FLASHBACK: Conservative Lawmakers Decried Clinton’s Attacks Against Osama As ‘Wag the Dog’
FLASHBACK: Conservative Lawmakers Decried Clinton’s Attacks Against Osama As ‘Wag the Dog’
In his interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, former President Bill Clinton noted that the political right, which now accuses him of not doing enough to stem the al Qaeda terrorist threat, criticized his 1998 missile strikes in Afghanistan as “wag the dog.” Clinton said:
The people on my political right who say I didn’t do enough spent the whole time I was president saying, Why is he so obsessed with bin Laden? That was wag the dog when he tried to kill him.
Originating from a 1997 movie, Wag the Dog was a phrase used by the right to suggest Clinton’s airstrikes were driven by ulterior motives in an effort to distract the public. Some examples below:
Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV):
“‘Look at the movie Wag the Dog. I think this has all the elements of that movie,’ Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said. ‘Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems.’” [Ottawa Citizen, 8/21/98]
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA):
“There’s an obvious issue which will be raised internationally about the response here as to whether there is any diversionary motive involved. … I have deliberated consciously any references to Ms. Monica Lewinsky, but when you ask the question in very blunt terms, the president’s current problems have to be on the minds of many people.” [CNN, 8/20/98]
Former Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO):
“‘We support the president out of a sense of duty whenever he deploys military forces, but we’re not sure - were these forces sent at this time because he needed to divert our attention from his personal problems?‘ Ashcroft said during the taping of a TV program in Manchester, N.H.” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 8/21/98]
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX):
“I’m very supportive of the strike that has happened, but I will tell you that the timing is very questionable. This was the day that Monica Lewinsky has gone back to the grand jury, evidently enraged. Certainly that information will be overshadowed.” [Dallas Morning News, 8/21/98]
Former Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN):
“Coats (R-IN), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, ‘While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack and why it was ordered today, given the president’s personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action.‘” [CNN, 8/20/98]
Former Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL):
“Although most in Congress rallied around Clinton on Thursday, two Republican U.S. senators and one Central Florida congressman broke with the tradition of standing behind a president during a foreign crisis.Sen. Daniel Coats, R-Ind., Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Palm Bay, publicly questioned Clinton’s motives in launching the attacks so soon after his public admission of a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. … ‘The president has, indeed, broken the trust of the American people, and these are legitimate questions that must be answered.’” [Orlando Sentinel, 8/21/98]
Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA):
“All I’m saying is if factors other than good intelligence, military necessity, being prepared for the consequences entered into it, then it is wrong, and it appears that one of those factors that may have entered into it is to take something that could have been done a week ago and do it today in an effort to divert some attention.” [Fox News, 8/20/98]
Much more at Salon’s War Room.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Don’t forget the ReichWingNut battle cry: No war for Monica!!!
I feel so much safer now. Don’t you? NOT!
Bill Clinton kept us safer than the Bush Cabal ever has, or ever will!
September 25th, 2006 at 3:58 pmShouldnt we blame 9/11 on conservatives as they questioned getting rid of OBL? Why do conservatives hate America?
September 25th, 2006 at 3:59 pmThinkProgress’ moderators should really read their own threads. This left-wing myth that there was widespread “wag the dog” criticisms from congressional Republicans after the August 1998 cruise missile strike against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan has already been discredited on a previous thread:
As I said before, this claim that Republicans were all accusing Clinton of “wagging the dog†when he launched the cruise missile attack against Afghanistan and Sudan is a myth that the left has created as a way of defending Clinton for his insufficient response to Al Qaeda’s attacks against U.S. interests in 1998.
Here is an excerpt of Speaker Newt Gingrich on “CNN†on August 28, 1998 following the attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan:
ALLEN: We are interrupting that story because we have now on the phone with us Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Speaker Gingrich, your reaction to the U.S. attacks today on Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network.
REP. NEWT GINGRICH (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do.
We have not yet gotten assessments of the damage, but I hope that it’s been very decisive. And I think it’s very important that we send a signal to countries like Sudan and Afghanistan that if you house a terrorist, you become a target. And if you want to get rid of the target, you’ve got to get rid of the terrorist.
I think based on what I know, it was the right thing to do at the right time. And I think that it — I’ve been involved in briefings for the last two weeks, and I think it’s been done in a methodical, professional way. And I strongly support the United States government having acted that way.â€
September 25th, 2006 at 3:59 pmIrony… overwhelming… can’t… keep… reading…
September 25th, 2006 at 3:59 pmHeh.
Exley…?
September 25th, 2006 at 4:01 pmI do enjoy reading this blog, but I am starting to get the feeling that there is now an “echo chamber” evolving. I hope this is just my own paranoia.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:02 pmGood job, the NRO Corner Kids are trying to deny that “Wag the Dog” was ever a right-wing catchphrase.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:02 pmNewsday, August 21, 1998:
Washington - Congressional leaders strongly supported President Bill Clinton’s decision to strike targets in Sudan and Afghanistan yesterday, although one Republican senator raised questions about the timing and the motive of the attack.
Some of Clinton’s most consistent critics endorsed the decision to retaliate for the Aug. 7 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 200 people, including 12 Americans.
House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.Ca.), who had been alerted by the White House before the attack, praised the operation.
“I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow terrorist groups to attack embassies and do nothing,†Gingrich said.
