Is Clinton Responsible?

[Eagle43]

Wow!  I can't believe this video, from ABC, no less.

How dare ABC implicatethe Clintons?
http://abc.go.com/movies/thepathto911/about.html

Y'all do remember Farenheit 911.  Well, propaganda is good, when you agree with it. Of course, the Clinton apologists are everywhere, trying to get the flick changed.  It'll probably get changed, if there's too much truth in it. All I can say is it's about time the finger got pointed in that direction.  And just in time for the mid-terms, too.  What a coincidence.
 

 

[jeff2006]

Wow!  I can't believe this video, from ABC, no less.

How dare ABC implicatethe Clintons?
http://abc.go.com/movies/thepathto911/about.html

Y'all do remember Farenheit 911.  Well, propaganda is good, when you agree with it. Of course, the Clinton apologists are everywhere, trying to get the flick changed.  It'll probably get changed, if there's too much truth in it. All I can say is it's about time the finger got pointed in that direction.  And just in time for the mid-terms, too.  What a coincidence.
 

Jeez, man. Do you ever get tired of posting political crap?

 

[Eagle43]

Not true! And to answer your question, I will post as I please.

http://early-retirement.org/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=1107;sa=showPosts

 

[Texas Proud]

Can't quite tell if you are for or against this movie...

And I do not think anybody has 'clean hands' right now...

Could it have been prevented Probably not... even if we had gotten Bin Laden, who is to say it still would not have happened

 

[lets-retire]

For or against is irrelevant. I don't remember Mr. Bush whining to stop the release of Fahrenheit 9-11. The Klinton libs seem to take offense to a fictional story about their time in office. Complaining that it isn't a fair portrayal of their actions. It's fiction, so by definition it isn't true. Kind of sounds like something that micheal moore did, an unfair portrayal of an incident and called it a documentary. At least this one is accurately classified.

 

[JB]

Reminds me of a recent Doonesbury.....

 

[razztazz]

It'll probably get changed, if there's too much truth in it. All I can say is it's about time the finger got pointed in that direction. And just in time for the mid-terms, too. What a coincidence.

This is one reason I am no longer a Republican after 30 yrs. A man is judged by the company he keeps. There's a similar metaphor that involves napping with farm animals that means the same thing.

COULD Clinstone have done this or that along the way that wrt terrorism? Perhaps. I'd say Yes. He was like Reagan before him much more concerned with simply "being" president than DOING anything important or that wasn't a pet project of his (or his freinds) . MIGHT it have pre-empted 9/11. Maybe . Not like anybody would ever be able to know that. And if 9/11 had gotten pre-empted what else would have come our way? You'd blame Clinton for that too becaus ethat's as far as you take things. Sorry, life doesn't come in easy-serve, individually wrapped answers complete with Black & White lables.

Reagan was heavily responsible for the genesis of all the current mishigahs from that part of the world. And you can go back further too. It's decades of step-toe oil-based foreign policy. Deny it and you're sniffing glue.

None of this started with Clinton and George F Bush didn't do or want to do or want to KNOW anything about anything do to with who the bad guys in this world are. All this is public record ad nauseam, so anything attempt to blame Clinton won't get the current admi off teh hook for one split pico second. They wanted their Pearl Harbor (again, public record in their own penmanship) and they got it. You should be rejoicing and thanking Clinton for handing this admin the keys to the kingdom.

 

[Texas Proud]

One of the other things that people have to remember is that Reagan kind of help train the terrorists... remember when the Soviet Union was trying to take over Afghanistan Who paid a lot of money for arms and to train the 'rebels' who would fight the Russkies...

And who were those 'rebels'? The Taliban..

As I said, lots of places you can point fingers. None of it helps...

But, I have no problem with them putting it on... it is a TV program and it belongs on TV..

 

[sgeeeee]

I've been thinking about it for a long time, and I'm pretty sure I'm ready. I've decided to become a neo-con wingnut. I've come to really envy them for their riteous knowledge that all problems in the world -- past, present, or future -- can be blamed on one of the Clintons. That has to be comforting.

I thought I would start out small and simply blame Hilary for some aches and pains I'm having since I stepped up my workout routine. Next, I have some bare spots in my yard that don't seem to grow grass. I figure that's probably Bill's fault.

But I need some guidance from some of you long-time wingnuts. Do I have to get these things approved by Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly before I blame the Clintons? or can I just make it up as I go along?

 

[youbet]

Do I have to get these things approved by Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly before I blame the Clintons? or can I just make it up as I go along?   

Well we lib-loonies rely on Jerry Springer of Air America fame, so I guess you wingnuts better go check with your man Rush.  Or, if you want to check with both of them, you can usually find them together at the bank depositing the zillions they're making off political extremists from each end of the spectrum!!  

Money is the goal, party loyalists are the patsies!   

 

[2B]

Presidents get "judged" after the dust settles.  Some of the "terror" highlights include:

 Carter and the Iranian embassy -- wrung his hands
 Reagan and the Beirut bombing -- no serious response
 Clinton and various events -- bombed an aspirin factory
 Bush and the WTC -- Afghanistan and Iraq and ?

A detailed review of the topic wouldn’t leave anyone unscarred.  The current attempt by Clinton to edit the program doesn’t seem to seriously question any of the “facts” but only how they are portrayed.

 

[donheff]

I thought I would start out small and simply blame Hilary for some aches and pains I'm having since I stepped up my workout routine.

Aha, of course!! If Hilary hadn't pushed her health care program, the private sector would not have gotten derailed from figuring out a perfect solution to our problems. Everyone would be covered today with affordable insurance.

Now I need to go back to that survey on changing our minds on social issues and vote yes.

 

[youbet]

Presidents get "judged" after the dust settles.  Some of the "terror" highlights include:

 Carter and the Iranian embassy -- wrung his hands
 Reagan and the Beirut bombing -- no serious response
 Clinton and various events -- bombed an aspirin factory
 Bush and the WTC -- Afghanistan and Iraq and ?

A detailed review of the topic wouldn’t leave anyone unscarred.  .

You're out of line 2B!  Take one side or the other.  The custom on this forum is that one side is 100% right, the other 100% wrong.  What are you thinking?

 

[sgeeeee]

You're out of line 2B!  Take one side or the other.  The custom on this forum is that one side is 100% right, the other 100% wrong.  What are you thinking? 

Don't blame 2B. It's not his fault. It's Clinton's fault.

. . .

Boy, I'm really beginning to get the hang of this. I don't know why I didn't convert sooner.

 

[2B]

Don't blame 2B.  It's not his fault.  It's Clinton's fault. 

No. It's been pretty much a team effort until something "major" happened that got more than a tepid response. What if the hijackers only crashed the planes into the ocean? I doubt we would be involved the same way we are now.

We're still playing by "nice" rules. In WWII if someone was an "irregular" or not in a recognized uniform, they were summarily shot by either the axis or allies -- that's in the Geneva Convention. I think we should apply the Geneva Convention to all "irregular and non-uniformed combats." Anyone caught in a combat role not meeting the standards set forth in the Geneva Convention should be executed.

Is that taking enough of a side for you?

 

[sgeeeee]

No.  It's been pretty much a team effort until something "major" happened that got more than a tepid response.  What if the hijackers only crashed the planes into the ocean?  I doubt we would be involved the same way we are now. 

We're still playing by "nice" rules.  In WWII if someone was an "irregular" or not in a recognized uniform, they were summarily shot by either the axis or allies -- that's in the Geneva Convention.  I think we should apply the Geneva Convention to all "irregular and non-uniformed combats."  Anyone caught in a combat role not meeting the standards set forth in the Geneva Convention should be executed.

Is that taking enough of a side for you?

I don't know. That all sounds very confusing to me. We do still agree that Clinton is at fault, though. Don't we?

 

[2B]

I don't know.  That all sounds very confusing to me.  We do still agree that Clinton is at fault, though.  Don't we?   

Absolutely, Clinton is at fault. Don't forget Carter, et al. I don't think we can link Herbert Hoover to this one.

 

[bpp]

Hoover? Damn.

 

[REWahoo]

Hoover? Damn.

Harry? True man.

 

[d]

Q: is clinton responsible?
A: yes, must be as everyone keeps saying that g.w. is irresponsible.

(but deep inside i know that it can be traced back directly to hoobert heever)

 

[spideyrdpd]

Yes
I also dont think the issue is with the fiction its with the facts. People screwed up while he was in office. They had there chance with Laden and they let it pass. They were following the cells but missed the signs. They should of had some kind of task force earlier.

 

[Tadpole]

Eagle, who cares? They are all a bunch of bums in one way or the other. They are mere employees. Don't count their mistakes and try to balance one against the other. Throw all the bums out and advertise for some new hires.

 

[2B]

Eagle, who cares? They are all a bunch of bums in one way or the other. They are mere employees. Don't count their mistakes and try to balance one against the other. Throw all the bums out and advertise for some new hires.

You are so right. Most of the screw ups were career civil servants. Why would we expect anything else! :

 

[Alex]

Clearly Clinton has some culpability for our current sutuation vis a vis Al Qaeda. He was distracted (along with the entire country!) by Monicagate. He had the chance to capture/kill Bin Laden and he didn't. Do I blame him 100% for 9/11? of course not - I blame Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Nobody really took AQ seriously until 9/11.

 

[eridanus]

Clinton got a bj.

This bj is directly responsible for the economy, 9/11, Iraq, Saddam, the price of oil, the upcoming housing crash, and the loss of American innocence from 1950. I think this bj is even responsible for the lack of a gold-backed dollar.