- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
that is because you never read the evidence I posted.
Nor did anyone else-it's non existent
that is because you never read the evidence I posted.
Nor did anyone else-it's non existent
that is 100% dishonest. I indeed posted evidence and its not my fault if you fail to read it.
What is 100% dishonest is making the claim that you proved what you said you did
I have provided evidence for my claim, its in this thread. You are welcome to go search for it.
911 was certainly caused by clinton doing absolutely nothing in response to repeated attacks by alqueda and other terrorists...
this is 100% untrue, as I have shown in this thread with evidence.
the first WTT attack happened under clinton....the USS cole...the african embassy...the 200 marines killed in the Riad barracks attack...and on and on....
yeah, like a month after he was sworn in. you really gonna blame him for that????????????
No thanks-if it were worthwhile I'd have remembered it. and I know what the facts are, when you make claims inconsistent with that, i know you are fibbing
just to show you who is being dishonest, I shall find and post my evidence.
give me a minute.
Nor did anyone else-it's non existent
What is 100% dishonest is making the claim that you proved what you said you did
not only that, but Clinton:
Foreign policy of the Bill Clinton administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-sent legislation to Congress to extend federal criminal jurisdiction making it easier to deport terrorists and act against terrorist fund-raising.
-amended that legislation to increase wiretap and electronic surveillance authority for the FBI, require explosives to be equipped with traceable taggants, and appropriate more funds to the FBI, CIA, and local police...after the OKC bombing.
-he issued Presidential Decision Directive 39 which stated that the United States "should deter, defeat and respond vigorously to all terrorist attacks on our territory and against our citizens." Furthermore, it called terrorism both a "matter of national security" and a crime.
-he significantly increased anti-terror funds to the CIA & FBI.
-he created the CIA's "Bin Laden unit", who's mission was to analyse intelligence about and plan missions against OBL.
-he created and appointed Richard Clark to head a new Counter-terrorism Security Group, who's mission was to prevent and defend against terrorist attacks.
-he tried to kill OBL in Afghanistan, but OBL was not there during the attacks.
-he declared the Taliban to be a state sponsor of terrorism.
-in 1999 he gave the CIA the authority to order the killing of OBL.
-he helped prevent the Millenium terror attacks.
-he drafted a plan at the end of his admistration, to defeat and destroy Al Qaeda.
....so much for this dishonest rumor of President Clinton not taking on terrorism.
Yeah, who'll ever forget the 200 marines killed in their barracks while Clinton was president. :roll:911 was certainly caused by clinton doing absolutely nothing in response to repeated attacks by alqueda and other terrorists...the first WTT attack happened under clinton....the USS cole...the african embassy...the 200 marines killed in the Riad barracks attack...and on and on....
Yeah, who'll ever forget the 200 marines killed in their barracks while Clinton was president. :roll:
Who knew Clinton was president for 4 terms?
Here is the post with evidence. Now we all know who is being dishonest.
Nope, not nonsense. Had Bush taken some action to prevent an attack, it's possible 9.11 could have been thwarted. Just like when Clinton raised airport security following the warning he received that al-qaeda was planning an attack inside America. And with the real-estate meltdown, had Bush not pushed through his minority homeownership program until Congress passed oversight on the GSE's, the financial crisis would also likely have been avoided.nonsense...
911 was certainly caused by clinton doing absolutely nothing in response to repeated attacks by alqueda and other terrorists....
Nope, not nonsense. Had Bush taken some action to prevent an attack, it's possible 9.11 could have been thwarted. Just like when Clinton raised airport security following the warning he received that al-qaeda was planning an attack inside America. And with the real-estate meltdown, had Bush not pushed through his minority homeownership program until Congress passed oversight on the GSE's, the financial crisis would also likely have been avoided.
Thunder you showed no evidence..
The evidence is indisputable -- George Bush was the president on 9.11. He had nearly 8 months to do something about al-qaeda -- he chose to do nothing and hope there would not be an attack.your evidence has proved no such thing
The evidence is indisputable -- George Bush was the president on 9.11. He had nearly 8 months to do something about al-qaeda -- he chose to do nothing and hope there would not be an attack.
Wikipedia? Really? As your irrefutable evidence? I went to the link, this particular Wiki article, cited CNN and other "news" reports as the majority of its "sources." :lol: The few credible sources it DID cite were White House and Departmental briefings which did NOTHING to prove your claims. Perhaps you should dig a little deeper than simply clicking the first 2 or 3 links that pop up in your Google Searches. :shrug:my evidence was in response to this claim, and I have proved this claim to be lies.
The evidence is indisputable -- George Bush was the president on 9.11. He had nearly 8 months to do something about al-qaeda -- he chose to do nothing and hope there would not be an attack.
Hmmm, let's see ... we have your opinion ... and then we have the opinion of Paul Bremer, an ambassdor in the State Department who served for counter-terrorism ...I blame him for his complete negligence, incompetence, and misfeasance, once that attack had occurred, in utterly failing to do anything effective to prevent the groups responsible for that first attack from planning and carrying out a much more successful attack against the World Trade Center twelve years later.
You're dishonestly comparing an attack by a relatively unknown terrorism group 5 weeks into Clinton's presidency with an attack by a very well known terrorist group almost 33 weeks into Bush's term. You're dishonestly comparing an attack in 1993 where there were no known warnings with an attack in 2001 where the head of the CIA described in incredible influx of warnings as "the system was blinkig red."I note that you (correctly) point out that the first attack happened so early in Clinton's term that he couldn't reasonably have had time to anticipate and act on the threat, even if it were known; yet you refuse to grant the same leeway to Bush Jr. regarding the second attack.
that proves nothing and you are lying
..You're dishonestly comparing an attack by a relatively unknown terrorism group 5 weeks into Clinton's presidency with an attack by a very well known terrorist group almost 33 weeks into Bush's term. You're dishonestly comparing an attack in 1993 where there were no known warnings with an attack in 2001 where the head of the CIA described in incredible influx of warnings as "the system was blinkig red."...
Not even. Try Ronald Reagan, 1983. Where do these nuts come up with their "facts?" Sheesh. Bet some of them question Clinton's whereabouts on the grassy knoll.GHW Bush presidency huh?