This is REAL INTERESTING

Sturgis wrote:

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.

So you do expect god-like omniscience from a president. This is an unrealistic expectation. Do you think the mayor of a major city should have intimate knowledge of every case being investigated by the police department? That would be ludicrous. Multiply that by 100 and that's what you expect of the President of the United States.

0 Replies

Sturgis wrote:

....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.

is that right ?

then you better freakin' well hold bush to the same damn standard.

9/11 came down in 2001. on bush's watch, not clinton's.

clinton had already started tracking bin laden and even tried to kill him.

bush had all of that info from the clinton wh, and used it for toilet paper.

then went on his usual long vacation, and did the same with a presidential daily briefing titled, "bin laden determined to strike the united states".

ya know, i'm really sick of you and your pals trying to lay everything off on clinton while falling all over yourself to kiss bush's ass.

clinton has been out of office for coming on a decade.

get a life.

0 Replies

DTOM,
I am NOT saying that Bush has no responsibility,nor will I ever say that.
You say Clinton tried to kill OBL,but he refused to accept him when Sudan wanted to turn him over to us.
His reason...OBL hadnt committed any crimes that we could hold him for.
Also,This govt gets warnings everyday that someone wants to attack us.
Are we supposed to react to all those warnings?

All I am saying is that if our govt knew 1 year before the attack that there were terrorists in the country,and did nothing to aprehend them,then that govt is partly responsible for the attacks.
If the Clinton admin had acted on the info,then MAYBE the attacks might have been averted.

0 Replies

Quote:

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.

Tell me something.
He was told that OBL wanted to attack the US,so what?
What was he supposed to protect?
The malls,national monuments,airports,skyscrapers,ball parks,movie theaters,schools,what?

How do you protect against a vague perceived threat?
If he had ordered all the malls and stadiums closed and those facilities were not attacked,he then would have been crucified for overreacting.

So,exactly what would you have protected,and how?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Also,This govt gets warnings everyday that someone wants to attack us.
Are we supposed to react to all those warnings?

[...]

if our govt knew [...] that there were terrorists in the country,and did nothing to aprehend them,then that govt is partly responsible for the attacks.

Well, either, or...

Either the government is supposed to react to all those warnings, or it is not.

What's your point? You seem to say that the government can't react to all the warnings, but is responsible for not reacting....

And, do you see a difference between a pentagon lawyer being informed and the president personally being informed about a certain situation, or is this all the same to you? Namely, that "the government knew"?

0 Replies

"It is the usual cut and serve politics of Democrats who refuse to own up to their overwhelming inadequacies and total incompetence."

This one really is a knee slapper. When talking about incompetence, that's Bush's middle name. But then over 1,800 of our soldiers dead and over 200 billion spent isn't exactly passable performance for any president when there was no threat to America or Americans.

The height of incompetence is only observable when people open their eyes and see that Saddam was no threat, and the sacrifice by Americans in Iraq hasn't produced anything positive except more violence and dead people while spending five billion dollars every month on this quagmire.

Wake up from your stupor.

0 Replies

Quote:

and the sacrifice by Americans in Iraq hasn't produced anything positive except more violence and dead people

This is pure unalduterated BS!!!
I was in Iraq,I have friends still serving there,and I know for a fact that much is happening that is positive.

But,since the press seems to not want to report it,you don't see it.
But,go to northern Iraq.
The Kurds are restoring order to their part of Iraq,schools and hospitals are opening daily,electricity has been restored to levels above what was there before the war,markets are opening,etc.

The rest of Iraq is also improving just as well.
You seem to forget that in a country the size of Ca,that the insurgents are,for the most part,confined to an area the size of Los Angeles.
In the vast majority of the country,people are going about their lives in safety,without bombs going off and without insurgents killing people.

If you don't have the cojones to go and see for yourself,I suggest you not believe 95% of what the press and the media say about what is happening.

I thought you were smarter then that.I guess I was wrong.

0 Replies

The thing which caused 9-11 was the "Gorelick wall", instituted to keep the FBI's noses out of Chinagate. One more price the country had to pay for for Clinton gangsterism.

0 Replies

What is true is this: the Clinton administration had an active ongoing operations desk which concerned itself with the activities of Al Queda and Osama bin Laden under the direction of the National Security Advisor. Under the Bush Administration this desk was combined into a larger analytical unit and virtually nothing was done regarding Al Queda or Osama bin Laden, despite the efforts of Richard Clarke and others, to try and bring focus onto the threat. (See the 9-11 Commission Reports).

The Bush administration, including Dr. Rice, or especially Dr. Rice, was not interested in Islamic terror. She thought that the major threat to the USA in 2001 was the same as it was in 1991, China. She guessed wrong, and she, like others in the Bush Administration, made sure that whatever the Clinton Administration had been concerned with, they were sure as hell not going to be concerned with.

You might want to look back and remember that the attitude of the incoming Bush administration resembled not so much an American transition government but that of revolutionaries in a small South American country. Anything Clintonesque was verboten. It took the focus off the ball that was Osama.

George W. Bush was looking forward to walking his way through his Presidency. He liked sleeping in while Cheney met with Enron to set US energy policy. He liked being the guy who was cutting taxes(the only idea Republicans have) for his base of super wealthy contributors while schmoozing the rubes out in the countryside with talk of family values. Yep, this Presidency job was going to be the cooshyiest one his daddy ever got him and he was determined to snooze through it.

Every once in awhile reality strikes. The threat was real. It was known and being acted on until Bush arrives, after he arrives, an FBI agent can't get the attention of the Washington office regarding a middle-eastern flight student who doesn't want to study take-offs and landings. A memo detailing the determination of Al Queda to strike within the United States is placed on the rest of the papers before the folks head out the door to watch the Crawford Texas sunset.

Joe( Look mama, fireflies!)Nation

0 Replies

Quote:

He liked being the guy who was cutting taxes(the only idea Republicans have)

So now cutting taxes is a bad thing?

Exactly what ideas do the dems have,and BE SPECIFIC.

0 Replies

This is one of your more ridiculous comments to date. It CAUSED 9-11? There is a slight possibility that it did not prevent it, but it certainly did not cause it. Shocked

0 Replies

The whole thread in review:

"Screw you - NO screw you!"

Nothing to see here.

TTF

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
He liked being the guy who was cutting taxes(the only idea Republicans have)

So now cutting taxes is a bad thing?

Exactly what ideas do the dems have,and BE SPECIFIC.

Hilarious! That post was full of things that directly address previous allegations, and this is all you got from it? No wonder everyone has given up on this thread.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Tell me something.
He was told that OBL wanted to attack the US,so what?
What was he supposed to protect?
The malls,national monuments,airports,skyscrapers,ball parks,movie theaters,schools,what?

How do you protect against a vague perceived threat?
If he had ordered all the malls and stadiums closed and those facilities were not attacked,he then would have been crucified for overreacting.

So,exactly what would you have protected,and how?

He wasn't told that OBL wanted to attack the U.S. on it's own turf, he was told that such an attack was in the works. No vague perceived threat, but a real imminent threat. If Bush "had ordered all the malls and stadiums closed," then of course he'd be crucified for overreacting because that would be overreacting (not to mention just plain stupid). However, common sense would dictate, given the data Bush had (in his possession, mind you), that security be tightened at airports, federal buildings, ports and our borders with Canada and Mexico. Since various law enforcement and intelligence agencies were already investigating potential terrorist threats within the U.S., it also would have been common sense for Bush to direct them to increase their efforts and redirect money and personnel from lower priority assignments for this purpose. And would this have stopped the 9/11 attacks? We'll never know, but at least Bush would have done the bare minimum--his job.

0 Replies

For bush to have done a "bare minimum job" is an oxymoron. Biggest deficit in our history. A war he started that have cost us over 1800 lives and five billion every month. Flys from Texas to DC to approve bringing the Teri Schiavo case to the Supreme Court while we have millions of children without health insurance. Leave No Child Behind that has forced educators to teach their students to pass a test rather than be educated, and increased the drop out rate for minorities and those doing poorly in school, and many educators cheating by changing the answers on the standardized tests. A drug benefit projected to cost trillions of dollars that will benefit the drug companies more than seniors. The leak by this administration of a undercover CIA agent to get back at her husband for revealing that Saddam did not try to buy yellow cake from Niger that attacks the premise of this administrations justification to go to war with Iraq. Anybody else want to add to this list?

0 Replies

Well, we can't accuse the Bush administration of being idle. Busy lil' bees they are!

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

DTOM,
I am NOT saying that Bush has no responsibility,nor will I ever say that.
You say Clinton tried to kill OBL,but he refused to accept him when Sudan wanted to turn him over to us.
His reason...OBL hadnt committed any crimes that we could hold him for.
Also,This govt gets warnings everyday that someone wants to attack us.
Are we supposed to react to all those warnings?

All I am saying is that if our govt knew 1 year before the attack that there were terrorists in the country,and did nothing to aprehend them,then that govt is partly responsible for the attacks.
If the Clinton admin had acted on the info,then MAYBE the attacks might have been averted.

okay, mystery. i'm satisified that you aren't one of the people who assign responsibility to clinton alone.

i do have to point out that the "offer to hand over bin laden was refused by clinton" has been debunked. if you think back, it was a story driven mostly by sean hannity and limbaugh. the main character they held up as evidence was a self promoter, mansour something or other.

even the 9/11 commission judged it to be tripe.

also, we know that clinton went after bin laden. remember ? the asprin factory ? that of course got painted by the extremists on the right as "letting him get away". he bombed the factory, but bin laden had already left.

now, to be fair, notice that those same detractors gave bush a pass when his attempt to do the same to saddam the night before all of the shock and awe failed also.

so you get my drift, i don't hold bush solely responsible either. i believe that it can be chalked up going back to reagan's first term (i voted for him, btw), and possibly farther back to nixon if we count the hit on the israeli olympic team.

there's more than enough to go around. glaringly so when we think about how the baddies have been blowing s**t up in europe for decades.

regarding atta, there is this;

Quote:

Congressman: 9/11 Hijackers Were Monitored

By KIMBERLY HEFLING
WASHINGTON (AP) - Sept. 11 ringleader 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-Qaida never were forwarded to law enforcement, Rep. Curt Weldon said Tuesday.

Weldon, a Pennsylvania Republican and vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, said the hijackers were identified in September of 2000 by a classified military intelligence unit known as ``Able Danger,'' which determined they could be members of an al-Qaida cell.

At the time, Weldon said, the unit recommended that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI ``so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists,'' Weldon said in an interview.

However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation because they said Atta and the others were in the country legally.

cnn-atta-

as you can see, and if we believe everyone's story, it looks like our adherence to the legalities in america make the job of ridding ourselves of the islamist dirtbags harder.

but, for myself, i'd rather have the job be harder than to whittle away the things about our country that make it special.

0 Replies

This is REAL INTERESTING

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know