Blogcritics: Comments on About Those Atrocities...

Comment by Shark

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 04:54:51 EST

Punditz: "...Impressive math skills, Shark. Absolutely awesome..." Thanks. I studied in Florida under Katherine Harris; got my Masters in Ohio.

Comment by punditz

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 04:48:50 EST

Impressive math skills, Shark. Absolutely awesome.

Comment by bhw

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 18:12:23 EST

Andy, I'm pretty sure the 9/11 commission said they found no evidence of the offer. I don't have a link for you right now, though.

Comment by andy marsh

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 18:01:05 EST

bhw - there is this from latimes.com clinton let bin laden go but I'm not sure about latimes.com

Comment by bhw

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:53:33 EST

My point was that you don't *know* that Clinton was offered bin Laden. You just believe the Sudanese instead of Clinton. There's a big difference.

Comment by andy marsh

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:43:52 EST

you got me there!

Comment by JR

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:42:09 EST

I thought he denied having sex. Any middle-school kid can tell you oral doesn't count.

Comment by andy marsh

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:39:06 EST

he denied getting head in the oval office too!

Comment by bhw

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:24:14 EST

Clinton denies that he was offered bin Laden.

Comment by JR

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:55:57 EST

Bush was offered a hit on Zarqawi on at least three occasions and he just blew it off every time. And this was after 9/11 (but before Zarqawi killed hundreds of civilians and soldiers in Iraq).

Comment by Shark

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:54:13 EST

"....John Kerry sat mentally frozen at a meeting in Washington, DC, sharing a brain numbing 2,700 seconds with his colleagues..." Oh yeah?! We've been mired in that stupid useless war in Iraq for over 38,979,522,384,371,589,666,741,892 seconds! So there! (And worse than that, Bush has been a fucking idiot for over 58 years!)

Comment by andy marsh

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:43:33 EST

bhw - you forget that bill was OFFERED bin laden during his presidency and I guess he just blew it off!

Comment by JR

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:43:25 EST

In any case, the anthrax attacks happened after 9/11; so strictly speaking, it's not true to say we haven't had any attacks on home soil since.

Comment by bhw

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:23:31 EST

There were many attacks on foreign soil [and air space] before Clinton took office. If we're going to look at what happened under his watch, then it's only fair that we look at what happened under Reagan and Bush I's watches, as well. Because if Clinton allowed the conditions for 9/11 to happen, then those that preceded him allowed the conditions for Timothy McVeigh and the first WTC bombing to happen, as well as what happened abroad. Right? January 1982: Lt. Col. Charles Ray, a military attachi stationed at the embassy in Paris, was shot and killed by Lebanese terrorists. August 1982: a bomb exploded on a Pan Am jet during its approach to Honolulu Airport, killing one Japanese teenager. April 18, 1983: a delivery van filled with explosives detonated in front of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing a total of 63 people, including 17 Americans. October 23, 1983: the headquarters of the Marine Battalion Landing Team at Beirut airport was destroyed by another explosives-laden truck, killing 241 people. A second bomb, at French forces headquarters, killed 59. September 1984: a van bearing diplomatic license plates navigated around three concrete barriers in front of the U.S. Embassy annex in Christian East Beirut and detonated. Two American military officers and twelve Lebanese were killed. mid-1980s: a time of frequent kidnappings (and occasionally murder) of Americans in Lebanon. Targets included journalists, educators (including the president of the American University in Beirut, who was murdered), and ministers, as well as intelligence and military officers. June 14, 1985, TWA Flight 847, carrying 153 people, was hijacked on its way from Athens to Rome. A U.S. Navy diver was murdered by the hijackers. April 1986: a bomb exploded at the La Belle disco in Berlin, killing two American soldiers. December 21, 1988: Pan Am flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 passengers and crew, as well as 11 residents of Lockerbie. I guess you could say that the lack of attention that Reagan and Bush I paid to international terrorism led to the first WTC attack, the Oklahoma City attack, and other attacks on US interests abroad during Clinton's years in office. Right?

Comment by JR

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:18:09 EST

punditz: It is assinine not to consider attacks on the US as relevant no matter where they occur. The thing is, you did exactly that in the original post when you credited Bush with not a single "terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11". And you're right, it was asinine.

Comment by punditz

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 13:53:48 EST

Duh, and what do you call the first bombing of the World Trade Center? It is assinine not to consider attacks on the US as relevant no matter where they occur. It's just convenient to preserve some bogus Clinton legacy to dismiss the 10 attacks that occurred under his watch, and not bother noticing that his lack of attention to terrorism led to the attack of 9/11. Kudos on the success with the martians. Keep up the good work. Just don't depend upon Kerry to help you... well, unless you want to have sensitive discussions and global approval.

Comment by Mac Diva

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:37:02 EST

You can have credit for the absence of Ferengi among us, Bhw. But, I want props for keeping the Betazoids out. Counselor Troi was much too saccharine.

Comment by bhw

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:22:28 EST

There have been no landings by alien spaceships in my backyard in the past 4 years. I would like to take credit for that.

Comment by Mac Diva

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:10:00 EST

Duh. The only large terrorist attack in the U.S. prior to 9/11 was Punditz' fellow Right Winger, Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. There have been attacks on Americans abroad which could be considered terrorism since the Cold War, at least. So, Oyster's point is accurate. There were no attacks like 9/11 during Clinton's two elected terms. Trying to pass off non-domestic incidents of violence as domestic is the kind of sophistry I would expect from someone who makes the ice cream fallacy.

Comment by punditz

Tue, 2 Nov 2004 00:56:20 EST

"So, by your very own logic, you must believe that it was thanks to the Clinton Administration that we didn't have any such terrorist attacks between 1993 and 2001. Right?" If that were true, yes, it would be correct. Unfortunately, it's not true. US interests were attacked 10 times during the Clinton Administration. We did virtually nothing about those attacks treating them as law enforcement issues and merely chasing them from one end of the world to another. Clinton's "Terrorism Czar", Richard Clarke was one of many to point that out. According to statements made by various 9/11 Commission members, and this would come from testimony provided by captured Al-Qaeda insurgents, other attacks were thwarted. All information on that matter has not yet been released. Therefore, it is hardly a coincidence that we have not had further attacks. It was thanks to preventative measures taken during the Bush Administration.

Comment by Mac Diva

Mon, 1 Nov 2004 21:36:24 EST

Oyster, that is some very rational reasoning. Unfortunately, the kind of jingoism you just read is very common at Blogcritics. The sloppy thinking you referred to is basically a failure to grasp cause and effect. When I'm teaching undergraduates, the example I use is: ~ There are more homicides during the summer than any other time of the year. ~ More ice cream is sold during the summer than any other time of the year. ~ But, eating ice cream does not cause homicides. Punditz' claim that the Bush administration has prevented further terrorist attacks has the same fallacy. For such a claim to make sense, there would need to be evidence of attacks thwarted by the Bushites. The coincidence of the Bush administration and an absence of attacks occurring at the same time is not enough.

Comment by Oyster

Mon, 1 Nov 2004 18:12:26 EST

"You write: "We haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11... That's thanks to the Bush Administration." So, by your very own logic, you must believe that it was thanks to the Clinton Administration that we didn't have any such terrorist attacks between 1993 and 2001. Right?" One statement does not flow to the other in any cognizant order at all. Now this flows nicely, I could say, "Thanks to the Clinton Administration, al Qaeda was free to amass all the necessary operatives, money and cooperation needed for them to already be in the country and start the process culminating in an attack within the first eight months of the Bush Admin."

Comment by Oyster

Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:58:24 EST

I think the point is that because one cites newpaper articles to make their point does not mean that they are not expressing an "opinion". In this election cycle "spin" has played a huge role. Mr. BushAtrocity has applied his own brand of spin as we all have a tendency to do. Punditz does not claim to be a journalist yet is expected by Mr BA to be accurate even though the articles he cites apparently do not have to stand up to that test. The misspelling was unintentional yet one was still directed to the right page. The fact still remains that if one does not like what they read they are welcome to go elsewhere. If they wish to comment on it in their own forum or any other that welcomes differing opinions, the last time I checked they were still free to do so. And they can misspell all they want. I happen to understand what Punditz is saying regarding a "liberal response". I've been called worse myself.

Comment by Jon Sobel

Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:54:22 EST

You write: "We haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11... That's thanks to the Bush Administration." So, by your very own logic, you must believe that it was thanks to the Clinton Administration that we didn't have any such terrorist attacks between 1993 and 2001. Right?

Comment by punditz

Mon, 1 Nov 2004 01:45:06 EST

No, I did not miss the point that he is a registered Republican. Apparently it is supposed to be significant of something that a registered republican is going to vote for a democrat. It isn't. The guy is not voting his party and is impressed that The New Yorker supports John Kerry. If anyone is missing the point here it is the one who thinks it's a big deal that a Magazine which has obvious leftist leanings is going to support a lefty candidate. Further, it was my opinion that the editorial to which he refers was full of misrepresentations, distortions, and outright lies. I don't care what the guy's registration is; to believe that crap he has to be of the mindset to accept it and that puts him squarely on the Liberal page.