9/11 Panel Faults Clinton Inaction

Originally posted by JediMaster
I've been saying it for nearly 3 years now that Slick Willy could have done something against al-Qaida. And when it comes from a Demmie and the biggeest liberal news system CNN you know that Clinton failed.

He had alot of times to get Osama, offerd by the Saduioes at least 3 times.

Me and you been saying the same damn thing for 3 years. Of course Clinton could have been tougher on terrorism. There's no doubt about that!!!

I still don't think "action" against al-Qaeda would have prevented 9/11. It seems to me that a full military attack may have though.

Remarkable!!

Yes JohnSmith, it is a flawed argument. But, you are dealing with the RIght Wing....don't expect high level discourse or anything that strays from syncpohancy to all things Bush.

Simply search my posts to refute this "Clinton let it happen" Right Wing wet dream.

-Clinton: If the last legally elected president was going to launch a "preventive" attack on a sovereign state -- a violation of the cardinal ban on aggression, Article 2, section 4 of the United Nations Charter ... and send American soldiers to die, at least it wouldn't have been for lies. Anti-terror actions started with the Clinton White House....Reagan punked out of avenging 100's of dead Marines & Poppy was equally negligent on our airliners being blown up.

Bush's Ball: John Ashcroft cut the FBI anti-terrorism budget by $58 million in his first damn budget!!
On the day of the attacks, Condi "Long Grain" Rice was set to deliver a great little paper that she spent months putting together .....on missle defense. It was to serve as a preamble "Must BUY!" to the sci-fi "Defense Shield".

On 9/11 Commission: Think the Bush team is worthy of any respect for the massive delay & stonewalling, then attempts to kneecap, the "investigation"? Look to history:
"... By contrast, the last sneak attack stirred immediate interest in that question. On the evening of Dec. 7, 1941, Navy Secretary Frank Knox called President Franklin Roosevelt to ask permission to go to Pearl Harbor to begin learning �why the Japanese had caught U.S. forces unprepared.� By Dec. 15�with the nation now fighting both Japan and Germany�Knox returned to report that the United States was �not on the alert.�

THIS WAS the first of eight separate wartime inquiries, culminating in a joint congressional investigation in 1946 that ran to 40 fat volumes. Only six weeks after the attack, a special presidential commission on Pearl Harbor chaired by Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts issued a stinging report that left FDR muttering. The night he received it, he gave the bulk of it to the Sunday newspapers.

Now, we have yells of partisanship because half the panel is semi seriouss about taking those responsible to task....that's partisanship?

Right Wing wet dream? LOL

Look, there's not doubt that Clinton didn't do all he could have done. In no way shape or form was this guy tough on terorrism. Of course he launched some missiles here and there, but that only happened when he needed to redirect attention away from his "issues."

The point of the article, I think, is that Clinton could have most definitely done more.

And again, I don't think it would have prevented 9/11.

Originally posted by astrocreep
Why would Clinton take action? Look at what resistance we are seeing now toward a pre-emtive strike. How can we actually sit and bitch because no one took action to stop Bin-Hiden and in the next breath nit-pick out enough reason to criticize the exact same thing. What if we had done nothing to stop Hussien and he had masterminded a suitcase nuke attack? Would we be at this same juncture asking these same stupid questions? I'd bet money on it. The same whiners crying about why we didn't take action against terror cells in Afghanistan are the same ones bitching about Iraq. The same people that were all for dis-arming the "dangerous" American citizen population during the 90s are the same ones bitching because terror cells are being denied their rights!


Damn it to hell people, the fact that anyone can ask why nothing was done in the face of the current situation is absolutly absurb squared!

We cannot unite against a force whos every action is toward the downfall of democracy and liberty plus the genocide of everyone in the world who isn't them for fear that we might offend or hurt someone's feelings.

And you all have the nerve to ask why a leader didn't take action? What if either Clinton or Bush had went into Afghanistan? What if they had raided the terror sects in the US? What if 9-11 had been prevented but no evidence could be found that it was to even happen? Would we be happy? Would we even think that something of that magnatude had been stopped...or would we be bitching and crying and whining about whether or not there was just cause to do it?

Nothing was done because either Clinton or Bush failed. Nothing was done because of us and the impossible task of wiping the noses of every little whimpering crybaby when something nasty must be done. You want to know who is responsible? Every last one of us. Have we learned a damn thing? You be the judge.

The problem with your argument is that Clinton was offered OBL without having to invade a country. All he had to do was except - but did he? No. THREE TIMES! If Bush was offered him - even before 9/11 - do you think he would have accepted? My money says yes, the very first time.
In fact, the only time Clinton did go after OBL was when he wanted to divert attention from his impeachment. Talk about taking military action for his own agenda - but you'll never get this argument from the "unbiased" CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC news.

You want to know who is responsible? Every last one of us. Have we learned a damn thing? You be the judge. == astrocreep


Got it astro. You are a sage at times. And we are going to be responsible for another
lost war if we are not careful. The US can only be defeated from within, like in
Vietnam. Here is that lesson :: you CANNOT be against the War BUT for
the troops. Thats the first slide into hating the troops. I saw the human
dung throwing in San Francisco on returning Viet Vets. That cost us the war (motivationally speaking)
and resulted in millions of deaths when we pulled out. Forget about stopping
9/11. There are basterds out there that want us dead. Iraq is attracting them
like magnets. Beats fighting them in shopping centers over here, huh? Im tired of
the WMD business. We got them. Sadam was the WMD. Osama is next.
But unfortunately we are getting ready to lose this war. Here is the first sign ::

Our soldiers in Iraq aren't heroes
4/12/2004 By ANDY ROONEY

Well, thats why I try to stay a-political. We are in a War we cannot lose
and in a debate that should not be. So naturally the very next phase
will be hate the troops.


/\/ight\/\/ing