Kristol: 9/11 Is Bill Clinton’s Legacy

[alienlovechild 75]

Bush has his own, like a planned, pre-2000 election attack on Iraq which he tried to use 9/11 to justify, annihilation of civil liberties, pissing off a good amount of countries across the world, inflating the national deficit to staggering numbers, taking from SS to use for the war (also in attempt to #### up SS and "privatize" it, as yet another agenda), abuse of separation of powers, abuse of signing statements to line item veto fashion (more on this) further making the executive branch far above the others in power to limit their ability of oversight, extraordinary renditions to transfer prisoners of war to countries where they can be tortured outside of the scope of the U.S. oversight, and I could go on all ###### day.

So much wrong and so little time. . .

Clinton wanted to get rid of Saddam in 1998 long before Bush was the Republican nominee.

Please list all the civil liberties you lost and tell which prison you're writing from.

Plenty of counties had a low opinion of the U.S, before Bush but he didn't help matters. Don't expect foreigners to hug you under Pres. Obama either. Doesn't matter anyway because you lost all your civil liberties so can't travel either.

SS has nothing to do with any war. It was going broke since 1982 (the last SS bill). If you're relying on social security you're a bigger fool than me. It's a Ponzi scheme.

There's still oversight with the Supreme Court. Congress controlled by Democrats. Bureaucratic footdragging, leakers, the media all add up.

Renditions are an old 80s tactic and it's the alternative to U.S. custody in Gitmo. Isn't applied much so who cares?

Let us know when you come up with your solutions. Should make for an interesting read but it's been a long day . .

[alienlovechild 75]

Jabba, you never bother addressing I wrote but I always give your material a shot. You're merely repeating yourself.

My point is - here you have the top advisor to President Bush on anti-terrorism giving scathing criticism of the Bush Administration on how they handled his advice....and he's not the only one.

Every adminstration has defectors didn't you know that? ####### Morris used to work for Clinton and now he's on Fox. Passing blame is part of game in DC.

So getting back to Bill Krytal essentially blaming Clinton for letting 9/11 happen, which implies that Clinton had the intelligence to thwart such an attack but ignored it, meanwhile, all the counter-intelligence on Al-Qaeda that Clinton had was handed over to the Bush Administration which is why Richard Clarke continued his post...so that the Bush Administration would be up to speed on what we knew at that time about OBL and Al-Qaeda.

New administrations don't follow all the old administration's recommendations. I doubt Obama will listen to Bush and he'll make his own screwups.

It's funny how the finger pointing goes because it stands to reason, if Clinton had any responsibility in ignoring intelligence which led up to 9/11 then why didn't Bush act on it? You can't have it both ways.

Clinton had 8 years to deal with Al Qadea after WTC in 1993 and Bush had about 5 months since the 2000 election mess. Even JFK blew it at the Bay of Pigs early in his career. It happens.

[Teacher Mark 53]

I was watching Headline News in August 2001 when the news ticker flashed "CIA has received warnings that terrorists may attempt to use airplanes for attacks on American interests". They had the warnings and they ignored them. I agree, to a point, that both administrations failed us.

When it happened I immediately said "It's Bin Laden". I was with my Aunt and she said "Who"? Like most of America, she had no clue who he was. It would be 3 hours before I heard his name mentioned as a possible suspect.

[IAMX 3,055]

Please list all the civil liberties you lost and tell which prison you're writing from.

Infinitely flawed. You think you need to be in jail to lose any civil liberties? Think again.

Plenty of counties had a low opinion of the U.S, before Bush but he didn't help matters. Don't expect foreigners to hug you under Pres. Obama either. Doesn't matter anyway because you lost all your civil liberties so can't travel either.

Do I sense a straw man argument? Yes, I sure do!

SS has nothing to do with any war. It was going broke since 1982 (the last SS bill). If you're relying on social security you're a bigger fool than me. It's a Ponzi scheme.

SS has to do with taking funds FROM SS and using it for the war. That's what it has to do with the war.

There's still oversight with the Supreme Court. Congress controlled by Democrats. Bureaucratic footdragging, leakers, the media all add up.

Uh, no. Especially of the AT&T case, there was NOT oversight of Congress, or the courts, or anything.

Renditions are an old 80s tactic and it's the alternative to U.S. custody in Gitmo. Isn't applied much so who cares?

Enough to give fault to an executive branch who employs it.

Let us know when you come up with your solutions. Should make for an interesting read but it's been a long day.

Sure, apply the opposite of what was being done in the last post of mine, and you have the solutions. It isn't a complicated thing. I was about to make it an interesting read until I read some of the joke of a retort you made, in which, I won't waste much of my time either.

Edited August 28, 2008 by SRVT

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Jabba, you never bother addressing I wrote but I always give your material a shot. You're merely repeating yourself.

My point is - here you have the top advisor to President Bush on anti-terrorism giving scathing criticism of the Bush Administration on how they handled his advice....and he's not the only one.

Every adminstration has defectors didn't you know that? ####### Morris used to work for Clinton and now he's on Fox. Passing blame is part of game in DC.

So getting back to Bill Krytal essentially blaming Clinton for letting 9/11 happen, which implies that Clinton had the intelligence to thwart such an attack but ignored it, meanwhile, all the counter-intelligence on Al-Qaeda that Clinton had was handed over to the Bush Administration which is why Richard Clarke continued his post...so that the Bush Administration would be up to speed on what we knew at that time about OBL and Al-Qaeda.

New administrations don't follow all the old administration's recommendations. I doubt Obama will listen to Bush and he'll make his own screwups.

It's funny how the finger pointing goes because it stands to reason, if Clinton had any responsibility in ignoring intelligence which led up to 9/11 then why didn't Bush act on it? You can't have it both ways.

Clinton had 8 years to deal with Al Qadea after WTC in 1993 and Bush had about 5 months since the 2000 election mess. Even JFK blew it at the Bay of Pigs early in his career. It happens.

Ok...let's go back to what you said...

Both Bush and Clinton claimed Al Qaeda was a priority but neither really dealt with them. Remember the U.S. had been attacked by Middle Eastern terrorists for almost 20 years but not in the U.S. until the first attack on WTC in 1993. That one wasn't big enough to get the White House's sustained attention.

So tell me, how do you deal with a potential domestic terrorist threat before it happens? I would venture to say that the very least, you ask your advisors for their input. Did Bush ask Richard Clarke what he should do? Nope. And to equate his criticism with former staff advisor ####### Morris is ridiculous. Clarke was an anti-terrorist expert and the President's top advisor...not just some political appointee hack.

....

Getting back to the OP - Bill Krystal is placing blame on Clinton for 9/11 and he isn't the only neo-con who has done so. So my counter argument is - Bush had access to the same intelligence that the Clinton Administration up to Clinton leaving office and then continued to get later developing reports on Al-Qaeda threats...

CNN reports that the "White House declassified and released Saturday the daily intelligence briefing delivered to President Bush a month before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001." [3]

"Highlights of the report include:

• An intelligence report received in May 2001 indicating that al Qaeda was trying to send operatives to the United States through Canada to carry out an attack using explosives. That information had been passed on to intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
• An allegation that al Qaeda had been considering ways to hijack American planes to win the release of operatives who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999.
• An allegation that bin Laden was set on striking the United States as early as 1997 and through early 2001.
• Intelligence suggesting that suspected al Qaeda operatives were traveling to and from the United States, were U.S. citizens, and may have had a support network in the country.
• A report that at least 70 FBI investigations were under way in 2001 regarding possible al Qaeda cells/terrorist-related operations in the United States.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...mp;qpid=2163760

..........

So if the neo-cons like Krystal can comfortably lay blame on Clinton for 9/11 where is their criticism of Bush's failure to act on the same intelligence that Clinton had? What exactly did the Bush Administration do in response to those intelligence reports? In other words, the neo-cons like Krystal will continue to re-write history to make themselves and their agenda look favorable by diverting blame to Clinton in hopes that Americans will suspend reason on this issue.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

So tell me, how do you deal with a potential domestic terrorist threat before it happens?

Edited August 29, 2008 by charles!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually we might just as well say that Afghanistan (and by extension 9/11) is actually Ronald Reagan & George Bush Sr's legacy.

[IAMX 3,055]

Actually we might just as well say that Afghanistan (and by extension 9/11) is actually Ronald Reagan & George Bush Sr's legacy.

Good ol fkwit Reagan and Bush Sr.

Screwing up the country with this neoconservative bullshit.

Edited August 29, 2008 by SRVT

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually we might just as well say that Afghanistan (and by extension 9/11) is actually Ronald Reagan & George Bush Sr's legacy.

Good ol fkwit Reagan and Bush Sr.

Screwing up the country with this neoconservative bullshit.

I don't know about Neoconservatism but the current lot could do with a bit of Necromancy to bring back to life some of the people who've died for their bullshit.

[alienlovechild 75]

Ok. I've got few minutes.

Infinitely flawed. You think you need to be in jail to lose any civil liberties? Think again.

You couldn't muster single example. Don't feel bad I've never had anybody give me an example in the last 7 years. You guys are all the same.

SS has to do with taking funds FROM SS and using it for the war. That's what it has to do with the war.

You haven't the foggiest notion about the Federal budget. Try reading from an ANTI-WAR website.

"The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes."

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Sure, apply the opposite of what was being done in the last post of mine, and you have the solutions. It isn't a complicated thing. I was about to make it an interesting read until I read some of the joke of a retort you made, in which, I won't waste much of my time either.

Naturally, you also can put toothpaste back in the tube, too. Let's see . . all the money blown on the war will be given back to the taxpayers? Good luck on that one.

Will we win the love of the world be denying Bush was ever president? Of course, all of our enemies will go back other more productive pursuits like growing opium and faithfully watching American inspired TV shows, get fat and die.

Somehow you'll figure out how to reverse the entire demographic change from young to old with SS. It's your Ponce de Leon plan or you can keep sucking more capital out of the economy to fund SS. It will help kill the economy but it's no biggie.

Try my solution. Send me money from your paychecks and I guarantee you a 1% return when you reach 70. If I can't pay it I'll force your kids or neighbors to fork it over. Sound fair?

I joke around but I've heard almost all of your "novel" thoughts years before from others like you. There are some problems that need real solutions but all the issues you raised weren't that important or were simply irrelevant. Economic competiveness, reliable sources on energy and work on alternative sources, reprioritize foreign policy objectives, privatize schools, . . . these were off the top of my head and it doesn't mean either party has done a good job but nonsense about losing civil rights no one can name is beyond belief.

[IAMX 3,055]

You couldn't muster single example. Don't feel bad I've never had anybody give me an example in the last 7 years. You guys are all the same.

Why should I? Your reply was far too simplistic and not worth the effort of the decent post I had previously made to your lackadaisical response.

SS has to do with taking funds FROM SS and using it for the war. That's what it has to do with the war.

You haven't the foggiest notion about the Federal budget. Try reading from an ANTI-WAR website.

"The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes."

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Sure, apply the opposite of what was being done in the last post of mine, and you have the solutions. It isn't a complicated thing. I was about to make it an interesting read until I read some of the joke of a retort you made, in which, I won't waste much of my time either.

Oops, look like you know ####..

http://www.allenwsmith.com/id5.html

Bush never rescinded that pledge to the American people, Smith claims, but he has consciously and systematically used the Social Security surplus as a giant slush fund to help pay for his huge tax cuts for the rich and the war in Iraq, among other things. By early 2007, the amount of money looted from the Social Security trust fund by the Bush administration had surpassed the $1 trillion mark, and Bush continued to loot, and spend, Social Security money at the rate of $500 million per day.

According to Smith, during his failed attempt to push through his Social Security privatization plan in 2005, Bush’s frustration over his inability to convince the American people that Social Security was in deep trouble led him to openly admit the role of his administration in looting Social Security. On Thursday, April 28, 2005, during a nationally televised news conference, President Bush said,

“Our system is called pay as you go. You pay into the system through your payroll taxes and the government spends it. It spends the money on current retirees and with the money left over, it funds other programs. And all that’s left behind is file cabinets full of IOUs.”

Will we win the love of the world be denying Bush was ever president? Of course, all of our enemies will go back other more productive pursuits like growing opium and faithfully watching American inspired TV shows, get fat and die.

Absolutely. I've got more praise abroad for my criticizing Bush than hailing him in countries that used to be pro-American, likewise with friends of mine touring with the Navy. This red herring is a good attempt at diverting attention from the fact that Bush has made a good portion of the world dislike America more.

Try my solution. Send me money from your paychecks and I guarantee you a 1% return when you reach 70. If I can't pay it I'll force your kids or neighbors to fork it over. Sound fair?

Nope, you're substantially less rational in your approach. I trust people with at least a bit of common sense economically.

I joke around but I've heard almost all of your "novel" thoughts years before from others like you.

Hah, you basically accused me of being an Obama voter, so apparently your "hearing" isn't that great.

There are some problems that need real solutions but all the issues you raised weren't that important or were simply irrelevant. Economic competiveness, reliable sources on energy and work on alternative sources, reprioritize foreign policy objectives, privatize schools, . . . these were off the top of my head and it doesn't mean either party has done a good job but nonsense about losing civil rights no one can name is beyond belief.

These have actually been raised in other topics, but your piss-poor attitude, and your inability to "hear" (by your own words) makes it far less appealing to me to waste time re-hashing over the same things for someone who can't be taken seriously in their arguments other than defending George Bush and make silly straw man arguments with those they disagree with. Good luck with your style of debates, because this is all you'll end up getting.

[joelunchbox 0]

First--does anyone remember the cruise missles that Pres. Clinton authorized to be fired at terrorists in the middle east?

Second--On several interviews Pres. Clinton acknowledged that his one regret of his administration was that he allowed his personal life to affect his actions as President. AKA the Lewinsky affair prevented him from firing a second volley of cruise missles at terrorists.

Third--The Bushies ignored any and all advice and information given to them by the Clinton administration. From day one, the Bush administration has behaved the same way. The leader is on "sabbatical" at the beach, and the cronies are running around paying off favors and securing more favors.

So, in a word, Yes--I blame the present administration for 9/11. And yes, I blame them for even screwing up our reaction to it! One word--IRAQ. "Nuff said.

The more I think about Bush, the more I think about US Grant. Honest person but now, probably tied with Bush as the worst president in our history. The presidency has simply been another job that he stumbled into because of his father's influence.... What a legacy.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Grant was a pretty terrible President by all accounts - but I suppose something is forgiven for him winning the Civil War as an army general*. Just goes to show that military experience doesn't make a person more suitable for high political office.

Warren G. Harding, Martin Van Buren, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and James K. Polk were pretty bad also.

*Bush doesn't even have that - given that he's just left a big mess of debt and active war zones that some other poor sod is going to have to tidy up. So he may well be the worst yet.

[alienlovechild 75]

Why should I? Your reply was far too simplistic and not worth the effort of the decent post I had previously made to your lackadaisical response.

Still can't recall which of your all important civil rights you lost because of Bush. Believe me, if Obama and Congress trash the 1st Amendment with the "Fairness Doctrine" I'll be sure and mention it.

Oops, look like you know ####..

Is the last word in your sentence alot?

Your own source undermined your argument.

New Book Faults Both Clinton and Bush for Empty Social Security Trust Fund

Forgeting to read the title is always a bad idea. I you guess forgot about old Bill's role. He also blamed Gore, too so the American people were screwed either way.

http://www.allenwsmith.com/id5.html

Bush never rescinded that pledge to the American people, Smith claims, but he has consciously and systematically used the Social Security surplus as a giant slush fund to help pay for his huge tax cuts for the rich and the war in Iraq, among other things. By early 2007, the amount of money looted from the Social Security trust fund by the Bush administration had surpassed the $1 trillion mark, and Bush continued to loot, and spend, Social Security money at the rate of $500 million per day.

According to Smith, during his failed attempt to push through his Social Security privatization plan in 2005, Bush’s frustration over his inability to convince the American people that Social Security was in deep trouble led him to openly admit the role of his administration in looting Social Security. On Thursday, April 28, 2005, during a nationally televised news conference, President Bush said,

“Our system is called pay as you go. You pay into the system through your payroll taxes and the government spends it. It spends the money on current retirees and with the money left over, it funds other programs. And all that’s left behind is file cabinets full of IOUs.”

Funny how Dr. Smith (love that name) is the ONLY economist to notice the war in Iraq is ENTIRELY funded and the extra cash goes to Halliburton I suppose. Somebody call Obama about this. How could $1 trillion bucks be looted when the war costs around $100 billion a year for over 5 years? It's nice to know the SS money I wasn't going to get anyway went to fund the Iraq War AND I didn't have to pay a cent from my income taxes- the joy. You made my day, SRVT.

Absolutely. I've got more praise abroad for my criticizing Bush than hailing him in countries that used to be pro-American, likewise with friends of mine touring with the Navy.

Licking foreign boots is always popular abroad. Tell 'em what they want to hear- takes a lot of courage to do that. I, by contrast, tell them about how the U.S. political system works in an historical context. They may not like it but they are interested and claim they haven't some points before. You may be right, it's a lot easier to say "Bush sucks" than try to explain anything. If your friends are "touring" with the Navy, I'm worried. Sounds like they are on cruise singing "In the Navy" with the Village People.

Try my solution. Send me money from your paychecks and I guarantee you a 1% return when you reach 70. If I can't pay it I'll force your kids or neighbors to fork it over. Sound fair?

Nope, you're substantially less rational in your approach. I trust people with at least a bit of common sense economically.

You trust Uncle Sam with a SS trust fund that is nonexistent instead of me? I hope you least have a 401K, an IRA, at least 5 kids to support you in your old age or grow pot for some extra cash.

I joke around but I've heard almost all of your "novel" thoughts years before from others like you.

Hah, you basically accused me of being an Obama voter, so apparently your "hearing" isn't that great.

My hearing is as faulty as your sight. Where do you see the word "Obama" in my quote or my entire previous post? Oh, I was worng about you not being novel in some way. I've never heard anyone claim Bush looted the SS fund went to pay for the Iraq War. I was speechless when I read that gem.

QUOTE

There are some problems that need real solutions but all the issues you raised weren't that important or were simply irrelevant. Economic competiveness, reliable sources on energy and work on alternative sources, reprioritize foreign policy objectives, privatize schools, . . . these were off the top of my head and it doesn't mean either party has done a good job but nonsense about losing civil rights no one can name is beyond belief.

These have actually been raised in other topics, but your piss-poor attitude, and your inability to "hear" (by your own words) makes it far less appealing to me to waste time re-hashing over the same things for someone who can't be taken seriously in their arguments other than defending George Bush and make silly straw man arguments with those they disagree with. Good luck with your style of debates, because this is all you'll end up getting.

Edited August 29, 2008 by alienlovechild

[IAMX 3,055]

Funny how Dr. Smith (love that name) is the ONLY economist to notice the war in Iraq is ENTIRELY funded and the extra cash goes to Halliburton I suppose. Somebody call Obama about this. How could $1 trillion bucks be looted when the war costs around $100 billion a year for over 5 years? It's nice to know the SS money I wasn't going to get anyway went to fund the Iraq War AND I didn't have to pay a cent from my income taxes- the joy. You made my day, SRVT.

SelectiveReadingRUs

Bush never rescinded that pledge to the American people, Smith claims, but he has consciously and systematically used the Social Security surplus as a giant slush fund to help pay for his huge tax cuts for the rich and the war in Iraq, among other things.

Licking foreign boots is always popular abroad. Tell 'em what they want to hear- takes a lot of courage to do that. I, by contrast, tell them about how the U.S. political system works in an historical context. They may not like it but they are interested and claim they haven't some points before. You may be right, it's a lot easier to say "Bush sucks" than try to explain anything. If your friends are "touring" with the Navy, I'm worried. Sounds like they are on cruise singing "In the Navy" with the Village People.

Your criticism is of the U.S. Navy in how they send their people abroad, then. You should take it up with them, as friends of mine pretty much had a cakewalk. If you had actually come overseas with me, you'd see I had no reservations about criticizing Greece for their lazy mentality toward work and overly bureaucratic/corrupt government. Guess to you, that's licking boots. Another conservative looks retarded in their judgments of others.

Anyways, your inability to handle criticism of your country is quite astounding, yet certainly not surprising. I've seen plenty of Captain America's pop up since 9/11. Suddenly a dime a dozen.

You trust Uncle Sam with a SS trust fund that is nonexistent instead of me? I hope you least have a 401K, an IRA, at least 5 kids to support you in your old age or grow pot for some extra cash.

There won't be any problems in those regards, as I have my own ways of making secondary income to put back into savings for retirement, myself. I don't trust Uncle Sam anymore than I would trust you. However, Uncle Sam has actually done more for me and my family than you, so, Uncle Sam wins.

My hearing is as faulty as your sight. Where do you see the word "Obama" in my quote or my entire previous post? Oh, I was worng about you not being novel in some way. I've never heard anyone claim Bush looted the SS fund went to pay for the Iraq War. I was speechless when I read that gem.

Hypocrisy 101. You didn't even read the article, otherwise you'd have spotted the quote above. Good job!