Please, Nick. 9-11 was obviously Clinton's fault. As you may recall, the man got a blowjob.
What do you right wingers have to say for yourselves? Your party is now trying to blame 911 on Clinton. What a bunch of cowards, not to take responsibility for what happened many months into Bush's watch. Clinton briefed Bush as to the grave Al Quaida threat. There is alot of real documentation of Clinton's fight against Al Qaida. The Bush administration received mountains of warnings about Al Qaida throughout 2001 and did nothing and worse. It's truly repulsive how far Bush and co. will go. Republican leaders: take responsibility for what happened while you were in power, for Christ's sake. (insert planetary size vomit puddle here)
And Brady, spare us the whole Clinton would have done the same thing argument. You can't prove it and it's not the issue. The issue is what Bush did.
Please, Nick. 9-11 was obviously Clinton's fault. As you may recall, the man got a blowjob.
*yawn* it's not a "clinton" problem or a "bush" problem only - it's a systemic problem... from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/ , an interview with a 20 year cia veteran:
Mitchell: "Now, you told the 9/11 commission that there were people in the agency who basically ignored the advice of your unit, the Osama bin Laden station, because they thought you were a little over the top, a little too zealous."
Anonymous: "Yes. I think we, we were certainly convinced by late in 1996 that we had an organization that was militarily competent, that was structured in a way that made it very difficult to isolate and attack, in the sense that it was structured in 40 or 50 countries around the worldâ"
Mitchell: "Do you think, do you think that your advice was ignored? Did they, did the people within the CIA, the people in charge think that you were all exaggerating the threat of Osama bin Laden before 9/11?"
Anonymous: "I'm not sure if the people thought we were exaggerating so much as they just didn't take it very seriously at all. They thought that bin Laden was just one more terrorist on a list of terrorists. I really believe Mr. Tenet was the one person who did take it seriously almost from the start, but the rest of the senior leadership in much of the intelligence community, I think, did not take it seriously.
Nick, two things:
1 - Stop carelessly throwing around labels like "right wingers". I'm considered a "right winger" by most here, and so is Bush. And yet I have very little in common with the man, and indeed I actively oppose him. So give the simple-minded labels a rest.
2 - The Clinton administration DID the same thing, it's not speculation, it's not academic, it's historic fact. What's more, it did it SEVERAL TIMES. The failures of 9/11 were merely part of a LONG, continuous series of failures that began on Clinton's watch. You still haven't figured out the whole Hussain Al Hussaini thing yet, have you, Nick? How do you explain that? How do you insulate your icons from culpability there and yet still maintain your indictment of the Bush administration on 9/11?
The fact is that the trail of evidence extends all the way back to the first WTC bombing. You don't know this because you haven't researched it at all. You've only researched Bush's connections to 9/11, and that's only because you hate Bush. See beyond your blind hatred and do some more extensive research. Study the court transcripts of the Ramzy Yousef's trial and study the independent investigations of the Oklahoma City Bombing.
I can only say this about Clinton and terrorism. During his presidency he implimented more anti-terrorism policies than any president before or since. He knew bin laden was a threat and warned Bush about al queda.
I'll also point out that after the first WTC attack, Clinton's justice department found the culprits and prosecuted them. I could probably include a list of clinton's anti-terrorist policies, but you don't really need it, do you.
Yeah, but he didn't prosecute (all) the terrorists involved in the OKC Bombing. There were many more involved than just McVeigh and Nichols. There are mountains of evidence to this fact.
Oh, please. Why WOULDN'T he prosecute as many as possible? What possible motive could he have for not going after every credible perp?Originally Posted by Brady Wright
Is it possible that these mountains of evidence aren't credible? Is it possible that the prosecutors felt the cases were too weak and decided not to prosecute on that basis?
Now, I wouldn't be surprised if others were involved. But throwing that one on Clinton is just plain stupid. There are too many factors involved in apprehending and prosecuting criminals.
Clinton came out strong and hard against terrorism. This is a fact you cannot deny, Brady.
That's the official excuse, but it's all lies. Those at the top ignored Bin Laden, because he was working for them.Originally Posted by Eric Doggett
The same reason they did not arrest all the suspects in WTC 93...because of the Clinton era policy directive of seperation and oversite of Criminal investigations..vs Foreign intellgience matters.
The board of intelligence policy oversite committee.
The purpose of this..is to make sure that all those high walls Clinton put up between FBI and CIA ...protected criminal investigations under Title III code.
This was further restricted in 1995..by directive of then [nss][nss][nss] attn general Gorelick...under Janet Reno. I won't even get into the allegations about why this was done (ie..the China, campaign contribution scandals). But, basically..that memo..and the directive that has become known as the "raising the bar" directive..that prevented or in some ways hampered the FBI and CIA from sharing information...came about as the result of the WTC 93 case...which is specifically mentioned in this memo.
It basically states..that even though the FBI collected certain foreign intelligence related to the criminal case...that this must be persued seperately..and NOT included in the trial of Yousef so as to protect the criminal prosecution and evidence from any sign of collaboration between CIA and other foreign intel divisions and the FBI as a criminal investigating unit. That "certain foreign intel" contained she asked to be ommitted included Yousef..that he was in Iraq...had a "special" issued Iraqi passport...and also about at least one other individual who was with him..who fled to Iraq after the bombings..and as well..some of the other terroists ties and activities that Yousef had.
This directive from Gorelick..was to keep that info "out" of the investigation and trial and criminal prosecution of Yousef. And to persue that foreign intel "seperately" under another division as a foreign counter intelligence matter. This is all handled through a secret panel board (not sure if it was setup by Clinton or not)...called the Intelligence Policy Oversite board..or something like that. Basically...it's a pool of lawyers..who decide what foreign intel or invstigations might be a conflicting interest with criminal matters..what can proceede forward..what needs to be diverted..etc. Handy huh?
The basic premise is..that she wanted to create a higher wall between the FBI and CIA recognizing that both might be invoved in some counter terroism investigations...and they didn't want them to share information to gether...least it seem to viiolate the rights of any accused under a criminal case if one should be brought. Or..to safegard the procedures in a criminal investigation to not seem as influenced by any CIA foreign counterinteligence gathering methods (which would be illegal under criminal prosecution laws..such as wire taps without court order..etc).
The CIA and FBI basically operate under different standards and procedures. FBI is the criminal investigative division. CIA is our national intelligence and foreign intel gathering and alnalyzing body. And basically during the Clinton admin..they setout to make that bar between them as HIGH as possible..which limited their ability to communicate in some ways..and certainly limited the sharing of information with each other. (not to mention cutting the teeth out of their funding)
Gorelick..who mandated these changes under Clinton in 95..currently sits on the 9/11 commission and has been highly critical of FBI, CIA and Ashcroft...as to "why" the FBI and CIA did not share intelligence information they had. Go figure.
The trail of evidence, indeed goes back for decades into Reagan, Papa bush territory. But you are confusing 2 things. Clinton can in no way be directly linked to Oklahoma. I believe that we have been playing games with double agents for a long time. But, Clinton cannot be directly linked to allowing Oklahoma to happen. It was most likely others who were involved, and not Clinton. It's hard to say. But, Bush can be directly linked to 911. 911 was a disaster of a much bigger scale and we have evidence on an enormous scale. Bush has used 911 to turn America into a pre-fascist state. This is what I am focusing on. If Clinton is guilty, then hang em up. I agree that the system is generally the problem, but Bush has dragged America into a whole new realm and we've got proof that he did this in the most insidious way possible. And ofcourse I am happy to condemn Bush. He is the worst thing that has ever happened to the USA.Originally Posted by Brady Wright