Olbermann Hits It Out Of The Park (Hypocrisy Of Attacking Clinton For 9-11)

[JollyRoger]

Huh? Thats not true at all. And can we refrain from the sexual innuendo concerning the topic? Its neither true or needed.

MobBoss, why are you responding to the innuendo? It's clearly not the main focus of my point. Are you trying to be like Clinton and focus of implications rather than the main point?

 

[brennan]

OBLs response to Somalia is one of the prime reasons that OBL feels Al Qaeda would be successful in its war vs the USA.

Kinda important dont you think?

And Clinton's response is that all his critics would have pulled out of Somalia quicker, hence showing greater weakness. So what's your point? If it is that Clinton was to soft, then your preferred alternative was softer still at the time.

 

[MobBoss]

And Clinton's response is that all his critics would have pulled out of Somalia quicker, hence showing greater weakness. So what's your point? If it is that Clinton was to soft, then your preferred alternative was softer still at the time.

Your statement here is pure assumption. Dont make the mistake of confusing partisanship (indeed thats what the rhetoric was about Somalia, just like the rhetoric about Iraq today is) with actual action. You can do "what ifs" all day long, but at the end of the day its still all assumption.

The point was not that Clintons handling of Somalia was soft, but what was the Clintons response to OBLs views that it was and the use of that view to further incite Islamic Terrorism.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Mobby, carefull with the number of replies or you'll be accused of being obsessed over Olbermann

(and apologies for being a hothead in that other thread .... again )

 

[Mark1031]

Your statement here is pure assumption. Dont make the mistake of confusing partisanship (indeed thats what the rhetoric was about Somalia, just like the rhetoric about Iraq today is) with actual action. You can do "what ifs" all day long, but at the end of the day its still all assumption.

The point was not that Clintons handling of Somalia was soft, but what was the Clintons response to OBLs views that it was and the use of that view to further incite Islamic Terrorism.

Umm public statements by republican senators is not assumption but part of the public record just as the statements dems make on Iraq are part of the record. Are you saying that if we elect a dem that favors some sort of withdrawal from Iraq that he might actually escalate the war. If nothing else using current logic those public statements undercut our troops and gave aid and comfort to the enemy .

 

[brennan]

Your statement here is pure assumption. Dont make the mistake of confusing partisanship (indeed thats what the rhetoric was about Somalia, just like the rhetoric about Iraq today is) with actual action. You can do "what ifs" all day long, but at the end of the day its still all assumption.

The point was not that Clintons handling of Somalia was soft, but what was the Clintons response to OBLs views that it was and the use of that view to further incite Islamic Terrorism.

Do you deny that those who complain that Clinton showed a weak hand to OBL wanted him to pull out of Somalia sooner? If not my conclusion (that they would have shown greater weakness) seems to follow absolutely logically to me.

Given that Al Quaida were little known and not considered a threat at the time in question: what reason would you have given for Clinton to act otherwise?

 

[JollyRoger]

Your statement here is pure assumption. Dont make the mistake of confusing partisanship (indeed thats what the rhetoric was about Somalia, just like the rhetoric about Iraq today is) with actual action.

Why did the Republicans hate our troops? Why were they so partisan regarding a military action? Why would they put partisanship over realistic debate over how to handle a situation involving our military? Why would anyone ever support them after this display of blatant partisanship? They were either soft or partisan scum. Your choice.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I don't think Somalia is the subject of this thread.

Hint hint.

 

[Che Guava]

I don't think Somalia is the subject of this thread.

Hint hint.

Damnit! I've been thwarted again

 

[El_Machinae]

I appreciate Olbermann for pointing out Coulter's trend to lie.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Outside of a youtube link to the Olbermann show, I dont see any links of proof in the OPs initial statement. Thus, is that merely his opinion or statement of fact? If of fact, shouldnt the initial burden of proof be upon the OP? I would think so.

I'm asking you since your remark is "it's crap" - which for me means "it's untrue". At least have the decency to point out which parts are untrue and why they are untrue. I'm taking 1 random statement from the OP's post as an example. Is this true or not (and if not, what is untrue)?
"Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War — though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832."

