Fox News' big whiff
AlanG
ACCURATE? Not even close.....
http://www.thechamplainchannel.com/news/4900925/detail.html
tonyp
"AlanG" <snow...@comcast.net> wrote
> "Fair and balanced"? Perhaps.
>
> ACCURATE? Not even close.....
>
> http://www.thechamplainchannel.com/news/4900925/detail.html
FOX is nothing more than a propaganda machine. They are lower than whale
shit and slimmier than budgeriggar's vomit. And you make a big to-do about
one little fact they got wrong ?!? <g>
I just saw Fred Barnes opine, from his perch on "Special Report with Britt
Hume", that Cindy Sheehan has "no moral standing" to question the Almighty
Dubya. Even fucking Goebbels had some respect for the mothers of soldiers
KIA.
They teach an alternate reality, chez Murdoch. Usually, they are careful
not to make outright factual mistakes because it just distracts from the
crafty lies they _really_ want to tell. But I guess nobody's perfect :-)
--TP
Stephen Stein
> "AlanG" <snow...@comcast.net> wrote
>
>>ACCURATE? Not even close.....
>>
>>http://www.thechamplainchannel.com/news/4900925/detail.html
>
> FOX is nothing more than a propaganda machine.
Well, it's the only TV news that explicitly aligns itself with a
political party - their hosts have used "we" and "us" to refer to the
Republican party.
But *this* goof had particularly negative consequences for one
particular family. If a news broadcast says "a London bombing terrorist
lives at..." and gives an address, that address is going to be a target
for all sorts of violence.
You can't go on later and say "oops, we got it wrong" and make things
all better.
It's a good thing Murdoch's got the dough. The victims here will
collect at least as much as Richard Jewell got.
- Steve Stein
Newman
"tonyp" <to...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:RcOdnRuBMbu...@rcn.net...
>
> FOX is nothing more than a propaganda machine. They are lower than whale
> shit and slimmier than budgeriggar's vomit. And you make a big to-do
> about
> one little fact they got wrong ?!? <g>
Riiiight ... and I suppose CNN is a true new station and not a propaganda
machine for pantywaist Liberals like yourself, correct?
> I just saw Fred Barnes opine, from his perch on "Special Report with Britt
> Hume", that Cindy Sheehan has "no moral standing" to question the Almighty
> Dubya. Even fucking Goebbels had some respect for the mothers of soldiers
> KIA.
Sheehan has zero respect for the sons of other mothers who are proud of
their childrens' ultimate sacrifice. Sheehan is a clueless wench who might
as well just squat over her son's grave and take a dump, because that is
essentially what she is doing with her 15 minutes of fame.
> They teach an alternate reality, chez Murdoch. Usually, they are careful
> not to make outright factual mistakes because it just distracts from the
> crafty lies they _really_ want to tell. But I guess nobody's perfect :-)
Gosh, and CNN, the New York Times, etc., do what, exactly? They are Liberal
propaganda media outlets that have never offered a balanced news report in
their entire existence.
Get a clue, Tony -- you're so desperately in need of one.
Stephen Stein
> and I suppose CNN is a true new station and not a propaganda
> machine for pantywaist Liberals like yourself, correct?
Correct! Who said conservatives don't know what they're talking about?
- Steve Stein
Stephen Stein
at tha...@butnospam.bye wrote on 8/28/05 3:16 PM:
>
> [standard conservative drivel about the so-called liberal media]
Hey, Newman, what do you think of Matt Labash?
"The conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for
not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to
be un-objective.... It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too.
Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you
want. It's a great little racket."
- Matt Labash, a former senior writer for The Weekly Standard, in a 2003
interview on the website journalismjobs.com.
tonyp
"Newman" <tha...@butnospam.bye> wrote
> Sheehan has zero respect for the sons of other mothers who are proud of
> their childrens' ultimate sacrifice. Sheehan is a clueless wench who
might
> as well just squat over her son's grave and take a dump, because that is
> essentially what she is doing with her 15 minutes of fame.
Newman evidently thinks that not even the mother of a soldier killed in
action is worthy of respect if she opposes Dubya's war. So we might ask
Newman: is there _anybody_ whose opposition to the war he _would_ respect?
Hey, Newman: when exactly did _you_ decide that it was vital to invade
Iraq? Were you agitating to send "our troops" to "establish democracy"
there, before Dubya scared the piss out of you with talk of a "mushroom
cloud"?
-- TP
Newman
Tony ... you're a clueless sheep that slobbers to the Liberal agenda. I
have *tons* of respect for Sheehan's son -- but none for her, as she
dishonors her son's sacrifice and service with her "protest." You and
anyone else can oppose the war all you want, but make sure you do it in a
respectful fashion. That would be "President Bush" btw -- not "Dubya." I
suppose you're going to bring up the whole "Al Gore, We Was Robbed, so he's
not my President" thing again, right? Well, chew on this, bunky: You
people put someone in the Oval Office for two terms that preferred blowjobs
from fat chicks than working to insure the safety of this country. We has
Bin Laden where we wanted him, and Clinton took a pass (What do you think:
maybe he was giving Monica a facial when he was asked to make that
decision?).
President Bush took action, to save even your worthless ass from being blown
up or worse. Right or wrong, he did what he thought he had to in order to
protect all of us, and for that we should stand behind him and let him
finish the job.
Tell me, Tony: what do you think we should do about terrorism and the threat
of Islamic extremists? Are you one of those traitorous losers who think we
somehow deserved 9/11? When you were a boy, if the neighborhood bully
punched you in the gut, did you run home crying to Mommy or did you fight
back? Iraq was never about WMD and establishing democracy; it is about
sending a message to every rag-head out there that seeks to do us harm; fuck
with us, and we will bring the fight to your family's doorstep.
starvinmarvin
"Newman" <tha...@butnospam.bye> wrote in message
news:WLCdnZ2dnZ3PDQymnZ2dn...@comcast.com...
"fuck with us, and we will bring the fight to your family's doorstep.". Is
that what we have done? If we leveled Baghdad I would say that we were
sending a message, if you nuked Tora Bora when we knew Bin Laden was there,
we would be sending a real message. We removed a dictator, good start, but
now we are nation building and pussy-footing around so we do not offend the
Muslim terrorists. Is this the message we want to send? Do you have a nation
of poor infrastructure?? Just claim to have WMD and the US will come rebuild
your country, all the while you can take pot-shots at the US troops who will
not hunt you down and kill you, especially if you hide in a mosque. I say
let's get really hard-line with these terrorist nations and show the real
might of the US military.
tonyp
"Newman" <tha...@butnospam.bye> wrote
> Tony ... you're a clueless sheep that slobbers to the Liberal agenda. I
> have *tons* of respect for Sheehan's son -- but none for her, as she
> dishonors her son's sacrifice and service with her "protest." You and
> anyone else can oppose the war all you want, but make sure you do it in a
> respectful fashion. That would be "President Bush" btw -- not "Dubya."
Ooh, we have a live one here :-)
Newman admonishes us to protest "in a respectful fashion", while loudly
disrespecting Casey Sheehan's mother. Newman professes repect for Casey
himself, so perhaps this is Newman's answer to my original question: the
only anti-war protester worthy of Newman's respect would be the ghost of
Casey Sheehan. We the living should just shut up. An interesting take on
the spirit of free debate.
> Tell me, Tony: what do you think we should do about terrorism and the
threat
> of Islamic extremists? Are you one of those traitorous losers who think
we
> somehow deserved 9/11?
You mean like Jerry Falwell and his amen partner Pat Robertson?
No, I'm not.
What I would do about Islamic extremists is to first of all point out that
they are _religious_ extremists. They have more in common with Pat and
Jerry (and Dubya, for that matter) than they do with me. You can't persuade
people who think they hear God's voice. You have to either ignore them or
kill them. Tora Bora would have been a good place to kill them, but Cheney,
Rummy, Bush et al had other priorities.
Since you can't persuade religious extremists, it seems pointless to worry
about what "message" you are sending to _them_. So here's what I would do:
put a referendum question on the prospective October 15 ballot in Iraq.
"Should the US military leave your province by Dec 31?" If the _voters_
want us out, fine: we leave _them_ to "fight the terrorists". We move our
bases to the provinces that vote for us to stay, and watch to see whether
"terrorism" goes up or down in each set of provinces.
-- TP
Adele H.
>
> Tony ... you're a clueless sheep that slobbers to the Liberal agenda. I
> have *tons* of respect for Sheehan's son -- but none for her, as she
> dishonors her son's sacrifice and service with her "protest." You and
> anyone else can oppose the war all you want, but make sure you do it in a
> respectful fashion. That would be "President Bush" btw -- not "Dubya."
I'm happy to refer to him as President Bush.
I
> suppose you're going to bring up the whole "Al Gore, We Was Robbed, so he's
> not my President" thing again, right?
Well, no, because (1) I respect the Supreme Court's decision the first
time around and (2) there is no question that President Bush won
reelection.
Well, chew on this, bunky: You
> people
Like President Bush, voters (not just "you people") put President Clinton
into office--twice. And we didn't need the Supreme Court for either election.
put someone in the Oval Office for two terms that preferred
blowjobs
> from fat chicks than working to insure the safety of this country.
President Clinton oversaw the largest economic expansion in history.
Unfortunately, in less than eight years, that has all been piddled away.
And I could travel to Europe without worry. And have a much smaller wait
at the airport.
We has
> Bin Laden where we wanted him, and Clinton took a pass (What do you think:
> maybe he was giving Monica a facial when he was asked to make that
> decision?).
First: If you would like me to call President Bush, "President Bush", can
you please call President Clinton, "President Clinton"? If you can't, it
shows that you are incapable of looking at this without ideology.
Second: President Clinton did attack Bin Laden strongholds after the
embassy bombings in Africa. At the time, this measured response was
approved by everyone.
>
> President Bush took action, to save even your worthless ass from being blown
> up or worse.
Note, however, that he only took action after the twin towers fell. Had
9/11 not happened, he would have done exactly what President Clinton did
about Bin Laden prior to 9/11-not much, if anything.
Oh, and I'm sure Al Gore, had he been elected, would not have done
anything unless the the twin towers fell too. So, if you are going to argue
that President Bush "took action", then why didn't he take action in the
previous nine months prior to 9/11? Where was the intelligence to tell us of
this danger?
Also: interesting report on Fox News [to keep this post on topic] a few
months ago. There was a movement underfoot in Washington State to try to oust
liberal Senator Patty Murray because she had made a statement that Osama Bin
Laden was welcomed in Afghanistan because he funded the construction of roads
and schools and the like. The Fox reporter made a big stink about how the
Bush Admnistration had sent funds to support Afghanistan prior to the war
there, and intimated that the Senator did not know what she was talking
about. Of course, the reporter failed to mention that this was the Bush
Administration sending money to the *Taliban* before the twin towers fell.
This is just an example of making sure that, when watching any news
network, you have a clue because you always have to be vigilent against
the slant, conservative or liberal.
> Right or wrong, he did what he thought he had to in order to
> protect all of us, and for that we should stand behind him and let him
> finish the job.
Fighting the war in Iraq will not stop terrorism. Even you know this.
Don't believe me? Ask the Brits. Or one of the talking heads at Fox
News. After the British incidents, everyone seems to be certain that it
is only a matter of time before such incidents happen here.
>
> Tell me, Tony: what do you think we should do about terrorism and the threat
> of Islamic extremists?
I'm not Tony, but I believe we should fight terrorism today the way we
should have fought it on 9/10/2001: prevention. This mean excellent,
reliable, corroborated, coordinated intelligence. Something we still
lack today, and this leaves us vulnerable. Overt wars will not stop
terrorism; covert acts of intelligence will ferret out the threats before
people die. Responding AFTER terrorist incidents means that people die.
It was amazing to watch the news stations after the Brit attacks. All
of the talking heads were convinced it was only a matter of time before
it happens here again. It is inevitable. People will die. How many
losses will you consider acceptable? Why should *any* be acceptable?
Are you one of those traitorous losers who think we
> somehow deserved 9/11?
Nope.
When you were a boy, if the neighborhood bully
> punched you in the gut, did you run home crying to Mommy or did you fight
> back?
Osama Bin Laden is the neighborhood bully? He lives in a cave
(supposedly) in a third world country. Please don't make him out to be
bigger than he is. He's more like a punk who got in a sucker punch. And
there are all kinds of ways to deal with that. Overt military action in
Afghanistan got rid of the government that was supporting him. But we are
still there, and can't leave because the government is not stable enough
to survive without us. All of our efforts should be concentrated on
making it as difficult as possible for his group to do *anything*--this is
how we diminish him and his organization. Oh, and it would be nice,
nearly four years after the fact, to make sure he is no longer walking
around, but we can't seem to find him. And I have no idea why we can't
find him.
The war in Iraq does NOTHING to accomplish any of these goals. As a
matter of fact, the whole lack of WMD seems to indicate that we still lack
excellent intelligence in this region.
>Iraq was never about WMD and establishing democracy;
But President Bush told me it was. Was he lying?
>it is about
> sending a message to every rag-head out there that seeks to do us harm;
Saddam Hussein was never a threat to me. Never. You seem to agree,
since you have just said that Iraq was not about weapons of mass
destruction. Saddam was certainly a threat to his own people (but you
also don't care about that since you have told us that Iraq was not about
establishing democracy).
So instead of investing those billions in Iraq, it could have been
invested in shoring up our intelligence forces (or at least getting enough
people who can read Arabic in the NSA--you did hear that someone at the
NSA saw something in Arabic the day after 9/11 that talked about what was
going to happen, didn't you? Apparently, we don't have enough
intelligence analysts that can read the language to ferret our these kinds
of messages in a timely manner). The war in Iraq won't do anything about
that either.
fuck
> with us, and we will bring the fight to your family's doorstep.
>
Unless you're Syria. Or Iran. Or you're hiding in some cave in some
third world country after you've successfully taken a sucker punch at the
U.S.
By the way, are you willing to concede that the number one beneficiary of the
war in Iraq is Iran? We did them a huge favor getting rid of Saddam for them.
And they are having all kinds of influence in that country now.
The war in Iraq may not be another Vietnam, but it is certainly just like the
war the Russians were fighting in Afghanistan in the 1980s. By the way:
the Russians lost, and the Taliban moved right in. And you know the rest
of the story.
Adele
Stephen Stein
adele...@yahoo.com.invalid wrote on 8/31/05 6:00 PM:
> Oh, and I'm sure Al Gore, had he been elected, would not have done
> anything unless the the twin towers fell too. So, if you are going to argue
> that President Bush "took action", then why didn't he take action in the
> previous nine months prior to 9/11? Where was the intelligence to tell us of
> this danger?
I'm not sure "Newman" is going to comment on your post - he seems like more
a hit-and-run troll than someone seriously interested in debate.
But I'm not sure you're correct here. When Mr. Bush went on vacation in
August of 2001, his NSA had a report on her desk entitled "bin Laden
determined to strike in United States".
I'm not saying anything Mr. Gore would have done would have changed the
outcome, but I think he would have paid more attention to this than Mr. Bush
did. Richard Clarke was part of the Clinton administration (and before
that, GHW Bush's administration), and his input didn't seem to carry much
weight with GW Bush's people. GW Bush (hmm, now I think I understand tony's
calling him "Dubya") was already fixated on attacking Saddam, and bin Ladin
didn't interest him much pre-9/11.
- Steve Stein
tonyp
"Stephen Stein" <s...@removespam.rcn.com> wrote
> But I'm not sure you're correct here. When Mr. Bush went on vacation in
> August of 2001, his NSA had a report on her desk entitled "bin Laden
> determined to strike in United States".
Steve, remember the Cole? I do.
Remember what Dubya did about it? I don't, either.
Of course, the Newman troll would argue that _Clinton_ should have done
something about it, and I agree: Clinton should have named bin Laden as the
culprit, banged the war drums, and mobilized the Pentagon to invade
Afghanistan, all in the last couple of weeks of October 2000. This would
probably have swung the election to Gore. Gore would have kept Richard
Clarke in place, just like Condi did -- except Gore might have actually
listened to him. Quite possibly, President Gore might then have done
nothing more, in the spring and summer of 2001, than flown a few armed
Predators around Afghanistan and taken a couple of pot shots at bin Laden.
