dubya AGAIN exploiting the AQ/terrorist card to distract from bad news

[Extra Stout]

If you are high on LSD while reading articles about terror warnings, you can literally smell the fear.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"And what would happen if they didn't warn you and an attack happened?"

Can you read, less? We had an attack, 9/11, and the Exec raised no warnings.

Anyway, _I_ don't want to be warned. I'm not some NRA gun freak who thinks he's gonna go Audie Murphy and defend the country.

Any yes, I want dubya, Condi, head, Tenet all subpoenad and impeached so we can find out WTF they were doing in the 4,5 months before 9/11. The WH delayed for months against any commission, and then emasculated the 9/11 Commission so those truths couldn't be exposed.

You try and pass yourself off as centrist or whatever the lame justification you use to try and justify hating on Bush but being 'fair and impartial.'

My question to you is this - if those guys all get subpoenas, do we get to do the same with Clinton, Gore, Sandy Berger, Albright and Co.?

And don't give me some pissant hateful response either.

It's a simple yes or no and I expect a simple yes or no.

[boutons_]

"Clinton, Gore, Sandy Berger, Albright and Co"

These people were in power in 8 months before 9/11?

So the answer is: NO

These Dem people DID warn the incoming shrubbies about AQ (just in case the Repugs had been too pre-occupied harassing Clinton for 8 years to read the newspapers), warnings from the Dems that were apparently TOTALLY ignored by Repugs, probably just because the warning WERE from the Dems.

There is NO TRACE that the Repugs did anything about terrorism or AQ from 20 Jan to 11 Sep. So YES, I want those mother ers subpoened and impeached to find out exactly how they were negligent, and make the derelection of NatSec duty clear as day for the history books.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"Clinton, Gore, Sandy Berger, Albright and Co"

These people were in power in 8 months before 9/11?

So the answer is: NO

These Dem people DID warn the incoming shrubbies about AQ (just in case the Repugs had been too pre-occupied harassing Clinton for 8 years to read the newspapers), warnings from the Dems that were apparently TOTALLY ignored by Repugs, probably just because the warning WERE from the Dems.

There is NO TRACE that the Repugs did anything about terrorism or AQ from 20 Jan to 11 Sep. So YES, I want those mother ers subpoened and impeached to find out exactly how they were negligent, and make the derelection of NatSec duty clear as day for the history books.

You're a re People who were in office for 8 years before Bush weren't in any way responsible, but Bush was supposed to change the world in four months

These Dem people DID warn the incoming shrubbies about AQ (just in case the Repugs had been too pre-occupied harassing Clinton for 8 years to read the newspapers), warnings from the Dems that were apparently TOTALLY ignored by Repugs, probably just because the warning WERE from the Dems.

Um, they warned them about a billion things. Damn Bush for not finding the needle in the ing haystack in four months.

Just what I thought, you want to give Billary and his administration a free pass. Bush was supposed to kill bin Laden and his movement in 4 months time, but Clinton is free of blame when he had a country serve OBL up on a ing silver platter

Way to go, boutons bot.

[boutons_]

"Bush was supposed to change the world in four months"

red herring. He didn't have to change the world, he and his accomplices only had to put all federal/state/local agencies on HIGH ALERT in response to the chatter ON HIS WATCH. Is that so ing hard?

I give Clinton's people a free pass for what happened under dubya's watch, to which dubya did not take seriously and did nothing in response to the warnings, as the 9/11 Commission clearly indicated.