I blame THESE creeps for 9/11!

[ThatsMyBarack]

That is all.

[alsame]

1. And these:

[TeamsterDem]

2. Um, okay. I tend to blame the ones flying the planes, those who financed it, and the planners

Call me crazy

[cali]

3. So do I. I also hold American foreign policy responsible.

[TeamsterDem]

7. Absolutely. We have no business effing around in other people's countries

and propping up awful dictators. While I still think that even with our foreign policy 9/11 was too grotesque to be considered a "response" - they murdered thousands of INNOCENT people who had nothing to do with whatever the US government was doing - the fact remains that foreign "adventurism" certainly contributed to the perverse logic of the 9/11 actors.

[coalition_unwilling]

37. Kind of like those 500,000 Iraqi children who died of entirely

preventable diseases thanks to sanctions we insisted be maintained on Iraq during the 1990s. Thanks a lot, Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright.

[Amonester]

55. Arm$, Energy, and Financial Corp$ are alway$ looking to expand

Busine$$. And job$ (as long as they can find ways to pay the job doers less and less).

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. It would never have happened if Clinton's national security team had

not been dismantled. What Bush put in place was inadequate.

[TeamsterDem]

8. You know that how? I think we all agree that Bush's team aside from Richard Clarke

was a disaster. But unless you can tell me that the 9/11 plot was hatched and put into motion only during Bush's tenure then I'd point out that your conclusion doesn't quite match reality. Clinton did a much better job, but 9/11 still would have happened.

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. I know that by getting informed.

If you read Clarke's Against all Enemies, you would know that there was a process in place. The Clinton Administration's team was tapped into all the agencies, asking to be advised of any "chatter" and were told to "shake the trees" to get information. There were daily meetings and Clinton was given full reports which he actually read.

In comparison, when Bush stepped in, there was nobody streamlining the information between the CIA and FBI. And reports had to be dumbed down for W. The flaw of 9/11, was that we missed the kind of "chatter" that the Clinton Administration was successfully intercepting.

Oh, and did I forget about the translators? The Bush Administration removed the gay translators and replaced them with potential toadies.
9/11 would never have happened under Clinton's watch.

[TeamsterDem]

16. As "informed" as you are, you seem to miss that the Clinton administration

allowed the hijackers into the country in the first place. And you also seem quick to forget that the 1st WTC bombing happened under Clinton as well.

The reality is that you don't know what would have happened if Clinton had still been president unless you're telling me you're clairvoyant in which case I kindly ask for the next powerball numbers.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. And because of that first attempt, Clinton put a system in place to prevent

future attempts. It was successful enough to prevent the Millennium attempt, it would have been successful to stop 9/11 as well. That's the only evidence I need. Because the key was listening to the chatter, which would have increased just as the incident was about to happen. That time period from January to September 2001, would have offered more clues than the nine months prior.

If our government didn't feel so responsible for what happened, why the two million dollar settlements for victims who were embarking on their first jobs? That's pretty steep for a party that hates to cow down to litigators. The answer is, because a lawsuit would have resulted with lawyers pulling embarrassing information during the discovery process. I'm happy for all those survivors who got that money, but the reality is, that it helped bury the truth. Our government was either asleep at the wheel, or worse.

[TeamsterDem]

22. That's quite a "system" they had in place: Allow hijackers into the country

Wow, so keen I'd have never thought of it. Especially since Clinton was warned in 1998 that Bin Laden might try to hijack aircraft within the US. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58615-2004Jul17.html . But Clinton was just so darn good that he decided he'd let these fellas in to mess with em a little, toy with their simpleton heads. Is that the argument here? What are you arguing? That by allowing hijackers into the country AFTER being warned of terrorism on airliners that he did a better job than Bush in that same respect? I'd say they both effed up.

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. We had rules back then that prevented the kind of scrutiny that takes place

routinely today. Have you missed the fact that a paradigm shift in American freedom has taken place? Clinton did a better job with his hands tied than Bush did EVEN AFTER 9/11. The man had the power to personally probe each one of us, and he still couldn't get bin Laden. He didn't even make it a priority.

The two presidents are not even in the same league when it comes to comparisons. Clinton did better with less, and Bush showed that even with the entire military and national guard at his disposal, and our constitution shredded, he couldn't keep his eye on the goal. That should tell you all you need to know.

