Pages: 1

 

2006-12-20 21:40:15
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6953|Global Command
One has to wonder what documents he was trying to conceal from the 9-11 panel and why.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061221/D8M4TNQ80.html

What would people say about Bill Clinton if they knew he was as much responcible for 9-11 as any American political figure.

Thats what the documents would have shown. Why else steal and destroy them?
2006-12-20 21:52:38
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6829|North Carolina
Fishy as hell....  Hopefully, we'll get to find out what this is all about....
2006-12-20 23:27:51
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7196|PNW

ATG wrote:

...as much responcible for 9-11 as any American political figure.
Does that include President Garfield?
2006-12-21 07:02:16
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7025|132 and Bush

He got fined for hiding the documents and given 100 hours of community service. He also is not allowed access to classified documents for 3 years. Is it just me or does anyone else think this guy should never be trusted with sensitive information?

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Clinton's national security adviser removed classified documents from the National Archives, hid them under a construction trailer and later tried to find the trash collector to retrieve them, the agency's internal watchdog said Wednesday.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-12-21 07:20:06
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6953|Global Command

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

ATG wrote:

...as much responcible for 9-11 as any American political figure.
Does that include President Garfield?
Didn't figure it would require clarification about which century I was talking about.
2006-12-21 20:43:44
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6972|San Diego, CA, USA
Bill Clinton is no more responsible for 9-11 than Bush is.  I think Sandy should be punished to the extent of the law.
2006-12-21 21:07:56
QuadDamage@U
Member
+6|6766|Florida, USA

Harmor wrote:

Bill Clinton is no more responsible for 9-11 than Bush is.  I think Sandy should be punished to the extent of the law.
Good point.  Presidents are politicians.  They are supposed to be spending most of their time dealing with laws, budgets, and relations with other countries.  They are not supposed to be intercepting terrorist communications, wiretapping phone lines, and guiding smart bombs.  Those things are the responsibility of the CIA and US military.  If an enemy attack is successful from time to time (which is probably not completely avoidable), I don't see why people feel that the current president is somehow responsible.

Hindsight is 20/20.  If Clinton had known that 9/11 was coming I'm sure he would have made more of an effort to take out Bin Ladin.  If Bush had known the 9/11 was coming I'm sure he wouldn't have spent the first 9 months of his presidency *effectively* on vacation.  I wouldn't really hold either of them responsible for the tragedy any more than I would blame a rape victim for being raped.
2006-12-21 21:14:40
dubbs
Member
+105|7056|Lexington, KY

QuadDamage@U wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Bill Clinton is no more responsible for 9-11 than Bush is.  I think Sandy should be punished to the extent of the law.
Good point.  Presidents are politicians.  They are supposed to be spending most of their time dealing with laws, budgets, and relations with other countries.  They are not supposed to be intercepting terrorist communications, wiretapping phone lines, and guiding smart bombs.  Those things are the responsibility of the CIA and US military.  If an enemy attack is successful from time to time (which is probably not completely avoidable), I don't see why people feel that the current president is somehow responsible.

Hindsight is 20/20.  If Clinton had known that 9/11 was coming I'm sure he would have made more of an effort to take out Bin Ladin.  If Bush had known the 9/11 was coming I'm sure he wouldn't have spent the first 9 months of his presidency *effectively* on vacation.  I wouldn't really hold either of them responsible for the tragedy any more than I would blame a rape victim for being raped.
Liberals say that Clinton did know about 9/11, and that they told Bush about it.  They fail to mention that Clinton did not do anything effective on his shift, and the US got attacked 3 times on his shift.

Edit:  I personally think that Clinton was more worried about his image, rather then the safty of the US.

Last edited by dubbs (2006-12-21 21:16:37)

2006-12-21 21:16:31
G3|Genius
Pope of BF2s
+355|7050|Sea to globally-cooled sea
please.

clinton was an appeaser.  lick the finger and stick it in the air.  do what the people want.

the WTC was attacked under his watch too (1995)

an embassy was bombed.

a US warship was blown up.

he had his chance.  it is that motherfucker's fault that al queda attacked us on 911 if for no other reason than we had been attacked multiple times in under a decade and there was absolutely no consequence.

that's besides the common knowledge that he built an intelligence wall between the FBI and the CIA.

history will show him to be among--if not THE ABSOLUTE-- worst president in our history.
2006-12-21 21:36:50
jonsimon
Member
+224|6919

G3|Genius wrote:

please.

clinton was an appeaser.  lick the finger and stick it in the air.  do what the people want.

the WTC was attacked under his watch too (1995)

an embassy was bombed.

a US warship was blown up.

he had his chance.  it is that motherfucker's fault that al queda attacked us on 911 if for no other reason than we had been attacked multiple times in under a decade and there was absolutely no consequence.

that's besides the common knowledge that he built an intelligence wall between the FBI and the CIA.

history will show him to be among--if not THE ABSOLUTE-- worst president in our history.
You're stupid. End of story. History will find him to be a decent president, because thats what he was, decent.

And by your logic that "He is responsible because he did nothing to stop it", you are equally to blame, as is Bush. In fact, by that logic, Bush is as much to blame as the people that actually committed the crime.
2006-12-21 21:47:06
QuadDamage@U
Member
+6|6766|Florida, USA

G3|Genius wrote:

please.

clinton was an appeaser.  lick the finger and stick it in the air.  do what the people want.
As opposed to our current president that doesn't do what *the people of this country* want?

G3|Genius wrote:

the WTC was attacked under his watch too (1995)

an embassy was bombed.

a US warship was blown up.

he had his chance.  it is that motherfucker's fault that al queda attacked us on 911 if for no other reason than we had been attacked multiple times in under a decade and there was absolutely no consequence.

that's besides the common knowledge that he built an intelligence wall between the FBI and the CIA.

history will show him to be among--if not THE ABSOLUTE-- worst president in our history.
The first WTC attack happened in 1993 (not 1995) about 1 month after Clinton took office.  What national or world wide changes to security do you think could have been made by ANY president during that time to prevent such an attack?

The 1998 embassy bombing took place in another country.  Any foreign embassy is vulnerable for this reason.  What can reasonably be done by ANY president to prevent such attacks? 

The 2000 USS Cole bombing also took place in another country.  What can reasonably be done by ANY president to prevent such attacks?  Perhaps a Navy war ship could have been sent in to secure the area...uhhh....?

My point is this: do you really believe that these attacks had anything to do with Clinton being in office?  If so, do you believe that 911 is a result of Bush being in office?

EDIT: typos!

Last edited by QuadDamage@U (2006-12-21 21:49:04)

2006-12-21 22:07:06
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6829|North Carolina

G3|Genius wrote:

please.

clinton was an appeaser.  lick the finger and stick it in the air.  do what the people want.

the WTC was attacked under his watch too (1995)

an embassy was bombed.

a US warship was blown up.

he had his chance.  it is that motherfucker's fault that al queda attacked us on 911 if for no other reason than we had been attacked multiple times in under a decade and there was absolutely no consequence.

that's besides the common knowledge that he built an intelligence wall between the FBI and the CIA.

history will show him to be among--if not THE ABSOLUTE-- worst president in our history.
Hmmm... Well, if you think Clinton was bad, what about Dubya?  Heck, what about Carter, LBJ, Ford, Hoover, Coolidge, Taft, Andrew Johnson, Grant, etc.?....

There were plenty of presidents worse than Clinton by a longshot.  I personally liked Clinton a lot because he represented the closest thing we've had to a Libertarian in office.  That certainly beats the warmongering populist we have as president now.

Nonetheless, if Burgler (how ironic of a name) is truly hiding something that Clinton did, I'm open to re-evaluating my opinion of him when sufficient proof is provided.

But yes, Burgler is undoubtedly as seedy as they come....

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard