September 26, 2006

Best line: "A monkey posing as a newscaster..."

I've been staying away from politics for a while, mostly out of depression over the failure of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media to hold the Bush Administration accountable for its actions both before and since 9/11. But after watching Bill Clinton's spirited interview with Fox "News" talking head Chris Wallace, I felt something I hadn't felt in a while. I felt proud of a Democrat. Figures it would be one who's been out of office for five very long years.

I guess I'm not the only one who felt that way:

Keith Olbermann:

Finally tonight, a special comment about President Clinton's interview. The headlines about it are, of course, entirely wrong. It is not essential that a past President, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.

It is not important that the current President's portable public chorus has described his predecessor's tone as "crazed."

Our tone should be crazed. The nation's freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as Al-Qaeda; the nation's marketplace of ideas is being poisoned, by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would've quit.

Nonetheless, the headline is this: Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done, in five years. He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.


met said...

Thank you - I had not seen it.

I love the line about waiting for another 3 January's...

grandefille said...


Now if someone, somewhere, will come forward with legitimate answers and possible solutions to this horrible domestic and foreign-policy mess that Dumbya has put us in, rather than running simply on the "I'm Not Dumbya or His Brother" ticket, I will gladly vote for him/her/it.

Tell me how we'll fix it, candidate, not just how mad you are about it.

BTW, along with Schuyler's "You talk too much" shirt, I've found another I really like. It simply says "1-20-09."

Of course, at this rate that could also be the date of Armageddon.

Calming down now to send hugs from Tennessee!

JimNtexas said...

I'm sorry Rob, but the fact is that Clinton was pwnded by Wallace. Clinton expected the kind of softballs he ususally gets.

Maybe some like seeing that finger wagging in their faces, but, really, we all know he does that when he's lying.

Speaking of lying, almost everything Clinton asserted during the tantrum was a lie.

Robert Hudson said...

Clinton was expecting softballs from Fox News?

You know I like you, Jim, but I don't envy you the task or keeping those blinders on as this administration continues its slow march into the abyss. I just wish they weren't taking the rest of us with them.

Clinton's assertions are pretty well documented as being factual.

Anonymous said...

I agree with jimntexas.

Wallace just hit a raw nerve with Clinton. He was just pissed off that someone called him on his bull$hit.
And Clinton was too busy plugging Monica to pay attention to Bin Laden.

I also agree with grandefille. Here's the problem with Democrats: They're too busy trashing the Bush administration to come up with any solutions of their own.

eliza said...

Thanks for posting this.

Robert Hudson said...

Well, there are about a million blogs out there arguing all this better than I can here, so all I can say is that if we are still arguing about Clinton's lies regarding his personal life versus Bush's lies that took us into a war that we are clearly losing, then we truly do get the government we deserve. At this rate, I expect the next election to be won by some sort of fungus.

Anonymous said...

Keith Olbermann has become my new hero as of late - and to think I even loved him back when he was Dan Patrick's other half.

If you've not seen it already, RUN, do not walk, to YouTube and watch Keith's 9/11 commentary (at least 8:45 long).

Also worth viewing:
~his commentary on Bush's 9-18-06 rose garden speech (at least 8:18)

~his comments on the White House's recent campaign to make Al Qaida and Nazi Germany synonymous (2:43)

~and, ya know, everything else they have of his.

...and now I have to walk my PTSD far away from the current political climate so as not to feel inclined to go jump from a bridge. :P

Bev Sykes said...

I'm with Stephanie on having newly discovered Olbermann. And did you see The Daily Show on this? Stewart pointed out how everybody (including the nay sayers in this guestbook) are focusing on Clinton losing his temper and few are talking about the factual points he brought up.

I'm so glad to see that this appears to have energized the Democratic party. Let's hope Clinton isn't the last person to begin asking the tough questions. Maybe this has knocked us out of our collective sense of complacency.

Anonymous said...

I love Olbermann with a white hot heat. He is exactly what the country needs, nay, DESERVES right now. And I concur that you should BOLT to YouTube to see his 9/11 special comment. Genius.

Anonymous said...

I saw a re-broadcast of the interview Sunday night, and all I could think was "Yes! Why can't I vote for him again?" Okay, I know why, but I want to anyway. As for the comment about too busy with Monica, please. What world do you live in? Five minutes later, back to work. Anything else is just the conservative propaganda machine. And it's not as if other effective presidents -- think FDR -- didn't do it, too.

Anonymous said...

I would have enjoyed Olberman's commentary much more if it weren't so right on - how sad a state we are in right now.....makes Canada look appealing, except for the snow.

And does anyone think that Bush could have constructed anywhere NEAR as organized, factual and off-the-cuff response as Clinton did ? Picture : Deer in the head lights with some Texas yuckity-yuck thrown in (I can say that - I'm in Dallas). Whose fault will it be next time?

There's a fungus among us.

Anonymous said...

Thank you -- I hadn't seen it either. It's so good to see people in the mainstream media showing this kind of courage.

Anonymous said...

"Speaking of lying, almost everything Clinton asserted during the tantrum was a lie."

It has been found for a certainty that one thing was true -- he did leave behind a security plan for Bin Laden.

Condoleeza Rice lied herself when she claimed no such plan existed.

"And Clinton was too busy plugging Monica to pay attention to Bin Laden."

You know, I find it interesting that everyone keeps on bringing Lewinskygate up all the time. For a president that's as bad as some claim, you'd think they could come up with other examples of his failings. ...But, since this is all people talk about, maybe the cheap shot is all people have to take?

Anonymous said...

"And it's not as if other effective presidents -- think FDR -- didn't do it, too."

What a juvenile statement... I guess because others did it it makes it right.

Robert Hudson said...

What a juvenile statement... I guess because others did it it makes it right.

Right? Nice attempt at settign up a strawman argument, Kim, but I don't see where anyone is arguing that it's right. I think the issue is relevance.

As in "Wow, the president got a blowjob! That's icky!"


"Wow, the president lied and got my kid killed. Bummer!"

How do you know I'm not Liddy Wales? said...

Have you seen the graphic adaptation of the 9/11 report?

Elise said...

I agree with ro. I loved Clinton during his presidency; I love him even more with successive years out of it, watching W be a first-class ass. Three more January's indeed.

The entire Lewinsky deal was a sham. What Bill did in his personal life was just that---personal. The Republican party jumped on it as an opportunity to paint Clinton in a bad light, and in doing so wasted millions of taxpayers' dollars and distracting political and world attention away from far more important things.

Amen to Keith Olbermann. He's my new hero too, Stephanie.

Anonymous said...

I hadn't seen it either. The first I'd ever listened at length to Obermann was when a few weeks ago---I've been entranced ever since. He called the president a coward! that takes guts!

and he's right, Wallace IS a monkey posing as a newscaster...

Anonymous said...

"and in doing so wasted millions of taxpayers' dollars and distracting political and world attention away from far more important things."

I wonder if one of those important things he was trying to do was to secure even more intelligence about Bin Laden.

(Honestly -- the people who are grumbling that Clinton didn't do enough are the very people who were preventing him from doing too much because he was being dragged in to give testimony on actions that had nothing to do with governance, on a matter that itself was raised only when the matter that Ken Starr was initially investigating proved to be aboveboard all along.

(Some days I just wish that everyone involved would just finally admit for once and for all that the only thing behind it all was that Clinton's opponents just were jealous or something, because this is about that high-schoolish.)

Amy said...

Amen, Rob! I read the transcript and watched the video, and my pride in Clinton knows no bounds. I especially loved that he articulated the difference between questions asked of Democrats and questions asked of Republicans. Finally, someone calling it like it is on Fox--and doing it on air! Bravo. I hope more of our liberal politicians start doing this.

Anonymous said...

Bush didn't lie, that is what people can't get through their thick heads. He relied on information and reports from his administration at the time. He made a decision based on that information. He didn't LIE.

Please tell me you know the difference.

Robert Hudson said...

Oh, that's bullshit, Kim, and you know it. The administration based its case for war on intel that it KNEW was suspect at best and almost certainly wrong. Their own people were telling them that. This isn't news, Kim. By now it's fucking history.

You can get as snotty as you want, Kim. Turning up your volume doesn't make you right, it just makes you loud. Please tell me you know the difference.

Anonymous said...

I'm not trying to be snotty, I don't think I have ever been snotty on your blog. But I still don't agree with you.

Perhaps you could answer my last paragraph in my first post on this topic. What would your solution to Iran be? Do you have any ideas or solutions? Because I'd bet money you don't, and certainly anything Bush decides to do will be totally wrong in your mind.


Robert Hudson said...

You mean the one where you ask a question of Democrats? Why don't you ask a Democrat?

Robert Hudson said...

I'm not trying to be snotty, I don't think I have ever been snotty on your blog. But I still don't agree with you.

I'll try to get that through my thick head.

Anonymous said...

Because I'm asking you, whether you are a democrat or whatever. I'd like to know what you think Bush/The US should do about Iran. ??

eyduck said...

I hope Keith Olbermann is single because I want to marry that man and bear his children.

I don't understand a world where "because this person I heard said so and I believe it because it agrees with my feelings" is more valid that documented facts, primary sources, and expert testimony.

Did a generation miss out on learning how to research information? Did they miss out on logic skills in school? When did "He didn't say it nice" become all that a society needs to throw away the facts that are being spoken?

I am so proud that Former President Clinton finally took off the gloves and hit the bully back.

Sonja Streuber, PMP(R), SSBB said...

What an awesome video! Thanks, Rob, for the link. This is one of the best, most logical and convincing speeches I have heard so far on the Bush administration.

Man, this makes me proud to be a Democrat.

Robert Hudson said...

I'd like to know what you think Bush/The US should do about Iran. ??

So wait a minute. You come on here, basically call me stupid (unless you meant "thick head" in a positive way), and then insist that I answer your random question about Iran? Because I can just tell that you are really curious as to my informed, educated, stupid opinion.

Pass, thanks anyway. And here, let me save you some time. Just cut and paste your response:

"See? I knew you wouldn't have an answer..."

Anonymous said...

I've been thinking about this thread for two days now. I certainly don't want to see Rob's blog turn in to another left/right mud fight. But I would really like to put a couple of undisputed facts on the record, mainly for the benefit of the many biographers in the future who will no doubt be researching the Life of Rob.

1) Here is the question that set Mr. Clinton off:

"There’s a new book out, I suspect you’ve already read, called

The Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops. Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the Cole.

CLINTON: OK, let’s just go through that.

WALLACE: Let me — let me — may I just finish the question, sir?

And after the attack, the book says that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around, because he expected an attack, and there was no response.

I understand that hindsight is always 20/20…

CLINTON: No, let’s talk about it.

WALLACE: … but the question is, why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?"

I find it impossible to characterize that question as being that of a monkey. President Bush has been asked that question dozens of time and managed not to freak out. That simply is not an unfair question. The interview format allowed half the subjects to be choosen by Mr. Wallace. Mr. Wallace himself has asked a very similar question to Secretary Rumsfeld.

2) President Bush retained the entire counter-terrorism senior team from the Clinton administration. The CIA Director (Tenant),The NSA Director (Hayden), the NSC Chief of Counter-Terror (Clarke), The FBI Chief of Counter-terror (O'Niel, who retired on 9/1/2001 and started work in the WTC on 9/11/2001), and the Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (Berger).

President Bush did not signifcantly change the approach used during the Clinton Administration, but according to Richard Clarke he did increase counter-terror funding by a factor of five.

The pre 9/11 approach was largely a law enforcement effort, the objective according to President Clinton at the time was to "Bring OBL to justice". Neither Clinton or Bush took OBL's declaration of war against the U.S. as really being a war.

3) My opinion. Everyone connected with counter terrorism between 1992 and 2001 will forever be haunted by the experiment. Perhaps President Clinton can be forgiven for being touchy on the subject.

But it is extremely wrong to slander a reporter for asking a straightforward, honest question.

Erin said...

I'm not familiar with Keith Olbermann, but then again I'm Canadian (which I'm sure will cause me to be immediately discounted by some). I have to say that I'm very impressed by him, he has the balls to sit there on a national news broadcast and say things that a lot of people don't want to hear.

Most of my country cringed when Bush was elected and rolled our eyes in disbelief when he was re-elected. You should have heard the news here when he took the childish attitude of "Well if you don't want to play my way, I'm taking my ball and going home" over our not joining the ballistic missile defense system.

Clinton was a fine President and in my opinion a hell of a lot more honest then Bush despite his infidelity. Really, the only person who is infidelity should have counted to was Hillary, not everyone else. The former French President, Francois Mitterrand had a mistress and child with her and when he died they attended his funeral with his wife and their children. The French realized that what he did in his personal life, did not reflect his capabilities as their President.

Andrea said...

Maybe these political posts should be put on Darn-Tootin and not on a blog specifically made to be about your daughter.

Anonymous said...


I didn't suspect you'd have any solutions.

Robert Hudson said...

Maybe you're right, Andrea, but it's not going to happen. I'm not sure this blog has to be ABOUT anything. I've already separated out the book talk into another blog because I felt like I was starting to sound like a braggart. But I'm not going to have fourteen blogs with like two posts a month just so you don't feel like I got my peanut butter in your chocolate. Sorry.

Robert Hudson said...

Kim, let me get this straight. You show up, insult me and anyone else who believe what I believe (or what you think I believe, according to the Rove Happy Handbook template), start demanding that I answer your random questions as if you actually give a shit about my opinion, and then when I refuse to get into a "debate" with you, you crow victory because you KNEW I didn't have any solutions.

You crack me up, Kim. Not sure if that's what you are shooting for, but you do.

Anonymous said...

I didn't mean to insult you Rob. I like you, I really do, I've been reading you alot longer than alot of folks here, and I admire what you do, especially for Schuyler.

But, it irritates the shit out of me when people trash Bush for doing what he thinks is best, and half the country bitches about his decisions when they have no solutions of their own.

Carol Elaine said...

Far be it for me to speak up in Rob's defense, as he is more than capable of doing so himself, but a seriously sensitive button has been pushed here.

Allow me to point out that it's not up to Rob (or any of us who criticize Bush and his administration) to come up with solutions. It's up to the people who are either currently in power or who aspire to be in power.

If any amongst us Bush-bashers loses his/her mind and decides to actually run for President (or any Congressional seat), then he/she had damn well better come up with a plan. Until then, every one of us is perfectly within our rights to comment on the the horror coming out of the Bush Administration - much of which has been fully documented - without coming up with a plan to get us out of this mess or to keep us from going toe-to-toe with Iran.

In other words, as I tell my friends, if I had all the answers, or even a portion of them, I'd run for President myself. But I don't have to be a political or foreign policy analyst to be able to see that what Bush and his buddies have been doing Just. Isn't. Working. And it's going to continue to not work. I just have to have eyes and a brain that are unencumbered by blinders.

Yes, I am a registered Democrat and always have been. But until 2000 I'd voted Green and was seriously considering switching my political affiliation. Then I took one look at Bush and his record as governor and realized I didn't want to chance him getting into office, so I voted for Gore.

Fat lot of good that did...

Kevin said...

Alaska Kim:

I am not a Democrat, but here's your solution... What do we do about Iran? Not a damn thing.

The problem with all the right-wing reactionaries in this country is their complete inability to deviate from a xenophobic, Chicken Little mindset on world affairs. Everyone thinks that the moment one of these countries gets their hands on an H-bomb they will IMMEDIATELY launch it against somebody. Do you REALLY think President Ahmadinejad of Iran or Kim Jong-Il of North Korea is that stupid? Do you REALLY think that ANY government could launch a nuclear attack against Israel or Japan or the US and not be completely wiped off the face of the earth? Do you REALLY think the terrorist organizations could not have obtained nuclear weapons already if they so desired, what with the decay of the former Soviet Union (strong black market + over 200 missing nuclear warheads = you do the math)?

People seem to miss the irony of the Cold War: the arms race led to one of the longest periods of relative world-wide peace in centuries. Nobody was willing to launch the first strike because the retribution would be so horrible. Ahmadinejad is smart enough to realize he's not dealing with a rational country in the U.S.; it doesn't take a great political mind to realize that the deaths of 1 million Americans compared to the deaths of 70 million Iranians isn't a good political maneuver, just simple math.

But lastly, I think it boils down to this: I don't see where it's written that it's the sovereign right of the United States to dictate WHO gets to use nuclear power and WHAT they get to use it for. And remember, the only "terrorist organization" to have used a nuclear weapon on civilians is the United States government. (The Firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Iraqi citizens... if killing over a quarter of a million non-combatant civilians doesn't make you a terrorist organization, I don't know what would.)

Robert Hudson said...

There's also the question of how realistic it is for us to continue trying to keep nuclear weapon technology out of the hands of other nations, technology that's older than color television. I know it's a dirty word in the Bush Administration, but perhaps we ought to go all retro and give DIPLOMACY a try.

Anonymous said...

Diplomacy doesn't work with those fanatics. They are hell bent on killing anyone who doesn't believe the way they do.

For the most part the US is a "live and let live" kind of country. Believe what you want to believe, keep it to yourself and don't try and push it on me.

They're nuts. You can't negotiate with them. We are wasting time trying to... and in the meantime they're plotting their next September 11th. Do you think we can "negotiate" with people who fly planes into buildings? Good luck.

Robert Hudson said...

Wait, I thought we were talking about Iran. Were they part of 9/11, too? Because unless I'm mistaken, the men who flew the planes on September 11th were mostly Saudis. And the people harboring bin Laden (remember him?) are Pakistani. Funny how we don't hold nations responsible if they have the bomb or put gas in our Hummers.

When you get past the statements of a populist Iranian president making potboiler anti-Israeli speeches to fire up his conservative base (and where have I seen that before?), Iran has a very large and vibrant moderate community that is known to be interested in normalizing relations with the United States. I suspect that when we start bombing Tehran, that changes in a hurry.

You're painting the middle east with an awfully broad brush, Kim. When you say "them", who do you mean, exactly? al-Qaeda? Muslims? Some vague Brown Menace? Who is it that you are taking about?

I'm not even going to touch your use of the word "fanatic". Clearly, extremism is hardly confined to the middle east.

Anonymous said...

Alaska Kim:

It seems that you are advocating a hardline attitude towards "fanatic" nations who have nuclear arms.

It is a known fact that North Korea has nuclear arms, and is an enemy nation; yet the current administration shows no such urgency about attempting military actions there. Can you explain why? Because North Korea is exhibiting all of the very things that prompted us to invade Iraq, and is doing so in a much clearer and inarguable fashion, but is prompting a very different response from our current administration.

(Everyone else: let's let her answer first. I have my own theory about why, and I have a feeling many others will have that same theory, but I'd like to hear what the Alaska version of me says first.)

Anonymous said...

I'm talking about muslim extremists. People who can't live and let live. People who will slice off your head without a second thought.

How can you say we don't hold Iraq responsible? That fool Saddam is gone. They have more oil than you can shake a stick at.

I'm not talking about all Muslims. I realize that they aren't all bad. I'm talking about the extremists... you know exactly what I mean Rob.

Robert Hudson said...

How can you say we don't hold Iraq responsible? That fool Saddam is gone.

Good lord. Even Bush admits that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 now. How is the war in Iraq holding anyone responsible for 9/11?

When you talk about whole countries like Iran and Iraq, which only have a connection with 9/11 in that they are filled with brown people who don't like us, you're not talking about muslim extremists. You're talking about muslims.

I do know exactly what you mean, Kim. I just want you to come out and say it.

Anonymous said...

I do believe that Saddam had WMD's. It took us long enough to get over there and he had time to move them. And WMD's aside, look at what he did to people, he killed thousands and thousands of people. I know you don't believe in God, but I do, and that heartless fool had to be taken out.

I don't worry too much about North Korea, I don't believe that they are the same kind of threat to us as the middle east. I don't think Kim Jong-Il is stupid enough to start anything with the US. His bark is bigger than his bite.

I can't argue with you anyway. We have different beiefs. God plays a huge role in my thinking and you can't relate to that. That is not a put-down in any way, don't take it that way, but that is what it boils down to.

Robert Hudson said...

I know you don't believe in God

You know that, do you?

Perhaps you should look up "agnosticism".

It's not that I don't believe in God, Kim, I don't believe in YOUR god. Neither does the Brown Menace, which I sort of suspect is what a lot of this is about.

Robert Hudson said...

God plays a huge role in my thinking and you can't relate to that.

After all I've written about God and Schuyler, I can't believe you'd say that.

Anonymous said...

Olbermann has been right on lately hasn't he? Did you see his editorial called "Bush owes us an apology"? Totally worth checking out.

Robert Hudson said...

I did, TB. I wasn't aware of him before recently, but looks like I'd better start paying attention.

Anonymous said...

"Do you REALLY think that ANY government could launch a nuclear attack against Israel or Japan or the US and not be completely wiped off the face of the earth?"

The thing that seperates Iran from even wacko countries like NK is that there is a real possiblity that the leaders in Iran might be telling the truth when they say that destroying Israel and crippling the U.S. are goals worth any cost in lives, even the lives of their own citizens.

The mutual assured destruction strategery that worked so well for the Cold War may not work against countries run by fanatic Muslims.

I have some questions for the 'Bush Lied!' believers.

