• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

While you are waiting Flounder

Tam

Well-known member
While you are waiting to get Romney's last 40 years of tax returns Flounder why don't you explain to us why Obama can't or WON'T admit the Fort Hood Shooting was a TERRORIST ATTACK on US soil and not WORK PLACE VIOLENCE like He and Janet Napolitano claimed? We all know it was a home grown MUSLIM ISLAM EXTEMIST that pulled the guns and yelled ISLAM CLAIMS before opening fire and killing 13 US CITIZENS AND WOUNDING FAR MORE. But yet he is still claiming it was not a terrorist attack WHY?

Then explain why he can't or WON'T admit the Christmas day bomber was a TERRORIST ATTACK over US SOIL? The bombers own father warned the Administration of the danger from his son. But nothing was done by the Obama Government to protect US citizens from his son. No when the father's warnings were no acted on and the attack came Napolitano claimed he was a lone wolf and there was no link to extremists. BULL

Father alerted US about Nigerian plane bomb suspect

The father of a Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a transatlantic jet on Christmas Day had voiced concerns to US officials about his son.

The father, a top Nigerian banker, warned US authorities last month about 23-year-old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's extreme views, say officials.

US sources confirm a file was opened, but say the information did not warrant placing the accused on a "no-fly" list.



Third why he will not admit the killing of a US Ambassador in Libya was another TERRORIST ATTACK on US soil? The Libyan President came out days ago and said it was a PLANNED TERRORIST ATTACK to coincide with 911 over the Obama Drone Attack that took out a Libyan AL QUEADA Member. His own friggin administration spokesman have FINALLY admitted it was not due to spontaneous protests over a stupid video that Obama and Hillary keep apologizing for. But yet Obama goes on TV in Pakistan and blames the US for the Muslim attacks on US EMBASSIES. ANd what did he get from Pakistan by selling out US Freedom of Speech, Gee the President of Pakistan gave his citizens the day off to RIOT IN THE STREETS and attack the US EMBASSY yet AGAIN.

Could the reason he will not admit they are TERRORIST ATTACKS be because GW Bush kept the US from further attacks after 911 and Obama has had THREE KNOWN ATTACKS ON US SOIL IN THREE YEARS and the last one cost the US the life of a US Ambassador. Which is the first Ambassador to DIE in over 3 decades at the hands of the ENEMY. BTW WHERE WAS THE AMBASSADOR'S SECURITY IN A KNOWN TERRORIST HOT BED ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF 911?

I thought Obama promised the Muslims would put down their guns and stop killing US citizens now that he was the President. I guess that is just ANOTHER PROMISE OBAMA HAS BROKE TO THE AMERICAN CITIZENS ISN'T IT?

How many flags do you think have been burned in the last week in the twenty some countries that are now rioting over OBAMA FOREIGN POLICIES OF DRONE ATTACKING ANYTHING THAT MIGHT HAVE INTELL TO HELP STOP ATTACKS LIKE THE ONE IN LIBYA?

How many times will Obama be burned in effigy before he realizes MUSLIMS HATE HIM and all his apologizing is not going to change that fact. His promise to change Washington worked about as well as his promise to change the US reputation in Foreign countries when Muslims are killing people left right and center every day of the week.

YOUR HERO IS A FAILURE IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DOMESTIC AFFAIRS AND SEEING ROMNEY'S TAX RECORDS ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THAT FACT.
 

flounder

Well-known member
tammyfaye, you failed to mention your rebublican leader that started it all, by failing to act. ... :roll:



Op-Ed Contributor

The Deafness Before the Storm

By KURT EICHENWALD

Published: September 10, 2012



IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history




¶ On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

¶ That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

¶ The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

¶ But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

¶ In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

¶ “The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

¶ And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

¶ Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.

¶ That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.

¶ On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.

¶ In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.

¶ Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html#h[]
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
flounder said:
tammyfaye, you failed to mention your rebublican leader that started it all, by failing to act. ... :roll:

You mean Bill Clinton?? They guy that intel handed Osama's head several times yet he failed to act????
 

Tam

Well-known member
tammyfaye, HOW OLDTIMER OF YOU FLOUNDER :roll:

Let's look a bit further back to who didn't stop the attacks on US soil shall we FLOUNDER

http://clintoncrimes.tripod.com/ClintonsBinLadenGateMotherofallScandals/id4.html

Clinton had numerous chances to stop 911 but did't!!!!!

And then you have the leftards story about Bush lieing about Iraq and WMD. Let's see who started that story line shall we FLOUNDER

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Yep Bush was the one that lied about Saddam's WMD wasn't it FLOUNDER :roll:

Your credibility is about as good as your mentor Oldtimer's. Blame Bush and distract the real issues with Romney's tax returns while the Middle East burns your hero in effigy. BTW Flounder where was the Ambassador's security and why can't Obama admit these were ALL TERRORIST ATTACKS now that the rest of his Administration has finally admitted the Libyan President was right and it was a PLANNED TERRORIST ATTACK not a spontanious response to a stupid video?
 

gmacbeef

Well-known member
WOW Flounder that kinda bit you right in the old ass didn't it............ Bill C. & the looney left bear most of the responsibility for nearly all this mess , & 3000 people killed on 9/11. :cry:
 
Top