• 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.
I blame Bush for everything he is responsible for:

1. the failure to prevent 9-11.
2. the stupid 2003 tax-cuts.
3. The invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan.
4. allowing Big Oil to author our environmental policy.
5. letting the Housing Bubble-burst the way it did.
6. more to come...

I can see the arguments for 2,3,4,and 5..1 and 6 are nonsense though.
 
Now I want you to tell me how Bush could have stopped this after being president for 8 months?
How about at the very least, in response to a PDB reporting of suspicious activity of terrorists involving hijackings, he had airport security increased until the threat passed?
 
Liberals have been complaining about the moderate Obama not ending the Bush wars quick enough, and I am one of them. Its why I agree with Ralph Nader in hoping that several liberals will run against Obama in a primary.

annoying interviewer warning

 
Sorry, but approximately 3/4 of the debt was created by Republican presidents. Reagan tripled the debt and Bush 41 doubled it.

Actually, Democrats in the House and Senate are responsible for the debt. Neither Bush nor Obama created it. Obama's problem is that he failed to even try to lead the House and Senate in the right direction when he had the chance.

Republicans controlled the House and Senate from 1995 to 2000.
1996 Debt Increased by 6.71%
1997 Debt Increased by 3.37%
1998 Debt Increased by 2.03%
1999 Debt Increased by 2.88%
2000 Debt Decreased by 1.97% (a product of the "Contract with America" led by Newt Gingrich in preceding years)

in 2001 and 2002 the House and Senate were split and the debt grew by an average of 6.37% (9/11) and to a height of a 9.25% increase by 2003 when Republicans (not particularly conservative Republicans) regained a slight majority. Then the increase decreased (politician speak) gradually each year (9.25%, 8.55%, 7.56%, 6.24%) to 6.24% in 2006. The Democrats gained control of both House and Senate in 2007 (elected end of 2006) and in 2008 the increase in debt jumped from 6.32% in 2007 to 15.93% in 2008 another 15.06% in 2009 and another 13.92% in 2010. About a 52% increase in debt in just 3 years - that's quite a record!
 
I blame Bush for everything he is responsible for:

1. the failure to prevent 9-11.

really? wasn't it Clinton who gutted the intel community? wasn't it Clinton who refused to take bin Laden when he was offered on a silver platter? wasn't it Clinton who was POTUS when the hijackers were allowed into the country? (see, two can play the "blame the previous administration game" ;) )

2. the stupid 2003 tax-cuts.

in what way, specifically, do you think they were stupid?

3. The invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan.

see #1 above. If Clinton had been on the job, 9-11 would've never happened and Bush would have had no excuse for either "invasion"

4. allowing Big Oil to author our environmental policy.

could you be a little more specific? I don't understand random talking points throw out without context :shrug:

5. letting the Housing Bubble-burst the way it did.

um, yeah ...

6. more to come...

let's hope they have more substance ;)
 
he could have at the very least continued the anti-terror work Clinton had sprearheaded.

what anti-terror work? you mean allowing the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole? that anti-terror work? smoke much crack lately?
 
Originally Posted by whysoserious

If you are going to talk about what "us liberals" blame Bush for, maybe try getting it right.


how about you enlighten me then? what do YOU blame Bush for?

ooooh, looky looky. complain about me "not getting it right" and when offered the opportunity to "set the record straight" what do you do? ignore it. somehow, I am not surprised. :lamo
 
I gladly await to see your evidence that President Clinton "allowed" the first WTC bombing.

oh, my bad. I forgot you love to play nit-pick semantics games when you have no real arguement. Clinton "failed to prevent" the first WTC bombing et al ....
 
oh, my bad. I forgot you love to play nit-pick semantics games when you have no real arguement. Clinton "failed to prevent" the first WTC bombing et al ....

accusing a President of allowing a major terror attack upon the American people, is a vicious conspiracy theory demanding damn good evidence.

accusing the President of failing to prevent a major terror attack upon the American people, is very different.

I'm glad you finally comprehend the difference.
 
accusing a President of allowing a major terror attack upon the American people, is a vicious conspiracy theory demanding damn good evidence.

accusing the President of failing to prevent a major terror attack upon the American people, is very different.

I'm glad you finally comprehend the difference.

nah, it's just word games for retards who have no real logical arguements. the same kind of retards who will argue with you that the sky isn't blue, it's "periwinkle"

by "failing to prevent" you "allow" it to happen
 
"allowing" suggests intent. "failing to prevent" suggests nothing regarding intent.

let us know when you understand this simple concept.

when your job is to prevent and you fail, you have allowed it to happen via your incompetance. intent has nothing to do with it.
 
when your job is to prevent and you fail, you have allowed it to happen via your incompetance. intent has nothing to do with it.

wrong, again. accusing the President of the United States of allowing a massive terror-attack, is a wild conspiracy theory.

accusing the President of failing to prevent a major-attack, is an accusation of incompetence.

Its not that difficult a concept to grasp. Please, let us know when you have accomplished this.

Thanks.
 
when your job is to prevent and you fail, you have allowed it to happen via your incompetance. intent has nothing to do with it.
Incompetence is not the only explanation for failure. :roll:
 
Moderator's Warning:
Thunder, knock off the trolling.
 
Incompetence is not the only explanation for failure. :roll:

tell that to the bush bashers. funny how the panties twist when the shoe is on the other foot.

hypocrisy...what a concept
 
tell that to the bush bashers. funny how the panties twist when the shoe is on the other foot.

hypocrisy...what a concept
another distraction from your own failed arguments. what a surprise.
 
"allowing" suggests intent. "failing to prevent" suggests nothing regarding intent.

Or negligence, which seems more appropriate in this case.

The 1993 attack on the World Trade Center is particularly damning—not that the Clinton administration was negligent in “allowing it to happen”, but that the Clinton administration was grotesquely negligent in ignoring the warning that it represented and in failing to act on that warning in such a manner as to prepare us for further attacks of that sort.

If not for Clinton's negligence and misfeasance, the 9/11 attacks would probably have been prevented.
 
Last edited:
Incompetence is not the only explanation for failure. :roll:

yeah, you could've tripped, or the sun could've been in your eyes, or the dog could've eaten your homework, or the batteries in your alarm clock could've died. plenty of excuses, I mean reasons for failure.
 
Or negligence, which seems more appropriate in this case.

The 1993 attack on the World Trade Center is particularly damning—not that the Clinton administration was negligent in “allowing it to happen”, but that the Clinton administration was grotesquely negligent in ignoring the warning that it represented and in failing to act on that warning in such a manner as to prepare us for further attacks of that sort.

If not for Clinton's negligence and misfeasance, the 9/11 attacks would probably have been prevented.

the biggest problem is the frequency with which it happened. after the 1st WTC bombing, Clinton should have done something to prevent future attacks, by not doing so, he ALLOWED all the subsequent acts to occur.
 
the biggest problem is the frequency with which it happened. after the 1st WTC bombing, Clinton should have done something to prevent future attacks, by not doing so, he ALLOWED all the subsequent acts to occur.

ah, so Clinton did NOTHING to prevent future attacks after the WTC bombing.

that's quite a claim. too bad its totally dishonest, as Clinton did a lot to fight international terrorism.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom