As more information becomes available about 9-11 and we are able to start to connect more and more of the dots, maybe we can now tell if we have a smoking gun.
Subscribe
Amazon Search
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Northern Alliance
Best Photography Sites
Blogs I Follow
- A Photo Editor
- Aaron Landry
- Bencredible
- Bex huff
- Blogumentary
- Confessions of a Photographer
- Garrick Vanburen
- Girl Friday
- Hugh Hewitt
- James Lileks
- Main Site
- Mark Steyn – Steynonline.com
- Minneapolis Metblogs
- MN Beer
- MN Speak
- More Cowbell
- MSP – Chow and Again
- OxRun
- PF Hyper
- pharyngula
- Powerline
- ProLifeBlogs
- St Paul Realestate – Teresa Boardman
- TC Sidewalk
- Tech Surf
- Technology Evangelist
- The Deets
- Uptown Eye Care Blog
News
Thanks for posting those photos Wayne.
Now back to the debate. The major problem with this story is that is full of misinformation. The Clinton admin did not institute that policy, it was in place before they got there, AND REMAINED IN PLACE after they left. The Bush admin would have done the same because they did not change the policy. So how can the Clinton admin be to blame?
Harold,
I would readily admit that the Bush administration has some responsibility for what occurred on 9/11 and I would dare to say they would admit it also. But they were only on the job for 9 months. You can not say that they have complete responsibility for everything that was going on within such a huge government is such a short time.
The Clinton administration had 8 yrs to deal with this problem that was getting steadily worse over time and you will have to admit, they took no real action. They were much more in the business of appeasement like Nevel Chamberlin as apposed to direct confrontation like a Winston Churchill.
I believe there is a need to directly and strongly confront those that want to kill us.
Clinton did try to get Bin Laden, and failed, but so has Bush. And remember that Clinton was being attacked by the Republicans with statements like this:
“You can support the troops but not the president.”
–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
–Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”
–Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.”
–Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
What are these quotes in reference to? Context, context, context.
Were they in relation to the war in the Balkins where Clinton seemed to mostly be supporting the Muslim side against Slobodan Milosovich,or were they in relation to attempting to get Sadam?
In the Balkin war I believe there were no clean hands. What a picture of depravity. For a very interesting book on the topic check this out…
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140298541/qid=1124387886/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5263934-2625767?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Slobodan Milosovich, Saddam Hussein, is there much of a difference? Both are war criminals. Why is it justified for Bush but not for Clinton? The context was similiar.
Thanks for pointing out that book.
In the Slobodan Milosovich case, there were terrible war criminals on the other side also. That is my point. That situation is very incestuous and they did not clam the US as their mortal enemy. Sadam had claimed US as his mortal enemy and with the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world at his disposal. He had to funds to sponsor his goals in a global perspective.
Granted, WWI and WWII started in the same area that Milosovich was working and that area could explode. But you have to admit, the radical Muslim world has this same ability and certainly the funds and the mindset to carry it out.
I am glad you pointed out that Milosovich was in an area that exploded in WWI. You could tell the Europeans were very worried about that situation. That conflict is over, and there is peace. Let’s give Clinton some credit for that. Perhaps his model has something to offer.
Harold,
I assure you there is no peace there. There is a temporary sease of military activity but there is not peace.
I know a dozen people that have been there as both military peace keepers and pigrams to Magagorie. That place is a war torn hell whole that is ready to explode at any moment.
That being said, why don’t you respond to any of my points? It is like will not concede any points that I make, you just change the direction of the conversation.
And what about that doctoral disertation on the history of WWII?
If I do not respond to your points it is either because you are more motivated than I, or because I can see the points you will make against my ideas when I am writing them, and I give up. So you can take that as a concession. I also take part in other blogs, and the whole thing is getting kind of tiring. As you can guess, they are conservative blogs. No sense debating those I agree with. There is always an argument against everything — there are no winners, though many think they win all the time. I often find myself the lone liberal, which is just too much. You find the same model on liberal blogs — echo chambers, where intellectual intimidation against those who do not echo the same ideology is prevalent, and gleefully submitted. Blogs are healthy in some respects, but not in others.
OK,
I understand. But, I am still very interested in the point you made about the movie “The Great Raid” that you thought the beginning was slanted and in error.
What I want to know is what are some good resources that you would recommend to discover what really happened between Roosevelt and Macarthur.
Oh, I see. I was taken aback at the commentator saying that Roosevelt betrayed the pacific troops, and that Macarthur was the ‘hero’. I beleive I heard it right, but I could be wrong. Anyways, if that is what they said, then it was highly partisan, and right out of the right wing playbook going back years, and one that still resonates today. Here is some background on Roosevelt-Macarthur, it is fascinating stuff…
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/mac-m27_prn.shtml
More on Macarthur (not as slanted as the previous one)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/filmmore/transcript/transcript1.html
http://www.americanfreepress.net/Books/Controversial_New_Look_At_Gen_/controversial_new_look_at_gen_.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/douglas-macarthur
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1557504830/102-6155170-6151330?v=glance
Thank you.
I was thinking I needed to be a bit careful of what the “World Socialist Web Site” was saying…lol
Yeah, I did not notice that until after I sent it, and one would have to admit it is slanted, but it is a good read.
Hey guys thanks for this informative and interesting conversation. It is good to see you being civil. I will check out all the stuff that Harold posted.
Wow, this is intense! I hope Rick can see this later. He is working overtime. God bless Truth seeking here.
You guys are really engaging in some time travel here-from 9/11 to the Pacific Theater in World War II?! There’s been so much more come out about the Able Danger story and who informed or misinformed whom in the last couple of days that it seems the story is still unfinished and not yet worthy of debate. As you can see by the links that Harold furnished on McArthur, even when all is said and done, there’s still room for debate. This has been a fascinating read although the World Socialist Web Site is WAY slanted, leans so far left it almost made my monitor fall over.