Gimme 10 minutes of your time....please

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You're so predictable, exactly what I predicted in post 4.

Good for you still doesn't change the fact that Olberman is a pompous as$ and Clinton is a pathological lier.

 

[Sir_Alec]

Good for you still doesn't change the fact that Olberman is a pompous as$ and Clinton is a pathological lier.

It also doesn't change the fact that you and Jfuh are hypocritical and always stand at a partisan veiwpoint and blame the opposite side of the political specturm for tons of pointles bull ****.

 

[Stace]

It also doesn't change the fact that you and Jfuh are hypocritical and always stand at a partisan veiwpoint and blame the opposite side of the political specturm for tons of pointles bull ****.

Let's debate the topic at hand, not other members, alright?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Sure would be nice if there were more journalists with integrity.

Then we need to get rid of Olberman then, that man has 0 integrity he's a character assassin not a journalist.

 

[Sir_Alec]

Then we need to get rid of Olberman then, that man has 0 integrity he's a character assassin not a journalist.

The poll results say a lot of people disagree with you. Can you name any conservative journalists you would do the same too? Any? Or is just the fact that Olberman is saying things you don't agree with?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Or is just the fact that Olberman is saying things you don't agree with?

No it's the fact that Olberman is defending Clinton's proven lies and in so doing is lying about a journalist with actual integrity IE Chris Wallace.

 

[talloulou]

Sheuer is the worlds foremost authority on OBL and was head of the CIA bin-laden task force, if anyone knows what Clinton did and did not do to capture OBL it would be him.

Interesting that Clinton himself is not considered an authority on what he himself did.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Interesting that Clinton himself is not considered an authority on what he himself did.

Well if you recall Clinton: "did not have sexual relations with that woman," either, Clinton is a pathological lier, Sandy Berger was caught removing files, and Richard Clarke is also a well known lier after he got shitcanned by the Bush administration his stories changed quicker than a Mexican running across the border. (oh that was just wrong)

 

[jfuh]

Good for you still doesn't change the fact that Olberman is a pompous as$ and Clinton is a pathological lier.

Thank you for admitting of attempting to derail the thread with partisan spin.
Spining will not change the fact of valid points of what was said by either Clinton or Olberman.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Thank you for admitting of attempting to derail the thread with partisan spin.
Spining will not change the fact of valid points of what was said by either Clinton or Olberman.

No but disproving the numerous lies that Clinton told in the interview will and that has been done numerous times all over this board. Clinton was lying through his teeth end of story.

 

[jfuh]

No but disproving the numerous lies that Clinton told in the interview will and that has been done numerous times all over this board. Clinton was lying through his teeth end of story.

As I said, by factually incorrect/misleading or all out lies by the apologetics, such as yourself, yes there have been "claims" of Clinton lieing in the interview. I don't see how you can admit to attempting to derail with partisan spin and now claim that his words or that Olberman's video here are unfactual.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

As I said, by factually incorrect/misleading or all out lies by the apologetics, such as yourself, yes there have been "claims" of Clinton lieing in the interview. I don't see how you can admit to attempting to derail with partisan spin and now claim that his words or that Olberman's video here are unfactual.

A) There was no comprehensive plan given to the incoming administration even Richard Clarke has admitted this fact.

B) The GOP did not in anyway prevent Clinton from going after OBL.

C) According to former head of the CIA bin-Laden unit; Michael Scheuer Clinton had not one not two but 10 chances to capture or kill OBL.

This transcript of an interview with Chris Wallace and Michael Scheuer on the topic of the Clinton meltdown is quite enlightening:

WALLACE: But, Mr. Scheuer, I can see you beginning to shake your head. I mean, whether or not they had certifiable proof about the Cole, they certainly knew that Al Qaeda had been involved in the 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassies in Africa.

In your opinion, as somebody who was up close and personal, why didn't the Clinton administration go after Al Qaeda after the USS Cole?

SCHEUER: Mr. Wallace, my opinion is not all that important. I went to a little Jesuit school in Buffalo called Canicius, and the priests taught us never to lie, but if you had to lie, never lie about facts. Mr. Richard Clarke, Mr. Sandy Berger, President Clinton are lying about the opportunities they had to kill Usama bin Laden. That's the plain truth, the exact truth.

Men and women at the CIA risked their lives to provide occasions to kill a man we knew had declared war and had attacked America four or five times before 1998. We had plans that had been approved by the Joint Operations Command at Fort Bragg. We had opportunities, many opportunities to kill him.

But that's the president's decision. That's absolutely the case. It's not a simple, dumb bureaucrat like me; that's not my decision. It's his. But for him to get on the television and say to the American people he did all he could is a flat lie, sir.

WALLACE: Mr. Benjamin?

BENJAMIN: Well, I simply disagree. The plans that Mike is referring to about being approved were actually disapproved by his own chain of command. The CIA did not have confidence in the operation that was drawn up, and we couldn't go forward with it.

After the attack on the East Africa embassies, the covert operations were restarted, and again the same assets that were being involved earlier proved to be feckless and didn't deliver the goods.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHEUER: ... saying this, that what Mr. Benjamin, who I have a great deal of respect for, but what I say doesn't matter. What matters is the documents that back up what I have to say or what Mr. Benjamin has to say.

The 9/11 commission ignored those documents, didn't publish them to the American people, let no one involved with the effort to get bin Laden testify to the American people.

This is not a question of interpretation or judgment. This is a question of fact. And the documents will show the president had the opportunity.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216964,00.html

 

[teacher]

Nice title, I approve. Not quite as good as, "click here for free beer" or pretty much ANYTHING I post, but for anyone besides The Warden, who you ain't, and never will, or can be, nice job bro. Haven't read anything but the title.

It's 1:39, let's see if you can back that up. Keep me over ten, catch my interest, and I'll do a Top Ten on anything you want and kill with it.

God, that has to be SO annoying, and being that it took hardly any time, WAY pushes up my abuse dealt/time spent ratio.

And by now we all know I'm only here for two reasons...

To annoy people and ammuse myself. That the two go together is like hookers gibing me free beer on Christmas.

Now 1:43. I go read now.

Hope with all your might you didn't fluff this.

Or it's gonna get ugly, which means that pushes back my pryamid thing, which annoys me, abd you don't want ME being annoyed.

Good luck.for what it's worth, I'm rooting for you upstate NY homie.

1:46.

Ready, set, Billo sucks.

 

[teacher]

You %&*# (original TT thread, post #508 I think) it's a classic and one I'm proud of (that for all the nice mods I seem to be rubbing the wrong way lately since they got all heady with power (don't make me tell you two again) <don't make me stop this car> yaaaaaaaaaaa and suddenly realized they get NO views AND they ain't The Warden, and will never, or can be. (See how easy it is to dispence abuse without breaking ANY rules?) [Pick on mods more, the kids love that] I ain't installing sh**t. Put it in your own words. You can do that, right?

I'm a busy impotent man. I got pyramids to build, web site to nurture, abuse to deal out and I'm large on some other sites that I do just as well and rule like I do here. Had to read the riot act on one tonight. Told them, "shape up and stick to pyramids or abuse or I'll unregister and then it's to the weeping closet with your 40oz. with the nipple (ah, there's a new one) [I'll get some milage outta that] for you." Got no friggin time to be watching some windows green progressive bar thing lie to me about how long I have to sit here waiting for some virus ridden download full of gay Billo porn sites to stick while I try to keep my other hand outta my pants.

Get into the other half of that bottle of brandy did you, tecoyah? Go to the first of the lastest TT's and see what The Warden can (no, there's no can't) recall.


Warden stay issued.

Barely.

Get typing sport.


So, I've been not wondering lately who is doing what on that American idol show I never have nor will watch. Go ahead, tell me about it and see what hapens.


(I'm thinking, new feature, throw sumpin in many posts that has nutin to do with the topic).

What do you think?

Rhetorical question for those that think I care what you think.

It's called...moron bait. Hook...


I should put a cartoon here. But you don't deserve it. Got no tribute yet this last hour. Shame.

 

[jfuh]

A) There was no comprehensive plan given to the incoming administration even Richard Clarke has admitted this fact.

Really? Proof there of? Seems your own source below contradicts this when Scheuer says that Clarke is lieing. So who is credible here? Clarke on more then one occasion has stated as well as was noted in the 9/11 report that he had indeed warned the administration of AQ and OBL. Perhaps you have forgotten the Clarke memo? Or the fact that Clarke was demoted by the Bush administration? Source

B) The GOP did not in anyway prevent Clinton from going after OBL.

Really, I recall the GOP saying that the cruise missle strike was a diversion from the more important matters, being a blowjob from Monica.

C) According to former head of the CIA bin-Laden unit; Michael Scheuer Clinton had not one not two but 10 chances to capture or kill OBL.

This transcript of an interview with Chris Wallace and Michael Scheuer on the topic of the Clinton meltdown is quite enlightening:

Wow, surprise surprise, Faux news' Wallace trying to cover up thier own ***? Only miserably.
Scheuer statment goes hand in hand with what clinton said, that the FBI and CIA could not come to terms in agreement; only he places the blame on the administration for zero action taken - half truth.

Yet all this again is, as I predicted, apologetic spin to turn from the premise of this thread being that having sworn in as President, Bush did absolutely nothing at all except for going on a long vacation.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Really? Proof there of? Seems your own source below contradicts this when Scheuer says that Clarke is lieing. So who is credible here? Clarke on more then one occasion has stated as well as was noted in the 9/11 report that he had indeed warned the administration of AQ and OBL. Perhaps you have forgotten the Clarke memo?

The Clarke memo was not a comprehensive plan what it was was a brief description of Al Qaeda and a vague description of the current strategy that had not evolved since 1998 it was a 13 page memo a comprehensive plan would have been atleast a 50-100 pg report, but hay don't take my word for it let's ask the infamous Richard Clarke himself:

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...

CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?
One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

CLARKE: .... the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000525.html

Or the fact that Clarke was demoted by the Bush administration? Source

Clarke was not demoted he by his own admission he requested a transfer to the National Security Council office concerned with cyber-terrorismand then quit after he didn't receive the director of home land security position.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Really, I recall the GOP saying that the cruise missle strike was a diversion from the more important matters, being a blowjob from Monica.

Well your memory is not very good then let's take a look at this so called GOP oppostion to Clinton in combatting OBL:

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much. -- Bill Clinton[/FONT]

​

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Republicans claimed that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden? He did too much to try to capture the infamous terrorist leader? [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Do the facts support such assertions, or is this the typical Clinton modus operandi: when questioned about your own mistakes, bring up Republicans, neocons, and conservatives – the liberal equivalent of lions and tigers and bears…oh my – and how it’s all some kind of a conspiracy the complexities of which only Oliver Stone fully grasps. [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Historically this line of attack has worked quite well with an adoring interviewer that buys such drivel hook, line, and sinker. However, what Mr. Clinton and his ilk seem to forget regularly is a recent invention known as the Internet. It is indeed odd the former president is unaware of this, inasmuch as his vice president created it.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Regardless, this tool – with the assistance of search engines and services such as LexisNexis – allows folks to go back in the past to accurately identify the truth. Sadly, as has often been the case with the rantings of the Clintons, their grasp of the past is as hazy as their understanding of what the word “is” means. At least that is the charitable interpretation.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Nothing but GOP support for getting bin Laden[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]With that in mind, a thorough LexisNexis search identified absolutely no instances of high-ranking Republicans ever suggesting that Mr. Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden, or did too much to apprehend him prior to the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000. Quite the contrary, Republicans were typically highly supportive of Clinton’s efforts in this regard.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]As a little background, prior to the August 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, there is hardly any mention of bin Laden by President Clinton in American news transcripts. For the most part, the first real discussion of the terrorist leader by the former president – or by any U.S. politicians or pundits for that matter – began after these bombings, and escalated after the American retaliation in Afghanistan a few weeks later.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]At the time, the former president was knee-deep in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, so much so that the press was abuzz with the possibility that Clinton had performed these attacks to distract the American people from his extracurricular activities much as in the movie Wag the Dog.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Were there high-ranking Republicans that piled on this assertion? Hardly. As the Associated Press reported on the day of the attacks, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) said the following on August 20, 1998:[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do. [emphasis added][/FONT]

​

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Gingrich was not alone in his support. CNN’s Candy Crowley reported on August 21, 1998, the day after cruise missiles were sent into Afghanistan:[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]With law makers scattered to the four winds on August vacation, congressional offices revved up the faxes. From the Senate majority leader [Trent Lott], “Despite the current controversy, this Congress will vigorously support the president in full defense of America’s interests throughout the world.” [emphasis added][/FONT]

​

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Crowley continued:[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]“The United States political leadership always has and always will stand united in the face of international terrorism,” said the powerful Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee [Jesse Helms]. [emphasis added][/FONT]

​

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]It was vintage rally around the flag, just as they did for Ronald Reagan when he bombed Libya, for George Bush when he sent armed forces to the Gulf.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]The Atanta Journal-Constitution reported the same day:[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]“Our nation has taken action against very deadly terrorists opposed to the most basic principles of American freedom,” said Sen. Paul Coverdell, a Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “This action should serve as a reminder that no one is beyond the reach of American justice.” [emphasis added][/FONT]

