The dam has burst on 9/11 blame.

[chieftain]

The unspoken rule that the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission operated under was to spread the responsibility around equally so that neither party would shoulder more blame than the other. Most mainstream politicians operated on this dishonest detente until the RW broke the pact by bankrolling the ABC hit piece, The Path to 9/11.
I doubt very seriously that Clinton was sandbagged or that he really lost his temper during the Wallace interview. I think he was signaling both parties that the truce had been broken. I note that Wes Clark has attacked doofus for being derelict in his duty leading up to the attacks. I hope that Democrats everywhere follow Clinton's lead in exposing the lazy, gutless crew that did not get around to Bin Laden as a focus until it was too late and then let him escape while his neo con friends prepared to make the biggest strategic blunder in American history.
The issue of who was asleep at the tiller while America's enemies plotted has now been joined. This is one fight from which Democrats dare not shrink.

[AX10]

1. I too do wonder if Clinton is sending us a signal that we should...

go on the offensive, NOW!

[IndianaGreen]

2. Wes Clark said that Bush was asleep at the wheel for 8 months

Clark said that Bush ignored OBL until the 9-11 attack, which is the same thing Clinton and Olbermann said.

[Tom Rinaldo]

67. Clark had Clinton's back covered months ago with Bush in the cross hairs

Thanks for pointing this out IG. Clark said Bush was asleep at the wheel but much much more than that over three months ago. Clark also said: "we went to war in Iraq to cover up the command negligence that contributed to 9/11."

The comments below come from General Clark's June 9th Keynote address to the Texas State Democratic Convention. Folks can watch the video or read the full transcript at this link. It's a real scorcher!:
http://securingamerica.com/node/1083

""The truth is...the truth is we could be doing so much more. You know, when this administration came into office in January of 2001, they ignored the advice of the people who'd been in office for 8 years. We knew that Osama bin Laden was the principal threat to the United States of America but I guess George Bush thought he knew more than we did and so he just shoved it aside - he and Condi and Dick Cheney and the rest of the crowd. They didn't want to hear it. Terrorism - that was a Democratic problem and when he was warned in the summer of 2001 that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike the United States, he went on vacation.

Now I can understand wanting to come back to Texas on vacation - it's a pretty darn nice place down here and I can even understand wanting to chop cedar - I've got a little place in western Arkansas and I've been looking at all that stuff there and it makes me want to go out and chop every now and then too - but he shouldn't have done it. It's what I call `command negligence' because... I think any reasonable person who was Commander in Chief at the time who had gotten a warning like that would have called the members of the cabinet together and said `fellas, ladies, I don't know what this warning means but this is not happening on my watch - you put your heads together, you've got 2 weeks, you come up with an action plan - I want to know what you're doing in the Justice Department, what the FBI's doing, what DOD's doing, what CIA's doing' - and he would have been a leader and he might have saved a lot of lives.

Now why am I going back over ancient history? Because it's not ancient. Because we went to war in Iraq to cover up the command negligence that contributed to 9/11. And it was a war we didn't have to fight. Thank you. That's the truth and I hope every Democrat around this country sees you all on your feet acknowledging the reality of the world we're living in today thanks to the misleadership of this Republican administration. I've been in war. I don't believe in it and you don't do it unless there's absolutely, absolutely, absolutely - no alternative. "

[texastoast]

3. With the rethugs, you have to stay on the offensive

Not the way I'd like to play the game, but that's the field. Might as well get a kick out of it.

:kick:

[indepat]

43. This is strategic, don't give them a chance, send them to hell or words

to that effect spoken by the Colonel played by John Wayne in "The Longest Day" is appropriate because this election may well be a watershed moment in our Republic's history, its D-Day.

[Bobbieo]

7. Sure looks that way. I am so proud of him !!!!!

[whistle]

8. Sure Clinton is, but it is because the majority of RW republicans

...are scum and fascist in their thinking and should be knocked down. Enough is enough.