But steel-jawed, resolute Dubya did not even do _that_ much because, after
all, the Cole was one of _Clinton's_ ships, and anyway Cheney forgot to gin
up evidence that it was Saddam who did it.
Mr. President George W. Bush, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces,
Defender of the Faith(-based initiative), and Master of the Mother Tongue
has managed to sell himself as a hero to the likes of "Newman" based on
nothing more than the fact that he happened to be President the day the
towers fell. That's about as neat a swindle as if the captain of the
Titanic had pointed to the iceberg strike as proof of _his_ "heroism". It
helps to have Karl "Shallow Throat" Rove on your side :-)
-- TP
Adele H.
> in article Pine.NEB.4.63.05...@panix1.panix.com, Adele H. at
> adele...@yahoo.com.invalid wrote on 8/31/05 6:00 PM:
>
>> Oh, and I'm sure Al Gore, had he been elected, would not have done
>> anything unless the the twin towers fell too. So, if you are going to argue
>> that President Bush "took action", then why didn't he take action in the
>> previous nine months prior to 9/11? Where was the intelligence to tell us of
>> this danger?
>
> I'm not sure "Newman" is going to comment on your post - he seems like more
> a hit-and-run troll than someone seriously interested in debate.
Sigh. You're probably right. But it was too easy to respond.
>
> But I'm not sure you're correct here. When Mr. Bush went on vacation in
> August of 2001, his NSA had a report on her desk entitled "bin Laden
> determined to strike in United States".
Yes you're right--the report did exist. I'm not quite sure, however, that
even if a President Gore had the report, he would have done anything about
it.
>
> I'm not saying anything Mr. Gore would have done would have changed the
> outcome, but I think he would have paid more attention to this than Mr. Bush
> did.
Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I really think that government is more
geared to reaction as opposed to proaction. I really find it hard to
believe that Mr. Gore would have paid more attention to this report than
anyone else.
Richard Clarke was part of the Clinton administration (and before
> that, GHW Bush's administration), and his input didn't seem to carry much
> weight with GW Bush's people. GW Bush (hmm, now I think I understand tony's
> calling him "Dubya") was already fixated on attacking Saddam, and bin Ladin
> didn't interest him much pre-9/11.
I also don't think that the Clinton Administration nor Mr. Gore was all
that interested in bin Laden either. I really do believe that prior to
the towers falling on 9/11, the philosophy of most experts were to ignore
terrorists. They'll do "little things" here and there, but you shouldn't
give them much weight. I don't think Richard Clarke's words were ringing
with either administration, to be frank. Of course, I could be wrong
about that. As I said, I'm a pessimist at heart.
Adele
tonyp
"Adele H." <adele...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
> Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I really think that government is more
> geared to reaction as opposed to proaction.
Now _this_ is a justified pessimism. At least, in a democracy. Most people
go about their lives trying to react to existing problems, and no politician
sees a percentage in trying to persuade them that there's this other thing
over there which is not a problem yet, but which must be tackled at some
cost or inconvenience.
> I really find it hard to
> believe that Mr. Gore would have paid more attention to this report than
> anyone else.
I'm not so sure. A President Gore would not have actively repudiated the
concerns of the Clinton administration like Dubya did.
Now, you may be right that Clinton did not take adequate action against bin
Laden, but it would be just plain wrong to say that Clinton was not
_concerned_ about the al Quaida threat. Until he got hit upside the head on
9-11, Dubya did not even show concern.
We were discussing FOX. Can we remember the first time FOX sounded the
clarion call for "liberating the Iraquis"? Was little Sean calling for the
overthrow of Saddam during the 2000 presidential campaign, for instance?
-- TP
Stephen Stein
> I also don't think that the Clinton Administration nor Mr. Gore was all
> that interested in bin Laden either.
This is certainly not true. Perhaps they were not interested enough, but
the Clinton administration was hunting him actively (and perhaps trying to
assassinate him) through the year 2000 and the beginning of 2001.
- Steve Stein
Adele H.
A recent report run in the New York Times verifies that he was being
tracked, but also indicates that at the end of the day, the Clinton
Administration knew he was in Afghanistan and decided not to take any
action. See the article State Dept. Says It Warned About bin Laden in
1996, run August 17, 2005:
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.
In what would prove a prescient warning, the State Department intelligence
analysts said in a top-secret assessment on Mr. bin Laden that summer that
''his prolonged stay in Afghanistan -- where hundreds of 'Arab mujahedeen'
receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate --
could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his
three-year liaison with Khartoum,'' in Sudan.
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.
Two years after the State Department's warning, with Mr. bin Laden firmly
entrenched in Afghanistan and overseeing terrorist training and financing
operations, Al Qaeda struck two American embassies in East Africa, leading
to failed military attempts by the Clinton administration to capture or
kill him in Afghanistan. Three years later, on Sept. 11, 2001, Al Qaeda
struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in an operation overseen
from the base in Afghanistan.
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.
Several former senior officials in the Clinton administration did not
return phone calls this week seeking comment on the newly declassified
documents.
Adam Ereli, a spokesman for the State Department, said the documents
should be viewed in the context of what was happening globally in 1996,
rather than in the hindsight of events after the Sept. 11 attacks.
In 1996, Mr. Ereli said, ''the question was getting him out of Sudan.''
''The priority was to deny him safe haven, period, and to disrupt his
activities any way you could,'' he continued. ''There was a lot we didn't
know, and the priority was to keep him on the run, keep him on guard, and
try to maximize the opportunities to nail him.''
Before the East Africa bombings in 1998, however, Mr. bin Laden ''wasn't
recognized then as the threat he is now,'' Mr. Ereli said. ''Yes, he was a
bad guy, he was a threat, but he was one of many, and by no means of the
prominence that he later came to be.''
The State Department assessment, written July 18, 1996, after Mr. bin
Laden had been expelled from Sudan and was thought to be relocating to
Afghanistan, said Afghanistan would make an ''ideal haven'' for Mr. bin
Laden to run his financial networks and attract support from radicalized
Muslims. Moreover, his wealth, his personal plane and many passports
''allow him considerable freedom to travel with little fear of being
intercepted or tracked,'' and his public statements suggested an
''emboldened'' man capable of ''increased terrorism,'' the assessment
said.
While a strategy of keeping Mr. bin Laden on the run could
''inconvenience'' him, the assessment said, ''even a bin Laden on the move
can retain the capability to support individuals and groups who have the
motive and wherewithal to attack U.S. interests almost world-wide.''
Michael F. Scheuer, who from 1996 to 1999 led the Central Intelligence
Agency unit that tracked Mr. bin Laden, said the State Department
documents reflected a keen awareness of the danger posed by Mr. bin
Laden's relocation.
''The analytical side of the State Department had it exactly right --
that's genius analysis,'' he said in an interview when told of the
declassified documents. But Mr. Scheuer, who wrote a book in 2004 titled
''Imperial Hubris,'' under the pseudonym ''Anonymous,'' that was highly
critical of American counterterrorism strategies, said many officials in
the C.I.A.'s operational side thought they would have a better chance to
kill Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan than they did in Sudan because the Sudan
government protected him.
''The thinking was that he was in Afghanistan, and he was dangerous, but
because he was there, we had a better chance to kill him,'' Mr. Scheuer
said. ''But at the end of the day, we settled for the worst possibility --
he was there and we didn't do anything.''
As far as I'm concerned, I'm not surprised that the Clinton Administration
knew all about bin Laden and I'm not surprised that no action was taken
against him. Again, in trying to view this in a historical context, bin
Laden just wasn't considered to be a big deal before 9/11.
Adele
Adele H.
>
> "Adele H." <adele...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
>
>> Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I really think that government is more
>> geared to reaction as opposed to proaction.
>
>
> Now _this_ is a justified pessimism. At least, in a democracy. Most people
> go about their lives trying to react to existing problems, and no politician
> sees a percentage in trying to persuade them that there's this other thing
> over there which is not a problem yet, but which must be tackled at some
> cost or inconvenience.
Exactly.
>
>
>> I really find it hard to
>> believe that Mr. Gore would have paid more attention to this report than
>> anyone else.
>
>
> I'm not so sure. A President Gore would not have actively repudiated the
> concerns of the Clinton administration like Dubya did.
>
I'm not convinced that the concerns of the Clinton Administration were
grave enough to warrant action by a President Gore.
> Now, you may be right that Clinton did not take adequate action against bin
> Laden, but it would be just plain wrong to say that Clinton was not
> _concerned_ about the al Quaida threat. Until he got hit upside the head on
> 9-11, Dubya did not even show concern.
Absolutely true--I would never deny this.
>
> We were discussing FOX. Can we remember the first time FOX sounded the
> clarion call for "liberating the Iraquis"? Was little Sean calling for the
> overthrow of Saddam during the 2000 presidential campaign, for instance?
>
Nope. As a matter of fact, the Bush Administration was very clearly
committed to following the Clinton Administration policy of Iraqi
containment; the only aggression was the enforcing the no-fly zones. I've
never gotten how or why Saddam Hussein became a "big deal" to this
administration. It was like it came out of nowhere. One day, we're
following the same course as we had for the last 10+ years against Iraq,
then all of a sudden, "Saddam has to go." Always mystified
me.
Adele
Jack Wilson
> tonyp wrote:
> > "AlanG" <snow...@comcast.net> wrote
> >
> >>ACCURATE? Not even close.....
> >>
> >>http://www.thechamplainchannel.com/news/4900925/detail.html
> >
> > FOX is nothing more than a propaganda machine.
>
> Well, it's the only TV news that explicitly aligns itself with a
> political party
Well except for the good ol' Ted Turner's creation, CNN, of course.
Jack Wilson
I was for it when my President Bill Clinton said (in 1998), "Now, let's imagine
the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some
ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this
program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of
the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He
will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of
devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
And I reaffirmed my decision when John Kerry voted to invade Iraq when Bush was
President.
Jack Wilson
> "Newman" <tha...@butnospam.bye> wrote
>
> > Tony ... you're a clueless sheep that slobbers to the Liberal agenda. I
> > have *tons* of respect for Sheehan's son -- but none for her, as she
> > dishonors her son's sacrifice and service with her "protest." You and
> > anyone else can oppose the war all you want, but make sure you do it in a
> > respectful fashion. That would be "President Bush" btw -- not "Dubya."
>
> Ooh, we have a live one here :-)
>
> Newman admonishes us to protest "in a respectful fashion", while loudly
> disrespecting Casey Sheehan's mother. Newman professes repect for Casey
> himself, so perhaps this is Newman's answer to my original question: the
> only anti-war protester worthy of Newman's respect would be the ghost of
> Casey Sheehan. We the living should just shut up. An interesting take on
> the spirit of free debate.
