Re: Clinton. Republican Attempt At Revising History Fails

Coming into work this morning I was listening to conservative radio host Bill Bennett discuss Bill Clinton’s interview on FOX News yesterday. A guest he had on, the name escapes me, essentially claimed that there wasn’t really a lot of Republican hand wringing when Clinton used the military to fight terrorism in the 90s. If you saw the interview (video below) you know Clinton charged that each time he went after Osama bin Laden and Al Queda, the rightwing accused him of trying to distract the nation from their blowjob-obsessed witch hunt. “There wasn’t really any ‘wag the dog’ charges,” the guest on the show claimed.

And the online world of GOP spin agrees. From FreeRepublic, a bastion of conservative thought on the internets:

After reading parts of the FoxNews Sunday transcript of the interview between Wallace and Clinton, something stuck out to me.

Clinton keeps claiming that ‘right wing conservatives’ were constantly complaining that he was too obsessed with bin Laden. I have mentioned previous that I have no memories of that happening… After watching the rant, oops, interview, Clinton slipped up. He showed his cards by uttering three little words: wag the dog.

It was like a light bulb going off in my head. Now it made sense. Clinton is once again ‘mixing’ historical events to conform to what he wants the world to remember.

Conservatives did use the wag the dog reference numerous times, not in reference to bin Laden, but in reference to Clinton’s massive bombardment of Serbia, which had absolutely nothing to do with bin Laden. All the wag the dog references in the 90’s had nothing to do with bin Laden, but had everything to do with Serbia and Milosevic, as far as my meager memory serves. I may be wrong, and I may be unaware of statements to the contrary but as far as I can remember, all those references were regarding Milosevic and Serbia.

Claiming that ‘right wing conservatives’ were complaining that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden is an outright lie. But to try and prove it by using the wag the dog reference was a stupid move on his part and illuminated his lack of facts to back it up. And in my view, invalidated the rest of the rant, er interview.

But reality is a cruel mistress. Because even though people can scrub information off their websites, (as FreeRepublic did here) records still remain. Thanks to archive.org, we see what was actually written when Clinton went after bin Laden and Al Queda:

* Wag The Dog ! Wag the Dog! We are bombing Afganhistan – Last time it was Iraq, Now we are bombing Afghanistan and Sudan to deflect attention from Clinton’s troubles.

* He set the whole damn thing up when he went to Africa. They blow up our embassies on command and Clinton gets to divert our attention away from his perverted crap. We need an investigation!

* SEE!!!! YOU DUMB A** LIBERALS. NOW HE IS PLACING YOUR PRECIOUS CHILDREN IN HARMS WAY TO SAVE HIS OWN BUTT. HIS GOING TO KILL YOUR CHILDREN. PLEASE GOD HELP US!!!! I AM THE STUPID1 —– please excuse me for yelling, but now I’m really scared of the lenghts this man is willing to go. I’m a 28 year old man with a beautiful family, may hands are shaking. nothing follows

* Get this SOB out of there!!!! What do we have to do???? The demoncrats have to do something NOW!!!!!

* What if Islamic terrorist already pre-positioned in the U.S. start a terror campain? That could be the excuse for the FEMA scenario and he “Clinton, king for life” scenario.

Read the rest of it at the link given above. Scary stuff.

And as for “wag the dog” reference in the media at that time, Google is your friend.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: