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.

 

Fox reporter: Bush ‘inherited the 9/11 attacks.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
You mustn’t of read what I said.

'' They needed someone STUPID ''

I never said Bush was a genius, I said he was an idiot. A pawn.

Which one of these are hearsay?

1. Valerie Plame being outed
2. Forged nigerian documents
3. Missing Emails
4. Ignoring subpheonas
5. FBI warnings of terrorists training in Florida
6. Briefing warnings of impending terrorist attack
7. Intellegence warnings stating Iraq intelligence seriously flawed
8. PNAC agreement
9. George stating in 2000 that he would take out Iraq if given the chance
10. Georges administration being warned of the immediate threat from Osama from the Clinton administration
11. The dodgy voting machines in 2000

I’m always amazed by you Bush supporters, who believe an agenda at the highest levels of government wouldn’t include

Congress '' Pelosi not opening impeachment trials ''
or
The Supreme Court '' the same court that appointed Bush President and allowed Subpoenas to be ignored. ''

How many Subpoenas have been issued and ignored by the Bush admin?
You think that couldn’t happen without some assistance from the courts/congress?

How many emails/telephone records/documents have gone missing, deleted or burnt?
You think that couldn’t happen without the assistance of the FBI or Whitehouse?

How many people have been killed or 'committed suicide'
You think that couldn’t happen without the assistance of law enforcement?

you’ve Got the Plame outing, the dodgy evidence, FBI records stating terrorists training...

Yet, you still harp on about it all being hearsay?

You are either so closed off to the obvious, or you willingly ignore it.

Bush was an idiot, he was selected because he's an idiot.
The people who did this are behind bush, In Cheney's office, in the CIA, in London...

You cannot Blame Clinton, for the criminals that turned America in 8yrs, to the biggest terrorist state.




posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Apologies all, back on topic..



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


Its alright, your discussion was more interesting then Fox News giving Bush and the GOP another hj. They've done it for 8 years. And what I love is they claim questioning the President is Anti America, how quickly they change that tune now that the President is a black democrat.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by GamerGal
 


never forget that the U.S. was supposed to have a "drill" the morning of 9/11 involving a plane crashing into a building in NYC.

also...bushes face when the secret service agent whispered god knows what in his ear when he was at the school, talking with the children in class.

...also...a reason was needed to invade iraq- which saddam who bush sr. wanted killed and brought down from power...

too many coincidences...too many lies- forget the media and we certainly know not to trust the government.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
"... How can you debate fantasy? If only 10% of the things you said were true Bush would have been impeached..."


YOUR writing is pure fantasy. For instance: “…If only 10% of the things you said were true Bush would have been impeached.” Well that’s a fairytale!! As all people being informed about what’s going on behind the scenes know Congress would never have impeached Bush, even if he would have commited 10 times(!) what Agit8dChop wrote.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
9/11 belongs to no single president.
We've been mucking around the region for decades upon decades.

For some reason we just can't help ourselves, we're the Johnny Appleseeds of Democracy. Of course Democracy is much easier to spread if the country is well oiled, so we tend to concentrate in those areas.

We were blinded by our own bureaucracy however.
Many people knew a little piece of something big, nobody bothered to put the pieces together. The solution, get a BIGGER bureaucracy! So, we did.

Now that Bush's "reign of error" is done. What will they think of Obama?



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
But, while many things LED to 911, and much inaction from clinton is to contribute, there's one painful truth your type never admits to. That Bush KNEW about the attacks and deliberatley did nothing.


Where is the evidence that "Bush KNEW" in advance about the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon? There was and is no evidence whatsoever. That's the most "painful truth" for the Bush-haters out there. At best, there were tantalizing hints of impending terrorist activity, but there was no clear target, no clear objective.



Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Had any other man been in charge, they would of taken the appropriate steps to stop what all intellegence pointed to occuring.


As a matter of fact, another man was in charge when Al-Qaeda rose to prominence, financing and planning and directing terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and interests. That "other man" was President Clinton.

The 911 attacks were not wholly planned and executed in the first 9 months of the Bush administration; on the contrary, FBI intelligence has shown that the 911 attacks were planned, financed and rehearsed for 5 YEARS before actual execution. During that 5-year period (including the entire second term of Bill Clinton), there were multiple hints and red flags of some sort of terrorist activity in the making; yet, the Clinton administration did nothing to avert another Al-Qaeda strike on U.S. soil.

In fact, when Pakistan had Osama bin Laden in custody and offered to extradite him to the U.S. as a known terrorist, President Clinton himself REFUSED the extradition. Even with extensive and damning intelligence behind him, Clinton blew it. OBL was subsequently released to pursue his anti-West agenda.

So much for the "any other man in charge" theory.



Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I believe thats WHY they stole the election and put the idiot Bush in the whitehouse.


First of all, the 2000 election wasn't "stolen," although there was plenty of evidence of widespread voter fraud on the part of the DNC and their various legal teams across the nation. It was almost stolen, but the final decision was made by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In point of fact, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down 2 findings in the matter of the controversial Florida recounts: In the first finding, 7 out of 9 Justices found that repeating the recounts into infinity was unconstitutional; in the second finding, 5 out of 9 Justices said that the existing recount totals should stand, which gave George Bush the majority of electoral votes.

Independent recounts were then conducted by major news outlets across the country (The Miami Herald, The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, and The Associated Press) to determine the "real winner" of the 2000 presidential election. Those independent recounts lasted for several months, and the results were quietly published in April of 2001.

By every recount, including over-votes and under-votes and those of "disenfranchised" voters, it was found that Bush did in fact win the election, actually increasing his lead over Gore as the ballots were recounted.

So much for the "stolen election" theory.



Originally posted by Agit8dChop
They needed someone involved with the neocon movement, and someone stupid enough to do as they said. They told Bush not to proceed with any of the FBI reports stating terrorists were training at flight schools.


Here we go with the nebulous "they" accusations... I suppose you're talking about the sinister "neocons" — in political parlance, neocons are today's equivalent of Zionists, the Jewish element that is supposed to be controlling the U.S. government, like a puppeteer pulling our strings and making us dance.

Of course, the Zionist and neocon conspiracy theories are absurd at best and anti-semitic at worst.

Again, if "they" told George Bush not to heed intelligence warnings, then what did "they" tell Bill Clinton, who sat on more than 4 years of such intelligence warnings prior to the Bush administration? Was Clinton in collusion with those insidious neocons, as well?



Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Blaming Clinton for 8yrs of Bush is ignorance at its highest. You should be blaming people for their stupidity instead!


I agree. I blame the Clinton administration for a lot of things, but not for the pitfalls of the Bush administration. I blame Bush for refusing to fix the extensive damage that the Clintons inflicted on America — if I didn't know better, I'd guess that Bush was on the Clinton payroll himself.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 1/19/2009 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Bravo on the time it took you to post that.

Too bad you had to accuse me of being antisemitic, when I never mentioned Israel.

While I genuinley cannot be bothered while at work debating every point you made, ill direct you to some other threads I wrote time ago

www.abovetopsecret.com...



National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was warned of a possible attack on July 10, 2001 by then-CIA Director George Tenet.

Rice has denied that such a meeting took place, citing the 911 Commission Report, which never mentioned any such meeting.

In a remarkable turn of events, however, records of the meeting between Commission members and Tenet counter that claim – as does a State Department log book – and support Woodward's assertions about the warnings that Rice and Ashcroft had received from the CIA. As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle


They lied, pure and simple.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GamerGal
 


"I didn't know he was in office when Bush got those memos. I didn't know Clinton was in office when the FBI told Bush every he needed to know to stop the attacks. After all Clinton got criticized for for focusing on OBL by the GOP."

You see GamerGAL, that's the problem, you don't seem to know period. Truth
be told, 9/11 was a direct reaction to the failed Clinton Mid-East policy.

source(www.judicialwatch.org...)



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GamerGal
 


Things like this are generally not planned or cause in the scope of 9 months. Hell, probably not even a few years!

How could he not have inherited it? What do you suppose he could have done at that stage to have prevented 9/11 from happening, as you're implying?



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Too bad you had to accuse me of being antisemitic, when I never mentioned Israel.


As I stated in my post, the term "neocon" has for some time been accepted on the political scene and in the news media as a euphemism for "Jew," inasmuch as most publicly identified neocons are, in fact, Jewish. That doesn't mean all Jews are neocons anymore than it means all Jews are Zionists. They're not. But in many circles, "neocon" is often used to denote a Jew.

I personally disdain the use of the term neocon for just that reason, because it has come to have a cynical and anti-semitic connotation.

You should, therefore, be aware of that connotation before lashing out at neocons and blaming them for the great evils in the world. Your intended message may be misunderstood.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by paxnatus
 



tp://www.opednews.com/hersh_080404_republicans_sabotaged.htm
Clinton criticized for focusing too much on OBL. Also, Regan and Bush 41 put OBL and Taliban in power. And in the end the memo Bush got telling him the who, what, where, when, why, and how might have been a clue.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 


Your absolutely right. The planning and training for 9/11 was put in motion long before Bush and would have happened no matter who got elected. Democrats tend to think the militant Islamics hate Republicans BUT just last week they burned a huge picture of Obama, so its safe to say they just hate Americans and blaming a certain leader for a terrorist action is pointless.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by slicobacon
 


Its not that Bush is blamed that they planned it. its that Bush did nothing to stop it. He got a memo telling him every thing and... He went out to play golf. If he had done some thing besides play golf and clear brush maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GamerGal
reply to post by slicobacon
 


Its not that Bush is blamed that they planned it. its that Bush did nothing to stop it. He got a memo telling him every thing and... He went out to play golf. If he had done some thing besides play golf and clear brush maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

Excellent Slicobacon!!!!

Reply to GamerGal

Your view of the world and what goes on, is very short sighted. I would suggest you spend some time educating yourself about current events and the role the Mid-East has played in the past. Not just the past 8 years. There are numerous accounts explaining Clinton's failed Mid-East policy and his responsibility
In 9/11.Read.

Your comments regarding Bush knowing exactly when, what, where and how 9/11 would take place. Are completely fabricated. You have provided no proof of this accusation whatsoever, therefore it is nothing more than rumor.

Remember, our role is.to deny ignorance not perpetuate it.







[edit on 01/12/2009 by paxnatus]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
August 6th he got a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States"

Condoleeza Rice's testimony this morning gave us glimpses of what was in the August 6th Memo. Rice's testimony today was consistent with her previous assertions that it was a historical memo, and not based on new threat information. The commissioners, who have now seen the Memo, strongly implied there was more to it than that:

www.theleftcoaster.com...



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GamerGal
August 6th he got a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States"

Condoleeza Rice's testimony this morning gave us glimpses of what was in the August 6th Memo. Rice's testimony today was consistent with her previous assertions that it was a historical memo, and not based on new threat information. The commissioners, who have now seen the Memo, strongly implied there was more to it than that:

www.theleftcoaster.com...

For the moment I will ignore the article is from "the LEFT coaster". No not biased at all. Did you read the rest of the article?

" In response to Rice's assertions that the August 6th Memo did not include specific threats to New York and Washington D.C., Ben-Veniste concurred: We agree that there were no specifics."

THERE WERE NO SPECIFICS!!!

This article proves my point further.



[edit on 01/12/2009 by paxnatus]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GamerGal
 


I'd be willing to bet that any President that was in office at the time would have been in the same position. So in a sense, anyone who was President at that time would have inherited it. Sure there are things that he could have done to prevent it, but hindsight is 20/20. You can't deny that it was a shock to most of us and his whole presidency was defined by it. If 9/11 had never happened, I believe that Bush would be considered a fair President by most - he could have flown under the radar like most Presidents without being confronted with a truely hard question.

But more importantly, can't we forget about Bush? Seriously, why does it matter? It is what it is and it's over now - your guy is President.

I wonder if Democrats will continue to magnify Obama by bashing Bush? Maybe Obama will do something worthwhile so they will no longer have to...



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by GamerGal
 


I'd be willing to bet that any President that was in office at the time would have been in the same position. So in a sense, anyone who was President at that time would have inherited it. Sure there are things that he could have done to prevent it, but hindsight is 20/20. You can't deny that it was a shock to most of us and his whole presidency was defined by it. If 9/11 had never happened, I believe that Bush would be considered a fair President by most - he could have flown under the radar like most Presidents without being confronted with a truely hard question.

But more importantly, can't we forget about Bush? Seriously, why does it matter? It is what it is and it's over now - your guy is President.

I wonder if Democrats will continue to magnify Obama by bashing Bush? Maybe Obama will do something worthwhile so they will no longer have to...


Oh! So very well said!!!! What is the point of continuing to criticize Bush?!! You know if anything we should all be so thankful that he has kept us safe after 9/11. Leave the man alone.He is gone now.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by GamerGal
 


GamerGal, the truth is, you are really Bill Clinton pretending to be a hot young girl from Maine.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join