9/11 Panel Cites Clinton, Bush Inaction

[PingSpike]

Its a good thing this is all Clintons fault and not Bush's. Otherwise it'd be a hell of a mess. Because we all know Bush can't be held accountable for anything he did while he was in office.

 

[burnedout]

Panel: U.S. Had Plan to Overthrow Taliban

WASHINGTON - One day before the Sept. 11 attacks, senior Bush administration officials agreed that the United States would try to overthrow Afghanistan (news - web sites)'s Taliban rulers if a final diplomatic push to expel Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) from the country failed, a federal panel reported Tuesday.

The independent commission reviewing the attacks said in a preliminary report that in the years before the attacks the Clinton and Bush administrations chose to use diplomatic rather than military options, which allowed bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders to elude capture.

[...]

The report described Saudi Arabia as "a problematic ally in combating Islamic extremism," noting its lax oversight of charitable donations that may have funded terrorists.

 

[Fern]

Bah, Bush was in office something like 8 months before the attack. If Clinton had 8 years and couldn't thwart it, Bush can't be (reasonably) blamed.

Lets not even consider that AQ had planned for this as well as executed other terrorist acts all under the Clinton Adm.



But possibly of more interest is, given the critism of Bush for using military action post 911. What the HECK do you think people wouldv'e said about a new President, barely in office for a few months, initiating military action when a "911" had never occured? That's what immediate action would've been. Bah, some people can't get it right even with hindsight.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: burnedout
AP via Yahoo

WASHINGTON - The Clinton and Bush administrations' failure to pursue military action against al-Qaida operatives allowed the Sept. 11 terrorists to elude capture despite warning signs years before the attacks, a federal panel said Tuesday.

The Clinton administration had early indications of terrorist links to Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and future Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as early as 1995, but let years pass as it pursued criminal indictments and diplomatic solutions to subduing them abroad, it found.

Bush officials, meanwhile, failed to act immediately on increasing intelligence chatter and urgent warnings in early 2001 by its counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, to take out al-Qaida targets, according to preliminary findings by the commission reviewing the attacks.

The fact that Clinton was the Prez for 96 out of the 105 months leading up to 9/11 has no bearing on the issue. As far as Dick Clarke is concerned, he was the "terrorism czar" for Reagan, Bush I/II and Clinton. His record of accomplishment speaks for itself.

Republicans were prez for 151 out of 247 months leading up to 9/11.

How many of those months was Al Queda a threat to this country? How many times had Al Queda attacked us? Thanks for playing.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Fern
Bah, Bush was in office something like 8 months before the attack. If Clinton had 8 years and couldn't thwart it, Bush can't be (reasonably) blamed.

Lets not even consider that AQ had planned for this as well as executed other terrorist acts all under the Clinton Adm.



But possibly of more interest is, given the critism of Bush for using military action post 911. What the HECK do you think people wouldv'e said about a new President, barely in office for a few months, initiating military action when a "911" had never occured? That's what immediate action would've been. Bah, some people can't get it right even with hindsight.

Huh? logic? what's that? Nah - the "legacy" of Clinton needs to be preserved Best not damage his "image" over this terrorism issue.

CkG

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

The fact that Clinton was the Prez for 96 out of the 105 months leading up to 9/11 has no bearing on the issue. As far as Dick Clarke is concerned, he was the "terrorism czar" for Reagan, Bush I/II and Clinton. His record of accomplishment speaks for itself.

Ditto.

For some reason I don't think my post means the same thing to both of us.

 

[DealMonkey]

Why are you guys arguing? I thought the 9/11 panel blamed both Clinton and Bush for their inaction. I can certainly live with that assessment.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: FrodoB
The worst enemy of the democrat party is fact. Clinton had multiple opportunities to either take Osama out or bring him in. Clinton did nothing after each terrorist attack. He created a precedent of American weakness and unwillingness to confront terror. Al Queda took advantage of this, resulting in 9/11 The Clinton administration has the blood of nearly 3000 people on its hands.
The Bush administration has taken the initiative to defeat terror and a brutal regime. Desite the attempt to try to depict the administration dismissing Al Queda after the attack, the obvious aftermath was that we immediately went to Afghanistan, not Iraq. We have not had another terror attack since 9/11. Al Queda is on the run. A Middle East democracy will be created in Iraq. The world is a much better place.
The democrats are desparately trying to regain power. They will lie and make stupid excuses for their complete incompetency. They're scared because they know they're at fault for 9/11 and the conservative base has been growing for 10 years now. The democrats are in trouble, but the stupid blind sheep around here will never admit it.

you have a short memory don't you.

it goes back farther. reagan was president when there were suicide bombings killing hundreds of us troops in their barracks in the middle east. guess what he did? he pulled out with his tail between his legs.

when iran held us hostages, what did he say? no negotiating with terrorists.

what did reagan do? he gave them guns in return for our hostages.

the fact is bush ran on a platform that said he wouldn't even send troops to bosnia. that he was against this sending troops all over the place stressing our military and doing this "nation building" stuff. he's flip flopping all over the place now.

as for clinton not doing anything, guess i'll just paste from the other thread.

what did clinton do? after the first attack on the world trade center, he captured, convicted, imprisoned those responible. Ramzi Yousef, Abdul HakimMurad, Wali Khan Amin Shah?? all captured and behind bars during clinton.

his administration foiled attacks on the pope, plans to blow up 12 jetliners simultaneously, attacks on the UN headquarters, fbi building, israeli embassy in washington, la/boston airports, lincoln/ holland tunnels, george washington bridge, us embassy' in tirana/albania.... thwarted all of em.

he tripled the counterterrorism budget for the FBI, doubled counterterrorism funding overall. created a top level national security post to coordinate all federal and counterterrorism activity.

clintons first and secondcrime bill had antiterrorism legistlation. he sponsored drills and simulations of anti terrorism response.

clinton created the national stockpile of drugs and accines including 40 million doses of small pox vaccine.

Clinton put out a presidential directive ordering the assassination of osama bin laden.

etc etc etc

what did the republicans do during this time?

MONICA MONICA MONICA MONICA MONICA BLOW JOB BLOW JOB BLOW JOB BLOW JOB!!

what did bush do after getting into office?

he was so worried about the supposed national security mess clinton left, he immediately fought for tax cuts for the rich, anti missle defense, and took a spree of vacations! a liar? or simply negligent, those are the only two choices.

 

[Gaard]

But your guy is more to blame than my guy!

Stop pushing!! Mom!!!

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Fern
Bah, Bush was in office something like 8 months before the attack. If Clinton had 8 years and couldn't thwart it, Bush can't be (reasonably) blamed.

I guess you're right. Its not like any of the intelligences agencies were screaming at him that bin laden was a threat and something needed to be done.

Afterall, we all know that right after we're hired for a job we are entitled to an 8 month vacation of ranching it up right away and our duties are put on hold. The country pretty much runs itself.

/sarcasm

Please, that was a weak justification and you know it. Even if the Clinton admin did set the stage for things (and I'm not saying that it did) that in no way removes him of responsibility of protecting the nation...especially not 8 months after he had been in office with advisors informing him of the threat.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: burnedout
AP via Yahoo

WASHINGTON - The Clinton and Bush administrations' failure to pursue military action against al-Qaida operatives allowed the Sept. 11 terrorists to elude capture despite warning signs years before the attacks, a federal panel said Tuesday.

The Clinton administration had early indications of terrorist links to Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and future Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as early as 1995, but let years pass as it pursued criminal indictments and diplomatic solutions to subduing them abroad, it found.

Bush officials, meanwhile, failed to act immediately on increasing intelligence chatter and urgent warnings in early 2001 by its counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, to take out al-Qaida targets, according to preliminary findings by the commission reviewing the attacks.

The fact that Clinton was the Prez for 96 out of the 105 months leading up to 9/11 has no bearing on the issue. As far as Dick Clarke is concerned, he was the "terrorism czar" for Reagan, Bush I/II and Clinton. His record of accomplishment speaks for itself.

Republicans were prez for 151 out of 247 months leading up to 9/11.

How many of those months was Al Queda a threat to this country? How many times had Al Queda attacked us? Thanks for playing.

Since Reagan trained and funded them to take on a superpower, they became a threat to superpowers.

 

[tec699]

Originally posted by: FrodoB
The worst enemy of the democrat party is fact. Clinton had multiple opportunities to either take Osama out or bring him in. Clinton did nothing after each terrorist attack. He created a precedent of American weakness and unwillingness to confront terror. Al Queda took advantage of this, resulting in 9/11 The Clinton administration has the blood of nearly 3000 people on its hands.
The Bush administration has taken the initiative to defeat terror and a brutal regime. Desite the attempt to try to depict the administration dismissing Al Queda after the attack, the obvious aftermath was that we immediately went to Afghanistan, not Iraq. We have not had another terror attack since 9/11. Al Queda is on the run. A Middle East democracy will be created in Iraq. The world is a much better place.
The democrats are desparately trying to regain power. They will lie and make stupid excuses for their complete incompetency. They're scared because they know they're at fault for 9/11 and the conservative base has been growing for 10 years now. The democrats are in trouble, but the stupid blind sheep around here will never admit it.

Call me a sheep.

Bawahahaha...

 

[Fern]

Hey Ping, you wrote

"Please, that was a weak justification and you know it. Even if the Clinton admin did set the stage for things (and I'm not saying that it did) that in no way removes him of responsibility of protecting the nation...especially not 8 months after he had been in office with advisors informing him of the threat."


What was he supposed to have done? Ram through a Home Security Bill costing billions and inconveniencing travelers and airlines etc before there was a 911? Even if he had made that his priority from day 1, it never wouldv'e got through Congess before 911. The public would not have tolerated it before 911, can hardly tolerate after.

 

[0roo0roo]

What was he supposed to have done? Ram through a Home Security Bill costing billions and inconveniencing travelers and airlines etc before there was a 911? Even if he had made that his priority from day 1, it never wouldv'e got through Congess before 911. The public would not have tolerated it before 911, can hardly tolerate after.

fact is he didn't even try. if you make it a thing to call your opponent weak on defense and yet you do nothing, its your ass on the line.

 

[FrodoB]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: FrodoB
The worst enemy of the democrat party is fact. Clinton had multiple opportunities to either take Osama out or bring him in. Clinton did nothing after each terrorist attack. He created a precedent of American weakness and unwillingness to confront terror. Al Queda took advantage of this, resulting in 9/11 The Clinton administration has the blood of nearly 3000 people on its hands.
The Bush administration has taken the initiative to defeat terror and a brutal regime. Desite the attempt to try to depict the administration dismissing Al Queda after the attack, the obvious aftermath was that we immediately went to Afghanistan, not Iraq. We have not had another terror attack since 9/11. Al Queda is on the run. A Middle East democracy will be created in Iraq. The world is a much better place.
The democrats are desparately trying to regain power. They will lie and make stupid excuses for their complete incompetency. They're scared because they know they're at fault for 9/11 and the conservative base has been growing for 10 years now. The democrats are in trouble, but the stupid blind sheep around here will never admit it.

you have a short memory don't you.

it goes back farther. reagan was president when there were suicide bombings killing hundreds of us troops in their barracks in the middle east. guess what he did? he pulled out with his tail between his legs.

when iran held us hostages, what did he say? no negotiating with terrorists.

what did reagan do? he gave them guns in return for our hostages.

the fact is bush ran on a platform that said he wouldn't even send troops to bosnia. that he was against this sending troops all over the place stressing our military and doing this "nation building" stuff. he's flip flopping all over the place now.

as for clinton not doing anything, guess i'll just paste from the other thread.

what did clinton do? after the first attack on the world trade center, he captured, convicted, imprisoned those responible. Ramzi Yousef, Abdul HakimMurad, Wali Khan Amin Shah?? all captured and behind bars during clinton.

his administration foiled attacks on the pope, plans to blow up 12 jetliners simultaneously, attacks on the UN headquarters, fbi building, israeli embassy in washington, la/boston airports, lincoln/ holland tunnels, george washington bridge, us embassy' in tirana/albania.... thwarted all of em.

he tripled the counterterrorism budget for the FBI, doubled counterterrorism funding overall. created a top level national security post to coordinate all federal and counterterrorism activity.

clintons first and secondcrime bill had antiterrorism legistlation. he sponsored drills and simulations of anti terrorism response.

clinton created the national stockpile of drugs and accines including 40 million doses of small pox vaccine.

Clinton put out a presidential directive ordering the assassination of osama bin laden.

etc etc etc

what did the republicans do during this time?

MONICA MONICA MONICA MONICA MONICA BLOW JOB BLOW JOB BLOW JOB BLOW JOB!!

what did bush do after getting into office?

he was so worried about the supposed national security mess clinton left, he immediately fought for tax cuts for the rich, anti missle defense, and took a spree of vacations! a liar? or simply negligent, those are the only two choices.

Pathetic response. The fact is that Clinton took a SOFT ineffective approach after the first World Trade Center attack, trouble in Somalia, the embassies attacks, and the Cole attack. He did little to combat global terrorism. He even admitted that he refused Sudan's offer of bin Laden. It's the typical democrat response to adversity - we don't want to offend anyone. All your little facts mean nothing. Clinton was a failure.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: FrodoB

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: FrodoB
The worst enemy of the democrat party is fact. Clinton had multiple opportunities to either take Osama out or bring him in. Clinton did nothing after each terrorist attack. He created a precedent of American weakness and unwillingness to confront terror. Al Queda took advantage of this, resulting in 9/11 The Clinton administration has the blood of nearly 3000 people on its hands.
The Bush administration has taken the initiative to defeat terror and a brutal regime. Desite the attempt to try to depict the administration dismissing Al Queda after the attack, the obvious aftermath was that we immediately went to Afghanistan, not Iraq. We have not had another terror attack since 9/11. Al Queda is on the run. A Middle East democracy will be created in Iraq. The world is a much better place.
The democrats are desparately trying to regain power. They will lie and make stupid excuses for their complete incompetency. They're scared because they know they're at fault for 9/11 and the conservative base has been growing for 10 years now. The democrats are in trouble, but the stupid blind sheep around here will never admit it.

you have a short memory don't you.

it goes back farther. reagan was president when there were suicide bombings killing hundreds of us troops in their barracks in the middle east. guess what he did? he pulled out with his tail between his legs.

when iran held us hostages, what did he say? no negotiating with terrorists.

what did reagan do? he gave them guns in return for our hostages.

the fact is bush ran on a platform that said he wouldn't even send troops to bosnia. that he was against this sending troops all over the place stressing our military and doing this "nation building" stuff. he's flip flopping all over the place now.

as for clinton not doing anything, guess i'll just paste from the other thread.

what did clinton do? after the first attack on the world trade center, he captured, convicted, imprisoned those responible. Ramzi Yousef, Abdul HakimMurad, Wali Khan Amin Shah?? all captured and behind bars during clinton.

his administration foiled attacks on the pope, plans to blow up 12 jetliners simultaneously, attacks on the UN headquarters, fbi building, israeli embassy in washington, la/boston airports, lincoln/ holland tunnels, george washington bridge, us embassy' in tirana/albania.... thwarted all of em.

he tripled the counterterrorism budget for the FBI, doubled counterterrorism funding overall. created a top level national security post to coordinate all federal and counterterrorism activity.

clintons first and secondcrime bill had antiterrorism legistlation. he sponsored drills and simulations of anti terrorism response.

clinton created the national stockpile of drugs and accines including 40 million doses of small pox vaccine.

Clinton put out a presidential directive ordering the assassination of osama bin laden.

etc etc etc

what did the republicans do during this time?

MONICA MONICA MONICA MONICA MONICA BLOW JOB BLOW JOB BLOW JOB BLOW JOB!!

what did bush do after getting into office?

he was so worried about the supposed national security mess clinton left, he immediately fought for tax cuts for the rich, anti missle defense, and took a spree of vacations! a liar? or simply negligent, those are the only two choices.

Pathetic response. The fact is that Clinton took a SOFT ineffective approach after the first World Trade Center attack, trouble in Somalia, the embassies attacks, and the Cole attack. He did little to combat global terrorism. He even admitted that he refused Sudan's offer of bin Laden. It's the typical democrat response to adversity - we don't want to offend anyone. All your little facts mean nothing. Clinton was a failure.

