Al-Qaeda Stronger Than Ever After 5 Years Of Obama’s Policies

[saveliberty]

No Hazlnut, its because Obama screws up everything he touches politically. Not the fault of anyone but Obama there is so much to discuss.

 

[Kosh]

I love how the far-right jumps from one boogy man to the next.

Yesterday it was the NSA.

Tomorrow the gun "grabbers".

Next week, Al-Qaeda.


Fox/Drudge says BOO! and they jump like kittens.

And the far left Taliban chimes in with their propaganda.

Next they will be saying things like "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it"

“Every week we don’t pass a Stimulus package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs.”

“Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program”


“If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” — Barack Obama


“The private sector is doing fine.” — Barack Obama



The Worst Obama Quotes(87 quotes)

 

[TooTall]

No WMD in Iraq means that there would have been no illegal invasion which would mean no al-Qaeda authority in Iraq.

Bush/Cheney lied to the American voters and the entire world to illegally invade Iraq which created a power vacuum exactly like Cheney said there would be, which gave way to al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Cheney in 1994 on Iraq - YouTube

Cause and effect. Accept responsibility for your failures.

And all this time I thought that Bush was a real dummy and was only taking the word of these two, and several dozen more knowledgeable Democrats. Live and learn!

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. 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..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

No. Al Qaeda is responsible for 9-11. It is pointless to try and lay blame on any administration for a random act of terror. There is just too much opportunity. The idea that we can ever be 100% safe from terrorists is retarded.

Now...the memo about Bin Laden preparing to strike using airplanes was a but of a hint....but that does not make Bush responsible for it. Shit like that happens. It is, in the end, unstoppable.

The problem we had was with the response. And for that.....you simply cannot avoid laying blame on Bush. We absolutely fucked up the response.

This President is busy trying to repair the damage done. Period.

Clinton's lack of response was a huge factor. You simply cannot avoid laying blame on Clinton. To say otherwise is foolish. The others have responsibility as well.

Clinton responded to Al Qaeda Embassy attacks in Africa in 1998. He ignored soveriegn borders and without any kind of warning hurled 75 cruise missils at four Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan on Aug 20, 1998, just two weeks after the Embassy attacks which had occured on Aug 7. In addition he used cruise missils to destroy a pharmaceutical production plant built by Bin Laden in Sudan.
Unfortunately, this occured during the impeachment hearings and Republicans in Congress broke a long honored tradition of ending poitics at the waters edge when the nation became engaged in military operations. They immediatly questioned the military action and made allegations that the response might be an effort to take attention away from the impeachment hearings, thus insinuating that the American military had conspired with a President to wage violent agressive action to protect that individual President. The Republicans even went as far as to use the Sudan response that the production plant was an aspirin factory, ignoring the fact that the so called aspirin factory had the ability to produce chem and bio weapons, was financed by Bin Laden and gave Al Qaeda a foothold in Sudan. Further investigations were threatened and proposed by these Congressman. The response to a terrorist attach was thus turned into a domestic political game. It put a halt to any further attempts at the use of military action against Al Qaeda.
Clinton attempted to open the door for going after terrorist with military assets that could and would ignore soveriegn borders and governments if those governments gave support to groups like Al Qaeda. He attempted to set the stage for responding to terrorist attacks with unlimited military action that had the potential to annialate the terrorist and their supporters. 75 cruise missils launched in one attack in an attempt to kill the leaders of Al Qaeda was not a weak response. Republicans should have kept their mouths shut and supported and encouraged further attacks.

If you think one military strike somehow exonerates President Clinton from all those successful terrorist attacks prior and to follow, you're being delusional. Why was there never an attempt to strike at terrorist camps in an attempt to weaken Al Qaeda, once it was revealed they were behind the bombing of the Trade Center in 1993? You mean to tell me he waited until almost the very end of his Presidency to send a message to Bin Laden, despite having to wait through all those other attacks during his Presidency? Now that's a sure enough way to show that your administration is on top of things. I guess what you're saying is that I must commend him on being "better late than never"?

 

[Len]

How can you overcome an enemy when he has no enemy of his own.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Al-Qaeda Stronger Than Ever After 5 Years Of Obama’s Policies

OHHhhhh...!! NOOOoooo....!!

Do ya think they will enter the Olympics and take the GOLD ????

Let's start another phoney war an go kill em !!!

Howz come if they are so STRONG and everything they haven't been able to come over here and kill us?

HMMMmmm...??? Could it be Obama's policies?

