You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
President Bush: Clinton Weakness Led to 9/11
2005-09-23
President Bush fired back at ex-president Clinton on Thursday, saying the weak U.S. response to terrorist attacks that took place mostly during the Clinton administration encouraged al Qaida to launch the 9/11 attacks. "The terrorists saw our response to the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings in the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole," Bush noted, after getting an update on the war on terror at the Pentagon. "The terrorists concluded that we lacked the courage and character to defend ourselves and so they attacked us," the president added, in quotes picked up by United Press International. Four of the six terrorist attacks cited by Bush took place on Clinton's watch, with the first two coming during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.
So he didn't really bash Clinton, he pointed out it was our weak response to those attacks that lead to 9/11.
Posted by:Steve

#12  are people suggesting that the media are so biased that none of them would break ranks with the scoop such a statement would naturally be. They are biased but the bottom line is the bottom line.

Uh huh.

I'll believe that when the Chuck Shumer dirty trick story gets a stronger reaction than "oh, those silly kids".
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-09-23 20:35  

#11  I have to agree with Robert on this one, although I hope it may be slowly changing. I know my-parents-the-retired-academics, who spent their youths teasing the facts from wartime propaganda, believed everything they saw ("Did you see... on 60 Minutes?"), and were shocked by the Good News reports from Chrenkoff and other things I sent them. So they are not the typical gullible news consumer, and yet...

On the other hand, they aren't as gullible now, and I imagine each of us has made at least one person aware of MSM misinformation... which means as many as almost 10,000 people worldwide believe less than they used to... darn it! that didn't calculate out the way I expected it too!!
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-09-23 18:32  

#10  are people suggesting that the media are so biased that none of them would break ranks with the scoop such a statement would naturally be. They are biased but the bottom line is the bottom line.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2005-09-23 16:49  

#9  Lol, mojo!
Posted by: .com   2005-09-23 16:38  

#8  That would have been true in the past, but it's not nearly so true as it was. While the "primary channel" is still huge, it's no longer a monopoly, and that makes a LOT of difference. The fact that the media attack on Bush over Katrina didn't take as well as it might have is proof of that.

Sorry, but you're overestimating the impact of the alternative media and underestimating the impact of the HOSTILE alternative media. Ever hear what gets talked about on "urban" stations? I know here in Cincinnati you can count on the local "urban" stations to pass around racist conspiracy theories and outright hatred.

What percentage of people still have broadcast TV as their primary news source? Is it 80%? I doubt it's under 60%. Do you think any of those people have EVER heard any of the things collected by Cherenkoff or even heard of Michael Yon?
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-09-23 12:45  

#7  "I like men, not therapy clients."

Hear, hear, ATW!

All real women do.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2005-09-23 11:41  

#6  RC,

That would have been true in the past, but it's not nearly so true as it was. While the "primary channel" is still huge, it's no longer a monopoly, and that makes a LOT of difference. The fact that the media attack on Bush over Katrina didn't take as well as it might have is proof of that.

I don't mean to belittle your basic point, but only to point out that it is no longer as absolute a truth it was just a few years ago.

I think that the politicians are just starting to recognize that fact.
Posted by: Ralph Tacoma   2005-09-23 11:25  

#5  Good for you, George. Stick it in and break the fucker off.
Posted by: mojo   2005-09-23 10:45  

#4  Mrs. Davis -- it doesn't matter that Bush is the president. Anything he says has to go through the press.

There's no way to win a propaganda war when the primary channel is the enemy.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-09-23 10:42  

#3  Well, I'm happily married but between the two, I'd take GWB over Bubba boy any day.

I like men, not therapy clients.
Posted by: Already taken female   2005-09-23 10:24  

#2  I suspect this has more to do with Bush letting Clinton know that if Clinton wants to bad mouth him on the Sunday talk shows, there will be a response. And now that Bush has the reins of government that won't be an even fight, even if Clinton has more charisma, at least for horney girls.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-09-23 10:17  

#1  4yrs to late!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This rally talk getting people pissed off should have been done in the begining and the Dems would have been falling over eachother to look tough not weak and things would be different.
Posted by: C-Low   2005-09-23 09:48  

00:00