.
Can you say "Fox News. Fair and neo-con"
2007-01-29 11:22:33 · 30 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
As I suspect you know - Fox News is probably the biggest supporter of lies and deception supporting the neocon agenda...
And I suspect you already know that the Clinton administration handed over detailed information on the threat Bin Laden posed, as well as suggestions on how to kill him.
Fox News will almost certainly fail to discuss the Bush administrations decision to discard all the Clinton administration recommendations on the subject... and their resultant failure in preventing 9/11. And of course, Fox News will somehow implicate anyone but the neocons in the failure to capture or kill Bin Laden or Mullah Omar.
The neocons, and their media servants have done a great job in distracting the American people from the repeated failures of the neocon agenda to succeed in everything they've attempted... wmd's, capturing Osama Bin Laden, capturing Mullah Omar...
Losing control of Afghanistan and Iraq... letting N. Korea attain nuclear weapons... shall I go on?
Bitter,
-dh
2007-01-29 11:30:53 · answer #1 · answered by delicateharmony 5 · 5⤊ 8⤋
How about after 9-11 When Bush got all bin laden s family out of the country,
2007-01-29 11:54:19 · answer #2 · answered by ann m 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
So it's useless facts if it's from Fox News, huh? Do you libs have any control over how repetitive and unoriginal your thought process gets? Think for yourself rather than repeating trendy phrases all the time.
Artgurrl: Would have been a lot easier to do when he was out in plain sight rather than when he's living in a cave. Sheesh.
2007-01-30 10:59:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A better question is why ABC, which made the original documentary, has so little interest in revealing the influence by Clinton & co. to bully them into changing the content. I'd be willing to bet good money that if the Bush administration started trying to horn in and tell a network how to make a documentary they'd scream bloody murder (and rightly so). But Clinton plays Editor-in-Chief and they meekly roll over and do what he says. Very strange, the sort of thing the American people might want to know more about...
2007-01-29 11:34:18 · answer #4 · answered by dukefenton 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Clitoon was an embarrassement to America and a godsend to terrorists.
Next to Jimmah Carter he couldn't have done any more damage to America if he tried twice as hard as he did.
Clitoon was offered Osama 4 times. Each time he refused him.
The report cites a 1998 meeting between Mr. Berger and the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, at which Mr. Tenet presented a plan to capture Osama bin Laden.
“In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted,” the report says, citing a May 1, 1998, Central Intelligence Agency memo summarizing the weekly meeting between Messrs. Berger and Tenet.
In June of 1999, another plan for action against Mr. bin Laden was on the table. The potential target was a Qaeda terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. The commission report released yesterday cites Mr. Berger’s “handwritten notes on the meeting paper” referring to “the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties.”According to the Berger notes, “if he responds, we’re blamed.”
On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: “In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’ ”
In August of 2000, Mr. Berger was presented with another possible plan for attacking Mr. bin Laden.This time, the plan would be based on aerial surveillance from a “Predator” drone. Reports the commission: “In the memo’s margin,Berger wrote that before considering action, ‘I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.’ ”
In other words, according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times — Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action. Had he been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today.
2007-01-29 12:00:06 · answer #5 · answered by Feelsgood 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
To take the heat off "Bush"! Notice the exaggerated or lied about it starting with Bush "42",and they foegor to mention that our present president really dont care if we catch the mastermind of 9/11.
2007-01-29 14:40:00 · answer #6 · answered by MaryAnn K 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe because Hillary, the co-president of the 90's, claimed if she were president she would go after Bin Laden. He was handed to them on a silver platter in the 90's, and they let him continue his plan. Clintons were good for terrorism, bad for America. We can't afford to let them back in the White House. It would be "the good ol' days" again, not for Americans but for Islamic terrorists.
2007-01-29 11:35:42 · answer #7 · answered by babe 2 · 4⤊ 3⤋
haha! It is called DIVERSION my friend. Clinton actually ordered an assasination on Bin Laden which failed. Killed one of his kids instead.
The Bush family and Bin-Ladens are friends and business partners. You don't suppose Bin Laden was warned so as to make the Democrats look bad do you? Not much of a stretch of imagination after the way our fearless leader got them out of the US after 9/11 before they could be questioned by the FBI. Remember, the FBI only wanted the opportunity to question them, but our president said no. What was and is he hiding?
2007-01-29 11:30:27 · answer #8 · answered by Truth be Told 3 · 3⤊ 6⤋
Because they don't want to talk about the reasons Bush won't catch Bin Laden. Could it have anything to do with his buddies in the Bin Laden family?
2007-01-29 11:26:59 · answer #9 · answered by Seraphim 3 · 7⤊ 5⤋
Because they sure as hell aren't going to do a story on how Bush hasn't caught Bin Laden, or how Bush screwed up when he went into Iraq
2007-01-29 11:26:46 · answer #10 · answered by Deasel98 5 · 7⤊ 4⤋