Never said that Luke.Other then their deficits Reagan and Bush 1 were good Presidents imo
The Bush White House deaf to 9-11 warnings
- Thread starter AK Forty Seven
- Start date
Never said that Luke.Other then their deficits Reagan and Bush 1 were good Presidents imo
9/11 was a direct result of Clinton's failed foreign policy. Perhaps Clinton had other things to do in the Oval Office that was more important.
Bill Clinton architect of the foreign policy that led to 9/11.
Bill Clinton architect of the Dot Com bust.
Bill Clinton disbarred.
Bill Clinton impeached.
Bill Clinton accused rapist.
You can give trash money and power but at the end of the day they are still trash. Just ask Obama.
The New York Times panders to the idiot class on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. How pathetic.
This wasn't about Clinton or Bush, it was about the President of the United States and oath he takes when sworn in.
Clinton blew it (reverse pun intended) a few times by not swatting bin Laden when he had the chance.
1) WTC had it's first takedown attempt under his watch.
2) Also USS Cole was hit.
However - 1 was a perfectly clear warning that they were trying to do something big inside the US
2 - was a perfectly clear warning that they were persistent in attacking US interests.
Given 1 and 2, you don't take your eye off the ball - not if you are President of the US. There were plenty of reports that George Tenet was running around DC that summer "like his hair was on fire" trying to get people to listen. CIA had a specific sit-down with Condi Rice on the topic. Richard Clarke was a hold-over from the Clinton admin (like Tenet) sounding warnings too.
So there was enough warning for both Clinton OR Bush to have done something pre-9/11.
Clinton blew it (reverse pun intended) a few times by not swatting bin Laden when he had the chance.
1) WTC had it's first takedown attempt under his watch.
2) Also USS Cole was hit.
However - 1 was a perfectly clear warning that they were trying to do something big inside the US
2 - was a perfectly clear warning that they were persistent in attacking US interests.
Given 1 and 2, you don't take your eye off the ball - not if you are President of the US. There were plenty of reports that George Tenet was running around DC that summer "like his hair was on fire" trying to get people to listen. CIA had a specific sit-down with Condi Rice on the topic. Richard Clarke was a hold-over from the Clinton admin (like Tenet) sounding warnings too.
So there was enough warning for both Clinton OR Bush to have done something pre-9/11.
So 8 months is long enough to undo decades of foreign policy mistakes and decipher mountains of Intel, but 4 years isn't enough to implement some kind of jobs program, bring even one person to justice for the financial crisis, and end a war that you'd be hard pressed to find any support for? Got it!
9-11 wasn't decades of foreign policy mistakes.It was 1 terrorist attack that Bush had gotten numerous warnings about months before it happened
Those are Clinton's ,9-11 is all Bush
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JRY_BOYeySc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ntkoqiNJunE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ntkoqiNJunE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Bush truly wasn't concerned about those 9-11 warnings either