[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no kg, the article referred to statments made in the book as "historically factual". the way that the above sentence was written shows the inaccuracies intertwined.

look at this: "when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, 'I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops.'"

that's just flat out wrong. bin laden didn't say that in 1993.

look at correct words: "bin laden said after 9/11 that when you pulled troops out of somalia in 1993 he saw the frailty..."

recall this was the question that, in a way, was the match that set the clinton fireworks off.

Wallace's question was poorly worded and misleading to the extent that it implied that bin Laden said that in 1993, but you're conflating two different arguments here.

I don't pretend to be able to read minds, so I don't know what the author of the article meant when he said "historically accurate." I haven't read the book "Looming Tower", so I can't say whether it misrepresents the facts or if Wallace just got it wrong. Either way, that still has NOTHING to do with whether Clinton's response was a lie or not!

I do recall that the cole attack saw a unanamity typically seen in congress when the us is attacked. the same common purpose as after 9/11.

I also don't see how I could possibly research the quotes from the specified people over the remainder of clinton's 8 years either.

from my view, this is just symtomatic of the preoccupation of so many with clinton, and proving he "lies".

In other words, you can't point me to a single instance.

Thanks for the concession. It's a rarity.

gee, does he have to use the word "obsessed"? gramm said the bill was unnecessary.

He could have used any phrase that suggested that Clinton was doing too much to try and pursue bin Laden. BTW, you're putting words in Gramm's mouth and misrepresenting the reason for his opposition to Clinton's proposed bill.

At the time, Gramm said, ""The way to deal with terrorists is to hunt them down and kill them." That doesn't sound to me like someone who thinks that Clinton was doing too much to try and hunt down bin Laden. Also, I think it's only fair to point out that the real reason Gramm opposed the bill was that he was aligned with the banking industry on the issue, which opposed the measure. It had nothing to do with Gramm's opinion of Clinton's hunt for bin Laden and everything to do with a special interest group that he was trying to help out.

from the article, i'd agree that it looks like it's not accurate. otoh, the recollection may be an accurate portrait of his dealings with them.

a lie? from my perspective he's puffing.

Puffing is what a used car dealer does when he says, "Oh yeah, this baby runs great!" This wasn't puffing.

But hey, whatever. Let's just give him a pass. Sure, there are no comments in the public record AT ALL to support his rather incredible claim. But all of those right wing neo-cons might have been pulling Bill aside privately and giving him hell for being obsessed with bin Laden.

Yeah, right.

it is fair to compare these two, they both occupied the same office. my point is their position produces a great deal of rhetoric and hyperbole in their speaking. if you wish to hold clinton to every single word used, the same should be done with bush.

It IS done. There have been a myriad of books written about the purported lies Bush has told, and that's while he's still in office!

Bringing it up in this context just appears to me to be an effort to rationalize Clinton's lies.

that was clinton's point, not the criticism by the republicans he says he received, but the question of what did he do, or not do, to defeat the terrorists and perhaps stop 9/11.

likewise, he wants the same question asked of the current administration. that is a very fair request.

It has been asked, ad nauseum in fact, by everyone from the media to the 9/11 Commission.

FWIW, I don't think Clinton is responsible for 9/11. That's unfair to try and pin it on him. For all we know, 9/11 might have happened even if bin Laden had been killed. It is, however, fair, to criticize Clinton for not lacking the backbone/willpower/resolve (pick your term) to demand that the CIA, FBI, and/or military take action to kill bin Laden. Even Clarke's sympathetic account of events reveals that Clinton simply couldn't get those agencies to do what he told them to do. That's Clinton's fault. Period.