WelfareQueen
Diamond Member
Bush doesn't get a pass. It happened under his watch. He owns a lot of it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bush doesn't get a pass. It happened under his watch. He owns a lot of it.
No. Al Qaeda is responsible for 9-11. It is pointless to try and lay blame on any administration for a random act of terror. There is just too much opportunity. The idea that we can ever be 100% safe from terrorists is retarded.
Now...the memo about Bin Laden preparing to strike using airplanes was a but of a hint....but that does not make Bush responsible for it. Shit like that happens. It is, in the end, unstoppable.
The problem we had was with the response. And for that.....you simply cannot avoid laying blame on Bush. We absolutely fucked up the response.
This President is busy trying to repair the damage done. Period.
Clinton's lack of response was a huge factor. You simply cannot avoid laying blame on Clinton. To say otherwise is foolish. The others have responsibility as well.
No. Al Qaeda is responsible for 9-11. It is pointless to try and lay blame on any administration for a random act of terror. There is just too much opportunity. The idea that we can ever be 100% safe from terrorists is retarded.
Now...the memo about Bin Laden preparing to strike using airplanes was a but of a hint....but that does not make Bush responsible for it. Shit like that happens. It is, in the end, unstoppable.
The problem we had was with the response. And for that.....you simply cannot avoid laying blame on Bush. We absolutely fucked up the response.
This President is busy trying to repair the damage done. Period.
Clinton's lack of response was a huge factor. You simply cannot avoid laying blame on Clinton. To say otherwise is foolish. The others have responsibility as well.
Clinton responded to Al Qaeda Embassy attacks in Africa in 1998. He ignored soveriegn borders and without any kind of warning hurled 75 cruise missils at four Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan on Aug 20, 1998, just two weeks after the Embassy attacks which had occured on Aug 7. In addition he used cruise missils to destroy a pharmaceutical production plant built by Bin Laden in Sudan.
Unfortunately, this occured during the impeachment hearings and Republicans in Congress broke a long honored tradition of ending poitics at the waters edge when the nation became engaged in military operations. They immediatly questioned the military action and made allegations that the response might be an effort to take attention away from the impeachment hearings, thus insinuating that the American military had conspired with a President to wage violent agressive action to protect that individual President. The Republicans even went as far as to use the Sudan response that the production plant was an aspirin factory, ignoring the fact that the so called aspirin factory had the ability to produce chem and bio weapons, was financed by Bin Laden and gave Al Qaeda a foothold in Sudan. Further investigations were threatened and proposed by these Congressman. The response to a terrorist attach was thus turned into a domestic political game. It put a halt to any further attempts at the use of military action against Al Qaeda.
Clinton attempted to open the door for going after terrorist with military assets that could and would ignore soveriegn borders and governments if those governments gave support to groups like Al Qaeda. He attempted to set the stage for responding to terrorist attacks with unlimited military action that had the potential to annialate the terrorist and their supporters. 75 cruise missils launched in one attack in an attempt to kill the leaders of Al Qaeda was not a weak response. Republicans should have kept their mouths shut and supported and encouraged further attacks.
There is no consensus that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever; that's one opinion held by a scattered few.
Clinton's lack of response was a huge factor. You simply cannot avoid laying blame on Clinton. To say otherwise is foolish. The others have responsibility as well.
Clinton responded to Al Qaeda Embassy attacks in Africa in 1998. He ignored soveriegn borders and without any kind of warning hurled 75 cruise missils at four Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan on Aug 20, 1998, just two weeks after the Embassy attacks which had occured on Aug 7. In addition he used cruise missils to destroy a pharmaceutical production plant built by Bin Laden in Sudan.
Unfortunately, this occured during the impeachment hearings and Republicans in Congress broke a long honored tradition of ending poitics at the waters edge when the nation became engaged in military operations. They immediatly questioned the military action and made allegations that the response might be an effort to take attention away from the impeachment hearings, thus insinuating that the American military had conspired with a President to wage violent agressive action to protect that individual President. The Republicans even went as far as to use the Sudan response that the production plant was an aspirin factory, ignoring the fact that the so called aspirin factory had the ability to produce chem and bio weapons, was financed by Bin Laden and gave Al Qaeda a foothold in Sudan. Further investigations were threatened and proposed by these Congressman. The response to a terrorist attach was thus turned into a domestic political game. It put a halt to any further attempts at the use of military action against Al Qaeda.
Clinton attempted to open the door for going after terrorist with military assets that could and would ignore soveriegn borders and governments if those governments gave support to groups like Al Qaeda. He attempted to set the stage for responding to terrorist attacks with unlimited military action that had the potential to annialate the terrorist and their supporters. 75 cruise missils launched in one attack in an attempt to kill the leaders of Al Qaeda was not a weak response. Republicans should have kept their mouths shut and supported and encouraged further attacks.
Read Ghost War. Clinton had several direct opportunities to take out bin Laden. He did not in one instance because he saw a swing set in one of the satellite photos. He did some things, and fucked up some things in a huge way. Every expert would agree with that assessment. If you want o make it political...whatever...it doesn't change the facts.
There is no consensus that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever; that's one opinion held by a scattered few.
Far left propaganda!
Next you quote that it came from the WH. Why would you believe the WH now and not 7 years ago?
There is no consensus that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever; that's one opinion held by a scattered few.
Far left propaganda!
Next you quote that it came from the WH. Why would you believe the WH now and not 7 years ago?
Why would you believe something for which there is widely diverse and contradictory opinion AND evidence?
This just goes to show you how popular Al Qaeda is within the general population of the middle east. The muslim brother hood won the Egypt elections with the extremist out right a few years ago.
How can you tame such a beast???
Far left propaganda!
Next you quote that it came from the WH. Why would you believe the WH now and not 7 years ago?
Why would you believe something for which there is widely diverse and contradictory opinion AND evidence?
You believe Obama your messiah above all else so you tell me.
Too bad Republicans let Bin Laden go and went after the enemy of al Qaeda.
Too bad Republicans let Bin Laden go and went after the enemy of al Qaeda.
Too bad Clinton did as well, ain't it Deany-Bub?
No. Al Qaeda is responsible for 9-11. It is pointless to try and lay blame on any administration for a random act of terror. There is just too much opportunity. The idea that we can ever be 100% safe from terrorists is retarded.
Now...the memo about Bin Laden preparing to strike using airplanes was a but of a hint....but that does not make Bush responsible for it. Shit like that happens. It is, in the end, unstoppable.
The problem we had was with the response. And for that.....you simply cannot avoid laying blame on Bush. We absolutely fucked up the response.
This President is busy trying to repair the damage done. Period.
Clinton's lack of response was a huge factor. You simply cannot avoid laying blame on Clinton. To say otherwise is foolish. The others have responsibility as well.
Nobody gets the blame when one of hundreds of attempts on the part of crazy people to inflict damage succeeds. You cannot stop committed terrorists from getting a "win" every now and then.
This topic sort of fits with the other discussion we are having on government transparency. When it comes to matters of national security.....we don't have the luxury of knowing what is going down......for obvious reasons.
You want to blame Clinton for 9-11. For some reason......