It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

George Bush was the President when 9/11 happened. Why won't Jeb admit that ?

page: 4
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Because Bush or Obama had anything to say. It's not like there are people in the background pulling the strings..
edit on 17-2-2016 by Danowski because: typo




posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: pteridine

I stand by my split reference Kuwaiit/Iraq. Because of the intent for freeing Kuwaiit from Sadams takeover...he ordered bombimg of Iraq.

Therefore making enemies for life...


Kuwait was already freed and US had already made "enemies for life" by the time Clinton came along. The Gulf War was from August 2, 1990 to February 28, 1991.

The concept of removing Saddam was in the hands of Bush-the-Cowboy and Cheney-the-Greedy. Recently, Cheney conveniently forgot who started the Iraq war and tried to blame Obama. What a POS.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

The concept was actually born in 98...under Clinton's watch. He should have been dealing with the Presidents Daily Brief and not Monicas briefs...



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: pteridine

The concept was actually born in 98...under Clinton's watch. He should have been dealing with the Presidents Daily Brief and not Monicas briefs...


When the concept was born and when it was acted on are two different things. Contingency plans are always being made and Clinton didn't act on these plans. Daddy Bush, the one with brains, told the Shrub NOT to invade Iraq or remove Saddam. Saddam kept Iran in check. Dubya was looking for an excuse to clip Saddam from the first days of his presidency and didn't listen. Genius, pure genius.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Of course you can blame George W. Bush on 9/11. He was the chief in command, right ? But it is somehow not his responsibility?

Its like hiring a new chief of police in a small town.
This new chief of police is hardly working, but playing golf and mostly relaxing at home.
A year and a half later, a major "terrorist" attack happens in his town, but somehow this is the former chief's fault?
LOL
The reasoning here is ridicules.

Just take a look at the aftermath of 9/11. There was a cover up going on from the very first day.

First of all the laughable 9/11 commission. How much money was put into their effort compared to the investigation of Bill Clinton? Seems blowjobs are more important than 3000 dead people?
Who was originally selected head of the 9/11 commission? Henry freaking Kissinger! (ding ding! we have a winner!)

NIST explaining WTC 7? What a farce!

Investigating the money trail left on 9/11 -- irrelevant! ??

And lastly.. how the hell George W. Bush linked Saddam and 9/11 together is beyond me.
And its totally beyond me, how any sane person would believe it.

The world are now a complete mess and on the brink of WW3, because of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush!
Don't ever forget that!

Or did people already forget how we were lied into the first Gulf war in 1990?

The Nayirah testimony was a false testimony given before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990 by a 15-year-old girl who provided only her first name, Nayirah. The testimony was widely publicized, and was cited numerous times by United States senators and President George H.W. Bush in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War. In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ (Arabic: نيره الصباح‎) and that she was the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by American Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has come to be regarded as a classic example of modern atrocity propaganda.

(bolding mine)
WIKI source


Lies upon lies upon lies!!


edit on 17/2/2016 by kloejen because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Repugs always revert back to blaming Clinton for not killing OBL, but then stop short of blaming Reagan or Bush I when Reagan and Bush I were the ones that empowered OBL and the creation of "the database" of blackmarket arms smugglers that became Al Qaeda.


Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.
(source)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: mysterioustranger

Once Clinton started all this Kuwaiit/Iraq bombing in the early 1990's, he's had constant death threats from that.


That particular strike was around four days, specifically aimed at limiting Saddam's production of WMDs.
It was a no brainer for the UN, and in fact the biggest difficulty was persuading Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates to allow aircraft a landing zone. An earlier attack was dropped.
It was probably agitated too by Saddam not allowing weapons inspectors around a key area, but it's probably likely too that some inspectors or the entourage were intelligence men.
You might be surprised to know that much of the pressure for the attack came from the American Repubilcan side, while even that attack nearly didn't happen.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine
Bush senior didn't bomb Kuwait either. Desert Storm was to liberate Kuwait from the encroachment of Iraq. Nobody was bombing Kuwait itself.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

edit on thppmWed, 17 Feb 2016 14:49:13 -0600k1602America/Chicago1749 by Sparkymedic because: whooopps!



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: pteridine
Bush senior didn't bomb Kuwait either. Desert Storm was to liberate Kuwait from the encroachment of Iraq. Nobody was bombing Kuwait itself.


That is correct. The post I responded to was referring to Kuwait and implying Clinton was involved but the first Gulf war predated Clinton.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   


Who was on watch ?


These CLOWNS.



One that went on to become vice president.

Two others that became secretaries of state.

One that ran against GW

One that is currently running against Sanders.

Now considering the rise of ISIS,Benghazi, the San Bernadino Terrorist Attack.

And the 1993 First World Trade Center Attack,and the USS Cole, and other Embassy bombings that came before GW

Where you safe then?

