sda2.jpg

March 5, 2008

It Ain't Over

TEXAS
Clinton 1,140,944 50%
Obama 1,087,161 48%

And Ohio.

Does anyone else get the impression that had the Clintons redirected even a fragment of the red hot burning lust they exhibit for the acquisition of personal political power to the task of protecting their nation's interests, there might well be a pair of towers still standing in New York CIty today?

Related! A victory for Clinton or a victory for the VRWC?

Posted by Kate at March 5, 2008 12:16 AM
Comments

But Kate, Billy Blowjob did direct his efforts towards what he believed was national interest, and that is precisely why those towers are not standing today.

Posted by: Doug at March 5, 2008 12:47 AM

Kate: That is the best comment ever made regarding the Clintons and what may have been. What WILL be if that pair regain power is horrifying to contemplate. Trumped only by the contemplation of an Obama win.

Posted by: Snowbunnie at March 5, 2008 12:48 AM

I find it utterly fascinating that so much horribleness, done to so many, by so few can be laid at the feet of: just one.

But that's the wonderful thing about the political blogosphere, isn't it? You can make any statement you want and somehow always 'find' the evidence to support it...

...and most likely, a horde of others to back you up.


You've got to love it.

Cheers!

Leto

Posted by: [hirr]Leto at March 5, 2008 12:57 AM

It's 3:00 am an aide comes into the Presidents bedroom and says "Mrs. President, sorry to wake you but Bill is still not home. Should we lock the front door again?"

Posted by: rod at March 5, 2008 1:36 AM

Right wingers are all for personal responsibility...except when it applies to them. Bush was in charge. Bush had information from various intelligence agencies about the attacks. What happened to "The buck stops here"?

Posted by: lberia at March 5, 2008 1:36 AM

Great news. I would have hated to see Hillary knocked out and Obama the candidate. So easily. Let them knock each other silly. Shoot, we may even begin to see some Obama scrutiny. Not holding my breath, but this has to be the best possible result for someone like me who would hate to see Obama surf to the presidency.

Posted by: RCGZ at March 5, 2008 1:51 AM

Rush Limbaugh worked hard on his radio show that boasts over 20 million daily listeners, many in Texas, to vote for Hillary for the very purpose of keeping her in the game.

I think that helped with the present situation. You can listen to Rush in the morning on line for free. I am sure he will be ecstatic on tomorrow's show.

I love it. Watching the two dem leaders rips strips of each other for the next five or six months. There will much ammunition created for McCaine to use on the ultimate winner in the dem contest.

I still don't believe that most Americans want a woman or a Negro as leader of their country. That is no more racist than the drivel coming from the Obama campaign and his wooing of the black vote. Race is playing a huge part in his campaign and of course no one is allowed to talk about the racist overtones there.

Posted by: John West at March 5, 2008 2:01 AM

If Clinton is to blame for 911 then is Bush Sr to blame for the first trade centre bombing?

Posted by: Right of centre at March 5, 2008 2:02 AM

Iberia, Read The Cell by John Miller and Michael Stone. Might waken you up to some of the facts. You might then want to revise your comment.

Posted by: Rick at March 5, 2008 2:51 AM

The people to blame for 911 are the Islamofascists who perpetrated the acts. It's easy to find fault when hindsight is 2020. Remember, things were different then. Things changed dramatically afterwards. Our perceptions have all changed 360 since 911.
So the only people to blame are those who want to destroy us and have been trying to do so since Israel became a country in 48

Posted by: Rick at March 5, 2008 2:57 AM

The Yankee's need to cut off the money funneled from the House of Suad/Middle East.

Posted by: Rednik at March 5, 2008 4:12 AM

Hey, John West, I can't speak for most Americans, but this middle-aged, suburban, white guy would love to vote for a black and a woman for President. Unfortunately, Dr. Rice isn't running.

Posted by: MikeM at March 5, 2008 7:17 AM

The many Islamist attacks on the USA on Clinton’s watch were not decisively dealt with: e.g., the Clinton administration emphasized tackling home-grown terrorism, despite a clear pattern of al-Qaeda terrorism against the US and US assets overseas. There was the World Trade Centre bombing (1993), as well as the US embassy bombings in Africa (1998) and the USS Cole bombing (2000). There were also two attacks on US military installations in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996.

So, after eight years of Clinton being dozy at the switch, to hold Bush primarily to blame for the security breaches—on-going—that allowed 9/11 to happen, just months into his tenure, is somewhat disproportionate, to say the least.

Now, CBC has informed us that Jack Nicholson, Steven Spielberg and Barbra Streisand support Clinton. Doesn't that inspire confidence?

