Obama Approval Ratings February 24, 2009

[KMAN]

Obama Job Approval Dips Below 60% for First Time

 

[Xenophon]

He will probaly get a bump from his speech tonight.

 

[jillian]

Wasn't true then anyway....

Gallup was the only one that came one point below 60. And ABC was at 68.

RCP Average 02/17 - 02/23 -- 62.5 27.8 +34.7

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wasn't true then anyway....

Gallup was the only one that came one point below 60. And ABC was at 68.

RCP Average 02/17 - 02/23 -- 62.5 27.8 +34.7

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

What happened to your claim before he was at 86 percent Jillian? ANd remind me, when Bush had 92 percent were you impressed?

 

[editec]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it went down to the 30s to be honest.

If times get harder (and I expect they're going to) the people are going to blame the POTUS.

That's what happened to Bush II, and I see no reason to think that Obama's fate will be significantly different.

 

[KMAN]

MSNBC had his approval rating at 100%... Perhaps that is what jillian was looking at.

 

[jillian]

Wasn't true then anyway....

Gallup was the only one that came one point below 60. And ABC was at 68.

RCP Average 02/17 - 02/23 -- 62.5 27.8 +34.7

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

What happened to your claim before he was at 86 percent Jillian? ANd remind me, when Bush had 92 percent were you impressed?

stop babbling.

 

[auditor0007]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it went down to the 30s to be honest.

If times get harder (and I expect they're going to) the people are going to blame the POTUS.

That's what happened to Bush II, and I see no reason to think that Obama's fate will be significantly different.

It will take some time for Obama's numbers to drop below 50%, but you can be assured, it will happen.

 

[jillian]

well, at some point propaganda does take hold.... so I suppose anything is possible (although it didn't work with clinton)

but propaganda is what the right is good at.

too bad they sucked at actually governing.

 

[elvis]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it went down to the 30s to be honest.

If times get harder (and I expect they're going to) the people are going to blame the POTUS.

That's what happened to Bush II, and I see no reason to think that Obama's fate will be significantly different.

It will take some time for Obama's numbers to drop below 50%, but you can be assured, it will happen.

I can't wait.

 

[Munin]

Wasn't true then anyway....

Gallup was the only one that came one point below 60. And ABC was at 68.

RCP Average 02/17 - 02/23 -- 62.5 27.8 +34.7

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

What happened to your claim before he was at 86 percent Jillian? ANd remind me, when Bush had 92 percent were you impressed?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Gallup_Poll-Approval_Rating-George_W_Bush.png

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

That was 9/11 , ironically it was a result of his own failure to secure his nation. A very similar thing happened the day of pearl harbor.

I find it disgusting that you seem to think of 9/11 as an accomplishment, but then again when I look at the guy you seem to support then I shouldn't expect any more of you.

I like to rub it in again, so you don't forget

 

[Meister]

Wasn't true then anyway....



That was 9/11 , ironically it was a result of his own failure to secure his nation. A very similar thing happened the day of pearl harbor.

I find it disgusting that you seem to think of 9/11 as an accomplishment, but then again when I look at the guy you seem to support then I shouldn't expect any more of you.

I like to rub it in again, so you don't forget

I do believe that it was Clinton who didn't secure the nation when he had the chance. Look at how many strikes there were by terrorists in the 1990's. He didn't do what should have been done then. And, to coin a democrat term..."He took his eye of the ball." The FBI, CIA, and the NSA were really disjointed under Clinton when he down sized the Military. But, like a good democrat...gotta keep bashing Bush. You have been indoctrinated well.

 

[Munin]

I do believe that it was Clinton who didn't secure the nation when he had the chance. Look at how many strikes there were by terrorists in the 1990's. He didn't do what should have been done then. And, to coin a democrat term..."He took his eye of the ball." The FBI, CIA, and the NSA were really disjointed under Clinton when he down sized the Military. But, like a good democrat...gotta keep bashing Bush. You have been indoctrinated well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/politics/10terror.html
Bush warned of al-Qaida plot before 9/11


Sure man, blame it all on clinton. Bush had almost a year to put his shit together, during that time Clinton and his former staff were warning Bush that he should "keep his eye on the ball" with regard to Osama bin Laden.

