Kurtz: Clinton's Ground Zero ad is treading on Giuliani's "turf"
SUMMARY: Discussing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's new television advertisement, Howard Kurtz began an article: "In a stark, black-and-white ad that pictures her in a mask at Ground Zero, Hillary Rodham Clinton is treading on Rudy Giuliani's turf." Similarly, on CNN's American Morning, John Roberts said that Clinton's ad "really is a shot across Rudy Giuliani's bow to say, 'You're not the only one who has a claim to 9-11 here.' But is she going too far? Is she politicizing 9-11?" Roberts did not ask whether Giuliani, who has repeatedly discussed 9-11 in campaign settings, is "going too far" or "politicizing 9-11."
Discussing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) new television advertisement "Stand by Us," Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz began an October 5 article: "In a stark, black-and-white ad that pictures her in a mask at Ground Zero, Hillary Rodham Clinton is treading on [Republican presidential candidate] Rudy Giuliani's turf." Similarly, on the October 5 edition of CNN's American Morning, host John Roberts said that Clinton's ad "really is a shot across Rudy Giuliani's bow to say, 'You're not the only one who has a claim to 9-11 here.' But is she going too far? Is she politicizing 9-11?" Roberts did not ask whether Giuliani, who has repeatedly discussed 9-11 in campaign settings, is "going too far" or "politicizing 9-11."
Giuliani has repeatedly brought up 9-11, even when it did not seem related to the topic under discussion. For example, in a September 29 New York Daily News article , senior correspondent David Saltonstall wrote, "For Rudy Giuliani, it's always about 9/11 -- even when it comes to his wife's ill-timed phone calls." He continued: "Elaborating for the first time on why he interrupted a speech to the National Rifle Association this month to take a cell-phone call from his wife, Judith, Giuliani explained that, since 9/11, he and the missus always chat before flying." Similarly, CBS News reporter Ryan Corsaro wrote on September 11, "[Giuliani] is certainly talking about it [9-11] -- the subject even came up while he was discussing the weather with a family in Houston over coffee. 'I'll always remember that Sept. 11, it was one of the most beautiful days of the year,' Giuliani said, talking about the hours before the city skyline was filled with thick smoke and ash."
Giuliani has also boasted about his connection to Ground Zero. As Media Matters noted, on August 9, Giuliani told reporters that he "was at Ground Zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers" participating in the hazardous clean-up there. Giuliani later attempted to clarify his remarks, saying, "I think I could have said it better. ... You know, what I was saying was, 'I'm there with you.' "
From the October 5 Washington Post article "Clinton on Giuliani's Turf":
In a stark, black-and-white ad that pictures her in a mask at Ground Zero, Hillary Rodham Clinton is treading on Rudy Giuliani's turf.
The new commercial, launched yesterday in Iowa and New Hampshire, marks the New York senator's attempt to position herself as a champion of those whose health was endangered by the environmental effects of the attack on the World Trade Center. The aftermath of 9/11 has long been considered Giuliani's greatest strength, but the former New York mayor has also drawn criticism for failing to adequately safeguard the health of rescue workers.
"She stood by Ground Zero workers who sacrificed their health after so many sacrificed their lives, and kept standing until this administration took action," the ad says. The reference is to Clinton's support for a medical screening and monitoring program for the disaster workers.
Clinton claims credit, as a co-sponsor, for expanding access to military health care for National Guard members, a measure passed last year by a Republican-controlled Congress.
From the October 5 edition of CNN's American Morning:
ROBERTS: OK. And for that, here we've got our last topic here this morning. This one's going to go to you first, Jamal [Simmons, Democratic strategist]. Politicizing 9-11. Hillary Clinton's got this new ad out called "Stand By Me," in which she shows scenes of her down at Ground Zero wearing a mask to cover her face. The whole thing is talking about health care. But I mean, this really is a shot across Rudy Giuliani's bow to say, "You're not the only one who has a claim to 9-11 here." But is she going too far? Is she politicizing 9-11, Jamal?
SIMMONS: Well, she should fight out the primary before she starts fighting the general election. But I do think that she's right on target and that she was there on 9-11. She has support of firefighters, support of families who were down, whose families were killed during 9-11, and I think that it is perfectly appropriate for her to talk about that. Now, this isn't like Rudy Giuliani, who's got supporters raising funds in nine dollar and 11 cent increments. Now, that's a going a little bit too far.
LESLIE SANCHEZ (Republican strategist): OK, that's not fair. He denounced that.
KIRAN CHETRY (co-host): He wasn't [unintelligible] -- but, Leslie, go ahead.
SANCHEZ: Yeah, no, he denounced that. The bigger issue is, Rudy Giuliani is incredibly strong on national security. He's seen as tough, energetic, and smart according to the latest Pew survey, and she realizes that is a dangerous threat to her. She's trying to shift the conversation away and trying to move some of that national security aura to her. The problem is, if you look at the two and match them together, Americans are going to fundamentally believe that we would be more vulnerable with a Hillary Clinton in the White House than with a Republican president.
SIMMONS: Not true.
ROBERTS: All right. Thanks, folks, for joining us. Leslie Sanchez, Jamal Simmons, good to see you again.
John Roberts said that Clinton's ad "really is a shot across Rudy Giuliani's bow to say, 'You're not the only one who has a claim to 9-11 here.' But is she going too far? Is she politicizing 9-11?"
They must have gotten one of Colbert's scripts.
Is SHE politicizing 9/11? What the hell? Did these guys miss everything the Republicans have done to politicize this attack? Did they miss the reason the last Republican convention was held in NY?
What a gift from the Republican's should Giuliani be their nominee. But, I remember thinking that same thing about Junior in 1999. It's impossible to understand why anyone on the right voted for that fool, so they'll probably vote for this one. Right wingers simply defy logic.
The right wing has never (and neither has the left) elected a President in this country. The left (d) and the right (r) are going to vote for the Party's candidate no matter who he/she may be. It it the roughly 1/3 in the middle that swing loyality from one election to the next that elect Presidents (or any other partisan elected official). THe only factor the right or left has in an election is if they decide to sit one on out (in which case, they are actually voting for the opposition).
The right wing has never (and neither has the left) elected a President in this country.
I have to disagree with you, Oscar. Both the right and the left have elected presidents in this country by affecting who the candidates would be. For the right, the example could be Reagan. For the left, if could be FDR. (In the latter case, it wasn't a matter of primaries but of the left being strong enough that the Dems cast their lot with them as their best path to victory.)
The idea that the "moderate middle" is the controlling force in US politics is an enduring myth which is belied by the observation that "moderates win elections but radicals win primaries," that because it is the "committed" voters who are more likely to vote in primaries. So that moderate middle has its say - but only after the right and the left have had theirs. And sometimes that prior say makes the difference.
Of course each party nominates its candidate, but that candidate has to find support among the moderate middle or throw their hands up in defeat. Those of us that switch from party to party during election times are looking at the candidate that most closely aligns with our values. Sometimes out of frustration we sit at home (which in essence is giving one party or the other an edge). The people that actually elect public officials are those that don't exercise their basic right to vote (and I tend to believe those are moderate as the hard left and the hard right will vote for the party candidate 9 x out of 10). Why was FDR elected (dissatisfaction with the state of the country under Hoover (R))? Truman, Ike, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush? Lookat the split between D & R. It can only be the swing voters that are actually determining elections.
Hi Oscar,
What are you saying? That moderates get more votes? I'm asking because I'm not convinced that moderates exist.
Is one for moderate abortions? Is one for moderate executions?
politicizing? how about those republican-funded pro-bush iraq policy ads being run on television? the ones saying "they attacked us" and showing the second plane about to hit the world trade center.
Rudy has absolutely no foreign policy experience. For that matter, he has no national political experience. He has never dealt with, or worked in, a legislature. In place of all of that, he puts 9/11.
He's basing his ability to conduct foreign policy on the fact that he got really really mad on 9/11.
So did millions of New Yorkers. Which means they have the same foreign policy experience Mr. Giuliani has.
and Hillary does?
Giuliani has been the king of exploting 9/11. What a disgusting little man.
Imp......
Rotten Rudy is an imp, not a man!
A man wouldn't lower himself to the level of blatant use of a national disaster for political gain......
but an imp most assuredly would!
A man wouldn't lower himself to the level of blatant use of a national disaster for political gain......
But, apparently, a woman would. And you're OK with this?
You're a real piece of work.
So is Hillary.
I agree with that. I wouldn't vote for either of you.
Well there is something we agree on.
I know you'll click the link, and view the ad for yourself, but in case you don't, you might be surprised to know:
1. The ad is simply a series of black and white photographs, accompanied by a voice-over.
2. Only two of the photographs refer to "9/11": one showing firefighters and other emergency responders, at the WTC site; and the other showing Mrs. Clinton, at the site and wearing a respirator (the photo her critics loved I'm sure, and will choose to single out).
3. Neither of the two photographs, or the voice-over or the ad itself, is about anything "terror" or Homeland Security or National Security: It's about Health Care!
The whole ad is about Health Care, not "9/11": the two photographs referencing the WTC site, are simply what accompanies that part of the voice-over that notes...
"She [Mrs. Clinton] stood by Ground Zero workers who sacrificed their health, after so many sacrificed their lives; and kept standing, until this administration took action"
That's it. Word for word, that's the entire reference to "9/11". That, and the two photographs, all of which are in the context of the ad, which is about Health Care, not "9/11".
I don't know which feeling comes across stronger, at the notion that these hacks and whores in the "media" would take the ad as an invitation to ask "is [the ad] a shot across Rudy Giuliani's bow to say, "You're not the only one who has a claim to 9-11 here." But is she going too far? Is she politicizing 9-11..."
...it's some mix of anger and disgust, almost a kind of a hatred at these people is what's stirred. It's not surprise though, and not disappointment either: Because to be surprised or disappointed, means you expected different, or more.
And I'm not so naive about these things, and neither are you I'm sure, to expect much more or anything different, from this worthless "media" that inhabits the television and the radio and too many newspapers.
Demo2020, I saw the ad , and maybe I'm confused, but I thought it seemed to focus on health care too.
In some twisted way, the Republicans think that 9/11 is their turf. The biggest military, defense and intelligence f*ckup in the history of our nation, on their watch, and they have a base that is wiiling to believe that is a positive thing.Tarnation.
HUNTINGTON:
9/11 IS the Republican's. After all, it is THEIR president, GW Bush, who did everything he could to make 9/11 possible.
He sent $43 million to the Taliban, against the danger that enough funding might not be available for such an operation.
He eased VISA rules for people from Saudi Arabia, our "friends" to enter the USA.
He took the CIA OFF the "bin Laden family," making sure our intelligence didn't get too close to his and his father's Saudi buddies.
He ignored two major terrorism reports, one on airline safety (Al Gore) and one on Homeland Security (Hart/Rudman), both of which warned of rapidly approaching danger due to lax national security.
He had previously ignored all warnings from Clinton security advisors, who told him that Osama Bin Laden should be priority one. Anything attached to Clinton was discarded by the Bush Administration out of hand.
Clinton had daily meetings on potential terrorist developments. Bush had NONE. Bush's abject apathy on the topic of terrorism lasted the entire year leading up to 9/11.
He ignored all intelligence reports that warned of impending attack.
Then he went on vacation.
It's hard to imagine what more a president could do to "grease the tracks" for a terrorist attack on U.S. soil ... Bush did everything he could think to allow it to happen, to make it more likely.
And I'm only reporting the things we've HEARD ABOUT.
Tex, you are a twisted individual. There are mental health centers ALL across the country that have trained professionals that can help you with your delusions. Please, for your own good, get help.
Tex, I think you just got an inadvertent clean bill of mental health.
It isnt our fault you believe only what the Oxymoron TELLS you to believe. Every FACT cited by Tex in his post is absotlutly correct. If you had any dim idea what you were talking about or were even marginally informed you would know those things. It isnt our fault you are uninformed.
Yet she cares so much that she'll force those workers to pay $8 grand extra a year for health insurance? Here's a little fact about Ms. Clinotn, she was the number 2 recipient of health insurance industry donations in the 2006 Senatorial race. She's going to reward her backers with this forced insurance scheme.
What's wrong with Democrats? Why do they keep praising far-right candidates and ignoring the progressives? Why is a corporate arse-kisser like Hillary polling so well, but the liberals, Kucinich and Gravel, getting no support? The myth of Democrat liberalism is wearing VERY thin these days.
But is she going too far? Is she politicizing 9-11?"
THIS is going to far! http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/giuliani-fundraiser-seeking-911-from-guests/
Rudy is Mr. 9/11, just ask him. Nobody wants his title. This is another attempt for the media to stir up some dust and some insignificant angle to a story. The ad is about HEALTH CARE. If Sen. Clinton wishes to refer to 9/11, why is it a shot over the bow of Mr. 9/11. Makes no sense other than these "journalists" can't find any stories.
And for you Ms. Sanchez, your statement concerning being more vulnerable was just stupid, stupid. Please remian a Republican strategist. You will help the the White House be filled with Democrats.
The other thing about this CNN twist on Mrs. Clinton's Health Care ad: Who is this guy jamal? He seems to be just another in a string of televised idiots, who someone puts the words "Democratic Strategist" under their televised faces, as they prattle on about who knows what the frig they're talking about...
Is that a major at the Universtities these days, "Democratic Strategy"?
If this guy claims "Democratic Strategist" as some sort of occupation, then is he "strategizing" specifically for any Democrat, or just for CNN?
All the dimwit had to do, when they invited him in on cue to give his considered "strategic" opinion about the ad, was to say "It's about Health Care! That's what the ad is about you know: Health Care!"
...instead of prattling on about rudy and "9/11" and then he references to rudy's "$9.11 fundraiser", and then that other hack (a "Republican Strategist"?) jumps in so quick at the "$9.11" prompt, you'd think the whole thing was rehearsed (I wouldn't be surprised)...
...and jamal can't find the words or the wit to even say Health Care at all, let alone to say that's what the ad is about.
What the hell did Giuliani do on 9/11 that it should be "his turf"?
Rudy can't go one day [or so it seems] without evoking 9/11 & yet these bozos have the audacity to ask if Hillary is "politicizing 9-11"?
Amen to that!
I guess anyone has the right to walk around ground zero with a mask on, looking concerned, don't they?
Did Rudy patent that or something?
The mask is inspired. Rather than seeing a barefaced Rudy with his sidekick Bernie charging hysterically through down town streets we see a concerned senator able to grasp the environmental health dangers from the start.
Wow! I never realized that the World Trade Center was Rudy Giuliani's personal property or that the September 11th attacks were an attack specifically against him. Three thousand people died at the Word Trade Center. They were of every race, religion, creed, and political persuasion. Yes they were New Yorkers but the attack wasn't against New York it was against the United States and the people were also Americans. It is the nation's tragedy.
Yes Giuliani was mayor of New York City at the time but Hillary Clinton is a Senator from New York. If she hadn't put in an appearance at ground zero the pundits would now be complaining she didn't care about the attacks.
So, Clinton used a picture of herself at Ground Zero in one campaign ad. So what? Giuliani has built his entire presidential bid on September 11th but he was Mayor of New York for 8 years. It almost as if he wants people to ignore those 8 years. Oh yeah the controversies -- so many controversies.
"The bigger issue is, Rudy Giuliani is incredibly strong on national security."
He says he is, but in truth he has no experience at it at all. It's a big lie!
When, as NYC mayor, he did have to make decisions on security for NYC, not "national security" the decisions he made were disastrous.
He placed the Command Center for NYC police and fire departments in the WTC against advice from numerous experts in order to suit his ego (he was advised to put it in a bunker in Brooklyn, where it is now, because the WTC was already shown to be a target in the 1993 bombing of the WTC), and he blundered when he bought new radios for the FD and police departments that could not communicate with each other. He did not get them fixed even after he was warned of the possible consequences. That alone is what caused the deaths of more than 300 NYC firefighters). Maybe that explains why the NYFD members are dead set against Giuliani.
Clinton, as a Senator from NY was constantly involved in assisting the workers on the WTC site and doing whatever else she could do. Giuliani did nothing but photo ops. The only thing that gives the image to Giuliani for 9/11 is that he was the mayor of NY at the time and happened to be in town that day (which was not always the case).
Far be it from me to defend Howie "Is Still Employed I Don't Understand" Kurtz, but I read his reference to Rudy's "turf" as sloppy writing rather than any kind of slam at Clinton. I took it to mean that she is challenging him on the issue that he has made the centerpiece of his campaign.
Roberts' comment is much the worse one because it has internalized the attitude that if a conservative mentions 9/11, that's not political - but it a liberal does, it is. This actually relates back to the older observation that whether a statement is "political" or not depends on if it supports official policy. If it does, it isn't; if it doesn't, it is.
I think Simmons' response should have been "Excuse me?? Is she politicizing 9/11? Have you been listening to Rudy Giuliani the past several months? Have you been listing to the entire Republican Party for the last six years? Shortly after 9/11, George Bush came out and said it proved the need for tax cuts for the rich! And you're asking me if an honest and accurate ad about Hillary Clinton's support for health care for all Americans, something the American people strongly support, is 'politicizing 9/11?' That is ridiculous."
I know that others have asked this question in this thread, but I have to ask again. Where and how does Rudy come about on his national security credentials? Where is his experience on national security? He doesn't have ANY does he? I mean if being Mayor of NYC on 9/11 is his credentials for national security experience, then shouldn't the Mayor of DC have the same credentials? As people seem to forget, a plane crashed into a building there as well. Same for that Mayor in that town in PA where the other plane went down.
Actually, I'm sure that Hillary Clinton has a lot more national security experience than any other candidate in the field right now. Aside from her Senate seat, she did have a husband who was President for 8 years, and if you think that they didn't discuss, and talk about national security and foreign policy when Bill was President, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
oh get off it , he has been a consultant and, and stayed at a Holiday Inn express once when his wife kicked him out of the apartment.
"Is she politicizing 9-11?"
ZOMG no!! No one would ever do that, and it certainly hasn't been done before!
I LOL'd. Maybe if I suffer a head injury, my IQ can drop low enough to be a neocon news anchor.
Rudy is forever associated with 9/11. He is a living symbol of the people in NYC and their heroism in the aftermath. Many like him and many others don't. That is fine with me.
It is a painful and gutwrenching moment in our history. I see no problem with references, visual or otherwise to 9/11 by any candidate of either party.
I agree with Barnes that Hillary is putting us on notice that 9/11 is not the exclusive domain of Guiliani. Since this is one of the first ads that anyone has used in this campaign referencing 9/11, (correct me if I am wrong,) I think it is fair and relevant to discuss. I think the "Is she going too far?" question was just the point to start a discussion.
I agree with whoever was talking about commentators identified as either Democratic or Republican"stratigists". My guess is they couldn't find anyone to appear on the segment, so they go down a list supplied by the respective parties till they get someone who has the time and inclination. Either that or those people answer a 'want ad' placed by network talkinghead-hunters for 'strategists' . :-)
That turf is part of her husband's legacy. I don't think it's a good idea for her to try to capitalize on a tragedy her husband caused.
http://www.ishipress.com/osamaint.htm
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/04/embassy.bombings.02/
Kevin, in response to your links,I don't think you'll find too many posters here who are taking the position that the U.S. policy in the Middle East has been very well thought out, or a source of pride, over the last century.
In fact, when items like the ones you linked to are mentioned by liberals, the con reaction usually involves some combination of "appeaser" and "America-hater".
But, very nice effort in trying to make it Bill Clinton's sole responsibility.Take off your Clinton-hatin' glasses and read some more of that stuff.