Posted by: lookout at March 5, 2008 7:22 AM

Yes Rick,


SOME of us have had our perceptions changed 360 degrees since 9/11. Ahem.


At least when my head gets turned it only spins 180 degrees.

Posted by: jeffrey Friesen at March 5, 2008 7:31 AM

Really?

9/11 was Clinton's fault?

Of course it was. It had nothing to do with Reagans pro-Jihadi policies, and Bush Seniors decision to leave Afghanistan to the Jihadis.

No it was Clinton's fault for coninuing with the policies that the Republicans had put into motion. 12 years of Republican rule combined with the Iron law of Oligarchy - makes for some serious bureaucratic obstacles informing Clinton about what he could or could not do. Look at Condie and Powell at the State Department.

That really was some uninformed crap from Kate. I know she sinks low, but this was just bizzare.

Posted by: sput at March 5, 2008 7:49 AM

If you search Captain Capitalism's archive you'll find a chart showing a dramatic drop in workplace participation for teenagers coinciding with the Bush presidency.

Basically what happened is that the $5 an hour job packing groceries after school now goes to the $3 an hour illegal alien. The $20 an hour summer construction job goes to the $8 an hour illegal alien. It's kids, women, and poor people who get hurt worst by illegal immigration. And consumers.

It's the people who ignored this and other indicators for the past 8 years who should be arrested, charged, and convicted of treason. There is no precedent anywhere in world history for a society to willingly and fatally harm itself to such a degree as the USA under George W. Bush.

Posted by: fdsafdasf at March 5, 2008 7:50 AM

there might well be a pair of towers still standing in New York CIty today?

You mean, the Clintons could have prevented Bush from coming to power thus avoiding the Bushies' disregard of all the warnings about Bin Ladin's intent to strike within the US?

How so, Kate?

...maybe you should do some remedial work on current affairs. Unless you're just lying, you don't seem to be paying attention.

Posted by: CBC Fan at March 5, 2008 7:51 AM

John West...I would agree with MikeM on this.
It is not because he is Negro, or she is a women that they aren't qualified to be President...
it is because they are not qualified.

lberia and sput...how are things going for the Michael Moore fanclub these days?

Posted by: bluetech at March 5, 2008 8:20 AM

....

You just dropped 9/11 as a Clinton mismanagement? Sorry, no, it's a Bush failure, through and through. It may not have been preventable, but if it was preventable by anyone, it was Bush.

I don't care to argue this too much, but do some friggen research.

Posted by: Lore_Weaver at March 5, 2008 8:21 AM

Wow, the trolls are out in force today. Why do the lefties love this icky Clinton man so much? Is it his ability to cheat on his wife with anyone he wants, abuse any woman he wants, and even get away from a credible rape charge while still lauded by feminists? I have to admit that does require a certain . . . talent.

Clinton had a chance before 9/11 to kill bin Ladin but he didn't because he was worried about his image -- didn't want to look trigger-happy. He and his wife invested huge amounts of energy in protecting their back from all sorts of corruption charges that spanned years, and blackmailing people with hundreds of FBI files, selling nuclear secrets to China for campaign donations, as well as curbing and silencing all those 'bimbo eruptions.' They had no energy to spare for finding out who bombed the Cole and the Khobar towers. Lust for power trumped national security. Kate is right.

Bush stood by the Patriot Act and took the battle to bin Ladin in Afghanistan and to al-Qaeda in Iraq, despite half of the U.S. and all of Hollywood, Europe's hypocritical intelligentsia, and Canada's self-righteous disapproval. He risked his presidency to protect his nation. National security trumps lust for power. There has been no terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.

Posted by: ann at March 5, 2008 8:26 AM

Hang on fsda whatever, Bush is just one man and not a dictator. If he wielded that kind of power, we'd be living next door to Venezuela. Look up Ted Nugents take on illegal immigration. Let the border patrol DO ITS JOB!!!!! It's amusing to say the least to hear illegals chirp about their "rights". Not too much being said by either party about slamming the doors shut and when there is "Oh no!!! We can't become fortress America!"

Before you get on me about quoting a conservative rocker, listen to all on the left in lock step with the likes of Oprah, Streisand and any of the thousands of lefties in Hollyweird.

Posted by: Olde Spice at March 5, 2008 8:51 AM

Wow, Kate, I think you're on to something...sheesh, just wait until Obama or Clinton's in the White House...then they'll finish off the Pentagon for good this time!!! After that, it's the Golden Gate bridge!! Then they'll arrange to have terrorists fill the Grand Canyon with cement!!! There's no stopping them!!

The Democratic Party: destroying America's tourist attractions, one president at a time.

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at March 5, 2008 8:55 AM

I don't think you can really blame anyone for the 9/11 stuff. I think that before that time many experts did not see the situations occurring around the world as a pure coordinated Islamist thing. (Even though they heard of AQ, etc. - they did not understand the extent of the evil.)

I think that the big difference was that Bush started to grasp the root causes and he started to see a solution which was not pretty but was going to have to happen. Bill Clinton did not see this.

Clinton did have the guts to protect Kosovo so he may have done more against Islamism if he had really understood the problem.

Also, I recently read a biography about Bush (although it came out about 4 years ago). He received a lot of feedback on the ME from Clinton (he actually sought Clinton's advice). In particular, Clinton told Bush how he had been stabbed in the back by Arafat when trying to negotiate a peace deal. Bush believed him and when he directly caught Arafat smuggling arms to Gaza - he directly refused to talk to Arafat - Arafat was not a hero anymore - he was dishonest and he got caught. The point though is that Bush was cool enough to seek out advice from Clinton to try to understand what was going on in the ME - and in a way Clinton's advice helped shape Bush's policy (including his current approach).

Anyway, very few people had a clue as to what was happening before 9/11. Clinton (supposedly with the highest IQ of all Presidents - and with expert advice) did not see the problem because there were not enough data points to get a fit. 9/11 provided that extra data point.

Posted by: cconn at March 5, 2008 9:01 AM

Yes, JR, and it was going to be the "dark night of fascism" under Bush, with every dissenting voice locked out of the way and Republican Brownshirts roaming the streets.

The Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore, George Clooney, Hollyweirdos writing scripts about assassinating their president, Cindy Sheehan, . . . all languishing in jail or shot, right?

The Democrats . . . reducing political discourse to "you're Hitler, man!", one Republican president at a time (while enjoying freedoms protected by him).

Posted by: ann at March 5, 2008 9:04 AM

how long before the George McChimpyBushHitler callers howl about this one.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/limbaugh-caller.html

Posted by: cal2 at March 5, 2008 9:04 AM

9/11 happened in part because the US and the west as a whole (i didn't hear anyone in canada sounding the alarm) underestimated what these fanatics were capable of - much like Pearl Harbour in '41.

Back to the actual topic of Kate's post:

HC will fight to get Mi and FL on the delegate count. Expect the next 7 wks until PA to be about almost nothing else. The party has to let them in or risk losing those states in Nov.

Many Dems are probably seeing BO's upward flight as having stalled. The fad is coming to an end. He trails JM in national polls. HC may become the ripcord the party pulls as they see BO go crashing back to earth. At least they will have a fighting chance with her come Nov.

Also noted last night that Willie was nowhere to be seen.

Posted by: Gord Tulk at March 5, 2008 9:13 AM

Obama's voting record makes Jack Layton look like a Conservative. I agree with many posts here. Let them tear each other apart in front of the world. And then, hopefully, Clinton wins. And is drained.

I think McCain will have an easier time winning against her.

If not, it's better the devil you know.

Posted by: irwin daisy at March 5, 2008 9:17 AM

Kate: your mini posts get dumber by the day, if not the hour. The Clintons are responsible for the fall of the twin towers now? How do you figure that? Wasn't it Dubya's administration that got the briefing telling them an attack using jets as bombs was not only possible but likely? I'm sorry Kate, but you've forced me to use my special Shakespearean Insulter. Hold for your insult, please....

"False face must hide what the false heart doth know..."

Posted by: John Daly at March 5, 2008 9:22 AM

Actually there is only one man responsible for the revival of the floundering Clinton fortunes and that is ...Stephen Harper. The leaked memo of
Obama duplicity over NAFTA has finally found the Senator from Illinois's Achilles heel and set Clinton's rebound in motion. You can blame Harper. Blame Canada.

Posted by: muttsrus at March 5, 2008 9:22 AM

Canadians enthralled with Obamania, déjà vu Trudeaumania, are now seeing that it is really the GOP that supports NAFTA which helps keep the Canadian economy thriving as an enormous part of our GDP (it was about 40% , a bit lower now) is dependent upon trade and mostly trade with the USA.

Also the SSM crowd will be interested in Obama thoughts on that subject. These same secular extremists will also be surprised to see that Obama may be guided from the Sermon on the Mount … scary.

"I will tell you that I don't believe in gay marriage, but I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them. So, I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other. I don't think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That's my view. But we can have a respectful disagreement on that."

While I think Obama would be a very inexperienced guy and thus dangerous to be the world’s super cop in the White House, I almost hope he makes it so I can watch the “progressives” here in Toronto go apoplectic as they get to know him. They will be wishing GWB was back.

But ironically NAFTA-gate discussions with the Canadian Consulate in Chicago may be what takes Obama down as the unions back the Hildebeast and her junkyard dog Bubba to protect them from free trade and free market capitalism.

Posted by: nomdeblog at March 5, 2008 9:26 AM

The media is now starting to ask BO some tougher questions and he gets testy when he is put on the defensive.

The media sharks smell blood in the water and I think the 1st term Senator is now in for some additional scrutiny.

His squirm time is coming.

The Clintons still have a lot of friends in powerful media positions to help them.

Posted by: Fred at March 5, 2008 9:35 AM

Osama was in jail, and he was offered to Clinton to be transferred to the USA. Clinton said NO.
Therefore, 911 is Clintons fault. He could have taken the guy, put him in jail, and let out on bail, free to do his thing.

Posted by: MaryT at March 5, 2008 9:44 AM

We all better hope Clinton wins the nomination. If Obama becomes the next POTUS, it's going to be an uncomfortable time for Canada. With all the blabbering over the Cadman non-story, people aren't paying much attention to the worst mistake this government has made, the Obama-NAFTA leak. We could be paying a dear price for that one for years to come.

Posted by: RM at March 5, 2008 9:56 AM

there might well be a pair of towers still standing in New York CIty today?

kate, you're unbelievably stupid.

Posted by: jeff davidson at March 5, 2008 10:03 AM

Well, if the Clinton regime had recognized that Islamic fascism, which seeks a fundamentalist governance in the ME Arab states and is opposed to modernism, industrialism and democracy, would focus their attacks - not on Saudi Arabia, the chief site of Al Qaeda's hatred - but on the US, things might have been different.

The Clinton era considered the attacks against the West as criminal acts by individuals, not as as part of an agenda of a fascist group. They didn't realize that Al Qaeda wanted the West to attack Saudi Arabia, take out its tribal elite who've gotten wealthy from industrial oil - and then, the fascists would move in and set up a fundamentalist Islamic nation.

Instead, Bush moved into Afghanistan and removed the one currently existent fundamentalist government, which was kept in place by severe and vicious repression - and enabled the development of a democracy. [Yes, tribalism is still a serious problem; you can't move from a tribal to a civic system in a month's war, and Al Qaeda is using these tribes to disable the govt.]

And he then moved into Iraq, which I consider an excellent strategy, because it used the weakest state in the area, a dictatorship also kept in place by vicious repression, to free the people from that mode, and enable democracy to move into the area..by the back door, so to speak.

Hindsight is always correct. But it was Bush and his staff who recognized the nature of and solution to Islamic fascism.

John West - could you provide the data base for your statement:

"I still don't believe that most Americans want a woman or a Negro as leader of their country."

The reason I ask for a data base is because the data base that I see in the MSM, and of course, it could be wrong, is that millions of Americans are actually voting for both a 'Negro and a woman" as leader of their country. So- what's you data base?

I must also add that I find it problematic to align yourself with the 'most Americans' strategy; that's a fallacy - ad populam, appeal to the mass/mob. I always get tiffed off when our Liberals/NDP do the same, with their: "Mr. Speaker, most Canadians think that"..or "Most Canadians want'...Heck what do they know?

John West, I think instead of using fallacies (no data base, ad populam) you should simply state that it's your personal opinion.

As for Hillary Clinton and Obama, what this is showing is that the Democrat voters are split. I wonder if it's possible for such a split to even allow a clear winner? That's why their ticket might have to include both of them - that would be an internal cat-fight. I don't like either of them; both are big govt; Hillary is controlling and Obama is a 1960's vacuous leftie.

Posted by: ET at March 5, 2008 10:15 AM

RM said "the worst mistake this government has made, the Obama-NAFTA leak. We could be paying a dear price for that one for years to come."

I think Emerson and PM Harper answered that one. We have the oil, gas and water.

Posted by: muttsrus at March 5, 2008 10:17 AM

I hate to give the leftards any cover but there is ample bi-partisan blame to go around.

We know Carter made things a thousand times worse but what did Reagan do about the Barrack bombing in Beruit or the growing "issues" with the PLO?

What did Bush Senior do?

Clinton tried his best to ignore many bombs but so did the rest of them.

W would have kept on ignoring the problem if the problem didn't make itself unignorable (to coin a new word.)

Posted by: Warwick at March 5, 2008 10:20 AM

On the other hand, no one but Clinton had Sudan offer Bin Laden's head on a platter and he declined.

So he gets more blame than the norm.

Posted by: Warwick at March 5, 2008 10:27 AM

Re the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy against Hillary

Hillar Clinton being interviewed this morning on Fox News ...

Fox: Over the last month, Rush Limbaugh has been suggesting to his listeners in Texas and Ohio, to go ahead and vote for YOU. What's your message to Rush Limbaugh TODAY ?

HC: Be careful what you wish for Rush !

Fox: Is that it ?

HC: I think that's it

Fox: Do you think you wound up with some cross-over Republicans ?

HC: No I don't ... I don't think so, In fact I think there was a concerted effort to get Republicans to vote for Barrack. At the end of the day, what difference does it make ? ...

Posted by: Calgary Junkie at March 5, 2008 11:08 AM

kate, you're unbelievably stupid.


Hey. She's got the right to her opinion. But just calling her stupid as a response?

Well, that's just st... not well thought out.

Sheesh.

Cheers!

Leto

Posted by: [hirr]Leto at March 5, 2008 11:20 AM

haha...whoa, talk about revisionist history! I think you can blame many more people in line ahead of Clinton for the World Trade Towers.....you can include every President who has held hands with the House of Saud in that line for starters....

And it isn't a love of Clinton, its a yen for history steeped in reality.

Posted by: Sean S. at March 5, 2008 11:20 AM

"kate, you're unbelievably stupid."

Posted by: jeff davidson at March 5, 2008 10:03 AM

Yeah, Kate, don't you know that it was an inside Zionist-ChimpyBushMcHitler job by now? Even that French Actress knows that.

Posted by: irwin daisy at March 5, 2008 11:21 AM

Muttsrus, using energy as leverage is the "nuclear option", only to be used as a last resort. There are plenty of smaller conflicts that arise between Canada and the US that will become more difficult to resolve if President Obama holds a grudge.

Posted by: RM at March 5, 2008 12:04 PM

What Fred at 9:35AM is alluding to (I believe) is this:

Angry Barack Obama bombarded by media

An exasperated Barack Obama scurried away Monday from the toughest news conference of his campaign, telling reporters who kept shouting questions that he'd spent enough time on the grill.

"Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions," Obama, looking surprised, told shouting reporters as he fled the room. "We're running late."

The Clinton campaign has long complained that Obama gets soft treatment from the press corps. But Monday's exchange was no pillow fight.

The first question was about a private talk an Obama economic adviser had with a Canadian official - reportedly saying that the harshness of Obama's criticisms of the North American Free Trade Agreement was for political show.

Last week, Obama denied an initial media report about the conversation. But after a Canadian government memo surfaced, he acknowledged yesterday there was a conversation.

"When I gave you that information, that was the information that I had at the time," he said. His camp still disputes the memo's account of the discussion.

ps.. what a pain in the neck your blog is Kate.. gotta fill in every paragraph with html code... unless I'm doing something wrong?


Posted by: Lydia at March 5, 2008 12:08 PM

One might hope that Canadians are owed any knowledge that a trading partner might have intentions of tossing NAFTA.

Which Canadian political party is going to say that our citizens should be left in the dark?


Posted by: BB at March 5, 2008 12:50 PM

I know you blame the Clinton's for 9/11, but Kate, I'm curious how you're going to get them the blame for the holocaust as well. You're talented enough. You just might achieve it. Might take a doctored photo or two, but that's nothing you can't handle.

Posted by: Raphael Alexander at March 5, 2008 1:13 PM

Twin Towers can be debated. IIRC, Clinton let NYC handle the first attack as a police matter, not a federal concern or an act of war. So the terrorists got the full protection of the USA court system and a trial that kept their colleagues oversea very well informed of what the USA knew. (Thanks Lynn Stewart) Meanwhile Pres. Clinton and Janet Reno were very busy attacking folks in Waco, Texas, and the Weavers in Idaho and returning a six year old, whose mother risked and lost all for freedom, to the communist dictators in Cuba. Seems to me that those were Pres. Clintons prioritys.

Posted by: Patina at March 5, 2008 1:59 PM

Let's see, there's directly causing a tragic event and then there's falling asleep on your watch while a tragic event is allowed to happen. I believe that's what the post is referring to as a valid point of discussion. But don't let comprehension get in your way, Raphael.

Posted by: muttsrus at March 5, 2008 2:20 PM

Don't let the fact that September 11, 2001 was well into the term of Georgie get in your way, mutts.

Posted by: Raphael Alexander at March 5, 2008 2:27 PM

So, Obama holds a grudge, and if elected will punish Canada. I don't think so.
But, what is Hillory wins, wont she have to thank Canada.
What if JM wins. Wont he have to thank Canada for getting rid of BO so Hillory is his opponent. She will be easier for him to beat.
So, it is two for good canadian relations and 1 against.
PMSH might even get an invite to the famous bedroom in the white house.
Obama might hold a grudge, but the Clintons get even.

Posted by: MaryT at March 5, 2008 2:51 PM

I'm just waiting for the headline

"Two-faced Obama caught lying to delgates"

Not holding my breath.

Posted by: grok at March 5, 2008 3:27 PM

Yeah Raphael, almost a whole year! 11 entire months to completely fix everything Clinton broke in the biggest bureaucracy in the freakin' world.

Tell me Raphael, you're a "conservative". Do you know what The Wall was? Who built it? Do you remember, perchance, the screaming and outrage when Bush started taking it apart?

I do. Try to fool somebody with a shorter memory, eh?

Posted by: The Phantom at March 5, 2008 4:13 PM

But Phantom, did Clinton ignore direct warnings that were handed to him by the director of the CIA and Secretary of State that warned of an imminent attack on US soil? No. Did Bush? Yes. Repeatedly.

Clinton was far from perfect, but let's not get too crazy here. Bush couldn't have picked a more disastrous file on which to drop the ball so completely. I guess for righties, the buck stops at the Oval Office - just not when they're sitting behind it.

That, my friend, is why conservatives so infuriate. They love talking about accountability, but when they've got to line up and take their lumps, they're usually ducking out the back door. And their fanboys and enablers are always quick to champion the lovable losers like Bush, who have so bungled up our collective national security by their sheer incompetence.

What's really quite sad is that enablers like Phantom and the rest think they're somehow benefiting from the sad-sack policies (whether economic or national security-related) that this bunch have put in place, when in reality, they're going to have to bend over and take it like the rest of us when the other shoe drops.

Ah well...at least you'll be first in line, with a smile on your face to boot.

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at March 5, 2008 4:31 PM

Whoops - I should have said National Security Advisor, not SecState.

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at March 5, 2008 4:33 PM

"Whoops - I should have said National Security Advisor, not SecState."

Wow, thanks for clearing that up, pissant. We were all paying rapt attention.

Posted by: dean spencer - fox at March 5, 2008 4:44 PM

I know dean, correcting mistakes, even really small ones...it's so unlike what you're used to on SDA.

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at March 5, 2008 5:00 PM

Which presidency placed barriers between the CIA and FBI so that neither could inform the other about common internal and external targets? Which President was too busy playing golf to give permission for Bin Laden to be taken out? However blame for 911 is to be apportioned, Clinton's time in power predates Bush - he had first crack at stopping it, and failed. Consequently, Kate's comment is viable: had he applied himself while in power to his sworn duty with as much passion and effort as he is obviously capable of, a tragedy might have been averted. Nowhere in her comment do I see an exclusion of anything in which Bush may have been negligent, but after all, he is not the subject of the post. The Clintons were always proud of their 'two-fer' presidency, and as they seem intent on re-creating it - well, Bill anyway - and their hope has suddenly been resurrected, musings about his past priorities seem appropriate.

Posted by: T. Robert Wolfram at March 5, 2008 5:32 PM

Perhaps Clinton would have had more time to deal with the nations's business if he wasn't busy trying to defend himself from impeachment. Too bad a presidential blow job is more important to right wingers than national security.

Posted by: lberia at March 5, 2008 5:53 PM

Maybe if national security would have been higher on the agenda than blow jobs, Clinton wouldn’t have had to defend himself.

Posted by: Banachek at March 5, 2008 6:08 PM

"""""(supposedly with the highest IQ of all Presidents - and with expert advice) """"


Posted by: cconn at March 5, 2008 9:01 AM


hate to burst yer bubble, butt me thinks that quite probably Bush's is higher, so before you go blathering like a fool, I'm not a bush fan!!

and bush vs. clinton re. terrorists

it takes 6 months to get settled in on the job, an another to get to full swing, so "possibilities" of a threat ( and there would have been several) would be lessor than a "fact" of one having happened as on clinton's watch.

butt hold fer a minute, Billybob clinton and old man bush are thick as thieves, so one has to wonder who actually dropped what and when.

the whole thing goes back several years into clintons admin.and he was also warned, so there is a lot of wiggle room here to lay blaim, much of it wiggles towards clinton

Posted by: GYM at March 5, 2008 6:10 PM

Just a small point of correction for the Phantom. President Bush was in office eight months. He was elected in November, 2000. His election was contested over and over again by Gore and the Dems. Was December before the Supreme Court affirmed for the umpteenth time that GWB was the winner. His Presidential Inauguration into office was in January, as is usual.

Posted by: Patina at March 5, 2008 6:12 PM

With all due respect, lberia, Clinton was not impeached for inappropriate use of a staff intern, but for lying about it under oath. Perhaps if he had been less eager to find a new place to store his cigars, he would have had nothing about which to perjure himself.
Which is not really germane to the issue, save in that it too speaks to his priorities at the time. For all his faults, Nixon resigned rather than be impeached; Clinton was impeached and did not resign. I am left wondering what level of discovered malfeasance Clinton would have accepted before he left the office short of the end of his second term. Certainly he and his supporters thought then - and now - that being untruthful about a quick hummer from a young subordinate in the Oval Office didn't rate.

Posted by: T. Robert Wolfram at March 5, 2008 6:22 PM

ET: And he then moved into Iraq, which I consider an excellent strategy, because it used the weakest state in the area, a dictatorship also kept in place by vicious repression, to free the people from that mode, and enable democracy to move into the area..by the back door, so to speak.

There's widespread democracy in Iraq in the same way that there's widespread electricity available in Baghdad. Which is to say, there ain't.

A series of Iraqi focus groups conducted in late 2007 by the US military found that the country's various sectarian and ethnic groups, long fractured and co-oppositional, were starting to coalesce around some shared beliefs. That was the good news. The bad news? The shared beliefs were that (1) the US military invasion was the main cause of the violent differences among the Iraqi factions, and (2) the departure of "occupying forces" was the key to national reconciliation.

Why do I bring this up in the context of a discussion about democracy in Iraq? Because a short while ago, Bush signed an agreement with the Karzai administration committing to a long-term military presence in the country. This does not bode well for the future of the already tenuous ceasefires between once-warring factions, for a number of reasons.

One, the purpose of the surge was to buy time for political developments to take place (in terms of power-sharing and co-governance agreements, etc.). As the focus group findings make clear, such political development has until recently hinged on the US leaving the country. If the latter doesn't happen, then neither will the former.

Two, the surge didn't involve crushing the insurgent militias so much as it involved neutering them--either by convincing them, typically with financial and power inducements, to switch to the side of the official government, or simply by separating them through a complex series of roadblocks, etc. The end result is that there are now entire segments of the Iraqi army who a scant few months ago were the ones attacking coalition troops with IEDs. Their purchased cooperation won't last forever.

The surge is now scheduled for withdrawal. Had the surge been focused on exterminating the enemy rather than buying them out, there might have been a chance that the imminent downscaling of the US military presence would facilitate the crucial process of national political reconciliation.

Instead, expect an increased number of "security incidents," targeting both coalition troops and Iraqi sectarian groups, starting in a few months.

Posted by: I Sanderson at March 5, 2008 7:33 PM

Remember when Ann Coulter went on Hannity & Colmes and swore to campaign for Hillary "if it's McCain"? Sure you do! {youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc}

Well, as it turns out, it's McCain.

So, will Ann keep her word, or was she just doing her "I'll say anything, just focus on me!" shtick again?

Posted by: Crazy like a FOX at March 5, 2008 7:43 PM

Warwick said it best at 10:27 AM:

"On the other hand, no one but Clinton had Sudan offer Bin Laden's head on a platter and he declined.

So he gets more blame than the norm."

Plus there was that chance for US special ops to take out Obama in his headquarters, nixed by Clinton and documented in that movie that he wanted to suppress.

You have to speak slowly to the trolls, SDAers. They don't deal well with facts. For most sane people, knowing that Clinton could have taken the mastermind of 9/11 out, but didn't, means that those two towers might still be standing if it weren't for his decisions made when POTUS.

Posted by: ann at March 5, 2008 7:49 PM

i.Sanderson. Karzai is the president of Afghanistan, not Iraq.

Democracy doesn't switch on/off like a mechanical switch; it takes time to develop within a population that has only known ONE type of political system, tribalism. But, the Iraqi people have a constitution and a democracy. Both are working and moving out of sectarian tribalism.

There is no way that you will ever be able to 'exterminate the enemy' because tribalism, and its result, Islamic fascism, will take years to devolve to a marginal reality in the ME. They'll always be around, just as extremists are around in other systems in the world; but, they'll be marginal.

There won't be a renewed set of 'incidents'; the Iraqi people want to get on with their lives.

Posted by: ET at March 5, 2008 7:54 PM

"Perhaps Clinton would have had more time to deal with the nations's business if he wasn't busy trying to defend himself"

lberia , I agree with you Slick Willy ignored his oath of office.
You're Right!

Posted by: richfisher at March 5, 2008 8:06 PM

ET, you're absolutely correct, of course, about the Karzai error. I momentarily confused my theaters of war. I meant the "al-Maliki administration."

I agree with you that "democracy doesn't switch on/off like a mechanical switch" and that extremism can never be completely eradicated. But what you fail to see is how this flawed "on/off" thinking has been active in motivating the war in Iraq all along!

From the start, it was assumed by the hawks in the Bush administration that deposing Saddam would be the hardest task, and that once removed, Western-style democracy would be warmly embraced by the Iraqi people (i.e., democracy would "switch on"). Not so, in reality.

And so the much-ballyhooed surge, which similarly assumed that by simply suppressing the sectarian violence for a little while, national reconciliation would have the space and time to take place (i.e., democracy would "switch on"). Not so, in reality.

The old chestnut stands: democracy cannot be forced at gunpoint.

Yes, there's a constitution, but importantly, and in protest over the perceived bias towards Shia interests, none of the Sunni members of the original drafting committee signed the document. The present lack of progress on national unification is largely linked to disagreement over constitutional elements.

Yes, there is a democratically elected government, but only on paper. In reality, the al-Maliki government is hopelessly riddled with corruption. This isn't merely my own observation; it comes from reports produced by US embassy officials in Baghdad stating the same. It also comes from the mouth of Judge Radhi al-Radhi, the former head of the Commission for Public Integrity, the Iraqi government's top corruption watchdog agency, who resigned in protest at the sheer magnitude of the problem and the unwillingness of officials to reform the system. Indeed, graft and malfeasance are so ubiquitous within the al-Maliki administration that Judge al-Radhi actually recommended that the US stop supporting it.

As for your prediction that there won't be any future spike in incidents, well, only time will tell who's correct.

Posted by: I. Sanderson at March 5, 2008 9:15 PM

I. Sanderson - I agree with your comments, but, moving from a tribal to a civic mode of social and political organization is not something that can be done easily. It takes time. It took the West four hundred years; it won't take the ME that long (one hopes!!) but it can't be done rapidly.

Structures don't change overnight. A tribal (or other) mode of organization is embedded within every interaction of one person to another person. The duties, obligations, moral requirements of support etc that one owes to one's family, to members of one's tribe etc - can't be thrown out in the wash, so to speak. The individual brought up in such a system would be psychologically unable to behave in such a amoral manner.

To start to feel obligations and the possibility of constructive interactions with people who are not kin, who are not members of the same tribe but who are 'citizens' in a civic society - that takes time.

Give it five years - and there'll be a tremendous change.

The ME has no choice; it has to move into a civic mode and a democracy - because of the size of its population and because it must have an industrial economy. The population size and the economic mode make a civic mode and a middle class an absolute necessity.

Posted by: ET at March 5, 2008 10:09 PM

Sanderson:

"The old chestnut stands: democracy cannot be forced at gunpoint."

I know Germany and Japan are little known countries that are hard to find on the map but you might like to look up the results of some unpleasantries that occurred last century with regards to guns and democracy in these small unimportant countries.

Posted by: Warwick at March 6, 2008 12:14 PM

Warwick, the post-WWII German and Japanese cases are often trotted out as superficial examples of how democracy can indeed be exported at gunpoint. A closer examination, however, reveals that their transitions to democracy in fact owed very little to US intervention, and rather can be linked to a number of political and economic antecedents that were already gestating prior to the war.

I suggest you look up Christopher Coyne's "After War."

Posted by: I. Sanderson at March 6, 2008 7:29 PM

Sanderson,

I'd say that the allies WROTE their constitution had more than a bit to do with it. That and destroying their former regimes.

I'd also say that I'd put little faith in the usual marxist a-holes producing their fantasy works in their tenured birdcages up in the ivory towers. Anti-American, anti-western and anti-democracy slants are very popular in a certain cross-section of society. We call them leftards on this forum. They run universities (among other state apparatus.)

There are intellectually dishonest people pervading campuses across the western world. The quality of education today is atrocious. The campus regime directly out of Orwell's worst nightmare.

Of course, those who agree with the mindset are blind to its less-savoury nature.

Posted by: Warwick at March 7, 2008 11:54 AM
Site
Meter