​

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Former vice president Dan Quayle was quoted by CNN on August 23, 1998:[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]I don’t have a problem with the timing. You need to focus on the act itself. It was a correct act. Bill Clinton took—made a decisive decision to hit these terrorist camps. It’s probably long overdue. [emphasis added][/FONT]

​

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Were there some Republican detractors? Certainly. Chief amongst them was Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana:[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]I think we fear that we may have a president that is desperately seeking to hold onto his job in the face of a firestorm of criticism and calls for him to step down.[/FONT]
​

​

<<<<CONTINUED BELOW>>>​

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

<<<CONTINUED>>>

Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) also questioned the timing at first. However, other Republicans pleaded with dissenters on their side of the aisle to get on board the operation, chief amongst them, Gingrich himself. As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Speaker felt the “Wag the Dog” comparisons were “sick”:

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]“Anyone who saw the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, anyone who saw the coffins come home, would not ask such a question,” said the House speaker, referring to the 12 Americans killed in the embassy bombings.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]In fact, Gingrich did everything within his power to head off Republican criticism of these attacks as reported by the Boston Globe on August 23, 1998:[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Indeed, Gingrich even saw to it that one of his political associates, Rich Galen, sent a blast-Fax to conservative talk radio hosts urging them to lay off the president on the missile strikes, and making sure they knew of Gingrich’s strong support. [emphasis added][/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]That’s the same Rich Galen, by the way, who is openly urging Republican congressional candidates to try to take political advantage of the president’s sex scandal in their television advertising this fall.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Sound like Republicans were complaining about President Clinton obsessing over bin Laden? Or, does it seem that Mr. Clinton pulled this concept out of his… hat in front of Chris Wallace, and ran 99 yards with the ball, albeit in the wrong direction?[/FONT]


Regardless, in the end, sanity prevailed, and both Specter and Coats got on board the operation:

After reviewing intelligence information collected on bin Laden, Specter said: “I think the president acted properly.” [emphasis added]


[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]As for “neocons,” one so-called high-ranking member, Richard Perle, wrote the following in an August 23, 1998, op-ed published in the Sunday Times:

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]For the first time since taking office in 1993, the Clinton administration has responded with some measure of seriousness to an act of terror against the United States. This has undoubtedly come as a surprise to Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi terrorist believed to have been behind the bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and to the regimes in Afghanistan and Sudan who provide him with sanctuary and support.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Until now they, along with other terrorists and their state sponsors in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea, have manoeuvred, plotted, connived and killed with confidence that the United States would do little or nothing in retaliation.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]So Thursday’s bombing is a small step in the right direction. More important, it reverses, at least for now, a weak and ineffective Clinton policy that has emboldened terrorists and confirmed that facilitating terror is without cost to the states that do it. [emphasis added][/FONT]
​

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Does that sound like a “Bush neocon” claiming that Clinton was “obsessed with bin Laden” to you? [/FONT]
[/FONT]

Damn look at all that GOP opposition. :roll:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Wow, surprise surprise, Faux news' Wallace trying to cover up thier own ***? Only miserably.

lmfao your assertions that Chris Wallace is some kind of right wing ideologue are a complete joke. The man worked for NBC for years and is Mike Wallace's son the man is no Sean Hannity, your problem is you see Fox News and your brain goes like this Fox + tuff question posed to Clinton = Wallace must be a right wing zealot, when this couldn't be further from the truth.

Scheuer statment goes hand in hand with what clinton said, that the FBI and CIA could not come to terms in agreement; only he places the blame on the administration for zero action taken - half truth.

lmfao those kind of decisions are not made by bureaucrats at Langley or Quantico those orders come from the President of the United States or his direct subordinates and when it came to the wire either Clinton, or Berger and Clarke turned down the opportunity to kill or capture OBL. Those are the facts sir no matter the revisionist history that Clinton wants to spin to try and save his legacy and make it look like he was a terror warrior when infact the opposite is true when it came to AQ he didn't have a ****ing clue what he was doing.

Yet all this again is, as I predicted, apologetic spin to turn from the premise of this thread being that having sworn in as President, Bush did absolutely nothing at all except for going on a long vacation.

Well that's just another in a long list of Clinton's blatant lie's the man is pathological, according to Richard Clarke Bush changed the current strategy from one of roll back to one of elimination:

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

CLARKE: .... the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

 

[jfuh]

lmfao your assertions that Chris Wallace is some kind of right wing ideologue are a complete joke. The man worked for NBC for years and is Mike Wallace's son the man is no Sean Hannity, your problem is you see Fox News and your brain goes like this Fox + tuff question posed to Clinton = Wallace must be a right wing zealot, when this couldn't be further from the truth.

How does covering one's own *** have anything to do with thier political leanings? Please show how that relates. tuff questions? good one tot, really good one, why don't we see Faux asking the bush admin that? Again another attempt to spin off topic.

lmfao those kind of decisions are not made by bureaucrats at Langley or Quantico those orders come from the President of the United States or his direct subordinates and when it came to the wire either Clinton, or Berger and Clarke turned down the opportunity to kill or capture OBL. Those are the facts sir no matter the revisionist history that Clinton wants to spin to try and save his legacy and make it look like he was a terror warrior when infact the opposite is true when it came to AQ he didn't have a ****ing clue what he was doing.

The facts because you say so? Again no proof whatsoever only your word. Fortunately we have the Clarke memo that goes against everything you've stated here. As I've stated, the conversation involved half truths.

Well that's just another in a long list of Clinton's blatant lie's the man is pathological, according to Richard Clarke Bush changed the current strategy from one of roll back to one of elimination:

Firstly, link to your source?
2ndly, when did Bush change strategies?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

How does covering one's own *** have anything to do with thier political leanings? Please show how that relates. tuff questions? good one tot, really good one, why don't we see Faux asking the bush admin that? Again another attempt to spin off topic.

What calling Clinton on his lies is off topic of this thread how so?

The facts because you say so?

No because former head of the CIA's bin-Laden Unit from 1996-1999 Michael Scheuer says so:

`The Bush administration was absolutely negligent for not paying attention in their first eight months in office," said Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIA's bin Laden task force from 1995 to 1999 and retired from the agency as a senior Al Qaeda specialist in 2004. ``But fair is fair. Clinton had 10 chances and Bush had none."

``In May of 1998 and 1999, we had two opportunities to capture him and eight different opportunities to kill him," Scheuer told the Globe yesterday. ``On every one of those occasions, the president or Berger and Clarke turned down the opportunity" to strike.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/09/26/parties_trading_blame_on_bin_laden/

Again no proof whatsoever only your word. Fortunately we have the Clarke memo that goes against everything you've stated here.

The Clarke memo was a brief description of Al-qaeda along with a vague description of the failed strategy, a "comprehensive plan," it was not; even Clarke has admitted to this and if you had taken the time to actually read the memo you will realize that's exactly what it is.

As I've stated, the conversation involved half truths.

What is Scheuer's motivation to lie? I'll remind you again that he is the worlds foremost authority on AQ and that he is far from a Bush supporter he has critisized the current administration just as harshly.

Firstly, link to your source?
2ndly, when did Bush change strategies?

Sure thing: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

According to Clarke spring/March of 2001.

 

[Jerry]

The Keith Olberman message....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAYL_5E5_60

Good for both sides of the fence.....But it will seriously piss off one of those sides.

I don't even care enough about this bullchit to make a post calling it the huge waste of server space it is......wait....

 

[jfuh]

What calling Clinton on his lies is off topic of this thread how so?

Around and around in circles we go.

No because former head of the CIA's bin-Laden Unit from 1996-1999 Michael Scheuer says so:

And I've already shown you how Scheuer is covering his own ***.

The Clarke memo was a brief description of Al-qaeda along with a vague description of the failed strategy, a "comprehensive plan," it was not; even Clarke has admitted to this and if you had taken the time to actually read the memo you will realize that's exactly what it is.

I did read the memo, perhaps you can show what the title is?

What is Scheuer's motivation to lie? I'll remind you again that he is the worlds foremost authority on AQ and that he is far from a Bush supporter he has critisized the current administration just as harshly.

Really, I see, so he's a good source right? So what did Bush in those 8 months do about AQ? Change of strategy anyone? Take any warning seriously? No, he and his administration were concerend about how to go into Iraq, not AQ.

Sure thing: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

According to Clarke spring/March of 2001.

March 2001?

WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda.

The portion right before your exerpt

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

The GOP controlled congress did not allow Clinton to do anything with out the partisan rhetoric you are re-stating right now.
Name me a single politician that is not a liar, they all are. Clinton got caught about getting his dick sucked; Bush on the other hand has not made a single honest statement.

 

[Alastor]

im sorry but i could not watch the whole thing. he was making me too mad. lol. i can honestly say i think George W., Bush is probably the most talked about president in a very very long time. the media and so many others like to do nothing but bash bush. i dont remember so many people bashing bush sr, or clinton. andn i doubt they did anyone previously like they bash bush now.

Maybe W has earned it.