He said, she said: Who’s right? -let CNN know

[w8liftinglady]

http://www.cnn.com/exchange/ireports/topics/forms/2006/09/chasing.binladen.html

Former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have traded sharp words this week over which administration – Clinton’s or President Bush’s -- did more to pursue Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network. Who do you think is right? Why?

I sent them a copy of this

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. hey, can't have FACTS interfere with their story telling, can we?

great find!

[w8liftinglady]

2. I also chastised them for perpetuating these lies-and held them

as responsible as the bush administration for 2703 "commas".

[w8liftinglady]

3. c'mon,clever DUers-give them something to think about...

[w8liftinglady]

4. one more kick...give wolfie something to defend...

[Alamom]

5. K&R...

[calimary]

6. Here's what I sent 'em:

Did you folks NEVER see this - from the UK Guardian back in 2002?:

Bush held up plan to hit Bin Laden

Julian Borger in Washington
Monday August 5, 2002
The Guardian

The Bush administration sat on a Clinton-era plan to attack al-Qaida in Afghanistan for eight months because of political hostility to the outgoing president and competing priorities, it was reported yesterday.
The plan, under which special forces troops would have been sent after Osama bin Laden, was drawn up in the last days of the Clinton administration but a decision was left to the incoming Bush team.

Story now archived at

http://www.prisonplanet.com/bush_held_up_plan_to_hit_bin_laden.htm

Clinton was telling the truth. It's Contradicta who's lying - AGAIN.

PLEASE REPORT THE TRUTH - NOT the stories the White House wants you to pursue!!!!! Some 29-HUNDRED American lives have been lost because you haven't.

[w8liftinglady]

8. great email!Hold CNN accountable...

[izzybeans]

7. I came with this

Condoleeza Rice is perhaps mistaken. She'll have to be excused for perhaps being confused. Or she'll have to be taken to task as a liar and violater of the public's trust.

I suggest CNN, a news agency, do some background research for a change. You can verify these comments with simple clicks of a mouse. The federal register, LexisNexis, congressional testimony, etc. are all at your fingertips. Figure it out and report the truth. Enough of the he said, she said. This is just pure laziness. Or you might do the monumental task of googling the words Richard and Clark and then enclosing them in quotes so as to refine the search. Maybe add another term such as NIE to the search. I don't know. How about doing some journalism for a change?

But to help... how about we start with your own archives? Shall we?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

[w8liftinglady]

11. excellent...good find.

[izzybeans]

13. Thanks I found it in my sig line.

;)

[progressoid]

9. Why the fuck do we have to do CNN's job for them?

It's pathetic that we have to dig up all of these documents and present them to CNN et. al.

DO SOME GOD DAMN INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING FOR A CHANGE!!

[izzybeans]

12. That was the message of my comment to them... pasted above.

[progressoid]

18. You sent something much more restrained than I would have.

I went to the site and I could feel my blood boil. So I closed and came back here to vent.

[w8liftinglady]

14. CNN has been pussy-whipped by this administration...

they are afraid to report this stuff...and are depending on US to do it...whatever...maybe they'll report some of our emails...

[progressoid]

16. I'm afraid you are right.

There is no risk in reading a couple of our emails on the air. But if they reported on the same documents we know are out there, they have to put their necks on the line. Wussies.

[progressoid]

17. Oops. dupe.

[The Count]

10. Who could ever doubt Condi? "We don't torture" "The memo was historical"

"We thought they would be traditional hijackings, that's why we didn't warn airports"
I mean, come on, has she EVER lied to us?

[Gabi Hayes]

15. didn't you see this powerful npincus thread, which cites the 911 Comm?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2224098

''Page 197 (paperback edition- Chapter "Threat To Threat, Sec. 6.3 Attack on the Uss Cole"):

"As the Clinton administration drew to a close, Clarke and his staff developed a policy paper of their own, the first such comprehensive effort since the Delenda plan of 1998. The resulting paper, entitled "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al Qida: Status and Prospects" reviewed the threat and record to date, incorporated the CIA's new ideas from the Blue Sky memo, and posed several near-term policy options".

<snip>

page 200

Rice made an initial decision to hold over both Clarke and his entire counter terrorism staff... She decided also that Clarke should retain title of national counter terrorism coordinator, though he would no longer be a de facto member of the Principals Committee on the issues.

page 201

"Within the first few days after Bush's inauguration, Clarke approached Rice in an effort to get her- and the new President- to give terrorism very high priority and to act on the agenda that he had pushed during during the last few months of the previous administration. After Rice requested that all senior staff identify desirable major policy reviews or initiatives, Clarke submitted an elaborate memorandum on January 25, 2001. He attached his 1998 Dlenda Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper. "We urgently need... a Principals level review on the al Qida network", Clarke wrote."

and plenty more if you read on.

Condi, you ought to read the report before you open your lying mouth.''

[Marr]

19. Here's what I sent them.

Your question sums up the problem with political reporting in the nation today. You present the question as if their are two sides to the argument; two equally valid points of view with evidence to back them up. This is not the case.

Bill Clinton referenced a series of items in arguing that he made a serious effort to kill Osama bin Laden, and they are all verifiable facts. From his bombings in Afghanistan, to his regular meetings on terrorism and bin Laden in particular, to the Uzbekistan basing rights, he explained his case thoroughly.

In reponse, Condoleeza Rice offers only the vague statement, "what we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years". No facts. No counter-argument. No mention of the August 6th PDB entitled "Osama bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States", and certainly no mention of the facts that the Bush Administration held no meetings on terrorism prior to 9-11, and in fact demoted their best terrorism expert, Richard Clarke.

Rice's trite response was not an argument. It was a vague denial, without any substance whatsoever. The two are not equal, and CNN's presenting them as such is a grave disservice to journalism and to the country.

[w8liftinglady]

21. excellent email...I hope they read it on the air

[TahitiNut]

20. If Condi said it was snowing in Atlanta, Blitzer would wear a parka.

He's a total whore - a mentally and morally deficient ass-kisser.

[chill_wind]

22. CNN trolling MSNBC coverage- aired IMUS bullsh#T, IGNORED K.O.

Yeah, right --- Clinton despising IMUS and his other buffoons There's a serious "perspective." Christ.

Not a whisper about ANY OTHER MSNBC perspective.. Doesn't fit their immensely biased agenda

That was this am. Soooooo fed up with the Bush Cabal whoring beyond words.