NPR Says Clinton caused Terrorism
08-24-2005, 10:09 AM
#1
iClub Silver Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
NPR Says Clinton caused Terrorism
Well, kinda.
I was listening to NPR mere moments ago as Trent Lott was being interviewed.
Anyway, the conversation turns to Clinton's impeachment and just how Mr Lott voted.
The **** actually asked the following. I've paraphrased it as I did not write it down.: "Since the Congress was engrossed in the impeachment hearings, which were going on when Clinton was desperately trying to catch Bin Laden, can't the arguement be made that the Congress is responsible for 9/11 and afterwards?"
I wish I could've seen the look on Mr Lott's face.
I was listening to NPR mere moments ago as Trent Lott was being interviewed.
Anyway, the conversation turns to Clinton's impeachment and just how Mr Lott voted.
The **** actually asked the following. I've paraphrased it as I did not write it down.: "Since the Congress was engrossed in the impeachment hearings, which were going on when Clinton was desperately trying to catch Bin Laden, can't the arguement be made that the Congress is responsible for 9/11 and afterwards?"
I wish I could've seen the look on Mr Lott's face.
08-24-2005, 11:07 AM
#2
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Yet the same people think it's entirely Bush's fault for the war in Iraq even though it was passed through congress (congress includes the Senate in this context for those that didn’t know). Classic Clinton never made a mistake but Bush makes nothing but mistakes and is the center of all evil mentality. It's really getting old.
Listen up everyone! Clinton had a full eight year term in office and we were attacked by al Qadea as early as 1993 at the WTC. That's 7 years of not being able to put Bin Laden's head on a platter or being able to disrupt the 9/11 agenda in it's infancy. Bush was the governor of Texas and doing a pretty good job there - hence one of the reasons he was elected in 2000. He was doing pretty well in his first year, too. Employment was good, the DOW was at record levels and he helped out military families tremendously, etc.
Then one day he's reading a book to children in a classroom and the liberals haven't been able to stop blaming him since. They even attack his reaction in the classroom to this day. He went from an average President to a war President faced with one of the most turbulent economical crisis as a result of the attacks Clinton could have prevented. All this happened overnight! Granted he was in office for a year prior to the attacks and is responsible for how OIF and OEF was/is conducted (most people question OIF including myself). But to think Clinton isn't to blame for pre-9/11 activity when Bush is to blame or everything since 9/11 is asinine. He ****ed up. Pure and simple.
Listen up everyone! Clinton had a full eight year term in office and we were attacked by al Qadea as early as 1993 at the WTC. That's 7 years of not being able to put Bin Laden's head on a platter or being able to disrupt the 9/11 agenda in it's infancy. Bush was the governor of Texas and doing a pretty good job there - hence one of the reasons he was elected in 2000. He was doing pretty well in his first year, too. Employment was good, the DOW was at record levels and he helped out military families tremendously, etc.
Then one day he's reading a book to children in a classroom and the liberals haven't been able to stop blaming him since. They even attack his reaction in the classroom to this day. He went from an average President to a war President faced with one of the most turbulent economical crisis as a result of the attacks Clinton could have prevented. All this happened overnight! Granted he was in office for a year prior to the attacks and is responsible for how OIF and OEF was/is conducted (most people question OIF including myself). But to think Clinton isn't to blame for pre-9/11 activity when Bush is to blame or everything since 9/11 is asinine. He ****ed up. Pure and simple.
Last edited by Salty; 08-24-2005 at 11:09 AM.
08-24-2005, 11:13 AM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: I gotta have more cow bell!!!!
Posts: 9,198
Car Info: 05 STi
Remember Salty, Bush asked the terrorists to attack us. I agree, it's outrageous. Everyone has to have a scapegoat though and as you and I both know leaders always bear the worst of it.
08-24-2005, 11:42 AM
#5
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mountains
Posts: 4,650
Car Info: 2007 Nissan Frontier
The truth is that Clinton could have done something, and Bush could have done something. Pointing fingers is not worth anything as it was both administrations that are at fault, as well as congress, the FBI, ect.
Besides, what does it matter now? Clinton is out of the presidency, making plenty of money speaking and with his book. Dubya's got another three years, and is untouchable, and is getting enough grief with the Iraq war. Pointing fingers now is worthless.
-Jeff
Besides, what does it matter now? Clinton is out of the presidency, making plenty of money speaking and with his book. Dubya's got another three years, and is untouchable, and is getting enough grief with the Iraq war. Pointing fingers now is worthless.
-Jeff
08-24-2005, 11:46 AM
#6
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by Imprezastifan88
The truth is that Clinton could have done something, and Bush could have done something. -Jeff
08-24-2005, 12:41 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Blue-faced in a red state
Posts: 2,256
Car Info: 04 Silver WRX Wagon
If there was an administration that was / is at fault, it goes all the way back to Reagan. After all, his fight against the Commies, and the subsequent funding of Al-Queda, led us into this sh!tstorm.
08-25-2005, 05:27 AM
#8
Originally Posted by 1reguL8NSTi
Remember Salty, Bush asked the terrorists to attack us. I agree, it's outrageous. Everyone has to have a scapegoat though and as you and I both know leaders always bear the worst of it.
08-25-2005, 01:39 PM
#10
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Couve in Washington State
Posts: 559
Car Info: 02 BRP 2.5RS-T
Originally Posted by dub2w
If there was an administration that was / is at fault, it goes all the way back to Reagan. After all, his fight against the Commies, and the subsequent funding of Al-Queda, led us into this sh!tstorm.
Al Queda did not exist until 1988. Prior it was called Maktab al-Khadamat. Bin Laden even refers to Al-Queda (The Base) formerly as the International Front for Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders.
as for Reagan funding him....B.S.
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archiv...24-318760.html
In summary:
• U.S. covert aid went to the Afghans, not to the "Afghan Arabs."
• The "Afghan Arabs" were funded by Arab sources, not by the United States.
• United States never had "any relationship whatsoever" with Osama bin Laden.
• The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Arab backing for the "Afghan Arabs," and bin Laden's own decisions "created" Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, not the United States.
08-25-2005, 05:24 PM
#12
VIP Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Least Coast :(
Posts: 8,159
Car Info: 08 sti
truth of the matter is decades of mis steps, thousands of years of strife and conflict, and the tact of a retarded drunken bull in a china shop collided on one continent at one time.
and now we get to sort thru it all
and now we get to sort thru it all
08-25-2005, 05:52 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Blue-faced in a red state
Posts: 2,256
Car Info: 04 Silver WRX Wagon
Originally Posted by svxr8dr
Al Queda did not exist until 1988. Prior it was called Maktab al-Khadamat.
Originally Posted by svxr8dr
as for Reagan funding him....B.S.
• U.S. covert aid went to the Afghans, not to the "Afghan Arabs."
• The "Afghan Arabs" were funded by Arab sources, not by the United States.
...
• The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Arab backing for the "Afghan Arabs," and bin Laden's own decisions "created" Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, not the United States.
• U.S. covert aid went to the Afghans, not to the "Afghan Arabs."
• The "Afghan Arabs" were funded by Arab sources, not by the United States.
...
• The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Arab backing for the "Afghan Arabs," and bin Laden's own decisions "created" Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, not the United States.
Originally Posted by svxr8dr
• United States never had "any relationship whatsoever" with Osama bin Laden.
Notice this picture?
Could money have trickled down to Saddam's fellow terrorist brothers? I mean, after all, Saddam did attack us on 9/11, right??
08-25-2005, 05:58 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Blue-faced in a red state
Posts: 2,256
Car Info: 04 Silver WRX Wagon
Originally Posted by dr3d1zzl3
truth of the matter is decades of mis-steps, thousands of years of strife and conflict, and the tact of a retarded drunken bull in a china shop collided on one continent at one time.
08-26-2005, 10:00 AM
#15
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Couve in Washington State
Posts: 559
Car Info: 02 BRP 2.5RS-T
Originally Posted by dub2w
Fill me in on how many non-Arab Afgahns fought against the Soviets.
Originally Posted by dub2w
Really? Doesnt our current administration maintain that Osama and Saddam are inextricably linked? I was told that Saddam's money helped fund Bin Laden.
As for the funding, I heard Saddam had given $300,000 in cash to Ayman Al Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's number two man, in the spring of 1998. Not sure if that was ever confirmed or denied.
Originally Posted by dub2w
Notice this picture?
Originally Posted by dub2w
Could money have trickled down to Saddam's fellow terrorist brothers? I mean, after all, Saddam did attack us on 9/11, right??