Comments on: Clinton, Bush, and 9/11

By: daphne solomon

daphne solomon — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:21:18 +0000

Keith Olbermann is the Glenn Beck of liberals. The only difference is that Olbermann gives his opinion disguised as fact. He’s dishonest about what he is presenting. He is not a journalist, he’s at most an op ed writer. I’d look to more credible sources.

By: george fisher

george fisher — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:33:36 +0000

You might find Bob Woodward’s latest book, ‘State of Denial’ insightful. He points the finger at Condi Rice as the single most important person in the Bush regime responsible for the 9-11 disaster as she did absolutely nothing when appraised of the al Qa’ida threat by then Director of the CIA, George Tennet.

By: Derek Staffanson

Derek Staffanson — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 01:57:51 +0000

No naivete. I understand that much of the abuse of Clinton has always been political in nature. That does nothing to mediate the situation: if anything, I find it even more vulgar to so venomously harass a man for political purposes.

If you genuinely believe that what somebody has done is deserving of being reviled, I can accept that. But I am disgusted when people disingenuously attack any person for political reasons, whether they be Republicans disparaging Clinton for purported neglect on terrorism, or Democrats haranguing Hastert for his role in the alleged Foley “cover-up.”

By: Thom

Thom — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 02:23:12 +0000

Ah, but let us not be politically naive. Besmirching the name Clinton is not only an enjoyable Republican nostalgia, it’s early groundwork for the 2008 presidential campaign. Let us not forget that the likely democratic candidate with the most name recognition happens to share that name with Bill.