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

[mudwhistle]

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

Hmmmmmm......

I guess it works for Obama.........so why not.

 

[Meister]

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

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

And we’re also seeing the same thing now with the attempt to place the December 2007 recession on ‘Obama’s Watch.’

I place the recession on Bush and both parties for getting us into the debacle.
I blame Obama for not being smart enough to stregthen the economy and lowering the unemployment.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

A-hole pubs have blocked everything since Scott Brown, 11/09. Deserve total oblivion. Only their propaganda machine and ignorance save them.

 

[mal]

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

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

And we’re also seeing the same thing now with the attempt to place the December 2007 recession on ‘Obama’s Watch.’

I place the recession on Bush and both parties for getting us into the debacle.
I blame Obama for not being smart enough to stregthen the economy and lowering the unemployment.

And both Parties Deserve the Blame... This Cycle started back during Carter regarding what was to come with Housing and Loans...

Clinton added to it, and (43) couldn't have been Happier to point out how many people were Homeowners during his 8 years...

When there are virtually NO Standards regarding Lending, because those Standards were Considered Racist, you get what we have...

Now those same Lenders who were all but Strong Armed by Liberals via the Government to Lend to people, NOT Based on Ability to Pay, but on RACE, are referred to as "Predatory Lenders"...

They couldn't Win no matter what they did.

They didn't Lend... Racist... They did Lend, Predators.

******* Liberals.

This coupled with the Largest Generation also being the most Selfish and having Access to all of that Money in Equity, many times in multiple properties, you had a Boom that was Irrationally Large and Long.

At the end of Clinton the AP was Projecting, while Parroting the Clinton Administration, that we would have Budget Surpluses from 2001 to 2026...

No shit, 25 years... And Absurd Prediction at ANY time, but after a Decade of Expansion had already happened?

That's how Brilliant what Clinton did during the 90's was according to his Lapdogs in the Media, by Inheriting the Longest Expansion in American History that began in March of 1991... Clinton didn't take Office until January of 1993.

Funny thing is... 40 days after the AP and it's Children were Cheerleading the Clinton Era and it's Endless Budget Surpluses and Growth to come, America went into a Recession in March of 2001.

Followed by a Standoff with China, and then of course 9/11.

Things weren't all that bad Considering... 5% Unemployment for the bulk of Bush II, and then you had the 2006 Congressional Elections...

DemocRATS get the Purse Strings, and along with (43) they Usher in what we have now in late 2007 and 2008.

None of it dealt with Correctly, including Obama's need to say "Great Depression" all of the way throught the Summer and Fall of 2008 in the "Hopes" it would get him Elected...

And the Economy, and Women, did.

An Emotional Population will many times make Irrational Choices...

That is Precisely what America did in 2008 by Electing a NOT-One-Term-Junior-Senator that the "Free Press" was almost Amused at how Ignorant they were of him in general.

But he was Black... And Liberal... That's all they needed to Know.

Well, Congratulations Sheep...

This is what you wanted... This is what you get.

No Job Growth after an Increase of Unemployment to over 10% under Obama...

New Wars... Expansions of Existing Wars... Gitmo?... Still open... Extraoridnary Rendition... Civilian Deaths around the World... Invasions of Sovereign Nations...

All of that Costs Money, and when the DemocRATS had 3/3 Control for 2 YEARS, they not only Continued the Expensive Wars overseas, they Expanded them.

So MotherFUCK EVERY Obama Voter who Complained about a Damned thing Bush did after 9/11...

Obama did it in Spades.



peace...

 

[8537]

And we’re also seeing the same thing now with the attempt to place the December 2007 recession on ‘Obama’s Watch.’

I place the recession on Bush and both parties for getting us into the debacle.
I blame Obama for not being smart enough to stregthen the economy and lowering the unemployment.

And both Parties Deserve the Blame...

But let's go ahead and blame every last bit of it on Dems - here, read further

This Cycle started back during Carter regarding what was to come with Housing and Loans...

Clinton added to it, and (43) couldn't have been Happier to point out how many people were Homeowners during his 8 years...

When there are virtually NO Standards regarding Lending, because those Standards were Considered Racist, you get what we have...

Now those same Lenders who were all but Strong Armed by Liberals via the Government to Lend to people, NOT Based on Ability to Pay, but on RACE, are referred to as "Predatory Lenders"...

They couldn't Win no matter what they did.

They didn't Lend... Racist... They did Lend, Predators.

******* Liberals.

This coupled with the Largest Generation also being the most Selfish and having Access to all of that Money in Equity, many times in multiple properties, you had a Boom that was Irrationally Large and Long.

At the end of Clinton the AP was Projecting, while Parroting the Clinton Administration, that we would have Budget Surpluses from 2001 to 2026...

No shit, 25 years... And Absurd Prediction at ANY time, but after a Decade of Expansion had already happened?

That's how Brilliant what Clinton did during the 90's was according to his Lapdogs in the Media, by Inheriting the Longest Expansion in American History that began in March of 1991... Clinton didn't take Office until January of 1993.

Funny thing is... 40 days after the AP and it's Children were Cheerleading the Clinton Era and it's Endless Budget Surpluses and Growth to come, America went into a Recession in March of 2001.

Followed by a Standoff with China, and then of course 9/11.

Things weren't all that bad Considering... 5% Unemployment for the bulk of Bush II, and then you had the 2006 Congressional Elections...

DemocRATS get the Purse Strings, and along with (43) they Usher in what we have now in late 2007 and 2008.

None of it dealt with Correctly, including Obama's need to say "Great Depression" all of the way throught the Summer and Fall of 2008 in the "Hopes" it would get him Elected...

And the Economy, and Women, did.

An Emotional Population will many times make Irrational Choices...

That is Precisely what America did in 2008 by Electing a NOT-One-Term-Junior-Senator that the "Free Press" was almost Amused at how Ignorant they were of him in general.

But he was Black... And Liberal... That's all they needed to Know.

Well, Congratulations Sheep...

This is what you wanted... This is what you get.

No Job Growth after an Increase of Unemployment to over 10% under Obama...

New Wars... Expansions of Existing Wars... Gitmo?... Still open... Extraoridnary Rendition... Civilian Deaths around the World... Invasions of Sovereign Nations...

All of that Costs Money, and when the DemocRATS had 3/3 Control for 2 YEARS, they not only Continued the Expensive Wars overseas, they Expanded them.

So MotherFUCK EVERY Obama Voter who Complained about a Damned thing Bush did after 9/11...

Obama did it in Spades.



peace...

Not even a decent job at hiding hypocrisy! Hilarious though.

 

[mal]

I place the recession on Bush and both parties for getting us into the debacle.
I blame Obama for not being smart enough to stregthen the economy and lowering the unemployment.

And both Parties Deserve the Blame...

But let's go ahead and blame every last bit of it on Dems - here, read further

This Cycle started back during Carter regarding what was to come with Housing and Loans...

Clinton added to it, and (43) couldn't have been Happier to point out how many people were Homeowners during his 8 years...

When there are virtually NO Standards regarding Lending, because those Standards were Considered Racist, you get what we have...

Now those same Lenders who were all but Strong Armed by Liberals via the Government to Lend to people, NOT Based on Ability to Pay, but on RACE, are referred to as "Predatory Lenders"...

They couldn't Win no matter what they did.

They didn't Lend... Racist... They did Lend, Predators.

******* Liberals.

This coupled with the Largest Generation also being the most Selfish and having Access to all of that Money in Equity, many times in multiple properties, you had a Boom that was Irrationally Large and Long.

At the end of Clinton the AP was Projecting, while Parroting the Clinton Administration, that we would have Budget Surpluses from 2001 to 2026...

No shit, 25 years... And Absurd Prediction at ANY time, but after a Decade of Expansion had already happened?

That's how Brilliant what Clinton did during the 90's was according to his Lapdogs in the Media, by Inheriting the Longest Expansion in American History that began in March of 1991... Clinton didn't take Office until January of 1993.

Funny thing is... 40 days after the AP and it's Children were Cheerleading the Clinton Era and it's Endless Budget Surpluses and Growth to come, America went into a Recession in March of 2001.

Followed by a Standoff with China, and then of course 9/11.

Things weren't all that bad Considering... 5% Unemployment for the bulk of Bush II, and then you had the 2006 Congressional Elections...

DemocRATS get the Purse Strings, and along with (43) they Usher in what we have now in late 2007 and 2008.

None of it dealt with Correctly, including Obama's need to say "Great Depression" all of the way throught the Summer and Fall of 2008 in the "Hopes" it would get him Elected...

And the Economy, and Women, did.

An Emotional Population will many times make Irrational Choices...

That is Precisely what America did in 2008 by Electing a NOT-One-Term-Junior-Senator that the "Free Press" was almost Amused at how Ignorant they were of him in general.

But he was Black... And Liberal... That's all they needed to Know.

Well, Congratulations Sheep...

This is what you wanted... This is what you get.

No Job Growth after an Increase of Unemployment to over 10% under Obama...

New Wars... Expansions of Existing Wars... Gitmo?... Still open... Extraoridnary Rendition... Civilian Deaths around the World... Invasions of Sovereign Nations...

All of that Costs Money, and when the DemocRATS had 3/3 Control for 2 YEARS, they not only Continued the Expensive Wars overseas, they Expanded them.

So MotherFUCK EVERY Obama Voter who Complained about a Damned thing Bush did after 9/11...

Obama did it in Spades.



peace...

Not even a decent job at hiding hypocrisy! Hilarious though.

And as you Illustrated by NOT Countering a Word of it, it's History as it happened.

If History is Biased, then so be it.

You must be a Liberal?...



peace...

 

[mmmjvpssm]

How many today STILL don't know that Iraq under Saddam Hussein most likely sponsored the WTC bombing? And they don't because that is uncomfortable information for the left to deal with[/QUOTE]

What the hell does the left being uncomfortable have to do with what the people know? Have you ever heard of Fox News? That network that supposedly has such mega high ratings? They're not going to hold something back just because it might make the left uncomfortable. Same for Fatso Limbaugh who has how many millions of listeners that you cons like to yammer and yap about? Are you claiming that he too is holding stuff back?

 

[California Girl]

Everything is Bush's fault. Ok, got it.

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

Blame the terrorists, they're at fault.

On the bright side, the planning of 9-11.... that was waaaaaay before Bush got elected.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

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

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

Case closed on this BS thread.

Perhaps if he wasn't blocked by the Republicans every single time he tried to do something about terrorism thousands of lives might have been saved. Perhaps if the Republicans hadn't been so obsessed with impeaching Clinton and instead worked with him to fight terrorism thousands of lives may have been saved. Perhaps if, after the first plane had crashed into the tower but the second one hadn't yet a call to all the airplanes in the sky telling them to close and lock their cockpit doors might have saved a few lives

Why do idiot cons so often sanctimoniously proclaim "case closed" as if they've just said something really profound?

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Everything is Bush's fault. Ok, got it.

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

Blame the terrorists, they're at fault.

On the bright side, the planning of 9-11.... that was waaaaaay before Bush got elected.

And planning for the 1993 attack didn't take place long before Clinton was President?

 

[8537]

And both Parties Deserve the Blame...

But let's go ahead and blame every last bit of it on Dems - here, read further

This Cycle started back during Carter regarding what was to come with Housing and Loans...

Clinton added to it, and (43) couldn't have been Happier to point out how many people were Homeowners during his 8 years...

When there are virtually NO Standards regarding Lending, because those Standards were Considered Racist, you get what we have...

Now those same Lenders who were all but Strong Armed by Liberals via the Government to Lend to people, NOT Based on Ability to Pay, but on RACE, are referred to as "Predatory Lenders"...

They couldn't Win no matter what they did.

They didn't Lend... Racist... They did Lend, Predators.

******* Liberals.

This coupled with the Largest Generation also being the most Selfish and having Access to all of that Money in Equity, many times in multiple properties, you had a Boom that was Irrationally Large and Long.

At the end of Clinton the AP was Projecting, while Parroting the Clinton Administration, that we would have Budget Surpluses from 2001 to 2026...

No shit, 25 years... And Absurd Prediction at ANY time, but after a Decade of Expansion had already happened?

That's how Brilliant what Clinton did during the 90's was according to his Lapdogs in the Media, by Inheriting the Longest Expansion in American History that began in March of 1991... Clinton didn't take Office until January of 1993.

Funny thing is... 40 days after the AP and it's Children were Cheerleading the Clinton Era and it's Endless Budget Surpluses and Growth to come, America went into a Recession in March of 2001.

Followed by a Standoff with China, and then of course 9/11.

Things weren't all that bad Considering... 5% Unemployment for the bulk of Bush II, and then you had the 2006 Congressional Elections...

DemocRATS get the Purse Strings, and along with (43) they Usher in what we have now in late 2007 and 2008.

None of it dealt with Correctly, including Obama's need to say "Great Depression" all of the way throught the Summer and Fall of 2008 in the "Hopes" it would get him Elected...

And the Economy, and Women, did.

An Emotional Population will many times make Irrational Choices...

That is Precisely what America did in 2008 by Electing a NOT-One-Term-Junior-Senator that the "Free Press" was almost Amused at how Ignorant they were of him in general.

But he was Black... And Liberal... That's all they needed to Know.

Well, Congratulations Sheep...

This is what you wanted... This is what you get.

No Job Growth after an Increase of Unemployment to over 10% under Obama...

New Wars... Expansions of Existing Wars... Gitmo?... Still open... Extraoridnary Rendition... Civilian Deaths around the World... Invasions of Sovereign Nations...

All of that Costs Money, and when the DemocRATS had 3/3 Control for 2 YEARS, they not only Continued the Expensive Wars overseas, they Expanded them.

So MotherFUCK EVERY Obama Voter who Complained about a Damned thing Bush did after 9/11...

Obama did it in Spades.



peace...

Not even a decent job at hiding hypocrisy! Hilarious though.

And as you Illustrated by NOT Countering a Word of it, it's History as it happened.

If History is Biased, then so be it.

You must be a Liberal?...



peace...

Well, you were either lying when you said both parties were to blame....

or you were lying when you laid all the blame on one party.

Either way, you're lying. I don't expect logical consistency in your views - That's asking too much. I only ask that you at least try to spread your inconsistency across posts so as to make it more difficult to spot your glaring hypocrisy.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

All of this blithering and blathering about how Clinton didn't do this or didn't do that blah blah blah has anything to do with the OP. The point of the OP is that the right is trying to rewrite history so that the actual attack occurred on Clinton's watch. Not just that he made some mistakes and so we had an attack on Bush's watch, no, they want to go further. They want to convince as many voters as possible that the 9/11 attack happened on Clinton's watch

 

[teapartysamurai]

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

Final Report of the Gore Commission on Aviation Safety and Security

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

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

[/URL][/URL]

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

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

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

Bush was in office eight months when 9/11 happened.

Clinton was in office eight years and had the first WTC ATTACK, the embassy bombings and the USS Cole. HE DID NOTHING.

When Osama Bin Laden was offered to him by Sudan, HE DID NOTHING. He said no!

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.

Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden? | FactCheck.org

Clinton later claimed he "misspoke" on this. What he means is Sandy Burgler removed the evidence for this, so now he could deny it!

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

During a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., saying, "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."


But that wasn't exactly true. By 1996, the 9/11 mastermind had already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by prosecutors in New York.

9/11 Commissioner former Sen. Bob Kerrey said that Clinton told the Commission during his private interview that reports of his comments to the LIA were based on "a misquote."


During his interview with the 9/11 Commission, Clinton was accompanied by longtime aide and former White House counsel Bruce Lindsey, along with former national security advisor Sandy Berger, who insisted in sworn testimony before Congress in Sept. 2002 that there was never any offer from Sudanese officials to turn over bin Laden to the U.S.

But other evidence suggests the Clinton administration did not take advantage of offers to get bin Laden -- and that the Monica Lewinsky scandal was exploding during this time period.

At least two offers from the government of Sudan to arrest Osama bin Laden and turn him over to the U.S. were rebuffed by the Clinton administration in February and March of 1996, a period of time when the former president's attention was distracted by his intensifying relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

One of the offers took place during a secret meeting in Washington, the same day Clinton was meeting with Lewinsky in the White House just miles away.

On Feb. 6, 1996, then-U.S. Ambassador to the Sudan Tim Carney met with Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Osman Mohammed Taha at Taha's home in the capital city of Khartoum. The meeting took place just a half mile from bin Laden's residence at the time, according to Richard Miniter's book "Losing bin Laden."

During the meeting, Carney reminded the Sudanese official that Washington was increasingly nervous about the presence of bin Laden in Sudan, reports Miniter.

Foreign Minister Taha countered by saying that Sudan was very concerned about its poor relationship with the U.S.
Then came the bombshell offer:
"If you want bin Laden, we will give you bin Laden," Foreign Minister Taha told Ambassador Carney.

On Tape, Clinton Admits Passing Up bin Laden Capture; Lewinsky Played Role

There are reasons people hold Clinton accountable for 9/11, there is too much evidence, EVEN OUT OF CLINTON'S OWN MOUTH to deny it.

Double talk and spin your way around this, gang of liberals!

 

[BlindBoo]

There is good reason that the blame goes to Clinton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YOu need to review your history.

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

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

Would you libs believe a Bush appointee on that veracity?

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

Anyone willing to do the research will find out.

 

[teapartysamurai]

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

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

YOu need to review your history.

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

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

Would you libs believe a Bush appointee on that veracity?

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

Anyone willing to do the research will find out.

Find out what? That a Bush appointee did steal records from the national archives? Produce the evidence!

As usual, with a liberal, you expect others to do your research.

 

[mal]

But let's go ahead and blame every last bit of it on Dems - here, read further




Not even a decent job at hiding hypocrisy! Hilarious though.

And as you Illustrated by NOT Countering a Word of it, it's History as it happened.

If History is Biased, then so be it.

You must be a Liberal?...



peace...

Well, you were either lying when you said both parties were to blame....

or you were lying when you laid all the blame on one party.

Either way, you're lying. I don't expect logical consistency in your views - That's asking too much. I only ask that you at least try to spread your inconsistency across posts so as to make it more difficult to spot your glaring hypocrisy.

I Illustrated Blame on both and Included (43) in with the DemocRATS for 2 years...

Did you read it, or did you Assume you Knew what I said?...

And again, you have yet to take issue with ONE thing I Posted...



peace...

 

[mal]

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

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

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

Bush was in office eight months when 9/11 happened.

Clinton was in office eight years and had the first WTC ATTACK, the embassy bombings and the USS Cole. HE DID NOTHING.

When Osama Bin Laden was offered to him by Sudan, HE DID NOTHING. He said no!

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.

Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden? | FactCheck.org

Clinton later claimed he "misspoke" on this. What he means is Sandy Burgler removed the evidence for this, so now he could deny it!

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

During a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., saying, "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."


But that wasn't exactly true. By 1996, the 9/11 mastermind had already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by prosecutors in New York.

9/11 Commissioner former Sen. Bob Kerrey said that Clinton told the Commission during his private interview that reports of his comments to the LIA were based on "a misquote."


During his interview with the 9/11 Commission, Clinton was accompanied by longtime aide and former White House counsel Bruce Lindsey, along with former national security advisor Sandy Berger, who insisted in sworn testimony before Congress in Sept. 2002 that there was never any offer from Sudanese officials to turn over bin Laden to the U.S.

But other evidence suggests the Clinton administration did not take advantage of offers to get bin Laden -- and that the Monica Lewinsky scandal was exploding during this time period.

At least two offers from the government of Sudan to arrest Osama bin Laden and turn him over to the U.S. were rebuffed by the Clinton administration in February and March of 1996, a period of time when the former president's attention was distracted by his intensifying relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

One of the offers took place during a secret meeting in Washington, the same day Clinton was meeting with Lewinsky in the White House just miles away.

On Feb. 6, 1996, then-U.S. Ambassador to the Sudan Tim Carney met with Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Osman Mohammed Taha at Taha's home in the capital city of Khartoum. The meeting took place just a half mile from bin Laden's residence at the time, according to Richard Miniter's book "Losing bin Laden."

During the meeting, Carney reminded the Sudanese official that Washington was increasingly nervous about the presence of bin Laden in Sudan, reports Miniter.

Foreign Minister Taha countered by saying that Sudan was very concerned about its poor relationship with the U.S.
Then came the bombshell offer:
"If you want bin Laden, we will give you bin Laden," Foreign Minister Taha told Ambassador Carney.

On Tape, Clinton Admits Passing Up bin Laden Capture; Lewinsky Played Role

There are reasons people hold Clinton accountable for 9/11, there is too much evidence, EVEN OUT OF CLINTON'S OWN MOUTH to deny it.

Double talk and spin your way around this, gang of liberals!

They will Blame the GOP's Fixation on Billy's Private Sex Life as the Distraction that let bin Laden get away...

Because they are Dishonest Fuckstains, not unlike the one on the Unpaid Intern's Navy Blue Dress the President was Molesting while Discussing Troop Deployment on the phone with a Congressman... True story!



peace...

 

[8537]

And as you Illustrated by NOT Countering a Word of it, it's History as it happened.

If History is Biased, then so be it.

You must be a Liberal?...



peace...

Well, you were either lying when you said both parties were to blame....

or you were lying when you laid all the blame on one party.

Either way, you're lying. I don't expect logical consistency in your views - That's asking too much. I only ask that you at least try to spread your inconsistency across posts so as to make it more difficult to spot your glaring hypocrisy.

I Illustrated Blame on both and Included (43) in with the DemocRATS for 2 years...

Did you read it, or did you Assume you Knew what I said?...

And again, you have yet to take issue with ONE thing I Posted...



peace...

Lol! you "illustrated blame on both sides (no you didn't) before you said that it was all the Dems fault.

Grab some Makers Mark and quit while you're a bit behind...but do share the 'mark.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

"Double talk and spin your way around this, gang of liberals!"

You're a Foxbot moron who believes total Pubspin bullshit. And you say Richard Clarke, Bush's terrorism czar, knows nothing? LOL!!

Thanks again for 9/11, the stupidest wars ever, and ANOTHER pub Great DEPRESSION. Now you think Pubs are small gov't libertarians? Idiocy, insanity...Pub dupes!!

 

[mmmjvpssm]

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

Bush was in office eight months when 9/11 happened.

Clinton was in office eight years and had the first WTC ATTACK, the embassy bombings and the USS Cole. HE DID NOTHING.

When Osama Bin Laden was offered to him by Sudan, HE DID NOTHING. He said no!



Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden? | FactCheck.org

Clinton later claimed he "misspoke" on this. What he means is Sandy Burgler removed the evidence for this, so now he could deny it!

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

During a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., saying, "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."


But that wasn't exactly true. By 1996, the 9/11 mastermind had already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by prosecutors in New York.

9/11 Commissioner former Sen. Bob Kerrey said that Clinton told the Commission during his private interview that reports of his comments to the LIA were based on "a misquote."


During his interview with the 9/11 Commission, Clinton was accompanied by longtime aide and former White House counsel Bruce Lindsey, along with former national security advisor Sandy Berger, who insisted in sworn testimony before Congress in Sept. 2002 that there was never any offer from Sudanese officials to turn over bin Laden to the U.S.

But other evidence suggests the Clinton administration did not take advantage of offers to get bin Laden -- and that the Monica Lewinsky scandal was exploding during this time period.

At least two offers from the government of Sudan to arrest Osama bin Laden and turn him over to the U.S. were rebuffed by the Clinton administration in February and March of 1996, a period of time when the former president's attention was distracted by his intensifying relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

One of the offers took place during a secret meeting in Washington, the same day Clinton was meeting with Lewinsky in the White House just miles away.

On Feb. 6, 1996, then-U.S. Ambassador to the Sudan Tim Carney met with Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Osman Mohammed Taha at Taha's home in the capital city of Khartoum. The meeting took place just a half mile from bin Laden's residence at the time, according to Richard Miniter's book "Losing bin Laden."

During the meeting, Carney reminded the Sudanese official that Washington was increasingly nervous about the presence of bin Laden in Sudan, reports Miniter.

Foreign Minister Taha countered by saying that Sudan was very concerned about its poor relationship with the U.S.
Then came the bombshell offer:
"If you want bin Laden, we will give you bin Laden," Foreign Minister Taha told Ambassador Carney.

On Tape, Clinton Admits Passing Up bin Laden Capture; Lewinsky Played Role

There are reasons people hold Clinton accountable for 9/11, there is too much evidence, EVEN OUT OF CLINTON'S OWN MOUTH to deny it.

Double talk and spin your way around this, gang of liberals!

They will Blame the GOP's Fixation on Billy's Private Sex Life as the Distraction that let bin Laden get away...

Because they are Dishonest Fuckstains, not unlike the one on the Unpaid Intern's Navy Blue Dress the President was Molesting while Discussing Troop Deployment on the phone with a Congressman... True story!



peace...

The idiot Republicans fixation was part of what let bin Laden get away. Also the Republicans not caring about furture attacks as long as they happened on a Democrats watch contributed to 9/11. As did the "We Bad!" attitude the Republicans had back in those days, thinking that terrorists were afraid of them and would never attack on their watch would explain why they did zero after Bush got in office

Of course 8 months later it was "Oh shit! I guess they will attack when we're in charge!