I hate the media

[muckmaw]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Isn't it interesting that reporters aren't talking about the chapter of "Against All Enemies" that describes how Osama bin Laden cooperated with Iraqi scientists to make weapons of mass destruction - a development that, if true, would more than justify President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq?

Rip-

Where did you get this from?

Did you read the book? I'd like to see an excerpt if possible.

[Gunslinger]

I think the WHOLE point of this thread is not the blaim game its the fact that all the PAPERS (to include the LA Times today and yesturday) have big headlines page 1 "terror not a big priority for bush befor 9/11" and yesturdays was somthing like "Bush admin droped the ball befor 9/11"

BUT...

If you read the articles the testimony givin blamed lapses in BOTH administrations.

The media in an election year is trying to pin this whole thing on bush.....Yes its true headlines do sell


BUT...

we all know the single biggest blow to the intel. community came at the hands of bill clinton when he gutted the CIAs ability to recruit informants. Here's another good read as well

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=37335

[Torque]

Originally posted by Glasses
I think Clarke gave an advice to the board and gave no blames to any administatration they tried to corner him , but thatdidn't work I think he was very eloquent and put his point forth. He said  it could not have stopped perhaps sept 11 but it may have  significantly disassembled Al qaeda if both Clinton and Bush admins have acted more agressively to the terrorist threat.

Humble enough to apologize as well.

[-MZ-]

Originally posted by lazs2
I don't watch the news or read newspapers  

That's pretty obvious.

[-MZ-]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Ibill clinton

Clinton attempts to kill Bin Ladin before 9/11:  1
Bush attempts to kill Bin Ladin before 9/11:  0

[-MZ-]

Originally posted by Ripsnort

Nothing in that article contradicts anything he has said.  

Also, it is pretty sleazy to 'out' someone speaking to reporters on background, but apparently the administration is desperate.

[midnight Target]

The only real media bias is towards sensationalism.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by -MZ-

Originally posted by Ripsnort

Nothing in that article contradicts anything he has said.  

Also, it is pretty sleazy to 'out' someone speaking to reporters on background, but apparently the administration is desperate. [/B]

Either that or someone is shamlessly changing his tune to promote his new book.

this isnt about either administration its about the media....they want bush out plain and simple....I have yet to hear a libral admit this.


Here's somthing I heard on FOX NEWS....more specifically...the Oriely factor.  He had a clinton speach writer on the show to discuss some of the polotics during the clinton admin.

basically what he said  (and I actually agree with him GASP) that bill clinton did not have the political power to go after bin laden because of monica lewinsky.  When he made his attempt ( and i use that word loosly cause it was a pathetic cruise missle launch ) to go after bin laden the republicans berated him.....yes Trent lott himself scorned the president claiming a wagg the dog issue.

Truth be told Clinton had several more attempts at bin laden and turned them down.

This actually makes sense to me....and i heard it on FOX NEWS!!! GASP!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's another view point....if we had killed bin laden whats to stop the Euro trash in this world from saying that we deserved 9/11 because we were so cold in killing bin laden.


GENTS hinesite is 20/20....both presidents (more specifically their staff's) failed to connect the dots in a haystack filled with dots.

now I think richard clark is full of donkey sh$% cause he is completly contradicting himself from previous statements.....

BUT at least he's the only one so far to admit failure and appologize to the american people.


just so I can sound fair and balenced in my post I will now promote both presidental canidates

GO BUSH/CHENEY

GO KERRY/FONDA

[Capt. Pork]

Originally posted by -MZ-
Clinton attempts to kill Bin Ladin before 9/11:  1
Bush attempts to kill Bin Ladin before 9/11:  0

Capt. Pork attempts to shoot a fly off window with a rubber band on  3/25/2004: 2

Successes: 0

[Thud]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
basically what he said  (and I actually agree with him GASP) that bill clinton did not have the political power to go after bin laden because of monica lewinsky.

So you are saying that because of the utterly ridiculous and hypocritical morals crusade Kenneth Starr and the rest of the GOP went on, Osama is still alive.

Well a nice thank you to the conservatives may be in place then, right?

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Thud
So you are saying that because of the utterly ridiculous and hypocritical morals crusade Kenneth Starr and the rest of the GOP went on, Osama is still alive.

Well a nice thank you to the conservatives may be in place then, right?

that's one way of looking at it....OOORRRR the president couldnt keep his nose clean and decided  to lie under oath and commit purjery that it brought alot of political pressure apon him.  

you can spin this anyway you want but the truth is he "underreacted" because HE didnt have the political power to react.

Dont forget Bubba clinton still signed the bill that virtually dried up all the human intel in the 90s.

[Thud]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
that's one way of looking at it....OOORRRR the president couldnt keep his nose clean and decided  to lie under oath and commit purjery that it brought alot of political pressure apon him.  

you can spin this anyway you want but the truth is he "underreacted" because HE didnt have the political power to react.

Dont forget Bubba clinton still signed the bill that virtually dried up all the human intel in the 90s.

Or he was forced to testify on something that should never been in 'court' anyway.

Regardless, now many who say he underreacted back then said it was a overreaction, indeed a wag the dog act in its entirety, not in its size. A clear case of hindsight I'd say.

And the human intelligence bill was perfectly defendable in the light of the world situation back then, it was probable that indeed elint could provide much of it cheaper with less risk etc.

Blaming him on that is the same as saying Bush failed to return its effects before 911, something I believe can't be expected in all reasonability since terrorism was not that much of an issue as it should have been...

[AKIron]

Wondering how many of the same people that have decried the war on Iraq would be making statements similar to Clarke's if the US had not liberated Iraq from Hussein and Hussein had later contributed to a cataclysmic attack on the US. I'm betting that there are many.

[Charon]

Wondering how many of the same people that have decried the war on Iraq would be making statements similar to Clarke's if the US had not liberated Iraq from Hussein and Hussein had later contributed to a cataclysmic attack on the US. I'm betting that there are many.

Of course, there have been several Al Queada linked bombings, in Bali and Spain, that have cost nearly 400 lives. Would an Iraq-level focus on the actual perpetrators of the 911 attack (the people with the world-wide terror organization and a willingness to act) have prevented those deaths?

Charon

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Charon
Of course, there have been several Al Queada linked bombings, in Bali and Spain, that have cost nearly 400 lives. Would an Iraq-level focus on the actual perpetrators of the 911 attack (the people with the world-wide terror organization and a willingness to act) have prevented those deaths?

Charon

I very much think there has been an "Iraq-level focus" on middle eastern terrorists. Many won't agree but I think we are sending an unmistakeable message to the middle east, clean up your act or we'll do it for you. Of course I expect opposition, both by those at odds with our goals and those that can't see beyond their noses.