Bush apologist/Fox "newsman" John Gibson misses the irony

O

Onceler

New member
In taking issue with efforts to keep "Path to 9/11" under wraps, John goes for the jugular:

"For both Bill and Hillary, the uncomfortable question is: Is there still a cover-up in play over moments in the Clinton administration when if someone with some guts had been in charge bin Laden would have been dead years before 9/11?

Hollywood and some powerful friends don't want you watching that film again. It might make some people think, hmmm, I wonder if we had gotten bin Laden before Bush took office, how would that have changed history?"

Um.....John? How about if someone had gotten Bin Laden AFTER he attacked us? You know....instead of calling him irrelevant?
 
Onceler said:
In taking issue with efforts to keep "Path to 9/11" under wraps, John goes for the jugular:

"For both Bill and Hillary, the uncomfortable question is: Is there still a cover-up in play over moments in the Clinton administration when if someone with some guts had been in charge bin Laden would have been dead years before 9/11?

Hollywood and some powerful friends don't want you watching that film again. It might make some people think, hmmm, I wonder if we had gotten bin Laden before Bush took office, how would that have changed history?"

Um.....John? How about if someone had gotten Bin Laden AFTER he attacked us? You know....instead of calling him irrelevant?
Click to expand...

I guess I'm not even getting the irony. Where in there did Gibson call him irrelevant?
 
Um...

To be fair to Gibson, catching him before the fact would have altered history considerably more than doing it afterwards.

He may be excusing Bush's behavior, I haven't watched enough of him to know. But he seems to be probing a legitimate question, namely what would be different if Osama bin Laden had been captured or killed under the Clinton administration?
 
Warren said:
Um...

To be fair to Gibson, catching him before the fact would have altered history considerably more than doing it afterwards.

He may be excusing Bush's behavior, I haven't watched enough of him to know. But he seems to be probing a legitimate question, namely what would be different if Osama bin Laden had been captured or killed under the Clinton administration?
Click to expand...

Please. Gibson's nothing but a hack. He's making a clear judgment with his comments..."if someone with some guts had been in charge." And this is all hindsight BS, anyway. Yes, Bin Laden was a known terrorist...but who in America knew his name prior to 9/11? He wasn't even close to public enemy #1.

However, HIS hero was at the helm when OBL became enemy #1, and orchestrated 9/11...and still called him irrelevant.
 
So onceler, are you saying clinton shouldn't have grown a pair and taken bin laden? Do you support his cowardly inaction on the matter?
 
AssHatZombie said:
So onceler, are you saying clinton shouldn't have grown a pair and taken bin laden? Do you support his cowardly inaction on the matter?
Click to expand...

Right. I forgot about that special crystal ball they have in the White House...what was Clinton thinking by not devoting all of his resources to OBL after seeing what would happen on 9/11?

Hindsight's a lovely thing...
 
Warren said:
Um...

To be fair to Gibson, catching him before the fact would have altered history considerably more than doing it afterwards.

He may be excusing Bush's behavior, I haven't watched enough of him to know. But he seems to be probing a legitimate question, namely what would be different if Osama bin Laden had been captured or killed under the Clinton administration?
Click to expand...

We're almost seven years into the bush administration. The statute of limitations has expired on blaming clinton, or diverting responsibility to clinton. Bush has had far more time and resources to get OBL, than clinton ever had. Which is not to say, that clinton couldn't have done more.

But, it too late to reach back into history to dodge responsiblity. Seven years into clinton's presidency, I don't think he was ever reaching back in time to blame Poppy Bush or Reagan, who were ultimately responsible for creating the mujjahadeen, and OBL.
 
Cypress said:
We're almost seven years into the bush administration. The statute of limitations has expired on blaming clinton, or diverting responsibility to clinton. Bush has had far more time and resources to get OBL, than clinton ever had. Which is not to say, that clinton couldn't have done more.

But, it too late to reach back into history to dodge responsiblity. Seven years into clinton's presidency, I don't think he was ever reaching back in time to blame Poppy Bush or Reagan, who were ultimately responsible for creating the mujjahadeen, and OBL.
Click to expand...

The fact is, Bin Laden has bin forgotten by this administration. They and they alone, allowed him to walk away from murdering 3.,000 Americans. And don't think others have not taken note. You want to kill Americans? You can, and you will walk away from it. Sure, we might attack Poland in retaliation, but you who committed the act, will get away with it, and can laugh at us.

That is on one man, and that is Bush. A coward.
 
Darla said:
The fact is, Bin Laden has bin forgotten by this administration. They and they alone, allowed him to walk away from murdering 3.,000 Americans. And don't think others have not taken note. You want to kill Americans? You can, and you will walk away from it. Sure, we might attack Poland in retaliation, but you who committed the act, will get away with it, and can laugh at us.

That is on one man, and that is Bush. A coward.
Click to expand...

Why, its almost as if BushCo. merely used OBL as an excuse to attack a nation unrelated to the attacks of 9/11, and in fact unrelated to international fundamentalist islamic extremism. Does that sound crazy of me? :eek:
 
Cypress said:
Why, its almost as if BushCo. merely used OBL as an excuse to attack a nation unrelated to the attacks of 9/11, and in fact unrelated to international fundamentalist islamic extremism. Does that sound crazy of me? :eek:
Click to expand...

Not crazy at all. Certain elements of bushco were very pleased about 911. I gave them a sellable excuse to invade Iraq. Aka a foothold in the oil rich ME, which we had not had since the Shaw.
It is all about oil, always was, always will be.
 
Cypress said:
We're almost seven years into the bush administration. The statute of limitations has expired on blaming clinton, or diverting responsibility to clinton. Bush has had far more time and resources to get OBL, than clinton ever had. Which is not to say, that clinton couldn't have done more.

But, it too late to reach back into history to dodge responsiblity. Seven years into clinton's presidency, I don't think he was ever reaching back in time to blame Poppy Bush or Reagan, who were ultimately responsible for creating the mujjahadeen, and OBL.
Click to expand...

The reason its an issue is because of the censorship of the 'Path to 9/11' and its attempt to protect Bill and because of Hillary's run for President.
 
cawacko said:
The reason its an issue is because of the censorship of the 'Path to 9/11' and its attempt to protect Bill and because of Hillary's run for President.
Click to expand...


Well, if the producers of that particular film chose to present reality in their "dramatization" (read: "fictionalization") there wouldn't be an issue.

And spare me the censorship card, please. An owner of a product refusing to sell that product is not censorship.
 
Dungheap said:
Well, if the producers of that particular film chose to present reality in their "dramatization" (read: "fictionalization") there wouldn't be an issue.

And spare me the censorship card, please. An owner of a product refusing to sell that product is not censorship.
Click to expand...
If I buy the rights to something specifically to prevent its release am I practicing censorship?
 
Damo I think I recall you being on the other side of this censorship argument not long ago with me.....

something about the dixie chicks was it ?
 
uscitizen said:
Damo I think I recall you being on the other side of this censorship argument not long ago with me.....

something about the dixie chicks was it ?
Click to expand...
Which radio station owned the rights to the music?

If I have a library is it censorship to not own every book ever published?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top