Kudos to Bush

[Guest Guest]

Since it sounds like you just landed on the planet, I'll educate you on the subject of 9/11. Bin Laden was a known terrorist for all 8 years of

Bubba Clinton's presidency, but Clinton made no effort to nab him.

Don't be retarded. Bush failed to protect us on 9/11 despite a memo clearly showing Bin Laden was planning on attacking us, which he ignored. Then he abandoned pursuit of Bin Laden to go invade an unarmed nation that never attacked us. Explain that, hotshot.

[Guest Guest]

I'm pleased to see that not everyone on KOTW sips Kool-Aid.

It's really sad that you have to agree with yourself because no one else will.

[Guest Patriot]

Not even a good try. Unlike the Shrub there are those who refuse to lock people up without evidence. And you conveniently ignore the FACT that Sudan offered to put bin Laden in the custody of the Shrub's buddies, the Saudis, and the Saudis refused. And you also conveniently skip right over the FACT that the alleged protection of the Shrub was completely missing on 9/11. As I said, not even a good try.

Bush has the blood of over 7,000 Americans on his hands.

"lock people up without evidence" ?? This is war junior, they're lucky they weren't shot. Rules are only effective when both sides play by them.

When one side is beheading innocent people and IUD's are blowing up women and children, we don't hold debates over whether water-boarding is

too harsh. When you grow up and if you're qualified and lucky enough to serve in the military, you may come to understand this.

Also, trying to blame Bush for 9/11 is assuming that Bush should have been able to undo 8 years of depleting the military and both the FBI and CIA

by the Clinton administration in a little over 8 months in office. But I suppose that isn't too much of a stretch for anyone that thinks 9/11 was an

"inside job" by that notorious "Right Wing Conspiracy".

[Guest Guest]

Since it sounds like you just landed on the planet, I'll educate you on the subject of 9/11. Bin Laden was a known terrorist for all 8 years of

Bubba Clinton's presidency, but Clinton made no effort to nab him. The Sudanese picked him up in Sudan for trying to overthrow the government

there and offered to turn him over to the U.S. but Clinton declined the offer ( I think he was busy raping an intern at the time) saying we

couldn't prove charges against him. Bin Laden began planning 9/11 three years before Clinton left office but he never found out about the plot

because Clinton had ordered the FBI and the CIA to stop communicating and sharing information with each other. When Bush took office he

ordered the FBI and CIA to start sharing information again but it was already too late, the 9/11 plans were in place. Loony leftist bloggers will

never admit to any of this but it's the truth. Clinton has the blood of 3,000 americans on his hands. But thank God for George Bush, he's

protected us ever since.

More lies from PatRat through his sock puppet. Clinton never refused any such offer from the Sudanese, and unlike Bush, he did try to capture bin Laden.

PatRat/2stupid4words/BushWhacker: all lies, all the time.

[Guest Guest]

"lock people up without evidence" ?? This is war junior, they're lucky they weren't shot. Rules are only effective when both sides play by them.

When one side is beheading innocent people and IUD's are blowing up women and children, we don't hold debates over whether water-boarding is

too harsh.

And that's why when you finally release people who did nothing wrong, they BECOME terrorists/extremists thanks to the Bush administration's tactics. Gitmo creates more terrorists than it captures.

When you grow up and if you're qualified and lucky enough to serve in the military, you may come to understand this.

Also, trying to blame Bush for 9/11 is assuming that Bush should have been able to undo 8 years of depleting the military

blah blah blah, the dipshit was on VACATION between the time the Bin Laden memo came and the 9/11 attacks happened. No excuse for that, fool. He didn't even TRY to protect us.

[Guest Guest]

"lock people up without evidence" ?? This is war junior, they're lucky they weren't shot. Rules are only effective when both sides play by them.

When one side is beheading innocent people and IUD's are blowing up women and children, we don't hold debates over whether water-boarding is

too harsh. When you grow up and if you're qualified and lucky enough to serve in the military, you may come to understand this.

Also, trying to blame Bush for 9/11 is assuming that Bush should have been able to undo 8 years of depleting the military and both the FBI and CIA

by the Clinton administration in a little over 8 months in office. But I suppose that isn't too much of a stretch for anyone that thinks 9/11 was an

"inside job" by that notorious "Right Wing Conspiracy".

