Junto Boys

SOME PASSING THOUGHTS

On Bill Clinton’s tirade.

Dick Morris said that Clinton is always at his most emotional and emphatic when he’s defending the indefensible. And if you think about it, “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” is the benchmark example.

Reagan faced pointed questions so often that he would usually smile and then explain what it was that he believed. Bush 43 never seems to worry about what anyone thinks. Without getting too psychoanalytical wouldn’t it seem that Clinton’s self-image is too tied to his public image?

The other day Tony Snow was asked about how Bush saw his own legacy. Snow said that Bush has read three biographies of George Washington in the last year and if history is still re-evaluating his legacy 200 years later, then the President realizes that his legacy will also be debated continually. Bush just simply makes the best decision at the time and moves on.

On Condi’s Reaction to Bill

The Bush administration made a pointed attempt to end the anti-Clinton atmosphere that dominated the 1990s. Bush pretty much ended every investigation of the Clintons. And he could have investigated some of Clinton’s pardons, especially the ones orchestrated for money by Hilary’s brothers. When Sandy Berger stole and destroyed classified documents important to the 9-11 investigation, the administration treated it lightly. But Clinton’s assertion that terrorism was well under control before Bush became President was just too much for the likes of Condi. It was the first real criticism of Clinton that I can remember from the White House. The fact that he has been given a mulligan by Bush stopped meaning that they would also take the heat for him.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

For as angry as Clinton seems to be about his legacy what with the ABC 9-11 film and his interview with Chris Wallace, Imagine being President Bush and being called a liar about WMD by Senate Democrats that stood with Clinton in 1998 as they announced that Saddam had those weapons.

No one was really sure if Saddam had the weapons, but he had a program and it was unknowable how far along they were. Bush felt that he was in the majority when he said that Iraq possessed them.

Bush let the United Nations run the inspections first, but they proved to be a sham, because it was impossible to interview the scientists without them facing reprisals from Saddam. The tapes that Powell brought the U.N. showed that the leaders of suspected compounds were moving stuff around when the inspectors were coming their way. The administration had to assume that he was hiding something. Bush would have been negligent otherwise.

Though the connection never seems to be made, Clinton suggests that Bush didn't take his warnings of Osama seriously and that led to 9-11. Conversely, Bush was supposed to ignore Clinton's prior warnings about Saddam.

On Bob Woodward’s New Book

As we learned in the Plame leak, Bob Woodward has been given unfettered access to the White House, but that access has cost him a great deal of credibility within the MSM. Many have called him a sellout. So this latest book saying that Bush is misleading us about Iraq is a great Machiavellian moment. Woodward needs to distance himself from the media un-friendly Bush so he presents a book that seems to echo the conventional wisdom criticisms that are hardly new.

The administration is probably trying to underplay the violence in Iraq. Osama himself said that America can’t handle too much violence and will eventually flee if you give them a big enough dose. After all, we fled Somalia like after Black Hawk Down. Doesn't the media run the risk of being Osama's pawns by making the case he's begging them to make? In other words, if you know that certain perceptions help Osama, should you create those perceptions in your reporting? Why not just present the events and let people give them context?

The war in IRAQ made the world more dangerous

Did World War II create more Nazis? Did our non-reaction in the 1990s make them like us more? Those who feel that Iraq has made the world more dangerous have not stepped up and said what specific third way policy would have worked. We always get a vague prescription of working with our allies, because lord knows they have been successful making friend with them.

We would all have liked the war in Iraq to have been simpler, but paradoxically the greater effort we’ve put forward may be a validation of how right-on the idea has been. There is no doubt we had to fight the terrorists somewhere and with Iraq we were able to choose a battleground. It’s certainly better ground than the mountains of Afghanistan or downtown Manhattan. Democrats may be derisive of our efforts there, but terrorists treat our actions as serious and dire. I tend to think that reaction to us speaks to our success not failure. Bush and the Neocons said that this terrorism threat was being supported by states more so than groups and if that were not true then I think our invasion of Iraq would have been met with less urgency by them.

Retiring the Taliban was a great idea, but it was never going to bring us the other groups that are just as dangerous. Since there is no way to measure how many people are naturally drawn to terrorism and since they refuse to identify themselves on the census, Democrats can anecdotally suggest that our actions are turning perfectly fine Muslim gentlemen into cutthroats. I could just as easily say that Democrats through their largesse are turning perfectly fine hardworking Americans into lazy no accounts. Maybe I will say it anyway.