9/11

Trump Was Right About Bush, 9/11, and Iraq

George W. Bush has culpability for both 9/11 and the Iraq war. Keep the pressure on, Donald.

|

DonkeyHotey/Flickr

Donald Trump, for all his obnoxious demagoguery, is adding value to the presidential campaign by calling on former President George W. Bush to account for 9/11 and the Iraq war, which set in motion the growth and spread of al-Qaeda and the rise of the Islamic State. Former U.S. rulers rarely face consequences for the horrible things they do in office. Condemnation is considered impolite.

So good for Trump. Unfortunately, he shows no sign of having done his homework; so his charges against Bush are little more than soundbites, allowing Bush defenders to dismiss Trump as a kook. But this time he is not a kook.

Trump presumably does not mean that Bush knew where and when al-Qaeda would attack. Detailed foreknowledge is not part of the case against Bush. All we need to know is that Bush and his top people, starting with Vice President Dick Cheney, were too busy in their first eight months in office to bother about al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Too busy doing what? Among other things, they were too busy looking for an excuse to overthrow Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Bush's father, George H. W. Bush, had left Saddam in power after sending the U.S. military to reverse Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991. But the elder Bush and successor Bill Clinton enforced killer economic sanctions, on the pretext of finding weapons of mass destruction but actually in hopes of driving Saddam from power. Saddam wouldn't cooperate in his own regime change, however, so Bush Jr., Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and their neoconservative brain trust were determined to complete the mission.

Because of this obsession, warnings from the CIA and counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke about al-Qaeda, which had previously attacked U.S. government assets and the World Trade Center in the 1990s, fell on deaf ears, despite growing signs that "Bin Laden [was] Determined to Strike the US." Even the prospect of aircraft hijackings was raised.

Clarke wrote in his book, Against All Enemies, that when he finally managed to get a cabinet-level meeting on al-Qaeda, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz objected that "I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden." Clarke responded, "We are talking about a network of terrorist organizations called al-Qaeda, that happens to be led by bin Laden, and we are talking about that network because it and it alone poses an immediate and serious threat to the United States." To which Wolfowitz replied, "Well, there are others that do as well, at least as much. Iraqi terrorism for example."

Thus Bush and his top people ignored al-Qaeda despite warnings from their experts and ominous events such as the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui (as Peter Beinart explains). Could the attacks have been prevented had the policymakers paid attention? Who knows? But that does not excuse Bush's irresponsibility.

As for the Iraq war, Bush and his defenders plead innocent on grounds that everyone thought Saddam had chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, or at least active WMD programs. 

That's simply false. Well-sourced reporting at the time said the intelligence had been cooked under White House pressure. It meant little that former President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said they believed in the WMD. People with direct access to the intelligence seriously doubted the WMD existed, and they of course were right. But the establishment news media continue to give Bush a pass, just as as they did in 2002-2003. As I wrote three years ago:

Today, like the Bush administration alumni attempting to duck responsibility, the media blame 'bad intelligence' for their conduct. But that will not wash. The dissenting reports of Knight Ridder's Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay, along with a very few others, show definitively that in 2002–03 solid intelligence information undermining every propagandistic administration claim was readily available to anyone willing to use traditional reporting techniques. Strobel and Landay were mostly ignored. On the rare occasions when The New York Times or The Washington Post reported on the doubts intelligence personnel had about the Bush narrative, the stories were buried deep in the paper. (See Bill Moyers's special "Buying the War" and Greg Mitchell's book Wrong for So Long.)

Bush has culpability for both 9/11 and the Iraq war. Keep the pressure on, Donald.

This piece originally appeared at Richman's "Free Association" blog.

Advertisement

NEXT: What Did Scalia's Second Amendment Cover?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wait, I’m confused – Sheldon didn’t explain how this is ultimately the fault.of Israel?

    1. I think he’s just upset we got downgraded from “Great Satan” in Iranian death chants and wants to build up our villain cred again.

    2. He mentioned Wolfowitz, which is basically the same thing to the 9/11 truther crowd.

      1. Da Jooo did it!

        All Sheldon’s articles are Where’s Waldo, but with Evil Joos.

        1. Everybody knows that Wolfowitz was a Mossad sleeper agent manipulating the government behind the scenes on behalf of the Israelis. Duh.

    3. Get over it, Dradel Boy .
      Cut your jerry curls and eat a ham sandwich,

      1. Dradel boy? Who says that? Seinfeld would be sad at you, I’m sure.

    4. Chip,

      Yes, for all who don’t read enough political commentary, some pundits reflexively dig deep (oops, my bad, I guess you don’t have to go that deep) into our history to find the “blame the Jews,” “blame Isreal,” or the latest formulation, “blame the Zionists.”

      He quickly dismisses both Clinton, and Britains Prime Minister Blair. All the intel agencies America works agreed with Bush. All knew that Iraqi Generals who defected supported intel that said Iraq probably had a Nuke Weps program.

      We found out by finding documentation before we found Saddam in his hole, that they had a program on paper. We also found that he had been telling his Generals that they had a Nuke Weps program. He knew, like Hitler and Stalin, that when you grab power, to hold on you need to keep all high powered officials off balance, and unsure of whats going on.

      Of all this, having been in the mil, I know that to have a program worked out in detail on paper is huge. All the specs and organization needed is much, much harder than getting the material (as long as the UN and the US aren’t on top of you keeping you from it). So this guy being surprised nobody bought the “Bush lied” nonsense apart from the most far left of the Dems, and conspiracy lovers of all persuasions.

  2. Sheldon, you just went full retard. Never go full retard.

    I can easily enough pick through all the details of your argument. But, that would take longer than I care to devote to this nonsense and would draw out the usual suspects accusing me of twisting your arguments. So, I’ll address the main thesis.

    Clark’s “warnings” were both obvious and utterly useless. Al Qaeda wanted to attack the U.S. Who the fuck that was paying the least attention at the time didn’t know that? Shit, my aging mother who was a housewife and part-time waitress knew it was Bin Laden and Al Qaeda before it was announced. Saying they wanted to attack the U.S. was roughly comparable to saying the old Soviet Union was out to expand its sphere of influence. Everyone knew it and there wasn’t a damned thing anyone could do about it until they had a metric shitload more information than that. The response suggested by your inane argument is that we should have implemented all of the idiocies of the post-9/11 security state to try to “catch” whatever the hell they threw our way.

