Ever since 9/11 occurred, many on the Right have been trying to pin the tragedy on Bill Clinton. He didn’t take Al Qaeda and global terrorism seriously, he was lax on security, he let the intelligence network languish and atrophy, he passed on a deal with Sudan to have Bin Laden delivered, et al. With the recent anniversary of 9/11, many of those criticisms have resurfaced.
It sounds like a lot of drivel to me. I’m no fan of Clinton, but I’m not interested in watching conservatives pile on their favorite whipping boy either. Frankly, I’m not too quick to blame either Clinton or Bush for 9/11. Shit happens. It is worthwhile to reflect upon what one could do to improve future preparedness or response, but I’m not interested in bickering about who we can scapegoat for 9/11. I’m much more concerned about our actions in the wake of 9/11.
But I’m intrigued to have seen this report done by Keith Olbermann last month, investigating Clinton’s treatment of terror, comparing it to Bush’s.
Is it all true? I don’t know. But it does raise some interesting questions about the Republican story about the ongoing issue of terror.
(Thanks to Cliff of OneUtah.org for bringing this video to my attention.)
A Liberal Mormon 
October 6, 2006 at 7:23 pm |
Ah, but let us not be politically naive. Besmirching the name Clinton is not only an enjoyable Republican nostalgia, it’s early groundwork for the 2008 presidential campaign. Let us not forget that the likely democratic candidate with the most name recognition happens to share that name with Bill.
October 8, 2006 at 6:57 pm |
No naivete. I understand that much of the abuse of Clinton has always been political in nature. That does nothing to mediate the situation: if anything, I find it even more vulgar to so venomously harass a man for political purposes.
If you genuinely believe that what somebody has done is deserving of being reviled, I can accept that. But I am disgusted when people disingenuously attack any person for political reasons, whether they be Republicans disparaging Clinton for purported neglect on terrorism, or Democrats haranguing Hastert for his role in the alleged Foley “cover-up.”
November 3, 2006 at 3:33 am |
You might find Bob Woodward’s latest book, ‘State of Denial’ insightful. He points the finger at Condi Rice as the single most important person in the Bush regime responsible for the 9-11 disaster as she did absolutely nothing when appraised of the al Qa’ida threat by then Director of the CIA, George Tennet.
October 4, 2007 at 10:21 am |
Keith Olbermann is the Glenn Beck of liberals. The only difference is that Olbermann gives his opinion disguised as fact. He’s dishonest about what he is presenting. He is not a journalist, he’s at most an op ed writer. I’d look to more credible sources.