http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...113001175.html
Difficult to not be cynical about the timing.
The WH will absolutely fight viciously, sinisterly to make sure that their phony Iraq war lasts well past Jan 2009, so they will be able to say later, as they do now:
"We, dubya/ head, were winning in Iraq. Iraq was lost after we left office."
The Repugs are 100% responsible for 9/11 and for Iraq.
Last edited by boutons_; 12-01-2006 at 10:51 PM.
Could there be a worse job in 2008 other than embedded american soldier in Iraq?
Spoken like a true dumbass.
The WH has been distancing itself from Baker and the Iraq Study Group for two weeks, someone must have leaked them the group's findings and recommendations. Now the NeoCons are calling Baker the guy that kept Bush41 out of Baghdad and Saddam in power in 91, like if that was a bad thing.
"Spoken like a true dumbass."
typical refutation from Aggie ass , go yourself, less.
Osama bin Laden was responsible.
No, you go yourself. And after that three seconds is over, prove what you alleged.
You say the Republicans are responsible for 9/11. Prove it. No half ass conspiracy web sites or liberal hacks. Cold, hard facts. Let's see them, needle .
"Prove it"
The WH refused to approve the 9/11 commission, dragged their feet for months, and agreed only after tightly restricting the Exec branch co-operation. Why would the WH not want deepest possible investigation of 9/11? Maybe because the worst attack on the US since the British burned Wash DC happened 8 months after the Repugs took office and were fully responsible for NatSec?
"Trust us with NatSec. We're badass Repugs" GMAFB
From the 9/11 Commission report:
"Government Response to the Threats
"In sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat.
They did not have direction, and
did not have a plan to ins ute.
The borders were not hardened.
Transportation systems were not fortified.
Electronic surveillance was not targeted against a domestic threat.
54 State and local law enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI’s efforts.
The public was not warned."
===========
The damning inactions above are from a commission that was denied full co-operation from the WH and the Exec branch.
We have never heard from the WH about the Exec's actions between Jan 20 and 9/11 about terrorism and al-Quaida, because there were no actions.
The at ude of the WH was typified by dubya's response to the FBI man who went to Crawford in Aug 01 to tell dubya that something was up (just another blinker in "the system was blinking red"). Dubya said "thanks for your report, you've covered your ass". The Exec didn't take the "red blinking" seriously at all and failed to continue the urgency and importance that Clinton had towards al Quaida. If it was important to Clinton, the Repugs ideologically had to ignore or reject it.
The Repugs did absolutely nothing in general (there was some budgetary increase for some later date) about terrrorism pre-9/11 and as the points above indicate, didn't do anything specific to raise the alert about red blinkings.
The Repugs have not defended their pre-9/11 terrorist actions, because there weren't any to defend. It's a huge cover up. The truth will come out.
The "proof" you want is the absence of evidence that the Repugs, not even in their own defense, did anything about NatSec in general or terrorism/al-Qaida/"red blinking" specifically.
The dubay/ head/Repugs know they will be tatooted eternally for starting and losing the phony Iraq war. The Repug inactions prior to 9/11 also tatoo them eternally as asleep at the wheel. That's the key reason the Repugs try to slime Clinton as fully responsible for 9/11.
Last edited by boutons_; 12-02-2006 at 09:47 AM.
Bush isn't going to back down. Not today, not tomorrow.
I don't think the dimm-o-craps are going to push too hard to get the troops out.
Lip service is about all they pay to it. They want Bush to take the heat, but they
know the consequences of their actions if they push too hard.
That's a huge reach croutons, and you know it. Those aren't facts...
Look, both parties ed up in the lead up to 9/11. It was Clinton's watch for the eight years preceding Bush taking over, and yet twits like you seem to think Bush was supposed to roll into the world's largest bureaucracy, wave his magic wand, and have it all fixed in eight months.
What was covered up? Was Muhammed Atta a card carrying member of the Shadow Party of the Republican Party or some stupid like that?The Repugs have not defended their pre-9/11 terrorist actions, because there weren't any to defend. It's a huge cover up. The truth will come out.
You are so ing biased, it's pathetic. None of what you said justifies the argument that the Bush Administration was in any way part of some conspiracy for 9/11.
Yeah, they did a little bit of CYA in the aftermath. So what? So did the Democrats. That's called politics in Washington, D.C.
I could take the exact same arguments you made and flip them around about the Democratic party and Team Clinton. Does that mean they were in on it to?
Of course not. Both parties failed to realize the immediacy of the threat of a strike on American soil prior to 9/11. Really, who could blame them? It was almost an act of arrogance for both Clinton and Bush that a major attack like 9/11 could go down on our soil.
Again, that doesn't mean they were both meeting weekly with Atta and his teams before it happened. A lot of things our government does are reactionary and only done post-incident. This isn't exclusive to the exec branch. You can pick any federal agency and it's the same way. That's the monster that a bureaucracy has created.
