What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Meet Antoine: Best Buy Chicago meets Best Buy New York. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - One Chicago employee makes Best Buy’s holiday campaign cut.
24 Comments
- MeMongo, on 10/11/2007, -7/+21"In fact, President Clinton was eager — at the recommendation of his counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke — to retaliate against al Qaeda for the U.S.S. Cole. But that attack took place in October 2000. As Clinton explained in a 2006 interview, both the CIA and FBI “refused to certify that it was Bin Laden was responsible” for the attack on the Cole until early 2001 which foreclosed on the possibility of a full response during the Clinton administration."
It always makes me laugh when these guys try to rewrite history. - meshman, on 10/11/2007, -5/+18Wow, it's been a while since we've had a good 'B-b-but Clinton!!!' post.
- CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -5/+18What else is new? If there's one thing Rudy loves more than striking fear into the hearts of children, it's perpetuating popular (yet suspiciously convenient) lies. This was the same tactic that the republicans used against Gore in 2000 and against Kerry in 2004. Why do they do it? Because such a large percentage of listeners accept the lie as truth straight away, that it usually takes months, years or longer for the truth to come to surface. So if you *really* wished that your opponent would do or say something stupid to damage their campaign, good news! You can just say it and it'll be like it *did* happen. Just make sure to time it right so you aren't exposed as a liar 'before' the election. Afterwards? who cares.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10You might want to research your "facts" a bit more before commenting.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13Headline misspelled the poor man's name. It's GIU-LIE-ANI. The E is optional.
- redrock34, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12Guiliani doesn't know anything about terrorists, he only likes to profit from the fear they give Americans.
- ScornForSega, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11"Giuliani said that Americans are being lured by the “very appealing” idea that the U.S. should “kind of act the way Clinton did in the ’90s.”"
Hmm.. the 90's.
Well, there was that whole Milosevic thing where the UN managed to overthrow an oppressive dictator without starting a civil war....
And that Somalia thing where the west tried to bring order to a country but left once it was apparent that they preferred chaos.
Saddam and Al Qaeda were both kept in relative check in comparison to the years under Bush II.
So for once, Giuliani's right... from where we stand now, the 90s are looking pretty appealing. - Snarfangel, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Some of us prefer preventing attacks to pre-emptive and retaliatory attacks.
- n8glenn, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8We need to get past the notion that we should judge politicians based on their party, or on their words. Let's face it, republicans don't give a s**t about god or family values, and democrats don't want to end the war in iraq any more than the republicans do. They're playing us against each other, republicans are just elite, morally bankrupt con men pretending to BE common men, while democrats are elite, morally bankrupt con men pretending to STAND FOR common men. Let's stop attacking them and defending them because of their party and start holding them accountable. Let's make them stop lying to us and trying to scare us. Let's make them do what they say they're gonna do for once! If the republicans talk about abortion 24/7, let's ask them why they've never done anything about it! If the democrats don't like Iraq, let's ask them what they're doing about it! They're treating us like children and we really shouldn't take it anymore. We need to have a healthy suspicion of all these characters, no matter what party they're in.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8Why is the bombing of the Cole considered a "terror attack"?
I thought terrorism was defined as attacks against civilians. - Auerbeck, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6How is this rewriting history?
You said yourself that his response was to do, what? Eagerly want to do something, but not to do anything. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5@Auerbeck, and who should Clinton have attacked, if the CIA was unwilling to certify that al Qaeda was behind it?
Unlike Bush, Clinton was concerned with at least trying to hit the right enemy, not that the intelligence was always ideal in his case either. However, it's pretty useless to just go invading countries that had nothing to do with any attacks on us. - johndi, on 10/13/2007, -1/+3I think you've hit the nail on the head. Politicians don't want solutions they want problems. How many times have politicians passed anti-porn laws or game sale restriction laws (to protect the children, of course) that have been struck down by the courts just to pass nearly identical laws to be struck down again? They then make the ridiculous claim that they are trying, but if they were they would listen to the advice judges often give in their opinions to make Constitutional laws.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Fair question. I think the thing that makes it terrorism is that it's meant to instill fear in a civilian population, i.e., US, and perhaps also in Yemen and other mostly-Muslim countries where we have troops stationed.
If they'd attacked the Cole and we never knew about it, it might just be called guerrilla warfare, and not very effective in the military sense. So what makes this terrorism and not just an attack is the fact that they knew it would make the news and get a response.
And in a sense, our treating it as a military attack helped diminish how successful of a terrorist act it was. - BushOwnzLibs, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Dance, Soros puppets. Dance!
Pathetic! - LooseCannon1, on 10/13/2007, -2/+3@MeMongo "In fact, President Clinton was eager — at the recommendation of his counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke — to retaliate against al Qaeda for the U.S.S. Cole."
In the looney, leftist Bizarro world 'Eagerly wanting to' and actually doing it, are the same exact thing. For example, if former President Clinton eagerly wanted to stop Bin Laden's bombing of the our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, then he actually did, despite the dozens of people killed. - opticwind, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1No doubt that Clinton was not particularly tough on terrorism during his presidency.
- emanggid, on 10/13/2007, -3/+4@ saigumi
here's a fact for you: who the ***** cares about what who did back in a irrelevant time. Ba-ba-ba-but Clinton this! Hey what about bush in the gulf war!? or Taft on neo-terrorists in Brazil?? or Cooliage's policy on immigration!!??? - fnaqzna, on 10/13/2007, -3/+3It keeps the thirty-percenters energized.
- littlebylittle, on 10/13/2007, -5/+5Repeated the myth ... Also known and LYING.
- swrostmore, on 10/13/2007, -4/+3EntropyMan is totally correct. The guerrilla attack on the Cole is referred to as a terror attack by our government in order to instill fear in our civilian population. Our media exists for the most part to repeat what the government says, and so you see the Cole attack referred to as "terrorism."
- virtueandwine, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3*****!
I thought it was BUSH that said Iraq had ties with Al-Qaeda..
i mean..that's one of the reasons we're there, isn't it? - saigumi, on 10/13/2007, -14/+2Sorry if facts and truth offend you so bad.
- saigumi, on 10/13/2007, -19/+5I thought Clinton's response to this was to blow up that aspirin factory while claiming that Iraq had ties with the al Quaeda.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is