See a pattern?

Clinton wags his finger at Chris Wallace as he blames the news network for his own failings.

Clinton wags his finger at Peter Jennings as he blames the news network for his own failings.

Clinton wags his finger at the American public as he lies about his actions.

Clinton wags his finger at a Grand Jury as he lies about his actions.

And I always just thought you could tell he was lying by the fact his lips were moving.

1. […] Jason Smith has other great moments in “finger wagging” history. […]

   Pingback by Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video Flashback: Clinton points finger at Jennings, enraged at moral questioning — 4:42 pm
   

2. Jason, that’s lips moving and words coming out. Lips moving without words could just be an indication he is thinking of Monica, or…

   Comment by Old Soldier — 5:43 pm
   

3. Three things come to mind when I hear ol’ Billy Boy say he “tried and failed” but when he failed, he “left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy”.

   First, according to Condi Rice, (who I believe), the Clinton Administration did NOT leave a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida.

   Second, IF Billy Boy had actually “tried and failed”, then why the hell would the Bush Administration want to use a comprehensive anti-terror strategy that was known to have failed???

   And third, I bet what really happened to the supposed “comprehensive anti-terror strategy left behind” was that it “inadvertently” jumped into Sandy Berger’s britches when he stole the classified documents in 2003!!!

   “Rather than the “honest mistake” he described last summer, Berger told Robinson that he intentionally took and deliberately destroyed three copies of the same document dealing with terror threats during the 2000 millennium celebration. He then lied about it to Archives staff when they told him documents were missing.”

   “After news of the probe surfaced, Berger said he left the National Archives on two occasions in 2003 with copies of documents about the government’s anti-terror efforts and notes that he took on those documents.”

   Berger Pleads Guilty to Taking Materials
   http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/04/01/national/w111624S64.DTL

   ABC Catches Sandy Berger With His Pants Down…
   http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/09/06/abc-catches-sandy-berger-with-his-pants-down/

   Comment by Nita Rene — 6:05 pm
   

4. ‘Clinton is a pampered peacock’…

   There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know – the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch.

   Trackback by Conservative Blog Therapy — 8:17 pm
   

5. Remember “gravitas”? It wasn’t that long ago that Clinton was the example of the elder statesman, and his sense of dignity was part of the legacy he hoped to leave. What seems to be coming out, despite the best efforts of the Mainstream Media, is how angry this gentleman, and how he is trying to revise history to cast himself in a better light. Even without the miniseries “The Path to 9/11″ it seems like most Americans have some sense, even on an unconscious level, that this man did not do all he could to protect this country. For those of us with any memory, the first WTC attack, the embassy attacks, the USS Cole attack all point to a politician who wanted to “vamp” things until he got out of office so that his perpetual quest for a fond legacy could be happily concluded. Whether you like his faults or not, I don’t think most Americans worry that Mr. Bush is afraid to go on the offense to protect this nation (for goodness sake, how many would have believe that there would not be another attack after 9/11 for five weeks, let alone five years?) I may not like the war in Iraq, or how things have gone there of late, but I certainly would rather face the enemy there, rather than here at home.

   Comment by ChipMonk — 10:54 pm
   

6. re: a comprehensive anti-terror strategy - I’m certain Free Willy Clinton wouldn’t lie about it. He was just mistaken. Here are three scenarios about what might have happened to the strategy:

   1:) It was all written out (in strung together writin’) but it accidently got destroyed with the FBI files.

   2:) It was all written out (in strung together writin’) but it accidently got taken out of the White House with some furniture we wuz movin’.

   3:) It was all written out (in strung together writin’) but it wuz on the plane with Ron Brown…

   Comment by prying1 — 12:14 am
   

7. […] Update! A history of self-righteous finger-wagging dishonesty, courtesy of Texas Rainmaker, via Ian at Hot Air. […]

   Pingback by Cold Fury » Blog Archive » Booooooring — 9:55 am
   

8. ROTFALMAO! I really never noticed his finger-pointing before this last interview on Fox News, but I sure noticed it this time. I guess the other times he was pointing it I was focussed on that huge nose! It’s getting bigger everytime I see it.

   Comment by Gayle — 4:20 pm
   

9. Let him keep pointing his finger and getting mad on public TV. People are watching, and taking note. He doesn’t have the public fooled - just those people fool enough to follow him. I’m sure all the people who worked for him could tell you lots of stories, if they started talking!

   And, as he talks and lies, his nose gets more like Pinocchio!

   Comment by Barb — 5:36 pm
   

10. Barb,

    Do ya really think anybody that worked for him would be willing to talk? I don’t. I think they like breathing too much!!

    Comment by nita rene — 3:21 am
    

11. Re “comprehensive strategy”, see the discussion at the “progressive” discussion forum, Rabble:
    http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=002188

    Note the sudden change of subject when they are confronted the facts that aling against their gleeful cheerleading for Clinton.

    * * *

    Richard Clarke has acknowledged that there was no comprehensive plan to fight terror nor to get Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. He explained that from 1998 (re the attack on the Cole) to 2000, he had proposed a 5-year rollback approach which the Clinton Admin had not approved, not not used to form an action plan, and considered as among the options they’d pass on to the incoming Bush Administration.

    This aligns with Clinton National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger:

    >> “We briefed them [Bush Admin] fully on what we were doing - on what else was under consideration and what the threat was. I personally attended part of that briefing to emphasize how important that was. But there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect.”

    * * *

    In April 2001, Bush approved a 5-fold increase in the funding for Intelligence operations against al-Qaeda; it would go into effect in October 2001. That is much more than Clinton who stymied such funding in his budgets.

    Also, Clarke said in 2002:
    http://www.house.gov/list/press/nj03_saxton/pr040326Clarke2.html

    >> “the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.”

    * * *

    Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit in the Clinton years, said on Hardball:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9005619/

    >> [W]e had at least eight to 10 chances to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in 1998 and 1999. And the government on all occasions decided that the information was not good enough to act…

    >> When we were going to capture Osama bin Laden, for example, the lawyers were more concerned with bin Laden‘s safety and his comfort than they were with the officers charged with capturing him. We had to build an ergonomically designed chair to put him in, special comfort in terms of how he was shackled into the chair. They even worried about what kind of tape to gag him with so it wouldn‘t irritate his beard. The lawyers are the bane of the intelligence community.

    * * *

    Mansoor Ijaz said in 2001 LA Times Op-ed:
    http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

    >> President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

    >> I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities…

    >> As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster…

    >> Clinton’s failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger’s assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

    * * *

    This month, Newsmax recounted the following:
    http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

    >> During a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden’s extradition to the U.S., saying, “At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him.”

    >> But that wasn’t exactly true. By 1996, the 9/11 mastermind had already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by prosecutors in New York. […]

    >> At least two offers from the government of Sudan to arrest Osama bin Laden and turn him over to the U.S. were rebuffed by the Clinton administration in February and March of 1996 […]

    >> On Feb. 6, 1996, then-U.S. Ambassador to the Sudan Tim Carney met with Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Osman Mohammed Taha […] “If you want bin Laden, we will give you bin Laden,” Foreign Minister Taha told Ambassador Carney.

    >> Sudan’s offer to the U.S. for bin Laden’s extradition remained on the table for at least a month, and was reiterated by Sudanese officials who traveled to Washington as late as March 10, 1996.

    >> On March 3, Sudan’s Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa met secretly with Ambassador Carney […] On instructions from its president, the government of Sudan agreed to arrest bin Laden and hand him over to U.S law enforcement at a time and place of the Clinton administration’s choosing. “Where should we send him?” Erwa asked the CIA representative.

    >> In his 2002 speech [to the Long Island Association’s Annual Luncheon Crest Hollow Country Club, Woodbury, NY] President Clinton has acknowledged being fully briefed on the Sudanese efforts to turn over the 9/11 mastermind, admitting that he made the final decision to turn the offer down.

    >> Just weeks after Clinton spurned Sudan’s bin Laden offer, for instance, the CIA created a separate operational unit dedicated to tracking down bin Laden in Sudan.

    >> But it happened too late to capture the 9/11 mastermind. On May 18, 1996, bin Laden boarded a chartered plane in Khartoum with his wives, children, some 150 al-Qaida jihadists and a cache of arms - and flew off to Jalalabad, Afghanistan.

    * * *

    Clinton’s 2002 speech about giving up Bin Laden [MP3 file]
    http://www.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3

    Transcript [Scroll way down]
    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml?s=ic

    >> Question from LIA President Matthew Crosson: “In hindsight, would you have handled the issue of terrorism, and al-Qaeda specifically, in a different way during your administration?”

    Comment by Chairm — 9:47 pm
    

12. Re “comprehensive strategy”, see the discussion at the “progressive” discussion forum, :

    Note the sudden change of subject when they are confronted the facts that aling against their gleeful cheerleading for Clinton.

    * * *

    has acknowledged that there was no comprehensive plan to fight terror nor to get Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. He explained that from 1998 (re the attack on the Cole) to 2000, he had proposed a 5-year rollback approach which the Clinton Admin had not approved, not not used to form an action plan, and considered as among the options they’d pass on to the incoming Bush Administration.

    This aligns with Clinton National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger:

    >> “We briefed them [Bush Admin] fully on what we were doing - on what else was under consideration and what the threat was. I personally attended part of that briefing to emphasize how important that was. But there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect.”

    * * *

    In April 2001, Bush approved a 5-fold increase in the funding for Intelligence operations against al-Qaeda; it would go into effect in October 2001. That is much more than Clinton who stymied such funding in his budgets.

    Also, :

    * * *
    , head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit in the Clinton years, said on Hardball:

    * * *
    , former Clinton policy advisor in Sudan, said in 2001 LA Times Op-ed:

    * * *

    This month, :

    * * *
    Here is about giving up Bin Laden [MP3 file].

    [Scroll way down]

    Comment by Chairm — 9:58 pm
    

13. […] The only thing missing was the finger wag. 2 Comments » […]

    Pingback by Texas Rainmaker » Bill Clinton Admits Democrats Are Stupid and Deceitful — 9:00 am
    

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

You must be logged in to post a comment.