I’m not sure where you’re getting seven years from. From what I can tell, OBL wasn’t even being watched by anyone in the US until 1996, and he wasn’t convicted of wrongdoing until 1998. In total, Clinton had really about two years. Bush had 9 months and eleven days, not eight months.
Finding out he was involved in the 1992 thing seems to have been something determined later (possibly why they started watching him in 96.)
Interestingly, fark.com has a link to a blogger who posted at least one version of the Wallace/Clinton interview, and Fox has now demanded that those videos be removed for copyright violation.
This is their right, of course.
I wonder, though, did they demand that all other FoxNews video clips be removed from youtube.com, video.google.com, and the other popular sites? Or was this more of a targeted pull. Hmmm.
Oops, forgot to put the blogger’s url:
http://www.hanlonsrazor.org/2006/09/25/fox-and-the-clinton-interview/
I’ve heard that they’ve begun demanding the video be removed from Youtube as well. Sure enough, it’s not there (this link may be session-specific and may not work; search youtube for yourself if you want):
It’s still on Google, though.
Daniel
Yep. “1984”, we have arrived. 22 years late, but we are there.
Already on the news they’re talking about problems with the Taliban again in Afghanistan.
:mad:
I just wanted to let you know, I nearly had an aneurysm I was laughing so hard at this post. Thanks.
The best outcome of this by far is Keith Olbermann’s commentary. View the video- he’s getting to be quite the fire and brimstone take no prisoners type of speaker.
Bush was inaugurated on January 20, 2001. So just under 9 months.
If it helps you ponder that deep question, a search of You Tube results in 1570 hits.
Hmmmmm.
You can also see it on YouTube.
Yikes! Quel Burn!
Condoleeza Rice has responded to Clinton’s comments. She told the New York Post that, “What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years.” She also denies that the Clinton Administration “left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy” for them, and she says that Richard Clark wasn’t fired, but rather quit because he didn’t become deputy director of homeland security.
Make of that what you will. Myself, I find this whole debate rather pointless. This is an archetypal example of hindsight being perfect. Prior to 9/11, terrorism just wasn’t much of a concern for most Americans. Islamic terrorists hijacked the occasional plane, but that usually ended with minimal loss of life. Aside from that, they mostly just set off bombs in some distant part of the world. I’m sure that both Clinton and Dubya had “waste Osama bin Laden,” on their to-do list, but prior to 9-11 it really wasn’t a priority. You can argue that it should have been, but again that’s arguing from hindsight.
Wow. Between that and his 9/11 commentary, I think I’m in love with Keith Olbermann.
Dayum! Oldbermann’s quite rapidly turning into a sane version of Howard Beale. BTW, Olbermann’s going to guest on an episode of Family Guy this season.
Back off-I saw him first!
And I respond to Ms. Rice with some words she might find familiar:
“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”
Watched the Olbermann commentary. Remarkably forceful. Way past the realm of objectivity, but it was labeled a commentary, so that’s not really a problem. Reminds me a bit of what Hunter Thompson once said about Nixon: objective journalism was what allowed Nixon to happen–you had to get subjective to really see what he was all about. Same applies today, I suppose. And I guess the “good night and good luck” signoff really said it all, as far as where he was coming from with his remarks. One has to feel that Murrow wouldn’t have put up with this shit, and it’s time others in today’s media stop putting up with it as well.
Can’t watch the Olbermann video for the moment…could anyone provide a brief summary?
Lacks the passion it was spoken with, though.
Many thanks!