My post quoted no such people.
My post quoted the 9/11 Commission Report. The 9/11 Commission was a bipartisan Commission set up by President Bush and Congress.
And the 9/11 Commission report section that i quoted did not quote “Clinton administration officials” either. It merely said that those officials had denied the Sudanese government’s claims.
You mean, “If i had known that you would spot my duplicity and my (all-too-familiar) habit of making baldfaced assertions with no evidence, and using the words ‘I don’t have a cite handy’ as an excuse when people point out my dishonesty.”
I think you should ask the mods to change your username to “No Cite Handy.”
It kind of reads like an apology, which makes it a million times better than anything I actually expected him to say.
Can you say “splitting hairs”? Yeah. I thought that you could.
You know fully well that the quote you posted (in post #20) contained the following line:
“Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer…”
One of your most striking features is your intellectual honesty.
It will outlast “-gate.”
I would also point out that I stated up front and voluntarily, before anyone ‘pointed out’ anything, that I was going by recollection only and had no cite.
And you accuse me of dishonesty? Hah!
One sentence struck me in the interview. He mentioned that “every day has been pretty joyous”, unless I misheard. Conducting two wars and being happy most of the time while people are dying? If that’s what he said, he’s a seriously sick person.
Starving Artist, you’re such a fucking tool. WE AREN’T TALKING ABOUT CLINTON. We’re talking about BUSH. Dumbass.
Republican foreign policy has been a complete disaster, to the point that everyone else in the fucking world hates us, and you’re still going on about Clinton’s blowjob. Why are you so obsessed with Bill Clinton’s dick, anyway?
But claiming that you have no cite, as you do with monotonous regularity, is simply your standard way of giving a pre-emptive excuse for whatever bullshit you decide to come up with. The very fact that you are now saying that your voluntary admission excuses you is evidence that you don’t know what honesty even means, let alone how to exercise it.
I actually think that you intentionally use “no cite” when you know that you’re spouting bullshit, just so that you then have an easy way to weasel out of all your factually incorrect statements or your egregiously poor analysis. You can pretend that your upfront appeal to recollection is evidence of your honesty, but its surface candor is actually just a cover for the deeper, almost pathological dishonesty that is apparently intrinsic to your nature, part of the very core of who you are.
Well, yeah, but, see, your brain doesn’t work right, so your recollection ain’t worth the used tissue in the neighboring toilet stall.
No, of being a dipshit. Rather a significant distinction.
Jealousy?
One last bit of snark and then I really must be off to bed…
Have you even been reading this thread, dumbass? The OP brought up Clinton’s blow job (and …ahem… by extension, his dick). I merely responded to it. If you want to gripe at someone for bringing up Clinton’s blowjob/dick, take it up with her.
Further, I know fully well the thread is about Bush. I merely asked the OP, in response to her assailment of Bush for not listening to Richard Clarke and her statement that 9/11 might have been avoided if he had, why she didn’t hold Cliinton more responsible since Clarke was a member of his team, and further he had numerous opportunities to kill/have arrested bin Laden and passed on every one. In other words, if Clarke had such damning info, why isn’t it Clinton who is damned for not acting on it rather than Bush?
And now in closing, I do thank you for completely misunderstanding/misreading the activity that has occurred in this thread and for giving me the opportunity to state my case once again.
If it’s so standard, how did you miss it? It was you, after all, who claimed I merely stated it “as an excuse when people point out my dishonesty”.
So which is it? Something I do all the time and which even someone as doltish as you has been readily able to pick up on and view as my ‘standard’ operating procedure – in which case you would hardly have mentioned it as being my defense for having my ‘dishonesty’ ‘pointed out’ – or was it as you originally stated, an excuse after the fact for having my alleged dishonesty exposed?
You can’t have it both ways, buttpipe.
Further, I’d bet you couldn’t find ten instances in the last year (and I think you’d agree that I’m a somewhat prolific poster) where I voluntarily and pre-emptively state that I don’t have a cite for something I’m about to say. Most of what I have to say about cites is to decline demands for them in lieu of the fact that they accomplish nothing – as the cites I provided in this thread so ably prove.
Hmm…you say my brain doesn’t ‘work right’ [sic], yet you attribute to mhendo an insult toward me that he did not make, and you deny the one that he clearly did make.
Thus, I hope you’ll understand if I take your assessment of my brain’s workings (and, by extension, your own) with more than a grain of salt.
And now, nightie-night all. Goodnight, darling Zoe. Goodnight, Hector, wherever you are. Goodnight, Johnboy. Goodnight, Bambi…Goodnight, Brooke (but snuggle up a little closer, okay? I’m payin’ big money for this).
You gotta be kiddin’ me. I know at least a couple places it’s been (and at least one for decades), and I wouldn’t go there even with his dick.
Tell me where I did that. Be specific (post quote, post number). You first brought it up in post #25.
The military strikes turned out to be a mistake, but Clinton took bin Laden very seriously and at least tried to do something but as Giraffe pointed out, Clinton was accused of wagging the dog to deflect attention from the Lewinsky affair.
Cohen criticizes ‘wag the dog’ characterization (CNN link)
Former defense secretary testifies before 9/11 panel
So, what exactly did Bush do regarding bin Laden prior to 9/11?
Weebles wobble but they don’t fall down.
Hmmm, if Hillary is one of those places, then who owns the other? You were the one who said
You’re trashing the reputation of at least one of those women.
Hypocrite.
The OP never mentioned Clinton. Using the good ol’ “Find” feature on the first page, it appears you were the first person to even mention Clinton.
Clarke’s job was counter-terrorism, which by definition is preparing for and trying to prevent (primarily) domestic terrorist attacks, not search and destroy missions in foreign lands. What people have been blaming Bush for is ignoring or seemingly ignoring the warnings that Bin Ladin was “determined to strike in the U.S.” What people have been blaming Bush for is neglecting to make Bin Laden’s death or capture a real priority post-2001. Clinton had plenty of fuck-ups in his day, but they pale in comparison to the domestic policy and foreign policy fuck-ups of W., including letting one of the key masterminds of the deaths of approx. 3000 Americans remain free.
One other thing about Clarke. He was the only one in the Bush (or Clinton) administration who had the decency to apologise for the failure to get bin Laden prior to 9/11.
From Wikipedia:
He told the people in charge of doing so to stop trying to catch Bin Laden. Despite the outgoing Clinton Administration’s warnings.
Are you kidding? I somehow doubt you were “merely ask[ing]” the OP anything. On the contrary, you saw a thread that was a perfectly justified bashing of GWB for being completely and thoroughly unprepared for war, and those pathetic oh-shit-I-have-to-defend-Bush alarms went off in your head and you decided to rehash this debate about what Clinton may or may not have done about Bin Laden. Dude - this meme is dead everywhere outside of the right-wing echo chamber. There is no credible evidence that Clinton ignored an offer from the Sudanese. I suggest you reread mhendo’s link here: http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf.
I’m not the OP, but the answer to your question is beyond obvious: no, one shouldn’t hold Clinton more responsible, because your premise is bullshit. He didn’t pass on any opportunities to kill/arrest bin Laden. If you have evidence corroborating Ijaz’s story that the 9-11 commission somehow missed, feel free to present it here. I’m not holding my breath.
Well, you may not have done it first in THIS thread, but that doesn’t negate your responsibility. You laid the groundwork by posting the OP, so the blame is ultimately yours. Everything changed after post #25.