Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] 9/11: Press for Truth

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Vern Green wrote:

> One question.
>
> How much time was devoted to Clinton and his failures? This will tell a 
> lot as to how fair this movie is in my opinion.
>
> In my humble opinion, no timeline can be developed that concentrates 
> only on Bush, and if that is the case here, then it is a biased piece of 
> hog wash.


I don't recall at this point (I sent that to the list in July), but didn't 
Clinton's team warn Bush's team about Osama during the transition, and 
didn't Bush do nothing?  Didn't Bush ignore all of the warnings including 
the Presidential daily briefing of 6 Aug 2001 entitled "bin Laden 
determined to strike in US?":

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

And didn't Clinton, even if he made mistakes as you obviously will claim, 
prevent bin Laden from succeeding?  Or at least, bin Laden did not succeed 
in attacking us while Clinton was President.

Another very important difference here is that Bush has used his failure 
-- the major attacks of 9/11/2001 -- to promote himself and increase his 
power.  Supposedly, he is "strong on terror(ism)."  The obvious fact is 
that he was weak on terrorism and he failed completely to protect us.  He 
did not do what he should have done, what he was told to do, and because 
of his personal failure and that of Condoleeza Rice, we were attacked 
successfully.

When the WTC was attacked a month after Clinton took office, the attackers 
were hunted down, captured and imprisoned.  By contrast, GWB says of Osama 
bin Laden, "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really 
don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

If Clinton had "failures" they were very small and insignificant when 
compared with Bush's failures.  Make two lists and compare them.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion