• 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%

  • Forever.

    Votes: 23 71.9%

  • I'm done blaming Bush.

    Votes: 9 28.1%
  • Total voters
    32
Status
Not open for further replies.
FluffyNinja said:
Yes and the al-qaeda "tracking division" was obviously so effective........... :roll:
Click to expand...
Effective enough that two of Reagan's former state department counter-terrorism abassadors praised Clinton's efforts for combatting al-qaeda.
 
Henrin said:
The threat started it before Bush was elected. This was even told to you but you pathetically continue to deny it.
Click to expand...
But the threat continued for 8 months under Bush. How does Clinton get blamed for doing something while Bush gets a pass for doing nothing? That defies all logic.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
But the threat continued for 8 months under Bush. How does Clinton get blamed for doing something while Bush gets a pass for doing nothing? That defies all logic.
Click to expand...

its called excusing incompetence.

no one here has the integrity to defend Bush's pre-911 anti-terrorism efforts, because no such efforts existed. Bush was too busy playing with chainsaws in Crawford and reading about pet goats.
 
Thunder said:
its called excusing incompetence.

no one here has the integrity to defend Bush's pre-911 anti-terrorism efforts, because no such efforts exist.
Click to expand...

more lies to claim No such efforts existed.

this sort of dishonesty is pathetic has anyone credible claimed that there were NO EFFORTS? you mean to say Bush ordered our military, our intelligence services etc to completely stop what they had been doing for years? Is that what you are claiming?
if no then you have lied, if yes you have lied

later
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
But the threat continued for 8 months under Bush. How does Clinton get blamed for doing something while Bush gets a pass for doing nothing? That defies all logic.
Click to expand...
Bottom line is, the CIA had multiple opportunities under Clinton's watch to capture or kill Bin Laden and he either did not have the testicular fortitude to do so, or was incredibly inept at the counterterrorism game. Either way, had Clinton done his job, we'd likely not even be having this discussion. :shrug:
 
FluffyNinja said:
Ah, now we get down to the name-calling.........Liberal intellect at its finest! :lamo:
Click to expand...
Nah, I'm just behaving like a boorish Conservative ...

"I was only correct in that you, in rather immature fashion..." ~ FluffyNinja

"that's really stupid to ask." ~ TurtleDude

"so you deny that you blame Bush and worship Clinton?" ~ TurtleDude

"more BDS nonsense" ~ TurtleDude
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Nah, I'm just behaving like a boorish Conservative ...

"I was only correct in that you, in rather immature fashion..." ~ FluffyNinja

"that's really stupid to ask." ~ TurtleDude

"so you deny that you blame Bush and worship Clinton?" ~ TurtleDude

"more BDS nonsense" ~ TurtleDude
Click to expand...
So exactly where did either Turtle or I resort to name-calling? :thinking
 
TurtleDude said:
One of the most dishonest tactics by the extreme left is asking people who don't have security clearances what "Bush did" and then claim since people who don't have that information cannot give a complete answer, that
Click to expand...
The failure is yours as you have no proof that Bush did anything. How come everyone know what Clinton did to combat terrorism abut no one knows what Bush did?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
The failure is yours as you have no proof that Bush did anything. How come everyone know what Clinton did to combat terrorism abut no one knows what Bush did?
Click to expand...

clearly, Bush's actions from 10 years ago are super-top secret, while Clinton's actions from 11 years ago are published in the New York Post.

;)
 
Henrin said:
You do realize Dodd and Frank were powerful members and authors to much of the bills to become law, yes?
Click to expand...
Again, they were in the minority party. I don't care how powerful they were, had Republicans wanted to pass oversight, they would have. Google H.R. 1461 and S. 190, two bills from 2005 and explain to me how the4 might Frank and Dodd prevented those bills from becoming law?
 
FluffyNinja said:
Bottom line is, the CIA had multiple opportunities under Clinton's watch to capture or kill Bin Laden and he either did not have the testicular fortitude to do so,...
Click to expand...

again with the lies.

Clinton ordered missiles fired at an Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan and missed OBL by a few hours.
 
Thunder said:
OK, then I urge you to defend Bush's record. What did he do to fight terrorism during his first 8 months in office?

This was 10 years ago, remember?
Click to expand...
Ya see, it was so super secret that Bush had to tarnish his unblemished record with the appearance that he did nothing to prevent an attack during his first 8 months that to this day, it's still a dark secret. Funny though how Clinton's actions are publisc record, even Obama's actions are public record. Only Bush's are not.

Hmmmm..

