What if we had a different president in '93?

[admspooner]

Rep. were very vocal and forceful in not allowing Clinton to go after Bin Laden. Remember the Republicans of old who wanted to stay on American soil, not being heroes of the world. This is what clinton was blamed for, sticking his nose in afghanistan.

After the SSCoal bombing he tried again, still republicans said no.

Bush dropped more bombs in operation shock and Awe than WWII. IN THE WRONG COUNTRY. FOR OIL. and let Bin Laden go. Al Qaeda isn't in Iraq still. get the occupation out

[Keszler]

What if we had a different president in 2000? Fucking conservatives

[ariestheramone]

there is absolutely NO BELIEVABLE REASON to blame Clinton for 9/11!!!

trying to pass the buck backward, doesn't work.

[girzwald3]

Acctually, it is very believable and true. Clinton had over a dozen times to take bin laden out. But he was too busy getting hummers to think about anything else.

[mredstriumph]

Trying to pass the buck backward? The hijackers were already in the country and training for the attack YEARS before Bush took office. Meanwhile, there were TWO embassy attacks in Africa killing hundreds of marines, attacks on the USS Cole, and numerous attacks on American military and civilians all over the globe by Bin Laden and fundamentalist Islam.

The 911 attacks were in the works WELL before Bush took office as evidence by the hijackers themselves&any honest person can see that's true.

[pbrown4833]

This guy wasn't on the radar screen in 1992. He's been on and off Bush's during the last 8. Come on. Blame Clinton? Does real history not suit you needs?

[ConservativeUSA]

The democrats only want to appease, as Churchill said; "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last".

[betoblue10]

bush is the most stupid president in the history , and he makes money with the war, who are the stupids bush won twiece and is gonna leave ue in an economical problem, but he his father and his family getting money, bush plan the sep 11 and protect bin ladens family

[betoblue10]

you americans deserve that, you love war, you love to kill children all arround the word just to make bussines, bush is making money with the war, you supose to have schools you supose to be the first world and you vote for bush twice, you are the idiots, you love killing people arround the word

[pfg999]

You should change the title to "What if we had a different president in 2001" because that is the real point. This video is nothing more than out-of-context statements and mis-information. It's really interesting that in Jan 2001, Bush, Cheney, and the other neocons felt that Clinton spent TOO MUCH time on bin Laden and al Qaeda. How do you respond to that? Even AFTER 911, the admin still looked for a link to Iraq, even when told it was al Qaeda. BUSH dropped the ball that led to 911.

[ucfknight01]

Wow I can't believe the only reasoning you have is to blame the Clintons. You're lame and uneducated.

[JohnMichaels20]

he wasn't in office in 1992 you fucking moron, and also, no jumbo jets hit buildings during his presidency

[miat1111]

1/2 'moron'

I was using '92 loosely, obviously. He was elected in '92.

Put on your thinking cap. It is a distinction without a difference: The first terrorist attack-(BY THE SAME PEOPLE!-ON THE SAME BUILDING!)-occurred in '93. They blew a yawning, 60-ft crater in the WTC and the clintons did zip.

clinton was 15 min away mere days after the attack, and the idiot refused even to visit the site. He told America to ignore the bombing, ignore the 1st attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.

[miat1111]

2/2 'moron'

The terrorists continued to declare war on America and commit acts of war on America thruout the clintons' tenure and the clintons continued to do nothing.

Now you want to put these 2 back in the Oval Office? And you call ME a moron?

[miat1111]

P.S.

The clintons were too stupid to understand, or too self-serving to acknowledge, that a terrorist war requires only one consenting player: When a terrorist declares war on you and commits acts of war against you, you are perforce at war.

You have 2 options: Fight or surrender. For 8 years, the clintons surrendered, allowing an incipient, still-stoppable al Qaeda and its threat to grow exponentially.

[miat1111]

"clinton was 15 min away mere days after the attack, and the idiot refused even to visit the site."-me

Perhaps clinton reasoned that if he were to visit the site, he just might have to retaliate for what was an obvious act of war.

[miat1111]

We would see this m.o. many, many times during the clinton years-with regard to terrorism, of course, but also with regard to Rwanda: clinton ordered his administration never to use the word "genocide," although it became clear within days that the Rwandan mass slaughter of what would ultimately be 800,000 blacks was precisely that.

A High-Tech Lynching: Genocide + the clintons - pt2

hillary clinton: LYNCHIN'

(BOTH YouTube)

[JohnMichaels20]

how ironic, the same kind of republican who was against us helping out in Bosnia and Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing trashes on clinton for not goin into Rwanda. If you know the political circumstances in 1994, it would have been very hard for him to get congress' consent during the so-called "Republican Revolution" Unlike Bush, Clinton regarded the Congress and the government with a minimal amount of respect.

[pfg999]

miat1111

"clinton was 15 min away mere days after the attack, and the idiot refused even to visit the site."-me

Do you remember TWA800? Though NOT an act of terrorism, Clinton went to NY and visited with the grieving families and listened to their concerns and prayed with them. It was not an easy thing to do, but he did it. The only reason Bush ever visited the WTC was so he could use that tragedy to advance his political agenda, dividing our country in the process.

[JohnMichaels20]

actually it wasn't obvious, because you or me coudl easily pack a van full of explosives and put it in a lot.

[pfg999]

miat1111

" For 8 years, the clintons surrendered,"

This pure unadulterated BS statement is contradicted by both the 911 commission and Richard Clarke's book. And by the way, exactly what did Bush do for the first 8 months? This:

1. Even after being briefed in DETAIL about the al Qaeda threat, he basically demoted the terrorism czar (Clarke) and did NOTHING.

2. He planned the attack on Iraq and looked for facts to support his case, while ignoring those that didnt.

3. Went on vacation.

[JohnMichaels20]

read the 9/11 commission and richard clarke's book "against all enemies". and the truth shall set you free. they fought al qaeda more than any previous administration, including your beloved Reagan and Bush admins under whom Al Qaeda was founded in 1988.

[pfg999]

JohnMichaels20

"read the 9/11 commission and richard clarke's book "against all enemies". "

Read? Are you kidding? The last thing any of these Clinton bashers will do is read - unless it's Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coulter garbage. Here is my opinion on the US trying to destroy al Qaeda. CLINTON TRIED AND FAILED. BUSH (JR) FAILED TO TRY. Clinton was NOT perfect, but what's revealing about these neocons is that when they took over in 2001, they thought Clinton had spent TOO MUCH time on bin Laden.

[JohnMichaels20]

actually they found the man responsible and he is rotting in jail and probly gonna get killed and raped (YES in that order) sooner or later. anybody coulda pulled such an attack at anytime, and its not like he got a PDB which said "BIn Laden determined to stike inside US" like your hero bush got.

[DrDeadMeat007]

88 Germany lives

[mahowel]

No but in 93 when he was in office they tried to take the towers down with vans from the bottom. Then they used a boat bomb on the Cole, 2 attacks in Saudi Arabi against Americans, and in 98 we had several US embassies attacked. All of this was done by people with ties to Bin Laden. But "we had no reason to hold him" He was running for president in 92, juts like whoever is elected for the new term of president now will forever be tied to the year 2008, You fucking moron.

[JohnMichaels20]

oh shut up those other attacks did not kill 3000 men on ur soiul like they did under bush 8 months after bush took affice. get some responsiblility and elected another new york champion like giants HILLARY CLINTON!!!!!!

[pfg999]

mahowel

"No but in 93 when he was in office they tried to take the towers down with vans from the bottom."

He was in office less than 3 weeks. If anyone is to blame for that, it would be Bush Sr, but I would NOT blame him, because he simply did not have intelligence on al Qaeda - and so neither did Clinton. Hezbollah bombed our Marines in Beirut in 1983. What did Reagan do? Libyans blew up Pan Am 103. What did Bush Sr do? And I could be wrong, but I thought Bush Jr was president on 911.

[ForSale113]

Everyone just wants to play the blame game on 9/11. The truth is Clinton and Bush BOTH share some blame for 9/11. It's what we know in our hearts to be true.

[pfg999]

mahowel

"we had no reason to hold him"

When Clinton took office, al Qaeda was not even known to exist by the US intelligence community. Thanks to Clinton, the link between the 93 bombing and al Qaeda was established. The problem with the 2 attacks in Saudi Arabia? They beheaded the cupprits of the first one BEFORE we could interrogate them, and the Saudis were notoriously uncooperative even later when it came to bin Laden and the attacks against us.

[killstrumpet]

There is a strong consensus that the clinton presidency was a disaster for the security for this country. We should also remember the disturbing fact that under 2000 votes prevented al gore from becoming president. The Iowa result is a measure of relief. However, the exposure of hillary's pretentious megalomania needs to go into overdrive.

[killstrumpet]

Consensus is strong that the clinton presidency was a disaster for the security of this country. However, we came within less than 2000 votes from putting al gore in the white house. Iowa was a relief as Mia puts it. But exposure of hillary's pretentious meglalomania still needs to stay in overdrive.

[AlanCom1]

Clinton is a liar. He did not authorize US special troops to kill bin Laden.

I hate the Clintons. A vote for her a vote for the mullahs, her good friends.

[1lawgrad]

HILLARY 08

[miat1111]

1/2

why?

1lawgrad, you do know the notorious grind flunked the DC bar exam, which had a 67% pass rate. (PR is not IQ.)

Fred Barnes suggested the other night that we apply the George "It's a Wonderful Life" Bailey test.

[miat1111]

2/2

Do it + you will find that had this defective never existed, this country, (indeed,the world), would be a far better place.

Not only has she not accomplished anything of value; not only has she failed in every 1 of her so-called independent endeavors;(it was her dumb strategy that got her husband impeached); not only did she-did they-poison the collective well of political discourse; with impunity, they auctioned off America's security, sovereignty + economy to the highest foreign bidder.

[miat1111]

We put these two miscreant back in power at our own peril. And that of our kids.

We will not survive another clinton. (Indeed, we may yet not survive the first.)

[pfg999]

miat1111

"We put these two miscreant back in power at our own peril. And that of our kids."

Yeah - and Bush had done wonders for our kids right? Sending them to fight HIS war in Iraq (against all sane advice), dropping the ball on 911, and using a national tragedy (911) to advance HIS agenda, DIVIDING the country in the process. Hard to imagine anyone worse than that.

[DillonX]

I have voted for more Republican and Libertrain candidates than Democrats, but everyday I wish we could somehow turn back the hands of time and put Gore or Kerry in office.

Gore & Kerry weren't my first Democratic choices, but they would've been a hell of a lot better than bastard Bush.

And I would give anything for 4 more years of Bill Clinton.

BUT HE CAN'T RUN, SO --- HELP ELECT RON PAUL!

[DillonX]

Clinton - one of our greatest Presidents.

Bush -- a complete dunce!

[miat1111]

1/4

C-SPAN asked 90 noted presidential historians to rank the American presidents along 10 dimensions.

bill clinton emerged as middling in most dimensions; he was surpassed in others by a settled mediocrity (Carter) and a putative failure (Nixon). In moral authority, bill clinton was rated dead last, lower than Nixon. He did fairly well in public persuasion, not a surprising finding given the volume of snake oil he managed to peddle during his putative presidency.

[miat1111]

2/4

"The economy, stupid?"

Clinton's best scores were on the economic mgmt+equal justice dimensions. However, both of these results are meaningful only insofar as they redound to the moral authority dimension: they are wholly based on clinton fraudulence, cooked books+black poses, respectively; + clinton's shameless Rosa Parks eulogy that week assured us that the insidious brand of clinton racism was alive+well during those tiptoe yrs of what the clintons hoped would be their interregnum

[miat1111]

3/4

MIDDLING

20 presidents rank higher than bill clinton + 20 rank lower. But this placement assumes equal weight for each of the dimensions. And therein lies the flaw.

If 9/11 taught us anything, it is that presidential character and moral authority count, and count most. If the variables are properly weighted, bill clinton will always come out dead last.... That is, unless Americans are dumb enough to make the same mistake twice.

[miat1111]

4/4

"The issue with Hillary Clinton is ... whether she has-how do we say this?-the character to be president."

Richard Cohen, 9.18.07; Washington Post

Fool me twice, shame on me....

[gobblegobblechew]

Ignorance must be bliss...why do you think the fire started with Clinton? Are you dumb or something?. Let me know who the savior is...the ultimate male..Ill vote for him under your say so. Dip shit

[gobblegobblechew]

the blame game...how quaint. Always someone else's fault and never yours!

[miat1111]

1/5

There is nothing so quaint as ignorance and sarcasm in the same package.

Listen to the CLINTONS' CIA bin L. div. chief, Michael Scheuer ('VIRTUAL KILL'-YouTube). Among other things, he says this:

"The former president seems to be able to deny facts with impunity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That's the bottom line."

[miat1111]

2/5

"[H]e had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here bec we had no basis on which to hold him, tho we knew he wanted to commit crimes agnst America."-clinton in abv video

Framing the terror war as crime allowed bc to obscure the real reason he refused to kill or capture bin L: the Nobel

According to Albright, a [sham] Mideast accord wld yld [if not peace for principals, surely] a Nobel for clinton. Kill or capture bin L, + clinton cld kiss accord + Nobel good-bye

[miat1111]

3/5

Odd statement by bc.

1. Bin L. had repeatedly declared war on us, committed acts of war on us. Is clinton saying, albeit selectively, that terror war is war, not crime?

2. The rule of law is never an obstacle for a clinton

3. We now know the State Dept in 7/96 warned clinton bin L.'s move to Afghanistan wld give him a more dangerous haven, that he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the mideast," that bin L. in Afghanistan "could prove more dangerous to US interests" globally.

[miat1111]

4/5

Clearly, the clintons treated terrorism not as war but as a law enforcement problem, which, by definition is defensive, after-the-fact and fatally-too-late.

They appear not to understand that when terrorists declare war on you...and then proceed to kill you... you are, perforce, at war. At that point, you really have only one decision to make: Fight or surrender.

Bin Laden declared war on America + committed acts of war on America thruout the clintons' tenure + the clintons surrendered.

[miat1111]

5/5

clintons didn't understand:

* terror war requires only 1 consenting player

* WOT is global + irreducible

* defining terror acts of war as crimes is a dangerous, anachronistic, postmodern conceit. Amts to surrender

* preemptive action, +more so, preventative action, serve a necessary, critically protective, as well as offensive function in any WOT

The sorry endpoint of massive, 8-yr clinton blunder was 9/11+the exponential growth+emboldenment of an incipient, still stoppable al Qaeda

[miat1111]

P.S. 1/2

In demonstrating clinton unfitness 'for any position of public or private trust' (to quote Jerry Zeifman, a democrat and hillary's boss during the Nixon impeachment proceedings), we must focus on 3 facts:

1-The State Dept warned clinton in 7/96 that bin L.'s move to Afghanistan wld give him a more dangerous haven, that he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the mideast," that bin L. in Afghanistan "could prove more dangerous to US interests" globally.

[miat1111]

P.S. 2/2

2- clinton "knew [bin Laden] wanted to commit crimes agnst America" but when Sudan offered to turn him over to the US, clinton turned the offer down.

3-According to Albright, a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for principals, surely] a Nobel for clinton. Kill or capture bin L + clinton could kiss accord + Nobel good-bye.

[mspeel13]

EXCELLENT. Exposes the Clintons then and now! Dangerous and small. I like that.

[miat1111]

Missus clinton's latest ad, 'President,' is an ode to the dangerous smallness of clinton. This video is my response.