[enough already]

38. I think Clinton was definitely sending us a signal

He used all the right language in bitch-slapping Wallace. He went directly after Faux, the "neo-cons", the "right wingers", etc. This could be our cue to really fight these pricks.

[blm]

60. He sure liked the neo-cons in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. He supported them

more publically than he supported any Dem attacking the neo-cons then.

[chieftain]

61. Refresh my memory. Which Neo-cons did he support?

[blm]

63. Bush WH and their neocon policies.

.

[democrank]

4. Wes Clark has been on Junior`s back from the beginning.

Some people (like many in Congress) wait five years to muster up enough courage to do the right thing. I`m glad Clinton lashed out. It was long overdue.

[w4rma]

23. Big media rarely give General Clark or Senator Edwards much press. (nt)

[DoYouEverWonder]

32. Clinton is in a more difficult position

because former Presidents are not suppose to publicly criticize current sitting Presidents. Clinton tried to maintain that stance for the last 6 years out of respect for the office, not the person. However, since the person does not believe in following the old rules for anything and is destroying our country in the process, Clinton can no longer just sit it out on the sidelines. Go Bill, cause Dimson has no idea what fury he has unleashed.

[The Backlash Cometh]

37. Now that we can talk about it...

...we need to make it very clear that Hillary Clinton was right about the right-wing conspiracy and we need to outline the path: From Drudge to blogs like Lucianne Goldberg to finally, Fox News at 5:00. All in one day they could go from rumor to national news. Start there, and then show how all those who fell for it made this country weaker because we were divided as a country during a pivotal time.

Divided we Fell in the 90s. That should be the message we send to the Republicans. And because they stole elections to come to power, they're the ones who need to stand down.

[DoYouEverWonder]

39. The people who have inflicted this country

with the politics of hate need to be forced from positions of power.

They only know death and destruction and if we want to survive has a species, we need to purge them from the system.

[HamdenRice]

47. Notice Clinton rare says "Bush"; he says the "other side"

You are correct DYEW. And to further parse his words, when he has something critical to say, rather than say "president bush," he will say "the other side" or the "subsequent administration," so that he technically stays within that rule.

[blm]

58. That should've been thrown out the window after Rove's Clinton trashed WH

story.

And Clinton was certainly not quiet about SUPPORTING Bush and his policies all these years, so why WAS IT SO HARD to speak against the RW lies that were blaming him for 5 years for 9-11.

And Hillary STILL didn't "have" to vote and confirm a known liar like Condi for Sec of State, did she?

[Jawja]

75. President Jimmy Carter

has criticized * as well. He has not been hesitant.

[European Socialist]

5. If the Democrats could stand together and tall on this it would be HUGE!!!

[ClassWarrior]

6. I agree, except for one thing.

The Iraq Invasion and Occupation was not a "strategic blunder." It was an intentional attack for profit and power.

NGU.

[chieftain]

12. I didn't mean to imply that it was unintentional.

I agree with you that power and greed along with a little oedipus complex were the motivating factors. It still ranks as the biggest strategic blunder in American history, spiced with some of the dumbest tactical decisions known to mankind. All in all a thoroughly stupid, immoral concept, ineptly executed.

[Trajan]

24. As an intentional attack ....

it was still a strategic blunder ... they are not mutually exclusive facts ....

[ClassWarrior]

40. I understand that, but "blunder" lets the criminals off the hook.

Language matters.

NGU.

[chieftain]

41. Since I agree with you that language matters, I looked up

blunder and still think mine was a proper usage. Although the word can mean inattention,recklessness and/or inadvertence, it does not necessarily mean those things. It can also convey mistakes of calculation and/or judgment.
Disputes over language aside, I agree with you completely that this is a criminal regime which needs to be held accountable for its acts.

[ClassWarrior]

44. I appreciate that, but "blunder" is not as damning...

...as other words. It doesn't hold them as accountable as other words might. Perception is reality. Otherwise, I totally agree.

:toast:

NGU.

[KansDem]

45. I like "strategic plunder" It fits quite well in describing *'s Iraq plan

plun·der (plndr)
v. plun·dered, plun·der·ing, plun·ders
v.tr.
1. To rob of goods by force, especially in time of war; pillage: plunder a village.
2. To seize wrongfully or by force; steal: plundered the supplies.
v.intr.
To take booty; rob.

And it doesn't let them off the hook...

[DoYouEverWonder]

57. I like Bush's Blunder

It has a nice ring to it.

[blm]

79. like the difference between vote machine "glitches" and RIGGING.

one is just too benign while the other is criminal.

[Crunchy Frog]

9. Our side has by far the strongest case in this one.

Their side unfortunately has almost all the media as their propaganda mouthpiece. Our side needs to push on this as hard as we possibly can, and with a unified voice, in order to even get a hearing, given our media disadvantage. I just hope that our folks can pull themselves together and act with some kind of unity for once.

[chieftain]

80. You're right. I have been in 2 arguments with fellow workers

on this. When I tell them that Bush's reaction to the "Bin Laden to Strike Within U.S." briefing was to tell the intelligence guy that"...he had covered his ass..." by giving the information and then doofus went fishing, they have no comeback other than that's the first they have heard that info. Which gives me the opportunity to explain why they should be paying attention to more than Faux news and Rush. We do have the talking points on this most critical matter and we need to drive them home relentlessly..

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

10. They all said over and over "let's not play the blame game"

NO. Let's play. Let's talk a lot about what Bush knew, when he knew it , what he did and didn't do. And let's talk a whole lot about EXACTLY what people did and didn't do ON 9/11. Let's really discuss our dipshit President who sat in an elementary school and couldn't get off his ass while we were under attack from parties unknown.

BRING IT ON!!!

[Bobbieo]

11. It is quite obvious that when Bush attacked Iraq,

he opened the doors to al Qaida and the terrorists. Something Hussein would never allowed.

[Raster]

13. EVERYONE always tip-toes around the 911 gorilla in the room...

• 9/11 was paid for by Saudi money
  
• Clinton could only do so much about terrorism and its sources. The dirty FACT was Clinton tried to do more but was shut down by a Rethuglican Congress that accused him of "waggin the dog"
  
• NUMEROUS CREDIBLE sources from all over the globe, a veritable United Nations of spooks warned the United States--specifically the bush* government--that terrorists planned on using commercial jets as weapons. Persons, like Willie Brown, were warned off flying specific periods of time. The bush* administration likes to say if they had only known they would have done something. BULLSHIT! The only thing the bush* administration didn't know was the flight and seat numbers
  
• the bush* administration has spent far more time, money and manpower INHIBITING investigation that actually investigating.
  
• The 9/11 Commission was a whitewash and has all but admitted so
  
• Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. The plans to attack Iraq had been formulated even before bushco* seized the (p)Residency. There were NO weapons of mass distruction, only the usual suspects and scapegoats.
  
• The US Strategic Air Command watched in horror as events unfolded, their hands tied. Just weeks before the authority to police the skies had been theirs alone. Shortly before 9/11, that control was transferred to Donald Rumsferatu

It goes on and on and on...

[fujiyama]

25. It wasn't only congress

He had a very uncooperative FBI and CIA to deal with. Neocons heading both. Good ole' opus di Freeh and "Slam Dunk" Tenet.

One of Clinton's biggest mistakes was appointing Loius Freeh to head the FBI. Another one, was not firing his ass.

[Raster]

29. Excellent points. The cold, hard truth? Clinton had a mutiny on his

hands. Outsiders and upstarts, the Clintons were not part of the underlying DC power structure. They were unowned and relatively clean. They were too JFK-idealistic and reeked of loose cannon and could not remain unchecked. Their fate was sealed when they attempted to reform healthcare.

[chieftain]

35. I have often likened what happened to Clinton to the Kennedy

assassination, but done with words rather than bullets.

[chieftain]

34. I agree. Louis Freeh was a rat. He made the FBI an adjunct

to the RW hate machine to try to destroy Clinton. While he and his sleuths were looking through peepholes, the enemies of America acted. Freeh belongs in a prominent spot of the Hall of Shame.

[calimary]

48. Oh God, louie freeh. That son-of-a-bitch LIVED to make Clinton's life

miserable. And Clinton gave him that job! Put him where he was. Made him what he was. Well - made him what he was professionally. Personally, he was nothing but a big, hateful, chip-on-his-shoulder schmuck. With "friends" like freeh, who needed enemies? It got so bad sometimes that I felt SURE freeh was on somebody else's payroll, if you get my drift.

At one point, they ALL lived and breathed to make Clinton's life miserable. Every last damned one of them. And certainly EVERYBODY in Congress - Democrats who deserted him and the republi-CONS - well... we all know THAT score. THEY were out to get him and to saboutage him and seek revenge for his having the nerve to turn their precious old putz george senior out of office. And that was true FROM THE GET-GO. It's amazing that he got ANYTHING accomplished AT ALL. I don't think ANY President in recent memory has had to function under such ongoing adversity.

[chieftain]

51. One of the great things about Olberman's thoughts last night

was to make clear who was responsible for the distraction from getting Bin Laden, if there was one. He put the onus where it belongs with the perverted probe of Ken Starr and his band of hypocritical right wingers.I agree with you, no president has ever been assailed like Clinton was. And it was not limited to RWers. It was the mainstream media, his own appointees and former employees as well as jackals like Scaiffe. It is to Clinton's credit that he withstood this onslaught and emerged as a strong, well liked political figure.

[AntiFascist]

27. Very informed post....

Not only did Republicans know what was going down, but I wonder if Osama bin Ladin could be something of a double agent for the "shadow government", herding al Qaeda operatives into Iraq and preparing to fight America so that Saudi Royals are less targeted? They would sacrifice the WTC, the security of American soldiers, and much of American security for the sake of their precious Saudis.

[Raster]

31. The house of bush* and the house of Al Saud exist symbioticly.

The bush's have had unprecedented access to the Saudi Royal family for years. Faithful retainers and old friends. They are the face of the Texas Petroleum Mafia to the Saudis and vice-versa.

The House of Bin Laden is the second-most important family in Saudi Arabia. Almost royalty. Sworn to Al Saud and have profited handsomely.

The threat to Al Saud is from within the Arab world. They have many enemies. Not to mention consorting with the devil. Rather inconvenient when you're also the guardians of the most sacred sites in Islam. Ossama is one of those Saudis that believe the Royal Family are heretics.

There is a major effort to move all American hard assets off of Saudi soil to appease the hardliners. We aren't moving far.

[AntiFascist]

33. I understand what Osama tells his following...

but according to French intelligence there is indication that al Qaeda was being funded by the bin Ladins even after it began targeting Americans. Wasn't the wife of the Saudi ambassador providing funds to one of the 9/11 hijackers that was in hiding in San Diego? The implication being that wealthy Saudis may have been paying them off so as not to be attacked themselves. This raises the question of a conflict of interest within the Bush-Saud dynasty. Why were the bin Ladins given the royal treatment immediately following 9/11, not even being questioned by the FBI? Why was intelligence relating to Saudis ignored?

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/intelligence.html

[rman]

50. The Saudi money ties in with US interests

"...money laundering, drugs and terrorist activities and their support networks converging in several points. And this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it's getting into somebody's political campaign, and somebody's lobbying..."
-- Sibel Edmonds, FBI whistleblower
http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml


"once this issue gets to be investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally," revealing the content of the FBI intercepts she heard indicates that recognizable, very high-profile American citizens are linked to the 911 attacks.

When asked how many Americans were named in the intercepts, Edmonds said "There is direct evidence involving no more than ten American names that I recognized," further revealing that "some are heads of government agencies or politicians--but I don’t want to go any further than that,"
-- Sibel Edmonds, FBI whistleblower
http://www.fathers.ca/fbi_cover-up.htm

[pa28]

14. In the interest of "united we stand" Democrats did not blame.

Now the Republicans are revising history to blame Clinton? It's beyond outrageous and now I hope the truce has been broken.

Time to hold Bush accountable for enabling 911 and failing to catch Bin-Laden.

[IndianaGreen]

16. Democrats were the only ones playing the "united we stand" game

while the Republicans were consolidating their power at the expense of our civil liberties.

Congress failed us!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

15. If the Republicans are now interested in assigning blame

then let the games begin!

[Twist_U_Up]

17. To the dungeon!!

Official Conspiracy Theorists weirdos
Take off the blinders!


How did WTC 7 fall ?

19 tiny arabs with box cutters,3 out of 4 on objectives,cell phone calls at 30,000 feet,110 story buildings falling at near free fall speed,the list goes onnnnn and onnnnn

Nobodys paying attention , nobody cares.

[CarolNYC]

18. The beginning...

I really think the whole thing started in earnest with this appearance of Gen Clark's with Neil Cavuto on Sept 5....Maybe Big Dog was following Wes' lead....

Some things Gen Clark said that day....

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: The attack on 9/11 occurred on the President's watch.
.........

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: In fact, you know, the people who attacked us at the World Trade Center, we arrested them. We broke up that ring. As far as the Cole attacks were concerned, a complete plan was worked up. By the time they had worked the plan up, it was December of 2000. The administration was about to go out of office. A Republican was going to come in. I think Richard Clarke has told the full story of passing on a twenty-page plan along with all the details to the National Security Advisor Condeleeza Rice. They never got a hearing. This President went on vacation in August of 2001, despite the warnings that Al Qaeda was trying to attack the United States-

Neil Cavuto: But there were, there were warning- Bu, but, but General-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -without ever summoning his cabinet officers together.

Neil Cavuto: Here's what makes me question-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: That's dereliction!
........

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: In 1999, we got word and intercepted a terrorist group that was trying to attack Los Angeles Airport for New Years of 2000. We broke that attack up. That's because we had an effective White House counter-terrorism strategy that was coordinating the agencies. That strategy fell apart in the early months of the Bush administration. You can talk to the people. It's, it's a, it's a matter of record. This administration wanted to focus on weapons of mass destruction coming from North Korea. They wanted to focus on an ABM. They did not focus on the problem of terrorism until it was too late.

http://securingamerica.com/node/1428

[CarolNYC]

19. interview with Al Franken

And then there was this interview with Al Franken a couple of days later....

Al Franken: So, l-let's talk about are we safer now than we were after 9/11. I think in, in some ways we have to be, because at least now they're paying attention. You have to admit, that between January 20, 2001 and September 11, 2001 they really, really took their eye off the-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Listen, it was lights off in the White House. They were warned. The- President Clinton told them. Sandy Berger told them. Richard Clarke told them. And I would go back to Washington - and I was living in Washington for part of that time - and, and talk to my friends who had been in the previous administration. And of course, you're always going to talk about how the new guys are doing, and people were telling me at the time, "They won't listen. They won't listen. They won't listen."

Al Franken: Well, they, it was like, 'Don't- Let's not do anything Clinton did.'

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Exactly. 'If Clinton says terrorism is a big problem, it's not going to be a problem, big problem for us.' And I, I remember talking to a former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry in Aspen, Colorado in August of 2001, and he was telling me that he'd tried to talk to people in the administration about the threat of nuclear proliferation. And what they were saying was, 'That's why we've got to get the Anti-Ballistc-

Al Franken: Right.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -Missile Treaty, we got to get that thing thrown out. We've got to put our ballistic missile interceptors in place.' And he was saying, "No, no. You have to think about the problem of terrorism. That's where our real risk is.' And they wouldn't listen to him.

..................

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: And I'll tell you the- the worst part about it, Al, when you think back on it is that when you're the President of the United States, you have real leadership responsibilities. You may not be able to create jobs in America. You may not be able to order healthcare to be done. But what you can do when you get strategic intelligence that somebody's wanting to attack the United States, you can call the relevant Cabinet members together and tell them to work and prevent this from happening.

Al Franken: And of course, that didn't happen.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It never happened.

Al Franken: After the August 6th PDB, which I-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: There was no leadership. It was power off in the White House.