Clinton attacked a medical products factory in the Sudan because he had intel that it was making nerve gas. Up until that time Sudan had been a rich source of intel on OBL, but after that they stoped talking to us.

It turned out that Clinton's intel was incorrect, there was never any WMD production in Sudan.

Sources: 'The 9/11 report', 'The Looming Tower', 'The Cell'.

Here are my questions.

1) If you assert that Bush (and Kerry, and Murtha, and Hillary, and Rockefeller, and most of the other Democrat congress people) lied about WMDs in Iraq, does it not also follow that Clinton lied about WMD in Sudan?

2) By what train of logic can you assert that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq, yet Clinton did not lie about WMDs in Sudan?

3) Is it not more logical to conclude that both Presidents made the best decision they could based on the intelligence they had?

4) Doesn't the fact that Bush obtained permission of Congress, including most of the Democrats (including Hillary, Murtha, Kerry, and Edwards) make his decision to attack Iraq much stronger and more justifiable than Clinton's unilateral decision to attack Sudan?

Anonymous said...

"I'm talking about muslim extremists. People who can't live and let live. People who will slice off your head without a second thought."

Kim Jong Il is similarly as fanatical. So why are we concentrating on extremists in Muslim nations?

...Say, it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that they're also oil-supplying nations, would it? I wonder.

Anonymous said...

Amen, Jim Howard.

Anonymous said...

I already stated what I thought about North Korea.

Kim Jong-Il's bark is bigger than his bite.

Kevin said...

Again, you people persist in painting ALL extremist Muslims as yammering morons who will all strap on dynamite and run blindly into a bus at the drop of a hat. You are letting FEAR RULE YOUR THINKING.

As for Sudan, the 9/11 commission also stated: "We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

All aboard the clue train! Last stop: you.

Kevin said...


"Clinton attacked a medical products factory in the Sudan because he had intel that it was making nerve gas."

WRONG. Clinton attacked a medical products factory in the Sudan because it had past ties with Osama bin Laden, who was suspected as being the mastermind behind the embassy bombings in Africa, AND because the factory had an export contract with Iraq and WAS (proven, not debatable) exporting chemicals to Iraq that COULD be used to create V-X nerve gas (NOT that the Sudanese factory itself was manufacturing the gas).

"Up until that time Sudan had been a rich source of intel on OBL, but after that they stoped talking to us."

WRONG. OBL was deported from the Sudan in 1996, two years before Clinton's attack. Also, as referenced in the above link, Sudan's intelligence claims were of dubious veracity.

Lastly, a question for the Bush-ites...

1a) How many Sudanese died in Clinton's attack?

1b) How many Iraqis died in Bush's attack and it's aftermath?

Do the math. Maybe then you'll understand why we don't see Clinton's attack to be as bad.

Anonymous said...

"I already stated what I thought about North Korea.

Kim Jong-Il's bark is bigger than his bite."

I know you said this, but I want to know why you think this. Kim Jong-Il has barked just as loudly and acted just as reprehensibly as Saddam did. Why do you consider Kim Jong-Il to not be a threat, when he's behaved just as Saddam did?

watchwhathappens said...

it'd be so nice to bury my head in the Rove Happy Handbook...

Robert Hudson said...

I think they carry it at Barnes & Noble.

Anonymous said...

Kevin, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Wikipedia has good summary of the attack on the Al-Shifa factory.

The primary justfication for the attack was a CIA report that a nerve gas precursor called EMPTA had been detected at the factory. It is true that OBL had large holdings in Sudan and that the CIA suspected he might have involvement in the factory, this turned out not to be the case.

Note that OBL left Sudan on May 19, 1996 (9/11 report, page 63) and the factory was not attacked until August 20, 1998.

From Wikipedia:

Officials later acknowledged, however, "that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980s."[4] The U.S. State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research wrote a report in 1999 questioning the attack on the factory, suggesting that the connection to bin Laden was not accurate; James Risen reported in the New York Times: "Now, the analysts renewed their doubts and told Assistant Secretary of State Phyllis Oakley that the C.I.A.'s evidence on which the attack was based was inadequate. Ms. Oakley asked them to double-check; perhaps there was some intelligence they had not yet seen. The answer came back quickly: There was no additional evidence. Ms. Oakley called a meeting of key aides and a consensus emerged: Contrary to what the Administration was saying, the case tying Al Shifa to Mr. bin Laden or to chemical weapons was weak."[5] The Chairman of El Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries, who is critical of the Sudanese government, more recently told reporters, "I had inventories of every chemical and records of every employee's history. There were no such [nerve gas] chemicals being made here."[6] Sudan has since invited the U.S. to conduct chemical tests at the site for evidence to support its claim that the plant might have been a chemical weapons factory; so far, the U.S. has refused the invitation to investigate.

Do you think it would be fair to say that "President Clinton lied about the asprin factory?"

I don't think that would be a fair statement, any more than saying that President Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq.

Although your questions are an attempt to divert the discussion, I'll be happy to answer them once you do me the honor of answering mine.

lilymoonchild said...

Wow, Rob, way to give us something to entertain ourselves with while you're busy writing the book!

I'm not going to get too involved in the political discussion here, cuz I'm not nearly educated enough on the issue, but I did want to point out that jim howard said one thing, kevin corrected him, then jim howard came back stating kevin's facts as proof that kevin was wrong. What? Am I the only one who sees this?

Anonymous said...

"jim howard said one thing, kevin corrected him, then jim howard came back stating kevin's facts as proof that kevin was wrong. What? Am I the only one who sees this?"

What I did was list the actual facts. What Kevin did was include some of the actual facts mixed in with assertions that are not correct.

For example, the assertion that the asprin factory "had past ties with Osama bin Laden" was incorrect. At the time this idea was creditable, because OBL had invested many millions of dollars in Sudan. Clinton was not lying when he asserted a link to OBL at the time, but since then we've learned that there was no connection between the asprin factory and OBL.

The mistaken belief that the factory was making EMPTA was the primary justification for the attack, Clinton has said that on many occasions. Kevin doesn't mention that.

Kevin doesn't want to face up to the fact that the factory was harmless, and that the attack was based on faulty intelligence.

And of course we all know that there never was and never has been any link between OBL and Iraq, right?

The reason the left can't admit the intel was incorrect about the asprin factory is because to admit that Clinton isn't a liar because his intel was bad destroys the 'Bush Lied' meme.

As far as the loss of intel from Sudan after the attack, that is well documented in both 'The Looming Tower' and 'The Cell'.

The bottom line in all of this that Clinton did what he thought best based on the intel he had at the time.

Clinton was not "lying" when his intel turned out to be wrong.

Neither was Bush.

Anonymous said...

two things:

1) ultimately, it makes no difference what Clinton did or did not do while in office. it doesn't pertain much to what Bush is doing now, except of course within the spin machine that is his inner circle. every chance they get they trot out the 'WELL BUT BILL CLINTON DID THIS OR THAT WRONG!!' as a way to detract from what Bush is, at present, doing wrong. please, y'all, don't believe the hype.

2) the point with Wallace isn't so much that it was a fair question, it's that Fox News and their shills take EVERY SINGLE OPPORTUNITY to divert attention from Bush and THIS IS EXACTLY HOW THEY DO IT. additionally, BY TAKING EVERY OPPORTUNITY they are in effect acting as no more than an apparatus or arm of the administration... that is, doing Bush's dirty work, all in the guise of "no spin journalism". this discredits them and SHOULD, and yes, it happens to piss people like Clinton and the rest off because ffs, he was coming on to talk about his global initiative, not that predictable pap.

so, fair questions aside, Wallace deserved everything he got. it's MOTIVE that's at issue here, not the merit of a question.

met said...

So, Rob - how is Schuyler?
Doing anything fun this weekend? Hope you get some time to do something fun with your family...

Take care,

Anonymous said...

Donna said,
This is totally not what ya'll have been arguing, but Tokyo Rose was just in the news the other day, she passed away. My dad met her once at the prison she was in.
That's today's history lesson for you.

Anonymous said...

hey, noticed you deleted your recent entry. you know, the one where you were a dick. i guess you are finally willing to succumb to disagreeing readers and muffle yourself. odds are that this entry will be gone soon too. don`t want to piss off any potential book buyers!

Robert Hudson said...

That's right, I'm nothing but a sell-out. Watch me sleep like a baby tonight.

lilymoonchild said...

Rob, you kick ass. Sell out if you gotta! Whatever it takes to get what I know will be your totally awesome book into my greedy little hands.

Anonymous said...


One can not use Wikipedia as a confirmed source on anything.

Christ...I can make an entry on Wikipedia and I can't even remember what I ate for breakfast this morning!

Mr. Howard, please use better source material in the future. Only then can I take you seriously.

fnu lnu

Anonymous said...

RIGHT ON! Jimntexas, Clinton is a big, (used to be) fat liar! Look up the real facts Rob and everyone else who goes along with the Bush-bashing like sheep. Clinton did nothing to thwart the terrorists, he was too busy getting BJs from Monica and listening to his shrill, nagging, horse-faced spouse. How SHE ever got elected is something I will never understand. And why anyone would want her for President, it goes beyond any sane person's comprehension. Everyone needs to wake up and realize that these hateful people want to kills us, each and every one of us, personal and up close. President Bush has taken more actions toward preventing this than Clinton ever thought of (that's the problem, he never wanted to be bothered with it, it might hurt his "image"). I want to hear what plans the Democrats have, all I ever hear is how wrong Bush is. Get balls you people and give us some plans, PLEASE!!!!! Whew, I'm sorry, but enough is enough, blow them all up, and the camels they rode in on, we are gonna die if we don't. We really and truly are gonna die, don't you get that? In that regard I disagree with the namby-pamby way we're going about it, all the while our soldiers are dying from suicide bombers and rifle blasts. Blow them up before they blow us up, let's get going and get it done already.

Robert Hudson said...


Anonymous said...

Clinton's "personal life'???? Are you kidding me Rob? You guys elected him President of the United States--while he was in office he HAD no personal life. He was on government salary when he was diddling with Monica, he was supposed to be serving our, and his, country. He lied about it Rob, he flat-out, on TV and all smug and self-righteous, LIED and all you people think he is such a great man and such an upstanding Democrat. I pitty your party, I really do. At least most Republicans admit that Bush isn't always making the right choices, but he's doing SOMETHING, which is a LOT more than Clinton ever did and a lot more than I hear ANY Deomacrats saying they'll do. I'm with Grandefille, give us a plan and stop this Bush-bashing, it's getting so tedious, and so repeated and repeated and . . . . You're just going along with all the other bleeding-hearts out there Rob. Open your mind a little and face some of the facts, before there's a person at your door with a sword, telling you to convert, or die. This is serious shit, and it requires serious actions, not buffoon ex-presidents telling us what a great job they did. He's a liar and you can't believe half of what this man says, he's corrupt and slimey (anyone remember Whitewater?) and he is no hero or anyone to be proud of.
Shayna, Albuquerque (I don't have a blog or a web site)

Robert Hudson said...

As a purely non-political aside, what do the Neo-Conservatives have against paragraph breaks? I'd think that in the midst of all that angry typing, spittle flying and patriotic hands shaking, you'd find a moment to hit the RETURN key once or twice.

I am going to suggest a big tasty Ritalin milkshake for some of you folks.

Anonymous said...

Hmmmm, Ritalin milkshake, eh? I seem to remember a few raging, spittle-spewing speeches by the wonderful Ted Kennedy (anyone out there proud of him?), more than a few by Senator Clinton (she could bust an eardrum, for sure), and of course the Prince of Spittle, Howard Dean. Talk about anger, whew! Get our your hankies.

And Kevin, how many died on the USS Cole, and in the embassy bombings, and . . . . . how soon we forget that GWB hadn't been elected when a lot of terrorist attacks took place and a lot of people died. Our memories are so short, God help us all.

So, how'd you like THOSE paragraph breaks Rob? Did I pass?
George, Fresno

Robert Hudson said...

Good lord, you people hang on to your hate. I'm surprised you didn't bring up Jimmy Carter.

Nice paragraph breaks, though. Well done.

Anonymous said...

wait, does this mean i can't bring up Jimmy Carter

lilymoonchild said...

So, I don't know if anyone is even still reading this thread, but really--just because the Democrats don't have a plan does not make Bush a good president.

Nor does it make the entire middle east terrorists. Really, a very small percentage of their population is, in fact, made up of terrorists. Unfortunately, that small percentage of the population is willing to do whatever it takes to kill people, which makes them a little scary.

But there are real people in the middle east. People with families and goals and religious beliefs that do not involve hatred and murder. Not everyone there is a killer. Most of them aren't. They're people, just like you and me. Unfortunately, though, someone has done a good job of convincing the US that the entire middle east, and the entire (generally peaceful) Muslim community, wants us dead. They don't.

But the fact that we're tearing their country apart probably isn't endearing us to them.