Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You missed the part where your blowjob-obsessed political attacks on the man did what they aimed to do -- limited his ability to lead. That was the point all along. No regrets.
To be fair to Bush and Clinton both, there was little we could do to get bin Laden inside Afghanistan -- if you don't believe this, try reading Sacred Terror, or Clarke's book, or Ghost Wars -- and there was no political support to put boots on the ground inside Afghanistan until after 9/11. But at least Clinton was paying attention, and trying.
The other part -- the "into custody" crap -- is simply wrong.
Read Clarke's book, if you care. It's actually interesting stuff.
|
On the first point, just as he did not need a popular referendum to do his job on national defense, he did not Congressional support. Commander in Chief was his job. He could have led and taken the actions of a leader. He didn't. His distractions were of his own doing, but like Bill, you and party regulars persistently deny the concept of personal responsibility. I am more of an ownership society type of guy.
On two, I will find my own book and post a link.
On three, if Clarke was so fucking great, why didn't he help Clinton solve the problem? Didn't the 911 plot start during Clinton's watch and wasn't Clarke part of that team too?
