Clinton did not do enough.....

TheDoctor said:
Is that simple. The bushies did nothing whatsoever and the Clinton Administration at least listen to briefings and tried.

Wrong! Seventy ongoing FBI investigation is nothing??? Are you blind or just ignoring the facts.

Clinton did NOT get OBL when he had the chance. He was off playing golf somewhere when OBL was "in our sights" and couldn't be reached in time (or he ignored his caller ID) before the window of opportunity passed.
 
Charade said:
Clinton did NOT get OBL when he had the chance. He was off playing golf somewhere when OBL was "in our sights" and couldn't be reached in time (or he ignored his caller ID) before the window of opportunity passed.
Do you have a source for this fairy tale other than the free republic?
 
I was always skeptical about the no attacks or threats in five years bit, but after looking at Clinton's track record, they may actually have a point. Oh but wait, a lot of those weren't on U.S. soil, so they don't count right?
 
TheDoctor said:
Wrong. The Democrats are looking at facts. Here is an example of a fact that demonstates the differences between the bushies and the Clinton administration. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/washington/27hillary.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Is that simple. The bushies did nothing whatsoever and the Clinton Administration at least listen to briefings and tried.

Had the Clinton administration changed policy in airport security, we may not even be having this conversation. You're seeing ONLY what you want to see.
 

N.Bailey said:
Had the Clinton administration changed policy in airport security, we may not even be having this conversation. You're seeing ONLY what you want to see.



????

Huh?

I've heard and agreed/disagreed with a lot of inferences/facts thrown around, but this one's a doozie. Let me think,,,, who was the only prez with control of both houses of congress (for about 8 months i think) that could have easily moved thru 'corrections' to the lapses in the previous admin's border/immigration security policies. Gimmie a minit... what is that guy's name????
 
Clinton and his administration have been an embarrasment to the US.
 
dwbakerjr said:
????

Huh?

I've heard and agreed/disagreed with a lot of inferences/facts thrown around, but this one's a doozie. Let me think,,,, who was the only prez with control of both houses of congress (for about 8 months i think) that could have easily moved thru 'corrections' to the lapses in the previous admin's border/immigration security policies. Gimmie a minit... what is that guy's name????

You must have forgotten this guys name too? For the record, I also hold the Bush administration responsible, or as accountable anyway as those who are responsible are the terrorists and the terrorists alone. Every form of government failed for 9/11 to have transpired, but I don't think pointing fingers gets us anywhere. I just got into this topic because Doctor refused to acknowledge that Clinton administration had ANY failures at all.

N.Bailey said:
I have refrained from posting this because I see it as playing the same old tiring game that gets us nowhere. I will never give either side a free pass. YES, Clinton passed the buck, TOO. Your failure to acknowledge that really leaves me dumbfounded. So, answer me this, if the presidency was SO perfect:

After TWA Flight 800 was downed in 1996, President Clinton appointed Al Gore to chair the White House Commission on Aviation Safety. MANY expected Gore to center on fighting terrorism as part of his proposal. That is after all, why he was appointed in the first place, is it not? So, why don't you tell us exactly what Al Gore did? I'll tell you what he did, he lined his pockets full of pay out money at minimal for the Democratic party (to the tune of almost a half a million) from various airlines, but my guess is, he got some nice little kick backs personally too.

In the end, he did propose a few things, but he NEVER gave them a deadline for ANY of these things, did he? Do you think tougher airline security may have prevented 9/11 altogether? I guess we'll never know, will we?
 
Countdown has a good report on the steps or lack of steps taken by the bush administration in the first 8 months. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/...ushs-first-months-in-office-leading-up-to-911 It is a good report.

I also this on one of the blogs. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8734-2002Jan19 This passage stood out like a sore thumb given the fact that President Clinton asked by faux news has never asked any bush administration official about bush's failure to follow through on the Cole.
At least twice, Bush conveyed the message to the Taliban that the United States would hold the regime responsible for an al Qaeda attack. But after concluding that bin Laden's group had carried out the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole – a conclusion stated without hedge in a Feb. 9 briefing for Vice President Cheney – the new administration did not choose to order armed forces into action.
It was bush who forgot to follow through on the Cole and perhaps that is what encouraged the Sept. 11 attacks.
 
TheDoctor said:
It was bush who forgot to follow through on the Cole and perhaps that is what encouraged the Sept. 11 attacks.


Oh, yeah, that's exactly it.

Perhaps when Clinton had OBL "in his sights" he could have zipped up for a minute and taken him out.
 
I don't care what Clinton did or did not do, I don't care what President Bush did before 9/11. All I know for sure is, that he is trying everything possible to protect this country. It's the Islamic terroriest fault that we are in this war!!! The sooner we kill all of them the better. I don't care who the President is, if they had know about 9/11 before it happened, they would have done everything in their power to stop it!!!!! I only hope that we learn from the lessons of our past and don't make them again. The most important thing is, if we don't as a country start coming together to fight this war, we are going to loose. :furious: :furious: :furious:
 
N.Bailey said:
The ENTIRE government let us all down. The left, the right, the CIA, the FBI, and on, and on, and on, and on.

How one sentence can say it all.
 
Mamu said:
How one sentence can say it all.
One logical sentence can usually say it all, but we always have to have the "political pundits" who have to rag on Clinton because he's Democrat or Bush because he's Republican.

I truly don't know why I continue to open political threads. They denigrate into the same idiocy all the time. :rolleyes: I guess hope springs eternal in my heart that someday, DISers will be able to have an intelligent political discussion, without name calling and nastiness. I will probably die without ever having my dream realized. :sad2:

People on an Internet discussion thread can't even have a civil discussion (I can't call this a debate), so imagine what our elected offificals behave like behind closed doors.
 
Hillary Clinton also trying her hand at revisionism, man I really hope she runs for president. :rotfl:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/746wewfh.asp

Apparently referring to the August 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing, which was entitled "bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US," Senator Clinton suggested that her husband did not receive the same type of warnings that President Bush did.

In fact, President Clinton signed a similar classified document--which contained an explicit warning from the U.S. Intelligence Community that bin Laden intended to strike inside the United States, more than two years prior to leaving office. And the U.S. intelligence community collected numerous pieces of intelligence concerning bin Laden's determination to strike inside the United States during President Clinton's tenure. In addition to the failed plot against the World Trade Center in 1993 and the failed al
Qaeda plot against LAX airport in 1999, there were clear indications that bin Laden's terror empire intended to strike targets in the continental United States.

The warning signs collected during the Clinton administration are outlined in the bipartisan "Report of the Joint Inquiry into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001," which was jointly published by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in December 2002.

The Joint Inquiry outlines a number of U.S. government failures in the years leading up to September 11, 2001. Among the report's findings, the committees concluded that prior to September 11, 2001: The "U.S. Intelligence Community was involved in fighting a 'war' against Bin Laden largely without the benefit of what some would call its most potent weapon in that effort: an alert and committed American public."

The report goes on to list three examples of "information that was shared with senior U.S. Government officials, but was not made available to the American public because of its national security classification." This information was "explicit about the gravity and immediacy of the threat posed by Bin Laden" and included "a classified document" signed by President Clinton in December 1998, which read in part:

"The Intelligence Community has strong indications that Bin Laden intends to conduct or sponsor attacks inside the United States."

This conclusion was based on numerous threads of evidence. Beginning in 1998 the U.S. intelligence community received regular reporting concerning not only al Qaeda's determination to carry out attacks in the United States but that the terror group also planned to hijack civilian aircraft. Some of the reporting even specifically referenced the World Trade Center.
 
Disney Doll said:
One logical sentence can usually say it all, but we always have to have the "political pundits" who have to rag on Clinton because he's Democrat or Bush because he's Republican.

I truly don't know why I continue to open political threads. They denigrate into the same idiocy all the time. :rolleyes: I guess hope springs eternal in my heart that someday, DISers will be able to have an intelligent political discussion, without name calling and nastiness. I will probably die without ever having my dream realized. :sad2:

People on an Internet discussion thread can't even have a civil discussion (I can't call this a debate), so imagine what our elected offificals behave like behind closed doors.

You have hit the nail on the head! :thumbsup2 This is exactly what I've been feeling. Too bad we can't discuss without getting out of control. There are some on this board who seem to be sooooooo angry. I keep telling myself NO to political threads here, but I can't help it. But....it leaves me so stressed.

I WILL NOT OPEN POLITICAL THREADS....I WILL NOT OPEN POLICITAL THREADS...I WILL NOT......Oh well, I don't think that is going to work either! :rolleyes1
 
Charade said:
Oh, yeah, that's exactly it.

Perhaps when Clinton had OBL "in his sights" he could have zipped up for a minute and taken him out.

You keep saying this but what about when Bush had OBL "in his sights" and pulled the troops to Iraq instead? :confused3
 
nuke said:
You keep saying this but what about when Bush had OBL "in his sights" and pulled the troops to Iraq instead? :confused3
:rotfl: :rotfl2: The conservatives do not want to discuss Tora Bora or the fact that the war in Iraq has made the world and America less safe. Bush took troops who could have caught Bin Ladin and sent these troops to Iraq to get the man who tried to kill his poppy even though there was NO evidence that Saddam was a threat to the US.

Here is something posted elsewhere on the DIS that is relevant. http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/9/27/84111/0004
2 CIA officials tell us Washington –twice– declined to send the reinforcements they asked for when bin Laden was cornered in Afghanistan in 2001. By the time of the 2nd request by the CIA for troops, the special ops force could hear Osama on radio asking his followers for forgiveness for leading them to their imminent capture. It was that close.
Bush decided (he is the Decider after all) that going after Saddam was more important than capturing Bin Ladin. Is it any wonder that Bin Ladin did his best to get bush re-elected in 2004. Bush is Bin Ladin's boy because Bin Ladin knows that bush's policies are great for Al Qaeda.
 
Mamu said:
How one sentence can say it all.

I agree, the entire government let us down. With that said, 20/20 hindsight is always different than the "reality" back then. Since nothing on the scale of 9/11 had ever happened on U.S. soil, I believe it was very diffiuclt for anyone to envision 9/11. It doesn't make it right, but I think we were all asleep at the switch to some degree.
 
OT:
(hmmm.. i am wondering how long will this thread last.. no surprises if this thread gets locked up just like the other ones..)..

sorry.. carry on...
 
salmoneous said:
If there is a single DIS poster who does not agree with the following - "Neither Bill Clinton nor George W Bush did enough to stop alQaeda from attacking us on 9/11" they are a complete idiot.

Now if people want to argue that both of them did what they thought was best at the time and it's only in retrospect we see the problems, that's still open for debate.

ITA! :thumbsup2
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom