Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The RW spin cometh-the Clinton interview

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 03:26 PM
Original message
The RW spin cometh-the Clinton interview
National Review has two posted already and Fox News has someone named Ronald A. Cass with his assessment of seeing his co-hort have his ass handed to him. Oh I read elsewhere that Chris (you may know my father) Wallace is on Hannity telling what REALLY happened once the mikes and cameras were turned off (they turned them off???).


Clinton's Counterterrorism Record
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjEzOTlmNWEwZjA2M2Q3YjU0MWQ0NGZiNDVlYTM5MGU=
Clinton's Counterterrorism Record

President Clinton is claiming that his counterterrorism efforts have been misrepresented and deflated. One way to help get an accurate version of history — as Mark Levin and I have pointed out repeatedly over the last couple of years — goes back to the curious case of former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.

But how come during the 9/11 Commission hearings the press agitated until the Bush White House finally gave in and disclosed all kinds of highly classified materials ... including a Presidential Daily Briefing memo — one of the most closely held intelligence products in the government — but we have still, to this day, never seen or had thoroughly explained to us what Sandy Berger took out of the National Archives?

President Clinton wants historical accuracy? By all means, let's have it.

The Book on Clinton
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzQwODlmZDU2MjRiODViOGU3MTNjMDQzYWRiYzQ3OTY=
In his interview with Chris Wallace, President Clinton repeatedly cited Richard Clarke’s book which Cornerites have conclusively demonstrated does not actually endorse the former president as a resolute and successful anti-terrorism warrior.

There’s another book that makes the same point: My Life, by Bill Clinton.

It is telling to note that in his autobiography, which I reviewed for NOR in 2004, Clinton’s first mention of terrorism does not appear until page 574. Al-Qaeda does not appear until page 797.



Bill Clinton: Play It As It Lies <----get it?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215607,00.html

Former President Bill Clinton, never one to let truth stand in the way of a good line, has decided to reincarnate himself as our tough, anti-terror president.

The man who ran away from military service and displayed striking contempt for our Armed Forces has now announced that he did more -- and would do more -- to combat Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda than anyone else. In his view, he should be recognized as the best man to fight that enemy.

Speaking to Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday, Clinton made a bevy of startlingly anti-factual remarks. He announced, for instance, that conservatives had criticized him for obsessing about bin Laden during his presidency -- rather than the truth that he was roundly condemned for doing next to nothing about this serious threat to American security.

Clinton blamed the Bush administration for failing to stop the Al Qaeda terrorists before 9/11, saying that the administration had eight months to get bin Laden and didn't. That conveniently overlooks that Clinton's administration had eight years to do that job, with Al Qaeda using the last two of those years to plan 9/11.

It gets worse from there


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think this is hilarious, personally.
If it's a Dem strategy, it a good one. Clinton isn't running for anything and still boasts a 60% or so approval rating among Americans. Keeping the RWers all worked up in a frenzy over him is a good idea - especially when he presents himself as he did on Fox. I'm not the least bit worried about what they say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. I as on active duty for every day of Bill Clinton's Presidency
and I never once felt contempt from the Commander in Chief. I retired when dickhead was president but at my retirement ceremony I had my Certificate of Appreciation from the Commander in Chief signed by Bill Clinton. In fact, its proudly framed and displayed over my left shoulder on a book shelf in my office. Oh how I loved to hear it read during my retirement ceremony.

I also was involved in Operation Southern Watch (under Clinton) maintaining the No Fly Zone and ensuring that Iraq did not have WMD. Guess big dog done good huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. Not surprising
The RW always hated Clinton. Hated him. They hated him because he won. Twice. They hated him because he was successful in spite of their endless efforts to ruin him. They hate him now because he makes Bush look stupid. They hate him now because he is success in what he is doing. They will NEVER stop.

I'd love to see a link to anything a RWer said in the 90s that said Clinton wasn't doing enough to fight terrorism. I remember Trent Lott and Orin Hatch and a bevy of RW congresscritters yammering "Wag the Dog."

So much of it is projection. Bush has been a failure so they must blame Clinton. They've got nothing else.

Mz Pip
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustFiveMoreMinutes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
4. Are there ANY RW articles blasting Wallace's bait & switch?
Also, now that Pandora's box has been opened, are they strongly suggesting going after the CURRENT adiminstration just as doggedly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. No, but I have one (hardly rw, though):
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveOurDemocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
6. Let 'em try to spin it ... the lid's off now...
Edited on Mon Sep-25-06 04:19 PM by SaveOurDemocracy
I came across this Truthout Editorial that speaks to the issue of Clinton's focus, efforts, and accomplishments recognizing and acting against terrorism during his Administration. I know many articles have been posted since the 'Path to 911' ABC/Disney fantasy spetacular ... I don't know if this one has, but I thought it was well done and well worth sharing.

It's written 10/13/03 and Mr. Pitt is discussing Sidney Blumenthal's book The Clinton Wars... which he characterizes as, "a meticulously researched and foot-noted tour de force through the last ten years of the brainless savagery of American politics."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101303A.shtml



The Sins of September 11
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 13 October 2003



...The two great myths that have settled across the nation, beyond the Hussein-9/11 connection, are that Clinton did not do enough during his tenure to stop the spread of radical terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, and that the attacks themselves could not have been anticipated or stopped. Blumenthal's insider perspective on these matters bursts the myths entirely, and reveals a level of complicity regarding the attacks within the journalistic realm and the conservative political ranks that is infuriating and disturbing.

Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.

In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The TV networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag The Dog" to accentuate the idea that everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery....



Then he describes the various ways the the GOP witch-hunt obstructed his initiatives at every chance...

...In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton's bill on this matter and called it "totalitarian." In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders.

Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement. According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same. In the end, the lobbyists got what they wanted, and the Bush administration pulled America out of the plan. The Time article stated, "Without the world's financial superpower, the biggest effort in years to rid the world's financial system of dirty money was short-circuited."

This laundry list of partisan catastrophes goes on and on. Far from being inept on the matter of terrorism, Clinton was profoundly activist in his attempts to address terrorism. Much of his work was foiled by right-wing Congressional conservatives who, simply, refused to accept the fact that he was President. These men, paid to work for the public trust, spent eight years working diligently to paralyze any and all Clinton policies, including anti-terror initiatives that, if enacted, would have gone a long way towards thwarting the September 11 attacks. Beyond them lay the worthless television media, which ignored and spun the terrorist issue as it pursued salacious leaks from Ken Starr's office, leaving the American people drowning in a swamp of ignorance on a matter of deadly global importance....



There's more ... but I don't want to create a copyright issue ... so, here's the link again:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101303A.shtml


edit for typo




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC