simply put fox news are the biggest pussies in all of media...
lets see, Bush's cronies have been on Fox news dozens and dozens times since the USS Cole Bombing and not one of them asked ANY of them "How Come Bin Laden hasnt been caught"...not a one...That little smirky joke of a journalist asks 'ol Bill damn near right off the bat.
Pussies...journalists AFRAID of the truth. What a fuckin Joke.
That being said, Al Qaeda is now an inspiration to Islamists all over the world and has fundamentally changed their world view. Before the Islamist movement was focused upon what they called the "near enemy" the local governments that Islamists saw as corrupt and needed to be ovethrown in an Islamic revolution, Al Qaeda added the "far enemy," America and the West as the main supporter of these governments, as targets as well. As the bombings in the U.K. and Spain prove, homegrown Islamists who find inspiration from the words of bin Laden and the like, but are not actual members of any organized movement, are the real threat facing the West.
simply put fox news are the biggest pussies in all of media...
lets see, Bush's cronies have been on Fox news dozens and dozens times since the USS Cole Bombing and not one of them asked ANY of them "How Come Bin Laden hasnt been caught"...not a one...That little smirky joke of a journalist asks 'ol Bill damn near right off the bat.
Pussies...journalists AFRAID of the truth. What a fuckin Joke.
wallace's show on fox news (formerly hosted by tony snow) has hosted the ususal suspects (rice, rummy, cheney) dozens of times since 9-11, perhaps even over a hundred. those few quotes are all you got? if you really want to make an issue over whether Fox News doesn't ask the white house tough questions...you won't have a winning argument. we're talking about Fox news!
also, if anyone saw Rice's comments in the paper yesterday regarding the Clinton interview, you should check out this factual check of her arguments.
simply put fox news are the biggest pussies in all of media...
lets see, Bush's cronies have been on Fox news dozens and dozens times since the USS Cole Bombing and not one of them asked ANY of them "How Come Bin Laden hasnt been caught"...not a one...That little smirky joke of a journalist asks 'ol Bill damn near right off the bat.
Pussies...journalists AFRAID of the truth. What a fuckin Joke.
wallace's show on fox news (formerly hosted by tony snow) has hosted the ususal suspects (rice, rummy, cheney) dozens of times since 9-11, perhaps even over a hundred. those few quotes are all you got? if you really want to make an issue over whether Fox News doesn't ask the white house tough questions...you won't have a winning argument. we're talking about Fox news!
also, if anyone saw Rice's comments in the paper yesterday regarding the Clinton interview, you should check out this factual check of her arguments.
simply put fox news are the biggest pussies in all of media...
lets see, Bush's cronies have been on Fox news dozens and dozens times since the USS Cole Bombing and not one of them asked ANY of them "How Come Bin Laden hasnt been caught"...not a one...That little smirky joke of a journalist asks 'ol Bill damn near right off the bat.
Pussies...journalists AFRAID of the truth. What a fuckin Joke.
wallace's show on fox news (formerly hosted by tony snow) has hosted the ususal suspects (rice, rummy, cheney) dozens of times since 9-11, perhaps even over a hundred. those few quotes are all you got? if you really want to make an issue over whether Fox News doesn't ask the white house tough questions...you won't have a winning argument. we're talking about Fox news!
also, if anyone saw Rice's comments in the paper yesterday regarding the Clinton interview, you should check out this factual check of her arguments.
you guys are trying to son each other/prove points by citing partisan blogs.
keith, you can do better. but don't waste your time with Dolo Cunt.
if only the "real media" covered the real news i wouldn't be reading sites like daily kos and crooks and liars. however, not only is the "traditional media" inhibited by corporate pressure, but they are not even ahead of the pack when it comes to getting a scoop. of course most blogs are partisan, however, thatdoesn't mean they aren't good sources (and sometimes the best sources) of news. you should question anything you here, no matter the media outlet (ahem..FOX NEWS). you will find citations in this story. if you want to fact-check, go directly to the sources.
simply put fox news are the biggest pussies in all of media...
lets see, Bush's cronies have been on Fox news dozens and dozens times since the USS Cole Bombing and not one of them asked ANY of them "How Come Bin Laden hasnt been caught"...not a one...That little smirky joke of a journalist asks 'ol Bill damn near right off the bat.
Pussies...journalists AFRAID of the truth. What a fuckin Joke.
wallace's show on fox news (formerly hosted by tony snow) has hosted the ususal suspects (rice, rummy, cheney) dozens of times since 9-11, perhaps even over a hundred. those few quotes are all you got? if you really want to make an issue over whether Fox News doesn't ask the white house tough questions...you won't have a winning argument. we're talking about Fox news!
also, if anyone saw Rice's comments in the paper yesterday regarding the Clinton interview, you should check out this factual check of her arguments.
you guys are trying to son each other/prove points by citing partisan blogs.
keith, you can do better. but don't waste your time with Dolo Cunt.
if only the "real media" covered the real news i wouldn't be reading sites like daily kos and crooks and liars. however, not only is the "traditional media" inhibited by corporate pressure, but they are not even ahead of the pack when it comes to getting a scoop. of course most blogs are partisan, however, thatdoesn't mean they aren't good sources (and sometimes the best sources) of news. you should question anything you here, no matter the media outlet (ahem..FOX NEWS). you will find citations in this story. if you want to fact-check, go directly to the sources.
It's not citations that would strengthen this argument. The only way to answer this would be to look through every Fox News interview since 9/11/01 and measure the ratio of interviews with Bush Admin Officials that contain accountability questions to those without. Then compare those to various groups including, but not limited to, independents, moderates, democrats, former Clinton officials. You would have to define all of your terms and make the methodology transparent. This would provide solid evidence to any rational person. But that's not what we are talking about here. Rational is out the window with these people. They would smear everything from the funding source of your research to your neighbor's auto mechanic. It is how they are winning. We need to know when they are drawing us into these hair-splitting vortexes and simply avoid it. It's that easy.
Here's the deal. Clinton did son Chris Wallace in that interview. Whoopie! That's doesn't take a lot of talent. Wallace is a tool, nothing more. At the same, time Clinton did not absolve himself of any accountability for not defending this country. That was not his point. His point was every executive from 9/10/01 back failed to prevent those attacks. And any objective news organization should make that clear. We should move on and learn from EVERYTHING. At the same time, it is ridiculous for Fox News to be high and mighty when they continue to pound the war drums after years of Bush Co. military failures.
It's not citations that would strengthen this argument. The only way to answer this would be to look through every Fox News interview since 9/11/01 and measure the ratio of interviews with Bush Admin Officials that contain accountability questions to those without. Then compare those to various groups including, but not limited to, independents, moderates, democrats, former Clinton officials. You would have to define all of your terms and make the methodology transparent. This would provide solid evidence to any rational person. But that's not what we are talking about here. Rational is out the window with these people. They would smear everything from the funding source of your research to your neighbor's auto mechanic. It is how they are winning. We need to know when they are drawing us into these hair-splitting vortexes and simply avoid it. It's that easy.
Here's the deal. Clinton did son Chris Wallace in that interview. Whoopie! That's doesn't a lot of talent. Wallace is a tool, nothing more. At the same, time Clinton did not absolve himself of any accountability for not defending this country. That was not his point. His point was every executive from 9/10/01 back failed to preven those attacks. And any objective news organization should make that clear. We should move on and learn from EVERYTHING. At the same time, it is ridiculous for Fox News to be high and mighty when they continue to pound the war drums after years of Bush Co. military failures.
I enjoyed the Olbermann interview that asked the "tough questions" Especially when Olbermann makes his disgusting gratuitous on-air donation "here's 10 more schools in East Kenya from me" and Clinton accepts in between sniffles.
Here's the deal. Clinton did son Chris Wallace in that interview. Whoopie! That's doesn't take a lot of talent. Wallace is a tool, nothing more. At the same, time Clinton did not absolve himself of any accountability for not defending this country. That was not his point. His point was every executive from 9/10/01 back failed to prevent those attacks. And any objective news organization should make that clear. We should move on and learn from EVERYTHING. At the same time, it is ridiculous for Fox News to be high and mighty when they continue to pound the war drums after years of Bush Co. military failures.
you aren't giving Clinton enough credit. the point isn't that he sonned Wallace, its that he sonned the current administration for telling lies and fox news for enabling them. this whole episode goes back to the ABC movie and how Clinton succeeded in having those same lies taken out of the show. now you have Wallace asking Clinton about a fake controversy (one which you seem to have bought into)...so Clinton killed two birds with one stone in laying out the facts for Wallace and calling him out for being a partisan stooge.
Clinton's point was NOT to say, hey, we are all guilty of not preventing 9-11. No, what he said was that the difference between him and "some" (meaning Bush), was that at least he TRIED to get rid of Osama before 9-11. He failed to kill him and that is what Clinton apologized for, however, he NEVER said he wasn't trying his hardest to defend against Osama. Read that Daily Kos link and you will see exactly what he did and what Bush did not due in the 8 months leading up to it. Again, Clinton didn't bring this out to toot his own horn. The Bush clan set this up by starting the blame game right before the mid-term elections. And we are talking about assigning blame for events that happened over 6 years ago!!
No, what he said was that the difference between him and "some" (meaning Bush), was that at least he TRIED to get rid of Osama before 9-11.
No way? Really? Do you think when he said "some" thats what he meant? Wow. Thanks, because before when I read it, I just couldn't figure out what he meant. Hey, if you read that somehwere that thats what he meant, you better cite to it.
wallace's show on fox news (formerly hosted by tony snow) has hosted the ususal suspects (rice, rummy, cheney) dozens of times since 9-11, perhaps even over a hundred. those few quotes are all you got? if you really want to make an issue over whether Fox News doesn't ask the white house tough questions...you won't have a winning argument. we're talking about Fox news!
also, if anyone saw Rice's comments in the paper yesterday regarding the Clinton interview, you should check out this factual check of her arguments.
Please read the post. I was simply confuting the absurd assertation of the malinformed hook ups. I have no interest in debating the merits and demerits of fox news because a)I dont care and b)even if I did there would be no measure of evidence or reasoned argument sufficient to sway opinion here because, to use your own words, we're talking about fox news.
As far as the dailykos link goes a few points:
1. I fail to see how an excerpt of the 911 commission report which details a disagreement over the method best suited to eliminating bin laden demonstrates that the bush administration were less aggressive than clinton. If the excerpt shows anybody to be lacking in neccesary aggression it is the CIA.
2. the sequence of quotations which alledges to prove that rice lied about demoting clarke is bizarre. In the first quote rice claims that clarke was the counterterror czar at the time of 911 and the following quote says exactly the same thing.
3. the next set of quotations purporting to demonstrate that rice was lying when she said that clinton hadnt left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-qaida is even more bizarre. It attempts to do this by displaying an excerpt which refers to a clarke memo in which he talks about issues unresolved by the previous administration, percieved failings of the approach up to that point and clearly urges for a more robust response than there had been previously. This hardly suggests that the clinton administrations strategy was in any way 'comprehensive'.
Clinton's point was NOT to say, hey, we are all guilty of not preventing 9-11. No, what he said was that the difference between him and "some" (meaning Bush), was that at least he TRIED to get rid of Osama before 9-11.
Did he say this just after or just before he said "I've never criticized GWB"??
I also loved how he changed his tune and back pedaled about whether or not he thought Hilary could win a presedential election after his quote about how he didn't think she could win was presented to him.
ALL[/b] politicians are lying sacks of shit...Clinton just happens to be very damn good at it.
1. I fail to see how an excerpt of the 911 commission report which details a disagreement over the method best suited to eliminating bin laden demonstrates that the bush administration were less aggressive than clinton. If the excerpt shows anybody to be lacking in neccesary aggression it is the CIA.
re-read that section. the point is that Clinton had used the unarmed "Predator" drone in the air to spy on Bin Laden. the bush administration got caught up in the legality of having an armed drone attempt to kill Bin Laden. so while they debated this issue with the CIA, they simultaneously abandonded the spying unarmed drone which Clinton had used. as a result, we lost out on intelligence and could not track him.
2. the sequence of quotations which alledges to prove that rice lied about demoting clarke is bizarre. In the first quote rice claims that clarke was the counterterror czar at the time of 911 and the following quote says exactly the same thing.
"Clarke writes (and nobody has disputed) that when Condi Rice took over the NSC, she kept him onboard and preserved his title but demoted the position. He would no longer participate in, much less run, Principals' meetings. He would report to deputy secretaries. He would have no staff and would attend no more meetings with budget officials.
Clarke probably resented the slight, took it personally. But he also saw it as a downgrading of the issue, a sign that al-Qaida was no longer taken as the urgent threat that the Clinton White House had come to interpret it. "
3. the next set of quotations purporting to demonstrate that rice was lying when she said that clinton hadnt left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-qaida is even more bizarre. It attempts to do this by displaying an excerpt which refers to a clarke memo in which he talks about issues unresolved by the previous administration, percieved failings of the approach up to that point and clearly urges for a more robust response than there had been previously. This hardly suggests that the clinton administrations strategy was in any way 'comprehensive'.
re-read that section. Clarke's famous memo to Condi from January of 2001 had attached to it, several documents from Clinton's administration which were plans to fight al-queda. "Tab A December 2000 Paper: Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects," was released to the National Security Archive along with the Clarke memo. "Tab B, September 1998 Paper: Pol-Mil Plan for al-Qida."
Again, this is only an issue because the Bush administration has tried to defame Clinton and the democrats right before the mid term elections. Clinton didn't make this an issue, he has only been defending himself against lies. Of course, if you follow the "real media" you would think that Clinton asked to be on Fox News and that he instigated a self-serving fight with Wallace for no reason.
Did he say this just after or just before he said "I've never criticized GWB"??
I also loved how he changed his tune and back pedaled about whether or not he thought Hilary could win a presedential election after his quote about how he didn't think she could win was presented to him.
you really have a handle on the IMPORTANT issues. i didn't think Hillary had a shot a few years ago, but now I think she will be a strong candidate. am i backpeddling??
more importantly though, how did Clinton's hair look?
what is the fake controversy that i have bought into? the ABC shit? the diffusion of responsibility to buffer the GOP in an election year? what? i don't understand.
I still believe dolo cunt is a slabadberloo alias. nice work. he actually makes you look like a reasonable level headed straight guy. but we know you love hot cock. i got one. and a fresh pair of socks. call me.
what is the fake controversy that i have bought into? the ABC shit? the diffusion of responsibility to buffer the GOP in an election year? what? i don't understand.
you said that Clinton did not absolve himself of not doing enough to defend this country. where did that come from and by what standard are you judging him? Eight months passed between the time he left office and 9-11, meanwhile, history reveals that he was adament in finding Osama and had members of his staff write reports on the threat of al queda which were passed on to Bush. Now why is Clinton an issue in September of 2006 again? I think you answered that: "the diffusion of responsibility to buffer the GOP in an election year."
what is the fake controversy that i have bought into? the ABC shit? the diffusion of responsibility to buffer the GOP in an election year? what? i don't understand.
you said that Clinton did not absolve himself of not doing enough to defend this country.
no no no. that is a misunderstanding or i misspoke. see my exchange with paulnice.
What Clinton Didn't Do . . . . . . .and when he didn't do it.
BY RICHARD MINITER Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
Bill Clinton's outburst on Fox News was something of a public service, launching a debate about the antiterror policies of his administration. This is important because every George W. Bush policy that arouses the ire of Democrats--the Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, detention without trial, pre-emptive war--is a departure from his predecessor. Where policies overlap--air attacks on infrastructure, secret presidential orders to kill terrorists, intelligence sharing with allies, freezing bank accounts, using police to arrest terror suspects--there is little friction. The question, then, is whether America should return to Mr. Clinton's policies or soldier on with Mr. Bush's.
It is vital that this debate be honest, but so far this has not been the case. Both Mr. Clinton's outrage at Chris Wallace's questioning and the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11" are attempts to polarize the nation's memory. While this divisiveness may be good for Mr. Clinton's reputation, it is ultimately unhealthy for the country. What we need, instead, is a cold-eyed look at what works against terrorists and what does not. The policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations ought to be put to the same iron test.
With that in mind, let us examine Mr. Clinton's war on terror. Some 38 days after he was sworn in, al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center. He did not visit the twin towers that year, even though four days after the attack he was just across the Hudson River in New Jersey, talking about job training. He made no attempt to rally the public against terrorism. His only public speech on the bombing was a few paragraphs inserted into a radio address mostly devoted an economic stimulus package. Those stray paragraphs were limited to reassuring the public and thanking the rescuers, the kinds of things governors say after hurricanes. He did not even vow to bring the bombers to justice. Instead, he turned the first terrorist attack on American soil over to the FBI. In his Fox interview, Mr. Clinton said "no one knew that al Qaeda existed" in October 1993, during the tragic events in Somalia. But his national security adviser, Tony Lake, told me that he first learned of bin Laden "sometime in 1993," when he was thought of as a terror financier. U.S. Army Capt. James Francis Yacone, a black hawk squadron commander in Somalia, later testified that radio intercepts of enemy mortar crews firing at Americans were in Arabic, not Somali, suggesting the work of bin Laden's agents (who spoke Arabic), not warlord Farah Aideed's men (who did not). CIA and DIA reports also placed al Qaeda operatives in Somalia at the time.
By the end of Mr. Clinton's first year, al Qaeda had apparently attacked twice. The attacks would continue for every one of the Clinton years.
??? In 1994, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who would later plan the 9/11 attacks) launched "Operation Bojinka" to down 11 U.S. planes simultaneously over the Pacific. A sharp-eyed Filipina police officer foiled the plot. The sole American response: increased law-enforcement cooperation with the Philippines.
??? In 1995, al Qaeda detonated a 220-pound car bomb outside the Office of Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and wounding 60 more. The FBI was sent in.
??? In 1996, al Qaeda bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the "no-fly zones" over Iraq, killing 19. Again, the FBI responded.
??? In 1997, al Qaeda consolidated its position in Afghanistan and bin Laden repeatedly declared war on the U.S. In February, bin Laden told an Arab TV network: "If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters." No response from the Clinton administration.
??? In 1998, al Qaeda simultaneously bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224, including 12 U.S. diplomats. Mr. Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response. Here Mr. Clinton's critics are wrong: The president was right to retaliate when America was attacked, irrespective of the Monica Lewinsky case.
Still, "Operation Infinite Reach" was weakened by Clintonian compromise. The State Department feared that Pakistan might spot the American missiles in its air space and misinterpret it as an Indian attack. So Mr. Clinton told Gen. Joe Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to notify Pakistan's army minutes before the Tomahawks passed over Pakistan. Given Pakistan's links to jihadis at the time, it is not surprising that bin Laden was tipped off, fleeing some 45 minutes before the missiles arrived.
??? In 1999, the Clinton administration disrupted al Qaeda's Millennium plots, a series of bombings stretching from Amman to Los Angeles. This shining success was mostly the work of Richard Clarke, a NSC senior director who forced agencies to work together. But the Millennium approach was shortlived. Over Mr. Clarke's objections, policy reverted to the status quo.
??? In January 2000, al Qaeda tried and failed to attack the U.S.S. The Sullivans off Yemen. (Their boat sank before they could reach their target.) But in October 2000, an al Qaeda bomb ripped a hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding another 39.
When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it. After the meeting, a State Department counterterrorism official, Michael Sheehan, sought out Mr. Clarke. Both told me that they were stunned. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"
There is much more to Mr. Clinton's record--how Predator drones, which spotted bin Laden three times in 1999 and 2000, were grounded by bureaucratic infighting; how a petty dispute with an Arizona senator stopped the CIA from hiring more Arabic translators. While it is easy to look back in hindsight and blame Bill Clinton, the full scale and nature of the terrorist threat was not widely appreciated until 9/11. Still: Bill Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy's natural reluctance to use force. That is a hard lesson. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them. Mr. Miniter, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, is author of "Disinformation: 22 Media Myths that Undermine the War on Terror" (Regnery, 2005).
What Clinton Didn't Do . . . . . . .and when he didn't do it.
BY RICHARD MINITER Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
Bill Clinton's outburst on Fox News was something of a public service, launching a debate about the antiterror policies of his administration. This is important because every George W. Bush policy that arouses the ire of Democrats--the Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, detention without trial, pre-emptive war--is a departure from his predecessor. Where policies overlap--air attacks on infrastructure, secret presidential orders to kill terrorists, intelligence sharing with allies, freezing bank accounts, using police to arrest terror suspects--there is little friction. The question, then, is whether America should return to Mr. Clinton's policies or soldier on with Mr. Bush's.
It is vital that this debate be honest, but so far this has not been the case. Both Mr. Clinton's outrage at Chris Wallace's questioning and the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11" are attempts to polarize the nation's memory. While this divisiveness may be good for Mr. Clinton's reputation, it is ultimately unhealthy for the country. What we need, instead, is a cold-eyed look at what works against terrorists and what does not. The policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations ought to be put to the same iron test.
