Posted on 02/11/2005 8:42:28 AM PST by pissant
dejas vu all over again?
They are not lazy. They are working overtime to distort the truth and blemish the Prez. They are getting their asses handed to them by events, so they are in desperate search for smears.
And Bush didn't immediately invade Afghanistan, set up overseas detention and interrogation facilities, pass the Patriot Act, obtain Congressional authority to conquer Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein?
What was he waiting for? I'm sure the Democrats would have been most supportive!
LOL.
I am pretty sure everybody already knew he was a threat over there. So what? What did this have to do with 9/11?
Of course, the libs and the MSM would have been screaming bloody murder if Bush did this in, say, August 2001. Typical libs, they would be absolutely lost if they weren't complaining about something.
Yes, this is true. The critics did say that.
But the critics were wrong. Bush was paying attention to al Qaeda in early 2001. So why does Reuters publish articles about what the critics thought rather than the truth. Could it be they have An Agenda? The answer is of course they do and that is why it is really a waste of time using Reuters for anything except opposition research.
Didn't they already try this-multiple times?
WORD TO LIBERALS! BUSH DID NOT CAUSE 9-11!!
You people are truly sick and treasonous. You side with Al-Quida. You side with Saddam Hussein. You side with al-Zarquawi. You side with the U.N.'s pack of murderers and thieves.
You have no soul. This is EVIL. And you DARE to assume you can speak on issues of Faith and moraility when you have none.
If you read this memo here:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf
You can see NO mention of any possible terrorist plot on the US. In fact the primary issue addressed is the threat of the Northern Alliance being defeated in a Spring Taliban/Al Qaeda offensive that would free up Al Qaeda fighters to fight in other regions.
MEDIA BIAS HEADLINE. More Bush Knew crap.
What does this mean?
"The strength of the network of organizations limits the scope of support friendly Arab regimes can give to a range of U.S. policies, including Iraq policy and the (Israeli-Palestinian) Peace Process. We would make a major error if we underestimated the challenge al Qaeda poses."
The AP and Reuters are the most anti-USA rags in the newspaper establishment and they need to be dealt with! AP and Reuters are terrorists sympathizers who would just love to see the US destroyed! They are our enemies!!
"This begs the question: Why didn't Clarke call for an immediate meeting with Clinton and Gore?"
Good question.
The good news is if the country "gets mighty uncivil oneday" I know what side will win. ANd it ain't the side supported by the MSM quislings.
"I don't see anything where he says they were a DIRECT THREAT TO US!"
_________________________________________
The whole point of Reuters is to scream their F**king ridiculous headlines across the world, and hope nobody reads the article and realizes what BS they are spewing.
The person who deserves the blame for 911 and the US governments totally incompetent response to YEARS of terrorist attacks on Americans in the US and abroad is the one never mentioned in regard to terrorism. Had Bill Clinton effectively addressed Islamic terror after the first WTC bombing in 1993 perhaps 911 could have been prevented.
To believe the liberal news media , terrorism didn't even exist until George W. Bush was elected.
OMG, where is Cynthia McKinney when you need her?
Or the Pentagon, or the US Capitol building.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.