The worst attack in American History.\n\nOver 3,000 dead civillians.\n\nIntelligence reports were given to both Bush and Clinton warning against this attack.\n\nYet Bush did not want an independent investigation to take place.\n\nWhy?
210580
The reason Bush would be against the 9/11 commission is because he feared America’s and the terrorists’ knowledge of what the report revealed.  There were huge gaps in our intelligence agencies, he ignored warnings which might have prevented the attack, and our country is virtually as vulnerable as we were the days before the attack.\n\nA few of good question would be, why haven’t our schools, hospitals and infrastructure been secured from terrorist attacks and if the response to Katrina was the best America has to offer, what would happen in the event of another well thought out bigger attack on America using dirty bombs? Why hasn’t the Bush administration enacted many if any of the report's recommendations?
274488
I would assume we would go after whomever attacked us!\nIt's funny...\nEveryone backed Bush after the attacks.  Now that it's been a long while, everyone wants to point fingers.\nDid we all forget the thousands of people who were crushed, burned, and leapt to their deaths?\nI personally have not...
545633
What's the total number of dead from Clinton's lies about Monica? \n-Got too much in my personal life to dwel on someone else's past\n\ncompared to the number of dead from Bush's lies about Iraq?\n-That is the most devastating lie of the century. To go to war, kill over 650,000 for nothing \n\nHow did Clinton's personal life affect yours? \n-Not my husband, didn't even tickle my vote\n\nAnd how do you compare that against Georgie's decisions (based on lies) to go to war. \n- Bush's affect me even to this day, when I go fill my car\n\nWho thinks the Monica affair is worse than or the same as War?\n-The affair was a petty incident caused by a religious radical not minding his business. It did not kill anyone
599189
Not afraid...disgusted\n\nWe don't know everything the government knows about those attacks, the people who made or agree w/ that clip(and teh others) need to back-off the government until they run for office and know all the details!!!!!!!!!!
615740
What is worse: 3000 dead from 911 or 120,000 in Iraq.? \nDo you think the invasion of Iraq is justified?\n-------------------------------------------------------\n\nNo body to die for a lie. The correct number of people who died in Twin Towers was 1820 of whom 2/3 were not native American and none Jewish ( all Jew were off sick ).\n\nThe correct number of people died in Iraq is 186.000 till yesterday ( this is the government's official number, the true number is very likely to be double ). & 2.823 American soldiers.
519140
I have screamed since 9/11 that we needed to look at those who gained from the attacks, just prior to the attack, the middle east was in chaos, Israel was in trouble with the UN and US public opinion was calling for sanctions in their attacking unarmed Palastinains, Bush was pushing for increased sanctions against Iraq, meanwhile bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the trade centers and security was cut back drastically. Much of the buildings colaspe does not make scientific sense if it was caused by the fire and inpact from the jets, steel does not melt at the temp that the fire heated to, buildings do not free fall when colasping only imploding caasues this. No engine or balck box was found in the pentegon! Too many unanswered questions and no real governement attempt to answer them
623985
They try to defend the evil fascist bush by pointing a finger at Clinton. When clinton lied nobody got killed. Bush lied to get us into this war.
61586
This latest issue with Bush approving the turning over of control of our major ports to an Arab country is more proof that this president is clueless on how to keep America strong and safe.  While I very much approved of his appointments to the Supreme Court, over all I can think of no other president that has single handedly done more to destroy this country.  You want me to list a few topics? The economy, 8 trillion dept & counting, the enviornment & global warming, human rights-torture, our border crisis, the non-response to the Katrina disaster due to appointing one of his cronies as Fema director, creating a war that looks to have no end  while abandoning the legitamate one in Afghanistan, sending our troops, the best & bravest in the world, into battle without enough numbers or equipment and no clear objective... I could go on and on... anybody else?
475760
OK - so when the US embassies were attacked in Afghanistan & Sudan, what type of leadership did Clinton provide?\n\nThis is an excerpt from a 1998 CNN article:\n\n"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saying "there will be no sanctuary for terrorists," President Clinton on Thursday said the U.S. strikes against terrorist bases in Afghanistan and a facility in Sudan are part of "a long, ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism." \nHis comments were broadcast live from the White House shortly after he arrived in Washington from his vacation in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. \nAmerican cruise missiles pounded sites in Afghanistan and Sudan Thursday in retaliation for the August 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. \nU.S. officials say the six sites attacked in Afghanistan were part of a network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border that housed supporters of Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden. \nAmerican officials say they have "convincing evidence" that bin Laden, who has been given shelter by Afghanistan's Islamic rulers, was involved in the bombings of the east African embassies. \nIn the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, the El Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries factory -- which U.S. officials say was housing chemical weapons -- was also attacked. \nPentagon sources confirmed to CNN that the attacks were made with cruise missiles, not aircraft. The missiles were fired from ships in the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea. The simultaneous attacks took place about 1:30 p.m. EDT (1730 GMT). \nIn a brief comment made before his departure, the president said, "Today, we have struck back." \nThe president said he ordered the strike against bin Laden and his compatriots because of "compelling information they were planning additional terrorist attacks against our citizens and others with the inevitable collateral casualties and .. seeking to acquire chemical weapons and other dangerous weapons." \nSudanese television showed piles of rubble at the factory and fire raging in the distance. People were seen walking through the damage, wearing masks." \n\nThere's some real leadership for you.  If Clinton had gone in after the terrorists after the attacks on those embassies, there might not have been a 9-11.  Oh, and he knew about the chemical weapons too. Amazing how you Dems forgot all about that. \nSo stop blaming Bush for everything.
577178
im a huge fan of the threat alert system!\n\nHA! i remember something happened...not sure what...whatever it was it was emberassing for the bush crew...almost immediately they raised the threat level in hopes that it would take the emperassment out of what happened. that was the last time i ever heard of the alert system...or from it.\n\nthey screamed wolf, no one listened. priceless!
388657
Because they want  things will go back to post 9/11. When Clinton and Bush1 were presidents(Bush2 was only in for 8 months)they were able to attack us with impunity.Blow up Embassies,attack ships,kill civilians,and ignore all civilized behavior. Lets hope they're wrong.
325723
I don't care what Clinton did in his personal life. It's none of my business like it's none of these others responding to this question. Clinton did his job...better than Bush. He had more sense than Bush too. When you see you're people getting killed left and right (Somalia) pull them motherf***ers out of there and get out of dodge. Makes common sense. You don't keep sending more in because of your stubbornness and pride to the i won't lose syndrome. You're going to lose the war and get thousands of families killed for no reason. I'd never vote for Bush any of them his cousin soon to be on the way in office either. I never voted for none of them and I'm glad I didn't. Thanks Bill Clinton for giving the economy it's best years since the 1980's. I can't say yeah, those were the good old days when this decade is over with. I never in my life had years were I said "I don't want to remember those years." until Bush came in office. As a black man, I know that Clinton if I were walking down the street he'd speak to me and probably have dinner with me. I doubt very seriously if i were by myself Bush would speak to me if he seen me on the street. Condeleeza Rice is just a front to make him not appear racist to the media. That's the only reason she got that high position. Yo, i'm out of here. All of this talk about bush is about to make me head for the trash can.(Going to Earl) I'm out man!
228379
I agree - Bush rocks!!\n\nSome psycho posted a question about having Clinton back. As if they never learned anything. Wusses those republican's! Folks forget, he let Osama go when he had the chance. Heck, he's indirectly responsible for 911 in a freakin' way. Oh, not forgetting he used the White House as his personal bourdoir. Give me Bush anytime! Bush has GUTS & he takes on issues those democrats run from cos they're more concerned of their ratings.\n\nTsk, Tsk, folks here aka democrats only choose to see the war. They forget where the terrorists are. And where are they now? Why - they're not hijacking any planes & crashing 'em into buildings right now!! Give the man credit. Or are your dim-witted brains too small to see beyond the war? You want freedom without fighting for it? Well, see what Clinton did, he talked and talked - all bullS***. And the terrorists hit us with impertinence. No wonder talkers side Clinton/democrats. Sheesh!!
