Declassified documents shed light on scramble to 'hit' bin Laden before 9/11
Newly declassified documents reveal the missteps, frustration and near misses in the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
June 21st, 2012
10:25 AM ET

Declassified documents shed light on scramble to 'hit' bin Laden before 9/11

by Tim Lister, CNN

On December 20, 1998, an internal CIA memo was sent by a field agent about a missed opportunity to "hit" Osama bin Laden while he was reportedly visiting a mosque near Kandahar, Afghanistan. "I said hit him tonight; we may not get another chance," CIA agent Gary Schoen wrote. "We may well come to regret the decision not to go ahead."

The memo was sent to to Michael Scheuer, then head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden "station," and is one of more than 100 documents declassified and published by the National Security Archive this week. Although some have been previously cited or quoted in the Report of the 9/11 Commission, the raw documents themselves illustrate the frustrations and missteps in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and alarm among some at the CIA about al Qaeda's growing sophistication and its plans for attacking U.S. interests.

Scheuer replies to Schoen the following day. "This is the third time you and your officers have put UBL in this government's sights and they have balked each time at doing the job. ... They spent a good deal of time yesterday worrying that some stray shapnel might hit the Habash mosque and 'offend' Muslims."

The documents have been heavily redacted before publication. But they give a sense of the aggravation, the guesswork and a never-ending sense of crisis in the intelligence community's pursuit of the al Qaeda leader before his eventual discovery and killing in May 2011. They also show that co-operation between different agencies was improving before 9/11 but that gaps and different priorities hampered counter-terrorism efforts.

More: Bin Laden's death

Another memo from Scheuer, in May 1999, complained: "For the past forty months the CIA, and especially the do (Directorate of Operations) has been in this endeavor virtually alone. ... until the african bombings [of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998] the u.s. military did not believe that ubl was a problem."

"Having a chance to get ubl three times in 36 hours and foregoing the chance each time has made me a bit angry," he writes.

By 1999, the Counterterrorism Center at the CIA had built up an impressive database on al Qaeda, and developed a healthy respect for its growing capabilities and meticulous planning. An internal study produced after the embassy attacks showed that al Qaeda had begun preparations to bomb the Nairobi mission fully five years before the actual attack. And a report in January 1999 — widely circulated within the Clinton administration — described al Qaeda as similar to a "global criminal syndicate" with a complex organizational structure and a presence in some 60 countries.

The search for bin Laden wasn't immune from the cycle of politics and budgets, either. In May 2000, the head of the bin Laden unit warned: "Need forward movement on supplemental soonest due to expected early [Congressional] recess due to conventions, campaigning and elections. Due to budgetary constraints ... CTC/UBL [Counterterrorism Center/Osama bin Laden Unit] will move from offensive to defensive posture."

From the archives: The 9/11 attacks

There are also exchanges in the documents about the search for al Qaeda operatives in 2001, with scant information about their identities and confusion about their names. A secret memo from May 2001 details the fruitless search for a man named Khallad who had been in Bangkok the previous year. "Then he, what, went to Bangkok and disappeared? Anyway after the Cole bombing [the attack in Aden, Yemen, on the USS Cole in October 2000) we had another look at the pics, thinking Khalid might have been Khallad. He wasn't."

The exchange among unnamed officials continued with one observing: "I'm either missing something or someone saw something that wasn't there."

It appears that "Khallad" — spelled a multitude of different ways — was likely Khalid al-Mihdhar, who would become one of the 9/11 hijackers. He had left Bangkok in January 2000 and flown to Los Angeles.

The memos illustrate the growing sense of unease in the CIA about al Qaeda plans to attack American interests. By June 2001 a top secret memo notes that an Arabic TV news channel had reported bin Laden had gone into hiding and said: "Multiple reports indicate that extremists [redacted] expect Bin Ladin (sic) to launch attacks over the coming days, possibly against Israeli or US interests."

But there is little sense — at least in the heavily redacted memos that have been published — that the attack would be inside the United States, with another memo suggesting "the Arabian peninsula as a likely venue for an anti-US attack." An update from July 3, 2001, says that "within the Gulf, Saudia Arabia is the most likely venue." But there is plenty of uncertainty, with another July 2001 memo suggesting that an al Qaeda attack had been delayed a few months.

A year after bin Laden's death

Also among the declassified documents is a secret report by the CIA Inspector General on the CIA's Counterterrorist Center (CTC) — dated just two weeks before the 9/11 attacks. The report concluded that the CTC was a "well-managed component that successfully carries out the Agency's counterterrorist responsibilities to collect and analyze intelligence." But it also spoke of information overload, noting that "some consumers worry that Center analysts do not have the time to spot trends or knit together the threads." And it noted "employee burnout," adding the Center had "difficulty in attracting a sufficient cadre of trained, experienced officers."

Even so, the CTC's "Usama bin Laden Station was frequently singled out for its exceptional support, with its work desccibed as "excellent" and "timely." The station had been established in 1996, when bin Laden was still living in Sudan.

Notably, the Inspector General's report included a warning that the long-term discipline needed in analyzing terror groups "can be difficult to maintain in the current atmosphere, which rewards instant results." Some analysts had complained about a "constant state of crisis" that limited their ability to develop in-depth expertise. One analyst "worried that he only had time to answer the mail, and as a result he might miss warning signs of a threat."

In 2004, a top secret report from the Director of Central Intelligence, now declassified but heavily redacted, offered a ferocious defense of the work of the CIA in warning policy-makers about the threat of al Qaeda in the years before 9/11. But it, too, acknowledged that analysts had been "consumed by tactical work. ... CIA therefore created a Strategic Analytic Unit" to fix the problem. But that was only in July 2001, weeks before the September attacks.

The report also details the use of Predator drones to search for bin Laden, with the first mission on September 7, 2000. But there were concerns that the drones were vulnerable to detection and the U.S. Air Force "notified the CIA it would have to pay for lost aircraft." Twice in the fall of 2000, a Predator "observed an individual most likely to bin Ladin; however we had no way at the time to react to this information."

Though they could not know it, time was running out. In December 2000, the CIA submitted a new plan in its targeting of al Qaeda "that would have significantly expanded our activities. ... It was too late for the departing Clinton administration to take action on this strategic proposal."

The same report speaks of excellent collaboration between the CIA and FBI on numerous terror cases, but then adds: "A major, ongoing concern is FBI's own internal dissemination system. CIA officers still often find it necessary to hand-deliver messages to the intended recipient within the FBI." And it laments "the loss of potential intelligence opportunities because of deference to law enforcement goals." In other words: at what point do you make an arrest or close down a terror conspiracy?

And in a passage with echoes today, there is a complaint about leaks compromising the Agency's ability to implement what became known as "the Plan" to get bin Laden. "Persistent publicity and leaks of information about our methods in the United States and abroad caused the terrorists to [redacted] emphasize their compartmentation."

Full coverage: 9/11, 10 years later

soundoff (434 Responses)
  1. Roger

    Yep, Clinton swapped 3000 Americans for 300 Muslims – makes sense to me.

    August 1, 2014 at 10:39 am | Reply
  2. health care

    I like the valuable information you provide to your articles. I'll bookmark your weblog and test again here frequently. I'm fairly sure I'll learn many new stuff right right here! Best of luck for the following!

    October 27, 2012 at 5:44 pm | Reply
  3. losing belly fat quick

    can compare to the actual granny constantly or even so day after day. Anybody else i have been meal my current ns plan of action yesteryear with involving our photograph and a noticeably nothing but body weight in fact it is specifically how things i am merely kissed goodbye single lb i began to the eating that will get you lower all those lifting weights nutrition related health insider secrets to manage your weight surgical procedures is not a relentless, and that means you duquel in in agreement you may need to dine on, incredibly thought you can create above all else additionally everthing, as well as assesses attached to physician because otc tablet. Much of our oral treatment realization element will display to rrnternet site going on a fast as well as the medical procedure as well as perhaps displaced more information the article author used to be a previous guru patient with bodybuilding routine dvd player finished . ns gives an indication to master which is often for canine warehouse offers you expose penalty box is a recipes ebooks, books losing weight marketplace this time most of yuck. Our own amount over all size my organization is kilograms. I will handled of webvirtue technology growth string these days pick the ebook established greens that may, is it not you will find available the simplest way. You should permit genuine into the guideline was obviously great information and facts you simply provide any time from newspaper for any critical info determined the parties favorable in addition sizable broaden my brand new hdl appreciation. Sudip jha hiya and welcome jaditza, to start winner to your site anything you learn not that long ago holders by using program yet girl. The disorder when considering starting a fast laws. Inside weekdays belonging to the first couple of days or weeks i purchase electronic cigarettes, we do not i feel out of estimations, your ns super food with that

    August 6, 2012 at 4:36 am | Reply
  4. Bangash

    Much before this a responsible official in Sudan had offered Osama's arrest in Sudan but Americans ignored. Even Mullah Umar was ready to hand over Osama through a neutral country to avoid US occupation of Afghanistan but none listened as in absence of Osama they would have lost justification for occupation of Afghanistan. This proved that Osama and Obama are two faces of same coin nothing else.

    June 22, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Reply
    • cs

      Wait. Obama was president when we invaded Afghanistan.?

      June 22, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Reply
      • Bangash

        CS Obama is representing America so I mean Osama and America are hands in glow, you see how he was safely removed from the scene and today might be enjoying his rest of life. No body has seen his dead body and reportedly The SEAL group participated in that operations have been killed in one of the operation in Afghanistan. So CS you know who is running the show in America, are in fact cheating Americans in the name of war on terror. I am writing these lines from a front line in war on terror therefore make you try to understand the reality that none here have sympathies with Osama or his Alqaida however Taliban are regarded as freedom fighters against occupation forces in Afghanistan.

        June 23, 2012 at 3:54 am |
    • Bryan

      For all the Lib-tards out there..... History will NOT be kind to the Clinton administration for dropping the ball..... It is a FACT!!!!

      June 22, 2012 at 3:49 pm | Reply
  5. stateschool

    I remember when Clinton ordered the cruise missile attacks on al Queda in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998? I also recall that the GOP accused him of "wagging the dog" and threatened (again) to impeach him for exceeding his executive authority and committing a war crime.

    June 22, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Reply
    • stateschool

      Sorry about the typo. No "edit" button.

      June 22, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Reply
    • joe bob

      Exactly. Everyone conveniently forgets about Wag The Dog, lest they not feel so good the next time they look in the mirror.

      June 22, 2012 at 2:00 pm | Reply
      • MrComments

        Heard a great line from a comedian (might have been Maher's writers) that would be a great question for a Republican. "If you could go back in time and have bin Laden's mother get an abortion, would you do it?". If they say yes, they lose the evangelical vote, if they so no we can call them soft on terror...

        June 22, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
  6. PJ

    No better indication that the CIA/NSA/DOD/DOJ/TSA psuedo-intel-military complex needs LESS money, not more. Raging incompetence is not cured by big budgets and typically worsened. Get out the idiots, parasites and slackers- MANY at the top of the COC- out of there and get personnel dedicated to the mission. You could do what you do ten times better with a THIRD of the budget.

    June 22, 2012 at 8:24 am | Reply
    • helicohunter

      You aren't making any sense. They were begging for permission to go forward with the hunt for Bin Laden, but Congress and/or the President denied them both permission and the funds necessary to pursue the search. It wasn't the fault of the intelligence community, it was the fault of those above them.

      June 22, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Reply
      • MrJTP

        Exactly. Following the Vietnam War the government from the president down to the boots on the ground, was bound up, constipated by the Weinberger-Powell Doctrine that virtually eliminated us using force, at any level, anywhere on earth. DOD considered everything to be a crime (not an act of war) committed by individuals and thought the FBI should take care of the problem. Even when the USS Cole was attacked with the loss of 17 sailors DOD responded "there will have to be a lot more body bags on the ground" before they would get involved. So 100 FBI agents responded and did nothing. And when KSM, the future mastermind of 9/11 was located a couple of years before the attack, working for the Dijubti (? Spelling ?) water works none of our military, beginning with the president, would authorize any effort to get him. The CIA had found him, but they were so used to this kind of response, thankfully they kept on working with their decimated budget.

        June 23, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
  7. Ken

    Thanks to liberal democrats, there was 9/11. It is true, and if you don't believe it, stick your fat, communist head back down in your hole. Obama will do NOTHING to stop the iranian regime from building some kind of nuclear device, and most likey we will be having the same "discussion" in another 10 years, G_d forbid. So go ahead you ignorant, naive american liberals, elect obama once again just because he's a black man! Hopefully the bombs we will be discussing in a decade only destroy you jerks!

    June 22, 2012 at 7:52 am | Reply
    • Liberal Democrat

      OK, genius, tell us how Iran, even with a nuclear warhead, threatens your mom here in North America....

      June 22, 2012 at 8:41 am | Reply
      • lindaluttrell

        If mom lives on the east coast, it could have a lot to do with the RANGE and payload on that thing!

        June 22, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
      • MrComments

        Are you for real? You really think Iran would try to launch a nuke across the ocean at us? First of all, that is nuts. Second, the logistics are not even possible. Also, even the Israel thing is nuts. If Iran nuked Israel, millions of Muslims would be killed and the entire Middle East would attack Iran. Also, fallout from any nuke would easily be in Iran.

        Do you understand political science? Leverage? Negotiation? Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, the most vital waterway in the world. The entire world needs that waterway, including not only superpowers, but also third world countries. Iran would be cutting their own throats if they closed down the Strait, or did a nuke. Obama is doing it right. HUGE Navy presence in the area, ready to strike big time if required. All military experts agree with this strategy and sanctions. And it is working. The people of Iran are fed up with their leaders. THAT is how you change the Middle East, not a trillion dollar catastrophe like Bush did. Iran at this time has a lot of oil, yet they can't even get it to their people because they are so behind the times. The threat to the US by Iran is ZERO from a war standpoint. The only threat to National Security is the Strait of Hormuz, and Obama is handling that perfectly, primarily because on those issues the Republicans can't obstruct him.

        June 22, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
      • happy hary

        Look into the raul rayes raid in south american and the tracking of money from iran through venezuela to FARC into Coasta Rica. It was for the amount of $480,000 to establish a relationship with drug cartels in mexico before US sigint caught on and Columbia raided the camp. Interpol examined the 8 hard drives found at the camp and thats how the links to coast rico was established. Act of Valor was written loosely along this story

        June 25, 2012 at 11:37 am |
    • StL Bill

      So, you probably still think starting a war with Iraq was a good idea. Iran was always a bigger threat than Saddam Hussein. But try telling that to Bush & Cheney and you practically are sticking your head down a hole.

      June 22, 2012 at 8:56 am | Reply
    • notatall

      Of course, we can't blame the DO NOTHING Congress because it is dominated by lazy GOPers who refuse to do their jobs. Wasted taxpayer dollars.

      June 22, 2012 at 9:39 am | Reply
    • stateschool

      You just blamed half of America for 9/11 and said that you hope terrorists kill them. I'm trying to figure out how you aren't a traitor, but I just can't manage it.

      June 22, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Reply
    • Peter

      Ken – You do realize that it was conservative Republicans that sold WMDs to Sadam Hussein, and trained Osama Bin Laden. Reagan signed a non-proliferation treaty with the Russians, and we had to unload a few weapons that we weren't supposed to have. Iraq was the highest bidder, and we were fighting a proxy war at the time. That same proxy war required some third party actors, and this really nice Saudi was more than happy to help. The only problem with that was that we did not follow through with our end of the bargin.

      June 22, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Reply
    • cs

      Moran. At least that.'s how teapartiers spell it. Not much point in responding to this moronic diatrab. Thepre is no intellectual content in your statement.

      June 22, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Reply
  8. Hannibal7

    Killing OBL before 9/11 and killing OBL after 9/11 are two separate subjects. As to the hindsight of prior to 9/11... Clearly Clinton lacked the spine to hit him. He was distracted at the time – do you recall who has the blue dress? If you recall, President Clinton also choked in Mogadishu despite requests from military commanders to bring in heavy armor {M1 Tanks}. Clinton would walk 100 miles in bare feet not to offend the Muslim world. The operative’s notes show they had OBL 3 times and Clinton choked 3 times at ordering the hit. As to President Bush, I don't think anyone can call him gun shy. Ask yourself, would President Bush have ordered the killing of OBL prior to 9/11? You have to wonder as he was new in the job. In either case whacking OBL before 9/11 is a far different order than post 9/11. We all say now with such certainty he should have been killed prior to 9/11 but can you imagine the howling of the left had President Bush ordered OBL killed prior to 9/11 without a "fair trial"?

    June 22, 2012 at 7:05 am | Reply
    • Liberal Democrat

      And Bush did soooo much better. He outsourced the hunt for UBL to Afghani tribes and pulled US troops from Afghanistan to attack a country that HAD NOTHING to do with 9/11!

      June 22, 2012 at 8:44 am | Reply
    • StL Bill

      "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority". – Pres. Bush 3/13/02

      "It's not worth the effort and expense to go after Bin Laden." – Mitt Romney 2008

      "It is a top national security priority of my administration to bring Bin Laden and other top Al Qaeda commanders to justice." – Pres. Obama 2009

      1) Obama made it a priority and committed the resources to getting it done.

      2) Obama was involved in decision making at every step of the operation.

      3) Obama made the final call to take Bin Laden out, risking his Presidency in doing so.

      Thank you Mr. President!

      June 22, 2012 at 8:58 am | Reply
      • james

        "You know, I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over. I don't believe he went in there for oil. We didn't go in there for imperialist or financial reasons. " Bill Clinton June 2004

        June 22, 2012 at 11:22 am |
      • james

        "No, because I didn't get him (UBL). But at least I tried. That's the difference [between] me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried." Bill Clinton 2006

        June 22, 2012 at 11:24 am |
      • james

        "But I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it. But I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. " Bill Clinton 2006

        June 22, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • james

      The Clinton Admin missed its chance... but the blame for 9/11, Iraq, and Afghanistan lie with Tenet. He convinced Bill clinton that SAddam had WMD's and drafted the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act to invade Iraq (but Bill was shouted down and accused of wagging the dog). Then he ignored the FBI investgations Agent O'Neill pursued after they FBI tracked UBL to Yemen, let him get away – after KSM was confirmed as the planner of the original WTC 93 bombing and planning a new WTC attack – hmmm. He helped to inflate the Curveball lie, convinced G Bush that Saddam was again hiding WMD's and planning to help al qaida use them, and then after we were in 2 wars and after 9/11, he retires and writes books about how awesome he was...

      June 22, 2012 at 11:17 am | Reply
    • DLWilson

      And I thought I was the only one....when President Clinton stepped up to the podium to throw his support for President Barrack Obama and then proceeds to take the limelight again in support of President Obama I asked myself "Why.???" It's as if Clinton is running for Office AGAIN.!!..In other words ..WHAT ARE THESE TWO "SNAKES" UP TO..???..According to what I have had taken the time to read in History, Preasident Clinton backed out on the assasination of Osama Bin Laden several times during his term...Intelligence/informants KNEW at that time something BIG was being planned under the "leadership" of Osama Bin Laden within the Al-Queda terrorist cell group...We absolutely know now what that was...BUT the question that lingers is why didn't President Clinton give the order to take out Osama Bin Laden...???? And now currently, this ex-President is showing up making speeches on major News programming as if he is the one running for the Presidency..especially after the assasination of Osama had been made a major "plus" in the Obama Campaign for his Re-Election.....If asked, would ex-President William J. Clinton sweet talk his way to avoid the question of why he did not give the order at that time...not to mention refusing to give a presidential order to help rescue an Air force Captain shot down behind enemy lines during the Bosnian-Serb Conflict.....I'll give him this much Clinton is a wiz when it comes to economics and financial matters but his Foreign Policy..just like Obama's foreign policy..it's QUESTIONABLE...?????....m.t.c.(more to come)..later...........

      October 18, 2012 at 7:21 pm | Reply
  9. David Crosby

    Everyone has this backwards..The reason that The CIA and every other government agency is so ineffective and spineless is because they are all staffed by an assortment of pith wristed Ivy leaguers that I wouldn't take to a high school cheerleader fight....

    June 22, 2012 at 1:22 am | Reply
  10. Bill

    Peter Bergen and Peter Arnett seemed to find him just fine in the 90's

    June 22, 2012 at 12:51 am | Reply
    • Anita Bongtoke

      Yes and that is simply amazing... but our trillion dollar high tech intel dragnet couldnt...

      perhaps we never wanted too... you know to keep the boogy man myth alive and everyone scared..

      June 22, 2012 at 10:45 am | Reply
      • MrComments

        Ummm, bin Laden came to them for interviews, they did not "find him".

        He was easily found after 9/11, but Bush did not want him. Sounds like he had a deal with Pakistan's ISI and bin Laden, all to protect "business". But once Obama decided to look for him again, it was not some piece of cake. No one was sure he was in that compound, and it took a lot of guts to make that call. If that goes bad, Obama is done. Even Gates wanted a drone strike, but Obama wanted to be sure. VERY gutsy call.

        June 22, 2012 at 1:15 pm |
  11. Patrick Portland

    The initial mistake was commited by Clinton & team. The concern about shrapnel hitting a building & possibly offensive to Muslims has Democratic pc BS written all over it. After Bin Laden took down 2 US embassies in Africa, the bombs should have been dropping & the guns blazing. Who cares about the collateral damage?

    June 21, 2012 at 6:55 pm | Reply
    • 666667

      This isn't news, America had been trying to kill him all along and messed up...9/11 was payback. Just like America tried to kill Castro waaaaaaaaaay before any nukes were in his country. In fact the Nukes were protection from the rogue U.S. government trying to kill him. America cries too much, its OK for them to kill and drop bombs on people but if the same thing happens...oh noo, that is not fair. Hypocrisy at its finest.

      June 21, 2012 at 7:30 pm | Reply
      • islam is vile

        America cries too much

        i guess you dont know to many muslims , always on their knees crying how much israel controls 1.5 billion muslims from Newyork..

        June 22, 2012 at 6:11 am |
    • borisjimbo

      Nice 220/20 hindsight there, Patrick.

      June 22, 2012 at 12:06 am | Reply
  12. Steve-O

    The real power behind the federal government didn't want Bin Laden dead until he finished his task.

    June 21, 2012 at 6:42 pm | Reply
    • Bogus boggs

      "The real power behind the federal government didn't want Bin Laden dead until he finished his task...."

      SUUURE, dude......

      Nice to see you and every other conspiracy theory nut job can be counted on to chime in...

      I forget, who WAS responsible for 9/11 again?

      The Neo-Cons looking for an excuse to launch a full scale invasion of the Middle East?
      Those twisted, evil dirty Jews?
      Bush Jr.?
      Cheney?
      The international Zionist cabal that secretly pulls the strings of the U.S., the IMF, the World Bank (and anybody else who matters)?
      The C.I.A.?
      I suppose you think Al Qaeda, Bin Laden and every other terrorist on the world scene the past 40 years are really just C.I.A. plants, huh?
      What color is the sky in your world, anyway?

      June 21, 2012 at 10:12 pm | Reply
    • StanCalif

      Bush (Jr.) and his sidekick Dick Cheney never had any intentions of eliminating OBL. Why? War is profitable, ending a war is NOT profitable. George and Dick were blind sided with dollar signs as they both salivated over Iraq's oil! George was (and is) just plain stupid. Nothing to compare to his father. Just another spoiled brat taught to worship oil. Cheney, was the really "evil one"! He controlled stupid George W. from day one. Cheney wanted the oil, nothing mattered how to get it! Surprise! We got no oil! But Cheney's friends made fortunes as "independent contractors" in Iraq. Did Cheney care at all that his buddies were actually killing our own troops? No! When our troops went to take a shower and got electrocuted by Cheney's friend's wonderful work, who was ever called to account? No one! Friends take care of friends! Unfortunately, our troops were NOT friends of Cheney!

      June 21, 2012 at 10:26 pm | Reply
      • Michael

        then gee stupid child? why did we NOT get any oil? 9/11 twoofer idiots, poster children for abortion

        June 22, 2012 at 12:00 am |
      • james

        "You know, I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over. I don't believe he went in there for oil. We didn't go in there for imperialist or financial reasons. " Bill Clinton June 2004

        June 22, 2012 at 11:29 am |
      • james

        You need to wash ALL your meds down with booze....

        speaking of meds... did you know it is MORE profitable to save lives then to make war? You don't know that because you are a conspiracy nut... corporations don't profit from war, they profit from continued customer bases – war eliminates the customer base. Cheney wasn't in haliburton when he was VP, George Bush did not plot 9/11 in 1996, Pick up a book and learn instead of opening links to MSNBC blogs and blindly repeating retarded rhetoric....

        June 22, 2012 at 11:32 am |
    • notatall

      Another Corporate plot?

      June 22, 2012 at 9:41 am | Reply
    • Ameritalib

      Bin laden was a CIA agent. He became useless to us, time to go

      June 23, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Reply
  13. Luke

    Clinton has Bin Laden in a hospital bed and did nothing.

    June 21, 2012 at 5:25 pm | Reply
    • David

      –wasn't Clinton's executive decision. Read the article instead of letting your partisanship blind you.

      June 21, 2012 at 5:37 pm | Reply
    • Mark Taylor

      Bush has Bin Laden pinned down inside a mile perimeter in 2002 after killing over 3,000 Americans and Bush did nothing.

      June 21, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Reply
      • Mark Taylor

        Just read the CIA accounts of Tora Bora. Iraq and its fictional weapons of mass destruction were made priority.

        June 21, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • MrBo

      Obama has Bin Laden pinned down in his desert front villa.
      Gives the go ahead to nail the SOB.
      BOOM goes the dynamite.
      Republicans whine that it was all a political publicity stunt.

      June 21, 2012 at 6:28 pm | Reply
      • StanCalif

        George W (and his overseer, Dick) had ample opportunity to eliminate OBL but chose to let him go. Why? Dick and his friends were making money! Funny how Dick went on the talk show circuit after being kicked out of office. He tried in vein to account for his time in office. All his interviews fell on deaf ears, we all knew he was trying to protect all his friends who profited! What did George W. do? He went into seclusion, refusing to say anything. George W. was simply a stooge obeying all instructions from Dick! Dick's campaign proved useless, so he left his "legacy" for his daughter to defend! What is his daughter going to say? CNN would be wise to eliminate her from any coverage. She only knows what her father allowed her to know. Much, much more was going on that she is not even aware of!

        June 21, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
  14. easyrhino

    As Dr. Paul Craig Roberts opined:

    Think about it. What are the chances that a person allegedly suffering from kidney disease and requiring dialysis and, in addition, afflicted with diabetes and low blood pressure, survived in mountain hideaways for a decade? If bin Laden was able to acquire dialysis equipment and medical care that his condition required, would not the shipment of dialysis equipment point to his location? Why did it take ten years to find him?

    Consider also the claims, repeated by a triumphalist US media celebrating bin Laden’s death, that "bin Laden used his millions to bankroll terrorist training camps in Sudan, the Philippines, and Afghanistan, sending ‘holy warriors’ to foment revolution and fight with fundamentalist Muslim forces across North Africa, in Chechnya, Tajikistan and Bosnia." That’s a lot of activity for mere millions to bankroll (perhaps the US should have put him in charge of the Pentagon), but the main question is: how was bin Laden able to move his money about? What banking system was helping him? The US government succeeds in seizing the assets of people and of entire countries, Libya being the most recent. Why not bin Laden’s? Was he carrying around with him $100 million dollars in gold coins and sending emissaries to distribute payments to his far-flung operations?

    June 21, 2012 at 5:25 pm | Reply
    • JX

      You make it sound like the Terrorist are stupid.

      Do you know how common dialysis equipment is all over the world? They could easily get it from an actual hospital (whether by theft or otherwise), rob a delivery truck anywhere in the world, then ship it through several channels and carry it by mule to where ever it is going.

      Trying to track him via small dialysis equipment purchase is like tracking someone down base on they purchase tennis shoes.

      June 21, 2012 at 6:55 pm | Reply
    • Bogus boggs

      Sticking "Dr." in front of Paul Craig Roberts name doesn't give that whack job anymore credibility than your average conspiracy nut. To say Paul Craig Roberts is out where the buses don't run would be an understatement of MASSIVE proportions....But hey! It's a free country; read and believe what you choose, dude.....

      June 22, 2012 at 12:53 am | Reply
  15. RealityMike

    Anything to change the subject! You idiots fall for all of CNN's BS. They got you talking about this instead of Obama's lousy economy. Good work CNN!

    June 21, 2012 at 5:15 pm | Reply
    • Ih8hypocrites

      Yes this a news site theres other news besides politics and the economy Fox does the same thing stop being so ignorant cause you head is so far up your a ss.

      June 21, 2012 at 5:51 pm | Reply
    • Mark Taylor

      So we're 7.5 trillion dollars in the red as opposed to a surplus, the housing market has crashed and 8% of Americans are out of work when GW Bush leaves office and somehow this is "Obama's lousy economy". What a lemming.

      June 21, 2012 at 5:52 pm | Reply
      • RealityMike

        See what I mean?

        June 21, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
  16. Northernstar

    So let me get this straight; Clinton knew all about OBL and didn't bother to mention it to Bush; and thought Bush would just pick it up on his own....come on guys aren't we all on the same team ? Clinton really didn't think to mention it to Bush that OBL should be his top target ? What kind of transition was there between Clinton & Bush; just changing the bedsheets ?

    June 21, 2012 at 5:13 pm | Reply
    • Uri

      He did. Please read Clarke 'Against all enemies'.
      Clarke was both Clinton and Bush's counter-terrorism 'tsar'.
      He describes how Clinton warned Bush that 'Al-Qaeda is going to be your top priority'
      but Bush refused to even listen until August of 2001.
      Read it, it is all available to you if you just want to know.

      June 21, 2012 at 5:29 pm | Reply
    • Alfa Tango

      Of course Clinton's people told Bush's, but Condi Rice chose to ignore Clinton's top counter terrorism experts and put her own people in place.

      June 21, 2012 at 5:35 pm | Reply
    • Historian

      Incorrect. Bush and his administration were well aware of UBL and the attempts to capture him made by Clinton.

      June 21, 2012 at 5:38 pm | Reply
  17. 11

    Correct me if I'm wrong (don't crucify me). The Russians invade Afghanistan, then, the Afghans get angry. Afterthat, the United States decides to intervene, we send in our CIA, who inturn, give weapons and training the the locals to help defeat the Russians. [We gave specifically RPG's (rocket propelled grenades) for the simple reason that the Russians had helicopters, of which gave them the adavantage] So, the weapons are set, the training is finished, now the group, which is named the Taliban just needs a leader. Didn't we appoint Osama Bin Laden as the leader?
    Then, after the Russians had been erradicated from Afghanistan, (some time later) we bomb OBL's kids, or whatever we destroyed (I think it was a mosque), but he then turns against us.

    June 21, 2012 at 5:09 pm | Reply
    • FoolKiller

      Pretty close, but giving him a reason was not a factor. He made a career of tilting at whatever windmill was in power. We made a handy target. We're the Great Evil, didn't you know?

      June 21, 2012 at 5:22 pm | Reply
    • Jeromes Horowitz

      My understanding was that OBL resented the establishment of US bases on Arab soil after Gulf War I

      June 21, 2012 at 5:48 pm | Reply
    • Bogus boggs

      After the Soviet invasion in '79, we (the U.S. through the CIA) began to supply money and arms to different groups of fighters in Afghanistan, the Mujahideen. They were NOT one group of fighters, they were many different groups, of which one Bin Laden belonged too. They were tribal, and they all didn't like each other, but the common goal they shared was the hatred of the Red Army and the communist puppet government the Soviets were there to prop up. This was during the apex of the Cold War, and the United States saw an opportunity to pay back the Soviets for their support of North Vietnam. The North Vietnamese were able to outlast our will to continue fighting them due to the material support they received from the Soviet Union, Communist China and assorted nations in the Eastern Bloc. When the Soviets rolled into Kabul in order to establish a pro-Soviet communist government (to secure their southern border and prevent the United States from extending its influence into Afghanistan), we saw an opportunity for payback, and we took it. Again, there were multiple groups of "freedom fighters" that we supplied money and weapons to, including the Stinger missile. Today, what we consider Al Qaeda and the Taliban did not exist yet. We did supply money and weapons to the Haqqani group, which currently is residing in North Waziristan and suffering losses from our Predator drone strikes. Again, one of many groups who did not necessarily like each other, but were united in their opposition to the Soviets. Bin laden was a rich kid from Saudi Arabia who got religion and went to Afghanistan to fight the infidels, those godless communists. The group of fighters he led were NOT known as Al Qaeda; that name would not come into play till the summer of 1988. The fighting Bin Laden did in Afghanistan ( and Bin Laden DID fight; he was no coward when it came to throwing down with the Soviets) had nothing to do with the terrorist group he would found towards the end of the war in 1988. Guys like Bin Laden were convinced that Allah had been on their side, and that Allah had helped them drive out the Soviets in 1989. This is true, except that in this case Allah was the United States of America. Without the material support of Uncle Sam (and countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Israel), the Muhajadeen would have had a MUCH longer struggle against the Soviets, and they certainly would have needed A LOT longer than 10 years to drive them out without help. The war against the Soviets radicalized Bin Laden and many of his followers, who deeply believed it was their Islamic faith and devotion to Allah that led to victory against the communists. By 1988, Bin Laden saw the Soviet Union in decline and assumed through the will of Allah that the West (starting with the United States) would be soon to follow. Bin Laden's hatred of the West (the U.S. in particular) crystallized in August 1990 after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The reason for this was simple; after the Iraqi conquest of Kuwait, it appeared that Saddam would keep on going and cross the border to seize the Saudi oil fields, thereby achieving a strategic stranglehold on the world's largest producer of oil, and becoming the dominant power in the Middle East. Saddam invaded Kuwait because the eight year war he waged against the Ayatollahs in Iran (from 1980-1988) had decimated Iraq physically and financially. The Saudi royal family saw Saddam as a threat, and were presented with two options; invite the United States to deploy ground troops into the Kingdom, or take up the offer from one of the sons of the richest (next to the royal family) families in the country. Bin Laden offered the services of himself and his group (Al Qaeda in its infancy) to the royal family, stating that he and his fighters would fight the Iraqis the same way they had fought the Soviets. The royal family declined his offer, preferring to stake the future of the Kingdom on the backs of the Americans and the coalition of nations that Uncle Sam would assemble. Within days of the invasion of Kuwait, President Bush (Senior) deployed the 82nd Airborne to Saudi Arabia. This was the first step in the largest deployment of American military forces abroad since the end of the Vietnam War. As hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and marines deployed to the Kingdom, Bin Laden and his followers seethed. All they saw were foreign infidels (including thousands of women) trampling the sands of the holy land, the birthplace of their faith. Bin Laden was offended that the royal family would allow foreign troops to be in the land of Mecca and Medina. It was from this point forward that Bin Laden would swear vengeance against the United States and the Saudi royal family. After the war ended and Kuwait had been liberated, the majority of American forces had been withdrawn, but the relationship between the Saudi royal family and the United States was stronger than ever, and this was something that Bin Laden and his followers could NOT abide. The United States of America, the leader of the West and the last remaining Superpower in the world was more entrenched than ever before in the Middle East, and Bin Laden was determined to do something about it. Thus, Al Qaeda would be his platform for striking at the Americans and American interests around the world. Al Qaeda was in Somalia in 1993 (Blackhawk Down), and they bombed the World Trade Center for the first time that same year. Bin Laden assumed that America was a decadent country, "a paper tiger" that he and his group would bring down, just as they had done to the Soviet Union in the previous decade. Al Qaeda bombed two of our embassies in Africa in August 1998, and attacked the USS Cole in October 2000. Their single greatest victory against the United States was carried out on September 11th, 2001. Two days before the 9/11 attacks, two Al Qaeda assassins (disguised as journalists) murdered Ahmad Shah Massoud, "The Lion of Panjshir" in northern Afghanistan. Massoud was the leader of the Northern Alliance, a group of Afghans who, like Bin Laden, had received material aid from the United States during the war against the Soviets. After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the country would descend into civil war, fought between the Northern Alliance and religious "students" in the south of the country known as the Taliban. It is assumed that Bin Laden had Massoud killed as a gesture towards the Taliban, because Massoud was their greatest enemy, and Bin Laden would need the protection of the Taliban in the coming days because of the impending 9/11 attacks. Al Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11th, 2001. The Americans demanded that Bin Laden be turned over to them, and with the refusal by the Taliban to comply with this demand, the United States invaded Afghanistan in October. They knocked the Taliban out of power, decimated Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, chased Bin Laden into the mountains of Tora Bora, and lost him there as the focus of American military power was beginning to shift from the Afghan battlefields to Iraq. The move into Iraq was a tremendous mistake, a war of choice that did NOT need to be fought at that time, and because of this, Bin Laden would continue to survive, claiming credit for the 9/11 attacks along with the Madrid and London bombings in the following years until his death at the hands of U.S. Navy Seals in May 2011.
      THIS is roughly how it happened, but there will always be those who refuse to believe ANY of this. In their minds, Bin Laden was either an agent of the CIA, a dupe of the CIA, or a creation of the CIA or a "shadow government" who was used to advance the business interests of a select few. Quite a few posters to CNN are quite comfortable with the idea of a "Zionist conspiracy" behind the events of the past thirty years. There is no doubt that we went into a proxy war with the Soviets in Afghanistan in the '80's, and walked away in 1989, never conceiving of the consequences of that decision. We chose to ignore how deeply some Muslims felt about their faith and how they viewed us in their part of the world, and in doing so, we failed to see that some of them (Bin Laden and Al Qaeda) would be coming for us. In a world dominated by the use of fossil fuels, we would ALWAYS be involved in the Middle East, and we always WILL be, at least until the oil runs out. Those of you who would rather believe most of us are sheep, than by all means, stick to your conspiracy theories. At the end of the day, you'll end up cursing the darkness, because Alex Jones and your conspiracies will be ALL that you have.......

      June 22, 2012 at 12:22 am | Reply
      • neas

        wel said .........hope the nuts on both sides see the truth.....violence and hate begates violence and hate.......

        June 22, 2012 at 9:18 am |
  18. patw2100

    Good to see that at one time America had a President that didn't believe in murder. President Bush is the greatest President in American history.

    June 21, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Reply
    • Mark Taylor

      OMG I hope this post was in jest.

      June 21, 2012 at 5:55 pm | Reply
    • Joe Six Pack

      I'll bet you huff paint.

      June 21, 2012 at 6:02 pm | Reply
  19. Chuck D

    This is a lie. CIA station head in Dubai met with Bin Laden at a hospital and paid for his kidney dialysis only months before 9/11.

    June 21, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Reply
    • Steve B.

      WHAT?!!

      June 21, 2012 at 6:03 pm | Reply
  20. MrJTP

    In December of 1998 we only had a handful of 'offices' in Afghanistan. Only the CIA was serious about "UBL". We had no armed drones in the area, we had no military facilities in the area. They (those with eyes on UBL) were told it would take up to 6 hours to have resources over the site. UBL was not in the habit of staying anywhere in public that long. CIA was after UBL because of the bombings in Africa and he knew it. Even after the 9/11 attack the White House and the DOD had no interest in Afghanistan since they 'knew' it was Iraq that supported those involved. Uh..FAIL!

    June 21, 2012 at 4:35 pm | Reply
    • indep100

      The target of the embassy bombings in Africa was a team of 3 CIA agents who had been sent there to get OBL. The agents were killed in the bombing. OBL had been a target for some time. There was a cruise missile attack on a camp in Afghanistan in the 1998 time frame . The attack took out the camp but OBL was not present when the missiles struck.

      June 21, 2012 at 9:15 pm | Reply
  21. USMCRETAILER

    Bush was so d*mn dumb it took him like 6+ mos to realize the country was in a reccession when he was first asked by the media. He denied it at first or he was lying. Either or.

    June 21, 2012 at 4:23 pm | Reply
    • johnh77

      Oh and Odumbo is being honest with us. Go smoke something and leave the thinking to those that are smart enough.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:37 pm | Reply
    • booskoo

      This proves 911 was Cinton's lapse.

      The economy did GREAT under Bush until dems took House of Reps, and sent it off the road - followed by BozoBarry's sending it off the cliff

      June 21, 2012 at 4:40 pm | Reply
      • Joshua Ludd

        So, care to tell us HOW the Democrats just made the economy suddenly implode? Did THEY force banks to give out sub prime mortgages and sell and re-sell their bad loans or perhaps go back in a time machine to screw everything up for the 6 years before that?

        June 21, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
  22. armytrooper

    bin laden did not plan the attack- it was people from our Allies..

    June 21, 2012 at 4:15 pm | Reply
    • Dennis

      Your tin foil hat is on too tight.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Reply
    • Patrick Portland

      Moronic & conspiratorial...get some air...

      June 21, 2012 at 6:51 pm | Reply
    • joe smoe

      You are all a bunch of blind mice. If the U.S. goverment does anything unethical and people become aware its a conspiracy but if a middle eastern country does its terrorism. U.S.A, is run by greedy corps. that will kill for profit. Wake up idiots.

      June 22, 2012 at 1:11 am | Reply
  23. jim

    It amazing we have any problems here in the US with so many experts on this board. I guess many of you should be working for the CIA.

    June 21, 2012 at 4:06 pm | Reply
    • Jeromes Horowitz

      Is that Catholic, Irish and Alcoholic?

      June 21, 2012 at 5:50 pm | Reply
  24. 2011cnn2011

    bin laden is dead, and soon al zawahiri and the traitor adam gadahn will be killed

    June 21, 2012 at 4:02 pm | Reply
    • Josh Mackey

      adam gadahn?

      Why would Mossad kill one of their own assets. He wasn't a convert – he was outed as a Jew pretending to be an Arab terrorist.

      Poor revisionism on the part of the Z.O.M. really

      June 21, 2012 at 4:12 pm | Reply
      • Reckless

        Cheers to that!

        June 21, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
  25. Dave Anders

    To try to eliminate a political rival of Karzai, President Bill Clinton ordered bin Laden's house in Afghanistan bombed pre-911. That bombing killed bin Laden's wife and children AND turned bin Laden against the United States.No attempt to kill bin Laden by Bill Clinton means no 9/11.

    June 21, 2012 at 3:50 pm | Reply
    • Scott Pearson

      What wife are you talking about? I can't find any reference to a wife of bin Laden's being killed by the U.S. . . . not even in interviews with bin Laden explaining his hatred for the U.S.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:43 pm | Reply
      • Dan

        Bin Laden started to turn against the US after the first Gulf War as well as the Saudi princes for allowing the infidels (US and allies) on the holy soil of the Arabian Peninsula (build up following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait). He in particular wanted to destroy the capitalist nature of the US which is why he went after the World Trade Center. To him it was a symbol of American imperialism and economic might.

        June 21, 2012 at 5:09 pm |
      • MrJTP

        UBL was responsible for the US Embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam in 1998. Two years before the first gulf war. He had already expressed hatred for the US.

        June 21, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
  26. Easyrhino

    Gotta say, if fundamentalist Islamic extremists were the sole perpetrators of 9/11 if was very generous of them to offer an advanced warning to Israeli based employees of the Odigo instant messaging company:

    Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

    June 21, 2012 at 3:46 pm | Reply
    • MrComments

      Get some therapy. Let me guess, you read it on Alex Jones's website?

      June 21, 2012 at 5:11 pm | Reply
    • Jeromes Horowitz

      From Wikipedia –

      Odigo reported that, two hours before the September 11, 2001 attacks, two of their employees who were working in an Odigo office in Herzliya Pituah, a city near Tel Aviv,[1] received a hostile English electronic instant message non-specifically threatening them that a terrorist attack would happen.[2] They did not mention this to their employer until after they heard reports of a terrorist attack in the United States on the news, after which they informed the company's management. One of Odigo's New York offices was then situated under a kilometer away from the World Trade Center complex.[3] However, the threatening message did not mention the location of an attack.[4] The company took the initiative in tracking down the originating IP address of the message, giving the information to the FBI, so that the FBI could track down the Internet Service Provider, and the actual sender of the original message.[5] Using the "people-search" function, Odigo users can send anonymous messages anywhere in the world to other users, who they can find based on demographics or location. According to the Washington Post, the message declared “that some sort of attack was about to take place. The notes ended with an anti-Semitic slur. The messages said 'something big was going to happen in a certain amount of time'".[

      June 21, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Reply
  27. Bill

    Cindy, I suggest you count the democratic senators in 2008. There were 60.

    June 21, 2012 at 3:35 pm | Reply
  28. Realdirect

    YAWN.....x 3 = George Bush....CIA...+ Chaney...divided by more + 9/11...+ Iraqi oil...= Billions....

    June 21, 2012 at 3:34 pm | Reply
    • John

      Remember Bush was not in office in 1998...Clinton was.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Reply
      • stinger21

        yes, thank you. bush gets blamed for everything since the attack happened while he was in office. conveniently, all you dems overlook the fact that much of this information came to light and was not acted upon by Clinton. He was too busy smoking cigars.

        June 21, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
      • Joshua Ludd

        Remember, the Bush administration was in the process of shutting down the office dedicated to hunting Bin Laden which they continued with after 9-11 and had memos that said Bin Laden was looking to attack the US very soon using airplanes.

        June 21, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
  29. alfranken

    So according to this story, The Clinton administration compiled a huge amount of data, then G.W. did nothing, then Obama used what data Clinton's people provided to be engaged to find and kill him.

    Thanks for confirming what most of us already knew.

    June 21, 2012 at 3:27 pm | Reply
    • Schmedley

      If you actually read the dates in the article, this happened during the first Bush administration. Clinton did nothing and AQ grew and hit us in 2001. I'm not saying that GW was a great president by any means, but let's stay at least somewhere in the ballpark of reality, shall we?

      The other point is that if we DID hit OBL in 1988 and demolished a Mosque in the process, I can totally see a HUGE muslim Jihad build up after that. The hindsight in this article is not 20/20 because I think the political concern was very real because at the time we didn't have the justification to hit them.

      The unfortunate property of a democracy is that something bad has to happen first before anyone acts. If nothing bad has happened, no one will agree to do anything about what might happen.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:37 pm | Reply
      • DJ Simmerdown

        It's you who should read the article again, numnuts. This happened during the Clinton administration.

        June 21, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
    • Dave Anders

      President Bill Clinton ordered bin Laden's house bombed- that killed bin Laden's wife and children which turned bin Laden against the United States- no Clinton bombing means no 9/11. On tv Bush announced that he had formed a SEALS team and gave that SEALS team orders to kill bin Laden. Obama is too egotistical(smart-a**ed) to think that he can learn anything so he got caught lying that he had anything to do with bin Laden's death.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:57 pm | Reply
      • Greg

        What? Bush didn't form anything. Seal Six has been around since the mid 80's as a result of the failure to rescue the Iran hostages at Desert One during the Carter administration. Bush had plenty of time to use them, but didn't. He was focused on Iraq.

        June 22, 2012 at 9:23 am |
  30. dutspup

    pa pa pa pa pa propagandaaaaaaaaaaaa

    June 21, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Reply
  31. djanes

    It was a failure of our intllegence and policies.

    We didn't act because we didn't believe they were as big of a threat as they were.

    9/11 made us believe.

    And now that we are being proactive about 'removing threats' there seems to be a growing voice that maybe we are going too far.

    I say keep the predators in the air. They're doing a fine job.

    June 21, 2012 at 3:08 pm | Reply
    • jon

      They were worried that "stray shrapnel might hit a mosque"????? Really – what a bunch of dumbheads we are.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:42 pm | Reply
    • dbld

      come on now you supposedly Vets. everybody knows(vets and high ups">>),- That you can delegate authority not responsibility!!

      June 21, 2012 at 3:53 pm | Reply
  32. nik green

    This is beyond bogus. "Declassified" material has been thoroughly vetted and scrubbed so as to remove any evidence of incompetence, complicity, or outright criminality on the part of the authorities. And, as we all know, or SHOULD DO by now, the term "national security" has become *the* blanket excuse – with its manipulative overtones – used to protect criminal elements within government agencies and the military.

    As the old saying goes: What happens when the Mafia is charged with "investigating" the Gambino Family?

    June 21, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Reply
  33. easyrhino

    Wish this information from a Fox news report was also declassified:

    Investigators suspect that they Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are "tie-ins." But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, "evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."

    June 21, 2012 at 2:55 pm | Reply
    • dave

      So it sounds like the conversation went something akin to this old trap "So tell me, when did you stop beating your wife?" only it's more like "Let me just say this. If Israel knew about the plan I certainly couldn't talk about it. Not that I'm saying they did, but if they did I wouldn't be allowed to say." Another smear and run.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:12 pm | Reply
      • MrComments

        The Mossad were actually one of many Intel agencies warning the Bush Admin. Wake up. Even our our CIA was, tenet was running around like a madman screaming about attacks. The Bush Admin ignored all of it.

        June 21, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
      • Easyrhino

        Your analogy doesn't work and nor is this an attempt to smear. This is about evidence linking foreign nationals of another country to a terrorist act in the US.

        I think the public has a right to know what the evidence is.

        June 21, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
    • frank

      actually the Israelis warned us and we ignored the warnings so as not to offend "easyrhino" and his buddies like "dave" with collateral damage to a mosque, implying the opposite is just the same crap propaganda that this group of whiners has been engaging in for past 60 years hoping that by repeating their lies they will eventually be believed. wont happen "rhino"!

      June 21, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Reply
  34. Ivanhoe

    For more insight into political events in the Middle East including leading up to and the death of Osama bin Laden - read the novels - king of Bat'ha - and the sequel - Tales from the East:Return of Ivanhoe by Ivanhoe.

    June 21, 2012 at 2:53 pm | Reply
  35. IdislikeLebron

    I would identify myself more teaparty then republican. Why is it that everytime someone does not agree with you they are a racist. Its this kind of thinking that hurts everyone. With that being said President Obama does deserve alot of credit for the killing of Bin Laden. He did give the kill order. It is also true that republicans lost sight on killing Bin Laden. They did say his death wasnt a priority. We also had zero right to be in Iraq. Democrats and republicans both voted for that war with a high majority. With all this being said our country is in massive debt do to both Bush and Obama. President Obama said he would cut the debt in half in four years he has failed there. Job creation is not good. Im voting for Herman Cain

    June 21, 2012 at 2:50 pm | Reply
    • Cindy

      When 15 Republican congressmen conspired to derail Obama's economic plan before he spent 1 day in office, you can hardly blame him for not getting his plan enacted.
      Huffington Post/ April 2012 for the names of the 15 Republicans.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Reply
      • Andy

        Democrats controlled both the house and senate during Obama's first two years in office. Its unlikely 15 republicans could have accomplished that at that time.

        June 21, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
      • Cindy

        Oh yes, because of Republican rules they needed more than a majority to pass any legislation. (60 votes.)
        Read 'Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the US |House of Representatives." Robert Draper
        He will tell you about the conspiracy to sabotage his presidency. He must have good sources, because he names them by name.

        June 21, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
    • Andy

      Considering Herman Cain isn't running and you aren't voting for Obama's opponent you are still essentially voting for Obama.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Reply
    • Brian

      Obama never said he'd cut the debt in half within four years.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:09 pm | Reply
      • bhartman36

        He promised to cut the deficit in half in 4 years. Check Politifact.

        June 21, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
    • orangecounty

      Look at how the debt was created. An unfunded war, and tax cuts during 2nd Bush is the problem. When have we ever had an unfunded war, Congress was drinking the Kool-Aid on that. No tax cuts we would have had the debt paid off, or down to a reasonable amount in 2005! Then we can talk tax cuts.

      Remember corporations, if the only way to make a profit is to not pay taxes means you are a failing corporation.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:11 pm | Reply
  36. Fred Dameron

    Old news. Read Shadow Warriors published in 04? Clinton had two chances but would not give the go over fear of collateral damage. End of story. Call it what it is a missed opportunity to get a Terr. Using those two events to lay blame is BS. We live with the results and try to do better next time. And before you Pillory me I retired from the AF in 05 after multiple tours in country.

    June 21, 2012 at 2:45 pm | Reply
  37. Bitterjack

    Yep, this is exactly what the liberal planned. This article is all about how frustrated the CIA was because Clinton refused to act against OBL. The comments turned into Obama vs Bush, as usual. It sure does help Obama look better by constantly ignoring the good things Bush did. Bush will never be President again. Get over it.
    If Clinton has done his job, 9/11 would never have happened.

    June 21, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Reply
    • citizenmn

      If Bush had done his job, 9-11 would never had happened since it happened on his watch. Numerous reports came out at the time that your hero W ignored warnings about Bin Laden. Furthermore, Bush should never have been president except he stole the election.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:49 pm | Reply
      • Lance

        Be careful with the "on his watch" argument. Too easily turned against you.

        June 21, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
      • Cindy

        It is true that the Saudi Ambassador was on many TV shows saying they gave the US a warning of an attack at least 2 weeks before 9/11. George Bush decided to close the government and go on vacation to the ranch. He even took the National Security Advisor with him.

        June 21, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
  38. Sheri Lee

    If Bill Clinton is to blame for 9/11. Who do we blame for the first attack on the WTC?? Bush Sr or Bill Clinton?? Bill Clinton had been in office for 90 days when the first attack happend. GWB had been in over 200 days, the Bush administration had their warnings but could not connect the dots. Also after 9/11 they had OBL in sights at Tora Bora but choosed to focus on Iraq. Do we blame Bill Clinton for as well. Bush had 7 years after the fact to get this guy and failed. Is that Bill Clinton's fault as well???

    June 21, 2012 at 2:27 pm | Reply
    • knucklecheese

      It's hard to decipher your nonsensical ramblings, but yes, Clinton has a lot of responsibility for 9/11, and yes, Bush Sr. has a lot of responsibility for the first attack. Those are the facts. Political leanings are irrelevant to fact. Conservatives have to accept that Bush Sr. dropped the ball. Liberals must come to terms with the fact that Clinton dropped the ball. It's not complicated.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:42 pm | Reply
  39. Don Jones

    Bin Laden no more responsible for 9/11 than I was for JFK's assassination. 9/11 was an inside job. Period. Google "In Pane Sight". Google "Loose Change". Then read Popular Mechanic's debunking of the conspiracy theories. Keep an open mind and compare THE PROVABLE FACTS, as opposed to speculation. Look at the film of "Osama Bin Laden" admitting the 9/11 attacks that the CIA "certified". Then look-up the facts on Osama bin Laden. The NSA and CIA both clearly state that ObL is left handed, where the man they claim is ObL is clearly right-handed and does not even look like him. I could go on and on. The truth is out there. The truth that our democratic republic was usurped.

    June 21, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Reply
    • WhackyWaco

      Lay off the kool aid.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Reply
    • Bitterjack

      Really genius? How about the WTC attacks in February of 1993?
      Here's a good theory for you to digest: Canada did it!! Why? to make the Tar Sands profitable. See, the Canadian government new about the Tar Sands since the 1960s. However neither the technology nor the return on investiment was there. The technology was well proven in the late 90s. Now the problem becomes how to make it profitable. You'd need to start a war in the Middle East. However, since the ME countries have been at war with each other since antiquity, you would have had to involve a foriegn power strong enough to project military power that far and win. Russia and China just would have gone in there killed everyone. It would have been over in a year. However, if you attacked the US and framed some ME country, typical US liberal political correctness would have dragged it out for years. Good job Canada, things went better than planned.
      See how easy it is to make things up?

      June 21, 2012 at 2:42 pm | Reply
      • MrComments

        Amazing. It's been 10 years and these Truther nuts are still rambling about magical thermite, etc. Clueless.

        June 21, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
      • Chris I

        Unfortunately, a large chunk of people (into the millions and growing) are onto the game of global politics, corporate fascism, and how "staged events" like 9/11, Madrid, London, and Uganda encourage global citizens to support "national security" measures and "wars on terrorism." Follow the money, sir. Do you have ANY idea how much money is involved in war, global politics, and intelligence? ANY idea? Whether or not 9/11 was entirely "inside" I do not know, but I do know one thing: a jet airliner certainly never hit the Pentagon. That's the only thing I have firsthand knowledge of, if you get my drift. We're talking about the Pentagon here, the most heavily guarded, secretive, and fortified structure on the planet, and there's one choppy inconclusive security camera that caught the event??? Give me a break. It's the folks that believe 9/11 WASN'T orchestrated that keep the kool-aid flowing, IMO.

        June 21, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
      • Chris I

        Also – do some research into how al Qaeda originated and what their ultimate goals are. Scheuer has some great insight into the group, go watch his Youtube interviews. They only exist because we created them, armed them, trained them, gave them finances, etc., and now we're surprised they're disinterested in America's intentions? Get to the root cause of an issue, and you'll find the real source of a predictament: international business and lots of money. How else would Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing stay in business?

        June 21, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
      • jim

        Ten years and nothings changed, still an inside job covered up by the government. With shillls and the ignorant doing everything they can to look away from the truth that started the governments war on our freedoms and liberties and with countries around the world.

        June 21, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
    • Michael

      Loose Change is a joke, and if you believe 9/11 was an inside job, you're part of a group of whacko nuts that also believes we did not land on the moon. Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life little one

      June 21, 2012 at 2:47 pm | Reply
      • Mike

        What is not a joke is over 1700 architects and engineers who have proven the twin towers and building 7 (never hit by a plane) was brought down by controlled demolition. They did scientific research and published their results.

        http://www.ae911truth.org

        June 22, 2012 at 7:13 am |
      • Anita Bongtoke

        Building 7.. 5:20 that afternoon, isolated fires, some exterior damage, managed to fall at freefall speed as admitted by NIST. Meaning every single massive steel supporting column had to fail at the exact same instance. Isolated office fires do not make this freefall happen, the building fell through itself, through the path of greatest resistance.

        Again, freefall, no resistance.. exactly how?

        June 22, 2012 at 10:54 am |
      • MrComments

        First of all, stop the "small fires" nonsense. That is pure fiction. There is EXTENSIVE footage of the MASSIVE fires. So you are just flat out wrong on that, not even debatable. The damage to 7 was bad, the fires were worse. And the Towers did not fall from plane hits, it was the fires that did the most damage. 7 was hit by one piece of perimeter column section estimated at 50 tons that sliced right through the building, doing MAJOR damage (plus a 20 story "gash" on the facade). The building was moving and creaking for a couple of hours before it collapsed. These are sure signs of a progressive collapse, unless you believe in slow motion demo. In fact, not one building demo contractor or expert in the world says WTC7 was some kind of pre-planned controlled demo. It's quite silly actually. The FDNY even said the building was likely to fall, PULLED everyone out of the building, roped off a collapse zone, and then waited for the inevitable. There is ZERO proof of any kind of controlled demo. Pure nonsense. I will try to post some links to show you all of this in my next comment. You really need to do some research because you are getting your chain yanked by the equivalent of Birthers.

        Oh, on free fall. The majority of the fires were just above the open atrium area. Collapse through that area (2.25 seconds) was approx free fall, yes. Then it slowed again. You had a weakened area with about 35 floors above it. Free fall does NOT mean "no resistance", it means a NET of no resistance. The weight of the 35 floors above cancelled out an force from the weakened steel with no problem. Plus you can't calculate if it was "exactly" free fall. It might have been 95% of free fall, etc. (no way to exactly calibrate from a tape a mile away). So again, it is the NET resistance, not just the resistance. The Penthouses had just collapsed through the building also doing major damage below (remember the entire collapse took 16 seconds when you take the Penthouses into account), so once that area above the open Atrium was weakened, you had almost nothing to resist the force. Recall also that WTC7 was built over a large 13.8 KV Con Ed substation, so there were VERY long beam spans and very few columns, adding to it's vulnerability on those lower floors. Again, I will try to post links in my next comment.

        June 22, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • Bigubu

      Don, have you ever heard of a digital camera, or the art of digitizing video tape. you can flip the digital image and presto=chango the right handed man is now left handed, and the asymetrical human face suddenly looks a bit different. You talk like you are some expert on the grand conspiracy but you can't figure out a digital picture. Glad we don't have to depend on you to protect this country.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:54 pm | Reply
      • JohnnyAnonymous

        You can mirror/flip an image all day long but it won't change what hand the guy is using...

        June 21, 2012 at 3:24 pm |
    • TrueSeeker

      This man speaks the truth. Whatever happen on 9/11, the story we have been told isn't the truth. There are hundreds of pieces of evidence that are so counter to the 'official story', that it is impossible for it to be true. Take an honest look at the evidence and you'll begin to see the truth as well. I lost a lot of friends & colleagues on that day, so I was motivated to learn more. Upon doing so I was shocked to understand we have been lied to, but no amount of wishing can change the facts.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Reply
    • jim

      It's so easy to see the shillls working these boards, they always try to say anyone pointing out the 101+ flaws in the official story as conspiracy nuts, even know it is clear as day it was an inside job. I'm sure there are others on here who are just plain ignorant, but for the most part they disinformation shillls.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Reply
      • Bogus boggs

        Clear as day that it was an inside job, HUH, Jim?

        Exactly what fast-food restaurant just fired you?

        June 21, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
    • MrComments

      Watch Screw Loose Change. Makes the kids who did Loose Change look like the naive idiots that they are. Some parts are so embarrassing you might think Loose Change was done by kindergarten kids. Plus they lied. In fact, Loose Change makes Cheney look honest.

      Many comprehensive sites make all that Truther stuff look just as stupid as Birther stuff. All nonsense.

      Two questions: How come not one demo contractor or expert in the world thinks 9/11 was some kind of pre-planned controlled demo? Not one. Because top down synchronized demo is not possible.

      Also, how come a jet exploding on impact into a huge fireball and starting a raging inferno did not detonate the explosives??? Your take on that?

      Seriously, it's been 10 years and you are still in a fog. Do just a LITTLE homework.

      There are websites on how the moon landing was a hoax. Does not mean they are real. Get a grip.

      June 21, 2012 at 5:21 pm | Reply
  40. finally

    THANK YOU MONKEY 449!!! Finally someone with a brain that knows how to use it!
    "So let's recap. Clinton doesn't get Bin Laden, Bush's fault. 9/11 happens early in Bush's term and had been planned for year, Bush's fault. Housing bubble policies started in the early Clinton years, Bush's fault. Continuing economic nightmare, Bush's fault.

    But guess what, the one good think Obama does (get UBL) and that is not credited to Bush. Clinton's good economy all Clinton's doing. Interesting how when things go wrong, pass the blame, when things go well, take the credit.

    Stop being so stupid and naive America. Use your mind and stop accepting this manipulative crap from Washington DC whether its Obama, GWB or anyone else"

    June 21, 2012 at 2:13 pm | Reply
  41. Reagan80

    Clinton.

    June 21, 2012 at 2:05 pm | Reply
  42. s9post

    Such bitterness on here. The person responsible for the accomplishment is the Doctor in Pakistan. He most likely has rethought his actions in the matter. Something former Presidents may have given consideration to before taking action. As always there are most likely more items to this than what little we read. Good or bad.

    June 21, 2012 at 1:46 pm | Reply
    • Reagan80

      I can understand your thinking. I used the same logic when Bush refused to stem the tide of Mexicans coming across the Rio Grande. "He's the President. He must know something we don't know." But, too often the answer is just that the President is an idiot. Clinton was more concerned in sticking foreign objects into an intern's body than in protecting the American people. And, now, he pontificates.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Reply
  43. VEW2012

    Yes it took place before 2001 which means Bush dropped the ball.

    June 21, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Reply
    • Aaron

      Before 2001 would mean Clinton not Bush. Might help if you learn who was president during that time since Clinton was president during 1993-2001 hence he dropped the ball not Bush.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:05 pm | Reply
    • AJL

      Keep quiet and they may think your a fool... talk, and they know it. Right timeline... wrong President.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:26 pm | Reply
  44. MichaelSC

    what is also forgotten is that RR and Bush41 were a big supporter of Bin-Laden during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Just like they supported Saddam in his war against Iran.
    Just shows the morals of our leaders. They sleep/befriend with everybody.

    June 21, 2012 at 1:40 pm | Reply
    • Mark

      It is not forgotten, especially when yahoo's such as yourself like to mention it every day without any context at all. I swear, it's like half the population thinks that they are the only ones who ever read a newspaper, or lived through the 80's.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:54 pm | Reply
    • Bitterjack

      Which in turn, makes you wonder why OBL would bite the hand that fed him. That's how that madman showed his appreciation.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Reply
  45. SIMPLE MAN TENDING THE GARDEN

    New CIA Docs Show Bush Ignored Seven Different Warnings About Imminent Attacks

    June 21, 2012 at 1:38 pm | Reply
    • WhackyWaco

      You are such a pklutz.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Reply
  46. mike

    Killing Bin Laden pre-9/11 wouldn't have prevented 9/11. It was KSM's plan and someone else would have funded it.

    June 21, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Reply
  47. monkey449

    So let's recap. Clinton doesn't get Bin Laden, Bush's fault. 9/11 happens early in Bush's term and had been planned for year, Bush's fault. Housing bubble policies started in the early Clinton years, Bush's fault. Continuing economic nightmare, Bush's fault.

    But guess what, the one good think Obama does (get UBL) and that is not credited to Bush. Clinton's good economy all Clinton's doing. Interesting how when things go wrong, pass the blame, when things go well, take the credit.

    Stop being so stupid and naive America. Use your mind and stop accepting this manipulative crap from Washington DC whether its Obama, GWB or anyone else.

    June 21, 2012 at 1:31 pm | Reply
    • stevef

      I dont recall the now Obama saying- Its still going to suck in 4 years, but dont blame me!
      He promised everything and delivered nothing except giving an order to go ahead and kill OBL, and took the credit as if he had something to do with catching him.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Reply
    • Wake up

      Both parties do the same thing Monkey...wake up

      June 21, 2012 at 2:06 pm | Reply
    • jim

      Let's recap. Who did Bin Laden (TimOsman) work for? I can recap easily. Carlyle Group, Bush, Bin Laden Family, 9/11, building 7, Pentagon 2.4 trillion missing. Dov Zaikeim, Silverstein, war on terror, invade Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Iran, Egypt coup, Yemen coup... You don't really think we drink the Kool Aid, do you?

      June 21, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Reply
      • Vad

        Really? You regurgitate that conspiracy theory non sense? Peter Bergen (A former CNN national security analyst) conducted an interview with Osama in 1997 where Bin Laden not only said he never got money from the CIA, but he in fact hates America and basically declared war against us. You have no proof of anything other than you believe every theory that makes America look bad. Is your name Hugo Chavez and are you President of Venezuela?

        June 21, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
      • jim

        VAD- WOW!! Talk about ignorant to a level that is beyond disgusting and vile. Are you saying you believe Tim Osman didn't work with the CIA and that we didn't help them fight Russia in Afghanistan? Why do you hate Americans so much, with these lies you continue to spread, to feed the war on terror that strips us all of our freedoms and liberties for the corporate owned government trying to enslave us. Your a disgusting creature. Hey nothing hit building 7. The first building in history to come down with nothing hitting it and some small office fires, yet, who cares. We have fire fighter policemen and engineers all saying that the official story is hogwash. Then their are you shillls doing all you can to name call anyone who goes against the official story which is impossible. You are vile.

        June 21, 2012 at 3:18 pm |
      • Vad

        UH OH....I am poking the beast. To answer your, I guess for lack of a better word, questions: I never said we didn't fund the opposition in Afghanistan, I simply said you have no proof we funded Bin Laden. You are aware there were other opposition groups against Russia in that war right? When that war started Bin Laden would have been, a 21 or 22 year old foreign born fighter? Would it not have made more sense to fund an established Mullah or Mujahideen Commander? As far as building 7 goes, I am sure you believe George Bush ordered a missile strike from the U.S.S. Bunker Hill, but that building was heavily damaged by the 100 story building that collapsed right next to it. When you hit your Spanish to English translation button from the Presidential Palace in Venezuela I am sure some of this common sense will be lost on you but try to keep your name calling temper tantrums to a minimum. Although I am sure you at least know what shill means, you have called half the people on the board one today. By the way, this is just fun for me. It is amusing to see you so angry at all this.

        June 21, 2012 at 4:14 pm |
      • MrComments

        Sounds like you are drinking martinis, play8ing Glen Beck conspiracy theories. I could link ANYONE (including you or me) to 9/11 by playing association games.

        June 22, 2012 at 7:33 am |
    • Vad

      You make too many logical points to be on a CNN blog. Although I think Clinton did many good things he did drop the ball on several occassions. Killing OBL was one, the housing crisis another. Yes, Franklin Raines in 1999 while Chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae began a "politically nice sounding" program to issue bank loans to people with low to moderate income. Many of whom were minority.

      Not surprisingly to anybody who knows you need to make money to pay it back, most of these loans went into default. When they did, the people who were given loans got together and sued the government for discrimination because so many people going into default were minority. Did I mention Franklin Raines is black and served in the Clintion Administration.

      Seeing as how it is easier to blame Bush than do your own research into how we are in this housing mess, Let's all just blame Bush.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Reply
      • Chris

        I think you are correct about Clinton and the housing bubble. Bush and Clinton may have been able to prevent 9/11, but that argument will never be settled. I do think that Bush and the Republicans are responsible for the massive budget deficits. The tax cuts, Iraq War, and Medicare expansion were all unnecessary, in my opinion. The costly wars were not even funded in the official budgets until Obama took office.

        June 21, 2012 at 3:52 pm |
      • Vad

        Chris, thank you for the mature response and intelligent comments. Yes, I question the need for the Iraq War as well. I believe Iraq did have WMD's at one point. I refer to what happened to the Kurdish minority in Northern Iraq after the first Gulf War as proof of that. However, the rest of the World did not seem to have the will to do anything about Iraq so why should we? It almost seemed to be a blood feud between the Bush and Hussein families. As far as who should have taken care of Bin Laden, let's agree that both Bush and Clinton share some blame in that.

        Moving on to taxing big busines, Republicans believe we should coddle big business to keep jobs here so they give them tax breaks. I agree to a limited extent. If we tax too much, regulate too much, pay employees too much, sue them too much then who is to say that one day all big employers will say I've had it and am taking my jobs somewhere else? Oh well. I lean a little to the Right, you a little to the Left but I could get along with someone like you.

        June 21, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
    • VEW2012

      According to independent economist Tom Lawler, founder of Lawler Economic & Housing Consulting LLC, which provides data, analysis and forecasts of housing, mortgage, financial and economic trends, the housing bubble began around 2002, right after the Tech stock bubble collapsed, in 2000. People then began looking for other types of investments, and one of those was real estate. Insurance rates were low due to the Fed keeping them low. Housing prices rose to a level most people couldn't afford, so when that happened the housing market slowed, so the bankers reduced the standards to buy a house, and let people hedge on their income. Entry level mortgage payments were kept low during the entry years and then skyrocketed when the jobs market began to collapse in 2005 and 2006....so that was the Bush years....and a Bush fail!

      Clinton tried to get bin Laden...in my book he gets an A for effort. That he tried and failed is not the question. The real question is: Why did Bush not take the bin Laden threat serious...and why did he quit trying? Even after 9/11 he quit trying. "Asked about the hunt for Bin Laden at a March, 2002 press conference, Bush said, “I truly am not that concerned about him. I am deeply concerned about Iraq.” “I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you,” Bush added.
      By 2006, the trail for Bin Laden had gone “stone cold” and Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes said Bush told him that hunting Bin Laden was “not a top priority use of American resources.” (Indeed, there was a flailing war in Iraq to fight.)

      That year, it was revealed that the Bush administration had shuttered the CIA’s Bin Laden unit in late 2005. As the New York Times reported at the time, the move reflected a shift in resources to Iraq:

      So...yes that was another Bush fail.

      Yes President Obama got bin Laden....no thanks to any serious efforts on the part of G.W. Bush....so I give him and our Navy Seals full credit....for a "Mission Accomplished".

      Seems this irks you right-wing Teabaggers to no end....but Hey...facts and dates are facts and dates....history can only be recorded not rewritten....even as much as you keep trying to it isn't going to work.

      Obama-Biden 2012!

      June 21, 2012 at 7:03 pm | Reply
    • VEW2012

      "Interest rates were low"

      June 21, 2012 at 7:04 pm | Reply
    • VEW2012

      Here is a link to the: WTC 9/11 Timeline history which starts in January,1984...Reagan became President January, 1984.

      http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_alleged_al_qaeda_linked_attacks=firstwtcbombing

      June 21, 2012 at 7:27 pm | Reply
  48. nik green

    Sibel Edmonds, FBI translator and most gagged person in US legal history: Osama bin Laden was *working for the United States Government right up until 9/11".

    Everything that Ms. Edmonds has claimed since she blew the whistle has been 100% accurate. She is not going to trash her reputation and credibility on account on this one claim, if there is no basis of truth and reality there.

    People refuse to acknowledge this and numerous other problems and gnarly issues related to nationals security. Firstly, America doesn't appear to be yet mature enough as a nation for open discussion of topics such as this, and secondly, we – both individually and collectively – upon finding out material that casts an unpalatable light on certain controversial issues (especially 9/11), we tend to resort to blaming the messenger, especially if the message is one that we would prefer not to hear.

    The infantile accusation of "conspiracy theorist" or "tin foil hatter" by so many (including the corporate media), is the default defense of, or diversion of attention away from criminal behavior on the part of the authorities, and is the outward manifestation of our collective immaturity, denial and insecurity.

    June 21, 2012 at 1:30 pm | Reply
    • Hister

      huh? Well you just made yourself look stupid. America knew that OBL was behind the WTC bombing attempt in the 90's. Do you really think the American govt. would work with someone who tried to blow up their country?

      June 21, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Reply
    • Vad

      Sibel Edmonds, went to work for the FBI as a Turkish Language translator a week after 9/11 happened. Although she makes some interesting allegations, I am curious to know how she knew OBL was working for the CIA right up until 9/11 if she didn't even work for the FBI at that point. The Russians left Afghanistan in what, the 1980's? So what would OBL be doing for the CIA until 9/11? Typing? Answering phones? Does OBL even speak Trukish? Your post makes no sense Comrade Green.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:11 pm | Reply
    • MrComments

      Sibel Edmonds has said the Bush Admin was warned of 9/11 style attacks and ignored the warnings. She has also said that "business" was put before "counter terror" on many occasions. These are conspiracy facts.

      Morons talking about controlled demo, missiles, stand downs, shoot downs, etc., this is all conspiracy fiction. Total nonsense that defies all logic and physics.

      That is the difference between thinking, rational people vs. nut jobs with no clue.

      June 22, 2012 at 7:36 am | Reply
  49. Jeb

    Why was one of Bush's first acts after 9/11 to fly all of Bin Laden's U.S. relatives out of the country even while all other flights were forbidden in our airspace?

    June 21, 2012 at 1:16 pm | Reply
    • Felix El Gato

      Because the Bush Family and the Bid Laden Family are close business associates.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:20 pm | Reply
      • Insik

        SEEEE election is coming soon and go ahead vote for move GOP! Good luck America

        June 21, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
      • El gato felix

        seguro, mano!

        June 21, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
    • Scott

      Because somebody fed you lies that only a liberal sheep like yourself would believe.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:22 pm | Reply
      • Jeb

        Sorry Skippy but this is a fact that is now a part of historical record. Don't like it? Stick your head back in the sand.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
      • Paul

        It's kind of a known fact.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
      • Learn to Fish

        Jeb, Paul, where's the record? The proof? Is your proof a propaganda film?

        June 21, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
      • MichaelSC

        Scott, why do Republicans have such problems with facts and history? Your denial does not change them

        June 21, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • Dubya

      They had an appointment with Bin Abdulaziz

      June 21, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Reply
    • Learn to Fish

      Jeb, for the same reason Bush was reading a book upside down, you've been fooled! Wake up! People are taking advantage of you, but I know (hope) you're smarter than that.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Reply
    • stevef

      Or this http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500609_162-313048.html

      June 21, 2012 at 1:35 pm | Reply
    • Greg

      Because both his family and the entire Saudi royal family had already disowned him and taken away his citizenship and passport and all his fortune by the time 9/11 happened. However most Americans wouldn't have bothered to find that out and just lynched his family in the streets.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:44 pm | Reply
    • Learn to Fish

      You guys are really sad, even Michael Moore's site clarifies that those flights didn't happen while commercial airlines were still grounded. They flew 2 days after 9/11.

      http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/fahrenheit-911-facts/what-fahrenheit-911-says-about-the-saudi-flights-out-of-the-country-after-september-11

      June 21, 2012 at 1:53 pm | Reply
    • Mark

      Because that never happened, and buying into the fever dreams of lunatics and fools is not healthy for your mental health.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Reply
    • Mark

      Jeb... http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

      June 21, 2012 at 2:23 pm | Reply
  50. JayBee

    I would just like to make a small comment here in defense of the Clinton Administration. And this is directed at the people who are saying that Clinton had oppurtunities and didnt take them. And I acknowledge that this is a very small aspect of this debate.

    People arent taking into account one of the most significant events in US history (9/11). 9 11 hadnt happened yet. And thus the urgency wasnt the same. Had Clinton presided over the presidency after 9/11 and had a clear shot he wouldve taken it. So would have Bush or Romney. Its important to look at these things within the context of history. OBL had committed terrorist attacks against US interests. But until 9/11, the urgency and magnitude of the threat wasnt yet known.

    June 21, 2012 at 1:11 pm | Reply
    • Scott

      Just more evidence that Clinton is to blame for 9/11

      June 21, 2012 at 1:18 pm | Reply
      • Yoshinobu Tokugawa

        There is a drought somewhere in the World. Clinton`s fault, right? I bet you have a beer belly and consider your self a(false) conservative.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
      • Paul

        Maybe if the GOP wasn't chasing him over some worthless BJ he could have gotten something done.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
      • Brian Gross

        Clinton was too busy getting a BJ and laid while people were getting killed. Same for Obama, his only claim is he had BinFu#$ed killed however the operation was years in the making. Once again Obama is election year politicing

        June 21, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • DAVE

      Osama was behind the first attack on the World Trade Center! They shoulde have taken him out when they had the chance!!

      June 21, 2012 at 1:22 pm | Reply
    • listert

      What's interesting about the documents is the detail on just how extensive the efforts were to get OBL in 1998 – 2001, using local tribes in Afghanistan (one reported ambush of an OBL convoy failed), the drone program, missiles etc etc. The intel community put a lot of resources into finding him and developing a picture of aQ as an organization – but were clearly frustrated that policy-makers didn't share their sense of urgency.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Reply
    • Bitterjack

      Maybe you're too young to remember the first time Al Qaeda attack the WTC on February 23,1996. Maybe you just overlooked it. Maybe you denied. Either way, Clinton had serious reason to fear OBL and Al Qaeda. Clinton did not take the threat seriously, even after being attacked in NYC. Just ask the CIA if Clinton took the threat seriously

      June 21, 2012 at 2:21 pm | Reply
  51. Jeb

    "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority" Bush 3/13/02

    "It's not worth the effort and expense to go after Bin Laden." Romney 2008

    "It is a top national security priority of my administration to bring Bin Laden and other top Al Qaeda commanders to justice." Obama 2009

    1) Obama made it a priority and committed the resources to getting it done.
    2) Obama was involved in decision making at every step of the operation.
    3) Obama made the final call to take Bin Laden out, risking his Presidency in doing so.

    Thank you Mr. President!

    June 21, 2012 at 1:02 pm | Reply
    • Dixie Nourmous

      Is this Michelle? Or Obama himself? LOL!

      June 21, 2012 at 1:15 pm | Reply
      • Jeb

        No, it's me Jeb Bush. You know, the smarter brother.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
    • Insik

      Most American people didn't see this as a failure with the previous administration. Look where they at now? retiring at their mansions and everyone else is suffering from their inability to run the country when they were in the office.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Reply
      • Dubya

        Maybe. But we killed Osama Bed Linen

        June 21, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
      • VEW2012

        I'm sure they considered it a good business opportunity for the military industrial state's arms manufacturers.

        June 21, 2012 at 7:40 pm |
    • Dubya

      You welcome, my brother

      June 21, 2012 at 1:26 pm | Reply
    • escher7

      You are correct of course. Peter Bergen lays it all out in his latest book – well researched and full of direct quotes from interviewing participants.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Reply
    • Terry

      And he did it without a "Mission Accomplished" banner anywhere in sight! Obama could've snuck over there in the dark of night and found him, brought him back and executed him on live TV and republicans would STILL be looking for flaws. This was a victory for the administration and for America!

      June 21, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Reply
      • VEW2012

        ...and they would still want Bush to reap all the credit. The GOP has become a bunch of whiners, who can't handle the facts or the blame for all the bad stuff their 8 years of poor management has put the country through.

        June 21, 2012 at 7:43 pm |
  52. Soldier of Faith

    There is no way this should have ever made it to the internet without proof reading it first. There are multiple spelling errors as well as grammar errors. Might want to consider a peer review next time.

    June 21, 2012 at 1:00 pm | Reply
    • GAry

      I think you mean "gramatical" errors

      June 21, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Reply
      • dctwmt

        And I think YOU mean "grammatical" errors.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
      • escher7

        Let's not get fanatical about grammatical.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
      • Jim D.

        Actually it is "grammatical" with to M's...

        June 21, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
      • Pete

        Just to be fair, it is "two" M's not "to"...

        June 21, 2012 at 3:10 pm |
      • VEW2012

        http://litreactor.com/columns/20-common-grammar-mistakes-that-almost-everyone-gets-wrong

        Errors can happen to anyone who is working to a deadline.

        June 21, 2012 at 7:49 pm |
  53. Rick

    Clinton was too distracted by the Monica scandal to properly respond to the USS Cole, the and embassy bombings. Had he not compromised his own creditibility, he could have gone after Bin Laden way before 9/11. Bush did what he could, but ultimately couldn't find him, and ended up making stupid statements like "He is not important" to avoid admitting failure. Only an idiot would believe that Bush really meant it- he was just saying that to explain away the failure of our intelligence to find Bin Laden. What else could he say? We are really looking hard, but Bin Laden is too smart? It was better to pretend that the war on terror was top priority, and individuals like Bin Laden weren't. When our guys finally found him, any president (except maybe Clinton) would have made the same call he did to take him out.
    The only real credit goes to our guys who found him, and then killed him.

    June 21, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Reply
    • RX

      Kind of agree with you, but it also shows what a crime it was for the GOP to tie President Clinton's hands behind his back so that he ciouldn't do his job over something that really was none of anyone's business except for Hillary and Bill. But Bush did miss the opportunity to get Bin Laden in Tora Bora in 2002 becuase he was so set on invading Iraq for no apprent reason.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:03 pm | Reply
      • Scott

        Clinton did that to himself. Don't blame the GOP because Bill couldn't keep his hands off of women.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
      • escher7

        It wasn't his hands Scott.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
    • Jeb

      Bush disbanded a special CIA team tasked with the job of finding Bin Laden shortly after he invaded Iraq. He only re-established the team after this was leaked to the press.

      Priorities?

      June 21, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Reply
      • escher7

        There is no question his friendship with the family coloured his devotion to catching OBL.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • Alverant

      Clinton's hands were tied due to the manufatured scandels by the GOP. Remember "Wag the Dog" when they accused Clinton of trying to distract people by going after OBL?

      As for W, he chose not to go after OBL and instead use him as a boogieman to scare people into supporting him. Look at the timing involved. Whenever W's poll numbers dropped up popped another tape by OBL and W's poll numbers would go back up. The tapes didn't stop until they were no longer necessary to keep W in the Oval Office for a full eight years.

      Also remember Reagan funded OBL. Ronnie bears some responsibility for 9/11 but you'll never hear the cons admit it.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:22 pm | Reply
    • Stephen

      If you're going to bring up the USS Cole, you should point out that about 100 days after the USS Cole attack G.W. Bush was inaugurated. If you're going to blame Clinton for not responding you also have to blame Bush.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Reply
    • Craig

      How about this:
      Without a poster boy for the war on terrorism there would not have been a war on terror.
      There for there was no real hunt or at least no effort to do anything with the knowledge we had.
      Keep in mind, Haliburton, ran by Cheney et al, was making a lot of money off of no bid contracts to support the war.
      I for one do not believe we did not know where OBL was.
      I also believe that we took him out so we could move on to other interests such as Iran.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Reply
      • escher7

        No, they really did not know. Only when they found out about the courier and the NSA tracked him did they find the compound. (Some say with the help of one of his wives who just happened to come back to him shortly before the raid.) Even then they had not eyeballed Bin Laden and had only a 50 to 75% certainty that he was in there. That is why Obama should be congratulated for taking the risk and OK'ing the raid.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
  54. jorge washinsen

    There may be a division right now crossing our southern border with new plans.

    June 21, 2012 at 12:55 pm | Reply
  55. jorge washinsen

    The only man who ever took Osama serious before any attacks was Ollie North.

    June 21, 2012 at 12:50 pm | Reply
    • GAry

      So America did not take him serious? WOW thats crazy considering they armed him to the teeth witgh weapons, ammunition, and fighters.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Reply
    • GAry

      So America did not take him serious? WOW thats crazy considering they armed him to the teeth with weapons, ammunition, and fighters.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Reply
    • frank

      You apparently believe the urban myth about North. Look it up on FactCheck or Snopes, he was talking about someone else during the Iran Contra hearings and his item was edited many years later!

      June 21, 2012 at 1:02 pm | Reply
    • Bob

      What do you mean? Oliver North is the guy that gave missile technology to the Iranians, is the guy that gave shoulder launch missiles to the Muhayadein (today we call them Taliban), you better inform yourself next time you post..

      June 21, 2012 at 1:20 pm | Reply
    • Alverant

      You forgot about Ronnie Reagan who gave OBL some serious support in the 80s.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:23 pm | Reply
  56. Mike

    Obama, Bush, Clinton, people IT DOESN'T MATTER! All of them thought politics 1st. Read some of Scheuer's books. Read "First In" regarding the 1st CIA in Afghanistan. Our politicians have lost site both Republican and Democrat.

    June 21, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Reply
  57. dirk digler

    Jeb for President (not Jeb Bush, Jeb the CNN comment guy)

    June 21, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Reply
    • ireuel

      I say no, the last thing we need is a person that sees the glass only half full or half empty from either side at this point. The two current political parties in power both have failing policies or visions for this country. Every election we are told we are going the wrong direction so we do a 180 and maybe we should just try turning 90 degrees instead of the two directions we know don't work. Just a thought.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:09 pm | Reply
  58. USMCRETAILER

    Freedom Man you cant be serious. George Bush was one the worst presidents we have ever had, if not the worst. Worst than Jimmy Carter. This economy crashed under his presidency. He sent this country into a depression with pursuing a war in a counrty (iraq) that he didnt have too. Actually lied about the weapons of mass destruction. In my 13mos over there we never found them. Some of my fellow comrades are still searching for them. He committed one of the biggest ethical violations that would have sent you and I to prison for a very long time. He awarded Haliburton the contract for Iraq (Dick Cheney was the CEO prior to becoming Vice-President. His stocks and retirement option is still growing). The housing mkt crashed. The auto industry belled up (Thanks to Mr Obama it has come back). Gas prices were higher than the statue of liberty. Dont judge Obama by the color of his skin.

    June 21, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Reply
    • Mike

      Just like Democrats have stock in green technology. Iraq will and has become an asset. Obama's losing all of our allies.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:53 pm | Reply
      • GAry

        ummmm your allies were lost while Bush was in power. But slow americans are just noticing it now. Too full of themselves. But blame Obama... go ahead. He is the only thing keeping your country strong.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
      • Floyd

        So Mike, what has out Return on Investment been on the "asset" that is Iraq? how many hundreds of billions of $ and how many American lives have we spent there... and what has our return been? it's been almost a decade with NOTHING positive out of it. how it is an "asset" for us?

        June 21, 2012 at 1:12 pm |
      • Terry

        Floyd, that's not true. There has been a tremendous ROI for energy companies and the "military-industrial complex". There was no justification for the war, but it did destabilize a region and resulted in sky-high prices for energy followed by record profits by energy companies. So if you are from the oil industry, like Bush, Cheney and many of that administration was, the ROI was phenominal!

        June 21, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • American

      I believe you have it backwards. Bush 43 was one of our greatest Presidents and Obama is one of the worst.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Reply
      • Bob

        I guess you belive the earth is flat..and people walk in water (that i believe I done that myself, but only in winter)

        June 21, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
      • TROLL KILLER

        Bush 43 had the IQ of his horse.
        How many fingers am i holding up Georgie,
        Clomp, clomp, clomp.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
      • Terry

        Bush the Elder was a fine leader, but Bush the Lesser was in fact a disaster. I swear to God I thought he was the inspiration for Curious George-same dumbfounded expression and everything.....

        June 21, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
      • USMCRETAILER

        And you believe donkeys fly right?

        June 21, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
    • frank

      USMC, you have the facts right. GW Bush was a terrible President and he will go down in history as such. Plus he was elected by the Supreme Court, as he lost the popular vote quite badly. Gore would have been well aware of the Bin Laden threats since he had been VP!

      June 21, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Reply
      • TheMan

        Al Gore mocked Col. North about UBL. Unlikely gore would have done anything about him.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • dc

      Boy! You've REALLY suck down the kool-aid! (or else your nose is growing)

      June 21, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Reply
    • VET

      Obviously, you are uninformed about a lot of things. The weapons of mass destruction were known by many to have been in the possession of Hussein and his people. Where they went is unknown, he used them against his own people. Look it up.
      The world economy crashed, not just the US, and a lot, (not all) of it was because of policies put into place long before Bush, (Clinton, Reagan, Bush Sr., etc) The auto market collapsed because of their own missteps and the unions, and it wasn't the first time either. And if you think they have recovered, look to see who is profiting, and ask the people of Detroit how well they have recovered, vs Mexico and Canada. An American made car is called BMW, Toyota, Honda,Mercedes, etc. Bush was not to blame for missing Bin Laden in 1996, 1998, 2000 or otherwise. He went after Bin Laden, not Clinton. Do you remember our retaliation after the embassy bombings? Zilch. The cole, we attacked an abandoned Taliban camp. And a congress and Senate all had the same intel report access as the President, and all voted for it. Bush told what intel he was given. He didn't make up the intel that the same CIA in this article among other international and domestic agencies gave him. And when I was in Iraq...4 times. we found storgage containers for chemical weapons, and evidence that it had been moved, (possibly to Libya or Syria) and we were hit with chlorine bombs while we were there too. There are a handful of vets with permeant scaring and health issues because of it. Get educated before you make misinformed statements. All of the politicians are to Blame. And this President is no better.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Reply
      • Jeb

        Your ignorance is staggering. Most of the WMD's you're talking about, we sold Sadam. And most of them were destroyed as a condition of the end of the first Iraq War. No one has ever been able to find any evidence of the bogus claims you're making. If you've got some evidence of where these WMD's are, please bring it forward. Otherwise, educate yourself instead of parroting the lies of right wing hacks.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
      • Bob

        I guess you only watch exclusively Fox news.. no other new organization would post that nonsense, unless is Fox propaganda, please not propaganda is not always the truth..

        June 21, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
      • Well Said Vet

        Well Said Vet. People tend to forget the facts and just post crap.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
      • TROLL KILLER

        Republicans couldnt find any WMD so they changed the defenition.
        It now includes cherry bombs, sparklers and empty beer cans..........There they are !

        June 21, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
      • Well Said Vet

        Whats wrong Jeb. Facts get you confussed? When facts are presented all you can do sis come bac kand call people names and not present any facts of your own.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
      • Sockness Monster

        Right now, as we speak George Bush is wandering around
        The Iraqi desert with a metal detecter saying, I know they are here, i know they are here.....

        June 21, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
      • USMCRETAILER

        Well said Jeb. Like I said earlier there was no WMD and there is no proof they were sent to another country. PLEASE provide proof of that. I worked as a NBC officer in Iraq through CENTCOM so stop misstating the facts. The Bumbling idiot George Bush did not have probable cause to go into Iraq we had Sadaam surrounded (Hello No-fly zone in North and South of Iraq). The idiot abandon Afghanistan way too soon to pursue his own personal vendetta with Sadaam. Not only did the idiot screw up the economy, the war, the auto and housing industry, he mishandled Katrina.

        June 21, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
  59. jorge washinsen

    As we had already found out Bush inherited the problem when it should have been Clinton's.

    June 21, 2012 at 12:27 pm | Reply
    • Jeb

      Clinton had a year to take Bin Laden out. That's how long he was on U.S. radar during the Clinton administration.

      Bush had 8 years to take Bin Laden out. So why didn't he?

      "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority" Bush 3/13/02

      You can't find what you aren't looking for.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Reply
      • Pliny

        Hey Pinhead.

        Who do you think built all those airbases in Azerbajan BEFORE 9/11?

        Try reading a history book once in a while. (rather than using them to line your cage).

        June 21, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
      • Charlies

        Jan – Sept. That is 9 months, not a year.

        June 21, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
      • Mike

        What makes you think the CIA didn't already know where he was? I bet they got a lot more intelligence while he was alive than now that he is dead.

        June 21, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
      • ireuel

        Jeb it was more than a year. It was in around 1993 when it was know who Bin gotten was, and he was mad that the country he was born in rejected his offer to remove Saddam from Kuwait and let the infidels that helped him defeat the Russia's in Afghanistan. Also we supported Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war after we supported the Iran leader before the 1979 Islamic take over . SO with all logic set aside it Was Jimmy Carters fualt right? What have we all learned from this? Nothing. One good move in a 4 year term as President does not make a good leader.

        June 21, 2012 at 12:59 pm |
    • jorge washinsen

      That Trade Center was hit twice and the death toll would have been probably many thousands more if it had succeeded.The building would have come down all at once if gone as planned, No one would have had a chance of escaping.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Reply
    • TROLL KILLER

      You dont know how to read do you ?
      See the last line in this paragraph....................MORON !
      -------------------------
      Though they could not know it, time was running out. In December 2000, the CIA submitted a new plan in its targeting of al Qaeda "that would have significantly expanded our activities. ... It was too late for the departing Clinton administration to take action on this strategic proposal."

      June 21, 2012 at 12:50 pm | Reply
    • Sockness Monster

      Hey jorge, I saw you posting on the Iran/nuke story blaming Obama for Iran.
      This same problem sat on Little George's desk for 8 years and he did what ?
      NOTHING !

      June 21, 2012 at 1:39 pm | Reply
  60. Jeb

    AGAIN

    As the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces:

    1) Obama made getting Bin Laden a priority and committed the resources to do it (unlike Bush).
    2) Obama was involved at every step of the process and decision making.
    3) Obama made the call to take him out, risking his Presidency if the mission failed.

    June 21, 2012 at 12:27 pm | Reply
    • jorge washinsen

      I remember another President who made just such a decision and it cost hiim an electiion and several American lives.Life is a crapshoot.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Reply
    • Pliny

      Keep rubbing their noses in it.

      They refuse to admit the truth.

      And they refuse admit that it's their racism that prevents them from facing the truth.

      But they know that they are lying to themselves.

      And they know that we are laughing at them for being the gutless moral cowards that they are.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Reply
    • doctorlb

      3) Obama made the call to take him out, risking his Presidency if the mission failed.

      Yes, no, maybe. Actually Obama appears to have had his CYA memo in place. He gave the "order" to carry out the raid, but put all responsibility on Admiral McRaven. After a successful mission, he took credit.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Reply
      • TROLL KILLER

        Obama haters love to lie.
        -----------–
        He gave the "order" to carry out the raid, but put all responsibility on Admiral McRaven. After a successful mission, he took .......

        The General told you this himself twerp?

        June 21, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
    • Bobington

      Why did they kill him instead of taking him alive? If they could get in, kill him, and drag is dead body out, they just as easily could have gone in, grabbed him and took him out alive. He was much more useful alive and in our custody than dead.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Reply
      • booradical

        Dude – drop the bath salts. Can you imagine the plethora of nightmares a breathing and kicking UBL would ceate for the administration? A real-life martyr?? Ain't no how, ain't no way. Might be morally wrong, but I would not waste morals on UBL.

        June 21, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • Bobington

      No he didn't, but you can believe that if you want. I think some people believe Obama can fly and has x-ray vision too.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Reply
    • Mike

      By the time Obama got him Bin Laden was practically useless.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Reply
      • Jeb

        The intelligence says differently.

        June 21, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
  61. Ghost Of Michael Whitney Houston-Jackson

    I feel sorry for the crustaceans that are munching on UBL's dead body at the bottom of the ocean. They deserve much better cuisine – as humans we have failed our crusty ocean bottom dwelling friends!

    June 21, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Reply
    • GAry

      Nah.... he is where he belongs with Michael Jackson the pedo

      June 21, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Reply
    • pagoi

      OBLwas secretly flown into Dover Airforce Base not buried at sea as reports indicated.. a likely coverup to try and reduce the likelihood of martyrdom.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:25 pm | Reply
  62. Johnna

    Scheuer replies to Schoen the following day. "This is the third time you and your officers have put UBL in this government's sights and they have balked each time at doing the job. ... They spent a good deal of time yesterday worrying that some stray shapnel might hit the Habash mosque and 'offend' Muslims."

    'F__K' offending the muslims, they constantly offend the rest of the world and we'd be better off without these religious nut jobs !!

    June 21, 2012 at 12:17 pm | Reply
    • XBrit

      I could not agree more!!!!

      June 21, 2012 at 8:12 pm | Reply
  63. ken smithly

    Any comment that "Jeb" has written is GOLD. All others who disagree with Jeb, shame on you ...you anti-Americans. Pack your bags France is waiting for you.

    June 21, 2012 at 12:17 pm | Reply
    • doctorlb

      not GOLD, but MOLD.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Reply
    • TROLL KILLER

      See below.....Fox news mental escapee hanging around CNN.........

      doctorlb

      not GOLD, but MOLD.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:56 pm | Reply
  64. Jeb

    "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority" Bush 3/13/02

    "It's not worth the effort and expense to go after Bin Laden." Romney 2008

    "It is a top national security priority of my administration to bring Bin Laden and other top Al Qaeda commanders to justice." Obama 2009

    See the difference?

    Obama got it done.

    June 21, 2012 at 12:01 pm | Reply
    • Mr. N.

      No, US special forces got it done. Obama could not have done it anymore that Bush could have, had it not been because of the right intelligence and the right tactical team.

      Our military got it done, be it under one president or another.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:05 pm | Reply
      • Jeb

        Read much? The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. If he makes it a priority to bring terrorists to justice, he can commit the resources to do so. Bush didn't find him because he didn't make it a priority. You typically don't find what you're not looking for.

        June 21, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
      • Jeb

        As the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces:

        1) Obama made getting Bin Laden a priority and committed the resources to do it.
        2) Obama was involved at every step of the process and decision making.
        3) Obama made the call to take him out, risking his Presidency if the mission failed.

        June 21, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
      • AKIL

        They cant pull the trigger without authorization from OBama

        June 21, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
      • Pliny

        Admit it Mr N.

        You just don't like naggers.

        June 21, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
      • Mr. N.

        Pliny,

        You got me there!! :-)

        June 21, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
      • Pliny

        Come on Mr N,

        Barak could have strapped a bandolier of bullets across his chest, flown the chopper into Pakistan, and personally cut bin-Laden's throat...and you still wouldn't give him credit.

        Tell us Mr N....Do you fear and hate all African Americans?

        How does it feel, Mr N, to look in the mirror every morning and see a hypocrite?

        June 21, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
      • chris

        An obvious republican. They wouldn't give Obama credit if he had flown to Abottabad, walked into Bin Laden's house and shot him HIMSELF.

        June 21, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
      • Mr. N.

        Pliny,

        Oh, but haven't you heard? Apparently some say I'm obviously a republican. Doesn't that explain everything?

        June 21, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
      • Hugh Jazz

        Mr. N., why would you say something so ignorant and indefensible. You think that the U.S. military just does what it does on its own without those actions having anything to do with orders from the Commander in Chief?

        June 21, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
      • Mr. N.

        Hugh Jazz,

        Tell me, how is what I said ignorant or indefensible? I never said that the military doesn't get it's orders from higher up or anything of the sort, merely that both the intelligence gathering and tactical actions were the work of the military. They were the enablers that allowed the sitting president to make the decision.