>
> > Tell me, Tony: what do you think we should do about terrorism and the
> threat
> > of Islamic extremists? Are you one of those traitorous losers who think
> we
> > somehow deserved 9/11?
>
> You mean like Jerry Falwell and his amen partner Pat Robertson?
> No, I'm not.
When did either of the aforementioned say that "we somehow deserved 9/11?"
Please support your claim.
Jack Wilson
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Newman wrote:
>
> >
> > Tony ... you're a clueless sheep that slobbers to the Liberal agenda. I
> > have *tons* of respect for Sheehan's son -- but none for her, as she
> > dishonors her son's sacrifice and service with her "protest." You and
> > anyone else can oppose the war all you want, but make sure you do it in a
> > respectful fashion. That would be "President Bush" btw -- not "Dubya."
>
> I'm happy to refer to him as President Bush.
>
> I
> > suppose you're going to bring up the whole "Al Gore, We Was Robbed, so he's
> > not my President" thing again, right?
>
> Well, no, because (1) I respect the Supreme Court's decision the first
> time around and (2) there is no question that President Bush won
> reelection.
>
> Well, chew on this, bunky: You
> > people
>
> Like President Bush, voters (not just "you people") put President Clinton
> into office--twice.
You mean President Clinton, who warned that Hussein would use his arsenal of mass
destruction all the way back in 1998.....
> And we didn't need the Supreme Court for either election.
Yet at least Bush earned a majority of the vote--something Clinton NEVER did as
President.
>
>
> put someone in the Oval Office for two terms that preferred
> blowjobs
> > from fat chicks than working to insure the safety of this country.
Yes obviously he was too busy during 8 years of attacks on the World Trade Center,
the USS Cole, the Khobal Towers, US embassies, etc. to take any real action
against terrorists, even when Bin Laden was all but handed to him. Oh wait, he
bravely sent missiles at an Aspirin factory. Bush has taken out far more
terrorists in any year of his presidency than Clinton did in the sum of eight
years.
>
>
> President Clinton oversaw the largest economic expansion in history.
Actually nearly ALL of the expansion happened after Republicans finally took over
the Congress in 1995. And much of the later "expansion" of the 1998-2000 era was
a phony bubble that was overdue to pop. The economy began really tanking in early
2000. But please don't let any facts get in the way of your claims.
>
> Unfortunately, in less than eight years, that has all been piddled away.
> And I could travel to Europe without worry. And have a much smaller wait
> at the airport.
>
> We has
> > Bin Laden where we wanted him, and Clinton took a pass (What do you think:
> > maybe he was giving Monica a facial when he was asked to make that
> > decision?).
>
> First: If you would like me to call President Bush, "President Bush", can
> you please call President Clinton, "President Clinton"? If you can't, it
> shows that you are incapable of looking at this without ideology.
Thank goodness you are here to provide a lack of ideology!
>
>
> Second: President Clinton did attack Bin Laden strongholds after the
> embassy bombings in Africa. At the time, this measured response was
> approved by everyone.
Yes, who can forget that Aspirin Factory/Stronghold and how effective that was.
>
>
> >
> > President Bush took action, to save even your worthless ass from being blown
> > up or worse.
>
> Note, however, that he only took action after the twin towers fell. Had
> 9/11 not happened, he would have done exactly what President Clinton did
> about Bin Laden prior to 9/11-not much, if anything.
Wait just a second ago you were claiming Clinton attacked Bin Laden strongholds.
Now you say that Clinton did not much, if anything. It's also a pretty phony
argument to argue what Bush MIGHT have done, as if you were some sort of holy
soothsayer.
>
>
> Oh, and I'm sure Al Gore, had he been elected, would not have done
> anything unless the the twin towers fell too.
Well since you can claim what somebody MIGHT have done if x had/hadn't happened,
I'll take the liberty to point out we'd probably be still debating whether or not
to take terrorists in Afghanistan.
Jack Wilson
> "Stephen Stein" <s...@removespam.rcn.com> wrote
>
> > But I'm not sure you're correct here. When Mr. Bush went on vacation in
> > August of 2001, his NSA had a report on her desk entitled "bin Laden
> > determined to strike in United States".
>
> Steve, remember the Cole? I do.
> Remember what Dubya did about it? I don't, either.
Then you remember who was PRESIDENT when the USS Cole was attacked. It wasn't
Bush. And Bush has done far more to defeat terrorists in ANY one of his years
so far then Clinton did in ALL of his.
>
>
> Of course, the Newman troll would argue that _Clinton_ should have done
> something about it, and I agree: Clinton should have named bin Laden as the
> culprit, banged the war drums, and mobilized the Pentagon to invade
> Afghanistan, all in the last couple of weeks of October 2000. This would
> probably have swung the election to Gore. Gore would have kept Richard
> Clarke in place, just like Condi did -- except Gore might have actually
> listened to him.
Oh yes, the esteeemed Mr. Clarke who recently wrote about how Bush Sr. did
nothing against terrorism and Bush 43 did nothing against terrorism, but
mysteriously 8 years of his service in between are all but missing from his
book, as if Harry Potter himself had waved a wand at the publisher.
> Quite possibly, President Gore might then have done
> nothing more, in the spring and summer of 2001, than flown a few armed
> Predators around Afghanistan and taken a couple of pot shots at bin Laden.