    Everyone reading this site is now dumber for having read your article. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

    1. Yeah, claiming that an anti-terrorist dragnet should have been invented and successfully implemented within a few months of taking office in the face of non-specific and perfectly routine threat assessments is pretty specious. Similar “warnings” have existed for decades, if not longer, about all sorts of groups.

      Also remember, Al-Qaeda used our own “security protocols” against us. The standard at the time was that you cooperate with hijackers and let the feds handle it after you land. There were no warnings given to “policymakers” that terrorists would be using hijacked planes as improvised bombs. So what changes did you expect them to make that would have stopped the attacks within a month or so – the time frame available? Round up everyone from a Muslim country? Hire and train thousands of FBI agents and have them initiate 24-7 surveillance on all foreigners in the country?

      1. So what changes did you expect them to make that would have stopped the attacks within a month or so – the time frame available?

        Exactly. Unless Richman can specify specific steps he’d have supported based on the threat assessment and can commit to supporting similar steps in the future based on similarly vague threat assessments, he’s talking out his ass. And if he is willing to support such measures, he may be a lot of things, but he’s not a libertarian.

        1. For awhile I thought Sheldon was an anarchist, but I’m now convinced he’s just an idiot.

          1. Right,

            So, an Anarchist is a nut-plus. But wait – don’t we want to sweep in the Anarchists into the big Libertarian beer/weed/heroin/crack tent? We can have a gun/bomb plans tent annex for our Anarchist pals.

        2. I’m quite impressed by the generosity you are showing to Bush. It seems that he could have done nothing to prevent the attacks, and indeed did nothing to prevent them. Yet you find his performance in preventing them adequate, if not praiseworthy. What would George have to have done to earn a rating of inadequacy from you?

          1. What should have been done?

            You’re making the same idiotic argument Richman is…

            1. “What should have been done?”

              After learning that an attack in the US was in the cards, he could have sent a memo to all concerned agencies notifying them of the situation, urging them to be more vigilant, and to make sure they cooperate with each other and share any information they have. Would’ve taken him all of 5 minutes. Do you think Bush’s decision not to circulate such a memo was the wiser choice? Because of a potential backlash in the media?

              1. so our security agencies need a memo in order to be vigilant and share information (to the extent that is allowed) ? do they need such memos weekly or evry day ?

              2. Ah, a memo. That would have surely done the trick. Nothing gets the bureaucracy moving like a memo.

                1. If you think that a memo would have decreased the chances of thwarting the attack, make your case. Otherwise you aren’t adding much here.

              3. mtrue,

                None of our Presidents took that quick 5 mins to dash off that note. Here’s why:

                We had, at the time, a “silo” policy firmly in place. This was an effort to keep all of the roughly 20 Fed police agencies isolating their intel, as in keeping it in a big grain silo surrounding the agency and isolating it. This was intended to prevent another agency from screwing up your legal case (as in Clinton explaining he didn’t grab or kill the offered Osama because he was advised we “didn’t have a case”).

                Yes, the term “silo’ing” meant that like a grain silo, your agency had a big tower around it keeping it’s intel pristine from being screwed up by those goons in “x” agency. No memo, apart from a firm “Stop The Damn Silo’ing” was going to do that. Just such a recommen – dation was in the post 9/11 analysis.

              4. In other words, “Do your job”. You’d think they’d already know that.

      2. I thought this site was Huffintopost while reading this article.

        Look, Osama and Al Qaeda never existed prior to Bush, they never bombed the USS Cole, or the Twin Towers under Clinton, everything ever…..of all time is Bush’s fault. Let’s ignore how Hillary pushed for the Iraq war, that Kerry voted for it, along with a gaggle of proggies. Bush is truly the greatest president ever since the increase of bombings under Obama was his call.

        Let’s play a little game called guess which president:
        1. Who attacked more countries ? Bush or Obama ?
        2. Who has dropped more ordnance on Iraq ? Bush or Obama ?
        3.Who surged into Afghanistan resulting in 75% of all us dead ? Bush or Obama ?

        (None of this is meant to endorse Bush or the stupid Iraq War, only to point out things are not now all about peace under Obama)

        1. everything ever…..of all time is Bush’s fault

          Those two black holes that crashed together 1.3 billion years ago that we just detected the gravity waves from? BUSH’S FAULT.

        2. “None of this is meant to endorse Bush”

          Let’s give Bush some credit. His second term was much much better than his first. He fired that boob Rumsfeld and kept Cheney away from policy making. He let Iraqis vote in their own leadership with a fair degree of independence and negotiated a withdrawal. I hadn’t suspected either. The election of Hamas was undoubtedly a mistep on the administration’s part, but Bush didn’t compound. Bush’s North Korean policy was atrocious during the first term but improved measurably over the second. Comparing to Obama, it’s hard to imagine Bush opening to Cuba or Iran, but it’s conceivable that Bush would have been more leery of doing Libya and widening the war in Syria.

          1. Since Libya actually did what the Bush Administration wanted it to, I think it’s highly unlikely he’d have gone into Libya. Violently overthrowing and murdering a despot who relinquished his WMD program is a good way to get other such governments to not agree to do so.

            1. “Violently overthrowing and murdering a despot who relinquished his WMD program is a good way to get other such governments to not agree to do so.”

              Didn’t work with North Korea. They went on to produce nuclear weapons after Bush put an end to the Sunshine Policy and enrolled NK in the axis of evil.

              1. If North Korea wasn’t next door to China you might have a point.

                1. News for you. North Korea has always bordered China. It’s not some chinkypeese plot sprung on a clueless Bush.

              2. mtrue,

                Comparing Libya to N Korea is like using the Team America movie as a foriegn policy reference. Libertarians make terrible terror fighters, because we actually want to hold off until attacked, then debate and vote on how to respond, and not let a “national security state” Commander In Chief stirringly send in the Marines.

