Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 32 of 32

Thread: The Onion is psychic - read this humor article from 2001

  1. #31
    Elite Member AllieCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Cali
    Posts
    4,212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nana55 View Post
    Come on. I know the repugs are evil but even I don't think they would stoop to killing our own people. I too wonder about how the towers fell like they did. I think there is more to this than we know, but I don't believe it was the repugs. If you guys want, start a thread on your ideas.

    I'd hate to believe that they would do such a thing, but based on what I have seen and read, I wouldn't put it passed them. I also find it very susipcious that Condi Rice called up San Francisco Mayor Willy Brown, and told him to cancel his flight plans for that day. I could really go on about this subject for days.

    Bychance, I know you were in New York when this happened, so I know it's a touchy subject for you. But hey, I think it was a set up.

  2. #32
    Elite Member bychance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    5,294

    Default

    OK, I just want to post this. I'm not trying to 'change your mind' but just delivering the facts.

    Texas Kaos:: "Clinton Did Nothing to Stop Bin Laden" is a GOP Lie

    One of the biggest myths Republicans have spread is the idea that Democrats are weak on terror. Specifically, they have claimed that Bin Laden and the Taliban were able to carry out the devastating 9/11 attacks because Bill Clinton did nothing to stop Bin Laden. An email chain letter many of you may have seen goes so far as to blame Clinton for the deaths of over 7000 people. After listing several terror acttacks against Americans occurring in the 1990's which Clinton promised to avenge, they end the email with this:
    Maybe if Mr Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 7,000 more people would be alive today.
    It was a classic and manipulative Republican tactic: state some facts, leave out key details, and then make an emotional and misleading insinuation that simply can't be argued against or for it.
    Think about it. No matter what Clinton did, those terror attacks could still have occurred and 7000 people would still have died. Oh, and those key details which this Rovian letter failed to mention? Specific actions which the Clinton administration undertook to hunt down those terrorists responsible for each one of those attacks - including the conviction of several terrorist leaders.

    What the GOP conveniently leaves out is the FACT that more terror suspects were convicted during Clinton's administration before 9/11 than were convicted in Bush's reign after 9/11.

    But the real insinuation of the email, the real lie that Republicans want the public to believe is that Clinton (and by extension the Democrats) did nothing to stop Bin Laden and the Taliban. Then the GOP can not only claim the 'Tough on Terror' mantle all by their lonesome, but they are also off the hook for not capturing Bin Laden or even eliminating the Taliban SIX years after 9/11.

    Well, the idea that Bill Clinton did nothing to stop Bin Laden and the Taliban is a lie and with the anniversary of 9/11 approaching, it's only right that we finally call the GOP on their lie.
    The Clinton/Gore administration went after Bin Laden right up to point of Bush entered the White House and had the Bush administration taken national security briefings from the Clinton anti-terror team seriously, the Twin Towers might still be standing.

    Instead the Bush team, including National Security Advisor Condi Rice dismissed Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke, and the Clinton team's warning as paranoia and were literally on vacation when ominous intelligence noise should have terrified them awake. Clinton was accused of being "obsessed with Bin Laden" and, as Republican Congressmen like Tom Delay and Arlen Specter insinuated, of trying to distract people from the Lewinsky scandal.
    Let's look at facts in detail and the 'Do nothing' claims of these Republicans.

    krazypuppy :: "Clinton Did Nothing to Stop Bin Laden" is a GOP Lie IncidentDescriptionClinton's Response/ ResultsFirst World Trade Center

    (February 26, 1993):
    A car dentonates with 1,200 pounds of explosives in the World Trade Center parking garage killing six and injuring almost thousand. Bin Laden intended to topple the towers,which he finally did on 11 September 2001.Plot mastermind Ramzi Ahmed Yousef captured in 1995, convicted in November 1997, and sentenced to 240 years in prison. Four followers of the radical Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman captured, convicted in March 1994, and each are sentenced to 240 years in prison.

    One suspect fled and is believed to be in Baghdad - which makes you wonder why Bush hasn't captured him.

    American military camp Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
    (November 13, 1995)
    A van is detonated killing seven including five Americans.Saudi Arabian police arrest and behead four Saudi nationals in May 1996. The Saudis deny US agents access to the suspects and claim the men confessed to the attack. As you will discover, the Saudi government will repeatedly interfere or hinder American investigations and still do today. Considering Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah counts the Bush family as close friends, it's troubling that the Saudis are not more cooperative.

    Khobar Towers - Saudi apartment housing American soldiers
    June 25, 1996
    A truck explodes with 5,000 pounds of explosives at the Khobar Towers apartments in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia and kill 19 Americans.The Saudis arrest 13 Saudis and a Lebanese chemist but again deny US agents attempts to question the suspects. Those suspects are still today in Saudi custody, despite being convicted by a federal grand jury in 2001. Again, you hve to wonder why George Bush hasn't used his friendly relationship with the Saudi royalty to give US prosecuters access to the suspects who must have valuable information.

    US Embassy in Africa
    August 7, 1998
    . The US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania are destroyed by car bombs which kill 224 people and wound 5,000.Four followers of Osama bin Laden caught, convicted in U.S. federal court, and sentenced to life in prison without parole. In response, Clinton orders missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden in August 1998. Republicans (and the media) accuse Clinton of trying manufacture a crisis to get people to stop talking about Monica S. Lewinsky.

    Some accused him of being obsessed with bin Laden and even of hysteria.
    Fourteen other suspects were indicted and like bin Laden remain at large. Three Londoners are fighting extradition.

    USS Cole
    October 12, 2000

    Two suicide bombers detonate explosives on a skiff next to the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen, killing 17 American sailors and injured 37 more.
    This time Republicans can actually say Clinton did not convict anybody related to the attack. Why? Because the attack occurred just ONE month before the 2000 election! If they really expect Clinton to convict anyone in a month, then they need to ask why George Bush hasn't caught bin Laden in SIX years!

    A Saudi, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, supposedly confessed to plotting the attack but has testfied that he only confessed due to CIA torture tactics implemented during Bush's reign.

    Besides the moral implications that stem from possibly jailing and torturing an innocent man (though al-Nashiri is no angel), the information al-Nashiri provides is suspect.

    Further by torturing him, did the Bush administration make a martyr out of a criminal (he claims to have essentially conned bin Laden) and further alienate Muslims?

    So those are the events cited by Republicans and that Rovian email as 'proof' that Clinton and the Democrats did nothing to stop Bin Laden. They never mentioned any of the convictions the Clinton administration pursued and obtained. Or the fact that they controlled Congress and when American national security was at risk, they were more interested in spending our resources and attention on oral sex.

    And most definitely Republicans want to avoid all mention of the fact that SIX years after 3000+ Americans were murdered on their watch, the man and the group responsible for the attacks has not been caught and has actually gotten stronger!
    As John F. Harris wrote in The Washington Post:
    In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation - from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) - that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.

    . . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed - he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier - recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.
    The facts are that Clinton probably responded to Bin Laden as much as pre-9/11 politics would allow him to. But some people still want to blame Clinton for not stopping Bin Laden.
    It's so that no one ever holds these hacks accountable for their incompetent and ineffective handling of the 'War on Terror.'


    The Raw Story | Pulitzer-winning journalist: Why I asked if Clinton's al Qaeda strike was like 'Wag the Dog'

    Reporter's 'lighthearted' query spread like wildfire in media

    Hollywood often lifts its stories from the front pages, but nearly nine years ago, a sitting president was accused of doing directly the opposite.

    In the summer of 1998, when the United States bombed al Qaeda terrorist targets in Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for the Aug. 7, 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the sex scandal involving former White House intern Monica Lewinsky and President Clinton was on the minds of almost everyone in Washington DC. But at an Aug. 20 Pentagon press briefing, Pulitzer Prize recipient Gaylord Shaw became the first reporter to reference the movie Wag the Dog, a satire about a make-believe war started to deflect media attention from a presidential sex scandal.

    Though this question was later taken seriously by many journalists who weren't at the press conference, RAW STORY has learned in an interview with Shaw that he posed his question in a joking and “lighthearted” manner.
    “It was kind of lighthearted," Shaw said about his question. "We obviously... I mean, no one seriously thought that the President was bombing targets to change the subject from Monica Lewinsky."

    However, Wag the Dog immediately exploded as a metaphor for the idea that President Clinton had attempted to start a war to distract the news media from his troubles. Many have argued that -- faced with skepticism towards his actions in the national media, and with some political pundits being egged on by a Republican-led House of Representatives that was driving towards impeachment -- the Wag the Dog accusations may have even hindered President Clinton's ability to take further action at that time against Osama bin Laden and other foreign terrorists.

    Metamorphosis of a metaphor
    On Aug. 20, 1998, just three days after President Clinton had admitted to a grand jury that he'd had an affair with Lewinsky, the Pentagon held a press conference about the US retaliatory bombings. Gaylord Shaw, then the Washington Bureau Chief for Newsday, asked Secretary of Defense William Cohen, "Some Americans are going to say this bears a striking resemblance to Wag the Dog. Two questions: Have you seen the movie? And second, how do you respond to people who think that."

    (Audio clip of question can be heard at this link)

    "The only motivation driving this action today was our absolute obligation to protect the American people from terrorist activities," a taken aback Cohen responded.

    Shaw, who was awarded a Pulitzer in 1978 "for a series on unsafe structural conditions at the nation's major dams" published in the LA Times, told RAW STORY that he hadn't seen the movie when he asked the question. But "several of the guys [in the White House press pool] had and they were talking about it," and there arose a "kind of a challenge among us to see who would ask Cohen." When asked if this was a serious challenge among the press pool, Shaw downplayed the notion and defined the challenge as “lighthearted.”

    “It was kind of, when you see one of these guys in the hallway or you encounter them for an interview and you talked to them in their office,” Shaw said of his question, “that's sort of something you use to break the ice, you know, that kind of thing,”

    When asked if any other journalists wanted to ask the question, he added, “You know, it was kind of humming in the background and I think everyone laughed when I asked it.”

    "Well you know, I can't speak for the entire press corps," Shaw told RAW STORY. "There may have been some people who thought Clinton would do that; I didn't, didn't think that that was what was taking place, and I don't think any of my colleagues, folks I know and worked with, they didn't take that as a serious possibility."

    But “Wag the Dog” spread like wildfire
    On Aug. 20, 1998, anchor Brian Williams introduced NBC Nightly News's "In-Depth" segment with a reference to the movie: "It had some invoking the title of a recent movie in which just that happened. Wag the Dog, it's a work of fiction, but that same thought today had a real feel.” Also that night, CNN's Wolf Blitzer took a "look at the presidency with attention split between the sex scandal in the White House and the military strikes aimed at the terrorists responsible for the U.S. embassy bombings."

    In an editorial published the next day, The New York Times backed the strikes, but cautioned the president to "reassure" Americans that they were not intended to distract.

    "The United States has every right to attack suspected terrorists if there is credible evidence showing that they were involved in attacks against U.S. citizens or were planning such attacks," the Times editorial said. "That seems to be the case in the missile attacks ordered by President Clinton in the Sudan and Afghanistan....But since those attacks were ordered from a White House weakened by scandal, Clinton needs to take extra care to reassure the country that the attacks were not timed to help repair his shaken presidency."

    Andrew Krepinevich wrote for the Aug. 23, 1998 Washington Post, "While the president's decision to retaliate against terrorism is clearly justified based upon the evidence at hand, the propriety of this course of action is undermined by doubts as to the motives for the strikes, coming so close to the president's Monday night scandal speech, and the continuing scandal coverage on the front pages of the national press."

    "It has been noted that after the antiterrorist military strikes, the president did not shy away from using the opportunity to appear 'presidential,' giving two speeches on the matter, one after flying back dramatically to Washington from his vacation on Martha's Vineyard," Krepinevich added. "These actions may have been appropriate. Yet a president who lacks credibility must be careful not to present even the appearance that he may be acting out of a personal, rather than a public, interest."

    One day after the briefing, Salon.com columnist David Corn made a direct reference to Shaw's question: “It took only a few minutes for one of the reporters in the Pentagon pressroom to ask Secretary of Defense William Cohen the question on many minds: 'Have you seen the movie?' He was referring to Wag the Dog and the unsettling coincidence between Thursday's military strikes and a movie in which political fixers concoct a war to distract public attention from a presidential sex scandal.”

    On Aug. 23, 1998, Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page used Shaw's stature as a veteran journalist to give credibility to “Wag the Dog” accusations against Clinton: “A year ago it would have been hard to imagine a reporter as respectable as Newsday's Gaylord Shaw raising such a tacky question in a Pentagon news conference.”

    On the Aug. 21, 1998 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato told anchor Chris Matthews: "Yeah, Chris, two things strike me about it. The first is -- and I think this is an amazing figure -- 36 percent of Americans believe that the Monica Lewinsky scandal had something to do with the president's action to strike in Afghanistan and the -- the Sudan. That is an amazingly high percentage. That's a product of cynicism, and it's cynicism that Bill Clinton has helped to create and to stoke. He is, after all, a self-certified liar now."

    References to Wag the Dog and Clinton continued well after August 1998, especially in more "conservative friendly" media outlets such as the New York Post, Washington Times, National Review, and Fox News.

    In the New York Post, columnist Andrea Peyser asked, "On the day Monica Lewinsky was testifying before a grand jury, did the president of the United States send innocent people into harm's way for the ugly purpose of changing the subject of national discourse from oral sex and semen-stained dresses to battle scars and blood-stained uniforms?" and Deborah Orin wrote, "Only a majority of Democrats believe President Clinton launched missile strikes primarily to act against terrorism -- while everyone else is more likely to suspect a case of 'the tail wagging the dog,' a new Post Poll shows."

    In a Dec. 17, 2001 column for the National Review, Byron York said that after the Aug. 20, 1998 bombings, "Clinton's critics accused him of using military action to change the subject from the sex-and-perjury scandal -- the so-called 'wag the dog' strategy."

    York goes on to note that “[a]fter the cruise missile raids, the administration restricted its work to covert actions breaking up terrorist cells,” but also insinuates that Clinton's anti-terrorist actions may have been less than altruistic. He quotes James Woolsey's dismissal of Clinton's tactics as "PR-driven," adding that Clinton's “PR-driven” method of fighting terrorism was “an approach that left the fundamental problem unsolved.”

    John Podhoretz was even blunter in a Jul. 16, 2002 column for the New York Post, charging point-blank that President Clinton was guilty of ordering military actions to focus attention away from his domestic problems and urging President Bush to use the same tactics to begin the war in Iraq: “Go on, Mr. President: Wag the dog. ... You're in some domestic political trouble, Mr. President. You need to change the subject. You have the biggest subject-changer of all at your disposal. Use it. I can hear the screaming already from certain quarters. How would such a thing be different from what Bill Clinton did in 1998, when he used cruise missiles twice in response to Osama bin Laden at crucial moments during the Lewinsky scandals? Here's how it would be different, Mr. President: You'd get the job done.”

    Republican reactions
    Although the majority of Republicans publicly backed the al Qaeda strikes in 1998, a few sitting Congressional members were skeptical of Clinton's motives.

    "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action," Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) said in a statement. "Once the president has broken the bond of trust with the American people, as he has done with his repeated lies, it raises questions about everything he does or does not do."

    Republican Senators Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and John McCain (R-AZ) didn't go as far as Coates, but both noted that Clinton was "distracted," before slightly reversing themselves later, after House Speaker Newt Gingrich characterized "Wag the Dog" accusations as "sick."

    But after Clinton struck targets in Iraq in the winter of 1998, many more Republicans joined the "wag the dog" attack. "Both the timing and the motive are subject to question," Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) was quoted as saying, and Rep. Harold Solomon, (R-NY) said "Never underestimate a desperate president."

    Coverage of foreign matters buried in favor of scandal
    President Clinton was also trying to get the job done on other issues -- matters we still see in the news today.

    From Oct. 15 through Oct. 23, 1998, Clinton was in Wye, Maryland for the Wye River Accord, a meeting between the leaders of Israel and Palestine to continue the peace process. These talks brought Israel's then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat together to discuss how to bring peace to the region. President Clinton focused his attention on mediating the discussions, since issues between the Israelis and Palestinians are always heated. At one point, after Israeli leaders threatened to leave, Clinton launched “a marathon 21-hour session [after which] both Palestinians and Israelis agree to what becomes known as the Wye River Memorandum,“ according to PBS.

    On Sep. 21, 1998, Clinton received a standing ovation from world leaders at the United Nations before giving a speech about combating international terrorism. But on the same day, Republican Congressional leaders had the video tape of Clinton's deposition to the grand jury released to the public, which prompted the major networks to show hours of footage from the tape.
    In his book The Clinton Wars, Sidney Blumenthal, a senior adviser to Clinton, notes that the media climate at this time was still focused on fallout from the Lewinsky scandal, practically ignoring terrorism and other matters that the White House was working on: “In the media, busy with the tumultuous response to the Starr Report's release, the struggle against terrorism was a mere footnote if it was mentioned at all.”



    Legacy of a metaphor

    Last year, controversy surrounded ABC when it aired the movie The Path To 9/11 before the 2006 elections. The docudrama, which ABC claimed was based on facts detailed in the 9/11 Commission Report, was critical of the Clinton administration. CNN reported that the movie portrayed “Clinton being too distracted by impeachment and his marital problems to focus on bin Laden.”

    Clinton emphatically rebutted this charge in a Sep. 26, 2006 interview on Fox News: “ABC just had a right- wing conservative run in their little Pathway to 9/11, falsely claiming it was based on the 9/11 Commission report, with three things asserted against me directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report. ... And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden... They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in ‘Black Hawk down,’ and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations.”

    Clinton continued, making a direct mention of Wag the Dog and noting the pressure Republicans who now accuse him of not fighting terrorism placed on him when he attempted to kill bin Laden in the Aug. 20, 1998 attacks: “The people on my political right who say I didn't do enough spent the whole time I was president saying, ‘Why is he so obsessed with bin Laden? That was “wag the dog” when he tried to kill him.’”

    Noting the legacy of the “Wag the Dog” metaphor and the power it carries, RAW STORY asked Gaylord Shaw if he had any regrets about being the first reporter to mention the movie. Shaw replied, “No, I don't regret asking the question. I regret that anyone's taking it too seriously,” then added, with a chuckle, “I mean, we got to have a little more faith in our national leaders then that.”
    [youtube]VDQBsgpEdvc[/youtube]
    Last edited by bychance; October 19th, 2008 at 09:01 PM.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What passes for Republican humor these days
    By Laurent in forum Laughs and Oddities
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 10th, 2008, 09:20 PM
  2. Summer Stoolstice-Poop humor
    By Jessica in forum Laughs and Oddities
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 7th, 2008, 08:25 PM
  3. Celebrity Legal News From 2001 ~ interesting little read
    By AliceInWonderland in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 22nd, 2008, 02:53 PM
  4. Old Age Humor
    By browneyedgirly in forum Laughs and Oddities
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 2nd, 2005, 05:06 PM
  5. Caramelized Onion Dip
    By SVZ in forum Recipes
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 28th, 2005, 11:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •