You can't push 9/11 back on Clinton. He warned stupid that OBL and Al Qaeda should be his #1 concern. Stupid and Rice and Cheney ignored him and didn't do one single thing about them UNTIL they attacked us!
You wanna talk about who is dumb and ignorant? Check out: Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq?, O'Neill Tells '60 Minutes' Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11 - CBS News
Can you imagine the President of the United States being so detached from important matters concerning this country? To accuse this idiot of being "intellectually lazy" would actually be a compliment.Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.
At cabinet meetings, he says the president was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top officials to act "on little more than hunches about what the president might think."
This is what O'Neill says happened at his first hour-long, one-on-one meeting with Mr. Bush: “I went in with a long list of things to talk about, and I thought to engage on and as the book says, I was surprised that it turned out me talking, and the president just listening … As I recall, it was mostly a monologue.”
He also says that President Bush was disengaged, at least on domestic issues, and that disturbed him. And he says that wasn't his experience when he worked as a top official under Presidents Nixon and Ford, or the way he ran things when he was chairman of Alcoa.
O'Neill readily agreed to tell his story to the book's author Ron Suskind – and he adds that he's taking no money for his part in the book.
Suskind says he interviewed hundreds of people for the book – including several cabinet members.
O'Neill is the only one who spoke on the record, but Suskind says that someone high up in the administration – Donald Rumsfeld - warned O’Neill not to do this book.
Yep, and all parties were being led by the nose by Bush's lies. Nobody is arguing that Hussein wasn't a bad man. The argument, that you guys ALWAYS ignore, is that we were supposed to be going after "those folks who attacked us"!Congress was involved. Politicians from both sides were involved. Other nations were involved.
Can you explain why Bush stopped pursuing Osama Bin Laden, after so few months of attacking us and murdering over 3,000 innocent people on our soil? Could it be that it was too much work for them and wasn't producing improved polling numbers for them?
And Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
It really is that simple.
It has been proven all over this forum that Bush wanted to invade Iraq before he even took office. Bush always felt that a war helped to bolster a sitting president's popularity. He always thought daddy didn't go far enough. They just under estimated how much effort it would take to occupy Iraq.
From the above link:
Are "we" better off without Hussein? I guess that depends. since he wasn't really a threat to us anyway... and BushCo knew it! But, are we safer from all those new terrorists on the planet, who hate our guts, who weren't there before?“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”
And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.
He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.
Are the people of Iraq better off without Hussein? Some of them might argue that point with you. Especially those whose family members have been killed by those new terrorists and suicide bombers.
Cheney's attitude was also obviously a=not very concerned about America's financial well being with this doosey:
So, answering this thread's question: AB-SO-LOOT-LEE!!! The whole bunch of them should be behind bars. Maybe we'll hear something on this in 19 days.“He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”