okay clinton ,he was a very weak leader especially when it came to not making a pre-emptive strike on the terror camps in afghanistan,
but had he bombed the camps i am absolutely certain we would have had a bunch of stupid liberals and human rights watch and the useless dimwits at the UN making a big scene of america bombing supposedly 'innocent' civillians.
but america may or may have not witnessed september 11th 2001
[deleted]
How about blaming Regan? Who funded the Taliban through the CIA in the 80s to fight the Soviets? That's right... you guessed it... Regan!
shareReagan didnt fund the Taliban you moron. The Taliban didnt exist. The CIA, with the help of Cong. Charlie Wilson, a Demokkkrat, funded the mujahedeen--the Afganis. We didnt fund the Taliban because they didnt exist, and we didnt fund bin Laden because he had his own source of funds. You should really pullyerhedouttayerass and read a little.
And, it was Sandy Berger (and Cliton) who dropped the ball and didnt take bin Laden from the Sudanese, that allowed bin Laden to escape to Afganistan.
It was the Cliton administration who turned the CIA inside out looking for a spy that turned out to be Hansen in the FBI, and it was the Cliton administration who didnt allow the CIA and FBI to share info because of the stupid "wall/"
Yes, he funded and armed Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets and they turned into the Taliban. Clinton, Bush, Reagan, they're all cut from the same cloth. Every post World War 2 American president would be hanged under the rules of the Nuremburg laws.
Osama Bin Laden was on the CIA payroll for many years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPyQ4Ae6Ei0
Everything he says is true!
Bush isn't 1/10 the president Clinton was... to bad a blow job put Bush into office... Has Bush caught Bin Laden in the past 6 years? Has bush stopped terrorism? (Madrid, London, Iraq...) Has Bush done anything for our economy? (tough times are coming... twin deficits that will make the dollar as valubal as the peso). 9/11 happened a year into Bush's watch! That's the truth!
You must be a child. Cliton's disgracefull antics in the White House didnt elect Bush. Bush isnt responsible for terrorism in Madrid or London or Iraq, you moron. It is a big world, something you will learn when you graduate from grade school.
BTW, the economy is fine, thanks to the Bush tax cuts.
[deleted]
SunshineupyerassSuperman,
if this statement is an example of your mental ability, you are pathetic.
Reagan never funded the Taliban, they didn't exist during the Reagan Admin.
If you want to get specific, it was the Democrat controlled house and Charlie Wilson that funded the Mujahedeen, through Pakistan. But, whoever got the money to the Afghanis didn't fund the Taliban.
You're an idiot.
uk6strings, I'm afraid that thing about Clinton, Sudan, and Bin Laden is a MYTH. The Sudanese government never offered Bin Laden to the US "on a silver platter". The 9/11 Commission made this very clear.
The reality was this; Sudan took Bin Laden into custody. They offered ONLY to turn him over to Saudi Arabia and only with a grant of amnesty. The Saudi government refused to take him.
Afterwards Sudan released Bin Laden. Now, it IS true that the US government did have an opportunity to take Bin Laden, however, they couldn't. It was 1996. Bin Laden had not committed any terrorist acts against the US yet, so they had no grounds to take him.
However, any offer to turn a captured Bin Laden directly over to the US government never happened.
"Remember, when you reach for the stars they're too far away, so it's hopeless."
WRONG. Monsour Ijaz, the biggest single muslim contributor to the Demokkkrat party carried messages, twice, to the Cliton Admin. Once to Sandy Berger and once directly to Cliton. The Sudanese wanted bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of Khartoum. They offered to lure bin Laden to the Khartoum airport, the same way they did Carlos the Jackal.
<<American businessman Monsour Ijaz has said that the Sudanese government offered to send bin Laden to the United States in 1996, but the Clinton administration rejected the offer...>>>
<<Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996 to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence, focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound threats to national security.>>
Berger and Cliton both choked. Why? Because they didnt want to have anything to do with the Sudanese government BEFORE the Nov 1996 election. They thought it would upset the Christians because of the muslim persecution of Christians in Sudan.
You really should learn a little bit more about this, and, again, get off your knees for Cliton.
Actually, it IS a myth. The bogus story about Bin Laden being offered to the US was started by a man named Fatih Erwa, the Sudanese Defense Minister.
He was pissed off at Clinton because he wanted to be Sudanese ambassador to the US, and Clinton wouldn't let him.
Even Erwa has recanted his story.
"Give a man a fish he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll buy an ugly hat."
Twice they offered to set him up like they did Carlos the Jackel. Twice the Clinton admin declined.
It was after a failed Saudi assination attempt of bin Laden and the Sudanese govt telling him that his family was no longer safe that he decided to go to Afghanistan.
The Sudanese offered to do the same thing to bin Laden that they did to Carlos the Jackal that allowed the French to snatch him.
The Sudanese wanted bin Laden out. After the Clinton Admin dropped the ball, twice, the Sudanese govt told bin Laden that it was no longer safe for him in Sudan, and he took that to mean if he didn't leave they would kill him. So he went to Afghanistan.
People who blame Clinton for 9/11 as well as the attacks that occured during his presidency seem to forget the fact that the GOP controlled Congress for most of his presidency.
The ones who say "It's all Clinton's fault" or "Clinton didn't do enough don't seem to understand the whole concept of checks and balances. A president does not have unlimited power to go after terrorists.
The same Republicans who now blame Clinton for 9/11 and say he didn't do enough were also the ones who opposed EVERY anti-terror effort he made, as well as shooting down every piece of anti--terror legislation he tried to get passed.
They also accused Clinton of hysteria, exaggerating the threat and of being too obsessed with Bin Laden.
Then there was the Lewinsky scandal. After that broke the Republicans wanted to spend every waking moment focusing on the fact that Clinton got head. Clinton tried numerous times after the scandal broke to address the issue of terrorism and Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to which the Republicans cried, "Wag the dog!" and "No war for Monica!", accusing Clinton of just trying to distract the public from the scandal.
Maybe he war just trying to distract the public, and if so that was a very good thing. Don't you think focusing on the guy who blew up our embassies not too long before hand was more important than focusing on something that should have been between Bill, Hilary, and Monica?
Apparently the president getting oral sex from a consenting adult woman was far more important than the jihadists who wanted to kill us.
"So, Lonestar, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
Scotty, that is not true. When Cliton made some weak assed attack to get the press off him, yes that was wag the dog. But not all the time. I suggest your moral compass is a bit fkt-up for you to make that statement.
shareActually, Citizenright, it's very true. In 1998, Clinton couldn't even address the issue of terrorism, without the Republicans saying he was just trying to distract from the Lewinsky scandal. After 9/11, I bet they wished they'd listened to him, but it was easier to blame him.
Clinton did a ton about terrorism. he just didn't exploit it the way Bush did. Just because he wasn't on TV constantly saying "SUPPORT ME AND DO WHAT I SAY OR THE TERRORISTS WILL KILL YOU ALL!" doesn't mean he didn't do anything.
"A talking hat? A talking HAT? I thought that Ocarina was annoying."
No, it is not true. And besides, if Cliton was that weak he was in the wrong job. Forget the fact that all those troubles were of his making.
Read "Losing bin Laden" by Richard Miniter. It was politics and cowardice that kept them from acting, not distractions by the Republicans. But then you Cliton oppologists will never get off your knees for him, will you.
You should take a good look at what Bush did in the seven and a half months before 9/11, or rather what he didn't do.
Bush did not hold a cabinet level meeting on the issue of terrorism until September 4th, seven day before the attacks. Even though Counter-Terrorism Czar, Richard Clarke had been requesting a cabinet level meeting with him since January of that year and Bush kept putting it off.
Bush had demoted the job of Counter Terrorism Czar from a cabinet level job, so Bush could not answer directly to him.
Clinton held one cabinet level meeting a week on terorism for most of his presidency. His last two years in office, he held them almost every day.
Also,in February of 2001, the FBI confirmed tha Osama Bin laden was repsonsible for the attack on the USS Cole. Bin laden had been fully expecting the US to respond militarily to the attack on the Cole. He was reported as saying that if they didn't he would launch somehting bigger.
Also, Bush decided to give priority to missile defense even though the attack on the Cole was carried out by suicide bombers on a boat on the water.
Another thing Bush did was ignore the Al-Qaeda strategy that Clinton left him. This was a memo entitled "Strategy For Eliminating the Threat of the Jihadist Network Al-Qaeda." Five days after Bush took office, Clarke sent the memo to Condoleeza Rice. This memo also warned "Al-Qaeda is not some narrow little terrorist issue that needs to be included in broader regional policy."
And what did Bush do when he received the imminent threat warning on August 6th? The memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike inside US", a report that confirmed that Al-Qaeda operatives were in the US attending flight schools? He went on vacation for a month.
"A talking hat? A talking HAT? I thought that Ocarina was annoying."
Bush, Bush, Bush. It is Cliton that dropped the ball, it has been reported on repeatedly. You can try to blame Bush, but how about this one. How about the famous "chinese wall" that seperated intel from law enforcement, not just the FBI and CIA, but between different departments in the FBI? Where did that come from? Jamie Gorelick, Janet Reno's and Cliton's JUstice Department. Genius. This just shows how far uptheirasses the Clitons had their heads
And, there was no specific imminent threat warning on August 6th . This is fiction created by the Cliton oppologists to take the focus off of the failed presidency of Bill Cliton.
Ok, first of all, are you intentionally misspelling Clinton?
Next, I agree that Clinton does indeed deserve SOME of the blame for 9/11, as do Reagan and Bush Sr.
However, most of the blame falls on W. He ignored the threats and warnings.
Also, Bush and the Republicans blame Clinton for 9/11, when it occurred eight months after he left office. Yet, Clinton and the Democrats never blamed Bush Sr. for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing even though it occured in February of 1993, ONE month after Bush Sr. left office. No, Clinton decided it was his responsibility to fix the mess because he was president. The same with Herbert Hoover and the stock market crash of 1929, even though most of the blame lied on his predecessor, Calvin Coolidge, for taking bad steps with the economy. Abraham Lincoln accepted responsibility for putting the nation back together in the Civil War even though the states had succeeded while his predecessor James Buchanan was president.
"A talking hat? A talking HAT? I thought that Ocarina was annoying."
Reagan and Bush1 have nothing to do with this. As for GWBush, he ignored nothing. there was no specific threat warning.
As for Cliton. If he had the guts to respond to the WTC bombing, the 2 African Embassy bombings, the Cole bombings with force, the jihadis would have been less encouraged. But, Cliton chose to ignore offers, repeated offers, from Sudan to hand over bin Laden and chose to view the terror threat as a law enforcement problem while hamstringing law enforcement with the idiotic Chinese Law. You Cliton morons ought to get up off your knees for Cliton and think for yourselves rather than repeating bs that you read on some looneyleftwing website.
1. Reagan and Bush Sr. had nothing to do with it?
Actually, when they funded and trained the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks, Osama Bin Laden, they had a huge hand in it.
2. Clinton may not have stopped the WTC attack but at least he made sure those repsonsible were caught. Bush has yet to catch Osama Bin Laden, and has publicly stated he doesn't care about him anymore.
3. Clinton DID respond to the attacks on the embassies with Operation Infinite Reach, when he ordered missile strikes on Al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan and Sudan. Attacks which the Republican congress then spoke AGAINST, accusing Clinton of trying to distract the public from the Lewinsky scandal.
4.Clinton may not have responded well enough, but neither did Bush to the USS Cole. It happened under Clinton, but it wasn't until under Bush that the FBI confirmed Bin Laden was responsible.
5. As I stated before, Bin Laden had been fully expecting the US to respond militarily to the Cole attack and if they didn't, he would launch something bigger.
As for provoking terrorists, what do you think the Iraq War has done? Iraq is now the biggest recruiting ground for terrorists.
"I want to know what happened to the plans they sent you."
<<Actually, when they funded and trained the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks, Osama Bin Laden, they had a huge hand in it. >>
This is a lie told to weak minded people.
<<Clinton may not have stopped the WTC attack but at least he made sure those repsonsible were caught. Bush has yet to catch Osama Bin Laden, and has publicly stated he doesn't care about him anymore. >>
Only an *beep* thinks that we didnt do everything we could to get bin Laden, who, BTW, is probably dead since we haven't heard a credible message from him since Tora Bora.
<<Clinton DID respond to the attacks on the embassies with Operation Infinite Reach, when he ordered missile strikes on Al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan and Sudan. Attacks which the Republican congress then spoke AGAINST, accusing Clinton of trying to distract the public from the Lewinsky scandal.
