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

[CaféAuLait]

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...

Already is news which I think you are trying to defuse. IT IS REPORTED, that another country warned us about the older brother and the FBI investigated him. They cleared him. Now if you wish to make an issue out of Bush receiving non-definite threats and want to make some sort of issue out of that how about the Obama administration being warned about the EXACT perpetrator and clearing him???? How about turn about fair play?

Bush Received More Warnings About 9/11 Than We Realized - Business Insider

The Deafness Before the Storm - The New York Times

Evidence piles up that Bush administration got many pre-9/11 warnings - Open Channel

NY Times reporter: Bush White House didn't listen to 9/11 warnings - CBS News

The Bush Administration Know-It-Alls Who Failed to Heed Warnings Before 9/11 - The Daily Beast

I do not understand what you are trying to do here. I am at a loss to be honest.

If you want to attach blame then you must do so in manner which takes everything into account.

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. For all this, the administration still viewed al-Qaida as a matter for domestic civil and criminal law enforcement.

While Clinton diddled - Salon.com

So what is it here? Can we say this was all Clinton's fault? What? What is it that you want? To make Bush look bad because it seems as if our government dropped the ball in some capicity during this Boston terrorist attack?

The truth of the matter is THEY ARE ALL Culpable in some manner and given Clinton and company let him go on several occasions I could argue much of lot of the blame belongs at his feet and it has nothing to do with partisan hackery. Bush and company are at fault too, were they warned about planes and should have tightened security, your damn right they should have. The same way Obama is as well to some extent given this is his administration. We are unaware of a lot of facts at this point though.

This gotcha shit is ridiculous for it does not allow some people who are far left or far right to see what their party’s faults are. It allows them to excuse and point the finger at the opposite party instead of demanding the job be done by whoever is in charge no matter their political persuasion.

 

[Lakhota]

The purpose of this thread is simple - as stated in the OP.

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...

As for President Clinton and Osama bin Laden, I offer this:

Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?

A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.

More: FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The irony of this thread is epic

And I was called a conspiracy theorist when I was pointing the Russian intelligence a couple of days ago.

 

[CaféAuLait]

The purpose of this thread is simple - as stated in the OP.

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...

As for President Clinton and Osama bin Laden, I offer this:

Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?

A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.

More: FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

I guess you purposly over looked the article from Salon I posted above. Clinton was offered Bin Laden and proof he was involved in the 93 bombings, and he declined, yet you offer a totally different question about "passing on killing him", with a white-washed answer.

While Clinton diddled - Salon.com



Either way, you would rather point fingers instead of demand answers from someone no matter if they are of your political persuasion or not. And that is the problem with America today. We are so politically polarized with the “he did this or they did that.” We are missing that our leaders are failing us by trying to defend because some hold that “D” or “R” closer to their hearts instead of holding them accountable and demanding answers.

 

[Lakhota]

The purpose of this thread is simple - as stated in the OP.

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...

As for President Clinton and Osama bin Laden, I offer this:

Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?

A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.

More: FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

I guess you purposly over looked the article from Salon I posted above. Clinton was offered Bin Laden and proof he was involved in the 93 bombings, and he declined a totally different question that passing on killing him, isnt it.

While Clinton diddled - Salon.com



Either way, you would rather point fingers instead of demand answers from someone no matter if they are of your political persuasion or not. And that is the problem with America today. We are so politically polarized with the “he did this or they did that.” We are missing that our leaders are failing us by trying to defend because some hold that “D” or “R” closer to their hearts instead of holding them accountable and demanding answers.

Actually, I read Andrew Sullivan's Salon article when I saw it in 2002. I think he's full of shit.

Clinton, 9/11 and the Facts

News Hounds: Sean Hannity Still Trying To Blame Clinton For 9/11

The 9/11 Report: A Dissent - New York Times

 

[CaféAuLait]

The purpose of this thread is simple - as stated in the OP.



As for President Clinton and Osama bin Laden, I offer this:



More: FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

I guess you purposly over looked the article from Salon I posted above. Clinton was offered Bin Laden and proof he was involved in the 93 bombings, and he declined a totally different question that passing on killing him, isnt it.

While Clinton diddled - Salon.com



Either way, you would rather point fingers instead of demand answers from someone no matter if they are of your political persuasion or not. And that is the problem with America today. We are so politically polarized with the “he did this or they did that.” We are missing that our leaders are failing us by trying to defend because some hold that “D” or “R” closer to their hearts instead of holding them accountable and demanding answers.

Actually, I read Andrew Sullivan's Salon article when I saw it in 2002. I think he's full of shit.

Clinton, 9/11 and the Facts

News Hounds: Sean Hannity Still Trying To Blame Clinton For 9/11

The 9/11 Report: A Dissent - New York Times

Of course you do. It's the glasses you are wearing which won't allow you to see that Clinton and Bush were BOTH responsible. Both dems and repubs were saying Saddam had WMD's, another thing that is often overlooked.

It is a fact they both screwed up and until you start to demand answers and see that we won't get the people we employ to give us a straight answer and or govern properly.

Stop with the excuses they are old and worn out. The constant robo-linking is comical to be honest.

 

[Lakhota]

I guess you purposly over looked the article from Salon I posted above. Clinton was offered Bin Laden and proof he was involved in the 93 bombings, and he declined a totally different question that passing on killing him, isnt it.

While Clinton diddled - Salon.com



Either way, you would rather point fingers instead of demand answers from someone no matter if they are of your political persuasion or not. And that is the problem with America today. We are so politically polarized with the “he did this or they did that.” We are missing that our leaders are failing us by trying to defend because some hold that “D” or “R” closer to their hearts instead of holding them accountable and demanding answers.

Actually, I read Andrew Sullivan's Salon article when I saw it in 2002. I think he's full of shit.

Clinton, 9/11 and the Facts

News Hounds: Sean Hannity Still Trying To Blame Clinton For 9/11

The 9/11 Report: A Dissent - New York Times

Of course you do. It's the glasses you are wearing which won't allow you to see that Clinton and Bush were BOTH responsible. Both dems and repubs were saying Saddam had WMD's, another thing that is often overlooked.

It is a fact they both screwed up and until you start to demand answers and see that we won't get the people we employ to give us a straight answer and or govern properly.

Stop with the excuses they are old and worn out. The constant robo-linking is comical to be honest.

Maybe you should lighten up. I started this thread on Tuesday when it became apparent that wingnuts would start blaming Obama for the Marathon bombing. It's that simple...

9/11 happened on Bush's watch.

4/15 happened on Obama's watch.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Boooooosh.......












Oops, sorry I ment boo

 

[American_Jihad]

Actually, I read Andrew Sullivan's Salon article when I saw it in 2002. I think he's full of shit.

Clinton, 9/11 and the Facts

News Hounds: Sean Hannity Still Trying To Blame Clinton For 9/11

The 9/11 Report: A Dissent - New York Times

Of course you do. It's the glasses you are wearing which won't allow you to see that Clinton and Bush were BOTH responsible. Both dems and repubs were saying Saddam had WMD's, another thing that is often overlooked.

It is a fact they both screwed up and until you start to demand answers and see that we won't get the people we employ to give us a straight answer and or govern properly.

Stop with the excuses they are old and worn out. The constant robo-linking is comical to be honest.

Maybe you should lighten up. I started this thread on Tuesday when it became apparent that wingnuts would start blaming Obama for the Marathon bombing. It's that simple...

9/11 happened on Bush's watch.

4/15 happened on Obama's watch.

Started under

 

[CaféAuLait]

Actually, I read Andrew Sullivan's Salon article when I saw it in 2002. I think he's full of shit.

Clinton, 9/11 and the Facts

News Hounds: Sean Hannity Still Trying To Blame Clinton For 9/11

The 9/11 Report: A Dissent - New York Times

Of course you do. It's the glasses you are wearing which won't allow you to see that Clinton and Bush were BOTH responsible. Both dems and repubs were saying Saddam had WMD's, another thing that is often overlooked.

It is a fact they both screwed up and until you start to demand answers and see that we won't get the people we employ to give us a straight answer and or govern properly.

Stop with the excuses they are old and worn out. The constant robo-linking is comical to be honest.

Maybe you should lighten up. I started this thread on Tuesday when it became apparent that wingnuts would start blaming Obama for the Marathon bombing. It's that simple...

9/11 happened on Bush's watch.

4/15 happened on Obama's watch.

You started this thread which blamed Bush for 9-11 and then you said this about this happening while Obama was in office:

... 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...

And now you try to convince us that you were trying to say Obama was at fault since it was on 'his watch'. LOL Be careful your transparency is showing...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Actually, I read Andrew Sullivan's Salon article when I saw it in 2002. I think he's full of shit.

Clinton, 9/11 and the Facts

News Hounds: Sean Hannity Still Trying To Blame Clinton For 9/11

The 9/11 Report: A Dissent - New York Times

Of course you do. It's the glasses you are wearing which won't allow you to see that Clinton and Bush were BOTH responsible. Both dems and repubs were saying Saddam had WMD's, another thing that is often overlooked.

It is a fact they both screwed up and until you start to demand answers and see that we won't get the people we employ to give us a straight answer and or govern properly.

Stop with the excuses they are old and worn out. The constant robo-linking is comical to be honest.

Maybe you should lighten up. I started this thread on Tuesday when it became apparent that wingnuts would start blaming Obama for the Marathon bombing. It's that simple...

9/11 happened on Bush's watch.

4/15 happened on Obama's watch.

Oh. I thought everything was Bush's fault?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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...

I bet you wish you never made this post.

Boston Bomber Could Have Been Deported After 2009 Arrest | Judicial Watch

 

[CaféAuLait]

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...

I bet you wish you never made this post.

Boston Bomber Could Have Been Deported After 2009 Arrest | Judicial Watch

Additionally:

FBI interviewed dead Boston bombing suspect two years ago, on suspicion of extremist ties


FBI interviewed dead Boston bombing suspect two years ago, on suspicion of extremist ties | The Verge

FBI interviewed dead Boston bombing suspect years ago

FBI interviewed dead Boston bombing suspect years ago - CBS News

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just wondering where all the Liberals are who tried to pin this on the Republicans and Tea Partiers? They were so sure of themselves until Thursday night. It's laughable to see one side make baseless accusations against the other. It's a whole 'nother thing when they are proven wrong in such a devastating manner as this.

 

[Lakhota]

Just wondering where all the Liberals are who tried to pin this on the Republicans and Tea Partiers? They were so sure of themselves until Thursday night. It's laughable to see one side make baseless accusations against the other. It's a whole 'nother thing when they are proven wrong in such a devastating manner as this.

Not me, but I know there's some homegrown Deliverance types out there ticking in the bushes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just wondering where all the Liberals are who tried to pin this on the Republicans and Tea Partiers? They were so sure of themselves until Thursday night. It's laughable to see one side make baseless accusations against the other. It's a whole 'nother thing when they are proven wrong in such a devastating manner as this.

Not me, but I know there's some homegrown Deliverance types out there ticking in the bushes.

You mean people who can be taken out by inexperienced businessmen? Am I supposed to be scared?

 

[Lakhota]

George W. Bush On Legacy: 'There's No Need To Defend Myself'

The following Onion article is hilarious (written Jan 17, 2001 before Bush was sworn in) - but is eerily prophetic of things to come:

Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over' | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

[Lakhota]

Bush's Legacy of Atrocities Is Nowhere to Be Seen at His New Library -- and the Local Paper Won't Even Run One Ad That Tells the Truth

Blowback: Suspect in Boston Attack Cites U.S. Wars as Motivation

 

[American_Jihad]

Just wondering where all the Liberals are who tried to pin this on the Republicans and Tea Partiers? They were so sure of themselves until Thursday night. It's laughable to see one side make baseless accusations against the other. It's a whole 'nother thing when they are proven wrong in such a devastating manner as this.

Not me, but I know there's some homegrown Deliverance types out there ticking in the bushes.

Weather Underground - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rdean]

Boooohoooohoooooush!

Obaaaaaaaaaaaamaaaaaaaaa!