Olbermann’s Special Comment: Are YOURS the actions of a true American?

ledvedderman

jsand wrote:

You know me so well. I read his comments whenever they're posted on msnbc. They are childish and ignorant, and very entertaining.

I think it was moving and he made many valid points. For the administration to try to blame Clinton for 9/11 is unreal, and now Condi is saying that this administration did everything leading up to 9/11 it could? Please. It happened on your watch, part of being a leader is admitting when you screw up. Clinton did that on Sunday, Bush will never. He is too "proud"

TheCurrentsWillShift

ledvedderman wrote:

I think it was moving and he made many valid points. For the administration to try to blame Clinton for 9/11 is unreal, and now Condi is saying that this administration did everything leading up to 9/11 it could? Please. It happened on your watch, part of being a leader is admitting when you screw up. Clinton did that on Sunday, Bush will never. He is too "proud"

Uhh, it happened on Clinton's watch also, and he is not entirely owning up to it.

Does anyone remember 1993. What happened to the towers then.
We were one pillar away (in the parking garage) from a disaster
that would have trumped 9/11. That building was full when that happened.
Clinton was pretty damn lucky that day, but not lucky on many other situations. Do not even think that the smooth talker was beyond blame for anything.

Do I have to bring up other Clinton gaffes / Security related issues:
1.) The Murrah building (domestic terrorism)
2.) Kosovo
3.) The Cole Bombing
4.) Marc Rich Pardon (fugitive - illegal oil dealings with Iran, Iraq, Libya - Commodities Deals gone wrong - ruining thousands of peoples lives / savings ). All for some campaign contributions to Hillary and a donation by Denise Rich to the Clinton Library. So ridiculous, I can't even find the words.
5.) No Troops to Rwanda in 1994 - 1 Million people died in fighting (because of political failure in Somalia - Black Hawk Down). I wonder what those people think of the U.S.
6.) Clinton also was strong proponent of Weapons of Mass Destruction Theory and continued sanctions in Iraq (also attacked Iraq on the eve of the Monica Lewinsky scandal - absolutely ridiculous - Iraq's non-disclosure of WMD was the reason ).
7.) US Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania
8.) Khobar Towers Attack
9.) Able Danger and identification of Mohammed Atta in 1999, on three separate occasions. The inability to raise the issue due to a "Wall" created by deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick (Clinton Appointee) between FBI and military regarding sharing of information. That "Wall" limited intelligence sharing, because of civil liberty concerns. I for one would like the 3,000 plus people back and would compromise some liberties on a limited basis - Would you, maybe not????)
9.) Clinton's Many Personal Issues - I won't even get into these.

There are a myriad of others, but I don't want to bore you.

The point is there is blood on many hands. The current administration does not have to blame Clinton. The blame is there, no need to make it up.

I ask you what did Clinton do to limit terrorism??? Looks like it
has been happening all along. Despite, many weaknesses with Bush,
at least someone is trying to do something about it??? Right or Wrong.

Clinton had 8 years. Bush had 8 months.

Clinton talks about Richard Clarke. The guy was a tool for twenty years under several administrations.
By the way what did Richard Clarke do to prevent any of this ??? Counter-terrorism expert, my ass !

jlew24asu

TheCurrentsWillShift wrote:

Uhh, it happened on Clinton's watch also, and he is not entirely owning up to it.

Does anyone remember 1993. What happened to the towers then.
We were one pillar away (in the parking garage) from a disaster
that would have trumped 9/11. That building was full when that happened.
Clinton was pretty damn lucky that day, but not lucky on many other situations. Do not even think that the smooth talker was beyond blame.

Do I have to bring up other Clinton gaffes / Security related issues:
1.) The Murrah building
2.) Kosovo
3.) The Cole Bombing
4.) Marc Rich Pardon (illegal oil dealings with Iran, Iraq, Libya - Commodities Deals gone wrong - ruining thousands of peoples lives / savings )
5.) No Troops to Rwanda in 1994 - 1 Million people died in fighting (because of political failure in Somalia - Black Hawk Down)
6.) Clinton also was strong proponent of Weapons of Mass Destruction Theory and continued sanctions in Iraq (also attacked Iraq on the eve of the Monica Lewinsky scandal - absolutely ridiculous - not disclosing WMD was the reason ).
7.) US Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania
8.) Khobar Towers Attack
9.) Able Danger and identification of Mohammed Atta in 1999, on three separate occasions. The inability to raise the issue due to a "Wall" created by deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick (Clinton Appointee) between FBI and military regarding sharing of information. That "Wall" limited intelligence sharing, because of civil liberty concerns. I for one would like the 3,000 plus people back and would compromise some liberties on a limited basis - Would you, maybe not????)
9.) Clinton's Many Personal Issues - I won't even get into these.

There are a myriad of others, but I don't want to bore you.

The point is there is blood on many hands. The current administration does not have to blame Clinton. The blame is there, no need to make it up.

I ask you what did Clinton do to limit terrorism??? Looks like it
has been happening all along. Despite, many weaknesses with Bush,
at least someone is trying to do something about it??? Right or Wrong.

Clinton had 8 years. Bush had 8 months.

great post. its hard for people to say anything bad when they arent talking about Bush. just deep hatred for one person and political party that the other can do no wrong.

hailhailkc

TheCurrentsWillShift wrote:

Uhh, it happened on Clinton's watch also, and he is not entirely owning up to it.

Does anyone remember 1993. What happened to the towers then.
We were one pillar away (in the parking garage) from a disaster
that would have trumped 9/11. That building was full when that happened.
Clinton was pretty damn lucky that day, but not lucky on many other situations. Do not even think that the smooth talker was beyond blame for anything.

Do I have to bring up other Clinton gaffes / Security related issues:
1.) The Murrah building (domestic terrorism)
2.) Kosovo
3.) The Cole Bombing
4.) Marc Rich Pardon (fugitive - illegal oil dealings with Iran, Iraq, Libya - Commodities Deals gone wrong - ruining thousands of peoples lives / savings ). All for some campaign contributions to Hillary and a donation by Denise Rich to the Clinton Library. So ridiculous, I can't even find the words.
5.) No Troops to Rwanda in 1994 - 1 Million people died in fighting (because of political failure in Somalia - Black Hawk Down). I wonder what those people think of the U.S.
6.) Clinton also was strong proponent of Weapons of Mass Destruction Theory and continued sanctions in Iraq (also attacked Iraq on the eve of the Monica Lewinsky scandal - absolutely ridiculous - Iraq's non-disclosure of WMD was the reason ).
7.) US Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania
8.) Khobar Towers Attack
9.) Able Danger and identification of Mohammed Atta in 1999, on three separate occasions. The inability to raise the issue due to a "Wall" created by deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick (Clinton Appointee) between FBI and military regarding sharing of information. That "Wall" limited intelligence sharing, because of civil liberty concerns. I for one would like the 3,000 plus people back and would compromise some liberties on a limited basis - Would you, maybe not????)
9.) Clinton's Many Personal Issues - I won't even get into these.

There are a myriad of others, but I don't want to bore you.

The point is there is blood on many hands. The current administration does not have to blame Clinton. The blame is there, no need to make it up.

I ask you what did Clinton do to limit terrorism??? Looks like it
has been happening all along. Despite, many weaknesses with Bush,
at least someone is trying to do something about it??? Right or Wrong.

Clinton had 8 years. Bush had 8 months.

Clinton talks about Richard Clarke. The guy was a tool for twenty years under several administrations.
By the way what did Richard Clarke do to prevent any of this ??? Counter-terrorism expert, my ass !

Nice post. Very well said.

THC

yeah...I'm sure the man put into power to prevent terrorism by three different presidents regardless of political affiliation was a "tool".

FromWayBack

TheCurrentsWillShift wrote:

Do not even think that the smooth talker was beyond blame for anything.

Clinton talks about his regrets quite often, and those include things you brought up in your list of gaffes. How does expressing regret translate into being beyond blame?

Hope&Anger

Honestly, Bush supporters have completely lost their sense of irony.

Yeah, Bush was only on the job for 8 months before 9/11. But Clinton was only on the job for 2 months in 1993 when the WTC was attacked the first time. Yet you never heard Clinton try to blame Poppy Bush for that event.

Oh, and we didn't invade a country when that happened. Mary Jo White, a Clinton appointee, tried the perpetrators and put them in prison for the rest of their lives.

And when Clinton sent the military to the former Yugoslavia, I WATCHED while Republicans complained about the lack of an exit strategy -- something that doesn't matter to them at all anymore.

Yes, Clinton's failure to send troops to Rwanda was a disaster -- one he has owned up to . . . in Rwanda. The Clinton Foundation also finances many projects in Rwanda dedicated to fighting AIDS and trying to repair the devastation of the genocide. Are we going to see Bush going to Iraq to apologize to the people there for the devastation he's caused? Don't hold your breath.

Yes, I'm really angry at Bush. I'm angry about his warrantless wiretapping, about his disastrous handling of Katrina, about his tax cuts. But I'm most angry about Iraq. I've been very lucky that the people I love who went to Iraq came back in one physical piece -- their emotional state is more uncertain to me. But everytime I watch the Lehrer News Hour and see the "honor roll" of the fallen, I let out a scream like Ed's in World Wide Suicide. And I've done that through more than 2700 dead American soldiers, not to mention all the Iraqi innocents.

Yeah, I'm pissed. But at least I still have my capacity to appreciate irony.

LBC1076

OKC, is there really a way that anyone could have stopped that?

Any more than they could have stopped Michael McDermott from shooting up his office in Boston in 2000?

Any more than they could have stopped Andrea Yates from drowning 5 children?

Any more than they could have stopped Eric Rudolph?


Was there any way to see those things coming?



Not a defense of anyone, my comment is more rhetorical than anything.

bootlegger10

mrwalkerb wrote:

agreeded, the daily show tore them apart (as usual) when showing clips with random people-who almost exsclusivly seemed to be from fox- saying he was beligerant et all, funny stuff.

They showed reporters from just about every major news network. Not exclusive at all. Way to not let your bias get in the way of "funny stuff."

bootlegger10

jsand wrote:

Olbermann is a whiny douche. I didn't like him when he eas a second-rate sportscaster. Now I really can't stand him - does he talk about anything else but Bush? Nope.

He talks about his hatred of Fox News, and talks about meaningless celebrity gossip. Oh yeah, and talks about the worst people in the world. My god this guy is full of himself.

enharmonic

Bullshit! Clinton has listed all of his failures and even requested that the 9/11 commission list them too. They didn't...probably so the Bush Administraton could continue to hide behine Clinton's failings instead of owning up to their own.

6 years later, and they still blame Clinton. That is pathetic, and representative of their profound lack of ability to do anything on their own except line thier pockets on the backs of the middle class.

ledvedderman

TheCurrentsWillShift wrote:

Clinton talks about Richard Clarke. The guy was a tool for twenty years under several administrations.
By the way what did Richard Clarke do to prevent any of this ??? Counter-terrorism expert, my ass !

What did Richard Clarke do to prevent this? I belive being demoted by the Bush administration was his key effort. He tried meeting with Bush, but W would have nothing to do with him

blackredyellow

While I do think Clinton was a decent president, he wasn't perfect. I think in this day, all you can judge a presidency on is if we were better off when they were finished as we were when they started. In Clinton's case, I think he did more good than bad.

I will defend a few of these, and some others, either I don't know enough about, or you are right, these are mistakes.

1.) The Murrah building (domestic terrorism)
C'mon, you can't be serious with this one? A event that no one could have expected, and the two people responsible were either sentenced to death or life in prison.

3.) The Cole Bombing
Happend at end of his presidency, and the al-quaeda connection wasn't confirmed until the very end.

4.) Marc Rich Pardon (fugitive - illegal oil dealings with Iran, Iraq, Libya - Commodities Deals gone wrong - ruining thousands of peoples lives / savings ). All for some campaign contributions to Hillary and a donation by Denise Rich to the Clinton Library. So ridiculous, I can't even find the words.
A shady pardon yes... he did have to pay $100 million fine. However, this isn't the first, and won't be the last shady pardon that a president grants when leaving. President George HW Bush pardened severy Reagan officials accused/convicted in the Iran Contra scandal.

6.) Clinton also was strong proponent of Weapons of Mass Destruction Theory and continued sanctions in Iraq (also attacked Iraq on the eve of the Monica Lewinsky scandal - absolutely ridiculous - Iraq's non-disclosure of WMD was the reason ).
Yes, he was a believer in Iraq having WMD's... so was most of the government at that point. The difference is that he didn't invade the country because of it.

