Speaking of Disney’s 9/11 docufantasy, I just read this from rightwing conman Joe Scarborough:
But at the same time, doesn’t history show that Bill Clinton had several opportunities to go after bin Laden, but the President and his cabinet were afraid to do so because they may offend some people in the Arab world?
This is the kind of contradiction I just don’t understand from the right. They insist that Clinton was an opportunist jerkface who consistently used foreign policy to distract from his personal failings. Wag the dog, and all that? Right? Right?
And yet, what is this diehard insistence that Clinton had several opportunities to easily capture or kill Bin Laden but was too afraid to do it? Wouldn’t the death of Bin Laden have been a nice little treat for Clinton? Even before 9/11, Osama was an infamous enemy, the death of whom would have certainly benefited Clinton politically. So how can they explain why he wouldn’t have opportunistically taken advantage of the situation, if it were real?
I just can’t fathom this. Not that they’d have such contradictory attacks against Clinton, but that they’d be so oblivious to it for so long, and yet still consider themselves to be honest and principled. And the last straw is that they continue to insist that they didn’t viscerally hate Clinton, while insisting that we’re the irrational haters. It’s enough to make my blood boil, if I still used blood. But I guess if there weren’t conservatives out there, I’d have far fewer people to feel superior to; so I guess I can’t totally begrudge them their place in society.