                Thus Rand flops around and doesn’t look nearly manly enough for my fellow Repub (yes, like the Pauls, I wear the colors) Primary voters to support him in nearly enough numbers, especially when a major issue is do we bomb one, two or three countries kinda hard, or do we instead just carpet bomb ’em all “and let God sort ’em out.”

                The poor guy actually tried hard to be a reasonable man up there on the debate stage. So being reasonable – N Korea can flatten Soul with in-place, conventional artillery. We no longer flatten city after city with Napalm carpet bombing. Libya, as we saw, was a pinata. Get the picture?

          2. Until Bush Jr’s last two years, when the idiots handed the House and Senate back to the Democrats, the USA also had a booming economy with record low unemployment.

            Those last two years is when the downturn began, thanks to the Democrats working feverishly to undo all the economic gains from the preceding ~ 5.25 years.

            Reagan’s biggest mistake, appointing Alan Greenspan as federal reserve chairman, was a main cause of our economic roller coaster in the late 20th century. At the end of Bush Sr’s term, Greenspan raised the prime interest rate, then dropped it after Clinton won. Remember “It’s the economy, stupid!”? Four years later he left things alone. But before the next election Greenspan raised the rate and kept it there until after 9/11. His plan was to make Bush #2 another single term President like he’d done to Bush #1.

            Greenspan also deliberately tanked the economy to ruin as many “dot com” businesses as he could, said it himself that he was “going to put the needle in the bubble”. A lot of people had financed tech and internet businesses on credit, with razor thin planning to be able to make the payments. But when Greenspan jacked the prime rate, the banks raised the credit card rates and suddenly a lot of people could no longer afford their payments and thus couldn’t pay employees or anything else. POP!

      3. “There were no warnings given to “policymakers” that terrorists would be using hijacked planes as improvised bombs.”

        In April of 2000, an FBI translator submitted a report to his supervisor entitled “Kamikaze Pilots” warning of Al Qaeda Attacks on U.S. cities using airplanes as weapons: http://tinyurl.com/42oevom

        Obviously some policymaker in NORAD took this seriously, because in October of 2000, NORAD staged a drill using a planes-flying-into-buildings scenario: http://tinyurl.com/glw44dr

    2. Incorrect; there were warnings which were NOT utterly useless:

      In April of 2000, an FBI translator submitted a report to his supervisor entitled “Kamikaze Pilots” warning of Al Qaeda Attacks on U.S. cities using airplanes as weapons: http://tinyurl.com/42oevom

      Obviously somebody took this seriously, because in October of 2000, NORAD staged a drill using a planes-flying-into-buildings scenario: http://tinyurl.com/glw44dr

      In his book “Crossing the Rubicon”, Michael Ruppert describes an FBI investigation into suspicious activities of the 19 Saudis who were studying at an American piloting school. The FBI was tipped off by somebody at the school, who noted that the Saudi students only wanted to learn about large commercial airliners, and told one of their instructors that they weren’t interested in learning how to land or take off. The FBI terminated their investigation abruptly in the Spring of 2001, for reasons Ruppert was not able to determine.

      Furthermore, Bush et al knew very well that Osama bin Laden had tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, and knew of the famous August 2001 report “Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S.”. How is all of this not actionable? Bush could have enhanced airport security nationwide, put air marshals on planes, or allocated more resources to the FAA for anti-hijacking measures.

      1. How is all of this not actionable?

        Define “actionable.”

        None of that tells you where or when. You’ve (maybe) got the who (the 19 Saudi students) and the how (crashing airliners into building), but there’s nothing else there that could even remotely be considered actionable.

        So they knew that there was a possibility that an airliner could be used in a kamikaze style attack and that Al Qaeda wanted to attack the homeland, but so what? Yeah, in hindsight you can connect all the dots, but AT THE TIME it was all vague and very speculative.

        Bush could have enhanced airport security nationwide, put air marshals on planes, or allocated more resources to the FAA for anti-hijacking measures.

        All over very vague, speculative threats. Can you imagine the shit show the media would have made about that?! “Fear mongering… RETHUGLIKKKAN admin’s FBI harrassing innocent muslim immigrants… OMGZ ARMED GOV’T AGENTS ON AIRPLANEZ!11!!!1!!!!!”

        As I’ve said, criticize Bush all you want for his actual failures, but he and his team would have had to have precognitive powers in order to predict the when, where, how, and who of 9/11 before it happened.

        1. “Yeah, in hindsight you can connect all the dots, but AT THE TIME it was all vague and very speculative.”

          So your position is that unless Bush got a handwritten note from Osama Bin Laden saying “We plan to fly hijacked planes into the WTC on the morning of Sept 11, 2001.” there was just no measures Bush could have taken to respond? You think the public would have freaked out if Bush had allocated more resources to the FAA Hijack Response Coordinator? Seriously? Is that something the public ever pays attention to?

          1. Bush didn’t get any of the stuff you list. Neither did the Evil Dick Cheney. Or any of the other policy makers.

            The knowledge of the existence of these dots during the post-mortem is what gave us Homeland Security, as a means of better coordinating and sharing information. Along with the USA PATRIOT Act.

            It is not highly likely that these enhancements would prevent a future plot of this magnitude. Possible, but not highly likely. You would still have to put several disparate facts in front of one person, and he’d have to have the insight that the facts are related.

          2. So your position is that unless Bush got a handwritten note from Osama Bin Laden saying “We plan to fly hijacked planes into the WTC on the morning of Sept 11, 2001.” there was just no measures Bush could have taken to respond?

            DOWN GOES THE STRAWMAN! DOWN GOES THE STRAWMAN!!!!!

            Velocitor|2.18.16 @ 9:32AM|#
            …Bush could have enhanced airport security nationwide, put air marshals on planes, or allocated more resources to the FAA for anti-hijacking measures.

            Velocitor|2.18.16 @ 11:13AM|#
            …ou think the public would have freaked out if Bush had allocated more resources to the FAA Hijack Response Coordinator?

            Funny how in your 2nd comment you conveniently leave out all the stuff about “enhanced airport security” and “air marshals on planes” and reduce your proposed measures down to “allocate more resources to the FAA Hijack Response Coordinator.” I believe that’s called moving the goalposts.

            And yes, BEFORE 9/11 people would not have just meakly gone along with TSA rapiscans/ groping (aka enhanced airport security) or armed federal agents (aka air marshals) on planes over some vague, non-specific threat of terrorism. It was only after 9/11 that people were willing to go along with that shit, and whole lot more trampling of their rights to boot. “Never let a crisis go to waste” and all that shit.

        2. Can you imagine the shit show the media would have made about that?! “Fear mongering… RETHUGLIKKKAN admin’s FBI harrassing innocent muslim immigrants… OMGZ ARMED GOV’T AGENTS ON AIRPLANEZ!11!!!1!!!!!”

          So Bush very astutely avoided the media shit show you mention here, but in doing so left the door open to the terror attacks. This trade-off doesn’t strike me as being defensible. Especially considering what happened after the attacks. If the best thing you can say about Bush is that he waited until after the attacks to put guards on planes, scrutinize suspicious muslims etc, that is faint praise in the extreme.

          1. If all that had been done before 9/11, you and your ilk would have been screaming about racial profiling, invasion of privacy, trampling your rights etc ad nauseum.

            1. “If all that had been done before 9/11”

              You believe Bush would have preferred the attack over the outcry. And this is your idea of defending Bush.

              1. Do you deny that you and your ilk would have been screaming about racial profiling, invasion of privacy, trampling your rights etc ad nauseum? Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. You won’t because you know it’s fucking true.

                1. If you think doing nothing was reasonable because the public wouldn’t tolerate it, then what do you think Clinton should have done? Whatever you think Clinton should have done is something Bush could have done in his first 8 months in office.

                2. “Answer the question.”

                  Maybe there would have been a media storm had Bush sent a memo, maybe it would have passed unnoticed. Who can say, both answers are plausible. If a media storm were to happen, do you believe this to be preferable to a terror attack? A small price to pay, or a price too great? I can’t see where you are trying to go with this. Not all political decisions are popular.

      2. You forget that there was essentially a firewall between the CIA and FBI during this time – structural problems that Bush had no hand in creating.

      3. While it’s hard to say with any certainty why the FBI stopped its investigation of the Arabs who wanted to fly airplanes but not land them, there is a clear and non-conspiratorial explanation for it. The case occurred in Florida which at the time was a major port of entry for drugs. I can just see some mid level FBI bureaucrat, whose job performance review is based on the number of drug arrests, look at the reports of resources being used to investigate “four loony Arabs” and ordered the agents to go back to looking for drug smugglers.

        If that’s what happened then we can add the three thousand people killed on 9-11 to the list of Drug War victims.

    3. Exactly this. The response to 9/11 (PATRIOT Act, neverending GWoT, etc.) was a shit show, as was the handling of the Iraq occupation, but come on.

      They should have been to prevent the attack… how exactly? Because Moussaoui got arrested? And how big would the shit storm be when the feds started sticking their noses into a local law enforcement matter? Hell, even the FBI’s infamous “Phoenix memo” had zero actionable intelligence.

      I’ve read it. It basically says that a couple of agents from the Phoenix office had heard about some students at a flight school in AZ who may have had ties to Al Quaeda, so they went and interviewed on of them. Apparently they interviewed a guy had a picture of Bin Laden on his fridge or some shit and some of his answers sounded “rehearsed” like maybe he’d had coaching. Like it or not, having a picture of Bin Laden isn’t against the law (freedom of speech). Technically neither is taking flight lessons to “learn how to steer an aircraft but not land.” It’s strange and suspicious, but not illegal Again, how big would the media’s shit storm have been if the Bush administration had ordered the FBI to start harassing Muslims based on such vague intel?

      1. (cont’d) Fuck you, character limit!

        Criticize the Bush admin for trampling on all of our rights in response to the attack, the creation of DHS, TSA, PATRIOT Act, mass surveillance, etc. etc. and for the shit show that was the Iraq war, but to suggest they could have stopped 9/11 “if only they’d listened” is fucking stupid. They would have needed to know the time, place, method of attack, and who specifically was going to carry out the attack, and they didn’t know any of that.

        1. I can definitely criticize the Navy for its laser focus in the 90’s on the blue-water threat to the exclusion of vanilla terrorism. While embassies guarded by marines were being attacked by suicide bombers, the Navy continued to regard in-port security and vetting of line handling crews, dock workers, line handlers, etc. from that region as an after-thought. Just prior to the Cole being bombed, my frigate was tied to that jetty in Yemen, likely being observed by those planning the attack. The assumption that we had nothing to fear from Yemeneze workers “vetted” by our various logistics agencies was an incredible fumble. What, did we look through their high school yearbooks? Check their driving records? Go over their credit history? It’s fucking Yemen. Its ‘port facilities’ are a graveyard for ships seized during the oil embargo. There, it’s usefulness as a nation ends. Go there if you want to know what the ruin of a ruin looks like. It can only aspire to the dizzying heights of nations such as Qatar or Djibouti. But the Navy went there to show the flag, as if such gestures have any meaning at all to that populace. My advice for folks on this new immigration issue is either go there, or talk to someone who has. Spend about 30 seconds in Yemen or any other North African shithole, get to know some of the people, THEN decide where you stand.

          1. My stance is they need to be sent home and told to fix their own damn country instead of trying to ruin ours.

    4. Sheldon, you just went full retard.

      That horse left the barn a long long time ago.

  3. Could the attacks have been prevented had the policymakers paid attention? Who knows?

    To an intellectually honest writer, this would be the point where you pack it up and pick another topic.

    1. Also, an intellectually honest writer would not repeat incorrect claims about the absence of WMDs. Making that claim means he’s either dishonest or uninformed.

