Larry King mocks conservatives for claiming 9/11 was Clinton’s fault.
Larry King mocks conservatives for claiming 9/11 was Clinton’s fault.
Larry King — CNN’s usually mild-mannered and non-confrontational host — took umbrage last night when his guest, conservative radio talker Larry Elder, tried to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11. “It’s Bill’s fault? … George Bush had nothing to do with this, then?” King asked. When Elder and King’s other conservative guest — Ben Stein — persisted in blaming Clinton, King said, “It happened on the Republicans’ watch. … It didn’t happen on Clinton’s watch.” King then began to mock the conservative guests, saying, “I’m totally lost — your history’s better than mine. I’m lost. I thought it was during the Bush administration.” He concluded by directing this sarcastic comment at Elder:
KING: You know something? You’re better than me. You know when it was planned. All the guys who planned it are dead. They’re dead on a plane, you know when. You interviewed them during the flight.
Watch it:
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
OMG, when did Larry wake up and grow a spine?
August 29th, 2008 at 10:09 pmTypical Repug response; never, EVER take responsibility for something you can blame on someone else. I would throw Katrina and the aftermath into that category as well.
Must be hard to shave in the mornings for those assklowns.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:11 pmClinton’s fault??? They’re still trying to pretend it was Clinton who was handed a memo that said “bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S.”, told the aide his ass was covered, continued his vacation, and allowed the attack to proceed without taking a single step to prevent it???
It’s time to start calling these people the mentally deranged whackos they are.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:12 pmSomebody must’ve slipped a few extra doses of Geritol into Larry’s prune juice this morning. Nice smackdown of a couple of lying wingnuts Larry.
Just saying . . .
August 29th, 2008 at 10:17 pmIt is too bad those rant-jockeys weren’t on that plane interviewing those hijackers . And it would have been even better if Little Seanie Hannity, Rush Limpballs, Little Billy Kristol, Glenn Beck, Weiner Savage and a few other of their butt-buddies had aisle seats as well.
I am sure those chicken-hawks would have sprung into action and bravely defeated those pesky little terrorists.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:24 pmSuppose they did plan it on Bill Clinton’s watch?
They were clever enough to execute it on George Bush’s watch.
And Larry Elder is still ridiculing the “law enforcement approach? The approach that every security agency in the world says is the best way to deal with terrorism?
Beyond hope.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:24 pmYou know you’re pathetic when you get smacked around by Larry King, of all people.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:25 pmWe haven’t been “whacked” in 7 years? We weren’t whacked for 8 years before 9-11 and those who “whacked” us were captured and brought to justice. Bin Laden and not Saddam Hussein killed Americans on US soil.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:26 pmAnd in this corner, the tag team of Wayne, and Jane…
Good evening, to your estimable selves.
Larry must have been sitting differently last night, and accidently found his testes.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:27 pmOk how’s this.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:29 pmThe first attack on the WTC was planned under George Bush 41 administration. Clinton’s fault.
Clinton was sworn into office in January 92 the 1st attack on the WTC was carried out in Feb.92 The bad guys were caught in March 92 they are in prison for life and Clinton did not invade another country that had nothing to do with the attack.
Thank you Bill Clinton.
Go Larry!
August 29th, 2008 at 10:33 pmSo if have an army and order them to go and blow up a country, kill and find the WMDs, then I found out the WMDs aren’t there. I base that invasion on certain intelligence, but then I LATER justify the war to say we’re over throwing their leader and to guard the ‘blazing’ oil fields.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:38 pmHow do you tell the families of dead innocent Iraqi’s and American soldiers that, ‘oops I was given misleading intelligence’???
It’s explained in detail in Richard Clarke’s “Against All Enemies”. The Clinton Admin was working earnestly to keep the U.S. from being attacked. The Bushies took power and completely abandoned the efforts and the warnings of the previous admin. If there is blame for 9/11, it belongs entirely to the Bushies.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:40 pmWayne A. Schneider Says:
Clinton’s fault??? They’re still trying to pretend it was Clinton who was handed a memo that said “bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S.”, told the aide his ass was covered, continued his vacation, and allowed the attack to proceed without taking a single step to prevent it???
It’s time to start calling these people the mentally deranged whackos they are.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Yes…wasn’t the Bush response about the PDB something along the line that it was “historical information”? And thus wasn’t deemed important enough to act on?
And didn’t Condi, in one of the lame attempts at defending the administration, claim that Bush “did at least as much” as Clinton did regarding protecting us from a terrorist attack?
If that’s so, then…
1. If Clinton didn’t protect us from 9/11, as the whackos claim, then neither did Bush.
2. If Bush did everything possible to protect us from terrorists, then so did Clinton.
But wait…Can’t we apply that label of “historical information” to the intelligence in a certain NIE that told Bush beyond any doubt that Saddam was on the verge of attacking us? Isn’t that “historical information” as well, gleaned from years of collected info?
August 29th, 2008 at 10:47 pmGood for King. This administration has done everything it can not to take responsibility for anything. Only when they’ve been shamed into it have they begrudgingly done so in a few cases.
The fact is it was under Bush’s watch. It’s his responsibility. He wants to blame everything bad on someone else.
I see this in conservative blogs. After the 2006 elections and the Dems got a slim majority, NOW according to these blogs the economy started taking a nosedive. Yes, just after the Dems came in.
These conservative folks talk about people needing to pull themselves up by their bootstraps but can’t seem to take enough responsibility put on their own boots.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:49 pmI’m waiting for the republicans to start blaming Clinton for Katrina.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:50 pmTwacy-5screwsloose,
August 29th, 2008 at 10:51 pmSee, that’s where you repugs always get it wrong. Always shirking true responsiblity. Let me spell it out.
If it happens ON YOUR WATCH its YOUR RESPONSIBILTY.
Apparently King does need some history lessons on past events and yes his two guest DO know more than he does -Tracy_5
He was being facetious.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:52 pmThe only reason that conservatism and the GOP haven’t been laughed into obscurity is the rightwing’s control over most of the media in this country. Even here, with so much evidence debunking their myths, King has to somewhat sheepishly disagree.
Americans are absurdly misinformed, and that is no accident.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:54 pmTracy__5 Says:
Both Clinton AND Bush share responsibility for not preventing 9/11.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Clinton had direct knowledge that the 9/11 attackers were in the country in the final days of his presidency, right? And you have a source for this, right?
Next, you do realize that Clinton tried to get the Republicans in Congress to give him tools necessary to bump up anti-terrorism activities, and they refused. Right?
Finally, I’d like you to tell me exactly what the Republican-controlled Congress accomplished from 1995 to 9/10/2001 that resulted in increased anti-terrorism activities. I also expect you to provide sources for your info.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:00 pmOh, and Tracy__5, regarding the last point in my prev. post, I’d like for you to give me the reason(s) that those Congressional activities failed to prevent 9/11.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:03 pmThe Big Lie and Revisionism wrapped in a flag is all these carpetbaggers have to offer.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:04 pmSo they failed to mention that Bush was warned many times?
Oh, forgot, Bush/Cheney helped plan it, of course the MSM ignores it.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:10 pmClinton likes to read MY PET GOAT too. snark
These sorry sack of $hit need to get a real job. Cleaning toilets or picking up roadside trash seems about right.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:16 pmWell, that was a surprise.
Larry King must be getting fed up himself with the repugnican spin machine.
I am so sick of them saying we haven’t been hit in 7 years –
August 29th, 2008 at 11:18 pmBefore that, we hadn’t been hit in 8 years!
They just want us to forget that it was on Bush’s watch that the attack occurred.
Even Larry King is fed up with the asinine crapola these clowns are spouting.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:19 pmThose people speak as if 9/11 was the only disaster under bush. It was arguably the worst in US history, but there were other disasters that rank right up there that also occured on bush’s watch.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:19 pmClinton successfully caught and prosecuted the perps in the first World Trade Center bombing. W has bombed the wrong country into rubble, killing thousands and thousands of innocent people.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:24 pmThe 9/11 Commission Report is a piece of shit.
Keep that in mind before you open your stupid mouth, troll.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:27 pmOnce we clean the infestation of criminals known as the GOP out of DC a real investigation into (/11 can be undertaken.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:27 pmWas that Ben Stein? What the hell does Ben Stein have to do w/ the price of tea in China?
Bueller?
August 29th, 2008 at 11:27 pmLarry should have read the 9/ll commission report before he opened his stupid mouth. -Maur
Which section of the report do you write of?
August 29th, 2008 at 11:28 pm9/11 not (/11
August 29th, 2008 at 11:28 pmAnd please list the page number your referring to, Maur
August 29th, 2008 at 11:29 pmI thought Ben Stein was a not to funny monotone comedian.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:29 pmjb Says:
I thought Ben Stein was a not to funny monotone comedian.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
He is.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:31 pmmaur Says:
Larry should have read the 9/ll commission report before he opened his stupid mouth.
Stupid mouth? Well you’ve got me, maur. You’re one convincing SOB. Stupid Mouth?
August 29th, 2008 at 11:31 pmWell Clinton knew of the terrorist camps in Afganistan. He lobed a couple of missles at them. -Maur
Much of what he proposed was blocked by a republican senate.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:31 pmI bet W would love to have Ben Stein read him MY PET GOAT at bedtime.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:32 pmGeorge?… George?… George?
August 29th, 2008 at 11:33 pmRight after the “93 bombing of the WTC, Clinton personally lobbied senators and congressman NOT to have hearings about the security failures of Reagan and Bush and NOT to have hearings about all of Bush the First pardons of (nearly) all connected with Iran-Contra. Readers recall how well Clinton was treated by the Right for this generosity of spirit at the beginning of his administration.
We had 8 years in a row of hearing from the Right that “Clinton’s a liar” so when Clinton’s outgoing administration told W’s incoming administration to watch out for al qita and terrorism, all of W’s people knew exactly what to do: nothing, nothing at all. After all, Clinton’s a liar, don’t you know?
August 29th, 2008 at 11:35 pmI guess that having loopy idiots on the air passes for entertainment these days.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:36 pmwhen you lose larry king you lose america. king is about as amorphous as one comes, but watching king use ridicule on that guy’s nonsense refreshing.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:37 pmBut there is no grace period. Wait, maybe if we have the inauguration a couple months after the election, the in-coming party can safely take us on. How long until the new President is responsible, exactly?
August 29th, 2008 at 11:41 pmMaur,
Oh, are you referring to that 9/11 Commission report in which quite a bit of information was left out by the authors?
Are you referring to the investigation by the committee that included an interview of Bush and Cheney, the one in which they refused to be interviewed unless they were in the same room at the same time, apparently so that they could hold hands to comfort each other?
That same interview in which no recording devices were allowed? The same one in which only handwritten notes were allowed?
The same one in which both Cheney and Bush refused to take an oath to tell the truth (not that it would have made any difference) so that they could lie their a$$e$ off?
August 29th, 2008 at 11:43 pmThese numbnutz are just so damn mockable. Fish..Barrel..Track Mounted Howitzer…
August 29th, 2008 at 11:46 pmRight tracy, blame Clinton because chimpy can’t read.
Yup.
Of course chimpy was on vacation during this time. Probably a-cuttin brush.
Oh wait, he was looking for martians on mars.
I hope you don’t benefit from our sanity.
Just shut-up because you sound ridiculous and sad.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:06 amtest
August 30th, 2008 at 12:17 amIf 9/11 was indeed an inside job, that would explain why we haven’t been whacked since then.
The Bush administration couldn’t treat 9/11 like a criminal investigation because there was more evidence pointing to an inside job than to Bin Laden.
And, if Bin Laden was indeed responsible, then the leader of the free world failed in his responsibility to bring him to justice. The entire military might of the United States, the most powerful country on the face of the earth, cannot catch one man on dialysis?
All the extra-constitutional intelligence gathering implemented cannot track down one cave-dweller?
Bush has failed every American except His base.
And Congress has failed every American, except Bush’s base.
But I digress….
August 30th, 2008 at 12:18 amWay to go Larry. If more hosts get angry when Reichwing shills lie? We might get out of this mess.
And, for the record, I need more than grainy tapes, processed by White House operatives, to be 100% certain OBL was the mastermind of the attacks. To the best of my knowledge that issue has never been settled in a court of law.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:22 amRight. Pres. Clinton was fu6king all day. Remember the stupid repugs claimed Pres. Clinton was “wagging the dog” when he was protecting us, you imbecile.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:24 amMr. Stein sounds more like a common troll with each passing day.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:46 amBen Stein would do well to go back to hosting game shows.
August 30th, 2008 at 1:09 amDont get me wrong if 9/11 wouldve happened and that was the only thing against bush, I wouldnt entirely hold it against him, because some attacks are not really preventable, and hindsight is always 20/20. But bush has proven time and time again to be the the biggest piece of shit to ever grace the white house, short of dickhead cheney. I dont really want to blame 9/11 on an american, but since we are, at bushs feet is where it would lie. Along with a million dead iraqis.
August 30th, 2008 at 1:14 amouch!@! does that hurt Larry? yeah i think that’s something new for you…..that’s a spine growing.
August 30th, 2008 at 1:17 amAbove the Clouds Says:
We haven’t been “whacked” in 7 years? We weren’t whacked for 8 years before 9-11 and those who “whacked” us were captured and brought to justice. Bin Laden and not Saddam Hussein killed Americans on US soil.
“““““““““““““““““““““““““““
ATC, your intelligent comment needed to be repeated!
By the way could it be that the reason we haven’t been attacked again since 9/11 is because Bin Laden warned the US government that if we didn’t remove our military presence from Saudi Arabia there would be more attacks so Bush quietly removed our military from Saudi Arabia (some on the reich call such a move appeasing the enemy)
OR
Is it possible that the real terrorists behind 9/11 feel that they have achieved what the wanted by going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, passing draconian and unconstitutional laws like the Patriots Act I & II, continue illegal surveillance, perpetual war, perpetual war powers for the president?
August 30th, 2008 at 1:40 amWow, man, I just had a flashback while reading this post, man.
Weird.
August 30th, 2008 at 1:47 amOne thing that I never thought about before was mentioned by congressman Maurice Hinchey-NY who was a panelist during that impeachment discussion in congress a month ago.
Hinchey stated that Rumsfeld pulled our troops away from Bora Bora after it was reported that Bin Laden was pinned down because if we would have captured or killed Bin Laden we would no longer have a case to bring to the American people to invade Iraq. I thought that was very interesting insight.
August 30th, 2008 at 1:49 amSpeaking of tools…
August 30th, 2008 at 2:28 amNot that I’m advancing any theories about 9/11, but I do find it odd that while Usama bin Laden is still on the FBI Ten Most Wanted List, it’s not for anything whatsoever to do with the attacks of 9/11. Not for planning them. Not for financing them (which was done by the Pakistani Intelligence Service, but that’s another can of worms). Not for ordering that they be carried out. Nothing.
August 30th, 2008 at 2:34 amWhat are you talking about Tracy_5?
August 30th, 2008 at 2:38 amRead this, Tracy and you’ll see how Phil Gramm chose the Big Banks over the security of the American people. This is but one example.
August 30th, 2008 at 3:00 amRead this too…
The Clinton administration’s attempts to improve airport security were similarly obstructed in Congress. The Gore commission urged U.S. air carriers to screen all passengers with computerized profiling systems, to upgrade poorly trained private security personnel and to install high-tech baggage-screening equipment. But action on key measures was stalled by lawmakers at the behest of airline lobbyists, and ultimately by the sluggish bureaucracy at the Federal Aviation Administration. Key senators on the Senate Aviation Subcommittee shot down mandated changes recommended by the White House and instead urged “further study.” (Eight of the nine Republicans on the subcommittee had received contributions from the major airlines.)
So Republicans were more interested in their contributors than the security of the American people. And you continue to believe that they’re strong on terror and national security? Seems like they’re WEAK on national security and STRONG on protecting their special interests.
August 30th, 2008 at 3:06 amyeah, you know, we’ve never been hit by a meteorite since bush has been in office also, lets thank him for that.
could some troll please list all the VIABLE plots (not fantasises about burning down the brooklyn bridge with a blowtorch or using a bunch of weapons you’re asking an FBI informant to provide)against the motherland, that have been stopped by the bush admininstration since 9-11?
to the best of my knowledge, so far some random passengers who beat up a guy on a plane have done more to foil actual, viable, ongoing plots than the bush administration has. period. even the scant handful of Al _Queda related convictions or guilty pleas have been for the crime of the most likely unconstitutionally vauge “material support of terrorism” crime, and not any actual plots, other than fantasies which were nothing but pipe dreams of angry losers..
August 30th, 2008 at 3:09 amGiven that the Republicans constantly chose lobbyists over national security, it is not surprising that they engaged in a propaganda campaign to blame Clinton that goes on to this very day.
August 30th, 2008 at 3:16 amNo problem. I think that the Republicans really struck out on this issue. And sometimes it’s easy to forget that there were some Republicans who wholeheartedly supported those cruise missiles going into Afghanistan even though they criticized Clinton for “wag the dog.” I guess they were trying to have their cake and eat it too.
August 30th, 2008 at 3:27 amFunny how the “ownership society” doesn’t include owning up to your failure to protect this country. When Bush was warned that Bin Laden was determined to strike within this country he did nothing. He will be remembered as the worst President this nation has had for national defense. The worst terrorist attack occurred on his watch. No amount of revision can change the simple facts of history.
August 30th, 2008 at 3:46 amContrary to what you might think, there was an effort to go after Bin Laden in 1998…
August 30th, 2008 at 3:47 amand let us not forget the GOP’s role in this too…
August 30th, 2008 at 3:51 amUm…Tracy_5 one of the top intelligence reports coming from one of the Bush governments own intelligence agencies recently stated that Bush has failed on fighting the war on terror by using war and stated that it has been proven over time that to fight terrorism effectively you must treat it as a crime and go after those involved as if they were criminals. War is too costly and a ineffective response to fight terrorism and there is too much blowback.
August 30th, 2008 at 3:55 amPlus Al Qaeda is now in several countries, but we are stuck in one…
August 30th, 2008 at 3:58 amcLINTON Tried to get the Joint Chiefs to agree on a military operation against Bin Laden, but failed.
I’ve answered questions, now it’s time for me to ask mine. Why did the GOP obstruct Clinton’s efforts to fight terrorism? Why was it that the Bush administration did not do anything about terrorism but rather focused on Iraq? Why was it that Bush ignored the 8/6 PDB?
Also, why was it that Freeh, the director of the FBI was more interested in pursuing Clinton than fighting terrorism?
The focus should be on Bush also for his failure and neglect before 9/11.
Why do you not give credit for Clinton foiling the Millenium plot, the assassination plot against the Pope, and other terror attacks?
August 30th, 2008 at 4:08 amTell Larry King thanks. http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.lkl.comment.html?12
August 30th, 2008 at 4:10 amAt least you do acknowledge that Bush shares the blame too. I give you credit for that.
August 30th, 2008 at 4:13 amAsk why the neocons say in their foreign policy blueprint that USA needs another pearl harbor so that the people will support future massive expansionist foreign policy.
August 30th, 2008 at 4:15 amhttp://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin5.html
August 30th, 2008 at 4:21 amThe previous link is of magnetometer data from alaska.edu showing the earth’s magnetic field shifted with every 9/11 “event”. This includes the plane-shaped holes appearing in the towers.
August 30th, 2008 at 4:57 amIt was truly shameful the way Clinton just kept on reading “My Pet Goat” while the attack continued.
August 30th, 2008 at 6:46 amLet’s not forget that the Republicans had Clinton tied up in hearings about a blowjob while he was a sitting president. Protecting our country was much less important to them than any business of government.
That trend continued into the bush term with the GOP doing nothing but playing the politics of us v . them in accomplishing anything unless it benefitted the rich or a corporation or the MIC.
The 911 Commission report was edited, just as was any document the Bush admin didn’t like if it didn’t support their greedy or corrupt agenda it never made the light of day.
And to all of the apologists, screw YOU for putting party before country. I hate all of you pr!cks who expect responsibility from only the poor (and now middle class) while allowing corruption at all levels of government to slide right by.
Every one of you is anti-American and unpatriotic.
