"Clinton faults Bush for inaction on bin Laden" - REUTERS

[gully]

It's about damn time!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060923/ts_nm/security_clinton_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former President
Bill Clinton, angrily defending his efforts to capture Osama bin Laden, accused the Bush administration of doing far less to stop the al Qaeda leader before the September 11 attacks.

In a heated interview to be aired on Sunday on "Fox News Sunday," the former Democratic president defended the steps he took after al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and faulted "right-wingers" for their criticism of his efforts to capture Osama bin Laden.

"But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said when asked whether he had failed to fully anticipate bin Laden's danger."They had eight months to try, they did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed."

The September 11 attacks occurred almost eight months after President George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in January 2001.

----------------------------

On edit, look at how Faux News describes the exchange - "Clinton's Tirade" and "Clinton Gets Crazed" :eyes:

"Crazed tirade" here:
http://www.foxnews.com/fns/

[BootinUp]

1. KGB doesn't believe in "swatting flies".

[Karenca]

2. It's about time Clinton said this.

He could have said it years ago.
Well, at least he's saying it now.

[gully]

3. It sure is.

I AM glad he's doing it now, in several places while being interviews on CGI. In essence he's stealing headlines from Rove, and that is tremendous.

[lonestarnot]

5. I wonder what took him so long?

[gully]

6. He said he had a promise to himself to be diplomatic to whomever

won the Presidency, he wanted to start a positive trend?

I dunno, but I agree "what took him so long." He should have been defending his record/contrasting it to idiot son's for 6 years now. But, better late than never, and better before an election than after.

[Toots]

8. To me being truthful about the current Administration is quite Positive.

:shrug:

[gully]

16. I agree.

eom

[lonestarnot]

13. Well he has had to deal with a life threatening heart condition.

I think this has played a role in his discussion of matters that create tension and :grr: anger.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. Timing is everything

I think DEMS like Clinton sat back so that BushCo could destroy themselves completely this time around. They are like cancer and we didn't get them all out after Nixon. By giving the REPUGS enough space and leeway to dig their own graves this time around, when it's finally over it will be over for good.

[blm]

12. Yeah, but all throughout 2002,3,4 when Kerry was attacking Tora Bora

failures, Clinton and the rest of the name Dems stayed CONSPICUOUSLY silent and let Kerry get portrayed as a liar.

[DoYouEverWonder]

14. Makes you wonder

if they really didn't want to win in 2004? Otherwise all the problems with Iraq and the economy right now would be because of the DEMS instead of Bush.

[Control-Z]

56. Yeah, but

didn't we win 2004?

[DoYouEverWonder]

69. Yes, I believe we did

but Kerry's 200 lawyers suddenly weren't that interested in making sure every vote was counted. In FL, Betty Castor lost to Mel Martinez by just 1.1%, yet she walked away. Go figure?

[Control-Z]

77. Yeah

I was screaming about that to anyone who would listen back then (and there weren't many). Those were pretty lonely times.

[BootinUp]

18. Kerry controlled the message as with all

Presidential campaigns. If he needed help all he had to do was ask. The information was there for anyone to use as well.

[blm]

24. In 2002and3, ALL Dems had a choice to back Kerry on Tora Bora or back Bush

They were CONSPICUOUSLY silent when they could have backed Bush into a corner then. They did NOT and by the time Kerry was talking about Tora Bora in the campaign, only Clark and Cleland even understood what it was about. NO BIGNAME Dems would speak up.

Kerry isn't supposed to ASK Dems to do their job for the party and for the country. They had the same info shortly after he did. They CHOSE to not stick their necks out.

Really, Jim - a Dem is supposed to ASK for Dems to speak out? On such a HUGE ISSUE like Tora Bora and what it really meant to this country and to the 9-11 families? Really?????

[BootinUp]

25. deleted. - see my other post below.

deleted.

[BootinUp]

26. Forget it, I see you are talking about before

he was nominated too. So your point is Kerry was out there on his own then. Sure there were very few speaking out at that time. Not sure why you want to bring that up. You got any links to what Kerry actually said about it in 2002 or 2003?

[blm]

27. He brought it up as soon as it happened, and no one elese would.

And it mattered because CLINTON, Gore, Biden and other BIGNAME Dems SHOULD have said something about it, but kept quiet. Something THAT BIG and you say nothing?

[BootinUp]

28. Why are you yelling?

I still don't buy your implied premise that Clinton is somehow responsible for Kerry losing.

There was conflicting information about Tora Bora varied by who was reporting it. Kerry had some first hand info as I recall. Do you have a link to the story?

[blm]

30. I didn't say that - YOU said that they had no obligation to speak out

about Bush's failures because if Kerry wanted them to, he should have asked because he controlled his campaign.

Tora Bora wasn't a policy issue or just a campaign issue - it was a TERRORISM ISSUE in 2002, just as it was in 2003 and 2004 and 2005 and today. Clinton had a moral obligation to speak out when it first happened - just as plain old SENATOR Kerry had the obligation to - and not just today when Clinton finds the need to just now start defending himself.

And Kerry DIDN'T lose. Clinton's handpicked DNC was too collapsed in crucial states to get the votes he earned counted, just like in 2000 and 2002.

And I am not shouting - I am old school and using caps for EMPHASIS.

[BootinUp]

32. Why don't you back up your charge

with some quotes? Might make this more than just another conspiracy theory.

[blm]

33. What are you talking about? What conspiracy theory?

I wonder WHY Clinton chose to stay silent on such a huge issue like Tora Bora when it happened and for the next 3years and is just bringing it up now. The same with other bigname Dems who chose silence for entire 3 years it was so important to this country, and to the 2004 election.

Why you think it's an illegitimate point is curious to me.

Clark and Cleland thought it was an important issue, and they backed Kerry up throughout - that was it - no bigname Dems had a word to say. Not in 2002. Not in 2003. Not in 2004. Nope - just now. And you wonder WHY I ask why?

[BootinUp]

34. lol.

The one that started this whole sub thread?

[The Count]

44. Kerry won. Bush stole it.

Just thought I'd mention it.

[BootinUp]

45. That makes it so easy to move on to the next loss.

[blm]

Big difference - Dean's been patching up DNCs collapsed infrastructure

state by state since he took office. Hopefully, it will be ready for Nov and then 2008.

[blm]

31. Here's a link -

there were numerous times on shows like Imus and Hardball and in the 2002 Rolling Stone interview. But this link to carpetbagger encompasses the issue - and not just that Kerry was right and Bush lied about it, but also makes the point that Kerry was one of a few who ever spoke out about it when it first happened.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/4917.html

August 08, 2005

Kerry was right about Tora Bora

Just two weeks before the presidential election, and nearly three years after the debacle itself, the president addressed the failure to capture Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora in December 2001.

"Now my opponent is throwing out the wild claim that he knows where bin Laden was in the fall of 2001 — and that our military had a chance to get him in Tora Bora. This is an unjustified and harsh criticism of our military commanders in the field. This is the worst kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking."

Even at the time, this didn't make a lot of sense. Far from being a "wild claim," the Bush administration itself came to the same conclusion Kerry did — two years beforehand.

In fact, in hindsight, everything about Bush's charge was either blatant dishonesty or stunning incompetence. The president said Kerry was wrong because we didn't know if bin Laden was really there at the time. The truth, as usual, turns out to be quite different from Bush's rhetoric.

n a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora — intelligence operatives had tracked him — and could have been caught. "He was there," Berntsen tells Newsweek. Asked to comment on Berntsen's remarks, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones passed on 2004 statements from former CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks. "We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001," Franks wrote in an Oct. 19 New York Times op-ed. "Bin Laden was never within our grasp." Berntsen says Franks is "a great American. But he was not on the ground out there. I was."

In his book — titled "Jawbreaker" — the decorated career CIA officer criticizes Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department for not providing enough support to the CIA and the Pentagon's own Special Forces teams in the final hours of Tora Bora, says Berntsen's lawyer, Roy Krieger. (Berntsen would not divulge the book's specifics, saying he's awaiting CIA clearance.) That backs up other recent accounts, including that of military author Sean Naylor, who calls Tora Bora a "strategic disaster" because the Pentagon refused to deploy a cordon of conventional forces to cut off escaping Qaeda and Taliban members.
......

And as long as we're talking about Kerry being right and Bush being wrong, it's worth noting that Kerry's criticism of the events at Tora Bora weren't just campaign palaver. Kerry didn't wait until the fall of 2004 to start complaining; he was one of a very small number of people highlighting the debacle when it happened.

I honestly don't know why this never became a major political embarrassment for the president. Kerry brought it up frequently, but it never gained traction with reporters covering the 2004 campaign.

Indeed, the day after the first Bush-Kerry debate, The Note reported on a focus group in Columbus, Ohio, run by ABC News' Kate Snow, that watched the event. One undecided voter said he was intrigued by Kerry's Tora Bora argument. The Note reported at the time:

was dismayed that Bush never dismissed that and he wants to know: did the US let Bin Laden to slip out?

That's exactly what we did — and the typical American voter had no idea.
>>>>>>>

[BootinUp]

35. So why do you think

a former President who was not getting current intelligence reports on Tora Bora or troop deployments would have any more to add to this? I do understand your criticism of other Senators on the point though even though my memory is a bit hazy on who said what 4 years ago.

[blm]

40. Prez's do get intel updates per request - if a senator can access them,

then a former Prez can, and surely Hillary would have told him what she had seen.

And the point was that Clinton didn't speak out against the myths circulating post 9-11 through all the books written accusing him of negligence and treason, fer chrissakes. All while Bush was being blown up into a heroic figure against terrorism, and Dems were being necklaced with the perception they were weak on terror and couldn't be trusted all through 2002 and 2004.

Had Clinton answered those charges back when they first started taking root, it would have been one less myth (an ENORMOUSLY DANGEROUS MYTH) to deal with for Democrats running in 2002 and 2004.

[BootinUp]

42. So lets just end this.

You think Clinton should have waged war on all the RW wackos whos books and internet sites were mostly seen by other rw jerks and I disagree, there is a reason to ignore those kinds of things when you might only bring more attention to them.

You think Clinton (Bill) should have said something about Tora Bora. I think what he should have said is that Iraq distracted from the real war on terror, and I think he did say that. I'll look if you insist.


What really bothers me as I am sure you can tell, is Kerry supporters making claims that Clinton bears responsibility for Kerry's results in 2004. Its easy to make such claims. I can make claims about who was at fault too. Why do you want to do this?

[blm]

46. Kerry won - he did it pretty much on his own with Cleland and Clark - and

if Dean's DNC was in operation then, I'd bet more Dem votes would have been secured and counted.

I blame Clinton and other bigname Dems for not speaking out at important times LIKE Tora Bora because they made it HARDER for Kerry - harder than it needed be for the truth to be heard.

NO man is a candidate on his own - Clinton wasn't in 1992. He was fortunate to have had a Senate and Congress who pounded on Bush1 for four solid years, exposing his anti-constitutional activities in IranContra and BCCI and Iraqgate. You think that didn't make it easier for Clinton, once the American people broke trust with Bush1 by election time?

OTOH, Bush was being MAGNIFIED into a heroic figure for a solid 3yrs after 9-11, and beyond anything ever seen for ANY president in modern times.

[BootinUp]

50. Here's where I think we can agree

I won't argue over whether the election was stolen or lost its pointless.

The 2004 election cycle was difficult for any dem to beat Bush who was seen as a war time President and had support simply on that basis that would have gone to a good candidate otherwise.

[sandnsea]

36. bull-shit

There were several occasions over the last few years that Clinton came out with some bizarre statement that made it difficult for Dems to get out an opposition message. When Bush was caught in the 16 words a few years ago - Clinton went on Larry King and said everybody makes mistakes and let's move forward. I said at the time Clinton had just fucked up the election - and he most certainly had. The complete and entire problem we've had for 3 years is Hillary wanting to be tough so she could become President. NOW Clinton understands what's happening because it's directed at him. He's going to understand even more after he sees that they're turning him into a "wild-eyed" Democrat too. No Democrat can control the message about the Clinton years and national security when you never know whether Clinton is going to back you up or play "great uniter".

[BootinUp]

38. opinions vary. n/t

[sandnsea]

39. Facts don't n/t

[BootinUp]

43. You didn't post any. n/t

[sandnsea]

47. Really?

Clinton HAS been vigorously defending his record on Bin Laden?

He didn't go on Larry King and say Bush had just made an innocent mistake on the yellowcake?

