Bush 41, 43 and Clinton are responsible for 9/11

Uh oh...I...I think....I think I'm going to have to agree on this one...

~Zoo

Thanks

Sorry, but even the headline is wrong (though it's nice to see that the Clueless One for a brief moment made it seem like he wasn't gonna blame Bush...  didn't last though, as by the end he was right back on the same old track).

The people responsible for 9/11 are the fanatical nut job extremist muslims like Bin Laden and the rest of his cronies.  No one else is responsible for 9/11.

There may be people that didn't do enough to help prevent 9/11, but those people were not responsible for it.

And for the record, the only thing I've ever seen come close to the level of fanaticism of the Bin Laden followers is one Clueless Old Liberal Gene and his continued hatred of George W. Bush.  I'm sure Gene would sign right up for working with Bin Laden if he was promised an opportunity to take down W. while doing it.

The three Presidents are RESPONSIBLE because they did not do all they could have to prevent the attack. Protecting our country is JOB ONE for all PRESIDENTS. I did not say the Bushes and Clinton planned the attack but their actions could have stopped it from taking place.

I do not hate Bush just what he has done to our country. Anyone that can say they support what Bush has done to America is so blind to the truth there is NO hope for them. Bush has done more harm to this country then ANY president in our history and history will confirm that in SPADES!

The three Presidents are RESPONSIBLE because they did not do all they could have to prevent the attack. Protecting our country is JOB ONE for all PRESIDENTS. I did not say the Bushes and Clinton planned the attack but their actions could have stopped it from taking place.

So just to get it straight - because our current and past Presidents weren't behaving like Jack Bauer or Jack Ryan (both fictious characters by the way), and weren't flying around and behaving like the Mossad team in Sword of Gideon/ Steven Spielberg's Munich,  you think it's all their fault and you try to blame them for not protecting the country!?

Again, you show the typical weakness in your flimsy argument which exists for one reason, and one reason only - to demonstrate your hatred for all things Bush.

The Presidents you mentioned could all have ordered assassination attempts on Bin Laden and his cronies and people like you would have been screaming about what rights we had to interfere with other sovereign nations and individuals from other lands.  In your twisted version of things though it's all George W. Bush's fault because he didn't use the wayback machine to go back in time and prevent Bin Laden's parents from having a child.

Again, you are THE DISGRACE! (to borrow the correct portions of some of your past headlines).

You have the FATAL FLAWs in your twisted logic and desired policies.

While none of the Presidents you mentioned should get a free pass, how about you go all the way back to the grandfather of all idiots, your probable hero: Jimmy Carter.  If not for his inept handling of Iran and the fall of the Shah there wouldn't have been a radical Islamic uprising.  Without that, there's no rampant "disease" infecting Muslims in the region, and in all honesty, there's probably no problems in Iraq or Libya either.

If you want to go further back, then I suppose you could look at the Presidents and administrations that put the Shah into power, or perhaps the Presidents and administrations that helped create Israel, and Iraq and other areas of the middle east following World War II.

Why not go there if you really want to take advantage of your hindsight 20-20 vision?  (Many folks would be able to accurately point out that hindsight seems to be the only way you'd be seeing things since you are frequently talking out of your ass and must be looking out of it too!)

Blame the real problems and stop trying to play stupid card games with your desire to undermine a President.  It continues to reflect pretty badly on you.

The most important job of ANY president is to keep this country safe. What I am saying is these three FAILED in that most basic responsibility! In addition, since 9/11 Bush has continued to fail to make this country safer. We have not safeguarded our ports or borders and the war in Iraq has increased the number and resolve of terrorists which has made this country LESS SAFE despite the death of 2,700 American Military, 20,000 combat injuries and 1/2 Trillion dollars in tax dollars. How would you like to list that as your accomplishments on a resume?

Al Qaeda are responsible for 9/11. Why do you insist on blaming those who didn't carry out the attacks! With your warped sense of logic, cops are responsible for crimes, doctors are responsible for disease and your mother is resonsible for your stupidity.

Yes, every president since Carter could have done more. Yes, Bush Sr. should have told the UN do go screw themselves instead of letting them murder Iraqis along with Hussein. Yeah, Clinton blew it because he just didn't want to bother with terrorism... and yes, Bush Jr. could be doing more against terrorism.

However, NONE of them are responsible for 9/11. Only those bits of bacteria who carried it out hold that over their heads.

Sorry, it's your buddies who you applaud for killing Americans who are at fault.

I know I'm probably wrong since I don't keep up with politics much, but isn't Osama Bin Laden responsible for 9/11? And if we're gonna blame a U.S. president how 'bout blaming Jimmy Carter for not dealing with Iran over the hostage thing back in the seventies since that seems to be where the ball got rolling.

But like I said, I'm probably wrong...

paraTed2K

If they had met their responsibilities there would not have been an attack on the twin towers. Then Bush rather then completing the job in Afghanistan where 9/11 was planed and directed diverted our military to Iraq without solving the issue in Afghanistan.

Now we have a disaster in both countries and do not have the force levels to fix the problem. That too is because Bush did not increase the size of the military to be able to meet the tasks the HE GAVE THEM.

paraTed2K

If they had met their responsibilities there would not have been an attack on the twin towers. Then Bush rather then completing the job in Afghanistan where 9/11 was planed and directed diverted our military to Iraq without solving the issue in Afghanistan.

Now we have a disaster in both countries and do not have the force levels to fix the problem. That too is because Bush did not increase the size of the military to be able to meet the tasks the HE GAVE THEM.

If they had met their responsibilities there would not have been an attack on the twin towers. Then Bush rather then completing the job in Afghanistan where 9/11 was planed and directed diverted our military to Iraq without solving the issue in Afghanistan.

Again, I'll ask the question you never answer...

When was the commander of ops in Afghanistan ever been told he can't have troops or assets because the commander of ops in Iraq said he needed them more?

Your argument is a strawman and a piss poor one at that. 

 

 

Uh oh...I...I think....I think I'm going to have to agree on this one...

~Zoo

I'm going to have to break a rule and comment on Col. Gene's blog.

That's as funny as it is poignant, Zoo.

Parated2K

The issue has NOTHING to do with what the commanders in Iraq or Afghanistan are doing. The decisions as to troop levels have been made in Washington.

In fact commanders in Iraq have stated they can not WIN with the troop levels they have and we have been shifting our troops around Iraq like the Dutch Boy trying to plug holes in the dyke.

Events on the ground have POROVEN we did not provide the troop levels required to properly do the job in either Iraq or Afghanistan. As our senior Generals retire, one by one they come out and say that the war was not conducted properly and the troop levels were not nearly sufficient.

The Op Plan called for 500,000 troops in Iraq the day Saddam Fell. Under pressure, Gen Franks cut that number first to 380,000 and the least number he said was REQUIRED was 300,000. Bush sent less then 150,000! The lack of troops in Iraq allowed both the sectarian violence and the al Qaeda to develop into the problem we see today. We never finished the job in Afghanistan and today the very same terrorists that planned 9/11 are reestablishing themselves in that country!

Parated2K

The issue has NOTHING to do with what the commanders in Iraq or Afghanistan are doing. The decisions as to troop levels have been made in Washington.

In fact commanders in Iraq have stated they can not WIN with the troop levels they have and we have been shifting our troops around Iraq like the Dutch Boy trying to plug holes in the dyke.

Events on the ground have POROVEN we did not provide the troop levels required to properly do the job in either Iraq or Afghanistan. As our senior Generals retire, one by one they come out and say that the war was not conducted properly and the troop levels were not nearly sufficient.

The Op Plan called for 500,000 troops in Iraq the day Saddam Fell. Under pressure, Gen Franks cut that number first to 380,000 and the least number he said was REQUIRED was 300,000. Bush sent less then 150,000! The lack of troops in Iraq allowed both the sectarian violence and the al Qaeda to develop into the problem we see today. We never finished the job in Afghanistan and today the very same terrorists that planned 9/11 are reestablishing themselves in that country!

Bush sent less then 150,000! The lack of troops in Iraq allowed both the sectarian violence and the al Qaeda to develop into the problem we see today. We never finished the job in Afghanistan and today the very same terrorists that planned 9/11 are reestablishing themselves in that country!

BS!

(The numbers when naval, logistics, intelligence, and air force personnel are included were 214,000 Americans, 45,000 British, 2,000 Australians and 2,400 Polish.)

Link

your mother is resonsible for your stupidity

-TedTed2K

That's funny!

drmiler

What a stupid person you are.

The OP Plan called for 500,000 troops in COUNTRY.

Just about every one of our most senior generals have admitted that there was not nearly the troops required IN IRAQ to prevent the sectarian violence and the growth of the foreign terrorists. You sir are an IDIOT!

Idiot Colonel!

The commander of ops in Iraq is the same person as in Afhganistan, if you don't even know that, then you are too stupid for words.  Learn a little about this war and maybe you'll start sounding intelligent.

 

Now go tell your mom she wants you.

 

drmiler What a stupid person you are. The OP Plan called for 500,000 troops in COUNTRY. Just about every one of our most senior generals have admitted that there was not nearly the troops required IN IRAQ to prevent the sectarian violence and the growth of the foreign terrorists. You sir are an IDIOT!

"I'm" the stupid one? Need I remind you of what YOU wrote?

The Op Plan called for 500,000 troops in Iraq the day Saddam Fell. Under pressure, Gen Franks cut that number first to 380,000 and the least number he said was REQUIRED was 300,000. Bush sent less then 150,000! The lack of troops in Iraq allowed both the sectarian violence and the al Qaeda to develop into the problem we see today. We never finished the job in Afghanistan and today the very same terrorists that planned 9/11 are reestablishing themselves in that country!

He sent MORE than what you said! You said less than 150,000, he sent a total of 214,000. A LOT more than you stated. So if "anyone" here is stupid.....I would imagine it would be you!

Parated2k

Op Plan is an abbreviation for the name of plans that the PENTAGON STAFF DEVELOPS FOR VARRIOUS POTENTIAL MISSIONS. The plan TO INVADE IRAQ WAS DESIGNATED OP Plan 1003



Drmiler


Since when is 150,000 (in Country) that Bush sent more then 500,000 which is what the original Op Plan 1003 called for to secure Iraq when Saddam Fell . After much coercion General Franks lowered that number to 300,000 which is twice what Bush sent!

You are as usual talking out of your ass!

reduced to semantics now Gene? tsk tsk

The fact is, Afghanistan has NEVER been denied troops or logistical assets because they were needed for Iraq. So take your lies and stick them up your 4th point of contact.

The fact is that with the troop levels in Iraq and given the available troops there were no additional troops for Afghanistan. The proof that there are not enough troops in BOTH countries is the way the fighting is going. In fact the commander in Afghanistan says he MUST have another 2,500 ASAP. Although NATO is to provide the added troops, the reality is that we did not have the force levels required and the size of the active military is FAR TOO SMALL to even field, on a long term basis, the deployments that have been made. We have some members of our military that are on their 4th deployment to Iraq.

Our Marine commander has said he does not have the troops required to win in An war Province and they are just fighting a delaying action because most of the American Forces are struggling in the Baghdad area.

I have told the truth it is you and the idiot in the White House that is not telling the truth or looking at the reality of what is taking place in the entire Moslem region!

The fact is that with the troop levels in Iraq and given the available troops there were no additional troops for Afghanistan. The proof that there are not enough troops in BOTH countries is the way the fighting is going. In fact the commander in Afghanistan says he MUST have another 2,500 ASAP. Although NATO is to provide the added troops, the reality is that we did not have the force levels required and the size of the active military is FAR TOO SMALL to even field, on a long term basis, the deployments that have been made. We have some members of our military that are on their 4th deployment to Iraq.

Our Marine commander has said he does not have the troops required to win in An war Province and they are just fighting a delaying action because most of the American Forces are struggling in the Baghdad area.

I have told the truth it is you and the idiot in the White House that is not telling the truth or looking at the reality of what is taking place in the entire Moslem region!

Since when is 150,000 (in Country) that Bush sent more then 500,000 which is what the original Op Plan 1003 called for to secure Iraq when Saddam Fell . After much coercion General Franks lowered that number to 300,000 which is twice what Bush sent! You are as usual talking out of your ass!

As USUAL "YOU" don't read! Here let me help you:

United States military operations were conducted under the codename Operation Iraqi Freedom.[40] The United Kingdom military operation was named Operation Telic. Approximately 100,000 soldiers and marines from the United States, and 26,000 from the United Kingdom, as well as smaller forces from other nations, collectively called the "Coalition of the Willing," were deployed prior to the invasion primarily to several staging areas in Kuwait. (The numbers when naval, logistics, intelligence, and air force personnel are included were 214,000 Americans, 45,000 British, 2,000 Australians and 2,400 Polish.) Plans for opening a second front in the north were abandoned when Turkey officially refused the use of its territory for such purposes. Forces also supported Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 50,000. Despite the refusal of Turkey, the Coalition conducted parachute operations in the north and dropped the 173rd Airborne Brigade, thereby removing the necessity of any approval from Turkey. (Later on, during the invasion, it was rumored that Turkey itself had sent troops into the Kurdish part of Iraq.)

So "now" who's talking out their ass? Again as per usual you are!

drmiler

Where do you get 500,000 troops in Iraq from what you have written?

Almost EVERY senior GENERAL HAS SAID BUSH did not SEND NEARLY ENOUGH TROOPS TO SUCCEED IN IRAQ!

The results on the ground PROVE Bush screwed up BIG TIME!