Kristol: 9/11 Is Bill Clinton’s Legacy

[Heracles 417]

So we're to blame the last 8 years of a bad administration on Clinton?! Am I hearing this right? Come on. I'd accept that if the first year or two, heck let's say the first 4 years were bad because of the Clinton administration. But EIGHT years???? Nah! This homey don't play dat.

Diana

Sept 11 was not planned during the 8 months Bush was in office.

[zqt3344 21]

Too bad Bill Clinton could not run again for President, after hearing him speak wednesday night, now that is a true leader and a speaker and someone that communicates effectively just exactly what and how they are going to change things for the better unlike MR TELEPROMPTER OVOMIT!

Bill Kristol writes that Bill Clinton “inherited a hard-won peace, failed to lead, and part of his legacy is 9/11.” 9/11 is, of course, shorthand for the events of September 11, 2001 at which point Clinton hadn’t been in office for months. Condoleezza Rice, writing for the Bush campaign in the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs said a lack of prioritization was a problem with the Clinton administration’s foreign policy and that “a Republican administration should refocus the country on key priorities: building a military ready to ensure American power, coping with rogue regimes, and managing Beijing and Moscow.”

In other words, Bush came into office determined to reduce the level of attention given to al-Qaeda. And boy did they! Richard Clarke’s strategy for stepped-up efforts against al-Qaeda, developed in the waning days of the Clinton administration, was put on the back burner in favor of this approach:

The book’s opening anecdote tells of an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush’s Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president’s attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.” Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: “All right. You’ve covered your ###, now.”

Clearly inattention to the problem is Clinton’s fault. Or, you might want to look in the direction of neoconservatism. Robert Kagan published an edited volume called Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy in November 2000. It contains fifteen chapters, none of which are about al-Qaeda. Indeed, the term “al-Qaeda” doesn’t appear in the book on the list of threats. One chapter does refer to “Usama bin Laden” in order to suggest that the Clinton administration was over-hyping bin Laden in order to downplay the threat from Iran. Terrorism is discussed in the book as a tool of Iranian or Chinese (?) policy, but not at all as a non-state phenomenon or in relationship to Afghanistan. Needless to say, there’s lots about Iraq, a whole chapter on “Will and Power,” and several invocations of the evils of appeasement.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives...tons_legacy.php

[Heracles 417]

8 years? I thought 9/11 was more like 8 months into Bush's Administration.

Bingo and the left is still trying decide what Bush did to provoke the attack.

So you dismiss Richard Clarke assertions that President Bush ignored his warnings?

Ignored the Warning. rofl

Now consider this. Liberals and clownish groups like the ALCU are to this day complaining about so-called rights abuse and scare tactics after Sept 11. Mocking any and every proactive security measure. Therefore, one can imagine the protest and court battles if the Bush administration tried instituting any proactive and preventative measure prior to Sept 11. Simply not going to happen.

Thanks to various groups in America, both on the right and left side of politics, being proactive on any issues is almost against the law. That is the reality of the United States. So anyone suggesting that Bush ignored the warnings is a bunch of #######. If this was a parliamentary system of government, yes something could be done as the government has the power and not lawyers or groups like the ALCU. This is not the case in America.

Edited August 29, 2008 by Aficionado

[IAMX 3,055]

8 years? I thought 9/11 was more like 8 months into Bush's Administration.

Bingo and the left is still trying decide what Bush did to provoke the attack.

So you dismiss Richard Clarke assertions that President Bush ignored his warnings?

Ignored the Warning. rofl

Now consider this. Liberals and clownish groups like the ALCU are to this day complaining about so-called rights abuse and scare tactics after Sept 11. Mocking any and every proactive security measure. Therefore, one can imagine the protest and court battles if the Bush administration tried instituting any proactive and preventative measure prior to Sept 11. Simply not going to happen.

Thanks to various groups in America, both on the right and left side of politics, being proactive on any issues is almost against the law. That is the reality of the United States. So anyone suggesting that Bush ignored the warnings is a bunch of #######. If this was a parliamentary system of government, yes something could be done as the government has the power and not lawyers or groups like the ALCU. This is not the case in America.

Explain these "proactive" security measures, and why they are necessary to previous measures, such as why FISA needed to be amended to perpetually wiretap people without oversight.

Because I don't see the justification of adding more "security measures", which is a euphemism for "giving up liberties for protection", when the error was on the government's own incompetence, not a lack of "security measures". Just as it would be naive to poo-poo it off entirely on Bush, as Clinton had a role to play, your poo-pooing things off on "liberals" the way you are is just as naive or childish.

[alienlovechild 75]

Your criticism is of the U.S. Navy in how they send their people abroad, then. You should take it up with them, as friends of mine pretty much had a cakewalk. If you had actually come overseas with me, you'd see I had no reservations about criticizing Greece for their lazy mentality toward work and overly bureaucratic/corrupt government. Guess to you, that's licking boots. Another conservative looks retarded in their judgments of others.

Anyways, your inability to handle criticism of your country is quite astounding, yet certainly not surprising. I've seen plenty of Captain America's pop up since 9/11. Suddenly a dime a dozen.

You didn't get my joke about the Navy and the Village People but that was 70s reference so my apologies. You have no problem criticizing Greece while in Greece. Greece is great nation historically and I'd love to see it but nobody cares about Greek politics outside Greece. Wonderful but that had nothing to do with the U.S. or Bush. Plenty of Americans criticize Bush or America in case you didn't notice and plenty of them do so abroad.

Actually, I've criticized the U.S. government plenty. I don't like Social Security, Obama stinks (he's American by the way), too many Greeks allowed into the country. Accurate criticism of the American Way is hard to refute but I don't have to believe in every stupid idea you put out. This "Captain America" refused to buy into the flag waving in the weeks after 9/11. I was in Taiwan at the time and some liberal b*itch who used to slam the U.S. to kiss up to Canadian expats told me I should be more patriotic by wearing U.S. flag pin of something. I told her, "No thanks, I wore my flag on my Army uniform when I was deployed". So I was Captain America before 9/11. Bush bashers are also a dime a dozen since the 2000 election.

However, Uncle Sam has actually done more for me and my family than you, so, Uncle Sam wins.

You mean bribed by Uncle Sam.

My hearing is as faulty as your sight. Where do you see the word "Obama" in my quote or my entire previous post? Oh, I was worng about you not being novel in some way. I've never heard anyone claim Bush looted the SS fund went to pay for the Iraq War. I was speechless when I read that gem.

Hypocrisy 101. You didn't even read the article, otherwise you'd have spotted the quote above. Good job!

Naturally, the word "hypocrisy" comes from the Greeks.

"The word hypocrisy derives from the Greek ὑπόκρισις (hypokrisis), which means "play-acting", "acting out", "feigning, dissembling" or "an answer"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

The article is on a webpage that goes on forever but I had to point out the title to you. Still can't admit Clinton and Gore "looted" SS from you own article.

The whole article was bunk anyway but you're probably a conspiracy freak who believes the evil Bush empire and Fox News are silencing Dr. Smith and his book. That's why NO ONE talks about his thesis. Since 9/11 there seem a lot of you guys hiding in basements coming up with more odd theories on the Internet. So who's after you? CIA, FBI, Men in Black, ATF, DEA, local cops, Homeland Security, GOP, ICE, the military or U.S. Post Office?

I hope you win back your civil liberties and come out into the sunlight someday.

I gotta get some work done, Zorba. See ya later if THEY don't get you first.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

So we're to blame the last 8 years of a bad administration on Clinton?! Am I hearing this right? Come on. I'd accept that if the first year or two, heck let's say the first 4 years were bad because of the Clinton administration. But EIGHT years???? Nah! This homey don't play dat.

Diana

Sept 11 was not planned during the 8 months Bush was in office.

that's what a lot of people fail to understand.

[IAMX 3,055]

Wonderful but that had nothing to do with the U.S. or Bush.

Your quote:

Licking foreign boots is always popular abroad. Tell 'em what they want to hear- takes a lot of courage to do that.

Guess you started the nothing-to-do-with-Bush discussion.

Actually, I've criticized the U.S. government plenty.

Yet don't think anyone else should, eh?

Bush bashers are also a dime a dozen since the 2000 election.

They at least have a decent argument. Kinda hard to be a Bush basher before 2000 if you're not from Texas.

You mean bribed by Uncle Sam.

So that must mean you're bribed by your job or anyone that provides a service to you.

The article is on a webpage that goes on forever but I had to point out the title to you. Still can't admit Clinton and Gore "looted" SS from you own article.

The whole article was bunk anyway

Admit something you believe is bunk.. makes perfect sense.

but you're probably a conspiracy freak who believes the evil Bush empire and Fox News are silencing Dr. Smith and his book. That's why NO ONE talks about his thesis. Since 9/11 there seem a lot of you guys hiding in basements coming up with more odd theories on the Internet. So who's after you? CIA, FBI, Men in Black, ATF, DEA, local cops, Homeland Security, GOP, ICE, the military or U.S. Post Office?

If I were a conspiracy theory freak, I wouldn't be opening myself up to a DHS background, credit, work history, criminal history, and other background probe. I wouldn't have a license, I wouldn't have the awesome credit score which I have (I'd be too paranoid of being tracked), yadda yadda. Captain America's sure suck at assumptions, but that doesn't stop them from making any.

I hope you win back your civil liberties and come out into the sunlight someday.

I hope so too. Swimming 3-5 days a week with coworkers isn't enough sunlight for me.

Enjoy your freedom fries and frivolous attempts to insult people criticizing the government, which you like, but hate, but like (when it suits you), but hate (when it doesn't).

Edited August 29, 2008 by SRVT