Good Article About Clinton

[GenuineRisk]

Rupert, after insisting you want facts, not opinions, I can't believe you posted a link to this article in all seriousness. I read the whole, stupid, ranting thing, but it had lost me by here:

<<It has been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Bill Clinton did next to nothing to stop terrorists. The ABC mini-series ''The Path to 9/11'' was an accurate portrayal of what led to that disastrous day.>>

That mini-series made up scenes out of whole cloth. It said things happened that didn't. It even admitted it was a "dramatiziation." You know what a "dramatization" means? It means they FICTIONALIZED it.

I also fail to understand why right-wingers so quickly forget the accusations against Clinton when we went into Somalia in the heat of the Lewinsky thing-- all the "wag the dog" histrionics. And how it was the Republicans, not Clinton, who demanded our men be pulled out after the first casualites happened. Well, in the interests of public education, here's a walk down memory lane-- from Glenn Greenwald

<<Who wanted to "cut and run" from Somalia?

One of the central prongs in the right-wing effort to blame Bill Clinton for the growth of al-Qaida (and one of the central aspects of the general neoconservative mythology of how to fight terrorism) revolves around Somalia. Specifically, the right-wingers claim that President Clinton's withdrawal of troops from Somalia after a Muslim militia dragged the bodies of U.S. troops through the streets of Mogadishu conveyed weakness to the Muslim world and showed that we could be easily defeated. We suffer a few casualties, and we run away. They claim that that perceived weakness -- "cutting and running" from Somalia -- is what "emboldened" Osama bin Laden in the 1990s to wage war against us.

But that is pure historical revisionism; it is just completely false. And being subjected to that accusation this weekend by Fox News' Chris Wallace appears -- understandably -- to have been what principally triggered Clinton's anger in responding to those accusations during his interview. Wallace asked Clinton about "how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, 'I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops.'" In response, Clinton said: "They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in 'Black Hawk down,' and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations."

If anything, Clinton understated his own defense. After the U.S. troops were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, numerous conservative senators and representatives -- mostly Republican along with some conservative Southern Democrats -- demanded that Clinton withdraw all American troops immediately, insisting that the U.S. had no interest in Somalia and that not one more American troop should die there. They gave speeches stoked with nationalistic anger and angrily demanded immediate withdrawal, and even threatened to introduce legislation to cut off all funding for any troop maintenance in Somalia.

Clinton -- along with Democratic senators such as John Kerry -- vigorously argued against immediate withdrawal, in part because of the concern that America would look weak by panicking and abandoning its mission at the first sign of trouble (just like President Reagan did in 1983 when he immediately withdrew U.S. forces from Lebanon after the attack on U.S. Marines). Clinton had to virtually beg to be allowed to keep troops for an additional six months (and he even increased American troop levels) to stabilize the situation, demonstrate U.S. resolve and a commitment to the mission and, most of all, avoid a panicky, fear-driven retreat.

I have compiled -- here -- just some of the numerous Senate speeches by conservative Republican senators demanding immediate troop withdrawals, speeches by Clinton and Democratic senators (such as John Kerry) warning of the dangers of immediately withdrawing in the face of U.S. casualties, and various news accounts making clear that the cut-and-run argument was being made most vocally by conservative Republican senators who wanted to force the commander in chief to abandon the mission in Somalia the minute it became difficult and dangerous. Reading these excepts reveals just how completely misleading -- how outrageously revisionist -- is the accusation that it was Bill Clinton who emboldened Islamic extremists by beating a quick retreat from Somalia.

As but one example, President Clinton gave a speech on Oct. 8, 1993, to argue against the demands from the conservative right that we withdraw immediately from Somalia and to explain why it was vital that we stay. This is part of what Clinton said in his speech: "And make no mistake about it, if we were to leave Somalia tomorrow, other nations would leave, too. Chaos would resume, the relief effort would stop and starvation soon would return. That knowledge has led us to continue our mission ... Recently, Gen. Colin Powell said this about our choices in Somalia: 'Because things get difficult, you don't cut and run. You work the problem and try to find a correct solution' ... So let us finish the work we set out to do. Let us demonstrate to the world, as generations of Americans have done before us, that when Americans take on a challenge, they do the job right."

Republican senators attempted to force an immediate withdrawal and then ultimately compromised on a compelled withdrawal in six months. As but one example, from a Senate floor speech by Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, on Oct. 6, 1993: "The United States has no interest in the civil war in Somalia and as this young soldier told me, if the Somalis are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then it is absolutely time that we go home ... It is time for the Senate of the United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the American troops home." Sen. Robert Dole, in a Senate speech, on Oct. 5, 1993: "I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with -- I do not know how many Members were there -- 45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close."

Contrary to neoconservative myth, the U.S. did not run away from Somalia at the first sign of violence. Rather, we stayed six months and even increased our troop levels, but only because President Clinton fought and battled to do so in the face of right-wing demands that he cut and run immediately.

The extent to which blatantly false propaganda can be casually disseminated in our political dialogue is genuinely jarring. Bush followers can make these blatantly false accusations and Chris Wallace can repeat them because they usually go unrebutted by a media that is too slothful and shallow to do the most basic research to determine if they were true. That is why Clinton's aggressive responses to Wallace were so welcome -- it is tragically rare to see anyone forcefully attacking the false propaganda that is the staple of our political debates.>>

Could that be why Clinton got mad? Wallace was lying?

[GenuineRisk]

And while we're remembering what was said back then, here's more, including actual quotes by actual Republicans in '93. Also Greenwald:

<<Revisiting GOP attacks on President Clinton

The Internet makes it much more difficult than ever before to fabricate history because virtually everything is recorded and so easily discovered. Those developments, however, did not deter Jonah Goldberg from writing this demonstrably false historical claim in National Review: "The notion that conservatives opposed Clinton as Commander-in-Chief in the pre-war on terror or in other military ventures is simply unfair ... Sure, there were some wag the dog voices -- like noted rightwing trogs [sic] Arlen Specter and Christopher Hitchens -- but generally even the most partisan Republicans supported Clinton."

It is hard to overstate how false Goldberg's claim is, as even Byron York reported, in Goldberg's own magazine, National Review (emphasis added): "Instead of striking a strong blow against terrorism, the action [launching cruise missiles at Osama bin Laden] set off a howling debate about Clinton's motives. The president ordered the action three days after appearing before the grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair, and Clinton's critics accused him of using military action to change the subject from the sex-and-perjury scandal -- the so-called 'wag the dog' strategy."

Leading GOP political figures and pundits repeatedly voiced such criticisms against Clinton:

Rep. Dick Armey, GOP majority leader: "The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."

Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.: "It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it," Solomon said in an interview with CNN. Asked if he was accusing Clinton of playing with American lives for political expediency, Solomon said, "Whether he knows it or not, that's exactly what he's doing."

GOP Sen. Dan Coats: Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack [on bin Laden] and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action."

Sen. Larry Craig, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee: "The foregoing, the premise of the recent film 'Wag the Dog,' might once have seemed farfetched. Yet it can hardly escape comment that on the very day, August 17, that President Bill Clinton is scheduled to testify before a federal grand jury to explain his possibly criminal behavior, Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton has ordered U.S. Marines and air crews to commence several days of ground and air exercises in, yes, Albania as a warning of possible NATO intervention in next-door Kosovo ...

"Not too many years ago, it would not have entered the mind of even the worst of cynics to speculate whether any American president, whatever his political difficulties, would even consider sending U.S. military personnel into harm's way to serve his own, personal needs. But in an era when pundits openly weigh the question of whether President Clinton will (or should) tell the truth under oath not because he has a simple obligation to do so but because of the possible impact on his political 'viability' -- is it self-evident that military decisions are not affected by similar considerations? Under the circumstances, it is fair to ask to what extent the Clinton Administration has forfeited the benefit of the doubt as to the motives behind its actions."

GOP activist Paul Weyrich: "Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton's decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote 'is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress.'"

Wall Street Journal editorial: "It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment."

Sen. Trent Lott, GOP majority leader: "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."

Rep. Gerald Solomon: "'Never underestimate a desperate president,' said a furious House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.). 'What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?'"

Rep. Tillie Folwer: "'It [the bombing of Iraq] is certainly rather suspicious timing,' said Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Florida). 'I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office.'"

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: "First, it [intervention in Kosovo] is a 'wag the dog' public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the 'life is truer than fiction' movie 'Wag the Dog.' The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to 'move on' from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command."

Jim Hoagland, Washington Post: "President Clinton has indelibly associated a justified military response ... with his own wrongdoing ... Clinton has now injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy, and vice versa."

Wall Street Journal editorial: "Perceptions that the American president is less interested in the global consequences than in taking any action that will enable him to hold onto power [are] a further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in conducting the nation's affairs, and should be impeached."

Leading GOP senators, representatives, editorial boards, organizations and pundits repeatedly called into question Clinton's motives in taking military action, and thus attacked the commander in chief at exactly the time when troops were still in harm's way. The notion that such accusations were made only by a handful of isolated figures -- which Goldberg has the audacity to suggest were actually liberal -- and that the GOP largely supported Clinton's military deployments and refrained from criticizing his motives is just false. That is a fact that Goldberg would have discovered had he undertaken the most minimal amount of research before making those claims.

It is true that some Republican political figures supported some of Clinton's military decisions in Yugoslavia and the Middle East, but efforts to undermine those actions (as well as earlier ones) came from virtually every significant Republican precinct of influence throughout Clinton's presidency. That includes, most prominently, actions Clinton took against Iraq and Osama bin Laden, which were routinely attacked by Republicans as unnecessary.

The claim that Clinton paid insufficient attention to terrorism was one that virtually no Republicans made during the Clinton presidency. To the contrary, terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism were barely on their radar screen, and when they were, it was most prominently to use those issues as a weapon to attack Clinton politically and to suggest that he was deploying the military not for any legitimate reason (such as the terrorist threat) but only to distract the country's attention from the far more pressing sex scandal engulfing our government. >>

Ah, 1993-- when Republicans were more interested in hummers than in terrorism.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Rupert, after insisting you want facts, not opinions, I can't believe you posted a link to this article in all seriousness. I read the whole, stupid, ranting thing, but it had lost me by here:

<<It has been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Bill Clinton did next to nothing to stop terrorists. The ABC mini-series ''The Path to 9/11'' was an accurate portrayal of what led to that disastrous day.>>

That mini-series made up scenes out of whole cloth. It said things happened that didn't. It even admitted it was a "dramatiziation." You know what a "dramatization" means? It means they FICTIONALIZED it.

I also fail to understand why right-wingers so quickly forget the accusations against Clinton when we went into Somalia in the heat of the Lewinsky thing-- all the "wag the dog" histrionics. And how it was the Republicans, not Clinton, who demanded our men be pulled out after the first casualites happened. Well, in the interests of public education, here's a walk down memory lane-- from Glenn Greenwald

<<Who wanted to "cut and run" from Somalia?

One of the central prongs in the right-wing effort to blame Bill Clinton for the growth of al-Qaida (and one of the central aspects of the general neoconservative mythology of how to fight terrorism) revolves around Somalia. Specifically, the right-wingers claim that President Clinton's withdrawal of troops from Somalia after a Muslim militia dragged the bodies of U.S. troops through the streets of Mogadishu conveyed weakness to the Muslim world and showed that we could be easily defeated. We suffer a few casualties, and we run away. They claim that that perceived weakness -- "cutting and running" from Somalia -- is what "emboldened" Osama bin Laden in the 1990s to wage war against us.

But that is pure historical revisionism; it is just completely false. And being subjected to that accusation this weekend by Fox News' Chris Wallace appears -- understandably -- to have been what principally triggered Clinton's anger in responding to those accusations during his interview. Wallace asked Clinton about "how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, 'I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops.'" In response, Clinton said: "They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in 'Black Hawk down,' and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations."

If anything, Clinton understated his own defense. After the U.S. troops were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, numerous conservative senators and representatives -- mostly Republican along with some conservative Southern Democrats -- demanded that Clinton withdraw all American troops immediately, insisting that the U.S. had no interest in Somalia and that not one more American troop should die there. They gave speeches stoked with nationalistic anger and angrily demanded immediate withdrawal, and even threatened to introduce legislation to cut off all funding for any troop maintenance in Somalia.

Clinton -- along with Democratic senators such as John Kerry -- vigorously argued against immediate withdrawal, in part because of the concern that America would look weak by panicking and abandoning its mission at the first sign of trouble (just like President Reagan did in 1983 when he immediately withdrew U.S. forces from Lebanon after the attack on U.S. Marines). Clinton had to virtually beg to be allowed to keep troops for an additional six months (and he even increased American troop levels) to stabilize the situation, demonstrate U.S. resolve and a commitment to the mission and, most of all, avoid a panicky, fear-driven retreat.

I have compiled -- here -- just some of the numerous Senate speeches by conservative Republican senators demanding immediate troop withdrawals, speeches by Clinton and Democratic senators (such as John Kerry) warning of the dangers of immediately withdrawing in the face of U.S. casualties, and various news accounts making clear that the cut-and-run argument was being made most vocally by conservative Republican senators who wanted to force the commander in chief to abandon the mission in Somalia the minute it became difficult and dangerous. Reading these excepts reveals just how completely misleading -- how outrageously revisionist -- is the accusation that it was Bill Clinton who emboldened Islamic extremists by beating a quick retreat from Somalia.

As but one example, President Clinton gave a speech on Oct. 8, 1993, to argue against the demands from the conservative right that we withdraw immediately from Somalia and to explain why it was vital that we stay. This is part of what Clinton said in his speech: "And make no mistake about it, if we were to leave Somalia tomorrow, other nations would leave, too. Chaos would resume, the relief effort would stop and starvation soon would return. That knowledge has led us to continue our mission ... Recently, Gen. Colin Powell said this about our choices in Somalia: 'Because things get difficult, you don't cut and run. You work the problem and try to find a correct solution' ... So let us finish the work we set out to do. Let us demonstrate to the world, as generations of Americans have done before us, that when Americans take on a challenge, they do the job right."

Republican senators attempted to force an immediate withdrawal and then ultimately compromised on a compelled withdrawal in six months. As but one example, from a Senate floor speech by Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, on Oct. 6, 1993: "The United States has no interest in the civil war in Somalia and as this young soldier told me, if the Somalis are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then it is absolutely time that we go home ... It is time for the Senate of the United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the American troops home." Sen. Robert Dole, in a Senate speech, on Oct. 5, 1993: "I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with -- I do not know how many Members were there -- 45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close."

Contrary to neoconservative myth, the U.S. did not run away from Somalia at the first sign of violence. Rather, we stayed six months and even increased our troop levels, but only because President Clinton fought and battled to do so in the face of right-wing demands that he cut and run immediately.

The extent to which blatantly false propaganda can be casually disseminated in our political dialogue is genuinely jarring. Bush followers can make these blatantly false accusations and Chris Wallace can repeat them because they usually go unrebutted by a media that is too slothful and shallow to do the most basic research to determine if they were true. That is why Clinton's aggressive responses to Wallace were so welcome -- it is tragically rare to see anyone forcefully attacking the false propaganda that is the staple of our political debates.>>

Could that be why Clinton got mad? Wallace was lying?

The ABC mini-series was basically the truth. Any time you have a movie that is based on a true story, you will have scenes that may be slightly different from what happened in real life. It's not as if they get the exact script from real life. Sometimes you will even have a character who did not exists but who represented a few different people. Take a movie like "All the Presiden't Men". Were you complaining that they had a few things wrong in the movie and that it was not an exact replica of real life? Of course you weren't. Everyone recognizes that when you do a movie, it's not going a 100% perfect replication of real life. The ABC mini-series was more accurate than 99% of movies based on true stories. They got most of the information from the 9/11 commision and from the real players involved.

You probably didn't even watch the mini-series because you probably fell for all the left-wing propagnda about the movie not being 100% accurate. Do you think they were crying because the movie wasn't a perfect re-enactment of real life or because the movie made them look bad? The answer to that is obvious. They wouldn't have complained about the movie at all if it didn't make them look bad. They wouldn't have been crying that a scene was slightly off if it didn't make them look bad. Clinton and his team actually did a great job of fooling people into thinking the movie wasn't accurate when in reality it was very accurate.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The ABC mini-series was basically the truth. Any time you have a movie that is based on a true story, you will have scenes that may be slightly different from what happened in real life. It's not as if they get the exact script from real life. Sometimes you will even have a character who did not exists but who represented a few different people. Take a movie like "All the Presiden't Men". Were you complaining that they had a few things wrong in the movie and that it was not an exact replica of real life? Of course you weren't. Everyone recognizes that when you do a movie, it's not going a 100% perfect replication of real life. The ABC mini-series was more accurate than 99% of movies based on true stories. They got most of the information from the 9/11 commision and from the real players involved.

You probably didn't even watch the mini-series because you probably fell for all the left-wing propagnda about the movie not being 100% accurate. Do you think they were crying because the movie wasn't a perfect re-enactment of real life or because the movie made them look bad? The answer to that is obvious. They wouldn't have complained about the movie at all if it didn't make them look bad. They wouldn't have been crying that a scene was slightly off if it didn't make them look bad. Clinton and his team actually did a great job of fooling people into thinking the movie wasn't accurate when in reality it was very accurate.

Except that things presented in the movie as fact are CONTRADICTED by the 9/11 report. You know what I call that? Lying. More accurate than "99 %" of movies based on true stories? Oh dear. Rupert, I worry for you-- for all your insistence you aren't a typical right-winger, you do seem to have the obsessive hatred for the Clintons that has marked most of them the past six years. It sounds to me like you want to believe the right-wing media that rushed to reassure you that really, this silly "docudrama" wasn't all THAT inaccurate.

If falling for "left-wing propaganda" means demanding the truth, then stick me in with the left-wing loonies, please.

Here's one specific for you from the movie:

<<Nowrasteh's most egregious fictionalizing occurs in Act 4, which depicts a supposed strike on bin Laden's Afghan redoubt that is called off at the last second by Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, who says, "I don't have that authority." Under cover of night, a CIA agent known only as "Kirk" leads a Special Forces team into the remote mountain compound where the al-Qaida chief is hiding. "The package is ready!" cries Kirk over the satellite phone, but Berger aborts the operation because he doesn't want to take responsibility.

That incident simply never occurred. As Clarke himself would have told Nowrasteh, no CIA officer ever tracked bin Laden to his hideout. Neither did Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance leader who is shown guiding the aborted operation. The handsome, charismatic Massoud, later assassinated by al-Qaida agents, asks Kirk angrily, "Are there any men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?" That sort of rhetoric is frequently uttered by actors portraying characters such as Massoud and O'Neill, who are no longer around to dispute the script.

Had Nowrasteh consulted the 9/11 Commission report, not only would he have found no evidence to support his exciting imaginary assault on the bin Laden compound, but he would also have learned that the underlying assumptions were completely wrong. The report states explicitly, as Clarke and other senior officials have affirmed, that Clinton and Berger ordered the CIA and the military to use any force necessary to get bin Laden>>

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Except that things presented in the movie as fact are CONTRADICTED by the 9/11 report. You know what I call that? Lying. More accurate than "99 %" of movies based on true stories? Oh dear. Rupert, I worry for you-- for all your insistence you aren't a typical right-winger, you do seem to have the obsessive hatred for the Clintons that has marked most of them the past six years. It sounds to me like you want to believe the right-wing media that rushed to reassure you that really, this silly "docudrama" wasn't all THAT inaccurate.

If falling for "left-wing propaganda" means demanding the truth, then stick me in with the left-wing loonies, please.

Here's one specific for you from the movie:

<<Nowrasteh's most egregious fictionalizing occurs in Act 4, which depicts a supposed strike on bin Laden's Afghan redoubt that is called off at the last second by Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, who says, "I don't have that authority." Under cover of night, a CIA agent known only as "Kirk" leads a Special Forces team into the remote mountain compound where the al-Qaida chief is hiding. "The package is ready!" cries Kirk over the satellite phone, but Berger aborts the operation because he doesn't want to take responsibility.

That incident simply never occurred. As Clarke himself would have told Nowrasteh, no CIA officer ever tracked bin Laden to his hideout. Neither did Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance leader who is shown guiding the aborted operation. The handsome, charismatic Massoud, later assassinated by al-Qaida agents, asks Kirk angrily, "Are there any men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?" That sort of rhetoric is frequently uttered by actors portraying characters such as Massoud and O'Neill, who are no longer around to dispute the script.

Had Nowrasteh consulted the 9/11 Commission report, not only would he have found no evidence to support his exciting imaginary assault on the bin Laden compound, but he would also have learned that the underlying assumptions were completely wrong. The report states explicitly, as Clarke and other senior officials have affirmed, that Clinton and Berger ordered the CIA and the military to use any force necessary to get bin Laden>>

Sandy Berger would not allow them to kill Bin Laden. That is well-documented. The specific scene in the movie may not have happened exactly that way, but it is well documented that Berger stopped them from killing Bin Laden. Why do you think Berger was stealing documents and stuffing them into his socks?

Right-wing media? What are you smoking? The media has always been dominated by people who identify themselves as liberal democrats.

http://gogov.com/bergerwatch.htm

I absolutely love this one!! Its a great read!!

But genuine!! Sandy said it was just a "mistake'!!! He didnt really mean to take all those documents and he didnt know they were all classfied!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/20/berger.probe/!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sandy scissorhands. Note scum liar Bill Clinton tried to defend him by saying he always had a messy desk.http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...ger_x.htmmessy . Yeah, two peas in a pod. Liars, born liars.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Genuine Risk, I did a search and found several articles that have the information that you are interested in. Go to google.com and do an advanced search with "Berger" in the first line and Bin Laden" in the second line. Then click on the article that is about the 5th article down titled "The Boldness of the President".

This article has a ton of information straight from the 9/11 report. There were no fewer than 4 separate times that Berger was presneted with plans for attacking or capturing Bin Laden and each time Berger was an obstacle to action.

For example, the 9/11 report talks about a meeting between CIA Director Tenet and Berger where Tenet presented Berger with a plan to capture Bin Laden. The report states "In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most on the question of what was to be done with Bin Laden if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Laden was still skimpy and that there was danger of snatching him and bringing him to the US only to see him acquitted."

The article talks about the time where Berger did not want to attack Bin Laden's compound because families lived there and he feared that there could be 60-65 casualties.

Anyway, you can read the article.

[Seattleallstar]

this is all useless, all you folks are doing is googling every god damn thing there is and then using that

[Seattleallstar]

Im the biggest Clinton supporter out there, but he did **** up big time. From Kosovo, Sudan, and waiting to act on Bin Laden. Sandy Berger did him no favors

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Except that things presented in the movie as fact are CONTRADICTED by the 9/11 report. You know what I call that? Lying. More accurate than "99 %" of movies based on true stories? Oh dear. Rupert, I worry for you-- for all your insistence you aren't a typical right-winger, you do seem to have the obsessive hatred for the Clintons that has marked most of them the past six years. It sounds to me like you want to believe the right-wing media that rushed to reassure you that really, this silly "docudrama" wasn't all THAT inaccurate.

If falling for "left-wing propaganda" means demanding the truth, then stick me in with the left-wing loonies, please.

Here's one specific for you from the movie:

<<Nowrasteh's most egregious fictionalizing occurs in Act 4, which depicts a supposed strike on bin Laden's Afghan redoubt that is called off at the last second by Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, who says, "I don't have that authority." Under cover of night, a CIA agent known only as "Kirk" leads a Special Forces team into the remote mountain compound where the al-Qaida chief is hiding. "The package is ready!" cries Kirk over the satellite phone, but Berger aborts the operation because he doesn't want to take responsibility.

That incident simply never occurred. As Clarke himself would have told Nowrasteh, no CIA officer ever tracked bin Laden to his hideout. Neither did Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance leader who is shown guiding the aborted operation. The handsome, charismatic Massoud, later assassinated by al-Qaida agents, asks Kirk angrily, "Are there any men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?" That sort of rhetoric is frequently uttered by actors portraying characters such as Massoud and O'Neill, who are no longer around to dispute the script.

Had Nowrasteh consulted the 9/11 Commission report, not only would he have found no evidence to support his exciting imaginary assault on the bin Laden compound, but he would also have learned that the underlying assumptions were completely wrong. The report states explicitly, as Clarke and other senior officials have affirmed, that Clinton and Berger ordered the CIA and the military to use any force necessary to get bin Laden>>

Genuine I don't know what you are thinking. Its been reported high and low and near and far from too many credible sources that Berger would not allow them to kill Bin laden(and I wonder who was giving him that order?).
Clinton lost it with the fox reporter the other day nad looks very pissed off and unhappy these days. That because hes been exposed.
Berger was trying to take documents with him when he left, now why do you think that was? He just wanted some bathroom reading material?
Please, give me a break will you?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Genuine I don't know what you are thinking. Its been reported high and low and near and far from too many credible sources that Berger would not allow them to kill Bin laden(and I wonder who was giving him that order?).
Clinton lost it with the fox reporter the other day nad looks very pissed off and unhappy these days. That because hes been exposed.
Berger was trying to take documents with him when he left, now why do you think that was? He just wanted some bathroom reading material?
Please, give me a break will you?

Oracle, I stand in honest awe of your razor-sharp mind where racing is concerned, but when it comes to politics, I think you're regurgitating what you're getting off Fox News and not doing any independent thinking of your own. Can you give me any of those "credible sources?" I can claim that "credible sources" say Bush has a hook-shaped penis, but if you asked me to back it up, I'd have some trouble. So, what are those credible sources? If you can come up with sources from "near and far" and "high and low" I will have no trouble admitting I'm wrong and I won't threaten to set you on fire, either. And Fox News doesn't count. Nor does Ann Coulter.

Did you watch the Fox interview? I finally did, today, via Google, and in the entire context of the 15 minutes devoted to Bin Laden, I just didn't see the screaming lunatic that you right-wingers saw. I saw him refuse to get sidetracked by Chris Wallace who was soon backtracking so fast I could see the skid marks (I especially enjoyed watching Wallace gibber when Clinton asked if he asked the Republican guests the same question. Very amusing) and I saw him get pretty aggressive when Wallace tried to change the subject away from the question Wallace asked in the first place. But hey, Wallace asks a very leading questions and then, when the answer isn't going the way he wants, tries to change the subject? Wha?

I find it so funny that right-wingers will watch O'Reilly shout down people and listen to the awful things people like Coulter say but let one Democrat, just one, stand up to bullying and they scream he's being mean and awful.

Anyway, for those who saw only the 10-second blurb Fox showed in promos, here's a link to the 15 minutes of interview. Richard Clarke should send Clinton a gift basket-- he certainly mentions his book often enough.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...inton+fox+news

I look forward to the links to your sources, Oracle. Thanks for the post about the NY bred, by the way-- can't wait to go watch his race.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Oracle, I stand in honest awe of your razor-sharp mind where racing is concerned, but when it comes to politics, I think you're regurgitating what you're getting off Fox News and not doing any independent thinking of your own. Can you give me any of those "credible sources?" I can claim that "credible sources" say Bush has a hook-shaped penis, but if you asked me to back it up, I'd have some trouble. So, what are those credible sources? If you can come up with sources from "near and far" and "high and low" I will have no trouble admitting I'm wrong and I won't threaten to set you on fire, either. And Fox News doesn't count. Nor does Ann Coulter.

Did you watch the Fox interview? I finally did, today, via Google, and in the entire context of the 15 minutes devoted to Bin Laden, I just didn't see the screaming lunatic that you right-wingers saw. I saw him refuse to get sidetracked by Chris Wallace who was soon backtracking so fast I could see the skid marks (I especially enjoyed watching Wallace gibber when Clinton asked if he asked the Republican guests the same question. Very amusing) and I saw him get pretty aggressive when Wallace tried to change the subject away from the question Wallace asked in the first place. But hey, Wallace asks a very leading questions and then, when the answer isn't going the way he wants, tries to change the subject? Wha?

I find it so funny that right-wingers will watch O'Reilly shout down people and listen to the awful things people like Coulter say but let one Democrat, just one, stand up to bullying and they scream he's being mean and awful.

Anyway, for those who saw only the 10-second blurb Fox showed in promos, here's a link to the 15 minutes of interview. Richard Clarke should send Clinton a gift basket-- he certainly mentions his book often enough.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...inton+fox+news

I look forward to the links to your sources, Oracle. Thanks for the post about the NY bred, by the way-- can't wait to go watch his race.

Why do you think Berger was stealing documents if he had nothing to hide?

It has beeen well-publicized that they had a few chances to kill Bin Laden but did not act on it. I was having a debate with a left-wing friend about this subject a few years ago. I told him that I had heard on the news that Clinton had pinpointed OBL's location and chose not to act. My friend actually knew about it. He said the reason given by Clinton for not acting was because there were several women and children in the area and a strike on the compound would have resulted in many casualties to women and children.

Oracle and I do not need to find articles on what is common knowledge. You can look it up yourself.

[Rupert Pupkin]

By the way, it is not surprising that Clinton wants people to read Clarke's book. Overall, Clarke's book was relatively positive on Clinton.

How is Clarke more credible than James Woolsey, who was the CIA Director under Clinton. You obviously haven't heard Woolsey's description of what took place under Clinton with regard to fighting terrorism.

You need to listen to both sides. You seem to think that everyting one side is true and that everything the other side says is lies and propaganda. That is not the case.

By the way, if a docu-drama is done about the Bush Administration, there will several scenes that make Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc look bad. I'm sure they will complain and say that many of the specific scenes in the movie did not happen. I'm sure that would be true that the specific scenes did not happen, yet the overall story would be accurate. I won't be gullible enough to think that the whole docu-drama is inaccuarte just because they complain that certain things didn't happen.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Oracle, I stand in honest awe of your razor-sharp mind where racing is concerned, but when it comes to politics, I think you're regurgitating what you're getting off Fox News and not doing any independent thinking of your own. Can you give me any of those "credible sources?" I can claim that "credible sources" say Bush has a hook-shaped penis, but if you asked me to back it up, I'd have some trouble. So, what are those credible sources? If you can come up with sources from "near and far" and "high and low" I will have no trouble admitting I'm wrong and I won't threaten to set you on fire, either. And Fox News doesn't count. Nor does Ann Coulter.

Did you watch the Fox interview? I finally did, today, via Google, and in the entire context of the 15 minutes devoted to Bin Laden, I just didn't see the screaming lunatic that you right-wingers saw. I saw him refuse to get sidetracked by Chris Wallace who was soon backtracking so fast I could see the skid marks (I especially enjoyed watching Wallace gibber when Clinton asked if he asked the Republican guests the same question. Very amusing) and I saw him get pretty aggressive when Wallace tried to change the subject away from the question Wallace asked in the first place. But hey, Wallace asks a very leading questions and then, when the answer isn't going the way he wants, tries to change the subject? Wha?

I find it so funny that right-wingers will watch O'Reilly shout down people and listen to the awful things people like Coulter say but let one Democrat, just one, stand up to bullying and they scream he's being mean and awful.

Anyway, for those who saw only the 10-second blurb Fox showed in promos, here's a link to the 15 minutes of interview. Richard Clarke should send Clinton a gift basket-- he certainly mentions his book often enough.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...inton+fox+news

I look forward to the links to your sources, Oracle. Thanks for the post about the NY bred, by the way-- can't wait to go watch his race.

Genuine,
I don't rip off anything. I'm a renegade operator. I'm kinda laughing right now because I made my post earlier not realizing that Rupert had posted the same thing about Berger and the documents.
Now, Genuine, please address that issue if you steadfastly believe that noone knew anything.
WHy would Berger try to take documents like that. I remember thinking at the time that something was weird about that. It was only later that all this came to light and I suspected what everyone else then reported, he wanted those documents to cover their asses.
Now, look, if you want me to post you links about Berger's thefts. I can do that.

[Independent George]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Except that things presented in the movie as fact are CONTRADICTED by the 9/11 report. You know what I call that? Lying. More accurate than "99 %" of movies based on true stories? Oh dear. Rupert, I worry for you-- for all your insistence you aren't a typical right-winger, you do seem to have the obsessive hatred for the Clintons that has marked most of them the past six years. It sounds to me like you want to believe the right-wing media that rushed to reassure you that really, this silly "docudrama" wasn't all THAT inaccurate.

If falling for "left-wing propaganda" means demanding the truth, then stick me in with the left-wing loonies, please.

Here's one specific for you from the movie:

<<Nowrasteh's most egregious fictionalizing occurs in Act 4, which depicts a supposed strike on bin Laden's Afghan redoubt that is called off at the last second by Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, who says, "I don't have that authority." Under cover of night, a CIA agent known only as "Kirk" leads a Special Forces team into the remote mountain compound where the al-Qaida chief is hiding. "The package is ready!" cries Kirk over the satellite phone, but Berger aborts the operation because he doesn't want to take responsibility.

That incident simply never occurred. As Clarke himself would have told Nowrasteh, no CIA officer ever tracked bin Laden to his hideout. Neither did Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance leader who is shown guiding the aborted operation. The handsome, charismatic Massoud, later assassinated by al-Qaida agents, asks Kirk angrily, "Are there any men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?" That sort of rhetoric is frequently uttered by actors portraying characters such as Massoud and O'Neill, who are no longer around to dispute the script.

Had Nowrasteh consulted the 9/11 Commission report, not only would he have found no evidence to support his exciting imaginary assault on the bin Laden compound, but he would also have learned that the underlying assumptions were completely wrong. The report states explicitly, as Clarke and other senior officials have affirmed, that Clinton and Berger ordered the CIA and the military to use any force necessary to get bin Laden>>

Now if that's not the pot calling the kettle black.
There hasn't been any "obsessive hatred" of Geo Bush by the left...that's for sure. He has been blamed for everything from errant tornadoes to the Johnstown flood.