|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Dirk DigglerDirk Diggler Date: Sep 26, 2006 12:21
The real Clinton emerges
by Dick Morris
From behind the benign facade and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill
Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris Wallace's interview on Fox News Channel.
There he was on live television, the man those who...
|
| Show full article (5.32Kb) |
|
| | 20 Comments |
|
|
Author: McBainMcBain Date: Sep 27, 2006 07:06
Dirk Diggler wrote:
> The ex-president is fully justified in laying eight months of the blame for
> the failure to kill or catch bin Laden at the doorstep of George W. Bush.
> But he should candidly acknowledge that eight years of blame fall on him.
This article is basically true. It could have also acknowledged how
Clinton allowed the CIA to completely ignore Iraq, leaving us with
little inside intelligence on what was happening in the country by the
time the Bush administration took over. This opened the door to the
conjecture that took place leading up to our invasion and allowed
Rumsfeld and Tenet to pick and choose what little information they had
and spin it towards "evidence" of WMDs, such as discredited German
information about mobile nuclear factories that was the basis of the UN
presentation. The lack of any intelligence gathering over the previous
years allowed the administration to ignore the new evidence gathered
that pointed decidedly against the presence of WMDs or even a program
developing them.
|
| Show full article (1.41Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: ChrisChris Date: Sep 27, 2006 10:36
McBain wrote:
> Dirk Diggler wrote:
>> The ex-president is fully justified in laying eight months of the blame for
>> the failure to kill or catch bin Laden at the doorstep of George W. Bush.
>> But he should candidly acknowledge that eight years of blame fall on him.
>
> This article is basically true. It could have also acknowledged how
> Clinton allowed the CIA to completely ignore Iraq, leaving us with
> little inside intelligence on what was happening in the country by the
> time the Bush administration took over. This opened the door to the
> conjecture that took place leading up to our invasion and allowed
> Rumsfeld and Tenet to pick and choose what little information they had
> and spin it towards "evidence" of WMDs, such as discredited German
> information about mobile nuclear factories that was the basis of the UN
> presentation. The lack of any intelligence gathering over the previous
> years allowed the administration to ignore the new evidence gathered
> that pointed decidedly against the presence of WMDs or even a program
> developing them.
>
> Bush still has to be held accountable for completely dismissing General ...
|
| Show full article (2.09Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: halo_arhhalo_arh Date: Sep 28, 2006 17:00
When I saw him fingerwagging I was having a flashback to, "Listen to
me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with
that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
-Anastasia
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: TimTTimT Date: Sep 28, 2006 20:26
Alas there are no citations here backing up his allegations.
In my book that classifies it as "bullshit."
If so, why
> did he notify Pakistan of our cruise-missile strike in time for them to
warn
> Osama and allow him to escape?
As Wikipedia says "citation needed"
>Why didn't the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden's involvement in
> terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade
> Center sufficiently seriously.
Ibid
>The 9/11 Commission report also attributes the 1999 failure
> to the fear that we would be labeled trigger-happy having just bombed the
> Chinese embassy in Belgrade by mistake.
Page number, please?
Face it, the Bush apologists have a shitload of stuff to attone for.
I would recommend _Cobra II_. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Libby, Rice all lied for
their own ends, according to those authors.
Here's my take:
Bush is a liar and has killed American soldiers in a war to benefit ...
|
| Show full article (6.58Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: McBainMcBain Date: Sep 29, 2006 07:15
TimT wrote:
> Alas there are no citations here backing up his allegations.
> In my book that classifies it as "bullshit."
Just about all of the allegations in this article have been documented
in half a dozen books. If you want a recent book I can think of, try
"State of War" by James Risen, a NY Times Pulitzer Prize winning
reporter who has covered Washington, and specifically intelligence, for
a long time. Clinton's inaction and failure are detailed to some
degree.
>>Why didn't the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden's involvement in
>> terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade
>> Center sufficiently seriously.
> Ibid
>>The 9/11 Commission report also attributes the 1999 failure
>> to the fear that we would be labeled trigger-happy having just bombed the
>> Chinese embassy in Belgrade by mistake.
> Page number, please?
|
| Show full article (4.13Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: ChrisChris Date: Sep 29, 2006 07:28
> When I saw him fingerwagging I was having a flashback to, "Listen to
> me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with
> that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
>
> -Anastasia
Whatever....weigh the importance of Clinton's lying about an affair to
Bush's poor decision making that has led to the situation in the
middle-east. IMO there is no comparison. Bush's poor decisions have
led to thousands of dead soldiers, broken families, an ever-increasing
national debt, a destabilized middle-east with flourishing Islamic
radicalism that we will have to contend with for years to come.
So you tell me which of these to instances is of more global importance?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: EvolutionEvolution Date: Sep 29, 2006 07:40
McBain wrote:
> TimT wrote:
>
>>>The 9/11 Commission report also attributes the 1999 failure
>>>to the fear that we would be labeled trigger-happy having just bombed the
>>>Chinese embassy in Belgrade by mistake.
>>
>>Page number, please?
>
>
> He didn't take the initial attacks seriously.
He responded to chatter about a millenium attack by holding daily
meetings with his principals, the heads of CIA, FBI, his terrorist
expert, Dick Clarke. The attack was prevented.
bush responded to chatter about an attack by ignoring the report "bin
laden determined to attack in the US" and going on vacation. He never
held ONE meeting with Dick Clarke on terrorism in the 8 months he was in
power, even though there was an attack a month or two before he took
office, and all the chatter over the summer.
|
| Show full article (2.78Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: McBainMcBain Date: Sep 29, 2006 08:36
Evolution wrote:
>> He didn't take the initial attacks seriously.
>
> He responded to chatter about a millenium attack by holding daily
> meetings with his principals, the heads of CIA, FBI, his terrorist
> expert, Dick Clarke. The attack was prevented.
That was six years later after two overseas attacks on US servicemen
and a public fatwa calling for attacks on US citizens. I would have
hoped he paid more attention. I shouldn't have plauralized initial
attacks, I was referring directly to the first bombing of the WTC.
> bush responded to chatter about an attack by ignoring the report "bin
> laden determined to attack in the US" and going on vacation. He never
> held ONE meeting with Dick Clarke on terrorism in the 8 months he was in
> power, even though there was an attack a month or two before he took
> office, and all the chatter over the summer.
No argument there.
|
| Show full article (4.22Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: McBainMcBain Date: Sep 29, 2006 08:53
Dirk Diggler wrote:
> Dick Morris was Clinton's right hand man his entire political life. I think
> he'd know what was going on at the time. You all like to cite Richard
> Clarke - why not Dick Morris?
People reference Clarke when it comes to intelligence regarding
terrorists and the fact that he was universally ignored when Bush came
into office because Rumsfeld had his own agenda. I don't think the two
really have anything to do with eachother.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