Lott called the action “appropriate and just.â€
Helms struck a rare bipartisan chord: “Sooner or later, terrorists will realize that America’s differences end at the water’s edge and that the United States political leadership always has, and always will, stand united in the face of international terrorism.â€
Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who has called for Clinton’s resignation in light of his admission of an improper relationship with a White House intern, said the “timing is certainly suspect.â€
“I believe, given the extraordinary situation we’re now in, these are the questions that are on the minds of the American people,†Coats said. “I’m raising questions . . . on what was the president’s role on this, and whether the president was in a position to make a sound judgment call in light of the speculation that would arise worldwide and the consequences of that in calling for this strike . . . a day and a half after his speech,†a reference to Monday’s televised speech on the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
But Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who has been aggressively investigating Clinton’s campaign-funding practices, took the opposite view. “I take the action for what it was - to stop the terrorists and to make them pay for what they did,†Burton said. “And that was the right thing to do. That’s coming from one of the president’s severest critics.â€
As I said, the myth of widespread charges by the GOP leadership of “wag the dog†after the August 1998 strike against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan are just that…a myth….One concocted by Democrats and liberals desperate to deflect criticism of Clinton’s ineffectual response to all Qaeda’s attacks against U.S. interests during the 1990s.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:03 pmHypocrites
September 25th, 2006 at 4:05 pmAlthough not a Republican lawmaker, here is conservative Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot on PBS’s Newshour in August 1998 on the question of whether some people will believe Clinton was “wagging the dog” in launching the cruise missile attack against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan:
And finally, here is conservative columnist Paul Gigot being asked by Margaret Warner on NewsHour about the idea that Clinton was “wagging the dog:â€
PAUL GIGOT: It was only a handful. I think that-I mean, Arlen Specter-frankly, he’s a lethal weapon on his way to a TV camera. I think you’ve got to take that with a grain of salt. But I thought when Dan Coats says something, I usually listen, because he’s a serious guy; he’s not a grandstander, and I took that as a sign that-of how much credibility the president has lost on Capitol Hill. I think Dan Coats was wrong. He got a briefing today and issued a somewhat more moderate statement, although still not full-fledged support. But the timing-the thing that struck Coats when listening to him was not that the president was necessarily diverting attention from the Lewinsky case. It was why was the action so precipitant this time when it hadn’t been over the first six years of his presidency-that was the striking thing to a lot of Republicans, and even John McCain said something like that-why did it-the last seven months had been about delay, and I think that’s the critical-and about ignoring some of these problems-and that’s the bigger problem for the president more than just the “Wag the Dog†speculation, which is frivolous. “
September 25th, 2006 at 4:06 pmHey Exley, Isnt it funny how we were just talking about this last night?
September 25th, 2006 at 4:08 pm9 months? Who should really be defensive.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:12 pmIt’s like saying John Gruden is responsible for the Raiders being horrible.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:13 pmAnd of course here is an editorial from September 1998 from the premier conservative publlication Nation Review, applauding Clinton’s stike against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan:
“COMEDY Central’s The Daily Show called it “Operation Desert Shield Me from Impeachment.” Funny, but too cynical. The U.S. missile strikes against terrorist facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan were a response to a real threat: They targeted the operations of Osama bin Laden, the terrorist mastermind who, according to U.S. intelligence, was responsible for the brutal bombing of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and was plotting further attacks on Americans.
Congressional leaders were therefore right to support President Clinton’s action”
Sorry, gang…But this thread can’t even get off the ground. As I said, the left-wing myth that there was widespread Republican criticism of President Clinton for launching the cruise missile strikes against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan have been utterly discredited. Next topic.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:14 pm#5….Yes, Zooey, sweetie darling?????
September 25th, 2006 at 4:15 pmExley
September 25th, 2006 at 4:15 pmIn typical fashion, you can’t hold several facts simultaneously. Fact one: some Republicans expressed support of Clinton’s actions against terrorists at the time, as you stress. Fact two: many Republicans questioned Clinton’s motives with the “wag the dog” accusation. Fact three: many Republicans supported the actions AND questioned the motives of Clinton. Fact four: many of the Republicans who could question Clinton’s motives or actions then, don’t seem to acknowledge that BushCo might have ulterior, nefarious motives in their actions in Iraq nor can they question BushCo’s actions now.
Soledad O’Brien was bashing Clinton this morning with a Hotline stooge.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:16 pmExley your quotes showing right wing support came over a week after their first knee-jerk opposition. One week gives them time to see which way the wind is blowing, not to mention seeing the poll results.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:17 pm#11, Ren…Indeed it is…Like I said, maybe the ThinkProgress team should read their own Web site more carefully. This topic was exhaustively covered last night.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:19 pm‘Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems.’
And using similar logic then, Our reaction to going into Iraq should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try and deflect public attention from the true goal of securing Iraqi Oil reserves rather then waging war on terror in a country that had nothing to do with 911.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:19 pmRepublicans kinda painted themselves into a corner here. In order to show they didn’t stand in the way of going after bin Laden pre-9/11, they have to agree Clinton did the right thing.
None of this changes the fact that Republicans put the President’s personal life on the front page, when they should have been focusing on the country’s real issues.
Now that it’s obvious to everyone that Monica wasn’t the big issue of the 1990s, they are falling over themselves to backpedal. No, they didn’t think Clinton’s sex life was more important that terrorism. It was only their primary focus. Maybe they can say they supported the ‘98 strike, but what did they spend more time on? Monica-gate or terrorism?
Congressional election issue!
September 25th, 2006 at 4:19 pmVery good posts Exley that show there wasn’t a united front amongst the Republicans but does show initial support. I’ll be looking for comments by the ones you mentioned above in the days following Aug 28 1998.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:20 pmAnyone else here think Clinton did a great job of a) Putting wag-the-dog Republicans on the spot, and b) actually getting Britt Hume to defend Clinton’s record on terrorism?
Well played, sir!
September 25th, 2006 at 4:21 pmUh-oh, Exley’s been dreaming about a thread just on Wag the Dog! :-)
September 25th, 2006 at 4:22 pmthe “echo chamber” is exly…
September 25th, 2006 at 4:25 pm…
it would be really great to have a corresponding section on the sally quinn party pals’ commentary during that period. maybe a little tally sheet of how many times the phrase ‘wag the dog’ was uttered by tweety, fat tim, cokie, sam, ted,… hell, even chris wallace spewed those words more than a couple of times i’m bettin….
September 25th, 2006 at 4:26 pm#16, PLC, Leaving aside the fact that I have shown the idea that there was widespread Republican “wag the dog” criticism of Clinton following his cruise missile strikes against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, is a complete myth, Clinton’s complaints that he couldn’t act against Al Qaeda for fear of criticism from Republicans fall flat for another reason. As I said yesterday:
What difference should it have made to Clinton even IF there were numerous “wag the dog†charges? He was the President of the United States, charged with protecting the nation’s security. If he thought it was in the best interests of national security to go after Al Qaeda full-throttle, he should have done so, criticism from the opposition be damned! To argue that Clinton did not go after Al Qaeda as hard as he should have because he was scared of “wag the dog†criticism does not put him in a very good light at all! He wouldn’t go after what he believed was a national security threat because he didn’t want to be criticized????? What kind of leader is that? If that is his excuse, that is downright pathetic (But definitely in keeping with Clinton’s reputation for wanting to be liked and popular more than wanting to do the right thing, no matter how difficult it might be)….President Bush has been excoriated by the media and the Democrats for his actions in Iraq. He has taken a hit in the polls…But he has continued to pursue the policy because he believes it is in the best interest of the nation’s security, all the while knowing that it is subjecting him to intense criticism.
For you to argue that Clinton really, really wanted to go after Al Qaeda but couldn’t because some congressional Republicans may have accused him of “wagging the dog†is to argue that Clinton was unwilling to take the political heat for doing what he believed was best for national security…Is that REALLY the best defense you want to offer for Clinton’s insufficient actions against Al Qaeda?
(And, yes, one could make the argument that the difference is that Bush’s party is in control of Congress, and Clinton’s party was in the minority in August 1998…But no one ever believed the congressional Republicans in 1998 would do anything (such as cutting of funding for military operations) that would have interfered with Clinton’s authority as commander-in-chief to carry out military operations against Al Qaeda targets…So this is a distinction without a difference).
September 25th, 2006 at 4:26 pm#26…Jane!
Heh! Yeah..TP walked right into it!!!!
September 25th, 2006 at 4:30 pmThe right wing hypocrites are EXPOSED!
They’re ALL (politicians, Repulsivescam voters (our own EX’(ley)CREMENT), and their operatives)…
….lying, scheming, evil, HYPOCRTICAL TRAITORS!
…and looking at Bush, Cheney, Bay Buchanan, Ann(drew) Coulter, Ken Mehlman and “Cross-eyed” Christie…
…they’re ALL ugly inside and out…
September 25th, 2006 at 4:34 pm# 30
If you’re gonna go down that road, shouldn’t you at least have the one fact that you’re basing it off of correct?
Clinton never said he couldn’t act against Al-queda because of the wag-the-dog republicans.
But it’s cute you need to reframe the debate in inaccurate terms.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:34 pmExley #30
You should have stopped with “Leaving aside the fact”, since from that point on all you have “shown” is ideas/ideology, your own wishful thinking, and a distortion of history. Just because you or Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Rice or any other neocon “says” something yesterday, today, last week, or EVER does not mean it’s true.
Facts, the enemy of the convinced.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:37 pmThis is hilarious. One side comes up with a slogan….uses it effectively….later that slogan is the opposite to what they want, so they then say there is a conspiracy that says they ever used the slogan. The WAG THE DOG idea came from somewhere.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:37 pmEven liberal columnist Mark Shields said on August 21, 1998 on “Newshour” that the Republican leadership in Congress dismissed the idea of any improper “wag the dog” motives by then-President Clinton:
MARK SHIELDS: The credibility wasn’t helped this week, and there’s a skepticism, there’s a cynicism in our national life, which is nothing new, and this certainly is reinforced. So I think that the end of the “Wag the Dog” scenario was, quite frankly, applied by Speaker Gingrich and by the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms, both of whom backed the president’s action and sort of shot down the-and Arlen Specter did change his position and tune today, as well, from Pennsylvania.
Full transcript: http://www.pbs.org/ newshour/ shields&gigot/ august98/ sg_8-21.html
September 25th, 2006 at 4:39 pmHouse Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas: “The suspicion that some people have about the president’s motives in this attack is itself a powerful argument for impeachment. …â€
OK, then, how about currently: “The suspicion that some people have about the administrations role and/or use of the 9-11 attack, the use of warrantless wire-taps, and the motives in the attack on Iraq is itself a powerful argument for impeachment.”
September 25th, 2006 at 4:41 pmExley: “I have shown the idea that there was widespread Republican “wag the dog†criticism of Clinton following his cruise missile strikes against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, is a complete myth”
You keep repeating your assertion, over and over again (Good Republican. Good boy) but you have not addressed the quotes that ThinkProgress posted, or those added by contributors to the thread.
Do you dispute that these statements were made? How else do you justify your claim of the “myth” of the right-wing wag the dog campaign?
September 25th, 2006 at 4:44 pmBy the way, has Bill or any of his supporters been able to come up with ONE Republican leder back in the day who criticized him for being “obsessed” with Bin Laden?
CLINTON: “The people on my political right who say I didn’t do enough spent the whole time I was president saying, Why is he so obsessed with bin Laden?”
Um, Bill, who said that? Just one name….
September 25th, 2006 at 4:44 pmEverything else has been covered here already, but here’s my two cents. The term “wag the dog” did not originate witht he movie of the same name. It’s an old term, “the tail wags the dog.” Oh, and Republicans suck.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:45 pmExley is feeding you all a load of sh*t. First off, she/he has not rebutted any of the specific quotes that TP provided. Instead, she/he just keeps repeating a single quote from gingrich and then some chump who has no bearing on the point whatsoever.
Yet, all of that is bogus to me for one simple reason - I was alive and aware during 1998. I was especially alert to the situation as I was carefully scrutinizing mr. clinton during that time because of the lewinsky business. I remember vividly researching into the attack because of all the politicos screaming “wag the dog” and it was at that time that I became aware of OBL.
So now Exley is trying to tell me that none of that happened. Sorry ms/mr Exley, but no amount of you telling me that the sky is green will change the reality of the fact that it is blue.
Now, I am not a particular fan of some of mr. clinton’s personal choices, but slander of the ilk of what Exley is trying to put out there is wholly unacceptable. And really, it is truly designed to deflect from the valid points that mr. clinton made.
- Why hasn’t the media questioned the current administration on the blatant failures?
- Why did bush ignore OBL until it was too late?
- Why was there no response to the USS Cole bombing once it was ascertained that it was al Qaeda’s doing?
- Why did bush not respond to the August 2001 PDB?
Do not let Exley derail this thread.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:45 pmThe reason BushCo supporters want to kill off the “wag the dog” accusations is the fear that Americans might make the connection with BushCo’s much more serious “wag the kennel” when it comes to the push into attacking Iraq through deception.
Blame that past President over there, so you don’t start blaming the current one over here!
September 25th, 2006 at 4:46 pm#35,
PLC, the numerous articles from August/September 1998 from such sources as CNN, Newsday, National Review, PBS containing quotes supporting President Clinton from people like Newt Gigrich, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Dan Burton are all the facts I need…Heh! Like I said, this thread died before it got off the ground….Next topic!
September 25th, 2006 at 4:47 pmRepublican logic gets more and more tortured the closer we get to November. They are in their last throes.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:48 pmAs I said before, this claim that Republicans were all accusing Clinton of “wagging the dog†when he launched the cruise missile attack against Afghanistan and Sudan is a myth that the left has created as a way of defending Clinton for his insufficient response to Al Qaeda’s attacks against U.S. interests in 1998.
That’s not what Trent Lott said..nice try Exley, but your FOS.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:50 pm#44, If the thread died, it was mainly because of your false portrayals in #30.
But I’m sure we won’t be hearing much about that from you.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:52 pmExley don’t you have some freeper blogs to post at?
September 25th, 2006 at 4:53 pmAt least John Ashcroft was consistent in his pre-9/11 mindset. After all he’s the guy that didn’t want to hear about Al-Qaeda…
http://www.cnn.com/ 2004/ ALLPOLITICS/ 04/ 13/ 911.commission
I believe at the time, Ashcroft was preoccupied with clothing bronze statues
September 25th, 2006 at 4:53 pm#14 - “As I said, the left-wing myth that there was widespread Republican criticism of President Clinton for launching the cruise missile strikes against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan have been utterly discredited.”
Interesting. We’re supposed to ignore one set of statements in favor of the ones you’ve picked to support your anti-progressive bais.
Sorry, you fail in your attempt to muddy the waters by claiming discredit where none exists.
Try again.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:54 pm#38, PLC…Unfortunately, your Dick Armey quote has absolutely nothing to do with President Clinton’s cruise missile strike against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in August, 1998.
You have confused events. The Armey quote you repeated is from DECEMBER 1998 after Clinton launched Operation: Desert Fox against Iraq’s WMD facilities…
Thus, the Armey quote is utterly irrlevant to claim that there was widespread “wag the dog” criticism of his AUGUST 1998 strikes against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan.
I hope I have clarified your confusion.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:55 pmNaw your POSTS are dead Exley, time for next lame try?
September 25th, 2006 at 4:55 pmYes, but Exley…
Do you deny that the quotes made in the original post and brought up by other members were made?
And to quote directly from the movie in question:
Stanley Motss: The President will be a hero. He brought peace.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:55 pmConrad ‘Connie’ Brean: But there was never a war.
Stanley Motss: All the greater accomplishment.
#43 PLC, did you really expect the regressives to stand by the previous statements that proved how wrong they were?
This topic is proof that the right-whiners ignore their own past when told to do so.
It’s too bad that their own history of (mis?)statements are so much against their current claims.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:57 pmTheres a name for you Exley,,ASHCROFT
LMAO!!
September 25th, 2006 at 4:57 pmPoor Exley just got Shredded, oh boo hoo
September 25th, 2006 at 4:58 pmIt’s funny the quotes you can find during a wg-the-dog search.
“In a republican government, it should never be resorted to, except as a last expedient to vindicate its rights; for military power and military ambition have but too often fatally triumphed over the liberties of the people.’…”
and then one from Coulter:
“A President who uses his duties as Commander in Chief to bomb foreign countries every time he wants to change the subject ought to be removed with alacrity,”
Now we get Exley pretending there wasn’t any effort to paint Clintons efforts as wag-the-dog.
I’m sure Novakula agrees with him.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:58 pm#42 Oh wait a minute everybody, Stating the Obvious “was alive and aware during 1998″ and” was especially alert to the situation ” and “carefully scrutinizing mr. clinton during that time because of the lewinsky business.” He remembers “vividly researching into the attack”
Okay, well then…I guess that’s that! Ignore all contemporary news accounts from August and September 1998 showing widespread Republican support for President Clinton’s cruise missile strike against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Iraq …. Forget them…After all, Stating the Obvious was “alive and wake” back then and “carefully scrutinized” the situation. So, I guess that’s that….Please disregard the historical quotes from Newt Gingrich, Dan Burton, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, etc. supporting Clinton that the news media recorded back in August 1998…After all, Statining the Obvious said he was “scrutinizng the situation.”
Heh!
September 25th, 2006 at 5:03 pmYes, Zooey, sweetie darling?????
Comment by Exley
I accept your apology.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:06 pmIt’s not the latest news out of Washington, but the plot of the movie “Wag the Dog.” In the 1997 movie, a shadowy spin doctor played by Robert De Niro recruits a Hollywood producer (Dustin Hoffman) to invent a war against Albania.
Wag the Bush!
It was Bush and crew that invented a war Exley..Yellowcake, Mushroom clouds, WMD, Nukes, OSP, Cherry picked intelligence, curveball, Judy Miller, Chalabi etc etc ad naseum
Exley is an apologetic for the Wag Dogger Bush..LOL!!!
September 25th, 2006 at 5:07 pmExley shredded himself when he made that idiotic post #30.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:08 pmYet it is a shining examples of Republicans accusing Clinton of wagging the dog.
Poor Exley, go back to freeper land where people buy your convoluted crap!!
Wag The BUSH! Wag The BUSH! Wag The BUSH! Wag The BUSH! Wag The BUSH! Wag The BUSH! Wag The BUSH! Wag The BUSH! Wag The BUSH! Wag The BUSH! Wag The BUSH! Wag The BUSH! Wag The BUSH! Wag The BUSH! Wag The BUSH! Wag The BUSH!
September 25th, 2006 at 5:09 pm“Look at the movie ‘Wag the Dog.’ I think this has all the elements of that movie,” Rep. Jim Gibbons said. “Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems.”
September 25th, 2006 at 5:11 pmOne of the first questions asked of Defense Secretary William Cohen at a nationally televised Pentagon was how he would respond to people who think the military action “bears a striking resemblance to ‘Wag the Dog.”‘
September 25th, 2006 at 5:11 pmExley is tenacious, but not very bright. The easiest way to combat her/his style of “confuse and diffuse” is to just stay on topic. And if you have not figured out yet that Exley is a plant specifically charged with confusing you and diverting attention from the truth, then read through her/his responses again so that you can gain that clarity.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:13 pm#54, Ronin_Tetsuro. Nope, I do not deny them at all…But I chose my words very carefully. I said the idea that the was “widespread” Republican / conservative “wag the dog” criticism of Clinton’s August 1998 attacks against Al Qaeda targets in Sudan and Afghanistan was a myth.
And, as we see, the Republican congressional leadership absolutely supported the president and levied no such criticism. As Paul Gigot said back in August 1998, there was only a handful of Republicans (including one very liberal senator) who made that charge. It was not widespread among the Republican party, as demonstrated by the clippings from CNN, Newsday, National Review, PBS, etc.
The “wag the dog” criticism was miniscule and rejected by teh Republican congressional leadership and for Clinton to use it as some type of shield over questions of whether or not his responses to Al Qaeda in the 1990s were sufficient or not is an exceedingly weak effort by Clinton to twist history and divert attention.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:13 pmRepublicans [Freeper such as Exley] posing as being “tough on terrorism” seem to have a short memory of what they were saying back when Clinton was going after Bin Laden.
