• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How long will you "blame Bush"?

How long will you blame Bush

  • Less than one more year

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Until this term is over

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    32
Status
Not open for further replies.
that is 100% dishonest. I indeed posted evidence and its not my fault if you fail to read it.

What is 100% dishonest is making the claim that you proved what you said you did
 
I have provided evidence for my claim, its in this thread. You are welcome to go search for it.

No thanks-if it were worthwhile I'd have remembered it. and I know what the facts are, when you make claims inconsistent with that, i know you are fibbing
 
911 was certainly caused by clinton doing absolutely nothing in response to repeated attacks by alqueda and other terrorists...

this is 100% untrue, as I have shown in this thread with evidence.

Unfounded claims are not evidence. No matter how many times you repeat them.



the first WTT attack happened under clinton....the USS cole...the african embassy...the 200 marines killed in the Riad barracks attack...and on and on....

yeah, like a month after he was sworn in. you really gonna blame him for that????????????

I don't blame him for the 1993 attack. I don't think anyone was in a position to see that coming.

I blame him for his complete negligence, incompetence, and misfeasance, once that attack had occurred, in utterly failing to do anything effective to prevent the groups responsible for that first attack from planning and carrying out a much more successful attack against the World Trade Center twelve years later.

I note that you (correctly) point out that the first attack happened so early in Clinton's term that he couldn't reasonably have had time to anticipate and act on the threat, even if it were known; yet you refuse to grant the same leeway to Bush Jr. regarding the second attack. Both attacks took place very early in the terms of the Presidents who were in office when they were carried out, having been in planning and preparation since well before those Presidents took office. In both cases, if there is any blame to put at the President's level, that blame belongs rightfully and clearly to the previous President. I doubt if either Bush Sr. or Clinton had any way of knowing that the 1993 attack was imminent, but Clinton certainly had a warning, in the form of that attack, which ought to have led him to take effective measures to prevent a repeat. He was too busy using random military actions to distract the public from his tawdry sex scandals to give any useful attention to the actual threat that he had to know he needed to address. The failure is his.
 
Last edited:
No thanks-if it were worthwhile I'd have remembered it. and I know what the facts are, when you make claims inconsistent with that, i know you are fibbing

just to show you who is being dishonest, I shall find and post my evidence.

give me a minute.
 
just to show you who is being dishonest, I shall find and post my evidence.

give me a minute.

I will stop my world from turning in order to be awed by such powerful evidence being mustered on your behalf
 
Nor did anyone else-it's non existent

What is 100% dishonest is making the claim that you proved what you said you did

Here is the post with evidence. Now we all know who is being dishonest.

not only that, but Clinton:

Foreign policy of the Bill Clinton administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-sent legislation to Congress to extend federal criminal jurisdiction making it easier to deport terrorists and act against terrorist fund-raising.

-amended that legislation to increase wiretap and electronic surveillance authority for the FBI, require explosives to be equipped with traceable taggants, and appropriate more funds to the FBI, CIA, and local police...after the OKC bombing.

-he issued Presidential Decision Directive 39 which stated that the United States "should deter, defeat and respond vigorously to all terrorist attacks on our territory and against our citizens." Furthermore, it called terrorism both a "matter of national security" and a crime
.

-he significantly increased anti-terror funds to the CIA & FBI.

-he created the CIA's "Bin Laden unit", who's mission was to analyse intelligence about and plan missions against OBL.

-he created and appointed Richard Clark to head a new Counter-terrorism Security Group, who's mission was to prevent and defend against terrorist attacks.

-he tried to kill OBL in Afghanistan, but OBL was not there during the attacks.

-he declared the Taliban to be a state sponsor of terrorism.

-in 1999 he gave the CIA the authority to order the killing of OBL.

-he helped prevent the Millenium terror attacks.

-he drafted a plan at the end of his admistration, to defeat and destroy Al Qaeda.



....so much for this dishonest rumor of President Clinton not taking on terrorism.
 
911 was certainly caused by clinton doing absolutely nothing in response to repeated attacks by alqueda and other terrorists...the first WTT attack happened under clinton....the USS cole...the african embassy...the 200 marines killed in the Riad barracks attack...and on and on....
Yeah, who'll ever forget the 200 marines killed in their barracks while Clinton was president. :roll:

Who knew Clinton was president for 4 terms?
 
Here is the post with evidence. Now we all know who is being dishonest.

