http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bojinka
2007-05-30
23:26:49
·
8 answers
·
asked by
ThorGirl
4
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
wow paulie with all the Libs siting it you better inform them as well... But you won't But here is another NOn Wiki site
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/01/magazine_brzezinski010202.htm
2007-05-30
23:37:55 ·
update #1
iwasnota I guess you are new here as the Clintonistas and the DNC and the Lib looneys all claim Bush not only knew But actually commited the WTC attacks!
2007-05-30
23:39:47 ·
update #2
Hey westie. I really think both Bill and GW get a pass on this as Nobody really could have ever guessed that Nuts would actually carry this out. I just wanted to feed back some of the Bush Did it clan BS and the Typical rant that bush either Did it or ignored it.
2007-05-30
23:42:14 ·
update #3
BERTLES!!! WELCOME BACK! You were Missed out here for sure, How have you been? For those that do not Know Bert T is one of the Older YA guys and one of the Smartest (libs)) albeit Long winded ) but Lovable!!!
2007-05-30
23:45:49 ·
update #4
email me.........
2007-05-31
00:02:26 ·
update #5
Clinton is a scoundrel. Nothing bad about him ever surprises me.
2007-05-30 23:32:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by libstalker 4
·
3⤊
7⤋
Since they caught them, how is that ignoring it? And why would President Clinton hide anything from the new administration? The MAIN problem was the Bush goons ignoring Clinton's intel. They knew better. So we get the morass of Iraq and 9/11. Now, unlike you, I can see the truth and I don't think 9/11 was avoidable. But to put the blame on Clinton follows the typical GOP manner of never admitting you are wrong AND more importantly, always blaming others.
And I'm not new here. The claim that Bush was responsible for 9/11 is crap and Democrats as well as your side know it. It has been a clever tool you guys use to paint the Democratic Party as blaming Bush for 9/11. Well, no one believes that. No Democrat I know believes that. And you know it but you keep repeating the same lies.
2007-05-30 23:34:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
The terrorists in the Bojinka plot were caught and the plot was foiled. There's much proof that Bush was briefed on the terrorist threats. In addition to extensive transition team briefings, Bush met with the CIA director, (who incidentally, had been appointed by Clinton), nearly every day after he was installed in office..
2007-05-30 23:39:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Please cite a more reliable source than Wikipedia. That is like using someones answer on here as a source. Not very credible.
If I am not mistaken, Bill is not running for office. I could go back and dig up dirt on Bush Sr and Cheney and how they handled Iraq or didn't handle it, however you choose to view the end results.
"I think it is vitally important for a President to
know when to use military force. I think it is also
very important for him to know when not to commit U.S.
military force. And it's my view that the President got
it right both times, that it would have been a mistake
for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."
-Dick Cheney, Apr 29, 1991
Thorgirl, have you read this article?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/27/news/delta.php?page=1
With allies in enemy ranks, GIs in Iraq are no longer true believers
"I thought, 'What are we doing here? Why are we still here?' " said Safstrom, a member of Delta Company of the 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division. "We're helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us."
His views are echoed by most of his fellow soldiers in Delta Company, renowned for its aggressiveness
2007-05-30 23:44:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Your own link states Clinton's Administration stopped these plots, so apparently they weren't "ignored".
When Bush and his cabinet came to the White House, they made it very clear they had no interest in MIddle Eastern terrorists. They had no intelligence briefings regarding terrorism, no Cabinet meetings regarding anti-terrorism policies, cut funding to the FBI's Counter Terrorism unit, and ignored EXPLICIT intel briefings, one of which Condi Rice admits was titled, "Al-Qaeda Determined to Attack Within the United States". The FBI informed its superiors Arab men were taking flying lessons, these briefings were ignored (by the BUSH administration, not the Clinton Admin- at least Clinton knew good intel when he got it, having stopped over 45 plots to blow up airports or buildings in the US and abroad). Sandy Berger insisted on an Intel briefing, Bush ignored it, sending Condi Rice in his stead, she arrived to the meeting late and left early. Berger later said it was obvious from her demeanor the issue of terrorism was not one high on Bush's priority list.
President Bush's main activity during the first 10 months of that year, the year Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden attacked yet again? Four and a half months were spent on his ranch in Crawford, Texas, on "vacation".... maybe you can tell me what Clinton was supposed to have done to make Bush listen? Grabbed him by those huge monkey ears of his and screamed it in his face?
2007-05-30 23:41:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
1. Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source of information - that's why college professors are now banning it from being quoted in research papers.
2. I found absolutely no evidence that Clinton knew about this in this report, and even so, see #1, above.
2007-05-30 23:30:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by Paul Hxyz 7
·
5⤊
3⤋
The Clinton war room was saving all the good stuff to blame on the republican party.
2007-05-30 23:30:18
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 1
·
4⤊
4⤋
both parties are owned by the same people.
2007-05-30 23:29:45
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