Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Clinton was disinterested in fighting terrorism

Former FBI director Louis Freeh said that Clinton was indifferent to terrorism. Well, duh! Hard to concentrate on fighting terrorism when you're being serviced by an intern your daughter's age, to say nothing of the plethora of other ethical and legal problems that the corrupt perjuring philanderer had. From Boortz:
The plot is now thickening over the war of words between former FBI Director Louis Freeh and the Clinton administration. Freeh said on '60 Minutes' over the weekend that Bill Clinton was indifferent to the Khobar Towers attack in 1996 that killed 19 U.S. servicemen and refused to complain to Crown Prince Abdullah directly about a lack of cooperation. Instead, said Freeh, the 42nd president of the United States hit them up for a donation to his presidential library.

It took all of about 2 minutes for the former Clinton cronies to storm out of the woodwork and start defending their former boss. Sandy 'Pants' Berger said he was at the meeting, and Freeh is lying. But today we learn from the Saudis....and it's actually worse than what Freeh said.

This comes to us according to a 2001 New Yorker piece, which quotes two sources close to former Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan. He says former President Clinton was almost ready to cry because of his legal problems stemming from the Monica Lewinsky scandal and that they didn't really talk too much about the Khobar Towers case. In fact, Clinton didn't really press Abdullah about it at all. Evidently the ambassador had warned Abdullah to expect some questions about Khobar, but when none came, the prince was stunned that Clinton showed such little interest.

The leader of the free world crying in front of the Prince of Saudi Arabia. No wonder nothing was ever done about terrorism for eight years.
Of course he was crying...he "felt our pain"!

There are few things as laughable as Billybob trotting out national security secrets klepto Sandy Burglar...er, Berger...to try and refute Freeh's assertions. Does anyone see find the delectable irony of a known liar (Clinton) sending out a known liar and thief (Burglar) to try and restore some credibility and to refute Freeh's assertions?

Billybob was more interested in hitting up the Saudis for money for his presidential library...which somehow, according to liberals, is much more noble and acceptable than the reasons they give for Bush being cozy with the Saudis (oil). So in short, kissing Saudi ass is fine, so long as it's for money to one's legacy-rehab library and not for oil.

To be fair, Freeh has a book out, so it is reasonable to take what he says with a grain of salt. It is also reasonable to believe that he is right in that Bill Clinton just wasn't interested in fighting terrorism...and we're cleaning up the mess today, as a result.