It is not me who is indoctrinated, it is you who lacks information. Did they blame Pearl harbor on another president? Really, it is pathetic that you even try to blame it all on Clinton: CLINTON WAS NOT PRESIDENT DURING 9/11 !!!

to Washington to try to convince the 9/11 commission that as President he did what he could to stop Osama bin Laden. Others who have testified before the commission—particularly National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke—did so before a phalanx of reporters and opponents hoping to see them eviscerated on live TV. But like George W. Bush, who will meet with the commission (together with Dick Cheney) at an undisclosed time, Clinton was allowed to appear in private—in a secret, bugproof room called, in a typical Washington solecism, a SKIF—a secure-conference intelligence facility.

It's a disservice to history that Clinton's four hours of testimony on April 8 went unrecorded—and that the commission has offered the same cloak of secrecy to Bush—but sources close to the panel briefed TIME on the session. One commissioner described the atmosphere in the SKIF as "clearly not hostile." Clinton brought along Sandy Berger, his affable National Security Adviser, and Bruce Lindsey, his longtime friend and White House consigliere. The former President offered to stay "as long as any of you want," according to commission chairman Thomas Kean, a Republican, who wouldn't reveal anything else Clinton said.

But people familiar with the meeting say Clinton told the panel he not only read every scrap of intelligence on the leader of al-Qaeda but became obsessed with bin Laden and wanted him dead after al-Qaeda terrorists bombed U.S. embassies in East Africa in August 1998, murdering 224 people.

If Clinton was so focused on bin Laden, why did he fail so spectacularly in his efforts to catch him? The ex-President told the commission he lacked "actionable intelligence," and a U.S. intelligence official agrees. "We didn't have actionable information about where we knew he would be that we could take him out," the official says. Others suggest the real problem was that Clinton's takedown orders were slathered in legalisms.

As the commission's staff members noted in a report, "CIA senior managers, operators and lawyers uniformly said that they read the relevant authorities signed by President Clinton as instructing them to try to capture bin Laden ... They believed that the only acceptable context for killing bin Laden was a credible capture operation." To be sure, White House aides and CIA managers understood that a mission to capture bin Laden would probably turn into a mission to kill him, given that the jihadist would almost certainly never go quietly. But according to numerous officials, the CIA officers who would be leading the covert operations wanted ironclad, unrestricted language in presidential memos—which are known, rather redundantly, as Memorandums of Notification (MONs)—that killing bin Laden would be legal. (Ever since Iran-contra and other scandals, covert ops have routinely been lawyered in advance.) As Washington Post managing editor Steve Coll points out in his new book, Ghost Wars, Attorney General Janet Reno, among others, wouldn't allow a Bond-style license to kill, so Clinton's MONs would say things like, "apprehend with lethal force as authorized."

One source of ambiguity in the Clinton MONs was that they had to be written differently for the various proxy groups the CIA was using to help hunt bin Laden, according to an official familiar with the documents. At the time, proxy groups such as Afghanistan's Northern Alliance were considered the best hope for catching al-Qaeda's leader. But intelligence officials wanted to give some proxies less leeway to kill bin Laden in order to minimize the danger that they might use U.S. power to try to eliminate tribal rivals instead of bin Laden.


Clinton told the 9/11 panel he thought his order to kill bin Laden was unmistakably clear. After all, the Justice Department had ruled that the U.S. government's ban on assassinations didn't apply to bin Laden because he was a military target. Even the commission's chairman is convinced that Clinton wanted to kill bin Laden and that the CIA balked over the slightest ambiguities in his orders: "Some of the people who had to carry that out were part of an agency that had been accused of assassinations in Central America not too long before and who had gotten in deep trouble for that," says Kean. "What [they] wanted [was] all the t's crossed and all the i's dotted." The most memorable part of Clinton's testimony may turn out to be what he said to his successor. The panel quizzed Clinton in detail about a meeting he had with President- elect Bush during the truncated transition period after the 2000 election. Clinton said he told Bush in that meeting that bin Laden would be his No. 1 national-security problem. Clarke, who recounts this episode in his book Against All Enemies, writes that the incoming Administration found this assessment "rather odd." Commissioners are planning to seek Bush's side of the story. He too will have to explain why bin Laden is not yet dead.