    2. To give him the benefit of the doubt, he was probably on a deadline and couldn’t afford to start over.

  4. Bush was in office for 8 months when 9/11 and the Clinton administration was known to make the transition difficult because they were sore losers after Bush v. Gore. Even so, what was he supposed to do when he heard Osama was planning a nonspecific “attack”? Shut down all borders and all flights? Quarantine Muslim immigrants? Personally pat down every person at an airport? He inherited the terrible Iraq intelligence from Clinton, who had bombed the hell out of Iraq three years earlier to take out the same non-existent nuclear weapons program and who remained convinced that Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons until the same time Bush did. The war was a colossal mistake by a stupidly optimistic and naive group of people, and the mismanagement is 100% Bush’s fault, in addition to the lack of attention to Afghanistan after that war began. You give a few instances of people who had evidence that Iraq didn’t have WMD’s but they were in the minority. The majority of people in the world’s intelligence agencies were pretty sure Saddam was looking to get WMDs. Bush made tons of other stupid and obnoxious mistakes as president to think he was a bad one, but this article belongs more at Salon.

    1. “Even so, what was he supposed to do when he heard Osama was planning a nonspecific “attack”?”

      Ask for specifics?

      1. Yes because if he only asked for specifics the CIA and/or the FBI would have revealed the whole plot. You are grasping at straws to make the case Bush was grossly negligible. I suspect if Al Gore were the president when 9/11 occurred you’ld be making the opposite case. This is what passes for an argument when you let your ideology and tribalism cloud your otherwise rational and intelligent thinking. Shameful.

        1. ” I suspect if Al Gore were the president when 9/11 occurred you’ld be making the opposite case.”

          But we were talking about Bush. You are a Bush partisan. I understand. You prefer to talk about Gore. Partisans bore me.

          1. “Partisans bore me.”

            Me too. Are you really this unaware to what a partisan is? Look in the fucking mirror dude. Frothing at the mouth about Bush IS partisan to the left. You are fucking hopeless.

            1. I’m not frothing at the mouth. If you have any arguments to make that are relevant to the subject, I invite you to make them. I think Bush is a lot better than many on the left or right make him out to be, especially his second term. Please, put aside your concern for my personal feeling for Bush and make your case if you have one.

    2. If you think Bush doing nothing was reasonable, then what do you think Clinton should have done? Whatever you think Clinton should have done is something Bush could have done in his first 8 months in officeI

  5. Nice piece. As I’ve also emphasized at my blog, 1) the chemical weapons Saddam actually used against Iran and his own people aren’t really “weapons of mass destruction”; 2) the Bush Administration’s frequent allegations that Saddam was involved with al Qaeda were deliberate lies; 3) the Bush Administration’s frequent allegations that Saddam was “pursuing” nuclear weapons were lies; and 4) the Bush Administration’s frequent allegations that Saddam was likely to attack the U.S. were lies.

    1. You spelled Anal wrong.

    2. Bizarre how many things that have been confirmed through multiple sources are still believed to be untrue. The whole “Saddam was really nice” or “He was not attempting to get nukes, and he had abandoned his chemical program to be a nice member of the community” is, quite simply, inexplicable except as a partisan attack against Bush.

      The 4 things listed by Nick’s lover above were all considered common knowledge under the Clinton administration. The re-writing of history, “No yellowcake in Niger” has been Orwellian. Before Saddam, Nuclear Biological Chemical’s were considered WMD’s, idiot movie reviewers ignorant opinions notwithstanding. Of course, if you don’t move the goal posts like a million times, how do you twist the truth?

      Chemical weapons are WMD’s. Scream “Bush lied” like a Code pinko commie all day long, it doesn’t change that fact.

      1. Who the hell ever said that Saddam was “really nice”? Who the hell ever said he was attempting to be a “ncie member of the community”?

        Someone above said that this article sounded like Huffpost. Well, the comments here sound more like instapundit. Clutter up the discussion all you want with comparisons to the morons on the Left — the fact is that the meddling in the Middle East has not made us safer and has resulted in 100s of thousands of deaths. Argue all you want that chemical weapons are WMDs — it does not alter the fact that this war was as unnecessary for the U.S. as the Kuwait war that rescued a monarchy.

        That the nebulous “WMDS” was the mantra behind the invasion wasn’t a result of the widely known fact that Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds — it was supported by the war-mongering phrase “smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud”.

        1. “Someone above said that this article sounded like Huffpost. Well, the comments here sound more like instapundit.”

          “I know you are but what am I?”

          Your screed is an exercise in missing the point and goal-post shifting.

          The Iraq liberation was necessary. There was no avoiding it.

          1. The Iraq liberation was necessary. There was no avoiding it.

            What? So if we hadn’t done that, the world would have blown up? What would the specific consequences have been, and how can you possibly justify preemptive warfare?

            1. ” So if we hadn’t done that, the world would have blown up?”

              No, Cytoxic is a Bush partisan and is putting up a defence. If the war was inevitable, this absolves Bush of responsibility. Surprisingly, a lot of self-styled libertarians here are ready to swallow this sort of stuff. Credit where it’s due, at least he’s not buying into this WMD line.

    3. I have a blog.

    4. Shit, Alan – you made me agree with you. You bastard!

  6. Go to hell Sheldon.

  7. Trump Was Right

    Something about broken clocks… twice a day…

    1. No no, it’s broken squirrels find blind clocks twice

  8. I think one of the Reason writers wrote a book about the appeal of conspiracy theories to otherwise sane individuals. I think I read about in passing around here at some point.

    Maybe you should talk to them about it. Maybe they could explain that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job, or failing that, they could explain how you should try to keep the tinfoil hat shiny side out, to stop the mind control rays.

    1. You can think that the Bush administration was negligent in ignoring a real threat in favor of a preferred target without thinking it was a conspiracy.

  9. George W Bush Sr. invasion of Kuwait was the cause of 9/11 and our “allies” Saudi Arabia sponsered it. Just because Trump parrots what many Americans feel doesn’t make him Presidental timber. Everyone is sick of the corruption in Washington; so is electing one of the corruptors President the answer. If most of the world thinks we as a country are responsible for the bad in the world maybe it is time to take a serious look at ourselves and our Government; because we the people are the Government.

  10. Bush II was a terrible President, largely because he eroded our civil liberties and exploded the size and cost of Government. He did these things in ‘response’ to 9/11. This article seems to be saying that if he had done these things before 9/11 and sent his torture monkeys after some suspicious guys at a flight school 9/11 would have been stopped and everything would have been wonderful.