9.) Able Danger and identification of Mohammed Atta in 1999, on three separate occasions. The inability to raise the issue due to a "Wall" created by deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick (Clinton Appointee) between FBI and military regarding sharing of information. That "Wall" limited intelligence sharing, because of civil liberty concerns. I for one would like the 3,000 plus people back and would compromise some liberties on a limited basis - Would you, maybe not????)
Gorelick didn't create this wall, it was in place well before she got there. Yes, she may have strenthend it, but to blame her for creating it is wrong.

9.) Clinton's Many Personal Issues - I won't even get into these.
And what do these have to do with security?
[/quote]

That was my 2 minute response to some of these, I'm sure others will be able to do it better, but I wanted to get something in before I ran out the door to work..

TheCurrentsWillShift

FromWayBack wrote:

Clinton talks about his regrets quite often, and those include things you brought up in your list of gaffes. How does expressing regret translate into being beyond blame?

Again, you are playing the sympathiser for Clinton, step back and realize there were many, many mistakes. He was not infallible (just like Bush) and he deserves blame. By the way Clinton did not express these regrets during presidency, he ran from his mistakes and was not truly attacked by the media for them. Does anyone remember that the mainstream media (namely ABC and CBS - what a surprise) sat on the Lewinsky information for months. It took, an unexpected web page (Matt Drudge) to break that story. If it was Bush, it would have been out the day it occurred. The media is not affording Bush the same luxury as Clinton, because they fell in love with smooth talking, soft and cuddly "Mr. Bill" a long time ago.

Expressing regret does not absolve ones failures. It's a first step !!! Why do people protect this guy is beyond me. It has taken years for people to see that the Clinton presidency was not what it was cracked up to be.

My real problem is with this thread and the fact that people here attack Bush as if he is the worst president ever, yet in the grand scheme of history of the presidency, that is nowhere near true.

1.) Many people here have too short a memory, no sense of history and a convenient Chomsky agenda (thanks in part to Ed whom I have a love/hate relationship with).

2.) This war (of which I have two willing and able relatives serving in) despite the mistakes, needs perspective. However it is hunting season now that the elections are coming. The democrats and the media are desperate, and may just help switch the balance of congress.

3.) To make Bush out to be the worst thing that has ever happened, is not historically or factually correct by any means, not constructive, and the byproduct of intense (liberal) media hatred, which happens to play into the agenda of the less informed, the Chomsky's of this world and the "peace by all means" groups.

El_Kabong

jlew24asu wrote:

is it also "fair and balanced" that no other news organization besides fox would ask Clinton a tough question? whats fair is fair

was it 'fair and balanced' when they kept repeating that kerry said more foriegn leaders support him lie even after the audio tape surfaced showing he didn't say that?

jlew24asu

El_Kabong wrote:

was it 'fair and balanced' when they kept repeating that kerry said more foriegn leaders support him lie even after the audio tape surfaced showing he didn't say that?

your not seeing my point. if its so unfair and unbalanced for fox news to lean to the right then why is it ok for every other new origanization to openly lean to left.

i'm not defending fox but at least they give an effort to see both sides, albeit a small effort. the other outlets, openly admit they lean to the left and bash bush as much as humanly possible.

ledvedderman

TheCurrentsWillShift wrote:

Again, you are playing the sympathiser for Clinton, step back and realize there were many, many mistakes. He was not infallible (just like Bush) and he deserves blame. By the way Clinton did not express these regrets during presidency, he ran from his mistakes and was not truly attacked by the media for them. Does anyone remember that the mainstream media (namely ABC and CBS - what a surprise) sat on the Lewinsky information for months. It took, an unexpected web page (Matt Drudge) to break that story. If it was Bush, it would have been out the day it occurred. The media is not affording Bush the same luxury as Clinton, because they fell in love with smooth talking, soft and cuddly "Mr. Bill" a long time ago.

Expressing regret does not absolve ones failures. It's a first step !!! Why do people protect this guy is beyond me. It has taken years for people to see that the Clinton presidency was not what it was cracked up to be.

My real problem is with this thread and the fact that people here attack Bush as if he is the worst president ever, yet in the grand scheme of history of the presidency, that is nowhere near true.

1.) Many people here have too short a memory, no sense of history and a convenient Chomsky agenda (thanks in part to Ed whom I have a love/hate relationship with).

2.) This war (of which I have two willing and able relatives serving in) despite the mistakes, needs perspective. However it is hunting season now that the elections are coming. The democrats and the media are desperate, and may just help switch the balance of congress.

3.) To make Bush out to be the worst thing that has ever happened, is not historically or factually correct by any means, not constructive, and the byproduct of intense (liberal) media hatred, which happens to play into the agenda of the less informed, the Chomsky's of this world and the "peace by all means" groups.

1) No one here has a "Chomsky Agenda". People here are sick of having their freedoms sucked away for the sake of an illegal war that we cannot win. Not to mention the various other fuck ups and secretive manner of this whole administration since day one.

2)This is not only open season for Democrats on the War in Iraq, but for both parties. The Republicans are trying to tie it to the war on terror (the only part of this administrations approval rating to be above 50%). Democrats are using the war to balance the power in Washington. The War in Iraq is a prime example of this nations government as an abuse of power.

3) Fire itself could not damage the Constitution more than this administration has. They feel they have no limits to their powers. Not many people here are "peace by all means". I think those people have a point, but it isn't possible. I was all for bringing down the Taliban. The only thing that will answer the quesion if Bush is the worst President ever, is time. I believe time and the eight years he will have been in office, will not be looked upon too well in the future.

norm

TheCurrentsWillShift wrote:

Despite, many weaknesses with Bush,
at least someone is trying to do something about it??? Right or Wrong.

You're right. He is doing something - making it worse. WTG Dubya! Jeb in '08!;)

FromWayBack

TheCurrentsWillShift wrote:

Again, you are playing the sympathiser for Clinton, step back and realize there were many, many mistakes. He was not infallible (just like Bush) and he deserves blame. By the way Clinton did not express these regrets during presidency, he ran from his mistakes and was not truly attacked by the media for them. Does anyone remember that the mainstream media (namely ABC and CBS - what a surprise) sat on the Lewinsky information for months. It took, an unexpected web page (Matt Drudge) to break that story. If it was Bush, it would have been out the day it occurred. The media is not affording Bush the same luxury as Clinton, because they fell in love with smooth talking, soft and cuddly "Mr. Bill" a long time ago.

If by bringing up that Clinton has acknowledged mistakes he made and expressed regret for them, assigns me the role of sympathiser then I accept that role freely. What role are you playing?

It's odd that you think that Clinton wasn't attacked by the media, I seem to remember him being lambasted continously. But I guess I must have dreamt that. That kind of thing happens a lot with my problematic short memory.

TheCurrentsWillShift

ledvedderman wrote:

1) No one here has a "Chomsky Agenda". People here are sick of having their freedoms sucked away for the sake of an illegal war that we cannot win. Not to mention the various other fuck ups and secretive manner of this whole administration since day one.

The words you use, "Secretive" and "Illegal" are all conjecture. This rambling is in no way true in light of the facts. You have taken the next step and followed the Democrats current mantra, because they no longer have power and need an edge, which may work. Many in this forum will listen to the ramblings rather than truly seeing the facts.

You can not like the war and I respect that, but the intelligence (which every one had wrong), Saddam's defiance, and the continued increase in Islamic Fundamentalism is what led us into the war. The reasons for being secretive are normal, and every administrative has the right to secrecy if national security is a concern. In other words we do not have to know everything, because if we do, so does our enemy . This secretive crap has been trumped up by the Bush-hating media and there is no way you can defend a lie.

At various times in our country's history we have had to do things that temporarily restrained freedoms (time dictates if those decisions were right or wrong). They all have come to pass and have to be taken in proper context.

Again, I'd gladly take back the thousands who died on 9/11 and the many hundreds of thousands of lives that have been affected since then, to forsake some civil liberties, and drop the "Wall" so that two parts of government could share information to bring down Mohammed Atta, before it happened.

Ohhh, and if you can prove to me where the current warrantless "wire tapping" program for National Security purposes has gotten anyone inadvertantly arrested or defamed.

What makes your argument to losing freedoms more ridiculous is that the this warrantless "wire tapping" program is no different than those that have occurred during wartime in the past.

Why is this any different than say Clintons or Carters Executive order that allowed the Attorney General to conduct warrantless physical searches of individuals without court order, which was absolutely legal and within their powers .