>>
The weak assed attack on an aspirin factory in Sudan when he refused to take bin Laden when the Sudanese were offering him up deserved criticism, and so what if the Republicans accused him of wag the dog. Was Cliton a man or not? Could he not launch a credible attack on an avowed enemy of America in spite of the attacks. He was the Commander in Chief, he could do anything he wanted to...he was a coward, both personally and politically, that is why the limp response to the bombings. And, BTW, had the Idiot in Chief simply acted responsible and ousted Monica when she first acted up, he wouldnt have been impeached. But, then, that would have taken some self control, wouldn't it.
<<Clinton may not have responded well enough, but neither did Bush to the USS Cole. It happened under Clinton, but it wasn't until under Bush that the FBI confirmed Bin Laden was responsible>> This is a child's response..."He did it too!" What are you 8 years old?
You think that the Iraq war has provoked the terrorists? You really have no idea what is going on, do you. The radical muslims want to reestablish the Caliphate. Iraq has nothing to do with their being radical. Now, if they choose to go to Iraq and stupidly attack the US Army, then our guys can kill them.
I am afraid that you have such a simplistic mind that you are perfect fodder for the disinformation campaign waged by those who want America to retreat.
Now, genius, you just think about what would happen if America put down the sword and let the radical muslims have their way. Who would fight them, then? Europe? Dont make me laugh. Africa? Aids riddled and useless. Other muslim nations? Not a chance. Now, tell us all what, in your worldly opinion, would happen if America retreated from this fight with radical islam. Be specific. Show your work, like the tell you in 8th grade.
Actually the part about Bush funding Bin laden is NOT a lie. Bin Laden fought in Afghanistan in the 80's against the Soviet Union. The US governemnt relied on the mentality, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o
This is Bush saying he doesn't care about Bin laden anymore. Just six months after 9/11. Actually he starts to say he doesn't care but then stops himself in mid sentence.
Next, why do you think Bush sent so few troops into Afghanistan?
As for the "aspirin factory," you're mistaken unless you believe what Saddam Hussein said. The missile strikes in Afghanistan just barely missed Bin Laden.
One of the camps they hit was where he'd just left.
Yes, the Iraq War has provoked terrorists. if you though Osama Bin Laden was bad, just wait until the countless Iraqi kids orphaned by this war are all grown up. You think they're going to forget what country started the war?
Sure the deaths our military caused were accidental, but you think they're going to care? If someone dropped a bomb on your house by accident and killed your family, and said "Sorry about that. We're cool right?, I imagine you wouldn't forgive them right away.
As for the deaths caused by insurgents and terrorists in Iraq, again, they're not going to care. They're still going to blame the US.
Since the Iraq War began, the radical Muslim world has just been saying to the rest of the world, "We told you so."
"I want to know what happened to the plans they sent you."
YOU SAY, "Actually the part about Bush funding Bin laden is NOT a lie. Bin Laden fought in Afghanistan in the 80's against the Soviet Union. The US governemnt relied on the mentality, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." >>
BUT, IT IS A LIE. The US gave nothing to bin Laden, who spent most of his time in Pakistan bickering with other arabs. The Afghanis thought they were worthless. Bin Laden's rise came after the Soviets were driven from Afghanistan. His reputation grew after Afghanistan, not during.
You really don't know what you're talking about. Why don't you look up the Clinton counter terrorism initiative. Also pretty much every general and policy maker has said that before 9/11 a full scale war would not be supported by the American people.
The American public was not informed on the Osama threat. Where do you think the Bin Laden is determined to attack in the US came from? And who didn't act on it when Clinton was already leaving office? The truth is Reagan,Bush Sr,Clinton,Bush jr are all failures.Without 9/11 happening the American public would still be ignorant about the situation and none of the policymakers would be taking any immediate action. As soon as Bush jr. got into office he just wanted to invade Iraq. With 9/11 it changed but he still used the pro-american momentum to invade Iraq.
Also by the way the aspirin factory that he had a so called weak ass response to was bombed in response to the CIA saying they detected chemical weapons(http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9809/01/sudan.plant/).
Also intelligence said that the missile attacks against terrorist training camps missed Osama by an hour. Also the US couldn't take Osama from Sudan because Department of Justice said they couldn't indict him in the US.Plus Sudan said they would only turn him over to another country not the US. Saudi Arabia and Egypt were suppose to accept him but they later declined.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldgbOxDX6DE
We need to be more introspective and tend to our economy. In a "few" years we'll be bankrupt.
What are you even talking about? US won't be bankrupt in a few years. The US government is piling on debt and countries like China are buying it but US has a huge economy and real estate,stocks,etc will secure that for a long time. But in a few years we will most likely go into recession and taxes will increase to cover the interest upon interest debt. But US is still very wealthy and foreign investment is still big around the world into US. US will be rich decades to come but we have to deal with the spending and rising debt otherwise the wealth gap that US so enjoys against other countries in the world will start shrinking. And then we have bigger problems.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
I had a few in between "". Of course a "few" didn't mean 2 years. But some decades, of even less. If we don't change and tend to the imbalances of our economy things won't look so good in years to come.
We're so blinded by terrorism that Al Quaeda is actually winning their fight. They're conditioning our way of life (Patriot act, Habeas corpus) and goals as a nation.
Sandy Berger choked on the missle attack. Quit defending the *beep* Clinton. And, BTW, the American people knew about bin Laden way before 9-11 shtferbrains.
shareI don't have to defend Clinton he did more than anyone before 9/11 caused someone to actually get off their ass and do it. Sandy Berger sucked and did about a good job as Condoleezza Rice is doing. How much did the American people know about Bin Laden? They didn't know crap about his jihad or masterminding of these attacks against the US. The news didn't show much besides Clinton getting a bj. Even after the first world trade center bombing the outrage died down and the ignorance increased.Your dumbasss didn't know anything about Bin Laden much less how to pronounce his name before 9/11.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
bin Laden was in the news in the 90s, hell there there newspaper ads about him.
Just because you didnt know *beep* about him before 9-11 doesnt mean the rest of us didn't
Not like he is now. I knew about Bin Laden in the 90s mostly from other sources. There were tidbits here and there. But Americans didn't know the danger they were in before 9/11. Nobody knew crap about this holy war much less anything else.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
You must be a child. We have been aware of radical islam since Sadat was assinated.
shareYou must be a moron. I'm not talking about all of radical Islam. I'm talking about Bin Laden and his planned attacks against the US. Okay, lets make it quick and simple. The truth is like very policy maker has said is the American public would have never supported a war against countries like Afghanistan before 9/11. Clinton did a lot to counter terrorism but was rather limited.The Bush administration were the ones who received the presidential memo 'Bin Laden determined to attack in the US' In other words the American public didn't know how much danger Bin Laden initially posed.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
I could have written the memo that bin Laden plans to attack American. Jesus, he only declared war on us 3 times. The memo has been declassified, you can read it. Nothing more specific than the title.
shareHow did Clinton propose to tighten airport security?
Big mustache
Probably the same way that Bush did it. Prohibit certain items from being allowed on planes, like knives. I honestly have no idea why they let people take knives onto planes before 9/11.
"Remember, when you reach for the stars they're too far away, so it's hopeless."
Do you just not understand the concept of checks and balances? It's this wonderful thing we have that makes democracy work.
A president does not have unlimited power to go after terrorists. Sometimes he needs Congress's approval or support to do it. In Clinton's case he didn't get it, and the GOP controlled Congress for six of his eight years in office.
I'm not talking about just distractions. I'm talking about how the Republicans refused to pass important anti-terror legislation or back Clinton on his anti-terror action, even as attack after attack occured.
"Super. I'll be by my giant pretend phone pretending to give a crap."
Clinton sure as hell wasn't perfect, but he did a hell of a lot more about terrororism than Bush ever did. Clinton gets blasted for not getting Bin Laden. Bin laden declared the US an enemy in 1996. 9/11 was in 2001. It's now 2007. Bush has now had even more time than Clinton did to catch Bin Laden, and he has failed miserably.
Clinton didn't exploit the hell out of the terrorist attacks that occured on his watch. Clinton didn't use the 1993 WTC attack to get re-elected. 9/11 was the only reason Bush even stood a chance of re-elction. He has abused and exploited the hell out of it, and has wagged the dog way more than Clinton ever did.
Clinton didn't turn the whole world against the US. He didn't turn Iraq into a fresh recruiting ground for Al-Qaeda. Bin laden himself has stated that he is happy the US invaded Iraq, so that he and his organization could say to the rest of the world, "We told you so. They are the imperial bullies we said they were." Only now the rest of the world is starting to agree with them.
Also, Monica Lewinsky shouldn't even have been ON the damn front page. The media and the Republican Congress blew it WAY out of proportion. Did Clinton's affair affect you at all? What difference did his getting a BJ make, other than taking up the news and the papers and knocking the terrorism headlines and the anti-terror analysts off the air. This was a much more importan thing to focus on.
Clinton wasn't the one who didn't hold any cabinet level meetings on terrorism until Septmeber 4th. Clinton wasn't the one who demoted Counter-Terrorism Czar from a cabinet level job. Clinton wasn't the one who ignored a memo left by his predecessor entitled "Strategy For Eliminating the Threat of the Jihadist Network, Al-Qaeda.
Clinton developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
Clinton stopped the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
Clinton stopped a planned attack to kill the Pope.
Clinton stopped a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
Clinton stopped a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
Clinton stopped a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
Clinton stopped a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
Clinton stopped a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
Clinton stopped a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
Clinton stopped a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
Clinton stopped a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first WTC bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively - and successfully - to stop future terrorist attacks.
Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 9/11) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Ambassador for Counterterrorism under Ronald Reagan: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama".
Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden."
Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort
So tell me again how "little" William Jefferson Clinton did about terrorism.
"Remember, when you reach for the stars they're too far away, so it's hopeless."
You can wipe the jizz from your chin and get off your knees for Bill Cliton, now.
And if he hadn't been such a weak leader, he would have done some real damage to the terrorists, instead of encouraging them with his weak responses.
1. It's Clinton, not Cliton.
2. Bush is a weak leader. He hasn't done a damn thing about terrorism. He's the one encouraging them with his weak responses.
Big mustache
Bush's plan has taken down two countries that were safe havens for terrorists, Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran will lose it's nuclear capability soon. Al Qeda has beem decimated, Qaddafi has handed his nuclear toys over to the US, not el Baradi at the UN, Syria has pulled out of Lebanon. And you say he hasnt done a damn thing. Pullyerhedouttayerass You really must like it down on your knees for Cliton. Enjoy it.
shareI've seen newborn babies that are more mature than you.
Iraq was NOT a safe haven for terrorists. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? NOW it's a very safe haven for them. The Iraq War was like throwing a rock at a hornet's nest. Ten or fifteen years from now we will look back fondly on the days when it was only a few thousand people in the Middle East willing to die for the fundamentalist cause.
People in other dictatorships must be praying for a big oil strike. If that happens, suddenly Bush will find it necessary to liberate them from their evil tyrannical leaders.
BTW, which corporation do you or your family work for? That can be the only logical reason you could still so strongly support Bush.
As for us being on our knees for Clinton, you are on all fours with Bush in the front and Cheney in the back.
"Remember, when you reach for the stars they're too far away, so it's hopeless."
[deleted]
You can be in denial all you want. Iraq was a safe haven for terrorists. Abu Nidal and Abbu Abbas lived there, as did at least one of the WTC bombers from the 90's. Saddam paid terrorists and allowed training facilities for hijacking.
You are ignorant.
And tell me, do you think there are now less terrorists in Iraq since the invasion or more?
"US Army backwards, yes, my retarded ass signed up."
You are changing the subject, which is what you losers do when the facts show you to be uninformed. And, I would say there are fewer terrorists in Iraq right now. Certainly not organized terrorists that have a world wide reach. yes, fewer terrorists in Iraq since the invasion.
shareYou're wrong, dead wrong. Not even close to right. You are only proving how badly misinformed you are. There are more terrorists in Iraq now than there were before we invaded, not less.
Big mustache
All right, Citizenright, let's say that Clinton is indeed the one who did not do enough to stop 9/11. Let's say Al-Qaeda was a growing threat that Clinton ignored.
Why didn't Bush do anything upon taking office?
1. Sandy Berger told the incoming Condoleeza Rice that Al-Qaeda would be her primary focus.
2. Why did the Justice Department, under John Ashcroft, immediately upon taking office turn the focus away from international terrorism and toward things like pornography and drugs?
3. And most important, if 9/11 is indeed Clinton's fault, why has Bush attempted to stonewall every effort undertaken to investigate 9/11? If 9/11 had truly been Clinton's fault, Bush would have done everything he could to get to the bottom of it and get the facts out to the public.
"US Army backwards, yes, my retarded ass signed up."
Those are some pretty good questions, Scotty. Here's another question to ask: Why did the same right-wingers who now accuse Clinton of not doing enough to kill bin Laden then say he did too much?
Why do they not applaud him for bombing bin Laden's training camps on August 20th, 1998? They accused him of "wagging the dog", saying that he's trying to distract the public from the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Did they think Monica was more important than bin Laden?
For the last few months now, I've been thinking; It sounds to me like those Republicans put us in a rather dangerous spot in 1998 and 1999.
Big mustache
[deleted]
Of course Iraq was a safe haven for terrorists. Is denial a disease with you liberal *beep*
shareOnce again, you have proven how badly misinformed and deeply in denial you are. Iraq was NOT a safe haven for terrorists.
Big mustache
Safe haven for terrorists, $hit for brains. That is why Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal and at least one of the WTC bombers were living there. Get some facts, dufus.
Jezzzzzzz. Just how stupid are you pathetic children?
Citizenright1, here's the list of people who attacked us on 9/11:
Mohammed Atta; Egypt, Germany
Abdul Aziz al-Omari; Saudi Arabia
Waleed al-Shehri; Saudi Arabia
Satam al-Suqami; Saudi Arabia
Wail al-Shehri; Saudi Arabia
Hani Hanjour; Saudi Arabia
Khalid al-Mihdhar; Saudi Arabia
Majed Moqed; Saudi Arabia
Nawaf al-Hazmi; Saudi Arabia
Salem al-Hazmi; Saudi Arabia
Ziad Samir Jarrah; Lebanon, Germany
Saeed al-Ghamdi; Saudi Arabia
Ahmed al-Nami; Saudi Arabia
Ahmad al-Haznawi; Saudi Arabia
Marwan al-Shehhi; United Arab Emirates, Germany
Mohand al-Shehri; Saudi Arabia
Hamza al-Ghamdi; Saudi Arabia
Fayez Banihammad; UAE
Ahmed al-Ghamdi; Saudi Arabia
Not one of them lived in Iraq. Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal were involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. They had nothing to do with 9/11. You need to get your facts straight.
Big mustache
Samshtferbrains, you said Iraq was not a safe haven for terrorists, I have proved that it was. Nothing was said about any of the 9-11 hijackers, unless you are so fkng stupid that you think that the 9-11 hijackers are the only terrorists in the world. You need to pullyerhedouttayerass.
shareWhat are you talking about?!? You didn't prove anything, except how badly misinformed you are. How many times is this now, 10? 20? You just told me how stupid I am, which I'm not!
Big mustache
A weak response is a hell of a lot better than no response, like Bush did before 9/11. Hell, Bush did not address the issue of terrorism ONE TIME before 9/11. By the way, take your own advice and get off your kness for Bush.
Or if indeed Clinton's responses were weak and Bush's are strong, maybe a weak response is much better. Bush's strong response in Iraq has only stirred up more hatred of the US among radical Islam.
"Remember, when you reach for the stars they're too far away, so it's hopeless."
Citizenright1, you need to pull YOUR head out of your ass. You're the one who needs a reality check.
Iran will lose it's nuclear capability soon.Last I heard, Iran was still enriching uranium for its nuclear capability, defying the UN.
Al-Qaeda has been decimated.They're not decimated anymore. Our invasion of Iraq has made them STRONGER, not weaker. Whoever these people that now call themselves al-Qaeda in Iraq were before, they did not pledge allegiance to Osama bin Laden until October 2004.
decimated, moron.
shareYou're the moron. They've rebuilt and they're stronger. Get out of your fantasy world and face reality. Iraq has made us less safe, not more.
Big mustache
You are hallucinating. They havent rebuilt, they sure arent stronger than ever. What lunatic fringe are you listenting to. They havent been completely defeated, they will try to inovate. How old are you anyway?
shareHow old am I? None of your damn business! You're the one hallucinating. What lunatic fringe are you listening to?
Big mustache
Citizenright, the point is that prior to September 2001, Bush did not address the issue of terrorism, expressed no interest in it, despite repeated requests from Richard Clark, whom he demoted, and repeated warnings of a terrorist attack.
I admit that the "Bin Laden determined to strike inside US" was pretty vague. However, if you get a report like that least you could do is start addressing the issue, and not wait months until your cabinet talks about it.
Bush was briefed on the threat of Al-Qaeda even before the election, by the Clinton transisiton team, who warned him about how urgent it was to stop Al-Qaeda.
And as for Operation Infinite Reach, maybe it was weak. So why didn't Clinton's critics say it was too weak and tell him to do more, instead of saying he should not have done it all?
"US Army backwards, yes, my retarded ass signed up."
Bush told Richard Clark, through Rice, to get a plan together that wouldn't just swat at Al Qaeda. The plan was to be delivered on 9-11. They did act slowly. But, if Bush had had 8 years of terror attacks and responded the limp wristed way that Cliton did those with Bush Derangement Syndrome would be screaming bloody murder.
The Bush admin was listening, they were just slow to respond and obviously thought they had time. And, that was a mistake, obviously.
You have got to be kidding me. Now you're claiming that Bush's goal was to redo the whole strategy. Bush should have been communicating with Clarke directly like Clinton did, not through Rice. Even if Clinton wasn't great on terrorism, Clarke was.
And you still haven't addressed these issues that I mentioned before.
1. Why did Bush demote Clarke to begin with?
2. Why did the Republican Congress under Clinton oppose every anti-terror action he took? They didn't say it was too weak. They didn't want him to do it at all.
3. Why did the Republicans want to foucus more on Monica Lewinsky than on terrorism especially after the embassy bombings?
4. Why did the Justice Department under Ashcroft shift the focus aways from terrorism upon taking office?
5. Why was Bush opposed to an investigation of 9/11 if it was Clinton's actions that led to it when he had almost the entire country's support, including the Democrats?
6. Why did Bush send so few troops into Afghanistan?
7. Why did Bush not respond to the Cole attack?
"A talking hat? A talking HAT? I thought that was Ocarina was annoying."
Hey, shtforbrains, Bush had Rice communicating with Clarke and told him to get a plan together that wouldn't just "swat" al-qaeda, but would take care of them. They just took too long to do it.
As for your other comments, you are a fkng genius obviously. Why dont you tell us tonight's lotto numbers and be useful for a change.
In other words, "Let's not do a little, let's just do nothing." And, yes, he took too long to do it because he refused to address the issue of terrorism.
I think I've made my point. Most of the blame for 9/11 lies on Bush and the Republicans
It's obvious that you have now run out of ways to effectively argue. You won't even answer my other questions, and you can't give a rebuttle. Your only retort is to just throw out insults.
"A talking hat? A talking HAT? I thought that was Ocarina was annoying."
No, dufus, he didnt refuse, he said to put together a plan that took care of them, not just some phoney PR slap at them.
And, you ought to really get off your knees for Cliton, wipe your chin and look at reality.
I'm still waiting for the answers to at least some of my questions. I'm not too eagerly awaiting them though because you can't provide them.
Also, I'd suggest getting off all fours for Bush and Cheney, but I can see that's not going to happen.
"A talking hat? A talking HAT? I thought that was Ocarina was annoying."
You can slavishly defend the Clitons, but they dont care about you. They will use you and other morons like you to gain power, but then they will discard you like a used a$$Wipe. Which, of course, is what you are. BTW, where are those lotto numbers. you are such a genius at predicting the past, give the future a try. Eh?
shareI belive I said before that Clinton was not a saint. He did some shady stuff while president and had his share of corruption like every other US president. My argument on this board has been about his actions regarding terrorism.
Once again, you've been reduced to just throwing out personal insults because you don't have an effective argument.
And where the hell did this lotton numbers and predicting the future thing come from? You are just spewing out crap because you can't rebuttle what I've said.
"A talking hat? A talking HAT? I thought that was Ocarina was annoying."
Nothing you have said deserves a rebuttal. You want to defend the least effective president in years...go ahead. As for the lotto, I was commenting that you are such a clairvoyant at predicting the past (second guessing armchair general to you since you seem to have ADD, why not try to predict the future.)
shareNow you're getting pathetic.You can't provide a rebuttle, so now you're making up the claim that I don't deserve one.
And that prediction things makes no sense. I was pointing out what happened in the past, not predicting it. How the hell would I be able to predict the future? Now, you're just pissed at me for making a more effective argument, so you're making up weird crap.
"A talking hat? A talking HAT? I thought that was Ocarina was annoying."
And where did this accusation of Scotty having ADD come from?
Big mustache