Bill Clinton Smacks Fox News - Hard!

In an interview for Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace takes on Bill Clinton over the issue of 9-11, al-Qaeda using talking points taken from "Path to 9-11" -- and gets his head handed to him. (I've quoted so much of the interview because it's that good- and the likelyhood of Fox actually broadcasting all of this, where their correspondent is delivered a full on facial from Bill Clinton is somewhere between slim and nil... Enjoy)

Promo clip of segment from Youtube.



Full Inteview Transcript from Thinkprogress.

WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on fox news Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I got to say I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question. Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President. There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called the Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops. Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole.

CLINTON: OK..

WALLACE: …may I just finish the question sir. And after the attack, the book says, Bin Laden separated his leaders because he expected an attack and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is 20 20.

CLINTON: No let’s talk about…

WALLACE: …but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

CLINTON: OK, let’s talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits but I want to talk about the context of which this…arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network…ABC just had a right wing conservative on the Path to 9/11 falsely claim that it was based on the 911 commission report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 commission report. I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much. Same people.

They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in black hawk down and I refused to do it and stayed 6 months and had an orderly transfer to the UN.

Some background: This is point both Clarke and Clinton make in thier book. It wasn't Bill Clinton's choice to enter Somalia in the first place - the operation was started under George H. W. Bush and was supposed to already be over before Clinton took office. Unfortunately there was a six-month delay before UN Peacekeepers could be brought in to take over the task of trying to feed the starving people. Somali Warlords like Adid had been stealing the food and using it as a bargining chip to consolidate his power and influence.

Clinton ordered him arrested.

The military conducted operations to capture Adid, but failed to locate him. Those operations were intended to be carried out at night, but instead were done during the day - and the Adid's men were watching. They laid a trap and took out two of our helicopters with shoulder-fired missles. Several of our troops were killed, one was captured. During the successful rescue operation of Durant, the captured helicopter pilot, thousands of Somalis were killed - but Clinton didn't order our troops to leave. They didn't "cut and run" the way that Reagan ran like a scared rabbit out of Beirut. They completed the mission and turned over control to the UN after six months, so when Clinton gets pissed when he's accused of being a coward in Somalia - he has good reason.

Clinton: Ok, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Bin laden had anything to do with black hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of 1993.

WALLACE: …I understand…

CLINTON: No wait…no wait…Don’t tell me. You asked me why I didn’t do more to Bin Laden. There was not a living soul…all the people who criticized me wanted to leave the next day. You brought this up so you get an answer.

WALLACE: I’m perfectly happy to. Bin Laden says…

CLINTON: And secondly…

WALLACE: Bin Laden says…

CLINTON: Bin laden may have said that…

WALLACE: Bin Laden says it showed the weakness of the US…

CLINTON: It would have shown the weakness if we left right away but he wasn’t involved in that. That’s just a bunch of bull. That was about Mohammed Adid, a Muslim war lord murdering..thousands of Pakistani Muslim troops. We were all there on a humanitarian mission. We had not one mission — none — to establish a certain kind of Somali government or to keep anybody out. He was not a religious fanatic.

WALLACE: But Mr. President…

CLINTON: There was no Al Qaeda…

WALLACE: …with respect if I may. Instead of going through 93.

CLINTON: You asked you. It you brought it up.

WALLACE: May I ask a general question that you can answer. The 9/11 Commission, which you talk about, and this is what they did say, not what ABC pretended they said…

CLINTON: Wait, Wait…

WALLACE: …they said about you and 43 and I quote, “The US government took the threat seriously, not in the sense of mustering anything like that would be….to confront an enemy of the first, second or third rank”

CLINTON: That’s not true with us and Bin Laden…

WALLACE: …the 9/11 commission says…

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 Regan. 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. The CIA was run by George Tenet who President Bush gave the medal of freedom to and said he did a good job.. The country never had a comprehensive anti terror operation until I came to office. If you can criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this, after the Cole I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full scale attack search for Bin Laden.

