Skip to comments.The Path to 911 Live Thread (Part II)
Posted on 09/11/2006 2:02:14 PM PDT by mwareEdited on 09/11/2006 4:11:51 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
I will not be here for the first hour of tonights program. Thought I would put it up for those FReepers overseas that are viewing it now.
For those who wish to see the clips the Clinton lawyers complained about, Click here
Yes, you are right. My mistake.
If you have, as you claim, "read all the books", then where is the excuse, from you, for Clinton refusing to take OBL from the Sudanese, THREE TIMES, when they offered him to Slick? Such a decision was far above the pay grade of the likes of Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright and neither of them had been offered OBL; but Clinton was and he refuse the offer.
Neither did he nor any of his "team" do ANYTHING whatsoever, but talk, when the American embassies in Africa and the USS COLE were struck by terrorists.
From the first WTC attack through the USS COLE attack, Clinton did NOTHING in retaliation. If he had, yes, 9/11 would most probably NOT happened. And the fact that YOU refuse to admit that, even to yourself, says quit a lot about you.
And BTW, 9/11 didn't change the way ANY Dem thinks; they still have a 9/10 mentality...........just like you.
Berger was there to cover Bill's arse; Maddy was there for affirmative action reasons.
You may try again, to answer my question, but this time, you'd better use accurate facts and details. What you proffered this time around, was even worse than your original post.
Given what we know about Cheney's no-nonsense attitude, it is more likely that in reality he conducted himself more like they have Clarke behaving himself in the movie. Every time I see Clarke's face on t.v., I think he comes across as seeming to be a publicity seeker.
"And BTW, 9/11 didn't change the way ANY Dem thinks; they still have a 9/10 mentality...........just like you."
And what evidence have I offered of that? My original post stated that the important part of the movie was not a glorified blame-game but that it shows the errors in process and mentality that built up to 9/11, and therefore shows what must change in order to prevent the same. Please point out how refusing to take part in a worthless and unproductive session of Monday morning quarterbacking shows that I somehow have "9/10 mentality". If you want to have a measured talk about what needs to be done in the future, I'm all for it.
But frankly I'm not interested in engaging in a meaningless finger-pointing game with no object that includes personal insults hurled at me.
It might interest you to know that Clark is now a consultant and employee of ABC.
--Let me put a smily face on on this Clarke treatment. Yes its a lie all right. However most of the Sheeple out there watching this probably don't even know who he was. They just see someone in the government - the Bush admin at this point - who is saying the right things. So it makes Bush look good indirectly to the sheeple that don't follow all the details.--
Conversely, Bush would look like an idiot to the sheeple, for keeping the inept Tenet as CIA dir. - this movie is devastating to Tenet.
Tenet was a holdover from Clinton so it looks bad for him more so than Bush. Bush was only in for 8 mths before 9/11. Most people would not expect an incoming Pres to immediately fire the head of the FBI. This movie focuses on terrorism which is only part of the FBI's job.
not proven; yet not investigted either. At least Jayna brings up the circumstantial evidence and makes a good case. THAT in itself ought to be investigated. But, Gov't won't do any investigation on this; not even Bush.
On this matter, you and I are in complete accord. :-)
Please go back to your earlier posts and read them. You keep making all kinds of excuses for Clinton. On FR, we discuss the facts of the matter; you have yet to do so. Those of us, who were here on FR when Clinton was still in the White House and most of the events that directly led up to 9/11 happened, talked about what should be done and condemned the fact that NOTHING was being done, by him and his happy horde of inepts. Why do you want to be Clinton's "protector"?
Talking about what we think that President Bush should do now, if not only silly, but unproductive beyond measure. It also has less than nothing to do with the topic of this thread. By acting as though all of recent history had either not happened or just happened, is posting as though it was 9/10/01, a la the Clintonistas and most Dems.
Jayna makes a very convincing argument for the 3rd terrorist. I believe she is very correct.
"Why do you want to be Clinton's "protector"?"
I'm not looking to be anyone's protector, least of all his. I'd much rather continue this conversation without you making snide retorts implying that I'm some kind of Clintonista...I've avoided attacking you personally, and I'd appreciate it if you do the same.
"Talking about what we think that President Bush should do now, if not only silly, but unproductive beyond measure."
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. To me, it seems like discussing future options and possibilites and debating their merits (though my impression is we would be entirely in agreement) would be far more productive than sitting around pointing fingers.
"It also has less than nothing to do with the topic of this thread. "
Last time I checked, this thread was titled "The Path to 911 Live Thread"...not "Pin the Blame on Somebody Thread". This was my reaction to the film, which is entirely relevant to this thread. People have expressed varying degrees of agreement or disagreement with what I wrote, which you can check on yourself, but yours are the only posts that make personal attacks against me.
Clinton could and should have gotten bin Laden. That's a given. I'm not trying to refute it, because its fact. As Roberta Wohlstetter, quoted in the 9/11 Commission Report said of Pearl Harbor, "its much easier AFTER the event to sort the relevant from the irrelevant. before...the event is obscure..."
I can't speak for FR, because I'm a fairly new member, but I can speak for the majority of America in that, before 9/11, we didn't take people like bin Laden seriously. We were wrong to do so, and people died because of it. It was easy to write off events such as the Cole bombing because they occured in such far away places. It is to easy to write off the events of thousands of miles away as distant and unimportant, and we did. 9/11, for me at least, changed that. I know the Financial District quite well, and when I saw bodies and rubble in the very spots I had walked not long before, it changed me like nothing before or since.
The moral of the story is, hindsight is always 20/20. You might disagree, but the far more pertinent discussion is not who we can blame the deaths of thousands on in the past, but what can and should be done to prevent thousands of similar deaths in the future.
One can only guess by your immature outbursts that your very young and the important matters of the nations safety and security are way above your head.
Why don't you behave and quietly play with your GI Joe until the adults are free to entertain you.
Future options, vis-a-vis the WOT, is NOT what this mini series was about and for you to do so, would be a true waste of time. You haven't the knowledge that the president has, nor his power. Playing "LET'S PRETEND" is a child's game and not what FR is all about.
I doubt that you and I would agree on anything you would dream up, with you playing armchair general.
And now YOU are taking on the "voice" of most Americans, are you? The bombing of the USS COLE was no big deal, because it happened so far away? I guess that what happened in Somalia and in the blown up American embassies, and the first WTC bombings didn't engage you at that time, because it was all so unimportant...right? And old OSB was a nobody, even when Clinton decided to sort of, kind of BOMB his camp in Afghanistan....right, again?
It's only when something happened, right under your nose, you began to care? If those two planes had crashed through the SEARS TOWER, instead, would you have just shrugged it all off?
Look, "finger pointing", as you call it, is germane; Clinton either totally ignored just about every single event happening world wide, during his presidency, as he went off on trips and apologized for slavery, smoked cigars and beat on bongos, hobnobbed with celebrities, and diddled a fat intern with a cigar with Arafat cooling his heels waiting to see him in the Oval Office; not to mention working as hard as he could, to cover up what he did to Paula, Juanita, Monica, and a seemingly endless list of women. His ONLY "foreign policy" interests were in getting as much foreign money that he could and in lining the pockets of those he was "friends" with. ALL OF THAT MATTERS!
OTOH, what you think President Bush should do now, matters not one whit.
You're welcome. :-)
"Even if he had gotten bin Laden, however, there's no gurantee that the kill would have stopped the attacks."
If Bin Laden was captured or killed (when Clinton was offere the opportunity), it would have been quite difficult for OBL to fund future attacks. Therefore, I believe capturing him would have been key to stopping many of the attacks.
Barbara Bodine was yanked from her duties as "mayor" of Baghdad, after about three weeks of service. Too bad civil service rules give people like that lifetime careers.
She must be the consummate lib, because her name is definitely not on the top of the news at NYTImes, etc!! Now she is at the Kennedy School, indoctrinating the next generation.
Why am I not surprised?
Is the Kennedy School a retirement home for fading libs?
Scott Ritter made a documentary film called
"In Shifting Sands."
How much did 9/11 cost? $50,000, $100,000? In the grand scheme of things, that's pocket change. bin Laden is an enemy of the United States, but he's not THE enemy of the United States. We're at war with a movement, and if it wasn't bin Laden it would have been Zarqawi or Zawahiri or any number of the millions of people of a similar mind as he. Could it have stopped it? Sure...but I think its dangerous to pretend we know exactly what would have happened had bin Laden would have been taken out. bin Laden was a symptom, Islamofascism is the disease.
> I believe that our weakness is that nobody will fall on their own sword any more for honorable intentions; except for maybe terrorists?
> Islam is inseparable from its law, its politics, its militias. Is that compatible with our Constitution?
Absolutely not. Christianity was the actual basis for our civilization. The Constitution required a lot of reading between the lines. There is no Constitution nor any other kind of law that can replace the good effects of a Christian populace.
"And they weren't buying pallets of the stuff, just a few bags. Farmers, and landscapers, buy much larger quantities."
True. It's as if everyone who buys any chemical has to have a lincense, background check and three sources of id.
Of course if you're and illegal you can vote without these in California.
Simply put some people have a death wish or are just too dumb to survive on their own
Uh, not exactly. The buck stops exactly one paygrade above them and they have a lot of influence with the guy on whose desk the buck stops.
Or nudie thread!
Good to see you. :-)
A U.S. warship represents America. It is American "soil", when you attack a U.S. warship, you are attacking American soverignty. If, as president, one fails to take action on those who attack a U.S. warship, the president is a coward.
I am still in a rage over the do-nothing cowards of that day, of that decade, let the chips fall where they may.
It’s on Youtube! Many perts though.