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.

 

9/11 Panel Faults Clinton Inaction

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Must Read!!!


it was even a dem that said that clinton coulda done more.


9/11 Panel Faults Clinton Inaction




posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I've been saying it for nearly 3 years now that Slick Willy could have done something against al-Qaida. And when it comes from a Demmie and the biggeest liberal news system CNN you know that Clinton failed.

He had alot of times to get Osama, offerd by the Saduioes at least 3 times.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Bush had 200+ days, Clinton had 2 terms. You be the judge.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob88
Bush had 200+ days, Clinton had 2 terms. You be the judge.


Yeah and if Bush had gotten the Principles committee together on this like Clinton did 9/11 probably would not have happened. There is no question though that Clinton should of done more, was there ever a question about that?



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   
It's amazing that it took a study or investigation to discover this !

Bob88 makes a valid comparison too.

Also, do you think the US economy is such that one man can bring it down in a hundred or two days?

Not likely.

But when the pilot of an aircraft leaves his post during critical moments, do you blame the guy who steps up and jumps in the seat to try to save the plane? Or do you blame the pilot who was distracted by cigars and partisanship, while flying (but not inhaling).

..



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob88
Bush had 200+ days, Clinton had 2 terms. You be the judge.


I do concur Bob:





seekerof



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by smirkley
But when the pilot of an aircraft leaves his post during critical moments, do you blame the guy who steps up and jumps in the seat to try to save the plane? Or do you blame the pilot who was distracted by cigars and partisanship, while flying (but not inhaling).

..


That is such a flawed argument. Where do people come up with this crapola.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by JediMaster
I've been saying it for nearly 3 years now that Slick Willy could have done something against al-Qaida. And when it comes from a Demmie and the biggeest liberal news system CNN you know that Clinton failed.

He had alot of times to get Osama, offerd by the Saduioes at least 3 times.



IVE BEEN SAYING THIS ALL ALONG!



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I don't care if a Dem or a Repub was at fault. In my eyes, they all failed us.
We pay out huge taxes to pay those lazy SOBs and part of their job is the protection of this country.

They failed us.

Now admit the screw-up, get the bastards who did it, find out what went wrong and fix the problem so a 9/11 never happens again.

They at least owe us that.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Hey JOHNSmith, probably at the same 'store' you guys come up with your anti-Bush and Dr. Rice "crapola", maybe?


The truth hurts doesn't it? Clinton and his Clintonista's have had signs and warnings for how many years that something of the magnitude of 9/11 could possibly happen and they did what to prevent it? Project Bojinka ring a bell? Airline safety commission ring a bell? 3-6 missed opportunities to nab or take out Bin Laden ring a bell? Janet Reno ring one? Yet, in each and every case, you Clintonista's have a happy viable excuse for his McDonald's ridden silly ass! How ironic, indeed.
Crapola begets crapola...oh, wait. Isn't that called partisan politics?




seekerof

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by J0HNSmith
There is no question though that Clinton should of done more, was there ever a question about that?


Only to those that seem to want to take attention away from the current administration's responsibility in all of this.

I'm glad we've established that Clinton made mistakes during his presidency. Hopefully, in the coming weeks when Bush/Cheney meet with the commission, we can establish that their inactions are also to blame.

US intelligence failed us.

[Edited on 4/10/2004 by Bangin]



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Your right Bangin'.....
The fault is not solely one administrations fault. Its a number of administrations faults that maintained the US's internal security policies of "complacency".

So instead of finding out how to minimalize or prevent another such occurance as 9/11, the 9/11 commission and both political parties have resorted to the same ole' grand game of point-the-finger or partisan politics....which has of yet, done NOTHING to get America back on track.


seekerof

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof.
So instead of finding out how to minimalize or prevent another such occurance as 9/11, the 9/11 commission and both political parties have resorted to the same ole' grand game of point-the-finger or partisan politics....which has of yet, done NOTHING to get America back on track. seekerof


You are very right on those points. None of those people can see past November. They seem to be overly concerned with covering their own asses rather than figuring out what will get the problems fixed and the fences mended.