Did Clinton Do Enough? - TIME

 

[Meister]

I do believe that it was Clinton who didn't secure the nation when he had the chance. Look at how many strikes there were by terrorists in the 1990's. He didn't do what should have been done then. And, to coin a democrat term..."He took his eye of the ball." The FBI, CIA, and the NSA were really disjointed under Clinton when he down sized the Military. But, like a good democrat...gotta keep bashing Bush. You have been indoctrinated well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/politics/10terror.html
Bush warned of al-Qaida plot before 9/11


Sure man, blame it all on clinton. Bush had almost a year to put his shit together, during that time Clinton and his former staff were warning Bush that he should "keep his eye on the ball" with regard to Osama bin Laden.

It is not me who is indoctrinated, it is you who lacks information. Did they blame Pearl harbor on another president? Really, it is pathetic that you even try to blame it all on Clinton: CLINTON WAS NOT PRESIDENT DURING 9/11 !!!

to Washington to try to convince the 9/11 commission that as President he did what he could to stop Osama bin Laden. Others who have testified before the commission—particularly National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke—did so before a phalanx of reporters and opponents hoping to see them eviscerated on live TV. But like George W. Bush, who will meet with the commission (together with Dick Cheney) at an undisclosed time, Clinton was allowed to appear in private—in a secret, bugproof room called, in a typical Washington solecism, a SKIF—a secure-conference intelligence facility.

It's a disservice to history that Clinton's four hours of testimony on April 8 went unrecorded—and that the commission has offered the same cloak of secrecy to Bush—but sources close to the panel briefed TIME on the session. One commissioner described the atmosphere in the SKIF as "clearly not hostile." Clinton brought along Sandy Berger, his affable National Security Adviser, and Bruce Lindsey, his longtime friend and White House consigliere. The former President offered to stay "as long as any of you want," according to commission chairman Thomas Kean, a Republican, who wouldn't reveal anything else Clinton said.

But people familiar with the meeting say Clinton told the panel he not only read every scrap of intelligence on the leader of al-Qaeda but became obsessed with bin Laden and wanted him dead after al-Qaeda terrorists bombed U.S. embassies in East Africa in August 1998, murdering 224 people.

If Clinton was so focused on bin Laden, why did he fail so spectacularly in his efforts to catch him? The ex-President told the commission he lacked "actionable intelligence," and a U.S. intelligence official agrees. "We didn't have actionable information about where we knew he would be that we could take him out," the official says. Others suggest the real problem was that Clinton's takedown orders were slathered in legalisms.
, and didn't want the As the commission's staff members noted in a report, "CIA senior managers, operators and lawyers uniformly said that they read the relevant authorities signed by President Clinton as instructing them to try to capture bin Laden ... They believed that the only acceptable context for killing bin Laden was a credible capture operation." To be sure, White House aides and CIA managers understood that a mission to capture bin Laden would probably turn into a mission to kill him, given that the jihadist would almost certainly never go quietly. But according to numerous officials, the CIA officers who would be leading the covert operations wanted ironclad, unrestricted language in presidential memos—which are known, rather redundantly, as Memorandums of Notification (MONs)—that killing bin Laden would be legal. (Ever since Iran-contra and other scandals, covert ops have routinely been lawyered in advance.) As Washington Post managing editor Steve Coll points out in his new book, Ghost Wars, Attorney General Janet Reno, among others, wouldn't allow a Bond-style license to kill, so Clinton's MONs would say things like, "apprehend with lethal force as authorized."

One source of ambiguity in the Clinton MONs was that they had to be written differently for the various proxy groups the CIA was using to help hunt bin Laden, according to an official familiar with the documents. At the time, proxy groups such as Afghanistan's Northern Alliance were considered the best hope for catching al-Qaeda's leader. But intelligence officials wanted to give some proxies less leeway to kill bin Laden in order to minimize the danger that they might use U.S. power to try to eliminate tribal rivals instead of bin Laden.


Clinton told the 9/11 panel he thought his order to kill bin Laden was unmistakably clear. After all, the Justice Department had ruled that the U.S. government's ban on assassinations didn't apply to bin Laden because he was a military target. Even the commission's chairman is convinced that Clinton wanted to kill bin Laden and that the CIA balked over the slightest ambiguities in his orders: "Some of the people who had to carry that out were part of an agency that had been accused of assassinations in Central America not too long before and who had gotten in deep trouble for that," says Kean. "What [they] wanted [was] all the t's crossed and all the i's dotted." The most memorable part of Clinton's testimony may turn out to be what he said to his successor. The panel quizzed Clinton in detail about a meeting he had with President- elect Bush during the truncated transition period after the 2000 election. Clinton said he told Bush in that meeting that bin Laden would be his No. 1 national-security problem. Clarke, who recounts this episode in his book Against All Enemies, writes that the incoming Administration found this assessment "rather odd." Commissioners are planning to seek Bush's side of the story. He too will have to explain why bin Laden is not yet dead.

Did Clinton Do Enough? - TIME

You did pass the idiot test...good for you. 1) Seems FDR was president from 1933-1945. Who else could he have blamed it on...idiot. 2) After the first World Trade center bombing, Bin Laden should have been at the top of Clinton's "to do list". Sudan had Bin Laden on a couple of occasions, and asked Clinton if he wanted him. Clinton declined, because Bin Laden was a hot potato, Clinton did have enough on him, but he was more worried about his poll numbers taking a hit after the Monica fiasco. Why do you even bring up TIME?...Why not bring up a unbias source? Also, you brought up Sandy "Burgler", what do you think he was stuffing down his panties when he stole secret documents about the 9-11 investigation? Maybe to save himself and Clinton???? Why would he have done that if Clinton had been above the fray with his decisions??
Yes, Bush was president at the time. But, Bush had been in for less than 8 months. I'm not saying that Bush was guilt free on this, but what I'm saying is that Clinton bears the lions share of the fault. Once again I say...you have been indoctrinated well.

 

[Munin]

I do believe that it was Clinton who didn't secure the nation when he had the chance. Look at how many strikes there were by terrorists in the 1990's. He didn't do what should have been done then. And, to coin a democrat term..."He took his eye of the ball." The FBI, CIA, and the NSA were really disjointed under Clinton when he down sized the Military. But, like a good democrat...gotta keep bashing Bush. You have been indoctrinated well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/politics/10terror.html
Bush warned of al-Qaida plot before 9/11


Sure man, blame it all on clinton. Bush had almost a year to put his shit together, during that time Clinton and his former staff were warning Bush that he should "keep his eye on the ball" with regard to Osama bin Laden.

It is not me who is indoctrinated, it is you who lacks information. Did they blame Pearl harbor on another president? Really, it is pathetic that you even try to blame it all on Clinton: CLINTON WAS NOT PRESIDENT DURING 9/11 !!!


Did Clinton Do Enough? - TIME

You did pass the idiot test...good for you. 1) Seems FDR was president from 1933-1945. Who else could he have blamed it on...idiot. 2) After the first World Trade center bombing, Bin Laden should have been at the top of Clinton's "to do list". Sudan had Bin Laden on a couple of occasions, and asked Clinton if he wanted him. Clinton declined, because Bin Laden was a hot potato, Clinton did have enough on him, but he was more worried about his poll numbers taking a hit after the Monica fiasco. Why do you even bring up TIME?...Why not bring up a unbias source? Also, you brought up Sandy "Burgler", what do you think he was stuffing down his panties when he stole secret documents about the 9-11 investigation? Maybe to save himself and Clinton???? Why would he have done that if Clinton had been above the fray with his decisions??
Yes, Bush was president at the time. But, Bush had been in for less than 8 months. I'm not saying that Bush was guilt free on this, but what I'm saying is that Clinton bears the lions share of the fault. Once again I say...you have been indoctrinated well.[/QUOTE]

If a president can't defend his country after at least half a year, then he isn't worthy to be a president. Normally they are responsible from day 1, that day Clinton was ex-president.

Obama can't blame his failures on solving the financial crisis, the Afghanistan + Iraqi war on Bush either because everything he does not solve of it will be his fault (not Bush). Everything Bush failed to fix, was his fault too: even if Clinton didn't catch bin Laden. It is clear to say that Bush didn't catch him either and he had 8 fucking years.

Clinton may share some responsibility for 9/11 because he didn't catch Osama, we must also not forget that it was not Bill who was warned about 9/11 by his intelligence agency but it was Bush who was warned by them about 9/11.

Clinton did not ignore this kind of information, he was focussed on chasing Osama: Bush was not, at least not until it was too late (9/11)


Seriously, you ve got to be fucking blind:

Report: France warned CIA of 9-11 plot

CIA director warned Rice on Al Qaeda before 9/11 - International Herald Tribune

Bush told of threat before September 11 | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

[Mad Scientist]

Jillian, imagine this:
If on September 10th, 2001 then President Bush went on TV and said that he has intelligence suggesting that a terrorist attack will occur the next day by hijackers but he doesn't know where. Acting on that intel President Bush shuts down Americas airspace to any traffic and conducts investigations into airline security procedures which effectively paralyze a large portion of our economy in a down economic cycle. An attack would have been averted and Americans would go on in their pre-9/11 ways.

I ask you Jill (And be honest here): What would have been the Democrat response?

I'll tell ya' what it would have been. Al Gorleone: "He's Playing on our fears!"

 

[Meister]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/politics/10terror.html
Bush warned of al-Qaida plot before 9/11


Sure man, blame it all on clinton. Bush had almost a year to put his shit together, during that time Clinton and his former staff were warning Bush that he should "keep his eye on the ball" with regard to Osama bin Laden.

It is not me who is indoctrinated, it is you who lacks information. Did they blame Pearl harbor on another president? Really, it is pathetic that you even try to blame it all on Clinton: CLINTON WAS NOT PRESIDENT DURING 9/11 !!!


Did Clinton Do Enough? - TIME

You did pass the idiot test...good for you. 1) Seems FDR was president from 1933-1945. Who else could he have blamed it on...idiot. 2) After the first World Trade center bombing, Bin Laden should have been at the top of Clinton's "to do list". Sudan had Bin Laden on a couple of occasions, and asked Clinton if he wanted him. Clinton declined, because Bin Laden was a hot potato, Clinton did have enough on him, but he was more worried about his poll numbers taking a hit after the Monica fiasco. Why do you even bring up TIME?...Why not bring up a unbias source? Also, you brought up Sandy "Burgler", what do you think he was stuffing down his panties when he stole secret documents about the 9-11 investigation? Maybe to save himself and Clinton???? Why would he have done that if Clinton had been above the fray with his decisions??
Yes, Bush was president at the time. But, Bush had been in for less than 8 months. I'm not saying that Bush was guilt free on this, but what I'm saying is that Clinton bears the lions share of the fault. Once again I say...you have been indoctrinated well.

If a president can't defend his country after at least half a year, then he isn't worthy to be a president. Normally they are responsible from day 1, that day Clinton was ex-president.

Obama can't blame his failures on solving the financial crisis, the Afghanistan + Iraqi war on Bush either because everything he does not solve of it will be his fault (not Bush). Everything Bush failed to fix, was his fault too: even if Clinton didn't catch bin Laden. It is clear to say that Bush didn't catch him either and he had 8 fucking years.

Clinton may share some responsibility for 9/11 because he didn't catch Osama, we must also not forget that it was not Bill who was warned about 9/11 by his intelligence agency but it was Bush who was warned by them about 9/11.

Clinton did not ignore this kind of information, he was focussed on chasing Osama: Bush was not, at least not until it was too late (9/11)


Seriously you got to be fucking blind:

Report: France warned CIA of 9-11 plot

CIA director warned Rice on Al Qaeda before 9/11 - International Herald Tribune

Bush told of threat before September 11 | World news | guardian.co.uk[/QUOTE]
What the hell??? Clinton just had to say to Sudan..."YES", I want Bin Laden. But your boy didn't have the nads to do that. He had the chance, and there were more terror strikes under the Clinton administration. He wasn't focused. You can deny that all you want. In fact, I expect that from you. Clinton didn't have all is security agencies on the same page. Each of them had certain dots..but they couldn't connect them to each others, because Clinton had them disjointed. Not Bush...CLINTON! With all the knowledge that all the world agencies intel had, and Clinton knew about...why didn't he get focused. Why is because he was more worried about polls, and his own presidential legacy. Why did Sandy Berger stash the papers....to hide what was in them. Don't be blind to that piece of history.
By the way, As far as I can see...our president Obama has been blaming Bush for everything. Don't you listen to the news.

 

[Truthmatters]

I do believe that it was Clinton who didn't secure the nation when he had the chance. Look at how many strikes there were by terrorists in the 1990's. He didn't do what should have been done then. And, to coin a democrat term..."He took his eye of the ball." The FBI, CIA, and the NSA were really disjointed under Clinton when he down sized the Military. But, like a good democrat...gotta keep bashing Bush. You have been indoctrinated well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/politics/10terror.html
Bush warned of al-Qaida plot before 9/11


Sure man, blame it all on clinton. Bush had almost a year to put his shit together, during that time Clinton and his former staff were warning Bush that he should "keep his eye on the ball" with regard to Osama bin Laden.

It is not me who is indoctrinated, it is you who lacks information. Did they blame Pearl harbor on another president? Really, it is pathetic that you even try to blame it all on Clinton: CLINTON WAS NOT PRESIDENT DURING 9/11 !!!

to Washington to try to convince the 9/11 commission that as President he did what he could to stop Osama bin Laden. Others who have testified before the commission—particularly National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke—did so before a phalanx of reporters and opponents hoping to see them eviscerated on live TV. But like George W. Bush, who will meet with the commission (together with Dick Cheney) at an undisclosed time, Clinton was allowed to appear in private—in a secret, bugproof room called, in a typical Washington solecism, a SKIF—a secure-conference intelligence facility.

It's a disservice to history that Clinton's four hours of testimony on April 8 went unrecorded—and that the commission has offered the same cloak of secrecy to Bush—but sources close to the panel briefed TIME on the session. One commissioner described the atmosphere in the SKIF as "clearly not hostile." Clinton brought along Sandy Berger, his affable National Security Adviser, and Bruce Lindsey, his longtime friend and White House consigliere. The former President offered to stay "as long as any of you want," according to commission chairman Thomas Kean, a Republican, who wouldn't reveal anything else Clinton said.

But people familiar with the meeting say Clinton told the panel he not only read every scrap of intelligence on the leader of al-Qaeda but became obsessed with bin Laden and wanted him dead after al-Qaeda terrorists bombed U.S. embassies in East Africa in August 1998, murdering 224 people.

If Clinton was so focused on bin Laden, why did he fail so spectacularly in his efforts to catch him? The ex-President told the commission he lacked "actionable intelligence," and a U.S. intelligence official agrees. "We didn't have actionable information about where we knew he would be that we could take him out," the official says. Others suggest the real problem was that Clinton's takedown orders were slathered in legalisms.
, and didn't want the As the commission's staff members noted in a report, "CIA senior managers, operators and lawyers uniformly said that they read the relevant authorities signed by President Clinton as instructing them to try to capture bin Laden ... They believed that the only acceptable context for killing bin Laden was a credible capture operation." To be sure, White House aides and CIA managers understood that a mission to capture bin Laden would probably turn into a mission to kill him, given that the jihadist would almost certainly never go quietly. But according to numerous officials, the CIA officers who would be leading the covert operations wanted ironclad, unrestricted language in presidential memos—which are known, rather redundantly, as Memorandums of Notification (MONs)—that killing bin Laden would be legal. (Ever since Iran-contra and other scandals, covert ops have routinely been lawyered in advance.) As Washington Post managing editor Steve Coll points out in his new book, Ghost Wars, Attorney General Janet Reno, among others, wouldn't allow a Bond-style license to kill, so Clinton's MONs would say things like, "apprehend with lethal force as authorized."