Hillary hasn't been the main stumbling block on Iraq?

:shrug:

[BootinUp]

49. Let review your claims:

">>" indicates your comments
Bold face added by me.

>>There were several occasions over the last few years that Clinton came out with some bizarre statement that made it difficult for Dems to get out an opposition message.

Thats an opinion.


>>When Bush was caught in the 16 words a few years ago - Clinton went on Larry King and said everybody makes mistakes and let's move forward. I said at the time Clinton had just fucked up the election - and he most certainly had.

You formed an opinon there as well.

>>The complete and entire problem we've had for 3 years is Hillary wanting to be tough so she could become President. NOW Clinton understands what's happening because it's directed at him.

opinion? oh yeah.

>>He's going to understand even more after he sees that they're turning him into a "wild-eyed" Democrat too. No Democrat can control the message about the Clinton years and national security when you never know whether Clinton is going to back you up or play "great uniter".

Thats also an opinion.
------

So you want to talk about facts now...

I already addressed Clintons defense of his terrorist policies in post to blm "lets end this" I don't have anything else to say on that point.

In July of 2003 Clinton did go on Larry King and tell the country it was important ot focus on what to do now, not past mistakes of George Bush. (note: he is saying Bush made a mistake and your thinking that this caused the Dems to lose in '04 is ludricous)

Hilary the main stumbling block? Sounds like an interesting challenge for you to prove.

[sandnsea]

52. You just ignored the facts posted

That's your choice, but they're still facts.

Clinton did not defend his record against Bin Laden. He did excuse major security mistakes made by Bush. Hillary has been supportive of war policies to prove she can be tough as part of her positioning for the Presidency.

Those are facts.

If you think they had nothing to do with the 2002 or 2004 election, or even this election, then that is your opinion which I think is ludicrous.

[BootinUp]

53. I don't draw the same conclusions thats for sure. eom

[sandnsea]

55. Which doesn't change the facts n/t

[BootinUp]

58. Your effort to blame Clinton is quite sad

Kerry had enough money had a united party behind him, had the failed record of Bush to attack, and lost. There has been analysis of why he lost sure, I don't recall too many people except you two that want to blame it on the Clintons.

You want to blame Bill for not defending HIS own record, as if that would make Kerry's better? How many questions did Kerry get about Bills record anyways?

You want to blame the election loss on Bill for a statement he made more than one year before the election. A statement that was not used by the repukes in the GE because they didn't want to bring up the yellowcake issue later. His statement didn't change the facts did it?

You want to blame Hillary for taking a hawkish position on Iraq and the WOT when Kerry took the same position.

So continue to blame the Clintons, cause what else can Kerry supporters do if they want him to be nominated again?

[sandnsea]

62. It was the entire party's record on trial

Not just Kerry's. Kerry has a pretty hard time advocating his record on money laundering legislation in the Patriot Act, for instance, when half the party is ranting against it. It's pretty difficult to tell the truth of Somalia and Sudan and Bin Laden when Clinton won't do it himself. Just like it's difficult to differentiate a strategy of WITHDRAWAL - which is and was distinctly different from Hillary's - when both the left and the Clintons were busy slinging arrows at each other in their efforts to advocate their own position on the war. I love how you are doing it right now, using a right wing strategy of mixing up Iraq and terrorism which neither Hillary or Kerry have ever done.

I don't blame one particular group or other for the loss, I blame the whole kit and kaboodle of Democrats who can't even communicate with each other and then wonder why they can't communicate a message to the country at large.

It just keeps happening over and over again and nobody can budge one iota to try to move forward for the benefit of everybody. And when anybody does, they're a DINO or wild-eyed.

[BootinUp]

67. No honey, it wasn't a rw strategy

A rw strategy would be for instance saying that if Kerry advocated a timeline to pull out of Iraq, that means he is too weak a leader on the WOT. I did not use a position from one issue to make an false assumption about his position on the other.


I did say they had similar positions on both issues. If thats a rw strategy, I'm humpty dumpty.

I'm sorry if Kerry had a hard time advocating his positions, and if the Democratic party can't establish a national strategy to win. But how much is the parties fault and how much is the candidates fault is something we will never agree on I am afraid.

[sandnsea]

68. Honey?

Goodbye.

[Old and In the Way]

15. It finally got personal.

I think the Path to 9/11 finally woke up the Triangulator. BC is realizing that there is an historical rewrite underway....the Republican Media/Party needs to reframe the history of the 90's to make Clinton the bad guy for what's occurred since Bush got selected in 2000. I think that may be one reason Clinton had that friendly chat with the bloggers recently. The real media and opposition to the attempt to rewrite our political history resides on the Internet. BC is going on the offensive....what better place to start than right in the very heart of Republican propaganda, Fox News?

[gully]

17. I think you are correct.

eom

[Karenca]

29. Yes, I do believe you've got it right.

I've been wondering for years...what the fuck is wrong with Bill?

That's it---It is now personal.....he's finally pissed.


Too bad it took this long, but better late than never.

[Raksha]

66. Actually, this is a much more hopeful sign than people seem to think.

I don't think it's JUST personal with the Big Dog. He has his faults like anyone, but one thing NOBODY can fault are his political instincts, which are practically supernatural. This could indicate that the Age of Triangulation is officially over. If Bill Clinton has finally realized that "playing to the moderates" doesn't work any more, you can be sure that the rest of the Dems will follow. Bill Clinton knows better than anyone how to read the signs of the times, and he does read the blogs. He knows people are PISSED! Maybe the Democrats will start unabashedly playing to the progressives from now on.

As to how Hillary fits into all this, I have NO idea. Maybe she decided not to run? She'd have a hell of a time re-positioning herself at this point.

[elehhhhna]

74. Dems wanted him quiet after the Reeps hounded & poundede him...

biggest. dem. mistake. ever.

[orpupilofnature57]

4. Shrub had a vested interest ,not trying,the economy he was fucking up!

Everything has been a diversion , from ShrubCo's real Agenda ,corporate gains.

[SammyWinstonJack]

9. If Clinton is "crazed" what does that make **?

"Tell her I'm gonna kick his sorry ass all over the ME." "Fuck Saddam Husein, I'm going take him out!" "He tried to kill my Dad." And on the eve of "Shock and Awe", "It feels good!" Just a few examples of **'s obession for Saddam who had nothing to do with 9/11. Talk about crazed. :wow:

[gully]

19. Please stop making sense, it makes my brain hurt.

;)

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Reuters is Doing What The Dems Should Be Doing

The "Deaad Possum" Dems should take the offensive on this. Shout if from the rooftops!

(But they wont. Sigh.)

[gully]

20. Dems should have shouting truth from the roof tops for for 6 years -

now. Frustrating to be sure.

[sandnsea]

37. CLINTON should have been

But he was too damn busy playing to the moderates and toning down the partisan rhetoric and compromising for the greater good. Every time the rest of the party moved out in front on these issues, it got sabatoged by Clinton furthering his "peacemaker legacy" OR positioning for a tough on security Hillary Presidency.

[gully]

51. He should have been stronger on this that's for certain. He was the

perfect person to do so.

[Punkingal]

11. Well, the Big Dog speaks and people listen...

I hope. Maybe some people will hear that and start to think. I wish the MSM would talk about this for days, and make it into a "feud" so more and more people will hear about it.

[gully]

21. OMG, "Faux" took down the "crazed tirade" bullshit and how simply state

"Clinton: I tried to catch usama bin laden." And, "strong reaction" as titles to their story.

Huh? :eyes:

[lynne]

22. Video of quote -

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UwJabtvSUQ

[gully]

23. Thanks lynne

eom

[Disturbed]

41. Rupert Murdoch and Hillary Clinton are cozy aren't they?

Faux now wants it both ways. They want to slime Bill yet push Hillary to run in '08. The ABC Mock u Drama seemed to be the last straw for Bill. He and his cohorts issued strong protest via their attorney but then decided to let that rest, especially since that RW Attempt at re-writing History tanked. When Chris Wallace brought it up, Bill had to defend himself.

[EVDebs]

73. Read DU post of the Wallace interview at FoxSnooze with Clinton

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2842346

Clinton mopped the floor with Wallace..."that little smirk on your face" ! Be-U-Tea-full !

[treestar]

48. He shouldn't have said "I failed" though, because that is all the

freepers will glom onto and repeat it until the sheeple believe it.