674173
yo, rock n roll.....why you think that dubba was so certain that there were WMD's.......'cause Daddy sold them to the tyrant when he was 'running the country'. and check a few more facts before you start crapping on Clinton about China, etc......he's not the one poking the big ole bear with a stick right now.....Bush is.....so, gather some facts instead of just spouting off things you heard on the street corner.  and, you know what? if I were the First Lady, i would not be sucking or blowing anybody either......\n\nClinton is getting a raw deal now because the republican based news media is shoving it down our throats while Bush golfs with Daddy every month......shut it, okay?\n\ncheck the stats of the country when big ole bad Clinton left, and check 'em now.....in my opinion, the worst thing they did was steal all the W's on the keyboards when they left office......
349394
the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with demorcay, which was a front, or making the world a safer place, it had to do with a personal vendetta against Hussien by Bush, who tried and tried to tie Iraq to 9/11 but couldnt , who insitsted there were wmds, but couldnt find any, and anyone who said they did, please cite the source, it was also for oil! Meanwhile Bin Laddens boys continue to operate, why vbecause instead of pouring the amount of troops needed to kcik their butts in Afghanastan, we decided to invade Iraq! That alone should raise eyebrows, but it gets worse if you investigate just how the twin towers colsaapsed, when steel does not melt at the tmp that  the building got to, nor should it of free fell! SO someone hide something, and used Hussien as a shield so that they could accomplish their goal, which was $$ oil all powerful presidency, curtailing civil rights!
331406
yeah, i asked how come the pres hasn't been assasinated yet. they got to me!  they said it incited violence and hatred. i was simply asking why it hadn't happened yet, not advocating it. i failed to mention that if he DID happen to get shock-n-awed, i'd uncork 10 bottles of frikkin champagne, but you never heard me say that!
314951
I too am in the military with a spotless record. After wasting time in Iraq securing oil while being pounded by propoganda messages from our own government it became more clear to me that there is more to 9/11 than meets the eye. First off, it wasn't Clinton's fault entirely. He didn't sell secrets to the Chinese either. We have always had spies in this country. Just so happens that the republicans were on a witch hunt for Clinton from day one and anything he did or anything that happened became larger than life. Secondly, President Bush recieved all the intelligence that Clinton had and he sat on it as well. There was clear evidence an attack was going to occur. We had leads we ignored. Someone was telling these people to look the other way. Third, the economy was  in a rut. Wars fix bad economies. This administration was hell bent on going to war with Iraq since day one. This administration let the attacks occur as an excuse to go to war. I don't think they realized how devestating the attacks would be. We all sat and watched the towers burn. Did anyone believe they would fall? Not even the builder or the government foresaw that. Which brings me full circle to my time in Iraq. We sat there for 147 days getting our heads filled with messages from our govt such as: "Saddam has weapons he will use against us and is developing WMD's to use against the world." How odd he hadn't done so in 10 previous years and suddenly after 9/11 he's the problem? Then we heard, "you're doing this to free Iraqi's from a terrible oppressor with dangerous weapons." Then General Tommy Franks said "If Saddam had just turned over his weapons, he would still be in charge." So much for doing it for the Iraqi's. Clearly removing the oppresor was not the issue. Finally it went to "This is for the war on terror." And I restate, how did Iraq fold into this. Afghanistan was harboring the worlds greatest criminal. But it was to hard to fight them. Besides, President Bush wanted Iraq, an easy target. Korea was to tough with nukes. Whose the bully, us or Iraq? The government wants you to think like them. Actually, they prefer you don't think. They continue to strip away your liberties based on your fears and you give them up easily. Is it so hard then to believe that they haven't been lying to you all along?