Al Qaeda Was In Iarq BEFORE The War

the fact remains: The FBI - who works under the president - was well aware of arabs learning to fly jets and not caring to learn how to land. The duly alarmed field officer made his report - but the FBI could have given a shit about terrorism with all its concern for rooting out the evil pornographers in our midst - and the report never made it to the president's desk and that had nothing to do with FBI-CIA coordination.

I believe that the White House was made aware of the flight training concerns in late August, with little detail given. That was part of the problem built into the FBI, if they didn't have information that would lead to 'prosecution' they ignored it. They were totally involved in the legal part of things, a deadly mistaken policy.

Should Bush have immediately reversed that policy? Yes. But he agreed with Clinton, until 9/11.
 
In testimony before the 9/11 Commission last year, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft blasted Gorelick's "Wall," saying, "The single greatest structural cause for September 11 was the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents"


"[Ms. Gorelick] built that wall," said Ashcroft, "through a March 1995 memo."

The Gorelick memo stipulated, in part:

"We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."

Ms. Gorelick is expected to be a leading candidate for attorney general should Mrs. Clinton win the 2008 presidential election.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/9/120750.shtml
 
The greater wall was between the Clinton and Bush Administrations.


In testimony before the 9/11 Commission last year, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft blasted Gorelick's "Wall," saying, "The single greatest structural cause for September 11 was the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents"


"[Ms. Gorelick] built that wall," said Ashcroft, "through a March 1995 memo."

The Gorelick memo stipulated, in part:

"We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."

Ms. Gorelick is expected to be a leading candidate for attorney general should Mrs. Clinton win the 2008 presidential election.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/9/120750.shtml

Both sides, and the history books will reflect that without any rewriting, obfuscation or political whining about it. So, stop it, whiners!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Should Bush have immediately reversed that policy? Yes. But he agreed with Clinton, until 9/11.


so own it. quit trying to pass the buck. That WAS the Bush policy.... so quit blaming it on Clinton. If Bush had thought it was WRONG, he had ample time to change it. He didn't. HIS mistake. NOT CLinton's
 
The greater wall was between the Clinton and Bush Administrations.




Both sides, and the history books will reflect that without any rewriting, obfuscation or political whining about it. So, stop it, whiners!!!!!!!!!!!

What wall are you referring to between the administrations? That Clinton's administration failed to fully brief the new? I've never heard that, even from Republicans! :wtf:
 
What wall are you referring to between the administrations? That Clinton's administration failed to fully brief the new? I've never heard that, even from Republicans! :wtf:

Desperate people do desperate things

Dems are very desperate these days
 
Bill Clinton told gwb that there would be no subject that would require more of his attention than the threat of Osama Bin Laden. This has been reported in all the major news outlets.


Desperate people do desperate things

Dems are very desperate these days

gwb ignored that warning. He even closed down the operation in the CIA that was investigating the bin Laden operation and threat. This has been reported in all news outlets that I am aware of. I suppose you might reply that it was not reported in the Greensboro Rhinosaurus but the truth has been out there for all these years.
 
Really? Do you think Dems are now desperate?


Desperate people do desperate things

Dems are very desperate these days

We now have a majority in the House, the Senate, the Governorships, the state legislatures and you think we have a reason to be desperate?

Real people think about real things. The conservative media will only get you so far. So far the conservative media has gotten Americans the raw deal of gwb and his minions. The independents among us are slowly but assuredly opening the eyes and minds of otherwise duped and politically disconnected peoples. I could care less about the pigs that wallow in their own shit and call it GOOD.

Whether we get a Democrat or a Republican in the Whitehouse in 2008 makes no difference at all. I would prefer a Democrat but even your most conservative rEpublican now running will be OK with me!!!!!!!! Our Governors, State Legislatures, the House and the Senate will prevail even if the President can take all the credit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Bill did nothing to fight terrorists - even after five attacks that killed many Americans

Libs continue to try and rewrite history to paint a different picture to fit their facts

I already provided links to facts that prove that Bill Clinton did not ignore terrorism. He tried to fight terrorism. Several of his ideas were blocked my Republicans in congress. The examples serve not as a re-write of history. They are facts that Republicans try to hide or ignore. You are simply technically wrong when you say that Bill did nothing to fight terrorists. Oh well. Talking with you and even giving you facts is like talking to a brick wall.
 
The original premise of this thread was that al Queda was in Iraq before 9/11, mk. I pointed out that they were also in the United States, trained here, educated here and got their political leanings here and the neocons and others ignored it. Not ONE PEEP out of them on this observation!!!!!!!!!!!

I pointed out to many of them, BEFORE THE WAR, that Saddam Hussein and al Queda were politically, religiously and personally diametrically opposed to one another and they forget that. They didn't care about that because it was not THEM that were going to WAR. It was somebody else's kids that were to be expected to fight this one. Not a lot of vets on this board, mk. But you will find a whole bunch of chickenshit armchair warriors that need the real warriors to protect their own sorry asses. Much like the pResident.
 
Clinton was fighting terrorism.

On August 20, 1998 Bill Clinton launched 79 cruise missiles at seven defenseless targets in the Middle East. One was a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan called El Shifa.

http://thereitis.org/displayarticle167.html
http://pnews.org/PhpWiki/index.php/RogueSuperPower
http://www.answers.com/topic/al-shifa-pharmaceutical-factory
http://www.media-criticism.com/Clinton_Sudan_1999.html
http://www.mega.nu/ampp/khartoumbomb.html

He did much more than that. I’ll give you the links later.
 
Here's a quote from your first link:

"The authors also point out that there are intelligence officials who still say that Idris is a front man for Osama bin Laden. Their response is to repeat that Idris? lawyer says his client has never met bin Laden. However, if Idris eventually proves to have been connected to bin Laden in some way, is bombing the plant before it could be proven to be a chemical weapons facility an example of our democratic beliefs?"

Have you guessed yet where the allegiance was in this writing?

Here is a quote from your second link:

"Bill Clinton declared that the target was a "terrorist network" and he said that the United States' "war against terrorism" is "a struggle between freedom and fanaticism." This statement came from the head of a government that has thrown hundreds of thousands of poor American children off welfare and into destitution and suffering. Clinton claimed that the United States wants "peace, not conflict...to lift lives around the world, not take them." These words come from the top representative of a country that launched tens of thousands of bombs against Iraq in 1991, killed hundreds of thousands of people, and now seems determined to starve the remainder into submission. The same world power that just wiped out a factory that reportedly made half the medicine in the desperately poor, famine-stricken country of Sudan."

Guess what kind of opposition characters this came from?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Here is a quote from the third link:

"Nontheless, Clinton's Secretary of State William Cohen, testified to the 9/11 Commission in 2004, characterizing Al Shifa as a "WMD-related facility", which played a "chemical weapons role" such as to pose a risk that it, with the help of the Iraqi chemical weapons program connections he also testified to, might help Al Qaeda get chemical weapons technology.

Sudan has since invited the U.S. to conduct chemical tests at the site for evidence to support its claim that the plant might have been a chemical weapons factory; so far, the U.S. has refused the invitation to investigate. Nevertheless, the U.S. has refused to officially apologize for the attacks, suggesting that some privately still suspect that chemical weapons activity existed there."

Wonder why the US government in 2004 can't go and get the goods? Political agenda, maybe?

Here is a quote from the fourth link:

"In the same issue of CAQ (Winter, ‘99), Lee Siu Hin finds a troubling connection between the multitudinous airstrikes launched on 8/20/98 and the Raytheon Company. He says the number of missiles launched at the Middle East targets that night astounded some former Persian Gulf war commanders. A former Operation Desert Storm planner added “during Desert Storm, they would never have dreamed of putting more than 8 or 12 Tomahawks on one target.” This is because, at about $750,000 each, Tomahawks are very expensive."

Expensive, huh? They don't know shit from shinola, I say!!!!!!!!!!!!! Shallow thinking, don't you think?

Here is a quote from the fifth and last link:

"In its most recent comment on the issue, State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said last week the administration stands by its initial justification for the bombing. He said evidence suggests that bin Laden was seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons, for use against American targets. He said Empta, used to make chemical weapons, was found outside the al-Shifa facility."



Clinton was fighting terrorism.