Al Franken: I believe he never read that, by the way. Because after the first plane hit, if he had read that, he would have had the same reaction Tenet had, which is: It's Bin Laden. But instead, he went into the school.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Exactly.

[CarolNYC]

21. link

forgot to add the link to the Franken interview

http://securingamerica.com/node/1450

[K8-EEE]

20. Blame Game? Yeah, BRING IT ON!

Little Lord Pissypants fought the very EXISTENCE of a 9/11 commission and then blah blah blah "election year" this and that, they did NOT want to have this conversation and now attempt to re-write history.

BRING IT ON!

[Straight Shooter]

22. Exactly. He fought the formation of the 9/11 commission.

He refused to testify. He finally agreed to "testify."

Then he refused to testify under oath.

Then he refused for his testimony to be recorded.

Then he refused to testify unless Cheney sat with him and held his hand.

Forever after, the exact words will never come to light because neither bush's words nor cheney's words were recorded. And it doesn't matter, anyway, because neither one of them testified under oath so they cannot be impeached on that testimony. They talk about activist judges. How about activist witnesses?

Can you even begin to imagine the rightwing outrage if Clinton had refused to testify under oath? Oh, excuse me. I forgot. I should never compare what bush does to the actions of an adult.

[Skittles]

26. I think Path to 9/11 burst the dam

I truly believe it is what made Clinton FINALLY speak out about the pure ineptness of the current misadministration

[calimary]

28. They just went one step too far.

As Olbermann said tonight - the free pass is OVER. It's time to say what needs to be said. And do what needs to be done.

[FrenchieCat]

30. How did they go to far? Was it

Advocating the torture?
Taking away our rights and spying on us?
Starting a war that we didn't have to fight by lying?
Allowing 9/11 to happen cause they did nothing before and little after?
exploiding 9/11 for all that it was worth?
Cheating in elections?
using scare tactics on us?
Passing the buck for their negligence, incompetence, and "secret" schemes?
Driving our budget to an unheard debt?
Letting big corporations run America?
I could go on and on and on!

Which one was over the line? They all seem so treasonous each one standing alone to me! :shrug:

[Justice]

36. Clinton Is Too Smart to Have Done This Recklessly

Mark our words, the dialogue is going to change as a result of his comments.

The beauty of it is that he did it on FAUX!

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. Clinton's reaction wasn't planned

It was a genuine reaction.

The fact that it was an instinctual response does not imply that it wasn't spot-on. Clinton's smart, but he's successful because he has good instincts.

The message is to not stand there looking foolish while the other guy lies about you.

But yeah, I'm glad the cat is out of the bag. Thanks ABC!

[chieftain]

46. I agree that Clinton is damn smart, that's why I think he

had to anticipate that the louses at Faux would try to capitalize on Path to 9/11 to embarrass him . They did not count on the Big Dog slapping down their little RW shill and laying out a damning comparison between his and W's record regarding Bin Laden.

[Steely_Dan]

73. I Agree...

You are spot on on your assessment.

-P

[chieftain]

74. Thanks

[Amonester]

49. But... but... but, the PNAC's criminal crackpots, namely...

Darth, Herr, Lie-bby,and all, wanted a new Pearl Habor to obscenely enrich themselves and their corrupt contributors at the expense of everybody else.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/nc-pilger.html

So why in the world would these sick RW extremists even try to do their job at preventing what they all wanted to happen so they could "find" their puppet "a way to do this" (invade Iraq to "avenge" poppy from day 1 (in January 2001)??

It would have been totally illogical for them to even just try to stop what they wrote they needed!!

K&R

[donkeyotay]

52. And while they were waiting

They were restoring the moral values of our country. Their priorities-aside from leaving no child behind- were 1) making medical marijuana illegal, 2) overturning Oregon's death with dignity law, and 3) covering up tits on statues. Behind the scenes, I imagine they were also concerned about the stock market and Enron. If they were even slightly concerned with terra, they didn't show it. They was whistling on the street corner with their hands in their pockets, rocking back and forth on the heels and waiting for the good stuff to start.

[Auntie Bush]

53. Wow, you sure nailed that on the head.

You painted a good picture. I can just visualize the scene...although it ain't pretty.

[AtomicKitten]

54. Oh, it's on alright

Now we can have the grown-up discussion we should have had YEARS ago instead of slogans and propaganda.

[mustang]

55. The Path to 9/11 was the trigger . . .

The ABC network thought it could get away with a revision of history and define that show as fact. Clinton and others called them on their lie. They had to backpeddle, but only a little bit. They say they took some scenes out, but it didn't change the message: Clinton was to blame for 9/11.

I know people say that Clinton's reaction on Fox was calculated. Yes, of course he was expecting some type of questions on 9/11, afterall this was FOX. But I think Clinton's rage was very real. He had a documented history and proof that he addressed terrorism comprehensively, yet the media has continued to allow the disinformation campaign to go unanswered. And I think why Clinton's response on Sunday is getting so much attention, is because he was able to explain exactly what he had done as President, and what the current administration hasn't done. I especially loved his comment:

"But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only one-seventh as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaida with that sort of dismissive thing? When all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country against terror."

This quote isn't getting much attention, but I wish the media would ask the current President this? Maybe the free pass is over and Clinton has, in a way, given the media the opening and guts to actually start to ask the hard questions.

Bush did nothing for 8 months before 9/11. That's fact. Clinton called them on their crap. The difference is now, the media is paying attention. Thank god for Bill and Hillary Clinton. They aren't afraid to defend themselves.

[chieftain]

56. Welcome to DU and thank you for your comments. I agree

that Clinton's anger was both real and legitimate. I doubt very seriously, though, that he was surprised that a little weasel like Wallace would pass up the chance to continue to advance the "Clinton and the Democrats are to blame" theme. My belief is that the reaction was not entirely spontaneous but that does not diminish its authenticity or power.I believe that Path to 9/11 was not an unrelated entertainment event. It was part of the Rovean push to once again paint the Democrats as weak, ineffectual decadents who cannot protect this country. Clinton's emotional and true reaction should be applauded because to have sat meekly and acquiesced to the attack would have had a devastating effect not only on his reputation but also on Democratic prospects in November.

[blm]

59. So, they WERE afraid to defend themselves for 5YEARS he didn't fight back?

Because the whole Dems are weak on terror because Clinton did nothing meme was started after 9-11, and even after 8 BOOKS came out blaming Clinton, he chose to stay SILENT and not fight back.

What was he afraid of then? Upsetting his agreement with Bush not to clear things up before the 2002 and 2004 elections?

[chieftain]

62. As I said in the original post, I think there was an unspoken

agreement between the parties to not actively blame each other for 9/11 since both bore some responsibility for what happened. The appointment of a bi-partisan 9/11 Commission assured that neither Bush nor Clinton would be described as more to blame for failing to stop the attack. Clinton and the party made the political calculation that they could safely ignore the fringes of the RW like Regnery press since their books were basically designed for the echo chamber of die-hard Clinton haters.What changed was the RW's commandeering of a major network to spew the lies of Clinton, and by extension all Democrats', weakness on the eve of a critical election.
The whole 9/11 Commission exercise was helpful in some ways but it failed in really explaining what happened. Hence you see continued dissatisfaction with the probe expressed by the families of the victims, witness the recent dust-up regarding Guilianni's testimony.
Neither Clinton nor the Democratic Party have been served by this phony truce regarding 9/11 blame.Washington insiders have constantly comforted themselves with the fairy tale that the RWers are honorable people who just have a different philosophy from us. Clinton has finally awakened publicly to the fact that the Bushies and Roves of the world are proto fascists who will lie, cheat and steal to keep power.The awakening is long over due, but I welcome it.

[blm]

64. So, in Clinton's judgement, it was OK for Dems to be trashed as weak on

terror using lies about him for five years, and in his judgement Bush wasn't acting dangerously enough or harming this country enough to call off a truce until NOW?

[chieftain]

65. Neither Clinton nor most of the leadership exhibited much

spine in reacting to RW bullies until faifrly recently. You seem to have a singular focus on Clinton. Are you giving the rest of the party a free pass?

[blm]

66. No. But, it's his team of STRATEGISTS who are targeting Dems

as if they are to blame for the climate, and now saddling Dems with a new meme for 2006 "Dems are weak without Clinton leading them" which is BULLSHIT, because plenty of Dems have been stepping up to challenge the RW machine, and doing it REGULARLY since 9-11 on MANY ISSUES.

Clinton is being hailed now for finally bursting after FIVE YEARS of holding it all in - when Bush's numbers are at a constant low, and his good buddy Blair is now exitting the world stage.

Maybe Clinton was being more loyal to Blair than he was to his own Dem party by staying silent for so long.

[Bridget Burke]

68. Seems as though you spend more time criticizing Clinton than Bush.

Or any other Republicans.

[blm]

69. I've defended Clinton for 5yrs on 9-11. I'm pissed that he WAITED 5yrs.

to attack the charges when he he let TWO election cycles go by without answering them - a burden you may have noticed was placed on every Dem candidate running and every Dem lawmaker trying to govern effectively.

Now his startegists are using the outburst to malign the efforts of Dems who HAVE been challenging Bush this entire time, while Clinton was mostly found to be in support of Bush on the policies the Dems were challenging.

You want me to see this as either or, black or white, but I put everything in historic context, and I am pissed at Clinton, not for his remarks, but the five year DELAY in his remarks, and his strategists use of the remarks to shove at the entire Dem party.

[chieftain]

70. There's a lot to be pissed at Clinton and other Democrats

about. My purpose has not been to ignore that he had been quiet on this score for 5 years but to identify this as a turning point for him and the Party to stop allowing itself to be the perpetual victim.

[blm]

71. But Clinton's BEING quiet on such a crucial matter is what EFFECTED the

country's mindset on the terror issue and contributed to the GLORIFICATION of Bush for those years, making it extra difficult for Dems to be effective in their own challenges to Bush.

Then to have his people slap the Dems around in a childish display of Who's your daddy? immediately after is just a horrendous display of poor character, imo.

[chieftain]

72. Clinton was/is under some historical constraints that

none of the other Democrats are. Like it or not former presidents are not supposed to be partisans. I don't agree with that but that has been the pattern traditionally.
It does seem that you are as obsessed with Clinton as are his haters on the right. Clinton's silence in no way prevented other Democrats from speaking out. And eventually as some started others followed. Sadly politicians as a group are not very courageous.
I recognize that there are legitimate for your anger.For my part, I am still pissed off about his embrace of the welfare legislation.Nevertheless, I am ready to move on and focus my energy into fighting Republicans not rehashing my disappointments with a former president. And I have no problem with taking heart from a display of Democratic spine even if it happened after I would have preferred it to occur.

[blm]

76. I am responding to the posts saying that ALL Dems need to follow Clinton

as if he is leading the challennge to Bush that everyone else refused.

If those posts weren't so prevalent, my corrections using the historic record wouldn't be necessary.

As it stands THIS Dem does NOT back down from the fight for the truth. I don't expect popularity or applause - but a little understanding that the truth is a fine motivation to have wouldn't be unkind.

[chieftain]

77. Fair enough. For those that were out ahead of Clinton, including

yourself, I salute you. I still think the Wallace interview was a seminal moment in the fight against the destruction of our party, our constitution and our reputation; and I believe it serves as an effective way to fight back against the switboaters.

[blm]

78. Well, let's hope NO Dem waits 5yrs to deal with abusive lies ever again.

And I would say that LONG before there was swifts there were IMPEACHERS who used the media to impeach a president. Clinton was impeached. Gore was IMPEACHMENTED. Kerry was IMPEACHMENTED. Any Dem who becomes a threat is IMPEACHMENTED.

The formula has been the same since 1997 - a cotteage industry sprouts up as a political smear tool - it didn't start with the swifts. And THAT is why referring to the swifts is disingenuous of the Clinton team.