Slick Willie Competent to be America’s “First Lady”?

[las47032]

Commentary by Joseph Farah.

Before last weekend, I had never before questioned whether Bill Clinton was mentally stable.

Now I must add this concern to his other more well-documented pathologies – lying, womanizing, caring more about his own legacy than the security of the country, etc.

But his performance on Fox News Channel with Chris Wallace suggests he is seething with nearly uncontrollable inner rage YouTube - Bill Clinton Blames Others For 911 – maybe the kind he unloaded on Juanita Broaddrick all those years ago.

Policies and worldview aside, it raises the question: Is this man fit to be, once again, so close to the center of power?

Granted it is his wife running for president. But they promised us a two-for-one deal in 1992 – and we got it. Surely, as an ex-president, Bill Clinton would be among Hillary's closest advisers should she be successful in her bid for the White House.

Clinton was sputtering furiously – accusing the low-key, laid-back Chris Wallace, a second-generation television newsman with impeccable establishment broadcast media credentials, of being part of a "right-wing" hit job. Apparently, he still believes there is such a thing as the "vast right-wing media conspiracy" his aides tried to peddle during his administration. Wallace, the son of Mike Wallace, established his right-wing resume over 15 years with ABC News and another 15 years with NBC.

Clinton was threatening. He was bellicose. He was out of control. And he was, as usual, dead wrong in nearly everything he said.

Clinton claimed he was besieged by conservative Republicans who thought he was obsessed by Osama bin Laden. Anybody remember anything like that?

At the same time, he claimed nobody knew who bin Laden was during most of his administration. Do I need to point out those are two contradictory notions?

He claimed: "There is not a living soul in the world who thought Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down." That would suggest a terrible intelligence failure on the part of the Clinton administration, since it is beyond dispute today. WorldNetDaily: Improving 'Black Hawk Down'

Maybe the biggest "error" Clinton made in the interview was stating: "[No one] even knew al-Qaida was a growing concern in October of '93."

Perhaps if the Clinton administration had performed due diligence by thoroughly investigating the first World Trade Center bombing it would have discovered bin Laden's fingerprints all over the plot. But, the truth is the Clinton administration did not want to find evidence of Islamic terrorist activity in the U.S. It preferred to investigate "right-wing Christian fundamentalists," who, it believed, represented the real threat to the nation's security. WorldNetDaily: Why we were caught off-guard

Astonishly, Clinton also claimed al-Qaida was not involved in Somalia. Even his buddy Richard Clarke was aware of that fact by 1998.
He also said those who criticized his cut-and-run policies in Somalia wanted him to pack up immediately.

As I cannot think of a single person who fits the category, I suggest Clinton owes us some names.

Here's another whopper: "[i] left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy (for the Bush administration)," he told Wallace.

That's substantially different than what his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, told members of the Select Committees on Intelligence Sept. 19, 2002: "… there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect." Richard Clarke agrees: "[T]here was no plan on al-Qaida that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," he was quoted as saying in a UPI story March 24, 2004.

And maybe the piece d' resistance from Clinton: "I worked hard to try to kill him (bin Laden). I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since."

This is almost too funny to treat seriously. But then again, Clinton's malfeasance in office cost us 3,000 lives on Sept. 11.

"I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten." What does that mean? That all he had to do was give the order – which he didn't give? I guess in that sense, he's right. Clinton had the opportunities to kill bin Laden. But he didn't do it. He had the opportunities to have him picked up by the Sudanese government and handed over to U.S. authorities. But he didn't do it.

Clinton, once again, has changed his tune about his own role in history. Here's what he told Robert Sam Anson in a Vanity Fair interview published June 2004: "At the time, in 1996, he had committed no crimes against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

Could it be Clinton's wrath is really a result of his own ineptitude?

Source: Is Bill Clinton fit to be first lady?
WorldNetDaily: Is Bill Clinton fit to be first lady?



September 2005, Bill for First Lady - Hillary Clinton for President 2008 Bill for First Lady - Hillary Clinton for President 2008 a grassroots objective is getting Hillary elected president. And a banner was placed in front of Clinton’s Washington address. Source: Bill Clinton for first lady' WorldNetDaily: 'Bill Clinton for first lady'

Note: Photos from WorldNetDaily.com and Bill for First Lady. And the pictures posted are NOT INTENDED to slander and or smear the Clinton's.

[tnkr111]

I'd do some basic fact checking before you hang your hat on his claims that President Clinton missed some big indicators. At the best it is a creative analysis of fact to draw conclusions that are only apparent when other facts are joined together witht he original, at the worst it is a baseless lie.

I'd be suspiscious of an blogger with an obvious axe to grind. They tend to rely on the general ignorance of the readers to pass off minor facts and then extrapolate them into damning evidence. With a little effort on your own, and minus all the editorialized conclusion that most blog readers like to regurgitate, you can find plenty of factual evidence in Justice Department documents and form reputable journalists, academics, and policy makers that refute this idiot's claims.