Is the right wing responsible for not getting Osama?

[59millionmorons]

Is the right wing responsible for not get Osama? After Clinton bombed the aspirin factory RW talk shows and politicians ridiculed Clinton. We now know from the 911 hearings that Clinton had three opportunities with weak intelligence that he could have attempted to get Osama. Was Clinton wary of attacking Osama on the weak intelligence because of the scorn he would have gotten from the right?

[camero]

1. The RW have had 3 fucking years to get Osama

Excuse my French but that should be the main point. And I'm sick of RW lies.

You bet your bottom dollar he would have gotten scorn.

[Supormom]

2. Sure, he would have gotten scorn.

But did he let that affect his decision making?
Good question there, demdem

[devilgrrl]

3. No, but I think they're working in conjuction with him...

Take over Iraq, their oil fields and move our troops out of Saudi Arabia, Bush has ceded to Osama's every wish so far.

[savior93]

10. yep

i think it shows militant Islamics true colors. they still want all of us destroyed

[devilgrrl]

15. And Georgie Boy is helping them every step of the way...

[xray s]

4. The right wing is responsible for creating Osama!

He is a product of the 80's cold war against the Russians.

We helped him build those tunnels and hide aways in Afghanistan. The CIA knew all about them.

As long as he was killing commies he was alright in our book.

[mmonk]

6. exactly

and Saddam as well.

[guitar man]

5. 6 months later

“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.” - G.W. Bush, 9/13/01


“I want justice…There’s an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive,’” - G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI


<6 mo. later>


“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.” - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

“I am truly not that concerned about him.” - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts, 3/13/02


I hate to keep posting this,but I think EVERY time the subject of Clinton's penis failing to get Bin Laden BEFORE 9-11 comes out of a freep-bots pie hole,we should smack them right upside the head with *W's "commitment" to the hunt for Osama.

If we keep it up,should *W trots Osama out right before the election,he will look like the biggest fool to even some of the most kool-aid affected RW voters.

[zbdent]

9. Keep posting this. I wanted that 3rd quote earlier today

after seeing a sticker put up by a RWer (in a depressed area in Cleveland).

It was the quote where Bush said that we would not falter, back down, or rest, in regard to the actions of terrorists on 9/11.

I wrote on the sticker "Where's Osama?"

What I wanted to do (and didn't have the room, nor the quote) was write the “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.” - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 quote.

[guitar man]

12. Bumper stickers

That's another good place for this quote. A lot of swing voters out there that are living on soundbytes need to hear something this short,sweet and conscise.

[Imajika]

7. Well....

"Was Clinton wary of attacking Osama on the weak intelligence because of the scorn he would have gotten from the right?"

....perhaps he was, but that is no excuse. The President of the United States is expected to show leadership, not cower at the thought that the opposition would heap scorn on him.

Clinton should have been more aggressive in going after al-Queda. In retrospect, I believe that is pretty clear to almost everyone.

But, the bottom line is, 9-11 happened on Bush's watch - not Clinton's. Bush had some 8 months or so to go after al-Queda, and he utterly failed.

I don't buy any of these goofy conspiracy theories. LIHOP and MIHOP is a bunch of nonsense in my book. The Bush administration simply didn't act aggressively against Bin Laden, nor did they take the threat anywhere near seriously enough. The Clinton administration wasn't much better in my book, but the bottom line is that the WTC and Pentagon were not hit on the previous administrations watch. Bush had enough time in office to at least show he was serious about combating al-Queda and, if anything, he demonstrated the opposite.

Imajika

[snippy]

8. Two points.

First, if Clinton had been more aggressive in going after Osama, there would have been another republican impeachment of the president.

Second, it is the responsibility of Congress to exercise oversight of the CIA and other inteligence groups. What were the republican semen sleuths in Congress investigating in the late 90's?

[Toby109]

11. One of the favorite tactics of the right

is to project their own failures onto their opponents and do so pre-emptively. So yes, in many ways, the right is more responsible. As an earlier post noted the right was more interested in Clinton's zipper than they were about anything else. Plus 70 FBI agents and 100 million dollars was wasted and subverted for that investigation.

[kskiska]

13. Maybe the right-wing should have been focused on Osama

when they were busy examining Monica's thong and listening to Linda Tripp's telephone tapes. I wish just ONE of these bastards would come out and say, "We were wrong to impeach Bill Clinton. We're responsible for 9/11 because of it." Is Ken Starr having second thoughts? I doubt it.

[librechik]

14. yes, the evidence shows they have been protecting him for years

Clinton, apparently, was out of that loop, (not a RWer) though he knew enough to suck up to Saudi Arabia.

Try reading the fine investigative articles on Saudi Arabia at The New Yorker magazine. Seymour Hersh is especially good.