Everone in Politics is dirty.

[lahabra1976]

The real question is where they dirty before they got into politics or were they clean and politics made them dirty?

[samstl99]

Chef Mike.. See you cannot read when it goes against what you blindly believe.

Did you read the facts.. from the source himself.. that was trying to get the US government to capture Bin laden.

Clinton KNEW that Bin laden was a major danger... and if he warned bush during transition that he was such a huge danger to the US why did he not do anything when he was presented with multiple opportunities to capture him. Heck the Sudan even had him in custody and the US (Notice I didnt slander anyone or point out the president) said.. Uhh No thank you.

SO yes Clinton is responsible for 9/11.

The hearings you JACKASS. were to go over the week or so where communications where not paid attention to.. And Yes the Intelligence Agencies were to blame for that.

But had Clinton taken care of business when he could.. all of this would have never happened. Once the US was attacked.. the terrorist started believing that they could get to us. Had we taken Bin Laden out in the 90s.. they would have never realized the success.


Why are you getting soo upset?. You didnt even read the post where the actual person identified himself (not... sources say).. saying how Clinton messed up.

Republicans and Democrats have all admitted that this was the fuck up of the century...



MBF.. you are right the Mujihdeen were orginally funded by the CIA because they were freedom fighters in Afghanistan... then the Taliben infiltrated them and changed what their charter was.

Heck the CIA has funded Noriega.. then had to take him out.. They funded and provided IRaq with weapons. ALL sorts of weapons to battle Iran...

Heck the CIA has even sent "aid" to Syria, Egypt Sudan,. etc. the CIA always gets someone else to do their dirty work.. then when they get in power.. they have to take them out... Nice Job security.

I too have a problem with the bombings.. and killing of innocent people and the profiteering that comes with it all. Unfortunately Someone always profits from war. I have a huge problem with Haliburton.


But remember from Reagan to George W... every president has unilaterally bombing an area and killed innocent people along the way.

I am neither Republican..nor Democrat.. I can see both sides of an argument.. and see the good and bad in all people... or in this case.. Regimes..

Also..just as a note.. If you think Bush is pushing the buttons in the white House you are a kidding yourself. Bush is just a figurehead..

[chefmike]

LMFAO...

[yourdaddy]

Another revealing, intelligence response from the leading progressive on this entire board.

[Felicia Katt]

Felicia.. Finally a post with some intelligent thought and not some dribble.

Sweetie, I'm not really one to blow my own horn, since there are better things out there I would much rather blow, but I give all of my posts care, thought and attention. I also give your posts the same regard and correct them rather than denigrate them. For example, I'll gently correct you and say you must have meant drivel. Dribble, thats more Yourddaddy's thing, since he apparently is quite the backyard hoopster when he is playing by (or is it with) himself LOL

Your argument that Clinton is alone responsible for 9-11 is irresponsible. The whole Sudan thing was examined and discredited by the official 9-11 Commission. Lets not forget that there was a foiled. failed attempt on the WTC when Clinton was in charge. No one gives him any credit for that though.
The present Administration had plenty of warnings about an impending disaster and did nothing about terrorism until it was too late. Bush has had going on 5 years where it should have been his primary focus and hasn't managed to capture Bin Laden. By your reasoning, since Al Queda has done bombings in Europe since 9-11, Bush would be to blame, since he hasn't caught Bin Laden. I doubt Bush would accept that, nor should Clinton have to. 9-11 was on Bush's watch, and all you would do is slap his wrist. His response has done nothing to stop Bin Laden, has sent the country to war, at a terrible cost in lives and international respect and what some estimate will be hundreds of billions of dollars.

They say success has a thousand fathers and failure is an orphan. Clinton might have been a past fuck, but Bush's name comes up in the paternity test for the 9-11 bastard.

FK

[samstl99]

FK..

I stand corrected..sometimes I get typing too fast.

I wasnt saying that Clinton was to blame alone... Far from it. Just that he is where the Blame begins. He knew that BinLaden was a severe threat .. so much that he warned Bush during the transfer in office. and yet he failed to do anything during his presidency about it.. when he had the best chance than anyone to get him. But his failure was compounded..because Bin Laden then grew more and more powerful.

Now Bush is at fault because they had warning signs that an attack was being planned on US Soil.. but the agencies couldnt cooperate and the delay caused 9/11 to happen.. It is a terrible chain of events that started in the early 90s.

Also I dont think you can claim that the Clinton administration foiled a WTC bombing.. the bombing occured.. 6 people killed.. and 1000s injured. The failure was due to the terrorists not understanding the structure of the building adn the bombs were placed in correctly.

Either way..Clinton& Bush both are responsible for 9/11 Blame todays regime for their failures.. I agree.. but dont blame them for failures of the past.. those people need to be accountable as well. \

[Felicia Katt]

FK..

I stand corrected..sometimes I get typing too fast.

I'll presume you were typing too fast when you accused me of lacking intelligence, but having good ball handling skills? LOL

meow

FK

[samstl99]

Felicia.. actually the intelligent thought comment was in reference to chefmike. I wasnt saying you were finally having an intelligent thought, but saying finally I get to hear some intelligent thought. (chefmike being the brain dead zombie).

And as far as your ball handling abilities.... we will have to see. LOL

[Felicia Katt]

Then:

White House Releases Video Of Clinton Coffee Talks

GOP: Tapes Should Have Been Turned Over Months Ago
The White House Sunday afternoon released videotaped footage of President Bill Clinton meeting with campaign contributors who were invited to a series of controversial White House coffees during the 1996 campaign.

Administration officials said there was nothing in the tapes that would contradict the White House's long-standing assertion that there were no direct solicitations made for campaign contributions during those coffees.

"With the White House not turning over evidence again and again, I think you really may have crossed the line of obstruction of justice," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., on CNN's "Late Edition with Frank Sesno." "If (the tapes are) so innocent, why didn't we have them a long time ago?"

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/...clinton.video/

Now:

Mr. Abramoff's Meetings (and photos)
Press secretary Scott McClellan told the White House press corps: "If you've got some specific issue that you need to bring to my attention, fine. But what we're not going to do is engage in a fishing expedition that has nothing to do with the investigation."

This is not a tenable position. It's undisputed that Mr. Abramoff tried to use his influence, and his restaurant and his skyboxes and his chartered jets, to sway lawmakers and their staffs. Information uncovered by Mr. Bush's own Justice Department shows that Mr. Abramoff tried to do the same inside the executive branch.

Under these circumstances, asking about Mr. Abramoff's White House meetings is no mere exercise in reportorial curiosity but a legitimate inquiry about what an admitted felon might have been seeking at the highest levels of government. Whatever White House officials did or didn't do, there is every reason to believe that Mr. Abramoff was up to no good and therefore every reason the public ought to know with whom he was meeting.

Mr. McClellan dismisses requests for the information as an effort to play "partisan politics," and no doubt there is more than an element of partisanship in Democrats' efforts to extract this information. But Republicans wouldn't stand for this kind of stonewalling if the situation were reversed. We can say that with confidence because history proves it. During the 1996 scandal over foreign fundraising in the Clinton White House, Republicans demanded -- and obtained, though not without a fight -- extensive information about White House coffees and other meetings, including photos and videotapes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012401532.html

Sauce for the goose...

FK

[BOATER]

Wow, I have been gone too long. Reading this thread was like having an operation it took forever to rewarding when it was over.
Interesting post sam. Conspiracies are interesting. But so many out there.
I'm glad it is agreed that Bush and Clinton had a part in what happened in 9/11. Rep and Dem share some blame. How do divide the blame is an ever ending debate.
As far as politics being dirty, absolutley true. Digging through the dirt is hell. Some people rather turn their heads and ignore it. Dirty play has become past of the system. It is tough for the average American to decipher through the propaganda, lies and truth.