:lamo
 
TurtleDude said:
we will put you down as blaming Bush irrationally for ever
Click to expand...

That is what Bush did to defend America during his first 8 months?

That was the question, ya know.
 
Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden in Afghanistan with a missile strike.

What did Bush do pre-911 to try to capture/kill Bin Laden or destroy Al Qaeda?
 
Senate committee: Bush knew Iraq claims weren't true

"The committee found that the administration's warnings that former dictator Saddam Hussein was in league with Osama bin Laden, a highly inflammatory assertion in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaida attacks, weren't substantiated by U.S. intelligence reports. In fact, it said, U.S. intelligence agencies were telling the White House that while there'd been sporadic contacts over a decade, there was no operational cooperation between Iraq and al Qaida, the report said.

The administration's repeated statements "suggesting that Iraq and al Qaida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al Qaida with weapons training, were not substantiated by intelligence," it said."

"However, while intelligence reports "generally substantiated" their claims that Iraq had secretly restarted a nuclear weapons program, the committee said, Bush and other officials failed to disclose that the State Department disputed that finding.

The administration's statements also failed to disclose that the Energy Department joined the State Department in rejecting allegations that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa, the report said.

The reports released Thursday brought to an end a lengthy investigation into how U.S. intelligence appeared to be so wrong in the run-up to the Iraq war."



Read more: Senate committee: Bush knew Iraq claims weren't true | McClatchy
 
FluffyNinja said:
Bottom line is, the CIA had multiple opportunities under Clinton's watch to capture or kill Bin Laden and he either did not have the testicular fortitude to do so, or was incredibly inept at the counterterrorism game. Either way, had Clinton done his job, we'd likely not even be having this discussion. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Ahh, so just killing OBL was all that was needed to thwart al-qaeda attacks, huh? I suppose we can rest assured there will be no more attacks now that he's dead. According to your logic anyway.
 
Catawba said:
Senate committee: Bush knew Iraq claims weren't true..
Click to expand...

ah, so after he did nothing to fight Al Qaeda before 9-11, he decided to lie to the American people after 9-11 about a relationship between Iraq & Al-Qaeda and a supposed Iraqi nuclear-weapons program.

Thanks Bush, for ****ing this country big time.
 
Thunder said:
again with the lies.

Clinton ordered missiles fired at an Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan and missed OBL by a few hours.
Click to expand...
That was only one incident. It all came out in the hearings. There were multiple incidents, multiple photos of Bin Laden in multiple accessible senarios. What makes it even more sickening, is after the first WTC attack, Clinton goes on record and states publicly that he'll do whatever it takes to bring al Qaeda leaders to justice. Guess he was just politicking. :lol:
 
Catawba said:
Senate committee: Bush knew Iraq claims weren't true

"The committee found that the administration's warnings that former dictator Saddam Hussein was in league with Osama bin Laden, a highly inflammatory assertion in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaida attacks, weren't substantiated by U.S. intelligence reports. In fact, it said, U.S. intelligence agencies were telling the White House that while there'd been sporadic contacts over a decade, there was no operational cooperation between Iraq and al Qaida, the report said.

The administration's repeated statements "suggesting that Iraq and al Qaida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al Qaida with weapons training, were not substantiated by intelligence," it said."

"However, while intelligence reports "generally substantiated" their claims that Iraq had secretly restarted a nuclear weapons program, the committee said, Bush and other officials failed to disclose that the State Department disputed that finding.

The administration's statements also failed to disclose that the Energy Department joined the State Department in rejecting allegations that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa, the report said.

The reports released Thursday brought to an end a lengthy investigation into how U.S. intelligence appeared to be so wrong in the run-up to the Iraq war."



Read more: Senate committee: Bush knew Iraq claims weren't true | McClatchy
Click to expand...
What in the hell does this have to do with the current line of discussion? I thought we were talking pre-911? :thinking
 
FluffyNinja said:
That was only one incident. It all came out in the hearings. There were multiple incidents, multiple photos of Bin Laden in multiple accessible senarios.
Click to expand...
Well just one that you know of. According to turtle, all the others are classified.
 
Thunder said:
so you admit that your insulting claim that Clinton didn't try to capture or kill Bin Laden, was dishonest?
Click to expand...
Your ability to misquote does not garner any points with me. Your research paper still gets an "F". I don't think I ever said that Clinton "never tried to capture or kill Bin Laden" on the contrary I think I said that he had multiple opportunities to do the job and did not. Thus, = ineptness or lack of testicular fortitude.............you seem to be the self-proclaimed expert on Clinton's policy, so, you make the call. :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom