It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


ABC Docudrama: To Shift 9/11 Blame To Clinton

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 08:14 AM
seattlelaw, I'm merely pointing out to all the folks saying that Bin Laden is a fall guy working for the CIA (or some other theory that revolves around Bush being the sole person to blame for 9/11) that Clinton admitted to spending time every single week to discuss Bin Laden and he never took him out when the opportunity presented itself. So, either Clinton was behind 9/11 and he built up the Bin Laden myth and set him up to become the figure he became or Clinton ignored all the opportunities to get Bin Laden and as a result of his inaction and the inaction of the next administration Bin Laden, a real terrorist, actually did pull off the attacks.

As I have said, either Clinton and Bush worked on this thing together or there is no conspiracy involving Bin Laden because Clinton admits to being concerned about him and Clinton admits that they were aware of his funding the 93 WTC attack and Clinton admits that Bin Laden was involved in the Cole bombing and various embassy bombings.

This so called CIA agent who is being used as the fall guy for 9/11 has been involved in attacks all during two different presidential runs so they must BOTH be 100% involved conspiracy. If not, then Bush was running the CIA during Clinton's administration and Clinton is, therefore, the biggest do nothing clown on the face of the planet for allowing some shnook from Texas to control the country while he was groping fat interns.

I think that isn't the case. I think Bin Laden is real. I think Clinton fumbled the ball and Bush kicked it into the gutter.

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:00 PM
Assuming bin Laden is really the terrorist they make him out to be and was solely responsible (along with his al Qaeda cohorts) for the 911 events I still don't think you can blame those events on Clinton. It wasn't until the intelligence started coming in about the al Qaeda plans to attack the U.S. that anyone knew with any certainty what bin Laden was up to.

Saying Clinton should have killed bin Laden "when he had the chance" presumes that he did, in fact, have a chance. I question whether he ever had the means to kill him or the political will derived from concrete evidence that bin Laden was responsible for specific attacks under Clinton's watch.

For that matter, if Dubya was minimally honest about his screw ups before, during and after 911 I would at least cut him some slack. For me the fact that he and his henchmen and handlers habitually deny their own negligence (let alone complicity) and point fingers at everyone else indicates that they believe we are sheeple. I don't appreciate the disrespect both of the populace as well as the democratic process which requires a hard look at the truth before we can advance beyond this tragedy as a nation.

Their blatant obfuscation implies guilty association. But to say that this goes back to Carter is IMO ludicrous. Carter sent in troops to rescue the hostages and the commanders screwed the pooch leaving most of them dead on the sand. Reagan illegally negotiated the hostage release AFTER his inauguration in exchange for weapons. So if you want to go back in history you ought to be pointing the finger (middle finger) at Reagan.

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:29 PM
Seatlelaw I'm blaming both presidents. Not even saying one is more to blame.

you keep imlying that Bin Laden might not be to blame. If you really believe that Bin Laden is the fall guy, you then must put at least half of the blame on Clinton as he met weekly to discuss Bin Laden. Either he was discussing Bin Laden the terrorist or Bin Laden the CIA operative. IF he wasn't the terrorist, Clinton was putting dealing with a CIA operative and, therefore, Clinton is connected to the 9/11 conspiracy in a rather direct way.

Let me state again, I believe Bin Laden is a terrorist. I believe Clinton dropped the ball and Bush managed to lose that ball. Both are to blame. Both screwed up. Did one screw up more than the other? Maybe. I don't care. I lost friends on 9/11 and my life as well as my children and their children will never be the same. I don't care if one is only slightly at fault. That minor error might have been the difference.

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:55 PM
I am sorry for your loss.

I understand that you find Clinton and Bush equally to blame for 911. I'm not saying bin Laden is not a terrorist. The only information I have about bin Laden comes from media and a few books. Did he orchestrate the hijackings? Probably. Was Clinton complicit? Unlikely. But it is all speculation. All we know for certain is that Condi and Dubya were given direct warnings about an imminent attack similar to the one that took place and they ignored the warnings. The FBI screwed up too as they ignored agents' warnings about the flight school trainings, etc.

