What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.141 Comments
- edverb, on 10/12/2007, -13/+79Richard Clarke: "The key scene in this movie is utterly false, and here's why."
Rightwingers: "yeah but MICHAEL MOORE!!!11!!!"
Pretty transparent attempt to change the subject. - xenuxenuts, on 10/12/2007, -4/+54The accuracy of a different movie doesn't have anything to do with the accuracy of this one.
- Magma42, on 10/12/2007, -9/+57Or do you mean the actual film Fahrenhype 911 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427228/) one of a half dozen "Mikal Moor R teh Suk!!!11!!oneeleven!" films produced in the same span of one month released right after Moore's film? The one that had, of all people, Ann Coulter on talking about how much Moore distorts the truth, with the words "No, in fact we do not know what Irony is" crawling across the bottom? That one?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -22/+66I think we should be able to hold ABC to a higher standard than Michael Moore.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27@davenp35 - are you saying that you see no difference between ABC's responsibilities to the public and Moore's responsibility to the public?
- edverb, on 10/12/2007, -9/+33If ABC airs this as it is, Sandy Berger should sue for defamation. I'd say it's a pretty glaring error to attribute George Tenet's erroneous actions to a completely different person.
Now THAT's what you'd call "revisionist history". My guess is that five years down the road ABC will be airing docudramas that have Colin Powell shooting his hunting buddy in the face with a shotgun, and the rightwingers will praise it's accuracy. - hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -23/+47Farrenhite 9/11 was a film shown in theatres. This bit or Bush Propaganda is on ABC...NETWORK Television. Big difference to anyone with half a brain. Moore's film also wasn't disguised as a documentary based on 'fact's' dreamt up by the Right. ABC see's a chance to make some $ off 9/11 and is taking it. Pretty sad, and so are the rest here who see no problem with this upcoming bit of propaganda. Goebbels would be proud of ABC.
- gorobei, on 10/12/2007, -9/+32ABC is using public broadcast frequencies free of charge. They have a responsibility to make fair use of the airwaves.
- DavidYeah, on 10/12/2007, -16/+34What specific scene in Farenheit 911are you referring to?
- Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21marksheely,
Why shouldn't we hold everyone to the same standard of intellectual honesty? Bunk stories should be denounced by everyone, not just when it is politically convenient. - chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23Funny that Clark only refers to this incident in Afghanistan and not the 2 oe 3 times that the Sudan actually offered up bin Laden and they refused. Madeline Albright has even admitted that this offer was made by the Sudan and in retrospect, they would have obviously accepted the offer.
- zdlatham, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18I always wondered what documents sandy berger snuck into or out of the national archives when he got busted.
- yankeeblue, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19actually that never happened. Berger never did stuff documents down his pants.
He put classified copies of documents in his coat pocket and left the Nation Archives with them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18989-2005Apr1.html?nav=rss_politics
"Noel L. Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's public integrity section, said Berger "did not have an intent to hide any of the content of the documents" or conceal facts from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."
"Department lawyers concluded that Berger took the documents for personal convenience -- to prepare testimony -- and not with the intent of destroying evidence"
Please check all GOP Talking Points at the door. And seriously good try on changing the subject. - chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19You mean Sandy Burglar, the guy who "mistakenly" stuffed classified documents down his pants?
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20Really it doesn't matter if Clarke blast the information or not. Once millions of people see it on TV, that will practically be the word of God. Few people will ever hear about the truth, and fewer people will care. The damage will be done. Politicians and news outlets count on that.
- RandomEngy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Urusai,
Clinton did an excellent job with counterterrorism. He gave it top priority, and according to an independent review, had a comprehensive and effective counterterrorist force. OBL was in the top 3 threats in a list handed to the Bush administration. Also plans against OBL were given to Bush administration, who just sat on them until 9/11.
I don't remember specific details about it, but if you like, you can read up on it in Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them". - mikesherov, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15To all the people arguing that one or the other party is to blame:
Wake up. This has nothing to do with either party. Our entire government, both "liberals" and "conservatives", are a corrupt, incompetent bunch of asses. You are only further delving into the false dichotomy set up by the media when you argue that either democrats or republicans are responsible. There is no "responsibility" to be placed squarely on either side. The fact remains that our government will remain a perpetual election cycle where results don't matter. Both parties use spin to conceal facts and inadequacies, and pander to corporate interests... and will continue to do so, at least as long as gerrymandering and private campaign finance exist.
America's government was designed to not have life-long politicians who are out of touch with reality running the show. You were supposed to serve a term or two, and get booted out by someone better in a fair election, and return to your humble life of farming tobacco and raping slaves.
Of course, don't blame the congressmen themselves... we are to blame. Private campaign finance, soft money, and gerrymandering have assured that very few of the nation's congressional districts have real challenges coming up in the midterms.
The end result? Arguments like this:
A:The republicans have done a ***** job on terrorism. It's Bush's fault.
B:I'm sure the democrats would've done worse. Besides, it's Clinton's fault.
A:The republicans have done a ***** job by going into Iraq.
B:The democrats would've done worse.
Both A and B may be right. But what the hell does that prove? Where's the improvement? Where's the republicans defending the administrations current actions instead of reverting to Clinton bashing? Where's the democratic party that actually stands up for what democratic voters believe in? - LaserLine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@repins
No, please get your facts straight. From http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Timeline_to_War
April, 2001: The White House. Cabinet deputies meet to review terrorism policy. Richard Clarke warns that the network of terrorist organizations called Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, presents an immediate and serious threat to the U.S., and that the U.S. had to target bin Laden and his leadership by reinitiating flights of the Predator drone. Wolfowitz replies that Iraq is just as much a terrorist threat. Clarke says he is unaware of any Iraqi-sponsored terrorism directed at the U.S. Deputy CIA director John McLaughlin backs up Clarke. Wolfowitz tells Clarke he gives bin Laden too much credit and that he had to have a state sponsor. Clarke replies that bin Laden has made plain his terrorist aims and, as with Hitler in Mein Kampf, you have to believe these people will actually do what they say. Wolfowitz responds that he resents comparing the Holocaust to "this little terrorist in Afghanistan." Clarke replies: "I wasn't comparing the Holocaust to anything. I was saying that like Hitler, bin Laden has told us in advance what he plans to do and we would make a big mistake to ignore it."
Sept. 4, 2001: The White House. Counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke meets with the President to walk him through a proposed National Security Presidential Directive, whose goal is to eliminate bin Laden and Al Qaeda leaders. Clarke had asked for the meeting, calling it "urgent," back in January, but only now is allowed to see him. He tells Bush that the use of minimum-wage rent-a-cops to screen passengers and carry-on at airports has got to stop. The President agrees. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Name one relevant inaccuracy in F-911. Go ahead. I'll wait.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+21yeah none besides he was there and has worked for the fed since he was appointed by reagan and even worked with Bush 1 to get support for the first gulf war. and was the terrorism czar for 12 years.
I am sure rush limbaugh is way more credible. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Viper, name me one relevant falsehood in F-911. The site you listed helped prove our point, that F-911 was factual. Thanks for helping the Democratic party :).
- Phatt138, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Sanman: Neo-Libs? Hrm.
That does seem to be your plan. Take the same accusations, replace "Con" with "Lib," "Bush" with "Clinton," ad infinitum. How's that workin out for ya, partner? Now if we could just land our hands on some of that damned 'evidence' everyone's all worked up about... - RandomEngy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Not all "leaning" writers are created equal. Ann Coulter, for example, is a raving nutball. Michael Moore, a little less so, but still not so great. Al Franken in his books makes a big deal about getting the facts right and presenting it like it is. Example quote:
"
"Overall, I give them very high marks," Robert Oaklev, who served as ambassador for counterterrorism in the Reagan State Department told the Washington Post. "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which made him stronger." Oaklev's successor in the Reagan administration, Paul Bremer, disagreed slightly. Bremer, who is currently the civilian administrator in Iraq, told the Post he believed that the Clinton administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden."
