August 08, 2005

Democratic Adventures in Rhetoric

More lunacy from the Left:

From Daily Kos:

Now why did the military not go in for the kill on bin Laden? Are conspiracists right? Is bin Laden a paid operative for Bush? Of course not. The more likely story would be that Bush is a paid operative for bin Laden. (Uh oh? Did I just insinuate treason by the President? Is this the New Left McCarthyism? Of course not. Bush is not a paid operative for bin Laden, but he might as well have been.)

Alright. We get it. You don't like Bush. But, saying that Bush "might as well" be a paid operative for bin Laden is a little bit over the top - don't you think?
So, would the same hold true for Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton failed to take bin Laden when Yemen offered him to us in 1996. Bill Clinton failed to do anything about bin Laden (aside from lobbing some cruise missiles at abandoned terrorist training camps) over his entire 8 year term. The 9/11 attacks were planned during Bill Clinton's 8-year term (o.k., to be fair, this also occurred during the first 8 months of George W. Bush's first term). Would you say that Bill Clinton also "might as well have been" a paid operative for bin Laden? I sincrely doubt that even the most ardent Clinton hater would say that.
| |

<< Home