Every once in a while, Bill Clinton reminds decent people what was so off-putting in him occupying the same office that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan had once held. Bill Clinton's indignation at suggestions that he didn't do enough to neutralize Osama bin Laden and his followers displays two problems Clinton has always had. 1. He does not take responsibility for his actions. 2. He blames his political opponents for his failures.

1. He said he tried and he failed.
2. He accused his political opponents of using any excuse they can get to attack him. I did not hear him say in that clip that they caused him to fail.

Clinton should have cowboyed up and stated that he had Dick Morris took a poll and the results showed the American people didn't believe I was responsible for the terrorist attack. I then made a speech full of brave words with no intention of ever taking action that involved political risks.
If that failed,I would send Podesta,Carville,Begala,Ickes,etc. out on all the Sunday morning talk shows to spin my version.

Dan, you and the Republicans are just wrong on this issue.

Clinton took terrorism very seriously.

The DAY the Star report came out, Clinton was trying to get anti-terror legislation passed.

It died in Congress.

Because Republicans were to busy trying to impeach our commander in chief.

He screwed up. Sure.

But the thugs in Congress screwed up a hellava lot more.

The fact that you bring it up speaks of the Repubs campaign strategy.

DEMS want to let OBL kill everyone.

Its desperate.

Its shameful.

And the country deserves better.

BTW I LOVE the iorny of

1. Blaming your policial opponant for something.

and then

2. Blaming him for blaming his politcal opponants.

Pot calling the kettle black much Dan?

The hypocraciy is right there in the 1-2 structure of your post.

Clinton was, unfortunately, in office for eight years. In that time, as polls taken showed that terrorism was not a hot topic, he took little deliberate action to curb terrorists and protect this country. On his watch, many incidences were left unattended and precautions to prevent future incidences were not taken. George Bush held office for eight months before 9/11 finally woke everybody up. Now, what President would you consider more responsible for letting 9/11 happen? Would it be the one who had been on the job for two full terms or the one who had just started job and was still trying to get his hands around things?

Clinton is and was a posturing, preening ideologue whose only concern was and is his “legacy”. And if it weren’t for Ross Perot, this country would more than likely have been a safer place and the 9/11 plot wouldn’t have hatched.

So, Baby Bill can whine, cry, point his finger and bite his lip but the fact remains that he shirked in his responsibilities to his country. He will ALWAYS find some way to explain things away where it’s somebody else’s fault.

Hehe, what the heck does not passing anti-terror legislation (and like most of your postings, this particular assertion is long on innuendo, VERY short on facts) have to do with Clinton pursuing bin-Laden? If he wanted Osama, he doesn't require ANY okay from Congress to pursue him. Your supposition is total bull.

Hehe, incidentally, the anti-terror legislation you referenced was in response to the Oklahoma City bombing, and was kicked around in 1995 and 1996. The Starr report came out in late 1998. The dates hardlyl coincide.

And again, considering Clinton went into Bosnia with no congressional approval, no approval from the sainted U.N. and indeed in violation of the War Powers Act, then launched the Lewinskygate cruise missile attacks without consulting Congress, how could the Republicans POSSIBLY prohibited him in ANY way from whacking bin-Laden?

Thom,

As has been recently pointed out to me, you're wasting your time. Facts never get in the way of talking points.

HeHe proves a great point about the American left, they ALWAYS place a greater value in words rather than action and good intentions rather than results.
The left have this belief that just because Clinton used brave words in speeches,usually after a terrorist attack,then that just has to mean he is serious about fighting terrorists.
Clinton increased the number of worthless buearacrats supposedly working on tracking terrorists,then,in the lefts opinion that is just as good as actually killing the terrorists.
They may have increased the money being spent on terrorism but the results weren't productive. The increase in the budget was how they wanted to be judged,not actually accomplishing tangible results.

Clinton lacked the character and guts to ever,ever take a political risk, especially if it involved deaths in a military action. All of Clinton's lies about dodging the draft played a role in decisions involving possible military action. The last thing Clinton wanted is,military deaths and the public refocusing on his dishonorable acts during the 1960's. This could have damaged the only things he values, political poll numbers and his legacy. It was always about HIM.

Well those arguments basically boil down to:

DEMOCRATS ARE BAD.

REPUBLICANS ARE GOOD.

That kind of playground politics is what got us into the terrible mess our country is in.

I'm not saying Clinton was perfect. But the Republican congress did nothing either. And in fact when Clinton BOMBED OBL- REPUBLICANS TOOK TO THE HOUSE FLOOR TO DENOUNCE HIM!

THEY SAID HE WAS JUST TRYING TO GET ATTENTION OFF OF MONICAGATE.

So I'm not saying he did everything right on terror.

I'm just saying that Republicans have not right to take him to task on that.

Thom, I will give you one point. One point.

If Clinton absoulutley wanted to whack BIn Laden, he could have done so.

But the REASON why he decided not to was because the political calucluation was that any major foriegn action in Afghanistan would be siezed by the Republicans as election fodder, and that it would hurt the Democrats chances in 98 and 00.

Now, THAT WAS CLINTON's FAULT.

He should NOT have let election politics decide that question.

BUT- and its A BIG BUT- The Republicans in Congress should not have MADE attacking Bin Laden into a POLITAL ISSUE. I can still remember to this day Sean Hannity screaming at the top of his lungs about how OBL didn't exist, that Clinton made him up just so he could deflect Monicagate.

That's what Clinton was dealing with. The Republicans were refusing to cooperate on terror (he didn't "consult" Congress cuz Congress would just have turned him down), and then making his action into a politcal issue.

BOTH SIDES were playing politics with our national security. That was the problem.

No one comes out of this one smelling like Roses fellas.

Now would someone, rather than attacking the straw man left, respond to that?

How is that anlyis not spot on?

Ralph, these are not taling points. As far as I can see that's all any of you have on this question.

Seriously.

And adsf you're just blah.

This debate of who is more responsible, Bush or Clinton, for letting 9/11 happen is an elaborate bi-partisan ruse to hide the fact of total bipartisan elite agreement on what actually caused 9/11, our foreign policy. It is b/c of imprudent interventionism in the ME and pursuit of global hegemony that we were attacked by Al Qaeda. They have been attacking us for years, through the elder Bush and then the Clinton presidencies and now GWB's b/c of the consistent and horrible mideast policies of both of those political dynasties. They and their imperial policies have ruled us for almost a generation now and what do we have to show for it? Chaos.

Brian,

Are you suggesting that the Muslims are justified in their aggression?

There is no need for debate really, as it doesn't appear that any of our leaders were particularly conscious of how big a threat terroism could be.

But, you see, the Dems opened a can of worms by trying to hang all of the ills of our current world on GW. If they let it lay and kept their mouths shut, people on the other side would have no need to defend their guy. And, there's plenty o' ammunition available to be used against Bad Bill. They're just not smart enough understand and when these things come up, it's easy to make them look bad.

Two cliches apply here: 1. People who live in glass houses, shoudn't throw stones 2. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

You must admit though, Clinton was pretty much asleep at the wheel pretty for eight years.

Brian, I'm curious about the same thing.

Ralph, Ancient:

Although I am not the same Brian that made that statement, I believe I can answer that question.

No, nothing he said implies that the terrorists are justified in their attacks. Having a motivation is not the same as having a valid justification.

Brian R.,

I accept your distinction between motivation and justification. But Brian's language is, if not decidedly about justification, then certainly equivocal. Because I know Brian to be a careful thinker, I am interested to hear his clarification.

Brian refers to U.S. foreign policy as "what actually caused 9/11," and the tone of his remarks imply that those policies are to blame. In other words, that the U.S. is culpable for 9/11.

Now if that is indeed his position, I would strongly disagree.

Whether Bill Clinton really missed an opportunity to capture bin Laden is a moot point because bin Laden neither funded nor planned the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So there is no reason to think that even if Osama was in chains when Clinton left office that it would have prevented 9/11.

Neither the Republicans nor Democrats made much adu over terrorism; it just wasn't on the political radar screen. What's ironic is that the Republicans who slam Clinton for not capturing bin Laden don't seem to care that Bush has shown no effort to capture bin Laden after 9/11.