Tammy Bruce: Clinton Flips Out Over Osama Question

Clinton Flips Out Over Osama Question

**Bumped Update--Just a reminder this interview in its entirety airs today, Sunday, at 6pm ET (3pm PT) on Fox. Also, Hot Air has more video of Clinton's meltdown. What an absolute, complete mess this man has become. Now via Drudge and Media Bistro, Chris comments on what it was like to sit in front of the immolating Clinton. Actually, it's nice to see the Wallace son do a good job considering that Lewinsky his father gave Ahmadinejad.**

Chris Wallace on the upcoming Fox News Sunday apparently touched a nerve when he asked Clinton if he did enough to get bin Laden (HT Hot Air). Considering Bubba's red-faced finger-pointing reaction (and we know how truthful he is when he points his finger at us), it seems being exposed for having done nothing has finally pushed Billy over the edge.

Ace of Spades takes a detailed look at the allegations in the snippet of the interview Fox has released, and opines:

The man simply lies. It is a breathtakingly stupid and mendacious claim that rightwingers, as he calls us, actually opposed his weak single effort to get bin Ladin. Throughout the late nineties, I was apopleptic we weren't doing anything at all about bin Ladin. We wanted more action. Not less...

Fact: Clinton didn't take any action against bin Ladin -- and I include that jackassed cruise missile strike, delayed to make sure all people were out of the target at the time of detonation, so as to make sure no innocent lives (or any lives, for that matter) where taken -- because he knew that such action could cause unrest in the Middle East, which could drive up the price of oil, which would dampen the US economy, which would, finally, lower his approval rating, the only thing the selfish sonofabitch ever gave a good goddamn about.

Woo hoo and bravo!

Ace also has video or the drone that had OBL in its site, as well as a transcript and audio link of Clinton admitting that he turned down Sudan's offer to hand over OBL because he "had committed no crime against America." This was, folks, in 1996, 3 years after OBL declared war on us, 3 years after the first WTC attack, and 2 years after Ramzi Yousef was captured and the OBL-funded Bojinka plan was revealed. "Committed no crime." Yeah, just like he didn't have sexual relations "with that woman."

It's nice to see Clinton freak out over the truth. While we haven't seen the whole interview, let's hope Wallace continues to stick it to that lying, philandering self-obsessed freak. And make no mistake, the airing of "Path to 9/11" has now given permission to everyone to admit the truth of the matter, which is also probably why Clinton loses control with Wallace.

Yippee.

Posted by Tammy · September 24, 2006 12:31 PM · Permalink
Corruption | History | Malignant Narcissism | Politics | September 11

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://tammybruce.com/mt/pings.cgi/989

Comments

Isn't the truth wonderful? Sometimes it may take months or even years for the truth to finally work its way out of the shadows, but eventually, the truth always come out.

Gee, I wonder what this will do to Bubba's "legacy"?

Posted by: kbartram at September 22, 2006 08:08 PM

Tammy, much of American 21st century politics, as you know, has boiled down to a constant struggle of vindictiveness and self-righteousness with those in the public eye such as Clinton. Seldom will you see any politician accept any true responsibility for anything, they are the slimiest way of earning a living that we have in American society and I know that many would agree with that assessment. I just have utter disrespect and contempt with pols when they act like this.

And take that from a guy that voted for Clinton twice, but likely will never vote Democratic again unless they get more folks back like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman.

There is plenty of fault to go around on both sides, the GOP and the Dems. Clinton's transparent tactic does not fool me.

Posted by: WK at September 23, 2006 12:20 AM

Clearly Clinton didn't do enough to stop bin Ladin. It goes without saying that the Bush administration didn't do enough. Had either done enough, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Five years later, we still haven't done enough because he's still out there. They hit London. They hit Madrid. As long as he's out there, we haven't stopped him.

It's healthy and cathartic to rag on Clinton, but when you're ready to get serious, get this tough on the people currently responsible.

Posted by: kdp at September 23, 2006 12:52 AM

Of course Bubba is going to flip out, his legacy is at stake. Is interesting how Clinton is slipping into Jimmy Carterville in his retirement. What is it about failed Democratic Presidents and their obsession with forging a legacy whether real or imaginary? Much like Carter, sometimes is hard to remember that Clinton is an ex president as he refuses to move off the world stage.

Imagine if Nixon hogged the limelight in this matter after quitting the WH? Of course Nixon didn’t have what Jimmah and Bubba have, an enabling MSM.

As far as Bush not doing enough the first 8 mos of his Presidency, less not forget that the Bush Administration had a truncated transition in 00 thanks to Al Gore's temper tantrum in Florida.

Posted by: Bamagal at September 23, 2006 05:02 AM

"It's healthy and cathartic to rag on Clinton, but when you're ready to get serious, get this tough on the people currently responsible."

The people 'currently responsible' have done much more to protect us and deal with terrorists than the finger-wagging philandering idiot EVER did in his entire 8-year wasted opportunity.

I wish to point out that yes, there are many legitimate arguments and concerns before us. I have serious conflict with the Bush administration on several fronts, but I acknowledge and credit this administration's willingness to take on the enormous task of protecting America at a time when it's not 'sexy' to do so.

I wish to point out a few items as there seems to be some short-attention-span-theatre at work:

In the 8 months Bush was in office prior to 9/11, how was he suppose to undo every intelligence meltdown that occurred during Clinton's entire 8 years? Couple that with the fact that many of Bush's cabinet appointments were being stalled by a bunch of holier-than-thou Senate maggots and salivating media skunks. The same said undesirables were quick to point out day in and day out that the president was only half the country's president, remember? Jim Jeffords abandoned the party only to cause more chaos and give control of the Senate to Tom Daschle who was not eager to move forward with the president's agenda AT ALL - INLCUDING DEFENSE MEASURES the president wanted addressed during the summer of 2001. Daschle specifically made the argument we did not need the defense systems President Bush was supporting. Any recall there?

I wish to add, also, President Bush was indeed ready to deal with terrorists as he had asked congress in June of 2001 to support a measure that would allow us to provide aid to the people of Sudan while helping the Sudanese government undermine the terrorist forces inflicting the unspeakable on the innocent civilians - largely the Christian population and Muslim factions that were not willing to submit to Islamfascists. The House passed the bill; Tom Daschle refused to bring it to the Senate floor.

I do fault the Bush administration for allowing holdovers from the Clinton administration to remain in the CIA and on Pentagon posts; however, I am more concerned that intelligence hand-tying policies enacted by the Clinton administration, and Clinton's own corrupt character, were VERY responsible for our vulnerability.

And frankly, I'm sick of people complaining 'we don't have Bin Laden yet'. Think for a moment: WWII began in 1939. Hitler was never captured - he finally ended himself in 1945, and I do credit the Allied forces for backing him into that corner. Though we rid the world from being dominated by Nazism, we still have Nazi sympathizers and those who have adopted Nazism and fascism all these decades later. When Bin Laden is killed (if he hasn't been already), there will be another maggot to take his place - and we will still have to deal with them forcefully.

Consider something else: For all the complaints about 'not having Bin Laden yet', there was one point when he was in clear view and all that was needed was the order to take the bastard down. That order was never given. Now we pay the price for giving one of the most corrupt, dishonest, indecisive and irresponsible people the keys to the nation from 1992 to 2000. Our citizens & fallen brave have had to pay the ultimate price because of the finger-wagging philandering idiot.

There. How's that for 'getting serious'?

Posted by: artgal at September 23, 2006 05:56 AM

Bill is running for First-husband. Although Hillary has not yet committed (although she should be) to running in 2008, Bill has. He wants to get back in the Oval Office anyway he can. He had so much fun there.

Posted by: cabgx2 at September 23, 2006 07:11 AM

Bubba has just been vindicated, not only is Osama dead, but Sandy Berger had snuck into Pakistan and slipped The Great One water contaminated with Typhoid---the rest is history. Sandy is brave and Bill is---well, Bill.

Posted by: Duke at September 23, 2006 08:19 AM

ARTGAL,
Wonderful comment/response. It could be a post itself. I would like to add to the response part though; the people "currently responsible" for the terrorist threat we face are not in Washington, D.C. Although they are "currently responsible" for no terror attacks on U.S. soil for five years after 9/11. We have not been lucky (far from it).

Clinton had only to deal with one very large group of people whom desired our destruction. His main concern was our, make that his, world standing.

A good size part of the world (home and abroad) now wishes us on our knees and bleeding. If only to take our spot at the top of the world heap. Others would be happy with our death or conversion.

Can you imagine a world with a President Hillary, Kerry or Gore in this day and age? Sends shivers down my spine. Reaching out to people of the world who wish for our downfall (at the very least), or our deaths (in their sweetest dreams) makes no sense to me.

Clinton wanted no part of offending our "friends" or the ROP. We've seen how well that worked. He only wanted a legacy, and he will have it.

Posted by: mphsdan at September 23, 2006 08:22 AM

ARTGAL pretty much summed it up for me, but would like to add a little something. When Clinton tries to make an equivalence between Bush's eight months and his own eight years, he leaves out a few facts. Bush was still on the Clinton budget throughout all that time, because the first Bush budget was due in October, 2001. Clinton had slashed defense and intel to the bone, to give a temporary stimulus to his overtaxed economy, so there were precious few assets to devote to stopping terrorism at the time available to Bush. Is there any doubt that, had a terrorist attack occurred during that eight months, Bush would have responded just like he did to 9/11? Any comparison in either character or resolve between the two men is laughable; Bush has both and Clinton lacks both.

Posted by: robert108 at September 23, 2006 08:31 AM

Speaking of ex-president Clinton shaking his finger at the American people…. I can remember clearly and vividly Clinton shaking his finger at the television camera on the streets of NY after the first WTC bombing and proclaiming... we are going to seek the death penalty on this one and you can believe that.... well as you know the perpetrators of that bombing and murder are still alive and in jail. Why does this impeached president continue to lie to us, continue to shake his finger at us, he must think we are all stupid. And speaking of stupid why on earth did the people of NY have to dig deep into the bowels of Arkansas to find a senator that can represent their state. This has always puzzled me.

Posted by: skyehawk at September 23, 2006 05:32 PM

Hi artgirl. I appreciate your reply, and but I probably should have taken more care to be clear. I can't really respond to your post because I'm not concerned how Clinton and Bush stack up against each other. At any time, the person serving as president is replaceable, but his actions will affect events long after he's gone. While former presidents can't change a thing, the person in the presidency is accountable for his performance no matter who he is.

Rather than defend his record, you make excuses and blame others. Can you please explain that to me? If he made a determined, but ultimately unsuccessful effort, you should be able to defend it. If he didn't make an effort, you should be at least as tough on him as you are on any former president. I can't think of any good reason to avoid it altogether.

Posted by: kdp at September 24, 2006 01:21 AM

By Category

By Month

Clinton Flips Out Over Osama Question

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment