Bush received pre-9/11 warnings. Did Obama receive pre-4/15 warnings?

[Lakhota]

It is documented widespread common knowledge that Bush received pre-9/11 warnings - which the right doesn't like to hear about. Therefore, I have no doubt that the right will be working overtime trying to make a case that Obama received pre-4/15 warnings - even if they have to fabricate them. It'll be like endless Ben Ghazi...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Boooohoooohoooooush!

 

[Lumpy 1]

Well..there are these and more.

Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. or Against Americans | Infoplease.com

 

[rdean]

Remember, this was in 2006. Way before Obama became president.

Clinton wiped the smirk off Fox.

 

[CaféAuLait]

While Clinton diddled

The record doesn't lie. The former president had repeated warnings and wake-up calls, but he failed to protect the country against the growing danger of Islamic terrorism. Part 1 of a debate.

The CIA finally set up a special unit to monitor al-Qaida. In the years since 1993, the network had gained traction and organization in its African client state of Sudan. Then the administration got an amazingly lucky break. The Sudanese government offered to hand over bin Laden to the United States, just as it had handed over Carlos the Jackal to the French in 1994. The Sudanese also offered to provide the United States with a massive intelligence file on al-Qaida’s operations in Sudan and around the world. Astonishingly, the Clinton administration turned the offer down. They argued that there was no solid legal proof to indict bin Laden in the United States. This was despite the fact that internal government documents had fingered bin Laden for ties to the first WTC bombing, the murders in Mogadishu and the 1992 bombing of a hotel in Aden, Yemen

While Clinton diddled - Salon.com

 

[healthmyths]

It is documented widespread common knowledge that Bush received pre-9/11 warnings - which the right doesn't like to hear about. Therefore, I have no doubt that the right will be working overtime trying to make a case that Obama received pre-4/15 warnings - even if they have to fabricate them. It'll be like endless Ben Ghazi...

Yup.. You are right. Several warnings and Bush who ran for President wanted NOTHING to do with Any "nation-building" or anything that smacked
of foreign involvement. After all he was trying to restart the economy after a recession that started as all recessions do many months before the official start which was 03/2001. So Bush was busy trying to get the economy going.
And then 9/11. Now of course the 9/11 commission said the following many months later:

In February 1993, a group led by Ramzi Yousef tried to bring down the World Trade Center with a truck bomb.They killed six and wounded a thousand. Plans by Omar Abdel Rahman and others to blow up the Holland and Lincoln tunnels and other New York City landmarks were frustrated when the plotters were arrested.
In October 2000, an al Qaeda team in Aden,Yemen, used a motorboat filled with explosives to blow a hole in the side of a destroyer, the USS Cole, almost sinking the vessel and killing 17 American sailors.

Although Bin Ladin was determined to strike in the United States, as President Clinton had been told and President Bush was reminded in a
Presidential Daily Brief article briefed to him in August 2001, the specific threat information pointed overseas

http://www.c-span.org/pdf/911finalreportexecsum.pdf

so actually Clinton ignored the warnings even after several attacks on US soil and military.
And so did Bush.
9/11 occurred and Bush could NOT ignore that!

And this is where Bush decided the USA couldn't wait for another attack.
Time to go on the offensive on two fronts. Directly with Taliban harboring Al Qaeda and with iraq that also harbored terrorists.
And since there were already numerous breaking of the Cease Fire with Saddam it was clear to everyone that had any common sense
that Saddam was harboring terrorists. Hated the USA and most of all was killing his own people!
And this is where the majority of BASH BUSHERS seem to lose sense of reality!

ONE major objective was never met... finding WMDs which as Bush reminded us as did these Democrats BEFORE BUSH AND AFTER..
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.



"Between 1999 and 2001, the U.S. and British-led air forces in Iraq dropped 1.3 million pounds of bombs in response to purported violations of the no-fly zones and anti-aircraft fire from Saddam Hussein.

A sweeping attack, conducted in January of 1999, rained down 25 missiles on Iraqi soil, killing civilians. Clinton said the attack was in response to four planes violating the no-fly zones.

Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair authorized air strikes on more than 100 days in 1999, sometimes several times per day. The bombings were ostensibly in response to Husseins refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors into the country, though critics alleged the move was aimed at deflecting attention from impeachment.
The Raw Story | Clinton bombing of Iraq far exceeded Bush's in run-up to war; Bush 'spikes of activity' questioned

All of those Democrats were wrong then as was Bush do we all agree? There were no WMDs.
But there is also no more Saddam!

 

[Lakhota]

Well..there are these and more.

Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. or Against Americans | Infoplease.com

I read your link. It's pretty thin...

 

[blackhawk]

It is documented widespread common knowledge that Bush received pre-9/11 warnings - which the right doesn't like to hear about. Therefore, I have no doubt that the right will be working overtime trying to make a case that Obama received pre-4/15 warnings - even if they have to fabricate them. It'll be like endless Ben Ghazi...[/QUOTE
No that is widespread far left talking point that has been debunked many times.

 

[Lakhota]

It is documented widespread common knowledge that Bush received pre-9/11 warnings - which the right doesn't like to hear about. Therefore, I have no doubt that the right will be working overtime trying to make a case that Obama received pre-4/15 warnings - even if they have to fabricate them. It'll be like endless Ben Ghazi...[/QUOTE
No that is widespread far left talking point that has been debunked many times.

No, actually it's only gotten more incriminating against Bush.

 

[healthmyths]

It is documented widespread common knowledge that Bush received pre-9/11 warnings - which the right doesn't like to hear about. Therefore, I have no doubt that the right will be working overtime trying to make a case that Obama received pre-4/15 warnings - even if they have to fabricate them. It'll be like endless Ben Ghazi...[/QUOTE
No that is widespread far left talking point that has been debunked many times.

No, actually it's only gotten more incriminating against Bush.

Well if there were no Osama Bin Laden do you think 9/11 would have occurred?
If so, why did Clinton let him go when he had him?

" in Wright and the 9/11 Commission do agree that the Clinton administration encouraged Sudan to deport bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia and spent 10 weeks trying to convince the Saudi government to accept him. One Clinton security official told The Washington Post that they had "a fantasy" that the Saudi government would quietly execute bin Laden. When the Saudis refused bin Laden’s return, Clinton officials convinced the Sudanese simply to expel him, hoping that the move would at least disrupt bin Laden’s activities.

Much of the controversy stems from claims that President Clinton made in a February 2002 speech and then retracted in his 2004 testimony to the 9/11 Commission. In the 2002 speech Clinton seems to admit that the Sudanese government offered to turn over bin Laden:

Clinton: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [al Qaeda]. We got – well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.
FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Lakhota, there are only two possibilities:

1) The Government did NOT know anything about this attack (before it happened), proving that the Patriot Act, NDAA, IRS e-mail hacking, etc, doesn't work.

2) The Government did know about this attack (before it happened), proving they let it happened in order to take away more of our liberties in the name of security.

Either way, the Government should be stopped from expanding its police powers.

 

[Lakhota]

Lakhota, there are only two possibilities:

1) The Government did NOT know anything about this attack (before it happened), proving that the Patriot Act, NDAA, IRS e-mail hacking, etc, doesn't work.

2) The Government did know about this attack (before it happened), proving they let it happened in order to take away more of our liberties in the name of security.

Either way, the Government should be stopped from expanding its police powers.

That don't make no sense...

 

[WUN]

It is documented widespread common knowledge that Bush received pre-9/11 warnings - which the right doesn't like to hear about. Therefore, I have no doubt that the right will be working overtime trying to make a case that Obama received pre-4/15 warnings - even if they have to fabricate them. It'll be like endless Ben Ghazi...

Yes, Bush received warnings about anything and everything, but somehow hindsighters like you think he should have picked the needle out of the needle stack.

I really don't blame Obama for this any more than I blame Bush for 9/11. You can't prepare for every kind of attack. The main thing is that whoever did this is captured and is held accountable. I don't care if whoever it is gets caught during Obama's administration or the next administration, as long as they are eventually caught.

This is why I applauded Obama when they got OBL. Some things transcend the pathetic partisan blamecasting b.s. you are trying to push.

 

[Two Thumbs]

lakohta

what a retard

Just when I start to think you got a leg up on TM [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7baSkrvdUo]Emeril goes BAM crazy! - YouTube[/ame]

back in your hole

 

[Crackerjaxon]

It is documented widespread common knowledge that Bush received pre-9/11 warnings - which the right doesn't like to hear about. Therefore, I have no doubt that the right will be working overtime trying to make a case that Obama received pre-4/15 warnings - even if they have to fabricate them. It'll be like endless Ben Ghazi...

All public servants cover their asses. That's what public servants do. Intelligence agents and analysts are no exception to the rule. Thus you have intelligence reports that cover any possibility that may happen any time, anywhere.

The reason no one wants to hear about it is because it is bullshit.

 

[Politico]

Wow it gets loonier everyday.

 

[Political Junky]

It is documented widespread common knowledge that Bush received pre-9/11 warnings - which the right doesn't like to hear about. Therefore, I have no doubt that the right will be working overtime trying to make a case that Obama received pre-4/15 warnings - even if they have to fabricate them. It'll be like endless Ben Ghazi...[/QUOTE
No that is widespread far left talking point that has been debunked many times.

Really?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIpEwGmSsmM]Condoleezza Rice asserts 'Bin Laden Determined To Attack' wasn't a warning. sickhorses.com - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Lakhota, there are only two possibilities:

1) The Government did NOT know anything about this attack (before it happened), proving that the Patriot Act, NDAA, IRS e-mail hacking, etc, doesn't work.

2) The Government did know about this attack (before it happened), proving they let it happened in order to take away more of our liberties in the name of security.

Either way, the Government should be stopped from expanding its police powers.

That don't make no sense...

What doesn't make sense?

Either a Statement is True or it is False.

Tautology (logic) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Statement "A or ~A" is a tautology.

A = The government knew

~A = The government did not know

Either A or ~A must be true, because if one is false, the other is automatically true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Now I understand why you never make sense, you defy both mathematical and philosophical logic.

 

[jon_berzerk]

It is documented widespread common knowledge that Bush received pre-9/11 warnings - which the right doesn't like to hear about. Therefore, I have no doubt that the right will be working overtime trying to make a case that Obama received pre-4/15 warnings - even if they have to fabricate them. It'll be like endless Ben Ghazi...

that will be an unknown

this admin is not known to

be the "most transparent administration ever"

unlike the promises made to be so

 

[buckeye45_73]

It is documented widespread common knowledge that Bush received pre-9/11 warnings - which the right doesn't like to hear about. Therefore, I have no doubt that the right will be working overtime trying to make a case that Obama received pre-4/15 warnings - even if they have to fabricate them. It'll be like endless Ben Ghazi...

HAHA another fail by Lakhota, BenGhazi was a colosal mistake of stupidity....which is why people like you follow those morons......