Since it seems the Dem's are going to get ABC to edit out the truth, lets look at some more truth.
It is a fact that Clinton could have either had Osama in jail, or killed him. Why does that need to be cut out of the movie? It happened....add a scene where Sandy puts classified documents in his pants, since those guys are so honest and moral. Liberals run to the rescue of career liars.
U.S. drone had Osama onscreen — in 2000
Saturday, September 09, 2006
U.S. drone had Osama onscreen — in 2000
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
OK, I am a little lost. What did we want to blow him away for in 2000? USS Cole?
From one of the linked articles:
In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.
Also, from one of those linked articles, I found this one, which was the next in the series, and details Bush failings, including this one:
By January, there was a new administration. At the urging of the CIA, President Bush decided to arm the Predator with deadly Hellfire missiles, so the next time bin Laden was spotted, the United States could take a shot. But it didn't happen before 9/11.
And another:
[Roger] Cressey is speaking out for the first time. He says in the early days of the Bush administration, al-Qaida simply was not a top priority, “There was not this sense of urgency. The ticking clock, if you will, to get it done sooner rather than later.” [. . .] One document shows a key high-level National Security Council meeting on Iraq on Feb. 1, 2001. Yet, there was no comparable meeting on al-Qaida until September.
Just for, you know, fairness and balance.
More fairness and balance. What about even after 2000?: After all the tough talk of "Wanted Dead or Alive," after the Administration bragged and boasted - they meekly backed off in the mountains of Tora Bora.
Osama bin Laden escaped because the administration held back the best military in the world - our's - and outsourced the job to local militias.
How Bin Laden got away.
He would have at the very least been in jail for life under Clinton if Clinton had been given the chance; as it is now, this pathetic administration can't even catch him when they have him cornered.
What a bunch of putzes. Bunglers. Downright stupid-asses.
The tora bora thing was definately a mistake...I don't know why, but Bush can worry to much about what the PC crowd and liberals are going to say about him. He was trying to let Pakistan have more control over the mission...you are do ready to provide links against Bush, but none against Clinton...yes, you guys are fair and balanced....NOT
Well, y'know what they say.
Nothing decent worth linking to on Bush.
dedanna--
You've been misinformed. Here is an op-ed in the New York Times by Tommy Franks setting the record straight.
For Jay and others,
Your reminders of Bush's "failures" are wasted here. We who support his efforts are well aware of how far from perfect he is. When you find a war that was perfectly fought, let us know. The mini-series in question is not holding him up as blameless in the lead up to 9/11. This has been noted repeatedly. Now it's getting redundant. So as far as the whining from the Clinton camp, they oughta back off and wait to see how the film turns out. If there are truly inaccuracies, they can answer with their proof later. As blogs like this one prove, the lefties will believe the left, and those on the right will believe those on the right. But everyone will believe good evidence and testimony.
True, but how is the public to be assured that this movie presents either?
"True, but how is the public to be assured that this movie presents either?"
It is called *thinking*. I trust the people, not a government board that censors for political correctness. We don't need government to make sure people like Michael Moore don't spread falsehoods -- media productions should be allowed to stand on their own merit.
Why are Democrats against freedom?
like I have said many times on this, both sides are blamed, but trying to take out any blame of Clinton is just stupid since he was the President for 8 years before 9-11...
NOBODY, I repeat, NOBODY has claimed Clinton is blameless. As usual you present a false premise.
then what is the problem with the show?
The problem with the show as I understand it (and I have seen a few scenes) is that it purports as "The Official True Story" events and conversations that are not only untrue but are contrary to The 9/11 Commission Report. They are included not simply to place blame on Clinton and his administration (which is justified), but to smear the people who are falsely dipicted (which in NOT).
How hard is THAT to understand?
When you watch tonight, Game, be sure to be prepared because when you see the mock assassination of Bill Clinton, you may hurt yourself with your excitement.
what parts are contrary to The 9/11 Commission Report...
I DVR'd it, watching FB, probably watch the whole thing tuesday
14 comments and nobody answered my question?
How many threads later, and still no one's answered mine, either...
I can't believe all this. I didn't even watch the damned thing lol. Didn't care at the time. lol.
Post a Comment