Wallace hits a nerve. There's more here
Allahpundit here.
I can remember three occasions that showed Clinton red faced and wagging his finger. First was when he was asked if he "honestly believed we could tax and spend our way to prosperity" by a citizen. He wheeled on the man and told him to study his history and that Germany, Britain and Japan all had to raise taxes and spend those revenues to grow their economies.
The second time was the infamous, "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" quote.
The third was with Wallace.
I believe in all three occasions, the questioners hit a nerve. Clinton was taking a beating on the "tax and spend" philosophy from the GOP (which has since adapted tax and spend as it's own philosophy) and he was probably tired of hearing it. He also probably knew it wasn't going to work for very long. Tax and spend works in the short to stimulate certain narrow sectors of the economy but beyond that it's detrimental to the markets overall.
On the second occasion, he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar and figured a good offense would beat a good defense. He lied, unflinchingly, to his country as he figured they didn't have the right to ask him about such things.
The last one with Wallace strikes me as very similar to the first occasion and somewhat of the second. Clinton knows he made some efforts to "get" bin Laden but he didn't have the stomach for it and tried to have the Pentagon brass or Tenet (or anybody else) make the decision to kill the guy. He was very wary to sign a Presidential finding. That would put the target squarely on his back if things went sideways. Rather, he hoped that the Joint Chiefs or the CIA would act on their own accord and take the risk with his implicit blessing. Unfortunately for Clinton, they shrewdly punted knowing they'd be looking at Congressionalgrandstanding inquiries and possibly jail time if the media broke the story.
Clinton didn't want to expend the political capital necessary to make fighting terrorism a priority. Typically, Democrats aren't big on blowing things up with the military (especially when that action might be seen to advance America's agenda, better to be involved in do-gooder interventionalism if at all). They'd rather deal with domestic initiatives and usually those that allow them to spend money ontheir constituent's the poor and the afflicted.
Republicans like to blow things up as this tends to please
their constituents. It tends to shore up the base who takes comfort in supporting our military as an expression of patriotism. Republicans are also (normally) averse to spending on domestic issues involving large government programs that have little proven benefits. Current administration notwithstanding.
Each side of the aisle tries to pin the creation, growth and continuation of terrorism on the other. This is futile and stupid. Mohammedanism have been waging war on infidels for centuries. To think that this is a new phenomenon is simply foolish.
Reagan attacked Libya for its support of terrorism and ignored Iran after the Beirut bombing killed 241 Marines. The coterie of national security experts in Reagan's cabinet (as well as Bush 41) did not want to upset the apple cart that was the Middle East. Attacking Iran was seen as far too risky and might jeopardize the flow (or at least cost) of oil. Something that was financially ruinous to the nation in the 70's and ended Jimmy Carter's hopes of reelection.
The Jihadis have been at war with us for centuries and noticeably more active in the last 30 years. We've just be too blind to see.
Allahpundit here.
I can remember three occasions that showed Clinton red faced and wagging his finger. First was when he was asked if he "honestly believed we could tax and spend our way to prosperity" by a citizen. He wheeled on the man and told him to study his history and that Germany, Britain and Japan all had to raise taxes and spend those revenues to grow their economies.
The second time was the infamous, "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" quote.
The third was with Wallace.
I believe in all three occasions, the questioners hit a nerve. Clinton was taking a beating on the "tax and spend" philosophy from the GOP (which has since adapted tax and spend as it's own philosophy) and he was probably tired of hearing it. He also probably knew it wasn't going to work for very long. Tax and spend works in the short to stimulate certain narrow sectors of the economy but beyond that it's detrimental to the markets overall.
On the second occasion, he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar and figured a good offense would beat a good defense. He lied, unflinchingly, to his country as he figured they didn't have the right to ask him about such things.
The last one with Wallace strikes me as very similar to the first occasion and somewhat of the second. Clinton knows he made some efforts to "get" bin Laden but he didn't have the stomach for it and tried to have the Pentagon brass or Tenet (or anybody else) make the decision to kill the guy. He was very wary to sign a Presidential finding. That would put the target squarely on his back if things went sideways. Rather, he hoped that the Joint Chiefs or the CIA would act on their own accord and take the risk with his implicit blessing. Unfortunately for Clinton, they shrewdly punted knowing they'd be looking at Congressional
Clinton didn't want to expend the political capital necessary to make fighting terrorism a priority. Typically, Democrats aren't big on blowing things up with the military (especially when that action might be seen to advance America's agenda, better to be involved in do-gooder interventionalism if at all). They'd rather deal with domestic initiatives and usually those that allow them to spend money on
Republicans like to blow things up as this tends to please
their constituents. It tends to shore up the base who takes comfort in supporting our military as an expression of patriotism. Republicans are also (normally) averse to spending on domestic issues involving large government programs that have little proven benefits. Current administration notwithstanding.
Each side of the aisle tries to pin the creation, growth and continuation of terrorism on the other. This is futile and stupid. Mohammedanism have been waging war on infidels for centuries. To think that this is a new phenomenon is simply foolish.
Reagan attacked Libya for its support of terrorism and ignored Iran after the Beirut bombing killed 241 Marines. The coterie of national security experts in Reagan's cabinet (as well as Bush 41) did not want to upset the apple cart that was the Middle East. Attacking Iran was seen as far too risky and might jeopardize the flow (or at least cost) of oil. Something that was financially ruinous to the nation in the 70's and ended Jimmy Carter's hopes of reelection.
The Jihadis have been at war with us for centuries and noticeably more active in the last 30 years. We've just be too blind to see.
Comments