I don't know. How would Obama define the word "decimated", in reference to the CORE group of Al Qaeda? Informing the American people that the terrorist organization was in fact "on the run", shortly after the killing of Bin Laden. Interesting choice of words from a rather boastful and haughty President, especially considering the rather embarrassing terrorist attack in Benghazi that would later follow.

 

[TooTall]

Close most of the embassies and get out? How hard is that.

Isolationist sentiment kept the U.S. out of both World Wars until it found itself under threat.

Although the Us did invade a country that did not attack it back then as well called Germany.

Under threat, yes, but when a country declares WAR on the US, we can attack, invade and defeat them.

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

(Signed) Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives
(Signed) H. A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate

Approved December 11, 1941 3:05 PM E.S.T.
(Signed) Franklin D. Roosevelt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_declaration_of_war_upon_Germany_(1941)

 

[J.E.D]

Ask Bin Laden about Obama's competence

 

[Camp]

Clinton's lack of response was a huge factor. You simply cannot avoid laying blame on Clinton. To say otherwise is foolish. The others have responsibility as well.

Clinton responded to Al Qaeda Embassy attacks in Africa in 1998. He ignored soveriegn borders and without any kind of warning hurled 75 cruise missils at four Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan on Aug 20, 1998, just two weeks after the Embassy attacks which had occured on Aug 7. In addition he used cruise missils to destroy a pharmaceutical production plant built by Bin Laden in Sudan.
Unfortunately, this occured during the impeachment hearings and Republicans in Congress broke a long honored tradition of ending poitics at the waters edge when the nation became engaged in military operations. They immediatly questioned the military action and made allegations that the response might be an effort to take attention away from the impeachment hearings, thus insinuating that the American military had conspired with a President to wage violent agressive action to protect that individual President. The Republicans even went as far as to use the Sudan response that the production plant was an aspirin factory, ignoring the fact that the so called aspirin factory had the ability to produce chem and bio weapons, was financed by Bin Laden and gave Al Qaeda a foothold in Sudan. Further investigations were threatened and proposed by these Congressman. The response to a terrorist attach was thus turned into a domestic political game. It put a halt to any further attempts at the use of military action against Al Qaeda.
Clinton attempted to open the door for going after terrorist with military assets that could and would ignore soveriegn borders and governments if those governments gave support to groups like Al Qaeda. He attempted to set the stage for responding to terrorist attacks with unlimited military action that had the potential to annialate the terrorist and their supporters. 75 cruise missils launched in one attack in an attempt to kill the leaders of Al Qaeda was not a weak response. Republicans should have kept their mouths shut and supported and encouraged further attacks.

If you think one military strike somehow exonerates President Clinton from all those successful terrorist attacks prior and to follow, you're being delusional. Why was there never an attempt to strike at terrorist camps in an attempt to weaken Al Qaeda, once it was revealed they were behind the bombing of the Trade Center in 1993? You mean to tell me he waited until almost the very end of his Presidency to send a message to Bin Laden, despite having to wait through all those other attacks during his Presidency? Now that's a sure enough way to show that your administration is on top of things. I guess what you're saying is that I must commend him on being "better late than never"?

Nothing exonorates Clinton for failure to get Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. He failed. However, revisionist history for political purpose does not help to strengthen us or give us an oppurtunity to prevent future mistakes by learning by past mistakes. What are "all those successful terrorist attacks prior and to follow..."? There were four attacks under Clinton. The '93 WTC bombing was the first. His response was to arrest those responsible and they are still in prison. There has never been a legal link between those bombers and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan . Neither the CIA or the FBI would certify such a link. Any attack by US Military Forces into Afghanistan would have been domesticly and internationaly illegal. Only one person connected to the WTC attack was not captured by the US. That individual was last known to have been under arrest in Iraq while Saddam was in power. He vanished before we invaded Irag and has not been seen or heard from since.
The next attack was the Khobar Towers. The Saudi intel led us to believe Iran was to blame. It was probably Al Qaeda or at least Al Qaeda affiliated Saudi's that carried out the attack. The Saudi's kept the investigation murkey and confused and that prevented a response from the US.
The third attack came with the Embassy bombings in Africa. The response was quick and aimed directly at Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The most significant fact about this response was that it was handled by the military and not handled as a law enforcement issue.
The USS Cole attack is the real scandal. Failure of Clinton or Bush to respond may have been the actual flame that lit the 911 attacks. Because the attack occured at the end of the Clinton administration (OCT), both Presidents get the blame.