TRUE!!! They are confused waffling hypocrites!
I guess that’s that! Ignore all contemporary news accounts from August and September 1998 showing widespread Republican support –Exley
I guess that’s it ignore the contemporary posts that show just the opposite!!
September 25th, 2006 at 5:15 pm#61….Thank you, Zooey. I do indeed apologize for not paying enough attention to you….You miss me when we don’t talk on these threads, don’t you? That’s so sweet…But I promise! From now on, I will pay more attention to you…Okay, sweetie darling????
September 25th, 2006 at 5:16 pmthe Republican congressional leadership absolutely supported the president and levied no such criticism..
you have to be the worst TROLL ever.
“Look at the movie ‘Wag the Dog.’ I think this has all the elements of that movie,†Rep. Jim Gibbons said. “Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems.â€
He says OUR Reaction meaning the Republican party!!
September 25th, 2006 at 5:17 pmWhere are the insidious comments from Democrats about Bush’s questionable movites for invading Iraq? Republicans can get away with saying the ‘98 cruise missile strikes against Al-Qaeda were a distraction from Monica, but the Democrats are too timid to suggest that the Republicans used 9/11 as an excuse to grab Iraq’s oil fields.
Call it the Republican corollary to Goebbels’s rule of lying: The bigger the lie, the more people will be afraid to challenge it.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:20 pmThe nice thing about a forum like Think Progress is that it keeps Hitler children like Exley here attacking the truth rather than giving him time to be on Repugnican loving blogs spewing more lies. I suggest we create an endowed chair for Exley so he can only sit here and spin his wheels.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:20 pmWag the Dog?
U.S. Policy on Iraq
U.S.-Iraq war is unconstitutional
http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm
The Conservative Caucus
450 Maple Avenue East * Vienna, Va. 22180 * 703-938-9626
10 reasons to oppose war on Iraq
wwwwahhahahahaa!! LOL AT EXLEY!!
September 25th, 2006 at 5:21 pm#70
No kidding, Exley, that’s the same misinformed tripe you uttered in your previous post.
Here’s what Clinton said:
If you can’t figure out what’s wrong with your analysis from that, you’re just being dishonest.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:21 pmTrent Lott He wasn’t before he was;
The New York Times (12/18/98, p. A20) reported that “Under criticism from both parties, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the majority leader, backed away from his charge that the strikes were linked to impeachment. After overnight reflection, he said, ‘I am satisfied this was a military decision.’…
FLIP FLOP!! FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP!!
September 25th, 2006 at 5:24 pmThe above posts show that politicians will say things to unite, incite, divide and hide behind. Exley you have shown that Republicans supported Clintons decision on the bombings. You have also been shown there were dissenters on the Right along with a host of Far Right Pundits. You have also chosen not to refute the statements quoted by Republicans claiming the “Wag the Dog” scenario.
We can all show new and different quotes but you didn’t accurately debate the initial statement.
You remind me of the man behind the curtain. Big on words, little on substance.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:24 pmOkay, sweetie darling????
Comment by Exley
Shhhh, sshhhhh, it’s alright, really, shhhhh….
I know you feel bad, and you really hate being wrong, especially on this topic, but it’s ok, really, it’s ok….shhhhhh…
1……2……3….. I have counted to three, and I have decided —
I do accept your apology for being soooo wrong about this whole “wag the dog” thing.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:24 pmExley can read those quotes and say decisively that the qoutes do not exist. Glenn Greenwald has many more similar quotes regarding SOmalia and republican calls to leave juxtaposed with Clinton’s call to stay till an orderly handoff to the UN can be accomplished.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:25 pmrepublicans are all scumbags, pure and simple
September 25th, 2006 at 5:25 pmYou mean the Republicans were for the terrorists before they were against them?
September 25th, 2006 at 5:25 pmClinton has been cought red-handed. His infantile response to Chris Wallace was hilarious, and showed what brand of narcissistic, pathological liar that he is. The man is in total denial about his legacy of complete and utter failure against islamic terrorism. That rant was one of the most pathetic - and revealing - moments in cable television history.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:27 pm#73, AION
Heh! Wrong on TWO counts….1) Jim Gibbons was not a member of the Republican congressional leadership in 1998. He was in his first term in August 1998. So, for you to claim that he was a member of the House Republican leadership in August 1998 shows an astoudning lack of understanding on your part of how Congress works.
2) “Our” refers to the United States, not the Republican Party.
Try again, junior…
September 25th, 2006 at 5:28 pmThank you Exley for helping me to illustrate my point. Most everyone here, I’m confident, was alive and aware in 1998 and my intention of reviving their memory has now been bolstered by your idiotic rant.
Unlike Exley, I have no interest in telling people what to think. Funny how the truth always speaks for itself. Only lies have to be repeated as an attempt to gain credibility.
So Exley gets exposed as the deceitful provocateur that she/he is and all she/he does it try the same old sh*t. Live by the sword…
September 25th, 2006 at 5:31 pm#85 That nonsense seems kind of lightweight after what just happened to Ex.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:32 pmReal Dumb American - It’s funny when you accuse others of being in denial… He He He He He!!!
September 25th, 2006 at 5:34 pm#40 - Here’s one:
Robert Oakley, former Ambassador for Counterterrorism in the Reagan State Department. “The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which has made him stronger.”
September 25th, 2006 at 5:35 pmIt’s amazing that republicans can’t understand “complicated” things like a president going after terrorists and having a personal indiscretion at the same time. They have to bring up a fictional connection in order make it make sense. How dumb can people be?
September 25th, 2006 at 5:35 pmThe man is in total denial about his legacy of complete and utter failure against islamic terrorism. That rant was one of the most pathetic - and revealing - moments in cable television history.
Comment by A Real American Cheese
Along with Reagan’s concession that he sold weapons to terrorists.
TV gold!
September 25th, 2006 at 5:36 pmThe “wag the dog†criticism was miniscule and rejected by teh Republican congressional leadership and for Clinton to use it as some type of shield over questions of whether or not his responses to Al Qaeda in the 1990s were sufficient or not is an exceedingly weak effort by Clinton to twist history and divert attention.
Comment by Exley
So you’re a history buff? How do you feel about republicans’ responsibility for Iran/Iraq war dead? Since they armed both sides of the conflict, don’t you think it hypocritical of republicans to whine about Saddam’s atrocites, when they enabled and empowered him? We all remember Reagan’s response to terrorism - sell them weapons. Republicans don’t come to the debate with clean hands, so why not acknowledge it, Exley?
September 25th, 2006 at 5:37 pmSimply put ARA you are wrong. You may have an opinion but the facts remain. Fox has never asked the questions brought up by President Clinton. President Clinton said he tried and failed to get OBL and had more people working on islamic terrorism than the current President Bush up until 9/11. You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts and you have not supported your opinion with facts. And remember ARA, opinions are like assholes, everybody’s got one.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:40 pm#93 BnF, You don’t include a date or any context to the Oakley quote, but if it is indeed referring to Clinton and Bin Laden, you found one. Okay.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:41 pm#89-
To which historians do you refer? The only things slick Willie was effective at was 1) Lying, 2) Receiving fellatio from overweight whitehouse interns, and 3) Hamstringing the CIA, FBI, and military in their efforts at killing Bin Laden.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:47 pm#88, Awwww, Stating the Obvious…You once vowed never to address me again! Heh! I guess your frustration at being proven so wrong has prompted you to break your vow…Listen, junior, I am sorry that I have the facts, including contemporary news accounts) on my side and you have…well, nothing…(Except, of course for the fact that you were “alive and aware” in 1998 (heh))…Go back and do a little research and then get back to us, okay, sport?! Go get ‘em!
September 25th, 2006 at 5:48 pm#100:
And Reagan sold weapons to terrorist islamofascists. You keep forgetting that part, Cheese.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:50 pm#81, My dearest Zooey…You know me too well…I do indeed hate being wrong. That is why everything I say is carefully researched and reasoned. It is that exactitude on my part that has enabled me to utterly and completely dismantle this inane liberal myth that there was widespread Republican “wag the dog” criticism of Clinton’s cruise missile strikes against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in August 1998….Let’s face it, Zooey, I am good. I am VERY good!
September 25th, 2006 at 5:52 pmGreat, the thread has not been derailed by the trolls.
Here are the questions that I want asked of the bush administration and its supporters:
1. Why did bush ignore OBL prior to 9/11/01?
2. Why did bush ignore the 8/6/01 PDB stating that “OBL determined to attack in the US�
3. Since bush found it more important than the country being under attack, how did “My Pet Goat†end?
4. Why are we in Iraq?
5. How many Iraqi and american service members’ (don’t give a sh*t about KBR and other profiteers) deaths and injuries are acceptable for a “comma�
6. Who is going to be the last to die for this atrocity and what do you tell their parents, or wife, or children?
Should I email those to chris wallace?
September 25th, 2006 at 5:55 pm#76, Heh! Look at AION making the same mistake that so many other here have! Read what you sent again, skippy…That link (which by the way is not even a Republican organization, but an offshoot of Howard Phillip’s Constitution party…Learn your politics, AION) is from DECEMBER 1998 and refers to Clinton’s launching of Operation Desert Fox against Iraq’s WMD facilities and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the now-discredited claim that there was widespread Republican “wag the dog” criticism of Clinton’s cruise missile strikes against Al Qaeda targets in Sudan and Afghanistan in AUGUST 1998…
In short, AION, you have your dates, military actions, AND political parties wrong….Heh! Three strikes and you’re out, AION…Take a seat on the bench and watch the maor leaguers play!
September 25th, 2006 at 5:58 pm#104. You did nothing of the sort. You just showed that it wasn’t a unified front. You have neglected the quotes stated supporting the case there was a “wag the Dog” smear campaign going on. Big wonderful words you use but they are hollow when you ignore the opposing facts.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:58 pm#106 Great questions that need to be hammered. I too want to know how “My Pet Goat” ends. I’d like to add:
Why was Richard Clarke demoted after faithful service to 3 prior administrations?
What was done with the work Mr. Clarke was doing at the time he was demoted and who took his place?
September 25th, 2006 at 6:05 pm#104
LOL
Maybe in an altered reality you’re good, but here, in this thread, you were just spanked and ridden hard.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:05 pmMr. Exley -
You are “technically” right that “all” Republicans on the scene at the time did not take part in the “Wag the dog” stuff at the time.
But enough of them did - which significantly weakens your post and definitely makes your use of the word “myth” laughable.
While Gingrich and Hatch were reasonable on this - others were not.
Add to the list Coats (and more from Specter).
“When Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., questioned Clinton’s motives in launching the attacks — “Why did he wait until now?” — reporters at a press conference (which Coats opportunistically called minutes after the news broke) harshly cross-examined the senator. ”
“Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., also rushed before television cameras to suggest that Clinton may have had more than national security on his mind in deciding to bomb.”
I was living in D.C. when all of this went down. The attempts by many on the right to pin the “Wag the Dog” thing on Clinton is not a “myth.”
And while you may “cherry pick” the Republican politicians who did not participate - the politicians do not fully make up the “right.”
What do you think Rush Limbaugh said about the missile strikes?
Do you think he said … “Atta Boy, Big Willie !!! — Nice Job !!!” …. ???
Not a chance.
It was more like “Wag the dog !!! Wag the Dog !!! Wag the DOGGGGGG !!!! Clinton is WAGGING THE DOGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG !!!! Oh, gawd !!! Oh my gawd !!!!” type of stuff from Limbaugh. The typical crap that oozes out of his mouth.
Seems like you are the one living in a myth-like world, Mr. Exley.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:05 pmHeh! Look at #1053…Still confusing her dates and military actions…She actually thinks we are discussing December 1998’s Operation Desert Fox air campaign againt Iraq’s WMD facilities…Heh! Soooo confused. No, my confused little poster, we are talking about Clinton’s cruise missile strikes againt Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in August 1998…I know history and dates and countries is her strong suit, so I thought I’d help her out…Maybe now, she’ll stay on topic. Okay, now try again.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:07 pm#106 - …Here are the questions that I want asked of the bush administration and its supporters:
1. Why did bush ignore OBL prior to 9/11/01?
2. Why did bush ignore the 8/6/01 PDB stating that “OBL determined to attack in the US�
3. Since bush found it more important than the country being under attack, how did “My Pet Goat†end?
4. Why are we in Iraq?
5. How many Iraqi and american service members’ (don’t give a sh*t about KBR and other profiteers) deaths and injuries are acceptable for a “comma�
6. Who is going to be the last to die for this atrocity and what do you tell their parents, or wife, or children?
Should I email those to chris wallace?
Yes.
ReichWingNuts and the BushCabal must answer these questions.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:08 pmAfter reading all of your left wing bull, I fully understand why this country has the problems it has. This is exactly why people have lost confidence in the Democratic party. You stand for nothing! You claim to have a plan, but never present it. I am very disappointed, as I was once a Democrat in my youth, but as with most things, we learn from our mistakes and eventually abandon the youthful arrogance we had…………at least those of us with a conscience do.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:09 pm#108, Hellinabucket…Actually, I have addressed the quotes provided by TP….Please refer to my posting #70 (which was a response to posting #54)
September 25th, 2006 at 6:10 pmThe “wag the dog†criticism was miniscule and rejected by teh Republican congressional leadership and for Clinton to use it as some type of shield over questions of whether or not his responses to Al Qaeda in the 1990s were sufficient or not is an exceedingly weak effort by Clinton to twist history and divert attention.
Comment by Exley
The argument that the Republicans didn’t really obstruct Clinton’s efforts to combat terrorism that much - must fill your heart with pride… you should make a bumper sticker!
September 25th, 2006 at 6:10 pm112# look at your posts. You still have this fixation on Clinton but have neglected the inactions of this administration.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:13 pmThe terrorists have already won, and it’s all because of Republican resistance to eliminating them during the Clinton years. For shame.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:17 pmyou haven’t debunked anything Exley you only show yourself to be a hypocrite..The website I posted was a WAG THE DOG republican website..try again loser, I have lisyed many wag the dog republican statements which you can’t refute.
You are spinning your wheels little boy!! LMAO
September 25th, 2006 at 6:17 pmDo you dispute that these statements were made? How else do you justify your claim of the “myth†of the right-wing wag the dog campaign?
Comment by KRank
Exley has selective reading skills, he simply skips that what doesn’t fit his pre-conceived notions.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:19 pm#111 Triumph,
I never said that there were absolutely no “wag the dog” questions after the August 1998 Afghanistan/Sudan strikes from any Republican. What I said is that it was not widespread. There were a few comments…But the majority, and most importantly the leadership, of Republicans never raised those questions regarding the August 1998 Afghanistan/Sudan strikes.
Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney once strongly implied that the Bush administration knew 9/11 was going to take beforehand and refused to warn people….Obviously a fringer, out of the mainstream statement. Would it be fair to say that the Democratic Party made that accusation simply because McKinney said it? Of course not….Same with trying to claim that the Repoblicban Party launched a “wag the dog” campaign of criticism against Clinton following the August 1998 strikes against Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. Teh off-the-wall comments of a few members does not or should not taint an entire party.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:20 pmExley, look up wag the dog and 1998. It’s no myth. The Republican machine both inside and outside of Government was laying it on thick to get Clinton. Isn’t Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh mouthpieces for the far right? The speaker of the house? Widespread can be relative in comparision and the word (as many others) are missused but to deny there was no concerted effort by the right to tag the President with “Wag the Dog” imagery is ignoring facts and history.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:20 pm“we learn from our mistakes and eventually abandon the youthful arrogance we had”
Some of them maybe, others, like you, just go troll leftie boards.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:21 pmAfter reading all of your left wing bull, I fully understand why this country has the problems it has. This is exactly why people have lost confidence in the Democratic party. You stand for nothing! You claim to have a plan, but never present it. I am very disappointed, as I was once a Democrat in my youth, but as with most things, we learn from our mistakes and eventually abandon the youthful arrogance we had…………at least those of us with a conscience do.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:21 pm=Comment by John — September 25, 2006 @ 6:09 pm
Yak Yak Yak!!!! Ask a question or shut up and be a dumbass republican. I think I’ve heard your rant before so get a new act…K!
And more questions for the bush administration and its supporters:
- Why do you hate black people? (Katrina)
September 25th, 2006 at 6:22 pm- Why do you hate brown people? (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Palestine-heck, all the middle east except saudi arabia)
- Why do you hate tan people? (immigration reform fiasco, Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile, Cuba, etc…)
- Why do you hate poor people? (too many examples to list)
- Why do you only care about rich people (tax cuts, no-bid contracts, widening class gap, etc…), lost blonde chicks, and brain dead Floridans, who all happen to be overwhelmingly white?
#117. hellinabucket, I don’t have a fixation on Clinton…ThinkProgress does. They have put up approximately 10 threads on this Clinton FOX interview and Lord knows how many threads regarding the “Path to 9/11″ mini-series. These are threads that are being posted here these days….So, that is what I discuss. Quite frankly all this “Who did more against Al Qaeda” argument is quite boring to me….I don’t fault Clinton for 9/11/ Should he have done more? It appears so but so should have Bush pre-9/11. No one from either party took the Al Qaeda threat seriously enough
September 25th, 2006 at 6:25 pmJohn,
September 25th, 2006 at 6:25 pmEnlist in the military and head off to Iraq you coward! If you are the man of “conscience” that you say, then honor would accept no less.
Yak Yak Yak!!!! Ask a question or shut up and be a dumbass republican. I think I’ve heard your rant before so get a new act…K!
Comment by ren — September 25, 2006 @ 6:21 pm
This is what I mean by “claim to have a plan, but never present it” Instead of an educated response or defense, I get this.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:29 pmFor those of you arguing semantics with Exley, you waste your time and energy. Read through the entire thread and you’ll see what the preponderance of evidence says. It’s irrefutable.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:29 pmNOTHING to do with the now-discredited claim that there was widespread Republican “wag the dog†criticism of Clinton’s cruise missile strikes against Al Qaeda targets in Sudan and Afghanistan in AUGUST 1998
umm it was and is a conservative website and the whole meme of it is wag the dog..again you don’t read it.
http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm
The New York Times (12/18/98, p. A20) reported that “Under criticism from both parties, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the majority leader, backed away from his charge that the strikes were linked to impeachment [wag the dog]. After overnight reflection, he said, ‘I am satisfied this was a military decision.’ [flip flop flip flop]
FLIP FLOP Exley, this also disproves your previous post that Lott never wagged the dog..HEH!
September 25th, 2006 at 6:30 pmLott was a wag dogger before he WASN’T..Capice?
And it was about the strike HEH!
#104
Let’s face it, Zooey, I am good. I am VERY good!
Comment by Exley
Actually you are not very good, my friend. You are stubborn, persistent and clever enough to be amusing.
But you are not good and you are far from “very good.”
The problem is your insistence on constantly playing a “bad hand.” This keeps you from being even average. These are bad times for the Republicans and their sympathizers. There is nothing to worth defending with this group.
Things can change over time and maybe the party will be worthwhile again in the future. But right now … ( … big fart sound … )
September 25th, 2006 at 6:30 pmEnlist in the military and head off to Iraq you coward! If you are the man of “conscience†that you say, then honor would accept no less.
Comment by Stating+the+Obvious — September 25, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
I served proudly. How is life for you in Canada?
September 25th, 2006 at 6:31 pmlearn your politics err lies Exley
September 25th, 2006 at 6:32 pmLet’s face it, Zooey, I am good. I am VERY good!
Comment by Exley
You just keep thinking that, baby. Because, damn, somebody has to…
September 25th, 2006 at 6:32 pmAfter reading all of your left wing bull, I fully understand why this country has the problems it has.
Comment by John — September 25, 2006 @ 6:09 pm
Huh? “Left wing bull” is responsible for the war in Iraq? “Left wing bull” is responsible for the exploding budget deficit? “Left wing bull” is responsible for declining income among the middle classes? “Left wing bull” is responsible for the exploding cost of health care? “Left wing bull” is responsible for an administration that is acting out of control and outside the law? “Left wing bull” is responsible for the moral stain of torture?
John, you need to lay off the crack pipe there, bud.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:35 pm#122, Hellinabucket….Clinton launched TWO major military operations in 1998 — One in August 1998 against Al Qaeda targets in Sudan and Afghanistan and another in December 1998 against Iraq’s WMD facilities…
What Clinton referenced yesterday in his FOX interview and what is the topic of this thread are claims that Republicans launched “wag the dog” criticisms against Clinton in AUGUST 1998 following the strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan. As we have seen such claims are overstated and that the vast majority of Republicans, including the Republican congressional leadership, rejected such ‘wag the dog’ theories and supported the president.
“Wag the dog” questions were much, much stronger in December 1998 when Clinton and the House was in the midst of impeachment proceeding and Clinton launched (along with the UK) the four-day bombing campaign against Iraq and its WMDs. And even thenmany, many, if not most, Republicans supported the launching of Operation Desert Fox against Iraq’s WMDs. But Operatuion Desert Fox and Iraq are not what we are discussing nor what Clinton referenced yesterday.
We are discussing whether there was widespread “wag the dog” criticism of Clinton’s August 1998 strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. And as we see, while there was some, it was but a handful, and was rejected by the Republican leadership.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:35 pmLet’s face it, Zooey, I am good. I am VERY good!
Comment by Exley
So why does 99% of the people here disagree? [1%=Exley]
You got severely spanked, if you think thats GOOD, then keep on keeping on Rove Jr!!!!
LMAO!!!
September 25th, 2006 at 6:38 pm#119, Uh oh! AION is clearly embarassed the linked to information from the WRONG date and the WRONG military action and the WRONG political party!
Heh! 0-3, rookie!
September 25th, 2006 at 6:39 pmExley,
WHOA … DAMN, SON !!!
I was going to ask you what you thought of the most National Intelligence Estimate. It seemed to be a natural extension of some of the things we discussed earlier.
But it looks like your “dance card” is pretty damn full right now !!!
Good Luck …
September 25th, 2006 at 6:39 pmExley reminds me of one of those kids that gets beat up on the playground then runs home crying, only to later stick his head out of the door, from the safety of bizarro world, and scream in defiance. “I won!, I won! you didn’t beat me up, I won!!”
September 25th, 2006 at 6:40 pmThere were many republicans and their henchman claiming “wag the dog” or alluding to it by saying “the timing seems suspicious.”
September 25th, 2006 at 6:40 pmit was but a handful, and was rejected by the Republican leadership
Then it wasn’t a myth was it?
LMAO!!!
EXLEY LOADS GUN AND SHOOTS OWN FOOT!!!
LMAO!!!!!
FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP
EXLEY SANDAL MAN!! LOL!
September 25th, 2006 at 6:41 pmWe are discussing whether there was widespread “wag the dogâ€
MOVE THAT GOALPOST MYTH TO WIDESPREAD!!
LMAO LMAO LMAO!
September 25th, 2006 at 6:43 pm#135, Zooey…Sweetie….I am leaving now. But I’ll try to check back in later. So, try not to miss me TOO much! Okay, snookums???? Bye!
September 25th, 2006 at 6:45 pmWe are discussing whether there was widespread “wag the dog†criticism of Clinton’s August 1998 strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. And as we see, while there was some, it was but a handful, and was rejected by the Republican leadership.
THEY WERE BEFORE THEY WEREN’T THEY WERE BEFORE THEY WEREN’T!!!!!!
lmao EXLEY, YOU ARE VERY GOOD AT FLIP FLOPS!
September 25th, 2006 at 6:45 pmam leaving now. But I’ll try to check back in later. So, try not to miss me TOO much! Okay, snookums???? Bye!
Comment by Exley
DON’T LET THE DOOR HIT YA IN THE FACE..I MEAN, DON’T LET THE DOOR HIT YA WHERE THE GOOD LORD SPLIT YA!
September 25th, 2006 at 6:47 pm141, Killer Whale….FINALLY an intelligent poster! Good to hear from you…Yeah, I have been quite busy trying to teach the masses….I’d love to discuss the new NIE with you later on. I am leaving right now, but we can discuss it later.
Good night all….Especially you, Zooey!
September 25th, 2006 at 6:47 pmJohn,
Where did you serve and when? I ask this question because every service member that I know who has served in Iraq has either returned dead or in staunch opposition to this administration and the current “republican” party.
So, please, enlighten me. Oh, and if you did go, why aren’t you still there? Did you cut-n-run?
What you see here are people fighting for a cause that they believe in. That’s noble. You come in and try to insult them because you are projecting your own frailties and insecurities on them. That’s completely bogus and any intelligent adult, regardless of political affiliation, knows that.
Guess all that learnin that you got didn’t serve you well.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:48 pmOh man, I think I need vodka and orange juice, this laughing at Exley has given me a bit of a headache..[laugh strain]
September 25th, 2006 at 6:48 pmExley,
How can I miss you, if you won’t stay away?
September 25th, 2006 at 6:49 pmI have been quite busy trying to teach the masses…
BWAHAHAHHAHAAAAA Exley Ex-lax a teacher of the ASSES maybe!!
September 25th, 2006 at 6:49 pmLook at poor #148…She is clearly still embarassed (along with AION) that they got the wrong dates and the wrong military actions….Let this be a lesson to you two kids….Always do your homework!
September 25th, 2006 at 6:50 pmHuh? “Left wing bull†is responsible for the war in Iraq? “Left wing bull†is responsible for the exploding budget deficit? “Left wing bull†is responsible for declining income among the middle classes? “Left wing bull