"
Here you can read an excellent article by Franken that shows his dedication to the facts, and pertains to our current discussion:
http://www.spinsanity.org/debates/20040315-franken.html
Also from the article:
"
Clarke's plan was an ambitious one: break up al Qaeda cells and arrest their personnel; systematically attack financial support for its terrorist activities; freeze its assets; stop its funding through fake charities; give aid to governments having trouble with al Qaeda (Uzbekistan, the Philippines, and Yemen); and, most significantly, scale up support for the Northern Alliance and putting Special Forces on the ground in Afghanistan. As a senior Bush administration official says in the August 12th article, Clarke's plan amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11."
Clinton's far-reaching plan to eliminate al Qaeda root and branch was completed only a few weeks before the inauguration of George W. Bush. If it had been implemented then, a former senior Clinton aide said in the Time article, "we would be handing [the Bush administration] a war when they took office." Instead, Clinton and his national security team decided to turn the plan over to the Bush administration to carry out.
"
The plan of course, not acted upon until after the fact.
catbertz, it's not always that simple, fighting terrorism. Sometimes it's hard to pick out those responsible and actually shut down the organization responsible. You do all you can to punish those responsible and try to make sure it happens again. Others like to invade countries that had nothing to do with it, but I don't think that's the best solution.
As for finding an unbiased article, I don't know if you can. Any time someone takes a side, even if they're just stating facts, they get labeled as "left-leaning" or "right-leaning". Usually the mainstream media just quotes each side a few times and calls it good. - Cathy11, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18So davenp355, did you see Fahrenheit 911? What did you find inaccurate about the movie?
- edverb, on 10/12/2007, -12/+20Not a single rightwing argument in this entire thread is based on the merits. They are all character attacks. There are a dozen apparatchiks attacking Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke, Michael Moore, other posters...but not ONE refutation of the facts in the article.
When you have the facts on your side, bang on the facts. When you have the law on your side, bang on the law. When you have neither the facts nor the law on your side, bang on the table.
The rightwingers are doing nothing but banging on the table in this thread.
Arguing every other rightwing shibboleth under the sun does not change the central argument -- that the pivotal scene in this movie is a complete fabrication. And by promoting this fabrication, they are spreading lies about the thing that must never, ever be politicized. - nj2005, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@sanman
Did you even read your second link? You really should it is quite interesting. It points out flaws made by everyone since 1994. As a matter a fact it points out at the end of the document that the Bush Administration basically did nothing to prevent terrorism, and that the Clinton administration had been doing much more to try to prevent it.
Remember Clinton had very limited power. Whenever he ordered an attack people claimed he was "wagging the dog". He did not have the support of Congress, so he had to be very careful not to do anything that was impeachable (it was already pretty obvious they would impeach him over anything.)
Everybody made mistakes that led to September 11th, but there was only one administration that could possibly have thwarted the actual plan, and that was the Bush administration. As poor of a president as Clinton may have been, he was no longer in power when the attack was carried out. He had no ability to prevent September 11th after he left office. There was still ample time and more than enough signs that could have prevented it from occurring, but the Bush administration failed. - ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Well, here is Brendan Nyhan's article at Spinsanity about the distortions and deceptions in Fahrenheit 911. http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html
There's also a couple more articles about Moore there, ditto for Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and other people on the left and right. - IMustBeEmo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16@sanman
I despise the republicans for making blatantly inaccurate claims without citing any reputable sources and for supporting to brainwash our children with their rediculous hate-spreading religious beliefs in public school. I also hate how they bring in irrelevant, petty ***** such as calling names, 'he said she said,' and outright lack of accepting blame. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Sanman:
>I remember how anti-terrorist chief Vince Cannistraro used to boast that "we've got Bin Laden in a box" (he meant that they had Osama "trapped and isolated" in Afghanistan, where he "could do no harm").
I can't decide if you're a liar, or just have a memory that changes because you like so many people now really WANT to believe something is true.
Cannistraro actually wrote the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim -- that Osama was NOT in a box, and still a danger. He actually wrote that for the Washington Post in a public article just a few days BEFORE 9/11.
Naturally the Bush administration ignored that article, too.
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/cannist.htm
Now tell us more how you "hate" the "libs" because they "lie." - jabberwonk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Actually, not quite correct. Sudan offered bin Laden to the Saudis, and Clinton "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden to Saudi Arabia (2/15/2002 speech @ Long Island Association's luncheon). Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States.
Here's the full excert from that speech before it was mis quoted by Sean Hannity:
"So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [Al Qaeda]. We got -- well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."
Even the 9-11 Commission backed this up in their official report:
"Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.
Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all."
Here's the link to the 9-11 Commission document:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf
If you want to see the original article for known right-wing "news" site newsmax, here it is:
http://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/showinside.pl?a=2002/8/10/230919
You can see where they mis-quoted Clinton in the article and got the facts incorrect.
I tried to find a direct quote from Albright that said otherwise, but the only thing I could find was some conjecture on another right-wing site (freerepublic), but no direct quotes or interviews. - edverb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9You mean Sandy Burglar, the guy who "mistakenly" stuffed classified documents down his pants?
---------
Yes. That guy.
Not George Tenet.
You see...they are two different people. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13Get your facts straight before posting to digg
On March 3, 1996, U.S. ambassador to Sudan, Tim Carney, Director of East African Affairs at the State Department, David Shinn, and a member of the CIA's directorate of operations' Africa division met with Sudan's then-Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa in a Rosslyn, Virginia hotel room. Item number two on the CIA's list of demands was to provide information about Osama bin Laden. Five days later, Erwa met with the CIA officer and offered more than information. He offered to arrest and turn over bin Laden himself. Two years earlier, the Sudan had turned over the infamous terrorist, Carlos the Jackal to the French. He now sits in a French prison. Sudan wanted to repeat that scenario with bin Laden in the starring role.
Clinton administration officials have offered various explanations for not taking the Sudanese offer. One argument is that an offer was never made. But the same officials are on the record as saying the offer was "not serious." Even a supposedly non-serious offer is an offer. Another argument is that the Sudanese had not come through on a prior request so this offer could not be trusted. But, as Ambassador Tim Carney had argued at the time, even if you believe that, why not call their bluff and ask for bin Laden?
The Clinton administration simply did not want the responsibility of taking Osama bin Laden into custody. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is on the record as saying: "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." Even if that was true — and it wasn't — the U.S. could have turned bin Laden over to Yemen or Libya, both of which had valid warrants for his arrest stemming from terrorist activities in those countries. Given the legal systems of those two countries, Osama would have soon ceased to be a threat to anyone.
After months of debating how to respond to the Sudanese offer, the Clinton administration simply asked Sudan to deport him. Where to? Ambassador Carney told me what he told the Sudanese: "Anywhere but Somalia."
In May 1996 bin Laden was welcomed into Afghanistan by the Taliban. It could not have been a better haven for Osama bin Laden. - ochito, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11@ invader
I think you just missed the point entirely. The fact that it is on a movie theater, and that its producer is a known firebrand nutjob like Michael Moore means that people with half a brain should know better and take it with not a grain, but a pound of salt. However, when a TV Network, with a reputation to protect as unbiased and fair, does the same thing, it should be held to much higher *journalistic* standards, since it is inevitably seen as backing up the statements on the movie.
Besides, their own damn advisor is contradicting the whole thing, so what the hell was the point of having him as an advisor then? - mww2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Wasn't he the one trying to get Bush II to pay attention?
- yankeeblue, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10when will people like Rush on the frightwing get over Clinton? Hasn't it been six years?
I think Democrats stopped blaming anything on Bush I in 1993, when they took back the office. - nj2005, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6From the article:
December 4, 1997: Taliban Representatives Visit Unocal in Texas
Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Future President George W. Bush is Governor of Texas at the time. The Taliban appear to agree to a $2 billion pipeline deal, but will do the deal only if the US officially recognizes the Taliban regime. The Taliban meet with US officials. According to the Daily Telegraph, “the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban’s policies against women and children ‘despicable,’ appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract.” A BBC regional correspondent says that “the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea.” [BBC, 12/4/1997; Daily Telegraph, 12/14/1997]
Seriously... are you insane? You get Clinton trying to bribe Bush from this part of the article? Most likely this would be the other way around. Usually when politicians suddenly change their mind (as this indicates) it's because special interests bribe them (in this case it appears to be the oil industry).
How did you manage to miss the following section headers (once again from your article)?
-------------------------------
Early 1999: Memo Calls for New Approach on bin Laden; Focuses on State-Sponsorship, Money Trail
March 2000: Clinton Attempt to Fight Terrorism Financing Defeated by Republican
December 20, 2000: Clarke Plan to Neutralize al-Qaeda Deferred Pending Administration Transition
Early 2001: Bush Staffers Less Concerned with Terrorism
-----------------------------
Also if you read the sections that seem to have damning evidence against the Clinton administration (e.g. Late 1998: Al-Qaeda Leader Located in Sudan, but US Does Not Try to Capture Him) we find its the CIA, Defense Department, or other government agencies recommended against it.
Clinton obviously could have done more, however looking at the article you linked to it shows that as time passed they got more concerned and more on top of their game, when they left office they tried to pass this on to the Bush administration, who refused to listen.
Also I did not see the Republicans calling for mandates against the Taliban.
As for your first article, your guy is a nut. He was all for the Taliban when they were fighting the Russians. He even was for them in 1996 when he stated They were "devout traditionalists—not terrorists or revolutionaries." and he indicated that Taliban takeover would be a positive development." (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, November/December 1996 issue). He may have been against them in 1998, but then why did he hold secret negotiations with them on April 10th, 2001?
(sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Rohrabacher, http://www.ocweekly.com/features/features/rogue-statesman/21591/)
So please stop trying to blame all of this on Clinton when it is obviously not his fault. You seem to be so concerned with Bin Laden, but have you noticed that he still has yet to be caught by the Bush administration? - dorkafork, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6There's a long section in the 9/11 Commission report that seems to describe this incident:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm
""Mike" thought the capture plan was "the perfect operation." It required minimum infrastructure. The plan had now been modified so that the tribals would keep Bin Ladin in a hiding place for up to a month before turning him over to the United States-thereby increasing the chances of keeping the U.S. hand out of sight. "Mike" trusted the information from the Afghan network; it had been corroborated by other means, he told us. The lead CIA officer in the field, Gary Schroen, also had confidence in the tribals. In a May 6 cable to CIA headquarters, he pronounced their planning "almost as professional and detailed . . . as would be done by any U.S. military special operations element." He and the other officers who had worked through the plan with the tribals judged it "about as good as it can be."
...
Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as "half-assed" and predicted that the principals would not approve it. "Jeff " thought the decision had been made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger's doing, though perhaps on Tenet's advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to "turn off" the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger's recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision.30
The CIA's senior management clearly did not think the plan would work. Tenet's deputy director of operations wrote to Berger a few weeks later that the CIA assessed the tribals' ability to capture Bin Ladin and deliver him to U.S. officials as low. But working-level CIA officers were disappointed. Before it was canceled, Schroen described it as the "best plan we are going to come up with to capture [Bin Ladin] while he is in Afghanistan and bring him to justice."
You can decide for yourself exactly how accurate ABC's portrayal of the events are. I would note that Clarke was involved in the incident, so he is not some impartial third party observer. I'd also note that his comments on the matter are presented in a deceptive way.
"1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.
2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL."
The scene described by ThinkProgress makes no mention of *anyone* "seeing" OBL. Nor is Masood mentioned. Clarke may be discussing different scenes in the movie, but ThinkProgress doesn't have much of an excuse. "In short, this scene — which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden — never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh." Well, it was in the 9/11 Commission report. - DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4549030/
I stumbled upon this video footage. It was taken on Richard Clarke's watch. The government thought it was a good idea to track OBL with a Predator drone in 2000 because he was a known threat. The video clearly shows Osama Bin Laden in the middle of Afghanistan. Our government failed to kill OBL when it had a chance because it was concerned about the political ramifications of "taking a pot shot" at him and possibly killing "innocent civilians" in the process.
To win against terrorism, we must put the politics and grandstanding aside and confront the threat as Americans, not Democrats or Republicans. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Notice how it changes from pants to socks. This was all debunked, of course, and he did admit to accidentally taking photoCOPIES in his bag, not the originals themselves.
He paid a fine. Rush had an orgasm. - DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4549030/
The story above has footage taken from a Predator drone taken in the fall of 2000 which clearly shows Osama Bin Laden. From 1998 to 2000, Richard Clarke was the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism. The U.S. knew he was a thug, knew where he was and did nothing about it ot of concern for killing several "innocent civilians" who were in Bin Laden's immediate proximity. Unfortunately, that lack of foresight in the fall of 2000 has led to the situation that we find ourselves in today. - DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4There is a time to be a partisan and there's a time to be an American. When facing terrorism, we must put aside our partisan ideologies and confront threats. Politics must stop at the water's edge.
- MasterLJ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”
If the above is true, it was an illegal act. It was imposed by the Carter/Ford/Reagen administrations and repealed directly after GWB took office, that targetting people for assassination was illegal. This means it was illegal for Clinton to do so at the time.
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21037.pdf#search=%22Carter%2C%20assassination%20of%20foreign%20leaders%22
I'm not a GWB fan, and I do believe Clinton was a strong President, but illegal is illegal. In any case, it's damned if you did, damned if you didn't as far as Clarke's rebuttal goes. - heysuburbia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@invader:
I don't think ABC vs. Theater was because one was more likely to contain the truth. It's because people have to go to and pay for the movie, where as anybody with rabbit ears can view ABC.
It's like Howard Stern can say whatever the ***** he wants about anything (his OPINION), but if a news radio show expresses there OPINION it's wrong because it's supposed to neutral and "Fair and Balanced". - infra172, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Richard Clarke is a proven liar. Over and over again he's been proven to make stuff up.
- DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ yankeeblue
Clinton had a clean shot on Bin Laden in 2000 and didn't take it. We're still dealing with the ramifications of inaction today. I don't hear members of the present administration criticizing Clinton. In fact, I don't remember former Presidents criticizing Clinton's foreign policy on U.S. or foreign soil while Clinton was President, either. - DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ gjscds
The U.S. entered WWII on 12/8/1941 and the last German forces surrendered to the Allies on May 7, 1945. So it took 1,246 days before the enemy "hollered 'nuff" in the European theater.
The Japanese surrendered on August 14, 1945. That would be 1,345 days from start to finish. So it took 1,345 days before the enemy in the Pacific "hollered 'nuff".
Fast forward to present. The U.S. set plans in motion on 9/11/01 (I know this because I have a family member that was deployed to an undisclosed country the evening of 9/11) and today it's 9/6/06. That's 1,821 days and to this date, our soldiers are getting shot at on a daily basis.
Our soldiers were not actively being shot at on a daily basis post-surrender in 1945. To date, the U.S. has successfully overthrown two governments and re-established some semblance of democracy, but our soldiers are still being shot at. Here's a rule for you: If you have to wear a helmet, body armor, drive around in an armored vehicle out of necessity for your safety, sounds like our soldiers are still actively engaged in defeating an enemy despite assertion of victory. I have no doubt we'll be in Iraq and Afghanistan for a long time stabilizing both countries and we should be. In the wake of the Afghan war against the Soviets, when the Soviets left, we patted them on the back, said "nice job guys", and left without cleaning up the mess. The genius of the Marshall Plan was that we cleaned up our mess and created the world's two largest economies from scratch. Leaving Iraq and Afghanistan is NOT an option at the moment.
I blame that on our political leaders who refuse to put politics down and be Americans, rather than Democrats and Republicans, when confronting terrorism. That behavior encourages enemies of the U.S. and the civiized world. Politics MUST stop at the water's edge. And the American media needs to consider what their reporting does to the cause of peace--as it stands, they seem hell bent on making Bush look bad, reporting Muslim propoganda as fact, and stringing this out longer than it needs to be. - Kohath, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3No. Not until it airs on TV next week and we can watch it.
- hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5chriskzoo: You want to talk about baseball or something? You seem to like changing the subject.
- fsjonsey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4enough with the thinkprogress links. All these complaints about convservative spam but this is okay?
- dsmeryage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Sandy Berger spent a few days at the National Archives stuffing the original documents and copies thereof in his pants which would have incriminated the Clinton administration regarding this issue concerning their neglect for not following through. He got little more than a slap on the wrist in punishment.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 140 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is