The Big Dog Bites Fox News
September 25th, 2006 by gordo
President Clinton
I’d like to share a few thoughts about the recent dustup between former president Bill Clinton and Fox News “journalist” Chris Wallace. You can read a transcript here and watch the video of the interview here.
First of all, the substance of what Clinton said was exactly correct. The report of the 9/11 commission describes opportunities to attack al-Qaeda that Clinton missed, but it also describes a diligent and concerted effort to combat terrorism. Clinton wasn’t just more successful than Bush in preventing terrorism, he was also more zealous about combating terrorism.
As Clinton points out, the people who now try to lay blame for 9/11 on Clinton’s fecklessness are often the same people who used to criticize him for attacking suspected terrorist sites in Afghanistan and Sudan.
Clinton is right about the context of the interview as well. The recent ABC special that attacked his record on anti-terrorism contradicted the factual record. Chris Wallace was eager to attack Bush’s anti-terrorism record, but failed to confront Bush administration officials in the past (link link link). And all of these one-sided, counterfactual attacks come as the election season starts to heat up.
In short, what Clinton said was correct.
Of course, you won’t find much discussion in the right-wing media on the merits of what Clinton said. Instead, Red State has an analysis of Clinton’s body language, as if the most important aspect of fight against terrorism is the posture of our leaders:
I’m still reeling from the performance–it is rare in this day and age of careful coaching by media handlers that you see someone of Mr. Clinton’s age and experience lose their composure during a major interview. But lose it Mr. Clinton did, revealing to us the paranoid world of persecution by that legendary Vast Right Wing Conspiracy in which he–and we can assume his wife–live.
(snip)
I am no PC shirking violet, but there are lines that should never be crossed. Such physical contact in this context is utterly inappropriate. I have to ask, if President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld or even Secretary Rice jabbed a reporter with an angry finger during an interview, how long would it take for the cries of assault to start? Of course, none of them would ever indulge in such crass behavior, so the point is to some extent moot, but it seems to me that far from being so angry at Mr. Wallace for having the nerve to ask him some tough questions, Mr. Clinton might owe him an apology, not to mention some thanks for not pressing charges.
(emphasis added)
First of all, if you watch the interview you’ll see that President Clinton does not assault Wallace. That portion of the rant is simply a lie. Second, I’d point out that no American interviewer has ever treated President Bush as rudely as Wallace treated Clinton.
Wallace had told Clinton that the focus of the interview would be the Clinton Global Initiative, which has raised billions to relieve poverty, fight AIDS, and combat climate change. Instead, Clinton was forced to answer a multiple-part question that contained several false assertions. When he tried to answer the charges, he was repeatedly interrupted by Wallace. And yet, Clinton maintained his composure. He did not raise his voice, he did not become red-faced, and he certainly did not assault Chris Wallace.
So far, the right looks like they are content to critique Clinton’s body language, instead of the substance of his remarks. Most conservative analysts will be happy to do that until they have a chance to shove this interview down the memory hole, along with all of the attacks they leveled at Clinton for trying too hard to kill bin Laden.
I’d like to make one last point. Clinton was able to get the best of Wallace for two reasons: he had the facts on his side, and he prepared for the interview. I just heard a liberal commentator say that she thought Clinton’s remarks were spontaneous. Nonsense. He didn’t become the only Democrat in 30 years to win a presidential election by failing to prepare for interviews.
Clinton had to know that there was a good chance that Wallace would sandbag him. Fox News hasn’t shown much interest in the Clinton Global Initiative in the past, there’s an election coming up, and ABC has just aired a dishonest attack on the former president.
It looked like an obvious trap, but here’s the thing: most people, in fact most politicians, wouldn’t have seen it coming. The reason that Clinton’s performance was so startling wasn’t that it was a stroke of genius. All he did was assert a few facts. He walked into the studio with a good idea of what Wallace would ask, and of how he would ask it. He also knew that Wallace is a partisan hack, so he would be vulnerable to the charge of going easy on Bush administration officials.
What made Clinton’s performance startling was the fact that it’s so rare for a talk-show guest to effectively prepare for an interview. At best, they memorize a few talking points and refuse to get thrown by non-sequitor questions.
But Clinton did what they should all do. They should try to anticipate attacks, and look for opportunities to counterattack. If the anticipated attack doesn’t come, they can stick with their talking points. But if it does come, the interviewee will look awfully silly if she doesn’t respond (this is the usual case), and she’ll have missed an opportunity to turn the attack to her advantage.
So from now on, or at least until the upcoming election, it would be nice if people on the left would put a little more thought into their preparation for talk show appearances. They should ask themselves, “What would Clinton do?”
(cross posted at appletree)
September 25th, 2006 at 10:40 am
I agree Gordo. I thought it was refreshing to see Clinton “stand up” as it were. And he is right, the right gets all the cute and flowery questions. He gets the blame.
To discuss his “body language” and say that he owes Wallace an apology is absurd. It’s the other way around. Clinton was right in saying that he was invited to fox under false pretenses. He’s proud of the work he’s done on Global Initiative, which I might need to remind some in here, shrubs momma helped with.
The whole set up was nothing more than an election-year-clinton-bashing- so-kingbush and his merry men don’t look as bad as they really are. Which is, of course, par for the course with the right wingers and their favorite BS station, fox.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
As it was put here, “Next time you best bring Kyptonite.”
Once again, Clinton proves why he was so damn awesome and why the right is doomed to failure. And RedneckState proves why they need to up the doses on their meds.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Are you serious? The Cole, the first WTC attacks, embassy bombings, Khobar Towers, is ‘more successful’?
Let me quote *John Kerry*,
“From 1993 through 2001 the United States was either attacked… by radical Islamists close to a dozen times.”
He also pointed out that there was a single military attack during that time and that the presidential directive of May ‘98 didn’t give the military primary authority for counter-terrorism.
The hijackers of 9/11 enetered the country while Clinton was president, received their training, etc. - all on his watch.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
It’s de rigeur these days to say “I didn’t agree with Clinton on a lot of things, but…” and I’d like to eschew that - but the slavish devotion of everyone from fundamentalist Christians to so-called libertarians to “their guy, right or wrong” that I still think it’s valuable to continue to remind people that it’s okay to disagree on some things with someone you support overall, and it’s okay to support someone with whom you have some disagreements.
That said, Clinton is the best prez I’ve seen in my lifetime, and every passing day under the Bush regime makes that clearer. He made foreign policy missteps, he passed NAFTA, and he screwed up that whole Lewinsky thing but good, but holy crap is he a man of integrity* and leadership where it counts. Keep it up, Bill.
So to speak.
* You heard me.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Echo-chamber, anyone? On how many threads has this lame canard been debunked already? And yet the mindless ones keep spewing their talking points while totally ignoring the actual post at hand.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
what’s with the “she” references? I mean… is this author thinking of someone in particular or what?
September 25th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Dobby,
‘Nuh-uh’ is not a rebuttal. Let’s go point by point. Khobar Towers? Attacked while Clinton was president. WTC? Bombed while Clinton was president. US Embassies in Africa? Many bombed while Clinton was president. The 9/11 hijackers? Most entered while Clinton was president, and they received their flight training while he was president, and the warnings from some FBI agents were ignored while he was president.
See what Auguste wrote about ’slavish devotion’, above? You can think he was a good president *and* think he dropped the ball on terrorism. It wasn’t seen as that big a deal before the first WTC attacks, after all, and he admitted focused on domestic economics and Israel/Palestine.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
The Shorter “Deep Throater” - Everything is Clinton’s fault !
~
September 25th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Auguste,
I heard you, and its your space - your opinion is your opinion. Of course, he had to publically admit to giving false testimony under oath to avoid perjury charges. And he was forced to admit to lying to the American people. And he was forced to admit to being an adulterer with at least three different women.
Other than that, his integrity is pretty good.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
SGO,
Um, no. Like I said, in a manner I thought was clear, I don’t think Clinton did the job he could have, and should have, to stop terrorism. My evidence? The attacks during his presidency and 9/11. Am I saying ‘Clinton is Teh Evil’? No. Am I saying ‘W is the bestest!’? No.
I am questioning the assertion that Clinton was ‘more successful’ at stopping terrorism.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Deep Do-Do:
Concerned about LYING?!!!
How about, “The Iraq war has made America safer.”?
The recent NIE proves this is a brual lie, and it was produced from inside the administration. Should Patriots pay attention to adultry or treason?
September 25th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
The assertion made by who? The strawman in the corner of the room?
September 25th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Clinton kicked Wallace’s ass! All that was missing was the bitch slap. It would have went nicely with his ’smirk on your face’ comment.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
PT,
Hey, this post is about Clinton, remember? I didn’t mention Bush, and I am not talking about him - nor is the original post.
Dobby,
Pay attention - the assertion was made by *gordo* in *this post*. You know, the one we are all commenting about - supposedly. Second paragraph, third sentence. Right up there (points to top of screen).
September 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Yeah… the fact that he didn’t was a little let-me-down
Funny how the tables can turn isn’t it? We talk about bush, they bring up clinton’s penis. We talk about the economy, they bring up clintons penis, we talk about ecology…. yep! clintons penis. I’m thinking obsessed here..
September 25th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Deep Trouble:
Wasn’t this part of the original post:
“Clinton wasn’t just more successful than Bush in preventing terrorism, he was also more zealous about combating terrorism.”
At 2:27 you added these awe-inspiring points:
“Of course, he had to publically admit to giving false testimony under oath to avoid perjury charges. And he was forced to admit to lying to the American people. And he was forced to admit to being an adulterer with at least three different women.
Other than that, his integrity is pretty good.”
And you accuse me of being “off topic” by mentioning the NIE and BushCo’s lies!
What do Clinton’s women have to do with his “performance” on terrorism? What about W’s vacations?
September 25th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Normally I like nothing better than seeing a media pimp’s ass kicked from here to breakfast. But when it’s a wimp on wimp kind of thing it kinda loses it’s allure.
My problem with the whole thing is that it’s turned this borderline mad house into an “inmates screeching at the tops of their lungs” kind of mad house and it’s very hard to find a place to get a decent bat bash in edgewise.
So I think I’ll let the kool aid do it’s work and come back tomorrow to see
who, if anybody, is left.
P.S. Clinton was lying again (like,gee, the sun came up again) as any half way decent conservative blog, take, column or commentator will attest.
( Little bat fingers rattling keyboards and scratching bat nuts, trying to figure out what ” conservative” means)
September 25th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Ah yes, I see now, Deep Throat. (You can tell I’m Liberal because I have the cojones to admit mistakes). But if you look at the paragraph even more carefully, you’ll see that Gordo is referring to the findings of the 9-11 Commission Report.
So I guess you have some fount of knowledge that the 9-11 Commission wasn’t privy to, that you can mockingly (and without any factual backup) declare their Report “wrong”?
September 25th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
So, DEEPly Disturbed, where did you get your “evidence” ? Give us your sources. It is pretty well known to most now that the right wing owned media distorts. FOX is owned by the ominous Rupert Murdoch who is a big supporter of the even more ominous PNAC, the American version of Mien Kampf. PNAC was established before Bush’s presidency and was going to be implemented during his presidency….on overtaking the middle east by means of war. Another financial supporter in the PNAC plan is the Heritage Foundation (another disinformation operation, funded by Bradley Corporation).
An important point Clinton made is that most all of us (at least the more astute observers of politics) know that a major disinformation campaign has been in place since the consolidation of network ownership has been allowed, thus controlling the “information”. The right wing/big money/war invested corporations own most all of them. That is why we have these heated arguments. Intended confusion, obfuscating, deflecting, successfully executed by the right wing pundits. Those that dare spill the ugly truth of the war profiteers, enlightening folks like Al Franken, Michael Moore, Randy Rhodes, etc. are smeared until, to the Robotican mindset, the actual truth is not even fathomable.
Then, it is about being in the club of Republicans. Not about reality. As a result of them having to be “in their upstanding (or so they think) Republican Club” thousands and thousands and thousands of people have died around the world, as well as so many here of our own, the soldiers, for war profiteering lies. It is a tragedy beyond words. It is all because of the enablers of the Republican party.
Remember, that the influence of the military industrial complex was a very looming threat warned of by many. Lincoln, Eisenhower, General Smedley Butler come to mind. I’m sure there were more. They, these defense industry owners are now in charge of EVERYTHING (also the religious right who also own networks.. a good enough amount to do some controlling of opinion). The government, the media. Believe it when I tell you that this government is not the ones making decisions for us. It is the corporate world, and also dangerous is that the religious right with ungodly amounts of money are also controlling the reins. This is fascism. Both in the sense of religion having such power within a government and the sense that corporate interests do as well.
Regarding Clinton’s remarks, he was as expected, stellar. Stunningly on target, verbally kicking FOX pundit in his pathetic rear end.
Actually I think it was good that it was brought up, because it was necessary to discount the lies that the ABC mythical crockumentary pumped out into the voting sheep. Hopefully some of those fools will see the lies in that piece of s***.
Hopefully this knowledge making it out there finally will help make the voters realize that voting Democrat is our only hope for survival of democracy. If the polls are so blatently clear that no possible way can they make it appear to be close, their previously documented cheating will be preventable this time. We need to oust the fascist operation in WaDC as soon as possible. If you doubt me do some research on your own.
I don’t know that any facts can pentrate into the brains of the WOT fans, because the reptilian brain which is all they have working prevents real facts from entering past that, as those of us that know who have read about the reptilain vs. neocortex. And I thought I was just being funny when I called the right wing the Reptile party. LOL
September 25th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Well, if you think about it, it’s not only funny, it’s correct. Think about snakes, when they are cold (mental analogy here), they all huddle together. Back a snake in the corner.. what happens? They lash out at clinton… I mean …
September 25th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Laine,
Huh? Talk about a non-sequitor! *I* talk about Clinton, someone else mentions Bush, therefore…. uh, I am staying on-topic?
PT,
Yes; I did respond to another commentor (Auguste) who had a very interesting post in general and that referenced Clinton’s integrity. That comment is clearly and directly in response to Auguste’s comment. I even put Auguste’s name on it to show I was talking to him about his post.
Dobby,
“Clinton wasn’t just more successful than Bush in preventing terrorism, he was also more zealous about combating terrorism.” is not a quote from the 9/11 commission report, it is Gordo’s opinion. Gordo is clearly stating his *opinion* after citing his interpretation of the 9/11 report as support for that opinion. I quoted John Kerry to state, indirectly, that I think that that is not the conclusion I reached. I went on in later comments to point out that *in my opinion* Clinton was more focused on the economy and Palestine. Not to say ‘ooooh, he’s evil’ but more ‘there is no shame in admitting very few people had any clue, so almost no one did all that could have been done’. Saying Clinton could have done more places him in pretty good company - almost everyone else in law enforcement and intelligence for the last 20 years or so.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Blubonnet,
The Cole wasn’t attacked? The WTC wasn’t bombed? The majority of the planning and training for the 9/11 attacks didn’t occure before 2001? Are *you* claiming any of those things? ‘Cuz, if not, I have no idea what radical, weird claims I am making that need an exhaustive set of footnotes.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Do you really want to talk death for death, lie for lie? We can ya’ know.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
You’re obviously new here Deep. Blubonnet believes that 9/11 was an inside job and she is happy to share voluminous links to anyone.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
And he was forced to admit to lying to the American people.
Ahem.
LOOK AT YOUR FUCKING GUY!!!
GodDAMN are you wingnuts self-deluded.
And he was forced to admit to being an adulterer with at least three different women.
Irrelevant. You’ve already covered lying under oath, which I referred to originally. This is absolutely irrelevant to his integrity as President.
It’s just something you righties love to think hard about. And I do mean hard.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:29 pm AcademicElephant at RedState isn’t a violet, he’s a pussy.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
Oh Auguste! I’m glad I’m not the only one so sick of hearing that!
Do you realize, if you asked every American today who they think was the worlds greatest prez, 9 out of 10 will tell you JFK. Who, by the way, was the biggest slut to ever enter the white house.
Do I think Clinton was perfect, absolutely not. But he had more common sense, more backbone and more knowledge of foreign affairs that dickheadkingbush ever will.
I, for one am sick to death of “clinton lied” fanatics. kingbush’s lie killed hundreds of thousands. Clinton’s killed a little bit of his marraige and their starr thought nothing of wasting 400 million of taxpayer dollars on that fact. Yet there isn’t a “christian” troll out there that would cross the fucking street to give the poor or needy a dime. So please! Give up on the clinton bashing! It’s down “right” annoying!
September 25th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
“You’ve already covered lying under oath…. This is absolutely irrelevant to his integrity as President.”
BWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….
September 25th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
One major difference:
Bush didn’t lie-under oath or otherwise.
Clinton did.
And so did Joe Wilson.
The record supports those simple facts.
Bat memes die hard….
September 25th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
I think BRT, just for you, I’m going to do a series of “bush lies”. Whatchya’ think?
September 25th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Bush didn’t lie. His plan for Iraq was dead on. What he did not count on was that George Soros was secretly funding the Iraqi resistance so that Bush would lose the election in 2004. Soros also paid to help smuggle Saddam’s WMD’s to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
Even now, the forces of global evil maneuver their forces like pawns on a deadly chess board.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
The weird part about that TK is that most of the bats will take as gospel.
Please don’t agitate the bats. I left my guano shield in the car….
September 25th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
Sure Laine, have at it. Smirkingwimp, wetdreams.orgasm, crooks and liars, sink progress and lost Kos are terrific sources.
I have my delete button handy and flappy and dana are standing by with excerpts (thinking about band width here) from one of the longest books ever written:
Clinton lies 101……
September 25th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Sorry dear, i do all of my own research from numerous sources, including some of yours.
It absolutely shocks me that with all of this information, you are still standing by the side of a man who has lied to you, caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, doesn’t care about the “mastermind” of 9/11 or his whereabouts, spent us into damn near bankruptcy, who happens to be the greatest recruiting tool OBL ever had, who does not care about the American soldier, wants to change the GC - even at the pleadings of generals, was awol during viet nam, insists on illegal wiretaping and don’t even get me started on the whole fbi watch list…. I don’t get it, I really don’t. Are party lines more important than truth? Democracy? What?
September 25th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
The thing is Laine, you’re just not getting the big picture. All of the mistakes you think Bush has made are simply all part of his master plan to defeat terrorism and spread democracy.
President George Bush is a man who walks with our Lord Jesus Christ. You simply must have faith that everything will work out the way President Bush and God intends. Bedrock understands. Why can’t the rest of you get it?!?
September 25th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
“I don’t get it, I really don’t.”
You’re telling Noah about the flood now, Laine…
September 25th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
BRT! Dammit man! You know damn well I was telling you that I don’t understand how YOU can stand by this moron! Good lord! picken’ on the blond here…
Tommy: Sometimes, I really wish there was a hell (a lovely little place that henry the 8th basically invented) because kingbush and his band of merry men would certainly be on the express elevator!
September 25th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
When has Bush ever been under oath?
September 25th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
BRT:
Now you’re willfully misquoting me?
Fuck you and see if I vote to keep you around the next time a trollban discussion comes up.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Yay! Someone start another trollban discussion! lol X-D
By the way, that Clinton clip made all the news cycles all day long in Canada.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Hey sirk, a tad off thread, but are you getting any pre-season hockey games yet? I’m not, oh! how I miss Canada!
September 25th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Smirkingchimp is damn good, some of the best writers in the nation. There are some of the best researchers there as well. You’ll find them to be very credible. BRS is a willful liar. He is either a willful liar or willfully ignorant, just like his smirkingchimp president, his perspective is see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. However the policies within the Republican/FASCIST party is nothing but evil. You must have to work awfully hard BRS to keep your delusional perception intact. You are literally coo coo for co co puffs, you, war-mongering, soul-less, pro-murder (by way of the war) fucking fool!!!
September 25th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Ok, WTF? Did the neo-Nazi’s all just pop out of the woodworks at once? BRT, while you may point out a narrow point of view such as Clinton lied under oath fine.
PT, Bush would never allow himself to be placed under oath cause he’d have to plead the fifth just for breathing.
TK, I don’t even know how to respond to your stupidity so I won’t even bother. The one thing I will say to you is that people like you are pretty close to as legally insane as you can get before getting tossed into the nut house. The only problem is that the psycho’s are the one running the asylum in the white house and congress right now.
People, ignore the babble of a lost cause that we once called the conservative party. These people don’t even know what they stand for anymore. Once upon a time conservatives believed in small government, the separation of church and state, allowing other nations to deal with their own crap oh yeah and my all time favorite; sticking it to the brown guy…oh wait…y’all still do that pretty well.
Man, I was having such a nice time watching our Pres (not bush cause he wasn’t actually elected in 2000) Clinton stand up for himself and our party. Fire for effect m’man…
September 25th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Umm Brian… Tommy does a great sarcastic troll. He’s one of the good guys dear & funny as all hell! As for the rest, please continue…
September 25th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
I read an article that told of President Bush shaking hands with Barack O’bama and he then asked his aid to give him a squirt of some antiseptic goop, which he then smeared into his paws. The guy is a fucking racist. I guess Condi is just enough of the black color to be a soothing shade of latte’.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
He’s such an ass Blu! O’bama is awesome! Now, there’s a man for the VP, what do you think?
September 25th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Yes, Laine, he’s a powerful speaker, and I like him, but he is anti-coice I believe, which is not quite fine with me. I guess one has to make some concessions with all though, even people close to us, you take the good with the bad. There are some though, and we know who, that are so far in the bad category, the only place for them is the Hague. Not Barack O’bama.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
I thought W. took an oath to defend the Constitution, at both inaugurations. Am I wrong here? Did I miss something?
BRT: Isn’t “I Will” a lie?
Otherwise, I doubt he’s given oath-worthy, testimonial-type musings. Back when I was young, the Constitution used to be a big deal. Was it the same for you, Mr. BRT-OldTimer?
September 25th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
BRS thinks Bush is honest.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You Polly-Anna chump of a chimp, BRS!!!
September 25th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
He’s pro-choice and he’s pro stem cell research and anti-gay marraige ban. Of course we all know that means a vote from Laine, right?
September 25th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
BRT–
If Bush isn’t a liar, why did he refuse to go under oath when he spoke to the 9/11 commission? And why did he insist on taking Cheney in to hold his hand?
Deep Thought–
First of all, I don’t understand how Clinton can be responsible for the first WTC attack AND 9/11. The bombing occured in February of 1993. Clinton took office in January 1993.
I also don’t understand why Bush bears no responsibility for 9/11. Exactly how much time would he have to be in office in order to be responsible? How long does it take to implement a more aggressive anti-terror strategy? A year? Three years?
The fact is, there was no attempt on the part of the Bush administration to step up anti-terror efforts. Ashcroft explicitly scaled back anti-terror operations, and Richard Clarke was ignored and demoted for being too zealous about terrorism.
Most of the data that could have led to breaking up the 9/11 plot was gathered after Bush took office. What led investigators to the information came from Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian captured during Clinton’s tenure. Unfortunately, he didn’t start to divulge what he knew about sleeper cells in the US until Bush took office.
Bush was warned that bin Laden was planning hijackings inside the US more than a month in advance, and he went on vacation. During the next month, officials at FBI headquarters refused to seek the warrants that their field agents requested, warrants that would have given investigators access to Moussaoui’s apartment. To the extent that the 9/11 attacks were the result of a failure to take terrorism seriously, they are the fault of George W. Bush and the people he put in charge of security and law enforcement.
You bring up the Cole and Khobar Towers. OK. As long as we’re counting terrorist attacks agaisnt Americans in foreign countries, though, we also have to talk about the attacks on our soldiers in Iraq, don’t we? So, how many have been killed by terrorist bombs in Iraq? More than