August 30th, 2008 at 6:51 amPNAC’s plan for 9/11 was during Clinton’s admin. Then after Bush stole the election: the plan was unleashed on the innocent people of NYC.
And the forgotten first responders/fire fighters are still paying for it today with various cancers.
But the real cancer: BushCO the past 8 years for killing it’s own citizenry.
August 30th, 2008 at 7:24 amoops:
PNAC’s plan for 9/11 was planned during Clinton’s admin
August 30th, 2008 at 7:27 amWhy didn’t Bill Clinton invade Afghanistan after the embassy bombings?
Why didn’t George Bush invade Afghanistan with a large force and suround Tora Bora with American forces instead of relying on his fellow Muslims to capture Bin Laden.
I’ve said this before,so excuse me, but the fact is that if NORAD had been put on alert after the PDB, 9/11 would not have happened, at least not in the catastrophic form it did.
Four simultaneous hijackings and no scrambled jets> If we were looking for a big terrorist attack of ANY sort, such an action eould have scrambled interceptors within minutes.
If each airliner had an armed interceptor escort before they reached any urban area, would they have gotten within striking distance of the WTC or the Pentagon? No.
There was probably no way to save the passengers, and that still would have been the greatest terrorist tragedy in American history, and the Republicans would still be blaming clinton for it.
But if the Bush Administration had simply been at the same level of alert the Clinton Administration had beenn at during the Millennium Bombing )remember that/ The one that didn’t happen? the one that was foiled?), It would have been vastly smaller.
But of course, the blood brothers of the idiots on Larry King condemn Clinton for not doing something that absolutely no one suggested at the time, that the Joint Chiefs didn’t support, that the Congress wouldn’t have voted for, and that, if he did it anyway, he would have been impeached and thi time probably convicted for?
And therefore it’s Clinton’s fault?
America has stopped listening to this pathetic nonsense.
Barack Obama said in his acceptance speech that John McCain said he would follow Osama Bin Laden to the Gates of Hell, and Obsma said he won’t even follow him to the cave where he lives.
To the Republicans, 9/11 was never more than a political tool to wind domestic elections. That’s why everything they’ve done since has been so useless and screwed up. .
The American prople see this.
You guys have destroyed the Republican party for a generation.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:42 amAnd there you have it folks. This is why we are in deep shit right now. T thinks brute force and the military are the only solutions for our problems……this is their forign policy.
Most of us think this has been an abisimal failure t. I guess you see nothing but sucess but you are having trouble framing your misconception these days.
Never mind that those that attacked the US while Bill Clinton are in jail…doesn’t matter because these fools just want to bomb somone, anyone.
put em on the run, hunt them down, but first lets invade iraq so israel will be happy…..at least we get to kill someone.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:48 amThe conservatives claims have become so outrageous that you must either agree with them completely and that is what most newspeople have done, or you must mock them.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:00 amThe 9/11 attacks were preventable.
Richard Clarke reported that he, as Clinton’s counter-terrorism chief, held three cabinet-level principals meetings a week, at which top intelligence and law enforcement officials discussed the terrorist threat and shared information.
Condi Rice held only ONE similar cabinet-level meeting ONE week before the 9/11 attacks, at which the Bush officials present only discussed, per Rice, their overall “Middle East strategy.”
In mid-August 2001, three weeks before the attacks, the FBI arrested one of the hijackers training on a 747 flight simulator at a Midwest flight school after flight instructors tipped off the FBI. The instructors wondered why he only wanted to learn how to fly 747s while in the air, not take off or land them.
The Midwest FBI field agents asked Ashcroft’s Justice Department/FBI headquarters for a search warrant to check out this guy’s personal effects. (Under FISA, they could have done the search without a warrant, being required only to make a formal request for a retroactive warrant at the FISA court within 48 hours). Ashcroft’s Justice Department/FBI headquarters refused their request. Over 70 times in the three weeks leading up to the 9/11 attacks. Connections to some of the 9/11 hijackers were later found on this guy’s computer.
And we all know about the August 6th, 2001 PDB: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” which contained references to plane hijackings and suspicious surveillance of Manhattan buildings.
Bush and Cheney, and all the other criminally complicit Republicans in charge, are the sole ones responsible for the 9/11 attacks succeeding. Almost three thousand U.S. citizens would be alive today if they’d been as alert as the counter-terrorism experts in the Clinton administration. There is absolutely no excuse that Bush and Cheney, and all the other criminally complicit Republicans in charge, can make that will ever wash the blood from their red-soaked hands.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:06 amTracy__5 Says:
How many terrorist training camps inside Afghanistan were destroyed prior 2001?….aside from the ones Clinton destroyed in 1998. Why did Clinton not invade Afghanistan after the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings considering it was known the bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible?
A little inconvenience: INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Ever hear of extradition? That’s a legal way to aprehend a criminal in a foreign country.
You advocate WAR to capture criminals. By your own rationale, AMERICA should be invaded and bombed back to the stone age, as our government has committed acts of agression against sovereign countries, kidnapped foreign nationals and subjected them to torture, used weapons of mass destruction against civilian populations, etc.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:14 amwizard2000 Says:
Almost three thousand U.S. citizens would be alive today if they’d been as alert as the counter-terrorism experts in the Clinton administration.
More like over 7,000, when you count the women and men in uniform killed in needless wars.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:16 amDebunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths
August 30th, 2008 at 9:32 amI’m tired of this lying sack of shit just saying things that are absolute lies. tracy 5 you suck so bad. You are a traitor to our country and please don’t whine about civil discourse……you have no idea what it even means.
If you are going to lie and continue to lie and try to call it discussion then you deserve any acrimony that comes your way.
I know this is too long for most people but it is all fact and can be verified and should be common knowledge. Only liars and their enablers would say anything different….they want you to give thier war mongers fair and objective judgment yet they lie and lie.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:36 am
If planes hit the towers, how come no one reported the deafening sound of a wide-body commercial airliner at full throttle a mere 600 ft above the ground?
• Gary Smiley, FDNY paramedic, was carrying an injured woman across Church Street who kept yelling “plane” and Smiley recalled, “I looked up at that point, and that’s when the second plane hit the South Tower. The explosion was unbelievable. It was right over my head. You didn’t hear anything. People ask me sometimes, ‘What did you hear?’ I heard nothing.”
• Steven Bienkowski, NYPD Harbor Unit Scuba Team: “I happened to be sitting in the back left side of the (helicopter) ship. … We were on the southwest side of the South Tower, and I glanced over my shoulder and there came a United Airlines aircraft right at us, a little bit underneath where we were. And I do mean a little bit underneath us. It probably missed us by about three hundred feet, and it proceeded to fly right through the building, right in front of us. …. I don’t remember hearing an explosion, although it must have been extremely loud. … When that second plane went into the building, it just looked like an evil magician’s trick. It looked nothing like what I would have imagined a plane crashing into a building would look like. The plane just completely disappeared and turned into a giant fireball. Being there was surreal.”
