From AlterNet:

It's just one of those abiding ironies that not only didn't the Clinton Administration ever have any opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden (as Disney's Path to 9/11 contends), but that Bush did (before diverting his attention to Iraq):

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/41493/

This guy, one Clinton's former military aides, disagrees:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51898

The CIA has released video footage show to clinton of Bin Laden @ training camps in the mid 90's. They all knew exactly where he was, as did Bush before 9/11.

first of all, that's a very right-wing site. complete with charming ads like this one:

https://www.conservativebookclub.com/Jo ... d_cd=c6614

any site that advertises a book on islam as the "truth about the founder of the world's most violent religion" (hello, christianity???) has its head up its ass, imo.

I have concrete evidence that these posts belong here:
http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/vie ... hp?t=50849

who was behind the original WTC bombing and the yemen bombing?

does that mention this film?

actually, i think bill clinton did that himself.

why did we leave afghanistan? we knew he was there.

and please note that bush himself, in his press conference last week, stated plainly that there is no connection between 9/11 attacks and saddam hussein.

nice edit before i made the post. you know the question you asked, so dont act like miss fucking innocent when i answer

which edit are you referring to, oh well-spoken one? did it actually change the meaning of your post? if so, that's sad.

considering you asked who was repsonsible for the attacks i mentioned, yes

And AlterNet doesn't have an agenda of its own?

i don't think i took anything away, i just added the bit about that site having its head up its ass. did that upset you, peepster?

anything that doesn't agree with the bush administration is said to have an agenda, so sure, i guess it does. in that respect, tho, most of the world's population does then.

ok, i remember now. i did ask at first when the film was shown to clinton and if bin laden was a real threat at the time. is that what you're referring to? sorry, i'm in a bunch of threads right now... so i guess that's your answer?

Maybe this will help those of you still confused about the difference between "reality" and "fabrication to make Bush look like a fucking hero":

http://alternet.org/blogs/video/41449

"In the top clip, the original, in which Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the go-ahead to an assassination attempt on bin Laden, direct references to bin Laden being in the sights and ready to be taken out are plentiful and emphatic: "It's been confirmed that Osama bin Laden is in the building on the site" and "We're ready to load the package [kill bin Laden]... do we have clearance to load the package?"

Berger passes the buck, leaving bin Laden alive -- we know the rest.

In the bottom clip, the edited version, references to the feasibility of killing bin Laden are toned down, though it's still apparent that that's what's going on, and Berger still refuses to give the go ahead: "...There are women and children near the target..." and "we know enough to try." Watch the clips to get the full effect. It remains abundantly clear what's at stake.

Unfortunately, not only was this meeting a complete fabrication but, as Richard Clarke has noted, "no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden."

How is it any different than the ads that are on the alternet site like this one?

there's a difference between that and labeling an entire religion as evil. you seriously can't see that?

One site has conservative leaning ads and the other one has liberal leaning ads. Both sites wear their bias pretty proudly.

and i'll bet THIS ad offends you even MORE:

http://peacebuttons.info/orderpp.htm

goddamned peaceniks. don't they relize that war is as american as apple pie?