Sunday, September 27, 2009

Yellowed Newspaper Clippings

From today's Boston Globe review of Jon Krakauer's new book about the Pat Tillman cover up: "On Aug. 6, 2001, our vacationing president was warned by the CIA for the 36th time in eight months that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike in the United States and that recent intelligence had suggested an attack might be imminent. There were at that moment, George W. Bush was told, 70 bin-Laden-related field investigations being conducted in the country. 'All right,’' our president told the CIA officer, 'you’ve covered your ass.'"

18 comments:

Hope said...

Stick to the music Bill.

Bill Janovitz said...

Stick to pumping gas, Hope.

Hope said...

Is there something wrong with pumping gas, Bill?

Mark said...

I see, let's get to the bottom of whether or not the president got a @# from an intern, but God forbid we find out that there was credible information foreshadowing the kind of event that was 9/11. The truth shouldn't be partisan. Now fill er up, I got fuel to burn, roads to drive!

Whirling House said...

I understand that a president goes on vacation. I understand that in spite of a lot of effort, terrorism can strike. Invading Iraq as retribution for 9-11? Incomprehensible. To this day, I can't believe that happened. Even my non-liberal acquaintances, while still defending the war, will state that Iraq wasn't behind 9-11.

And can't we all get along? Aside from the full service state of New Jersey (which still floors every time I drive through), don't we all fill up our own gas tanks?

Navin R. Johnson said...

It's also illegal to pump your own gas in Huntington, LI. Maybe Bill is getting nostalgic again for time in his life.

Bill Janovitz said...

Nothing wrong with pumping gas. So please keep fillin her up.

Mike H. said...

The president lied before a federal judge under oath during a deposition in a sexual harasment case. Seems to be a rather pertinent detail you "truthiests" love to leave out. Just as this little snippet leaves out that these action reports the president got never once had anything actionable. Ever.

I know you guys love harping on Iraq but the fact remains that as time goes on there has been an actual erosion of the power base in next door Iran and not a broadening of their influence in the reigon as Joe "split Iraq up in to 3 pieces International Gravitas" Biden foolishly offered up in his failed thank god presidential bid. Lefties have been spewing similar baseless crap about Iran's prowes thanks to the Iraq excursion since 2004 or so. The best was oft repeated tale that Al Sadr is going to rise up and be the real leader in Iraq and be an extension of Iran's influence. Meanwhile the guy has been hiding in Iran everyday since he was on the cover of Time. What a power broker! Christ next to Obama he was the future of the world it seemed at one point. A bonafide muslim boogyman put in power no thanks to the fool Bush and his grand diversion. Him and the Iranian proxy's have gotten their ass handed to them repeatedly since on the ground by US and Iraqi forces in the south. That was just a blip on the Huffy post if anything at all. Doesn't fit the Bush fail storyline too well. Whoops.

Bill Janovitz said...

Attaboy, Mike. Once again, a semi-comprehensible non-answer. Again, your argument boils down to, "well, what about the Dems?"

Please check the oil as well.

Mike H. said...

Ummm.... Bill... your partner in leaving the details out Mark just had to go back to the 1998 machine. I was simply pointing out that he left out some important details of the "affair." Leaving out details seems like a theme here doesn't it? The fact remains Bush had nothing tangible that he could have used to prevent the 9/11 attacks. Nothing. How this is a "but the Dem's!" escapes me. How this is a non-answer is even more confusing.

I understand how pointing out Biden (Our current VP and resident International Expert in the WH) sounds like "but but but Dem's" to you in your myopic pursuit of reminding us of the black hole that was the White House 2001-2008Unfortunately it is indeed relevent to the current state of international affairs and more importantly affairs referenced in this current blog entry. Actually "But the dems" is relevent since the "Adults are in charge" now right?

Given the current state of affirs politically in Iran can be tied to the goings on in Iraq perhaps our "grand diversion" wasn't such a diversion after all. I know you are all hung up in the Bushy failures past William, but as of September 29, 2009 Joe Biden allegedly is a key influencer of our foreign policy. If we had listened to him in 2006-7 right now Iran wouldn't have that pesky representative government right next door causing them all kinds of problems electorally now would they? Their masses would have been pacified by now more than likely. So you can keep giving us the party line William that Iraq was a terrible mistake and Bush was an idiot. Any you say all I do is regurgitate Faux news?

I will spell it out for you as clear as I can for you in the next 3 sentences. So far the clear and overwhelming evidence is Bush couldn't have prevented the 9/11 attacks with the information he had. The representative government in Iraq is far from a proxy for Iran and in fact has proven to be a formidable foe that has eroded the influence of the Iranian government over its people and in the reigon. The removal of Hussein and installation of a representative government will have effects far beyond Iraq's boarders.

Mike H. said...

Borders.

Ken said...

Mike.... So Iran's missile tests are proof that they are contained? Also, Clinton (who I'm not really a fan of) lied to a federal judge under oath about his personal sex life, not invading a foreign country. There's a gigantic difference there. I would say that getting an extra marital blow job from an intern registers maybe a 7 out of 10 on the wrong scale, while going to war based on a lie registers maybe a 729.

Ken said...

We'll never know if Bush could have prevented 9/11 with the information he had, but I'm guessing if he listened to the fact that bin Laden was planning to use commercial airplanes to attack US buildings, he would have at least had a chance.

Also, people bringing up Clinton's blow job to defend Bush is the worst defense ever. It's taking someone in the same position that did something not as bad to justify horrible behavior. It would be like Roman Polanski saying that Woody Allen married his adopted step-daughter, so it was ok for him to drug and sodomize a 13 year old.

Mike H. said...

Ken... they are not contained. I said their position has been weakened over the last few years and part of that has to do with what is going on next door in Iraq. At Bill's old board I was told repeatedly that the Iraq war made Iran stronger. It hasn't on any level.

The clinton blow job was brought up by Mark as some sort of grand example of how misguided the right is and I was simply reminding Mark that it wasn't about the blow job it was about him taking an oath to uphold and protect the judicial branch and proceeding to lie under oath. It doesn't matter what he was lying about. The left just made this all about sex to muddy the waters when they knew damn well there were serious legal grounds to confront Clinton for his legal transgressions. It fits with their narative that the right is just a bunch of sexually repressed bible thumpers. It worked well enough as Mark has proved yet again. If you don't think they understand the legality of such affairs than one only needed to see the sudden reversal in stance on oaths and lying to federal officials in the Libby affair.... suddenly it mattered again what you say in depositions. Go figure.

Hope said...

Honestly Bill, for me it was either pump gas or be a real estate agent but pimpin' shack's just ain't my thang. Just what kinda degree do you need to be a salesman?

Bill Janovitz said...

"Hope," well played, dear. Or, sir?

It is true, I did not need my degree to pimp shacks. And your observation is indeed an insightful (if anonymous) one: real estate brokerage is a career choice on the same plane as pumping gas, with the latter occupation clearly edging the former in ethical superiority. When faced with making a living, I was weak and chose the one that allowed me to make a comfortable living. I have a thing about not wanting to pump gas, ergo, I am a lefty elitist. Touche!

It may be the Devil or it may be the Lord, but you're gonna have to serve somebody.

Mark said...

Mike, of course it matters what he lied about. After the Republican Revolution the right was going to exact their pound of flesh from Clinton with whatever they had to work with. To equivocate the two is a stretch. Lying is wrong, but the degree of the lie is relevant. Investigating a lie made to avoid personal embarrassment of a sexual nature cannot be considered on the same plane as attempting to find out who knew what, when, and where in a matter as important as international intervention that has been proven ill founded based on the knowledge we now have. What was proven by unveiling Clinton's escapades? That he lied about a #*. Can we learn more from finding out what the President knew prior to 9/11 and whose interests he had in mind when he acted the way he did? I never said it was "some sort of grand example of how misguided the right is ". My initial stance is what I now defend, the investigation of Clinton was simply about discrediting a sitting President and the inquiry into the Bush administrations behavior is about finding out whether lives were lost, sovereignty ignored, and deficits were accrued for inappropriate reasons. If you want to call them equal, go ahead, I disagree.

Mike H. said...

Ones perceived level of contempt for a lie in politics is always inversely proportional to the amount of importance they place on ends in which the lie or lies was a means. Unfortunately for Clinton and you, his lies didn't take place on the stump, at a presser, or from one of his proxy's before the world's even more toothless version of the high schoool debate club. They took place in federal court. Under oath. How he got to that seat is 100% irrelevent.

I was only pointing out that ultimately Clinton did break multiple laws, violate his oath of office, and was ultimately wholly responsible for his fate. Blaming Republicans for this is just laundry waving. He didn't get permanently disbarred for a bj did he? No. Oaths matter. Defending the courts matters. Purjury matters. Having no man be above having to testify under any circumstance and denying a women's right to due process in such matters is bedrock American principle. I repeat it was not me who compared this to what supposedly are Bush's lies and what the ends were, only stating that such reference in comparison fails on very important levels. Not realy important either but I voted for Clinton and think he was a very good President. However he deserved to be Impeached. His own actions brought him to that place. Period.