« The Life and Times of a Puny Putintate Putz | Main | Quotes of the Day: An Arm and a Legacy »

September 25, 2006

Mens Rea? The Caper of the Clinton Cat

So tell us again what you think happened to that canary...

 

 

Ace of Spades blog absolutely demolishes Bill Clinton’s lying tirade from today’s Fox interview with Chris Wallace (video here, transcript here). Go and read it if you haven’t already done so. Here are some highlights (my emphasis in red).

 

First on the out-of-thin-air accusation that Republicans for the first time were against taking military action against a known terrorist when the opportunity presented itself Ace offers Bill some History 101:

 

 

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 apoplectic we weren't doing anything at all about bin Ladin. We wanted more action. Not less.

 

Conservatives did not object to this attack. We were enraged, however, that the man refused to attack bin Ladin at all until he was motivated to action by a threat [aka Lewinsky] to his own political safety. […]

We strongly suspected he had any number of chances to kill bin Ladin before this. It turns out we were one-hundred percent right:

 

 

Mr. Clinton‘s administration had far more chances to kill Osama bin Laden than Mr. Bush has until this day… [W]e had at least eight to 10 chances to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in 1998 and 1999. And the government on all occasions decided that the information was not good enough to act…

 

It is absurd to even suggest that Republicans' beef with Clinton's feckless and vacillating anti-Al Qaeda efforts was that we craved even more fecklessness and vacillation.

 

Who the h**l does this narcissistic sociopath think he's fooling? Does he really imagine he can sell the American people on the proposition that Republicans were actually less committed to dropping bombs on "brown people" than he was?

 

 

If so, that’s a big backtrack from Clinton’s usual race-bating. On Clinton’s charge that he was afraid of political backlash for attacking bin Laden:

 

 

Let's say hypothetically this lying bastard is telling the truth. […] What the h**l is the Commander in Chief, then, doing bowing to political pressure to let a sworn enemy of the United States and mass-murderer of (then) hundreds of American lives live his life unmolested?

 

Is Clinton really claiming he let bin Ladin go on to murder three thousand people because he was afraid what Tom DeLay might say about him?

 

True fact: Clinton fought the Serbian War without an authorization for the use of military force from Congress and furthermore in direct violation of the War Powers Act. […]

 

He can do all that to defend KLA terrorists in Serbia but he can't lift a finger to kill bin Ladin for fear of Rush Limbaugh mocking him?

 

Either that, or he's the peace-at-any-cost bong-smoking hippie p***y we always suspected he was.

 

 

And finally, ACE nails it shut. The verdict, what we all knew: Clinton let bin Laden go (perhaps to kill him when the next scandal broke out). Ace saves the best for last; here’s a snippit:

 

 

The man let bin Ladin go. The man let bin Ladin plot and scheme and recruit and ultimately murder 3000 innocent civilians. And he blames his negligence and malfeasance on the Republicans?

 

And The Horse You Rode In On, Chief: Video of Osama bin Ladin caught in a Predator's camera.

 

The Predator was not armed, as most are now. But there was always the chance to arrange a quick missile attack.

 

Too bad Clinton wasn't in any legal jeopardy when this footage was taken (the Fall of 2000). Had he been in legal trouble, who knows, he might have actually have given the code to fire on bin Ladin and saved 3000 people.

 

I guess the real lesson of the nineties is that we didn't impeach Clinton frequently enough.

 

Clinton's rules? The CIA was not authorized to kill bin Ladin. Only to attempt to capture him.

 

As we have no Tomahawk missiles equipped with big butterfly nets, bin Ladin was let free, unharmed and alive, to continue plotting the murders of 3000.

 

The fact that BC tried to physically intimidate Wallace proves the ex-prez knew the facts weren’t on his side. BC is scared, and it’s obvious. Now what could scare BC that bad one may ask? Well, sure, part of it is his legacy which is already well on its way to the smoldering ash heap of history (who was the president preceding Roosevelt and WWII?), but Bill Clinton apparently knows there’s also something out there that could land him in serious hot water. Something important enough to have Sandy Burglar attempt to smuggle out top-secret documents in his socks before the 9/11 Commission had a chance to get their eyes on them. Maybe it’s just that Clinton dropped the ball far worse than we know, or maybe it’s more. Either way, history will find it. I just hope it’s during our lifetimes so we can watch that smug, lying traitor and his friends get their legal comeuppance. What was it that Al Gore used to say about "no controlling legal authority"? Oops.

 

 

Posted by Martin at September 25, 2006 01:38 AM

Comments