Search This Blog

Friday, September 08, 2006

Cowards and bullies at the same time - the Democrats

Sex scandal kept Clinton's eye off bin Laden threat, TV drama says

This kind of revelation found in the coming (maybe?) two part production on ABC TV has the Democrats doing flips trying to censor the network:

ABC Gets More Pressure to Toss 9/11 Film


"By DAVID BAUDER
AP Television Writer


NEW YORK (AP) -- ABC faced growing pressure Friday about its planned miniseries on the buildup to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Former Clinton administration officials, historians and a Democratic petition with nearly 200,000 signatures urged the network to scrap the five-hour drama."


Bill Clinton assails 9/11 TV drama

"By Mark Egan

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former President Bill Clinton has dismissed as "indisputably wrong" a U.S. TV show that suggests he was too distracted by a sex scandal to confront the Islamic militant threat that culminated in the September 11 attacks, his spokesman said on Friday.

"The Path to 9/11," an ABC miniseries due to be broadcast on Sunday and Monday nights, charts the run-up to the attacks that occurred five years ago and killed 2,992 people.

The show portrays Clinton's former national security adviser, Sandy Berger, and others as having bungled an opportunity to capture Saudi fugitive Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in the 1990s.

Clinton administration officials complained that parts of the miniseries were fabricated."


So then...ABC tinkers with 9/11 drama

"By Steve Gorman

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Under pressure from former President Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party, ABC scrambled on Friday to make 11th-hour changes to a miniseries suggesting he was inattentive to the Islamic militant threat that led to the September 11 attacks.

Officials at the Walt Disney Co.-owned network said they were still tinkering with the five-hour production, titled "The Path to 9/11," which is scheduled to air without commercial interruption in two parts on Sunday and Monday."


And on and on.....

Funny that a movie depicts the President of the United States being assassinated and there was no where near the outcry that this coming movie is producing. Democrats cannot stand the thought of the Clinton Legacy being further tarnished and are threatening ABC with all sorts of possible penalties should the movie be aired. Yep, those Democrats are all about free speech all right! Cowardly bullies.

