By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek
Updated: 4:29 p.m. ET Sept 25, 2006
Sept. 25, 2006 - Even Bill Clinton, who never met a camera he failed to charm, couldn't keep his rage out of public view any longer. Ever since ABC television aired its riveting but risibly fictive docudrama “The Path to 9/11” earlier this month, former Clintonites have been seething. The miniseries had laid much of the blame for the failure to get Osama bin Laden on Clinton and his supposedly wimpy national-security team. The Bush administration, meanwhile, is portrayed mostly positively, seen gearing up to take on bin Laden when 9/11 hits. No surprise there: “The Path to 9/11” was scripted by a conservative screenwriter named Cyrus Nowrasteh, who once took part in a panel at the right-wing Liberty Film Festival entitled “How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood's Next Paradigm Shift.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12318129/site/newsweek/?bctid=236034265

<pointing of finger>:doh:

I heard this is what Bill acted like quite often in the White House, according to people who worked for him. But man did he ever freakin explode! :rotfl:

The guy was lying through his freakn teeth talking about how his #1 goal in his 8 years was to get Osama, and how he was so tough on terror! :rotfl: Ya can't help but laugh when he says this. Because it's all BS. He F'ed up in his 8 years by doing jack squat about terrorism, and he knows it. Did he ever do anything to respond to the 93 trade center attacks and the USS Cole attack? Nope :doh:

the economy was sooooo much better then....
now we've spent 300 billion on trying to seed democracy where it simply will not grow.

bill - had all the agency's when they weren't working cohesively....
their computers were absolute junk.....
and we had no auto-drones of quality...less satellites workin too.

Rumsfeld has to go home....now, he's like an over baked cookie.

some how we have to turn protecting the USA into a profitable enterprise....
and only the tech sector can pull that off with a new generation
of "better" surveilance devices,
meanwhile silicon valley is
jumping into solar energy and chip developement.:huh:

The guy was lying through his freakn teeth talking about how his #1 goal in his 8 years was to get Osama
Execept he never said this :read:

-spence

I think his wife said that.

Clinton may have lost his cool, but Monica blew his top!

They ALL spin it their way but I can not stand it when he points his finger at the camera like we are all dumb kids and only he knows whats true and right:rotf3: as he lies to my face. I know most don't mind them lying to us so long as its what they want to hear and that my freinds is why they do it and can do it.

The greatest credence goes to the men in the trenches who were there at the time.

Read the latter part of this interview.

Curiously, this is posted on CNN, a network hostile to Bush.

Former FBI agent: Clinton never approved a plan to kill bin Laden

(CNN) -- Amid rumors of Osama bin Laden's death from illness, former President Bill Clinton and the Bush administration argued this week over who did more to kill the al Qaeda leader before the September 11 attacks.

CNN's Tony Harris spoke with former FBI agent Dan Coleman about the finger-pointing between the two administrations. Coleman also weighed in on where he believes bin Laden is hiding and on the status of bin Laden's health.

HARRIS: [Pakistani] President Musharraf in his book says he thinks bin Laden is in east Afghanistan. [Afghan President] Karzai says he's probably in Pakistan. What do you make of the back and forth here?

COLEMAN: That's a bit of cross-blaming. The borders in that region are rather undefined, and I defy either one of them to say exactly where he is at any one point in time.

HARRIS: So, undefined because neither leader has control of those border areas at all?

COLEMAN: Afghanistan is basically still in anarchy. And Pakistan, the part of Pakistan in which bin Laden may or may not be located, is northwest frontier provinces which are basically reservations, tribal reservations. And the central government does not have a lot of control there.

HARRIS: What do you make of the deal between Pakistan and some of the tribal leaders in that sort of rugged, undefined area that you describe?

COLEMAN: Well, bin Laden has been on the loose for five years now. If they wanted the $25 million for him they would have turned him in already. So I suspect that's more internal politics in Pakistan.

HARRIS: So bin Laden is being sheltered?

COLEMAN: I believe so, yes.

HARRIS: Given your knowledge of how intelligence flows, what did you make of the French reporting over the weekend that bin Laden is either dead or is seriously ill?

COLEMAN: Well-off people with access with medicine and doctors don't die from typhoid. ... If you've got somebody there that can put an IV in your arm and get you the proper medicine, you'll survive. American soldiers in the field can catch typhoid just as easily as he can, but they don't die from it. If they're treated, they survive.

HARRIS: What do you give Clinton credit for in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and his attempts to disrupt al Qaeda?

COLEMAN: President Clinton is very careful in his comments. I was at least happy to see him get angry about something and at least try to fight back.

