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.
If Bushies thought that engaging in unconstitutional acts and torture were warranted to protect the nation, why would something like profiling be a big deal to them?More awsome hindsight. Most of the warnings were about people hijacking planes, and everyone assumed it would be an old fashioned take over the plane and demand X hijacking. Why would you even think of looking at flight schools if you were worried about a normal hijacking?
Its funny watching someone shoot an attempted 3 pointer, only to see the ball dribble out of thier hands.
Just admit you hate Bush, and no matter what he did, you would critisize it.
hindsight? to say that the right would have laid all of the blame on this president if g-d forbid we had been attacked???
that's not hindsight. that's a reasonable conclusion based on all of the evidence.
if i were saying the attack would have been prevented, then maybe you could lay some monday morning quarterback charges my way... but i don't know if it would have changed anything.
what i do know is they didn't DO anything. and that was unforgiveable.
Not knowing more than there was a threat, just what were they supposed to do short of profiling, Jillian?
If Bushies thought that engaging in unconstitutional acts and torture were warranted to protect the nation, why would something like profiling be a big deal to them?hindsight? to say that the right would have laid all of the blame on this president if g-d forbid we had been attacked???
that's not hindsight. that's a reasonable conclusion based on all of the evidence.
if i were saying the attack would have been prevented, then maybe you could lay some monday morning quarterback charges my way... but i don't know if it would have changed anything.
what i do know is they didn't DO anything. and that was unforgiveable.
Not knowing more than there was a threat, just what were they supposed to do short of profiling, Jillian?
Profiling does not rise to the level of 4th amendment violations or torture.
If Bushies thought that engaging in unconstitutional acts and torture were warranted to protect the nation, why would something like profiling be a big deal to them?hindsight? to say that the right would have laid all of the blame on this president if g-d forbid we had been attacked???
that's not hindsight. that's a reasonable conclusion based on all of the evidence.
if i were saying the attack would have been prevented, then maybe you could lay some monday morning quarterback charges my way... but i don't know if it would have changed anything.
what i do know is they didn't DO anything. and that was unforgiveable.
Not knowing more than there was a threat, just what were they supposed to do short of profiling, Jillian?
Profiling does not rise to the level of 4th amendment violations or torture.
Bush was never bashful about doing what he wanted. Therefore, had he enacted "profiling" based on intelligence reports we know he had - I'm sure screams of "profiling" from the ACLU and anyone else would have fallen on deaf ears. "Profiling" would have been the least of Bush's worries.
Bush was never bashful about doing what he wanted. Therefore, had he enacted "profiling" based on intelligence reports we know he had - I'm sure screams of "profiling" from the ACLU and anyone else would have fallen on deaf ears. "Profiling" would have been the least of Bush's worries.
Like Del said...pre 911, Lakhota
You people keep spinning, but in doing so you're moving the truth
Bush was never bashful about doing what he wanted. Therefore, had he enacted "profiling" based on intelligence reports we know he had - I'm sure screams of "profiling" from the ACLU and anyone else would have fallen on deaf ears. "Profiling" would have been the least of Bush's worries.
Like Del said...pre 911, Lakhota
You people keep spinning, but in doing so you're moving the truth
That's true, so why do you keep bringing up "profiling" and the ACLU?
I was just reading this on HuffPo. Damn, this is awesome!
This is awesome??? What exactly is so awesome about failed intelligence leading to the deaths of thousands of Americans? You are a fucking loon.
Yes, it's awesome that Bush is being further exposed for the lazy, lying, vacationing, stupid asshole that he was for ignoring pre-9/11 warnings while planning to invade Iraq. Yes, this is awesome news! I'm sure the media will have plenty to say about it tomorrow.
Why don't we talk about Bill Clinton as President being offered Bin Laden on a platter 3 different times--and Clinton refused to take him?
No one talks about that--and if you remember we were attacked on 4 different occasions on Bill's watch.
Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?
A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.
Both the FBI and the CIA report to the administration. FAIL.From the op-ed linked in the OP:
In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.
That's because there was this policy called the "Gorelick Wall" which prevented the CIA and the FBI from collaborating. Therefore, no action could have been taken because the dots had not been connected.
National Security is the job of the National Security Adviser - Condi Rice. She marginalized Clarke and they all listened to Wolfowitz over the CIA and military experts.
That has nothing to do with the debunked notion that Clinton passed on killing bin Laden.
Factcheck.org is wrong. Bin Laden send militants to Somalia to fight with Mohammed Farah Aideed.
Who Is Bin Laden? - Interview With Osama Bin Laden (in May 1998) | Hunting Bin Laden | FRONTLINE | PBS
Now you're just flailing blindly.
What did Bush do about the Cole attack?Like they say, the truth hurts. Looks like the truth is President Bush was warned over and over about bin Laden. But ya'll gather round and defend your ultra-failed presidents' actions.
Clinton was warned over and over also, and his response was the Gorelick Wall. But somehow I don't think you'll place any blame in his direction.
That has nothing to do with the debunked notion that Clinton passed on killing bin Laden.Factcheck.org is wrong. Bin Laden send militants to Somalia to fight with Mohammed Farah Aideed.
Who Is Bin Laden? - Interview With Osama Bin Laden (in May 1998) | Hunting Bin Laden | FRONTLINE | PBS
Now you're just flailing blindly.
Flailing blindly? I showed where Factcheck's analysis of that situation is wrong. I factchecked Factcheck.
Why don't we talk about Bill Clinton as President being offered Bin Laden on a platter 3 different times--and Clinton refused to take him?
No one talks about that--and if you remember we were attacked on 4 different occasions on Bill's watch.
Why don't you provide us with "credible" facts to back up your claims? BTW, Bush was president during 9/11 - not Clinton.
Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?
A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.
DETAILS: FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?
His record on fighting international terrorism is part of history as is the fight he had with the GOP and their partners the ACLU. Who watered down his anti-terrorist bills to the point of uselessness. That being said I've alway been of the opinion that he should have hit the Taliban and al Queda hard after Oct 12, 2000.
The ACLU and the GOP aligned? That's a farce. Also, Presidents don't write bills and bills don't fight international terrorism.
Clinton had all the tools he needed but did not want to go to war. He had quite a history of doing that. I actually think it was his appointees who were incompetent, but that is also a major blind spot of his.
They fought together against the tough anti-terrorist bill of 1996.
Republicans Watered Down 1996 Clinton Anti-Terrorism Bill
I'm calling for protecting America.
Republicans held all three branches of Congress. Republicans are in favor of profiling. Except when it comes to protecting America, I guess is what you're saying.
I have no problem with profiling. If a car is cruising a street, stopping to talk to hookers, I don't assume he's asking for directions.
Congress only has two branches.
I call bullshit on you saying you have no problem with profiling. The only reason you are supporting it now is you think it can make Bush look bad.
i'm pretty sure he meant 'branches of government'.
i have a problem with profiling. it's illegal.
but do you know what's NOT illegal... going to every flight school in florida, finding out who was taking flying lessons but didn't want to learn to take off and land... and pulling them in for questioning.
know what else isn't illegal?
investigating!
which is what they never did...
all i'll say is that if something so horrific had happened during the obama presidency, you'd be blaming him personally, even if he didn't have any intel.
Before July 2000: 9/11 Hijackers Reportedly Living and Attending Flight School in Punta Gorda, Contradicting Official Account
Why don't we talk about Bill Clinton as President being offered Bin Laden on a platter 3 different times--and Clinton refused to take him?
No one talks about that--and if you remember we were attacked on 4 different occasions on Bill's watch.
Why don't you provide us with "credible" facts to back up your claims? BTW, Bush was president during 9/11 - not Clinton.
Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?
A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.
DETAILS: FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?
and Obama's president now, but you guys love bringing bush up as the cause of all woes.
Next time think before you post, your logical faux pas are comical, and make you look rather stupid.
That has nothing to do with the debunked notion that Clinton passed on killing bin Laden.
Now you're just flailing blindly.
Flailing blindly? I showed where Factcheck's analysis of that situation is wrong. I factchecked Factcheck.
When you convince Factcheck.org that you're right, I'll take another look.
Here's their contact information:
FactCheck.org : Contact Us
Why don't you provide us with "credible" facts to back up your claims? BTW, Bush was president during 9/11 - not Clinton.
DETAILS: FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?
and Obama's president now, but you guys love bringing bush up as the cause of all woes.
Next time think before you post, your logical faux pas are comical, and make you look rather stupid.
No, you think. Obama has kept America safe - so far - and Bush actions and policies are still driving the debt numbers. It ain't rocket science...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...a-direct-indirect-result-of-bush-actions.html
