<p>Well, I guess that was the point of Olberman’s rant, and Clinton’s swipe at Wallace: Clinton actually did try to do something. Bush didn’t. Even with Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Even with Clarke trying to get the administration to at least hold a high level meeting about al Qaeda. And much of the public perception about Clinton - which you seem to echo - is based on carefully nurtured propaganda: <a href=“http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm[/url]”>http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm</a></p>
<p>I’m not convinced that Clinton DID try. A few cruise missiles wasn’t about to do the job. I do think he let domestic issues get in the way of protecting the country.</p>
<p>“I do think he let domestic issues get in the way of protecting the country”</p>
<p>And that get’s back to KO’s point. Who was pressing him on those domestic (lewenski) issues? Who was calling OBL a ruse, a diversion tactic? </p>
<p>For someone who claims no real party affilation… well gee. You’re applying a standard to one that you aren’t willing to do with the other. Which lack of moral is worst? One that effects a marriage or one that effects a country? </p>
<p>Besides in loss of US lives a cruise missle is very effective. 27,000 killed or wounded would disagree with you on the effectiveness of a cruise missle vs. weekend warriors.</p>
<p>I never said that I don’t claim a party affiliation. I am most definitely a Republican. I just don’t see all issues through that lense.</p>
<p>I don’t care WHY he let the Lewinski thing get in the way of doing his job. I just care that he didn’t do enough to keep us safe.</p>
<p>“Well, I guess that was the point of Olberman’s rant, and Clinton’s swipe at Wallace: Clinton actually did try to do something. Bush didn’t. Even with Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Even with Clarke trying to get the administration to at least hold a high level meeting about al Qaeda. And much of the public perception about Clinton - which you seem to echo - is based on carefully nurtured propaganda:”</p>
<p>The truly insidious as well as insipid thing about all this is as Olberman pointed out is that the Bush propaganda machine wants to place all the blame on Clinton. As Keith Olberman stated several times George Bush can not avoid any and all blame for 9-11. No matter how he tries to spin it, George Bush was President on 9-11.</p>
<p>On a totally unrelated technical note, how do you get quotes in boxes?</p>
<p>To put text in quotes:</p>
<p>start the quote with the word “quote” (without the quotation marks) within square brackets , copy-and-paste the text to be quoted, and end with “/quote” (without the quotation marks), also within square brackets .</p>
<p>It wasn’t “domestic issues”, SJMom - it was the Republican “leadership” which hindered Clinton’s pursuit of Bin Laden. Clinton’s cruise missles missed Bin Laden by a couple of hours. He was actively pursuing him - and being hounded by the “party before country” Republican “leadership” for doing so. Try going back and reading what the leaders of your party said about Clinton’s efforts to get Bin Laden at the time. In fact, even though he had republican congressional “leaders” yapping at him every time he tried to get Bin Laden, and even though he was being shamelessly hounded over a consensual affair with a consenting adult - to the tune of millions of dollars for special persecutors, Clinton still hunted Bin Laden. Bush, on the other hand, didn’t do one single thing until after the planes hit the buildings on 9/11…and it’s still Clinton’s fault. </p>
<p>No double standard there, eh? Are you beginning to get a sense of why Clinton was so ****ed off that the right wing media have been pushing the story - successfully enough that you’ve bought into it - that somehow Clinton was less engaged in the effort to stop Bin Laden than Bush was?</p>
<p>“I just care that he didn’t do enough to keep us safe.”</p>
<p>So, you feel safer today than a decade ago? interesting.</p>
<p>Kudos to Kluge, SJmom, and Opie for keeping the thread on track and for discussing the issue without the usual ridicule - It’s refreshing!</p>
<p>SJmom, you might want to consider reading Richard Clark’s book. Opie was correct in mentioning what a difficult time Richard Clarke had getting anyone to pay attention to the threat of Bin Laden - the Bush administration was too busy distancing themselves from all things Clinton.</p>
<p>Also Sjmom, I found this comment from you interesting: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We are fighting terrorists, not a country, so it truly takes a complex set of strategies to fight. Some of that fight may involve legal means and some of it may involve traditional tools of war. We also need an understanding of why the terrorists did what they did, not to absolve them of their crimes but to prevent it from happening again.
It’s a complex situation that really has not been addressed by this administration’s war in Iraq. It’s my opinion that Bush for all kinds of reasons did not take the time to understand the problem, but rather rushed headlong into a reactive and misguided war and as a result has made us much less safe for the long term.</p>
<p>After three years on CC I can finally make quotes! It only took me about five times in editing to figure it out. There has to be an easier way. Thank you TheDad.</p>
<p>Now if someone can just tell me how to do all the different smiley faces! I know these three:</p>
<p>;) 
:(</p>
<p>I agree Keith should have discussed the issue without “the usual ridicule”: Clinton was “sandbagged” “by a monkey posing as a newscaster.” (Chris Wallace.)
Oops…almost forgot the winky…;)</p>
<p>I hate to be dense, but where the heck are the square brackets on this here Mac? I see regular parens, but the square ones? I’d like to do some fancy quoting myself.</p>
<p>go to your right third/fourth row up maybe is that what you are looking for?</p>
<p>Well, this may be a sign that the Dems have finally figured out that the Gingrichites found the path to winning by taking the low road - and have decided to follow suit. I’ve been struggling with that dynamic in my own mind. Do you get down in the mud with the Limbaughs and Coulters and Roves, or do you try to stick to an honorable discussion of serious issues - and still try to win elections? In fact, the Newtster had this to say about Clinton:
</p>
<p>A MONKEY… POSING as a newscaster…amazing. 
Chris Wallace has been a respected journalist for years, and now that he’s at Fox it’s suddenly fair game to call him a monkey…amazing.
kluge: Hasn’t Howard Dean been using the “get down in the mud” style for a while now? He’s called Republicans quite a few names, if I remember correctly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A MONKEY… POSING as a newscaster…amazing.
[quote]
</p>
<p>So…what did I do wrong? I am an impeccable direction follower! ;)</p>
<p>Oberman is singing to the choir, unlike Fox which is speaking to the country.
Wallace and Fox don’t ask the Bush administration the tough questions but instead pick on Clinton because it’s easy and distracting. </p>
<p>More importantly, can you imagine Bush speaking so eloquently and coherently to a correspondent who might challenge him so directly. </p>
<p>The themeline of this thread should be, " What about Bush".</p>
<p>Wallace and Fox don’t have to ask the Bush adminstration the tough questions since all the other media outlets do it for them. I think it’s nice to have one television channel that asks Democrats tough questions (even WJC himself! - gasp!).</p>
<p>Okay hereshoping, you show me those tough questions they are asking Bush? It is refreshing though, to see someone admit that Fox is “not” fair and balanced.</p>
<p>Allmusic, put the square brackets around the words you copied and pasted, not the word quote .</p>