So, for me, unless you can tie a direct line to Clinton from specific warnings that he ignored you can't lay the blame at his feet. The fact is that he took the bin Laden threat much more seriously than Dubya as Dubya didn't pay any attention to it at all. Wolfowitz specifically told Clarke that he didn't believe bin Laden was a serious threat. That was only a few months before the attacks. They intentionally ignored the intel. Why? It doesn't matter.

It all belongs with Dubya and his people. It was their game.

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 01:49 PM
Clinton's missile launch that was done with an alert to pakistan, giving them enough time to alert Bin Laden to get out of dodge is one mistake he made. Now, there's no proof that Pakistan told Bin Laden but Pakistan was on friendly terms with the Taliban and they were the in control of the country so it is highly possible that they were warned.

Here's a link to a story NBC ran in 2004 about a huge missed opportunty courtesy the Clinton administration:

Google for Clinton's missed opportunities. there's tons of links. How many are blown opportunities and how many are simply suggested blown opportunities I don't know but there are a bunch of missed chances in there.

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 02:27 PM
It's an interesting article. I suppose our own constitutional preference for due process - innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - pervailed here. That may be why Clinton's directive was to capture him. Also, this is telling"

In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.

The GOP's drive to get Clinton any way they could illustrated a willingness to abandon their responsibilities to the electorate, both domestic and international, by spending inordinate amounts of time attacking Clinton over everything from the bs Whitewater investigation to Moncagate. Even then, the GOP controlled Congress was more interested in smearing the Clintons than in doing their jobs.

Remember, Clinton had already been accused of 'wag the dog' tactics when he did use military force. He simply could not win. Wolfowitz and the GOP neocons never did believe bin Laden was a dangerous character even up to 9/10/01. Clinton was hamstrung by the GOP.

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 03:11 PM

Originally posted by seattlelaw

Remember, Clinton had already been accused of 'wag the dog' tactics when he did use military force. He simply could not win.

Clinton's one use of force came with a warning to Pakistan that we would be using their airspace for a strike inside Afghanistan. Pakistan was allied with The Taliban at the time. If Mexico told us they were going to use our airpspace to attack inside of Canada, we'd tell Canada.

I do agree that the current group of clowns ignored any intel from Clinton's administration but, and I'm playing devil's advocate here, if Clinton's administration deemed him not that big of a threat , why would the intel his admin passed along to Bush say anything otherwise?

While I understand your need to pin all the blame on the republicans, you are overlooking the fact that Clinton passed his intel along to Bush and Clinton either didn't think Bin Laden was a big enough threat to bother with or he did. If he didn't, why the weekly meetings and why bother having the CIA try and locate the target if he wasn't one? If he was a big enough threat that he warned Bush that this was a dangerous group, why did he pass up the opportunities?

Clearly there is a problem on either side of the Clinton argument.

Either way, Bush dropped the ball after him. Two crappy runningbacks in my eyes. Why is it so hard for people to admit to a sharing of blame? Why can't it be both? why must it be all or none?

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 05:13 PM
As I said previously, I am not opposed to Clinton sharing blame. It's just that I think a reason for his sharing the blame has not adequately been expressed. As far as I can tell, Clinton gave instructions for bin Laden's capture. You indicate with your link that at one point film was taken from a predator drone that apparently shows a tall guy in white robes who could possibly have been bin Laden.

This was at an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan which, at that time, was run by the Taliban fanatics. Our closest base was where? It's not like Clinton could tell them to go and pick him up like he was at the tavern down on the corner. However we apparently had him cornered in Tora Bora but Dubya refused to put down the troops necessary to pick him up. Incredibly, he and Rummy decided to leave it to the Afghan militias to do the job for him while he dropped daisy cutters and other WMD on the mountains. Talk about negligent! This was AFTER 911 and he had identified bin Laden as the mastermind yet he refused to use all means to collect the SOB. Why?

And why were the Taliban allowed to be flown out of Afghanistan? I simply don't understand it. I ask you, what is with Dubya's insistence on using less than the number of troops necessary to get the freaking job done? He did it in Afghansitan and he's been doing it in Iraq since the invasion began. For all his tough talk he refuses to do what is necessary to accomplish his stated objectives. And I'll tell you why. It's because he doesn't have a game plan. First it was to et bin Laden "dead or alive". Next it was getting rid of the WMD in Iraq. Then it was to get Saddam as terrorist with WMD plans. Then it was bringing freedom to the Iraqi people. Next it was to put down the insurgency in Iraq. Now it's sectarian violence and Iran's influence in Iraq we have to battle.

I'm telling ya, these guys are compete nut jobs and it is ruining this country. Now if you want to blame Clinton for this stuff be my guest. I just don't see the connection. He had no authority to kill bin Laden prior to 9/11 if a president is bound by international or domestic law. Dubya thinks he's above it and he still can't find bin Laden. The sad fact is he really doesn't care where bin Laden is. It's not part of his screwy agenda any longer. Apparently bin Laden's not quite the threat he was made out to be based on Dubya's disregard of him.

The truth is it goes so much deeper than bin Laden and al Qaeda. For example, why did Pakistan wire $100K to a terrorist on 9/10/01? Bin Laden's just a bogey man IMO. They always need someone to hang this stuff on and the bin Laden family was done with this black sheep anyhow.

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 05:36 PM
Supposing: Clinton was incompetent
Supposing: Clinton didnt care
Supposing: Clinton was too busy with his sex life....

If the Bushman did not want to become the war time president he would have immediatedly IMMEDIATEDLY LOOKED INTO THIS AND told Americans we had been under a threat..WHICH CLINTON DID NOTHING ABOUT and he would do something ASAP. NOW! Instead, he got all sorts of information about Bin Ladin and totally IGNORED IT. (the previous was sceneario #1)

Scenario#2- Bush had all the information, but if something should happen, it would be the green light to Bush to start WARS and they chose to go this way.
The WAR TIME PRESIDENT, would not be that, if this wasnt in place.

Scenario #3- Clinton knew, Bush new, and it would one day pave the way for the coming of the NWO and would conveniently pave the way for wars to come, and nothing could have been started (by the USA) had this been averted.

All in all, who benefited? BUSH. I dont care how you sugarcoat it, he's the PRESENT PRESIDENT. The current agenda is HIS. The desire to be WAR TIME PRESIDENT is his. Who else benefited?

Cheney, Rumsfeld...Halleburton...the profit has been astronomical. Hasnt it?
There you have it. $$$$$profit for the elite.

Who profits from anything? The elite. Even with Katrina, Clinton didnt profit, did he.

Nothing like placing culpability to a past president who ran this country in the best and most prosperous way. There is only one person to blame. And THAT is this administration.

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 06:28 PM

Originally posted by dgtempeNothing like placing culpability to a past president who ran this country in the best and most prosperous way.

please don't give clinton all the credit for the cycle of the economy unless you want to blame him for the downturn which began before Bush took office. That's right, check out the beginning of the end of the ride. March 2000. I think it was around the 15th or so when Clinton and Blair signed the information sharing pact that effectively crushed the biotechs.

I find it so sad that not one person can admit that Clinton might have actually erred with regards to Bin Laden. Erred. Not totally to blame. Erred. Hell, you folks would probably be willing to clean up the mess on the dress too.

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 06:32 PM
The mess on the dress was none of YOUR business and none of MINE.

The here and NOW is what matters and its here and NOW now.


posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 06:46 PM

Originally posted by dgtempe
The mess on the dress was none of YOUR business and none of MINE.

it is my business if he was too busy dealing with getting oral sex to worry about a man who later went on to kill some 3000 americans.

Every president has his affairs, I'm sure. Clinton had bad taste in women and he got caught. It happens. If it happened to me, people would probably not die (well, I would cause the wife would kill me). If it happens to a president, it's a different story. How can you say for sure that he wasn't too concerned with protecting slick little willy to fully focus on Bin Laden and the things he had done and was planning on doing?

You can't.

Let me remind you for the umpteenth time. Clinton said this past week that he was so concerned with Bin Laden that he met once a week to discuss him. If he was so concerned, why would he pass up the opportunity to take him out when it was there? Remember, he was financially behind the 1993 WTC bombing and he was behind the attack on the Cole as well as several Embassies around the world. So, this man, who was behind several attacks on american interests in and out of the US is known to be involved and known to be planning more attacks and we have spent time and money spying on him to find him and we have two subs armed and ready off the coast, in the event he does pop up and yet he is not important enough to take out. Sounds completely odd to me.

So, I ask you again, if he wasn't so important to Clinton, how could the intel that Clinton passed along to Bush have said he was a major threat that should be taken as seriously as possible?

I think that's not the case. I think Clinton screwed up by not wanting to be an aggressor and take the guy out. He then told Bush to be on the lookout for him and Bush, well, he's a boob and he muffed it further.

Why can't any of you admit that that is the most plausible scenario? Why is that so hard for you guys? Too much dress mess clouding your judgement?

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 06:54 PM
I must admit to a certain amount of frustration with the Bush apologists who repeatedly seek to place the blame for the current fiasco that is Bush Inc. on the Clintons. If it's not Bill and the Blowjob it's Hillary the Hated who must be responsible. I am disappointed that Hillary signed on for this quagmire but other than that I am sick and tired of the right continuing, years later, to blame Clinton for everything under the sun.

The right plays the blame game better than anybody but when it comes to accountability for their own ineptitude ... forget about it. So I admit I have a knee jerk reaction against people who choose to lay something off on the Clintons based on past experience with everyone from Limbaugh the Lightweight to Rove the Reactionary (best I could think of). You may as well blame Kennedy for all this as far as I'm concerned.

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Crakeur

So, I ask you again, if he wasn't so important to Clinton, how could the intel that Clinton passed along to Bush have said he was a major threat that should be taken as seriously as possible?

I think that's not the case.

Read Richard Clarke's book. Clarke gave them all the 411 they needed and begged for a meeting with Bush to detail the threat but Bush and Condi blew him off. Clarke did his job. This isn't about blowjobs, handjobs, dresses or stains, it's about a president who refused to listen to anyone associated with Clinton because he and the neocons who stole the 2000 election disdained the man. They'd hated him for 8 years and they weren't about to take his advice once they took his office.

Yes, it is childish if not outright moronic, but that's what they did. They thumbed their collective noses at anything Clinton told them out of spite. And that's why, if the Dubya crew wasn't complicit with the attacks, they dropped the ball and tens of thousands have died, been born with birth defects or still born, or been mutilated.

It'a also why we now face a literal army of disaffected and angry Muslims many of whom have lost their families and have no reason to do anything but seek revenge.

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:12 PM
and there is the problem. I am not a Bush apologist. Nor am I right wing. Matter of fact, I recently spent a few hours with the Clintons at a fund raiser for Hil. Met them both for the third time. I'm a repblicrat? Democan? Hmm. I didn't think my asking someone to consider the possibility that Clinton might have made a mistake would result in such a diatribe about bush apologists.

I am neither republican nor democrat. I'm an open minded free thinker who doesn't allow the constraints of one party to taint my view so much that I am unwilling to spot the mistakes made by both sides. Sadly, the most vocal people in our society cannot see both sides of an issue. Since it is clear that y'all aren't going to admit to the possibility that Clinton might have erred, there's no point in continuing this conversation, is there?

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:32 PM
No man, no, it means simply that you haven't persuaded us that Clinton is at fault regarding 911. But unless you have more than innuendo to persuade us with, it probably is time to end the discussion.

Like I said, I wouldn't really care if Clinton were implicated. Unlike you, I have never met the guy and have no personal investment in his future. If he were truly partly responsible for 911 I would say put him in jail with the rest of the jerks. I simply don't see the connection you're trying to make.

My anger with the right is because of what the right has done and has failed to do. I think the neocons have done more harm to this democracy and to the world at large than any political party since the Nazis were in business. That stems not from any animosity towards the GOP per se, but rather towards their openly selfish agenda of maximizing personal profit at the expense of the rest of the world whether through accelerating global warming, relaxing pollution controls, no bid contracts for pals, deregulating so that Enrons and Worldcoms can steal pensions and bankrupt corporations, turning away from diplomacy and towards military conflict causing massive death and destruction, lying to the public and Congress about facts, motivations and other aspects of reality which contradict their agenda, their practice of destroying careers of those who question their agenda, giving Israel the green light to bomb hell out of Lebanon and continue their aggressions towards innocent Palestinians etc., having no response to Katrina but watch the bodies bloat etc., etc.

They're both incompetent fools and also megalomaniacal whores without so much as a splinter of empathy in their bones and most of them ought to be in prison. For my money Clinton moved to the center and it cost the dem's a great deal which may never be recovered. I am no fan of Clinton. He was a great speaker but I disagreed with much of his policy. But he certainly didn't screw the pooch the way Bush has been. And, if a blowjob by a fat intern with fat lips takes some of the load off him I say who the hell cares? Bush isn't doing anything useful. He might as well get some head himself.

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 08:46 PM
Since clinton did nothing about bin laden in all the years he was in office then yes part of the blame goes to him.

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 06:34 AM
I see the Mocudrama worked on the mentally challenged!

Its ok, run with it- tell all your friends and neighbors to get the dvd and get an education.

There is not but one man/bunch that is to blame, and that is the current administration.

SUPPOSING Clinton dropped the ball-----Then Bush dropped it much much worse by not paying attention to the "intelligence" who told him and Condalooser Rice day in and day out that this was coming.

BUT- how else would he have become "THE WAR TIME PRESIDENT" if this hadnt happened??? THE DECIDER.

Gimme a break. The ownice is with the CURRENT president to set things straight, y'all. Isnt it????
You're shifting the blame (as the mocudrama intended to do) and that is very narrowminded and inmature, to say the least.

Instead, this government allowed this to happen ( at the very least) and who gained by it all????


posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 07:23 AM

Originally posted by dgtempe
I see the Mocudrama worked on the mentally challenged!

please tell me you aren't calling me mentally challenged. that wouldn't be fair to the mentally challenged individuals out there.

I didn't watch the show on ABC. I did see Clinton getting upset about the accusations and then saying he spent time every week on Bin Laden. I made the connections using my apparently challenged mind. He defended his actions by saying he spent time every week to bee kept up to date on the man. Then why not take him out? DG, you are a smart person. Forget the names of the individuals for a second. No, wait, change the names. Let's say it was Bush who met weekly to discuss Bin Laden and then never acted on the opportunities the CIA presented. You'd be going berserk. Sadly, you are blinded by one man's charisma.

Look past his charm and look at the facts as they are presented and I'm not talking about some tv show that dramatizes something. Look at what the Clinton administration said. We had chances but Clinton didn't think it was necessary. There was too much risk. He wasn't that high on the danger list. Lots of talk.

I don't know, maybe it's my apparent lack of intelligence in comparison to yours that is making this seem so pathetic to me but it sure does look like you are not allowing yourself to believe that a democrat (or is it just Clinton?) might also be at fault. Does this go for all aspects of his life? Does he not fart? Does he not stumble, trip, doze off at the movies, screw up someone's name etc?

He's human. His philandering ways have shown that to be true So, if he err in his marriage, why not in his job?

Oh, wait, I forgot, you don't think his cheating on his wife, several times, is a bad thing. If he did it with nice tail, I'd forgive him too but he swapped ugly for ugly and that is a crime in and of itself.

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 03:05 PM

Originally posted by dgtempe
I see the Mocudrama worked on the mentally challenged!

Typical. Can't force someone to agree with you so the only things you can resort to are insults and name calling (and the emoticon doesn't excuse you for what you said). That is exactly where the "elitist" label comes from. You apparently think you see everything so much more clearly than the rest of us that we don't need to bother thinking for ourselves. We just need to wait until you tell us all what we should think and do.

Thanks for the demonstration.

[edit on 9/15/2006 by centurion1211]

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in