On August 20, 1998 Bill Clinton launched 79 cruise missiles at seven defenseless targets in the Middle East. One was a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan called El Shifa.

http://thereitis.org/displayarticle167.html
http://pnews.org/PhpWiki/index.php/RogueSuperPower
http://www.answers.com/topic/al-shifa-pharmaceutical-factory
http://www.media-criticism.com/Clinton_Sudan_1999.html
http://www.mega.nu/ampp/khartoumbomb.html

All of these links and stories have redeeming qualities. I would suggest you read them all, search out a few more and read them as well.

Clinton did far better than you might think only hearing one side of the argument. He certainly did far better than the current chickenhawk-in-chief.
 
I expressed myself wrong, I'm sorry. Yes they made the decision, but not without input, advice, and consent.

I'm truly sorry, dear lady, but Bush DID make the decision, regardless of the input and advice he got. For there to be consent, there must first be sufficient information upon which to base that consent, which neither he nor members of his administration were forthcoming with.

<blockquote>Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. -<a href=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece>TIMESONLINE</a></blockquote>

And this, from the same source...A leaked internal memo from Tony "Lapdog" Blair's cabinet...

<blockquote>The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that <b>Bush had made up his mind to take military action</b>, even if the timing was not yet decided.</blockquote>
 
I'm truly sorry, dear lady, but Bush DID make the decision, regardless of the input and advice he got. For there to be consent, there must first be sufficient information upon which to base that consent, which neither he nor members of his administration were forthcoming with.

<blockquote>Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. -<a href=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece>TIMESONLINE</a></blockquote>

And this, from the same source...A leaked internal memo from Tony "Lapdog" Blair's cabinet...

<blockquote>The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that <b>Bush had made up his mind to take military action</b>, even if the timing was not yet decided.</blockquote>
Same with the decision Bully, same with the decision. I truly wonder if you would just brush aside all that had gone before those first months prior to 9/11, if it were a Democrat, or perhaps anyone other than GW? I think he's been bad, but you are just being over the top.
 
Apparently Bully is in no mood to ask so I will. "Over the top" about what?


Same with the decision Bully, same with the decision. I truly wonder if you would just brush aside all that had gone before those first months prior to 9/11, if it were a Democrat, or perhaps anyone other than GW? I think he's been bad, but you are just being over the top.

Clinton couldn't fart without the pukes screaming he was starting WWIII for purely political purposes!!!!!!! They didn't want anything to interfere with their Whitewater, travel officegate and BLOW JOB particulars!!!!!!!!!!!

You can't have it both ways, kitty. If you think gwb is only "bad" then you must think Bill Clinton is somewhere close to a Saint!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way, what about those al Queda terrorists that had been living, working and training in this country since at least Jan. 20, 2001? And what about gwb closing down the CIA Osama Bin Laden operation, or the flight out of Washington with the bin Laden family on board on 9/13/2001 when nobody else in the country could fly at all or so many other unanswered and unresolved questions that our unAmerican Congress failed to ask about for 6 DAMN YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We Will be getting some answers now. We may not get them all, but we have a lot of back tracking and 6 year imbedded cow patty's to walk through.
 
Clinton was fighting terrorism.

On August 20, 1998 Bill Clinton launched 79 cruise missiles at seven defenseless targets in the Middle East. One was a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan called El Shifa.

http://thereitis.org/displayarticle167.html
http://pnews.org/PhpWiki/index.php/RogueSuperPower
http://www.answers.com/topic/al-shifa-pharmaceutical-factory
http://www.media-criticism.com/Clinton_Sudan_1999.html
http://www.mega.nu/ampp/khartoumbomb.html

Yea, I remember when Clinton took out that aspirin factory - hell of threat to US national security wasn't it?
 
I did hear Bill was very interested in terrorists during his years in the WH
 

Attachments

  • $At the Arch.jpg
    $At the Arch.jpg
    23.7 KB · Views: 51
He did much more than that. I’ll give you the links later.

The legacy of Bill Clinton continues....................


A photograph of Bill Clinton and Officer Alan Davis on Page 3B in Monday...
• A photograph of Bill Clinton and Officer Alan Davis on Page 3B in Monday's local section did not intend to imply that the former president had involvement in a sexual solicitation case against the officer. Davis and Clinton were photographed together when the officer did bomb checks during a visit by Clinton. Davis was arrested Sunday and charged with solicitation and transportation with the purpose of prostitution.
http://www.miamiherald.com/461/story/136633.html


Bill's reputation is so bad the paper felt they had to explain the photo
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top