Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Without Republicans, would Clinton have caught bin Laden?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Ready4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 04:03 PM
Original message
Without Republicans, would Clinton have caught bin Laden?
I was thinking about the claim tht Clinton had 3 chances to get bin Laden but didn't. Like many others I've noted that he wanted to get bin Laden, but was thwarted by a cautious (and Republican) congress.

It occurred to me that Clinton faced not only an opposing Congress and Senate for 6 of his 8 years, but also was wrestling with the extended Whitewater investigation.

Had he not been so obstructed by Republicans in Congress and the Senate, would bin Laden be cooling his heals in a prison cell somewhere? Would 3,000 dead people in New York still be alive today?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Semi_subversive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yup!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bushisanidiot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. Most Likely! Everytime he went after him repukes shouted "wag the dog"
fucking idiots..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. Without question. Atleast, I'm convinced.
And, this leaves this for cogitation: If the Republicans had NOT attacked Clinton in the 90s, there wouldn't be any doubt in anyone's mind that bin Laden would have been Clinton's fault, assuming that bin Laden and 9/11 happened exactly as it did. But because the Republicans muddied the waters by attacking and distracting Clinton during the 90s - in order to follow their own political agenda - they will always leave a doubt in people's minds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
4. Without repubs...all Americans would have health care now too.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveFL99 Donating Member (301 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
5. Absolutely. 9-11 would never have happened
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlingBlade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
6. THEN AND NOW, HOW SOON THEY FORGET
Rice derides Clinton's retaliatory launching of 75 cruise missiles at suspected al-Qaida sites in Afghanistan and Sudan, saying that Bush wanted a more robust response to al-Qaida than "lobbing a few cruise missiles."

But at the time, a number of Republican senators and congressmen sharply criticized Clinton - not for reacting too weakly, but for overreacting to deflect attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Remember Wag the Dog ?

1998
From the moment Clinton went on live television Thursday to announce the bombings in Afghanistan and Sudan, "Wag the Dog's" producer-director Barry Levinson and producer Jane Rosenthal were inundated with requests for comment

1998 Jim Gibbons
"Look at the movie 'Wag the Dog.' I think this has all the elements of that movie," Rep. Jim Gibbons said. "Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems."

Gibbons, Now a war hawk, Must have had second thoughts, Humm.
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ready4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
7. OK, how do we clearly articulate this next time someone "Blames Clinton?"
The mode of right wing attack is to have lots of attack points which seem valid when viewed shallowly, and to keep switching to different attack points so nothing can be explored in depth.

Any good debaters have an effective technique here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 04:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC