The tie in with 9/11 (Rush Limbaugh, enemy, Taliban, Clinton)

[mmmjv]

Harrier
American Taliban
befriend
Status: "Defend liberty - sink Obamacare!" (set 8 days ago)

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Los Angeles County, CA.
21,121 posts, read 4,673,175 times
Reputation: 4331

Well, Harrier sees no tie in with 9/11, which consisted of an attack of the U.S.A. by an avowed enemy, but your analysis of Ruby Ridge and Waco were spot on.

President Clinton was an opponent of the 2nd Amendment and had the opportunity to bring OBL's head on a plate, but rejected those possibilities.

President Clinton caused 9/11 through his own ignorance and negligence.

Which I can't answer in the thread I should be posting this in because it's been closed, don't ask me why, is that just like the people above (not above here, above in the thread I should be posting this in but can't because it's closed) think Ruby Ridge happened under Clinton the right has been trying to instill in people the idea that Clinton was President when 9/11 happened. Now you might say oh come on everybody knows Bush was President on 9/11 but that's true for only so long. The 2016 election is going to have voters who were 3 years old on 9/11, in 2020 voters who weren't even born. A lot of these are people who get their news from Fox News and the rest of the mainstream media. People who grew up hearing people on TV go on and on about how great Bush was at protecting us and how awful Clinton was during discussions of 9/11. That implies that 9/11 happened under Clinton, cause after all how great could Bush have been at protecting us if 9/11 happened under his watch, so Clinton must have been President then because he was awful at protecting us. Also phrases like "Clinton let 9/11 happen" and "Clinton could have stopped 9/11" strongly imply that the largest terrorist attack on the United States happened under a Democrat's watch. There are people hearing this who are future voters and are going to be considering national security when deciding if they should vote for the Democrat or Republican and when weighing the pros and cons they're going to put 9/11 on the Democratic side because 9/11 happened on their watch, they said so on TV. And then there was the three times when they went so far as to say there were no terrorist attacks at all during Bush's watch, well golly if 9/11, which happened around 2000 or so, didn't happen under Bush then it must have happened under Clinton. That happened 3 times and as far as I know it was not corrected on the show. This happened twice on FOX and once on I think ABC and there was no correction. It was pointed out on lots of political sites on the internet that that was false but not as many people go onto political websites on the internet as watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh. It's a lot easier to just turn a dial, or press a button these days, and there's FOX news or Rush Limbaugh, then it is to turn on the computer and wait for it to boot up and type in the password and open the browser and type in the URL and then wait for the page to come up. The reaction of Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani when they were called on this was very telling too, they responded with anger at those who pointed out that what they said was false. Why were they angry, would you expect it? Perhaps they were angry because they in fact didn't make a mistake but instead wanted people to believe that what they said was true, that there were no attacks under Bush and an uncontested lie becomes the truth.