Saturday, September 10, 2011

GWB Speech Worth Watching

Over here at Gateway.  It's his speech at the dedication of the Flight 93 memorial in Pennsylvania.

14 comments:

Jim said...

O...M...G!!! He's using a teleprompter. What an idiot!

Dan said...

So, what does that make Obama who uses two and still screws up?

Jim said...

Uses 2?

Anonymous said...

Did he apologize for allowing the attacks to occur?

neomom said...

How did he "allow" the attacks to occur again? You aren't talking about this are you?

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-04-10/politics/bush.briefing_1_al-qaeda-threats-pdb-bin?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

TerryN said...

"Did he apologize for allowing the attacks to occur?"

You should watch the DVD, The Path to 911. Oh, wait the Clintons had it's release halted. Didn't want to confuse the myopic Bush haters I suppose. After all it was Clinton's National Security Advisor who got caught stealing documents at the National Archives.

So just what was Bush supposed to apologize for?

neomom said...

I do believe it was POTUS Clinton that turned down taking Bin Laden into custody when Sudan offered him up.

And wasn't it the Clinton Admin that double-down on putting up walls between the various investigating agencies that made it near impossible for them to piece together the puzzle?

Details.

Dad29 said...

Not to mention that we had BinLaden (literally) in our rifle-sights TWICE and Clintonistas nixed the shoot.

Jim said...

All of the above are myths (aka Republican talking points) and not supported by the 9/11 Commission.

neomom said...

Not so much a myth Jim. Here is audio of Clinton saying they turned him down in 1996 because he felt the US didn't have any basis to hold him.

http://archive.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3

Jim said...

Thanks for the clip. In it Clinton says that OBl had committed no crime against America at that time or any information linking him to a crime against America and therefore had no legal cause to hold him. However, they tried to get the Saudis to hold him but they thought it too much of a hot potato to do so.

From FactCheck.org:

What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.

You might want to read the entire article.

Anonymous said...

It's really pathetic that people here are trying to cast blame on Clinton, and trying to denigrate GWB's speech (his exclusive interview the National Geographic Channel was also compelling) on a day of mourning.

Dad29 said...

Yah. OBL didn't fill out all the right forms, so the f(*&^n attorneys said "nope."

Another reason that Shakespeare was right.

TerryN said...

So Sandy Berger was falsely accused Jim?

Your talking point comment is what's false.