[gully]

60. True, hopefully if that happens we can point out that Bush "failed"

as well and that was AFTER 911 and AFTER our CIA and FBI certified OBL a threat.

[WernhamHogg]

54. What Fox "News" "Journalist" is doing the Clinton interview?

Sorry, I refuse to watch Fox. Whoever it is, I bet the interviewer will not be asking Clinton if he thinks Michael Jackson distracted people from the positives of his administration (I believe it was Cavuto who once asked Georgie a similar question in an interview, trying to tie together Georgie's quickly sinking approval rating with the coverage of Michael Jackson's trial).

[gully]

61. Chris Wallace.

I'll tune into FOX just to see how they "edit/spin" the events. Glutton for punishment I suppose?

[CarbonDate]

57. Misleading headline....

...with a quote taken out of context. He wasn't blaming them, he was saying they should quit blaming him, since he did more than anybody else.

[gully]

59. Well he did say "they did nothing."

And "I tried." I think it's a great headline b/c our former President has finally said what should have been said long ago.

Thanks for your perspective, you raise a good point.

[Subdivisions]

63. So, let me get this straight, when the Big Dog rises up against

the rhetoric, it's considered a "tirade" or he is "crazed".

However, remember the Rose Garden presser when junior went ballistic on David Gregory and that was described as "bold" and "strong" and "forceful".

Give me a fucking break!

[gully]

64. LOL, yep "strong/forceful/runs out of patience" vs. "crazed/tirade"

but they did change their bullshit online rhetoric after I posted the link, hmmmm?

[goforit]

65. Clinton is truely dissappointing in the face of World Destruction. Weak.

Overly supporting the wrongs of this administration makes Hugo Chavez of Venezuela
the strongest leader in American Politics.

Every american president here look like scam artists and schmucks and appeasers to boot.

[ddeclue]

70. They are "pre-spinning" it before they have to air it tomorrow.

Checkout their commentary and trying to compare it to Monica Lewinsky and how they edited the promo clip down to end on "I failed" rather than giving a more representative clip.

I'm going to Dazzle this and burn me a DVD so that I can have it for the future.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[bridgit]

71. George W. Bush is NOT held to the same account, George W. Bush...

remains with the assist of his handlers most decidedly unaccountable for very specific reasons; one being that he has no clue what he is doing, everything is done for him.

It is a very good thing indeed, that Clinton is bursting this entire facade of of gibberish over at Foxnews, and the Bush Admin in particular at this time, well done!!

To hell with Foxnews & Wallace for being such a patsy, a narrow minded pansy-ass dweeb still riding the coat tails of HIS father's legacy.

[Bitwit1234]

72. Wish he had popped him in the snout.

Chris Wallace will never ever be half the news reporter his father was. When a reporter can't even read his messages correct he goes to Fox you see they take anybody.

It is a shame that the democrats don't get the platform that the MSM gives republicans. But if they did do you think the democrats would raise hell. THAT IS WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE STARTED DOING MONTHS AGO....

I can't understand democrats in congress. I'll tell you one thing if I was in congress I would sure as heck not sit back and be run over by the republicans. Maybe I would not have the majority to get a bill passed but I would sure raise the devil trying.

[johnfunk]

75. BLOWBACK! This is what happens when a Hume/Wallace ambush backfires!

Oh, the humanity! I'm betting Roger Ailes AND Rupert Murdoch are fuming over two things:

- The way the ambush backfired, in the form of headlines even suggesting that readers question Bush's effectiveness as a War Prezznit;
- The smug treatment dished out to Clinton, who actually gets along well with Murdoch and has gotten Murdoch to actually support his global initiative.

If I were Murdoch, i'd be looking for ways to heave both Hume and Wallass over the side of the SS FOX...

[doctor_garth]

76. Clinton

the most conservative, chicken-hawkish Democrat ever to occupy the White House. The man who stopped campaigning and went back to Arkansas specifically to execute a retarded African-American.

Not one successful single policy under his government to advance the liberal cause, but several to advance the conservative one, the welfare reform comes to mind. And thanks to him, we lost Congress, probably for another generation or two, if not forever.

[Imagevision]

78. Wallace never asked Bush if he could have done more to get OBL

The CIA asked the Pentagon for 600-800 Rangers to go after OBL in Tora-Bora and the Pentagon said no.