Article

2005-09-23 Home Front: Politix

President Bush: Clinton Weakness Led to 9/11

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2005-09-23 09:32|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#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|| 2005-09-23 09:48|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-09-23 10:17|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-09-23 10:24|| Front Page Top

#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">Robert Crawford 2005-09-23 10:42|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-09-23 10:42|| Front Page Top

#5 Good for you, George. Stick it in and break the fucker off.

Posted by mojo">mojo 2005-09-23 10:45|| 2005-09-23 10:45|| Front Page Top

#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">Ralph Tacoma 2005-09-23 11:25|| 2005-09-23 11:25|| Front Page Top

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

Hear, hear, ATW!

All real women do.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2005-09-23 11:41|| http://www.ariellestjohndesigns.com]">[http://www.ariellestjohndesigns.com] 2005-09-23 11:41|| Front Page Top

#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">Robert Crawford 2005-09-23 12:45|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-09-23 12:45|| Front Page Top

#9 Lol, mojo!

Posted by .com 2005-09-23 16:38|| 2005-09-23 16:38|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-09-23 16:49|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-09-23 18:32|| Front Page Top

#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">Robert Crawford 2005-09-23 20:35|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-09-23 20:35|| Front Page Top

00:09 JosephMendiola
23:54 muck4doo
23:52 Old Patriot
23:50 Scooter McGruder
23:49 Scooter McGruder
23:45 Mike
23:42 JosephMendiola
23:41 Old Patriot
23:40 Mike
23:27 Old Patriot
23:23 Uninetle Hupating2229
23:21 JosephMendiola
23:16 Old Patriot
23:15 Uninetle Hupating2229
23:12 Red Dog
23:05 Seafarious
22:52 john
22:38 Old Patriot
22:23 MunkarKat
22:17 Alaska Paul
22:14 Alaska Paul
22:03 Sobiesky
21:36 Darrell
21:35 interested conservative