    I do not want to downplay the tragedy of 2,977 people being murdered, that is obviously horrific, but it pales in comparison to the shear evil of using those murders to take away freedoms that 2 plus centuries of Americans fought for. In a free society you cannot imprison people for being suspicious looking. The benefits of that freedom seem obvious, but one cost is that it becomes very difficult to stop a criminal before they commit the crime. I don’t blame Bush for failing to prevent 9/11; I blame him for failing to fulfill his oath of office in the aftermath.

    “…and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    1. Re: jarfax,

      This article seems to be saying that if he had done these things before 9/11[…]

      They didn’t need to torture anyone, jar. All that was needed was to collate the INTELLIGENCE reports that were coming in but no one was looking at due to their obsession with Saddam Hussein. There were reports coming in of Saudi men learning how to fly passenger planes yet not bothering with learning how to land them. Apparently, that wasn’t suspicious enough for those looking at potential domestic terrorism, yet even then the government was obsessing about so-called right-wing groups and militias. I’m not kidding.

      Hence, I agree wholeheartedly with Sheldon here. Bush fils (or Bush “The Lesser”), or at least his administration, was most certainly culpable because he failed to do what people expected him to do (for better or worse) and that was to keep them safe from foreign attackers.

      1. But the FBI did go interview one of the Saudis, suspicious behavior is not enough to arrest someone, and unless they had somehow taken the future hijackers into custody how would they have prevented the attack?

        1. Re: jarflax,

          But the FBI did go interview one of the Saudis, suspicious behavior is not enough to arrest someone,

          I’m not talking about arrests. I am talking about police work, intelligence-gathering. The fact that these pilot students were acting ‘funny’ should be enough to put a tail on them. You know that the Feds DID arrest one of them, except after the attack, right? Now how do you think they knew who to arrest? Then ask yourself – why didn’t they follow the others? Tap their phones?

          1. After the attacks the suspicious behavior is absolutely a lead to be followed up. Before the attacks it is an instance, among millions, of suspicious behavior, that was looked into and noted as suspicious. You can Monday morning Quarterback the investigation, because hindsight is 20/20, but I don’t think blanket wiretaps and tails for anyone suspicious are a good thing. Or am I misreading you, and you arguing that 911 was an inside job?

  11. I am in favor of blaming Bush 41 for 9/11 and the Iraq War.

    If the intel prior to 9/11 was so actionable, why did it require Presidential involvement to act upon? Did he withhold authorization?

    Did Clinton impose policies and procedures that prevented the FBI from arresting terrorists who had overstayed their visa? WTF?

    1. Trump didn’t blame 9/11 on bush, when baby bush said his brother made us safe he asked how. the WTC came down during his watch.

      From CBS new dated May 155, 2002: “Two months before the suicide hijackings, an FBI agent in Arizona alerted Washington headquarters that several Middle Easterners were training at a U.S. aviation school and recommended contacting other schools nationwide where Arabs might be studying.”
      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fb…..t-schools/

      ABC news: “U.S. intelligence officials warned President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network might hijack American planes, but White House officials stressed the threat was not specific.”
      http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91651&page=1

      1. Washington Post: “A top FBI expert on the al-Qaeda terrorist network testified in court today that the agency knew before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the group’s leader, Osama bin Laden, had sent followers to an Oklahoma flight school to train as pilots and was interested in hijacking airplanes.”
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00216.html

        And then we have this from CNN: “WASHINGTON (CNN) — A Minnesota flight instructor who notified his bosses of student Zacarias Moussaoui’s suspicious behavior received a $5 million reward Thursday from the State Department, two government officials told CNN.”
        http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/…..=hpmostpop

        1. “Interesting” that the bush admin, according to reports, didn’t find there was enough “credible” evidence, or that the info wasn’t confirmed, but they found that it was in one instance.

          The statement at the debate was that bush 43 kept us safe, trump’s reply to that was no he didn’t, not that he was the reason.

          Makes one kind of wonder if they knew but needed a reason to ultimately go into iraq.

        2. The Clinton administration put up legal walls to prevent information sharing between State and Federal agencies, and between federal agencies handling internal and external operations.

          The FBI and CIA and State authorities were not allowed to share information they had about possible terrorist threats.

  12. Somebody should tell Nick that shit like this is why, regardless of how much I agree philosophically with Reason, I’ll never ever give them a dime. This is truther bullshit, plain and simple. Go back to InfoWars with this nonsense, you anti-semite.

    1. Ah, the anti-semite card. Very similar to the race card.

      1. Ah the red herring, the most noble of all fishes.

        1. Not a red herring. It is just very funny to see anti-semitism accusations from the same people who criticize others for making ridiculous racism accusations.

          I didn’t see him try to justify his claim, so there was nothing more to say.

  13. Too busy doing what? Among other things, they were too busy looking for an excuse to overthrow Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

    And then miracle of miracles! The best excuse landed on their lap! Isn’t serendipity a curious thing? But that, my friends, is another story.
    ?
    Rhymes that keep their secrets
    Will unfold behind the clouds
    And there upon a rainbow
    Is the answer to a never ending story! ?

    [W]arnings from the CIA and counter[-]terrorism chief Richard Clarke about al-Qaeda […] fell on deaf ears, despite growing signs that “Bin Laden [was] Determined to Strike the US.” Even the prospect of aircraft hijackings was raised.

    Yes, but back then that sounded preposterous. Instead, the idea that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was hell-bent on unleashing them on the Moon was backed up by solid intelligence!

    1. Is this a fucking joke?

  14. The last thing I’m going to say about this:

    Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It’s proven.

    If you deny this, you are why there are laws against marrying your sister.

    1. Re: Intn’s House of Badass,

      Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It’s proven.

      It is just that they were magically gone, all gone, by the time the first troops were sent there. Serendipitous!

      But at least the world is better without Saddam Hussein in power, isn’t it?

      By the way, what happened to all those Iraqi Christians? Those ingrates! How dare they die en masse after the US came in to liberate them?

      1. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/…..nd-in-iraq

        I hope you and your sister are very happy together.

