Now trump is saying he would have prevented 911. What's next end world hunger and make world peace? There is no way he can make the claim he would have stopped it. I do not know how he is not being called out on these statements or losing poll points. He needs to give specifics as to what he would do now. It is easy to say how you would have done things differently once they already happened. He is also saying about the WMD in Iraq, but i can almost guarentee that if he were the president when that went down he would have sent troops there as well.
Trump - Make America Great Again!
- Thread starter IndySteel
- Start date
- Status
To fully understand how 9/11 happened you need to understand that it was a well-organized and long-planned and rehearsed operation. Second, you need to know who Jamie Gorelick is. She is one of those people who continually get highly-paid jobs in the upper levels of government despite the fact that everything she touches turns to ****. She was a Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration and the person who created the ''wall'' between the FBI and the CIA and FISA. The reason for this was to prevent the FBI from investigating or becoming interested in the folks from China who were making illegal campaign contributions to the Clintons. People like John Juang, Charlie Trie, and the Riady family. Her directive said that all such communications were to be filtered through the White House, where of course they ended up in the shredder. The other effect was that the FBI was not made aware of terrorist goings on as well as they might have been otherwise and it's one of those things that the Bush Administration just didn't get to right away.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/apr/15/20040415-094758-5267r/
Well there is no doubt it was well planned and organized. There are also no doubts that we had several missteps along the way. I believe the one guy was pulled over for speeding that day and nothing came up. However I still do not think that Trump can say he would have stopped it. It is simply impossible for him to know. We can shut down 1 million plots or attempts, but if the terrorists get past just once we get something like 9/11. No matter who is president I think it is near impossible to track and shut down everyone. I think big major plots are easier to shut down though due to the amount of chatter / organization required, but lone wolf attacks would be basically impossible to stop.
Steel Vanguard
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2015
- Messages
- 1,175
- Reaction score
- 540
- Points
- 113
This is a massive oversimplification of a problem that started during the cold war, and a politically convenient ploy to lay 9/11 at the feet of the Clinton Administration.
All kinds of people are responsible for 9/11, but mostly the blame falls on the men who planned and executed it. You would do well to keep that in mind as you vilify your fellow Americans.
Bubs refused to take Bin Laden when he was offered up on a silver platter. 9/11 would not have happened without him.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2015
- Messages
- 15,544
- Reaction score
- 3,801
- Points
- 113
Bill Clinton has Bin Laden in his cross hairs and opted not to attack. He should have.
Perhaps, perhaps not, but...
Fact: A large portion of Americans blame George W. Bush for 9/11.
Fact: The bulk of the planning for 9/11 occurred while Bill Clinton was President.
9/11 was a follow on to Project Bojinka, that Khalid Sheik Mohammed had been involved with. His nephew led those plots, which included plans to kill Bill Clinton, among other world leaders. It was foiled. As a result, Khalid Sheik met with Osama Bin Laden in 1996 to share his idea of plane hi-jacking. "The Planes Operation" was seriously taken underway (from a planning perspective) in April 1999.
Recall that 9/11 occurred less than 9 months into George W.'s administration. Planning for 9/11 began in the early 90s.
It's been politically convenient for the Left to place blame for 9/11 on Bush. It's also been wholly incorrect to do so. It's politically "convenient" to divert blame for 9/11 off of the Clinton Administration and try to blame it on the Cold War.
A new President is automatically in charge and responsible for everything the day he takes office. Unless he's a Democrat. And the First Black President. And the economy sucks. And there's war going on. In that case it's all the fault of the previous President.
......................
This is a great interview.
Mathews: "You recently called Bernie Sanders a maniac."
Trump: *nodding* "And a Communist."
love it
Mathews: "You recently called Bernie Sanders a maniac."
Trump: *nodding* "And a Communist."
love it
Last edited:
that may be true, but if a Democrat is in office who just so happens to be the first black president, well, he gets a pass.
Now the establishment (finally) thinks that Trump could win the nomination.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425750/gop-establishment-thinks-trump-could-win?target=topic&tid=1707
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425750/gop-establishment-thinks-trump-could-win?target=topic&tid=1707
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 6,982
- Reaction score
- 6,963
- Points
- 113
The truth is that we never had a coherent foreign policy under the Clinton Regime. Clintons policy in the Middle East was especially screwed up. We sent many mixed signals and were indecisive after the 1st WTC attack, the bombings of our embassies in Africa and the attack on the Khobar Towers. I would say that these things coupled with the fact that the Clinton Regime hamstrung our intelligence services with the Gorelic rule puts the 9/11 attacks firmly at the feet of ******* Billy Blythe.
Trump/Carson is looking more and more possible. I'll take it.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/20/politics/donald-trump-ben-carson-ticket/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/20/politics/donald-trump-ben-carson-ticket/index.html
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2015
- Messages
- 15,544
- Reaction score
- 3,801
- Points
- 113
Trump would be better suited to pick John Kasich. In fact John Kasich is my #1 choice for the Republicans right now, but much of that is based on National Election Polls and Electorial math. We NEED OHIO. Kasich is best suited to win that state.
Perhaps, although Kasich may have burned that bridge. Actually, if nominated, he should pick a mexican female. From Florida. Any mamacita senators down there? I still wish Condi would get interested.
Man, this would really upset the political apple cart
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
That's why it will never happen.
The real reason for 9/11 was that Bin Laden didn't like our governments close relationship with the Saudi Royal family,
particularly them getting all the oil money and he didn't like our military presence in the Middle East. Both Dems and Repubs
supported both of those.
The reason we let it happen is our immigration system does not track expired visas and enforce consequences. The hijackers came
legally and we were not aware when they became illegal.
The real reason for 9/11 was that Bin Laden didn't like our governments close relationship with the Saudi Royal family,
particularly them getting all the oil money and he didn't like our military presence in the Middle East. Both Dems and Repubs
supported both of those.
The reason we let it happen is our immigration system does not track expired visas and enforce consequences. The hijackers came
legally and we were not aware when they became illegal.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,229
- Points
- 113
Don’t let the GOP rewrite history: The Bush White House ignored 9/11 warnings
http://deadstate.org/dont-let-the-gop-rewrite-history-the-bush-white-house-ignored-911-warnings/
that's interesting. but if we want to dig further into al qaeda and their threats, let's go back one more presidency.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jun/24/20040624-112921-3401r/
By - The Washington Times - Thursday, June 24, 2004
The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein’s regime to Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.
The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no “collaborative relationship” between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden.
Democrats have cited the staff report to accuse Mr. Bush of making inaccurate statements about a linkage. Commission members, including a Democrat and two Republicans, quickly came to the administration’s defense by saying there had been such contacts.
In fact, during President Clinton’s eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton’s defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq’s weapons falling into bin Laden’s hands.
The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.
The 1998 indictment said: “Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.”
Shortly after the embassy bombings, Mr. Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.
To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam’s weapons scientists.
Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11 commission.
He testified that “bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program.”
He said that if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, “‘You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of [VX precursor] and you did what? And you did nothing?’ Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jun/24/20040624-112921-3401r/
By - The Washington Times - Thursday, June 24, 2004
The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein’s regime to Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.
The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no “collaborative relationship” between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden.
Democrats have cited the staff report to accuse Mr. Bush of making inaccurate statements about a linkage. Commission members, including a Democrat and two Republicans, quickly came to the administration’s defense by saying there had been such contacts.
In fact, during President Clinton’s eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton’s defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq’s weapons falling into bin Laden’s hands.
The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.
The 1998 indictment said: “Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.”
Shortly after the embassy bombings, Mr. Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.
To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam’s weapons scientists.
Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11 commission.
He testified that “bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program.”
He said that if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, “‘You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of [VX precursor] and you did what? And you did nothing?’ Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?”
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,594
- Reaction score
- 22,444
- Points
- 113
+I'm shocked we haven't again. Obama is candy *** cupcake. His red lines are legendary. His letting Iraq fall to isis and now they're into Afghanistan will be his mark as commander in chief. Bravo mother ******. **** you and your islamic pals you helped into power....can't wait until you punch that last timecard *******.
I hope Trump wins for a few reasons...
#1 . It will stop the incessant whining about the current administration. - I get it, Obama is a complete clown. But the relentless complaining is annoying. You've had 8 years to figure out how to beat Hillary. Do it.
#2. It will make a complete mockery of the entire political system - The current state of the US political system is in shambles and guess what, having Trump in the oval office will not be any worse than anything we've already experienced.
#3. I like to watch things burn. Burn baby burn!
#1 . It will stop the incessant whining about the current administration. - I get it, Obama is a complete clown. But the relentless complaining is annoying. You've had 8 years to figure out how to beat Hillary. Do it.
#2. It will make a complete mockery of the entire political system - The current state of the US political system is in shambles and guess what, having Trump in the oval office will not be any worse than anything we've already experienced.
#3. I like to watch things burn. Burn baby burn!
Set it on fire!!! Trump will actually be successful though.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2015
- Messages
- 15,544
- Reaction score
- 3,801
- Points
- 113
Even better there are reports that he's speaking more like a presidential candidate. Donald is a quick study. This shows he's able to make adjustments vs. his greatest weakness. His Ego and trouble admitting a mistake. And that's tough for any politician!
With the USA dream fading away, Donald has heard Captain America calling. He's out to catch the middle class while they are falling. And they are falling. Net income down $5,000.00 while Obama is President. With rising costs in health care, education and everyday life, sooner or later the middle class as it was defined will become less common. And when that happens the system goes socialism like Greece or Spain.
I hope he keeps talking jobs, taxes, and national security / illegal immigration as they are all WINNING ISSUES.
Screw these banks, and special interest groups that deadlock each other and " buy & control " politicians.
- Status
