September 25, 2006
Thin Like Skin
Bill Clinton is not a happy man. By now, you have heard about the Fox News Sunday interview the former President did with Chris Wallace. During the interview, Wallace mentioned that he had received e-mails from people wondering why Clinton didn't do more about Osama bin Laden. Clinton's response was, to say the least, hot and bothered.
Bill Clinton spent the last part of his Presidency worrying about his legacy. Of course, the rest of us know that legacy is not manufactured, but created by daily actions and outcome. History creates legacy, not spinmeisters. In the end, Clinton's legacy is so paper-thin that the slightest questioning of it causes him to fly off the handle.
Why does he care about his legacy? First, ego. But more importantly, Bill Clinton is not finished with the limelight. He wants to run the UN or be an ambassador or be crowned king. We will all be exposed to him again in a big way----hopefully not as the husband of the President.
Posted by Matthew at September 25, 2006 10:03 PMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.opaquelucidity.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/877
I don't believe Anyone on 9-10-01 had any idea what was coming the next day. Dennis Prager said No one in America was concerned about terrorism in the 90's. I get tired of Clinton getting blamed for everything bad that has ever happened during Bush's Term in office. Clinton haters can't handle the fact that he was one of the most popular Presidents ever and that people still Love him despite his personal faults. Maybe,Just Maybe,if he wasn't so busy defending himself from Mean spirited republicans who were trying to get him impeached because he got his jollies off with an intern (say what you want but the hatred of the Clintons was so deep that republicans would stop at nothing to destroy him and his family)he may have had time to do things more Presidential and Osama could've been stopped. We'll never know. Republicans like to talk about how Democrats hate Bush and how their thinking is muddled by hatred and emotion. Well, People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. Osama has been on the national radar now for 5 years and Bush hasn't found him either.
Newsflash: Clinton hasn't been President for 6 years now. You can start shifting your blame elsewhere.
Posted by: David![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.opaquelucidity.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 26, 2006 05:42 AM
Osama sure is off the radar now. Hasn't pulled any crap in the US since the Cowboy put up a wanted poster up saying wanted dead or alive. It appears Osama is so busy running from cave to cave that he can only put out a crappy video every couple of years and audio tapes every 6 months. You can't argue with those results. The only thing better would be to invade Pakistan and crush him in the caves. His time is coming one way or the other. Typhoid, bad kidneys, daisy cutter, .223 round, 50 cal round, predator drone, B1, it doesn't matter the sands of time are running out for Osama.
Posted by: Sly at September 26, 2006 02:28 PM
You Neo-nuts crack me up. Instead of having a discussion about what Clinton said and the facts relative to his response you would rather take the low road.
I completely agree with David. Clinton hasn't been President for six years and blaming Clinton for all of this administrations woes got old five years ago. Does anyone recall anyone in the Clinton administration blaming H.W. Bush for the first WTC attack? I for one don't. Nevermind Clinton had an administration with accountability.
Clintons "paper-thin" lagacy is packed with eight years of peace and prosperity. The rich got richer,the poor got richer,and we were paying the bills. What will the Bush legacy be? Pre-emptive war,torture,a failed war in the middle east,domestic spying,deficit spending,.....should I go on?
at September 26, 2006 05:59 PM
Peace and prosperity? Tell that to the WTC victims you mention, the Sailors on the Cole and the troops in Somolia. Start there and then get back to the Neo-nuts. You Beatnik.
Posted by: Sly at September 26, 2006 09:51 PM
Why did you link to a clip of an edited, out-of-context interview? Why not link to the whole interview and let people see why he got so angry?
FoxNEWS makes for great satire but it's scary when people absorb eveything that comes from it as untainted news.
PS: What's a beatnik?
Posted by: David J at October 24, 2006 05:26 PM