Uh that is a complete failure. it doesn't prove what you claim it does
 
nonsense...
Nope, not nonsense. Had Bush taken some action to prevent an attack, it's possible 9.11 could have been thwarted. Just like when Clinton raised airport security following the warning he received that al-qaeda was planning an attack inside America. And with the real-estate meltdown, had Bush not pushed through his minority homeownership program until Congress passed oversight on the GSE's, the financial crisis would also likely have been avoided.
 
911 was certainly caused by clinton doing absolutely nothing in response to repeated attacks by alqueda and other terrorists....

my evidence was in response to this claim, and I have proved this claim to be lies.
 
Nope, not nonsense. Had Bush taken some action to prevent an attack, it's possible 9.11 could have been thwarted. Just like when Clinton raised airport security following the warning he received that al-qaeda was planning an attack inside America. And with the real-estate meltdown, had Bush not pushed through his minority homeownership program until Congress passed oversight on the GSE's, the financial crisis would also likely have been avoided.

more BDS nonsense. It was the wall between the CIA and the FBI that was the main problem-Look to Jamie Gorelik for that policy

btw where did that push for giving loans to minorities who could not make normal standards come from
 
Thunder you showed no evidence...and you are trying to blame bush for 8 yrs of clintons impotency that enabled terrorists to organize and plan 911...bush was in office a hot 7 months with the first couple trying to get organized....blaming him is absolute nonesense
 
your evidence has proved no such thing
The evidence is indisputable -- George Bush was the president on 9.11. He had nearly 8 months to do something about al-qaeda -- he chose to do nothing and hope there would not be an attack.
 
The evidence is indisputable -- George Bush was the president on 9.11. He had nearly 8 months to do something about al-qaeda -- he chose to do nothing and hope there would not be an attack.

not only did he do nothing new about Al Qaeda, but his FBI chief did not think terrorism was a priority.

hell, Bush didn't even act on the plan to get rid of Al Qaeda that was handed to him by Clinton. he just let it collect dust..until it became covered by ash from the Pentagon.
 
my evidence was in response to this claim, and I have proved this claim to be lies.
Wikipedia? Really? As your irrefutable evidence? I went to the link, this particular Wiki article, cited CNN and other "news" reports as the majority of its "sources." :lol: The few credible sources it DID cite were White House and Departmental briefings which did NOTHING to prove your claims. Perhaps you should dig a little deeper than simply clicking the first 2 or 3 links that pop up in your Google Searches. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
The evidence is indisputable -- George Bush was the president on 9.11. He had nearly 8 months to do something about al-qaeda -- he chose to do nothing and hope there would not be an attack.

that proves nothing and you are lying
 
I blame him for his complete negligence, incompetence, and misfeasance, once that attack had occurred, in utterly failing to do anything effective to prevent the groups responsible for that first attack from planning and carrying out a much more successful attack against the World Trade Center twelve years later.
Hmmm, let's see ... we have your opinion ... and then we have the opinion of Paul Bremer, an ambassdor in the State Department who served for counter-terrorism ...

"The only major criticism [of Clinton] I have is the obsession with Osama, which has made him stronger." ~ Paul Bremer

I note that you (correctly) point out that the first attack happened so early in Clinton's term that he couldn't reasonably have had time to anticipate and act on the threat, even if it were known; yet you refuse to grant the same leeway to Bush Jr. regarding the second attack.
You're dishonestly comparing an attack by a relatively unknown terrorism group 5 weeks into Clinton's presidency with an attack by a very well known terrorist group almost 33 weeks into Bush's term. You're dishonestly comparing an attack in 1993 where there were no known warnings with an attack in 2001 where the head of the CIA described in incredible influx of warnings as "the system was blinkig red."

That you have to resort to dishonesty says all anyone need to know about your position.
 
..You're dishonestly comparing an attack by a relatively unknown terrorism group 5 weeks into Clinton's presidency with an attack by a very well known terrorist group almost 33 weeks into Bush's term. You're dishonestly comparing an attack in 1993 where there were no known warnings with an attack in 2001 where the head of the CIA described in incredible influx of warnings as "the system was blinkig red."...

I wasn't aware of this interesting fact. Thank you.
 
GHW Bush presidency huh? :)
Not even. Try Ronald Reagan, 1983. Where do these nuts come up with their "facts?" Sheesh. Bet some of them question Clinton's whereabouts on the grassy knoll.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom