[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

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!

it was wallace who spoke the statement, not the author.

yes, the inaccuracies of the wallace question- in fact, inaccuracy is mild, the question was a set up- do not have any bearing on if "all" or "some" of the conservative republicans thought clinton was "obsessed" with bin laden. it does however go far in explaining why clinton was so animated and aggressive.

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

not yet, but there's ton of quotes to go through, and I'm comfortable trhat someone wll spend the time to find one.

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.

you can attempt to minimize the gramm position as merely carrying water for the banks, yet it is a FACT that 1) the kyc banking regs were proposed by the clinton administration as a needed tool against al queda finances, and 2) gramm stopped the bill and took the position that it was an unnecessary piece of legislation. that has EVERYTHING to do with clinton's focus on al queda and a clear example of a conservative republican opposing the clinton administration's efforts.

But hey, whatever. Let's just give him a pass.

what I am saying is don't focus on a minutia comment like "every conservative republican and neo-con" but focus on what he is saying....that the attempts by the conservatives to blame clinton and not apply the same criteria to bush is wrong.

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.

so do you agree that bush has "lied" just like you accuse clinton of doing?

I'm not sure it is fair to say "rationalize" as much as to understand the playing field he is on.

apply the same citeria to clinton and bush. apply it to their public statements and apply it to their administrations. apply it consistently.

unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case...

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.

you and I agree that clinton, just like bush, should not have 9/11 laid at their feet. could the event have been stopped? sure, but only with a great deal of fortunate events happening. unfortunately luck was not on our side that day.

however, wallace was not embracing that "fair and balanced" view that we agree on. he was attempting to lay the blame on clinton, just as the wording of the lead off question revealed.