yo luckydog. good video for ya.

[dirtydan]

The common belief seems to be OBL is in Pakistan not Afghanistan.

Imagine OBL hiding in a country that since 9/11 has been a big, big ally of George Bush's America.

If the US was about to invade Pakistan looking for OBL then I could see the logic for more US troops in Afghanistan. Are you advocating the US have a military build up and go after OBL where ever he is? I can hear the screaming now from the RoW. Pakistan had nothing to do with 9/11 why is the US invading?

The US invading Pakistan, that would have been a joke. While in the end the US would likely prevail it would have entailed pretty much ALL of the US military power being directed at that country. The Iraqi military and the Taliban militia were essentially peanuts for the US. The Pakistani miliarty while not as effective of that as the US would have put up a much tougher fight.

I stop far short of saying Clinton caused 9/11. I think he was a contributor, just like GWB is a contributor. Another contributor is the ACLU. If you feel it is important to apportion blame on some sort of scale, have at it.

That I can agree with, in that Clinton's shooting off wads of cruise missiles targetting the terrorists likely played a role in what became 9/11.

On Sept 10, 2001 the mind set in America would never have tolerated an aggressive approach to stopping 9/11. Could you just imagine the out cry from the ACLU for arresting 19 ME young men in 3 sperate airports just because they had box cutters with them? Racial profiling!!!!! Racial discrimination!!!!!

What does the ACLU have to do with this? And seriously doubt your first assertion.

The FBI had information as did the military intelligence. They were prevented by US policy from sharing that knowledge with the CIA.

By who's orders?

 

[JustAGuy]

By who's orders?

To answer your last question, for many years the various U.S. intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, the Defense Department) jealously guarded their own turf to the extent that there was little cooperation or information sharing between them. The shortcomings of these rivalries became very evident after 9/11 as well as the faulty intelligence regarding WMD's in Iraq. The problem was addressed (in theory, anyway) when a brand new "super agency" was created in 2005 with John Negroponte sworn as the Director of National Intelligence. He's kind of like the Drug Czar (does the U.S. still have one of those?) of the intelligence world with oversight that makes all the other agencies subservient to this new super agency. I believe this is the policy (i.e. non-cooperation between agencies) luckydog71 was referring to in his post. I'm sure he'll correct me if that wasn't what he meant.

 

[dexi]

The biggest thing that should come out of this is that the myth of the liberal media should die.

All of the other media outlets are reporting on Clinton, rather than focusing on Fox News's blatant bias, and this, the greatest, most overt example of that bias. This when Fox is winning the cable news war no less. You'd think CNN, MSNBC, etc. would want to skewer them. But no.

So much for the liberal media. But the myth will live on.

 

[georgebushmoron]

I read Richard Clarke's book. That book was pendantic, even boring with the level of seemingly unnecessary detail at times. But it shows just how well he knew the personalities through the various Administrations both Democrat and Republican. That guy was one hell of a dedicated civil servant and in the best interests of the United States. His testimony on the Clinton years showed just how much respect Clinton had for his opinions, recommendations, and his office. It is true that Clinton listened to Clarke and executed on his recommendations, despite the fact the Pentagon was pretty much against fighting Bin Laden at the time. Clinton was serious about the threat of terrorism, far more serious than Bush was in the first 9 months of office where it was completely ignored, also according to Clarke. This is remarkable given that the US had not been attacked (on US soil) during Clinton's time. It showed just how willing Clinton was in making an unpopular move based on seasoned (and real) intelligence. As we know now after 7 years of Bush, this is worth something.

Clarke ought to be running for President.... and I'd vote for him even though he's a Republican. He is truly passionate about defending America.

 

[JustAGuy]

I read Richard Clarke's book. His testimony on the Clinton years showed just how much respect Clinton had for his opinions, recommendations, and his office. It is true that Clinton listened to Clarke and executed on his recommendations, despite the fact the Pentagon was pretty much against fighting Bin Laden at the time. Clinton was serious about the threat of terrorism, far more serious than Bush was in the first 9 months of office where it was completely ignored, also according to Clarke. This is remarkable given that the US had not been attacked (on US soil) during Clinton's time. It showed just how willing Clinton was in making an unpopular move based on seasoned (and real) intelligence. As we know now after 7 years of Bush, this is worth something.

A big part of the reason no action was taken on Bin Laden in the first nine months of the Dubya administration was that he and his coterie of advisors personally loathed Bill Clinton and refused to act on any initiative that had the Clinton "odor" attached to it. It wasn't just going after Bin Laden but other areas as well where if Clinton had had something to do with it, it was off the radar to the Bush crowd. This visceral hatred of Clinton by the right wing wasn't purely ideological in nature (though that was certainly a component), they despised Bill and Hillary personally. As history has demonstrated and as Richard Clarke and others have documented, America and the world have suffered as a result of this closed mindset.

In the nearly two years since the tsunami, Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr. have developed a close personal friendship as a result of the time they spent together raising funds for tsunami victims. I read recently where Clinton has visited more with George and Barbara Bush at Kennebunkport in the past year and a half than son Dubya has (and Dubya is definitely not someone with an aversion to vacation time). A few months back, when asked if he ever consults with his father on the issues he faces as president, Dubya's reply was something along the lines of "I consult with a greater father", an allusion to his born again Christian beliefs.

No wonder dad is out of the loop when he's decided he wants to be pals with that hated womanizer! There's no way of knowing how much consternation this genuine friendship between former presidents causes Dubya, Cheney et al but if it causes them any (and I'm sure it does), then I'm happy.

 

[dirtydan]

The biggest thing that should come out of this is that the myth of the liberal media should die.

All of the other media outlets are reporting on Clinton, rather than focusing on Fox News's blatant bias, and this, the greatest, most overt example of that bias. This when Fox is winning the cable news war no less. You'd think CNN, MSNBC, etc. would want to skewer them. But no.

So much for the liberal media. But the myth will live on.

The Republicans have used their cry of liberal media bias to great extent and perhaps beginning now they have overplayed that card. There is no doubt there are media that is biased, some more so than others and across the political spectrum. What Republicans too often fail to see is balanced reporting and deem it to be slanted to the left. And people ought to get serious about this liberal left in the US, as the Democrats are really just a center-right political party. These cries of liberal bias are derived from the Republican "battle cry", if you're with us then you're against us.

But it's not the fault of the Republicans alone. The mainstream media in the US deserves a large amount of the blame for catering to this senseless crying from the Republicans and rarely challenging it. Maybe with Clinton bushwhacking that little prick from Fox, other media might finally find their balls.

And with that said, let's also remember that Bill Clinton ain't a leftie. He shifted the Democrats more to the right during his time, but stayed far enough away from the Republican side of spectrum. Clinton recently demonstrated himself to be the grand slimball he really is at the British Labour Party's convention in which he praised UK PM Tony "lapdog" Blair and his government's policies.

 

[dirtydan]

In the nearly two years since the tsunami, Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr. have developed a close personal friendship as a result of the time they spent together raising funds for tsunami victims. I read recently where Clinton has visited more with George and Barbara Bush at Kennebunkport in the past year and a half than son Dubya has (and Dubya is definitely not someone with an aversion to vacation time). A few months back, when asked if he ever consults with his father on the issues he faces as president, Dubya's reply was something along the lines of "I consult with a greater father", an allusion to his born again Christian beliefs.

So what do you make of it? Bill and Hillary, George and Barbara, are they like swingers?

 

[JustAGuy]

So what do you make of it? Bill and Hillary, George and Barbara, are they like swingers?

You have put a truly HORRIBLE image in my mind, dirtydan. Thanks a LOT!!

 

[JustAGuy]

Maybe with Clinton bushwhacking that little prick from Fox, other media might finally find their balls.

The smirking little prick was on Charlie Rose last night and continued to put forth this "hey, what'd I do? I just asked a question." image that he's been cultivating ever since the interview. Clinton was naive if he thought he could appear on Fox and not be painted into a corner, given that network's slant on world events, but he pounded the crap out of Chris Wallace (not literally, though that would have been nice to see ) as soon as it was apparent what was actually going on. I don't often get to use the word 'disingenuous' but it's the perfect word to describe Wallace's whiny "I din't do nuttin" spiel along with the role of total innocent that he's trying to play after the fact.

"Fair and balanced", the one-time slogan of Fox News, was actually the perfect slogan if only they had had the balls to admit that in their universe there is really only one point of view and anyone having an opinion outside the narrow parameters of what they considered fair and balanced was by definition a card-carrying ACLU pinko/commie/abortion loving/gun hating/godless liberal who didn't deserve to live in and share the "bounty" of America.

 

[gravitas]

You have put a truly HORRIBLE image in my mind, dirtydan. Thanks a LOT!!

No shit!! I'm going to go rinse my eyes with bleach

 

[georgebushmoron]

The smirking little prick was on Charlie Rose last night and continued to put forth this "hey, what'd I do? I just asked a question." image that he's been cultivating ever since the interview. ... Wallace's whiny "I din't do nuttin" spiel along with the role of total innocent that he's trying to play after the fact.

What's worse, politicians who often use weasel-words because of the nature of their jobs, or.... journalists who parasitically make their living sucking off the errors and foibles of these politicians - under the guise of "Freedom of the Press" and "serving the public". Remember that opportunist vampire journalist Judith Miller sucking off the "leak" of Scooter Libby? Journalists are among the lowest of the low.

If I was Clinton, I would've had a lot of trouble keeping a calm demeanor. That smirking little prick journalist's teeth would have been punched out by me.

 

[luckydog71]

The biggest thing that should come out of this is that the myth of the liberal media should die.

Dexi - Actually the liberal media are committing suicide. Think of it Air America could not make it in spite of George Soros millions. Bill Maher gone. Dan Rather resigns. Jon Stewart seem to be the only one that can draw an audience and he provides fake news casts.

I would like to see the liberal media survive, even flurish. It is dangerous for one opinion to be so dominate that there is no alternative views expressed.

Unfortunately those out of power are prone to smashing the other guy. Doesn't matter who is out of power their desire to get back in power is so strong they will say and do anything.


The most recent example of someone who broke that rule was Gingrich and his Contract with America. I know you disgaree with what it said, but that is not my point. He stated clearly an agenda that described what he would do. The GOP won based on that agenda and they have increased their strength ever since.