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

[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...

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

a youtube video caused that one

ya know

--LOL

 

[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......

a youtube video caused that one

ya know

--LOL

LOL yeah, he still buys that, even when the administration said, fooled you!!!

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

a youtube video caused that one

ya know

--LOL

LOL yeah, he still buys that, even when the administration said, fooled you!!!

--LOL

thats true

 

[The2ndAmendment]

a youtube video caused that one

ya know

--LOL

LOL yeah, he still buys that, even when the administration said, fooled you!!!

--LOL

thats true

Lakhota's biggest fail is saying he doesn't' understand the logic of the following sentence:

Either the government KNEW about these attacks, OR they did not know about these attacks.

Obviously, one of those statements must be true.

 

[jon_berzerk]

LOL yeah, he still buys that, even when the administration said, fooled you!!!

--LOL

thats true

Lakhota's biggest fail is saying he doesn't' understand the logic of the following sentence:

Either the government KNEW about these attacks, OR they did not know about these attacks.

Obviously, one of those statements must be true.

yes it has to be one or the other

and neither are desirable

 

[buckeye45_73]

LOL yeah, he still buys that, even when the administration said, fooled you!!!

--LOL

thats true

Lakhota's biggest fail is saying he doesn't' understand the logic of the following sentence:

Either the government KNEW about these attacks, OR they did not know about these attacks.

Obviously, one of those statements must be true.

Lakhota's biggest issue is he has his head up the liberal ass..he'll buy anything they say, and then he doesnt even try to make sure what they say reconciles....

I caught Closed Caption saying in one thread that noone buys that man is more important than the Earth in global warming than in another thread he implicity backs that very same thing......that's how liberals operate, just change the subject and never look back....what they believe today isnt what they believe tommorrow and no pretense of logic.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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...

You really dont know?

Here is another way of saying the same thing.... either
a) you're stupid
b) you're not

I think everyone picks a, but you wouldnt even know what that means, you cant comprehend the close ended question.

 

[Lakhota]

Well, boys, I agree that they either did or didn't know - but your wingnut extrapolations are pure horseshit.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Well, boys, I agree that they either did or didn't know - but your wingnut extrapolations are pure horseshit.

HAHA says the guy that blames everything on republicans.....Chicago murder rates are because of republicans I bet as well....you're a dumbshit......

 

[Lakhota]

Well, boys, I agree that they either did or didn't know - but your wingnut extrapolations are pure horseshit.

HAHA says the guy that blames everything on republicans.....Chicago murder rates are because of republicans I bet as well....you're a dumbshit......

Chicago?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Well, boys, I agree that they either did or didn't know - but your wingnut extrapolations are pure horseshit.

HAHA says the guy that blames everything on republicans.....Chicago murder rates are because of republicans I bet as well....you're a dumbshit......

Chicago?

yeah you know the city in Illinois....it's kind of a big deal, people know it.

Where blacks kill blacks by the hundreds each year, and liberals like you dont say a word...no marches, protests......because they cant blame whitey for it.

 

[Lakhota]

HAHA says the guy that blames everything on republicans.....Chicago murder rates are because of republicans I bet as well....you're a dumbshit......

Chicago?

yeah you know the city in Illinois....it's kind of a big deal, people know it.

Where blacks kill blacks by the hundreds each year, and liberals like you dont say a word...no marches, protests......because they cant blame whitey for it.

Why do you routinely try to divert and hijack threads? Chicago has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[Lakhota]

Aw, here we go...

Tea Party Nation Blames Boston Bombing On Obama, 'Radical Islam'

Mitch McConnell Mourns Boston Bombing Victims, Invokes 9/11

 

[NoNukes]

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?

Clinton passed on killing Bin Laden when they could not guarantee him that it was actually Bin Laden that they had in their sights.

 

[Lakhota]

NoNukes, the above quotes are screwed up.

 

[Lakhota]

For an act to be considered terrorism, however, there must be a political ideology behind it. As defined by the U.S. government in the U.S. Code, terrorism is "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets."

Therefore, if the Boston attack was perpetrated by a single person (or a group of people) with no known political motivations -- as was the case with Newtown shooter Adam Lanza -- it cannot legitimately be called "terrorism," even though it created a truly "terrifying" situation. What's more, as Mediaite points out, prematurely labeling an event as an act of terror can unnecessarily alarm the American public and give an inflated sense of power to the perpetrators.

More: Boston 'Terrorism': Was The Marathon Bombing An 'Act Of Terror'?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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...

It hasn't even been two full days, it's still fresh in everyone's minds, and this is already being used as a catapult to compare administrations. Unfortunately, I knew it wouldn't take long before someone looked at the tragedy of 10 people losing limbs and 12 deaths, before making the effort to just dive right in head first and begin to only see this through the eyes of "politics". Just needed to figure out who would grab the mantle first.

 

[healthmyths]

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?

Clinton passed on killing Bin Laden when they could not guarantee him that it was actually Bin Laden that they had in their sights.

Twice in 2000, including one time after the USS Cole bombing, Clinton had bin Laden in his sights and failed to pull the trigger, according to a senior
Pentagon official familiar with covert counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan at the time.

He said the CIA had equipped pro-U.S. factions on the ground in Afghanistan with high-tech surveillance gear from the Defense Department to track bin Laden.

They were armed with sniper rifles and shoulder-fired rocket launchers, the official explained, and had the OK to assassinate bin Laden on orders from U.S. intelligence back in Washington.

“There were surveillance systems brought in-country, and they were doing observations and watching some of the likely places bin Laden frequented, such as Tora Bora, and guest-houses in the area,” said the official, who requested anonymity. “And we were viewing” the satellite images relayed from Afghanistan.

“Some of it was collaborative – some DOD, some CIA – but we were looking,” he said. “And Clinton had opportunities to take him out and didn’t take them.”

“There was actionable intelligence provided by that gear, by the optics,” he said. “But once it went up the chain of command, it got into stuff like, ‘How sure are you guys about that 6-5 guy in the middle of that group? It kind of looks like him, but how sure are you?’” “Clinton didn’t want to have an accidental shot kill innocent civilians,” he added. “But everyone was pretty certain it was Osama bin Laden. We had images of his face.”
Clinton certainly deserves his share of blame for failing to take out bin Laden when he had the chance.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2003/10/21131/#vj6FeiHpJeI5x8Pr.99

 

[Lakhota]

Why are the above quotes messed up?

 

[Katzndogz]

911 WAS the 415 prewarning.