See here for sources and much more:
Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths
August 30th, 2008 at 9:39 amCB_Brooklyn
August 30th, 2008 at 9:41 amNot even most people in the “9/11 truth movement” agree with what you just posted.
1984… that’s because the “truth movement” is controlled:
Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”
August 30th, 2008 at 9:46 amGeorge Bush and Bill Clinton already blamed Al Qaeda for explosives in their preplanned PSYOPS.
***In a September 15, 2006 press conference, George W Bush said:
———————————————————————–
For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high — a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.
———————————————————————–
***In a March 8, 2008 speech, Bill Clinton said (after interrupted by a 9/11 truther):
———————————————————————–
“America may not be perfect, but we don’t blow up our own buildings– al Qaeda does that”
———————————————————————–
The “truth movement” has been tricked into promoting explosives, and the 9/11 criminals will blame Al Qaeda.
The “truth movement” is controlled by people who have affiliates with exotic weaponry. Why else would Steven Jones, who worked with exotic technology at Los Alamos and who discredited free energy research in 1989, promote “explosives” and “molten metal”? Why else would Van Romero, who made presentations about directed energy weapons at the Directed Energy Professional Society, say the towers could have been destroyed with “a relatively small amount of explosives”? Look here and hereand here. Did Romero actually think it was done with “a relatively small amount of explosives”??
See this article for full information, including source links for the above info:
The 9/11 Truth Movement, Free Energy Suppression and the Global Elite’s Agenda
August 30th, 2008 at 10:00 amAfter years of fighting the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, I’m THRILLED to see other liberals have rejected this speculation that was giiving a bad name to the Progressive Movement! Whew!
August 30th, 2008 at 10:22 amIt is the same flawed logic for those who defend the thugs of the Crime Family. I sat on a plane tarmac during the Clinton administration, late ’90s and listened to to two wackos giving Daddy Bush all the credit for the succuss during the Clinton administration. These are people who cannot accept responsibility for their own actions. In some circles it is referred to as DELUSIONAL!
August 30th, 2008 at 11:42 amraynman Says:
I’m waiting for the republicans to start blaming Clinton for Katrina.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And I am waiting for them to blame him for the sinking of the Titanic and tooth decay
August 30th, 2008 at 1:40 pmmaur Says:
Larry should have read the 9/ll commission report before he opened his stupid mouth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BUSH should have read the memo ENTITLED Ben Laden determined to strike inside US and YOU should engage your brain before you open YOUR stupid mouth.
August 30th, 2008 at 1:43 pmIf 9/11 had happened as told by Bushco, would they not have tried OBL in absentia? One would think that they would be eager to air the evidence against him and gain the legitimacy of a conviction.
Instead, Bushco has launched war under the questionable pretext of pursuing criminals. Why are they contemptuous of the laws they are sworn to uphold?
August 30th, 2008 at 1:51 pmTracy__5 Says:
How many terrorist training camps inside Afghanistan were destroyed prior 2001?….aside from the ones Clinton launched in 1998. Why did Clinton not invade Afghanistan after the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings considering it was known the bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What is your point? That Clinton should have bombed a soveriegn nation based on what he thought they MIGHT DO IN THE FUTURE? Are you insane? To your second question Al Queda was NOT Afghanistan. Why should we make those people who were already victims of Al Queda victims of OUR military because of what terrorists who lived there did. BOMBING was the correct response. We are the most powerful country in the world YOU would have us act like an out of control bully. An invasion is a WAY out of proportion response to rogue terrorists.
August 30th, 2008 at 1:56 pmLarry is a very polite patient man. Has been his whole career. Many have toght he has been too easy on many guests.
I believe in this clip, Larry King was being GENTLE and extremely respectful with these two guests.
Democrats could have arrested the Oklahoma bomber prior if they wanted, Could have had Kenneth Lay before hand if they really tried. Democrats could have had Hitler when he was 4 years old if they cared about America.
The Bible has Cain slaying Abel because Cain was planning this during the Liberal reign. Democrats could have stop had Cain, sent him to Guantanimo, tortured a confession of what he might do in the future, continue torture till he accidentally dies from it. Then the sin of this passage does fall on us for life.
Something like that anyways.
August 30th, 2008 at 1:59 pmClinton didn’t use cluster bombs over the terrorist camps because he feared hitting women and children. uNLIKE Bush, he worried about the United States’ moral standing in the world and knew that civilian casualties would undermine that. He didn’t want any collateral damage. He was also looking at special ops forces to use against Bin Laden. Also the CIA was training 60 Pakistani commandos to capture Bin Laden, but Musharraf’s coup aborted that mission. I’m sure Bill Clinton was to blame for that too, wasn’t he?
The right is blaming Clinton for their failures because if the people knew that they put the interests of the banking and airline industries over national security, they would be regarded as traitors.
August 30th, 2008 at 2:17 pmRobt Says:
Democrats could have had Hitler when he was 4 years old if they cared about America.
____________
You’re being too easy on them, Robt… let’s face, if Dems really loved America, they would have arrested Hilter’s mommy…
August 30th, 2008 at 2:25 pmWhen she was pregnant, or even before…
August 30th, 2008 at 2:26 pm.
Wouldn’t it be correct to call Larry Elder a conspiracy theorist?
.
August 30th, 2008 at 3:12 pmWhy are these clowns setting themselves up as brainwashed fools. The frozen 23% true believers are not going to change anyway, but fringe conservatives may well be saying hey wait I don’t believe this crap Ben and Larry! Maybe I’ll just sit this election out , rather than fight along with these bozoos.
August 30th, 2008 at 3:29 pmTracy_5 Inexpicably Says:
If he would have done what Bush, Obama, Biden, and the vast majority of the U.S. Congress did, i.e. give absolute support for going into Afghanistan after 9/11, the 9/11 plot probably would have never been planned.
You need to work on your communication skills, because what you actually wrote says that Clinton should have supported our retaliation for 9/11 in order to prevent the planning of 9/11.
Aside from that, why do conservatives always feel that using the military is the only acceptable way to resolve conflicts? Did you notice how successful police agencies around the world have been at preventing other attacks? It’s not a problem that can only be solved by sending in the military.
August 30th, 2008 at 4:31 pmTracy_x,
Thank you for “clarifying” that.
I’m more interested in understanding why conservatives feel that a military response is the only acceptable response to terrorism?
August 30th, 2008 at 4:44 pmMaybe it could just be chalked up to human error. But this we know: upon leaving office, the Clinton administration warned the incoming Bush about the clear and present danger of Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda terrorist network. In the summer preceding the attack, the Bush administration again had been warned that terrorist activity was afoot. Bush, himself had just returned from one of his month long French-styled August vacations. The aministration chief of national security, Condoleeza Rice, on September 11 gave a speech in which she posited the largest Defense spending boondoggle ever perpetrated on the American taxpayer, the Missile Defense System, which since its initiation during Reagan years had proven to be 0% successful in its aims to knock down incoming missiles.
ON 9/11, a handful of Saudi terrorists overtook 3 commercial jet liners with dozen box cutters and a la a movie in which Arnold Schwartzenegger takes a jet plane head on into a skyscraper, carried on a mission in which the Pentagon was unsuccessfully attacked–the Pentagon!, the largest commercial buildings in America in our most famous urban cultural center were leveled to the ground, killing thousands and sending shock waves throughout the world, and saving for the bravery of citizens on one of the four airplanes involved, was on target for the White House. The seats of commerce, military, and government for our nation were attacked a year and nine months into the Bush Adminstration, and the self same National Security Officer Rice, who did not have the grace to tender the American people her resignation on September 12, has been quoted as saying, “Who could have imagined?”
We all were witnesses.
August 30th, 2008 at 5:27 pmCitizenE.
Actually, it was only 7 months, 22 days into his presidency that we were attacked, not a year plus nine months. (Selected in Nov ‘00; sworn in Jan ‘01.)
As for the “Who could have imagined” line, if she was under oath when she said it, she should have charged with perjury. In July ‘01, the leaders attending the G8 conference were told they had to be moved because of a report that terrorists were going to fly planes into the buildings they were staying in. So, I guess she and the rest of the staff should have been able to imagine it.
August 30th, 2008 at 5:40 pmTracy__5 Says:
After 9/11 do you actually think that the Taliban was going to extradite bin Laden to the U.S.? A you insane? Go back to sleep…please.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Did you really question someone ELSES sanity? Considering YOU are as stupid as an underwater BBQ, I would say you were doing some projecting there. The Taliban OFFEREd to turn Bin Laden over to a third country and TOLD us that if we would show them evidence of his guilt, which is standard for extradition, they WOULD turn him over. You do know you are a moron right?
August 30th, 2008 at 6:01 pm#115 Tracy__5 Says:
After 9/11 do you actually think that the Taliban was going to extradite bin Laden to the U.S.? A you insane? Go back to sleep…please.
Ok, I’ve been sitting here reading all these comments. Tracy, I have a question for you. Where on a map is this country called the Taliban and when did the US sign an extradition treaty with it?
I may think twice about asking someone if they are “A you insane?”
August 30th, 2008 at 6:13 pmTracy__5 Says:
#108
“That Clinton should have bombed a soveriegn nation based on what he thought they MIGHT DO IN THE FUTURE?”
What they might do in the future? al Qaeda after multiple attacks against the U.S. was training in Afghanistan through out the 1990s and the Taliban were harboring them and giving them safe haven. The Taliban were the dictators, i.e. the defato illegitimate rulers of Afghanistan and had virtually no legitimate standing and recognition in the international community. Which countries actually recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My GOD you are an idiot. You asked why he hadnt attacked Afghanistan BEFORE 1998, THAT was the first Al Queda attacks on us. Before they had attacked Yemen but not US so exactly WHAT multiple attacks are you talking about BEFORE 1998? They dont exist. As to who recognized them if I remember right Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates I think a couple of others but how in the WORLD is that relevant? They WERE the government and they WERE self governing not a colony, so they were still a soveriegn nation and didnt Bush give them 42 MILLION dollars a month before 9/11? Why YES I believe he did. It isnt UP to us to just invade any country we dont like BEFORE they have done anything to us.
“Why should we make those people who were already victims of Al Queda victims of OUR military”
The Taliban, i.e. the SPECIFIC group of people our military went after inside Afghanistan. They weren’t “victims” of anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are you an infant ? Are you really this stupid? Do you have ANY reading comprehension whatsoever? Are you really claiming that when we finally DID invade Afghanistan that no one besides the Taliban suffered? WE BOMBED KABUL YOU MORON. So why would an invasion BEFORE 1998 have been different? The people of ANY country suffer during an invasion. So why would we make victims of the PEOPLE of Afghanistan that were already victims of Al Queda until there was no other option? You warmongers dont really care how many brown skin people over THERE die as long as YOU can have some really ignorant vicarious glory that OUR soldiers are killing people. Did you learn everything you know about foriegn policy by watchin8g John Wayne movies?
August 30th, 2008 at 6:15 pmTracy__5 Says:
“You actually think that they would have turned him over considering that were allowing his terrorist organization to operate in Afghanistan years prior to 9/11? Again, please go back to sleep.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are IGNORANT Tracy they DID offer to extradite him TWICE, what part of that simple statement is to confusing for your simple mind? Do you think if you just keep repeating something ignorant often enough it will magically become true? Stick your head back in the sand or back where your proctologist removed it from you ignoramus
August 30th, 2008 at 6:21 pmTracy__5 Says:
The Taliban OFFEREd to turn Bin Laden over to a third country and TOLD us that if we would show them evidence of his guilt, which is standard for extradition”
Also you do know that only three states UAE, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia recognized the Taliban as the legitimate governing entity in Afghanistan? Considering this fact, i.e. that the Taliban WAS NOT and HAS NEVER been the internationally recognized governing authority in Afghanistan you lame argument that Taliban could even be in a position to legitimately offer bin Laden to the U.S. is a irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How STUPID can you possibly be whether or not they were the recognized rulers is irrelvant they WERE in control of the country and COULD have gotten Bin Laden and turned him over if they wanted to and DID offer to twice we rebuffed them. We didnt recognize Red China for decades either but they obviously DID rule China my GOD you are a moron.
August 30th, 2008 at 6:26 pmTracy_5,
Why do you think sending the military into Afghanistan was the only option Clinton should have exercised? What was wrong with sending all those cruise missiles at the training camps? I mean, other than the fact that once the Pakistanis saw the missiles flying over their heads, they would have warned bin Laden to try to save him? Even Newt gingrich said that launching the missiles was “the right thing to do.” (Of course, he changed his tune after 9/11 and said it was inadequate, but at the time he said Clinton did it right.)
August 30th, 2008 at 7:50 pmI’m not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV, but it appears to me that the typical Republican hack must be missing some important parts of their brain. The part of the brain that is responsible for logical reasoning, and thus arriving at reasonable conclusions is effectively missing from these sub-humans. Coupled to the lack of reasoning capacity is the lack of a conscience. Therefore, why should I waste my precious time being concerned with what these anomalous quirks of mother nature have to say?
August 30th, 2008 at 8:19 pmTracy__5 Says:
“You asked why he hadnt attacked Afghanistan BEFORE 1998?
No I asked why he didn’t go into Afghanistan AFTER the 1998 Kenya U.S. Embassy bombings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MY GOD you are not only too stupid to know what you are talking about you are too stupid to remember what you WROTE you asked how many terrorist training camps Clinton destroyed before 2001 EXCEPT THE ONES HE DESTROYED IN 1998 that was AFTER the bombings you keep talking about THAT was the first time he had a reason to. This makes no sense unless you are saying he should have bombed them BEFORE the first terrorist attacks Al Queda made since he bombed them directly as soon as they DID.
“As to who recognized them if I remember right Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates I think a couple of others but how in the WORLD is that relevant?”
And Pakistan, but you ask how in the world is that relevant? It isn’t. They are not and have never been the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They WERE the government, they HAD control. They COULD have turned over Bin Laden which they DID offer to do whether or not we accept their legitimacy is irrelvant to whether they could or would have. You conservatives are late on the whole Taliban is an evil government bandwagon. Where were YOU when the liberals were screaming about them in 92 through 98 when they were blowing up the great Bhudda statue and when Amnesty International was screaming about how women were being treated there?
“…so they were still a soveriegn nation”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of COURSE they were. THEY were an independently ruled country here is the dictionary definition of soveriegn
One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as:
a. A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch.
b. A national governing council or committee.
See anything there about recognized legitimacy according to the UN or US? No you dont know why? IT ISNT RELEVANT TO BEING SOVERIEGN
And which international organization recognized them politically?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why do you keep asking this totally irrelevant question?
“Are you really claiming that when we finally DID invade Afghanistan that no one besides the Taliban suffered?”
Absolutely not. It seems however according to your warped unrealistic thinking that it’s wrong to go after anyone unless you have a guarantee that no innocent people will be killed. Question….during WW2 thousands of innocent German civilians were killed during allied bombing. The allies were not justified in their bombing of German factories?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your stupidity knows no bounds. The point originally was why would we make the PEOPLE of Afghanistan suffer for a terrorist bombing of an embassy when they were already victims of Al Queda when there were other options. It would be the actions of an international bully. After 9/11 it was justified after the bombing of the Khobar towers it wasnt. It would have caused too much suffering to too many people for the crime comitted. Especially when WE do the same thing. WE bombed a Mosque in Lebanon in 82 and killed 80 people and maimed another 200.
Again, please go back to sleep.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again stick your head back in that dark, dank place you pull your stupid arguments from like the ignorant, moronic piece of garbage you are.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:20 pmTracy__5 Says:
“You are IGNORANT Tracy they DID offer to extradite him TWICE”
It was a false offer and a bluff. LOL!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You know this HOW? Your amazing mind reading powers? Your Ouiji board? Did you throw the I CHING? Oh you CANT POSSIBLY KNOW, that is just a convienient thing to say since you have no actual argument? Look MORON if it were a BLUFF we could have called it and when they reneged it would have given us more legitimacy. MY GOD you are stupid
August 30th, 2008 at 8:23 pmTracy__5 Says:
“How STUPID can you possibly be whether or not they were the recognized rulers is irrelvant they WERE in control of the country”
Your claim was that the Taliban were the rulers of Afghanistan and that they had the LEGAL authority to extradite bin Laden. The fact that they weren’t the internationally recognized rulers of Afghanistan makes you claim they have the internationally recognized legal authority to extradite bin Laden is false.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess we will never KNOW for sure now since we rebuffed them. YOU cant read their minds and I wont TRY because, you know, ITS STUPID.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:26 pmTracy__5 Says:
“Where on a map is this country called the Taliban and when did the US sign an extradition treaty with it?”
I think you need to ask EugeneDebs that question. He/she thinks the Taliban were the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you are not only INCREDIBLY STUPID you are a liar. I dont arbitrate legitimacy. That call also isnt up to the US or any other country. I never argued their legitimacy. I despised them LOOOOONG before the conservatives decided they were bad guys. Legitimacy is IRRELEVANT. THEY RULED THE COUNTRY. No one ANYWHERE with and IQ above that of a dustbunny DISPUTES that they WERE in control of the country and that they DID rule it legitimatly or NOT therefore they COULD have delivered Bin Laden. I dont think the current government of Mauritania is legitmate THAT ISNT MY CALL. Nor is it relevant to whether or not they RULE or are a soveriegn nation YOU INSUFFERABLE MORON.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:32 pmAfghanistan is land-locked.
Any attack on the al Qaeda in Afghanistan, therefore, required flying through the sovereign airspace, or crossing over the sovereign territory, of either Iran or Pakistan.
After the 1998 African embassy bombings, President Bill Clinton chose unmanned cruise missiles launched from U.S. ships to try to take out Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda gang of right-wing religious cutthroats. Some al Qaeda were killed, but bin Laden escaped.
President Bill Clinton warned the al Qaeda, though, that if they killed anymore U.S. citizens, wherever, then he’d come get them.
Two years later, in October 2000, the al Qaeda attacked the U.S.S. Cole in a Yemeni harbor, killing U.S. sailors. It took several months to pinpoint the al Qaeda as the culprits, just before Bush took office in January 2001.
All this information was turned over to the incoming Bush admnistration, including our president’s, Bill Clinton’s, final warning to the al Qaeda, and bin Laden…kill anymore U.S. citizens and it won’t be just cruise missiles next time.
The Bush administration, as they did involving all things Clinton, blew off what President Bill Clinton told the al Qaeda that America, and our armed forces, would do if they killed anymore U.S. citizens, wherever.
The Bush administration, being die-hard Republicans, adopted the attitude that anything Bill Clinton proposed was bad. Just as they adopted the attitude that anything any Democrat proposed, Clinton, Carter, Johnson, FDR, was bad.
So, in 2001, the Bush administration completely blew off the al Qaeda threat because the outgoing Democratic administration of President Bill Clinton had taken the threat so seriously.
Even when the Taliban (al Qaeda) in Afghanistan in the Summer of 2001 arrested two Baptist women for proselytizing, the Bush administration still did nothing, didn’t follow through on the Clinton-Era threat to take out al Qaeda.
Then 9/11 happened. Then the Bush administration finally responded. Then the Bush administration finally adopted many, if not all, of the counter-terrorism proposals of the previous Clinton administration, while adding their own neo-con Republican, over-the-top, neo-fascist, anti-FISA, anti-Constitution, anti-Bill of Rights twist to the newly-named “war on terror” security measures proposed and rammed through Congress.
This all makes me suspect that top-level criminal Republicans in the Bush administration intentionally turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to all the warning signs of an imminent al Qaeda attack during the Summer of 2001. Warning sirens were blaring throughout our intelligence and law enforcement communities. But top-level criminal Republicans in the Bush administration wanted another terrorist attack to occur, preferably one inside our nation’s borders.
August 30th, 2008 at 10:38 pmTracy__5 Says:
#21
“Next, you do realize that Clinton tried to get the Republicans in Congress to give him tools necessary to bump up anti-terrorism activities, and they refused. Right?”
Which tools did they deny him? I also expect you to provide sources for your info.
August 30th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Gladly.
archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/18/column.billpress/index.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/august96/clintonspeech_8-6.html
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/29/clinton.terrorism/
August 31st, 2008 at 12:32 amTracy__5, I especially point you to this quote, from the third source I list above:
But a provision to allow the FBI to wiretap all telephones used by a suspected terrorist was dropped and one requiring explosives manufacturers to insert chemical tracers in their products was weakened to cover only plastic explosives.
A rare grouping of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats succeeded in killing the wiretap provision on the grounds that it would encroach further on personal liberties.
Clinton said he wanted increased wiretap authority “for terrorists who are moving from place to place,” adding: “Where they are flexible, so must we be.”
August 31st, 2008 at 12:33 amYou didn’t answer all of my questions. Still waiting…
August 31st, 2008 at 12:36 amTracy__5 Says:
#138
You are too stupid to have a discussion with. Your inability to perform the simplest higher brain function makes you worthless to attemp to explain anything to. Basically you are a moron. I cant dumb this down to a level you can apparantly understand. Your ignorance is a brick wall and a brick wall apparantly has better reading comprehendion I will give it one more try. I suggest you go find a six year old to explain this simple concepts to you.
“…you asked how many terrorist training camps Clinton destroyed before 2001 EXCEPT THE ONES HE DESTROYED IN 1998 that was AFTER the bombings you keep talking about THAT was the first time he had a reason to.”
You actually think that the ones Clinton destroyed in 1998 we all of the al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan? Also bombing training camps wasn’t all, not even close BTW, that was needed to shut down al Qaeda in Afghanistan. What was done after 9/11, i.e. invade Afghanistan, was what was necessary which is why Clinton should have done it after the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings. Do you get it now?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why do you keep changing your arguments? 1998 was the first time we had a REASON to attack Al Queda in Afghanistan so before THAT you would be arguing we should attack them BEFORE they do anything. NOW you want to stupidly argue that it didnt do anything because it didnt get every single training camp which I assume is true. Short of an invasion we werent going to get every bit of Al Queda but it DID extract a huge cost to them and killed a bunch of them. We all know bloodthirsty warmongers like want to invade and kill tens of thousands of people everytime YOU get pissed. You couldnt care less about any life but an American life because besides being very stupid you have no decency and you learned everything you know about foriegn policy by watching John Wayne movies. However modern wars bring a horrific cost to the nations invaded and to INNOCENT PEOLE IN THOSE COUNTRIES. That is to do so would have, as it did, killed thousands of innocents, people who were already victims of Al Queda and the Taliban. I get that you dont care. They are only brown people over there so you dont CARE how many of their children die. Fortunatly decent people DID care.
“After 9/11 it was justified after the bombing of the Khobar towers it wasnt. It would have caused too much suffering to too many people for the crime comitted.”
I assume that same reasoning applies to the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya. Oh I get it now. According to you 9/11 had to happen with a certain quota of U.S. citizens being killed to make it justifiable to invade Afghanistan. You are insane.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At least they were on OUR Radar. Bush gave Afghanistan 42 MILLION DOLLARS in August of 01. I wouldnt have done THAT. We could have frozen their assets which we didnt do until 98 Sanctions, international pressure, there are things we could have done SHORT of invading and killing tens of thousands which since you are so ignorant is your answer for everything.
“See anything there about recognized legitimacy according to the UN or US? No you dont know why? IT ISNT RELEVANT TO BEING SOVERIEGN”
If the rest of the world subscribed to your BS dictionary definition of soverignty there would be three times as many countries in the world as there is today.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ok at this point you are taking your abject stupidity into the realm of insanity. So dictionaries DONT tell us what words mean? You were wrong get over it. Its going to happen to you a lot since you are very, VERY STUPID. Just accept it and move on that kind of answer that moves from your usual level of galactic level of stupidity to needing and increase in your antiphsychotics just makes you look humiliatingly unhinged. You do know dont you that it is a basically inchorent and meaningless attempt at a point.
“Why do you keep asking this totally irrelevant question?”
As far as the rest of the world is concerned it a very relevant question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MY GOD your ignorance is just an inpenetrable barrier. The QUESTION IS could the Taliban hand over Bin Laden, what other countries think about the Taliban is totally irrelevant to this question which is why I assume you keep answering it, well that and you are so stupid you just type whatever floats to the top of that sump that you have in place of a brain.
“The point originally was why would we make the PEOPLE of Afghanistan suffer for a terrorist bombing of an embassy when they were already victims of Al Queda when there were other options.”
Other options? The Taliban demanded evidence of bin Laden’s culpability in the 9/11 attacks eventhough he had ALREADY been indicted four years prior for the 1998 Kenya bombings. Just this indictment alone should have been enough for the Taliban to turn over bin Laden. The demanding of proof of his role in 9/11 was irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Is that right? We have no extradition treaty with Afghanistan. We wanted him, asking for evidence of his culpability is a reasonable thing to ask. We HAD the evidence, I dont know what the great burden of providing it would be other than your John Wayne, warmonger view of the world would be offended by the very IDEA that other countries just dont do what they are told. You are too ignorant to have a conversation with. It is too much trouble to hold you by the hand and walk you repeatedly through simple concepts that any reasonably bright ten year old would understand the first time. Do the world a favor. DO. NOT. BREED.
September 1st, 2008 at 12:35 am1984… that’s because the “truth movement” is controlled:
Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:59 am__
Doesn’t mean that it is though. No planes? Are you out of your mind?
Tracy__5 Says: 150
OK it is clear now you are nothing but an ignorant warmonger that think John Wayne movies should be the basis for our foriegn policy. Because a terrorist IN Afghanistan committed a terrorist act killing a dozen or so Americans we should have INVADED that country killing a minimum of TENS OF THOUSANDS of innocent Afghanis who were already victims of the Taliban and Al Queda. Clearly you have no decency. Clearly no blood but American blood means anything to you. You are a disgusting warmonger. It would be the equivelent of shooting someone and killing them because they punched you. You are sick and need the help of a mental health professional immediatly. Your vicious disregard for the lives of innocents makes me sick. You dont believe in proportional a proportional response. Once any terrorist anywhere attacks us we go to whatever country they are living in and kill them all and let God sort them out. You are certainly disgusting you need to increaser your medication
September 8th, 2008 at 2:22 amTracy__5 Says:
Your hero died shortly after being admitted to a santitarium?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This will be hard to explain to someone as clearly ignorant as you. I am a lefty we dont DO hero worship we dont follow the cult of the personality. That is left for simpleminded deluded fools like you wingnuts. Eugene Debs went to prison for six years for giving an anti war speech his health never recovered. He went to a sanitorium started by a nutritionist to die it was a natural health center. What we would call today holistic medicine. Does that have any relevance to anything? You really are VERY stupid.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:26 am