A Conservative is Now a Lock For President

Maybe they'll ask McCain to go for it again

 

We all know what Bush did in his eight months before 9/11. He did nothing. What could he have done? He could have stopped planning for the Iraq war and paid attention to US security. He could have increased airport security. He could have done something instead of doing nothing.

 

Well he did have two unnecessary wars that lead directly to the creation of ISIS. That is not debatable. Could Obama done more to stop the spread of ISIS. Maybe, although nobody has yet said what he could have actually done. The status of forces agreement negotiated by Bush required the removal of American troops from Iraq. I guess Obama could have just ignored the treaty Bush negotiated and taken over Iraq outright and established an occupation government although even that might not have stopped the rise of ISIS

It is telling that even now the Republicans continue to criticize without actually having any real deals.

 

Here is my post and your response.



Quote Originally Posted by CourtJester
Let's see, the stock market is at record highs, Corporations are sitting on record piles of money, the unemployment rate is very low, real estate prices have recovered significantly, the banking system is sound, the defecit is declining. What are your metrics?

To which you replied.
" The government propping this false hope up, get real!"

Nowhere are you debating or countering anything I said. All you said was that the the good results in the economy are the result of government actions. Maybe you hope for an eventual collapse. Now if you actually have anything to support your position that the economy is a disaster now might be a good time to post the metrics by which you justify the statement.
.

 

Uh, at least put airport security on alert in the month after getting a briefing that Al Queda was determined to strike the US by hijacking airplanes and bombing NY?

 

Iraq war created a terrorist flood, American spymasters warn Bush
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/24/usa.iraq

 How the War on Terror Created the World’s Most Powerful Terror Group
http://www.thenation.com/article/how-war-terror-created-worlds-most-powerful-terror-group/

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092301130.html

Rand Paul: Iraq War Created 'Chaotic Vacuum' That Boosted Terrorism
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/rand-paul-iraq-war-vacuum/2014/06/19/id/578227/#ixzz3sEGXhCdA

 

Well, everyone has a right to his or her own opinions.... so, go for it.

 

And thank God the majority of Americans have a bad opinion of Hillary!
Have a nice day.

 

LMAO, I destroyed your claim in one sentence, you just failed to pick up on it!

 

Clinton has 2 years to get the funding and increase airport security and he did nothing. You simply can't get the TSA up and running in 8 months. How long do you think it takes to interview, hire and do back ground checks on all those people. I give you kudos for actually answering the question, most folks don't because they know it would have been impossible to do much to stop the airliner plot in 2001. The time to set up shop and begin looking was.......

If they had started to monitor flight schools at that time they would have come across the 9/11 pilots. Then again with the 1995 "Information Wall" the Clinton Administration erected, I truly don't know how much good it would have done.

The information "wall" was erected during the Clinton administration.

Such muddy waters. If they had identified Atta, he could have been picked up by the Police when they made a traffic stop on his car just days before 9/11. 99% of the ball dropping occurred on Clinton's watch, yet the left continues to re-write history and blame Bush. I realize even after all this the left will still be convinced 9/11 was Bush's fault.

 

Weren't they already on alert after all the warning Clinton had from 1998 to 2001?

 

That's because your rather inane statement didn't do anything to refute the fact that the economy is doing quite well. And actually your claim that the good economic data is a result of government efforts under Obama is high praise indeed.

 

L

Because it was Bush's responsibility to protect America when he was president and he had ample warning if he or Chaney had bothered to pay attention. I won't repost what several others have already documented but continuing to absolve Bush because of security failures on his watch is wishful thinking.

 

Here is a list of warnings that Bush received prior to 9/11 from the NY Times.







On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.





On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.


That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.





And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.

That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.


On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.

Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.

 

Then after all that intel in 1998 and 1999, the known terrorist Atta and his pals were still was able to enroll in American flight schools and get trained right under the Clinton Admin's noses. Is there some part of there wasn't enough time to stop it by 2001 you just don't get?

The TSA employees 47,000 employees protecting 450 airports. It's simply ridiculous to think that many people can be interviewed, background checked, trained and uniformed in 9 months. It just upsets you Clinton's administration had a chance to stop it in the 2 years prior, but the information wall prevented it. "The Clinton administration neutered the American intelligence agencies that could have stopped the September 11 plot." and you know it's true.

- - - Updated - - -

So did Clinton, the difference is Clinton had 2 years to get it done, not 8 months.

 

,

Well at least you have started admitting that Bush had 8 months and did nothing at all. Progress is being made. Who knows, next you could even admit he was President and was responsible for what happened on his watch.

And the so called neutered intelligence agencies gave Bush plenty of warnings. He just couldn't be bothered to take them seriously. In actuality the " wall" between the FBI and the CIA was the White House whose job was to coordinate between the two agencies. Didn't happen because Bush/ Chaney didn't take the terrorism threat seriously even after the Cole attack.

 

You just can't admit Clinton had 2 years with fresh intel and did nothing, so we're not making progress.

 

A review of history shown that it is probable that the Republicans will win following a Democrat held White House. But I am not as sure as you are as the two Republican front runners while they have a strong base, will have a harder time capturing independents like me and it is the center that decides who the next president will be. I do not like Clinton, but during the run up to the general election I think Trump or Carson will find that she is a force to be reckoned with as she has decades of experience... but also decades of negatives to defend. Sadly for me the choice will be between bad or worse and I have not come to a conclusion as to which is which yet.

 

Approve/disapprove or FAV/UNFAV ratings based on a miniscule subsection of the US population really says nothing about anyone having a bad attitude about anyone at all.

Thanks, I am having a nice day. I also wish you a very nice day.

 

A navy seal killed the perpetrator of that attack (and he was a registered Republican ) . You answer to that is that the final ok was Obama's responsibility . That that means he's responsible for ALL the failures that he put in motion . He's a failure and you idiots on the left let him in .

 

Nope. Bush was too busy passing tax cuts that mostly benefited the richest and squandering the surplus Clinton left to worry about things like that.

 

That makes no sense, but not surprising coming from a liberal. Are you drunk or just unwilling to answer the question honestly?

 

I said....

Your reply.....

How did you get from my question to that answer? Oh that's right you'd have to admit the Clinton administration didn't do jack squat from 1998 to 2001 despite all the intel warnings. 3000 people died, less people perished in the attack on Pearl Harbor. I wonder how they all can sleep at night.

 

How do you ignore the fact that Bush did nothing for 8 months immediately preceding the 9/11 attacks in spite of very direct warnings from the CIA?

And this thread is interesting in that the thread title blatantly states that Republicans see the Paris attacks as a political opportunity.

Much like they used the Ebola scare a few years ago.

 

No, the Clinton administration put airports on alert after receiving warnings of a possible hijacking. Among the other things in the links I previously gave you.

What did the Bush administration do again?

Oh yeah, passed tax cuts for his rich buddies.

Despite all the intel warnings,3000 people died, less people perished in the attack on Pearl Harbor. I wonder how they all can sleep at night.

But they probably sleep great because their rich buddies got a lot richer.