Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (304304)	9/25/2006 10:25:58 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571370

"No he didn't, Clinton lied in his response." What did he lie about? He was right about the Cole. He was right about all your right wing buddies wanting to cut and run in panic from Somalia...

To: longnshort who wrote (304304)	9/25/2006 2:46:13 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571370

Clinton set the record straight. He tried to kill OBL and stop Al Qaida, and was partly successful. He stopped the 1999 LAX attack and bombed the crap out of a lot of Al Qaida assets. Bush came in and did absolutely nothing, disbanded everything, demoted Richard Clarke and coddled the Saudis in the US. It's almost as if Bush wanted us to be hit. Isn't it? Especially after he ignored the very clear 8-6-01 warning.

To: longnshort who wrote (304304)	9/25/2006 8:23:36 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1571370

The big dog barks back <snip> Over at the National Review's web site, there's a bizarre rebuttal of sorts from Byron Yorke that complains that (as Clinton said) he tried to get bin Laden, and he failed, and therefore, apparently, all Republicans are off the hook for everything. Yorke's complaint was that Clinton tried to get the military to buy in to his desire to get bin Laden, and when he couldn't accomplish that, he should have just ordered them to do it, but didn't. Yorke does mention the political pressure that the GOP-led Congress put on Clinton - can you imagine the screaming we would have heard from that side of the aisle if Clinton had ordered such a thing over the advice of his own military and intelligence advisors? (Cheap shot: what do you call a president who orders military action against the advice of his knowledgeable advisors? George W. Bush.) Yorke's point seems to be that Clinton should have just forged ahead, but didn't. It's one thing to make that argument while acknowledging that the rest of the players in Washington are also culpable for what was going on then. (It's a strange thing to write about, though, since in making that argument he would be agreeing with what Clinton has said about himself.) But Yorke doesn't seem interested in that; the point seems to be that we should give everybody else a pass (and today we should trust them). This will probably have changed by the time you click the link to the story, but right now the banner at the top of the page with Yorke's article is an ad saying that MoveOn.org is trying to make us all pledge allegiance to the flag of the UN. It's a measure of how far the National Review, once a serious publication, has fallen almost as much as Yorke's article is. Ann Coulter has the strange distinction of being the only person I'm aware of fired by NR for being too conservative. They acted too quickly, I think; her spirit seems to live on there. Posted by John Whiteside at September 25, 2006 06:32 blogs.chron.com