One source of ambiguity in the Clinton MONs was that they had to be written differently for the various proxy groups the CIA was using to help hunt bin Laden, according to an official familiar with the documents. At the time, proxy groups such as Afghanistan's Northern Alliance were considered the best hope for catching al-Qaeda's leader. But intelligence officials wanted to give some proxies less leeway to kill bin Laden in order to minimize the danger that they might use U.S. power to try to eliminate tribal rivals instead of bin Laden.


Clinton told the 9/11 panel he thought his order to kill bin Laden was unmistakably clear. After all, the Justice Department had ruled that the U.S. government's ban on assassinations didn't apply to bin Laden because he was a military target. Even the commission's chairman is convinced that Clinton wanted to kill bin Laden and that the CIA balked over the slightest ambiguities in his orders: "Some of the people who had to carry that out were part of an agency that had been accused of assassinations in Central America not too long before and who had gotten in deep trouble for that," says Kean. "What [they] wanted [was] all the t's crossed and all the i's dotted." The most memorable part of Clinton's testimony may turn out to be what he said to his successor. The panel quizzed Clinton in detail about a meeting he had with President- elect Bush during the truncated transition period after the 2000 election. Clinton said he told Bush in that meeting that bin Laden would be his No. 1 national-security problem. Clarke, who recounts this episode in his book Against All Enemies, writes that the incoming Administration found this assessment "rather odd." Commissioners are planning to seek Bush's side of the story. He too will have to explain why bin Laden is not yet dead.

Did Clinton Do Enough? - TIME

You did pass the idiot test...good for you. 1) Seems FDR was president from 1933-1945. Who else could he have blamed it on...idiot. 2) After the first World Trade center bombing, Bin Laden should have been at the top of Clinton's "to do list". Sudan had Bin Laden on a couple of occasions, and asked Clinton if he wanted him. Clinton declined, because Bin Laden was a hot potato, Clinton did have enough on him, but he was more worried about his poll numbers taking a hit after the Monica fiasco. Why do you even bring up TIME?...Why not bring up a unbias source? Also, you brought up Sandy "Burgler", what do you think he was stuffing down his panties when he stole secret documents about the 9-11 investigation? Maybe to save himself and Clinton???? Why would he have done that if Clinton had been above the fray with his decisions??
Yes, Bush was president at the time. But, Bush had been in for less than 8 months. I'm not saying that Bush was guilt free on this, but what I'm saying is that Clinton bears the lions share of the fault. Once again I say...you have been indoctrinated well.

Clinton had been in office 20 Days before the 1993 WTT bombing.

Clinton then kept us from being attacked on our own soil his entire term.

Bush was warned and ignored the warnings which produced the 2001 attack.


Clinton kept us safe and Bush failed to listen and did nothing.

 

[Meister]

Clinton had been in office 20 Days before the 1993 WTT bombing.

Clinton then kept us from being attacked on our own soil his entire term.

Bush was warned and ignored the warnings which produced the 2001 attack.


Clinton kept us safe and Bush failed to listen and did nothing.[/QUOTE]

Just how did Clinton keep us from being attacked on our soil his whole term? Please give the facts on just what he exactly did...please?
Why didn't Clinton take Bin Laden into custody when he had the opportunity??
Why did Clinton do little after the first WTC bombing? After the embassy bombings? After the USS Cole? At least Bush did something after his WTC bombing.
What proof do you have that Bush ignored the warnings which produced the 2001 attack? Just what would a liberal have done?? Your one...what would you have done, with the sketchy warning signs?

 

[Avatar4321]

wont be the last.