Think your safe now ?

What I want to know is this country for over 30 years has had a epic failure foreign policy failures, and yet it seems only one guy gets 'called' out on it.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96



Who was on watch ?


These CLOWNS.



One that went on to become vice president.

Two others that became secretaries of state.

One that ran against GW

One that is currently running against Sanders.

Now considering the rise of ISIS,Benghazi, the San Bernadino Terrorist Attack.

And the 1993 First World Trade Center Attack,and the USS Cole, and other Embassy bombings that came before GW

Where you safe then?

Think your safe now ?

What I want to know is this country for over 30 years has had a epic failure foreign policy failures, and yet it seems only one guy gets 'called' out on it.




That's because that "One Guy" invaded Iraq for no reason and created ISIS. Well actually he invaded Iraq and created ISIS so that he could make Billions for himself and his buddies at Haliburton and so that we could have more military bases in the middle east. Yeah, he deserves a lot of blame for that crap.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

No reason eh ?

Only the people that never bothered to read Congressional APPROVAL call the IRaq Resolution think that.



The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[3][4] Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors. Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers. The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them. The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacemen


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: amazing

No reason eh ?

Only the people that never bothered to read Congressional APPROVAL call the IRaq Resolution think that.



The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[3][4] Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors. Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers. The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them. The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacemen


en.wikipedia.org...



That's just a bunch of trumped up crap. Our constitution was NOT written so that we could invade other countries for oil, Halliburton, and military colonialism around the world. Our military is supposed to be for the defense of our country. Known Al Queda operatives frequently travel in and out of Saudi Arabia, yet we dont' invade them.

In fact countries like Libya, Syria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Pakistan, India, Albania, and a dozen others pose a much graver threat. I posted previously all the known countries with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, but we need to invade Iraq.

Again, it wasn't for our security, it was for Dick Cheney's Haliburton and military bases in the middle east. Is that what you want our country to stand for?
edit on 17-2-2016 by amazing because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-2-2016 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   


That's because that "One Guy" invaded Iraq for no reason and created ISIS.


That 'one' guy's name is FDR.



Ibn Saud had conquered most of the Arabian peninsula and consolidated it into one kingdom with the help of the fanatically religious Wahhabi Bedouins, who believed, among other things, that dying in battle was a ticket to paradise, that all images, from pictures to statues, had to be destroyed, that drinking and smoking and singing and dancing were sins punishable by whipping, and so forth.


articles.baltimoresun.com...

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.

Hey everyone ?

Bush 'created' ISIS!



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

The FACT is congress VOTED.

A lot of LEFT wingers said YES.

I particularly like this SPEECH.

And the comments made in the first video in SUPPORT of it.

Come on now don't IGNORE IT.



I love it when people push intellectual DISHONESTY.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96



That's because that "One Guy" invaded Iraq for no reason and created ISIS.


That 'one' guy's name is FDR.



Ibn Saud had conquered most of the Arabian peninsula and consolidated it into one kingdom with the help of the fanatically religious Wahhabi Bedouins, who believed, among other things, that dying in battle was a ticket to paradise, that all images, from pictures to statues, had to be destroyed, that drinking and smoking and singing and dancing were sins punishable by whipping, and so forth.


articles.baltimoresun.com...

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.

Hey everyone ?

Bush 'created' ISIS!


We did Create Isis through our policies in Iraq. In fact many members of Isis have been trained by us and our Iraqi allies. You should do some research. Just as Reagan crated the Taliban and Al queda. We trained Osama Bin Laden and gave him weapons in Afghanistan to fight the russians. I suppose you never researched that either???



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

No we didn't.

Saudi Arabia did with it's twisted version of Islam, and Wahabist's DID.

FDR has been pointed out already.

So let's point out that guy Charlie Wilson. Democrat and his 'righteous' little war in afghanistan in the 80s.

That created bin laden.

Let's point out for eight years of CLinton lobbing cruise missiles at AQ had quite a bit to do with it.

And for the record ?

ISIS is AQ.

It just changed their name.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: amazing

No we didn't.

Saudi Arabia did with it's twisted version of Islam, and Wahabist's DID.

FDR has been pointed out already.

So let's point out that guy Charlie Wilson. Democrat and his 'righteous' little war in afghanistan in the 80s.

That created bin laden.

Let's point out for eight years of CLinton lobbing cruise missiles at AQ had quite a bit to do with it.

And for the record ?

ISIS is AQ.

It just changed their name.


LOL So you don't think that Presidents have power of military policy. Bush and Reagan were just pawns of congress and some democrats. You really do need to do some research. Stop listening to talk radio. That stuff will rot your brain.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   
The war in Iraq was just one phase of a multi phase operation, whoever sits in a house in Washington posing for the cameras is but a scape goat…

see?



new topics




 
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join