[TeamsterDem]

26. But wait, I thought Clinton had a "system" in place to prevent future attempts

Who was it who told me that? Oh that's right, it was you. But now his hands were tied. Can we say "contradiction"?

Under Clinton US targets suffered no less than 5 attacks at the hands of foreign assailants ('93 WTC bombing, '96 Khobar Towers bombing, '98 Kenya/Tanzania embassy bombings, and the USS Cole). Then there was the domestic act carried out by McVeigh in Oklahoma City in 1995. The "system" of which you speak seems to have missed a few things; the "system" you told me "prevented" future attacks.

The reality is that terrorists began their global reach - truly global - in the early 1990s and we were unprepared as a nation for it. Asymmetric warfare is difficult when the military has to engage it, let alone national security apparatuses which are used to either foreign activities (occurring in foreign countries) or domestic criminal types. It takes a long time to retool these outfits to effectively combat it. It can span one or two presidents' terms to complete. And it did.

Bush effed up with the August 6 PDB. Clinton effed up by allowing the terrorists into the country. They both effed up. Only a guy with blinders on fails to see that. I happen to like Clinton 1000% more than Bush, but his record is what it is and, not being a liar, I won't excuse him for the mistakes he made. Sad that you do.

[The Backlash Cometh]

29. On the other hand, I only like Clinton 65% and I still see how he

did a better job with the resources he had at hand. There's no contradiction. If you think we're going to be 100% safe in our world, when we have been pissing off other countries for at least a century, then you must be one of those who felt that invading Iraq was a good idea, based on a rumor.

The 93 WTC was a warning that we had to step up our vigilance, which we did. We went as far as our Constitution allowed us to. The 95 attack, involving a white man, was a warning that we have domestic terrorist among us. Yet, our intelligence agencies tip toe around what they're doing to protect us against the next McVeigh. Can you imagine what the Republicans would have done to Clinton if ex-military men suddenly became part of their racial profiles back then? We had to wait until, today, for Homeland security to take the incredible step of going as far as looking into motorcycle Clubs to keep an eye on the development of the next McVeigh. That's just one example.

Yes, we were unprepared in the nineties, which is why I'll never forgive the Republicans for mounting a political attack on Clinton, distracting us by digging into his private life--something which had never been done before. They were a huge reason why we pissed away the peace dividend. Because, when you put a microscope to it, Republicans only get high and moral when it suits them, which is to say, all of their talk of fine ideals is just window dressing. How we have allowed them to come this far with their reputations intact is beyond me. They are destroying this country brick by brick.

[TeamsterDem]

31. Overall I like Clinton about the same % you do

But like all of em I admit their faults (regardless of party) and admire the admirable ... if it's there at all which it's not in that current crop of Republican morons. Clinton effed up with the 9/11 hijackers. Bush effed up with the PDB, most notably telling the guy "well, you've covered your ass now." But both are fuckups, and I don't pardon one while castigating another. They both to some extent "helped" the 9/11 plot move forward.

[treestar]

39. There were two of them on the watch list

I would agree they should not have been let in. But that is just two of them - Al Qaeda could have found replacements. In fact, I recall there was one guy who was supposed to be part of it but could not get a visa.

So I would not call the letting them into the US to big pivot. The problem was more with internal FBI politics. Even had that not been present, the attack could still have happened. I don't think looking for what Clinton did wrong is helpful. But Democratic Administrations handle things with more sense and less bravado. The chances of thwarting the attack went down when the cowboy took office.

[TeamsterDem]

42. Well, if you call having the people in the country who are to launch an attack

against said country not a big deal then I guess you and I have different standards on security.

But again, I'm not "looking" for what Clinton did wrong. I'm responding to the OP regarding the idiots who stormed the recount office as being to blame for 9/11. They weren't. It was those who launched/planned/funded the attacks. Similarly, it wasn't "Bush's fault" (singularly) that the attacks happened, nor was it Clinton's (singularly). But neither of them prevented them, so they both hold some blame. To what degree for each is debatable, but to deny that each holds at least some blame is just silly.

What is it with absolutists here on DU? If you say one thing they assume you're then some entirely other thing. It's as if I said on DU "I'm not a cat lover" and people then said "well, you must be a cat murderer." No, just not partial to them is all. Some folks need to relax, take a breath, and read what's actually written.

[treestar]

53. The Clinton or any pre 911 administration let in people who

shouldn't have been let in - in a perfect world. The two hijackers who could have been prevented by the standards in place at the time - I don't think that would have stopped the attack. Your first sentence presumes the government had what it took to prevent all 19 from entering. They didn't.

[TeamsterDem]

56. Well, my statement was more in response to the context enumerated by someone else

namely that Clinton did a much better job as compared to Bush in terms of preventing attacks. I agree that he did a slightly better job, but to earn the "much" adjective I would have had to see at least some of the would-be attackers rolled up beforehand and charged with conspiracy. To earn consideration as having been universally better his administration would have had to have stopped the thing entirely. He paid more attention, sure. I'll readily grant that. And he appointed better people. I'll grant that as well. But the attack still occurred and was dreamed up and put into action WHILE he was in office, not in just the 8 months Bush was in office.

I think it's quite easy to tear a sentence or two from something someone says and attack that versus attacking the idea more broadly. I mean if I'd said "Clinton allowed 9/11" (and I'm not saying or suggesting that) then of course I could be attacked. And rightfully so. But what I mean is that the Clinton administration did really nothing a whole bunch better (tangibly) with respect to the ultimate 9/11 plot except paying more serious attention to terrorism more broadly. But they didn't block either of the assholes on the watch list, didn't arrest anyone once here, and didn't go in and kill bin Laden with special forces AFTER the '93 bombing. Those are failures, not things to be admired or excused. Then again, they're not nearly as bad as the "okay, you've covered your ass" school of thought.

But protecting any nation from terrorism is a lot like major league baseball: There are tons of people in the MLB with all of the effort, drive, motivation, and hustle in the world who ultimately don't pan out and wind up in another line of work. Unless the country is protected - not just with effort/good intentions but with results - then you effectively didn't get it done. Bush didn't get it done. We all agree on that. But I find it impossible to see how Clinton got that job done with respect to 9/11 if for no other reason than 9/11 ultimately did in fact occur.

Whose fault is it? I think a lot of people share in that dubious distinction. As do, I suspect, most people who don't knee-jerk to protect someone belonging to their own party.

[The Backlash Cometh]

48. If I blame Clinton for anything, it was his stupid fuck kumbaya belief

that he could run this country down the middle. Appointing Republicans to important positions was the dumbest idea I ever heard of. He gave them the weapon to use against him. Tenet. Tenet made no sense at all.

Our country was harmed more by his capitulations to the Republicans to deregulate the economy, than it was helped. I know in my community, the effect of powerful Democrats who could funnel money to his campaign coffers turned my world upside down. For that, I will never forgive him. While everyone was out on a drunk weekend at Club Med, the law just went to sleep and us working stiffs paid for it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

47. "...would have been successful to stop 9/11..." I don't think it's at all possible to prove that.

I'm curious though. When you say "Millennium attempt", are you referring to simply the plot to blow up LAX or do you include the plots in Jordan and on the "USS The Sullivans"? I ask because I have issues with one and all of your claims of what the Clinton administration stopped in 2000, and how.

If you're referring to the plot against LAX only, the reason Ahmed Ressam was arrested was because Customs inspector Dean thought he was acting "hinky". There were no intelligence reports suggesting that there was any kind of imminent threat coming from Canada and targeted at LAX. Attack thwarted because of a hunch. Scratch that as an intelligence success.

As far as the plot to blot up the USS The Sullivans goes, the terrorists actually had the boat laden with explosives on it's way to the naval ship when the overloaded boat sank. Richard Clarke in his own book says that no law enforcement agency in the world knew about this plot. The boat sank, and the attempt failed. But guess what? Only NINE MONTHS LATER the USS Cole was bombed in the very same port, using the very same means. So count this one out as well.

Lastly, as far as the planned bombings in Jordan goes, it was Jordanian intelligence that intercepted a call from Abu Zubaydah and determined it translated into a terror threat. So, unless you're going to give the Clinton administration credit for Jordanian intelligence successes, I have to scratch that also. This was the only incident that involved the "chatter" you referred to, and it wasn't US listening, it was the Jordanians. It wasn't US that arrested Zubaydah and the others, it was the Jordanians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_millennium_attack_plots

For the 9/11 mess, I blame over half a century of bad foreign policy crafted and enacted by republicans and Democrats alike. At various times, all three branches of government were controlled by our party, sometimes all three were. At no time did the foreign policy that caused this tragedy change. All of our politicians, R and D, over the last 60 years or more share in the blame.

[The Backlash Cometh]

49. I'm keeping my comments to attacks on US soil, since that is what 9/11 was all about.

Clinton still deserves credit for LAX. It was on his watch.

[cherokeeprogressive]

58. LOL... that's a low bar you set.

By that token, Clinton is solely to blame for the Cole bombing, seeing as how 1) it happened on his watch, and 2) the exact same thing was tried 9 months earlier in the exact same place.

Not the greatest of bragging points.

[lynne]

30. As far as 9/11 never happening under Clinton's watch -

- too bad that a huge chunk of 09/11 was planned and put into place under Clinton's watch and too bad we can't say the USS Cole bombing would never have happened under Clinton's watch. That was a "wake up" moment if there ever was one. BUT everyone was asleep at the switch. In BOTH administrations.

[TeamsterDem]

32. 100% agreed. nt

[treestar]

34. But not John O'Neill

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/

Internal FBI politics had a lot to do with it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

50. Planning and implementing are two different things.

As long as we hold any country in reverence, where you have close business ties as we have with Saudi Arabia, we will be vulnerable. We need law enforcement agencies which are impervious to politics.

[EstimatedProphet]

62. You don't know that

Had there been in place some people who would have done actual investigation work in the Bush administration, they may have found out about the plot in time to stop it. Clinton's people were much more likely to do that investigation work. Bush's people clearly didn't.

[Webster Green]

10. Hello?

No bogus 2000 election = no chimp ignoring Aug. 6th warning. :think:

I'm pretty sure the Gore Administration would have prevented the attack.

[TeamsterDem]

13. So 9/11 was conceived and launched solely during Bush's tenure?

That's what you're arguing. At least several of the hijackers arrived in early 2000 - during Clinton's presidency. Your argument makes less than no sense.

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. The chatter that took place in the months leading up to 9/11 was the critical period.

It wouldn't surprise me if someone tipped them off to the vulnerable gap that occurred between the two administrations. The transition was anything but smooth.

[TeamsterDem]

18. Ahh I see, so Clinton did nothing wrong

despite the fact that the guys who carried out the attack arrived under his watch - the watch you'd have us all believe would've for some inexplicable reason prevented such an attack. Okay, riddle me this: If he was such an anti-terror expert, why'd the hijackers get into the country in the first place? Was he "toying" with them?

The reality is that 9/11 was simply one of those sickening events in history which, in the context of the time period, wasn't going to be prevented no matter who was president. It was before terrorism had as much of a priority as it does now, and while there were warning signs heeded by many key individuals, neither administration proved its ability to effectively prevent it.

[treestar]

36. Well you're denying and difference in the approach.

Gore's Administration might have done things better. With the information. It's too broad brush to just blame Clinton's Administration. At least they took it seriously. But after 9 months of neglect, the attacks happened.

They might have happened under Gore but the chances are lower.

[TeamsterDem]

41. I'm not singling out the Clinton administration. I'm saying they share blame

Clinton let them in, Bush blew his chance. But to ignore the former because you hate the latter seems a foolish way to view it. I blame them both. Why? Because they both fucked up. That's why.

[The Backlash Cometh]

51. When I look back and realize how much we would learn that the Republicans

have infiltrated law enforcement agencies, and how those terrorists had connections to Saudi Arabia, it would not surprise me that they found someone that looked the other way.

[OnyxCollie]

59. Mukasey let the cat out of the bag.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3487945

On March 27, 2008, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, speaking at the Commonwealth Club in defense of the Bush Administrations surveillance program and proposing changes to FISA, made the statement that before the 2001 terrorist attacks

“We knew that there had been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn’t know precisely where it went. You’ve got 3,000 people who went to work that day, and didn’t come home, to show for that.” (Egelko, 2008).

In a letter to Attorney General Mukasey from Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee; Rep. Jerry Nadler, Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties; and Rep. Bobby Scott, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security (hereinafter “Conyers Letter”), Rep. Conyers responds to Attorney General Mukasey’s statement:

This statement is very disturbing for several reasons. Initially, despite extensive inquiries after 9/11, I am aware of no previous reference, in the 9/11 Commission report or elsewhere, to a call from a known terrorist safe house in Afghanistan to the United States which, if it had been intercepted, could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. In addition, if the Administration had known of such communications from suspected terrorists, they could and should have been intercepted based on existing FISA law. For example, even assuming that a FISA warrant was required to intercept such calls, as of 9/11 FISA specifically authorized such surveillance on an emergency basis without a warrant for a 48 hour period. If such calls were known about and not intercepted, serious additional concerns would be raised about the government’s failure to take appropriate action before 9/11. (Conyers, Nadler, Scott, 2008).

In a statement provided to Glenn Greenwald (2008) at Salon, former Rep. Lee Hamilton, the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, stated:

I am unfamiliar with the telephone call that Attorney General Michael Mukasey cited in his appearance in San Francisco on March 27. The 9/11 Commission did not receive any information pertaining to its occurrence.

Additionally, Greenwald (2008) provides an email response from Philip Zelikow, the 9/11 Commission Executive Director (and former Counselor to Condolleeza Rice) (ellipses in original):

Not sure of course what the AG had in mind, although the most important signals intelligence leads related to our report -- that related to the Hazmi-Mihdhar issues of January 2000 or to al Qaeda activities or transits connected to Iran -- was not of this character. If, as he says, the USG didn't know where the call went in the US, neither did we. So unless we had some reason to link this information to the 9/11 story....

In general, as with several covert action issues for instance, the Commission sought (and succeeded) in publishing details about sensitive intelligence matters where the details were material to the investigative mandate in our law.

Greenwald (2008) offers two possible scenarios regarding Mukasey’s statement. Either

(1) The Bush Administration concealed this obviously vital episode from the 9/11 Commission and from everyone else, until Mukasey tearfully trotted it out last week; or
(2) Mukasey, the nation’s highest law enforcement officer, made this up in order to scare and manipulate Americans into believing that FISA and other surveillance safeguards caused the 9/11 attacks and therefore the Government should be given unchecked spying powers.

I wonder if that call went to Sarasota.

[sabrina 1]

25. And they were known to the Intelligence Community.

They were being watched, and agents reported their fears that something was going to happen, see Coleen Rowley and several others, but were ignored once Bush took over. So, I too blame the Bush administration.

As for the 93 bombing, it was planned during Bush Sr's admin. If you want to understand how that happened, then read the transcripts of the years of trials that took place in NYC. The revelations in those cases were pretty stunning.

Who let the Blind Sheik Rahman into the country eg? And why?

[TeamsterDem]

27. So your contention is that the Clinton administration did nothing wrong

by allowing the 9/11 hijackers in, but that George H.W. Bush did do something wrong by allowing Sheik Rahman in. I think both were wrong. What on Earth is your criteria for right and wrong? Who's president?

The hijackers should have never been allowed in. Never. That's a monumental mistake. Yeah, they were "being watched." Big deal. A truly eye-on-the-ball team doesn't allow people like that in if they're so darn good at national security. And when they do we rightly call it the mistake it was.

[sabrina 1]

33. I guess you have not read anything about the trials of those

responsible for the '93 bombing and how it was connected to 9/11 etc. I don't blame Clinton because he made every effort to STOP terror attacks and during his administration more attacks were stopped than under any other. And some of them, had they succeeded, would have been way worse than 9/11. But it was an issue that he cared about and paid attention to and he respected the intelligence community's reports and work. Unlike his successor.

Stopping an attack doesn't always mean stopping the suspects from getting into the country. Sometimes it means letting them in so that their connections etc can be discovered. But for such a tactic to work, the intelligence community must have the permission and cooperation of the administration and those higher up the chain of command to get warrants and to make arrests etc. which they had under Clinton and expected to continue under the next administration.

But it did not. Bush all but shut down the terror program and 9/11 happened even though he received 52 warnings of an impending attack. Do you think Clinton would have ignored those warnings and told the agents they had 'covered your ass' and sent them on their way?

[TeamsterDem]

40. I've read as much as is publicly available

but I think you're missing a key point: Allowing the '93 attackers in doesn't carry with it the same problem that does allowing the 9/11 hijackers in because in '93 the latter hadn't yet occurred. That is to say that in 1993 there wasn't a precedent for "what happens if we make a mistake?" in terms of terrorism on US soil like there was in 2000. Yes, ultimately both were bad decisions. But as the old saying (which Bush hilariously flubbed) goes: "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

I don't want the impression created that I think Bush was somehow "good" or even "adequate" at fighting terrorism (or doing anything else of note). I don't think that. In fact as a president he was a staggering failure (unless you're a rich person in which case he succeeded terrifically). But while I think he blew the August 6 PDB and other things, I'm similarly willing to admit that the plan was both hatched and in LARGE measure enacted during Clinton's presidency. According to reporting of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's "interrogation" he said the plan was formulated in 1996. If that's true (and not simply extracted under torture's duress) then that'd mean about 90% came under Clinton's presidency. How that makes it entirely Bush's fault I'm not certain, as even mathematically that doesn't add up. Bush bears blame there, no question. But to blame him entirely is stunningly blind.

[sabrina 1]

45. Well, any information that was a result of torture

is meaningless, so I discount anything supposedly said by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. However, there were so many terror attacks eg, during the Reagan administration on US Interests around the world and again during the Clinton administration and many more stopped, that everyone basically knew for years, that there was a good chance of an attack here in the US.

The '93 bombing plot was known to the Intel community before it happened, and in fact they were in contact with an informer during the planning of the attack. It happened very early on in Clinton's administration, but was planned for a long time before that. This story needs to be paid attention to. That plot was intended to bring down both towers but failed. And everyone in the Intel. community knew they would try again.

Which is why the Clinton administration was so vigilant about the issue. Not to mention that attacks on US interests in other parts of the world, continued. The Cole, the Embassy Bombings, back in Reagan's years, the Achille Lauro, the killing of over 200 US soldiers etc. etc. And terror attacks around the world escalated after the Invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, to the point where the Bush admin tried to stop the annual global terror report from being published.

It was apparent that the US was under attack for decades. So it is unforgivable that a US President would dismiss the many warnings he received and simply go on vacation after being told that an attack was imminent. I doubt Reagan, or even Bush Sr, and certainly not Clinton, would have done that.

[TeamsterDem]

46. Yes, they were so vigilant they let the hijackers into the country. Super!

The long and the short of the story is that no president is perfect; they make regrettable mistakes which cost real people their livelihoods and lives, at times. Bush erred tremendously by ignoring the PDB - something I've already said. Why you keep hammering his negligence is beyond me. You might as well reprove the law of gravity to me. I'm already on board. But why you're denying that Clinton bears some responsibility for a plot hatched during his presidency which was nearly carried out while he was still in office is simply beyond me, and beyond most fair thinkers as well.

I'd take a Democrat over a Republican any day of the week on any of the issues facing our country. Any day of the week. But when and if either of them makes a mistake - especially an "expensive" one like 9/11 - I'm not going to excuse him or her simply because they bear the "D" after their name. Sad that you have that blinder.

[ThatsMyBarack]

28. Yes, exactly!

That's exactly what I meant!

[leveymg]

12. And the ones who didn't stop them after repeated warnings and briefings

[FarLeftFist]

4. I blame religion. All of them.

[Lucian]

5. I blame our own government for allowing it to happen.

[shireen]

9. i blame poverty and greed. nt

[Name removed]

11. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cary Vonfused]

14. I blame George HW Bush

for training Sammy Bin Laden to be a terrorist in the first place.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. Amen

[WCGreen]

21. Pasty faced mother fuckers.....

[indepat]

24. These effin' creeps

:patriot:

[Earth_First]

35. #11 is a whale...?

:shrug:

[ThatsMyBarack]

38. Oh, no! Not SHAMU!

:rofl:

[pintobean]

43. They're chanting "free Willie"

[sce56]

44. Maybe but if they were not successful maybe we would have had President Liberman in charge on 9-12

[Herlong]

52. I Love You Guys

[yurbud]

64. that's a creepy thought: a mopey Tartuffe instead of a merciless Vice Emporer Palpatine

[Warren DeMontague]

54. right, the so-called spontaneous docker mob.

They were assholes, no doubt. It's like a bunch of tiny-dicked Rush Limbaugh clones.

[butterfly77]

57. Kicked&Recommended!

[ThatsMyBarack]

60. Thanks!

:hi:

[ThatsMyBarack]

61. Wow!

This thread is on FIRE! :wow:

[yurbud]

63. and for the massive deficit, and for the erosion of our civil rights, and violation of Geneva

Convention...

[yurbud]

65. I hate to say it, but a lot wouldn't have happened if Dems in Congress hadn't rolled over too

and if the Kerry campaign had actually followed through on voter protection like they said they would in 2004, and so on.

99% of the time, the Democrats in Congress, especially in leadership positions, were the dogs that didn't bark while the burglars cleaned out our house, raped our kids, and then evicted us.

[KansDem]

66. LOL!!! I remember that photo!

It always looked to me like the reaction at a frat party when the keg ran dry! :rofl: