Gem of the Day: Clinton Defended (Bill, That Is)
MisterE published a piece that I found – surprise, surprise – very distressing. Above all else, I’m not an adamant “I love George W. Bush. He’s never wrong” enthusiast. I see the faults; I’m not blinded or deafened by his sociopolitical stances that happen to jive with my own personal inclinations. In sum: I’m well versed and well aware of the criticisms that are posed against him. In the end, I always find it intriguing when political pundits (yes MisterE, I’m going to consider you a pundit) ramble on and on about the members of the opposing party’s administration. We’re constantly (and sometimes with good reason) hearing about how the members of Bush’s administration are corrupt. In turn, those on the left use these same corruption claims to debunk Bush, himself. It’s not uncommon to hear, “This entire administration is criminal.” After all, aren’t we all defined by who we associate with?
It’s curious to note, however, that MisterE (and nearly every left-minded individual) faults Bush for every minor action made within his administration, but when it comes to Clinton and his missteps concerning the al Qaeda, they turn the other cheek. This isn’t limited to liberals. Conservatives do it too, although our current political climate enables us to utilize liberals as prime illustrations.
“Maybe Clinton didn’t want to create a police/military state, illegally invade people’s privacy, turn Christian against Muslim, and be responsible for 650,000 innocent deaths.”
Sigh. Yes, Bush is to blame for it all – the Crusades, the Iran-Contra affair – maybe even Jimmy Carter’s presidency (I mean, come on – how atrocious was that?! It’s got Bush written all over it)!
I’m sure Bush’s plan has brilliantly unfolded as he had hoped it would! Do you really think he wanted these horrible events to occur, MisterE? Of course, motivation does not excuse the mistakes, but this inclination that George W. Bush is the end-all-be-all of evil is a bit redundant and simple-minded (and you’re a smart guy, so I’m confused as to why you constantly resort to name-calling and the dumbing down of anything “Bush”).
At worst, you could simply say – in your opinion – that Bush wasn’t qualified for the job and that he has made some serious errors (and I might agree with you in this regard on some issues). Policy blockages and radical Islamic fascism run amok are at the root of our current situation. Unanticipated mismanagements and political happenings account for the rest.
And in a turn I find hysterical MisterE says,
“But maybe the CIA never briefed the president well enough for him to have been able to act.”
This is your defense for Clinton’s inaction concerning the al Qaeda? Are you kidding me? So, basically Clinton – a brilliant Rhodes Scholar – needed CIA-head George Tenet to tell him the al Qaeda were posing a major threat to U.S. interests?
I suppose the Kobar towers, the first World trade Center attack in 1993, the embassy bombings in Yemen, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole – the list goes on – were not enough evidence of an imminent threat?
I do agree, however, that we cannot blame anyone, per se. But I do believe that acting as though 9/11 were an isolated incident is ridiculous. It didn’t take putting a note in Bush’s memos or alerting Ms. Rice – and it certainly didn’t take Mr. Tenet’s knowledge – to surmise the potentials that the devilish al Qaeda possessed.
At the end of the day it’s all politics as usual. The left would quickly blame the “Bush Administration” and not the CIA for failing to act, but when defending Clinton, he is conveniently separated from those who worked under him; he is rarely held to the same standards we hold Bush to – so much so that it’s almost laughable.