With that in mind, let us examine Mr. Clinton's war on terror. Some 38 days after he was sworn in, al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center. He did not visit the twin towers that year, even though four days after the attack he was just across the Hudson River in New Jersey, talking about job training. He made no attempt to rally the public against terrorism. His only public speech on the bombing was a few paragraphs inserted into a radio address mostly devoted an economic stimulus package. Those stray paragraphs were limited to reassuring the public and thanking the rescuers, the kinds of things governors say after hurricanes. He did not even vow to bring the bombers to justice. Instead, he turned the first terrorist attack on American soil over to the FBI. In his Fox interview, Mr. Clinton said "no one knew that al Qaeda existed" in October 1993, during the tragic events in Somalia. But his national security adviser, Tony Lake, told me that he first learned of bin Laden "sometime in 1993," when he was thought of as a terror financier. U.S. Army Capt. James Francis Yacone, a black hawk squadron commander in Somalia, later testified that radio intercepts of enemy mortar crews firing at Americans were in Arabic, not Somali, suggesting the work of bin Laden's agents (who spoke Arabic), not warlord Farah Aideed's men (who did not). CIA and DIA reports also placed al Qaeda operatives in Somalia at the time.
By the end of Mr. Clinton's first year, al Qaeda had apparently attacked twice. The attacks would continue for every one of the Clinton years.
??? In 1994, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who would later plan the 9/11 attacks) launched "Operation Bojinka" to down 11 U.S. planes simultaneously over the Pacific. A sharp-eyed Filipina police officer foiled the plot. The sole American response: increased law-enforcement cooperation with the Philippines.
??? In 1995, al Qaeda detonated a 220-pound car bomb outside the Office of Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and wounding 60 more. The FBI was sent in.
??? In 1996, al Qaeda bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the "no-fly zones" over Iraq, killing 19. Again, the FBI responded.
??? In 1997, al Qaeda consolidated its position in Afghanistan and bin Laden repeatedly declared war on the U.S. In February, bin Laden told an Arab TV network: "If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters." No response from the Clinton administration.
??? In 1998, al Qaeda simultaneously bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224, including 12 U.S. diplomats. Mr. Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response. Here Mr. Clinton's critics are wrong: The president was right to retaliate when America was attacked, irrespective of the Monica Lewinsky case.
Still, "Operation Infinite Reach" was weakened by Clintonian compromise. The State Department feared that Pakistan might spot the American missiles in its air space and misinterpret it as an Indian attack. So Mr. Clinton told Gen. Joe Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to notify Pakistan's army minutes before the Tomahawks passed over Pakistan. Given Pakistan's links to jihadis at the time, it is not surprising that bin Laden was tipped off, fleeing some 45 minutes before the missiles arrived.
??? In 1999, the Clinton administration disrupted al Qaeda's Millennium plots, a series of bombings stretching from Amman to Los Angeles. This shining success was mostly the work of Richard Clarke, a NSC senior director who forced agencies to work together. But the Millennium approach was shortlived. Over Mr. Clarke's objections, policy reverted to the status quo.
??? In January 2000, al Qaeda tried and failed to attack the U.S.S. The Sullivans off Yemen. (Their boat sank before they could reach their target.) But in October 2000, an al Qaeda bomb ripped a hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding another 39.
When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it. After the meeting, a State Department counterterrorism official, Michael Sheehan, sought out Mr. Clarke. Both told me that they were stunned. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"
There is much more to Mr. Clinton's record--how Predator drones, which spotted bin Laden three times in 1999 and 2000, were grounded by bureaucratic infighting; how a petty dispute with an Arizona senator stopped the CIA from hiring more Arabic translators. While it is easy to look back in hindsight and blame Bill Clinton, the full scale and nature of the terrorist threat was not widely appreciated until 9/11. Still: Bill Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy's natural reluctance to use force. That is a hard lesson. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them. Mr. Miniter, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, is author of "Disinformation: 22 Media Myths that Undermine the War on Terror" (Regnery, 2005).
Regnery, 2005[/b]
You've got a lot of fucking balls complaining about someone posting a quote from Daily Kos. Regnery is the center of the Clinton-hate industry in America. Fraud, indeed....
What Clinton Didn't Do . . . . . . .and when he didn't do it.
BY RICHARD MINITER Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
Bill Clinton's outburst on Fox News was something of a public service, launching a debate about the antiterror policies of his administration. This is important because every George W. Bush policy that arouses the ire of Democrats--the Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, detention without trial, pre-emptive war--is a departure from his predecessor. Where policies overlap--air attacks on infrastructure, secret presidential orders to kill terrorists, intelligence sharing with allies, freezing bank accounts, using police to arrest terror suspects--there is little friction. The question, then, is whether America should return to Mr. Clinton's policies or soldier on with Mr. Bush's.
It is vital that this debate be honest, but so far this has not been the case. Both Mr. Clinton's outrage at Chris Wallace's questioning and the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11" are attempts to polarize the nation's memory. While this divisiveness may be good for Mr. Clinton's reputation, it is ultimately unhealthy for the country. What we need, instead, is a cold-eyed look at what works against terrorists and what does not. The policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations ought to be put to the same iron test.
With that in mind, let us examine Mr. Clinton's war on terror. Some 38 days after he was sworn in, al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center. He did not visit the twin towers that year, even though four days after the attack he was just across the Hudson River in New Jersey, talking about job training. He made no attempt to rally the public against terrorism. His only public speech on the bombing was a few paragraphs inserted into a radio address mostly devoted an economic stimulus package. Those stray paragraphs were limited to reassuring the public and thanking the rescuers, the kinds of things governors say after hurricanes. He did not even vow to bring the bombers to justice. Instead, he turned the first terrorist attack on American soil over to the FBI. In his Fox interview, Mr. Clinton said "no one knew that al Qaeda existed" in October 1993, during the tragic events in Somalia. But his national security adviser, Tony Lake, told me that he first learned of bin Laden "sometime in 1993," when he was thought of as a terror financier. U.S. Army Capt. James Francis Yacone, a black hawk squadron commander in Somalia, later testified that radio intercepts of enemy mortar crews firing at Americans were in Arabic, not Somali, suggesting the work of bin Laden's agents (who spoke Arabic), not warlord Farah Aideed's men (who did not). CIA and DIA reports also placed al Qaeda operatives in Somalia at the time.
By the end of Mr. Clinton's first year, al Qaeda had apparently attacked twice. The attacks would continue for every one of the Clinton years.
??? In 1994, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who would later plan the 9/11 attacks) launched "Operation Bojinka" to down 11 U.S. planes simultaneously over the Pacific. A sharp-eyed Filipina police officer foiled the plot. The sole American response: increased law-enforcement cooperation with the Philippines.
??? In 1995, al Qaeda detonated a 220-pound car bomb outside the Office of Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and wounding 60 more. The FBI was sent in.
??? In 1996, al Qaeda bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the "no-fly zones" over Iraq, killing 19. Again, the FBI responded.
??? In 1997, al Qaeda consolidated its position in Afghanistan and bin Laden repeatedly declared war on the U.S. In February, bin Laden told an Arab TV network: "If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters." No response from the Clinton administration.
??? In 1998, al Qaeda simultaneously bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224, including 12 U.S. diplomats. Mr. Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response. Here Mr. Clinton's critics are wrong: The president was right to retaliate when America was attacked, irrespective of the Monica Lewinsky case.