You know what I DO find on this site, lefty? A bunch of lemmings who repeat over and over that GEORGE W. BUSH CAUSED 9/11!! And when someone like Kevin calls you guys on it, you step back to "uuuhhh, well, ummm, it wasn't JUST Clinton, uhhhhh, it was, ummmm, our foreign policy." which is absolutely true, our policy IS to blame. So why have all the wackos stuck to blaming GWB? Because that's their favorite hobby: Blame Bush, demonize Bush!! When ACTUAL HISTORY is set in front of your clouded eyes and the TRUTH is apparent, for a moment you start to think rationally. I don't have any hope, though. Tomorrow it will be right back to "Bush is BAD!!"
That's funny. From where I sit, you and Kevin are the lemmings who fail to remember who was actually president on 9/11/2001 and all of the failures he had in dealing with terrorism up to that point.
Like it or not, it happened on GWB's watch. The buck needs to stop somewhere within the "party of personal responsibility". It is pretty low to blame it on the previous administration who were not in any position to do anything to stop the attacks at the time they actually happened.
Lemmings. Lol.
See what I mean?
Do you see what I mean?
Both of you, everybody needs to skip down to the library and check out "Sorrows of Empire" there is enough blame to go around. Get your minds around the concept of "blowback" and you will understand how and why we are in this mess.
Yeah we see what you mean. What you mean is Rush told you that it was Clintons fault. Rush said it you believe it and thats the end of it. ON PLANET WINGNUT
That's weird, because I see the opposite. A bunch of leftys who are aware of a pattern over many years, and one wingnut trying to say that Bill Clinton caused 9/11.
I think all of those "ummm"s and "aahh"s are in your mind.
I may have missed all of the posts that said W caused 9/11. It did happen on his watch, but It's been a long time since I've expected any accountability on the part of the GOP.
Lemmings.heh.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone say Bush "caused" 9/11. Saying he could have made some tiny little effort to prevent it is a different matter.
If we're going to acknowledge that our foreign policy is to blame for terrorist attacks, ignoring the right-wing argument of how they hate us for our freedoms, then obviously Bush has made it worse. If people are driven to terrorist acts over our sanctions of Iraq, then Bush's invasion and the subsequent deaths of tens upon tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians would have to create an even more volatile situation.
So if we get attacked two weeks into Hillary's term, will you blame Bush because of his foreign policy, the way your BFF Kevin is blaming Clinton for 9/11?
I thought it was kind of cute how he tried to change the argument to "Bush caused 9/11". Pretty dishonest of him.
Morons like you DEFINE unthinking conformity and lemminglike behavior. I have seen very few people who say Bush CAUSED 9/11 he was deeply comitted to ignoring terrorism that is a FACT. Clinton meantime, could have done better HBL is right we havent done well there but at least Clinton was doing SOMETHING. He tripled the counterterrorism budget. He increased the amount of FBI agents assigned to it. On HIS watch the millenium bombing, attacks on the Lincoln and Holland tunnels and an attack on the Israeli Embassy were all stopped. When BUSH was given a daily briefing entitled Ben Laden determined to attack in US he told the briefer ok you have covered your ass now and spent the rest of the day fishing and the rest of the month on the longest presidential vacation since Nixon even though he had only BEEN president for seven months. Bush made a counterterrorism group in April of 01 and said he would sometimes chair it. Well he didnt but its hard to fault him for that SINCE IT NEVER MET A SINGLE TIME. There was no REALITY put in front of us since we dont DEFINE reality as whatever Rush says. It was SPIN. I dont think Bush caused 9/11 but he did NOTHING to prevent it and Clinton WAS taking anti terrorism actions. Robert Oakley, Rayguns counterterrorism czar said of Clinton. Overall I give him high marks" Bush was ignoring hair on fire briefings its YOU guys who hate reality and run from the facts like it was flowing magma
Well considering that David Kay credited those very sanctions as a big reason for the lack of WMD in Iraq, I can see why you would oppose them with your 20/20 hindsight. If Clinton hadn't imposed those sanctions in the 90's, the reason for President Bush's Iraq War may have been justified - saving you guys a lot of egg to wipe off your faces.
Secondly, considering David Kay's remarks, it may be arguable that the sanctions were worth it, despite how impolitic such a statement may seem outwardly.
Sure Kevin. Have you figured out how to blame Clinton for the sinking of the Titanic and the common cold yet? Isnt it something the way the wingnut screechmonkeys who think for people like Kevin blame Clinton for both the attack that came 9 weeks after he became president AND the one that came seven months after he left? Even though the national security people like Robert Oakley under Reagan gave Clinton high marks for his anti terrorism efforts. Even though Tex is right and Clinton had many cabinet level meetings on counterterrorism while President Gump made a counterterrorism group as a photo op THAT NEVER MET A SINGLE TIME and ignored a presidential briefing ENTITLED Ben Laden determined to attack in US. Even though they were being given what was described as HAIR ON FIRE briefings. Bush could not be budged off of their committement to Operation Ignore the terrorists. Kevin would blame a rainy day on Clinton.
"That turf is part of her husband's legacy. I don't think it's a good idea for her to try to capitalize on a tragedy her husband caused."--kevin
I didn't even catch that the first time I read it. You are saying Bill Clinton CAUSED 9/11? You sir are a bigger idiot than I took you for.
"But, very nice effort in trying to make it Bill Clinton's sole responsibility.Take off your Clinton-hatin' glasses and read some more of that stuff."
It was Bill Clinton who continued to keep sanctions on Iraq years after Saddam apparently destroyed his WMD.
It was Bill Clinton's UN ambassador, Madeleine Albright, who said the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions was "worth the price."
It was Bill Clinton who dramatically increased the number of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia to enforce sanctions on Iraq (sanctions that remained in place because Clinton said Saddam had WMD).
Bin Laden said he would send Bill Clinton (and no one else) "messages with no words" in response to the deaths of Iraqi children and deployment of U.S. troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
This all occurred before Bush became president. I'm not sure how you can argue that Clinton is not solely responsible for 9/11.
The worst thing is that Democrats are prepared to put the same people who gave us 9/11 back into the White House. Albright has been defending Clinton from attacks (albeit feeble attacks) from Obama. We learn today that Sandy "docs in socks" Berger is advising Hillary's campaign.
http://www.examiner.com/a-977346~He_s_back__Sandy_Berger_now_advising_Hillary_Clinton.html
I would think you Democrats would want to vote for a team that did not give us 9/11.
And if Clinton hadn't kept those things in place when he was President, people such as yourself would have been screaming bloody murder. Never you mind that it is estimated that well over a million people have been killed in Iraq due to our invasion in 2003 and that conditions in the country continue to degrade, because of the invasion.
And as others have said, no one person is responsible for ME and US relations, as this goes well back since way before WWII, but I don't expect you to actually know, and or read anything of historical value, and or why we might not be viewed as having the best reputation in the middle east, but keep closing your eyes. But before W Bush, we hadn't invaded any middle eastern countries, and destroyed what they had in place, well, until now.
Keep those eyes closed my friend, and someday you'll figure out that something that happened in 2003 was indeed not Bill Clinton's fault. You neocon / republicans can't keep blaming him for everything, but of course, you'll keep trying.
See what I mean, HBL? Lemmings.
If you piss your pants in public, and 10 passersby say "Hey, you pissed your pants", that doesn't make them lemmings.They're just members of the reality-based universe.
Now, a group of people who, for example, all say that Rush Limbaugh was talking about a group of famous phony soldiers who were lionized by the press, but can't provide any evidence of these people existing except that Rush told them so.... there's yer lemmings.
Or a group that would ignore the incompetent president they voted for, while trying to blame all of his mistakes on the previous president. That would be a good example, too.
But what would you call a group of people that blindly believe that John Kerry "botched a joke" when he referred to the uneducated "getting stuck in Iraq"? What would you call those people?
Capable of understanding English?
Please. Spare me the fake outrage. You're just being silly now.
Two perfect examples of the liberal mind at work:
John Kerry was taken out of context. We know what he "said", but it's not what he meant.
But Rush is to be taken literally. We know what he said, so IT IS what he meant.
The difference is that Kerry's written speech showed that he did misspeak, and the context of it was a criticism of Bush anyway. If the context of Rush's comments helped him, he wouldn't have had to doctor the transcript and then lie about it.
It is interesting that you bring that up. I actually believe both of your examples demonstrate fake outrage from the other side.
I am perfectly willing to accept Rush's explanation about what happened. I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Why can't you accept Kerry's - when Kerry's explanation is actually backed up by evidence?
Are you a hypocrite?
Yeah we see what you mean. YOU are a brainwashe Limborg totally hostile to factual reality.
"I'm not sure how you can argue that Clinton is not solely responsible for 9/11." kevin7
Personally, I blame the guys who crashed the planes, and the people who talked them into it. But that's just me, I'm not in the "Blame America First" crowd with you, Kevin.
Again, I don't think anybody here would argue that any president in our lifetimes has had a really swell Mideast policy, just that the GW Bush Administration is the one that allowed the powder keg to be lit.
"...I'm not in the "Blame America First" crowd with you, Kevin."
Blaming Bill Clinton is not the same as blaming America.
I think he was being sarcastic as that is usually the kneejerk response from conservatives at any criticism of President Bush and his policies by liberals, but hey that's just me.
Open mind, where did you get these amazing powers of perception? Oh, your brain?
I can think that because I am enamored of this little thing called reality. A little thing you wouldnt know if it slapped your face and stole your wallet. BUSH was president. Bush ignored ALL warnings and did NOTHING to address terrorism. Your obsession with the Clenis is touching but really pathetic. YOU would blame Clinton for a windy day. Ya got nothin. Ben Laden is a terrorist who hates our policies. He didnt attack Clinton no matter WHAT he SAYS, touching the credibility you give him but I notice that even though the entire world knew EXACTLY when Clinton would leave office he didnt attack WHILE Clinton was president. You are delusional and never know what you are talking about. Keep trying to sell this though it just shows how utterly hopeless and without a clue you really are.
Magnolia:
"And if Clinton hadn't kept those things in place when he was President, people such as yourself would have been screaming bloody murder."
I thought Clinton was supposed to have been a great leader. Why would he care what people such as myself would allegedly say? He didn't on other issues.
"Never you mind that it is estimated that well over a million people have been killed in Iraq due to our invasion in 2003 and that conditions in the country continue to degrade, because of the invasion."
This thread is about 9/11. Why are you broaching the topic of the invasion of Iraq? I thought there was no connection between the two.
"And as others have said, no one person is responsible for ME and US relations, as this goes well back since way before WWII, but I don't expect you to actually know, and or read anything of historical value, and or why we might not be viewed as having the best reputation in the middle east, but keep closing your eyes."
But bin Laden in 1997 singled out Bill Clinton for "messages with no words." And if you concede that Clinton was part of the problem, why put him back in the White House? Why not have a clean break?
"But before W Bush, we hadn't invaded any middle eastern countries, and destroyed what they had in place, well, until now."
Again, what's that got to do with 9/11, which is Clinton's legacy?
"Keep those eyes closed my friend, and someday you'll figure out that something that happened in 2003 was indeed not Bill Clinton's fault."
My eyes are wide open, but I have to wonder about yours. This thread is clearly about 9/11, yet all you see is the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
"You neocon / republicans can't keep blaming him for everything, but of course, you'll keep trying."
I don't blame Clinton for everything. However, it is clear his policies vis-a-vis Iraq ultimately led to 9/11. The links I provided above clearly show that.
"This thread is about 9/11. Why are you broaching the topic of the invasion of Iraq? I thought there was no connection between the two."
Kevin, that post was pretty chock-full o' stoopid, but this line is a blue ribbon winner.
Incorrect as usual, Kevin
The links I provided above clearly show that.
No, they don't. The FAIR article doesn't even mention Clinton's name. As for the Ishi Press article (now controlled by a wacky little nutjob named Sam Sloan that I remember from my days as a competitive chess player), Bin Laden mentions his anger against both Clinton and Bush (41, obviously). But if his promise to attack the U.S. was his way of punishing Clinton, why did he wait until nearly nine months after Clinton was out of office? That's an easy one, actually. Bin Laden waited that long for an opening by someone who clearly didn't take his terror threats seriously.
Clinton took terrorism seriously, GW didn't, and we all paid for it.
See, lefty? Blame bush. It's fun!!
Are you saying Bush isn't to blame at all, Mr. Lemming?
Athough it IS your favorite past time, I would NOT blame George Bush for what happened on 9/11. I seem to remember the WTC being attacked once before, but the attack failed to bring them down. That SAME group went back to the drawing board to figure out a way to topple the towers. How did Bush have anything to do with that?
The Bush Administration didn't stop the terrorists from attacking again on 9/11. Are you looking for something deeper, because it is really pretty simple.
Are you looking for something deeper, because it is really pretty simple.- open_mind
Openmind, is it just me, or do you find yourself re-reading many of SissyKevins posts, trying to figure out exactly what the hell he's trying to argue?
actually, the group that did the first bombing all went to jail because of what the 9-11 commission called the "excellent work" of the fbi and justice dept, which would have been under clinton. you're so clueless it's amazing.
Of the purpetrators of 9/11 that are still alive, how many have been convicted in the US six full years later? How many have been killed in battle even?
Something to think about when comparing Bush/Clinton records from their respective responses to the attacks.
I remember Clinton saying that he would find those responsible for the attack on the Cole. But GWB blew them off of the face of the earth. Care to cite MORE examples of Clinton's record on dealing with terrorists?
GWB blew the perpetrators of the Cole attack off the face of the earth? What do you base that on?
I think he is referring to this. A predator drone fired a missile that blew up five terrorist suspects in Yemen including Abu Ali al-Harithi - who was suspected of being involved in the USS Cole attack.
I don't know what question Bush Lies thinks he was answering, but it surely wasn't mine. I think he is just giving out disjointed or random sentences at this point.
First things first. Answer my questions and then we can talk.
As usual you dont know what you are talking about.
The Cole bombing happened at the end of Clintons presidency by the time he had the facts two months later the Bush administration was on its way in so he turned it over to them. What did they do again? Blew them away? Is THAT what Rush is telling the Limborg lately? Here is what Condalizzard Rice said about how they would handle it.
According to Dr. Rice, the decision not to respond militarily to the Cole bombing was President Bush's. She said he "made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was 'tired of swatting flies.'" The administration instead began work on a new strategy to eliminate al-Qaeda.[17]
So to the Limborg NOT responding is the same as blowing them away? Please tell us you are kidding? Bush gave the Taliban more than 40 million dollars about ONE MONTH BEFORE 9/11 happened. You spew the inane talking points that only the severly brainwashed could possibly regurgitate.
I wouldnt blame Bush for 9/11 its possible no one could have stopped it. I blame Bush for NOT EVEN TRYING or even paying attention.
That SAME group didnt do anything because they are all in PRISON FOR LIFE. Where is Osama Ben Forgotten again? Oh yeah living it up in Pakistan, toasting his pin up poster of George W Gump and thanking Allah for him doing everything he said he would and overthrowing one of the secular governments of an Islamic country which he NEVER could have pulled off, just as is al Quedas stated purpose. Another difference between Clinton and Bush.
We see you are comitted to your Limborg talking points. We see that you have no idea what you think until Rush TELLS you what that is.
"No, they don't. The FAIR article doesn't even mention Clinton's name."
Are you deliberately being stupid? The FAIR article entails a 60 Minutes interview with then UN ambassador Madeleine Albright. When asked about the half million Iraqi children who died as a result of sanctions, Albright responded, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it." But "we" she was clearly including her boss, Bill Clinton.
"As for the Ishi Press article (now controlled by a wacky little nutjob named Sam Sloan that I remember from my days as a competitive chess player), Bin Laden mentions his anger against both Clinton and Bush (41, obviously). "
You're being extremely dishonest here. This IS NOT an Ishi Press article. It is a CNN article (the names of the CNN reporters should have made that obvious). Unfortunately, I have to link to a site such as this one because CNN has removed the interview from its web site. The original URL for the interview is www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/impact/9705/09/feature/transcript.ladin.html
"But if his promise to attack the U.S. was his way of punishing Clinton, why did he wait until nearly nine months after Clinton was out of office?"
He didn't, ignorant one. Al Qaeda blew up two U.S. embassies in Africa in August 1998. They also bombed the USS Cole in October 2000. These were "messages with no words." 9/11 was yet another message.
"That's an easy one, actually. Bin Laden waited that long for an opening by someone who clearly didn't take his terror threats seriously."
Again, ignorant one. He did not wait. We were struck before 9/11 and on Clinton's watch. There is no indication that the 9/11 attacks would have been called off if Gore had been elected in 2000.
"Clinton took terrorism seriously, GW didn't, and we all paid for it."
Actually, the record clearly shows that Clinton was more interested in pursuing bad girls than in pursuing bad guys. Clinton couldn't even capture Eric Rudolph and he was right here in the U.S.
the 9-11 report chapter 8, "the system was blinking red", page 256: "threat reports surged in june and july[2001]...".
page 265: "in sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. they did not have direction and did not have a plan to institute."
Huntington:
So you believe there is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq?
Absolutely. Our current administration used 9/11 to lie their way into an invasion of Iraq.I thought everybody realized that by now.
You might be confused by the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with the execution of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Easy mistake to make, if you get your info from the mainstream media..
I think your focus on the 2003 invasion is a feeble attempt to deflect attention from the fact that Clinton's policies vis-a-vis Iraq gave us 9/11.
I think that your assigning ulterior motives to a direct answer of your question is pretty wacky.
How can you read bin Laden's words from 1997 and not conclude that Clinton's policies vis-a-vis Iraq gave us 9/11? Especially when you read the last few paragraphs of the CNN interview and realize what happened in August 1998 and October 2000.
Using your logic, you could also argue that Reagan/Bush Sr. gave us 9/11, since under their administrations what became Al Quaida, including Bin Laden, were given armaments and training to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.
That's factual incorrect. The U.S. had nothing to do with the formation of al Qaeda. It's an odd charge. The left says bin Laden would never work with Saddam because Saddam was a secularist. Yet you're suggesting that bin Laden would work with the U.S., the so-called Great Satan.
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html
Here's the story.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2001/465/25199
“Throughout the world ... its agents, client states and satellites are on the defensive — on the moral defensive, the intellectual defensive, and the political and economic defensive. Freedom movements arise and assert themselves. They're doing so on almost every continent populated by man — in the hills of Afghanistan, in Angola, in Kampuchea, in Central America ... [They are] freedom fighters.”
Is this a call to jihad (holy war) taken from one of Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden's notorious fatwas? Or perhaps a communique issued by the repressive Taliban regime in Kabul?
In fact, this glowing praise of the murderous exploits of today's supporters of arch-terrorist bin Laden and his Taliban collaborators, and their holy war against the “evil empire”, was issued by US President Ronald Reagan on March 8, 1985. The “evil empire” was the Soviet Union, as well as Third World movements fighting US-backed colonialism, apartheid and dictatorship.
How things change. In the aftermath of a series of terrorist atrocities — the most despicable being the mass murder of more than 6000 working people in New York and Washington on September 11 — bin Laden the “freedom fighter” is now lambasted by US leaders and the Western mass media as a “terrorist mastermind” and an “evil-doer”.
Yet the US government refuses to admit its central role in creating the vicious movement that spawned bin Laden, the Taliban and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists that plague Algeria and Egypt — and perhaps the disaster that befell New York.
Just look at the website that Kevin links to and then look at the website that Mary links to.........
Kevin - 3, Liberal Moonbats - 0.
Keep it up, Kev. You rule.
Normally I would agree about that, but I don't think that means much in this instance. I am not sure our government would ever admit such a thing. I take both sides with a grain of salt on this.
Too truthy, eh...since it has a direct quotation from Ronnie Reagan, calling the pre-cursor to Al Qaida "freedom fighters."
Guess that makes Reagan a moonbat?
There isnt any question that is true. I dont know how old you are but I was ALIVE then and watching the news. There isnt ANY question that we supported and brought to the US and trained the Muhajadeen that became al Queda. It is a simple undeniable FACT.
Keep dreaming. Kev is delusional. Denying that we supported the Muhajideen may seem reasonable to you but you may as well deny the sky is blue.
Mary:
Given that your post doubles the nummber of people killed on 9/11, your "facts" are suspect. I also think your making the mistake that many moonbats make. There is a difference between the Afghans we supported against the Soviets and the Afghan Arabs, which we dod not provide with arms and funding.
Note the date of the article was Sept. 19, 2001, before the tally of the dead was concluded. Initially, it was thought to be much higher. 3,000 is bad enough.
As a Liberal, I always am very patient to those less fortunate than me. You know, those whose brains may not be fully developed, like Kevin. But enough is enough. Dude, just hop on the short bus and go home already.
Nice retort. Guess you just couldn't think of anything smart to say, so the liberal playbook dictates that you resort to a personal attack.
Just like you did to Tex above? You sure that is a "liberal" playbook or are you just being selective in your recollections?
No really, Tex needs help. I didn't attack him. I'm concerned about his well-being. Did you read what he posted?
Your concern for his well-being is really touching. I happen to feel entirely the same way about you.
; )
No really YOU need help. Being so proud of your ignorance is sad. Tex is right. YOU are a brainwashed hiveminder without the capacity for higher brain function.
Its not a strange charge it is a well known FACT however the government wants to spin it. Carter and Reagan BOTH supported the Mujahideen along with Osama. Reagan brought them into the US and trained them. That is what became al Queda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen
The best-known mujahideen were the various loosely-aligned Afghan opposition groups that fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the 1980s and then fought against each other in the subsequent Afghan Civil War.
The mujahideen were significantly financed, armed, and trained by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Carter and Reagan administrations, Saudi Arabia, the People's Republic of China, several European countries, Iran, and Pakistan (during the Zia-ul-Haq military regime). The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was the interagent used in the majority of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistance.
Ronald Reagan praised them as freedom fighters, and the 1988 Rambo III portrayed them as heroic.
A wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden was a prominent organizer and financier of an all Arab islamist group of foreign volunteers; his Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) (Office of Services) funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the Saudi and Pakistani governments[2].
Everybody paying attention at the TIME knows this. We strongly supported the Muhajideen. We built the terrrorist training bases THEN called counterterrorism. The government can deny this all they want I REMEMBER.
A little late to the game, but what the heck. I was inspired to revisit my history books. The following is taken from an article entitled "The United States and Afghanistan," by Marvin Weinbaum, appearing in "The Middle East and the United States: A Historical and Political Reassessment," edited by David Lesch.
During the Cold War, Afghanistan, like so many other countries, was attempting to walk the fine line of neutrality. They were more inclined towards the US in the beginning, but the US was throwing their support behind Pakistan because they thought it was a better bet. The Soviet Union, however, had no problem supporting Afghanistan with money, arms, and officer training. After a few communist coups and US aid cutbacks, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, and the US cut all ties with the government.
Instead of sending our military to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, "Washington was engaged in the most extensive and expensive covert warfare operation since Vietnam... In all, during the 1980s, the Afghan Mujahadeen received well more than $2 billion from the United States, enough to train at least 80,000 fighters."
Also, under Bush Sr. the U.S. put bases in Saudi Arabia, which was the offense that began Bin Laden's jihad against the U.S.
Mary, I think your bringing up reality isd just a feeble attempt to deflect away from the fact that Bill Clinton orchestrated the attacks of 9/11, and killed Jesus. ;0)
I also heard that Clinton was the man in the lyric:
Who put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp
Who put the ram in the ram-a-lam-a-ding-dong
Who put the bop in the bop-she-bop-she-bop
Who put the dip in the dib-de-dip-de-dip
Who is that man, I'd like to shake his hand
By the time Bush 41 left office, there were only 950 U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. In 1996 there were 1,587. By 2000 there were more than 7,000.
Sources: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1995, 1998 and 2002
Those numbers show that Clinton dramatically increased the number of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.
Has anyone here said otherwise?
Kevin, you're whipping them left and right. These people don't like to look at FACTS. They think based on how they FEEL. Numbers mean nothing to them. You know the pattern of liberal conversation:
The liberal makes a statement based on hatred of George Bush.
Liberal: "Bush is bad. He allowed 9/11 to happen."
Someone like Kevin provides FACTS that prove the liberal wrong.
Someone like Kevin: "Geez, the 9/11 commission, who did millions of gut-wrenching hours of investigation into the attack say that Bush had nothing to do with the attack. In fact, Atta and the other hijackers were already in the country before Bush took office. The plan was already set into motion. And maybe, just maybe, if they had the documents that Sandy Berger stole from the National Archives and shredded, they would know even more information."
The liberal KNOWS they're wrong in the first place. Kevin just proved it. Now the liberal must save face and dismiss Kevin as a kook so that their hatred of Bush is still seemingly justified.
Liberal: "All you NEOCONS are the same. You blindly follow what you hear from Rush and Bush. Bush planted people in the 9/11 commission to make it look good for him. I can give you a website that proves it. You are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Rebublican chickenhawks. I don't know why I'm wasting my time with someone as intellectually underdeveloped as you."
See, what the liberals don't realize is that WE LOVE having these conversations!! It's hilarious to prove the liberals wrong and watch them become infuriated. You can always tell when a liberal has lost an argument: they resort to insults and personal attacks.
You manage to lie even when you're trying to present obvious facts.
For example, the "facts" that the 9/11 commission assigned no blame on Bush, and that Sandy Berger stole documents are plain and simple false. Why include those lies in your facts, other than 1) you actually don't know what you're talking about or 2) you're so used to lying that you honestly don't know the difference bwetween lies and truth anymore.
Berger did not steal documents? Why was he convicted and fined?
Like I said, man. Don't bother with the truth. They have no use for it.
Yeah Kev dont bother. WE prefer reality to Limborg brainwashing and FACTS to lies. So dont bother
He stole copies of documents - meaning your point about him taking valuable information that Bush subsequently didn't have access too is bogus. There was no information removed or lost from the archives.
I'm not saying it makes it right, I'm saying it makes your argument about him stealing documents with information that could have helped in fighting terrorism is false.
I don't expect any response anyway, but sorry for writing such poor English. :)
I wish these posts could be edited.
"I'm not saying it makes it right, I'm saying it makes your argument about him stealing documents with information that could have helped in fighting terrorism is false."
Of course, no one made that argument.
Bush Lies:"And maybe, just maybe, if they had the documents that Sandy Berger stole from the National Archives and shredded, they would know even more information."
In all fairness, Bush Lies is no one.
Ha! Fair enough!
See, Kevin, how predictable they are?
See Kevin? See, see? predictable, see?
Predictably busting the wingnuts' b*lls. And Bushlies, don't be such a little hussy. Make Sissykevin work for you a little.
See Kev they refuse to be assimilated into the Limborg hivemind. YOU. ARE. SAD.
See, what the liberals don't realize is that WE LOVE having these conversations!!- bush lies
Um, Bushlies... I don't want to get you too agitated, but you do realize that that "conversation" was an imaginary one involving only you... don't you?
Maybe not. You seem to think Kevinsissy7 isn't getting schooled, so you may be in a "different space".
See the definition of "example".
A little less cuteness - and a little more coherence would be a vast improvement.
: )
You guys proved NOTHING. Kev produces irrelevant statistics. Like above. Like the AMOUNT of soldiers in Saudi Arabia are more important than THAT THEY ARE THERE. Ya got nothin and are desperate to PRETEND you have made a point even when you havent been within MILES of a point. They you just LIE. Berger did NOT steal any documents he took COPIES, which itself is illegal and he deserves criticism for it but its a LIE to say he stole any original documents. Then again you dont care what is true. You only care what the Oxymoron TOLD you to believe.
Not that I put much stock in Bin Laden's opinions, but this is from '97, when Clinton was president.Who was he going to talk about, future president Bush or Reagan?
I'm not sure what you're missing here- I've stated my general opinion of the Mideast policy of every president of the last several decades. Clinton would be in that group.
You just seem happy to single him out by citing transcripts of Bin Laden from the time Clinton was in office.You don't seem to be able to mention our current leaders bungling.
The last few paragraphs of the CNN item are details of the sentencing of bombers.Don't get your point ther, but I'm open to any clarification you can provide.
That includes specifics about Clinton "causing" 9/11.
Huntingonbeachlefty:
"Not that I put much stock in Bin Laden's opinions..."
It would be foolish not to. People initially did not put much stock in the words Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf. Also, I know you liberals aren't big on reading, but Michael Scheur offered this opinion of bin Laden in "Imperial Hubris": "All told, bin Laden clearly keeps his word, and that reality ought to be taken at face value by U.S. leaders and elites."
Bin Laden in 1997 said he would send Clinton "messages with no words." He kept his word, didn't he?
"I'm not sure what you're missing here- I've stated my general opinion of the Mideast policy of every president of the last several decades. Clinton would be in that group."
If you believe Clinton gave us 9/11, why would anyone want him back in the White House?
"You just seem happy to single him out by citing transcripts of Bin Laden from the time Clinton was in office.You don't seem to be able to mention our current leaders bungling."
I would if the topic of this thread went beyond the scope of 9/11. Let's keep it on topic.
"The last few paragraphs of the CNN item are details of the sentencing of bombers.Don't get your point ther, but I'm open to any clarification you can provide."
I guess that's your inability to tell the difference between an interview and an article. I clearly referred to the 1997 bin Laden interview with CNN. You read the CNN article from 2001.
Is this the Bin Laden that Bush, when asked about capturing him, said "I just don't spend that much time on it, to be honest."
The same Bin Laden that this administration hasn't been able to even come close to capture or kill yet, 6 years after 9/11?
Yeah, great job these guys are doing...
If getting bin Laden were an easy task, Bill Clinton would have gotten him. He had eight full years. Clinton couldn't even capture Eric Rudolph and he was right here in the U.S.
Who said it's an easy task? You sound like Bush when he complains that being president is "hard". Really? Gee, I had no idea!
The thing is, Clinton never ordered a large scale invasion of Afghanistan like Bush ordered, yet under his command the US was closer to killing Bin Laden. Bush just decided to move the forces away from where Bin Laden most likely was, to a place that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. If you look at what should have been the priority, to kill Al Qaeda leaders (and not AQ in Iraq), that was a fatal mistake. And Clinton had nothing to do with it at that point.
You're absolutely correct, Logic. Clinton did NOTHING. In response to the attack on the Cole, he said:
"If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable".
And he did NOTHING.
I didn't say Clinton did nothing. I said he had nothing to do with Bush diverting attention from Afghanistan to Iraq. I'm sure you could understand that.
As for whether Clinton did nothing (since you bring it up), your pal Kevin here seems to think Clinton did too much. It's OK if you guys disagree, I happen to agree with Kevin.
Yes. Too much wrong, like killing 567,000 Iraqi children.
Do you oppose the sanctions that were placed on Saddam then?
Helloooooo! Is anyone there??? Kevin?
If, as you moonbats claim, Saddam had no WMD, how can you justify sanctions on Iraq? The sanctions were not lifted until after the fall of Saddam.
If you MORONS dont understand that sanctions KEPT Iraq from the ability to GET what he needed for WMDs then you are hopless. Its about like saying how can you justify getting a flu vaccine if you dont have the flu.
I am only going by what David Kay said. He credited those very sanctions (along with the first Gulf War and the 1998 Clinton bombing campaign) as the reasons there weren't any significant amounts of WMD in Iraq.
I want to get you on record just to show you aren't being as disingenuous as you seem. Help me out here, buddy. You conservatives are supposed to be tough guys. Just answer the question and stop being such a wuss about it.
: )
I will agree that Clinton did nothing in response to the Cole (which happened in Clinton's last 100 days). Clinton left that to be dealt with by the new administration. Perhaps Clinton learned from the inherited Somalia situation that it is not really fair to dump such an operation on the incoming president's lap.
Anyhoo, my question is: In the 8 or so months President Bush was in office before 9/11, what did President Bush do in response to the Cole incident? Did he even write bin laden a strongly worded letter? Just wondering.
"I will agree that Clinton did nothing in response to the Cole (which happened in Clinton's last 100 days). Clinton left that to be dealt with by the new administration. Perhaps Clinton learned from the inherited Somalia situation that it is not really fair to dump such an operation on the incoming president's lap."
That's a dishonest excuse. The situation Clinton inherited in Somalia was quite a bit different from the situation his administration created that led to the Black Hawk Down incident.
"Anyhoo, my question is: In the 8 or so months President Bush was in office before 9/11, what did President Bush do in response to the Cole incident? Did he even write bin laden a strongly worded letter? Just wondering."
Gee, do you think maybe al Qaeda had dispersed during the months after the Cole attack? The time to retaliate is immediately after being attacked.
The next moonbat excuse is, "Well, Clinton didn't confirm that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the Cole."
So what? They had already confirmed that al Qaeda bombed our embassies in August 1998. The fact that Clinton failed to get bin Laden then did not preclude him was trying again any time after that.
"The time to retaliate is immediately after being attacked"
Kev, what do you think was Bush's most effective military action between 9/11 and December of '01.?
That's what I thought.
I guess Kevin had Columbus day off of school.I'll bet he went to homeroom tuckered out this morning.
"That's a dishonest excuse. The situation Clinton inherited in Somalia was quite a bit different from the situation his administration created that led to the Black Hawk Down incident."--kevin
You are simply arguing by assertion. I can match you: I disagree. And I will raise you: You don't know entirely what Clinton's responses might have included. It seems to have included an invasion of Afghanistan - the very plans that were on Bush's desk when he got back from vacation right before 9/11. You assert that it isn't the same as Somalia. You may be right, but I would think a large scale military operation like invading Afghanistan would be much more significant than the humanitarian mission that Somalia started out being. If it was dishonest - then I believe that is due to understatement. Please forgive me.
"Gee, do you think maybe al Qaeda had dispersed during the months after the Cole attack? The time to retaliate is immediately after being attacked."--kevin
Just what exactly do you mean by "immediately"? Don't you think it would be a good idea to find out with some degree of certainty who did it? How long do you think that would take? Considering your theory that Al-Qaeda dispersed after the Cole bombing, I am not sure any response could be quick enough to capture them all at one place having a tupperware party.
"So what? They had already confirmed that al Qaeda bombed our embassies in August 1998. The fact that Clinton failed to get bin Laden then did not preclude him was trying again any time after that."--kevin
You are aware that Clinton had ongoing operations to try to get bin laden aren't you?
I noticed you completely avoided answering my main question. That's okay. I didn't expect it.
Open Mind:
"You are aware that Clinton had ongoing operations to try to get bin laden aren't you?"
The CIA recently released a report that strongly disputes that.
Whatever Bush's CIA is saying now for partisan reasons there is no QUESTION Clinton had operations to get Osama. One of them had to be cancelled after the Mushareff coup.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2006/osama_bin_missing_whos_tried_hardest_to.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,,556906,00.html
If that is true, how do you explain the predator spotting bin laden twice? Do you think that predator was just in some random place for no reason?
And the attack of the Cole happened when? Shortly before he left office. Did you expect him to start military action and then hand it off to Bush? More importantly, when was the investigation finished, identifying Al Queda as the bombers?
Considering their reaction to Kosovo and Somalia, one has to believe the right-wingers would have screamed themselves hoarse had Clinton started something without any evidence. Don't tell us now that it would have been the right thing to do.
From Wikipedia:"According to Dr. Rice, the decision not to respond militarily to the Cole bombing was President Bush's. She said he "made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was 'tired of swatting flies.'" The administration instead began work on a new strategy to eliminate al-Qaeda."
So according to the Bush administration, Clinton's lack of action was the right thing to do, even if the investigation had been finished by the time he left office.
"And the attack of the Cole happened when? Shortly before he left office. Did you expect him to start military action and then hand it off to Bush?"
Yes. Why not? FDR handed off WWII to Truman. Truam handed off the Korean War to Eisenhower.
"More importantly, when was the investigation finished, identifying Al Queda as the bombers?"
August 1998 in the attacks on our embassies in Africa. Just because Clinton failed to get bin Laden then did not mean that he could not go after bin Laden in October 2000.
"Considering their reaction to Kosovo and Somalia, one has to believe the right-wingers would have screamed themselves hoarse had Clinton started something without any evidence."
Again, we had evidence that al Qaeda killed Americans in August 1998. At that time the GOP leadership called on additional attacks on al Qaeda.
From Wikipedia:"According to Dr. Rice, the decision not to respond militarily to the Cole bombing was President Bush's. She said he "made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was 'tired of swatting flies.'" The administration instead began work on a new strategy to eliminate al-Qaeda."
Actually, the decision not to retaliate against al Qaeda was Clinton's, not Bush's.
So according to the Bush administration, Clinton's lack of action was the right thing to do, even if the investigation had been finished by the time he left office.
"Yes. Why not? FDR handed off WWII to Truman. Truam handed off the Korean War to Eisenhower."
FDR launced our forces into WWII a couple of months before he died? I didn't know that. Was there some investigation needed to figure out who was invading European countries, or did we sort of know it was Germany already? And after Pearl Harbor, was there really much of a choice? The Korean war started a year and a half before Truman's term was up. Adding to all of this the obvious fact that starting a war against an organized, uniformed enemy is not the same as military action against a terrorist organization, and it becomes clear just how idiotic such comparisons are.
"August 1998 in the attacks on our embassies in Africa. Just because Clinton failed to get bin Laden then did not mean that he could not go after bin Laden in October 2000."
You were talking about the Cole specifically. So because of the embassy bombings, Clinton was supposed to launch something after the Cole was bombed, without knowing that the same people were responsible? If this is really your point, why bother talking about the Cole at all? Why not focus your attention on the embassies to begin with?
"Actually, the decision not to retaliate against al Qaeda was Clinton's, not Bush's."
Funny, I didn't know that Clinton's decisions carried over into the Bush administration in that manner. Clinton made the decision not to launch military action with no investigation, so Bush couldn't possibly have done so once the investigation was done. I'm curious what Constitutional Amendment prevented Bush from taking any action he wanted.
You forgot to respond to the part about Dr. Rice and how Clinton obviously did the right thing according to her. Now that you've brought up the embassy bombings, I don't see why Bush's comment about "swatting flies" doesn't apply to those as well.
"FDR handed off WWII to Truman and Truman handed off the Korean war to Eisenhower" WTF where were you when they thaught history 101. FRD did not "hand off" World War Two to anybody...he was dead. He died a few months following his relection in 1944 and his Vice-President, Harry S. Truman, became President in 1945. Harry handed the Korean war to his successor following the election of 1952. He could not stay on past his term of office. He served over seven and a half years as President.
Exactly. I assume you responded to my post accidentally, but in case you didn't, please note that it wasn't me who made that argument. I would hate for my name to be associated with that nonsense.
Are you drunk or simply illiterate?
Neither you are just a moron who cannot understand, well, virtually anything
"FDR launced our forces into WWII a couple of months before he died? I didn't know that. Was there some investigation needed to figure out who was invading European countries, or did we sort of know it was Germany already?"
Al Qaeda's war with America started in 1993, several years before Clinton left office.
"The Korean war started a year and a half before Truman's term was up."
Same point as above.
"You were talking about the Cole specifically. So because of the embassy bombings, Clinton was supposed to launch something after the Cole was bombed, without knowing that the same people were responsible? If this is really your point, why bother talking about the Cole at all? Why not focus your attention on the embassies to begin with?"
I think my point went way over your head.
"Clinton made the decision not to launch military action with no investigation, so Bush couldn't possibly have done so once the investigation was done."
No investigation was necessary, moonbat. We had already established that al Qaeda was responsible for the August 1998 bombings of our embassies. There was no statute of limitation on retaliating for those attacks. (Although the Clinton administration seems to have had a self-imposed one.)
"I'm curious what Constitutional Amendment prevented Bush from taking any action he wanted."
There was none. However, four months after an attack is quite a bit too late to retaliate. That's why the Bush administration bega planning to eliminate al Qaeda.
"You forgot to respond to the part about Dr. Rice and how Clinton obviously did the right thing according to her."
Michael Scheur said Clinton did the wrong thing. I agree with him.
"Now that you've brought up the embassy bombings, I don't see why Bush's comment about "swatting flies" doesn't apply to those as well."
They should. The Republicans wanted Clinton do hit al Qaeda harder after that. Instead, Clinton launched a preemptive attack on Iraq and an illegal war of choice against Kosovo.
Did you really argue that there was no statute of limitations so Clinton should have attacked al Queda after TWO YEARS for the bombing of the embassy. Even though the Saudis would not let us investigate there, but that a few MONTHS is too long for BUSH to have retaliated? The CIA refused to say whether al Queda was responsible for the Cole bombing. Your brainwashing is complete. No need to make ANY sense at all as long as you attack Clinton.
"Al Qaeda's war with America started in 1993, several years before Clinton left office."
And what happened to those behind that attack? Did Clinton say he wasn't that concerned about them, or were they caught and prosecuted?"I think my point went way over your head."
Anytime someone says something like that, it usually means there was no point. If we didn't know that Al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole, then how could we use it as justification for military action just because of something that happened two years earlier? That doesn't make a damn bit of sense.
"No investigation was necessary, moonbat. We had already established that al Qaeda was responsible for the August 1998 bombings of our embassies. There was no statute of limitation on retaliating for those attacks. (Although the Clinton administration seems to have had a self-imposed one.)"
So because we know that Al Qaeda was responsible for one thing, that proved that they were responsible for the other? Are you really this stupid? "There was none. However, four months after an attack is quite a bit too late to retaliate. That's why the Bush administration bega planning to eliminate al Qaeda."
Solon read your post before me, and pointed out just how retarded your argument is. Four months is too late, but Clinton should have retaliated for the embassy bombings two years afterwards because there's no statute of limitations. So why is it that two and a half years is too late for Bush to retaliate for the embassy bombings, I wonder?
"Michael Scheur said Clinton did the wrong thing. I agree with him."
Relevance to my point? None.
"They should. The Republicans wanted Clinton do hit al Qaeda harder after that. Instead, Clinton launched a preemptive attack on Iraq and an illegal war of choice against Kosovo."
Really, so they were concerned about Clinton hitting Al Qaeda, but not Bush's lack of action after being warned that Al Qaeda was going to attack us? Interesting. I also find it amusing that Clinton's bombing campaign to prevent Iraq from developing WMDs is considered "preemptive" (considering, you know, Saddam wasn't allowed to have WMDs, and we didn't overthrow the government) and a NATO-backed campaign to stop civil war and ethnic cleansing is an "illegal war of choice".
"Again, we had evidence that al Qaeda killed Americans in August 1998. At that time the GOP leadership called on additional attacks on al Qaeda."--kevin
Do you have any legitimate links to support that claim? Thanks.
"The thing is, Clinton never ordered a large scale invasion of Afghanistan like Bush ordered, yet under his command the US was closer to killing Bin Laden."
Why didn't he?
There is no evidence to back that up. General Anthony Zinni is quoted as saying the claim that Clinton just missed bin Laden is BS.
"Bush just decided to move the forces away from where Bin Laden most likely was, to a place that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks."
Falehood. Our forces never left Afghanistan.
"If you look at what should have been the priority, to kill Al Qaeda leaders (and not AQ in Iraq), that was a fatal mistake. And Clinton had nothing to do with it at that point."
Except for the fact that Clinton refused to take bin Laden into custody when he was offered on a silver platter and instead gave him a safe haven in Afghanistan.
"The thing is, Clinton never ordered a large scale invasion of Afghanistan like Bush ordered, yet under his command the US was closer to killing Bin Laden."
Why didn't he? --kevin
That is probably the most disingenuous response of the day. Because Clinton did not have the political capital available that Bush had after 9/11. Duh?
"There is no evidence to back that up. General Anthony Zinni is quoted as saying the claim that Clinton just missed bin Laden is BS."--kevin
Even if we take Zinni's word for it, you are obviously ignoring other operations that were under way in the Clinton Administration to hunt bin laden. I am unaware of any active operations during the Bush Administration before 9/11. Correct me if I am wrong. It would be kind of hard for President Bush to kill or capture bin laden without some operations underway.
A great example is how the newly armed (Feb. 2001)predator drone stayed on the ground before 9/11 due to haggling over which agency would pay for it when the unarmed version reportedly spotted bin laden in Afghanistan twice previously under the Clinton Administration.
Open Mind:
"That is probably the most disingenuous response of the day. Because Clinton did not have the political capital available that Bush had after 9/11. Duh?"
Poor excuse. What political capital did Clinton have when he went into Kosovo? Congress, the UN, and the American people were all against going to Kosovo, yet Clinton did it anyway. Why couldn't he have done the same with Afghanistan?
Even if we take Zinni's word for it, you are obviously ignoring other operations that were under way in the Clinton Administration to hunt bin laden."
A recently released CIA report strongly disputes that.
"A great example is how the newly armed (Feb. 2001)predator drone stayed on the ground before 9/11 due to haggling over which agency would pay for it when the unarmed version reportedly spotted bin laden in Afghanistan twice previously under the Clinton Administration."
And the Clinton administration failed to take any action after spotting bin Laden. The kind of confirms the recent CIA report.
You are lying. The Clinton administration took plenty of actions. They missed. I understand criticism for that but saying they took NO actions is an outright lie. Your assimilation is complete. Resistance was futile. You are of the Limborg
"Poor excuse. What political capital did Clinton have when he went into Kosovo? Congress, the UN, and the American people were all against going to Kosovo, yet Clinton did it anyway. Why couldn't he have done the same with Afghanistan?"--kevin
Actually political capital works like real capital. If you spend it in one place, it is capital you can't spend in another. In economics it is called opportunity cost. Clinton could be legitimately criticized for making a wrong choice there, but your argument that he should have done both or was able to do one because he could do the other demonstrates a pretty basic lack of understanding on your part.
"And the Clinton administration failed to take any action after spotting bin Laden. The kind of confirms the recent CIA report."--kevin
I think you missed the point. If the Clinton Administration wasn't doing anything about bin laden as you have claimed, how on earth did they spot bin laden twice with the predator? Was that predator just flying over random places sending back random images for no reason at all? How did that predator get there? Hmmm....
One of those two times he decided not to take out Osama because he would have had to take out about half the royal family of the United Arab Emirates.
"Falehood[sic]. Our forces never left Afghanistan."--kevin
You are either being disingenuous, lying or you are just plain ignorant to the facts here.
From the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/world/asia/12afghan.html
"At critical moments in the fight for Afghanistan, the Bush administration diverted scarce intelligence and reconstruction resources to Iraq, including elite C.I.A. teams and Special Forces units involved in the search for terrorists. As sophisticated Predator spy planes rolled off assembly lines in the United States, they were shipped to Iraq, undercutting the search for Taliban and terrorist leaders, according to senior military and intelligence officials.
"As defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld claimed credit for toppling the Taliban with light, fast forces. But in a move that foreshadowed America’s trouble in Iraq, he failed to anticipate the need for more forces after the old government was gone, and blocked an early proposal from Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, and Mr. Karzai, the administration’s handpicked president, for a large international force. As the situation deteriorated, Mr. Rumsfeld and other administration officials reversed course and cajoled European allies into sending troops.
Wrong. Our troops have been in Afghanistan since October 2001. They never left.
Thanks. I was leaning towards disingenuous, but you just sealed it.
"Except for the fact that Clinton refused to take bin Laden into custody when he was offered on a silver platter and instead gave him a safe haven in Afghanistan."
First of all, the Clinton Administration denies that ever happened, but supposing it was indeed true for the sake of argument, you are making a leap that it would have been possible to legally extradite and hold bin laden with what was known at the time. It seems your point of view has the benefit of hindsight.
You are also forgetting that Clinton didn't operate above the law like the Bush Administration does. I suppose Clinton could have held bin laden indefinitely without charges if he disregarded the rule of law the way his successor has done.
OPEN MIND:
The "Silver Platter" was that Sudan offered to deliver bin Laden to SAUDI ARABIA. Saudi Arabia flatly refused to accept him. That was the end of the "deal.". I.E. there was NEVER any opportunity under which bin Laden would have been "delivered" to us.
It's also true that although the USA had many SUSPICIONS about bin Laden, there was insufficient "probable cause" of his illegal actions to justify any sort of indictment. SUSPICIONS do not hack it as a legal threshhold.
Once bin Laden was tied to 9/11, of course, there was ample legal justification to go after him ... and of course, Bush decided he didn't care all that much about bin Laden any more, once proper legal justification was available.
Of course, Bush had legal justification to go after the COLE perps as well, and did not.
It is clear which president TRIED, and which one DID NOT TRY.
TEX:
"Once bin Laden was tied to 9/11, of course, there was ample legal justification to go after him ... and of course, Bush decided he didn't care all that much about bin Laden any more, once proper legal justification was available."
You don't know your bin Laden history, do you? There was an indictment issued against bin Laden during the spring of 1998. Interestingly, the Clinton administration claimed that al Qaeda and Iraq were working together on weapons production.
"Of course, Bush had legal justification to go after the COLE perps as well, and did not."
The Cole was bombed on Clinton's watch, more than three months before Bush became president. Clinton did nothing.
I think something popped in old Kev's head here. He just keeps repeating the same old BS over and over from this point. It wasn't any good the first time.
"First of all, the Clinton Administration denies that ever happened..."
Actually, we have Clinton in his own words saying that Sudan offered bin Laden to the U.S.
"but supposing it was indeed true for the sake of argument, you are making a leap that it would have been possible to legally extradite and hold bin laden with what was known at the time. It seems your point of view has the benefit of hindsight."
You know what they say about excuses, don't you?
"You are also forgetting that Clinton didn't operate above the law like the Bush Administration does."
I guess that is why Clinton was fined for operating above the law and was impeached.
"I suppose Clinton could have held bin laden indefinitely without charges if he disregarded the rule of law the way his successor has done."
Or he could have had bin Laden's plane shot down as he flew from Sudan to Afghanistan. Better that than having four aircraft hijacked a few years later.
"Actually, we have Clinton in his own words saying that Sudan offered bin Laden to the U.S."--kevin
Yes, but Clinton retracted those remarks - thus it is disputed. Duh?
"I guess that is why Clinton was fined for operating above the law and was impeached."--kevin
Actually it demonstrates that Clinton wasn't above the law. He faced consequences for his actions. I can't believe I needed to point that out.
"Or he could have had bin Laden's plane shot down as he flew from Sudan to Afghanistan. Better that than having four aircraft hijacked a few years later."--kevin
You are making way too many assumptions. It is hard to think about where to begin. I would like to see your proof that Clinton knew for a fact where bin laden was or would be at a specific place in time and that there were assets in place to pull off the attack and that enough was known at the time to justify such an action. Without that, you really don't have anything.
Yeah Bush ordered a full scale invasion of Afghanistan a few months AFTER he GAVE the Taliban more than 40 MILLION DOLLARS. So pretending that he did that because of things like the COLE is ludicrous. He did that in response to 9/11 which ANY President would have done. What did Bush do BETWEEN the time he took office and 9/11 about terrorism? NOT A SINGLE THING other than ignoring it completely
SOLON:
You just told a huge lie. Robert Scheer reported that Bush gave the Taliban $43 million during the spring of 2001. That was discredited shortly after Scheer wrote it.
The money went to Afghan refugees and bypassed the Taliban. The Clinton administration gave $114 million to the same program in 2000.
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/AllDocsByUNID/41bb9fd6cc6bae50c1256a50002f3ed7
It never ceases to amaze me how little you moonbats know.
I have CEASED being amazed at how IGNORANT YOU ARE. Whatever damage control they want to make of it LATER that wasnt the story at the time and according to more than a Sheer editorial
According to the cooperative research center
Secretary of State Powell announces that the US is granting $43 million in aid to the Taliban government, purportedly to assist hungry farmers who are starving since the destruction of their opium crop occurred in January on orders of the Taliban. [Los Angeles Times, 5/22/2001] Powell promises that the US will “continue to look for ways to provide more assistance to the Afghans.” [Los Angeles Times, 4/13/2004] And in fact, in the same month Powell asks Congress to give Afghanistan $7 million more, to be used for regional energy cooperation and to fight child prostitution. [Coll, 2004, pp. 559] This follows $113 million given by the US in 2000 for humanitarian aid. [US Department of State, 12/11/2001] A Newsday editorial notes that the Taliban “are a decidedly odd choice for an outright gift… Why are we sending these people money—so much that Washington is, in effect, the biggest donor of aid to the Taliban regime?” [Newsday, 5/29/2001]
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3556
Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees.
Now you COULD make the argument that we gave the money to the PEOPLE of Afghanistan, that they were starving, and they tried to use relief agencies to by pass the Taliban. That is arguable and perhaps true. What is NOT IN ANY WAY substantiated is that it went to Afghan rebesl fighting the Taliban. The difference between giving it to the Taliban and to the people governed BY the Taliban thus relieving them of the responsibility can be argued not by me. I am not saying this was wrong I never did
Now you COULD make the argument that we gave the money to the PEOPLE of Afghanistan, that they were starving, and they tried to use relief agencies to by pass the Taliban. That is arguable and perhaps true. What is NOT IN ANY WAY substantiated is that it went to Afghan rebels fighting the Taliban. The difference between giving it to the Taliban and to the people governed BY the Taliban thus relieving them of the responsibility can be argued not by me. I am not saying this was wrong I never did.I cited this in response to reading in your post that Clinton never called for a full scale invasion of Afghanistan like Bush did. I later reread it and saw that was something you reprinted. Anyway your brainwashed stupidity about Clinton being more interested in chasing bad girls than bad boys shows just how ignorant you are. Being a Republican thus unable to understand sex that doesnt involve cash or credit you probably dont know that most of us just have sex as part of our lives. We also do our job. You are a brainwashed ignoramus without any capacity for independent thought.SOLON:
"I have CEASED being amazed at how IGNORANT YOU ARE. Whatever damage control they want to make of it LATER that wasnt the story at the time and according to more than a Sheer editorial."
I think you should have read the link kevin1007 provided before responding. The link was not damage control offered AFTER 9/11. It is clearly dated May 2001. Colin Powell clearly stated that the humanitarian aid was a continuation of the humanitarian aid given to Afghans during the Clinton administration. Powell also clearly said that thr $43 million was given to international agencies and that it bypassed the Taliban.
You are clearly wrong here and kevin1007 is clearly correct. You should admit you were in error.
Kevin, up until now you've at least been trying to disguise your bullsh*t as original thoughts, but then you went for the "Bin Laden on a Silver Platter" chestnut.That's one Sean Hannity doesn't even use anymore.Get with it, Bucko!
Actually, I got my information from Mansoor Ijaz, who worked to negotiate with the Sudanese.
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
The US doesnt DO foriegn policy with individuals. They talked to the Sudanese and could NOT come to any agreement. They ONLY said they would hand Osama over to the Saudis who wouldnt take him and wanted Clinton to sign off on allowing the sort of genocide they have been involved in since about that time.
I wonder why Mansoor Ijaz didn't mention his multi-billion dollar commercial interest in Sudan that was rebuffed by the Clinton Administration? Hmmm....
Gee, sorry Kevin. I went to the link labeled CNN. You should have written the ISHI link, or whatever it was.
Anyway, I don't want to spend too much time here, but at least I thought I'd post this(as you obviously cherrypicked what you wanted)
My bold below, maybe this will help you.
BIN LADIN: Mentioning the name of Clinton or that of the American government provokes disgust and revulsion. This is because the name of the American government and the name of Clinton and Bush directly reflect in our minds the picture of children with their heads cut off before even reaching one year of age.
Keep in mind, this interview is before Bush Jr. was in office and that's your case for Clintons sole responsibility? I don't think you've fooled anybody except Bushlies(who, BTW, might have a little crush on you)
Speaking of cherry-picking, whom did bin Laden say he was going to send "messages with no words"? It was Bill Clinton.
Kevin... Bill ....Clinton... was... the... President at... the... time.
You're really having trouble with this subject, aren't you?
It was Bill Clinton's UN ambassaor who said the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions was worth the price.
It was Bill Clinton who dramatically increased the number of US troops in Saudi Arabia to enforce sanctions on Iraq because he said Saddam had WMD.
Why would bin Laden send messages with no words to anyone else?
"Why would bin Laden send messages with no words to anyone else?"--kevin
An even better question is why did bin laden send them to President Bush. Perhaps you should re-examine your apparently faulty premise.
Why would it make any real difference to a fanatic nutbag like Osama if BASES ALREADY THERE had more or less troops? Its the BASES and the other RELIGION in Saudi Arabia that was a problem for him. Not that we ought to let any insane terrorists blackmail us into control of our foriegn policy. Clinton was the President. He was only talking about sending our GOVERNMENT a message by saying to Clinton. IF he meant Clinton personally then obviously he would have made sure the attacks happened WHILE HE WAS STILL PRESIDENT. Its not like there was any suprise WHEN Clinton was leaving office. You get some individual point that doesnt mean what you THINK it means. You consider it a gotcha then repeat it in the VAIN hope that repitition will make it true. Only by being a brainwashed Limborg dittobot could you POSSIBLY be taking the tripe you are spewing seriously
"...You don't seem to be able to mention our current leaders bungling."(HBL)
"I would if the topic of this thread went beyond the scope of 9/11. Let's keep it on topic." (SissyKevin7)
Wow. You really are sticking to your guns , aren't you? The Commander-in-Chief assumes no responsibility for an attack on our country.Fascinating example of partisan blindness.
But back to Rudy, Mr. 9/11:
"Here’s an unwelcome birthday gift for Rudy Giuliani, as he travels around the city raising money: protests from fire fighters and family members of September 11th victims.
They've shown up in the past at Giuliani's presidential events. Today, they’re gathering in Bay Ridge, and they have plans to follow him nationwide starting sometime around January, according to Jim Riches, a deputy chief with the fire department whose son was killed in the World Trade Center attacks.
“We have all the UFA, the UFOA, and the fire members are all behind us -- the International Association of Fire Fighters,” said Riches. “And we’re going to be out there today to let everybody know that he’s not the hero that he says he is.”
The group’s complaints center on the faulty radios used by the fire department that day and what they say was a lack of coordination at Ground Zero.
And Riches disputes the notion that Giuliani provided any form of leadership on September 11 or in the days following."
http://www.observer.com/2007/giulianis-birthday-protest-fire-fighters-september-11-families
Make a terrorist Happy. Vot e for Hillary. What a fake that woman is.
Giuliana DID clarify his remarks, you bunch of pansies. Get over it.
Calling us "pansies"? That's all you got? Seriously? Poor thing.
: (
Wow. You really are stupid. I say make a moron happy and vote for Guiliani. You slackjawed, ignorant, brainwashed, cousin loving piece of human debris
"Is she politicizing 9-11?" WTF!!! Rudy Giuliani's answer to everything is 9-1-1. His favorable rating in NYC od 9/11/01 was less than 20%. Now if you ask what he is for and/or against he will start off with something about, since 9-1-1...or because of 9-1-1...or prior to 9-1-9. If not at the start of his answer than in the middle or at the end of his answer. Almost everything that he as changed his mind about since that date is because of 9-1-1. It has become his reason de jure, his answer de jure. He is Mr. 9-1-1. There were other people in NYC on that fateful day, and in the days and weeks afterwards. Even the Schrub sounded good in that speech following 9-1-1. He is like the republican party...they did nothing prior to the attack and took no blame for it. Even though it was 10 months to the Schrub becoming President. Rudi had almost eight years to get ready and did nothing since the first WTC bombing in '93.
Is Howard Kurtz showing his true self?
It seems he is leaning more and more to the right !