I doubt that anything he said was incorrect because he's too careful a man. But as far as I know, he may -- he approved the assassination of bin Laden, but he never approved a particular plan.

HARRIS: His claim is that he couldn't get the CIA and the FBI to agree on responsibility, for example, for the Cole attack and to launch countermeasures.

COLEMAN: I disagree with that.

HARRIS: He said he had a battle plan drawn up to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale search for bin Laden.

COLEMAN: Well, he didn't do it.

HARRIS: Did you see evidence of a plan?

COLEMAN: Not at my level. No, sir.
HARRIS: So what do you make of his claim?

COLEMAN: He was saying that he made a very specific statement about getting a forward operating base in one of the former Soviet republics which he was not able to get. ... You don't need a forward base in one of the former Soviet republics to go in and do a quick operation.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/26/coleman.cnna/index.html

He is an egomaniac and he is clealry obsessed with his legacy. Any time he is called out on the carpet (see Lewinski, starr/impeachment/failing to catch Bin Laden) he lashes out with Howard Dean like emotion. I stumbled upon that interview and after a few minutes I was mesmerized at what a moonbat he looked like. Absolutely riveting tv. Chris Wallace was on Imus this morning and said Clinton's handelrs were screaming at the producers to turn off the cameras mid-interview. Also he was screaming in the hallway post interview at his staff for getting him in that situation.

i noticed that too... but my gut instinct tells me.... that he's gonna die soon....
and that all the stress and humiliation have taken their toll...
i mean most president's turn grey right after their presidency....
but with bill....the stress is gonna take him in the night.

I think he knows it too...so he wanted to go out fighting for once...

there ain't no way in hell he wants to be first man.he'd rather die
.....and after being married to Hillary he most certainly wants too.
:rollem: her running for president will be the hari kari move on him....twistin the knife.

The greatest credence goes to the men in the trenches who were there at the time.

Read the latter part of this interview.

Curiously, this is posted on CNN, a network hostile to Bush.

Former FBI agent: Clinton never approved a plan to kill bin Laden

(CNN) -- Amid rumors of Osama bin Laden's death from illness, former President Bill Clinton and the Bush administration argued this week over who did more to kill the al Qaeda leader before the September 11 attacks.

CNN's Tony Harris spoke with former FBI agent Dan Coleman about the finger-pointing between the two administrations. Coleman also weighed in on where he believes bin Laden is hiding and on the status of bin Laden's health.

HARRIS: [Pakistani] President Musharraf in his book says he thinks bin Laden is in east Afghanistan. [Afghan President] Karzai says he's probably in Pakistan. What do you make of the back and forth here?

COLEMAN: That's a bit of cross-blaming. The borders in that region are rather undefined, and I defy either one of them to say exactly where he is at any one point in time.

HARRIS: So, undefined because neither leader has control of those border areas at all?

COLEMAN: Afghanistan is basically still in anarchy. And Pakistan, the part of Pakistan in which bin Laden may or may not be located, is northwest frontier provinces which are basically reservations, tribal reservations. And the central government does not have a lot of control there.

HARRIS: What do you make of the deal between Pakistan and some of the tribal leaders in that sort of rugged, undefined area that you describe?

COLEMAN: Well, bin Laden has been on the loose for five years now. If they wanted the $25 million for him they would have turned him in already. So I suspect that's more internal politics in Pakistan.

HARRIS: So bin Laden is being sheltered?

COLEMAN: I believe so, yes.

HARRIS: Given your knowledge of how intelligence flows, what did you make of the French reporting over the weekend that bin Laden is either dead or is seriously ill?

COLEMAN: Well-off people with access with medicine and doctors don't die from typhoid. ... If you've got somebody there that can put an IV in your arm and get you the proper medicine, you'll survive. American soldiers in the field can catch typhoid just as easily as he can, but they don't die from it. If they're treated, they survive.

HARRIS: What do you give Clinton credit for in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and his attempts to disrupt al Qaeda?

COLEMAN: President Clinton is very careful in his comments. I was at least happy to see him get angry about something and at least try to fight back.

I doubt that anything he said was incorrect because he's too careful a man. But as far as I know, he may -- he approved the assassination of bin Laden, but he never approved a particular plan.

HARRIS: His claim is that he couldn't get the CIA and the FBI to agree on responsibility, for example, for the Cole attack and to launch countermeasures.

COLEMAN: I disagree with that.

HARRIS: He said he had a battle plan drawn up to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale search for bin Laden.

COLEMAN: Well, he didn't do it.

HARRIS: Did you see evidence of a plan?

COLEMAN: Not at my level. No, sir.
HARRIS: So what do you make of his claim?

COLEMAN: He was saying that he made a very specific statement about getting a forward operating base in one of the former Soviet republics which he was not able to get. ... You don't need a forward base in one of the former Soviet republics to go in and do a quick operation.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/26/coleman.cnna/index.html

I wouldn't trust CNN who's backed by Reuters who in proxy can sway propoganda in favor of the Bush Admin. Propoganda is what washes the mind... The NIE are facts!

We Americans love to "play" the "Blame Game".
Of course this idea is fueled by the media which I am
sorry to say plays on the stupidity of most Americans.
We seem to have short term memories when it come to
past issues. We blame the administration now, or the previous
one, yet look no further to the past at the whole picture.
To fully understand why we are where we are at, you must look
at the policies this country has established and followed in the
last 60 years or so.

We Americans love to "play" the "Blame Game".
Of course this idea is fueled by the media which I am
sorry to say plays on the stupidity of most Americans.
We seem to have short term memories when it come to
past issues. We blame the administration now, or the previous
one, yet look no further to the past at the whole picture.
To fully understand why we are where we are at, you must look
at the policies this country has established and followed in the
last 60 years or so.

fine, let's lay the blame where it really belongs.

nuke israel.

fine, let's lay the blame where it really belongs.

nuke israel.

Nuking is too harsh just leave them stranded and let the dogs get them.

I was told by a Marine I served with who had "yankee white duty" (presidential guard) that he always had lots of pornographic material around...in Airforce one...ect......

sorry :topic:

I was told by a Marine I served with who had "yankee white duty" (presidential guard) that he always had lots of pornographic material around...in Airforce one...ect......

sorry :topic:

So he would have liked the Hottie Thread too....


I heard Airforce One has lots of Colorin Books on Board these days.

Nuking is too harsh just leave them stranded and let the dogs get them.

Why do hate Israel so much? They're the only "normal" people in the middle east! Yet for some reason you can't stand the jews. Why?

No I don't hate the Jews. My neighbors and landlord are Jewish so it doesn't bother me. The people don't bother me, it's the existance of a 60 year old country (Isreal) and how they handle affairs with their neighbors is what bothers me. It is because of that country that conflict exists in the middle east. Our intervention from history in that area is what affects the crisis we face today. The more we do the worst and more tense it gets. That's why I think we should admit some sort of defeat and let the Middle East carry on their affairs. This can cause concerns for homeland securities, but why not do more for our country as in protection rather than cause reasons for our country to be attacked? Like I mentioned throughout the thread, we're only causing more radical islamist and that can be backed by the NIE. But then again the NIE reported weapons of mass destruction in Iraq being developed in 2002.

What it boils down to is a big mess that we the U.S. got ourselves into. If we admit defeat and go on the defensive then, maybe we can save moral victory as with being safe at home. Don't intervene with Isreal and let the Muslim and Jews blow each other up. Why should be care?

300 billion dollars is what is being spent on the war in Iraq as of today. President Karzai mentioned with that much money, Afghanistan would be heaven within 1 year. That means terrorist free and an operating country. That may sound like bull, but this is the guy we help vouched as their president so going against his words would be a contradiction.

Bottomline, this is a war that we cannot win. Let's not spawn another Vietnam war. A war with little if any cause. Remember Iraq wasn't about terrorism from the start, it was Afghanistan. Close to 3000 American civilians were killed in 9/11, we're bound to reach that mark in American Soldiers soon. So with a year or month the total mortality of this ordeal since 9/11 would be 6000+ Americans. Should we go there?

Found on the wall of Dachau when it was liberated in 1944. It was written by the Protestant Clergyman Martin Niemuhler (Niemoller).
"When they came to get the Jews I didn't say anything because I wasn't one of them. When the Nazis came to get the Blacks I didn't say anything because I wasn't one of them. When they took the crippled, the mentally unstable and the insane away I didn't say anything. When they took the Catholics away I didn't say anything because I wasn't one of them. Now I can't say anything because they have come and taken me away."

Found on the wall of Dachau when it was liberated in 1944. It was written by the Protestant Clergyman Martin Niemuhler (Niemoller).
"When they came to get the Jews I didn't say anything because I wasn't one of them. When the Nazis came to get the Blacks I didn't say anything because I wasn't one of them. When they took the crippled, the mentally unstable and the insane away I didn't say anything. When they took the Catholics away I didn't say anything because I wasn't one of them. Now I can't say anything because they have come and taken me away."

They only come for us if we anger them. Where we are at now we'll continue to give them reasons to come for us. As with the passing of history, foreign conflicts die over time. We either admit defeat and allow it to die over time or we nuke it as with Japan and allow it to die over time. I don't think Nuking is an option with all the 'natural resources' there.

That was pretty deep by the way....

Stormfish, Admitting defeat and retreating is what the Terrorists want! And you want to give them a victory and retreat??? And stay on the defensive instead of going after people who we know want to kill Americans?? An American defeat in Iraq will be the ultimate recruiting tool for Terrorists. It will motivate them to try and finish us off. But you're ok with that?

I'm speachless....

Stormfish, Admitting defeat and retreating is what the Terrorists want! And you want to give them a victory and retreat??? And stay on the defensive instead of going after people who we know want to kill Americans?? An American defeat in Iraq will be the ultimate recruiting tool for Terrorists. It will motivate them to try and finish us off. But you're ok with that?

I'm speachless....

But fighting in Iraq is the ultimate recruiting tool! Are you telling me it's a catch 22? I'm speechless...:rolleyes:

I'm just suggesting that it is better to defend than offend. Do you go to the bar and cause trouble or would you rather defend yourself when confronted by trouble?

Before 9/11 what was the other major terrorist attack in the U.S.?:faga:

no support for israel + no need for foreign oil = no need for raghead jihad

Good equation... but that would have to mean we live in a perfect world. Let's go drinking:gu: or fishing... Enough with politics for the day!

Before 9/11 what was the other major terrorist attack in the U.S.?:faga:
The attempted bombing of the WTC.

arent US embassies considered US soil?

USS COLE :huh:

Details are a little sketchy

US Embassy, Beruit, CIA station chief and others killed followed 6 months later by US MArine Barracks, Beruit

Le Belle Discotek - Berlin, Mid 80s, frequented by Americans - 2 GIs died, several others died, several wounded

Bob's Bar, Clyfada Greece - frequented by Americans - several others died, several wounded

Pan Am over Lockerbee

Leon Clinghoffer

THese were Pre Al Queda as we know it today and were pretty much Iran / Libya inspired

Al Queda Today:

WTC Bombing

The 2 US Embassies in Africa

Kobar Towers

USS Cole

9/11

And who knows homany real (and imagined) thwarted attempts...


So he would have liked the Hottie Thread too....


I heard Airforce One has lots of Colorin Books on Board these days.

:rotfl:

maybe if he read more Where's Waldo he could do a better job finding bin laden :D

oklahoma city :huh:

I think his wife said that.

Clinton may have lost his cool, but Monica blew his top!

Clinton's problem was that he always used the wrong head~!

bali also a terrorist attack too

The attempted bombing of the WTC.
Wasn't the Oklahoma City Bombing considered Terrorism?

Wasn't the Oklahoma City Bombing considered Terrorism?


Domestic Terrorism - different scope...

Yes Bali, the one in Egypt, and several others commeited by A Q / Islamic based groups but not with direct intention against Americans

Domestic Terrorism - different scope...

Yes Bali, the one in Egypt, and several others commeited by A Q / Islamic based groups but not with direct intention against Americans

So hypothetically if an American born Muslim committed a terrorist act in the name of Allah it would be considered 'Domestic Terrorism -different scope...' ?

if i took a crap in your clothes dryer (after an all-you-can-jam buffet :bc: ) and then turned the dryer on to high heat ...

...would that be considered terrorism?

if i took a crap in your clothes dryer (after an all-you-can-jam buffet :bc: ) and then turned the dryer on to high heat ...

...would that be considered terrorism?

That would be vandalism...

hmph. one man's vandal is another man's freedom fighter.

So hypothetically if an American born Muslim committed a terrorist act in the name of Allah it would be considered 'Domestic Terrorism -different scope...' ?


It is a classification of terrorism. Bader Meinhoff Gang and Red Army Faction - for example - don't fit either "Islamic Terrorism" or "Domestic Terrorism" (well, unless you live in Germany)

It is a classification of terrorism. Bader Meinhoff Gang and Red Army Faction - for example - don't fit either "Islamic Terrorism" or "Domestic Terrorism" (well, unless you live in Germany)

I'm quite enlightened... But to answer my question earlier, the second biggest Terrorism attack on US soil would be the Oklahoma City Bombing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

Pointing fingers is an easy game. If you really want some insight into why we are in the middle east try doing a google search for "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC) Check out the names of the authors of this policy (which pre-dates 9/11) ; all major players in the current administration. The thing looks like the cliff notes version of our current mid-east policy.

I was first to guess right......do i win anything? :rolleyes:

Yea, you win a Plug from Big Fish!!!(LOL collecting)