The attempt to put 9/11 on Clinton's watch

[mal]

What did Clinton do with the information he got in 1999 to prevent this?...
What did Bush do with the information he got from Clinton? You do know that that 1999 report came out before he took office don't you?
?[/B]

^That one about covers your Idiocy for the rest...

Clinton gets a Report, does nothing with it for 2 years, but Bush was supposed to come in to Office and right away deal with a 2 year old Report given to Clinton?...

What a fucking TOOL you are.

As for 1993... NOTHING LIKE IT THAT HAD HAPPENED BEFORE....

IT WAS THE FIRST TERRORIST ATTACK ON AMERICAN SOIL THAT TOOK LIVES EVER...

Get it?... And as Clinton's 8 years Continued, so did Terrorist Attacks Against our Interests...

Clinton did NOTHING...

Even when given SPECIFIC Info on Commerical Aircraft being Used Against the Pentagon 2 FUCKING YEARS BEFORE IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND WAS PULLED OFF BY THE GUY HE FAILED TO CAPTURE FOR 8 YEARS!...

It's Unfortunate that People this Willfully Dishonest are allowed Access to the Internet.



peace...

 

[teapartysamurai]

I never said everything was Bush's fault, but a terrorist attack that happened on his watch, yeahm he's at fault

There is good reason that the blame goes to Clinton.

It was his admin that put in place the walls between intelligence agencies, MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO connect the dots to 9/11.

There is a reason the "Path to 9/11" was on ABC once and since them has never been on DVD. Because it clearly shows how the Clinton admin ignored terrorism on his watch, seeing it only as a "law enforcement" problem.

There is a reason Sandy Burgler stole documents from the national archives to help cover up this trail.

Yes, Bush didn't see this coming, but he didn't put up the roadblocks that prevented us from seeing it coming.

Also once it happened, Bush did a 180 and reacted as swiftly as possible.

Clinton, on the other hand, did little on the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the embassy attacks in Africa, and the USS Cole.

IN FACT, the ONLY time he really reacted was when Monica Lewinsky was giving a deposition, and ALL OF A SUDDEN, Clinton felt it necessary to bomb Iraq (or as Bush put it, "hit a camel in the butt") to get the Deposition off the front pages.

You libs can squawk all you want, that Bush should be to blame for everything, but we remember the chain of events leading up to 9/11.

As for the economic crisis. I guess you libs forgot who took over the Congress in 2007.

Clinton did more to combat terrorism than any president before him.

Burger did not steal any document from the National Archives. He did walk out with some copies of some documents but the originals never left the building. so your charge of some kind of cover up is wrong.

YOu need to review your history.

Yeah, and it's true, just 'cause you say so! Don't you love liberalism.

And we believe Burger and Clinton just 'caus they say so!

Would you libs believe a Bush appointee on that veracity?

You know damn well you wouldn't, so try again!

 

[teapartysamurai]

Shove it up your azz, Ugly 'Merican tool

Oh, THAT was intelligent! Makes you wonder why we don't want more Polish people advising us on intelligence!

 

[teapartysamurai]

There are 8 Warsaws in the USA, ya fegging morons. Try reading Richard Clark's book on 9/11 and how totally incompetent Bush/Cheney were. Stupidest, greediest party in the modern world.

Richard Clarke!

You know in the 90s Richard Clark said there would be no more wars and that "cyber terrorism" was the next thing we had to worry about.

HE'S THE EXPERT now on terrorism?????

You notice he's NOWHERE now.

All Clarke did was write a book of sour grapes after he had already lost all credibility in Washington.

Try again!

This is why we prefer foreigners mind their own business and leave discussing OUR politics TO AMERICANS. Because we know what we are talking about and obviously YOU DON'T!

 

[mal]

You dumbasses who try to blame Clinton for 9/11 need to watch this when that very same accusation was put to him on FOX news.

‪Bill Clinton Kicks Neocon Ass on their own network!‬‏ - YouTube

Bottom line...........