        1. US News, that bastion of hardcore right-wing demagogery.

          /sarc

    2. I am still confused about the necessity of invading, destroying, and occupying a country for having WMDs. Since in this case the WMDs alleged were chemical weapons, and since basically every country has a chemical plant or two, or some thing that could be made into a chemical plant, doesn’t basically every country have WMDs or the capacity to make them in a matter of a few months? Hell if you mix the wrong household cleansers you get a toxic gas.

      1. Perhaps it would be their propensity to lob SCUD missiles at their neighbors?

    3. And how was that a threat to us? I also remember them saying that terrorists had training “bases” inside iraq, that somehow, though not directly, hussein was involved.

      1. Iraq was playing footsy with various Islamic terror organizations.

  15. Cmon guys, you can find sane writers to rip on Bush. Its not hard at all. Why publish this moron?

  16. Greetings earthlings and statist automatons!

    Dream On?:

    “In your dream, the Pentagon is not a scam,
    In your dream, 9/11 was not a scam,
    In your dream, the war on terror is not a scam
    In your dream, al -qaeda was not a scam,
    In your dream I.S.I.S. is not a scam”

    Lyrics excerpted from:

    “Dreams [Anarchist Blues]”:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMXtoU…..e=youtu.be

    Regards, onebornfree.
    onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom

  17. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

  18. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

  19. another moron article. Richard clarks claims of Bush ignoring alQuida are lies since Condi Rice was disscusing them before she was even appointed to here post. the quality of articles on Reason have fallen and really become delusional.
    Fact Prseident Bush was given a list of over 52 methods terrorist might attack, airplanes were not in the top ten. the only way to prevent that attack would have been to shut down the country and create the patriot act before hand. Everybody including I would have screamed at that. 20/20 hindsight is great for people who only complain about others and never ever do anything themselves.

  20. It figures that Sheldon would like Trump. Morons attract one another.

  21. As usual, GOP apologists run rampant at Reason in the comment section.

    Here is the sad and painful facts. Not only was there a memo 5 weeks before the attack, there were a series of similar memos dating back to May 1. All speaking of the more than real potential of things to come. And they were ignored. Nothing changed. No alerts issued. In fact, Ron Suskind claims Bush’s response was “there, now you have covered your ass.”

    Facts are facts. The President was warned, he took no action, and history is history. And it’s a sad history.

    1. Read it and weep.

      http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012…..l?referer=

      1. Just like Obama and Clinton ignored warnings about “elevated threat level” regarding Benghazi weeks before the attack? Clinton pushed for intervention in the middle east despite warnings from misgivings and warnings from experts.

        The article admits that the memo did not warn of any specific impending attacks. Twice. It’s basically saying that Bush should have picked up on clues. I don’t disagree with that, but that’s hindsight being 20/20. Pre 9/11 America was a totally different place. Before that the most significant act of terror against US was the Oklahoma bombing. I’ve never heard of Al-Qaida for most of the 90’s. Bush had little reason to alarm the nation by doing something drastic to stop a guy who was regarded like Kim Jong Un at the time.

        Bin Laden was granting interviews to the western media. No one took him out when they had a faint idea where he was. And what exactly would you have done to stop this “attack”? Stop Muslim immigration? Send ground troops to take out OBL? Place surveillance on the Muslim community?

        We were warned by the Boston Bombers fairly recently. Obama was warned against sending arms to rebels. And reports are surfacing that he was indeed warned about the SB shooters. He was warned about ACA site glitches by experts. In all cases, he did nothing.

        The government is inefficient in dealing with intelligence and foreign policy matters. You sort of see that when you see a Republican leadership in power.

        1. Jackass’ juxtaposition of the verb claims and the phrase “facts are facts” is pretty telling, no?

    2. I like it when people attack the validity of the person instead of the validity of the argument. God forbid we debate the differing opinions in a reasonable manner. Better just to label them as “other” and declare yourself victor.

  22. fuck off, joe

  23. As soon as I saw the headline I knew it was another screed from Sheldon, president of the men’s auxiliary of Code Pink. Still hoping to get introduced to Medea Benjamin, eh Shel?

  24. Answer to “Why did Bush leave the ‘containment’ (status quo)?”
    Answer to “Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq?”.

  25. Richman makes some good points. However, he fails to mention that Saddam had 500 tons of yellow cake uranium in his possession. While the aforementioned is only a precursor to Nuclear materials, its ownership gives weight to the view that Saddam was working on WMDs.

    I’m not a fan of dubya, but his detractors ALWAYS omit the facts not conducive to the bent of their prejudices against him. Lee Harvey Oswald slipped right past the obvious clues to his bad intentions. Wasn’t it JFK himself who’d been obsessed with trying to bring down the Castro regime in Cuba? Shall we blame the Kennedy administration for overlooking warning sign about Oswald? Hindsight is so high-def.

    1. If Saddam would have been found with a box of matches, Washington would have been parading them all over the airwaves as evidence of the WMDs that they saved us from.

      1. Instead, he was found with poison gas shells and yellowcake uranium. For whatever reason, it was not paraded.

    2. I’m no fan of W, but you can rest assured he’ll be blamed for the Zika virus outbreak and Scalia’s demise.

      1. Trump blamed Bush for failing to stop the attacks on 9/11.

  26. I don’t agree with the Reason staff’s anti-interventionist stance, but it’s a serious position deserving of being advocated intelligently, and Mr. Richman just isn’t capable of that. Whoever is in charge of such things (Mr. Welch? Ms. Mangu-Ward?) should get someone else, maybe David Friedman. He holds very similar policy positions, but he can support them with actual arguments, rather than “the US government isn’t non-interventionist like I want it to be, so whatever bad things anyone says about them must be true, whoever they support must be bad, and whoever they oppose must be good.” With Sheldon, all you’ve got is a less-vitriolic Justin Raimondo.

    1. A voice of….Reason!

      1. nope…you’re both bloodthirsty neocons who should have their validity as people attacked while your argument should be completely ignored because your not ideologically pure enough.

