Powered by TypePad

« Libby To Testify At Trial | Main | Osama Died Of Typhoid Fever In August? »

September 23, 2006



"Bin Laden is dead" French newpaper. Translation on my blog.


Thanks. I never read the Drezner piece before. What could be more succinct that this:
"Still, it's hard not to believe that Clarke's evaluation of presidential performance is directly correlated with how well those presidents treated Clarke. "


Thanks, Alta. I've never heard of this paper before. Any idea of its reputation?


blow the dust off their archives and get it on.

That has a cowboyish tone to it...kind of Doc Hollidayish...I like it.

Soylent Red

Yeah Sue...

get it on

With a dash of soulful Marvin Gaye, and an odd turn of phrase when discussing Bill Clinton.

Anyway, this Clinton business is, to me, getting boring. Rehash of whatever he did or didn't do WRT the GWOT doesn't move the ball forward.

I did find it interesting that Clinton had a meltdown on a televised interview. The guy has always been a silky smooth politico and this is very much unlike him.

So I guess even though I'm bored with it, he certainly is heavily invested.


He had one once before, in Great Britain, IIRC.


Yes, but - tell that to the people who think the enemy is George Bush. If our friends on the left really want to lose this debate again, why not?

No doubt.

2 baby temper tantrums in one month, and this one because poor Bill Clinton was actually asked medium strength question? What happen to liking Colbert style, and this was MILD.

In light of all the ridiculous heckling and crap the left and media hurl at Bush on a second by second basis -- and Bill Clinton pulls out his "I did not" finger, gets all red face?

Not to mention that you would think a former President would have been able to answer that question in a reasonable, dignified, manner.

Anyways, he doesn't do tough well and the man is painfully defensive.

Soylent Red

What was the context of that one Sue? I don't remember it.

The only other one that I can remember that came close was the "I need to get back to work" rant. But even on that one he didn't turn purple and veiny.

Watching this tonight, I thought he might stroke out.


Well, if Bill Clinton wants to spend the next month discussing his slack pursuit of Bin Laden as we run up to the election, let's everybody blow the dust off their archives and get it on.....Tom Maguire

Maybe that is exactly what Bill wants so that Dems don't take over the House. I don't agree that we win by losing. But if the wacko DEMS, who would be in line to take over the committees actually do - I think that it would insure a loss for the DEMS in 2008. Or, at least, that may be
what Hillary & Bill think.

This would make sense by destroying the Kos/MoveOn crowd as leaders. Bill gets back to the center, gets back control of the DNC. And they have 2 more years to blame everything on the Repubs while they obstruct everything.

Wonder how all will play out if OBL is really dead of natural causes, of course living in a cave on the run wouldn't have helped.

Lew Clark

"I did not have sex with that woman while that tall bearded guy was getting away!"


Comedy is often the most devasating critique. Just imagine what a politically incorrect late night talk show could do with the first "I did not have sex" video followed by the admission followed by the latest rant followed by a big question mark.


"Let's get it on".

Didn't the boxer Thomas, "The Hit Man", Hearns have that stenciled on the back of his robes?

One of the great boxers.


I think Clinton made a huge error in trying to defend his own record. Like the "I didn't have Sex" speech, he gives himself away. For all his talent at schmoozing the audience, it's quite apparent he can't lie very good on the big issues. He would have been better off ( although I'm glad he didn't ) sending out the typical Clinton lap dogs to defend his record.

Any opened minded person watching this interview will come away saying "were did I see that before", and know once again they've been lied to!

Hopefully another "blue dress" will soon enter the debate!


Clinton's effectiveness in the War on Terror is topical and relevant.

There are two models for prosecuting this war: the law enforcement model and the war model. Democrats argue the former, the Bush White House argues the latter. In the real world, we can only compare the two administrations.

Under Clinton, al Qaeda grew from a handful of dilettante jihadists into a global threat. They drew lessons from his limp, legalistic responses to the '93 WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers, the African embassies, and the USS Cole. Bin Laden declared that his movement was the 'strong horse' and America was the 'weak horse'. He moved through the middle east at will with a huge entourage. The movement grew exponentially.

Under Bush, al Qaeda was driven out of Afghanistan, their protectors dethroned, training camps razed, leadership decimated, funding cut, and new plots foiled. Bin Laden cowers in a cave and communicates via hand-written notes.

