Obama rebukes McCain camp on terrorism criticism »
Posted by: not2needy 2 months, 3 weeks ago220 Comments Report this Story
A defiant Barack Obama said Tuesday he would take no lectures from Republicans on which candidate would keep the U.S. safer, a sharp rebuke to John McCain's aides who said the Democrat had a naive, Sept. 10 mind-set toward terrorism.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 220
-
0%
not2needy2 months, 3 weeks ago
FTA:
"These are the same guys who helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9/11," the presumed nominee told reporters aboard his campaign plane. "This is the same kind of fear-mongering that got us into Iraq ... and it's exactly that failed foreign policy I want to reverse."
Thank You Mr. Obama. People are tired of politicians trying to scare them into voting for them.
Reply-
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.39 Replies
-
0%
djn3nunez32 months, 2 weeks ago
Fearmongering, using the 9-11 attacks is exactly how they pushed for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Good point Alpha, good point.
Key Officials Used 9/11 As Pretext for Iraq War
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0716-10...
George Tenet Claims Bush Used 9/11 As An Excuse To Attack Iraq
http://www.lockergnome.com/reflections/2007/05/...
Senate Report: Bush Used Iraq Intel He Knew Was False
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/divide...
Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/septe...
Reply-
-
0%
Teech2 months, 2 weeks ago
"Fearmongering got us into Iraq? What about a little thing called 9/11?"
Painfully sad and pathetic.
That, my friends, is still a huge problem. The Republicons constant repetition of the same lie, over and over and over and over has STILL got some people convinced that Iraq masterminded 9/11! They STILL are convinced that Iraq had "new-cue-lur" weapons aimed at the U.S. The persistence of this lie, this delusion, is unbelievable!
For a short time there, I was considering taking some of AG's posts seriously!
Nothing will ever convince them of the true nationalities of the 9/11 hijackers. They still believe that them damn Eye-rackys was carryin' Saudi passports to confuse us.
Sad and pathetic.
Reply-
0%
sailr2 months, 2 weeks ago
There is no hope for those who continue to buy into the Bush lies and rhetoric. They don't have a mind of their own. They have been taught since childhood by the church to follow blindly, never question, live by faith alone. Very sad.
Reply -
0%
Blackacereturn2 months, 2 weeks ago
What get me tech is that very smart people, people I once respect are still doing this. my 9 year old brother knows this is a big fat lie, and we didn't have to tell him this, he came to the conclusion on his own, why cant adults grasp this.
Reply -
0%
Georgia502 months, 2 weeks ago
teech:
So the issue of Iraqi complicity with 9/11 turns on nothing more than the passports and citizenship of the hijackers, correct? [Danger! Danger Will Robinson! This guys sets leg traps! Danger!)
Reply
-
-
-
0%
JackofallChems2 months, 2 weeks ago
A mind that's always open on all isssues is evidence of a fool that can't lacks the sense to make any conclusion at all based on facts, or it's evidence of mental cowardice that makes the subject too timid to make a judgement or come to a conclusion. Learn something, cushi.
Reply
-
-
0%
djn3nunez32 months, 2 weeks ago
"More than one attempted shootdown of a US fighter after Iraq violated the Gulf War cease fire agreement was full justification for going into Iraq. Case closed."
Technically, no it doesn't. Since the cease fire agreement was with the UN, any breach of the cease fire would have to be considered and acted upon by the UN. Shooting at or lighting up with Radar(which was most all cases) our planes patrolling Iraq air space simple does not pose a threat to America worth the lives of 4000 soldiers and countless Iraqis( not that the Iraqis don't matter it's that we don't count them.)
In fact by disregarding SCR 1441 while it's provisions were being carried out, the Bush Administration may very well have broken international law. They surely destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression his father helped establish 12 year before.
Reply-
-
0%
JackofallChems2 months, 2 weeks ago
Both of you are incorrect. Nothing in the original UN authorization or the subsequent Gulf War cease fire agreement made it necessary to go back to the UN before resuming and maintaining hostilities after a cease fire violation. Shooting at our fighters was yet another act of agression ignored by the Clinton administration, to go along with all those terrorist attacks that slick willie didn't do squat about. Additionally, the UN refused to enforce it's own resolutions after Iraq violated one after another, and as such invalidated any pretense that international law is worth a plugged nickel in the real world. But you two already knew that - you're just repeating bogus talking points that are easily refuted. Just thought you duds should know.... :->
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
dissent2 months, 2 weeks ago
from reuters a couple of days ago....
Oil supply boost won't lower prices: Iraq
Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:27pm EDT
"Iraq had boosted oil output to more than 2.5 million barrels per day (bpd) in June, the highest level since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
The holder of the world's third-largest oil reserves aimed to boost output by another 300,000 bpd by the end of the year, he said."
Reply-
0%
dissent2 months, 2 weeks ago
"International oil companies are keen to invest in Iraq as they struggle for access to new oil and gas reserves worldwide.
Iraq is in final negotiations with the companies for the six deals, the minister said.
Five of the deals under discussion are with oil majors Royal Dutch Shell, Shell in partnership with BHP Billiton, Exxon Mobil and Chevron in partnership with Total.
"We're going to announce the first licensing round by the end of this month or early next month," he said. Baghdad has prequalified 35 companies to bid for the contracts."
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Oil/idUSL172...
Reply-
0%
Georgia502 months, 2 weeks ago
Let me see if I follow your "logic." If Iraq, like all other oil producing nations, makes deals with oil companies to produce, refine, and move oil, then "Bush stole it." Now just for the sake of laughter, let's extend your logic: If Saddam Hussein made deals with oil companies, and he did, to produce, refine, and move oil, then "Bush stole it."
I do not question the existence of oil in Iraq. You libs say Bush stole it. That means Bush has surrepticiously gained possession and control of Iraq's oil and/or any gain from Iraq's oil is his. Prove it.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
djn3nunez32 months, 2 weeks ago
You mean this stuff?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07...
In 1992, after the first Gulf War, all highly enriched uranium â;; which could be used to make nuclear weapons â;; was shipped from Iraq to Russia, the IAEA's Zlauvinen said.
After 1992, roughly 2 tons of natural uranium, or yellow cake, some low enriched uranium and some depleted uranium was left at Tuwaitha under IAEA seal and control, he said.
Reply-
0%
Georgia502 months, 2 weeks ago
I was thinking of something not quite as lethal but way more recent:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3872201.stm
Reply
-
-
0%
cowboygrandpa2 months, 2 weeks ago
Well if you don't know Iraq has oil. Uhhhhhh? Where have you been the last 50 years. Nothing personal. But why did you vote for GW Bush again? Since it seems you aren't very well informed. LOL
Reply
-
-
-
0%
antibrainwasher2 months, 2 weeks ago
Incredible that there are complete idiots and blindly loyal republican shills still believing 911 had ANYTHING to do with Iraq.
AG, you can't possibly be that stupid, it has to be willful irresponsibilty paid for by the republican swiftboat the truth partisanship. On every issue, you either outright lie, or distort the truth for the benifit of neocon or religious right republicanism at the expence of Americanism. No different than Sunni and Shiite tribalism at the expence of Iraq.
Vote republican to extend 4 more years of Rich Republican lies and distortion as policy.
Reply -
0%
IanFraigun2 months, 2 weeks ago
9/11 planners were and are in Afghanistan and Pakistan never have been in Iraq. If this administration was so intent on the capture of those responsible for 9/11 why did they pull troops away from the capture of those terrorists and send them instead to Iraq which posed no threat to us and was not involved in 9/11 in any way shape or form when we invaded.
Are you really dumb enough to think there was any relation other than the neocon desire to control the Iraqi oil fields.
Reply -
0%
spkguy2 months, 2 weeks ago
AlphaGnosis
How many times do you have to be told that IRAQ had nothing at all to do with 911. PERIOD!
15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, and not one them came from Iraq. FACT!
And yes, the fear card was played at nauseam by this administration to convince the congress and the American people that invading and occupying Iraq because of so called connections to Al queda and 911.
" We don't want the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud."`
" The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. "
You are either a right wing shill, or you are to obtuse to know what the truth really is!
Reply -
0%
jordan112 months, 2 weeks ago
What about a little thing called 9/11?>>>>
What about it? Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Even the so called evidence they did present was ridiculous. I remember looking at pictures that Powell showed the UN, and just shaking my head. WTH was I looking at? Some trucks parked by a building! What was that supposed to prove? Surely they had evidence they weren't showing, I thought. Well surprise. They didn't.
Reply-
-
0%
MajJohn2 months, 2 weeks ago
In spite of all the bla bla bla on both sides of this issue, I don't think we'd be in Iraq today if it were not for 9/11. 9/11 changed our foreign policy to a pre-emptive policy that was not dominant before 9/11. It was that policy which created a fear, unfounded, that there were WMD's under every Iraqi rock.
The arguments I see here relate to specifics, mobile labs and so on. This begs the question, 9/11 profoundly effected the way we thought in the immediate years after the event. As the nation's views reverted more to what it was before 9/11, the administration was stuck with the tiger and could not let go of the tail, which we still hang on to. A new administration Democratic or not will be in a better position to let go.
Reply -
0%
Spadecaller2 months, 2 weeks ago
AG cares nothing about the facts or the truth; whatever spin and propaganda that she feels might work to undermine those she despises politically she promotes. Have you notice?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
dissent2 months, 2 weeks ago
ever noticed that the pnac website is no more? it's been suspended!! they must have finally realized their fascist manifesto was a dead giveaway. now that they're going down it shows them up for the dangerous fools they really are and have been. hey ag, wanna talk again about how history is going to remember the glory of dubya? at least that pnac diatribe can still be found in wikipedia for future historians to refer to. lol!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
HMMace2 months, 2 weeks ago
HOWEVER--A FEW WELL PLACED BOMBS COULD HAVE DONE IT. WITHOUT LOSING SO MANY OF OUR YOUNG MEN..AND SPENDING ALL THESE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS..
Reply -
0%
Blackacereturn2 months, 2 weeks ago
AG you know better, 9/11 had not a darn thing to do with why we went into Iraq...Hell, the people that were behind 9/11 are in Afghanistan which is the less fortified front in these 2 wars. If these wars were about 9/11 we would have all of our troops in Afghanistan and Sadam would still be alive or at the lease not dead at our behest! it's fear mongering but I hope the GOPers continue down this road it will be the death of them since people are sooo tired of this crap!
Reply-
0%
not2needy2 months, 2 weeks ago
OBL is in their sights, he is being put on the back burner for one purpose only, Oct, 2008, right before election, in a feeble attempt to buy votes.
They didn't do it in 2004 because they still had the fear factor working well for them, now that it's failing, OBL will be the next thing.
Never underestimate the depths that the right will sink to in order to win. We've seen a lot of it on here, so you can just imagine what it's like in the real arena.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Georgia502 months, 2 weeks ago
Why AG is Due an Apology I
Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.
Reply -
0%
Georgia502 months, 2 weeks ago
Why AG is Due an Apology II
Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.
Reply -
0%
Georgia502 months, 2 weeks ago
Why AG is Due an Apology III
In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.
Reply -
0%
Georgia502 months, 2 weeks ago
Why AG is Due an Apology IV
In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.
Reply -
0%
Georgia502 months, 2 weeks ago
There ya go, libs. Now slither away. You know as well as I do that you can't rise to the level of honor requisite to make an apology.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
injest2 months, 3 weeks ago
FTA
"And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo," Obama said. "What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks â;; for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center â;; we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.
Someone please buy this idiot a clue! Yes all that were caught were tried.
The other 171? Including OBL, al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, they got a way.
Yes under the Bush FAILD policy, OBL has been religated to issuing audio tapes at will from some cave.
Under the Clinton Policy?
Reply-
0%
injest2 months, 3 weeks ago
Hers a short list
Attacks linked to Osama bin Laden
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001/09/13/b...
Osama bin Laden heads al-Qa'eda Even before Tuesday, he and his followers were believed to be responsible for terrorist attacks that have killed at least 59 Americans and wounded more than 1,400. Among the attacks linked to bin Laden:
* June 17, 2001: Ten people possessing hand grenades, machine guns and bombmaking equipment are arrested in Amman, Jordan, in a suspected terrorist plot to attack the U.S. Embassy and its staff in Sanaa, Yemen. U.S. investigators are trying to determine whether the Islamic Army of Aden, a militant Muslim group associated with the Saudi dissident, might have been involved.
* Oct. 12, 2000: Bombing of the USS Cole anchored in Aden; 17 sailors killed; 39 wounded. Bin Laden is suspected.
* August 1998: Bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania kill 224 people, including 12 Americans. Bin Laden is indicted in New York.
Reply-
0%
injest2 months, 3 weeks ago
* June 1996: Bombing of Khobar Towers apartments at a U.S. military barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia; 19 U.S. airmen killed; 372 Americans hurt.
* November 1995: Bombing at Army training headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; five Americans killed; 31 wounded.
* February 1993: Truck bomb at the World Trade Center in New York City kills six and injures more than 1,000.
* 1992: An attack on a hotel in Aden, Yemen, where about 100 U.S. servicemen were staying before going to Somalia for Operation Restore Hope. No one was injured. Bin Laden claimed responsibility.
Reply-
0%
lfergie8122 months, 2 weeks ago
Was Clinton president in 1992?? Nope. Bush senior was. 1993? Clinton was in office one month and you blame that bombing on him? Another thing injest, if the Republican congress wasn't so set on destroying Clinton he might have been able to do something about these attacks. But I guess he could only send orders for the military to find these men and bring them to justice. Right? So I guess the real fault would lie in the lack of the military's ability to carry out the orders. Right?
Reply-
-
0%
injest2 months, 2 weeks ago
"also, the final CIA report on the Cole bombings wasn't completed until two weeks before Clinton left office."
Uhm was the 2000 USS Cole attack done by some other AQ?
Not the same AQ that had been attacking us since 92?
Not the same AQ that we launched missiles against in 1998?
If it was the SAME AQ, then what's your point?
Are you saying that Clinton was NOT going after AQ?
Are you saying that The Clinton/ Law enforcement model was ONLY reactive not Proactive?
Does this not prove the futility of a Law enforcement model for fighting terrorism?
As Obama said AQ/OBL can send out audio tapes when ever they want!
Reply-
0%
NoWayMan2 months, 2 weeks ago
point is...why did bush just forget about it? why was it suddenly only clinton's problem and not america's problem?
when bush came into office he did nothing about OBL. he even ignored warnings.
in fact, cheney was meeting with the taliban about a trans-afghan pipeline just 6 months before 911.
doesn't that bother you?
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
dunkirk2 months, 2 weeks ago
ROFLMAO, yeah but they needed Bush in office to complete the attack. AND low and behold under Bush immigration approved visa extensions for several of the 9/11 perps post-mortem.All omne needs to remember is tha in tyhe nine months prior to 9/11 BUSH did nothing. Except take the longest vacations of any president of the United States.
Reply-
0%
injest2 months, 2 weeks ago
ROFLMAO, yeah but they needed Bush in office to complete the attack. AND low and behold under Bush immigration approved visa extensions for several of the 9/11 perps post-mortem.All omne needs to remember is tha in tyhe nine months prior to 9/11 BUSH did nothing. Except take the longest vacations of any president of the United States.
Amazing?
So do you believe in time travel or crystal balls projecting the future?
The outline for the 9/11 attack goes back to 1996. That's when WE got our hands on it.
The approval or green light for 9/11 was in 1998 , AFTER the failed missile attack .
If your looking for linkage 9/11 was retaliation for our 1998 missile attack AND the failure to follow up that attack and go after AQ.
Reply-
0%
dunkirk2 months, 2 weeks ago
"The outline for the 9/11 attack goes back to 1996. That's when WE got our hands on it.
The approval or green light for 9/11 was in 1998 , AFTER the failed missile attack .
If your looking for linkage 9/11 was retaliation for our 1998 missile attack AND the failure to follow up that attack and go after AQ. "
Further proof that BUSH DID NOTHING. We have dates in 96 anad 98 indicating attacks and Bush sat on his ranch vactioning and ignored a security brief from August of an impending attack. During the late 90's a REPUBLICAN controlled congrtess continually played down the threat of terrorist attack claiming Clinton was making a big deal out of nothing. Yes it seems for 9/11 to succeed it needed a REPUBLICAN in the White House.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
djn3nunez32 months, 2 weeks ago
What was the most serious threat as outlined by the Clinton Administration officials to the incoming Bush Administration, and what was the Bush Administrations reaction?
Clarke wrote that al Qaeda "is not some narrow, little terrorist issue that needs to be included in broader regional policy." Two key decisions that had been deferred, he noted, concerned covert aid to keep the Northern Alliance alive when fighting began again in Afghanistan in the spring, and covert aid to the Uzbeks. Clarke also suggested that decisions should be made soon on messages to the Taliban and Pakistan over the al Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan, on possible new money for CIA operations, and on "when and how . . . to respond to the attack on the USS Cole."173
The national security advisor did not respond directly to Clarke's memorandum. No Principals Committee meeting on al Qaeda was held until September 4, 2001 (
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Re...
