Bill Clinton, He is the one responsible for September 11th.

Actually, I think the Aspirin factory and Afghan Camels came in response to the embassy bombings, not the Cole.

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 Actually, I think the Aspirin factory and Afghan Camels came in response to the embassy bombings, not the Cole.

typical of bill to blow up something with ass in it.

typical of bill to blow up something with ass in it.

I am beat.  I am tired.  I had a hard day.

And you just made me laugh! !

Thanks Elie!  It was a good day.

I understand Clinton tried to kil Santa Claus and failed at that too.

(Citizen)Dr. GuySeptember 27, 2006 17:14:16

am beat. I am tired. I had a hard day. And you just made me laugh! ! Thanks Elie! It was a good day.

good for you doc, nothing like a good laugh to shake the blues and tired.

MasonMSeptember 27, 2006 18:04:42

understand Clinton tried to kil Santa Claus and failed at that too.

could it be that jolly ol Santa is a closet terrorists? that is why bill failed then.

According to Clinton, he asked the CIA to kill bin Laden and they refused. Both Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright said they didn't call the CIA off of bin Laden.

The same CIA that has been leaking National security secrets ... hmmm ... makes you wonder who has been calling the shots at the CIA for the last 10 -15 years.

According to Clinton, he asked the CIA to kill bin Laden and they refused. Both Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright said they didn't call the CIA off of bin Laden.

This has already proven to be a lie. By his "own" words no less.

It's humor, drmiler

Reply By: pictoratusPosted: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 According to Clinton, he asked the CIA to kill bin Laden and they refused. Both Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright said they didn't call the CIA off of bin Laden.

how can someone that reports and works at the presidents command just ignore this? then how could they get away with it?

Reply By: drmilerPosted: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 According to Clinton, he asked the CIA to kill bin Laden and they refused. Both Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright said they didn't call the CIA off of bin Laden. This has already proven to be a lie. By his "own" words no less.

right again doc, Clinton condemns himself by his own words. and who know what sandy Berger stole from the national archives.

Clinton was not responsible for 9/11. Bush 2 was not responsible for 9/11. Bush 1 was not responsible for 9/11. But each and every one of these men, and others, WERE culpable, in my opinion. 9/11 was the end result of massive and consistent intelligence failures that happened because the men responsible for the oversight of the men responsible for GATHERING this intelligence were derelict in their duty.

One of the pitfalls of partisanship is the tendency to give your own party's leaders a pass while attacking the opposition. The truth is that 9/11 was a massive system failure of our bureaucratic machine, and that many of our leaders bear equal responsibility for the death of those 3,000 on 9/11/01

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Thursday, September 28, 2006 Clinton was not responsible for 9/11. Bush 2 was not responsible for 9/11. Bush 1 was not responsible for 9/11. But each and every one of these men, and others, WERE culpable, in my opinion. 9/11 was the end result of massive and consistent intelligence failures that happened because the men responsible for the oversight of the men responsible for GATHERING this intelligence were derelict in their duty. One of the pitfalls of partisanship is the tendency to give your own party's leaders a pass while attacking the opposition. The truth is that 9/11 was a massive system failure of our bureaucratic machine, and that many of our leaders bear equal responsibility for the death of those 3,000 on 9/11/01

I know that it all started with Jimmy Carter letting the Iranians hold Americans hostage for 400 plus days and you are right many are to blame for what happened. BUT Clinton bears the most blame for his total lack of dealing with Bin Laden when he could have.

Gotta disagree with you here MM...  Clinton was a joke and a total waste of White House toilet paper, but only those who planned, aided and/or carried out these attacks are responsible.

Prs. Bush has done more against terrorism than any president and where did it get him?  That shows us why the other presidents didn't want to mess with it.  You can't be a president, dealing with terrorism and be real popular.. why?  Because the opposition party is all too happy to rip you apart for anything you do.  The lapdogs among Americans are all to happy to blindly parrot the innane rantings of the opposition party.

The only way to deal with terrorists is to be the president who overseas the death of more terrorists than ever before.  Prs. Bush has done this and scummy partisans who care more about stupidity than fighting terrorism are willing to trash him for it.

Let them be idiots who play childish popularity games.  While they play, terrrorists are dying.

 

[

Let them be idiots who play childish popularity games. While they play, terrrorists are dying.

only they ain't dieing fast enough for me.

ParaTed2kSeptember 28, 2006 16:23:18

Gotta disagree with you here MM... Clinton was a joke and a total waste of White House toilet paper, but only those who planned, aided and/or carried out these attacks are responsible.

yes of course the ultimate responsibility belongs to usama and the 19 hijackers.

Prs. Bush has done more against terrorism than any president and where did it get him? That shows us why the other presidents didn't want to mess with it. You can't be a president, dealing with terrorism and be real popular.. why? Because the opposition party is all too happy to rip you apart for anything you do. The lapdogs among Americans are all to happy to blindly parrot the innane rantings of the opposition party.

this is the insanity of how far America has come apart at the seams ted.

Prs. Bush has done this and scummy partisans who care more about stupidity than fighting terrorism are willing to trash him for it.

it seems that the farleft thinks understanding the terrorists and singing kumbaya with them will stop the war. IDIOTS!!

Everyone knows that Bush was behind the 9-11 attacks!!

There just wasn't the political will to do what would have been necessary to take out Bin Laden. No one, Republican or Democrat, of any significant stature thought it was that big of a deal. The Republican controlled congress was hardly beating the drum to go after Bin Laden.

Let's face it, terrorism was just not a high profile item in the United States. It's not Clinton's fault for 9/11 any more than it's Clinton's fault for not spending the money on some sort of anti-asteroid defense field in the event that an asteroid hits us (haven't we had plenty of "Warning" that asteroids can hurt us? Haven't they hurt us in the past???)

Reply By: DraginolPosted: Friday, September 29, 2006 There just wasn't the political will to do what would have been necessary to take out Bin Laden. No one, Republican or Democrat, of any significant stature thought it was that big of a deal. The Republican controlled congress was hardly beating the drum to go after Bin Laden. Let's face it, terrorism was just not a high profile item in the United States. It's not Clinton's fault for 9/11 any more than it's Clinton's fault for not spending the money on some sort of anti-asteroid defense field in the event that an asteroid hits us (haven't we had plenty of "Warning" that asteroids can hurt us? Haven't they hurt us in the past???)

while I agree with you brad this article was written in the spirit of I am tired of Bush being blamed for every and all things bad on the planet. I thought some nice spin in the other direction was in order.

Ummm... for all the things you mention about Clinton, is it NOT true that the republican were aware of the very same attacks during of which the Clinton Administration did not respond to?

We are fully aware of what was given to Bush and they choose to egnore it just like they chose to ignore all the evidence you say about Clinton during his time in office.


Blame Clinton? Sure, he definaitly made some mistake and had more time to correct them. But to not blame Bush and the Replublican controlled congress of which knew about all these FAILURES in the Clinton administration and did nothing about it either. Don't forget the original Bush left some things undone too and the Cold War with Reagan had some very interesting allies.

Clinton bares much because of the amount of time in office, but I truely believe that if Sept 11 didn't happen, it would have been Bush who would have done no more than Clinton did. In fact he had all he needed when he took office. If you can have the for-vision to see that Clinton failed, then you can see how you know of his failures and choose to not do anything about it when you took control.

And what EXACTLY did Bush do after 9/11 that was great? Are we deaper into a war that will never end or are we on our way to winning? How many mistakes did Bush make when it really counted the most?

mediamatters.org/items/200609300002

Of course you will come to this conclusion, that Bill Clinton is at fault. Why wouldn't you? You've re-written history to fit your strange desire to hate a president for having an affair more than the president who lies in order to convince you to let him send your children to war.

Your skewed version of history is so off (yet prevalent), that it even has it's own page on Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
Which I hope is a non-partisan enough site for you ditto-heads to at least give it a bit of respect for validity.

Let's look at this. The Cole was bombed just weeks before the lame-duck Clinton left office. But in that time much progress was made in discovering who was responsible. We even know where they are, Yemen. What has the current president, who took office just 3 months after the bombing, done in the six years since to bring these terrorists to justice? To use your term, Nothing.

There really isn't any reason to refute your every "nothing" because they are just patently false, and no amount of reality will break you out of your fantasy. Revisionist conservatives call for "respect for the office" and giving Bush (way too much) lattitude, but they were singing a very different tune less than a decade ago when they couldn't make enough lewd jokes, and couldn't get enough of ridiculing the president and accusing him of "Wagging the Dog" (remember that one? expletive deleted) when he did make efforts to stop terrorists and genocidal killers.

Clinton did go after terrorists to the best that a Republican led legislative branch, and neo-con infiltrated CIA would let him. Bush has had years and years of a party majority and done nothing but drop the ball in Afghanistan while sytematically taking away they very rights of US and world citizens that we should be trying to defend.

It's inconcievable that history so recent could be so rewritten in the weak conservative minds. Next you'll tell me Saddam got what he deserved for 9/11.

Who was responsible for 9/11? Those *(&%@% that flew the planes into the towers and the pentagon. Who is around today that is directly responsible? Osama bin-Laden. Where is he? What's being done to find him? Who should be in charge of gewtting him, "Dead or Alive"?

An informative news report, with video! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15046240/

Actually, I do want to address one more point specifically. Perhaps we just have differing definitions of "Nothing"
Moderateman said:
"The first twin tower attack 1993, Bill Clinton was President. Action taken? nothing."


The facts are (copied from Snopes):
"Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison. One additional suspect fled the U.S. and is believed to be living in Baghdad."


So, I guess Moderateman's definition of "nothing" means Capturing, Indicting, Trying (in the old fashioned Habeus Corpus justice system), Proving the guilt of, and Punishing those responsible. If that's what nothing means, then wtf do we call what Bush is doing?

So, I guess Moderateman's definition of "nothing" means Capturing, Indicting, Trying (in the old fashioned Habeus Corpus justice system), Proving the guilt of, and Punishing those responsible. If that's what nothing means, then wtf do we call what Bush is doing?

Reply By: rabidrobotPosted: Saturday, September 30, 2006

Bill had nothing to do with the arrest and trials of said terrorist asholes.

 

I wrote everything here as is, everyword is truth.. every incident cited is truth and every action taken by clinton {nothing} is also truth.

Reply By: Moderateman

Posted: Thursday, September 28, 2006

[ Let them be idiots who play childish popularity games. While they play, terrrorists are dying. only they ain't dieing fast enough for me. ParaTed2kSeptember 28, 2006 16:23:18 Gotta disagree with you here MM... Clinton was a joke and a total waste of White House toilet paper, but only those who planned, aided and/or carried out these attacks are responsible. yes of course the ultimate responsibility belongs to usama and the 19 hijackers. Did you even bother to read this comment I made? nope, you were to busy thinking of ways to somehow prove what I wrote is wrong.

(Citizen)rabidrobotSeptember 30, 2006 17:57:37

It's inconcievable that history so recent could be so rewritten in the weak conservative minds. Next you'll tell me Saddam got what he deserved for 9/11.

ONLY A LIBERAL ROBOT COULD WRITE something like this. Next thing you will be telling me is terrorists have rights under the american constitution and we need to understand them better so they will stop fighting. I bet your idea of retaliation for 9-11 would be run away and hide fast as you can.