And I'm talking about a big mouthed politician, that actually had intelligence in front of him well before 911, who claims he has leadership, named John F'ing Kerry who ignored the warnings on security lapses at Logan when he had ample time to fix them. Period.Quote from waggie945:
I'm talking about someone that actually had intelligence in front of him well before 911 and had an opportunity to do something about it, via leadership.
Quote from max401:
And I'm talking about a big mouthed politician, that actually had intelligence in front of him well before 911, who claims he has leadership, named John F'ing Kerry who ignored the warnings on security lapses at Logan when he had ample time to fix them. Period.
Quote from dddooo:
BTW 9/11 was not caused by airport security breaches anyway - the terrorists did not sneak in guns or bombs aboard the planes, knives only which was absolutely legal at the time.
Quote from waggie945:
I'm talking about someone that actually had intelligence in front of him well before 911 and had an opportunity to do something about it, via leadership.
Obviously, that person's name is George Bush.
He failed, and friend's of mine in the WTC died.
Period.
Quote from cuz:
You know 20/20 is heignsight and as traders you should know that.
It is so easy to point fingers and pass the buck after the fact
The fact is .............Clinton and Richard Clarke had 8 years to do something about this
Quote from dddooo:
Yeah, you wish. Like FBI, CIA, Pentagon, Congress, Senate and a bunch of other government orgranizations were not common denominator. Everybody knows that he was the biggest hawk in the government as far as fighting terrorism is concerned and constantly recommended more aggressive military responses.
But it's really not the point, it's not about Clarke. I do not know him, I do not care about him and have no interest in his fate, his views and his motives. It's about the administration.
He is a highly qualified professional and he testified under oath, that the administration was inept before 9/11 and was wrong to go to Iraq after 9/11.
Untill he's charged with purjury and convicted, or at least until Kindasleezy Rice testifies under oath to refute his testimony, until either of these two things happen - he is the one telling the truth and she is lying through her teeth.
Quote from Error 404:
And this is relevant to the issue how? (Is there a quota on how many times Clinton's name needs to be invoked in every "defense" of Bush?).
Quote from max401:
Let's point the finger at the person who is actually responsible:
Mr. Clarke has been involved in the fight against terrorism for the past decade. As 9-11 demonstrates, that decade was a period of growing peril, and unanswered attack, against the United States.
Mr. Clarke asserts that the United States could have stopped terrorism if only the three President's he served had better listened to his advice.
When Mr. Clarke was at the height of his influence as terrorism czar in the Clinton Administration, the United States saw:
first attack on the World Trade Center;
attack on a U.S. Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia;
attack on two U.S. embassies in Africa;
attack on the USS Cole;
the planning and implementation for the 9-11 attack.
The only common denominator throughout these 10 years of unanswered attacks was:
Richard Clarke, himself,
a consideration that is clearly driving his effort to point fingers and shift blame.
After 10 years of policies that failed to decisively confront and eliminate the threat from Al Qaeda, Mr. Clarke now suggests that in its first seven months in office the Bush Administration is to blame
paraphrased from a speech by Sen. Bill Frist