Brian Williams Praises Bill Clinton for Trying to Kill Bin Laden, Ignores All the Missed Opportunities
NBC's special presentation of Rock Center on the first anniversary of Osama bin Laden's assassination wasn't just a victory lap for Barack Obama.
It was also a chance for host Brian Williams to praise Bill Clinton for going after the former al Qaeda leader without mentioning all the times his administration passed on chances to get him (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):
The program began with a focus on the now iconic picture taken inside the White House Situation Room while Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, et al were watching live video of the mission in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
"The picture," said Williams dramatically, "was actually years in the making. When he was president, Bill Clinton spent 75 cruise missiles trying to kill bin Laden."
For those that forgot, this was akin to what Clinton himself told Fox News's Chris Wallace in a testy exchange shortly after the fifth anniversary of 9/11:
CLINTON: Let’s look at what Richard Clarke says. You think Richard Clarke has a vigorous attitude about bin Laden?
WALLACE: Yes I do
CLINTON: You do?
WALLACE: I think he has a variety of opinions and loyalties but yes.
CLINTON: He has a variety of opinion and loyalties now but let’s look at the facts. He worked for Ronald Reagan. He was loyal to him. He worked for George Herbert Walker Bush and he was loyal to him. He worked for me and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush; he was loyal to him. They downgraded him and the terrorist operation. Now, look what he said, read his book and read his factual assertions — not opinions, assertions. He said we took vigorous action after the African embassies. We probably nearly got bin Laden.
WALLACE: …
CLINTON: Now wait a minute…
WALLACE: ..cruise missiles..
CLINTON: I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him.
As CNN.com reported August 20, 1998:
Let our actions today send this message loud and clear there are no expendable American targets, U.S. President Clinton said in a televised address to the American people Thursday evening. There will be no sanctuary for terrorists. We will defend our people, our interests and our values.
U.S. officials say the six sites attacked in Afghanistan were part of a network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border that housed supporters of millionaire Osama bin Laden.
An official of the Taliban, Afgahanistans [sic] Islamic rulers, reported 21 were killed and 30 were injured in the missile strikes in eastern Afghanistan.
Okay, but that doesn't come close to telling the whole story of Bill Clinton and Osama bin Laden.
Not by a long shot.
As NewsBusters has reported for years including this past Saturday, our 42nd President passed on up to ten opportunities to capture or kill the former al Qaeda leader before 9/11.
To make it seem that Bill Clinton had anything to do with what occurred in Abbottabad on May 2, 2011, was the height of revisionist history that everyone associated with Rock Center should be ashamed of.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Brian Williams is long past
Submitted by d1carter on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 12:51am.
Brian Williams is long past credibility...he's so deep into propaganda he would make Goebbels blush.
Shameless
Submitted by HudsonRiverGirl on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 4:17am.
Wonder what it's like to live in an alternate universe filled with nothing but lies.
If Chris Mathews is ever sick…
Submitted by needle on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 10:09am.
By that I mean medically sick, Brian Williams is showing that he has the 'creds' to stand in for Chris.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
DerSchlickmeister actually
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 12:51am.
DerSchlickmeister actually TRIED to kill Osama Obama?? Did I miss something back in those years??? Is that pathetic bowing, knee-pad wearing girly-man Bri-Bri Williams trying to re-write history now - in order to not only service Boy Baraka, but also retro-service Schlick Willie???
My brain functions pretty well, and my memory serves me pretty well also..........and I CAN'T remember a time when the ol' trailor-park-trash-dollar-bill-draggin' Bill Clinton made ANY serious effort to go after Osama Obama bin Laden!! Somebody re-educate me, if I'm wrong...................
Right...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 2:26am.
Since when has an attempt to vaporize bin Laden with 48 cruise missiles counted as a "serious effort"? But many Republicans scoffed at the attempt, and Robert Oakley, Reagan's Director of the State Department Office Combating Terrorism complained in 2000 that Clinton had been "too focused on bin Laden".
Jer
Oh Jeez,
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 2:46am.
Oh Jeez, Jer...................get real!!! Where were those '48 cruise missles' aimed??? Your old country -boy buddy da Killa knew about bin Laden in 95-96, and I'm out here in the boonies!!! Wasn't Osama Obama actually 'offered' to der Schlickmeister in that era?? And how 'focused' was ol' Schlick Willie on bin Laden, anyway?? As a distraction?? Kinda like the Balkan wars??? And what was the USS Cole doing re-fueling in Yeman, anyway??? From what I understand, that was NOT part of the program. You're gonna hafta to a lot better than this, Jer, in order to 'get the back' of that pathetic girlie-man Bri-Bri Williams. Plus, a guy like you should be embarrassed to be even TRYING to justify this!!!
I'm telling ya, Jer.................you're a pretty smart guy, but you're misguided. You've got two factors working against you - one is that you're a lib, and the other is that you're a lawyer. You might need to work for a living, so I can't say too much about the lawyer part of the equation, but if you'd finally 'see the light', and realize that being a lib is only going to keep you from expanding your mindset, then even the ol' blue-collar Killa might be able to accept the fact that being a lawyer is palatable!!! Hahahahaha!!
And I just had a conversation yesterday with some lawyer in Honolulu about some bullsh@t business insurance issue that i have...........and the guy didn't sound real happy - talking to me!!! Of course, he has the power of the LAW on his side - but the guy is no dummy, and he KNEW that I was RIGHT!!!
Aloha from black cherry/vodkaville!!!
bin Laden
Submitted by DSVAN on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 7:47am.
Jer, read "Dereliction of Duty" by Lt. Col. Robert "buz" Patterson, USAF (Ret.). He spent 2 years carring the "nuclear football" for President Clinton. This meant he spent most of those years with in a few feet of the president. His book goes into great detail on how Clinton didn't have the gut to get it done. I should send a copy to Brian Williams.
Hail the mighty Obama
Submitted by needle on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 10:23am.
Indeed it is against Clinton’s standard of leadership – or should I say “definition” of leadership [snort] – that the Great Obama thinks that He Himself did a supreme and incomparable act of killing Osama, er, I mean ordering the SEALs to dispatch him.
The anemic, crabbed, and perverted concept of leadership among the Dems and the DNC media has a lot to do with why our nation is in such a mess.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
C'mon Jer...
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 8:57am.
that "attack" took place as the Monica Lewinsky scandal was breaking AFTER Clinton had opportunities to go after Bin Laden and didn't. So why then?
You're smarter than that, Jer. You know exactly what that attack was all about.
Revisionist history
Submitted by Kevin Groenhagen on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 8:57am.
You cannot name one member of the GOP leadership who "scoffed" at Clinton's feeble attempt to kill bin Laden after the embassy bombings. In fact, many Republicans, such as Rep. Pete Goss, urged Clinton to do more against al Qaeda. Instead, Clinton launched a preemptive strike on Iraq and an illegal war of choice on Kosovo. Those operations occurred in late 1998 and early 1999, the very time period that the 9/11 Commission says al Qaeda did the planning for 9/11.
Good point Kevin. And why are
Submitted by Zippy on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 5:41pm.
Good point Kevin.
And why are there still 10,000 US troops still in Kosovo/Bosnia??????
I didn't revise anything, Kevin...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 8:50pm.
My reference was to "many Republicans", not the GOP leadership. The latter reacted like responsible adults. But many Republicans did not:
The president did exactly the right thing," said House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said. "By doing this we’re sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists." Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) called the attacks "appropriate and just," and House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said "the American people stand united in the face of terrorism."
The AP says: "Gingrich dismissed any possibility that Clinton may have ordered the attacks to divert attention from the scandal. Instead, he said, there was an urgent need for a reprisal following the Aug. 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. ‘Anyone who watched the film of the bombings, anyone who saw the coffins come home knows better than to question this timing,’ Gingrich said. ‘It was done as early as possible to send a message to terrorists across the globe that killing Americans has a cost. It has no relationship with any other activity of any kind.’
Moreover, the story goes on to say that Gingrich adviser Rich Galen e-mailed to conservative radio talk show hosts that: "Speaker Newt Gingrich has made it clear to me" that the attacks were necessary and appropriate, Galen said. "This is a time to put our nation’s interests ahead of our political concerns. I am asking you to help your listeners, your friends, and your associates to look at this situation with the sober eyes it deserves." [My italics]
Exceptions came in the forms of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) — who said "There’s an obvious issue that will be raised internationally as to whether there is any diversionary motivation" — Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-MO) — who said "there is a cloud over this presidency" — and Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) — who said: "The president has been consumed with matters regarding his personal life. It raises questions about whether or not he had the time to devote to this issue, or give the kind of judgment that needed to be given to this issue to call for military action."
What about the "vast right-wing conspiracy," as coined by the then-First Lady?
On PBS’s News Hour, conservative commentator PAUL GIGOT SAID about Specter’s comments that "you’ve got to take that with a grain of salt. But I thought when Dan Coats says something, I usually listen, because he’s a serious guy; he’s not a grandstander, and I took that as a sign …of how much credibility the president has lost on Capitol Hill. I think Dan Coats was wrong." Gigot called any Wag the Dog accusations "frivolous."
The conservative National Review WROTE "Whatever one thinks of Bill Clinton, surely Sandy Berger and Bill Cohen would not take part in any wag-the-dog scenario. Republicans who suggest otherwise–including, to our astonishment and his embarrassment, the usually sober Sen. Dan Coats (R., Ind.)–should be ashamed of themselves. President Clinton should instead be commended for finally responding appropriately to a terrorist attack."
Jer
That's all fine and groovy,
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 9:50pm.
That's all fine and groovy, Jer..............but to get back to my original point - as I could really care less about what the Republican establishment needs to say to sound 'precient' and 'bi-partisan' -what, exactly, DID der Schlickmeister DO about Osama Obama bin Laden, anyway???
An example of an "adult reaction"
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 9:05pm.
Senator Kyl:
JIM LEHRER: Did it leap to you-to the back of your mind, Senator?
SEN. ROD GRAMS: Yes, it did. I had this question, and although, you know, I just kind of thought about it, because of the movie "Wag the Dog" and-
JIM LEHRER: Sure.
SEN. ROD GRAMS: --other things that have come up, but, you know, my first thought was, of course, that I supported the president's action, and I thought this was a very appropriate response. But then again in reflection I think that comes to the surface of many people's minds, and of course that was just reiterated by many of the calls that I had today.
JIM LEHRER: Congressman Hamilton, you've been asked this question before today-before right now today, as well, have you not?
REP. LEE HAMILTON: Sure. It's a fair question. I think we should address it. You know, early this morning I was reading in the paper and listening to the news the president was being attacked because he was incapacitated, because he was distracted, he could not act. A few hours later the criticism flips 180 degrees, and it is a criticism of the president for acting because he was under political domestic pressure.
I think the relevant question is not the politics. The relevant question is: Did the president act in the American national interest? I think he did. I really cannot remember a time when an American president in past years took aggressive military action when the charge was not made by someone of domestic politics.
I don't think any American president that I have known sends young men and women into places of danger for domestic political purposes. They do it because it is their judgment that the American national interest requires it. That doesn't make it the right judgment all the time, but it is the basis on which American presidents, Republican and Democrat, have always acted.
JIM LEHRER: Sen. Kyl, what's your view of this?
SEN. JOHN KYL: My view is that the intelligence community and the military planned this action, and recommended it to the president. It wasn't his idea initially, but he did the right thing in authorizing it. That's why I support the action. I've been critical of this president certainly in the past for being indecisive in foreign affairs and military affairs. If his domestic political difficulties gave him more courage to say yes to this operation, then all the better, but the bottom line is that Lee Hamilton is right. It was the right thing to do, and whatever the reasons, it needed to be done, and I think we'd ought to also thank the same people the president thanked, the intelligence agency and officers who've understood the information necessary to put the operation together, the FBI agents, who have been so good in making a case that Osama bin Laden is connected to the bombings in the African embassies, and the military people, of course, who have conducted these strikes.
Jer
Source, Jer
Submitted by stratman on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 9:36am.
Please provide link to source for your quote from Oakley.
strat...Here's an excerpt from a secondary
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 8:28pm.
source:
No president can directly fight terrorism. Whether you discuss Bush, Clinton, or any others, they are not the ones in the mine fields of Afghanistan, nor are they the ones raiding the hideouts of terrorist cells. They do, however lead people, and their efforts as leaders are just as important. They guide the nation as a whole to protect themselves and prevent harm. Clinton had been given quite a bit of credit in this area when he was in office. His detractors did not criticize his anti-terrorism efforts, but instead discussed the attacks on Bosnia, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and other things that were fairly minor. It is accurate to say that Clinton had a very broad range of support across the political spectrum. In reference to the Clinton administration's national security efforts, Robert Oakley, a counter-terrorism expert in Reagan's State Department said to The Washington Post:
"Overall, I give them very high marks."
He then went on to say:
"The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which made him stronger."
The Washington Post link failed to open, so I'll try to locate the article at the WaPo website.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by stratman on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 8:57pm.
I could not find a source link either. People who used the quote or paraphrased the words on their web page - yes, but an actual source - no.
I ran a Google search on the first three sentences of your quote above resulting in one link back to your link, so that was one individual's commentary, not a quote from a news' source. Googling your bolded quote attributed to Oakley, I did find a link back to you.
The alleged quote from Oakley appears several times in a Google search, but I cannot find a link to a reputable source. In fact, most of the time there is no source link or attribution. Is this another promulgated fiction on the internet?
strat...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 9:26pm.
If you remain skeptical, I'll try to track down the Post article which was cited. It's worth noting, however, that for over a decade there have been numerous references to these statements attributed to Oakley, and there is no record [of which I'm aware] of his having ever denied making them, or of any refutation issued by others.
Jer
Not sure if I can find the article in question, but
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 10:25pm.
I purchased a 90-day 25-article WaPo package. One is posted below [in its entirety since it may not link.]:
BIN LADEN STILL SEEN AS THREAT; U.S. Harassment Campaign May Backfire, Boosting Fugitive's Image
[FINAL Edition]
The Washington Post - Washington, D.C.
Author: Vernon Loeb
Date: Jul 29, 1999
Start Page: A.03
Section: A SECTION
Text Word Count: 1146
Osama bin Laden's global terrorist network has been constantly pressured and repeatedly compromised in the year since the fugitive Saudi multimillionaire allegedly masterminded the deadly truck bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa, according to terrorism experts inside and outside the federal government.
But those experts worry that the Clinton administration's focus on bin Laden as the nation's number one terrorist enemy may have raised his profile in the Islamic world and increased the likelihood of attacks by him and his followers.
"He's become a charismatic leader like {Iran's late Ayatollah Ruhollah} Khomeini," said Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East analyst and terrorism expert at the Congressional Research Service. "This is what worries me. Bin Laden is the only one who's holding to this maximalist view: pan-Islamic and hard-core, no compromise with Israel, no compromise with the U.S., no compromise with Egypt. And he can back it up with force."
The twin truck bombs that detonated minutes apart outside the embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, on Aug. 7, 1998, killed 224 people, including 12 Americans, and wounded more than 5,000. Bin Laden and 16 alleged associates, including Egyptian Islamic Jihad leader Ayman al Zawahiri, have since been indicted by a New York grand jury on charges of plotting the embassy attacks.
U.S. officials note with obvious satisfaction that bin Laden's network has not injured a single American in the past year--a record they attribute to intensive U.S. intelligence, law enforcement and diplomatic efforts.
"We haven't killed him off," said Robert Oakley, a former State Department ambassador for counterterrorism. "But we've clearly reduced his ability to do things."
While some Clinton administration officials favor more aggressive attempts to attack bin Laden's hideouts in the mountains of Afghanistan, Oakley has counseled against it. "The risks of hitting the wrong place are very, very high--and you've got to assume it is going to be very heavily defended," he said.
Unwilling or unable to kill bin Laden, the U.S. government has sought to isolate and harass his organization, known as al Qaeda, Arabic for "the Base." Counterterrorism centers at the FBI and CIA-- working closely with law enforcement and intelligence agencies around the globe--have detained, questioned or arrested dozens of suspected bin Laden operatives from Albania to Uruguay.
An alleged top bin Laden lieutenant, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, was arrested last fall by German authorities and is one of five embassy bombing defendants in custody in New York. Another, Mohammed Saddiq Odeh, was apprehended by Pakistani officials, and a third, Mohamed Rashed Daoud al Owhali, was arrested in Kenya.
Authorities in London have three other defendants in custody.
The State Department, meanwhile, has offered a $5 million reward for information leading to bin Laden's arrest, and the FBI in June added him to its "10 Most Wanted" list--a reflection not only of the threat he poses but also of the FBI's increasingly international focus. It now has 1,383 agents assigned to counterterrorism in the United States and overseas.
Three weeks ago, President Clinton also banned commercial dealings between the United States and Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia, accusing the Taliban of harboring the renegade millionaire. Until then, leaders of the Taliban had denied knowing bin Laden's whereabouts. Two days after the sanctions went into effect, they admitted that he was living in the portion of Afghanistan under their control.
"If we're able to keep the pressure on him--following this diplomatic, political strategy--bin Laden will ultimately make a mistake," said one senior Clinton administration official. "Something will break."
But others contend that the government, in its quest to hound bin Laden, has turned him into a rallying point for anti-Western sentiment.
"I have clearly told the Americans that they have . . . made Osama bin Laden a great hero in the Islamic world with these pressures and economic sanctions," said Abdul Hakeem Mujahid, the Taliban's chief representative at the United Nations.
Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the agency's covert campaign to arm the Afghan mujahedeen fighting Soviet troops in the 1980s, agrees. "One should go to the refugee camps throughout Pakistan and find out how many boy children have been named Osama since last August," he said. "That's scary."
A year of harassment by U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies may have weakened bin Laden's ability to strike, said Katzman, "but he's stronger in popularity," which presumably helps al Qaeda raise funds and recruit supporters.
And there are signs that he still could strike at any time. "If his cells are surveilling our embassies in Africa," asked Katzman, "how constrained is he?"
Indeed, the government's campaign against bin Laden is now highly defensive, involving expensive efforts to harden U.S. diplomatic posts against attacks and a willingness to shut them down on a moment's notice.
In late June, the State Department temporarily closed embassies in six African nations--Madagascar, Gambia, Togo, Liberia, Namibia and Senegal--because of indications that they were under surveillance by members of bin Laden's network. All told, the State Department has closed embassies and consulates more than 60 times in the year since the African bombings.
Even the FBI halted public tours of its headquarters in Washington this month after receiving what it considered credible information about a potential attack by bin Laden operatives to mark the anniversary of the embassy bombings, according to a senior FBI official.
By far, the most chilling threat presented by al Qaeda involves its possible acquisition of chemical weapons. The government's indictment against bin Laden and 16 other defendants in the embassy bombings case states that he has "made efforts to obtain the components of chemical {and} nuclear weapons."
Katzman, citing numerous news reports, said he believes "we have to assume that he has some rudimentary chemical capability."
One U.S. official said that bin Laden has "actively sought to acquire chemical weapons, and it is possible that he could conduct some type of {small-scale} chemical attack."
But no evidence exists, the official added, to suggest that bin Laden's network has "weaponized" nerve gas or other chemical agents in a form that could kill large numbers of people.
Once, only the state sponsors of terrorism--a short list that includes Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria and North Korea--were thought capable of organizing chemical attacks.
But a year after the embassy bombings, bin Laden has eclipsed all of the state sponsors in the eyes of those in the U.S. government responsible for combating terrorism.
Brian Jenkins, a terrorism expert at the Rand Corp., wonders whether such preoccupation is wise. "This is a recurring pattern--we fixate on one individual, and chasing bin Laden becomes close to a single-minded pursuit: If we could only nail bin Laden, it would solve the problem," Jenkins said. "Well, there was somebody before bin Laden, and there will be somebody after bin Laden."
Jer
Jer
Submitted by stratman on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 11:22pm.
I salute you gregariousness.
The article you reposted is certainly closer to sourcing your quote but is not quite there. It does lend some credibility to your point, although Oakley's comments could also be taken in the context of it is foolish and reckless of Clinton (and team) to consider a mountain fortress assault - usually the case throughout history unless you are prepared for immense casualties.
I found it interesting that a search on
resulted in a hit that attributes the same article to a JEHANGIR KHATTAK.
Your original post seems to keep going deeper into the rabbit hole the more I investigate.
Just because others on the internet quote a phrase does not make it true. Recall Tina Fey's "I can see Russia from my house" fiction repeated ad nauseum.
Rabbit emerges from hole and is quickly snared...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/04/2012 - 1:39am.
The following is an excerpt from a 12/24/2000 Washington Post article entitled "Planned Jan 2000 Attacks Failed Or Were Thwarted...Official Says". (The official was Richard Clarke. Oakley and Paul Bremer were quoted in the article.) The author is Vernon Loeb.
....Clarke manages the government's campaign against bin Laden. He helped pioneer a global disruption strategy in which the CIA and the FBI have worked closely with foreign intelligence and law enforcement services to hunt down bin Laden's operatives around the world.
"Overall, I give them very high marks," said Robert Oakley, who served as the State Department's ambassador for counterterrorism during the Reagan administration. "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which has made him stronger."
L. Paul Bremer, who succeeded Oakley as ambassador for counterterrorism and who recently chaired the National Commission on Terrorism, said Clarke and the Clinton administration have their resources "correctly focused on bin Laden."
But he faulted the administration for not making more of an issue of Iran's continuing sponsorship of terrorist groups throughout the Middle East.
Clarke acknowledged that the administration, in its zeal, has focused its rhetoric on bin Laden in a way that has elevated his stature in the Arab world and has confused many U.S. allies.
I read the entire piece which is available at the archives of the Washington Post website for $3.95. Distribution without permission is prohibited. Otherwise I would post the rest of it.
By the way, our side usually refers to the misstated Gore "I invented the internet" quote as an example of 'fiction repeated ad nauseum'. :-)
Jer
Washington Post? We don't
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 05/04/2012 - 1:59am.
Washington Post? We don't need no stinkin' Washington Post!
The Seattle Times has kept the article vacuumed sealed and fresh packed for our perusal. All I needed was the proper quote to find it.
The question remains, however, is Vernon Loeb = JEHANGIR KHATTAK.?
Great...And I laid out $29.95
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/04/2012 - 2:26am.
for extended WaPo archive access and the opportunity to sweat a copyright infringement claim.
Frankly, I think Khattak is a plagiarist who ripped off the Post article, adding his own introductory paragraph replete with misspellings.
Jer
Another Way To Look At It
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 05/04/2012 - 4:21pm.
I searched on the partial quote you initially gave and could not find a source. It wasn't until you shelled out the money to provide a fuller quote that i was able to find the source material.
Maybe Loeb is the nom de plume and Khattak is the real author.
Saw a fun-looking book on Amazon today that might interest you: A Wealth of Numbers: An Anthology of 500 Years of Popular Mathematics Writing
Thanks for the rec...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/04/2012 - 7:26pm.
Immediately assigning it to the #3 slot on my personal Top Ten list of most wanted books.
Jer
#3?
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 05/04/2012 - 11:54pm.
Would that be behind Mark Levin's "Ameritopia" (assuming you've already read his "Liberty and Tyranny") and Dick Cheney's "In My Time"?
Very funny, strat..
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 12:13am.
But, no, it would be behind Joe Conason's Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and The Hardy Boys: The Haunted Fort.
Jer
2 Cents
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 12:21am.
The first is a dead end, the second you'll not want to end.
Skip the former and enjoy the latter.
Uh hoh my god....
Submitted by NeoKong on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 1:31am.
I have never seen such a shameless attempt to link something so heroic to somebody so not deserving of praise.This is truly deserving of scorn and ridicule than anything I have ever seen.
Not to worry, Neo.
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 10:08pm.
Obama is ready to protect us all. Thank the heavens, and Allah.
This show
Submitted by ghost of Mary J... on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 2:01am.
should be called democrat damage control and rehab.
Support Our Troops. God bless the US military.
http://adoptaplatoon.org/
Williams
Submitted by grammajane on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 2:06am.
is getting all hipped up for the 2016 election when Hillary will be running again. So between now and then, when he is not bowing to obama, he will be starting his role as the clinton mouth-piece. Didn't see the show but, with his bias crap am sure all credit was given to obama. What a disgraceful so called jouralist and wonder how many actually tuned in to hear/see this distasteful mess.
Other Farces: Dan Savage and Obamacare
Submitted by berlet98 on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 2:44am.
Today's Updates: Dan Savage and Obamacare
The ancient Chinese proverb, “May you live in interesting times,” is a double-edged sword meaning both good wishes and a damning curse. We live in far more interesting times than any Chinese philosopher could possibly have envisioned and keeping up with our curses is daunting.
It’s virtually impossible in our 24/7/365 news world to keep abreast of everything going on. However, to keep readers updated on recent posts here, I’ll give it a a shot today with updates on recent items posted here regarding twisted heterophobe and a revelation on an historic charade. (More fascinating updates will follow.)
DAN SAVAGE. The aptly-named heterophobe who exploited an invite to address high school students on the hot-button issue of bullying when he quickly veered into an attack on the Bible, Christianity, and straight kids, is now saying he was misinterpreted.
Savage still maintains that “we can learn to ignore the bulls**t in the Bible about gay people” but is offended that anyone would misconstrue that and other vile remarks. As he twittered,xx “an attack on Christianity. Which is bullshhh . . . which is untrue” which is in itself bulls**t and a lie.”
Immediately following those “apologies,” Savage launched into a foul-mouthed tiradexx against the Pope and Catholic doctrine–in a chapel, yet!
In his almost inimitable fashion Savage ranted, “What the Pope is saying is that the only thing that stands between my [expletive deleted] and Brad Pitt’s mouth is a piece of paper . . . that once we’re all gay-married we’re going to go extinct in a generation because . . . we’re gonna forget which hole [expletive deleted] babies.” (http://bit.ly/KNndzl)
Dan Savage would be amusing were he not so pathetically vicious even as his fellow homosexuals attempt to imply they are normal. Normality implies some conformity with normal values, no?
Evidently, the Obama administration believes Savage and his associates are normal since they and other Democrats have warmly embraced Savage, so to speak. (http://bit.ly/JBdg53)
OBAMACARE. If killing Osama bin Laden is our president’s most significant foreign affairs achievement, passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, is surely his greatest, though disgraceful, domestic accomplishment.
By now, most Americans–75% of whom opposed its passage–are familiar with the shameful machinations Obama and his Democrat congress utilized to foist socialistic medicine on the United States two years ago. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=22974.)
Brian Williams
Submitted by oldfart on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 5:30am.
I was going to make some not so nice comment about Brian Williams ....... but I won't.
The Lame Stream Media is so shamless thay they should be wrapped in a plane paper book cover. They have less shame, and self-respect than the 'escort' caught with Charlie Sheen. At least she is honest about who she is.
no shame
Submitted by MidAmerica on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 6:42am.
Doesn't Williams have any sense of history or personal pride considering the fact that many years from now when the events of this time are analyzed he will be noted as a completely fraudulent journalist?
I guess Brian Williams just
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 6:50am.
I guess Brian Williams just bows (literally or figuratively) to Democrat presidents.
Republicans, he treats like this.
Onlyu when directly in front
Submitted by texastommy on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 7:44am.
Onlyu when directly in front of them.
texastommy,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 7:48am.
You have to give Williams credit at his age it is not easy to bow while you are on your knees.
Chutzpah Defined.
Submitted by Samaritan01 on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 9:12am.
Holy smokes, Clinton was playing golf and was not to be disturbed when the U.S. Military had Osama in their sights. Clinton merely had to give the word and 9/11 would have never occurred!! Instead Clinton literally "putted" his opportunity away. What a creep.
I'm sorry.
Submitted by nolefan2 on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 9:25am.
I don't care what liberals say about Bill Clinton. His greatest legacy from his occupation of the WH will forever be a blue, semen-stained dress and a box of cigars. The fact that liberals still begin to drool at the very mention of his name proves just how low their standard of decency really is.
Rock Center should be ashamed?
Submitted by Conservator on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 11:06am.
Noel, NBC/MSNBC aren't ashamed. In fact, I'm certain they are quite proud to be part of the Obama reelect campaign. The real question is why did the Obama afford Brian Williams (NBC) an unprecedented interview in the White House Situation Room? The answer is simple; Obama wanted to 'spike the bin-Laden football' and Williams and NBC were eager to assist him. With that in mind, Bill Clinton's interview was needed to support Obama's right to spike the football while acknowledging that before Bush there was another great president who was a Democrat also - Bill Clinton.
What Williams neglected to mention: Copter w/seals downed
Submitted by Ben Blankenship on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 12:58pm.
I credit former Defense Secy Bob Gates with a great critical quote relating in essence that all the sensitive details of the Bin Laden kill had leaked out within 24 hours of the deed. Why didn't Wiliams even mention the fact that shortly afterward, terrorists brought down a U.S. copter killing all Seals aboard....from the same unit 6 that had killed Bin Laden? Was there a link? I heard early after the Bin Laden thing that VP Blabbermouth Biden was the one to break the news of the specific unit responsible. Maybe there was no connection. Then it should have been pointed out rather than being covered up.....or were mainstream media folks determined not to mention it?
➚ I've wondered about that too
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 1:08pm.
Maybe we lost those SEALS in the Bin Ladin attack and it was determined a near-flawless mission would sell better.
Do we know that helicopter rotor was from a scuttled craft? Could it also have come from a crashed copter?
It is my hope the later account of the SEAL team loss was staged without loss of life, allowing those who killed Bin Ladin an opportunity to escape the fetters of prying reporters.
Cool, you are overlooking the
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 1:47pm.
Cool, you are overlooking the size of SEaL team 6, and the number of operations on going at any one time. There may be as many as 1600 members of Team 6, and perhaps 20 to 50 seperate missions under way at the same time. SEAL Team 6 is no little group.
Like the SF groups, 5th Group, in Vietnam has some thousand members, but those are broken down into small teams. Same with SEAL Team 6.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Clinton, and his pals at the UN, slept through the biggie . .
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 11:27am.
Clinton, and his pals at the UN (the same ones that wouldn't pass a resolution supporting his action in Kosovo), slept through the biggie in Afghanistan.
That, of course would be the story of the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Yep, those sweet folks that Obama is negotiating with now.
Now granted, there is a lot to be said about the lack of action from the US (both parties) and from world bodies, following the pullout of the Imperialist Soviet Empire from Afghanistan in early 1989; for now, it's enough to say that the country was left in ruins, and it's people in tatters.
In that void, in 1991, the Taliban was born of radical Islamic militants, and following the collapse of the Communist government in 1992, the political battle and ultimate civil war for who would control Afghanistan would begin to take hold. Pakistan was the lead in believing that the Taliban was the best hope for Afghanistan. The military aid that the US, under Carter and Reagan, had provided to stop the Soviets was toast, and by the end of the bloody civil war, in 1996, the Taliban seized Kabul and Mullah Omar established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.
Between 1996 and 2001, the Taliban were involved in systematic massacres of civilians, aka, genocide.
During the early portion of this period of time, that the Taliban hosted Bin Laden and his infamous terrorist training camps, and from here the planning for 9/11, and other horrific acts of terror would be carried out.
As Noel has laid out, Clinton - and I add, world bodies - passed on the horror that was unfolding under our noses.
We should wonder how differently events may have played out, had the world come to the aid of the Afghan people, and preempted the course of events that led to the late 1990's.
Oh but yes, this has to be Bush's fault as well. Interesting to consider the mess(s) that Bush inherited from Clinton, compared to what Obama inherited from Bush.
(;~/ gary
I remember, reading that OBL
Submitted by Zippy on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 5:46pm.
I remember, reading that OBL wanted to get the Devil in the White House. That was Clinton.
Tell that to the crew of the
Submitted by billb on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 1:57pm.
Tell that to the crew of the COLE!