But we must remember that Clinton 'tried'.


It seems to me that Mr. Clinton is much, much more angry about The Path to 9/11 than I realized. I had forgotten how little tolerance for criticism the Clintonites have.

That clip makes him look foolish.

FWIW I've been saying for a long time its way past time to stop sniping back and forth about who's fault 9/11 was - it is decidely unserious babbling on an extremely serious topic.

Patton Channeling Freaknik

Say what you will about Bill Clinton, but after the Islamic terrorists attacked the WTC in 1993 and Clinton sent in the FBI, we had no further problems with terrorism, until George Bush attacked Iraq.

If you claim otherwise, I will put my fingers in my ears, stomped my feet and say LA LA LALA LA LA so I can't hear you.

If you continue to claim otherwise I will hold my breadth until you take it back!

Bill in AZ

heh heh - Clinton doesn't seriously mean Richard "After All they only attacked two embassies, it's a cost of doing business" Clarke?

That quote is what someone used to point me to JOM years ago for one of the Clarke discussions.

Some will argue that it was taken out of context, that it was a rhetorical comment of what people thought then - but unfortunately, it IS what people thought back then - including Clarke. Regardless of how he meant it, I used it to great amusement and consternation on a left leaning blog at the time.

And I have been learning from JOM ever since - truly one of the best blogs, along with the best commenters, on the internet.


Osama Bin Laden: doesn't it make you wonder about the photograph released on Sept. 12th showing 190 uniformed Taliban militants standing in formation at what appeared to be a funeral? The background on the photograph indicates it may have been taken in July after a coalition operation that took place nearby earlier in the day in southern Afghanistan. (The date is off by a month but is this type of funeral commonplace in a war zone? Do the images show more than one internment?)

If he had passed on in Pakistan, wouldn't Pakistani intelligence have attempted to get his body out of Pakistan? Would an honor based culture have allowed him to be buried in an unmarked grave without tribute?

(An aside, Bill Clinton with his shock of white hair is starting to bear an uncanny resemblance to the embittered Jimmy Carter.)


Tom McGuire gets a linkback (backtrack?) from NRO by Byron York.


looks like I picked a bad season to give up caffeine...)

I can't imagine there would ever be a good time for that.


Clinton being this touchy kind of gives himself away.


And does debating this topic really benefit the Democratic Party just now?

I'm just curious, what makes you think Bill Clinton gives crap-one about the Democratic party? They lost control of both houses of Congress thanks to their protecting him and getting caught in his self-serving lies.

Bill cares about Bill. The Dems were a vehicle he could use to get to where he wanted to be.

Other Tom

" In fact, I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this [pre-election video]."
--Walter Cronkite, October 29, 2004

I'm a little inclined to think that Rove set Clinton up to this latest rant. At least, I'm hearing some provocative rumblings to that effect.


He had one once before, in Great Britain, IIRC

He had one with Peter Jennings before (complaining about the press handling of monicagate).


But we must remember that Clinton 'tried'.

Bite on lip, tear dribbling down...because he CARES more

FWIW I've been saying for a long time its way past time to stop sniping back and forth about who's fault 9/11 was - it is decidely unserious babbling on an extremely serious topic.

I sort of don't agree if only because the President set the "no blame/let's just get to word" type of tone from the get-go and stuck to it. I guess assuming Dems were wise enough to know when the fingers come out there is ample material to dump back in their lap and of course because he is just far more serious about the matter, as you say, to engage in this counterproductive mental midget stuff exercise.

If Democrats had been serious servants - instead of offensivly/defesively trying to place "blame" on all of 8 months - I'd agree that the unserious babbling is unhelpful.

They've spent years with their erasers and scissors, trashing the president during war at every turn and when a mild pressing of Clinton to answer what his administration did having 4 terror attacks on his watch and? They don't want to talk about it and shut-up, shut-up, shut-up. Harumph.

This tells me there is a there to be aired, and worthwhile to boot.

Terry Gain

Dealing with bin Laden: Bush's 8 months are equivalent to Clinton's 8 years. Exactly what I would expect from the moral equivalency crowd.


Dealing with bin Laden: Bush's 8 months are equivalent to Clinton's 8 years.

That's what struck me about the clip that I saw - Clinton proclaiming that Bush failed in 8 months. I mean really...


Terry and Jane...

