Is Clinton's Candidacy Blocking 'Path to 9/11'?

cawacko said:
Yes there are historical facts. "Clinton lovers" and "Clinton apologists" want to view them in a different light than reality.
Click to expand...

Under what circumstances would Americans have supported anything beyond a minimal devotion of resources to apprehending OBL in the '90's?

What crystal ball was available to everyone but me then that allowed you all to see that he'd eventually perpetrate 9/11?
 
cawacko said:
There's no crying in politics.

What you call a right-wing hit piece I call a reinactment of what really happened. It seems (if I many borrow a couple of Cypress' terms) Clinton lovers and Clinton apologists don't like the film because it shows their (another Cypress term) 'hero' in a not so great light on this issue.

And this story is coming from the L.A. Times which is no bastion of conservatism.
Click to expand...

If I may pop in for a moment....

You know what, cawacko? I really don't give a crap if this movie is shown, where it is shown, or how many times its shown.

Number one, its a pretty crappy movie, that few people outside of Dittoheads are going to watch.

Number two, no amount of trying to blame clinton, or divert attention from Bush's failures, is going to save the GOP in 2008. That statute of limitations has expired on blaming clinton. Trying to escape responsibility, or divert the topic won't work for bush and his supporters anymore. There isn't a single independent voter in this nation that, in 2008, that is going to base their vote on what clinton may or may not have done in 1997.
 
Onceler said:
Under what circumstances would Americans have supported anything beyond a minimal devotion of resources to apprehending OBL in the '90's?

What crystal ball was available to everyone but me then that allowed you all to see that he'd eventually perpetrate 9/11?
Click to expand...

That's an excellent question because OBL was not on the tounge of many American's pre 9/11.

Whether is was Clinton or Bush at the helm I would argue it takes leadership from the top i.e. making America aware of the threat OBL possesed and if necessary taking him out without public support. I would argue both Clinton and Bush failed in that capacity.

For several years prior to 9/11 there had been rhetoric coming from OBL regarding his desire to attack America. That's not something Joe Public will necessarily know but something the CIC is expected to take responsibility.

Granted it is easy to arm chair quarterback after the fact which is what I am doing.
 
"Granted it is easy to arm chair quarterback after the fact which is what I am doing."

At least you can admit that.

Everyone assumes it's obvious now that "we should have gone after OBL with everything we had." It's such hindsight BS.
 
cawacko said:
That's an excellent question because OBL was not on the tounge of many American's pre 9/11.

Whether is was Clinton or Bush at the helm I would argue it takes leadership from the top i.e. making America aware of the threat OBL possesed and if necessary taking him out without public support. I would argue both Clinton and Bush failed in that capacity.

For several years prior to 9/11 there had been rhetoric coming from OBL regarding his desire to attack America. That's not something Joe Public will necessarily know but something the CIC is expected to take responsibility.

Granted it is easy to arm chair quarterback after the fact which is what I am doing.
Click to expand...

I totally knew who OBL was in the late 1990s, and I knew he was the most wanted international terrorist by the united states. But, I probably read more than most people. And most people, particularly neocons were obsessed with blowjobs from 1997 to 2000.

Clinton didn't get OBL. That's a failure. No getting around that. Did clinton make it a priority to get him? Yes, but he obviously didn't do enough. And our nation didn't really know OBL's relationship to international terrorists until about 1996 or 1997. Which means that Bush has, by now, had far more time and resources to get OBL. But, he elected to take us on a wild goose chase in Iraq. What an asshole.
 
Cypress said:
If I may pop in for a moment....

You know what, cawacko? I really don't give a crap if this movie is shown, where it is shown, or how many times its shown.

Number one, its a pretty crappy movie, that few people outside of Dittoheads are going to watch.

Number two, no amount of trying to blame clinton, or divert attention from Bush's failures, is going to save the GOP in 2008. That statute of limitations has expired on blaming clinton. Trying to escape responsibility, or divert the topic won't work for bush and his supporters anymore. There isn't a single independent voter in this nation that, in 2008, that is going to base their vote on what clinton may or may not have done in 1997.
Click to expand...


Hey Bush, Where is Bin Laden? I am personally focusing all of my bannering efforts on that theme these days.
 
Darla said:
Hey Bush, Where is Bin Laden? I am personally focusing all of my bannering efforts on that theme these days.
Click to expand...

I believe he was spotted in Australia...

Sorry, I can't help myself!
 
As I am not a fan of the Clintons, I don't really care, but I will point out that your freedom of speech is secured against government action and specifically acts of Congress. You may not agree with a private enterprise, but it does have the right to sensor speech if it feels like it.
 
Onceler said:
"Granted it is easy to arm chair quarterback after the fact which is what I am doing."

At least you can admit that.

Everyone assumes it's obvious now that "we should have gone after OBL with everything we had." It's such hindsight BS.
Click to expand...

Just like everyone thinks the Aug 6th memo is somehow so different than other information we received regarding bin Laden. Of course in hindsight its easy to say it is.
 
Damocles said:
Just before he went there I think he was in some storage areas in NYC planting the unfound WMD in UN storage closets.
Click to expand...

Turns out it was a solvent after all! :p No chemical weapons, no anthrax, just a solvent. Why it was there is another question, though.
 
Thorn said:
Turns out it was a solvent after all! :p No chemical weapons, no anthrax, just a solvent. Why it was there is another question, though.
Click to expand...
Riiiight. It's just solvent... Don't worry... The UN can't make such huge mistakes.....

:D
 
It won't sell very well so they won't put a dvd out.... If they do put a dvd out, only dittoheads will buy it so it will have no political effect anyways.
 
Cypress said:
If I may pop in for a moment....

You know what, cawacko? I really don't give a crap if this movie is shown, where it is shown, or how many times its shown.

Number one, its a pretty crappy movie, that few people outside of Dittoheads are going to watch.

Number two, no amount of trying to blame clinton, or divert attention from Bush's failures, is going to save the GOP in 2008. That statute of limitations has expired on blaming clinton. Trying to escape responsibility, or divert the topic won't work for bush and his supporters anymore. There isn't a single independent voter in this nation that, in 2008, that is going to base their vote on what clinton may or may not have done in 1997.
Click to expand...


Relax dude, the point was that video was being censored. No one here is saying its going to change the '08 election (even though when Hillary run's on Bill's record it does make everything fair game).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top