posted on September 13, 2001 12:14:48 AM new
NBC News is reporting that during the final days of his administration President Clinton received information regarding the specific location of Osama Bin Laden. Reportedly a military strike upon the terrorist leader was hotly debated by the administration but ultimately decided against.
I find myself wondering who leaked this information to the news, and why. What good does this do the nation? How does this help us? Are we supposed to think If it wasn't for Clinton and the Democrats, this never would have happened? It sounds like somebody is trying to politicize this tragedy, and it's disgusting.
posted on September 13, 2001 06:01:03 AM new
As a Republican, I am willing to blame Clinton for, almost, everything, including webworms in my Elm tree,....but not this. This has been coming since 1948. Now is a time we MUST stand united, as a nation, with one pain and one voice.
posted on September 13, 2001 07:12:32 AM new
Because of a newly acquired understanding of the sensitivity to inappropriatness that some people have to political considerations at this time, I will refrain from making a comment about the spinner of this tale at this time.
posted on September 13, 2001 07:34:35 AM new
The last time someone edged around what I'm fixing to say, it was viewed as "Bush bashing," (aka "more Bush bashing), that view being supported not only by some posters, but by AW itself, through one of its moderators. Frankly, I think AW should decide whether it's running a chat board or a propaganda machine, but that's beside the point.
There's a void of "official" talk, and when you have a void, other things rush in to fill it. On the second day, we witnessed Colin Powell trying to fix the damage that Orin Hatch had done on the first day. Well, why was Orin Hatch up their yabbering inappropriately on the first day anyway? Because the people who should have been up there, weren't.
We heard from - James Baker, Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Orin Hatch, Warren Christopher, Lawrence Eagleburger, etc. etc. We didn't hear nearly enough from Bush. A few words here, a few words there, and then, 12 hours later when he finally rolled into town, 4 minutes of nothing. No, I'm sorry, Karen Hughes doesn't count. It doesn't have anything to do with her being a woman, it has to do with her not having any visible role since the campaign/recount, and her not saying anything of note when she did say something about this.
Has Bush done a press conference yet? If not, why the heck not?? People need more than seeing him sitting behind a desk for 4 minutes, rhapsodizing about Good v. Evil. It's not enough.
posted on September 13, 2001 07:41:25 AM new
Donny,
I'm sure the president doesn't have a lot going on at this time, so I will have him call you. Stick close to your phone for the next few minutes.
posted on September 13, 2001 07:46:00 AM new
Well, I'll tell you. I never thought I'd say this, but I see Rudy Guiliani, and he's looking pretty dern good right now. There's a guy who's obviously busy, and shows a public face at the same time.
Yes, I know the president is busy. And part of what he's supposed to be busy doing is providing leadership. He can, and has to, take out an hour or so to do a press conference.
posted on September 13, 2001 07:56:08 AM new
Yeah, it was no time to disappear for 13 hours, and the Ari storyline is now that "reliable sources" have indicated that the white house was targeted and THAT'S why he was traipsing all over the country. But these guys knew he wasn't in the white house--even I knew that he was in Sarasota.
He did get out and go to the pentagon where he appeared in minutes of stare footage. He mumbled a few things and stared. It's like he's in shock and they're propping him up. Shock is understandable, but of all people he should have a grip.
posted on September 13, 2001 07:58:53 AM new
It's not holding my hand I'm worried about, Tex1. I suppose I should be surprised that people think serious situations warrant silly responses. Sadly, I'm not surprised.
How will Bush react in a crisis? This was one of the foremost concerns that political questioners have had in the past. Now here's the crisis, and it's like amateur day. He's no FDR or Churchill.
posted on September 13, 2001 08:00:59 AM new
Oh good, I'm reassured now. Here he is in a conference call with Guiliani and Pataki, telling them that "There's a quiet anger in America that really is real."
posted on September 13, 2001 08:06:38 AM new
Yeah, Krs, Bush kept on popping up around the country for a few minutes like it was one of those "Whack-a-Mole" games.
A televised conference call with Pataki and Guiliani is entirely inappropriate. Bush is trying to use this televised phone call as a substitute for what he should be doing. Even if the needed press conference wouldn't be Bush's strong suit, someone better at this should be out there doing an official press conference. Powell, Rice, Cheney, any of those would do.
posted on September 13, 2001 08:16:10 AM new
Bush just announced "we are having the first war of the 21st century, a "new kind of war"...we will "rout out and whip"...We will not discuss intellegence, we will not tell what the intellegence says.
I see an opportunity...by whipping terrorism."
"I'm a loving guy. This is a terrible moment."
posted on September 13, 2001 08:27:48 AM new
I'm not a "Bush basher," and I never have been. But if there were ever a time for tough questions, this is the time. To say that it's inappropriate now is foolish. It's more appropriate now than it's ever been.
Now here's Bush senior, and he's saying something Bush the president should have said already, namely that all Muslims aren't terrorists, and we should be mindful of that.
Bush not only has a foreign-threat crisis on his hands, we've got the makings of a domestic crisis on our hands. Innocent people, Muslims and foreign born Christians both, American citizens, are being attacked right here by rabid "Real Americans." Bush senior has addressed that, thank goodness. Why hadn't the president?
posted on September 13, 2001 08:35:57 AM new
I'd like to apologize for my earlier comment. "Not now, please." I realize now that I was stupid to think it would be understood. With that in mind I say, "Knock your self out, point fingers, and divide."
posted on September 13, 2001 08:37:19 AM new
Moderators,
You may as well go ahead and lock this thread and suspend me, for I will not sit quietly by while the favored crowd posts unpatriotic propoganda and filth. People who sit back and bash our government and our nation while thousands are still picking body parts out of the debris is just uncalled for. This political bashing has gone on and on for months, but now it is beyond obsessive it is now fanatical and scary.
posted on September 13, 2001 08:38:40 AM new
Support for one's country and patriotism doesn't equate to being blindfolded...it doesn't require the abandonment of critical thinking.
I just heard Bush's conference call...what pap!
If it is "Bush bashing" to critically analyze the ability of our leader then ALL Americans should be doing it. Only by analyzing how he reacts in times of crisis can we determine if this man should be re-elected next time.
It is our resaponsibility as citizens to critically look at our leaders so that we may intelligently choose our leaders.
posted on September 13, 2001 08:40:51 AM new
I did understand it, Uaru, and clearly I disagree.
There's more to being a patriot than saying - let's kill someone! There's more to being a responsible person, and a responsible American, than saying - this isn't the time to think about anything!
This is definately the time to think about things. If it's not now, it might never be.
posted on September 13, 2001 08:41:05 AM new
This will be my last post to this thread. I'll let the readers judge these posts and the people that wrote them.
posted on September 13, 2001 08:46:10 AM new
Shouldn't the final outcome be what we end up analyzing?
Let's face it, if he was on tv every few minutes, someone'd be screaming. If he's not on every few minutes, someone's screaming. What the president is doing behind closed doors can't be judged by any of us.
I think it's too early to be doing this, but apparently some people don't. Of course it's our responsibility to hold our elected officials accountable. But shouldn't we give them time to do something to be accountable for?
posted on September 13, 2001 08:48:33 AM new
Sick fanatical posts. On and on for months. Even the deaths of thousands can't break the cycle of hatred here.
posted on September 13, 2001 08:55:53 AM new
Is it too soon? Pearl Harbour was bombed on December 7th. Roosevelt gave his "Day of Infamy" speech to Congress on December 8th.
posted on September 13, 2001 08:59:17 AM new"Sick fanatical posts. On and on for months. Even the deaths of thousands can't break the cycle of hatred here"
Case in point.
None of the posts are political. They are the expressions of citizens concerned about what will come next. For that, every citizen looks to elected leaders, and has full right and responsibility to question the process of that leadership.
posted on September 13, 2001 09:04:03 AM new
Donny, You are pathetic. Perhaps if you spent more time actually listening to the news instead of sitting here bashing America you'd know what you were talking about. But then that would imply intelligence and obviously you'd rather post ignorantly about events.
This topic is 12 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new11new12new
