It was rather amusing to see former President Bill Clinton go ballistic on anchor Chris Wallace during an interview on Fox Sunday News. I personally missed the event(I was at work) but when informed about it by a co-worker, I made it a point to view clips from the show via the internet. And Wallace wasn't being the least bit confrontational or combative while interviewing Clinton. The question that seemed to cause former President Clinton to overreact was when Wallace asked," I understand that hindsight is always 20/20, but the question is,why didn't you connect the dots and put him(Osama Bin -Laden) out of business?" Clinton immediately went on the defensive by saying that his administration did more than President Bush to go after Bin-Laden before the terrorists attacks. Then he called Wallace's question,"a conservative hit job. "
Following the interview, Clinton's aide told the press they felt the question was more of an attack. And on Wednesday, former President Clinton's spokesman Ben Yarrow said," Chris Wallace was clearly carrying the water for Fox" while roundly criticizing the network's supposed " right wing political agenda." Since then, wife Hillary Clinton has gotten into the act tearing into Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, claiming that Rice did not take Osama Bin Laden seriously enough before 9/11.
As you can see,(hell, even a blind man can see this coming from a mile away.)the old political blame game has begun as the Republicans and Democrats take turns pointing the finger at each other. But it's time to face some facts: yes, President Bush was informed in August of 2001 during a daily intelligence briefing that Bin Laden was planning a deadly strike within American borders.
Unfortunately, The C.I.A and The FBI had separate files on several suspected terrorists and for reasons never revealed, neither intelligence organization shared their information with the other; an egregious decision that caused the deaths of innocent people and the destruction of The World Trade Center and The Pentagon. However, placing the blame squarely on the shoulders on President Bush seems to be the new favorite pastime of both the liberals and Democrats as they rally together in an attempt to regain their majority rule in Congress come November.
In the meantime,Former President Clinton has been busy beating his own drum about how during his term in the Oval Office,"We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody's got." Sure Mr. President,whatever you say.
Now, while it's true that Clinton was never briefed about threat of Bin-Laden's Al-Queda terrorist group to our country, he did know about The bombings of two U.S embassies in Africa which 224 people were killed and wounded 5,000 ,as well as the attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 sailors. These unprovoked attacks proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Al-Queda wanted to murder as many American's as they could.
According to a 9/11 Commission report: Despite irrefutable evidence of the threat from Islamic terrorists,there was no National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism (undertaken) between 1995 and 9/11. The report concluded with:Clinton's flaccid response may have led Bin Laden to make the inference that such attacks,at least on the level of the Cole,were risk free.
Bush,however, began taking steps to create a plan with the intent purpose of eliminating the Al-Queda threat to America within three to five years,shortly after stepping into The White House. Even before the August 2001 briefing, it was Bush who ordered the deployment of armed ,unmanned aircraft to kill Osama Bin-Laden and his lieutenants. This decisive act effectively demonstrates Bush's leadership qualities. And also serves to point out the differences between the two men in times of crisis. History will one day bear out the plain fact that George W. Bush is a far superior commander in chief than Bill Clinton,despite what Clinton,wife Hillary, and the rest of the liberal left thinks. Mark my words.