Take off your tin foil hat, those aren't black helicopters circling over your house, there was no Republican conspiracy that played a part in 9/11. Give it a rest.
You should speak of being biased!?
Clinton didn't "break" NatSec, so there was nothing for dubya to fix.
The WH only had to take terrorism and al-Qaida as seriously as Clinton and take the "blinking red lights" seriously. The bureaucracy/FBI took the initiatvie and even went to Crawford in Aug 01 to lay out the blinkng red lights for dubya. dubya DID ING NOTHING.
Remember, after Mogadishu and the the Cole, the Repugs were supposed to come in and be badass mother res on NatSec, head said his job was "thinking outside the box" on NatSec, etc, etc.
"the exact same arguments"
ing dubya sucker. Where is your evidence that Clinton was presented with similar red blinking lights and intense chatter? To Clinton's credit, I bet 99% most of the world was surprised, had no idea what was going on, when Clinton struck and shot a Cruise into Afghanistan at OBL. In dubya's case, the world, including the WH, was surprised when OBL struck.
There was no Repug conspiracy BEFORE 9/11, but after, the WH was dead set against the 9/11 commission because the WH absolutely didn't want their derelection of NatSec duty exposed and the blame for "losing the WTC" tatooed on the Repugs. It will come out eventually.
BushCo's choices are:
1. Pull out troops and have a bloodbath in Iraq.
2. Keep troops there slowly bleeding and keep pouring money in until your term is over or the Democrats cut off funding. Get someone else to pull out troops and have a bloodbath in Iraq.
It's not hard to choose 1 and maybe BushCo won't get all the blame.
I have to say the 2008 date is a little fishy. Is it a democrat push to make sure that the war is over before they enter office or is it a republican push so that they can win the WH in 08? I think there will always be conspiracies about 9/11 and I won't say they are wrong because I was not there and I don't know enough about it. What I will say is IF they are true then these people have sold their souls to the devil. The one thing I do know is...... we need a media that is unbiased and will tell us the FACTS not OPINIONS and we need it now.
If you had a brain you would take it out and play with it, just like you do
with you small size pecker.
Clinton and his administration politicized the intelligence and military. His
Justice Department told them they couldn't talk across boundaries. Guirlick,
a member of the 9/11 commission is the one that wrote the memo.
It was also your group that went to court to challenge an election that
the SC finally settled and caused Bush and his administration to get a
late start on transitioning from the old administration.
So get off the pot, your does stink.
Last edited by xrayzebra; 12-02-2006 at 05:05 PM.
Nice hijack.
Both sides screwed up.
Move on.
Chump are you talking me? LOL
And what a concession, you admitting Clinton and his group weren't lilly white.
So big of you.
I have always said so. RIF.
Right, ICBM missile technology being handed over to China wasn't a breakage, it was a trade for campaign contributions for BillyboyClinton didn't "break" NatSec, so there was nothing for dubya to fix
Where is your evidence that Clinton was presented with similar red blinking lights and intense chatter?
http://www.amazon.com/11-Commission-...e=UTF8&s=books
By the way, it also lays some blame at the feet of the Bush camp, but I guess you wouldn't know anything you don't read on democraticunderground.com
in' Reds!
ICBMs didn't break NatSec and weren't used on WTC.
List all the anti-terrrorist/al-quaida meetings, speeches, policies, etc, etc that the Repugs, by their own admission in defense of themselves, did Jan-Sep 2001.
Terrorism, the biggest threat to USA, wasn't even on the Repugs' radar.
The Repugs ed up big time with 9/11, and they know it.
dubya suckers show the evidence otherwise or should just SHUT THE UP.
dubya's legacy :
ing up 9/11,
ing up and losing Iraq,
ing up Katrina,
enriching/protecting the super-rich and corps.
2 more years, what else will dubya and head up?
Condy presented the presidential daily briefing every day to Bush. The daily briefings, which by definition, happened daily, mean that terrorism wasn't on their radar?Terrorism, the biggest threat to USA, wasn't even on the Repugs' radar.
The Repugs ed up big time with 9/11, and they know it.
dubya suckers show the evidence otherwise or should just SHUT THE UP.
Look, I know you're stupid, but you just keep digging a digger hole. Show evidence otherwise? Go read a book you twit, I just gave you the link.
I still want you to explain how 9/11 was Bush's fault, or how they ' ed up big time'
as you put it.
So far all you've shown me is tin foil conspiracy bull of "they tried to submarine the commission", which is a lame ass argument considering the commission, best I can tell, did meet and offer a lengthy report that cast blame on both sides.
The fact that you can't admit the Democrats ed up too shows the idiocy of your bias (not that that's even in debate these days).
I love it though - Clinton had eight years, Bush had eight months, so 9/11 is all Bush's fault.
Spoken like a true liberal
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
