This is REAL INTERESTING

Re: This is REAL INTERESTING

mysteryman wrote:

.

So,Clinton DID know about the hijackers a year BEFORE the attack and did NOTHING.

Yes but you know as well as I, that they will never freely admit to it.

0 Replies

Quote:

But Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the 9/11 commission looked into the matter during its investigation into government missteps leading to the attacks and chose not to include it in the final report.

Al Felzenberg, a spokesman for the 9/11 Commission, confirmed that the panel's investigators had been aware of Able Danger but said they "don't recall any mention of Mohammed Atta" or of cell.

The Sept. 11 commission's final report, issued last year, recounted numerous government mistakes that allowed the hijackers to succeed. Among them was a failure to share intelligence within and among agencies.

The Justice Department inspector general said in a report released in June that the FBI missed at least five opportunities before the Sept. 11 attacks to piece together vital intelligence information about the terrorists. Inspector General Glenn Fine called it "a significant failure" that hindered the FBI's chances of preventing the attacks.

What's the story here? And why would anyone want to deny what we all already know?

I didn't see how Clinton was involved. Unless he was a pentagon lawyer.

0 Replies

Yup. There you go. Denying it already.

0 Replies

What, specifically did I deny?

0 Replies

From the article above, how do you reach the conclusion that the president knew about this?

(And why should anybody deny the obvious cooperation problems between the various agencies???)

0 Replies

Quote:

I didn't see how Clinton was involved.

Well according to the left,Bush should have known before the attacks because he was supposedly being told about the threats and did nothing.

So,since Clinton was president when these people were identified,and since the govt did nothing then,that makes him responsible.

Remember,the left has constantly denied the fact that the govt knew who these people were,instead they have blamed Bush.

Now its proven that the Clinton admin DID KNOW,and did nothing.
IMHO,that means that the attacks could have been prevented if the Clinton admin had done its job and arrested or deported these people.

I am not excusing Bush,but I am saying that Clinton was culpable,and now its been proven.

0 Replies

Everything! You are denying that Clinton had any knowledge of the hijackers when clearly he did. It is the usual cut and serve politics of Democrats who refuse to own up to their overwhelming inadequacies and total incompetence. In other words re-read all of the post AND the clicklink to the usa today article. It is all right there. Stop living in your non-reality and face up to the facts.

0 Replies

Sturgis wrote:

Everything! You are denying that Clinton had any knowledge of the hijackers when clearly he did.

How is it clear? Did he get a memo? Was it his decision to not allow the sharing of intelligence? I did a find on that article for the word "Clinton" and nothing came up.

Quote:

It is the usual cut and serve politics of Democrats who refuse to own up to their overwhelming inadequacies and total incompetence. In other words re-read all of the post AND the clicklink to the usa today article. It is all right there. Stop living in your non-reality and face up to the facts.

You assume too much, Sturgis. And I'm sure you took Geometry so you know what that means. I'm no fan of either party so I'm perfectly willing to spread the blame for 9/11 around, but I need more than the ravings of a Congressman to show that Clinton had the same or more culpability as the president who actually was in the White House, ignored briefings by terrorism experts, and refused to come back from vacation after receiving a memo warning him of impending attacks.

0 Replies

Sturgis wrote:

You are denying that Clinton had any knowledge of the hijackers when clearly he did.

How did Clinton have any knowledge about it? Maybe you could show this in the article posted....

What I can see is that "Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers were identified by defense intelligence officials more than a year before the attacks but information about their possible connections to al-Qaeda never were forwarded to law enforcement".

I didn't know that the president is a defense intelligence official.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
I didn't see how Clinton was involved.

Well according to the left,Bush should have known before the attacks because he was supposedly being told about the threats and did nothing.

So, are you saying that Clinton knew or that he should have known?

Quote:

Now its proven that the Clinton admin DID KNOW,and did nothing.
IMHO,that means that the attacks could have been prevented if the Clinton admin had done its job and arrested or deported these people.

I am not excusing Bush,but I am saying that Clinton was culpable,and now its been proven.

There are a few dots not yet connected. It is not proven that Clinton knew anything, unless the lawyers were acting on his instructions or unless he received a memo of some kind. His name isn't even in the bloody article. I'm at a loss as to how you make such a connection. Everyone who has investigated seems to agree that what you mention was part of the whole problem of not sharing intelligence between agencies. There's just nothing more to it than that.

0 Replies

Unless you're ascribing god-like omniscience to Clinton, saying this evidence means that Clinton knew about the highjackers is ridiculous. Hell, I doubt this specific information ever made it as far as the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Not even the most anal control freak could achieve that level of micromanagement in an institution as big as the Pentagon (much less the U.S. Government as a whole). I mean, it's not as though Clinton received an executive briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In U.S.," now is it?

0 Replies

Saw the Pentagon briefing today. Not even Donnie SoD knew about it until today.

0 Replies

So as always the Democrats want to sell Clinton as a perfect little saint and completely ignore what he did know and what he had access to. As President it was his job to know these things. All of these things. You are left with 2 distinct choices here: Either he did not know these things in which case he was not doing his job as fully as he was supposed to, or else he knew and chose, knowingly and willingly to ignore what he had been given information on deciding instead to just let the cards fall where they may. Neither choice is good or proper or allowable in any way, shape, form, or context for the man who is supposed to be in charge of the country.

0 Replies

All of you seem to want to ascribe those God like powers to Bush,but you deny that Clinton knew anything.

Let me use the lefts logic,and make it as clear as possible.

Since Clinton was the President,and since Nothing happens in the govt without his express or tacit approval,the fact that nothing was done is his fault.
As the head of the govt,he is responsible for EVERYTHING that happens in the govt during his term,much like a ships captain is responsible for everything that happens on his ship and ALL of the actions of his crew.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

As the head of the govt,he is responsible for EVERYTHING that happens in the govt during his term,much like a ships captain is responsible for everything that happens on his ship and ALL of the actions of his crew.

I don't give much about who is president of the US of A. I don't care whether the president is a democrat, a republican, or a member of the monster raving loony party.

Apart from that, your above statement is, in theory, correct. Now the question is:

Are you willing to apply it to Bush? In case you are, I'm going to join you in bashing Clinton!

0 Replies

Uhm, and if you're not, what's the point of this thread?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
As the head of the govt,he is responsible for EVERYTHING that happens in the govt during his term,much like a ships captain is responsible for everything that happens on his ship and ALL of the actions of his crew.

I don't give much about who is president of the US of A. I don't care whether the president is a democrat, a republican, or a member of the monster raving loony party.

Apart from that, your above statement is, in theory, correct. Now the question is:

Are you willing to apply it to Bush? In case you are, I'm going to join you in bashing Clinton!

I am and I have applied it to Bush.

0 Replies

Hm. Interesting, mysteryman. So what are your conclusions?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

All of you seem to want to ascribe those God like powers to Bush,but you deny that Clinton knew anything.

Let me use the lefts logic,and make it as clear as possible.

Since Clinton was the President,and since Nothing happens in the govt without his express or tacit approval,the fact that nothing was done is his fault.
As the head of the govt,he is responsible for EVERYTHING that happens in the govt during his term,much like a ships captain is responsible for everything that happens on his ship and ALL of the actions of his crew.

I was afraid the allusion would be missed. Nobody ascribes god-like powers to Bush. Unlike Clinton, however, Bush did receive an executive briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Bush knew, or should have known, that security needed to be seriously tightened in anticipation of a terrorist attack because the executive briefing he received on August 6, 2001, told him such. Could Bush have prevented 9/11? Maybe, but probably not. The evidence we have indicates only that Bush knew a major terrorist attack on American soil was in the works, not the specifics of the attack (hijacking was at the top of the list, but bombing federal buildings was a good possibility, too). But Bush didn't do anything. This is the difference. Nobody's portraying Clinton as a saint and nobody's trying to give Bush a bigger share of the blame than he deserves. We know that Bush knew something was coming and that he did nothing. We know that Clinton did nothing, but we've been provided with no evidence that Clinton knew anything, either.

0 Replies

This is REAL INTERESTING

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know