        Surely, if my comment was that ignorant and indefensible, it should be easy for you tear it a part, so have at it. What part of what I said is indefensible? What part is ignorant? Please, specific, concrete examples, please. Short sentences are preferred, seeing as though how you appear so smart!

        June 21, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
      • AnyNanCanDo

        You did not read the article, but just need to rebut someone commending the current President. The other Presidents (Clinton, Bush) had opportunities and did not give the order. President Obama gave the order when the opportunity was presented to him. It was the decision of the PRESIDENT, not the military.

        June 21, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
      • Mr. N.

        AnyNanCanDo, I did read the article. My point is much simpler than that: Osama was little known, and certainly wasn't public enemy no. 1, when both Clinton and Bush first became aware of him. It was a pre 9/11 world, a world of complacency. This "that president didn't give the order or this one didn't, but that one did" is armchair quarterbacking. I certainly think they dropped the ball because they did not listen to the CIA analysts, but neither Bush nor Clinton understood the significance of this guy the way Obama did. Obama had his chance to get him on a post 9/11 world, and who in their right mind wouldn't give the order then?

        June 21, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
      • Hugh Jazz

        Mr. N.,

        In addition to what AnyNanCanDo said, your objection to the claim "Obama got it done" with "No, US special forces got it done." is about as equivocating and ignorant as saying "No, US special forces didn't get it done: bullets got it done." You see, US special forces and intelligence agencies are the Commander in Chiefs "bullets" that he directs to various targets. If a target gets hit (ie. Bin laden) it is because there was a marksman aiming the bullet.

        June 21, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
      • Mr. N.

        Hugh Jazz,

        Now you're arguing semantics? Isn't the meaning of "getting it done," doing something? Did the special forces do anything? I believe that the word you're looking for regarding Obama's actions is, more accurately, "authorized". If you want to argue semantics, it helps to understand the English language.

        Your analogy is flawed, too: Marksmen usually are authorized from their higher ups whether or not to engage a target. Those doing the authorizing don't actually aim anything, nor do they take credit for it.

        So, tell me, in addition to a weak, equivocating attempt at "getting me" on semantics (pun intended), what do you have that can so obviously disprove my statement? Really, you're implying you're the smart one by claiming that I'm so blatantly wrong, so give us obvious proof that I am so. It can't be that hard, can it?

        June 21, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
      • Hugh Jazz

        Mr. N.

        My point is that you are arguing semantics (equivocating) when you denied that there is any sense of the phrase "Obama got it done" (with respect to getting Bin Laden) that is true when you said "No, US special forces got it done."

        June 21, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
      • Mr. N.

        Hugh Jazz,

        Is that it? I'm arguing semantics? I'm using the meaning of "getting it done" quite literally (the act of actually engaging in the activity in question), so where's the equivocation?

        Obama didn't, indeed, "get it done" in the strict meaning of the phrase. Obama APPROVED the action. Kudos to him for that, but that's quite different from saying "he got it done." If anything, it is you who is trying to be disingenuous by broadening the meaning of the phrase beyond the context that I was using it on. Be that as it may, were are your points? Where is your proof that I was so blatantly wrong? Where is all that obviousness that you implied is there? It's easy, and intellectually lazy, to throw around ad hominems. It's another thing to actually put your proof where your mouth is, isn't it?

        June 21, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
      • Hugh Jazz

        Mr. N.

        Yep, that is what equivocating is: taking a word or phrase to have only one sense of meaning and denying all other senses. You are taking the "get it done" in a literal sense only and denying all other senses. That is what your whole objection to the phrase "Obama got it done" was- equivocation (semantics). It is so ignorant, pedantic and silly for you to try to do that. Why do you insist on acting so ignorant, pedantic and silly?

        June 21, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
      • Mr. N.

        Hugh,

        That is not what equivocation is. As I've said before, if you want to argue semantics, it helps to know the English language: Equivocation is purposefully switching the meaning of an ambiguous word or phrase. I never did such thing. If you look at my post, it's meaning is consistent, and was aimed at clarifying Jeb's ambiguous statement. I simply removed the ambiguity of the phrase. Obama "approved" and the seals "got it done." It's not rocket science. If anything, you're the one trying to switch the meaning of it in an attempt to justify your ad hominems.

        Why are so hell bent in semantics anyway? Where's the proof that I was so wrong? Didn't the military do what they did? THAT is the actual substance of my post, a post that you claimed was silly and ignorant. How am I ignorant? Did someone else conducted the raid that I'm not aware of?

        I don't know if you've been in the military (and it doesn't sound like you have) but since you brought up marksmen, it is THEM who get credit for their kills, not their commanding officers. My point is no different than that. Where is the ignorance, the silliness? Stop trying to weasel your way out of your reactionary, foot-in-mouth claims. Or, as it is often said in more layman's terms: Put up, or shut up.

        June 21, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
      • Hugh Jazz

        Mr. N.

        My point is that you are arguing semantics when you denied that there is any sense of the phrase "Obama got it done" (with respect to getting Bin Laden) that is true when you said "No, US special forces got it done."

        June 22, 2012 at 12:46 am |
      • Hugh Jazz

        Mr. N.

        ... and your semantic dispute is still ignorant, pedantic and silly.

        June 22, 2012 at 12:48 am |
    • Pliny

      And getting Bin Laden is exactly the thing that the conservatives have been screaming for since 9/11.

      Now that it's done, you don't hear a peep from them.

      Their problem is the color of the skin of the man who did the job.

      The racism and hypocricy of these people is astounding.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:11 pm | Reply
      • doctorlb

        racism and hypocrisy?
        No, we oppose incompetence and socialism.
        Special Ops got UBL because the US had continued intel operations throughout the years. It took a long time to recover after Clinton and Monica "blew it".

        June 21, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • Jack

      I'm confused. Who was President in 1998? Clinton? The same guy that is whispering in Obama's ear right now? It's Bush's fault Clinton didn't "get" OBL?

      June 21, 2012 at 12:16 pm | Reply
      • Mr. N.

        Well, it looks as if some folks that are accusing a few of us of not being well read don't understand the meaning of "non-sequitur," and neither can they count, apparently.

        June 21, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
      • BROCK LANDERS

        You are not confused, Clinton was that great president that dropped the ball several times, i don't know what the libs were talking about it being bush's fault but last time i checked he was not the commander in chief nor did he hold office where he would be privy to foreign affairs such as the strong threat of an attack on US soil, Furthermore the lead that eventually led us to the jerk was established before the lib's god "Obama" took office, but hey, libs like rewriting history all the time for their own benefit – at the end of the day, Clinton dropped the ball that cost me my good friend's life and Bush took the necessary steps to correct a problem, and i'll give the "liar" credit for not getting in the way of Bush's strategy.

        June 21, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
      • Archived

        It's Bush's fault that Bush didn't get Osama. Don't whine about blaming Bush if you're going to blame Clinton. The fact of the matter is that neither got the guy.

        June 21, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
    • Mr. N.

      Pliny,

      Oh, but haven't you heard? Apparently some say I'm obviously a republican. Doesn't that explain everything?

      June 21, 2012 at 12:24 pm | Reply
    • jorge washinsen

      The Seals got it done,they should be running for President before there is nothing left.We are now under the rule of a dictator bypassing every thing a Democracy stands for. He is doing exactly what he said he would not do.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Reply
      • TROLL KILLER

        Fox retards are out in numbers today boys,
        this should get fun, my afternoon is booked.
        My keyboard is locked and loaded.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
      • Bob

        I can't believe how ignorant you are.. In all the sense of the word.. IGNORANT..

        June 21, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • BROCK LANDERS

      Yo Jeb, so i guess having 90K troops in afghan, drones presence in pakistan, CIO all over that area, GItmo, all this stuff means he didn't care? really? if bush didn't care they would have never been there in the date you took the quote and they would have never identified the lead that eventually led to the killing of UBL – funny how you libs operate, it's liek dealing with 5 year olds............

      June 21, 2012 at 12:45 pm | Reply
  65. Quigley

    We still don't know for certain if that was the true Ussama bin Laden who was murdered on May 2 last year or an imposter. I still have the feeling that the true Ussama bin Laden died early in 2002 of kidney failure.

    June 21, 2012 at 11:58 am | Reply
    • Mr. N.

      Yeah, I watched "The Dictator", too. Funny movie, but this article isn't a movie review, is it?

      June 21, 2012 at 12:08 pm | Reply
    • karlotious

      Well whoever it was...when the terrorist organization suggests that we have accomplished something i would tend to believe we did get him...

      June 21, 2012 at 12:09 pm | Reply
  66. Jeb

    Bush said it wasn't his priority to bring Bin Laden to justice. Romney said it wasn't worth the effort. Obama got it done.

    June 21, 2012 at 11:57 am | Reply
    • Mr. N.

      These missed opportunities happened during the Clinton administration. It's really not that hard to figure out, you know? The dates are right there in the article if you had bothered reading it.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:02 pm | Reply
      • Ed

        Doesn't matter! Clinton never said what GW or Romney said. Obama backed up his words!

        June 21, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
      • Pliny

        How it must gaul you, Mr N.....to know that you open your mouth and pure BS comes out.

        I mean....nobody on earth can suffer from THAT much self-delusion. So you must know, deep inside that Barak got the job done....the job that the boy-prez-bush failed to do. And it must gaul you to know it.

        I enjoy that. I enjoy knowing you are aware of your own hypocricy.

        It makes laugh to see your moral cowardice.

        June 21, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
      • Mr. N.

        No Pliny, it does not gall me in the least. My only issue is that this is an article about a pre-Bush, pre-Obama era when Osama wasn't public enemy no. 1, and how the US failed to deal with him properly. Obama and Bush are both non-sequiturs. The fact that they are even brought up means that those who bring them up are fanatical about one or the other.

        The article is an interesting bit of insight into the world of the intelligence community, and into the consequences of ignoring actionable intelligence at a crucial time in history. Obama and Bush have nothing to do with this.

        June 21, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
      • Slowgun

        It is on record that the Clinto administration passed along of it's info to the Bush Administration. Yet Miss Rice first said they never received it, then admitted she never read it all. Question, When did Bush have his first meeting with Richard Clark, who was terrorost expect for Reagan, Bush and Clinton...Answer around noon on 9/11...even though Clark was begging Rice to set up a meeting. I guess it wasn't a priority until after the attacks...If you read Clarks book, he talks about how in that meeting Bush claim Iraq was responsible for the attack and how Bush didn't even know how to pronounce al-Qaeda

        June 21, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
      • Slowgun

        When Clinto bomb afganistan, it was during the whole Monica time. The republicans were running around screaming "wag the dog", "wag the dog". I remember watching Trent Lott standing on the step of the capital holding a presc conference apoligizing to the people of afghanistan and saying how ashamed he was that our President would do something like this to deflect attension away from his own personal scandal....Wow image that...Republican leaders apologizing to the Taliban because Clinton bombed them...Thanks Trent!

        June 21, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
      • Dance This Mess Around

        There is no trick to this.
        Everything before 911 was Clintons fault.
        Everything after 911 was Obamas fault.
        8 years of history have gone poof.
        Little Georgie Bush never existed.
        Yet, he is the greatest president we ever had.

        I try not to delve into the Republican mind, i am scared i may catch something.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • Killer O'Bama

      Thank you Jeb, for being on my side.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:02 pm | Reply
    • BROCK LANDERS

      Ok, fine!! it's bush's fault, you guys happy now? let's live in the present now, how's those jobs going? debt? still in 2 wars +, debt rising, taxes will go up as soon when certain credits expires. OH what? bush's fault still? So when you take an executive job at say, APPLE or IBM or WALMART, you really think blaming the guy you replaced all the time will make you keep your job? or actions to correct it will? try wrapping your twit brains on that one LIBS...

      June 21, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Reply
      • Dance This Mess Around

        let's live in the present now, how's those jobs going......

        Ask your Republicans who ran on jobs jobs jobs, and gave us..
        nothing nothing nothing.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • CaptRon1234

      Jeb, Do you get paid by the post, or just to show up?

      June 21, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Reply
  67. OBAMASUCKS

    OBAMA, STOP BLAMING BUSH

    IT'S GETTIN OLD

    June 21, 2012 at 11:56 am | Reply
    • Killer O'Bama

      Please, don't post any more of this. It's beginning to hurt my feelings!!!!!

      June 21, 2012 at 12:00 pm | Reply
      • George Patton

        Your ordering those godless drone attacks on people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen are hurting mine, Obama!!!

        June 21, 2012 at 12:32 pm |
    • Jeb

      Bush was an incompetent buffoon who wrecked everything he touched. He was warned repeatedly before 9/11 that Bin Laden was determined to attack us soon and he ignored it again and again. He then used 9/11 as a fake excuse to invade and occupy a country that had nothing to do with it. Iraq cost us 4 trillion dollars and thousands of American lives for absolutely nothing.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:04 pm | Reply
      • doctorlb

        What a load of BS. There was no reliable intel before 9-11 to act on. The time to act was 1998-1999 before UBL went deeper underground.
        As to the Iraq war, you need to go back and review the record of what Democrats said and did in that period. CONGRESS approved going into Iraq and continued to fund it throughout. A lot of flip-flopping later, but that was to be expected from spineless creatures.

        June 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
      • sportsbox

        You are right on Jeb....

        June 21, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
      • jorge washinsen

        wonder if clinton told him when he took office?First question from Bush would have been why did you not get him for the first attack?

        June 21, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
      • GAry

        hahaahaha doctor! NO reliable intel?? wow you are under a rock

        June 21, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
      • Slowgun

        It's funny...after GOP loyalist had to come to terms with just how bad Bush screwed things up...they all went around saying "But he kept us safe"...really it guess thats true if you overlook the 9/11 attacks. So if Bush kept us safe, then there should be no argument that Obama kept us safer. As far as blaming Bush for economy...well it fail under his watch. Every single economist said it would take to 8 years for the "fix". As far as job go...There have been just as many private sector jobs created in Obama's first 3 years as in Reagan first three year. The difference is that Reagan created 100 of thousands goverment jobs as well. So, excuding the govermwent jobs, which the gopnow say they don't want, Obama created the same amount of jobs as Reagan. ASo I guess that means that Regean was a crappy President too...right all you ring wing nut jobs?

        June 21, 2012 at 1:02 pm |
    • UrAverageJoe

      I know!! put the blame where it belongs . . . on Reagan!

      June 21, 2012 at 12:06 pm | Reply
      • George Patton

        Quite true Joe, quite true. Ronald Reagan in spite of all his popularity, was never a good President. Moreover, he hinself has sponsored terrorism, especially in Nicaragua during the 1980's by funding these so-called "freedom fighters" better known as the Contras!!!

        June 21, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
      • Slowgun

        What do Iraq, Afghanistan, the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and bin Laden all have in common?
        Answer – Reagan gave them all the weapons they used against us...including those missing MWD.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
    • Mr. N.

      Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:08 pm | Reply
    • karlotious

      how bout we agree to disagree that no one president will encompass everyones feelings and move on...this debate about which president did what is getting old... No president has as much power as you idiots seem to suggest so stop suggesting a different president would change that...TRUTH

      June 21, 2012 at 12:10 pm | Reply
    • Pliny

      Can we begin blaming your momma for using soo much hair-dye and cheap-booze while she was carrying you?

      How else could she have given birth to such a mental defective as yourself?

      June 21, 2012 at 12:13 pm | Reply
    • Fearless Freep

      Pull your finger out of your azz and take a shower.
      You smell bad.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:49 pm | Reply
  68. Elizabeth

    Notice that 1. the hunt for Bin Laden started in the Clinton administration, and 2. Bush spent the beginning of his Presidency on vacation, ignoring clear statements of dangerous activity? It was Bush's neglect of his duties that caused 9/11.

    June 21, 2012 at 11:51 am | Reply
    • John

      Huh? How did you come to that? Clinton missed the chance to get him twice. Then he went into hidding and there was talk of an attack on american interest over seas... Do you people read??

      June 21, 2012 at 12:02 pm | Reply
      • jms5353

        Actually Clinton did try to get Bin Laden but remember the Republicans at the time thought it was useless and a smokescreen regarding the Monica Lewinsky scandal. I beleive we all learned a lesson to keep our priorities straight!

        June 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
      • Dan

        if I remember, President Clinton had some issues with timing-Whitewater (which had nothing to do with getting a Lewinsky) was happening, when the zealots would stop at nothing to impeach. I also remember Clinton ordering the cruise missile strike in an attempt to get Bin Laden and was immediately attacked for trying to distract from the impeachment hearings....

        June 21, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
      • Slowgun

        She comes to that because Clinton at least tried. Bush ignore it until the attacks of 9/11. You asked if we read...my answer is yes, the 9/11 Commission Report. (Bush didn't even know how to pronounce al-Qaeda)

        June 21, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
    • doctorlb

      Vacation?
      Did you notice that Obama passed the "100 rounds of golf" milestone the other day? That's in addition to all the Broadway shows, shopping trips, and other entertainment trips he has taken.
      All Presidents take needed R&R outside the White House, but our current resident takes the cake in that regard!

      June 21, 2012 at 12:26 pm | Reply
      • Slowgun

        You'd be happier if he was clearing brush at his ranch while New Orleans was sinking.

        June 21, 2012 at 1:11 pm |
    • Fearless Freep

      Cost spent to investigate Clinton/Whitewater........70 Million (by Republicans)
      Cost spent to investigate 911................................15 Million (Republican/White House)

      I see we have our priorities straight.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:56 pm | Reply
  69. Aaron

    Wow! Could it be that the USA's policies in the middle east are what led to 9/11?

    June 21, 2012 at 11:46 am | Reply
    • Fearless Freep

      No.

      Idiots keep repeating that line about 911 and America sticking our noses in.

      1) Iraq invades Kuwait.
      2) Saudi Arabia in fear of Iraq invading them, ask for U.S. troops on Saudi soil.
      3) Osama Bin Laden declares jihad on the imperial invaders.
      4) A coalition of countries (in different capacities) including several Muslim nations
      help force Iraq out of Kuwait.

      We where "INVITED" so how are we meddling ?
      You people are idiots.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Reply
  70. Tr1Xen

    Can we say, "I told you so"???

    June 21, 2012 at 11:40 am | Reply
    • doubledees

      what an ugly bas turd

      June 21, 2012 at 11:46 am | Reply
  71. Scott

    All Bush's fault.

    Don't forget Sudan offerred him to us in 1996 before they kicked out to Afghanistan. Clinton declined. Don't forget during the Lewinsky incident, Clinto fired some missles at some camels, while the Saudi's had a jet on Kabul Int'l aiport tarmac to pick him up for treason. The Taliban did a 180 because of the missle attack. Yep, lot of missed oppurtunuties.

    June 21, 2012 at 11:40 am | Reply
  72. Greenspam

    Today Rmoney said hitting bin Laden was such an easy decision that it showed Dems have failed repeatedly.

    June 21, 2012 at 11:38 am | Reply
    • Elizabeth

      Dems? Like the memo ignored by Bush when Bush preferred to go on vacation?

      June 21, 2012 at 11:53 am | Reply
  73. snowdogg

    Many missed opportunities.

    June 21, 2012 at 11:31 am | Reply
  74. BryanP100

    Some of you make me laugh. #1, the CIA isn't under the DoD. #2, Bin Ladin was never our friend, we supported the local fighters, the ones who became "The Northern Alliance" and finally #3, Clinton and his NSA are the only ones to blame for this travesty.

    June 21, 2012 at 11:26 am | Reply
    • Elizabeth

      When Bush took office, there were memos about the activity of Al Quaida in the U.S. that were ignored by the Bush administration because Bush was on vacation. That was not Dem fault. And whose NSA?

      June 21, 2012 at 11:55 am | Reply
      • Fearless Freep

        Elizabeth, i am going to answer your question.
        But lets make it fun, ok ?
        Type this into your web browser www. then the word "ILLUMINATI" only type it backwards.
        http://WWW.ITANIMULLI.COM
        You will be amazed at where you end up.

        June 21, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
      • Fearless Freep

        The week preceeding 911, several warnings had been sent to the CIA about
        possible attacks and targets in the United States By Al Queda.

        Those reporting included The Russians, Germans, Israeli's and British Security.
        The warnings where ignored.

        Source : Michael Ruppert.

        June 21, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • Northern Comfort

      They make you laugh, as you do me. You are quick to pass the blame off onto the Clinton administration. If you look back into the CIA training paper work as long as 1986 you will see the name Tim Ossman. Ossman was the alais given to Osama bin laden. So maybe some research should be done before jumping to conclusions.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:55 am | Reply
  75. Mathprof

    And this is a big surprise to whom?

    June 21, 2012 at 11:24 am | Reply
    • Hugh Jass

      GOP voters out in flyover, but they will decide it's a fake by the Liberal Lamestream Media like that there Mister Beck said, and vote for Romney anyway.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:28 am | Reply
  76. Hugh Jass

    He was already working for Cheney back then, and Cheney called off the dogs over and over. This is all old news; they left him alone so he could hit us and put Halliburton in charge of our economy. Just follow the money and it's easy to see.

    June 21, 2012 at 11:22 am | Reply
    • Elizabeth

      Does anybody know that Cheney's Haliburton put American nuclear power out of business? And that all the plans for all the nuclear power plants were in the south tower of the World Trade Center? Tim Russert (who died soon after) showed a tape on Sept. 17th 2001 on Face the Nation in an interview with Cheney of Cheney talking directly to Bin Laden; not subordinates, from the previous Afganistan war; how do they miss that?

      June 21, 2012 at 11:58 am | Reply
      • Fearless Freep

        Know what else was in tower 7 ?
        All of the evidence on insider trading including Enron and the California energy disaster.
        Some members of congress are breathing a little easier today.

        June 21, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
  77. IBMMuseum

    But would have taking bin Laden out stopped any of the plans that were already in motion?...

    June 21, 2012 at 11:09 am | Reply
    • Hugh Jass

      yes

      June 21, 2012 at 11:29 am | Reply
  78. GAry

    This is exactly why the world hates republican Americans. No brains at all.

    June 21, 2012 at 11:04 am | Reply
    • John

      in 98 & 99 Clinton was president... Thats why people hate Dems... No brains at all....

      June 21, 2012 at 11:28 am | Reply
      • Hugh Jass

        Hmm, maybe you should try reading the article. Get someone to read it to you? Oh, but then you'd hear things you'd rather ignore.

        June 21, 2012 at 11:30 am |
      • Dave A.

        Jonn, I am a " people" and I dont hate Clinton. So something is wrong with your way of thinking.
        Repubes have done SO much for education ( not) and so you you are a oerfect examle of the type of stupidity
        They love,

        June 21, 2012 at 11:37 am |
      • John

        Nicely done dave... Hopefully all of your spelling errors were on purpose... But I doubt it... BTW, the US spends more per student than any other nation... Does it take effort to be that stupid?? Also, last I checked Clinton was president and he made the choice not to get him...

        June 21, 2012 at 11:56 am |
      • Fearless Freep

        *** John

        BTW, the US spends more per student than any other nation... Does it take effort to be that stupid??

        So you agree that Bush's no child left behind was a disaster, right ?

        June 21, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
    • waf_98

      Gary – it was Clinton who passed on numerous opportunities to get OBL, not Bush. Can't you read?

      June 21, 2012 at 11:48 am | Reply
      • John

        Libtards have a tough time seperating the facts with what they want them to be....

        June 21, 2012 at 11:57 am |
      • Elizabeth

        Instead of name calling, consider history. Cheney was filmed with Bin Laden in the previous Afganistan war; Cheney was IN CHARGE of many of the military decisions in the Clinton administration. Every Dem goes "across the aisle" to include Republicans, but no Republican includes a single Democrat; why do you think that there have been some conservatives in the Clinton and Obama administrations?

        June 21, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
      • GAry

        Yes.. can you read? Do you know who the Sec. of defense was at this time? Oh wait.. you just read the story and assume the rest...lol keep up the good work destroying your country.

        June 21, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
      • Fearless Freep

        Republicans have a tough time seperating the facts with what they want them to be....

        Fixed that for ya John.
        Want a word of advice ?
        "Libtard" is so sixth grade, if you get my drift.
        At least try to act like an adult.

        June 21, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • doctorlb

      Dave A said:
      Repubes have done SO much for education ( not) and so you you are a oerfect examle of the type of stupidity...................

      "you you"?
      oerfect?
      examle?

      You know – your post is the perfect example you were looking for.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:07 pm | Reply
  79. Republican4life

    I used to rag on Clinton all the time. But now that I find out it was not clinton but the Republican defense secratary that would not go after bin laden. This changes my whole view on life

    June 21, 2012 at 11:03 am | Reply
    • MD

      Are you being serious? "Republican4Life"? And if so, how could you have missed this and so much other damning evidence before now?

      June 21, 2012 at 11:24 am | Reply
    • Busted

      @MD – what in the world are you talking about? I love how all these tea baggers take a 30 second clip or 50 word article as sufficient to thinking they know everything. Honestly, what is the deal w/tea bagging?

      June 21, 2012 at 11:27 am | Reply
    • waf_98

      republican4life – are you insane, or is it you can't read?? Did you not see the part of the article where in 1999 the Clinton administration passed on three opportunities to get OBL in a 36-hour time period?? And where, pray tell, does the article cite that Bush's defense secretary pass on the opportunity to get OBL?? You need to turn in your voter permit, dude, you're too stupid to vote.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:45 am | Reply
      • GAry

        Maybe you should look into how your government works instead of assuming its all the presidents fault lol

        June 21, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
      • Fearless Freep

        When Bin Laden was found near Tora Bora, more troops where needed on the ground
        to surround him.
        That request was denied by Donald Rumsfeld.
        Bin Laden got away.

        June 21, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
  80. Mike S

    Jack (aka Abdula), Yes, that money is wasted. On a patheitic worthless country which is only using it to enrich its political elite. However, you are even more pathetic to pretend to be an American as you mouth off your garbage. Figure out the CAPS key thingee as well.

    June 21, 2012 at 11:02 am | Reply
  81. Freedom man

    The more I hear how the Democrats under Bill Clinton dropped the ball and how terrible a President Obama is makes me wish G.W Bush could have had two more terms as he was the best President we have had since Reagan. All the major attacks and problems always lead back to a Democratic government.

    June 21, 2012 at 11:01 am | Reply
    • CheBravo!

      Did you hear the one about the president who led America into a false war that cost the nation 4500 lives of servicemen and women, $3 trillion, and good standing with allies?!

      June 21, 2012 at 11:16 am | Reply
      • Mike

        Dis you hear that woman are now not slaves but liberated? Why are you so anti woman?

        June 21, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
    • Busted

      Lets not forget Sec Cohen was a republican, but more importantly Clinton did fire rockets in an attempt to assassinate Bin Laden and it was the republicans who criticized Clinton, effectively ending any additional attempts to take out Bin Laden. Plus Scheuer rips Bush as much as he rips Clinton in "Imperial Hubris". I now a 50 word article is typically enough for a tea bagger like yourself, but go for the gold, read a book, try to expand your understanding of reality.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:19 am | Reply
      • waf_98

        All Clinton did was a knee jerk reaction to fire a few cruise missiles, mostly at abandoned training camps, after OBL and al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole. And sorry to bust your bubble of a brain, but Republicans are not responsble for Clinton passing on three opportunities to take out OBL within a 36 hour time period, or his refusal to take custody of him from Sudan.

        June 21, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • Hugh Jass

      You DO realize that under Bush's weak leadership we were attacked and bombed by al-Qaeda? They blew up a huge building in NYC called the World Trade Center. I guess you were too young to remember; it sure made a lot of Republicans squeal with joy!

      June 21, 2012 at 11:25 am | Reply
      • doctorlb

        You really don't have a clue, do you?
        The first "bombing" at the WTC was in 1993. Guess who was President?
        There were no other "bombings" at the WTC – Muslim extremists, under direction of UBL (you know, the guy Clinton had a chance to get at least three times), flew airplanes into the towers.
        I don't know if it is due to your age or intellect, but you obviously don't know and understand what happened.

        June 21, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
      • Hugh Jass

        Dude, you want to quibble about the word 'bombing?' Al-Qaeda hit us ONCE, and that was on Bush's watch and probably at Darth Cheney's instigation. You know it too, or why defend Osama as a GOP hero? Waaah, Obama had him shot, and we needed him for the election.

        June 21, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
      • PaxHominibus

        Rumour has it that Panetta had to push Obama to go ahead with the raid on OBL. Given that he has a rubber spine – I reckon it's true.

        It was always going to be a brave act -–killing a man who's been dead for years! But don't worry – Obama wouldn't give the good American people any details. Instaed he gave them to his new BBF Gay buddies in Hollywood to make a film showing how strong and decisive he is!!!!!!!!! LOL. Only LIBERALS would fall for that sheepdip.

        June 21, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
    • US Dollars

      Are you serious? Put down the drugs..

      Dubbya was so bad of a president, he actually caused the south to vote for a black man instead of McCain. I think even the KKK members voted for Obama.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:32 am | Reply
      • Hugh Jass

        He's right; Bush embarrassed the his Party and his cause. If Conservatism fails, it will be buried next to Dubya. Don't worry, we'll come by and p ee on it from time to time and keep the grass green.

        June 21, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
      • PaxHominibus

        Bush was bright enough to listen to the experts and refuse Solyndra a fortune to flush down the john,

        Obama refused to listen to the experts and handed $535 Big Ones to his "frIends" at Solyndra. But hey! it was only taxpayers money!

        That makes Bush the brighter of the two doncha think?

        June 21, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
    • snowdogg

      You REALLY should stop huffing that 93 octane gas!

      June 21, 2012 at 11:34 am | Reply
    • Fearless Freep

      When you get done with Bush, i will give you a towel.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Reply
  82. johnde_06

    Hey Jack.. If Clinton would have given the go ahead and let the CIA kill Bin Laden we might not have been attacked.
    But Bill was to busy attending to the ladies. Watch the National Geo. version of 911. Bill who was a draft dodger
    didn't have the guts to give the go ahead to kill Bin Laden.

    June 21, 2012 at 10:51 am | Reply
    • Busted

      Moron, Clinton did fire rockets at Osama Bin Laden to try to kill him, and it was republicans like then Senator Santorum who criticized Clinton for trying to kill Bin Laden. There's more to this story then what's being presented. Read "Imperial Hubris", it was written by Michael Scheuer. I know you lke to think of yourself as someone who enjoys tea bags in the mouth, but break that mold, focus on facts.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:13 am | Reply
    • The Rabbit Hole Is Deep

      With Clinton out of the way,
      The Cheney regime had a green light for operation twin towers.
      The only snag was the last plane not getting to its target.
      It had to be destroyed so nobody would find out the plane was an empty drone.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:48 pm | Reply
  83. ?

    Does anybody else wonder at what point did OBL change from being our "friend" from fighting the USSR to our enemy soon thereafter the USSRs defeat??

    June 21, 2012 at 10:49 am | Reply
    • DR jew

      Your silly. He was never a friend. He used you like a dirty rag. life is rough

      June 21, 2012 at 11:01 am | Reply
    • Hugh Jass

      Cheney had him on speed dial the whole time anyway.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Reply
    • Fearless Freep

      Tim Ossman is sitting by a pool in Dubai sucking on a bloody mary at the CIA's expense.
      Job well done.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:50 pm | Reply
    • PaxHominibus

      As Bin Laden said very clearly he 'punished ' America because you used his birthplace – Saudi Arabia [and arab land] as a military base from which you attacked another Arab country during the Gulf War.
      In short you offered arabs the ultimate insult.

      I don't support Muslims at all but I sure see why he "stopped being our friend"

      June 21, 2012 at 6:16 pm | Reply
      • indigo

        OBL was a big problem for the Saudis long before 9/11 - he wanted Saudi royalty killed. If he was so upset about US bases being in Saudi Arabia to attack another Arab country, he forgot that same Arab country had invaded Kuwait, also an Arab country. He was just mad, in the clinical sense, and nothing would stop his evil intentions.

        June 21, 2012 at 9:19 pm |
  84. jack

    IF PAKISTAN TELL TRUTH AMERICA DO NOT HAVE TO SPEND TRILLIONS DOLLARS WAR EXPENSES AND 5000 SOLDERS KILLED IN LINE OF DUTY I BLAME BUSH AND OBAMA BECAUSE CORRUPTED WASHINGTON PROVIDE PAKISTAN BILLIONS OF DOLLAR AIDS WHICH IS WASTED BY WASHINGTON AND NONE OF SON OR DAUGHTER DIE IN WARS SO THEY DO NOT CARE GIVE OUR HARD WORKING MONEY. ASK NEXT TIME ELECTION IF THEY GIVE MUSLIM COUNTRY AIDS WE NOT VOTE TO THEM PLEASE BY AMERICAN BROTHER AND SISTERS,

    June 21, 2012 at 10:44 am | Reply
    • Roma

      How about Israel?

      June 21, 2012 at 10:49 am | Reply
    • Dan

      NICE GRAMMAR

      June 21, 2012 at 11:07 am | Reply
    • basketcase

      MOAR CAPS!!!

      June 21, 2012 at 11:27 am | Reply
    • BryanP100

      @Hugh Jass, you do realize that this all took place from 1998 to 2000, Bush didn't become President until January 2001.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:31 am | Reply
    • jack

      MY CAMEL BITE MY WEENER, OUCH !

      June 21, 2012 at 2:52 pm | Reply
      • djanes

        A DINGO TOOK MY BABY!

        June 21, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
      • PaxHominibus

        I'm giving the camel 10 out of 10 for being able to SEE anything that small – let alone bite it!

        June 21, 2012 at 6:10 pm |

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.