The Path To 9/11

[Guest BushBacker]

The Path To 9/11 has showed very clearly that liberal defeatocrats brought 9/11 down upon us. The Clinton's administration's fear of offending anyone, of not being politically correct and not allowing intelligence to flow between the FBI and CIA allowed this terror plot to go undetected.

They had Bin Laden in their sights and were afraid of pulling the trigger. This film exposes the defeatocrats as cowardly, PC obsessed and afraid to stand up to the threats that we all face today. I'm proud to be a republican and a BushBacker. All you Kool-aiders that will be crying that the film wasn't accurate should be ashamed of your "hero" Clinton and thank God another defeatocrat didn't follow him in office.

[Guest Guest]

The Path To 9/11 has showed very clearly that liberal defeatocrats brought 9/11 down upon us.  The Clinton's administration's fear of offending anyone, of not being politically correct and not allowing intelligence to flow between the FBI and CIA allowed this terror plot to go undetected.

    They had Bin Laden in their sights and were afraid of pulling the trigger. This film exposes the defeatocrats as cowardly, PC obsessed and afraid to stand up to the threats that we all face today.  I'm proud to be a republican and a BushBacker. All you Kool-aiders that will be crying that the film wasn't accurate should be ashamed of your "hero" Clinton and thank God another defeatocrat didn't follow him in office.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Personally, I think you are incredibly naive to think you are getting facts from some made for prime time docu-trash but just to honor your delusion. Since you've implied that there was a big, overt, glaring threat that Clinton failed to address the question is: What did Bush do in the time he had available to him to avert 9/11? Given the facts the obvious answer is: Not enough!

What's your answer? And here's a hint: Any answer containing another of your asinine Kool-Aid remarks will just confirm you really have nothing substantial to offer.

[Guest Guest]

The Path To 9/11 has showed very clearly that liberal defeatocrats brought 9/11 down upon us.  The Clinton's administration's fear of offending anyone, of not being politically correct and not allowing intelligence to flow between the FBI and CIA allowed this terror plot to go undetected.

    They had Bin Laden in their sights and were afraid of pulling the trigger. This film exposes the defeatocrats as cowardly, PC obsessed and afraid to stand up to the threats that we all face today.  I'm proud to be a republican and a BushBacker. All you Kool-aiders that will be crying that the film wasn't accurate should be ashamed of your "hero" Clinton and thank God another defeatocrat didn't follow him in office.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's some of what the Washington Post had to say: "In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation — from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.

. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.

. . . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy promising that regimes that harbor terrorism will be treated as severely as terrorists themselves, and threatening to evict the Taliban from power in Afghanistan unless leaders meet his demands to produce bin Laden and associates. But Clinton aides said such a policy — potentially involving a full-scale war in central Asia — was not plausible before politics the world over became transformed by one of history's most lethal acts of terrorism.

Clinton's former national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger . . . said there [was] little prospect . . . that Pakistan would have helped the United States wage war against bin Laden or the Taliban in 1998, even after such outrages as the bombing of U.S. embassies overseas. "

I wouldn't say he did nothing. No doubt in your delusional world some Docu-Trash is a better source than that but you just show your tunnel vision.

And your arrogant little cowboy did wht in the 7 1/2 months he had to act?

[Guest Guest]

The Path To 9/11 has showed very clearly that liberal defeatocrats brought 9/11 down upon us.  The Clinton's administration's fear of offending anyone, of not being politically correct and not allowing intelligence to flow between the FBI and CIA allowed this terror plot to go undetected.

    They had Bin Laden in their sights and were afraid of pulling the trigger. This film exposes the defeatocrats as cowardly, PC obsessed and afraid to stand up to the threats that we all face today.  I'm proud to be a republican and a BushBacker. All you Kool-aiders that will be crying that the film wasn't accurate should be ashamed of your "hero" Clinton and thank God another defeatocrat didn't follow him in office.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The ONLY thing any Docu-trash shows clearly is the entertainment industry can make a lot of $ from tripe. Why don't you stumble back to your bar-stool and read the Enquirer to find some more of your so called truth?

Why are you proud to back an egomaniac? Not even a decade into the century he's proclaimed his war "the ideological struggle of th 21st century". With over 90 years left in the century I wonder, is he now claiming psychic abilities? Maybe he reads the future in the shiny Dick's-head?

[Guest BushBacker]

The ONLY thing any Docu-trash shows clearly is the entertainment industry can make a lot of $ from tripe.  Why don't you stumble back to your bar-stool and read the Enquirer to find some more of your so called truth?

Why are you proud to back an egomaniac?  Not even a decade into the century he's proclaimed his war "the ideological struggle of th 21st century".  With over 90 years left in the century I wonder, is he now claiming psychic abilities?  Maybe he reads the future in the shiny Dick's-head?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds like the ramblings of a Kool-aid saturated Defeatocrat.

[Guest Loki]

Here's some of what the Washington Post had to say: "In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation — from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.

. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.

. . . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy promising that regimes that harbor terrorism will be treated as severely as terrorists themselves, and threatening to evict the Taliban from power in Afghanistan unless leaders meet his demands to produce bin Laden and associates. But Clinton aides said such a policy — potentially involving a full-scale war in central Asia — was not plausible before politics the world over became transformed by one of history's most lethal acts of terrorism.

Clinton's former national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger . . . said there [was] little prospect . . . that Pakistan would have helped the United States wage war against bin Laden or the Taliban in 1998, even after such outrages as the bombing of U.S. embassies overseas. "

I wouldn't say he did nothing.  No doubt in your delusional world some Docu-Trash is a better source than that  but you just show your tunnel vision.

And your arrogant little cowboy did wht in the 7 1/2 months he had to act?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Clinton never UNLEASHED the military, he lobbed cruise missiles. Not remotely the same thing.

[Guest Patriot]

The ONLY thing any Docu-trash shows clearly is the entertainment industry can make a lot of $ from tripe.  Why don't you stumble back to your bar-stool and read the Enquirer to find some more of your so called truth?

Why are you proud to back an egomaniac?  Not even a decade into the century he's proclaimed his war "the ideological struggle of th 21st century".  With over 90 years left in the century I wonder, is he now claiming psychic abilities?  Maybe he reads the future in the shiny Dick's-head?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cut back on the Kool-aid, you're losing it.

[Guest Guest]

Clinton never UNLEASHED the military, he lobbed cruise missiles.  Not remotely the same thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a DAMN SIGHT more intelligent than umleashing the military on a country with NO TIES to the 9/11 attacks at a time when we were tied up in Afghanistan and should have foucused our attention there. Now after 5 years it's still not settled.

And it makes a lot more sense to use a weapon likwe a cruise missile when your target is hunkered down in extremely hostile terrain tahn it does to try and march in and accomplish the same end.

[Guest Guest]

Sounds like the ramblings of a Kool-aid saturated Defeatocrat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why don't you at least try to make an intelligent comment instead of another one of your boring, stupid, asinine Kool-Aid remarks?

It's a FACT that Bush has proclaimed this the battle of the century, what an egotistical liar to make that claim not even a decade into the century, especially when it's a battle he created.

Kool-Aid doesn't explain it or justify it. WANKER!

[Guest Guest]

Cut back on the Kool-aid, you're losing it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why don't you at least try to make an intelligent comment instead of another one of your boring, stupid, asinine Kool-Aid remarks?

It's a FACT that Bush has proclaimed this the battle of the century, what an egotistical liar to make that claim not even a decade into the century, especially when it's a battle he created.

Kool-Aid doesn't explain it or justify it. WANKER!

[Guest Guest]

Clinton never UNLEASHED the military, he lobbed cruise missiles.  Not remotely the same thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The article never claimed he unleashed the military but states he was on the verge of. You're trying to contradict a statement that wasn't there. Must be a tactic from the neo-Con school of debate along with the latest--scare them with lies. Lately Bush's entire campaign strategy seems to be telling people if they don't do wht he says the sky will fall and we'll enter a new age of plague and pestilence. Too bad he has nothing truthful to say.

[Guest Patriot]

Why don't you at least try to make an intelligent comment instead of another one of your boring, stupid, asinine Kool-Aid remarks?

It's a FACT that Bush has proclaimed this the battle of the century, what an egotistical liar to make that claim not even a decade into the century, especially when it's a battle he created.

Kool-Aid doesn't explain it or justify it.  WANKER!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I could have explained to you that Bush used the term "battle of the century" as a euphuism to emphasize the importance of winning this war against radical Islamic Jihadists, but I try to keep it simple when I'm responding to Kool-aid drinking defeatocrats. Go ask a republican to read and explain this to you.

[Guest Guest]

I could have explained to you that Bush used the term "battle of the century" as a euphuism to emphasize the importance of winning this war against radical Islamic Jihadists, but I try to keep it simple when I'm responding to Kool-aid drinking defeatocrats.  Go ask a republican to read and explain this to you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BULLS**T!

The man said what he said because he's a self-aggrandizing egotist, NO explanation necessary.

"Mission Accomplished"?

SAME BULLS**T!

NOW will you explain WHY he promised to get those responsible for 9/11 and then invaded a country with NO TIES to 9/11 or al Qaeda?

Here come MORE BULLS**T!

[Guest Guest]

I could have explained to you that Bush used the term "battle of the century" as a euphuism to emphasize the importance of winning this war against radical Islamic Jihadists, but I try to keep it simple when I'm responding to Kool-aid drinking defeatocrats.  Go ask a republican to read and explain this to you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Poor George must be starting to feel a bit crowded with Rove's hand up his butt working the controls and now you inside his head.

[Guest Guest]

I could have explained to you that Bush used the term "battle of the century" as a euphuism to emphasize the importance of winning this war against radical Islamic Jihadists, but I try to keep it simple when I'm responding to Kool-aid drinking defeatocrats.  Go ask a republican to read and explain this to you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or the more likely explanation that Bush is a legend in his own mind.

[Guest Guest]

I could have explained to you that Bush used the term "battle of the century" as a euphuism to emphasize the importance of winning this war against radical Islamic Jihadists, but I try to keep it simple when I'm responding to Kool-aid drinking defeatocrats.  Go ask a republican to read and explain this to you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you a professional interpreter of Bush-speak or just a dabbling amateur?

I think your alleged explanation is just a vain attempt to explain away the man's poor choices of both actions and words.

[Guest Patriot]

Are you a professional interpreter of Bush-speak or just a dabbling amateur?

I think your alleged explanation is just a vain attempt to explain away the man's poor choices of both actions and words.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I knew you wouldn't understand my comments. I'll keep it simple from now on for you Kool-aiders.

[Guest Guest]

BULLS**T!

The man said what he said because he's a self-aggrandizing egotist, NO explanation necessary.

"Mission Accomplished"?

SAME BULLS**T!

NOW will you explain WHY he promised to get those responsible for 9/11 and then invaded a country with NO TIES to 9/11 or al Qaeda?

Here come MORE BULLS**T!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BUSH IS A WAR CRIMINAL, HE SHOULD BE CONVICTED FOR KILLING OUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN WHO THINK THEY ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING, BUT WHAT EXACTLY IS THIS WAR ABOUT? NOT TO MENTION KILLING INOCENT MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN FROM THAT COUNTRY. HE'S A MONSTER

[Guest Guest]

Poor George must be starting to feel a bit crowded with Rove's hand up his butt working the controls and now you inside his head.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

POOR GEORGE? POOR INOCENT PEOPLE THAT DIED FOR NOTHING, JUST LIKE THE VIETNAM WAR. NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING

[Guest Guest]

I knew you wouldn't understand my comments.  I'll keep it simple from now on for you Kool-aiders.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're ALWAYS simple, ASININE Kool-Aid remarks is the entire range of your comments. Why don't you call yourself SuperPatriot? Maybe you'll have an even BOGGER inflated ego.

TRUE patriots are labeled that by their compatriots, they don't sit on their ignorant, TRUTH-HATING asses and call themselves patriots.

[Guest Guest]

Sounds like the ramblings of a Kool-aid saturated Defeatocrat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The above sounds like the ASININE Kool-Aid remark of a fact-ignoring neo-Nazi-con who has NOTHING of substance or factual basis to say.

[Guest Patriot]

BUSH IS A WAR CRIMINAL, HE SHOULD BE CONVICTED FOR KILLING OUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN WHO THINK THEY ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING, BUT WHAT EXACTLY IS THIS WAR ABOUT?  NOT TO MENTION KILLING INOCENT MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN FROM THAT COUNTRY.  HE'S A MONSTER

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A brain is such a terrible thing to waste.

[Guest BushBacker]

The above sounds like the ASININE Kool-Aid remark of a fact-ignoring neo-Nazi-con who has NOTHING of substance or factual basis to say.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, I'll try to give you some facts. Gore lost. Bush won. Kerry lost. Bush won. The World Trade Tower was bombed while Clinton was president. He did NOTHING. He treated it as a criminal case, not a terrorist act. The Cole was attacked (an act of war), Clinton did nothing. No wonder 9/11 occurred, the terrorists were no longer afraid of a retaliation. Enough facts ?? I'll give you one more, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". Drink Up, Kool-aid breath.

[Guest Guest]

OK, I'll try to give you some facts. Gore lost.  Bush won.  Kerry lost. Bush won. The World Trade Tower was bombed while Clinton was president. He did NOTHING. He treated it as a criminal case, not a terrorist act.  The Cole was attacked (an act of war), Clinton did nothing. No wonder 9/11 occurred, the terrorists were no longer afraid of a retaliation.  Enough facts ??  I'll give you one more,  "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".  Drink Up, Kool-aid breath.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here is one more FACT. Bush was president on 9/11 and failed to protect the country, and THEN invaded a country with NO TIES to 9/11. maybe he had his head in a Kool-Aid jar? Or a Jim Beam bottle?

[Guest Patriot]

OK, I'll try to give you some facts. Gore lost.  Bush won.  Kerry lost. Bush won. The World Trade Tower was bombed while Clinton was president. He did NOTHING. He treated it as a criminal case, not a terrorist act.  The Cole was attacked (an act of war), Clinton did nothing. No wonder 9/11 occurred, the terrorists were no longer afraid of a retaliation.  Enough facts ??  I'll give you one more,  "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".  Drink Up, Kool-aid breath.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll add one more..... Clinton cut and ran from Mogadishu.