1) 9/11 happened on Bush's watch

2) Bush was warned about a planned Al-Qaeda attack by both Clinton and a report he was given

3) Bush chose to ignore the warnings he was given

4) Whether you like it or not this really was Bush's fault

5) No matter how you try and rewrite history you can't ignore the facts (see above video)

.

Wrong...

And you can Read my previous Post in this Thread for your Corrections...



peace...

 

[teapartysamurai]

And the libs fall quiet to run back, AGAIN, to their paymasters, er I mean "think tanks" to get some new lies, er I mean spin!

 

[mal]

You dumbasses who try to blame Clinton for 9/11 need to watch this when that very same accusation was put to him on FOX news.

‪Bill Clinton Kicks Neocon Ass on their own network!‬‏ - YouTube

Bottom line...........

1) 9/11 happened on Bush's watch

2) Bush was warned about a planned Al-Qaeda attack by both Clinton and a report he was given

3) Bush chose to ignore the warnings he was given

4) Whether you like it or not this really was Bush's fault

5) No matter how you try and rewrite history you can't ignore the facts (see above video)

.

Actually, I had a back-n-forth with a Liberal friend of mine on Facebook about this video after he posted it...

Here's some of my Comments:

"Clinton's counter to the 9/11 COMMISSION'S Report: "Read Richard Clark's book..." I don't have the time for a documented History lesson ******... but I will get back to the Federal Court Certified Liar within a day... lol"

"Start here... 9/11 Mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Iraqi agent Ramzi Yousef in 1993... Bush had 8 months? ... Clinton had 8 YEARS!..."

"It goes a little somethin' like this... In February of 1993 KSM (The Mastermind behind 9/11) and Iraqi Agent Ramzi Yousef bombed the World Trade Center in New York... Failing to take the Towers down, but benig the first Terrorists to Kill A...mericans on American Soil... Clinton's Response?... Treated it like a Crime, not Terror... Failed to Pursue KSM for 8 years and then 8 months after Clinton left Office, KSM took down the Towers on 9/11... You thought bin Laden was the Mastermind?... Nope. Look it up. In 1996 bin Laden/al Qaeda declared War on us 3 years AFTER KSM's Attack on the Trade Center... In 1998, after REFUSING to take bin Laden from the Sudanese Government when offered, Clinton instead used the US Military to Bomb the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan... Conveniently during his Impeachment/Perjury Scandal... This Congress-not-Approved Attack of a Soveriegn Nation was a recruitment tool for al Qaeda... Shortly after this in 1999, Clinton was given a detailed report on al Qaeda's plans to use "commercial airliners" as "missiles" against targets such as the "Pentagon".... For almost 2 years Clinton did NOTHING in response to this detailed report... 8 months after leaving Office, the Terrorist that Clinton Failed to catch for 8 years finally finished the job that he had planned for almost 5 years... Taking down the World Trade Center Towers... And KSM also used a commercial airliner against a target named the Pentagon... A target illustrated by name to Clinton 2 years earlier... Clinton is a Liar... Court Certified and History illustrates it. He sat there and with abject Guilt welling up in him and attacked Chris Wallace in that interview because he new he had blood on his hands... It's too bad that Wallace couldn't counter him as I just did and would if given the pulpit..."
That Video does little more than Illustrate what a Petulant Manchild that Bubba still is...



peace...

 

[teapartysamurai]

You dumbasses who try to blame Clinton for 9/11 need to watch this when that very same accusation was put to him on FOX news.

‪Bill Clinton Kicks Neocon Ass on their own network!‬‏ - YouTube

Bottom line...........

1) 9/11 happened on Bush's watch

2) Bush was warned about a planned Al-Qaeda attack by both Clinton and a report he was given

3) Bush chose to ignore the warnings he was given

4) Whether you like it or not this really was Bush's fault

5) No matter how you try and rewrite history you can't ignore the facts (see above video)

.

Actually, I had a back-n-forth with a Liberal friend of mine on Facebook about this video after he posted it...

Here's some of my Comments:

"Clinton's counter to the 9/11 COMMISSION'S Report: "Read Richard Clark's book..." I don't have the time for a documented History lesson ******... but I will get back to the Federal Court Certified Liar within a day... lol"

"Start here... 9/11 Mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Iraqi agent Ramzi Yousef in 1993... Bush had 8 months? ... Clinton had 8 YEARS!..."

"It goes a little somethin' like this... In February of 1993 KSM (The Mastermind behind 9/11) and Iraqi Agent Ramzi Yousef bombed the World Trade Center in New York... Failing to take the Towers down, but benig the first Terrorists to Kill A...mericans on American Soil... Clinton's Response?... Treated it like a Crime, not Terror... Failed to Pursue KSM for 8 years and then 8 months after Clinton left Office, KSM took down the Towers on 9/11... You thought bin Laden was the Mastermind?... Nope. Look it up. In 1996 bin Laden/al Qaeda declared War on us 3 years AFTER KSM's Attack on the Trade Center... In 1998, after REFUSING to take bin Laden from the Sudanese Government when offered, Clinton instead used the US Military to Bomb the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan... Conveniently during his Impeachment/Perjury Scandal... This Congress-not-Approved Attack of a Soveriegn Nation was a recruitment tool for al Qaeda... Shortly after this in 1999, Clinton was given a detailed report on al Qaeda's plans to use "commercial airliners" as "missiles" against targets such as the "Pentagon".... For almost 2 years Clinton did NOTHING in response to this detailed report... 8 months after leaving Office, the Terrorist that Clinton Failed to catch for 8 years finally finished the job that he had planned for almost 5 years... Taking down the World Trade Center Towers... And KSM also used a commercial airliner against a target named the Pentagon... A target illustrated by name to Clinton 2 years earlier... Clinton is a Liar... Court Certified and History illustrates it. He sat there and with abject Guilt welling up in him and attacked Chris Wallace in that interview because he new he had blood on his hands... It's too bad that Wallace couldn't counter him as I just did and would if given the pulpit..."
That Video does little more than Illustrate what a Petulant Manchild that Bubba still is...



peace...

Exactly right. I didn't bother responding to the video because I think it speaks for itself.

It's truly pathetic that liberals think this shows Clinton "kicking ass" instead of what it really is. Which is Clinton boiling over with rage because he's being confronted with the questions by a real journalist who won't throw him the usual softball questions.

Instead, he brought up real issues and Clinton couldn't handle it. He boiled over like a two year old having a tantrum!

 

[8537]

What did Clinton do with the information he got in 1999 to prevent this?...
What did Bush do with the information he got from Clinton? You do know that that 1999 report came out before he took office don't you?
?[/B]

^That one about covers your Idiocy for the rest...

Clinton gets a Report, does nothing with it for 2 years, but Bush was supposed to come in to Office and right away deal with a 2 year old Report given to Clinton?...

What a fucking TOOL you are.

As for 1993... NOTHING LIKE IT THAT HAD HAPPENED BEFORE....

IT WAS THE FIRST TERRORIST ATTACK ON AMERICAN SOIL THAT TOOK LIVES EVER...

Get it?... And as Clinton's 8 years Continued, so did Terrorist Attacks Against our Interests...

Clinton did NOTHING...

Even when given SPECIFIC Info on Commerical Aircraft being Used Against the Pentagon 2 FUCKING YEARS BEFORE IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND WAS PULLED OFF BY THE GUY HE FAILED TO CAPTURE FOR 8 YEARS!...

It's Unfortunate that People this Willfully Dishonest are allowed Access to the Internet.



peace...

Sweet! Bush is not responsible for an attack that happened 8 months into his term...

But Clinton is responsible for an attack that happened 2 months into his.


This is quintessential Republican doublespeak. Kinda like Carter was responsible for the housing bubble and Clinton was responsible for 9.11....But Reagan was responsible for the economic expansion of the 1990's. Reagan was responsible for the expansion that started in 1983 but not the recession that happened under his watch. Clinton was responsible for the first recession that happened under Bush's watch, and somehow Obama was responsible for the 2nd recession that happened under Bush's watch, except for the blame that goes to Clinton and Carter.

Need cliff notes? If it's good, Republicans get credit. If it's bad, Dems get blame - no matter how far removed in time or space.

 

[Claudette]

You dumbasses who try to blame Clinton for 9/11 need to watch this when that very same accusation was put to him on FOX news.

‪Bill Clinton Kicks Neocon Ass on their own network!‬‏ - YouTube

Bottom line...........

1) 9/11 happened on Bush's watch

2) Bush was warned about a planned Al-Qaeda attack by both Clinton and a report he was given

3) Bush chose to ignore the warnings he was given

4) Whether you like it or not this really was Bush's fault

5) No matter how you try and rewrite history you can't ignore the facts (see above video)

.

I'm sure he got no specfic target for this attack. No map showing where the attack was going to happen. No timetable.

Where do you look?? Do you lock down the entire USA because you got a threat?? Which city will be hit?? L.A., Chicago, Detroit, Boston, NY, San Francisco??? Hey you have all of America to chose from.

I f Clinton thought the attack was real then why didn't he lock down the entire USA. He had the info first and just passed it on.

Plenty of blame to go around for 9/11 but because Bush was POTUS he will always get the lions share.

Then why didn't Bush send flunkies into the national archives to steal documents?

Bush will always get the blame for 9/11. Thats just it. It isn't fair but thats the way it is.

Clinton could have done any number of things during his administration. He had many attacks. The Cole, the two embassies in Africa, the Kobar towers, the trade center in 93 and a few more.He also had a few shots at OBL. He chose to do nothing. How much blame should rest on his shoulders?? Quite a bit in my estimation but that ain't how it works.

SB should have been thrown in jail but that didn't happen either.

 

[teapartysamurai]

What did Clinton do with the information he got in 1999 to prevent this?...
What did Bush do with the information he got from Clinton? You do know that that 1999 report came out before he took office don't you?
?[/B]

^That one about covers your Idiocy for the rest...

Clinton gets a Report, does nothing with it for 2 years, but Bush was supposed to come in to Office and right away deal with a 2 year old Report given to Clinton?...

What a fucking TOOL you are.

As for 1993... NOTHING LIKE IT THAT HAD HAPPENED BEFORE....

IT WAS THE FIRST TERRORIST ATTACK ON AMERICAN SOIL THAT TOOK LIVES EVER...

Get it?... And as Clinton's 8 years Continued, so did Terrorist Attacks Against our Interests...

Clinton did NOTHING...

Even when given SPECIFIC Info on Commerical Aircraft being Used Against the Pentagon 2 FUCKING YEARS BEFORE IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND WAS PULLED OFF BY THE GUY HE FAILED TO CAPTURE FOR 8 YEARS!...

It's Unfortunate that People this Willfully Dishonest are allowed Access to the Internet.



peace...

Sweet! Bush is not responsible for an attack that happened 8 months into his term...

But Clinton is responsible for an attack that happened 2 months into his.


This is quintessential Republican doublespeak. Kinda like Carter was responsible for the housing bubble and Clinton was responsible for 9.11....But Reagan was responsible for the economic expansion of the 1990's. Reagan was responsible for the expansion that started in 1983 but not the recession that happened under his watch. Clinton was responsible for the first recession that happened under Bush's watch, and somehow Obama was responsible for the 2nd recession that happened under Bush's watch, except for the blame that goes to Clinton and Carter.

Need cliff notes? If it's good, Republicans get credit. If it's bad, Dems get blame - no matter how far removed in time or space.

We are not blaming Clinton for the first WTC attack. We are blaming him for his REACTION to the attck.

Instead of treating it as he should have, AS AN ACT OF WAR, he treated it as merely a "law enforcement" problem.

This only encouraged the terrorists who went onto bomb two embassies and the USS Cole, then finally to attack the WTC again on 9/11.

How many terrorists have been caught or killed since Bush reacted to 9/11, as compared to Clinton?

That tells the entire story.



Bush reacted as he should have, by

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Did Bush even try to improve airport security? Clinton sure did. Ever hear of the Gore Commission on Aviation Safety and Security?

Final Report of the Gore Commission on Aviation Safety and Security

Take a wild guess who opposed these improvements? Yeah that's right. It was the "Clinton should have done something" people

[URL]http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=4532
The Clinton administration's attempts to improve airport security were similarly obstructed in Congress. The Gore commission urged U.S. air carriers to screen all passengers with computerized profiling systems, to upgrade poorly trained private security personnel and to install high-tech baggage-screening equipment. But action on key measures was stalled by lawmakers at the behest of airline lobbyists, and ultimately by the sluggish bureaucracy at the Federal Aviation Administration. Key senators on the Senate Aviation Subcommittee shot down mandated changes recommended by the White House and instead urged "further study." (Eight of the nine Republicans on the subcommittee had received contributions from the major airlines.)
[URL="http://www.salon.com/news/politics/feature/2002/01/15/clinton"]

[/URL][/URL]

Oh well, fat lot of good THAT DID, considering he made it IMPOSSIBLE to gather intelligence!

So, keep bleating! The FACT is, the reason 9/11 happened is because Clinton put up roadblocks to prevent intelligence gathering, AND ignored terrorism completely, treating it ONLY as a law enforcment problem.

Try a fat lot of good that did considering it was blocked by the Republicans and you'll be closer to the truth. The lie that Clinton didn't do anything terrorism is exactly that, a lie. It's also a very stupid argument to make considering that Bush did do nothing about terrorism before 9/11. You do know that Clinton was President before Bush and therefore before 9/11 don't you. What the hell was it that made terrorism so unimportant between Jan and Sept of 2001??

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Before 3,000 people were killed Bush didn't "just treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem" he ignored it completely

 

[mmmjvpssm]

You dumbasses who try to blame Clinton for 9/11 need to watch this when that very same accusation was put to him on FOX news.

‪Bill Clinton Kicks Neocon Ass on their own network!‬‏ - YouTube

Bottom line...........

1) 9/11 happened on Bush's watch

2) Bush was warned about a planned Al-Qaeda attack by both Clinton and a report he was given

3) Bush chose to ignore the warnings he was given

4) Whether you like it or not this really was Bush's fault

5) No matter how you try and rewrite history you can't ignore the facts (see above video)

.

I'm sure he got no specfic target for this attack. No map showing where the attack was going to happen. No timetable.

Where do you look?? Do you lock down the entire USA because you got a threat?? Which city will be hit?? L.A., Chicago, Detroit, Boston, NY, San Francisco??? Hey you have all of America to chose from.

I f Clinton thought the attack was real then why didn't he lock down the entire USA. He had the info first and just passed it on.

Plenty of blame to go around for 9/11 but because Bush was POTUS he will always get the lions share.

And Clinton did get a specific target, a map showing where the attack was going to happen (what? It couldn't have just said "Boston"??) and a timetable?

 

[8537]

^That one about covers your Idiocy for the rest...

Clinton gets a Report, does nothing with it for 2 years, but Bush was supposed to come in to Office and right away deal with a 2 year old Report given to Clinton?...

What a fucking TOOL you are.

As for 1993... NOTHING LIKE IT THAT HAD HAPPENED BEFORE....

IT WAS THE FIRST TERRORIST ATTACK ON AMERICAN SOIL THAT TOOK LIVES EVER...

Get it?... And as Clinton's 8 years Continued, so did Terrorist Attacks Against our Interests...

Clinton did NOTHING...

Even when given SPECIFIC Info on Commerical Aircraft being Used Against the Pentagon 2 FUCKING YEARS BEFORE IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND WAS PULLED OFF BY THE GUY HE FAILED TO CAPTURE FOR 8 YEARS!...

It's Unfortunate that People this Willfully Dishonest are allowed Access to the Internet.



peace...

Sweet! Bush is not responsible for an attack that happened 8 months into his term...

But Clinton is responsible for an attack that happened 2 months into his.


This is quintessential Republican doublespeak. Kinda like Carter was responsible for the housing bubble and Clinton was responsible for 9.11....But Reagan was responsible for the economic expansion of the 1990's. Reagan was responsible for the expansion that started in 1983 but not the recession that happened under his watch. Clinton was responsible for the first recession that happened under Bush's watch, and somehow Obama was responsible for the 2nd recession that happened under Bush's watch, except for the blame that goes to Clinton and Carter.

Need cliff notes? If it's good, Republicans get credit. If it's bad, Dems get blame - no matter how far removed in time or space.

We are not blaming Clinton for the first WTC attack. We are blaming him for his REACTION to the attck.

holding those responsible accountable for their actions? I know Republicans don't like that idea.

Instead of treating it as he should have, AS AN ACT OF WAR, he treated it as merely a "law enforcement" problem.

So where should he have invaded?

Bush reacted as he should have, by

By invading Iraq? Lol. The fox is strong in this one.

 

[Claudette]

Of course he didn't anymore than Bush did.

You should let Goosey know.

He's the one that says Bush ignored the warnings. Apparantly Clinton ignored the same warnings but hey. He's a Dem. All is forgiven.

 

[frazzledgear]

Back when Rudy Guiliani said there were no attacks on Bush's watch I said it wasn't a mistake. I said it was an attempt to push 9/11 back onto Clinton's watch. After all, if there were no attacks during Bush's watch, that big attack called 9/11 that happened sometime around the turn of the century. The voters are getting younger and younger and yes, the day will come when a large proportion of voters don't know the exact year 9/11 happened. But when they're watching Fox News, or sadly even the so called "liberal media" and somebody says there were no attacks on Bush's watch what are they to think? But it's not only the "no attacks on Bush's watch" that are attempts to push 9/11 back onto Clinton's watch. "Bush kept us safe" also implies that the largest terrorist attack in the history of the United States didn't happen on his watch. And as for "only one attack under Bush" statement, voters who don't remember 9/11, and don't remember the exact year, when they hear "only one attack" and they've been hearing over and over and over again that Bush kept us safe, they're going to assume that it was some small rinky dink attack. They're certainly not going to think "that must have been 9/11"

Oh please -people have been saying it was due to Bush's efforts we weren't attacked AGAIN after 9/11. And people with normal brains know it isn't an attack that was the fault of Bush when he had been President for less than 9 months at the time. No one personally blamed Clinton either for the World Trade Center bombing that occurred on HIS watch either -one that he went out of his way to portray as having been an isolated attack carried out by a couple of whackos, one in which he deliberately delayed the release of intelligence findings that it was not only an Al Qaeda attack -but one that had most likely been sponsored by...wait for it.........IRAQ! How many today STILL don't know that Iraq under Saddam Hussein most likely sponsored the WTC bombing? And they don't because that is uncomfortable information for the left to deal with so they would rather it just be ignored and buried -and if necessary, history re-written. After all, look how many liberals still keep up that LYING ASS BULLSHIT that the US not only put Saddam in power (when in fact the US put in place an immediate unilateral embargo against him after he slaughtered more than 700 Iraqis on the grounds they were all CIA spies) but ARMED him with chemical weapons in violation of the UN treaty the US both initiated and signed! Yeah, lowering our guard for the matter of WEEKS an attempt was made to test a possible relationship with the guy during the Iran-Iraq war because as bad as this guy was, we knew Iran was even worse -amounted to claims Rumsfeld smuggled in chemical weapons in a briefcase! In spite of the fact UN inspectors know exactly where he got them and with whose help -which was never ours but certainly was with the help of France and Russia! But hey when the truth doesn't work for the left -and it usually doesn't -they just create and repeat lies about it to this day and no amount of FACTS will make them stop. And THESE are the people in control of our children's textbooks moron! (And so much for that total bullshit there was no way Saddam Hussein would have worked with Al Qaeda when in fact he was known to have done so on several occasions.)

But if you really feel this burning desire to insist 9/11 was the personal fault of a President, do you REALLY want to go there? How does Bush bear responsibility for an attack that was planned 3 years before he was elected and was already in operational mode before he was sworn in? Who was President when it was still in the planning stages and the most easily intercepted? Who was President when the US just kept looking the other way to the fact the Taliban had given Al Qaeda safe haven to plot, plan and train for its war against the US? Who did nothing more effective to stop them than lob a few cruise missiles up the ass of a camel and into empty tents? All the hijackers were already in this country -legally -even before Bush was elected. While CLINTON was President. Its only fate the attack date had already been set -regardless of who was going to be President. The first hijackers entered this country in Jan. 2000. The rest were all here -legally -by early summer 2000. How is it Bush's fault when by the time they had entered this country even before the election took place, they were no further communications made about this that could even have been intercepted, much less provide actionable intelligence that revealed any details of this plot? Chatter had increased even before Bush won the election - but it was blind chatter -meaning the people chattering only knew something was up but no idea what it was.

And please do NOT drag out that STUPID LYING ASS bullshit about Bush receiving a report titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the US" as if that is proof of a damn thing. That is one of the most vicious smears and deliberate intent to use this man's efforts to get in front of a terrorist organization that had UNDER CLINTON attacked US interests around the world EIGHT TIMES with nothing but a limp-wristed response from Clinton. This is a report Bush specifically requested on the background of this organization -his daily briefings were about CURRENT stuff and for the current stuff, there was a total absence of any knowledge of anything. We have something like 32 different federal and military intelligence agencies and not one penetrated ANY detail of this plot.

First of all that was a background report HE asked for -if he hadn't asked for a historical background on on them, he would never have gotten it at all. The title was restating the OBVIOUS because anyone aware of this group knew good and well Bin Laden had publicly insisted we were vulnerable enough to be attacked on our own soil and so weak that we would give up a lengthy fight because we are basically a weak and immoral people incapable of taking on the burden of a sustained war. The fact deceitful lying assholes think that title somehow told Bush something he just never knew before and was something that provided actionable intelligence -is FAR FAR FAR worse than Guliani saying no FURTHER attacks occurred on Bush's watch instead of leaving the impression no attacks happened at all. And believe me only liberals love to re-write history in order to manipulate and brain wash children so I have no doubt some fucking asshole will try to produce a zillion text books claiming Bush ignored this report and because he did, he LET 9/11 happen. And since the left made an all out effort years ago to grab control of the government run education process in order to turn it into an indoctrination process instead we all know THAT is a far more likely scenario that your whiny ass phony complaint.

There was no new intelligence in that background report, it was intended to give Bush more background info on Al Qaeda, not try to get him to DO something. The intelligence on current activities were given to him every single day in his daily briefings -unlike Clinton who didn't even meet with the director of the CIA for more than 2 years, Bush met with him EVERY SINGLE DAY. It didn't matter at that point -it was too late because the plan had already moved into its operational stages and only LUCK would have changed the outcome. Clinton gutted the CIA, couldn't be bothered to meet with the DCIA at all -but sure, this was something Bush could have stopped. LOL

That report by the way is or was available online in its entirety -I read every word of it and if you can find the part that should have told Bush there was an ongoing plan to crash planes into buildings -you find it. The report discussed some of the possible things Al Qaeda might consider, none of which were backed up by intelligence but just people trying to figure out what Al Qaeda might find appealing to try next. The only mention of hijackings was in relation to maybe they would hijack a planeload of people and hold them as a bargaining chip and demand the release of the blind sheik. Not exactly on the same scale as reality, is it? If you think Bush -but not a single one of our intelligence agencies -actually had enough information to prevent this attack, find it and then lets discuss what you think he should have done? Shut down all airline flights? When should he have done that -and for how long since simply shutting them down still doesn't stop the attack once they are started again. There was never at any time any actionable intelligence on this attack and the blame for that largely lies with both Congress under Clinton and Clinton himself, both of which deliberately gut our intelligence capabilities and forced it to change from relying more on human intelligence to "spy gadgets" which are a poor substitute. As we all found out first hand.

But under Clinton Al Qaeda attacked US interests on average every 16-18 months Clinton was in office. And there was NEVER an effective response to any of them in spite of the fact they were clearly escalating in their plots and lethality. The fact Clinton failed to do anything substantial in response to the nonstop attacks on US interests by Al Qaeda is THE reason Bin Laden specifically said we could be hit right here on our own soil. And he predicted we would again respond to even that with another limp-wristed and ineffective response as well. Had Clinton or Gore been in office -I think he would have been correct. Clinton FEARED the possibility of having to face up to an attack carried out by a foreign interest or country like Iraq -which is why he immediately treated the WTC bombing like it was a low level crime, never bothered to visit the site, downplayed the attack and the intelligence that this had been an attack carried out by Al Qaeda operatives sponsored by Iraq was not made public until after Clinton left office. A report by the way that was largely ignored by our Clinton loving media.

I could write an entire post on why the next step in the war had to be against Saddam Hussein -THE second largest sponsor of terrorism in the world and why our efforts were going to be doomed as long as he remained in power. And write another one on the evidence that at the very minimum Saddam Hussein was aware of 9/11 well in advance of the attack -so much so he believed he would be tied to it -which is why he went into hiding a few weeks before the attack in spite of the fact there was nothing going on ANYWHERE to explain that decision - and didn't emerge until he crawled out of that hole in the dirt and surrendered to US troops. The only other time in his 35 years of killing an average of 75-125 Iraqis per day regime he went into hiding was on the eve of the Gulf War with the US led forces.

Everyone knows good and well when 9/11 happened, no text books will be changed to alter that date in case you are just BESIDE yourself fretting about your own STUPIDITY. But certainly it has been mentioned more than once that after that attack Al Qaeda was never able to carry out another attack on US interests during Bush's term. They were at that point fighting the people we WANT them to face -not civilians, not unarmed men, women and children -but the best trained, best armed and most likely to survive a confrontation with Al Qaeda. Naturally they would prefer to return to killing the unarmed since the odds work out better for them -and the insistence we surrender the war will guarantee once again the people who will be confronted by terrorists are those least likely to survive it. For some strange reason, the left actually prefers that.

We are at risk that our history will be re-written because there is a concerted effort to that already and they are having some real success with it. But it is the left doing it and the LEFT controls our educational system. So if anything it is actually far more likely the finished version will have Bush being given a dire report stating every detail of 9/11 that urged him to immediately shut down our airlines in order to give them time to pick up the would-be attackers who were all known by name, where they lived and what they were all up to -and Bush just picked his nose while reading it then tossed it in the huge "not interested" stack on his desk and went looking for another bag of fried pork rinds instead -rather than the bullshit you are worried about just WRINGING your hands that those evil conservatives will actually alter dates or even teach children that someone else entirely was actually President on 9/11. Get a real life already.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

At this point Pub Dupe Ugly 'Mericans are so full of Pub/Murdoch/Rush BS and hate they barely qualify as human beings, let alone rational citizens....Total disaster for the country.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yeah, they are doing it with other things too. More then just a few times I've heard that it was Obama who bailed out the banks. That was Bush. But it happened just weeks if not days before Obama took office and so people are easily mislead in that case.

And credit should be given to both GWB and Obama for doing the correct and responsible thing; indeed, given the critical condition of the economy at the time, there was no other rational solution.

 

[Warrior102]

Seems all the assholes who flew airplanes into buildings on 9/11 received flight training in Fla. and elsewhere - all under Clinton's watch.

Perhaps if he was focused on that, vs. a blowjob by an overweight intern, thousands of lives would have been saved.

Case closed on this BS thread.