EDIT: Upon even closer examination of the OPs thoughts, it is apparent that the OP believes that Chris Wallace was attempting to smear Clinton and Bush was behind it. I personally find such a claim silly and conspiracy theory like to the extreme. So Wallace didnt take the appeasement approach of Larry King - I would think people would welcome our leaders being asked tough questions. As for the question itself, does not Clinton even say it is legitimate?

And sorry, I directly oppose the notion that all this was meant as a ploy to obfuscate the recently declassified (declassified by who? Why President Bush of course) National Intelligence Summary. To allege that Chris Matthews was the White Houses hitman just to redirect attention is paranoid to the extreme and another outlandish conspiracy theory allegation.

I don't even know who Chris Wallace, Larry King, National Intelligence Summary and Chris Matthews are. And I don't see the importance in knowing who they are. These matters interest me and I am looking for a way to increase my knowledge on the subject - especially on what is considered "true" and "untrue" by Republican and Democratic alligned members.

What I want to know is: "Which parts of the quoted section of the OP are true and which parts are untrue"

Is that too much to ask from someone who aggressively shouts "it's crap" ?? So, now please point out to me which parts are untrue and why.
Thank you.

By the way, if someone else wants to enlighten me - please do. My goal is knowledge and knowledge only.

 

[Tycho Brahe]

Of course it must be Clintons responsibility that 9/11 happened. After all, he cheated on his wife! Everthing bad stems from him. Katarina was his fault as well.

 

[Phlegmak]

...(indeed thats what the rhetoric was about Somalia, just like the rhetoric about Iraq today is)...

Hating the Iraq war has nothing to do with partisanship.

Anyone who hates or favors the Iraq war for purely partisan reasons is scum.

Of course it must be Clintons responsibility that 9/11 happened. After all, he cheated on his wife! Everthing bad stems from him. Katarina was his fault as well.

Don't forget the ozone hole.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Don't forget the ozone hole.

You know that doesn't exist!

 

[brennan]

I guess it's crap just because he says so. MB has a habit of challenging facts without bothering to find out if they are true or not, and then refusing to post any substantiation.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm asking you since your remark is "it's crap" - which for me means "it's untrue". At least have the decency to point out which parts are untrue and why they are untrue. I'm taking 1 random statement from the OP's post as an example. Is this true or not (and if not, what is untrue)?
"Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War — though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832."

Edit: Odd...lost some of my text here. Basically, I am going to tell you that you misread my initial post. Please read it again, carefully. My crap comment was referencing Clinton and the things he said in the interview, not towards the OPs post in any particular way. PP might be right about FDR and Lincoln, however, if you click on the Olbermann link and listen to it, you will find that all PP is doing is regurgitating what Olbermann said on his show. I am willing to bet good money that in his mere parroting of the Olbermann story, PP has no real idea of what Olbermann put out is true or not either, but just simply assumes it is. Personally, I think the thread is here to discuss the Wallace/Clinton interview....not about FDR, Woodrow Wilson, nor Lincoln. Thus, I have no real desire to do research and find out if the actual comment by Olbermann, repeated via PP here, is true or not. If you wish to, then by all means go ahead and do so.

Now, as to my "crap" statement. It was directed towards Clintons rebuttal in the interview. If you read my post carefully this will be obvious. When called as to what falsehoods Clinton did put out, I mentioned a couple. The ones I have mentioned are so obvious that they dont need a link or research to find, as they are false to such a magnitude, most people can tell they are false. If you require, say, a link where Clinton HAS been critical of President Bush when he says he hasnt, I daresay it should be an easy one for you to find.

I don't even know who Chris Wallace, Larry King, National Intelligence Summary and Chris Matthews are.

Well, then there are a few things you can go research and find out. I would say that knowing who Chris Wallace is would be something pertinent to know considering the thread topic. Ditto with the National Intelligence Estimate that was recently de-classified that PP mentions.

And I don't see the importance in knowing who they are.

Oh. Ok. Well then, you should completely understand how I feel about the Lincoln thing then.

These matters interest me and I am looking for a way to increase my knowledge on the subject - especially on what is considered "true" and "untrue" by Republican and Democratic alligned members.

By all means go ahead. But please realize that I think you misread my statement in my first post in this thread. As I was directly talking about Clinton my reference to "him" was to Clinton....not to PP.

What I want to know is: "Which parts of the quoted section of the OP are true and which parts are untrue"

I recommend Google.

Is that too much to ask from someone who aggressively shouts "it's crap" ??

If you misread what I was shouting "its crap" about; then yes....

I guess it's crap just because he says so. MB has a habit of challenging facts without bothering to find out if they are true or not, and then refusing to post any substantiation.

Jumping to conclusions again? By all means go forth and read my post. Actually READ it. Then maybe you can give an qualified reply to what Rik was talking about. To me, its obvious that he misread my post. If you had read it also, you might, MIGHT, have noticed it too.

 

[MobBoss]

Hating the Iraq war has nothing to do with partisanship.

Then why is support for it split so evenly down party lines?

Anyone who hates or favors the Iraq war for purely partisan reasons is scum.

You mean someone who would first vote for the war.....then against it?

That kinda sounds familiar.

 

[El_Machinae]

MobBoss: please provide proof of Chris Wallace asking a similarily hard-hitting question of a Bush administrator regarding why they didn't connect the dots on Osama earlier.

Please provide a sample of Clinton being critical of Bush.

 

[Phlegmak]

Then why is support for it split so evenly down party lines?

There are many reasons.

Republicans are in favor of it...for I don't know what reasons, but many issues today are evenly split along party lines. So the Bush administration wants it (Republican), and Republicans want to stick with the party, so they favor it. I'd like to think Democrats who oppose the war are simply being sane, but it's possible and probable that many of them just go along with whatever is popular.

As for me, I'm against the Iraq war (and always have been) because it was the wrong idea from the beginning.

To explain this subject further would require a lot of typing about psychology which I don't want to get into right now.

You mean someone who would first vote for the war.....then against it?

That kinda sounds familiar.

Anybody who voted in favor of that war is a fool. If they've openly (or not) realized it was a mistake, then hallelujah. Unfortunately for humanity, the Bush administration and most Republicans haven't yet realized it's better to admit mistakes than continue with them. And for that, we all suffer.

Kerry's statement that you're referring to was just plain dumb and politically, it was the worst possible thing he ever could have said. The strawman shouts of "flip flopper" from Republicans went from being tiresomely and vacuously stupid to factual with Kerry's statement. Ug.

By the way, can you provide some actual concrete information on what people voted for when "they voted for the war", specifically what was the wording of whatever they were voting for, and who voted for it.

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss: please provide proof of Chris Wallace asking a similarily hard-hitting question of a Bush administrator regarding why they didn't connect the dots on Osama earlier.

Sure: Here ya go. http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040328-secdef0568.html

And from that interview here is almost the exact same question he asked Clinton, but this time is asking Rumsfeld:

MR. WALLACE: But looking back, sir, and I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it's more than an individual manhunt. I mean -- what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Which is the only way to do it, in my view. I think you simply have to go out --

MR. WALLACE: -- pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?

Please provide a sample of Clinton being critical of Bush.

Since they are so easy to find, I will give you not just one, but five.

Clinton Criticizes Bush Energy Bill: http://www.turnto10.com/news/4432231/detail.html

Clinton criticizes Bush's handling of domestic issues during Tougaloo commencement Speech - noteworthy news http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DXK/is_9_20/ai_104521291

Bill Clinton criticizes Bush administration, Joe Lieberman for going to war in Iraq rather than pursuing the Al Qaeda leaders responsible for 9/11 http://www.democraticwings.com/democraticwings/archives/foreign_policy/002795.php

Clinton criticizes Bush administration’s Hurricane Katrina response http://www.blackcollegeview.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/09/26/4337ed9c8b02a

Clinton Criticizes Bush Tax Cut http://www.nysscpa.org/home/2003/0103/4week/article48.htm

Apparently, the man cant shut up about Bush; and yet has the gall to say he hasnt been critical during that interview. Oh...and thats just 5...there are literally dozens more listed on the web where he has been critical of Bush. Extremely easy to find.