IF you had the intelligence of a newly hatched tadpole you'd realize that letting your enemies set the standards you'll Observe only reduces you to their level. I guess REMF nitwits like you were too busy hiding under your desks and cowering in fear to figure that out. Stumble back to your stool and have another cheap draft, you've almost succeeded in eliminATING YOUR SPARSE BRAIN SUPPLY.

[Guest Guest]

"lock people up without evidence" ?? This is war junior, they're lucky they weren't shot. Rules are only effective when both sides play by them.

When one side is beheading innocent people and IUD's are blowing up women and children, we don't hold debates over whether water-boarding is

too harsh. When you grow up and if you're qualified and lucky enough to serve in the military, you may come to understand this.

So we should mimic the actions of our enemy. Why should we fight them if you wish us to become as immoral and barbaric as they are?

Also, trying to blame Bush for 9/11 is assuming that Bush should have been able to undo 8 years of depleting the military and both the FBI and CIA

by the Clinton administration in a little over 8 months in office. But I suppose that isn't too much of a stretch for anyone that thinks 9/11 was an

"inside job" by that notorious "Right Wing Conspiracy".

The military has NOTHING to do with the FACT that Bush IGNORED warnings of imminent attack. It's YOUR asinine claim of Bush being a great protector that are TOTALLY off the mark.

[Guest guest]

"lock people up without evidence" ?? This is war junior, they're lucky they weren't shot. Rules are only effective when both sides play by them.

When one side is beheading innocent people and IUD's are blowing up women and children, we don't hold debates over whether water-boarding is

too harsh. When you grow up and if you're qualified and lucky enough to serve in the military, you may come to understand this.

Also, trying to blame Bush for 9/11 is assuming that Bush should have been able to undo 8 years of depleting the military and both the FBI and CIA

by the Clinton administration in a little over 8 months in office. But I suppose that isn't too much of a stretch for anyone that thinks 9/11 was an

"inside job" by that notorious "Right Wing Conspiracy".

I am sorry.... but.... Patrat... if you will please get it right.... "When one side is beheading innocent people and IUD's are blowing up women and children".... As A Real Patriot... and a Kearny born Marine.... IT IS IED... Improvised Explosive Device!"... not and IUD.... If you want to make retarded claims again, please get it right....

[Guest Patriot]

So we should mimic the actions of our enemy. Why should we fight them if you wish us to become as immoral and barbaric as they are?

That's about as simplistic an answer as one would expect from a Kool-Aider.

The military has NOTHING to do with the FACT that Bush IGNORED warnings of imminent attack. It's YOUR asinine claim of Bush being a great protector that are TOTALLY off the mark.

There were NO "warnings of imminent attack". That verbal diarrhea is a product of the loony left bloggers which you eagerly eat up.

[Guest Kearny History Teacher]

There were NO "warnings of imminent attack". That verbal diarrhea is a product of the loony left bloggers which you eagerly eat up.

I've researched this claim that Bush was warned of an "imminent attack". The truth is that there were vague reports from various

intelligence sources that Bin Laden was planning an attack sometime in the future. However, there was no information on where, when or how.

The CIA and FBI (still recovering from budget cuts under Clinton) were unable to develop any specific intelligence on this alleged plan. The

blame for 9/11 has to lie with Clinton however. Under his administration, he prohibited the FBI and CIA from sharing intelligence with each other

(God knows why) and he cut the budgets of both agencies. It took both agencies a full 2 years to get back up to speed once Bush restored their

budgets. The plans for 9/11 were underway for a full 3 years of the Clinton administration but in their reduced capacities, the CIA and FBI were

unable to develop any intelligence on them. The 8 months Bush was in office before 9/11 was not nearly enough time to correct 8 years of

Clinton neglect of our security agencies.

[Guest Guest]

I've researched this claim that Bush was warned of an "imminent attack". The truth is that there were vague reports from various

intelligence sources that Bin Laden was planning an attack sometime in the future. However, there was no information on where, when or how.

The CIA and FBI (still recovering from budget cuts under Clinton) were unable to develop any specific intelligence on this alleged plan. The

blame for 9/11 has to lie with Clinton however. Under his administration, he prohibited the FBI and CIA from sharing intelligence with each other

Oh look, it's 2dim/Patriot/etc.'s telltale unusual line spacing.

Sockpuppet detected. Trolling failed.

[Guest Guest]

There were NO "warnings of imminent attack".

The memo was ENTITLED "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."! How much clearer can it get, D**ba**?

[Bryan]

I've researched this claim that Bush was warned of an "imminent attack". The truth is that there were vague reports from various

intelligence sources that Bin Laden was planning an attack sometime in the future. However, there was no information on where, when or how.

The CIA and FBI (still recovering from budget cuts under Clinton) were unable to develop any specific intelligence on this alleged plan. The

blame for 9/11 has to lie with Clinton however. Under his administration, he prohibited the FBI and CIA from sharing intelligence with each other

(God knows why) and he cut the budgets of both agencies. It took both agencies a full 2 years to get back up to speed once Bush restored their

budgets. The plans for 9/11 were underway for a full 3 years of the Clinton administration but in their reduced capacities, the CIA and FBI were

unable to develop any intelligence on them. The 8 months Bush was in office before 9/11 was not nearly enough time to correct 8 years of

Clinton neglect of our security agencies.

The CIA and the FBI did not share information because government agencies compete with one another for influence and budget. An increase in the budget of one agency shrinks the pie for the others. It's a well-known phenomenon applying to bureaucracies and understood as applying to federal government operations. Jamie Gorelick, who (somewhat astoundingly) sat on the 9/11 Commission was instrumental in keeping the informational wall intact under the Clinton administration.

That said, if it's fair to fault the Clinton administration for its failures regarding the response to terrorism it is fair to fault every pre-9/11 president for failures--going from Carter to Bush without any exception. But I agree that the post-9/11 Bush at least deserves credit for making some pro-active and positive changes. The fact is that the U.S. has not suffered any domestic attack of any note since 9/11. A good number of planned attacks have been foiled and Al Qaeda has suffered a prolonged public relations failure.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

I've researched this claim that Bush was warned of an "imminent attack". The truth is that there were vague reports from various

intelligence sources that Bin Laden was planning an attack sometime in the future. However, there was no information on where, when or how.

The CIA and FBI (still recovering from budget cuts under Clinton) were unable to develop any specific intelligence on this alleged plan. The

blame for 9/11 has to lie with Clinton however. Under his administration, he prohibited the FBI and CIA from sharing intelligence with each other

(God knows why) and he cut the budgets of both agencies. It took both agencies a full 2 years to get back up to speed once Bush restored their

budgets. The plans for 9/11 were underway for a full 3 years of the Clinton administration but in their reduced capacities, the CIA and FBI were

unable to develop any intelligence on them. The 8 months Bush was in office before 9/11 was not nearly enough time to correct 8 years of

Clinton neglect of our security agencies.

I'm sure you did, 2smart4upatriotbushbackerseniorkearnychristiantrublugradstudenthistoryteacher. Seriously, is something

wrong with your

computer that you don't see why we can see right through you? It is pretty obvious to most of us that you are the master of sockpuppets. It is

quite pathetic really.

The CIA budget is classified, so no one can actually say whether Clinton increased it or decreased it. Making you a liar. However, this site:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publication...rder/fbi_1.html

gives both the total FBI budget (as well as the budget for Southwest Border and Anti-Drug. As you can see, the budget increased, making you a liar once again. Also, we know that the DoJustice counter-terrorism budget increased during Clinton's years. Therefore, the only evidence we have that Clinton decreased the CIA's budget (while raising everyone else's) is what the Bush administration said while trying to pass the blame.

BTW-THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT CLINTON TOLD THE AGENCIES TO STOP TALKING TO EACH OTHER.

Want to say there is? Prove it.

[Guest wildbill]

At least the military surge in Iraq is working. Our brave MOS warriors who are spilling their blood under the guise of liberty are chasing these radcal Islamics back into Iran through France, To Canada where they illegally walk into the US and travel to NYC where they become radical taxi cab drivers and arrogant pizza shop owners. Get R done GW!

Trivia for the board: What Did Hunter S Thompson really know about 911

Zodiac My Name is letter sent April 20 1970 to the San Francisco Examiner

Deciphered as

RAUN DODY DIARY Google Esquire Magazine and read about Hunter and his Jesters

[Guest Keith]

I've researched this claim that Bush was warned of an "imminent attack". The truth is that there were vague reports from various

intelligence sources that Bin Laden was planning an attack sometime in the future. However, there was no information on where, when or how.

The CIA and FBI (still recovering from budget cuts under Clinton) were unable to develop any specific intelligence on this alleged plan. The

blame for 9/11 has to lie with Clinton however. Under his administration, he prohibited the FBI and CIA from sharing intelligence with each other

(God knows why) and he cut the budgets of both agencies. It took both agencies a full 2 years to get back up to speed once Bush restored their

budgets. The plans for 9/11 were underway for a full 3 years of the Clinton administration but in their reduced capacities, the CIA and FBI were

unable to develop any intelligence on them. The 8 months Bush was in office before 9/11 was not nearly enough time to correct 8 years of

Clinton neglect of our security agencies.

Don't forget how much of the FBI resources were squanderd by Ken Starr looking for dirt on Clinton's personal habits.

[Guest Guest]

There were NO "warnings of imminent attack". That verbal diarrhea is a product of the loony left bloggers which you eagerly eat up.

Typical PatRat..............Semper LIE!

YOU are woefully IGNORANT of the FACTS.

[Bern]

Jack Cloonan, a special agent for the F.B.I.’s Osama bin Laden unit until 2002, told Ms. Mayer that Sept. 11 was “all preventable.” By March 2000, according to the C.I.A.’s inspector general, “50 or 60 individuals” in the agency knew that two Al Qaeda suspects — soon to be hijackers — were in America. But there was no urgency at the top. Thomas Pickard, the acting F.B.I. director that summer, told Ms. Mayer that when he expressed his fears about the Qaeda threat to Mr. Ashcroft, the attorney general snapped, “I don’t want to hear about that anymore!”

. . . national security expert Daniel Benjamin sounded an alarm about the “chronic” indecisiveness and poor execution of Bush national security policy as well as the continuing inadequacies of the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Benjamin must feel a sinking sense of déjà vu. Exactly seven years ago in the same newspaper, just two months before 9/11, he co-wrote an article headlined “Defusing a Time Bomb” imploring the Bush administration in vain to pay attention to Afghanistan because that country’s terrorists “continue to pose the most dangerous threat to American lives.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/opinion/13rich.html?hp

[Guest Guest]

I'm sure you did, 2smart4upatriotbushbackerseniorkearnychristiantrublugradstudenthistoryteacher. Seriously, is something

wrong with your

computer that you don't see why we can see right through you? It is pretty obvious to most of us that you are the master of sockpuppets. It is

quite pathetic really.

Those with lower resolutions will see what you see, lines with just a few words. I have a high resolution on my computer, so what I see is this (shortened so anyone can tell what I mean):

Normal post:

| WWWWWWWWWWWWW |

| WWWWWWWWWWWWW |

| WWWWWWWWWWWWW |

| WWWWWWWWWWWWW |

| WWWWWWWWWWWWW |

2dim's post:

| WWWWWWW |

| WWWWWWW |

| WWWWWWW |

| WWWWWWW |

| WWWWWWW |

A normal post 'stretches' as far as it can go. So, what causes you to see the lines with the few words and me to see the above? Well, I've figured out that 2dim is one of those people who presses enter/return at the end of a line of text (as they see it, because their resolution is low), as if he was using a typewriter. It's because of this that I firmly believe that the "senior" part of some of his sockpuppet names is absolutely true. If your horizontal resolution is lower than his, you'll see the lines with the few words on them. If it's higher, you'll see the whitespace like I do.

So, not only is 2dim a troll, not only is he a sockpuppetteer, but he's too stupid to realize that his age gives him away, as he treats his computer like a typewriter.

[Guest Guest]

I've researched this claim that Bush was warned of an "imminent attack". The truth is that there were vague reports from various

intelligence sources that Bin Laden was planning an attack sometime in the future. However, there was no information on where, when or how.

The CIA and FBI (still recovering from budget cuts under Clinton) were unable to develop any specific intelligence on this alleged plan. The

blame for 9/11 has to lie with Clinton however. Under his administration, he prohibited the FBI and CIA from sharing intelligence with each other

(God knows why) and he cut the budgets of both agencies. It took both agencies a full 2 years to get back up to speed once Bush restored their

budgets. The plans for 9/11 were underway for a full 3 years of the Clinton administration but in their reduced capacities, the CIA and FBI were

unable to develop any intelligence on them. The 8 months Bush was in office before 9/11 was not nearly enough time to correct 8 years of

Clinton neglect of our security agencies.

Idiot,

What do you expect the terrorists to do, send out formal invitations and serve drinks?

You probably are a Kearny History Teacher. Moron.

[Bryan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/opinion/13rich.html?hp

Excellent work. "At the top" in 2000 meant the Clinton administration, of course.

[Guest Guest]

I've researched this claim that Bush was warned of an "imminent attack". The truth is that there were vague reports from various

intelligence sources that Bin Laden was planning an attack sometime in the future. However, there was no information on where, when or how.

The CIA and FBI (still recovering from budget cuts under Clinton) were unable to develop any specific intelligence on this alleged plan. The

blame for 9/11 has to lie with Clinton however. Under his administration, he prohibited the FBI and CIA from sharing intelligence with each other

(God knows why) and he cut the budgets of both agencies. It took both agencies a full 2 years to get back up to speed once Bush restored their

budgets. The plans for 9/11 were underway for a full 3 years of the Clinton administration but in their reduced capacities, the CIA and FBI were

unable to develop any intelligence on them. The 8 months Bush was in office before 9/11 was not nearly enough time to correct 8 years of

Clinton neglect of our security agencies.

What a pathetic excuse for an excuse. We're supposed to believe that Bush would have gotten those bad old terrorists if only Clinton hadn't cut agency funding.

1. Bush had the intelligence reports and ignored them.

2. The agencies weren't so underfunded that the president couldn't have directed emergency action, just like Britain's government did to prevent that attack.

3. The reason 9/11 was allowed to occur was that Bush was taking a five-week vacation on his ranch and not doing his job.

4. And if none of that was true, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for the last six years of Clinton's presidency, and held control until years after 9/11. Even assuming there were budget cuts, the argument you're making is ridiculous.

The mess in Bush's diaper wasn't left there by Clinton.

You guys can't even make up a good lie.

[Guest Guest]

Damnit, the forum screwed up the whitespace visual aid. I fixed it and quoted myself below:

Those with lower resolutions will see what you see, lines with just a few words. I have a high resolution on my computer, so what I see is this (shortened so anyone can tell what I mean):

Normal post:

| WWWWWWWWWWWWWW |

| WWWWWWWWWWWWWW |

| WWWWWWWWWWWWWW |

| WWWWWWWWWWWWWW |

| WWWWWWWWWWWWWW |

2dim's post:

| WWWWWWW<blank space> |

| WWWWWWW<blank space> |

| WWWWWWW<blank space> |

| WWWWWWW<blank space> |

| WWWWWWW<blank space> |

A normal post 'stretches' as far as it can go. So, what causes you to see the lines with the few words and me to see the above? Well, I've figured out that 2dim is one of those people who presses enter/return at the end of a line of text (as they see it, because their resolution is low), as if he was using a typewriter. It's because of this that I firmly believe that the "senior" part of some of his sockpuppet names is absolutely true. If your horizontal resolution is lower than his, you'll see the lines with the few words on them. If it's higher, you'll see the whitespace like I do.

So, not only is 2dim a troll, not only is he a sockpuppetteer, but he's too stupid to realize that his age gives him away, as he treats his computer like a typewriter.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Those with lower resolutions will see what you see, lines with just a few words. I have a high resolution on my computer, so what I see is this (shortened so anyone can tell what I mean):

Normal post:

| WWWWWWWWWWWWW |

| WWWWWWWWWWWWW |

| WWWWWWWWWWWWW |

| WWWWWWWWWWWWW |

| WWWWWWWWWWWWW |

2dim's post:

| WWWWWWW |

| WWWWWWW |

| WWWWWWW |

| WWWWWWW |

| WWWWWWW |

A normal post 'stretches' as far as it can go. So, what causes you to see the lines with the few words and me to see the above? Well, I've figured out that 2dim is one of those people who presses enter/return at the end of a line of text (as they see it, because their resolution is low), as if he was using a typewriter. It's because of this that I firmly believe that the "senior" part of some of his sockpuppet names is absolutely true. If your horizontal resolution is lower than his, you'll see the lines with the few words on them. If it's higher, you'll see the whitespace like I do.

So, not only is 2dim a troll, not only is he a sockpuppetteer, but he's too stupid to realize that his age gives him away, as he treats his computer like a typewriter.

You're absolutely correct. I usually get online on my laptop, but I checked it out on my desktop and it looks exactly like you said.

Sadly, we've just told them how to fix it though.

[Guest Guest]

President Bush continues to protect us. He just engineered the release of 3 Americans that had been held by Columbian rebels. God bless our

Commander In Chief.

Yeah, I can just see Junior Shrub engineering this delicate feat of diplomacy between nose picks.

Seriously, exactly what did Bush himself do?

And if this is cause for Kudos now, why wasn't it a big deal for the six years they were in captivity?