The truth about Clinton and "Wag the Dog"

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