Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Olbermann rants, calls Chris Wallace a "monkey"
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Stunningly vicious and, as usual, dead wrong, Keith Olbermann speaks out, this time giving his opinion on the Clinton interview on Fox News Sunday.

First he attacks Chris Wallace:
It is not essential that a past president, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.
Can he get anymore demeaning and juvenile than this? Can he?

This presages a commentary to be taken seriously?

Amazing.
Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I in one moment surrendered all my credibility as a journalist, and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail.
Obviously Olbermann should have been in his new career for months, if not years. He irredeemably humiliates himself nightly (and this rant is no exception).

Anyone who has actually looked into this story understands that the interview ground rules stipulated a half-and-half split between talking about the Clinton global initiative and whatever Wallace wanted to ask about. Both sides acknowledge that without question.

As many have pointed out, but obviously missed by Olbermann, everyone in the room knew what the optional subject would be. We'd just seen two weeks of the ex-President reacting forcefully to ABC's "Path to 9/11". To pretend, as Olbermann does, that Clinton was "sandbagged", is to be politically naive to the point of cluelessness or purposely disingenuous. I'd have to say it is the latter. I'd also point out that is absolutely nothing new for Olbermann.

He then tries to pull the viewer into his own little self-deluded world in order to set up the rest of his rant. If you don't buy into this view, then what follows from him seems unbalanced, to be charitable:
Our tone should be crazed. The nation’s freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as al Qaida; the nation’s marketplace of ideas is being poisoned by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would’ve quit.
If you should ever look up the definition of moral relativism, it wouldn't surprise me to see this paragraph used as the example.

Olbermann has become infamous for throwing rhetorical bombs like this and making outrageous and fallacious arguments but never, ever being able to back them with those niggling little things called facts.

In fact (no pun intended), if you read him or listen to him long enough, you realize real facts are a terrible inconvenience to Olbermann. While he understands their utility, he's not necessarily that enamored with real facts.

That doesn't mean, however, he's not above pushing assertions as 'facts' if he feels he can spin them productively and properly and they fit his agenda. For instance, Olbermann slavishly presents this as "fact":
He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.

"At least I tried," he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. "That’s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried."
But as the record shows, Clinton really didn't try. At all. Oh he had a lot of plans drawn up, and he passed laws and had talks with his advisors, but "tried" means you actually did something to bring resolution to a problem. "Tried" means you actually executed a plan but may have failed in that execution. There is no record of that occurring (and tossing a couple of cruise missiles in the general vicinity of a location bin Laden is suspected of having been at one time or another doesn't qualify as 'trying' either). Nothing supports the Clinton claim that he actually tried at all to get bin Laden.

But "tried" apparently satisfies Clinton apologists - and Bush haters like Olbermann - who never look any deeper. Those inconvenient facts may pop up when least desired. Nope, "tried" is good enough, even if it isn't true. Results aren't what count in their world. Just intent. He 'tried', even if he didn't. It's just acceptable enough as an excuse to shift the blame.

And that brings us to his part of his screed which is my favorite:

Show/Hide

Eight months v. eight years, but it is all Bush's fault. Clinton "tried". He never honestly did a single thing to actually get bin Laden, his intelligence apparatus was completely clueless about the building 9/11 threat and his staff admitted to never turning over a coherent plan to the incoming administration as he claims, but Clinton "tried" and Bush had eight months for heaven sake!

The irony here is he doesn't even recognize that his argument damns Clinton even more than have his political enemies. Had FDR ended his presidency prior to Dec. 7th 1941, would Olbermann have absolved him of blame for Pearl Harbor?

No. Nor would any other rational human being. Would FDR have had no responsibility for the years he spent ignoring the warning signs and the outcome of doing so?

Of course not.

If ever there was "bleating, whining and bullying" on display, it occurred on Fox News Sunday in the guise of Bill Clinton claiming things not in evidence and attempting to intimidate the interviewer, have the last word and rewrite history.

And Olbermann is so lost in his own little world of hate for Bush he hasn't the intellectual horsepower to sift that out and understand it.

You can read the rest if you have the stomach, but as much as I can't stand Bill O'Reilly, I can certainly understand why he wipes his feet on Keith Olbermann during their shared timeslot.

Perhaps it's time for Olbermann to seriously consider the career change he suggested for the "monkey" who so badly outclasses him in every way.

That's my 2 cents.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
But "tried" apparently satisfies Clinton apologists - and Bush haters like Olbermann - who never look any deeper. Those inconvenient facts may pop up when least desired. Nope, "tried" is good enough, even if it isn’t true. Results aren’t what count in their world. Just intent. He ’tried’, even if he didn’t.
Time for the wisdom of Yoda - ’do or do not - there is no try’
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Who led the witch hunt during the Lewinsky years? Who condemned Clinton for attacking Bin Laden camp in Afganistan, calling it a "Wag the Dog" scenario?

You "Bush Bot yes men" showcase the epitome of hypocrisy. If you believe torture is an American value, go ahead; keep supporting the most dangerous man this world has seen since Adolf Hitler. Worship the yellow ribbon and Fox News propaganda machine.

Keith is right - Bush is perhaps more dangerous than Osama himself.

Perhaps you should go pick up a copy of 1984.
 
Written By: Shpongled
URL: http://
Can he get anymore demeaning and juvenile than this? Can he?
Well he did call O’Reiley a Nazi...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Who condemned Clinton for attacking Bin Laden camp in Afganistan, calling it a "Wag the Dog" scenario?
Not leading Republicans. Idiot.
If you believe torture is an American value
The writers of this blog have always argued against torture. Idiot.
the most dangerous man this world has seen since Adolf Hitler
’Nuff said. Idiot.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Keith is right - Bush is perhaps more dangerous than Osama himself.
I love it when someone proves my point about moral relativism. And note the lack of specifics, just like Olbermann. Facts? They don’t need no stinkin’ facts.

Oh ... thank you.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Facts? Like yellow cake and WMD? Or stains on the blue dress? Pick your fancy.

A recent CIA report (in case your head is completely buried) states that Bush’s actions have created an enormous number of future terrorists who would love to take part in future operations against Americans.

Bush lied, his war is worthless and pointless, he advocates torture, and if you support Bush, you hate America. PERIOD.
 
Written By: Shpongled
URL: http://
Eight months v. eight years, but it is all Bush’s fault. Clinton "tried".
More like Five months.
I remember that during the first few months of Bush administration that the democrats delayed the setup of his cabinet/administrations till believing that Al Gore won.
You "Bush Bot yes men" showcase the epitome of hypocrisy.
So if you defend Bush you are a "Bush Bot".
What does that make the knee jerk Clinton defenders?
Clinton Bots?

 
Written By: Paul L.
URL: http://kingdomofidiots.blogspot.com/
you hate America. PERIOD
Well, that’s it then. Game Over. The cat’s out of the bag.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Reminder: clinton isn’t president. He doesn’t need dramatic fake news, a team of robots, and silly divisive issues like gay marriage and flag burning to rally his masses.
 
Written By: Shpongled
URL: http://
A recent CIA report (in case your head is completely buried) states that Bush’s actions have created an enormous number of future terrorists who would love to take part in future operations against Americans.
Do you mean the National Intelligence Estimate?

National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) express the coordinated judgments of the US Intelligence Community made up of 16 intelligence agencies, and thus represent the most authoritative assessment of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) with respect to a particular national security issue. NIEs are considered to be "estimative" intelligence products, in that they present what intelligence analysts estimate (not predict) may be the course of future events. Coordination of NIEs involves not only trying to resolve any interagency differences, but also assigning confidence levels to the key judgments and rigorously evaluating the sourcing for them. Each NIE is reviewed and approved for dissemination by the National Intelligence Board (NIB), which is comprised of the DNI and other senior Intelligence Community leaders within the Intelligence Community
 
Written By: Paul L.
URL: http://kingdomofidiots.blogspot.com/
Um, Shpongled, the CIA report you’re probably referencing is a still-classified NIE and we don’t know what it says. We know what reporters chose to report about how a few people (who were not supposed to be discussing it) characterized the report, but we don’t have the faintest idea what the NIE said because it’s still classified.

Oh, and I found it ironic that someone who complains about "facts" proceeds to to produce no evidence for his/her/its last statement, all of which is demonstrably false.

But, thanks for playing, and do try again later.
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
A recent CIA report (in case your head is completely buried) states that Bush’s actions have created an enormous number of future terrorists who would love to take part in future operations against Americans.
Sure. Would you be so kind to explain why invading Iraq generates all these "future terrorists" while invading Afghanistan doesn’t. Do you think that we should have done neither?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
silly divisive issues like gay marriage and flag burning
Dude, you don’t even know on what kind of blog you’re posting, do you?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
We should have killed Bin Laden. Invading an occupying Middle Eastern countries traditionally has been a very big mistake for Western powers.

Bush has killed thousands upon thousands of people in Iraq, raped their young girls, tortured the innocent, and built large imperial bases throughout the country. He has made the United States a LAUGHING STOCK.

How about Clinton’s plan of special ops commandos dropping out of the sky and taking the head off the snake? No, instead we have to waste billions of dollars and thousands of lives on the most ridiculous military operation perhaps the world has ever seen. We’re talking a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY WITH NO MILITARY that has basically crippled the US Military and made the United States the laughing stock of the entire world. And you still sit here and treat him like he is God! Shame!
 
Written By: Shpongled
URL: http://
YA, sure, but the fact is that, even as you say that Clinton’s record might be suspect when it comes to Bin Laden and stopping terrorism, the truth is also that Bush didn’t. He did not have one meeting on terroism before 9/11, and how long was Bush on vacation the month before the terrorist attacked? He did nothing.
 
Written By: chris
URL: http://
We’re talking a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY WITH NO MILITARY that has basically crippled the US Military and made the United States the laughing stock of the entire world. And you still sit here and treat him like he is God! Shame!
Funny, I remember the anti-war types predicting we would lose 50,000 troops in the house to house fighting in Baghdad.
 
Written By: Paul L.
URL: http://kingdomofidiots.blogspot.com/
Not leading Republicans.
Let’s see. Bob Livingston, Trent Lott. Just the incoming Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader.

But I guess those aren’t leading Republicans.
The writers of this blog have always argued against torture.


Not really. They actively support an ideology that is gung-ho on torture. One is taking money from a pro-torture candidate.
 
Written By: Jadegold
URL: http://
Shpongled,

Um, very few of us here approve of President Bush consistently, let alone treat him like God!

I also doubt seriously that he has personally killed any Iraqis, raped any young girls, tortured the innocent, or built any bases.

But, you know, I do admire your zeal.
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
A recent CIA report (in case your head is completely buried) states that Bush’s actions have created an enormous number of future terrorists who would love to take part in future operations against Americans.
Actually that would be the NIE and we’ve covered it extensively.

Speaking of head’s being buried, it would be nice if just once, a critic, such as yourself, took the time to familiarize himself with a blog and it’s topics before going off half-cocked and making himself out to be, well, less than a stellar intellect.

I mean if they actually want to be taken seriously instead of just presenting the talking points they were given.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Clinton Tried, Iraqis Died

Clinton Lied, Iraqis Died

Clinton Tried, Americans Died
 
Written By: Slogan for 2008
URL: http://
Reminder: clinton isn’t president. He doesn’t need dramatic fake news, a team of robots, and silly divisive issues like gay marriage and flag burning to rally his masses.
Wow. So this is your answer?

Just "wow".
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Looks like Lewinsky isn’t the only one who likes to s*ck Clintons slick willie....
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
He has made the United States a LAUGHING STOCK
Wait...I thought the world hated the US because of Bush. Now I’m finding out that we are really a laughing stock? Man, it’s all so confusing for my small mind.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
We should have killed Bin Laden.
So should have Clinton. Why didn’t he? And should he absolved of all blame for not doing so? Why is he absolved, by the likes of you and Olbermann, of any responsibility for 9/11?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Clinton Tried, Americans Died
Uh, no. Instead:

Clinton Didn’t Try, Americans Died
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Bush has killed thousands upon thousands of people in Iraq, raped their young girls, tortured the innocent, and built large imperial bases throughout the country. He has made the United States a LAUGHING STOCK.
BUSH has done all this, and no one knows, I guess except Laura, Rove and Cheney? When does he find the time?
How about Clinton’s plan of special ops commandos dropping out of the sky and taking the head off the snake?
Yeah how about that PLAN... a plan, NOT an operation.... Clinton "planned" to do it, some day, just like I plan to bag Anna Nicole Smith...some day. Plan in one hand Sh*t in the other, tell me which one fills first! Clinton "tried" Bush has actually done something...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
McQ-

You should know better than to try to engage these idiots.

It’s folly.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The writers of this blog have always argued against torture.
Not really. They actively support an ideology that is gung-ho on torture. One is taking money from a pro-torture candidate.
Huh. They actively support what ideology? And what is Webb’s position on the issue? Please share.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Shpongled is really Keith Olberman, They have exactly the same grasp of the facts.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Not really. They actively support an ideology that is gung-ho on torture.
Prove it.

Or shut up.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
NO!

Do or Do Not.

There is no Try.

 
Written By: Yoda is a Neocon Warmonger
URL: http://
You should know better than to try to engage these idiots.

It’s folly.
Actually it’s quite useful. They’re doing a great job of proving every point I’ve ever made about them in one comment thread.

That’s what I call efficiency. ;)
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Not leading Republicans.

Let’s see. Bob Livingston, Trent Lott. Just the incoming Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader.

But I guess those aren’t leading Republicans.
Quotes please? Here’s mine for Lott:
But most lawmakers from both parties were quick to rally behind Clinton in a deluge of public statements and appearances yesterday...

"I think the president did exactly the right thing," House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said of the bombing attacks. "By doing this we’re sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists."

Gingrich said he was told "very precise details" of the attack before it occurred, and praised Clinton’s aides for being "sensitive to making sure we were not blindsided in this." Other congressional leaders, several of whom were on vacation or difficult to locate, said the White House had made an effort to notify them before the attacks.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) called the attacks "appropriate and just," and House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said "the American people stand united in the face of terrorism."
Let’s see...you have Bob Livingston allegedly saying something about "Wag the Dog."

I have Gingrich, Lott, Armey, and "most Republicans" supporting Clinton’s bombing in Afghanistan and Sudan.

Hmmm...I future leader vs. 3 current leaders and "most Republicans." You da man, Jadegold!

** Lott later made a "Wag The Dog" reference when Clinton began bombing Iraq, but you’re not suggesting that Osama had any connection to Iraq, are you Jadegold?

 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
actually...

Clinton Planned on Trying, Americans died...

Clinton tried, People died (just not the ones we wanted...)

As has been said ad nauseum here on other threads.

THERE’S PLENTY OF BLAME TO GO AROUND

With regards to terrorism, you can start back farther then Clinton to find the roots of our current problems.

To many POLITICIANS, not enough LEADERS.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://
Clinton Planned on Trying
He tried to try, but trying sometimes leads to failing, which leads to a downtick in polling, which was something Clinton didn’t want to risk, especially when he could pass the time with the zaftig intern hiding under his desk
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Clinton TRIED harder on THIS than anythng he’s EVER tried on.... or was that tax cuts, I get confused.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Wow, sure got quiet in here all of the sudden.
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
Had FDR not been president on Dec. 7th 1942, would Olbermann have absolved him of blame for Pearl Harbor?
Who knows. Seems like the more relevant question is whether he would have blamed FDR if he hadn’t been president a year earlier, when Pearl Harbor was actually bombed.