This would be the Delenda Plan (pdf) that were drawn up by Richard Clarke, a comprehensive Political and Military strategy for combating Al Qaeda. A plan which was presented to Condoleeza Rice as the incoming National Security Advisor, and she subsequently ignored - until after 9-11.

But we needed baseing rights in Uzbekistan which we got after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred special forces in helicopters and refuel at night. Even the 9/11 Commission didn’t do that. Now the 9/11 Commission was a political document too. All I’m asking is if anybody wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book.

From Clarkes Book: In 1998, after the cruise missle attack on Bin Laden Clinton told Gen Hugh Shelton, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs...

"Hugh, what i think would scare the shit out of these al Qaeda guys more than any cruise missle... would be the sight of U.S. commandos, Ninja guys in black suits, jumping out of helicopters into their camps, spraying machine guns. Even if we don't get the big guys, it will have a good effect." Shelton looked pained. He explained that the camps were a long way away from anywhere we could launch a helicopter raid. Nonetheless, America's top military oficer agreed to "look into it".

But the fact is the Pentagon wasn't having any more of Clinton's "wild adventures" in Africa and the Middle-east - not after Somalia.

In October of 2000, Richard Clarke discussed the problem following the bombing of the Cole with Mike Sheehan, then the State Depts top Counter-terrorism official.

"What's it gonna take, Dick?" Sheehan demanded, "Who the shit do they think attacked the Cole, fuckin' Martians? The Pentagon brass won't let Delta go get bin Laden. Hell, they won't even let the Air Force carpet bomb the place. Does al Qeada have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?"

Yes, that exactly what they needed to do. No, Clinton didn't get Bin Laden - but it wasn't for lack of effort on his part.

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?

CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him

WALLACE: Right…

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t….. I tired. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke… So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..

WALLACE: Now wait a minute sir…

CLINTON:..

WALLACE: I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked why didn’t you do anything about the Cole. I want to know how many you asked why did you fire Dick Clarke. I want to know…

WALLACE: We asked..

CLINTON:..

WALLACE: Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday sir?

CLINTON: I don’t believe you ask them that.

WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of…

CLINTON: You didn’t ask that did you? Tell the truth

WALLACE: About the USS Cole?

CLINTON: tell the truth.

WALLACE: I…with Iraq and Afghanistan there’s plenty of stuff to ask.

Gotcha!!! As it turns out- niether Chris Wallace or his predecessor Tony Snow has ever asked a member of the Bush Administration about the Cole bombing.

CLINTON: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about…

WALLACE: [laughs]

CLINTON: You said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion dollars plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.

WALLACE: But President Clinton…

CLINTON:

WALLACE: We were going to ask half the question about it. I didn’t think this was going to set you off on such a tear .

CLINTON: It set me off on such a tear because you didn’t formulate it in an honest way and you people ask me questions you don’t ask the other side.

WALLACE: Sir that is not true…

CLINTON: …and Richard Clarke…

WALLACE: That is not true…

CLINTON: Richard Clarke made it clear in his testimony…

WALLACE: Would you like to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative?

CLINTON: No I want to finish this.

WALLACE: Alright

CLINTON: All I’m saying is you falsely accuse me of giving aid and comfort to Bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew al Qaeda existed then…

WALLACE: Did they know in 1996 when he declared war on the US? Did no one know in 1998…

CLINTON: Absolutely they did

WALLACE: When they bombed the two embassies…

CLINTON:…

WALLACE: Or in 2000 when they hit the Cole.

CLINTON: What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.

Oooh, SNAP!

And if I were still president we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now I never criticized President Bush and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…

WALLACE: [Laughs]

CLINTON: I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin laden. I regret it but I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending special forces in to Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise… We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. Until I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that’s strange.

WALLACE: Can I ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative?

CLINTON: You can.

WALLACE: I always intended to sir.

CLINTON: No you intended to move your bones by doing this first. But I don’t mind people asking me. I actually talked o the 9/11 commission for four hours and I told them the mistakes I thought I made. And I urged them to make those mistakes public because I thought none of us had been perfect. But instead of anybody talking about those things. I always get these clever little political…where they ask me one sided questions… It always comes from one source. And so…

WALLACE:…

CLINTON: And so…

WALLACE: I just want to ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative but what’s the source? You seem upset?

CLINTON: I am upset because..

WALLACE: …and all I can say is I’m asking you in good faith because it’s on people’s minds sir. And I wasn’t…

CLINTON: There’s a reason it’s on people’s minds. That’s the point I’m trying to make. There’s a reason it’s on people’s minds because they’ve done a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression. This country only has one person who has worked…against terror…under Regan…only one, Richard Clarke. And all I’d say anybody who wonders whether we did wrong or right. Anybody who wants to see what everybody else did, read his book. The people on my political right who say I didn’t do enough spent the whole time I was president saying why is he so obsessed with Bin Laden. And that was wag the dog when he tried to kill him. My Republican sec of defense — and I think I’m the only person since World War II to have a Secretary of Defense from the opposite party — Richard Clarke, and all the intelligence people said that I ordered a vigorous attempt to get Osama Bin Laden and came closer apparently than anybody has since.

WALLACE: alright…

CLINTON: And you guys try to create the opposite impression when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s findings and you know it’s not true. It’s just not true. And all this business about Somalia — the same people who criticized me about Somalia were demanding I leave the next day. Same exact crowd..

WALLACE: one of the…

CLINTON: …So if you’re going to do this for gods sake follow the same standards for everybody.

WALLACE: I think we do sir

CLINTON: …be fair.

WALLACE: I think we do. One of the main parts of the global initiative this year is religious reconciliation. President Bush says that the fight against Islamic extremism is the central conflict of the century and his answer is promoting democracy and reform. Do you think he has that right?

CLINTON: Sure. To advocate democracy and reform in the Muslim world? Absolutely. I think the question is what’s the best way to do it. I think also the question is how do you educate people about democracy. Democracy is about way more than majority rule. Democracy is about minority rights, individual rights, restraints on power. And there’s more than one way to advance democracy but do I think on balance that in the end after several bouts of instability do I think it would be better if we had more freedom and democracy? Sure I do. …The president has a right to do it? Sure I do. But I don’t think that’s all we can do in the Muslim world. I think they have to see us try to get a just and righteous peace in the Middle East. They have to see us as willing to talk to people who see the world differently than we do.

Amen.

And there are other questions that need to be asked of the Bush Administration - such as what happened at Tora Bora? And while Bush is taking photo ops with Pakistani President Musharraf, is he asking him about the treaty with the Taliban he just signed? I thought if you were with us, you were against us?

Maybe, not so much - eh?

Vyan

The State of Dis-Union and other High Comedy

Well, that was entertaining because I just love a good fairy-tale, don't you? I think he should get George Lucas to produce the movie version, or maybe it needs the Bruckheimer touch? A little Black Hawk Down mixed with Places in the Heart? A great Action Hero, Down Home Family movie for all ages where the bad guys are real bad evildoers and the good guys make sure that the mothers of our fallen soldiers are quickly whisked away before the opening credit less their quiet sobs in the back of the room spoil everyone's mood. Or worse - they wear a T-Shirt with a little too much truthiness to it. (Never mind the clear illegality of such an action)

Maybe we'll let them stay, as long as they allow themselves to be used for cheap jingoism?

Purple Fingers Good - T-Shirts Bad!

Still the best parts, were all in the audience participation segments - because as we all know, it's all about the "Hokey Pokey"! (Aka The Official Dance of the Congress Critters as they jump up and down from their seats on cue like trained seals!) Arr! Arr! Clap! Clap!

Except, of course, for those telling moments when they didn't.

The first thirty minutes were pretty dull. We got your basic empty platitudes about bipartisanship....

In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of goodwill and respect for one another -- and I will do my part.

Yeah, right - sure. When was the last time the President consulted with the minority party on anything? No Child Left Behind? Harriet Miers? In Congress, Democratic bills are ignored - conference committees occur between Republicans and their Lobbyists behind closed doors. Democrats don't even get the chance to offer amendments.

How about Dick Cheney to Pat Leahy on the floor of the Sennate- "Go Fuck Yourself".
Civil? This a complete sham of "bipartisanship", but if Boy King George likes to pretends it's not, who am I to throw cold water on his fever dream?

After that we had a series of easy gimmes...

The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership -- so the United States of America will continue to lead.

Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer -- so we will act boldly in freedom's cause.

At the start of 2006, more than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half -- in places like Syria and Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Iran -- because the demands of justice, and the peace of this world, require their freedom, as well.

When they murder children at a school in Beslan, or blow up commuters in London, or behead a bound captive, the terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the Earth. But they have miscalculated: We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it.

But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil.

I am confident in the skill and spirit of our military. Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning.

During most of these sections, you had both side of the aisle rise in enthusiastic support. And these are pretty cool things to say -- "Freedom's on the March" and all that. (Yeah, I know he didn't say that until later). The first obvious break came when he said this...

The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home. As we make progress on the ground, and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels -- but those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C.

The Democrats stood down on this one - quiet as church mice, while Republicans cheered. Besides the fact that Mr. Bi-Partisan just too a cheap shot at Rep John Murtha, the content of what he's saying is very interesting. You had General Shinseki advising that we needed far more troops, as well as studies from the Rand Corporation and similar advice from political leaders on the ground in Iraq like Paul Bremer. But did political appointees like Rumsfeld listen? Noooooo.

The reasons Senators Biden, McCain, Lugar and Hagel have said we needed more troops, is because that's what the troops told them, because Rummy ain't hearing it.

Biden on CNN last July.

"I was there Memorial Day -- not one single general, not one single major, not one single colonel I spoke to you -- and I spoke to, I think, all of them, all of the major players -- not one of them said they had enough troops. Not one. And you've been reporting that. Your folks have been going out to Iraq. Your folks in Iraq have been interviewing the military guys on the ground. I don't know who's talking to the president."

Oooh, Snap!

The Preznit continued... speaking on Iran becoming a free democratic state (Before or after we turn it into a shinny glass bowl with bunker-busting nukes, I wonder?) Fighting Global Aids (What he hell has he done on that lately?) and of course supporting homeland security.

Fortunately, this nation has superb professionals in law enforcement, intelligence, the military, and homeland security. These men and women are dedicating their lives, protecting us all, and they deserve our support and our thanks.

Sure, everyone is all for that. But then in the very next sentence...

They also deserve the same tools they already use to fight drug trafficking and organized crime -- so I ask you to reauthorize the Patriot Act.

Republicans - Yay! Democrats - crickets. Oh, by the way - the Patriot Act has officially expired. Funniest - Shit - EVER!

Since he was already in deep, like up to his knees with this Patriot Act stuff - why not go for the full dunk with the NSA Spying? Sure. Let's do it. Grab your scooba gear.

It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late.

As has been noted, there were numerous warnings which went unheeded. An FBI informant was living with this men. They'd already been identified as possible terrorist by the CIA, wanted by the FBI and were already on the State Dept TIPOFF list. We didn't need to have the NSA listen in on their phone calls. The Left Hand (CIA, State) just need to let the Right Hand (FBI Headquaters) know what the heck was going on. FBI agents in the field, were already on the case.

So to prevent another attack -- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America.

Ok, if were only listening to "al Qaeda operatives and affiliates" why is the FBI being buried under a mountain of bogus NSA leads? Why are they targeting Greenpeace and Peta? And why did that spying begin before 9/11?

Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have,

Some have tried, those who did it in secret (Wilson, Roosevelt) were never challenged in court. Those who were challenged (Lincoln, Truman) both lost - and Clinton did something entirely different. No sale.

and federal courts have approved the use of that authority.

No, they haven't. The Court found in both Youngstown and Hamdi that judicial review was clearly required when the President's Article II Powers intersect with the 4th Amendment.

Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed.

But according to the Congressional Research Service - the limited nature of those briefings may have been illegal.

The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks.

That remains highly doubtful at this point. But even if true, it's highly likely that anyone captured as a result of warrantless FISA wiretaps would have an excellent "Fruits of the poison tree" claim. So the way to protect America is to break the law and make sure that terrorists can't be brought to justice?

It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.

Of course we won't. But it would be nice, if we insisted that those who strive to protect us would do their jobs in accordance with the law rather than look for cheap (and wasteful) shortcuts. It seems that numerous attorneys at DOJ such as James Comey as well as professionals at NSA such as Russell Tice (most of whom are Republican) seem to feel the same way.

And lets not forget the deep irony of the President saying, "Tonight we are comforted by the hope of a glad reunion with the husband who was taken so long ago, and we are grateful for the good life of Coretta Scott King" - and point out that the U.S. Government illegally wiretapped her husband, so long ago.


I think that these comments here by the President are his new "16 Words". He's stepped into it big time, and it's going to cost him. And I think the Democrats knew it - because as I watched the playback, I swear I could see them -- Laughing! Hillary Clinton was quite obvious cracking up, as the President did his spiel on the NSA.

They did more than just remain in their seats - they mocked him. And that friends is truly a good sign.

After this you had the typical lopsided reaction to the Presidents "Tax Plan".

Because America needs more than a temporary expansion, we need more than temporary tax relief. I urge the Congress to act responsibly, and make the tax cuts permanent.

Other great moments in comedy. On this next one, John McCain looked like he was about to burst a blood vessel trying to do an immitation of one of those little toy monkey's with the cymbals:

I am pleased that members of Congress are working on earmark reform, because the federal budget has too many special interest projects. (Applause.)

Sadly, it looked like he was the only person clapping. If one lone reformer claps in an empty chamber, does anyone hear?

It's interesting to note that although Bush did manage to mention Bill Clinton (saying that he and Bill were two of his father's favorite people - a comment that prompted an icy grin from Bill's Wife Hillary), he manage to get through the entire speech without mentioning Osama Bin Laden.

And just where is Osama as well as Al-Zawahiri, anyway? Apparently he's on CNN.

And we can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto. (Applause.)

SPIT-TAKE! The wha?? Didn't that get already passed during Clinton's term and shot down by the Supreme Cou.... uh, oh. Here we go again folks. A "Golden Oldie" from the Contract on America has just come back from the grave, courtesy of spanking new Justices Roberts and Alito. Anyone wanna take bets on how long the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments are going to last?

And then of course you had the absolutely funniest moment of the entire night, a moment which caught the President in mid whine about the sad and lingering death of his entire agenda...

Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security -- (applause) --

Actually, it wasn't just applause -- it was a War Whoop - "YEEEE-hAaaaahhh" - coming from the Democrats celebrating Bush's utter and complete failure to radically change the Social Security program.

That my friends was a vital moment. (I think I rewound and watched it again about fives times) We have to remember that we beat them on that point. Even as weak and ineffectual as the Democratic Party has been - we won on that battleground.

And we can win again. We will win again. And again. And again.

"YEEEEE-haaaaaahhh!!!". (rewind)

Vyan

Battlestar Galactica : Seeds of Truth in Fiction

In 1978 Battlestar Galactica hit the airwaves. It was an ambitious show, borrowing heavily on the space opera themes and visual effect advances of the then recently released Star Wars, the Glen Larson ("The A Team") created show with scripts by Donald Belasarius ("Quantam Leap") and starring tv legend Lorne Green ("Bonanza") only aired 20 episodes - nevertheless has spawned a devoted world-wide following of fans and fanatics.

One year ago the Sci Fi Channel aired a 2-part mini-series which "re-imagined" the original Battlestar Galactic in a way that updated it's themes and visual style - and many of those original fans many of whom who had lobbied for a new version and/or continuation of the series - have subsequently blown a friggin gasket.

The Original Series (often referred to as "TOS") they argue, showed the triumph and resiliency of the human spirit and values in the face of an unimaginable and devastating genocidal tragedy. They argue that the new show has been transformed into a "PC feminized rip-off" that lacks any morality, character and heart of the original show.

Fans of the new show, which is scheduled to begin as a regular series on Sci Fi in January, have said that it is far less stilted, cheesy and kitch-laded adaptation of the story which looks far more realistically - borrowing stylistically from more recent cinimatic movies such as "Black Hawk Down". Many lead characters who had previously been without depth, introspection or character flaw have now become "3 dimensional". A sense of impending and continuing doom and danger has been added and most controversal of all some characters, notable the brash womanizing gambler hyper-lucky risk-taking fighter pilot Starback (Dirk Benedict) have changed gender from male to female.

I've long known that arguements - particularly online arguments and debate pertaining to music and art have a tendency to be far more vicious and vitriolic than debates about politics. However, this debate - which has raged for the past 12 months over a variety of different websites has frequently managed to fuse both art and politics into the mix.

Many fans of TOS appear to be Reagonite Republicans. Conservatives who embrace the "strong moral values" they feel are at the backbone of the show. They rail at the "senseless" changes in the characters gender - at turns accusing the newly feminize Starbuck of being a "dyke" and nothing more than "eye-candy" to attract adolescent viewers. They especially decried one scene in particular where one of the villianous cybernetic Cylons, who are the shows antagonists bent on the complete annihilation of the human race, apparently murders a single baby in it's crib for no other reason than perverse curiousity.

Fans of The New Show (frequently referred as TNS) have been frequently accused of being "soft lefties" and "communist".

Recently on the SciFI.com some of these people who've shown an incredible depth of passion and frequent eye for the most minute detail, have decided to take their battle over Galactica into another subject which parrellels the themes of TNS: 9/11 and The Iraq War.

Most sites on the net where this is discussed tend to be by design either pro-left or pro-right and many people essentially wind up "preaching to the converted". Not so on SciFi. I believe many of the no-holds-barred exchanges that the TOS vs TNS debate has sparked are illustrative of the mindset of many on the left and the right and how they have been in ideological war for the past few years.

Read on:

[A] war crime is when you whole sale slaughter people and uniformed POWs for no apparent reason. The captured prisoners are not traditional POWs. They don't wear uniform, by tradition, it is in our full right to sumarily execute non-uniformed combatant as soon as they're [captured]. This administration have extended certain POWs rights, which are a huge mistake. Being non-uniformed, they don't deserve the same treatment as uniformed soldiers. I have no problem whatsoever with the torture of irregular forces. In fact, I encourge such action to discourage that type of combatants from being [popularized].

Don’t you see where this is going? You think torture is okay? Did you learn nothing from history? 1. Torture has a history of not being very successful in extracting information. It usually makes the victim say whatever you like to hear. 2. Morally you are on the same level as all the Arab terrorists, with one difference (which makes it worse): you are the occupying force. 3. By your statements I cannot see any (moral) difference between you and the Nazis. 4. You think having a uniform makes any difference? Do you understand how much disgust and hatred you are creating? If those are the superior values of America – or of Christianity – then its time that the world changes. Besides: How would you feel about being caught by – say some Chinese – that just happened to “liberate” your country. Torture? You want some more?

<>

The US/Britain and their allies are the only one's with the BALLS to go in their and kick some arse. The Iraqi people will be able to vote into power who they wont and not have a dictator ruling over them anymore. As a Britain I'm ashamed that other European countries have turned their backs on the US although not surprised with France's decision As for your second comment sometimes you have to go a little further in order to play them at their own games (fight fire with fire). These are people who use women and children plus use holy place's to launch attacks many of which don't even come from Iraq. You dont win wars by having your hands tied behind your backs. Its hide enough now for our guys knowing they could end up getting arrested back in Britian for murder and what for, doing their rudy jobs. Christ I hate the do gooder brigades

We, the general public, were told that the invasion of Iraq was over the defence of our nations from terrorism. That we were under threat from WMD and funding of anti west terrorist groups by Saddam Hussein. Based on false intelligence!! Our leaders tried to deceive us of their motives. I have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with ousting a corrupt dictatorship, or placing democracy into a subdued populace, as long as that is what the target country wants. This war is a long way from being over, and total actions such as Falujah, with the draconian post measures, will only turn the populace against the goal, extending the west's commitment. Anyone else interested in who's funding the insurgence? Would a democratic state in the middle-east concern her neighbours?

Give it up. The America-haters are going to think that thugs and butchers who behead and target innocent people are righteous while they condemn the US and Brittain's attempt to bring democracy to a cesspool. You can't reason with people like that. These same morons (MooreOns) also look the other way when it is realized that the UN Oil for Weapons.. er, I mean food, er.. no I actually mean WEAPONS, program was a corrupt way of bypassing the sanctions. Saddam should have been ousted by 1995, but the weak-kneed loony lefties who were in charge were flipping retarded and allowed all things to fester. The hardcore left should never be allowed to have power again.

Quote: Quote: we did find plenty of dual-use items and components No we didn't, a few dual-use items were found post invassion, but no forensic evidence, which would be almost impossible to scrub clean. I notice that you cited Hans Blix and the head of the UN IAEA, but you only focused on what you wanted to be spoon fed by lefties. Other reports, including British intelligence indicated and stand by their reports that Saddam tried to purchase uranium. Let us also, though, look at chemical weapons. In terms of terrorist use, these are the easiest to weaponize. The infrastructure for dual-use facilities -- facilities which in the past had been used for producing chemical and biological weapons -- was being repaired using money from the UN Oil for Weapons program. Dual-use chemical precursors were being developed. You can choose to interpret this information a number of ways, but I consider it to be threatening and needed to be dealt with. It should also be noted that Iraq violated UN mandates heavily with regard to their missile programs. It is fair to say that there is disagreement, even among the professionals, about what Iraq was capable of and what was being planned. I prefer to err on the side of caution on this and have the threat removed.

So Hans Blix is a lefty, is anyone who has a shred of evidence to falsify the original justification to go to war, a 'left-wing looney'. Would you be considered a right-wing nazi? As to British intelligence having proof of Uranium sales to Iraq, are all pre 1989. Which could be argued can be projected, but no proof has arisen. As to chemical and biological agents, we know he'd been active in their use, within his own boarders. But were more than likely destroyed after the first war. But there has been NO FORENSIC evidence that such dual-use equipment found post invasion, had ever contained these agents. Again, they may well have been moved outside his borders. As to his missile program, it was way off being inter-continental, the plan was to expand the basic scud range to over 400 miles. The US space programme should be testement to how long it takes and how difficult it is to develop such platforms. I also would like to err on the side of caution, he, Saddam, should have been taken out...BUT, legally, with the backing of the UN. I know your opinion on the UN, to some extent, we share similar concerns. But the Bush administration was hell bent on going back to Iraq pre 9/11 !!!!! Which has only decreased UN authority, when it should have been strengthend. As for chemical and Biological agents, they can be obtained or made, almost anywhere in the world, so I'm afraid we've not cut off the head of the source yet, nor likely ever to achieve. And, any links to international terrorism Iraq ever had are tenuous at the very least. You'll notice the language used by the Bush administration has indirectly infered Al Queeda links, a large percentage of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein had connections to 9/11. What has been achieved, is a state of paranoia between two religions and an esculation in hatred towards the west, re-inforcing the ranks the war on terrorism has tried to cull.

I didn't support the war. For the reasons, as follows: 1) Iraq posed no imminent danger to the US that required invasion. Saddam would have captiulated after playing some games again and while Osama was running around this was satisfactory in my opinion. 2) Which brings us to Osama was running around. Al-Quaeda was on the ropes but not dead and we let them off the hook. We diverted SOF units that had developed ties to the Pashtun into Iraq and backfilled them with units without the same capabilities or ties. This lead to using more indig forces (both Pakistani and tribal) than was wise and IMHO was material in the escape of senior Al-Quada leadership. 3) Unilateral action by the US into Iraq clearly squandered any remaining good will after 9/11. International political capital is hard to get, we wasted it to crush a two bit dictator of no real importance. 4) The occupation in Iraq is more likely to cause the end of Pax Americana than a hundred Saddam Husseins. Given the long term occupation this means a significant risk to the all-volunteer force. Fewer folks will enter the reserves and the national guard units and these units represent a major portion of the total force (40%? Can't recall). The stop-loss program and the long deployments means a shallower pool of trained reservists for the next war. 5) In support of 4 the next big threat IMHO will be China. Given the financial stress of OIF we're seeing delays and cutbacks into both R&D and procurement to fund operations. Coupled with what I think will be a significantly downsized US military in the 2015 timeframe I suspect that if China was to make a move on the Taiwan straits that will be the right time and we wont be able to stop them. In terms of total world production China is on the rise. By 2015 they will have the economic power to field a military capable of power projection. We'll have been paying for an expensive occupation for the better part of a decade. If they play their cards right (the PRC) and stay the course then historians will point to OIF as the key decion point that lead to the decline of the US sphere of influence and the rise of a Chinese age. This IMHO will be Bush's legacy and I'm too damn old to learn Mandarin and too damn young to be dead when it happens.

I was against the attack on Iraq from the very beginning. There was no reason whatsoever to attack a decaying third world desert country with a small and weakened 1970's era military. "He was pursuing weapons of mass destruction." Yeah Mr. President and so are 40 other countries in the world. Oh and by the way Mr. President. It was we the might world police USA that gave Saddam the nuke and bio/chem weapons back in the late 70's and early 80's. Saddam was not a threat and never was a threat. He had no way of directly attacking the US. "He could develope a nuclear wepaon and give it to terrorists to use here in America." Okay Mr. president lets use a little common sense. What makes you think Saddam or any other country in that part of the world would be stupid enough to do such a thing? Why would any country risk being turned into the 51st state just to kill a few Americans? Now for China. Everyone wants us all to believe that China along with Russia are our friends. Fact is, nothing could be further from the truth. China is modernising its military with the aid of Russia. China has built nearly 100 Russian SU-30 fighters under license from Sukhoi. Russia is also helping China modernise it's land and sea forces. And both have signed treaties stating that they would come to each others aid if one went to war with the US. Yeah they're our friends alright. And China is still gearing up for an invasion of Taiwan. But lets not worry about any of that. Lets worry about Iran and their nuclear program. So what if they are a sovereign nation with the right to build a nuclear power plant if they wish. And if they build nukes? Hey, as long as they dont launch one at us, so what? Oh and never mind the draft thats coming next year.

As soon as the American People realize that this is a war with Islam the better. We need to use General Sheridans version of Total War, like he used against the Northern Cheyenne Indians. These Islamic terrorists are animals and need to be treated as such. America needs to nuke Mecca and let these Satanist know that their is only one god and his son Jesus Christ. Also the United States needs to cut all ties with the United Nations.