[Nesster]

NY Times? The paper that makes Pravda look like a bastion of conservativeness? No bias from them now is there?

What about Clinton and the first WTC bombing? And the Cole? Why didn't Clinton stop those attacks?

And what about King George III? Didn't he know? Why didn't he stop the American Revolution?

[sinus007]

NY Times? The paper that makes Pravda look like a bastion of conservativeness? No bias from them now is there?

What about Clinton and the first WTC bombing? And the Cole? Why didn't Clinton stop those attacks?

Please don't attack the messenger if you don't have arguments/facts to refute the message.
Also, Clinton was not the president nor an adviser to the then president GWB in the summer of 2001.

[Parallax]

Also, Clinton was not the president nor an adviser to the then president GWB in the summer of 2001.

That's true, but while he was President one of the Middle East countries offered BinLaden to him. They knew where he was, offered to go get him and hand him over. Clinton declined the offer.

[les3547]

What about Clinton and the first WTC bombing? And the Cole? Why didn't Clinton stop those attacks?

If you are going to compare all that to Gene's opening post, then it depends on if Clinton had significant prior warnings something was up. Disasters are part of reality, whether nature or man triggered, but how a person prepares for or deals with them is the issue. GW might have been doing the best he could've, but that doesn't mean his best ever would have been good enough.

What I see wrong is Republican philosophy, not so much individual Republicans. The Republican party has tightened up so far to the right that now our country is under attack quite literally by extremists. Extreme capitalism (i.e., unregulated), extreme austerity, extreme anti-government, extreme anti safety net . . .

So then they get in office and because their philosophy is wrong, they cannot be competent. It is the same problem Communists have had. There is no way to solve the distribution problem of a state-controlled economy. It is absolutely impossible, yet communists were trying to do it anyway. Similarly, wealth and power can't be prioritized above making sure people can become productive citizens without things ending up a mess.

---

Last edited by les3547; 09-11-2012 at 05:56 PM.

[GeneV]

That's true, but while he was President one of the Middle East countries offered BinLaden to him. They knew where he was, offered to go get him and hand him over. Clinton declined the offer.

Not really accurate, BTW. FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?
The 9/11 commission found:

In late 1995, when Bin Laden was still in Sudan, the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) learned that Sudanese officials were discussing with the Saudi government the possibility of expelling Bin Laden. CIA paramilitary officer Billy Waugh tracked down Bin Ladin in the Sudan and prepared an operation to apprehend him, but was denied authorization.[89] U.S. Ambassador Timothy Carney encouraged the Sudanese to pursue this course. The Saudis, however, did not want Bin Laden, giving as their reason their revocation of his citizenship. Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Laden over to the United States.The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. Ambassador Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel Bin Laden. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask for more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment outstanding against bin Laden in any country.[90]

The 9/11 Commission Report further states:

In February 1996, Sudanese officials began approaching officials from the United States and other governments, asking what actions of theirs might ease foreign pressure. In secret meetings with Saudi officials, Sudan offered to expel Bin Laden to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March. Saudi officials apparently wanted Bin Laden expelled from Sudan. They had already revoked his citizenship, however, and would not tolerate his presence in their country. Also Bin Laden may have no longer felt safe in Sudan, where he had already escaped at least one assassination attempt that he believed to have been the work of the Egyptian or Saudi regimes, and paid for by the CIA.

[GeneV]

If you are going to compare all that to Gene's opening post, then it depends on if Clinton had significant prior warnings something was up. Disasters are part of reality, whether nature or man triggered, but how a person prepares for or deals with them is the issue. GW might have been doing the best he could've, but that doesn't mean his best ever would have been good enough.

Yes, and Eichenwald's point is that President Bush did not consider Al Qaeda a priority. Iraq was his priority. From everything Richard Clarke and others have described, Al Qaeda was a big priority for Clinton. Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden, and was criticized by the Right for attempting to distract the nation from a matter far more important--Monica Lewinsky.

[boriscleto]

Not really accurate, BTW. FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?
The 9/11 commission found:

Quoting fact checkers? That would get you banned from RedState.

[GeneV]

Quoting fact checkers? That would get you banned from RedState.

How about quoting the report of an official commission?

[boriscleto]

How about quoting the report of an official commission?

That would mean mean dealing with reality and Erick Son of Erick doesn't like that. That's why he works for CNN.

[sinus007]

That's true, but while he was President one of the Middle East countries offered BinLaden to him. They knew where he was, offered to go get him and hand him over. Clinton declined the offer.

Parrallax,
My point re: Clinton was that he is not the subject of the article in NYT nor this thread.
As for the story you mentioned - we don't know the details such as who, why and what's the price. So, you can't, based on this story, put the blame on him for 9/11 let alone for negligence of GWB's administration.

[JohnInIndy]

What I see wrong is Republican philosophy, not so much individual Republicans. The Republican party has tightened up so far to the right that now our country is under attack quite literally by extremists. Extreme capitalism (i.e., unregulated), extreme austerity, extreme anti-government, extreme anti safety net . . .

Actually both parties have pretty much moved to the left. The left has just become extreme left.
The Republican party isn't as conservative now as it was 10 years ago. This isn't the democrat party of Bill Clinton either. If you can't see that you're blind. No insult intended.

[jeffkrol]

Actually both parties have pretty much moved to the left. The left has just become extreme left.
The Republican party isn't as conservative now as it was 10 years ago. This isn't the democrat party of Bill Clinton either. If you can't see that you're blind. No insult intended.

[Parallax]

This isn't the democrat party of Bill Clinton either. If you can't see that you're blind. No insult intended.

Calling a cow pie an apple pie doesn't make it one, or make it taste any better.

[les3547]

Actually both parties have pretty much moved to the left. The left has just become extreme left.
The Republican party isn't as conservative now as it was 10 years ago. This isn't the democrat party of Bill Clinton either. If you can't see that you're blind. No insult intended.

Wow, that is the most distorted interpretation I've seen in awhile. Far Left is a welfare state, where do you see advocates for that? Far Right is every man for himself, and we do see that. The far Left started dying out when Clinton was President, and what you have now in the Democratic party are mostly moderates who are fighting not for a welfare state, but a state that makes sure people have opportunities to succeed. Moderates on the Right want that too, and they want to make sure there is a way to pay for it . . . equal opportunity that's paid for is exactly where Left and Right can meet, but it's where the current Right is miles off in the distance. The current Right doesn't want any opportunity guarantees; if a person can't pull himself up by his bootstraps, no matter what conditions he was born into, he deserves his fate even if that is to suffer and/or die in poverty.

[GeneV]

Actually both parties have pretty much moved to the left. The left has just become extreme left.
The Republican party isn't as conservative now as it was 10 years ago. .

And those sunsets to the east are a thing of beauty.