 

[TooTall]

No. Al Qaeda is responsible for 9-11. It is pointless to try and lay blame on any administration for a random act of terror. There is just too much opportunity. The idea that we can ever be 100% safe from terrorists is retarded.

Now...the memo about Bin Laden preparing to strike using airplanes was a but of a hint....but that does not make Bush responsible for it. Shit like that happens. It is, in the end, unstoppable.

The problem we had was with the response. And for that.....you simply cannot avoid laying blame on Bush. We absolutely fucked up the response.

This President is busy trying to repair the damage done. Period.

Clinton's lack of response was a huge factor. You simply cannot avoid laying blame on Clinton. To say otherwise is foolish. The others have responsibility as well.

Clinton responded to Al Qaeda Embassy attacks in Africa in 1998. He ignored soveriegn borders and without any kind of warning hurled 75 cruise missils at four Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan on Aug 20, 1998, just two weeks after the Embassy attacks which had occured on Aug 7. In addition he used cruise missils to destroy a pharmaceutical production plant built by Bin Laden in Sudan.
Unfortunately, this occured during the impeachment hearings and Republicans in Congress broke a long honored tradition of ending poitics at the waters edge when the nation became engaged in military operations. They immediatly questioned the military action and made allegations that the response might be an effort to take attention away from the impeachment hearings, thus insinuating that the American military had conspired with a President to wage violent agressive action to protect that individual President. The Republicans even went as far as to use the Sudan response that the production plant was an aspirin factory, ignoring the fact that the so called aspirin factory had the ability to produce chem and bio weapons, was financed by Bin Laden and gave Al Qaeda a foothold in Sudan. Further investigations were threatened and proposed by these Congressman. The response to a terrorist attach was thus turned into a domestic political game. It put a halt to any further attempts at the use of military action against Al Qaeda.
Clinton attempted to open the door for going after terrorist with military assets that could and would ignore soveriegn borders and governments if those governments gave support to groups like Al Qaeda. He attempted to set the stage for responding to terrorist attacks with unlimited military action that had the potential to annialate the terrorist and their supporters. 75 cruise missils launched in one attack in an attempt to kill the leaders of Al Qaeda was not a weak response. Republicans should have kept their mouths shut and supported and encouraged further attacks.

I will start with one of the lies Clinton and the liberals who attempt to rewrite history post.

The key piece of physical evidence linking the al-Shifa facility to production of chemical weapons was the discovery of EMPTA in a soil sample taken from the plant during a CIA clandestine operation. EMPTA, or O-Ethyl methylphosphonothioic acid, is classified as a Schedule 2B compound according to theChemical Weapons Convention and is a VX precursor. Although several theoretical uses for EMPTA were postulated as well as several patented processes using EMPTA, such as the manufacture of plastic, no known industrial uses of EMPTA were ever documented nor any products that contained EMPTA. It is, however, not banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention as originally claimed by the U.S. government. Moreover, it does not necessarily follow from the presence of EMPTA near (but outside) the boundary of Al-Shifa that this was produced in the factory: EMPTA could have been "stored in or transported near al-Shifa, instead of being produced by it", according to a report by Michael Barletta.

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.

Directly after the strike the Sudanese government demanded that the Security Council conduct an investigation of the site to determine if it had been used to produce chemical weapons or precursors. Such an investigation was from the start opposed by the U.S. Nor has U.S. ever let an independent laboratory analyze the sample allegedly containing EMPTA. Michael Barletta concludes that there is no evidence the al-Shifa factory was ever involved in production of chemical weapons, and it is known that many of the initial U.S. allegations were wrong.

Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Clinton responded to Al Qaeda Embassy attacks in Africa in 1998. He ignored soveriegn borders and without any kind of warning hurled 75 cruise missils at four Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan on Aug 20, 1998, just two weeks after the Embassy attacks which had occured on Aug 7. In addition he used cruise missils to destroy a pharmaceutical production plant built by Bin Laden in Sudan.
Unfortunately, this occured during the impeachment hearings and Republicans in Congress broke a long honored tradition of ending poitics at the waters edge when the nation became engaged in military operations. They immediatly questioned the military action and made allegations that the response might be an effort to take attention away from the impeachment hearings, thus insinuating that the American military had conspired with a President to wage violent agressive action to protect that individual President. The Republicans even went as far as to use the Sudan response that the production plant was an aspirin factory, ignoring the fact that the so called aspirin factory had the ability to produce chem and bio weapons, was financed by Bin Laden and gave Al Qaeda a foothold in Sudan. Further investigations were threatened and proposed by these Congressman. The response to a terrorist attach was thus turned into a domestic political game. It put a halt to any further attempts at the use of military action against Al Qaeda.
Clinton attempted to open the door for going after terrorist with military assets that could and would ignore soveriegn borders and governments if those governments gave support to groups like Al Qaeda. He attempted to set the stage for responding to terrorist attacks with unlimited military action that had the potential to annialate the terrorist and their supporters. 75 cruise missils launched in one attack in an attempt to kill the leaders of Al Qaeda was not a weak response. Republicans should have kept their mouths shut and supported and encouraged further attacks.

If you think one military strike somehow exonerates President Clinton from all those successful terrorist attacks prior and to follow, you're being delusional. Why was there never an attempt to strike at terrorist camps in an attempt to weaken Al Qaeda, once it was revealed they were behind the bombing of the Trade Center in 1993? You mean to tell me he waited until almost the very end of his Presidency to send a message to Bin Laden, despite having to wait through all those other attacks during his Presidency? Now that's a sure enough way to show that your administration is on top of things. I guess what you're saying is that I must commend him on being "better late than never"?

Nothing exonorates Clinton for failure to get Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. He failed. However, revisionist history for political purpose does not help to strengthen us or give us an oppurtunity to prevent future mistakes by learning by past mistakes. What are "all those successful terrorist attacks prior and to follow..."? There were four attacks under Clinton. The '93 WTC bombing was the first. His response was to arrest those responsible and they are still in prison. There has never been a legal link between those bombers and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan . Neither the CIA or the FBI would certify such a link. Any attack by US Military Forces into Afghanistan would have been domesticly and internationaly illegal. Only one person connected to the WTC attack was not captured by the US. That individual was last known to have been under arrest in Iraq while Saddam was in power. He vanished before we invaded Irag and has not been seen or heard from since.
The next attack was the Khobar Towers. The Saudi intel led us to believe Iran was to blame. It was probably Al Qaeda or at least Al Qaeda affiliated Saudi's that carried out the attack. The Saudi's kept the investigation murkey and confused and that prevented a response from the US.
The third attack came with the Embassy bombings in Africa. The response was quick and aimed directly at Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The most significant fact about this response was that it was handled by the military and not handled as a law enforcement issue.
The USS Cole attack is the real scandal. Failure of Clinton or Bush to respond may have been the actual flame that lit the 911 attacks. Because the attack occured at the end of the Clinton administration (OCT), both Presidents get the blame.

What makes you think a terrorist group like Al Qaeda only has connections to Afghanistan? I know you can't be serious. With regard to the World Trade Center attack in 1993 - Yousef, nephew of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, was the mastermind behind the attack. The CIA later learns that Yousef stayed in a bin Laden-owned guest house in Pakistan, before and after the attacks. So why did President Clinton choose to wait until 1998 to formulate a military response against Al Qaeda? I find the actual timing of the event to be rather interesting. When was the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal during the Clinton Presidency that left our President in the media spotlight? What year?


SOURCES:
Al-Qaida timeline: Plots and attacks - World news - Hunt for Al-Qaida | NBC News

List of Al Qeada associated attacks:
Major al-Qaeda attacks - The Washington Post

 

[Camp]

If you think one military strike somehow exonerates President Clinton from all those successful terrorist attacks prior and to follow, you're being delusional. Why was there never an attempt to strike at terrorist camps in an attempt to weaken Al Qaeda, once it was revealed they were behind the bombing of the Trade Center in 1993? You mean to tell me he waited until almost the very end of his Presidency to send a message to Bin Laden, despite having to wait through all those other attacks during his Presidency? Now that's a sure enough way to show that your administration is on top of things. I guess what you're saying is that I must commend him on being "better late than never"?

Nothing exonorates Clinton for failure to get Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. He failed. However, revisionist history for political purpose does not help to strengthen us or give us an oppurtunity to prevent future mistakes by learning by past mistakes. What are "all those successful terrorist attacks prior and to follow..."? There were four attacks under Clinton. The '93 WTC bombing was the first. His response was to arrest those responsible and they are still in prison. There has never been a legal link between those bombers and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan . Neither the CIA or the FBI would certify such a link. Any attack by US Military Forces into Afghanistan would have been domesticly and internationaly illegal. Only one person connected to the WTC attack was not captured by the US. That individual was last known to have been under arrest in Iraq while Saddam was in power. He vanished before we invaded Irag and has not been seen or heard from since.
The next attack was the Khobar Towers. The Saudi intel led us to believe Iran was to blame. It was probably Al Qaeda or at least Al Qaeda affiliated Saudi's that carried out the attack. The Saudi's kept the investigation murkey and confused and that prevented a response from the US.
The third attack came with the Embassy bombings in Africa. The response was quick and aimed directly at Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The most significant fact about this response was that it was handled by the military and not handled as a law enforcement issue.
The USS Cole attack is the real scandal. Failure of Clinton or Bush to respond may have been the actual flame that lit the 911 attacks. Because the attack occured at the end of the Clinton administration (OCT), both Presidents get the blame.

What makes you think a terrorist group like Al Qaeda only has connections to Afghanistan? I know you can't be serious. With regard to the World Trade Center attack in 1993 - Yousef, nephew of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, was the mastermind behind the attack. The CIA later learns that Yousef stayed in a bin Laden-owned guest house in Pakistan, before and after the attacks. So why did President Clinton choose to wait until 1998 to formulate a military response against Al Qaeda? I find the actual timing of the event to be rather interesting. When was the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal during the Clinton Presidency that left our President in the media spotlight? What year?


SOURCES:
Al-Qaida timeline: Plots and attacks - World news - Hunt for Al-Qaida | NBC News

List of Al Qeada associated attacks:
Major al-Qaeda attacks - The Washington Post

What makes you think I only believe Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan? Al Qaeda means "THE FOUNDATION". It is made up of many "branchs" and affiiliates. Just because various terrorist groups or cells have connections to the foundation or mother club so to speak, does not mean there is a legal connection that provides acceptable reasons to use force. You can not launch an attack that may cause collateral damage and kill and maim innocent civilians or at some later date discover you had faulty data and discover that even the targets were innocent. It is not legally or ethicly acceptable to inflict death and destruction on innocent people because you speculated and quessed they might be involved in a crime or act of war. A President needs legal reasons for launching attacks. Neither the CIA or the FBI gave Clinton legal authority to attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (Bin Laden) after the 1993 WTC attack.
In regards to picking the date for the 1998 cruise missil attack that Republicans still attempt to suggest was an effort to draw attention away from the impeachment hearings, well, hear is how ridiculous that is. Al Qaeda selected the date of Aug 7, 1998 to bomb our Embassys in Africa. Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (Bin Laden) took credit for the attacks. No CIA or FBI certification was needed. The terrorist publicly admitted their act of terrorism. Clinton responded 13 days after the attack. Did the Al Qaeda terrorist time their attack on the Embassys based on the impeachment hearings to help Clinton devert attention away from the lying about the blow job Republican drama? Some folks just don't want to admit how badly the Republicans fucked things up with their petty bull shit.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Clinton responded to Al Qaeda Embassy attacks in Africa in 1998. He ignored soveriegn borders and without any kind of warning hurled 75 cruise missils at four Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan on Aug 20, 1998, just two weeks after the Embassy attacks which had occured on Aug 7. In addition he used cruise missils to destroy a pharmaceutical production plant built by Bin Laden in Sudan.
Unfortunately, this occured during the impeachment hearings and Republicans in Congress broke a long honored tradition of ending poitics at the waters edge when the nation became engaged in military operations. They immediatly questioned the military action and made allegations that the response might be an effort to take attention away from the impeachment hearings, thus insinuating that the American military had conspired with a President to wage violent agressive action to protect that individual President. The Republicans even went as far as to use the Sudan response that the production plant was an aspirin factory, ignoring the fact that the so called aspirin factory had the ability to produce chem and bio weapons, was financed by Bin Laden and gave Al Qaeda a foothold in Sudan. Further investigations were threatened and proposed by these Congressman. The response to a terrorist attach was thus turned into a domestic political game. It put a halt to any further attempts at the use of military action against Al Qaeda.
Clinton attempted to open the door for going after terrorist with military assets that could and would ignore soveriegn borders and governments if those governments gave support to groups like Al Qaeda. He attempted to set the stage for responding to terrorist attacks with unlimited military action that had the potential to annialate the terrorist and their supporters. 75 cruise missils launched in one attack in an attempt to kill the leaders of Al Qaeda was not a weak response. Republicans should have kept their mouths shut and supported and encouraged further attacks.

Read Ghost War. Clinton had several direct opportunities to take out bin Laden. He did not in one instance because he saw a swing set in one of the satellite photos. He did some things, and fucked up some things in a huge way. Every expert would agree with that assessment. If you want o make it political...whatever...it doesn't change the facts.

Do you mean the Steve Coll book Ghost Wars?

Yes. Excellent Book.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Iraq...that "illegal" rush to war...lol

 

[BlindBoo]

No. Al Qaeda is responsible for 9-11. It is pointless to try and lay blame on any administration for a random act of terror. There is just too much opportunity. The idea that we can ever be 100% safe from terrorists is retarded.

Now...the memo about Bin Laden preparing to strike using airplanes was a but of a hint....but that does not make Bush responsible for it. Shit like that happens. It is, in the end, unstoppable.

The problem we had was with the response. And for that.....you simply cannot avoid laying blame on Bush. We absolutely fucked up the response.

This President is busy trying to repair the damage done. Period.

Clinton's lack of response was a huge factor. You simply cannot avoid laying blame on Clinton. To say otherwise is foolish. The others have responsibility as well.

Clinton responded to Al Qaeda Embassy attacks in Africa in 1998. He ignored soveriegn borders and without any kind of warning hurled 75 cruise missils at four Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan on Aug 20, 1998, just two weeks after the Embassy attacks which had occured on Aug 7. In addition he used cruise missils to destroy a pharmaceutical production plant built by Bin Laden in Sudan.
Unfortunately, this occured during the impeachment hearings and Republicans in Congress broke a long honored tradition of ending poitics at the waters edge when the nation became engaged in military operations. They immediatly questioned the military action and made allegations that the response might be an effort to take attention away from the impeachment hearings, thus insinuating that the American military had conspired with a President to wage violent agressive action to protect that individual President. The Republicans even went as far as to use the Sudan response that the production plant was an aspirin factory, ignoring the fact that the so called aspirin factory had the ability to produce chem and bio weapons, was financed by Bin Laden and gave Al Qaeda a foothold in Sudan. Further investigations were threatened and proposed by these Congressman. The response to a terrorist attach was thus turned into a domestic political game. It put a halt to any further attempts at the use of military action against Al Qaeda.
Clinton attempted to open the door for going after terrorist with military assets that could and would ignore soveriegn borders and governments if those governments gave support to groups like Al Qaeda. He attempted to set the stage for responding to terrorist attacks with unlimited military action that had the potential to annialate the terrorist and their supporters. 75 cruise missils launched in one attack in an attempt to kill the leaders of Al Qaeda was not a weak response. Republicans should have kept their mouths shut and supported and encouraged further attacks.

The truth about Clinton and ?Wag the Dog? - ABC News

"I think the president did exactly the right thing," said House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said. "By doing this we’re sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists." Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) called the attacks "appropriate and just," and House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said "the American people stand united in the face of terrorism."

Exceptions came in the forms of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) — who said "There’s an obvious issue that will be raised internationally as to whether there is any diversionary motivation" — Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-MO) — who said "there is a cloud over this presidency" — and Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) — who said: "The president has been consumed with matters regarding his personal life. It raises questions about whether or not he had the time to devote to this issue, or give the kind of judgment that needed to be given to this issue to call for military action."

ON THE OTHER HAND…there’s the mainstream media.

The conservative Media Research Council NOTED that "every network did raise the "Wag the Dog" scenario." And indeed, according to the MRC story linked above, CBS ABC and NBC all raised the notion — with Senator Coats as a leading voice.

 

[American_Jihad]

Al Qaeda-Linked Group Claims Responsibility For Beirut Bombing 01/04/14
Al Qaeda-Linked Group Claims Responsibility For Beirut Bombing


'Al Qaeda growing stronger in Iraq and Syria'
04.01.2014 Najima El Moussaoui /sst
'Al Qaeda growing stronger in Iraq and Syria' | Middle East | DW.DE | 04.01.2014



Still Out There and Growing — al Qaeda on the Rebound, Experts Say
12/28/13
by FOX40 Web Desk
Read more: Still Out There and Growing ? al Qaeda on the Rebound, Experts Say | KTXL FOX40


...

Well, if you allege that Al Qaeda is stronger now than as of 2008, and if you're alleging that's because of Obama administration policies,

then you should be able to tell us, in detail, what were the better policies that the Obama administration should have pursued in the last five years that would have left Al Qaeda weaker than you allege.

Check with the news sources and start with the puffington post...

 

[American_Jihad]

Ask Bin Laden about Obama's competence

The smoking chicken would have given the kill order...