That the Clinton administration passed on grabbing Osama isn't the only problem Democrats have with the film, since it also reveals how the Clinton administration's policies kept the nation's security agencies from sharing vital information that may have prevented the 9/11 terrorist attack.

~~~~~~~~

It is truly a miracle that conservatives, generally Republicans, ever get elected with the media and the colleges becoming slaves to the liberal left point of view. Only within the last week did this story finally come out:

Former State Dept. Official: I Leaked Plame's Name to Reporters

We now know that Patrick Fitzgerald's team knew of this almost from the outset and yet pursued prosecution of innocent people, ruined Scooter Libby's career and allowed the ridiculous charge that the administration was trying to punish Joe Wilson be made ad naseum. But where are the headlines to correct the false charges and lay blame on the accusers? Nowhere, of course.

Here is the editorial director of CBS News. Do you want your news relatively unbiased and informative? Don't choose CBS!

Torturing The Truth
CBS' Meyer: President Bush Has Lied And Continues To Do So


If you read the above, the liberal wonk Dick Meyer accuses President Bush of lying and then cannot back it up. What a disgusting coward! I did some research and saw that this so-called newsman is so biased that his commentaries might well fit in at the Democratic Underground! CBS, this guy represents your news department? Why call it news at all? The house that Rather shamed is a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, why not just admit it and be done with it?


I am convinced that the next time the Democrats get control of this country it will be an unmitigated disaster. The things I see happening within that party, the liberal wing taking control and with the major news media happily lying and/or forging news and news photos to spin things in a liberal direction now don't just anger me, they are beginning to scare me.

40 comments:

radar said...

..and now Clinton's lawyers are DEMANDING that the movie be pulled from the schedule!

Anybody ever hear of Michael Moore, a movie-maker who makes movies that have been proven to contain outright lies and distortions? Do you see the news media demanding that he be shut down, or the President's lawyers demanding that his films be banned? Of course not.

loboinok said...

The Dems had no problem with Spike Lee's Katrina diatribe.

The UK movie depicting the assassination of Bush was considered by the Dems to be "just a movie".

Fahrenheit 9/11, a (59 proven lies) "documentary" was the Dems truth the world needed to see.

All under the aegis of the first amendment which ironically, the House and Senate Democrats are attempting to violate by threats and intimidation.

Telling ABC to pull the docudrama or their funding and broadcasting license could be revoked is government blackmail and censorship.


If Clinton had pursued OBL as hard as he has ABC, none of this would be an issue.

History is indeed a lie agreed upon.

creeper said...

Why was the Reagan biopic pulled again?

loboinok said...

Why was the Reagan biopic pulled again?

I'm not sure creeper... you think it might be that Reagan had Alzhiemers and was not able to defend against the misrepresentations?

I do know that Republicans in the House and Senate didn't resort to government censorship.

highboy said...

Typical. Instead of focusing on the issue, try and dig up some dirt on Reagan in an attempt to divert the fingers pointing at Slick Willy. One big difference between the two is one story is true, the other false. Clinton ADMITTED to the scandal, remember? (After committing perjury of course) And it is undeniable that he allowed UBL to run free numerous times.

cranky old fart said...

I really don't understand why the right thinks that saying Clinton was distracted by a "sex scandal" they created is a good thing.

I mean, the $47,000,000 investigation and impeachment trial over a blow job didn't just "happen", did it?

scohen said...

I agree with highboy, I for one am glad that in the five years since 9/11, Bush remained focused and Bin Laden is now rotting in prison awaiting trial.

It's called competence, people.

-scohen

cranky old fart said...

Highboy,

Clinton admitted to receiving a blow job, one cannot admit to a "scandal".

highboy said...

"I really don't understand why the right thinks that saying Clinton was distracted by a "sex scandal" they created is a good thing."

We created? So Clinton was lying then when he admitted to the crime? (Perjury is a crime, you knew that right?)

"I agree with highboy, I for one am glad that in the five years since 9/11, Bush remained focused and Bin Laden is now rotting in prison awaiting trial."

You were being sarcastic right? Or did they catch Bin Laden? I've been out of it for a while. Bush did remain focused on the war on terror, something the liberals seemed and still seem unwilling to do.

"Clinton admitted to receiving a blow job, one cannot admit to a "scandal"."

Wrong. By admitting to recieving a blow job, and admitting to lying about it under oath to cover it up, thus committing perjury, he admitted to the "scandal".

cranky old fart said...

Highboy,

Why exactly was Clinton in the position of having to discuss, under oath, a blow job?

highboy said...

"Why exactly was Clinton in the position of having to discuss, under oath, a blow job?"

Because he got caught obviously. He did it, he created it. If a president can't be trusted to stay faithful to his wife, he can't be trusted to run the country. Take your "Poor abused Clintion" syndrome, and pound the liberal pulpit elsewhere.

cranky old fart said...

Highboy,

"Because he got caught obviously".

Well, yes, that's true. By whom and how did he "get caught"?

I mean, let's have a multi million dollar investigation so we can get your hero under oath to discuss his (prior?)drug use. Maybe we can get him to lie under oath.

Or would that be a little petty and vindictive given the man is busy running the free world?

(By the way, one still cannot "admit to a scandal")

cranky old fart said...

"If a president can't be trusted to stay faithful to his wife, he can't be trusted to run the country".

lol

If we put all those politicians breathlessly seeking to "protect marriage" under oath about such things, there'd be no one left to legislate. Then again.....

highboy said...

"I mean, let's have a multi million dollar investigation so we can get your hero under oath to discuss his (prior?)drug use."

A pretty ridiculous comparison, considering there was no scandal involved. Everyone knew and has known about his drug use. Comparing this to Clinton cheating on his wife on tax payer money with young White House interns and then lying about it under oath is quite far a field.

"By the way, one still cannot "admit to a scandal")"

"If we put all those politicians breathlessly seeking to "protect marriage" under oath about such things, there'd be no one left to legislate. Then again....."

Nice speculation based on no facts whatsoever, but if it makes you feel better about your own morality free party then by all means, cradle it too your breast.

scohen said...

Tim, It's nice to see you back online. I hope your computer is feeling better.

I was being extremely sarcastic. We defeated the Nazis in less time than has elapsed since 9/11. Is catching the mastermind behind it too much to ask?

Cranky:
I totally agree, put 'em all under a microscope, and we'll be lead by... nobody. If being faithful to your wife is important to running the country, then Carter was a great president, while Reagan, Kennedy and FDR were terrible.

oriolebird38 said...

I would liek to see some evidence that relates marital fidelity to an ability to run a nation. Seeing as a marriage and a presidency have little in common, I would argue that their problems have little in common either. FDR had a few affairs, and man that guy was one shitty president, huh? Jefferson was a pretty awful president too, definitely because of his many marital transgressions.

Or maybe not.

"If a president can't be trusted to stay faithful to his wife, he can't be trusted to run the country."

"Nice speculation based on no facts whatsoever"

Who wants to play Guess Who Made Both Statements!

radar said...

Sadly, many Presidents were not faithful husbands. JFK, Ike and FDR are also examples of POT who were not as moral personally as I would like. It is a personal failure that doesn't necessarily mean that the job of President doesn't get done correctly.

The Reagan biopic was shown on a pay network because the network executives realized that the general public was unhappy with the show and it would hurt their ratings and reputation. It was a business decision.

The 9/11 movie as shown last night had several scenes changed or omitted due to pressure from the Democratic Party and Bill Clinton rather than a groundswell of public opinion. The network decided to avoid legal entanglements and made some changes but they knew that the audience would be there for the 9/11 movie so they showed it. It is always about the money.

UBL is not caught yet because, first, the Clinton administration didn't get him when he was still vulnerable (why do you think Sandy Berger stole and destroyed classified documents relating to the 9/11 investigation? Just so he could try out his new shredder??).

Second, there are governments like Pakistan that really do not prefer to aid in his capture and other governments in the region that are openly sympathetic towards him. He is given the advantages of protection by those who should be aiding in his capture. He no longer shows himself out in the open as he once did before the 9/11 plane bombings. It will require more than multi-million-dollar rewards and constant vigilance. It will undoubtably be a disgruntled or captured cohort who will point the correct finger and save the day. Some day.

cranky old fart said...

Highboy,

"A pretty ridiculous comparison, considering there was no scandal involved. Everyone knew and has known about his drug use"

Dude, EVERYONE knew about Clinton's wandering ways. I mean, come on. Ever hear of Gennifer Flowers? Paula Jones? Everyone knew, and no one cared.

Well, except for those on a hypocritical witch hunt.

scohen said...

"Comparing this to Clinton cheating on his wife on tax payer money with young White House interns and then lying about it under oath is quite far a field."

Wait, we paid him to cheat on his wife?

Radar, your comments about the presidents reveal a pragmatism that I wish was more prevalent on your side of the fence.
As for UBL, making his capture a priority might help. You're telling me that the fault lays with Clinton? I'm sorry, but that ship sailed six years ago, the buck stops with the current resident of the White House. You have to stop making excuses about this and admit that it's a huge failure.

See, that's sort of what I'm getting at. I think accountability is a more important attribute in a public servant than is loyalty (to their wife).

cranky old fart said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
highboy said...

"I would liek to see some evidence that relates marital fidelity to an ability to run a nation."

Your joking right? A guy who can't even be trusted to keep his vows to the one closest to him can be trusted to keep his oath to an entire population of strangers? So in other words, honesty is not a major attribute for a president in your world?

highboy said...

"Well, except for those on a hypocritical witch hunt."

A very weak argument.

"Wait, we paid him to cheat on his wife?"

He didn't do anything else. What else did he do? Not the usual "great economy" liberal talking points either. Actual facts.

Off to bed. Nice to be able to blog with you all again.

scohen said...

You want one thing Clinton did? I'll give you two:

1. The Direct Loans program. By skipping the middleman (banks) and loaning money directly to me, this program saves both students and the federal government money. A fantastic idea.

2. Balancing the budget and having a surplus. Deficits rob from the future and threaten our way of life. Remember, I'm a fiscal conservative/social liberal.

3. He also worked with other countries to stop the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, but you knew that.

I won't talk about the economy, but it was booming. I don't see how this is a talking point, liberal or otherwise, it's just a fact. I'll never forget being treated like a rock star. I'll admit that it's starting to rebound, but 101 isn't as busy as it used to be (so I hear), and I know a lot of people that are still having trouble finding work.

creeper said...

creeper: "Why was the Reagan biopic pulled again?"

loboinok: "I'm not sure creeper... you think it might be that Reagan had Alzhiemers and was not able to defend against the misrepresentations?"


Nope, I would say that has absolutely nothing to do with it. If you're not just guessing, by all means clue me in to the details.

"I do know that Republicans in the House and Senate didn't resort to government censorship."

As nobody did in the present case either, if that's what you're trying to imply.

"Instead of focusing on the issue, try and dig up some dirt on Reagan in an attempt to divert the fingers pointing at Slick Willy."

I don't consider bringing up the Reagan biopic thing - clearly a similar situation that we can compare and contrast - as being "dirt on Reagan". He had nothing to do with the biopic being pulled, AFAIK.

creeper said...

oriolebird38: "I would liek to see some evidence that relates marital fidelity to an ability to run a nation."

highboy: "Your joking right? A guy who can't even be trusted to keep his vows to the one closest to him can be trusted to keep his oath to an entire population of strangers? So in other words, honesty is not a major attribute for a president in your world?"


No, Highboy, he wasn't joking. What you're saying is all nice and well in a meaningless rhetoric kind of way, but try to apply some real-world evidence. Arrange the presidents roughly in order of how great a president you perceive them to be.

Then check how that lines up with their faithfulness as husbands. Carter would be way up there, while Reagan, JFK, Ike, FDR would all clearly not pass muster to be "great presidents".

What you're saying sounds all nice in a naive "this is the way things should be" kind of way, but it's entirely divorced from reality.

cranky old fart said...

Highboy,

"Well, except for those on a hypocritical witch hunt."

"A very weak argument"

Simply stating a conclusion, "weak argument", is indeed a very very weak argument.

Now, what part do you find weak, The hypocrisy or the witch hunt?

Let me mention two names in regard to those assertions: Barr & Scaife.

highboy said...

"Balancing the budget and having a surplus."

Total B.S. 7 out of 10 of those bills involved with our economy were Newt's. (Though point of fact, I would never vote for him either.)

"3. He also worked with other countries to stop the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, but you knew that."

And let Saddam, UBL, and the rest of the terrorists run rampant so that 9/11 was inevitable. But you knew that as well.

"Carter would be way up there, while Reagan, JFK, Ike, FDR would all clearly not pass muster to be "great presidents".

I don't remember them lying about it on camera, or in any public forum right to America's face. So I guess that dishonesty doesn't concern you much when you vote.

" Now, what part do you find weak, The hypocrisy or the witch hunt?"

Both. There is no hypocrisy in wanting to hold my leaders accountable.

cranky old fart said...

Huh? I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the "scandal".

Are you saying there was no hypocrisy, or there was no witch hunt?

No hypocrisy on the part of the House impeachment manager, Bob Barr?

No witch hunt on the part of Scaife?

loboinok said...

"Nope, I would say that has absolutely nothing to do with it. If you're not just guessing, by all means clue me in to the details."

"And there are those who question airing any dramatization of the 92-year-old Reagan's life while he struggles with Alzheimer's disease."

"They shouldn't do anything while the man can't defend himself," said Khachigian. "That, to me, is the worst thing, when a man can't speak for himself who's still alive."

CNN


"I do know that Republicans in the House and Senate didn't resort to government censorship."

"As nobody did in the present case either, if that's what you're trying to imply."

I should have said... "I do know that Republicans in the House and Senate didn't resort to attempted government censorship."

"Representatives John Conyers, Jr., John Dingell, Jane Harman, and Louise Slaughter today called on ABC to fix the inaccuracies in its mini-series The Path to 9/11, before its scheduled airing on September 10th and 11th."

"Producers said late Friday that they had finished making minor edits to "The Path to 9/11" amid a firestorm of protests from leading Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who warned that telecasting "right-wing political propaganda" might violate the terms of ABC's government-mandated broadcast license.

"The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest."

[snip]

Sincerely,

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid

Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin

Senator Debbie Stabenow

Senator Charles Schumer

Senator Byron Dorgan

Written on Senate Letterhead

democrats.senate.gov

We all know this partisan sniping occurs all the time, but when the government gets involved in an official capacity and offers implicit threats, it crosses the line.

scohen said...

Tim,
The president (OMB) prepares the budget, not the House. Balancing the budget was a policy (remember those?) put in place early on by Robert Rubin, secretary of the treasury.

The policy was called 'Rubinomics', hardly 'total BS'. Look it up, there's plenty of information out there if you care to learn.

And where was the Republican clamor for attacking Bin Laden? If I remember correctly, they opposed intervention in Bosnia as well. Do you not agree that Bosnia was a success? Saddam was not a threat during the Clinton years or since, so that's not particularly relevant.

highboy said...

"Huh? I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the "scandal".

Oh. But hey, you gotta be kidding me right? You mean to tell me that if it got leaked that Bush Jr. was plowing through interns that the Dems wouldn't be ALL OVER him? Look, you and I both know its all partisan, all the time. But you're missing the point...again. Instead of acknowledging the historical screw-ups of the insane left that you happen to support, and instead of holding them accountable, you fly right back with a "you guys do it too" response. Very childish, very boring, and very hypocritical. Both sides do it. I however, do not. Take Newt for example. I agree with the guy virtually 98% of the time. Would I want him representing me or my country? Hell no, and I don't have to tell you why.

"The president (OMB) prepares the budget, not the House. Balancing the budget was a policy (remember those?) put in place early on by Robert Rubin, secretary of the treasury."

Yes, but something you gloss over is the fact that its EVERY president's job to balance the budget. It is HOW that interests me.

It seems like the liberal brigade here (I say that affectionately, so don't get pissed) feels that its impossible to find an honest politician, so why bother? You guys seem to think that if you dig for a morally sound representative that there will be none left. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are quite a few good, honest, hardworking politicians who really just love America. The fact that anyone doesn't think that adultery and perjury should be deal breakers with a president tells me just how far down the morality meter our culture has become. If that is the way you feel, than don't be surprised when this country falls behind Canada or some other third world country. You get what you pay for.

Btw, if I lived during Jefferson's presidency, I would have personally written a letter to him expressing my disdain for his infidelity.

scohen said...

"Yes, but something you gloss over is the fact that its EVERY president's job to balance the budget. It is HOW that interests me."

Is that true? Tell Dick "Deficits don't matter" Cheney that. Write Bush a letter and tell him how he's not doing his job.

Clinton was the only president since Eisenhower to balance the budget and pay down the debt, so I'm not sure your argument holds water. Balancing the budget was a huge accomplishment, and he deserves credit for it. Furthermore, the act that actually balanced the budget, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation act of 1993, was passed without a single Republican vote as it raised taxes on the wealthy.

As for the marital infidelity, we elect humans for office, and I don't think cheating on your wife has much bearing on your effectiveness as president. There are other, more important measures in that regard. If I learned that Bush was cheating on Laura, I would not favor any sort of investigation, trial or impeachment. That would be silly and non-productive. I care about how Bush's decisions affect our country, not his family.

cranky old fart said...

"The fact that anyone doesn't think that adultery and perjury should be deal breakers with a president tells me just how far down the morality meter our culture has become"

I have to echo scohen's sentiments here. I care much more about matters affecting national security than marital security. Iran-Contra, enemies lists, profiteering, are all much greater presidential "moral lapses" than getting, or lying about, blow jobs.

And, by the way, there is a world of difference between picking up on some "leak" about a bj, and a $47 million witch hunt to uncover one lousy bj. It is a difference that reveals something about priorities, I think.

highboy said...

"Write Bush a letter and tell him how he's not doing his job."

I should, now that you mention it, but not in regards to the economy, which is booming, according the evidence of the real world.

"As for the marital infidelity, we elect humans for office, and I don't think cheating on your wife has much bearing on your effectiveness as president."

Lying about it under oath does. I elect a president to run my country. If he has time to have sexual relations with White House interns, he has time to execute UBL and prevent 9/11. He can also afford his own furniture, and didn't need to steal that which I/you paid for on his way out.

"If I learned that Bush was cheating on Laura, I would not favor any sort of investigation, trial or impeachment. That would be silly and non-productive."

He was actually impeached for committing perjury. I also don't believe you. Not that you are deliberately lying, but judging from your political persuasion, and seeming unwillingness to place ANY responsibility on the Left and all of the responsibility on the right, I can only assume that you would jump at the chance to impeach Bush and humiliate him for his adultery, as would all liberal media. If I'm misjudging you then by all means call me on it and demonstrate it and I'll retract my speculation.

"I have to echo scohen's sentiments here. I care much more about matters affecting national security than marital security."

Then you should be echoing our disdain for the Clinton administration, which sucked at both. (pardon the pun)If you're worried about your safety, you're on the wrong side. Clinton openly refused to acknowledge the first WTC bombing, or any act of terrorism, as an act of war.

" Iran-Contra, enemies lists, profiteering, are all much greater presidential "moral lapses" than getting, or lying about, blow jobs."

Says who? Is this utilitarian code of ethics of yours universal authority or just your opinion?

highboy said...

FYI, I won't be on anymore tonight, so if you respond at all in this discussion, be patient until tomorrow for my reply. Between school and my own blog, this semester is pretty hectic.

scohen said...

"Write Bush a letter and tell him how he's not doing his job."

"I should, now that you mention it, but not in regards to the economy, which is booming, according the evidence of the real world."

Whether or not the economy is 'booming' has no bearing on Bush doing his job in this instance. You stated that part of a President's job is to balance the budget. The budget isn't balanced, therefore, he's not doing his job. If you honestly believe the economy is booming, that's even more reason that we should balance the budget. I disagree with you about the economy --booming would indicate we should have a record stock market for one, but I still think we should balance the budget NOW.

"He was actually impeached for committing perjury. I also don't believe you"

Tim tim tim... That's just too bad --I thought you knew me better than this. Don't think for a second that I wouldn't have an enormous amount of Schadenfreude, but that's all. I'm also fairly sure there *would* be some kind of investigation taken up for purely retaliatory reasons, but I certainly would not approve of it. If this ever happens, I *guarantee* that you'd see a post on my blog condemning the whole fiasco.

"I elect a president to run my country. If he has time to have sexual relations with White House interns, he has time to execute UBL and prevent 9/11"

And if I elect a president that has time to take five-week vacations, then he too has time enough to capture Bin Laden and prevent 9/11. You do know all that happened on Bush's watch, right? What ever happened to "The buck stops here"? Where's the accountability?

P.S. I'm not a huge Clinton fan, he could have done so much more if he wasn't so busy playing politics and fending off constant, fruitless investigation. You want to talk cognitive dissonance? Reconcile Radar's defense of Scooter Libby (perjury) with his support of Clinton's impeachment (perjury). Personally, I think Clinton was wrong to lie on the stand, but he had no business being there in the first place. Still, that doesn't excuse his actions.

P.P.S. Where are you where you refer to 9:40 AM as night? Are you out of our hemisphere?

highboy said...

Tim tim tim... That's just too bad --I thought you knew me better than this. Don't think for a second that I wouldn't have an enormous amount of Schadenfreude, but that's all."

I retract my previous statement. Fair and balanced is Scohen.

"And if I elect a president that has time to take five-week vacations, then he too has time enough to capture Bin Laden and prevent 9/11."

I don't dispute that at all.

"You do know all that happened on Bush's watch, right? What ever happened to "The buck stops here"? Where's the accountability?"

That's a bunch of garbage scohen and you know it. Libs tried the same thing with the economy. Supposedly the economy was so great under Clinton and then Bush isn't even in office long enough to fart before the Dems all pull graphs and charts out of their asses to blame Bush for a regression. The same with 9/11. The first WTC bombing happened under CLINTON's watch, who had 4 shots at UBL and passed on every one of them. Point the finger at him, not Bush.

"Personally, I think Clinton was wrong to lie on the stand, but he had no business being there in the first place"

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. All else is useless bickering.

" P.P.S. Where are you where you refer to 9:40 AM as night? Are you out of our hemisphere?"

The computer I'm using has the time screwed up. I am in Canada though, and if you are in S.F. our time zones are WAY different. Whatever the computer says when I post this, its 4:06 p.m. as I write. I've been using the Bethany Computer Lab, another reason why I'm not as prolific. My computer is all ready to go, but my high speed internet hasn't been activated yet. Soon, and I'll be back to blogging regularly as before.

creeper said...

Highboy,

"The first WTC bombing happened under CLINTON's watch"

Let me get this straight.

9/11 took place under Bush Jr's watch. Even though Bush Jr. had been in office for 9 and a half months, he is not to be held accountable, because after all it was his predecessor who didn't catch the bad guys.

Now you trot out the first WTC bombing, emphasizing that it took place under Clinton's watch. Clinton must clearly be held accountable.

A little-known fact you might have missed: the first WTC bombing took place JUST OVER ONE MONTH after Clinton took office. But clearly Clinton's predecessors are not to blame.

highboy said...

"Now you trot out the first WTC bombing, emphasizing that it took place under Clinton's watch. Clinton must clearly be held accountable."

Uh, yeah. The previous presidents did not have the chances to capture UBL like Clinton did. Little fact you may have missed. Clinton let UBL go 4 times. That is what he should be held accountable for. Try to stay on point.

creeper said...

Try to stay on point? You're the one that dragged the WTC bombing into this. Maybe you want to explain what you think Osama bin Laden had to do with the WTC bombing. He's been linked to many bombings, but that wasn't one of them.

I still find the hypocrisy breathtaking that you find all kinds of extenuating circumstances for Bush that you're not willing to extend to Clinton. Heck, if Clinton's accountable for the WTC bombing one month after his inauguration, then Bush is accountable for 9/11 nine months after his. Doesn't mean previous presidents didn't make mistakes and don't share some of the blame. But you can't say Clinton is accountable and Bush isn't.

Incidentally, what did Bush do before 9/11 to go after Osama bin Laden? Anything?