• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Osama, the President and the New York Times!!!


Well-known member
Feb 19, 2005
Reaction score
in the middle of America
Political Leaning
I'm sorry but I think the New York Times leans to the liberal side which ultra left-wing liberals love. Still, if you are willing to dig into this bastion of "all the news you need to know since it is only what we are going to tell you", you can find the occasional retort to those on the left that tout the Clinton years as "the best".

Where do you put blame? This is something we should all think about and hope we have enough information to get past our purely partisan positions. Here's some excerpts from the NYT's that came in on page A12 or somewhere in that vicinity. Not worthy of front page? Guess not. Anyway, I offer you excerpts from that very bastion - oh and this is from Eric Lichtblau, no Bush fan:

"State Dept. Says It Warned About bin Laden in 1996"

"State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam 'well beyond the Middle East,' but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show."

"The declassified documents, obtained by the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act request and provided to The New York Times, shed light on a murky and controversial chapter in Mr. bin Laden's history: his relocation from Sudan to Afghanistan as the Clinton administration was striving to understand the threat he posed and explore ways of confronting him. Before 1996, Mr. bin Laden was regarded more as a financier of terrorism than a mastermind. But the State Department assessment, which came a year before he publicly urged Muslims to attack the United States, indicated that officials suspected he was taking a more active role, including in the bombings in June 1996 that killed 19 members American soldiers at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia."

"Critics of the Clinton administration have accused it of ignoring the threat posed by Mr. bin Laden in the mid-1990's while he was still in Sudan, and they point to claims by some Sudanese officials that they offered to turn him over to the Americans before ultimately expelling him in 1996 under international pressure. But Clinton administration diplomats have adamantly denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had 'not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.'

"The newly declassified documents do not directly address the question of whether Sudan ever offered to turn over Mr. bin Laden. But the documents go well beyond previous news and historical accounts in detailing the Clinton administration's active monitoring of Mr. bin Laden's movements and the realization that his move to Afghanistan could make him an even greater national security threat."

"Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said the declassified material released to his group 'says to me that the Clinton administration knew the broad outlines in 1996 of bin Laden's capabilities and his intent, and unfortunately, almost nothing was done about it.' Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, was highly critical of President Clinton during his two terms in office. The group has also been critical of some Bush administration actions after the Sept. 11 attacks, releasing documents in March that detailed government efforts to facilitate flights out of the United States for dozens of well-connected Saudis just days after the attacks."

Oh do remember that Judicial Watch is a "conservative" group that also complains about conservatives. I am just really surprised that the New York Times ran this article even on the well buried page it appeared on. Of course someone probably said, "Hey, what if someone else runs it and know we had it then maybe we would have to run it and they would have it first after we had it first so maybe we should run it but I didn't say that."

I'm sure there's more we don't know but then we have to wait for our media to tell us what they know but haven't told us. The thing I think about is that this was going on in 1996. It's 2005.
:duel :cool:
Eric Lichtblau will be doing stories about homeless shelters and senior citizen homes from now on...He has "The Scarlet Letter"...:smile:
You can be assured that if this was critical of the Bush administration it would be on the front page and the editorial page would be demanding someone be fired and a full congressional investigation.
It's funny how American's and most of the people on the forum think that the New York Times is left-wing!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
When i pick it up it seems more critical of the Bush-Admin and more likely to support Democrats, but by no means it is spouting a left-wing angle...

But the Democrats are right-wing too (at least in world political terms)
They are nearly more right-wing than the Conservatives in the UK

The Right in America has a great time, quit complaining about the 'Left' forces, i don't see any proper Left presence in the US media and CNN is DEFINETLY not Left Wing!

There actually appears to be no Left Wing in this country, someone like Noam Chomsky goes abroad to appear on talk-shows and the media in Europe because he is not allowed on anything mainstream here. Lets call Chomsky the proper Left not the Democrats or CNN or the NY Times please!!

If you're right wing in the US you are safer than anywhere else in the world!!
If you read the 9-11 commission report, you realize that it isn't as rosy as anyone says it is. No one thing would have stopped 9-11 from happening but in combination, many things would have. Clinton through the interviews that he had with them said that he focused in on terrorism more than any other US president, which would be true and that the Bush administration backtracked from a lot of his policies just because they were that, his policies. There is no one person who is the savior, no one person to blame, no one act that would have prevented it and the sooner we realize that, the sooner you will just read these articles and smile to yourself and think, "Hmm...maybe I am smarter than the average dick or tom...nah, just smarter than the average editor."

I like Clinton and all, but to be honest, if he had put the amount of focus necessary to prevent 9-11, it would have led him to be accussed of wagging the dog, to wanting big government, which the REpublican-controlled Congress would not have stood for. You have to remember that even the Repubs were cutting funding everywhere in defense and intelligence pre-911 and that this is a new phenom. It might have worked for him to try, but most likely, it would never have happened.

George Bush did a lot of things wrong. Clinton did a lot things wrong. Clinton did a lot of things right. Bush did two things right before 9-11. That much can be said. The rest is just bs. Don't believe it.
Top Bottom