• 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.
yes, I did.

you can handwave away all the evidence you like, but that doesn't mean its not there.

You have NEVER EVER PROVIDED substantive proof to your ultimate conclusions.
 
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."

It was the same terrorist group. It was the 1993 attack that took them from being the “relatively unknown terrorism group” that carried out that attack to being the “very well known terrorist group” that carried out the 9/11 attack. It's now known that this group had its goals set since some time in the 1980s to destroy the World Trade Center. And it was Clinton's negligence that allowed the now “very well known terrorist group” to continue operating, and to continue planning and preparing for the second attack.
 
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:...

interesting. and by what logical reasoning do you disregard CNN and other news agencies?

and by the way, disregarding information from news agencies that you have ideological disagreement with, is not "debunking".

its hand waving.
 
Last edited:
far lefties vouching for each other based on bogus and thin proof hardly is convincing.

You have no idea what Bush did and it is undeniable that OBL started the WTCII plans due to CLinton's weak response to WTCI. But the main problem was the wall between our intelligence agencies that was erected under clinton

and I doubt you have the sort of clearance to have any clue what was going on at the relevant time
Well inform us then ... list what Bush did to protect the country from an attack by al-qaeda ....

G'head ...




1. _______________________________
 
Well inform us then ... list what Bush did to protect the country from an attack by al-qaeda ....

G'head ...






1. _______________________________
that's really stupid to ask. Most of that is still classified. i doubt you have that sort of security clearance
 
Thank you for admitting that I am correct.
The only thing that I will admit is that based on your posts you are one of the biggest Clinton apologists I've seen around here in quite awhile. :lol:
 
in other words, such information does not exist.
that's pathetic.

but I guess the answer to this question is you are going to blame Bush entirely for 9-11. If you have a toothache you will blame Bush, if you have piles you will blame Bush, if your car has a flat, you will blame Bush and no matter what the facts are you will continue to blame Bush

there, I have summed it up, no need for continual spammage
 
how many weeks after Clinton was sworn in, did the first WTC attack take place?

if anything, this was the responsibility for Bush 1 to discover, but I respect Bush 1 so I won't go down that road.

As I have already repeatedly stated, I don't blame Clinton, or Bush Sr. or anyone else in our government for the 1993 attack. Until that attack too place, the bunch that carried it out weren't “on our radar.” The 1993 attack was a sucker punch, that I don't think anyone in our government was in a position to see coming. We now know, from intelligence gathered since then, that this bunch had been at least considering plans to attack the World Trade Center since some time in the 1980s. But until their first significant attempt to do so, nobody on our side new, or had any reason to know. That all changed in 1993. For nearly all of Clinton's time a President, this threat was known. He had nearly eight years to act on it, and he did nothing of any use.
 
Last edited:
he "debunked" my evidence by hand waving away the sources.

he can't be correct, as he is provided no argument to be correct or incorrect.
I was only correct in that you, in rather immature fashion, quickly cited a Wiki article as your "credible" evidence and I pointed out that the majority of the "sources" for the article appear to be news articles - many from CNN. The few primary sources that it DID cite, were strewn with OPINIONS and provided NO credible evidence tosupport your claims that the Bush Admin. was more at fault than Clinton's in lack of preparation regarding the terrorist attacks. If this were your PoliSci 101 Research Paper, I'd have to give you an "F" for lack of primary source citation and overuse of non-credible and opinionated secondary source data. :shrug:
 
I never really blamed Bush exclusively. He did have to work with a Democrat congress two years before his term was up (and when the economy crashed). They both share fault.
 
...I don't blame Clinton ... For nearly all of Clinton's time a President, this threat was known. He had nearly eight years to act on it, and he did nothing of any use.

So you do or you do not blame Clinton?
 
...He had nearly eight years to act on it, and he did nothing of any use.

wait, so declaring the Taliban a state-sponsor of terrorism, was of no use?

creating a CIA outfit specificially to find/capture/kill OBL was of no use.

firing rockets at an Al Qaeda camp where OBL was, but missing him by a few hours, was of no use?

significantly increasing the FBI and CIA budget, was of no use?

allowing the CIA to give the order to kill OBL, was of no use?
 
I was only correct in that you, in rather immature fashion, quickly cited a Wiki article as your "credible" evidence and I pointed out that the majority of the "sources" for the article appear to be news articles - many from CNN....

so what? what's wrong with CNN?

my evidence shows that Clinto did indeed try hard to fight Al Qaeda.

Now, during Bush's first 8 months, what EXACTLY did he do to fight Al Qaeda?
 
so what? what's wrong with CNN?

my evidence shows that Clinto did indeed try hard to fight Al Qaeda.

Now, during Bush's first 8 months, what EXACTLY did he do to fight Al Qaeda?

repeat the lie enough and I guess the slow witted will believe it but we sure don't
 
what happened with the Cole? and why did Clinton's response to WTCI encourage OBL to launch WTCII
The Cole was on Clinton's watch. I hold him accountable for that. Clinton's response to WTC93 was to capture most of the terrorists involved, triple counter terrorism, create a division within the CIA deticated to tracking al-qaeda, create a homeland security team to prevent attacks inside the U.S., and thwart attacks, which he was successful at inside the U.S.

Why didn't Bush do anything once he became president?


what about Carter and mortgages? what about Dodd and Frank
CRA's represented only 6% of the meltdown. Anyone pointing a guilty finger at them is only exposing their own ignorance on what brought the real-estate and credit markets to their knees.

And what about Dodd and Frank? During 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, the period when the housing market was ballooning out of control, Dodd and Frank were members of the minority party and had no control over the Congress' ability to pass oversight. Republicans were in control. How on Earth do you give them a pass while trying desperately to blame Dodd and Frank??

I am noticing a pattern however among the acolyte sycophants... 9.11 happens on after 8 monthsd of Bush ignoring terrorism ... the rightie wingnuts blame Clinton. The economy melts down after 8 years of Bush in office ... the rightie wingnuts blame Clinton. No doubt if McCain had won in 2008, y'all would still be blaming Clinton. You should thank Obama for winning the election so you have someone other than Clinton to blame. :lol:
 
Last edited:
wow, if clinton was so effective how did OBL pull most of the planning and preparation of WTCII off


I blame Bin Laden for 9-11. You will be whining about Bush after his nephew is president
 
OK folks, what did Bush do during his first 8 months as President, to fight terrorism and specifically Al Qaeda?
 
Clinton's response to WTC93 was to capture most of the terrorists involved, triple counter terrorism, create a division within the CIA deticated to tracking al-qaeda, create a homeland security team to prevent attacks inside the U.S., and thwart attacks, which he was successful at inside the U.S.

Yes and the al-qaeda "tracking division" was obviously so effective........... :roll:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom