[New Info]CIA repeatedly warned Bush about Sept 11; Neocons put OBL on ignore list

Yeah? What did you win?

 

Leave it to the liberals and the New York Times to piss on 9/11 with a throw-away opinion piece on 9/11 itself. They just dropped their shorts and took a smelly squat on all the victims of 9/11.

Disgusting.

Typical liberals.

 

RIP 4,000 9/11 victims, 48,644 Afghanis, 1,690,903 Iraqis (minus the terrorists of course) and associated military casualties.

 

SamFisher,

Can you back this up with somebody more substantial than an op/ed piece from the liberal NYT?

Otherwise you're just smearing schit all over the victims of 9/11.

Krugman pulled the very same BS last year in the NYT, and of course didn't allow comments. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-years-of-shame/

 

indeed.

 

sam, there's a reason why this article is on the opinion pages, as opposed to the (nominally) news page. can you guess why that might be?

 

Hindsight is that had we known about what would happen that day we would have done all we could to stop it. Bin Laden goes back before Bush's tenure to previous presidents. How about them as well? This is just an opinion piece but regardless the article even says that they didn't know exactly when and how.

 

I can think of a number of things otherwise viewed as "fact" that nonetheless are consistently painted as open for debate on the political stage.

Not saying that's the case here, but not sure placement of the article matters entirely. If the article cites sources and specific details and pieces of evidence, as it does to an extent, that it is at least attempting to reference fact.

Are the facts laid out accurate? If so, it is another piece of incredibly damning evidence.

 

if the facts aren't accurate, they are not, in fact, facts, but rather lies.

 

Have you read the 9-11 Commission report? Clinton had four chances to get bin Laden and chose not to do so. Four.

How insane is it that Bill Clinton is suddenly the savior of the Democratic party and a media darling? The guy left Bush with a recession in early 2001, he was impeached for lying under oath, he totally disregarded the terrorism threat, and he got rid of Glass-Steagall and then passed the Community Reinvestment Act (two huge drivers for the subprime lending crisis). Al Gore in 2000 wouldn't let the guy campaign for him. It shows you just how sad and pathetic Obama's campaign is -- taking Al Gore's rejects. Anything to avoid talking about Obama's own record I suppose. But I digress.

 

Links or shut up

 

Just can't help yourself can you? You are a pathetic troll. Why you were allowed back on this site is beyond comprehension.

 

Yeah, they screwed up, but it's done now and all those guys are out now anyway. This stuff was relevant when Bush was ginning up a war on Iraq and when Bush was campaigning for re-election. And, it's interesting as history. But, politically, it's now over.

 

True, and that is the question, not the placement of the article in the paper.

 

at that time tho, Bin Laden was still handing over information to the United States. If we would accepted the deal, we wouldn't have known so much about terrorist groups stepping into the Irag/Afghan War. That information was vital to a lot of operations.

 

You are a sad human being.

Why can't you acknowledge that Bush screwed up? Instead you have to try to blame his predecessor. Bush had 6 opportunities and the CIA told him to pay attention to it, and he ignored it because he wanted to focus on Saddam.

The people who control the Republican party are destroying this country. And you are either ok with that and part of it, or you are just a robot and pawn.

Either way, I really don't know why you even come here.