Because the republican leadership was all about supporting Clinton at that time. The fact is that he was attacked on the right by republican congressmen for a variety of reasons, inlcuding in this case.

Furthermore, Clinton didnt limit his wag the dog comment to republican congressmen, he was more general saying those on this political right. Id be curious to see what right wing talk radio was saying at the time as well. Im willing to bet that “wag the dog” was a common theme for Rush.

“I completely agree, by the way, that it is ridiculous to blame Clinton for 9/11. It’s just as ridiculous as blaming Bush.”

Sounds like you admit then that Clinton was not to blame, but throw in a pardon for Bush. Why absolve Bush. We know that he basicly ignored the anti-terrorism work of Clinton, basicly letting the issue die. He ignored specific warnings of an Al Qaeda attack. There was even specific information of a threat to our airlines. Why does Bush get an automatic pass for this? Lay out the case for Bush being absovled of guilt. He is far far more culpable, as he clearly ignored and downgraded the terrorist threat.

Clinton never reached out to his partisan opponents; never treated them with anything other than hatred and contempt. His administration spewed venom with the best of them. Clinton was never interested in bipartisanship. Nevertheless, he received a lot of Republican support – on NAFTA, for example. And his foreign policy was never attacked with the blind fury that Bush’s is.

I had an internet friend who was a Clinton devotee, and I asked him what Clinton represented to him. What principles, characteristics, or ideals did Clinton embody for him? (A Reaganite could go on for hours, as could an old JFK or Truman man.) I had to ask him this over and over because he continually dodged the question. Finally he admitted that he didn’t really care that much for Clinton as a man, but he liked the way Clinton made Republicans mad.

I could actually say more in favor of Clinton’s presidency than that guy could. It was not a total, miserable failure. Clinton’s stance on terrorism (and on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein!!) was one of its brighter features.

I have just one last thing to say, about the way Clinton fought terrorism. While I do not think he deserves to be condemned for the Tomahawk strikes – even the totally mistaken one that hit Sudan – I think this way of doing things could get to be a disturbing habit. It seemed a little too painless and easy to push a button and fight an instant war in which none of our people got killed. And I think they did get in the habit of pushing that button.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/09/25/clinton_2/index.html

Read the whole thing but the saliant conclusion is:

“It is true that some Republican political figures supported some of Clinton’s military decisions in Yugoslavia and the Middle East, but efforts to undermine those actions (as well as earlier ones) came from virtually every significant Republican precinct of influence throughout Clinton’s presidency. That includes, most prominently, actions Clinton took against Iraq and Osama bin Laden, which were routinely attacked by Republicans as unnecessary.

The claim that Clinton paid insufficient attention to terrorism was one that virtually no Republicans made during the Clinton presidency. To the contrary, terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism were barely on their radar screen, and when they were, it was most prominently to use those issues as a weapon to attack Clinton politically and to suggest that he was deploying the military not for any legitimate reason (such as the terrorist threat) but only to distract the country’s attention from the far more pressing sex scandal engulfing our government. ”

Nuff said.

BTW, the vast majority of Republicans went after Clinton during the impeachments like sharks after bait. Clinton has been remarkably congenial to those politicos when most of us would have suckerpunched them the first chance they got. Hell, Cheney shot a man in the face just for hunting with him!

Also, since your up on your Republican positions – what happened to the “rule of law” and importance of “withdrawal dates” they used to be so concerned about (you know, before a Republican was president)? It seems to me that if they actually were defending some deeply held beliefs or values I wouldn’t be half as pissed about our nation’s current predicament right now. As it turns out, it was all for the cameras…and the votes…and the payolla…screw America first about sums it up.

I completely agree, by the way, that it is ridiculous to blame Clinton for 9/11. It’s just as ridiculous as blaming Bush.

Eural: Yes, I named some Republicans who criticized Clinton after the strikes (read the link above for details). It would be quite incredible indeed if any president ever did anything substantial without being criticized by somebody.

My point is that Clinton ignores the Republicans who stood with him on this issue. At a time when his approval ratings were plummeting and impeachment was hanging over his head. To hear Clinton tell it, everybody was against him. Some gratitude.

I would also add that Clinton showed small consideration for the Democrats who stood up for him. For some of those Democrats (like Tom Daschle) their support of Clinton cost them their own seats.

Everybody paid for what Clinton did, except Clinton. And still he whines. It’s all about him, you see.

So where does that leave Bush? He was given the job of wrapping up the USS Cole attack….ooops. He entered office with all the information Clinton had and yet shut down all terrorist related measures to focus on more important things (China, Iraq, tax cuts for the wealthy). And he was on watch after ignoring repeated warnings about 911….ooops. And now, five years later….still no Bin Laden. Terrorism is more wide-spread and gaining new recruits to fuel a new generation of extremists…all thanks to a policy which has still not exacted retribution for the Cole or 911. Cllinton’s failure was to not take more action with the supernatural foreknowledge of what Bin Laden would do in the future. Bush’s failure is to not get Bin Laden after he committed the largest attack on American soil in US history. See the difference?

Glenn – you’re “quick history” has numerous holes in it. Namely, you even name Republicans who cried wag the dog (not the movie, I’m not dumb).

This is a very astute observation and explains a great deal about his presidency.

However, here are some other things Clinton did that many people forget…

- Sponsored legislation to freeze terrorist’s bank accounts, but that was ultimately scuttled by Phil Gramm (TX-R)

- In 1998, he authorized the CIA to collect intel, capture and prevent BinLaden and associates by any means necessary. That resulted in training 60 Pakistani commandos to go into Afghanistan through Pakistan, but was ultimately foiled by a military coup in Pakistan.

- Also in 98, our government worked with Uzbekistan to begin training special forces there. This is different than the basing rights Clinton talks about in the video, but it certainly laid the groundwork for quick operations into Afghanistan after 9/11.

- And last, but not least, let’s remember that in 96 we had the Sudanese government willing to turn BinLaden over to Saudi Arabia for months, but Saudi Arabia simply wouldn’t take him.

Simply put, even Clinton says that he could have done more. But to blame him now for what happened on 9/11, while Bush and company completely ignored Al Qaeda once they got into office, is so decidedly intellectually dishonest it makes me scream.

Now think about what we might have gotten accomplished at that time, if some people had pulled their heads out of their asses. Including the Head-up-his-Ass-in-Chief.

That’s funny because Clinton did order strikes against Bin Laden even with the “tail waging the dogâ€Â? assertions made by the Republicans – who even in 1998 were asserting that terrorism wasn’t a big deal …

Eural, that is flatly false. Here’s some quick history for you.

All of the Republican leaders in congress – Gingrich, Armey, Lott -supported Clinton’s so-called “Wag the Dog” strikes. So did Orrin Hatch and Jesse Freaking Helms. Newt Gingrich specifically attacked the “Wag the Dog” accusation as “sick”.

Republican senators who made “Wag the Dog” noises included Arlen Specter and Dan Coates (not much of a cabal) and Specter later backed off his remarks. Coates was trashed by National Review for not supporting Clinton in the fight against terrorism.

In retrospect, Clinton has gotten due credit for his efforts at that time, with the exception of the Sudan aspirin factory strike. (”Wag the Dog”, incidentally, was a piece of crap movie with a cast of big-name liberals. Complain to them about it.)

I cannot believe that Clinton did not NOTICE the support and encouragement that leading Republicans gave him at that time. Either he (incredibly) did not listen, or he has since forgotten.

Clinton has a bad temper and a bad tendency to retreat into self-pity, but that doesn’t excuse him. He never could recognize allies when he saw them, always assuming EVERYBODY was against him ALL THE TIME, and I’ve never seen a politician who showed less regard for his friends. If he had been less paranoid and more receptive to the support that Gingrich and others were willing to give him on the terrorism issue, he might have forged a more effective effort and he might have gotten bin Laden. That in spite of Lewinsky and all the rest of that crap, which has nothing to do with a united front against terrorism. The help was there, all he had to do was ask for it.

Clinton is no liberal. He’s not a conservative, either. He’s not even a moderate. Clinton is all about Clinton, period.

US history is filled with presidents who were extremely cavalier in their sexual activities in the oval office.

Exactly.

And on a different topic, ANYBODY who says that the media has a liberal bias, I simply point to the Clinton years and say, “Really? Were you in a cave during the 90s?”

I do not agree with Bill Clinton’s behavior vis-a-vis Miss Lewinsky

however,

US history is filled with presidents who were extremely cavalier in their sexual activities in the oval office. How many impeachments? 0. The Clinton distraction was the product of Republican red-meat to a base riled by rightwing media outlets. Was Clinton innocent? No. Were the Republicans innocent? No. Was Clinton doing his job on terrorism under the circumstances (and then some)? Certainly. Were the Republicans? No. Is Bush? Absolutely not.

So explain to me again why the Republicans are “tough” on terror?

Of course, it is the Republicans fault, but that is like saying it is the bears fault for shitting in the woods. Ever politician should expect partisan politicians to act like partisan politicians, but no one should expect a president to be so cavalier in his sexual activities in the oval office.

This not a which came first situation (pun intended): the blowjob or the impeachment. The blowjob came first, then the impeachment – both would be a source of great distraction.

The ad that the Democrats should now be playing would be this: “If JFK was being impeached for his personal failings during the Cuban Missile Crisis we’d still be in the middle of a Nuclear Winter.” Or something to that effect…

a) Republicans refused to back Clinton’s anti-terror packages in 1996
b) Clinton actually increased our funding and implementation of anti-terrorism measures
c) Clinton made terrorism a cabinet-level priority
d) Clinton began the process of targeting – and almost getting – Bin Laden and was ridiculed by Republicans for trying to created a distraction
e) Bush did all the opposite – effectively ignoring terrorism, cutting the funding, removing the cabinet position, etc. until 911 and setting us back years against Bin Laden’s network
f) and since 911 has not caught Bin Laden, has strengthened the recruitment for extremists and has wasted our resources in a country not connected to 911.

And then – somehow – we have to parse documents to prove Bush was “strong” on terror and Clinton was distracted by blowjobs in the WH. That’s such a crock and I’m sick of hearing it repeated. Again, I apologize for my tone. Maybe I’m getting a little thin skinned in my old age! I’ll do better next time…

Also, let’s not forget that everybody was saying “wag the dog� during this time in Clinton’s political career. Remember, this was right in the middle of the Lewinsky scandal, where the President was facing actual impeachment. He had very little political capital to start a war, and everybody on this blog knows very well that Republicans would have accussed him of using war to gain that political capital back.

EXACTLY. This was my point, with the additional commentary that MUCH of it was brought on by himself – giving his political enemies abundant ammunition. (But your arguments are old, inaccurate and tiresome (to say the least)). WHY CAN’T THE DEMOCRATS EFFECTIVELY SAY: “DO TO THE HYPER-PARTISAN ATTACK ON CLINTON, THE NATION WAS DISTRACTED WHICH HELPED LEAD TO 9/11? BOTH PARTIES WERE RESPONSIBLE.”

To answer my own question, Exhibit A: People like Eural.

Eural – it was inaccurate to write: “if he would have struck Afganistan” my apologies. As for the rest of your vitriol — next time you could be a little more creative.

Also, let’s not forget that everybody was saying “wag the dog” during this time in Clinton’s political career. Remember, this was right in the middle of the Lewinsky scandal, where the President was facing actual impeachment. He had very little political capital to start a war, and everybody on this blog knows very well that Republicans would have accussed him of using war to gain that political capital back.

Also, let’s not forget that Clinton did take action. True, it may not have been the action that made any difference, but he was HOURS away from killin Bin Laden. Literally hours. And let’s not forget the asprin factory, which again, we thought had ties to OBL.

And at the same time, Clinton’s critics were saying he was too obsessed with Al Qaeda, wag the dog, etc. How can anybody honestly dismiss those claims with a straight face when Bush and company came in and essentially ignored Al Qaeda until 9/11? I mean, come on.

Clinton was by no means a perfect President, but as he states, at least he tried. Republican lawmakers during his tenure did not, and neither did Bush in the months leading up to 9/11.

That’s funny because Clinton did order strikes against Bin Laden even with the “tail waging the dog” assertions made by the Republicans – who even in 1998 were asserting that terrorism wasn’t a big deal and just a distraction from the real threat (Lewinsky blowjobs).

And let’s blame 911 on the president who was actually in office for 8 months before the attack happened and ignored all of the numerous warnings from our own and foreign intelligence. (That’s Bush for those of you functioning under mental handicaps here!)

Let’s blame your assessment of Clinton on stupidity and the refusal to deal with the reality of the Bush/Republican criminal incompentence on this issue. BTW, your arguments are old, inaccurate and getting tiresome (to say the least).