Still, "Operation Infinite Reach" was weakened by Clintonian compromise. The State Department feared that Pakistan might spot the American missiles in its air space and misinterpret it as an Indian attack. So Mr. Clinton told Gen. Joe Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to notify Pakistan's army minutes before the Tomahawks passed over Pakistan. Given Pakistan's links to jihadis at the time, it is not surprising that bin Laden was tipped off, fleeing some 45 minutes before the missiles arrived.
??? In 1999, the Clinton administration disrupted al Qaeda's Millennium plots, a series of bombings stretching from Amman to Los Angeles. This shining success was mostly the work of Richard Clarke, a NSC senior director who forced agencies to work together. But the Millennium approach was shortlived. Over Mr. Clarke's objections, policy reverted to the status quo.
??? In January 2000, al Qaeda tried and failed to attack the U.S.S. The Sullivans off Yemen. (Their boat sank before they could reach their target.) But in October 2000, an al Qaeda bomb ripped a hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding another 39.
When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it. After the meeting, a State Department counterterrorism official, Michael Sheehan, sought out Mr. Clarke. Both told me that they were stunned. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"
There is much more to Mr. Clinton's record--how Predator drones, which spotted bin Laden three times in 1999 and 2000, were grounded by bureaucratic infighting; how a petty dispute with an Arizona senator stopped the CIA from hiring more Arabic translators. While it is easy to look back in hindsight and blame Bill Clinton, the full scale and nature of the terrorist threat was not widely appreciated until 9/11. Still: Bill Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy's natural reluctance to use force. That is a hard lesson. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them. Mr. Miniter, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, is author of "Disinformation: 22 Media Myths that Undermine the War on Terror" (Regnery, 2005).
Regnery, 2005[/b]
You've got a lot of fucking balls complaining about someone posting a quote from Daily Kos. Regnery is the center of the Clinton-hate industry in America. Fraud, indeed....
Typical left-wing tactic, change the topic. This isn't about Miniter or Regnery, this is about how Clinton failed to address the growing threat of terrorism. Instead of trying to smear the messenger, why dont you address all the facts presented here.
What Clinton Didn't Do . . . . . . .and when he didn't do it.
BY RICHARD MINITER Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
Bill Clinton's outburst on Fox News was something of a public service, launching a debate about the antiterror policies of his administration. This is important because every George W. Bush policy that arouses the ire of Democrats--the Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, detention without trial, pre-emptive war--is a departure from his predecessor. Where policies overlap--air attacks on infrastructure, secret presidential orders to kill terrorists, intelligence sharing with allies, freezing bank accounts, using police to arrest terror suspects--there is little friction. The question, then, is whether America should return to Mr. Clinton's policies or soldier on with Mr. Bush's.
It is vital that this debate be honest, but so far this has not been the case. Both Mr. Clinton's outrage at Chris Wallace's questioning and the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11" are attempts to polarize the nation's memory. While this divisiveness may be good for Mr. Clinton's reputation, it is ultimately unhealthy for the country. What we need, instead, is a cold-eyed look at what works against terrorists and what does not. The policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations ought to be put to the same iron test.
With that in mind, let us examine Mr. Clinton's war on terror. Some 38 days after he was sworn in, al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center. He did not visit the twin towers that year, even though four days after the attack he was just across the Hudson River in New Jersey, talking about job training. He made no attempt to rally the public against terrorism. His only public speech on the bombing was a few paragraphs inserted into a radio address mostly devoted an economic stimulus package. Those stray paragraphs were limited to reassuring the public and thanking the rescuers, the kinds of things governors say after hurricanes. He did not even vow to bring the bombers to justice. Instead, he turned the first terrorist attack on American soil over to the FBI. In his Fox interview, Mr. Clinton said "no one knew that al Qaeda existed" in October 1993, during the tragic events in Somalia. But his national security adviser, Tony Lake, told me that he first learned of bin Laden "sometime in 1993," when he was thought of as a terror financier. U.S. Army Capt. James Francis Yacone, a black hawk squadron commander in Somalia, later testified that radio intercepts of enemy mortar crews firing at Americans were in Arabic, not Somali, suggesting the work of bin Laden's agents (who spoke Arabic), not warlord Farah Aideed's men (who did not). CIA and DIA reports also placed al Qaeda operatives in Somalia at the time.
By the end of Mr. Clinton's first year, al Qaeda had apparently attacked twice. The attacks would continue for every one of the Clinton years.
??? In 1994, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who would later plan the 9/11 attacks) launched "Operation Bojinka" to down 11 U.S. planes simultaneously over the Pacific. A sharp-eyed Filipina police officer foiled the plot. The sole American response: increased law-enforcement cooperation with the Philippines.
??? In 1995, al Qaeda detonated a 220-pound car bomb outside the Office of Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and wounding 60 more. The FBI was sent in.
??? In 1996, al Qaeda bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the "no-fly zones" over Iraq, killing 19. Again, the FBI responded.
??? In 1997, al Qaeda consolidated its position in Afghanistan and bin Laden repeatedly declared war on the U.S. In February, bin Laden told an Arab TV network: "If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters." No response from the Clinton administration.
??? In 1998, al Qaeda simultaneously bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224, including 12 U.S. diplomats. Mr. Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response. Here Mr. Clinton's critics are wrong: The president was right to retaliate when America was attacked, irrespective of the Monica Lewinsky case.
Still, "Operation Infinite Reach" was weakened by Clintonian compromise. The State Department feared that Pakistan might spot the American missiles in its air space and misinterpret it as an Indian attack. So Mr. Clinton told Gen. Joe Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to notify Pakistan's army minutes before the Tomahawks passed over Pakistan. Given Pakistan's links to jihadis at the time, it is not surprising that bin Laden was tipped off, fleeing some 45 minutes before the missiles arrived.
??? In 1999, the Clinton administration disrupted al Qaeda's Millennium plots, a series of bombings stretching from Amman to Los Angeles. This shining success was mostly the work of Richard Clarke, a NSC senior director who forced agencies to work together. But the Millennium approach was shortlived. Over Mr. Clarke's objections, policy reverted to the status quo.
??? In January 2000, al Qaeda tried and failed to attack the U.S.S. The Sullivans off Yemen. (Their boat sank before they could reach their target.) But in October 2000, an al Qaeda bomb ripped a hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding another 39.
When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it. After the meeting, a State Department counterterrorism official, Michael Sheehan, sought out Mr. Clarke. Both told me that they were stunned. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"
There is much more to Mr. Clinton's record--how Predator drones, which spotted bin Laden three times in 1999 and 2000, were grounded by bureaucratic infighting; how a petty dispute with an Arizona senator stopped the CIA from hiring more Arabic translators. While it is easy to look back in hindsight and blame Bill Clinton, the full scale and nature of the terrorist threat was not widely appreciated until 9/11. Still: Bill Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy's natural reluctance to use force. That is a hard lesson. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them. Mr. Miniter, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, is author of "Disinformation: 22 Media Myths that Undermine the War on Terror" (Regnery, 2005).
Regnery, 2005[/b]
You've got a lot of fucking balls complaining about someone posting a quote from Daily Kos. Regnery is the center of the Clinton-hate industry in America. Fraud, indeed....
Typical left-wing tactic, change the topic. This isn't about Miniter or Regnery, this is about how Clinton failed to address the growing threat of terrorism. Instead of trying to smear the messenger, why dont you address all the facts presented here.
Because they're not "facts" but rather ultra-right wing spin from a dubious "source".
What Clinton Didn't Do . . . . . . .and when he didn't do it.
BY RICHARD MINITER Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
Bill Clinton's outburst on Fox News was something of a public service, launching a debate about the antiterror policies of his administration. This is important because every George W. Bush policy that arouses the ire of Democrats--the Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, detention without trial, pre-emptive war--is a departure from his predecessor. Where policies overlap--air attacks on infrastructure, secret presidential orders to kill terrorists, intelligence sharing with allies, freezing bank accounts, using police to arrest terror suspects--there is little friction. The question, then, is whether America should return to Mr. Clinton's policies or soldier on with Mr. Bush's.
It is vital that this debate be honest, but so far this has not been the case. Both Mr. Clinton's outrage at Chris Wallace's questioning and the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11" are attempts to polarize the nation's memory. While this divisiveness may be good for Mr. Clinton's reputation, it is ultimately unhealthy for the country. What we need, instead, is a cold-eyed look at what works against terrorists and what does not. The policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations ought to be put to the same iron test.
With that in mind, let us examine Mr. Clinton's war on terror. Some 38 days after he was sworn in, al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center. He did not visit the twin towers that year, even though four days after the attack he was just across the Hudson River in New Jersey, talking about job training. He made no attempt to rally the public against terrorism. His only public speech on the bombing was a few paragraphs inserted into a radio address mostly devoted an economic stimulus package. Those stray paragraphs were limited to reassuring the public and thanking the rescuers, the kinds of things governors say after hurricanes. He did not even vow to bring the bombers to justice. Instead, he turned the first terrorist attack on American soil over to the FBI. In his Fox interview, Mr. Clinton said "no one knew that al Qaeda existed" in October 1993, during the tragic events in Somalia. But his national security adviser, Tony Lake, told me that he first learned of bin Laden "sometime in 1993," when he was thought of as a terror financier. U.S. Army Capt. James Francis Yacone, a black hawk squadron commander in Somalia, later testified that radio intercepts of enemy mortar crews firing at Americans were in Arabic, not Somali, suggesting the work of bin Laden's agents (who spoke Arabic), not warlord Farah Aideed's men (who did not). CIA and DIA reports also placed al Qaeda operatives in Somalia at the time.
By the end of Mr. Clinton's first year, al Qaeda had apparently attacked twice. The attacks would continue for every one of the Clinton years.
??? In 1994, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who would later plan the 9/11 attacks) launched "Operation Bojinka" to down 11 U.S. planes simultaneously over the Pacific. A sharp-eyed Filipina police officer foiled the plot. The sole American response: increased law-enforcement cooperation with the Philippines.
??? In 1995, al Qaeda detonated a 220-pound car bomb outside the Office of Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and wounding 60 more. The FBI was sent in.
??? In 1996, al Qaeda bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the "no-fly zones" over Iraq, killing 19. Again, the FBI responded.
??? In 1997, al Qaeda consolidated its position in Afghanistan and bin Laden repeatedly declared war on the U.S. In February, bin Laden told an Arab TV network: "If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters." No response from the Clinton administration.
??? In 1998, al Qaeda simultaneously bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224, including 12 U.S. diplomats. Mr. Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response. Here Mr. Clinton's critics are wrong: The president was right to retaliate when America was attacked, irrespective of the Monica Lewinsky case.
Still, "Operation Infinite Reach" was weakened by Clintonian compromise. The State Department feared that Pakistan might spot the American missiles in its air space and misinterpret it as an Indian attack. So Mr. Clinton told Gen. Joe Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to notify Pakistan's army minutes before the Tomahawks passed over Pakistan. Given Pakistan's links to jihadis at the time, it is not surprising that bin Laden was tipped off, fleeing some 45 minutes before the missiles arrived.
??? In 1999, the Clinton administration disrupted al Qaeda's Millennium plots, a series of bombings stretching from Amman to Los Angeles. This shining success was mostly the work of Richard Clarke, a NSC senior director who forced agencies to work together. But the Millennium approach was shortlived. Over Mr. Clarke's objections, policy reverted to the status quo.
??? In January 2000, al Qaeda tried and failed to attack the U.S.S. The Sullivans off Yemen. (Their boat sank before they could reach their target.) But in October 2000, an al Qaeda bomb ripped a hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding another 39.
When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it. After the meeting, a State Department counterterrorism official, Michael Sheehan, sought out Mr. Clarke. Both told me that they were stunned. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"
There is much more to Mr. Clinton's record--how Predator drones, which spotted bin Laden three times in 1999 and 2000, were grounded by bureaucratic infighting; how a petty dispute with an Arizona senator stopped the CIA from hiring more Arabic translators. While it is easy to look back in hindsight and blame Bill Clinton, the full scale and nature of the terrorist threat was not widely appreciated until 9/11. Still: Bill Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy's natural reluctance to use force. That is a hard lesson. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them. Mr. Miniter, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, is author of "Disinformation: 22 Media Myths that Undermine the War on Terror" (Regnery, 2005).
Regnery, 2005[/b]
You've got a lot of fucking balls complaining about someone posting a quote from Daily Kos. Regnery is the center of the Clinton-hate industry in America. Fraud, indeed....
Typical left-wing tactic, change the topic. This isn't about Miniter or Regnery, this is about how Clinton failed to address the growing threat of terrorism. Instead of trying to smear the messenger, why dont you address all the facts presented here.
Because they're not "facts" but rather ultra-right wing spin from a dubious "source".
FRAUD...
As opposed to Motown's which are completely beyond reproach:
Books
Prados, John, Hoodwinked: The Documents that Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War (New Press: New York, London, 2004)
Ricks, Thomas, Fiasco, The American Military Adventure In Iraq (Penguin Press: New York, 2006)
Government Reports
9/11 Commission, ???9/11 commission staff statement No. 15 The text as submitted to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the Unite
d States,??? MSNBC.com, 6/16/04
Senate Intelligence Committee, Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community???s Prewar Intelligence on Iraq, July 2004
Senate Intelligence Committee, Postwar Findings About Iraq???s WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare to Prewar Assessments, September 2006
Articles
Leiken, Robert, ???The Truth about the Saddam ??? al Qaeda Connection,??? National Interest, November 2004
Lynch, Colum, ???Blix Downgrades Prewar Assessment of Iraqi Weapons,??? Washington Post, 6/22/03
Nordland, Rod, Masland, Tom, and Dickey, Christopher, ???Unmasking The Insurgents,??? Newsweek, 2/7/05
Pincus, Walter, ???20-year-old Iraq weapons spark debate,??? San Francisco Chronicle, 7/1/06 - ???Report Cast Doubt on Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection,??? Washington Post, 6/22/03
Pollack, Kenneth, ???Weapons of Misperception,??? Atlantic Monthly Online, 1/13/04
Ware, Michael, ???Meet The New Jihad,??? Time, 7/5/04[/b]
Comments
Advantage you.
It's a good thing we have people like urself out there. "Keeping it real"
wrong
http://patterico.com/2006/09/24/5187/chr...ama-before-911/
think before you post
Probably
wallace's show on fox news (formerly hosted by tony snow) has hosted the ususal suspects (rice, rummy, cheney) dozens of times since 9-11, perhaps even over a hundred. those few quotes are all you got? if you really want to make an issue over whether Fox News doesn't ask the white house tough questions...you won't have a winning argument. we're talking about Fox news!
also, if anyone saw Rice's comments in the paper yesterday regarding the Clinton interview, you should check out this factual check of her arguments.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/26/82241/8981
you guys are trying to son each other/prove points by citing partisan blogs.
keith, you can do better. but don't waste your time with Dolo Cunt.
if only the "real media" covered the real news i wouldn't be reading sites like daily kos and crooks and liars. however, not only is the "traditional media" inhibited by corporate pressure, but they are not even ahead of the pack when it comes to getting a scoop. of course most blogs are partisan, however, thatdoesn't mean they aren't good sources (and sometimes the best sources) of news. you should question anything you here, no matter the media outlet (ahem..FOX NEWS). you will find citations in this story. if you want to fact-check, go directly to the sources.
did someone say citations?
Here's the deal. Clinton did son Chris Wallace in that interview. Whoopie! That's doesn't take a lot of talent. Wallace is a tool, nothing more. At the same, time Clinton did not absolve himself of any accountability for not defending this country. That was not his point. His point was every executive from 9/10/01 back failed to prevent those attacks. And any objective news organization should make that clear. We should move on and learn from EVERYTHING. At the same time, it is ridiculous for Fox News to be high and mighty when they continue to pound the war drums after years of Bush Co. military failures.
I enjoyed the Olbermann interview that asked the "tough questions" Especially when Olbermann makes his disgusting gratuitous on-air donation "here's 10 more schools in East Kenya from me" and Clinton accepts in between sniffles.
you aren't giving Clinton enough credit. the point isn't that he sonned Wallace, its that he sonned the current administration for telling lies and fox news for enabling them. this whole episode goes back to the ABC movie and how Clinton succeeded in having those same lies taken out of the show. now you have Wallace asking Clinton about a fake controversy (one which you seem to have bought into)...so Clinton killed two birds with one stone in laying out the facts for Wallace and calling him out for being a partisan stooge.
Clinton's point was NOT to say, hey, we are all guilty of not preventing 9-11. No, what he said was that the difference between him and "some" (meaning Bush), was that at least he TRIED to get rid of Osama before 9-11. He failed to kill him and that is what Clinton apologized for, however, he NEVER said he wasn't trying his hardest to defend against Osama. Read that Daily Kos link and you will see exactly what he did and what Bush did not due in the 8 months leading up to it. Again, Clinton didn't bring this out to toot his own horn. The Bush clan set this up by starting the blame game right before the mid-term elections. And we are talking about assigning blame for events that happened over 6 years ago!!
No way? Really? Do you think when he said "some" thats what he meant? Wow. Thanks, because before when I read it, I just couldn't figure out what he meant. Hey, if you read that somehwere that thats what he meant, you better cite to it.
Please read the post. I was simply confuting the absurd assertation of the malinformed hook ups. I have no interest in debating the merits and demerits of fox news because a)I dont care and b)even if I did there would be no measure of evidence or reasoned argument sufficient to sway opinion here because, to use your own words, we're talking about fox news.
As far as the dailykos link goes a few points:
1. I fail to see how an excerpt of the 911 commission report which details a disagreement over the method best suited to eliminating bin laden demonstrates that the bush administration were less aggressive than clinton. If the excerpt shows anybody to be lacking in neccesary aggression it is the CIA.
2. the sequence of quotations which alledges to prove that rice lied about demoting clarke is bizarre. In the first quote rice claims that clarke was the counterterror czar at the time of 911 and the following quote says exactly the same thing.
3. the next set of quotations purporting to demonstrate that rice was lying when she said that clinton hadnt left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-qaida is even more bizarre. It attempts to do this by displaying an excerpt which refers to a clarke memo in which he talks about issues unresolved by the previous administration, percieved failings of the approach up to that point and clearly urges for a more robust response than there had been previously. This hardly suggests that the clinton administrations strategy was in any way 'comprehensive'.
Did he say this just after or just before he said "I've never criticized GWB"??
I also loved how he changed his tune and back pedaled about whether or not he thought Hilary could win a presedential election after his quote about how he didn't think she could win was presented to him.
ALL[/b] politicians are lying sacks of shit...Clinton just happens to be very damn good at it.
practice makes perfect.
well at least he didnt wait until he was a second term president to start reading books...(No, "The Children's Bible" doesnt count)
"I read Camus last week" shit the fuck up....$100 bucks said he pronounced it Ka-muss between 56 and 173 times before the interview.
re-read that section. the point is that Clinton had used the unarmed "Predator" drone in the air to spy on Bin Laden. the bush administration got caught up in the legality of having an armed drone attempt to kill Bin Laden. so while they debated this issue with the CIA, they simultaneously abandonded the spying unarmed drone which Clinton had used. as a result, we lost out on intelligence and could not track him.
"Clarke writes (and nobody has disputed) that when Condi Rice took over the NSC, she kept him onboard and preserved his title but demoted the position. He would no longer participate in, much less run, Principals' meetings. He would report to deputy secretaries. He would have no staff and would attend no more meetings with budget officials.
Clarke probably resented the slight, took it personally. But he also saw it as a downgrading of the issue, a sign that al-Qaida was no longer taken as the urgent threat that the Clinton White House had come to interpret it. "
re-read that section. Clarke's famous memo to Condi from January of 2001 had attached to it, several documents from Clinton's administration which were plans to fight al-queda. "Tab A December 2000 Paper: Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects," was released to the National Security Archive along with the Clarke memo. "Tab B, September 1998 Paper: Pol-Mil Plan for al-Qida."
Again, this is only an issue because the Bush administration has tried to defame Clinton and the democrats right before the mid term elections. Clinton didn't make this an issue, he has only been defending himself against lies. Of course, if you follow the "real media" you would think that Clinton asked to be on Fox News and that he instigated a self-serving fight with Wallace for no reason.
I'll bet $100 this is what Billy Jeff was reading when he was president.
you really have a handle on the IMPORTANT issues. i didn't think Hillary had a shot a few years ago, but now I think she will be a strong candidate. am i backpeddling??
more importantly though, how did Clinton's hair look?
you said that Clinton did not absolve himself of not doing enough to defend this country. where did that come from and by what standard are you judging him? Eight months passed between the time he left office and 9-11, meanwhile, history reveals that he was adament in finding Osama and had members of his staff write reports on the threat of al queda which were passed on to Bush. Now why is Clinton an issue in September of 2006 again? I think you answered that: "the diffusion of responsibility to buffer the GOP in an election year."
Might as well change the topic, you have lost all your arguments up till now.
voila! daily kos is now history revealed.
no no no. that is a misunderstanding or i misspoke. see my exchange with paulnice.