>
> But steel-jawed, resolute Dubya did not even do _that_ much because, after
> all, the Cole was one of _Clinton's_ ships, and anyway Cheney forgot to gin
> up evidence that it was Saddam who did it.
You conveniently forget that Bush (or Dubya if you wish to call him) had only
been President for about 9 months max when 9/11 happened. His cabinet was
barely in existence at the time, no thanks to a hostile opposition party who
ensured many delays.
>
>
> Mr. President George W. Bush, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces,
> Defender of the Faith(-based initiative), and Master of the Mother Tongue
I think you've confused our President with our wonderful Mayor-of-Boston.
AlanG
"tonyp" <to...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:go2dnYlsTpn...@rcn.net...
[snipped]...
>Mr. President George W. Bush, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces,
>Defender of the Faith(-based initiative), and Master of the Mother Tongue
>has managed to sell himself as a hero to the likes of "Newman" based on
>nothing more than the fact that he happened to be President the day the
>towers fell. That's about as neat a swindle as if the captain of the
>Titanic had pointed to the iceberg strike as proof of _his_ "heroism". It
>helps to have Karl "Shallow Throat" Rove on your side :-)
It's about time someone pointed this out.
So he happened to be the Prez on 9/11.....interrupted his daily jog or golf
game long enough to fly to NYC.....take that shit-eating grin off his face
long enough to shout some macho rah-rah lines any high-school cheerleader
could think up through a facocta bullhorn.....and presto abracadabra the
whole country thinks he's morphed into a combination of
Eisenhower/Churchill/Patton.
As if _any_ President wouldn't have been run the hell out of town had he not
done the same.
Big fucking deal.
Jack Wilson
The thinking changed after 9/11. Preventing hideous acts became a higher priority
than waiting to clean up disasters and bury bodies afterward, and it didn't really
matter if those hideous acts were caused by madman A or madman B. Since Hussein
had already ignored over a dozen UN resolutions, was actively ignoring the 1991
Gulf War cease-fire agreements, was playing a cat-and-mouse game with inspectors
looking for mass weapons, was shooting at planes over no-fly zones, was embezzling
billions of dollars via the corrupt oil-for-palaces (oops food) program, and had
defecting scientists describing the programs already well in progress, taking
affirmative action seemed to be a damned good idea. Somebody apparently (i.e. not
the recent Presidential candidate who earned a D in history) had been studying
what had happened when the world ignored Hitler's Germany laughing at peace treaty
terms..
Jack Wilson
Stephen Stein wrote:
Yes Clinton was hunting down bin Laden so actively that he turned down Sudan's
offer to hand over bin Laden to him. I'm sure he wouldn't want to let a
game of golf get in the way. LA Times: http://tinyurl.com/ihu9
Jack Wilson
> "AlanG" <snow...@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > "Fair and balanced"? Perhaps.
> >
> > ACCURATE? Not even close.....
> >
> > http://www.thechamplainchannel.com/news/4900925/detail.html
>
> FOX is nothing more than a propaganda machine. They are lower than whale
> shit and slimmier than budgeriggar's vomit. And you make a big to-do about
> one little fact they got wrong ?!? <g>
I see. One person says something stupid on a channel and it automatically
proves that FNC is a "propaganda machine." Note that it didn't come from the
network brass and it was a one time affair, followed by discipline.
Contrast what you label a propaganda machine to the super un-biased CNN. You
see CNN is so un-biased that were finally *forced* to admit they had deals for
over a decade with the likes of Saddam Hussein to provide glowing coverage of
him, hide his atrocities and human pain + destruction + horrible torture, and
all of this was done to preserve access to Hussein (presumably to get more of
Saddam's spin) under the guise of "protecting CNN." CNN brass was finally
forced to admit their ten years of systematic faux reporting in 2003 after
Baghdad fell. http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cnn-iraq.htm
--------
While I researched a story on CNN's Iraq coverage for the New Republic
last October, [CNN chief news executive Eason] Jordan told me flatly
that his network gave 'a full picture of the regime.' In our
conversation,
he challenged me to find instances of CNN neglecting stories about
Saddam's horrors." —Franklin Foer, "CNN's Access of Evil," Wall Street
Journal 4/4/03.
--------
But remember, FNC is the progaganda machine, you see.
I also note that while you villify all of FNC based on someone's admittedly
stupid remarks while commenting on air, you of course have/had NOTHING to say
regarding Eason Jordan's absurd and hideous remarks that US Soldiers were
"targeting" journalists in Iraq. And Eason Jordan was not some low level
commentator, he was CNN's CHIEF NEWS EXECUTIVE. But remember, FOX is the
propaganda machine, you see.
Jack Wilson
> "AlanG" <snow...@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > "Fair and balanced"? Perhaps.
> >
> > ACCURATE? Not even close.....
> >
> > http://www.thechamplainchannel.com/news/4900925/detail.html
>
> FOX is nothing more than a propaganda machine. They are lower than whale
> shit and slimmier than budgeriggar's vomit. And you make a big to-do about
> one little fact they got wrong ?!? <g>
>
> I just saw Fred Barnes opine, from his perch on "Special Report with Britt
> Hume", that Cindy Sheehan has "no moral standing" to question the Almighty
> Dubya. Even fucking Goebbels had some respect for the mothers of soldiers
> KIA.
Actually Barnes's "no moral standing" comment was about Ms Sheehans's policy
directives, not her mother's plea. And that was quite clear. But I'm sure
you'd hate to be anything other than fair, right?
>
>
> They teach an alternate reality, chez Murdoch. Usually, they are careful
> not to make outright factual mistakes because it just distracts from the
> crafty lies they _really_ want to tell. But I guess nobody's perfect :-)
Yes, crafty lies, like what a great guy Saddam Hussein has been for over a
decade. Oh wait, that's the other Cable News Network .
Jack Wilson
Yeah, and FDR just happened to be the Prez on 12/7 .... interrupted his daily
golf game.... etc. Uh huh. And Abraham Lincoln just happened to be the
President in 1861. But see unlike other Presidents, who, for example were
President when the World Trade Center was attacked in 1993 or when the US was
attacked overseas in African embassies or Khobal towers, or when hostages were
taken in Iran, this President rose up to the occasion and showed what true
leadership can be.
tonyp
"Jack Wilson" <jack....@hotmail.com> wrote
> tonyp wrote:
> > You mean like Jerry Falwell and his amen partner Pat Robertson?
> > No, I'm not.
>
> When did either of the aforementioned say that "we somehow deserved 9/11?"
> Please support your claim.
Who are you and what have you done with "Newman"?
If you don't remember Pat and Jerry's famous suggestion that the Lord
permitted 9-11 because we Americans tolerate "feminists", you should turn
FOX off for a minute and read something.
-- TP
tonyp
"Jack Wilson" <jack....@hotmail.com> wrote
> Then you remember who was PRESIDENT when the USS Cole was attacked.
> It wasn't Bush.
Right. He was in the last few weeks of his campaign for President. What
you don't get is that US elections are not revolutions which wipe out all
traces of the ancien regime. If Bush really believed his own bullshit about
Clinton's ineffectuality against terrorism, he had a ready-made opportunity
to show his own mettle, by avenging the Cole. And he punted.
> And Bush has done far more to defeat terrorists
> in ANY one of his years so far then Clinton did in ALL of his.
I haven't read the papers today. Did we just catch bin Ladin or something?
> You conveniently forget that Bush (or Dubya if you wish to call him) had
only
> been President for about 9 months max when 9/11 happened. His cabinet was
> barely in existence at the time, no thanks to a hostile opposition party
who
> ensured many delays.
Remind us: which "delays"?
-- TP
tonyp
"Jack Wilson" <jack....@hotmail.com> wrote
> Actually Barnes's "no moral standing" comment was about Ms Sheehans's
policy
> directives, not her mother's plea.
Huh? Cindy Sheehan doesn't issue "policy directives" any more than you do.
But I'm willing to allow that Barnes has fooled you into thinking so.
-- TP
tonyp
"Jack Wilson" <jack....@hotmail.com> wrote
> Yeah, and FDR just happened to be the Prez on 12/7 .... interrupted his
daily
> golf game.... etc. Uh huh. And Abraham Lincoln just happened to be the
> President in 1861. But see unlike other Presidents, who, for example were
> President when the World Trade Center was attacked in 1993 or when the US
was
> attacked overseas in African embassies or Khobal towers, or when hostages
were
> taken in Iran, this President rose up to the occasion and showed what true
> leadership can be.
Yeah, Dubya would be _just_ like FDR, if FDR had responded to Pearl Harbor
by invading Argentina on the grounds that when you suffer a sneak attack you
have to invade _somebody_ :-)
I will give you this much: Dubya is indeed a "leader". It takes real
leadership to convince people to undertake an adventure most of them can't
quite see the point of.
-- TP
Stephen Stein
> Stephen Stein wrote:
>
>>Well, it's the only TV news that explicitly aligns itself with a
>>political party
>
>
> Well except for the good ol' Ted Turner's creation, CNN, of course.
I'm sorry, I must have missed it. Do you have an example of hosts on
CNN explicitly referring to a political party as "us" and "we", like
Fox's David Asman did here (May 25 - Fox News Live)?
ASMAN: You're the chairman of the rules committee. Did Senator
[Bill] Frist [R-TN] have the votes to end the filibuster?
LOTT: I believe that he did. It would have been very close. We
would have probably gotten a 50-50 tie vote, with the vice president
breaking the tie. Perhaps we'd have had 51 before it was over. I do
think it's a rule that should be in place because what the Democrats
have been doing is not, you know, protecting a rule, they have been
causing something different. The filibusters on a serial basis, federal
judicial nominees to the appellate courts, was unprecedented for 214
years. So, to put that rule in place saying that it only takes 51 votes
to confirm these judges was something I thought we should do. Remember
now --
ASMAN: So, Senator, if **WE** should have done it and if **WE** had
the votes to do it in the Senate -- if you guys in the Republican Party
did -- then why did you need a compromise?
LOTT: Well, you know, I would argue that we probably should have
gone forward with the vote, all things considered.
Newman
> If you don't remember Pat and Jerry's famous suggestion that the Lord
> permitted 9-11 because we Americans tolerate "feminists", you should turn
> FOX off for a minute and read something.
Just as soon as you turn off CNN, tinkerbell.
TP? ... Toilet Paper? Total Pussy, perhaps?
Stephen Stein
> "tonyp" <to...@world.std.com> wrote in message
> news:q6idnbCtCIi...@rcn.net...
>
>
>>If you don't remember Pat and Jerry's famous suggestion that the Lord
>>permitted 9-11 because we Americans tolerate "feminists", you should turn
>>FOX off for a minute and read something.
>
>
> Just as soon as you turn off CNN, tinkerbell.
You mean the network with the anchor that IMs Rush Limbaugh from the
set? Yeah, a real bastion of liberals, there. Not.
- Steve Stein