The Clinton Melt Down Explained

Bill Clinton was asked on Fox News why he hadn't done more to get Osama Bin Laden at which point he had an extreme emotional melt down while he very angrily explained the little he had done. Of course if he had been able to say, "I'm sorry you're so mistaken, I did realize the threat OBL represented early on, I did kill him and many of his followers, and thereby did prevent 9/11," there would have been no melt down. As it turned out Clinton slept for 8 years ignoring exactly 10 opportunities to kill OBL (as reported by Michael Scheuer, the CIA operative who gave him the ten opportunities) in the face of repeated attacks and did nothing which apparently makes him very angry, frustrated, defensive, and quasi-violent.

When Clinton was asked by Chris Wallace of Fox why such a simply question was not legitimate, Clinton was taken aback and literally sat back in his chair, defensively; then quickly blurted out, "you didn't ask the Bush administration that question did you?" He was conceding despite his outburst that ok maybe it was a legitimate question after all but that it should have been asked of the Bush Administration too. That impetuous argument quickly fell apart though when Fox instantly produced tapes of Rumsfeld fielding the same question, and in a civilized manner too. Clinton ventured further into the realm of desperation by suggesting that his best argument for sleeping after the USS Cole was attacked was that the CIA and FBI would not "certify" that the attack had been carried out by Al Qaeda. But that argument instantly fell apart too, almost as it left his lips, as everyone immediately wondered why on earth he needed them to certify exactly who or what group had bombed our ship and killed many American sailors. FDR didn't need certification to declare war on Germany when their ally, Japan, attacked us in 1941 and Bush didn't need certification to attack Afghanistan and Iraq when Al Qaeda attacked us?

After 9/11 one of Clinton's first and most narcissistic public utterances had to do with how nothing as significant as 9/11 had happened while he was President and therefore he wouldn't have the opportunity to be among the pantheon of great American Presidents who had been called upon to act during times of great international emergencies. With Wallace's question and the recent ABC News movie, (endorsed as substantially accurate by the Chairman of "The 9/11 Commission), which dramatized Clinton's impotence during his eight years in office it was beginning to look not as if Clinton was going to look neutral in history, but rather, dangerously inept and even asleep at the stick as the nation blindly plummeted toward 9/11.

One might guess, even pray in my case, that as Hoover and the Republicans took much of the blame for the Depression because they occupied the White House when it started (although it was caused by monetary illiquidity created by the independent Federal Reserve System), that the Democrats will take the blame for 9/11 because they were in the Whitehouse and did absolutely nothing during 8 long years of attacks that clearly led to 9/11. One might also suspect and hope that while the Democrats prolonged the Depression for 10 years with tax and spend stupidity and then turned it into a world war that killed 60 million, but still tricked the country into liking them, that George Bush, despite almost completely blowing the war on terrorism, might be able to accomplish the same trick. Certainly Bush has a goo