        Seriously, go to a place where dissent and differing opinions based on logic are more accepted.

        clueless assholes…

  27. As for the Iraq war, Bush and his defenders plead innocent on grounds that everyone thought Saddam had chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, or at least active WMD programs.

    Which was the conclusion of major intelligence agencies around the world, and the premise for sanctions and inspections for almost a decade.

    But no, it was all Bush’s fault. Once Rumsfeld decided it was time for attack Iraq, Bush used his reverse time mind control, and made the world believe that Saddam had a WMD program. Is there nothing Bush can’t do?

    1. Dick Cheney told Meet the Press on 3/16/2003 that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted nuclear weapons. The hype going into the war was that this was a nuclear threat. Only when they found none did ooison gas count as WMDs. Nobody supported the war because they were scared of Saddam’s poison gas. Is that what kept you up at night in 2003? Fear that S Hussein might have poison gas?

  28. The author of this article is the kook. Plenty of chemical weapons stuff was found, including artillery shells, chemicals to mix together to fill them, mobile chemical weapon factories in semi trailers and more.

    Then there all the conventional weapons from France, Germany, China and Russia that those countries had illegally sold or traded to Iraq after 1992. We know for certain that China was selling cruise missiles to Iraq because one blew up a pier and the front of a movie theater in Kuwait city and reporters picked up pieces of the debris with Chinese writing on them to display on live TV. Those reports for some reason got hushed up real fast.

    Iraq still has a lot of Scud missiles leftover from the 90’s, thanks to the UN’s laughable “inspection” teams who let themselves be led around by the nose instead of doing their jobs.

  29. “As for the Iraq war, Bush and his defenders plead innocent on grounds that everyone thought Saddam had chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, or at least active WMD programs. That’s simply false. Well-sourced reporting at the time said the intelligence had been cooked under White House pressure.”

    So the Israeli intel (of course you think they’re untrustworthy, they’re Jews), the U.S. recon satellite photos of the convoy ushering WMD from Iraq into Syria right before the invasion, the weapons inspectors published documents, and and the New York Times revelation (Sept. 2003 article near the back of sec. A) about Saddam’s WMD, which the world knows he used against the Kurds, and were documented being moved in the dead of night into Syria and later discovered there… was all fabricated? You might want to publish your “well sourced” sources regarding this statement. It’s YOUR responsibility to prove it.

    Filling white space on a blog can be demanding, but to publish such blatant tripe is less than worthy here. I’m quickly losing confidence in Reason Magazine.

    1. Came for the articles, stayed for the comments.

    2. “So the Israeli intel… was all fabricated?”

      Fabrication of intelligence is a big part of what secret services do. Your sourcing is weak in the extreme.

  30. George W. Bush has culpability for both 9/11

    Yes, Bush might have done more in his 8 months in office. I assume that at the time Sheldon had been calling for a massive expansion of the surveillance state, and a preemptive war against Afghanistan.

    But I look forward to the extensive article on the culpability of Bill Clinton for 9/11. I assume it will be much much longer, since Clinton had so much more time in office prior to 9/11.

    1. And Reagan’s CIA created, funded, and trained AlQueda, and even publicly praised them as “freedom fighters.” Maybe if we look back further, we can figure out a way to blame Napoleon for 9/11.

      1. “Maybe if we look back further, we can figure out a way to blame Napoleon for 9/11.”

        Too far. Try FDR.

        1. Certainly Kermit Roosevelt deserves mention.

          1. FDR cemented the unholy alliance with the Saudi monarchy.

  31. Re: “calling on former President George W. Bush to account for 9/11 and the Iraq war, which set in motion the growth and spread of al-Qaeda and the rise of the Islamic State.”

    If Bush’s act of commission set in the motion the rise of the Islamic State, Obama’s act of omission allowed ISIS to spread like wildfire despite intel from his own people that ISIS was a threat. Which is worse?

    You should have at least given brief mention of Obama’s act of omission.

    1. “You should have at least given brief mention of Obama’s act of omission.”

      Trump was blaming Bush.

  32. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  33. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

  34. Dear Mr Richman, some questions:

    What if Donald Trump is a fraud?
    What if Sanders is a fraud?
    What if all the rest of the presidential candidates are frauds?
    What if Obama and all of his predecessors are all frauds?
    What if the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a fraud?
    What if the Supreme Court is a fraud?
    What if the Pentagon is a fraud?
    What if the CIA, FBI, NSA etc. etc etc. are all frauds?
    What if 9/11 was a Pentagon/CIA/NSA [etc] instigated fraud?
    What if the War on Terror is a Pentagon/CIA/NSA [etc] instigated fraud?
    What if al-qaeda is a Pentagon/CIA/NSA [etc.] fraud?
    What if ISIS is a Pentagon/CIA/NSA [etc.] fraud?

    Dream On?:

    “In your dream, the Pentagon is not a scam,
    In your dream, 9/11 was not a scam,
    In your dream, the war on terror is not a scam
    In your dream, al -qaeda was not a scam,
    In your dream I.S.I.S. is not a scam”

    Lyrics excerpted from:

    “Dreams [Anarchist Blues]”:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMXtoU…..e=youtu.be

    Regards, onebornfree.
    onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom

  35. my friend’s sister-in-law makes $85 hourly on the internet . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her paycheck was $21785 just working on the internet for a few hours. look at this web-site….
    Clik this link in Your Browser

    ??????????? http://www.Wage90.com

  36. my friend’s sister-in-law makes $85 hourly on the internet . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her paycheck was $21785 just working on the internet for a few hours. look at this web-site….
    Clik this link in Your Browser

    ??????????? http://www.Wage90.com

  37. my friend’s sister-in-law makes $85 hourly on the internet . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her paycheck was $21785 just working on the internet for a few hours. look at this web-site….
    Clik this link in Your Browser

    ??????????? http://www.Wage90.com

  38. The Fit Finally programs and guides are based on over 600 research studies conducted by some of the biggest Universities and research teams of the world.
    We take pride in the fact that our passion for better health and fitness is 100% backed by science and helps 100’s (if not 1000’s) of people every year since 2010. Just try it:

    http://03615gbnxbyy5y42r9r8o80…..kbank.net/

  39. The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox
    All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.