And only one apology? Cruddy bastards.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Gee let's see. Clinton was wrong, I agree but let's not forget the last 4 years of his administration was tied up trying to fight off the attacks of the republican party due to him getting a BJ from an intern. Seriously think about the millions spent to impeach him, consider the fact he had to focus all the resources and time to defending that while the this threat existed. I am not saying it completely get's him off the hook but it certainly did not help.

Also even Rice said the world was different before that day. the CIA and FBI did not talk or work together. Clinton ordered Osama killed, the CIA said no, this was released in testimony with the commision.

End result, the US government failed. ALL OF THEM.

I am not by the way a clinton fan, but we did let our obsession wiht sex take control of our government for a long time.

Also are we not going to hold anyone in congress accountable? What about the senate intelligence committee, they get as much as the president on threats? What about the CIA/FBI and military intelligence. Why do they get a free ride.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by J0HNSmith

Originally posted by smirkley
But when the pilot of an aircraft leaves his post during critical moments, do you blame the guy who steps up and jumps in the seat to try to save the plane? Or do you blame the pilot who was distracted by cigars and partisanship, while flying (but not inhaling).

..


That is such a flawed argument. Where do people come up with this crapola.


There is NO flaw in my analogy. Way too many resources were wasted and time spent, determining if he had been with 'that woman', as well as other issue's that were distracting. The bubble economy was perched at failure at the moment of the change of the guard. But becouse there was an 'illegal' surplus of cash in the US budget, and the economy made a bunch of IT folks rich, and all that changed after the election, does not put the blame on Bush becouse he refunded some taxes.

Same goes for Osama inc. Way too much time and resources were wasted while the potential of the terrorist org grew.

Bush jumps in the seat and does what he can with what he has available, and he ACTS on his info, and doesnt display complacency toward the 'tough' issue's.

..



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Is anyone surprised at this? This administration and the "independent" commision are good at PASSING THE BUCK. They never accept responsibility for anything---just blame it on Clinton. We've lied and maligned him so much during his term why not another smear. Can't you repugs come up with a better tactic?

Why hasn't anyone asked why Bush was on holiday for A MONTH when these guys were plotting 9/11? I guess that's Clinton's fault too. Now, they're tralking about an "illegal" surplus when years ago they were praising it, as if deficits are a good thing now?

These people are evil and vile. Never trust them.

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Colonel]



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
Is anyone surprised at this? This administration and the "independent" commision are good at PASSING THE BUCK. They never accept responsibility for anything---just blame it on Clinton. We've lied and maligned him so much during his term why not another smear. Can't you repugs come up with a better tactic?

Why hasn't anyone asked why Bush was on holiday for A MONTH when these guys were plotting 9/11? I guess that's Clinton's fault too. Now, they're tralking about an "illegal" surplus when years ago they were praising it, as if deficits are a good thing now?

These people are evil and vile. Never trust them.

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Colonel]



did you even read the article. bob kerry, a dem mind you, said that clinton could done more.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 08:18 PM
link   
We've been talking about this on another thread.www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here are my thoughts on clintons inactivity:

Between 1993 and 2000, four major terror attacks were made against the US. The first one was in 1993 in New York City at the World Trade Center. A car bomb in the underground parking lot exploded, killing six and injuring thousands. Osama bin Laden was believed to be the mastermind behind the attack. In response to the attacks, Bill Clinton said, "I would plead with the American people and the good people of New York to keep your courage up and go on about your lives. I would discourage the American people from overreacting to this," He also laid out his plan for cracking down on the terrorists behind the attacks, he said he would use "the full, full resources of the federal law enforcement agencies - all kinds of agencies, all kinds of access to information - at the service of those who are trying to figure out who did this and why." But Clinton didnt change his policy of fighting terrorism at all. "From the time President Clinton took office until May of 1995, a Presidential Decision Directive, PDD 39, sat in the National Security Council, in the In Box of one of the officials with no action taken. The significance of PDD 39 is that it was the document defining what the missions and roles were of combating terrorism," says Howard Johnson, formerly with the CIA and state dept. Clinton finally passed the PDD 39 after the Okalahoma City Bombing.
The second attack took place on June 25, 1996 in Saudi Arabia. Explosives were used in the U.S. military complex and Khobar Towers, killing nineteen Americans. Again, Clinton said he would get to the bottom of the attack: "The explosion appears to be the work of terrorists. The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished," Clinton said. "America takes care of its own." But once again, Clinton didnt take any action. The explosives used in the attack were believed to of come out of Lebanon, which at the time, was a country with trade restrictions with the US, but a year later, Clinton lifted the trade restrictions with the country.
Thirdly, on August 7, 1998, two US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania were attacked, killing 258 people, and injuring more than 5,000. Bin Laden and his terror network were once again blamed for the attacks. The only thing Clinton did in response to the attacks was launch cruise missiles at locations where there were believed to be Al-Qaeda training camps.
Finally, in the year 2000, on October 12, terrorists drove a boat packed with explosives into the side of the USS Cole, nearly sinking it, and killing 17 sailors. In response to the attack, Clinton ordered military personnel in that area to step up security.
In conclusion, we can see that Clintons failure to fight terrorism from the beginning of 1993 led to major attacks against the US. By ignoring and taking no action against terrorist cells around the world, terrorists were able to plan and carry out their attacks virtually unrestricted.

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Slayer]



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Why would Clinton take action? Look at what resistance we are seeing now toward a pre-emtive strike. How can we actually sit and bitch because no one took action to stop Bin-Hiden and in the next breath nit-pick out enough reason to criticize the exact same thing. What if we had done nothing to stop Hussien and he had masterminded a suitcase nuke attack? Would we be at this same juncture asking these same stupid questions? I'd bet money on it. The same whiners crying about why we didn't take action against terror cells in Afghanistan are the same ones bitching about Iraq. The same people that were all for dis-arming the "dangerous" American citizen population during the 90s are the same ones bitching because terror cells are being denied their rights!


Damn it to hell people, the fact that anyone can ask why nothing was done in the face of the current situation is absolutly absurb squared!

We cannot unite against a force whos every action is toward the downfall of democracy and liberty plus the genocide of everyone in the world who isn't them for fear that we might offend or hurt someone's feelings.

And you all have the nerve to ask why a leader didn't take action? What if either Clinton or Bush had went into Afghanistan? What if they had raided the terror sects in the US? What if 9-11 had been prevented but no evidence could be found that it was to even happen? Would we be happy? Would we even think that something of that magnatude had been stopped...or would we be bitching and crying and whining about whether or not there was just cause to do it?

Nothing was done because either Clinton or Bush failed. Nothing was done because of us and the impossible task of wiping the noses of every little whimpering crybaby when something nasty must be done. You want to know who is responsible? Every last one of us. Have we learned a damn thing? You be the judge.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Did Clinton say don't kill OBL? Or did the CIA say don't kill OBL? I have seen both arguments here.

Regardless. Clinton was busy trying to find peace between Israel and Palestine. Oh yeah, he offered a great solution that would move Israel back to its pre-67 borders, and have a 2 state solution. Arafat decided, no, I would rather send my young people to die, and backed out of the talks.

A lot of the anger in the middle east stems from the US support of Israel. And they believe its the US-Jews against Islam. Unfortunately Sharon and Arafat are currently causing more problems with their violence.

If there is peace between Israel and Palestine, and open communication between Israel and the Arab world, the youth would see a different view on things. What would the radical Islamic teachers teach then? Would they then actually turn on their regimes and blame them for how poor and uneducated their people are? (OK, pipe dream).

A majority of the Arab world needs to modernize. India does not have issues with us. They have one of the largest Muslim groups of people. Oh yeah, they are a modern society with democracy as its base.

If people would just look past Willy's faults and look at some of the stuff that he has done that has not reached mass media every second of every day, you will see Clinton was actually a decent Pres.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join