Reply-
0%
injest2 months, 2 weeks ago
djn3nunez3
"What was the most serious threat as outlined by the Clinton Administration officials to the incoming Bush Administration, and what was the Bush Administrations reaction? "
Good question we know it wasn't AQ.
From the Congressional record
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/s032604...
Richard Clark said "The first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton
administration to the Bush administration.
No plan.
Mr. Clarke's words:
That kinds sorts answerers your question, no plan and no reaction to the no plan.
Richard Clark
"Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998."
This rings true as we all know there were NO attempts to get OBL after 1998.
The link above to read it for your self.
Reply-
0%
sailr2 months, 2 weeks ago
LOOK AT WHO THE SOURCE IS! Senator Frist?! The most right wing radical of them all? And we are to believe him rather than Reagan and Bush Sr.'s man, Mr. Clarke?
Get a life. Give it up! Way to cherry pick the internet to support your view. Too bad it didn't work.
Reply -
0%
djn3nunez32 months, 2 weeks ago
They Had A Plan
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/stor...
"I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject."
"..the heading on Slide 14 of the.., "Response to al Qaeda: Roll back." Clarke's proposals called for the "breakup" of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel. The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing troubleâ;;Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemenâ;;would be given aid to fight the terrorists. Most important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to "eliminate the sanctuary" where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected by the radical Islamic Taliban regime."
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
injest2 months, 2 weeks ago
Jezzz you need a clue.
WE have been attacked when our President was a Rep and both houses were Dem.
WE have been attacked when our President was a Dem and both houses were Dem.
WE have been attacked when our President was a Dem and both houses were Rep.
WE have been attacked when our President was a Rep and houses were Rep/Dem.
GET IT?
It doesn't matter WHO the F-ing President IS or WAS. What matters is HOW we fight terrorism.
Using a law enforcement model is dumb
It would be like going after the pilots that bombed Pearl Harbor but NOT the ships that launched them or Japan.
Reply
-
-
0%
NoWayMan2 months, 2 weeks ago
you obviously have no clue as to how many times Al-Qaeda has attacked US military sites, US embassies, US consulates and US business interests since 911.
my list is longer than yours.
*June 2002, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
*May 2003, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
* Aug 2003, Jakarta, Indonesia: Suicide car-bomb killed 12, injured 150 at Marriott Hotel. The hotel had been recently used by the US Embassy for an event. Al-Qaeda suspected.
* May 2004, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American. Al- Qaeda suspected.
Reply-
0%
NoWayMan2 months, 2 weeks ago
* June 2004, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks. Al-Qaeda claims responsibility.
* Dec 2004, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Al-Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
* Nov 2005, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
* Sep 2006, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled. Jund al-Sham, an off shoot of Al-Qaeda, was suspected.
* Oct 2007, Vienna, Austria: Austrian authorities foil a plot to bomb US embassy in Vienna.
in the 7 years since 911, US embassies/consulates have been attacked in S. Arabia, Serbia, Greece, Pakistan, India, Uzbekistan and of course Iraq and Afghanistan - way more attacks than in the 7 years prior to 911.
Reply -
0%
libsRfunny2 months, 2 weeks ago
A Saudi oil company suddenly is a U.S. interest? The U.S. Embassy rented a room at a hotel and that suddenly is a U.S. interest? A compound for Westerners suddenly is a U.S. interest? A bomb explosion OUTSIDE of a U.S. consulate is considered a success despite not killing any U.S. citizens?
Someone's playing serious games ;)
Reply-
0%
NoWayMan2 months, 2 weeks ago
so...you're willing to criticize my list for a bomb that went off outside one of our consulates but unwilling when it comes to injest's first example of a plot that never even materialized.
for injest I don't see you being critical. only hypocritical.
someone's playing games alright.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
lfergie8122 months, 2 weeks ago
That's all right N2N. I gave him a neg for you because he has all the characteristic of a cut and paste shill.
Reply-
-
-
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
injest2 months, 2 weeks ago
NoWayMan
"um, in the aftermath of the 1993 WTC attack, more people were arrested, tried and jailed than were killed in the actual attack."
Seriously do you honestly think the plan blowing out the entire support structure of the under ground garage was only intended to kill 6 people?
However Obama's claim is that ALL those responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing were caught tried and jailed.
Ether he's an idiot or he's lying.
KSM (Bluto looking guy) was the one who planed, trained and financed the 93 attack.
He also planed the 9/11 attack, getting support and approval from OBL in late 98 or early 99.
HINT: If he had been caught tried and jailed, he wouldn't have been free to planed the 9/11 attack, ya think?
There are 171 co conspirators Including OBL, al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, they ALL got a way.
Reply
-
-
0%
libsRfunny2 months, 2 weeks ago
Couldn't agree more, Injest. I guess by Obama's reckoning, those responsible for 9/11 died in the plane crashes.
Reply -
-
0%
injest2 months, 2 weeks ago
IanFraigun
"Just who got away. None of those mentioned were ever in this country and were not subject to being tried or imprisoned here. Those here that actually committed the attack are the ones captured, convicted, and imprisoned."
Utterly friging amazing. This is one of those forest/trees things
"None of those mentioned were ever in this country"
All 171? Are you sure? Wanna bet?
"and were not subject to being tried or imprisoned here"
Sorry, even under the "law enforcement" model those who pay, train and supply those who actually do the attack are subject to our laws and international laws.
Perhaps you don't know this but OBL has not been in the USA, yet he was indicted by our courts and there was a warrant out for his arrest.
Using a law enforcement model is dumb
It would be like going after the pilots that bombed Pearl Harbor but NOT the ships that launched them or Japan.
Reply
-
-
0%
sailr2 months, 2 weeks ago
and why have they gotten away? Because Bushco went into Iraq and neglected Afghanistan where the terrorists really are! Are you so completely stupid? Clinton sent cruise missiles in to get OBL but missed. Bush was BEGGED by Richard Clark to pay attention to OBL but Bush ignored him! Condie Rice said "who?" when Clark implored her to pay more attention.
9/11 happened because Bush's inattention gave OBL and his thugs the opportunity. When Clinton was there, OBL knew he was being pursued but when Bush came in, he was free to do his dirty deeds because Bush was too stupid to care.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Goppy2 months, 2 weeks ago
I just dont know what to think. On the one hand, as a Christian Conservative, I must embrace the national media campaign that our fearless leader, Goerge W. Bush as a staunch defender of America.
On the other hand, everbody that leaves this Administration assesses the Bush Administration as woeful, vengeful, and guilty of always puttin Political Considerations ahead of our national intersts.
For instance, Richard Clarke, the TOP official in Goerge W. Bush's counter-terrorism campaign has said ... and I quote:
"George W. Bush has made us less safe and I think he's done a terrible job on the war on terrorism."
So who do I believe? Mainstream Media or an insider who had a front row seat?
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny2 months, 2 weeks ago
Ohh Guppy, you know you believe only what your twisted, delusional mind makes of it... like accusing mainstream media of lying.
Richard Clarke is making excuses for his own failure. Other TOP advisors say Bush has done a fine job, such as Stephen Hadley, who commends the president for taking the fight to the terrorists and keeping the U.S. safe.
But, being a delusional leftist shill, we know your unique brand of insanity fails to grasp reality.
Reply-
0%
antibrainwasher2 months, 2 weeks ago
Of course mainstream media broadcast the neocon lies leading to the invasion of Iraq, the country which had absolutely nothing to do with 911. And now, faux has hired the authors of said lies.
Mainsteam media hired pentagon psy ops plants vetted by Cheney to handle the psy ops propaganda for war, stricly illegal.
Your typical ad hominem attack of Clark is just republican rove level scum swiftboating. Typical republican.
Vote republican for McBush continuation of lies, distortions, and having over half of america cast as the Enemy, by ignorant ranting rightwing nutcases. They hate americans. Americans are their enemies.
Reply
-
-
0%
sailr2 months, 2 weeks ago
Richard Clark served admirably under REAGAN, the right winger's God, Bush 1, and Clinton. He was considered brilliant by all three. So all of a sudden he's a failure when Bush 2 comes in?
Bush 2 didn't want to hear it. Bush 2 and the neocons had their own agenda from day one and didn't want anyone interfering with their plan to invade Iraq. 9/11 gave them the perfect opportunity. The PNAC said they needed a "pearl harbor event" and 9/11 gave it to them.
Believe the mainstream media? You mean like FOX news? WHY would you believe the propaganda machine baught and paid for by the
-
-
-