This is how they teach math now in the Public Schools. It goes like this: if the right answer to a question was 8 years and a student answered 8 month's. The teacher would say that that was close enough... being that they got the 8 part right! And they can't be hurt'n Billy's self esteem now can they? I mean what's a teacher to do with this fascist NCLB legislation demanding accountability!


I just read the transcript over at Newsbusters - from it sounds like Clinton really did lose it, and now he's got the machine into full tilt spinning for him.(That big bad Fox News) Kinda sad tho when Olbermann is your machine.


Carter hates the US because we kicked him out humiliatingly.
Clinton is enraged because he knows what his real legacy will be.

Personally, I'm beginning to think narcissistic leaders are a bigger threat to our well-being than we assume.

mark c.

if Hugo is right and power hunger gives off a sulphurous stank, it must have smelled like the Chinese New Year when the Philanderer-in-Chief left that interview room.


Clinton: I never had sex with that terrorist!

Now we'll never know.



The proper term is "Philander'n Cheat"


Clinton never was a particularly good liar. What he was good at was in using a general and non specific way of talking that allowed everyone to find something that they wanted in it. It's not a particularly rare skill, I've worked with plenty of middle managers that have that skill. People would read whatever they wanted into his lengthy speeches.

Gary Maxwell

Whoa I knew Karl Rove had near supernatural powers, but getting Osama to drop dead on command? If I were Fitzy I would be a little nervous right about now!


I've just returned from an event where Karl Rove was the featured speaker. It was a relatively small gathering and he worked the room as if he were at a party meeting and greeting old friends. The man is extremely charming and beautifully spoken. His speech was geared to rally the faithful - get out the vote, etc. I even got a laugh out of him, so naturally, I think he's a genius.

Sorry JOMers, it just wasn't the venue to inquire about frog marching but he did have an interesting story about the NYTs, Ohio and the 2004 election. Seems the Times was embedded with the Kerry campaign in Ohio and they asked the RNC if they could embed a reporter with the Bush campaign. Rove said "no dice." So the Times did this ongoing breathless reportage about the Kerry surge in Ohio only to have to relate the ultimate loss. Egg/face. Rove and Condi Rice tabulated numbers in Rove's dining room election night (she read the numbers off the computer to him, state by state, county by county, he ran the numbers) and he realized it was going to be a Bush win even when things were looking very gloomy -according to the networks. He has a very sophisticated tallying system. It was a fascinating morning.


I checked out his backside. Sorry Mr. Murtha, Mr. Rove does not have a fat a**. Mind you, I ONLY did this in the interest of accuracy and because I knew you'd all want to know. I'm thoughtful like that.



And we appreciate your thoughtfulness. ::grin::

Rick Ballard


The story about Condi working with him is very interesting. I know that she keeps saying 'no way' but I've still got my fingers crossed. She would be a formidable candidate, even though she has never run for office.


Hey, wait just one minute!

I thought Jack Murtha previewed the real October surprise. Didn't he predict that the Bush administration would draw down the troop level in Iraq this year?

Right again, Jack.

Crew v1.0

Richard Clarke? Bring it on. "Boogie to Baghdad" -- he was right. "Iraq WMD connection to al-Qaeda -- yes, let's bomb the pharmaceuticals plant; this is not wagging the dog." Right again. "My ego would be well compensated by Condi's rudeness to me if only Sean Penn would portray me in an oh-so-exciting expose of Bush lassitude in the face of my fiery warnings." Oops. Haggis pulls out. Hope springs eternal! Sean is himself a tyro director, with two or three low-budget forgettable titles under his belt.

Clarke is a huge bore.

buck smith

If Clinton had killed Bin Laden, 9-11 still would have happened. If Bush had killed Bin Laden, the binary-liquid explosive plot still would have happened and Madrid, London, Bali, Beslan, etc.

Wilson's a liar

I have to disagree with Captain Ed on this. Some of us old Reaganites have spent a lot of time and effort fighting off the left's efforts to rewrite the history of the Cold War and how Ronald Reagan won it. It's important that the history of Islamic terrorism be written correctly as well.

Not to mention the fact that Bill Clinton is just a lying sack of crap, and pointing this out is not only easy but fun!



It was clever the way Rove set up the story: he said a large computer screen had been placed on his dining room table but he had difficulty reading all the little numbers. So, he said he found himself a *young person* who had a degree in Politcal Science. Ofcourse, that person turned out to be Condi.

Chuck Hagel was also there. He mentioned domestic issues, not one word about the war....go figure. He needn't have worried. No one would have dared tear him to pieces with all the Secret Service guys milling around (the President has authorized Secret Service protection for Rove). Hagel said he supported the President 95% of the time which was reflected in his conservative voting record. Rove stood there and just smiled.

The Dude

I think the 8 month tirade is very unfair. While ALGORE and the Dems fought the election results it took Bush and Co. much longer to settle in to the WH. They called it 'transition" at the time. Clinton's people left a big mess and Bush didn't even have all his people in place until 9/11. he continued to work with
Clinton's leftovers which have come back to bite him in the A**.
Bottom Line: If Clinton had the guts to take on AQ he would have made sure Bush was up to speed instead of hagling over petty issues. This in itself shows Clinton had no stomach for fighting AQ


Clinton's Al Gore moment. On the day Al Gore gave a speech in NYC on global warming, a blizzard was going on outside. On the day that Clinton declares he did more to try and kill bin Laden than 'right wingers', reports of bin Laden's death are overshadowing him.

Rove is a genius.


"And does debating this topic really benefit the Democratic Party just now?"

It helps Hillary convince the extreme left that even though she may act like a moderate, she (via her proxy, Bill) are as rabidly anti-right as they are.


"And does debating this topic really benefit the Democratic Party just now?"

It helps Hillary convince the extreme left that even though she may act like a moderate, she (via her proxy, Bill) is as rabidly anti-right as they are.

Soylent Red

To clarify my earlier post about being bored, I wasn't referring to Bush vs. Clinton policy comparison specifically. It is useful on many levels to do that comparison, as long as it is done in a non-finger-pointing kind of way.

It's in attacking the Clinton policies themselves where I get bored. Among conservatives and many independents, Clinton's policies have already been proven to have been weak and ineffectual. Among the rest, they either won't be persuaded otherwise, don't understand the distinction, or just don't care.

So it's important to say "This is what we're doing that previously wasn't being done" but it's a waste of time to point out the myriad flaws in what was being done. Not only will it not grow popular support, but it appears to many as partisan politics.

Clinton's legacy is sealed, and he knows it. Hence the outburst. I don't think Republicans need to or should go down the path of turning him into a martyr for the left.


Interesting posts. You mentioned checking out Turdblossom's ass, and that it was not fat. Did it at least have a spade-tipped tail or some other sign of his evilness? I keep hearing what a nice guy he is from people who meet him and it's totally blowing my diabolical image.

Also, last week I had a sit down with a Nebraska Republican Party big shot in Omaha, Hagel's old stomping grounds. According to our conversation Hagel is about one step from termination. In fact, they are already looking at a guy as his successor. The guy I was talking to is pretty deeply wired, so I am inclined to believe him. Which made me giggle with joy all the way home.


The difference between Reagan, Bush I, Bush II and Carter and Clinton is the presence of a healthy ego. Call it a non-false modesty if you will. A decent sense of self, awareness of strengths and weaknesses. The Repubs had/have it, the Dems don't.

Carter/Clinton both want to be the smartest guy in the room on every subject. They don't like dissent. Of course, Carter evidently only lusted in his heart.

I told a now-deceased hard core liberal friend that my impression of Clinton from early 1992 was that he was a coward in all important senses, physical (picture Bill with his dukes up, ready to defend . . . well, anything), moral ('nough said, wagging finger and all), psychological. He agreed.

Carter, on the other hand, is a morally superior prig. He's a Torquemada or Oliver Cromwell, secure in his moral superiority and more than willing impose his vision on others by "any means necessary."

This, then, is the face of today's Democratic Party. Unless, of course, one prefers Michael Moore, Kos, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or Howard Dean. What dismal choices.

As for Hagel, there's proof perfect of the corrosive effect of the US Senate on those of modest intellectual means.


How many times has Bush been asked a similar question? How many times has he been accused of abandoning the hunt for OBL, letting him go at Tora Bora, etc etc. I've never seen him lose it like that. No no no, with Bush the buck is supposed to stop right there. He is supposed to just accept all blame.

I don't want to go back with a revisionist's eye to criticize Clinton in regards to his hunt for Bin Laden. I do think it is very important, for the sake of perspective, to report his attempts, methods, and failures. Without that, it has become too easy for Bush' opponents to paint him as a unitary, power-hungry, civil-rights destroying, terrorism failure.


The emotion Bill is vexed with?

Guilt and remorse. Yea, there's anger too, but mostly because he went from the 'guy getting it on with an intern', to 'guy who did nothing to get UBL and got it on with an intern'.

Yea, he is sorry and regrets not trying harder, but for his legacy, not the people who were killed.

Ellers Ellison "Ellsberg" McWilson

Jealous much?

Bill Clinton has had his statements read on the floor of the Senate, has a law degree, and is author of the New York Times Best Selling Book “How Would A Patriot Stain A Blue Dress?” His comments often lead to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country. And he has one of the most-read blogs on the Interent, after just 9 months of blogging. I love how all you super-important rightwing bloggers attack me, I mean him, just to get traffic.

I bid you GOOD DAY, sir.


Billy, Ye hardly knew ye.



(AP) Mountains of Waziristan. The left wing leaders of Al queda failed to muster a majority vote in the Al Queda Senate today to recognize the Geneva conventions. In addition, a bill to bar the use of beheadings of children went down to defeat, although Mustafa McCainmamed had argued that he was concerned that Al quedas enemies would behead their children if they did not agree to the international rules.

The leader of the Senate doomed both measures when he pointed out that they were fighting the Devil and thus no rules were needed under Islamic Law.

Here's the Islamic terrorists answer to Freaknik and Semanticleo:

Terror Group Posts Footage of Bodies
Sep 23 3:39 PM US/Eastern

Associated Press Writer

CAIRO, Egypt

An al-Qaida-linked group posted a Web video Saturday purporting to show the bodies of two American soldiers being dragged behind a truck, then set on fire.
The Mujahedeen Shura Council _ an umbrella organization of insurgent groups, including al-Qaida in Iraq _ posted another video in June showing the soldiers' mutilated bodies, and claiming it killed them.
It was impossible to identify the bodies, but the footage was believed to be of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, and Pfc. Thomas Tucker, 25, who went missing after being attacked by insurgents on June 16 at a checkpoint south of Baghdad. Their remains were found three days later, and the U.S. military said they had been mutilated. """

Hopefully, Freaknik and Semanticleo, they also didn't have to endure cold jail cells and loud music, now that would have been really awful.


Guilt and remorse. Yea, there's anger too, but mostly because he went from the 'guy getting it on with an intern', to 'guy who did nothing to get UBL and got it on with an intern'.

Yea, he is sorry and regrets not trying harder, but for his legacy, not the people who were killed.

Am I correct in remembering that after 9/11, with Bush receiving great admiration for his response, that Clinton and/or Gore wished it had happened on their watch? However, I don't think they'd wish for it now.

But as paul states above, Clinton knew that his legacy was already set and craved for any opportunity to show some moxie!

But as with most narcissistic people, it's always about them... and Bill is the worse I've ever seen.

Cecil Turner

I don't want to go back with a revisionist's eye to criticize Clinton in regards to his hunt for Bin Laden.

Nor do I. But it's worth noting the differences in approach. The Clinton (and Clarke) approach was basically a law-enforcement paradigm, with any military action designed to "send a message." Where Clarke counseled military action, it was designed to close specific camps or get specific individuals. The Bush approach has been much more focused on state sponsors, and using troops to round up individual terrorists only as a part of larger operation.

I think either could be made to work as part of a complementary strategic program. I tend toward the Bush approach, but think that is largely a matter of personal background bias. In any event, the weak part of the Clinton approach is what to do about those state sponsors who don't "get the message." And if we were going to go down that road, something a bit more effective than bombing an empty intel HQ is probably warranted.


I'll admit I never thought much of Bill Clinton, and usually attributed his political successes to the breathtaking ineptitude of his adversaries, but larwyn's suggestion that he and Evita may be calculating her chances relative to who takes or keeps the House and Senate this year makes a lot of sense to me. Who thinks that two years of Conyers, Rangle, Reid and Kennedy in charge would increase the prospects for Hillary in '08? Probably not even Bill Clinton.


Conservatives continue to underestimate the power of the overwhelmingly leftist media in this country. A Democrat controlled Congress will get glowing reviews by the left media.

Mamy people will see through it, but many will not.

Interesting that both the New York Times and the Washngton Post received the same leak today.


Is Bill Clinton's tantrum the Rovian plot that has been promised? Clinton and the Bush family are friends. Terrorism is now on the front burner, even after the 9/11 anniversary has come and gone. Now that Clinton has fired his salvo, the Republicans can respond, which keeps this issue alive all the way up till November.

If you look at what has happened to the Democratic party (both Houses of Congress and the federal courts) since Clinton took office, you've got to wonder if Clinton himself isn't a Rovian mole planted in the Democratic party back in 1992!


I just watched the interview on Fox News Sunday, which isn't a show I normally watch due to my schedule.

Clinton had the upper hand about midway through, I was thinking the clip and blog posts had been misleading. But right when you're thinking wow I forgot how slick this guy is he goes into total chernobyl mode and starts ranting and raving about right wingers etc, and he doesn't stop for a long, long time. Man oh man he should have stopped when he was ahead.


My goodness. He is jumping on Chris Wallace. And Fox News. And now he wants us to believe Richard Clarke. Who told us bin Laden would boogey to Baghdad. Come on Chris, ask him about boogey to Baghdad. And computer terrorism, Richard Clarke's specialty.

Florence Schmieg

Where have I heard "vast right wing conspiracy" against dear Bill before? That was a pathetic display.

About that leaked intelligence report. So, we must then all assume that, just like Bush says, Iraq IS the central front in the war on terror, not separate from it. The Democrats cannot have it both ways. The NYTimes may actually have done the administration a favor here.


Clinton's melt-down on national tv is a disgrace for a former president. Other than Carter who will take negative or positive publicity he is an embarassment to our country. I'm sure foreign countries will have the tape of him trashing the current administration. This right wing conspiracy bull crap is tired and untrue. Russert was the only one who called Hillary on it during her debate with Rick Lazio. Then just because Lazio made a move to show her a piece of paper he was accused of attacking her. What horse-pukey. The Clintons cling tightly to their victimhood because they don't have anything else to offer. Any legislation Hil has gotten any traction on has a Repub co-sponsor. Both Clintons are pathetic losers!


Woweeeeeeee! Big mistake Mr Clinton.

Les Nessman

Clinton didn't do enough. Bush didn't do enough. I think almost all of us didn't take the rising Islamist Extremist threat seriously enough until 9/11. We are paying the price for that now.

The Gore temper-tantrum after losing the election delayed Bush's admin from getting up and running in a timely manner; but I'm not sure it would have made a difference. We'll never know for sure.

If the Dems choose to re-re-hash the leadup to 9/11, it probably will hurt them. America wants to know what we will do in the present and future; we are less responsive to second-guessing the past.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Speaking of meltdowns, David Corn and Byron York finally get around to talking about Plamegate, and Corn's about as good as Clinton in the way he conducts himself in a debate.


Patrick, would you give us a summary? I don't have sound to hear it and can't find a written report of it anywhere..Thanks.


The biggest thing I got out of it is that Corn admits that he suggests to Wilson the morning of the Novak column that his column could be a violation of the IIPA. He gave Wilson the idea. Wilson had never heard of the Act before.

Corn is a weasel. He says Joe Wilson is entitled to lie and cheat and make mistakes because he is a private citizen. Nd he never ever ever ever shuts up. He spends 56 minutes talking over Byron York. He finishes by saying he 'expects more of his government'.

I don't expect more from david Corn, that's for sure.


Thanks, Jane. I watched it and it was obvious he was talking over Byron ...I wish we could invite him here. I want to know how close he is to Wilson. What happened at the May 2 SDPC conclave. He close he is to the VIPS..His role in thr Soros-Kerry antiwar film with Wilson and Corn and Beers..Heck he'd have to be talking over me for hours..


Wow...Bill's rant, and his most recent media exposure with his attempted censorship of "The Path to 9/11," have just trashed any scrap of cred he had left. He is in a panic, during the crash and burn. The afterglow of Bill's 8 years of Bubba sweet-talkin' the Americans to bed, yes baby I really love you, is over. No, he doesn't respect us in the morning.

Wrong gesture. All we see is that Devil With a Blue Dress On and we recall the campaign to make his employee look like a deranged slut.

And Lady Macbeth, craven for power, chanting OUT, DAMNED SPOT, and scrubbing and scrubbing at that blue dress. The Blue Dress that Will Not Go Away.

Bill, I thought you loved me.


I don't know how anyone listens to him. His voice grates on my nerves.


Oops...I meant Corn.

he (Corn) never ever ever ever shuts up. He spends 56 minutes talking over Byron York. He finishes by saying he 'expects more of his government'.

He did the same thing during the call-in segment on C-SPAN last week. A few callers asked tough questions but if they asked more than one, he would pick the easiest and filibuster to limit his exposure to the other tough questions. He was totally relieved to have survived the 45 minutes.

What a tool.


About Bill--I have never seriously entertained the notion that he would advance anyone's interest but his own. TM's sarcastic reference to BJC's political genius is apt--He had to sink his party and his wife's bid. He did this now and will do it again whenever he can. Boy can't help himself.

Wilson's a liar

Clinton seems almost bewildered right now. His world really came crashing down on 9/11. For 8 years he was all about the economy. But nobody cares now how great the economy was from 1993 to 2000. He knows history is going to judge him harshly and there isn't a damn thing he can do about it. And he for sure can't lie and cry and finger-point his way out of it. The more he tries the more it sticks to him, like the proverbial tar baby.


I watched the first 30 mins and the last 5 of the David Corn/Byron York "interview."

Corn looks and acts like a demented Tommy Smothers. He's vainglorious, ultra sensitive, condescending, argumentative, long-winded. I wish I could have reached into the computer monitor and stuffed a sock in his mouth.


Oh My gawd. I'm watching the Horn Dog and Chris Wallace. He is unhinged.

I wonder if he's back to snorting cocaine? He sure is acting like it, PARANOID.


Well the spin from the left is that he took Chris Wallace down.

Obviously they didn't watch the segment.


Wilson--exactly! Think if he'd offered a gracious reply. Something like: Every person alive looks back at his career and realizes with hindsight he may have done some things differently. Our knowledge at any given point is less perfect than it appears at a later time. I'm sure that President Bush , like I, thinks he's done his best to protect the nation based on the available info and resources.He has never questioned my judgments and I don't question his.
I think it's far more important for both sides to work together to assure we are not attacked again and that our enemies are defeated.


Perhaps the 9/11 plot was the turd on the doorstep that the former occupants didn't tell the new tenants about,what if personal pique sealed a few lips about intelligence concerning the upcoming terrorist spectacular?
Would not a good rant help cover this?

BTW All politicians should be neuralized when they leave office.

Rick Ballard


I would say that pickling proceeds apace. I don't think he'd risk the ticker on a snort. Not with "I" still being the most important word in his vocabulary.


He is so slick as he dishes out trash. Just watched the full interview and there is punch after punch on W. When he was the most furious and trashing....he was smiling. Amazing.

The media is not as tough on Bush? This man lives in la-la-land.

The other clue was the Richard Clarke thingy. Please. Superman that never got to leap that tall building. Yep. My hero.


It's good to see that Clinton listened to Jane Hamsher at the blogger lunch, and took her advice on how to handle the tough questions FDL-style.


Maybe FDL-style was learned from Clinton. This wasn't his first time at the http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20765>rodeo. I have done some searches on the author of that piece, seems he is now a contributor at anti-war dot com, but the story holds up, only Sperry is portrayed as the bad guy for asking at a social gathering.

I believe it was Gregg Jarrett who said to Susan Estrich on Fox News yesterday, both Clintons were infamous inside the Belway for their tempers. She didn't disagree, BTW.


Rick Ballard: Not with "I" still being the most important word in his vocabulary.

He's a sociopath RB, and if he thought he could get away with it, he would do it. I know people who knew him way back when in Arkansas. The stories about him are not Right Wing Propaganda. I've had people tell me what they witnessed him do first hand.(And you would recognize their names...)

He should have never been elected president.

And I can't wait to hear what his former best (and only) friend Dick Morris has to say about him doing his best to get Osama. He didn't even read the CIA's daily briefings! Woolsey couldn't even get him to return phone calls. If the polls said Mr. and Mrs. America didn't care about an issue, well, then neither did he.


I hate to admit it, but you know what I get curious about when I see this jerk again? His relationship with Hillary. And more particularly, why this hasn't been delved into more deeply than it has. Considering her presidential prospects and the external funding he's been receiving these days, from Dubai to who knows where else, it might even be legally relevant. At any rate, who doesn't wonder how long it's been since Bill and Hillary slept together? Before or after that beach dancing scene? I say before.



It's always been about the power baby.

They are both very twisted people.

And never think for a minute that she didn't know exactly who he was, and exactly what he was doing from the very beginning.


Ha. I never doubted she was under any illusions about his celibacy. I guess I just think we should know more about hers.


Ha. I never doubted she was under any illusions about his celibacy. I guess I just think we should know more about hers.


I can't think of a thing less interesting.


High-priced grifters Hil and Bill-modern day Bonnie and Clyde. Who can forget the looting of the WH. A leopard doesn't change its spots. So glad I never voted for Bill. I agree with verner he never should have been elected president-Mr below 50%. His legacy will rank him in the bottom 10 of presidents if he is lucky. He's a product of the 60,s self-indulgence. He still feels the world owes him a living and its undying attention. I also agree with PterUK -former presidents should put a sock in it. I don't feel Clinton has anything interesting to say--it's all regret and what could have been with him...


I think the question people want to know is if Hil swings both ways.


I can't think of a thing less interesting.

Really? Ok. It's just my reaction to utter phoniness of the both of them, I guess. I admit it's nothing to be proud of. :-)


'm with Jane.
I just assume everyone else's sex life is so fantastic and wonderful. I really don't care to hear the details.

Sara (Squiggler)

At any rate, who doesn't wonder how long it's been since Bill and Hillary slept together? Before or after that beach dancing scene? I say before.

My opinion, only once, when they decided that if was to have a national political future, they would need to have at least one child. I doubt she wants anything to do with a man in her bed.

Sara (Squiggler)

** if EITHER OF THEM was to have a political future **


I could care less who Hillary Clinton sleeps with. What I do care about is that she knew that he raped Juanita Broadderick, and she stayed with him anyway. And it's not like she had to. And it's not like Juanita was the only woman he brutalized.

That tells me that she will do anything in her quest for power. She has no moral center. It was bad enough having him for 8 years, I don't think we could survive her.


Ya know, I've seen it asked or mentioned on some lefty blogs, that one question is, why didn't Bush do something about the USS Cole. A quick Wikipedia search brought up a couple things I vaguely remembered.

The bombing was on October 12, 2000. Tha Navy released it JAG assessment on January 19,2001, that's right, the day before Bush's inaguration. I remember thinking at the time, boy, that was fast. It would almost make you think that the powers that be in the previous administration, plus the military, didn't want anything done. Essentially, they had declared it a closed case already before Bush came into office. Kind of brings some of the "loyal opposition" to the Iraq war more in focus.


What an interesting point.


And Profamer, don't forget that thanks to the sore loser Al Gore, and his selective chad counts, Bush barely had time to implement his transition team. So Clinton's "trash talk" about eight months is more than a bit misleading.

Yes, both Tenet and the FBI let the president down. But they can't say that it was because the president wasn't paying any attention to them--like Clinton. And Condi was no Sandy Berger. Clinton had eight years, and did worse than nothing. He wouldn't let them take Osama out when we had the chance, simply because he is a gutless coward, and didn't want to take any political heat.

Just a little story about ole Bill. I was in India last year. I found that people who couldn't utter more than a phrase in English always knew two words--Monica Lewinsky--followed by a laugh. That's his legacy. He made our country look stupid, corrupt and weak, and that's why the world loves him.

On page 223, Clarke describes a meeting, in late 2000, of the National Security Council “principals” — among them, the heads of the CIA, the FBI, the Attorney General, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the secretaries of State, Defense. It was just after al Qaeda’s attack on the USS Cole. But neither the FBI nor the CIA would say that al Qaeda was behind the bombing, and there was little support for a retaliatory strike. Clarke quotes Mike Sheehan, a State Department official, saying in frustration, “What’s it going to take, Dick? Who the shit do they think attacked the Cole, fuckin’ Martians? The Pentagon brass won’t let Delta go get bin Laden. Hell they won’t even let the Air Force carpet bomb the place. Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?”

Via http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDM4N2E1MzU5ZjQ0YTA3YmJiYzEyYjQ2ZDBiNWJlYjE=>Byron York.

Kind of fits with your theory Pofarmer.

The comments to this entry are closed.