Do you trust Bush?

[Hazard]

Fyre, there is a line between mutual respect for human life and respect for property.

[hismajesty]

Thats not too bright.

Look what happened when he watched Osama.

Nice attempt at being witty.

Not.

[CrAz3D]

Thats not too bright.

Look what happened when he watched Osama.

He watched Osama for less than 9 months, I'd say it was Clinton's fault if anything

[Hazard]

There was an entire book written on how it was Clinton's fault more than anyone else's. Check it out, its called Intelligence Failure. If you're one of those hard-core Democrats don't bother reading it, you'll just be offended by the truth.

[MyndFyre]

Thats not too bright.

Look what happened when he watched Osama.

This is the kind of statement that will not get my approval for x86!

It's actually just about 8 months from the time of inauguration until 9/11/2001.  Compare that to the 8 years and the chance Clinton had of getting bin Laden from Syria that he chose to pass up.

Fyre, there is a line between mutual respect for human life and respect for property.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

[quasi-modo]

Alquida struck plenty of targets during the reign of clinton... including the cole. Clinton didn't do jack.

[hismajesty]

Alquida struck plenty of targets during the reign of clinton... including the cole. Clinton didn't do jack.

Lies, sorta. Clinton did do something in Iraq, sorta, and the former Iraqi regime dealed with terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda.

On November 15th, 1998 Saddam was eventually compelled into agreeing to allow UN Special Committee inspectors to resume their study of whether or not had Iraq had complied with a UN resolution to disarm Iraq. The committee had been sent in prior to that, but Saddam kicked them out and asked for the UNSCOM chairman to be removed from power. However, although Saddam allowed the inspectors back in he denied them access to crucial spots  - so, on December 16, 1998 American and British aircraft - as well as about 200 cruise missiles - began attacking military targets in Iraq trying to force Saddam to comply.

//this snippet comes from a book I own, "Inside the Asylum" by Jed Babbin:

Three days later, President Clinton addressed the nation, telling us that the "seventy-hour" strategy had worked and that Saddam's WMD programs had been degraded. But in fact, though British and American jets had bombed almost one hundred targets, Saddam had not bound himself to any verifiable disarmament, and the Clinton administration had shown yet again that it was satisfied with spin rather than substance. As the victors of the Gulf War, the British and Americans had every right to enforce their cease-fire agreement requiring Iraq's disarmament independently of the United Nations. But the Clinton administration never took that decisive action.

[Arta]

Slightly OT, but why do you trust books with such obvious bias?

[Hazard]

Is any book that condems something else neccessarily biased?

[Arta]

Not necessarily, but likely to be, yes.

Put it this way: I'd rather read a book that summarises existing evidence and perhaps presents scenarios in the least biased way possible, so that I can make up my own mind. In other words, a book that presents both sides of the argument, as far as is possible.

That clip sounds like it came from a book that is merely a long op-ed. The title gives that away without even reading the quote. I don't trust books like that because they are obviously designed to change my mind. I don't trust them to present balanced arguments. I don't trust them to give me all the information. Thus, as far as I'm concerned, they have little credibility.

Before anyone says it, I think the same thing about books by people like Micheal Moore and Al Franken. I occasionally read that kind of thing for light entertainment, but never take any of it seriously - at least, not without checking other sources, starting with the references, if any are given.

[Stealth]

Not necessarily, but likely to be, yes.

Put it this way: I'd rather read a book that summarises existing evidence and perhaps presents scenarios in the least biased way possible, so that I can make up my own mind. In other words, a book that presents both sides of the argument, as far as is possible.

Unfortunately, CSPAN is not in the business of producing political information books...

[hismajesty]

Do you have proof that, albeit biased, this book isn't factual?

[Hazard]

So basically you think that any book that tries to make a point isn't worth reading? You honestly do believe you're a Vulcan don't you  ?

[Arta]

lol

I never claimed that the book couldn't possibly be factual. All I'm saying is that its obvious bias reduces its credibility. I'm quite sure it's based on fact, however, I take issue with the author's intertwining of fact with opinion.

Authors who are seeking truth are necessarily dispassionate about their topic - which is why The Truth (tm) usually doesn't emerge until years after the events. I like books that present the facts as dispassionaly as possible and that trust me to draw my own conclusions. Unfortunately, for topical subjects in politics, books like that are pretty rare (if they exist at all).

[hismajesty]

You've got an encyclopedia...