|
| quote: | Originally posted by Kapedan
Depends what you consider terrible? Terrible that Clinton didnt do much about foreign policy, he let things cut down to the wire, which lead to 9/11. Sure they were great, he was getting his **** sucked in his office . |
Well geez, Kap, if you GOPers hadn't allowed an investigation that originally was about Whitewater tumble down to leading about Clinton's rusty zipper and costing us taxpayers $65 million just so we can learn about Clinton's blowjob, rather than avoid distracting our President from such personal matters then perhaps he could have done more on the international front?
Partisan arguments are fun!
Oh yeah, here's some interesting history for you:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
Hmmm, certainly makes one wonder how much those GOPers really believed in national security and fighting international terrorism back then.
You can also read more here:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
Here's some other interesting quotes:
# Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama".
# Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden.
# Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort".
Could Clinton have done more? Of course. Lots of things were occurring during that time outside of his snagged zipper in Monica's hair. The war on terrorism, although it had been around since the times of Carter, was really taking a step forward and slowly replaced the Cold War. Military bases and personel cuts led by Bush Sr.'s presidency were actually slowed down by Clinton, though he too was also making cuts where he likely shoudn't have. Intelligence and network spies were at their worse, and we were unfortunately relying mostly on second-hand intelligence through secondary sources and satellite imaging. Granted, there is no excuse for ill-preparedness, and I think the picture on Clinton doing "nothing" on the war on terrorism is very much overhyped and a slight bit of revisionist history.
Nevertheless even he has admitted he wishes he could have done more. And individuals from CIA as well as reports from the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have all mentioned the same on Clinton.
Now, shall we discuss how incredibly neglectful Bush had been once the reins were passed over to him, or do you concede a nice healthy portion of blame is also shared on the shoulders of Dubya as well?
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|