called terrorist outposts in Afghanistan and the Sudan, saying, ''I'm not going to suggest ulterior motives,'' and then adding: ''I especially want to know the reason for doing it now. I want to know what the evidence was.''
END

That said - as I recall, the bombing in Sudan was of the infamous milk factory / aspirin factory, or whatever it was. Clinton took a lot of heat for that as facts emerged, but (again, if memory serves) I think it was heat from the left, or the press - I am thinking of Chris Hitchens, but haven't even attempted to Google that.

Here is Jimmy Carter, for example:

EXCERPT
In a statement today, Mr. Carter said that British, German and other foreign leaders were increasingly skeptical of American assertions about the factory, which Washington linked to Iraqi chemical weapons projects.

''Despite early American reluctance to support this request,'' Mr. Carter said, ''this is something that now needs to be done.''

''If the Sudanese are guilty, they should be condemned both for lying and for contributing to terrorist activities,'' he said. ''Otherwise, we should admit our error and make amends to those who have suffered loss or injury.''
END

Times story:
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F50F16F93B590C728EDDA10894D0494D81

If Clinton knew we needed to take on Bin Laden, and he also knew that he lacked the political capital to cajole the FBI and CIA and the Pentagon into doing it, then the only honorable thing to do would be to resign so that someone who could get the job done could take the helm. As the 2004 article "Showstopper" made clear, Clinton and other civilians in the national security establishment in Clinton's years were cowed by resistance from the uniformed military, whose top level people tend to be extremely afraid to take risks and think unconventionally.

As a former Dem who voted for Pres Carter, another issue that has never been cleared up to my satisfaction is North Korea. I've waited in vain for a Dem leader to come out and say something to the effect of "Well, we meant well by giving them money in exchange for not building nukes but it didn't really work out." Instead all I hear is "Nothing happened till we were out of office." Seems to be a mantra. But a bit ingenuous.

What caught my attention was Pres. Clinton demanding "certify" from the CIA/FBI. Trying to cover your butt when you know who wants to attack you is pretty weak. I belive its filed under "Leading a Nation". What actually did Sandy Berger stuff in his pants? Does anyone know?

I believe I heard President Clinton's assertions in his interview more in the context of what happened in Somalia in 1993. He was strongly and publicly urged by GOP leaders to remove troops from Somalia immediately after "Black Hawk Down" but he instead acted responsibly in removing troops (on a peaceful mission, by the way) over time, as a sign of American resolve to do the right thing. Yet he took enormous heat from the GOP for staying there. Face it, the GOP has hated Clinton from the get-go, seeing him as interference and delay in their grand scheme to obtain and retain power throughout the 3 branches of federal government. They will say anything, and twist the facts any way possible, to make their case. Partisanship run amuck.

Clinton's election in 1992 was due solely to Ross Perot draining near 12% of center-right votes from Bush I. Then in 1996, the Republican Senat