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

NO matter how you twist so called "facts"

Published on September 27, 2006 By Moderateman In War on Terror

The first twin tower attack 1993, Bill Clinton was President. Action taken? nothing.

Blowing up our embassy in Kenya 1998, Bill Clinton was President. Action taken? Nothing.

Blowing up our Embassy in Tanzania 1998, Bill Clinton was President. Action taken? Nothing.

Blowing up a United States warship the U.S.S. COLE, the year 2000, month Oct. Bill Clinton was President. Action taken? He blew up a pharmaceutical warehouse with a cruise missile. Other action 6taken? Nothing.

The Kobart towers, Bill Clinton was President. ACTION TAKEN? Nothing.

The slaughter of American troops, The October 3, 1993 US raid on Somalia, in which 18 soldiers and two Black Hawk helicopters were lost, is often remembered as a tragic fiasco. Bill Clinton was President, Action taken? Tuck his tail between his legs and ran away. That's the famous Democrat war-cry. "quick run away and hide"

All the attacks on America, all leading to Sept 11th 2001, the complete and utter lack of any action by President Clinton did nothing but EMBOLDEN TERRORISTS. The thought and rightly so, America was a paper tiger, no guts for war. This lack of action has been cited by Usama Bin Laden as one of the biggest reasons for the Sept. 11th attack on America.

No matter what facts you Democrats try to come up with, the cold hard truth is Clinton FAILED AMERICA, CLINTON FAILED 3000 PEOPLE IN THE TWIN TOWER ATTACKS. If he would have killed Bin Laden like he should have, and lord knows he had at least somewhere between 3 and 12 opportunities to do so, again he did nothing.

Comments (Page 2)

S.S. NAZI COLGENE

on Sep 28, 2006

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

Draginol

on Sep 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???)

Moderateman

on Sep 29, 2006

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.

The Honest Abe

on Sep 30, 2006

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.

The Honest Abe

on Sep 30, 2006

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

rabidrobot

on Sep 30, 2006

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/

rabidrobot

on Sep 30, 2006

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?

Moderateman

on Sep 30, 2006

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.

Moderateman

on Sep 30, 2006

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.

Moderateman

on Sep 30, 2006

(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.

rabidrobot

on Sep 30, 2006

I am not claiming non-U.S. citizens have, or even should have, all the rights granted to actual U.S. citizens by the U.S. Constitution. And it would take a real leap to read that into anything I have said thus far. But, one might do well to recall the words of our Founding Fathers, who said in the Declaration of Independance:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Additionally, I do not have the reptilian mindset required to reflexively demand "retaliation". What I would desire would better be termed "Justice" in that those responsible, and those who would want to repeat such an attack, are hunted down and given the ignominious end they so deserve.

I guess some, a lot of 'em really, people see global terrorism as more of a bar fight. You get punched, it doen't matter who did it, you just gotta punch somebody in "retaliation", and it matters, apparently, very little that you get the actual guy who started it.

It wouldn't hurt at this point to reflect on what values we hold as Americans. What are we trying to defend? Is it just our lifestyle? Our big cars and fast food, and our bruised dignity? Or are we, as Americans, responsible for creating a higher standard? A process begun centuries ago, with the desired result that humans could live together in a society comfortable in the knowledge that by their very existence as human beings they are "endowed...with certain unalienable rights."

I'm not saying terrorists should not be caught, and punished. With execution even. They should be (why aren't we doing that?). I am saying that, to use the trite phrase from a few years ago, that if we lower ourselves from enlightened, informed, rational human beings respectful of our innate civil rights to the knee-jerk retailiative, fascist, frightened level of barbarians, then indeed, the "terrorists will have won".

But, this is obviously pointless. Faced with the brutal facts above, Moderateman could only resort to sitting in the corner, holding his knees, rocking back and forth chanting "everything I said is true, everything I said is true". Deny away, dude, deny away.

rabidrobot

on Sep 30, 2006

Moderateman:

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

So, by your logic, George had nothing to do with the capture of Saddam. That's an interesting viewpoint, for sure. Perhaps you can defend it a bit more.

drmiler

on Sep 30, 2006

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

So, by your logic, George had nothing to do with the capture of Saddam. That's an interesting viewpoint, for sure. Perhaps you can defend it a bit more.

As much as I hate to admit this.....he's got you on that one MM!

However I take notice that he can't defend Slick Willie on the other points you made.

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.

NOT because he had an affair. Get your facts straight! HE "LIED" UNDER OATH. And for the record "show me" proof that GW lied. That is "if" you can

drmiler

on Sep 30, 2006

And sorry to inform you but from snopes.com the democrats believed the same thing as GW on the subject of Iraq.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Let's see you argue away all these democrats.

rabidrobot

on Oct 01, 2006

In response to drmiler:
Well, I'm not going to defend politicians for being idiots. It should be pointed out, though, that the means for disarming or, rather, containing to no arms, Iraq, are the important issue. Sanctions, inspectors, and so on were working. Obviously, as we haven't found any weapons of mass destruction.

Although, you wouldn't know that if you took President Bush at his word. In 2003 on Polish TV, he claimed, "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories… They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." Link

Well, that turned out to be untrue. A lie, if you will. Turns out those "biological" laboratories made hydrogen for weather baloons. Link (a reprint of the New York Times article)

Also, most of the later quotes are because Democrats and the rest of us were at the time still taking the President at his word...they were simply as alarmed and misinformed as he, and his administration, made them.

Not quite a big enough lie for you? Probably not, I doubt you'll be convinved any of these are lies. You don't want to believe our president would mislead us. Who can blame you?

My favorites all come from the 2003 State of the Union, where he fooled the nation into war. Statements President Bush made during this speech, which turned out to be lies, include:

“We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

(No manned or unmanned arial vehicles have ever been found, much less known to exist before the invasion)

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

(Wow, this is a biggie. A good proportion of the US still believes this one. What a shame we can't trust our leader at his word)

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

(Again, he couches his words with unnamed sources, but the IAEA had already, a week earlier, completely debunked this. That makes this statement a actual, steely-eyed, bald-faced lie. It isn't true, and it was known not to be true when he said it. He lied.)

The State of the Union was delivered January 28, 2003...

From Link

By January 20, 2003 the IAEA - which has more expertise than the CIA in the matter - had completed its investigation in Iraq of the aluminum tubes. It concluded that, as the Iraqi government claimed, the tubes had nothing to do with nuclear weapons, rather they were part of their rocket program.

Thus, eight days before Bush's State of the Union, the IAEA stated in its report to the Security Council, "The IAEA's analysis to date indicates that the specifications of the aluminum tubes recently sought by Iraq appear to be consistent with reverse engineering of rockets. While it would be possible to modify such tubes for the manufacture of centrifuges, they are not directly suitable for such use."

In short, Bush claimed the tubes were "suitable for nuclear weapons production" when only a week earlier, the IAEA - which had reason to know - plainly said that they were not. Today, of course, with no nuclear facilities found, it is clear that the evidence that the IAEA provided was correct.

I really recommend you check that final link out (this one: Link) as it is not a diatribe or poorly designed lunatics site. It is a well documented exploration of the statements President Bush made during that speech.

And note, that lying to congress (as Bush did in that State of the Union), like lying under oath, is a crime. And the fact is, I might have been able to forgive the man a slip or two in his zeal. But Bush lied numerous times in this speech, some of which statments were demonstrably false before he even made them. If Bush did not intend to purposefully mislead us, he should have used language such as "we believe" not "we know" or "we have discovered". Simple as that.

So, I guess I should rephrase my line from earlier, as you pointed out. Let's put it like this:
"You've rewritten history to fulfill your strange desire to hate a man for lying about an affair, more than the man who lied a nation into war."

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!