Anyway, for years, the left has had to endure Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh, Coulter, and the rest of the gashouse gang. Limbaugh called Chelsea Clinton - who was 13 at the time - the white house dog. Coulter called Gore "a total fag." And the list of Savage’s insults is too long to reprint.


Then Olbermann comes along and gives wingers a taste of their own medicine. And what’s their response? Whine about how mean he is being.

Boo hoo.

Talk about thin skinned.

BTW, what did Bush do about OBL between 1/20/01 and 9/10/01? Just curious.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
"How about Clinton’s plan of special ops commandos dropping out of the sky and taking the head off the snake?"

You mean this plan? The one with all the military acumen of a 10 year old boy playing Dungeons and Dragons? That’s your idea of a winning military strategy?

McQ, maybe you need to post some ground rules, such as "no one with less of a grasp on reality than mkultra can comment here."
 
Written By: Christopher
URL: http://
BTW, what did Bush do about OBL between 1/20/01 and 9/10/01? Just curious.

Not as much as he did starting 9-12-01 MK, and from 9-12-01 he’s done MORE than Clinton did.

Plus I love this, "Bush was in office 8 months. what did he do?" Clinton was in office 8 YEARS, what did he do, Ken, MK, Shpongled? Oh yes, he had some successes but did he in any way reduce Al-Quaeda? Bottom-Line: 8 months v. 96 months, tell me who had the better chance of acheiving anything?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Ah yes Clinton, that last ditch of Republican Rhetoric. When Republicans start waving Clinton around you can be sure they’re all out of real arguments.

Where’s Bin Ladin 5 years after 9/11/2001?
Clinton didn’t get him either.

3000 Americans killed on your watch, what the h*ll happened?
It was Clinton. He cut and ran in Solalia. Emboldened them.

Why did we invade Iraq again?
Clinton was for regime change there too, ya know. He just didn’t invade.

Where are those stockpiles of NBC weapons?
Clinton thought Saddam was hiding weapons too, ya know.

When will we be done in Iraq?
Clinton wanted to stay in Somalia, ya know.

Didn’t Bush say the Federal government would have enough revenue to pay down the debt, run a surplus, and cut taxes? What happened?
Do you know what Clinton once did with a cigar?

Why are you supporting a guy who’s grown spending faster than anybody in twenty years, created a massive new federal bureaucracy, and a massive new entitlement?
Ack! Blue Dress! Blue Dress! Blow Jobs and Blue Dresses!

When Republicans start talking about Clinton, it is because they can’t defend the substance of whatever Bush policy or failure they’re talking about. It’s been six years since Clinton had an influence on the direction of the country. When is your boy Bush going to actually start to have an impact?

 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Then Olbermann comes along and gives wingers a taste of their own medicine. And what’s their response? Whine about how mean he is being.
Ah you’re back with the old "but the right did it" defense.

How freakin’ predictable. What, is this red herring 1,340 or 1,341 that MK’s thrown out here? They’ve been coming so fast and furious lately I may have lost count.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Pssst McQ, It was Dec. 7th 1941.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
McQ, maybe you need to post some ground rules, such as "no one with less of a grasp on reality than mkultra can comment here."
This would be an awful quiet place if I did that.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
When Republicans start waving Clinton around you can be sure they’re all out of real arguments.
Huh?

Gee, Retief, if I’m not mistaken, Clinton was waving Clinton around. And you’re right about one thing. He is completely out of arguments and is making stuff up of whole cloth and on the fly now.

Don’t know about you, but for a blogger, that’s blog fodder.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Pssst McQ, It was Dec. 7th 1941.
You’ve been waiting for something like that, haven’t you Lance? ;)
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Yeah Retief, we like to trot out Clinton when people like you and Kerry start talking about how Bush "lied" and then suddenly we discover what Kerry and others said when CLINTON was President. What you guys don’t like is being shown up for the hypocrites you are.
3000 Americans killed on your watch, what the h*ll happened?
The planning for which began UNDER Clinton, or did you forget this?
Why did we invade Iraq again?
Clinton was for regime change there too, ya know. He just didn’t invade.
Yeah he just signed bills calling for regime change but wouldn’t actually DO anything about the dictator in Baghdad.
Where are those stockpiles of NBC weapons?
Clinton thought Saddam was hiding weapons too, ya know.
Yes and it’s why the Democrats all backed him over his Iraq policy...but strangely can’t bring themselves to actually back policy that CHANGES things in Iraq....
When will we be done in Iraq?
Clinton wanted to stay in Somalia, ya know.

He DID, news to me.... check out the related threads.
Didn’t Bush say the Federal government would have enough revenue to pay down the debt, run a surplus, and cut taxes? What happened?
Do you know what Clinton once did with a cigar?
You mean like IS CURRENTLY HAPPENING? Oh I’m sorry the facts are strange things to you aren’t they? And about that cigar thing Retief, what did the NOW-gang do to one Republican Senator for his sexual harassment of his staff? Now compare that to the "One free grope role" thta emerged under Clinton, please q.v. "hypocrisy".
Why are you supporting a guy who’s grown spending faster than anybody in twenty years, created a massive new federal bureaucracy, and a massive new entitlement?
Ack! Blue Dress! Blue Dress! Blow Jobs and Blue Dresses!
Funny I don’t recall Blue Dress being mentioned, I DO recall EIGHT YEARS OF FAILURE TO DEAL WITH USAMA AND GLOBAL TERRORISM, being mentioned, though. You may wish to continue to demonize Ken Starr and imagine that sexually harassing a women 1/2 his age is the sum total of Clinton’s faults but to the rest of us, well some other short-comings are much more apparent today.

Finally Clinton PLACED HIMSELF IN THE SPOT LIGHT, the Republicans didn’t. CLINTON decided he’d go postal on Chris Wallace, you might have forgotten that. IF Bill kept his head down and mouth shut he’d have no problems, but he can’t DO that.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Not as much as he did starting 9-12-01 MK, and from 9-12-01 he’s done MORE than Clinton did.
Right. That was my point. Wingers might have a case against Clinton if Bush came into office with guns a blazing for OBL. But he didn’t. He did nothing. If the Cole bombing was justification to go after OBL, as wingers persistently claim, then why didn’t Bush make getting OBL his first priority upon taking office.
Plus I love this, "Bush was in office 8 months. what did he do?" Clinton was in office 8 YEARS, what did he do, Ken, MK, Shpongled? Oh yes, he had some successes but did he in any way reduce Al-Quaeda? Bottom-Line: 8 months v. 96 months, tell me who had the better chance of acheiving anything?


During the Clinton administration, four bombers responsbile for the embassay bombings in Africa were captured and put away for life. A similar fate happened to many of those associated with the 1993 WTC bombings. When Clinton did attempt to kill OBL, his motivations were attacked by Senators Coats and Specter.

Under Clinton, the annual anti-terrorism budget tripled. Here is Bush’s record prior to 9/11 - From the WaPO
Yet a careful review of the Bush administration’s early record on terrorism finds more continuity than change from the Clinton years, measured in actions taken and decisions made. Where the new team shifted direction, it did not always choose a more aggressive path:

The administration did not resume its predecessor’s covert deployment of cruise missile submarines and gunships, on six-hour alert near Afghanistan’s borders. The standby force gave Clinton the option, never used, of an immediate strike against targets in al Qaeda’s top leadership. The Bush administration put no such capability in place before Sept. 11.

At least twice, Bush conveyed the message to the Taliban that the United States would hold the regime responsible for an al Qaeda attack. But after concluding that bin Laden’s group had carried out the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole – a conclusion stated without hedge in a Feb. 9 briefing for Vice President Cheney – the new administration did not choose to order armed forces into action.

In the spring, CIA officers traveled into northern Afghanistan to assess rebel forces commanded by Ahmed Shah Massoud. They found him worse than he had appeared the autumn before. The agency gave Massoud cash and supplies in small amounts in exchange for intelligence on al Qaeda but did not have the authority to build back his fighting strength against the Taliban.

In his first budget, Bush spent $13.6 billion on counterterrorist programs across 40 departments and agencies. That compares with $12 billion in the previous fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget. There were also somewhat higher gaps this year, however, between what military commanders said they needed to combat terrorists and what they got. When the Senate Armed Services Committee tried to fill those gaps with $600 million diverted from ballistic missile defense, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said he would recommend a veto. That threat came Sept. 9.

On May 8, Bush announced a new Office of National Preparedness for terrorism at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. At the same time, he proposed to cut FEMA’s budget by $200 million. Bush said that day that Cheney would direct a government-wide review on managing the consequences of a domestic attack, and "I will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts." Neither Cheney’s review nor Bush’s took place.

Bush did not speak again publicly of the dangers of terrorism before Sept. 11, except to promote a missile shield that had been his top military priority from the start. At least three times he mentioned "terrorist threats that face us" to explain the need to discard the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

The Treasury Department created a new deputy assistant secretary’s post last summer to coordinate anti-terrorist efforts among its five enforcement arms, and it took the first steps toward hosting a Foreign Terrorist Assets Tracking Center. It also spent months fending off the new laws and old global institutions that are central to the war against al Qaeda’s financing. Unresolved interagency disputes left the administration without a position on legislative initiatives to combat money laundering. And until the summer, Treasury Secretary Paul H. O’Neill suspended U.S. participation in allied efforts to penetrate offshore banking havens, whose secrecy protects the cash flows of drug traffickers, tax evaders and terrorists.

At the nexus of law enforcement and intelligence, where the United States has concentrated its work against al Qaeda since 1998, a longtime senior participant said he observed no essential change after the White House passed to new occupants.

"Ninety-nine point-something percent of the work going on and the decisions being made would have continued to be made whether or not we had an election," the career officer said. "I have a real difficult time pointing to anything from January 20th to September 10th that can be said to be a Bush initiative, or something that wouldn’t have happened anyway."
In short, Bush went backwards. He withdrew covert deployment of missles. He left higher gaps in anti-terrorist funding. He suspended policing of money laundering. He proposed cutting FEMA funding. He did nothing about the Cole bombing - after it was confirmed who was responsible.

Sorry wingers - your boy was more clueless than Clinton ever was when it came to terrorism prior to 9/11.

Facts suck, huh?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
MK one unalterable fact.... CLINTON HAD 8 YEARS TO ACT EFFECTIVELY AGAINST AQ. He did not. Facts SUCK huh....?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
his motivations were attacked by Senators Coats and Specter
Yeah, I bet that really hurt...Clinton never got over the brutal Coats/Specter lashing. D@mn them!
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Yeah, I bet that really hurt...Clinton never got over the brutal Coats/Specter lashing. D@mn them!

And probably by then the intern thing was public and he had no...consolation. I blame Coats and Specter for 9-11! If ONLY these vicious right-wing extremists had not been persecuting the First Black President, Usama would be in jail right now.

Speaking of the First Black President, and hoping to link a number of threads, what did Senator Allen say of Bill Clinton?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
MK one unalterable fact.... CLINTON HAD 8 YEARS TO ACT EFFECTIVELY AGAINST AQ. He did not. Facts SUCK huh....?
It remains astonishing to me that those like MK believe the dots only showed up when Bush took office. And they further believe, given no work done or any plan in existence by the prior administration, that an administration which was still filling vacancies and just beginning to govern is somehow more culpable in the failures that lead to 9/11 than the one which had 8 prior years to do something about it and didn’t.

But then they’re from the "reality based" community, which, in truth, has become a joke as well as a pejorative term used, with scare quotes, to mean the opposite of its supposed true definition.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The standby force gave Clinton the option, never used, of an immediate strike against targets in al Qaeda’s top leadership.
Emphasis added. Have a nice day!
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
McQ, you’re right that Clinton was waving Clinton around. And that is perfectly good blogfodder. But please see Joe proving my point a few posts up by consistently using whining about Clinton to avoid questions he has no answers for. Oh, except when he claims we are currently running a budget surplus, and paying down the national debt.

Clinton no doubt cares about Clinton’s anti-terrorist record. But nobody else does except for those who want to distract the public from talking about Bush’s anti-terrorist record. That is the only point to bringing up Clinton. If people are talking about where Osama was in 1998 they’re not talking about where he is today. The fact that he is free today and more likely to die of old age than to be caught by Bush is inexcusable. Not even Clinton’s sins can cover that up.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Facts suck, huh?
And now it’s time to play MK’s favorite game..."Name That Antecedent!"

I’m amused that MK thinks he’s found a fact. It’s hilarious that he thinks he’s discovered one.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
But please see Joe proving my point a few posts up by consistently using whining about Clinton to avoid questions he has no answers for.

No MY side provided answers, YOUR side just tried... hard, but only tried. YOUR side just likes to whine and complain, and then when your hypocrisy is pointed out you like to whine and moan about THAT, too.
Oh, except when he claims we are currently running a budget surplus, and paying down the national debt.

We aren’t....Funny I thought receipts were exceeding expenditures, the definition of a SURPLUS, and so the papers were wrong the Deficit is NOT falling? Now to be fair, before Jon Henke jumps in, the LONG-TERM trend(s) is darn grim, on Medicare and Social Security, but in the short- to medium-term Retief that whole "fact" thing sure does look to be true.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Ya wanna talk about Bushes anti-terror record...

More terrorists have died from Bushes efforts then Clintons efforts...

That is a record he can stand on.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://
You’ve been waiting for something like that, haven’t you Lance? ;)


Hee, Hee. I guess I can now get those images of massed Sherman tanks along the border of Turkey out of my nightmares;^)
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
It remains astonishing to me that those like MK believe the dots only showed up when Bush took office. And they further believe, given no work done or any plan in existence by the prior administration, that an administration which was still filling vacancies and just beginning to govern is somehow more culpable in the failures that lead to 9/11 than the one which had 8 prior years to do something about it and didn’t.
As I explained, documented, and detailed, the Bush administration did do something immediately after taking office. It went backwards. Not just inaction. But worse. And I notice that no one, including you, McQ, has made any effort to refute the factual assertions on which I rely to back up my claim.

No. Single. Refutation. Just name calling. Ironically enough, in a post bemoaning name calling.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ..... why should I expect anything more.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Joe, do you really not know the difference between the federal budget and Social Security?

Keith, I’m so glad that more terrorists have died. So have more Americans, English, Spanish, and Balinese/Australians. Not to mention more Iraqis. And Al Qaeda has metastasized. Heckuva job.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Non-GOP non-leaders not accusing President Clinton of ’wagging the dog:’
"We have had either hostilities or threatened hostilities at interesting times throughout the last year"
Bob ’Whip It Good’ Livingston.
"While I have been assured by administration officials that there is no connection with the impeachment process ... [b]oth the timing and the policy are subject to question"
Trent ’Strom’s no. 1 Fan’ Lott
"The suspicion some people have about the president’s motives in this attack is itself a powerful argument for impeachment"
The aptly named Dick Armey


McQ:

Let us examine why I can assert you and Henke support torture.

First, Henke is shilling for a candidate who has supported Bush’s desire to torture without reservation.

Second, you devote much of your blogging time supporting and defending one GWBush who is an advocate of torture. This suggests only two possibilities: you, too, support torture or you don’t support torture but don’t consider the issue important enough to discontine your Bush-worship.
 
Written By: jadegold
URL: http://
The aptly named Dick Armey
Your quote refers to bombing Iraq. I guess you think either Osama was in Iraq or else Iraq was a threat?
Trent ’Strom’s no. 1 Fan’ Lott
Your quote refers to bombing Iraq. I guess you think either Osama was in Iraq or else Iraq was a threat?
Bob ’Whip It Good’ Livingston.
I already said Livingston was one of the FEW Republicans who criticized Clinton for bombing Afghanistan and Sudan.

Clearly we must conclude the Jadegold believes there was a connection between Osama and Iraq.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
I notice that no one, including you, McQ, has made any effort to refute the factual assertions on which I rely to back up my claim [that Bush was more clueless than Clinton ever was when it came to terrorism prior to 9/11].
I notice that MK is as clueless as always. It’s noticable that MK is always clueless.

Where are the arguments from QandO that Bush was attacking the problem any better than Clinton before 9/11? It’s been repreatedly said that Bush did not take terrorism seriously enough before 9/11.

The point that Clinton lovers can’t accept is that Clinton did not make serious attempts to kill Osama when he had the chance. THAT is the argument. We all agree that Bush wasn’t going after Osama during his first 8 months in office.

Argue the point: Clinton said he tried. Provide evidence of that.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ..... why should I expect anything more.
MK, we don’t expect much from you, and we’re not surprised when you can’t follow the argument, but it’s really embarrassing to watch you make a fool of yourself. Seriously.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
you don’t support torture but don’t consider the issue important enough to discontine your Bush-worship
I guess we should assume 100% policy support for every politician Jadegold defends for whatever reason!

Well, either that, or we should assume Jadegold is really an illogical, fact-challenged, shallow-thinking ignoramus.

Either way is good for me.

BTW, Jadegold: How is that belief in the "fairly frequent" operation of Swiftboats in Cambodia coming?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Clinton no doubt cares about Clinton’s anti-terrorist record.
Of course he does. But that doesn’t mean he gets to tell only his side of the story, no matter how badly he’d like to have it that way.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Ya wanna talk about Bushes anti-terror record...

More terrorists have died from Bushes efforts then Clintons efforts...

That is a record he can stand on.
If you kill 100,000 people, you are bound to get some terrorists, but Bush’s job is not a video game where if you kill enough terrorists, you win. Bush’s policy clearly has radicalized previously moderate Muslims, creating new terrorists faster than we can kill them.

Bush’s job is to eliminate the threat of terrorism, to stop terror attacks, and what Bush is doing is the accomplishing the opposite of what he should be accomplishing, namely, reducing the threat.

Bush’s record, helping to recruit record numbers of terrorists across the globe.

That is record he can run on... somewhere that people like seeing Americans killed.
But that doesn’t mean he gets to tell only his side of the story, no matter how badly he’d like to have it that way.
Are you kidding?

We have heard the Republican spin for 5 years and rarely hear Clinton’s "side" of the story. That’s what makes this a story, it’s new and different.

If we heard more of the same, "Clinton missed every chance to get OBL and was responsible for 9/11 because he failed" it would not have been a story, it would have been the same tired, false, propaganda we are subjected to every day.

It’s about time Clinton stopped being the statesman ex-President while he is being smeared. I hope we see a lot more of it because sadly, there are not enough Democrats who are very good at these kinds of confrontations.

If Bush and company were just incompetent, I could probably excuse that, but to be bad at your job and lie and blame your failure on others is just inexcusable.

Wow, when I was a Republican we actually believed that accountability and personal responsibility meant something. When I was a Republican, Republican actually were more honest than Democrats. Now the RNC is a pure political machine, accumulate power, and win elections, power for power’s sake.

Cap

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
I guess we should assume 100% policy support for every politician Jadegold defends for whatever reason!
Of course not. However, rest assured, I wouldn’t support any politico who advocates torture. I may agree with 99.99% of whatever else said politico advocates but if he or she supports torture...

Racism gets the same litmus test.

As for the Swiftboat Liars, well, it’s well established they are liars. Incursions into Cambodia, via Swiftboats, are well-documented. Tell you what, though, here’s a challenge: ask Swiftboat Liar Chuck Plumley.
 
Written By: jadegold
URL: http://
As I explained, documented, and detailed, the Bush administration did do something immediately after taking office. It went backwards. Not just inaction. But worse. And I notice that no one, including you, McQ, has made any effort to refute the factual assertions on which I rely to back up my claim.
It really isn’t germane to the discussion, but let’s say, arguendo, that you’re right. What has that to do with the 8 years of inaction for which Clinton was responsible. As I see it, Clinton got lucky by 8 months, because there wasn’t a thing in the works to stop 9/11 when he was President. Not a single dot had been connected to anything.

Are you prepared to assert 9/11 wouldn’t have happened had Bill Clinton been president?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Let us examine why I can assert you and Henke support torture.

First, Henke is shilling for a candidate who has supported Bush’s desire to torture without reservation.

Second, you devote much of your blogging time supporting and defending one GWBush who is an advocate of torture. This suggests only two possibilities: you, too, support torture or you don’t support torture but don’t consider the issue important enough to discontine your Bush-worship.
Well if those are your reasons I can appreciate why most people don’t think much of either your reasoning or your intellect.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Joe, do you really not know the difference between the federal budget and Social Security?

Yes I do, do you? Social Security is an under-funded mandate on the Federal Government, whose temporary surplus is masking the current deficit...thru the use of essentially IOU’s that will have to be made up from General Fund Revenues. I hope it was illuminating for you.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Or Retief have you NOT beeen reading the REAL news, and concentrating on DU and the Daily Kos, because the General Fund is ALSO running a surplus as is the Social Security Trust Fund...IIRC.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Incursions into Cambodia, via Swiftboats, are well-documented.
Says the man with no citations. Idiot.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Yes JWG, incursions into Cambodia were QUITE common, usually the skipper of the boat was awarded a special hat, it was considered a "Good Luck Charm." Though in a strange military faux pas Christmas incursions were extremely limited, oft’ times the boats were held over IN Cambodia, over Christmas. The result was usually some very, very strong memories of Christmas’ in Cambodia....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Yes JWG, incursions into Cambodia were QUITE common, usually the skipper of the boat was awarded a special hat, it was considered a "Good Luck Charm." Though in a strange military faux pas Christmas incursions were extremely limited, oft’ times the boats were held over IN Cambodia, over Christmas. The result was usually some very, very strong memories of Christmas’ in Cambodia....
I understand all of that was only true when Nixon was president and you were fighting his war.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Henke is shilling for a candidate who has supported Bush’s desire to torture without reservation.
Is Allen’s "support" of torture documented, or is this another one of your made up things, Jadegold?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
McQ I couldn’t figure out HOW to work in Nixon, thank you....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Sadly our nation is filled with people who honestly believe what Fox says and not what most intellegent Americans believe.

Anyone who can defend this President, the War in Iraq, or this Republican congress needs help.

Anyone who can defend a President who want torture defined needs help. Remember the saying, "if you have to ask, it is wrong?"

I wish I had time to go to Ohio to make sure these idoits are voted out of office.

And Please God let the Justices survive another 2 and 1/2 years until we can get someone to appoint with some social perspective (where social does not include his Church and Mom).

 
Written By: R. E.
URL: http://
Sadly our nation is filled with people who honestly believe what Fox says and not what most intellegent Americans believe.
Sadly our nation is filled with people who honestly believe that they are much more intelligent than they actually are.

I’d wager that many of them believe NPR gives the entire unbiased view of the news.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
I took MSNBC off my TVs when Olberman called Chris Wallace a monkey.

I don’t have to listen to this kind of intelectual tripe from any kind of media outlet whether it be owned by Bill Gates or Sun Myung Moon.

MSNBC is no longer welcome in my home.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
MSNBC is no longer welcome in my home.
I assume you have also eliminated FOX, CNN, ABC, and CBS for their pundit’s personal attacks, or do you only oppose ad hominem attacks on people you like?



 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
And Please God let the Justices survive another 2 and 1/2 years until we can get someone to appoint with some social perspective (where social does not include his Church and Mom).
You’d better have a look at America. Churches and Moms are everywhere. How do you figure that good social perspective should be bereft of knowledge about things that are very important to huge segments of America?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
This is so great. Left wing finally starts to use tactics that right wingers have been using for years, and of course republicans are PISSED that the dems have finally caught on and begun to use language and actions that the public will understand and relate to. So of course republicans lambast olbermann, and clinton as a bunch of kooks, and skirt the real issue oh so convieniently. It’s wonderful!
 
Written By: alex
URL: http://
dems have finally caught on and begun to use language and actions that the public will understand and relate to
Yeah, Olberman’s ratings indicate he relates to about three dozen people in America. Keep up the good work!
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
I think that it’s great that Republicans want to turn the attention back to Clinton. Give him more air time. Give him more of an opportunity to say what the vast majority of Americans are thinking, but our weak Democratic leaders are too chicken to say. Yes, I hope FOX puts Clinton on every day of the week from now until 2008!

At the end of the day, the Republicans can’t win against Clinton because Clinton is speaking the truth. All Americans know it. Too few are willing to say it. Republicans are just looking for a scapegoat for their own criminally tragic failures.

Bring it on!



 
Written By: Chuckles
URL: http://
Well if those are your reasons I can appreciate why most people don’t think much of either your reasoning or your intellect.
Again, you’ll say anything supporting GWBush but you say you don’t support torture? That’s akin to joining the Klan because you like the hood and robe but eschew the white supremacy agenda.

In reality, it’s a cop-out. You know there’s no possible defense for supporting torture but you’re unwilling to criticize your master; so, you pretend you can have it both ways.
 
Written By: jadegold
URL: http://
Again, you’ll say anything supporting GWBush but you say you don’t support torture?
Well your first premise is hogwash. Of course you’d know that if you took the time to read something other than a single comment thread on the blog.

And no, I don’t support torture.
In reality, it’s a cop-out.
Only in jadegold world.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
there’s no possible defense for supporting torture but you’re unwilling to criticize your master
Well, except for all the posts in which QandO criticize the support of torture. But other than those...
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider