The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters...||Date: 11/4/2001 10:01 PM|
|Author: Goofyhoofy||Number: 88414 of 2001477|
Before you think I'm jumping back to the past to beat a dead horse, please know that I am doing this to tie together what many of us were saying during the Clinton administration with the terrorist events that have happened.
Don't be silly. He's been out of office for a year and you're still obsessing about it. Why would you think we might draw the conclusion that you're beating a dead horse?
Could it be, perhaps, that it is hard to rally people behind you when you send cruise missles to Sudan and Afghanistan only three days apart from when you lied to a grand jury and say that it all depends on what the definition of "is" is?
Yes, or it could be that the intelligence community found that time, and that time only when they had a positive ID on where he was, and he chose to go ahead, even knowing that the obsessive right-wingers would accuse him regardless. And they did. And they still are.
Madeline Albright's lame attempts to throw blame somewhere else remind me of why I was sickened by her tenure as Secretary of State, as well.
How is it that she's throwing blame elsewhere? By correctly assessing that there wasn't domestic or international support for a full scale invasion or bombing campaign of Afghanistan? I am agog at the naivete displayed at the accusation.
If I am wrong, then I am also agog that George W Bush didn't immediately launch an invasion and bombing campaign when he took office last January, or is that somehow different? Was he afraid to show his leadership for some reason? Or was it that there was a big threat during the Clinton administrtation, but it went away last January and suddenly reappeared on September 11?
I am further agog that George the Senior didn't think the American public had the stomach to follow through in Iraq when we had the advantage and the war infrastructure in place to continue up through Baghdad and kill Saddam Hussein, but I suppose that's somehow different too. Or did I miss something and that was Clinton's fault too?
Funny thing is, I find with the right-wing that it's always different. It's different that Newt, Henry, and Helen were all having affairs with people not their spouses, but the only thing that mattered was that Bill did.
It's different that the Supreme Court isn't supposed to muck around when States have issues, but when the election comes down to Florida and the Florida State Court interprets its own Florida state law, the Federal Supreme Court decides the State Court should be overruled, and the right wing loves it.
And it's different when they want the government out of their lives with all those pesky regulations, but they want the government IN everybody else's lives, like with restrictions on choice for women and compulsory prayer in school.
But anyway, please feel free to continue to bash Clinton for his his misdeeds, actual and imagined. As a proud member of the obsessive right, I figure you have at least another decade's worth of drivel to spew before you're finished.
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|