. . . .and when he didn't do it.
BY RICHARD MINITER
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
Bill Clinton's outburst on Fox News was something of a public service, launching a debate about the antiterror policies of his administration. This is important because every George W. Bush policy that arouses the ire of Democrats--the Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, detention without trial, pre-emptive war--is a departure from his predecessor. Where policies overlap--air attacks on infrastructure, secret presidential orders to kill terrorists, intelligence sharing with allies, freezing bank accounts, using police to arrest terror suspects--there is little friction. The question, then, is whether America should return to Mr. Clinton's policies or soldier on with Mr. Bush's.
It is vital that this debate be honest, but so far this has not been the case. Both Mr. Clinton's outrage at Chris Wallace's questioning and the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11" are attempts to polarize the nation's memory. While this divisiveness may be good for Mr. Clinton's reputation, it is ultimately unhealthy for the country. What we need, instead, is a cold-eyed look at what works against terrorists and what does not. The policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations ought to be put to the same iron test.
With that in mind, let us examine Mr. Clinton's war on terror. Some 38 days after he was sworn in, al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center. He did not visit the twin towers that year, even though four days after the attack he was just across the Hudson River in New Jersey, talking about job training. He made no attempt to rally the public against terrorism. His only public speech on the bombing was a few paragraphs inserted into a radio address mostly devoted an economic stimulus package. Those stray paragraphs were limited to reassuring the public and thanking the rescuers, the kinds of things governors say after hurricanes. He did not even vow to bring the bombers to justice. Instead, he turned the first terrorist attack on American soil over to the FBI.
In his Fox interview, Mr. Clinton said "no one knew that al Qaeda existed" in October 1993, during the tragic events in Somalia. But his national security adviser, Tony Lake, told me that he first learned of bin Laden "sometime in 1993," when he was thought of as a terror financier. U.S. Army Capt. James Francis Yacone, a black hawk squadron commander in Somalia, later testified that radio intercepts of enemy mortar crews firing at Americans were in Arabic, not Somali, suggesting the work of bin Laden's agents (who spoke Arabic), not warlord Farah Aideed's men (who did not). CIA and DIA reports also placed al Qaeda operatives in Somalia at the time.
By the end of Mr. Clinton's first year, al Qaeda had apparently attacked twice. The attacks would continue for every one of the Clinton years.
??? In 1994, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who would later plan the 9/11 attacks) launched "Operation Bojinka" to down 11 U.S. planes simultaneously over the Pacific. A sharp-eyed Filipina police officer foiled the plot. The sole American response: increased law-enforcement cooperation with the Philippines.
??? In 1995, al Qaeda detonated a 220-pound car bomb outside the Office of Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and wounding 60 more. The FBI was sent in.
??? In 1996, al Qaeda bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the "no-fly zones" over Iraq, killing 19. Again, the FBI responded.
??? In 1997, al Qaeda consolidated its position in Afghanistan and bin Laden repeatedly declared war on the U.S. In February, bin Laden told an Arab TV network: "If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters." No response from the Clinton administration.
??? In 1998, al Qaeda simultaneously bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224, including 12 U.S. diplomats. Mr. Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response. Here Mr. Clinton's critics are wrong: The president was right to retaliate when America was attacked, irrespective of the Monica Lewinsky case.
Still, "Operation Infinite Reach" was weakened by Clintonian compromise. The State Department feared that Pakistan might spot the American missiles in its air space and misinterpret it as an Indian attack. So Mr. Clinton told Gen. Joe Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to notify Pakistan's army minutes before the Tomahawks passed over Pakistan. Given Pakistan's links to jihadis at the time, it is not surprising that bin Laden was tipped off, fleeing some 45 minutes before the missiles arrived.
??? In 1999, the Clinton administration disrupted al Qaeda's Millennium plots, a series of bombings stretching from Amman to Los Angeles. This shining success was mostly the work of Richard Clarke, a NSC senior director who forced agencies to work together. But the Millennium approach was shortlived. Over Mr. Clarke's objections, policy reverted to the status quo.
??? In January 2000, al Qaeda tried and failed to attack the U.S.S. The Sullivans off Yemen. (Their boat sank before they could reach their target.) But in October 2000, an al Qaeda bomb ripped a hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding another 39.
When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it. After the meeting, a State Department counterterrorism official, Michael Sheehan, sought out Mr. Clarke. Both told me that they were stunned. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"
There is much more to Mr. Clinton's record--how Predator drones, which spotted bin Laden three times in 1999 and 2000, were grounded by bureaucratic infighting; how a petty dispute with an Arizona senator stopped the CIA from hiring more Arabic translators. While it is easy to look back in hindsight and blame Bill Clinton, the full scale and nature of the terrorist threat was not widely appreciated until 9/11. Still: Bill Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy's natural reluctance to use force. That is a hard lesson. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them.
Mr. Miniter, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, is author of "Disinformation: 22 Media Myths that Undermine the War on Terror" (Regnery, 2005).
You've got a lot of fucking balls complaining about someone posting a quote from Daily Kos. Regnery is the center of the Clinton-hate industry in America.
Fraud, indeed....
Typical left-wing tactic, change the topic. This isn't about Miniter or Regnery, this is about how Clinton failed to address the growing threat of terrorism. Instead of trying to smear the messenger, why dont you address all the facts presented here.
Because they're not "facts" but rather ultra-right wing spin from a dubious "source".
FRAUD...
Agreed.
I mean, I found the piece Dickie Morris wrote the other day much more interesting. This shit about attacking eachother is soo pointless.
Everyone is so much more interested in pointing out the bad guy instead of handling the serious issues at hand.
Is there not one person out there who is an economic conservative with a "This is 2006, not 1950" social mind set?
As opposed to Motown's which are completely beyond reproach:
Books
Prados, John, Hoodwinked: The Documents that Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War (New Press: New York, London, 2004)
Ricks, Thomas, Fiasco, The American Military Adventure In Iraq (Penguin Press: New York, 2006)
Government Reports
9/11 Commission, ???9/11 commission staff statement No. 15 The text as submitted to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the Unite d States,??? MSNBC.com, 6/16/04
Senate Intelligence Committee, Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community???s Prewar Intelligence on Iraq, July 2004
Senate Intelligence Committee, Postwar Findings About Iraq???s WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare to Prewar Assessments, September 2006
Articles
Leiken, Robert, ???The Truth about the Saddam ??? al Qaeda Connection,??? National Interest, November 2004
Lynch, Colum, ???Blix Downgrades Prewar Assessment of Iraqi Weapons,??? Washington Post, 6/22/03
Nordland, Rod, Masland, Tom, and Dickey, Christopher, ???Unmasking The Insurgents,??? Newsweek, 2/7/05
Pincus, Walter, ???20-year-old Iraq weapons spark debate,??? San Francisco Chronicle, 7/1/06
- ???Report Cast Doubt on Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection,??? Washington Post, 6/22/03
Pollack, Kenneth, ???Weapons of Misperception,??? Atlantic Monthly Online, 1/13/04
Ware, Michael, ???Meet The New Jihad,??? Time, 7/5/04[/b]
You guys really crack me up.