Yet he did a hundred-fold more than Bush (before 9/11, of course). What does that make Bush? Failure^2?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: FrodoB

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: FrodoB
The worst enemy of the democrat party is fact. Clinton had multiple opportunities to either take Osama out or bring him in. Clinton did nothing after each terrorist attack. He created a precedent of American weakness and unwillingness to confront terror. Al Queda took advantage of this, resulting in 9/11 The Clinton administration has the blood of nearly 3000 people on its hands.
The Bush administration has taken the initiative to defeat terror and a brutal regime. Desite the attempt to try to depict the administration dismissing Al Queda after the attack, the obvious aftermath was that we immediately went to Afghanistan, not Iraq. We have not had another terror attack since 9/11. Al Queda is on the run. A Middle East democracy will be created in Iraq. The world is a much better place.
The democrats are desparately trying to regain power. They will lie and make stupid excuses for their complete incompetency. They're scared because they know they're at fault for 9/11 and the conservative base has been growing for 10 years now. The democrats are in trouble, but the stupid blind sheep around here will never admit it.

you have a short memory don't you.

it goes back farther. reagan was president when there were suicide bombings killing hundreds of us troops in their barracks in the middle east. guess what he did? he pulled out with his tail between his legs.

when iran held us hostages, what did he say? no negotiating with terrorists.

what did reagan do? he gave them guns in return for our hostages.

the fact is bush ran on a platform that said he wouldn't even send troops to bosnia. that he was against this sending troops all over the place stressing our military and doing this "nation building" stuff. he's flip flopping all over the place now.

as for clinton not doing anything, guess i'll just paste from the other thread.

what did clinton do? after the first attack on the world trade center, he captured, convicted, imprisoned those responible. Ramzi Yousef, Abdul HakimMurad, Wali Khan Amin Shah?? all captured and behind bars during clinton.

his administration foiled attacks on the pope, plans to blow up 12 jetliners simultaneously, attacks on the UN headquarters, fbi building, israeli embassy in washington, la/boston airports, lincoln/ holland tunnels, george washington bridge, us embassy' in tirana/albania.... thwarted all of em.

he tripled the counterterrorism budget for the FBI, doubled counterterrorism funding overall. created a top level national security post to coordinate all federal and counterterrorism activity.

clintons first and secondcrime bill had antiterrorism legistlation. he sponsored drills and simulations of anti terrorism response.

clinton created the national stockpile of drugs and accines including 40 million doses of small pox vaccine.

Clinton put out a presidential directive ordering the assassination of osama bin laden.

etc etc etc

what did the republicans do during this time?

MONICA MONICA MONICA MONICA MONICA BLOW JOB BLOW JOB BLOW JOB BLOW JOB!!

what did bush do after getting into office?

he was so worried about the supposed national security mess clinton left, he immediately fought for tax cuts for the rich, anti missle defense, and took a spree of vacations! a liar? or simply negligent, those are the only two choices.

Pathetic response. The fact is that Clinton took a SOFT ineffective approach after the first World Trade Center attack, trouble in Somalia, the embassies attacks, and the Cole attack. He did little to combat global terrorism. He even admitted that he refused Sudan's offer of bin Laden. It's the typical democrat response to adversity - we don't want to offend anyone. All your little facts mean nothing. Clinton was a failure.

Well, if Clinton's approach was so SOFT and ineffective, how come Bush took an even softer and less effective approach prior to 9/11? And how come the republican traitors in congress criticized Clinton not for having a soft approach, but for distracting them from their Monica obsession?

 

[BDawg]

Guys, there's no reason to argue here. Let's just admit that both Clinton and Bush screwed up. Now, let's make sure neither of them is able to become President again.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: FrodoB

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: FrodoB
The worst enemy of the democrat party is fact. Clinton had multiple opportunities to either take Osama out or bring him in. Clinton did nothing after each terrorist attack. He created a precedent of American weakness and unwillingness to confront terror. Al Queda took advantage of this, resulting in 9/11 The Clinton administration has the blood of nearly 3000 people on its hands.
The Bush administration has taken the initiative to defeat terror and a brutal regime. Desite the attempt to try to depict the administration dismissing Al Queda after the attack, the obvious aftermath was that we immediately went to Afghanistan, not Iraq. We have not had another terror attack since 9/11. Al Queda is on the run. A Middle East democracy will be created in Iraq. The world is a much better place.
The democrats are desparately trying to regain power. They will lie and make stupid excuses for their complete incompetency. They're scared because they know they're at fault for 9/11 and the conservative base has been growing for 10 years now. The democrats are in trouble, but the stupid blind sheep around here will never admit it.

you have a short memory don't you.

it goes back farther. reagan was president when there were suicide bombings killing hundreds of us troops in their barracks in the middle east. guess what he did? he pulled out with his tail between his legs.

when iran held us hostages, what did he say? no negotiating with terrorists.

what did reagan do? he gave them guns in return for our hostages.

the fact is bush ran on a platform that said he wouldn't even send troops to bosnia. that he was against this sending troops all over the place stressing our military and doing this "nation building" stuff. he's flip flopping all over the place now.

as for clinton not doing anything, guess i'll just paste from the other thread.

what did clinton do? after the first attack on the world trade center, he captured, convicted, imprisoned those responible. Ramzi Yousef, Abdul HakimMurad, Wali Khan Amin Shah?? all captured and behind bars during clinton.

his administration foiled attacks on the pope, plans to blow up 12 jetliners simultaneously, attacks on the UN headquarters, fbi building, israeli embassy in washington, la/boston airports, lincoln/ holland tunnels, george washington bridge, us embassy' in tirana/albania.... thwarted all of em.

he tripled the counterterrorism budget for the FBI, doubled counterterrorism funding overall. created a top level national security post to coordinate all federal and counterterrorism activity.

clintons first and secondcrime bill had antiterrorism legistlation. he sponsored drills and simulations of anti terrorism response.

clinton created the national stockpile of drugs and accines including 40 million doses of small pox vaccine.

Clinton put out a presidential directive ordering the assassination of osama bin laden.

etc etc etc

what did the republicans do during this time?

MONICA MONICA MONICA MONICA MONICA BLOW JOB BLOW JOB BLOW JOB BLOW JOB!!

what did bush do after getting into office?

he was so worried about the supposed national security mess clinton left, he immediately fought for tax cuts for the rich, anti missle defense, and took a spree of vacations! a liar? or simply negligent, those are the only two choices.

Pathetic response. The fact is that Clinton took a SOFT ineffective approach after the first World Trade Center attack, trouble in Somalia, the embassies attacks, and the Cole attack. He did little to combat global terrorism. He even admitted that he refused Sudan's offer of bin Laden. It's the typical democrat response to adversity - we don't want to offend anyone. All your little facts mean nothing. Clinton was a failure.

Well, if Clinton's approach was so SOFT and ineffective, how come Bush took an even softer and less effective approach prior to 9/11? And how come the republican traitors in congress criticized Clinton not for having a soft approach, but for distracting them from their Monica obsession?

Yes, there is blame for everyone here.

Regan in particular fanned the flames of religious fanaticism in Afghanistan. bin Laden was a product of that effort.

If you want to point a historical finger at the root of 9/11 -- then look to the Reagan administration.

Another direct descendant of Reagans legacy was Rumsfeld giving Saddam the intelligence position data for the 80's Murders commited in Iraq by Hussein. A little payback for the Iranians.

If you want to point a historical finger to Hussein's mass communal graves --then look to the Reagan administration.

 

[Czar]

actually bin laden was if I remember correctly in sudan before afghanistan
he was a contractor, making money and building up the infastructure there that is untill he was kicked out of the country

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: FrodoB

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: FrodoB
The worst enemy of the democrat party is fact. Clinton had multiple opportunities to either take Osama out or bring him in. Clinton did nothing after each terrorist attack. He created a precedent of American weakness and unwillingness to confront terror. Al Queda took advantage of this, resulting in 9/11 The Clinton administration has the blood of nearly 3000 people on its hands.
The Bush administration has taken the initiative to defeat terror and a brutal regime. Desite the attempt to try to depict the administration dismissing Al Queda after the attack, the obvious aftermath was that we immediately went to Afghanistan, not Iraq. We have not had another terror attack since 9/11. Al Queda is on the run. A Middle East democracy will be created in Iraq. The world is a much better place.
The democrats are desparately trying to regain power. They will lie and make stupid excuses for their complete incompetency. They're scared because they know they're at fault for 9/11 and the conservative base has been growing for 10 years now. The democrats are in trouble, but the stupid blind sheep around here will never admit it.

you have a short memory don't you.

it goes back farther. reagan was president when there were suicide bombings killing hundreds of us troops in their barracks in the middle east. guess what he did? he pulled out with his tail between his legs.

when iran held us hostages, what did he say? no negotiating with terrorists.

what did reagan do? he gave them guns in return for our hostages.

the fact is bush ran on a platform that said he wouldn't even send troops to bosnia. that he was against this sending troops all over the place stressing our military and doing this "nation building" stuff. he's flip flopping all over the place now.

as for clinton not doing anything, guess i'll just paste from the other thread.

what did clinton do? after the first attack on the world trade center, he captured, convicted, imprisoned those responible. Ramzi Yousef, Abdul HakimMurad, Wali Khan Amin Shah?? all captured and behind bars during clinton.

his administration foiled attacks on the pope, plans to blow up 12 jetliners simultaneously, attacks on the UN headquarters, fbi building, israeli embassy in washington, la/boston airports, lincoln/ holland tunnels, george washington bridge, us embassy' in tirana/albania.... thwarted all of em.

he tripled the counterterrorism budget for the FBI, doubled counterterrorism funding overall. created a top level national security post to coordinate all federal and counterterrorism activity.

clintons first and secondcrime bill had antiterrorism legistlation. he sponsored drills and simulations of anti terrorism response.

clinton created the national stockpile of drugs and accines including 40 million doses of small pox vaccine.

Clinton put out a presidential directive ordering the assassination of osama bin laden.

etc etc etc

what did the republicans do during this time?

MONICA MONICA MONICA MONICA MONICA BLOW JOB BLOW JOB BLOW JOB BLOW JOB!!

what did bush do after getting into office?

he was so worried about the supposed national security mess clinton left, he immediately fought for tax cuts for the rich, anti missle defense, and took a spree of vacations! a liar? or simply negligent, those are the only two choices.

Pathetic response. The fact is that Clinton took a SOFT ineffective approach after the first World Trade Center attack, trouble in Somalia, the embassies attacks, and the Cole attack. He did little to combat global terrorism. He even admitted that he refused Sudan's offer of bin Laden. It's the typical democrat response to adversity - we don't want to offend anyone. All your little facts mean nothing. Clinton was a failure.

Well, if Clinton's approach was so SOFT and ineffective, how come Bush took an even softer and less effective approach prior to 9/11? And how come the republican traitors in congress criticized Clinton not for having a soft approach, but for distracting them from their Monica obsession?

Yes, there is blame for everyone here.

Regan in particular fanned the flames of religious fanaticism in Afghanistan. bin Laden was a product of that effort.

If you want to point a historical finger at the root of 9/11 -- then look to the Reagan administration.

Another direct descendant of Reagans legacy was Rumsfeld giving Saddam the intelligence position data for the 80's Murders commited in Iraq by Hussein. A little payback for the Iranians.

If you want to point a historical finger to Hussein's mass communal graves --then look to the Reagan administration.

You seem to think Saddam is the only figure head installed by the US(installed under Johnson or Nixon IIRC). Our interference in Iraq began under JFK after the Iraqi monarchy was overthrown, by a militant. We did not like the militant dictator, so the CIA helped in a coup. The next guy turned out to be worse, another coup supported by the US. Rinse and repeat until you get to Saddam. Maybe this time the US wont install a dictator like in the past. *shrugs*

 

[sMiLeYz]

Heres what Clarke who is Republican btw, says of Clinton...

The vice president commented that there was "no great success in dealing with terrorists" during the 1990s, when you were serving under President Clinton. He asked, "What were they doing?"

It's possible that the vice president has spent so little time studying the terrorist phenomenon that he doesn't know about the successes in the 1990s. There were many. The Clinton administration stopped Iraqi terrorism against the United States, through military intervention. It stopped Iranian terrorism against the United States, through covert action. It stopped the al-Qaida attempt to have a dominant influence in Bosnia. It stopped the terrorist attacks at the millennium. It stopped many other terrorist attacks, including on the U.S. embassy in Albania. And it began a lethal covert action program against al-Qaida; it also launched military strikes against al-Qaida. Maybe the vice president was so busy running Halliburton at the time that he didn't notice.