More Voters Blame Bush For Failure to Catch Bin Laden (1 Viewer)

[Thorgasm]

so you dont think the USS COle, WTC I, Kobar Towers and WTC II are the same type of attacks?

sure the magnatude is different.......the the type of attacks are exactly the same.

its pretty clear im apples to apples here.

ok, I will conced the Cole and take it out since that was an attack against a Military vessel and not aimed at civilians.

the others are fair game.

Did you vote for Bush in 2000?

 

[ProudAmerican]

Partisan slave, not even going to bother re-debunking you over and over.

it gets tiresome tryin to tapdance around those facts doesnt it?

 

[Thorgasm]

it gets tiresome tryin to tapdance around those facts doesnt it?

Did you vote for Bush in 2000?

I can see why you don't want to answer this question.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Did you vote for Bush in 2000?

I can see why you don't want to answer this question.

no, I voted for John Wayne. :roll:

actually the answer is no braniac.

I voted for the very firts time in 2004 because of the importance of fighting terrorism. The importance that Bush made clear.

Had Clinton made that importance half as clear, I might have voted in 2000, and it might not have been for Bush.

 

[Thorgasm]

no, I voted for John Wayne. :roll:

actually the answer is no braniac.

I voted for the very firts time in 2004 because of the importance of fighting terrorism. The importance that Bush made clear.

Had Clinton made that importance half as clear, I might have voted in 2000, and it might not have been for Bush.

Bush didn't make it clear in 2000 either. In fact he flip-flopped from his stance after 9/11. As your guy has said, "everything changed after 9/11". Why Bush can recognize this and you refuse to exposes your partisanship. Nobody in his administration saw it coming according to their own words. The very fact that Bush didn't campaign for attacking terrorists speaks volumes about the country's priorities. It is very disengenuous of you to pretend otherwise.

Obviously I have struck a nerve. Anyone who knows anything about debating knows that the name-caller is the loser of the debate. Great work, name-caller!

 

[ProudAmerican]

Bush didn't make it clear in 2000 either.

true. he made it clear INSTANTLY AFTER THE FIRST ATTACK ON HIS WATCH. Something Clinton could have, but didnt do. Had he done so, and let the American public know how important this issue was, I may have made 2000 my first election to vote in, and I may have voted for the party that told me how important fighting terrorists was.

Obviously I have struck a nerve. Anyone who knows anything about debating knows that the name-caller is the loser of the debate. Great work, name-caller!

LOL. testy because you made an incorrect assumption I guess.

:2wave:

if you think that was some kind of attack.....well......you are too thin skinned for me.

 

[Thorgasm]

true. he made it clear INSTANTLY AFTER THE FIRST ATTACK ON HIS WATCH. Something Clinton could have, but didnt do. Had he done so, and let the American public know how important this issue was, I may have made 2000 my first election to vote in, and I may have voted for the party that told me how important fighting terrorists was.

So you do equate 9/11 with the earlier, miniscule in comparison, attacks? You are not being honest if you think that Bush would have gotten permission from congress to go to war from any of those previous attacks.

LOL. testy because you made an incorrect assumption I guess.

:2wave:

if you think that was some kind of attack.....well......you are too thin skinned for me.

No, I am not testy. I didn't make an assumption either. I don't think it was an attack. It wasn't even an attack for a third grader. It was exactly what I said that it was, name-calling. Is there anything that you can analyze correctly?

 

[ProudAmerican]

So you do equate 9/11 with the earlier, miniscule in comparison, attacks? You are not being honest if you think that Bush would have gotten permission from congress to go to war from any of those previous attacks.

I clearly stated that I equate them in the style, type of attack. not in size.

Bush? you mean Clinton? those other attacks happened under his watch. and we will never know if he could have gotten support since he never asked the American people for it.

No, I am not testy. I didn't make an assumption either.

oh I think its pretty clear you were assuming I voted for Bush in 2000. Theres even a good chance I would have voted for a Dem, if they had been pushing the war on terror.

Theres a good chance I will vote for a Dem next election, if one emerges that stands for fighting terrorists wherever they take refuge. Since thats about as likely as a meteor commint through my roof this instant and knocking me out of my chair, I will probably be voting Republican.

It was exactly what I said that it was, name-calling. Is there anything that you can analyze correctly?

yep. I analyzed your assumption, and thin skindness pretty correctly.

 

[Saboteur]

everyone say it with me......

P O L L S A R E C R A P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216299,00.html

though I kinda agree with this one in one sense. Its hard to blame Clinton for not catching him, when he wasnt really trying to in the first place.

It makes more sense to blame the president that is ACTUALLY PERSUING him for not catching him.

Here's a perfect example of 'a person is smart, people are stupid'. What this poll suggests is that people don't realize that before 9/11 and the war on terror there was a little irksome thing called diplomacy. The U.S. couldn't just demand that another country either find and turn over bin Laden and other terrorists or allow us to drop our own guys in to do it without taking time to talk to their governments first.

 

[Gibberish]

Here's a perfect example of 'a person is smart, people are stupid'. What this poll suggests is that people don't realize that before 9/11 and the war on terror there was a little irksome thing called diplomacy. The U.S. couldn't just demand that another country either find and turn over bin Laden and other terrorists or allow us to drop our own guys in to do it without taking time to talk to their governments first.

This is a fact some people fail to see. They think Clinton could have just ordered Sudan to give him Bin Laden. Sudan of course made Bin Laden run to Afgan in the mid 90's.

And of course Clinton did nothing and never thought of Bin Laden after that...

In response to the 1998 United States embassy bombings following the fatwa, President Bill Clinton ordered a freeze on assets that could be linked to bin Laden. Clinton also signed an executive order, authorizing bin Laden's arrest or assassination. In August 1998, the U.S. launched an attack using cruise missiles. The attack failed to harm bin Laden but killed 19 other people.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/19/taliban.documents/

On November 4, 1998, Osama bin Laden was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury and the U.S. offered a US $25 million reward for information leading to bin Laden's apprehension or conviction.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

 

[Thorgasm]

I clearly stated that I equate them in the style, type of attack. not in size.

Yes, it is the size that is the issue. There never would have been support for ground invasions over the other attacks.

Bush? you mean Clinton? those other attacks happened under his watch. and we will never know if he could have gotten support since he never asked the American people for it.

To suggest that he would have gotten support is very wrong. Either you don't remember the mindset then, or you are applying the current mindset to then.

oh I think its pretty clear you were assuming I voted for Bush in 2000. Theres even a good chance I would have voted for a Dem, if they had been pushing the war on terror.

I am surprised that you didn't back Pat Buchanon. He is the one guy who wanted to secure our borders. He also was the only one concerned about terror to the degree that we are now. That is why I don't think that you are being honest. You were so worried about terror then that you didn't vote. :roll:

Theres a good chance I will vote for a Dem next election, if one emerges that stands for fighting terrorists wherever they take refuge. Since thats about as likely as a meteor commint through my roof this instant and knocking me out of my chair, I will probably be voting Republican.

We don't even know who the cadidates will be and you have a good idea of how you are voting. That makes me cringe.

yep. I analyzed your assumption, and thin skindness pretty correctly.

Yeah, you are great, I am terrible. You are pretty, and I am ugly. You are smart, I am stupid. I'll see you at the monkey bars after school.:2razz:

 

[Iriemon]

true. he made it clear INSTANTLY AFTER THE FIRST ATTACK ON HIS WATCH. Something Clinton could have, but didnt do. Had he done so, and let the American public know how important this issue was, I may have made 2000 my first election to vote in, and I may have voted for the party that told me how important fighting terrorists was.

I just don't get this argument. AQ had attacked 2-3 times in the late 90s, including a month before Bush was elected president. bin Laden was "determined" to attack America, but Bush is excused from paying attention to any of this because the nation hadn't yet been attacked while he was president.

Makes no sense at all to me as an argument. Clearly in Nov 00 the Govt knew AQ was a threat. The Bush admin knew the danger of the threat better than Clintnon did through 95% of his administration. If you are saying Clinton should have done more based on what was known of the threat, I don't understand why Bush, who had the same knowledge of the threat, is excused because an attack hadn't been made yet.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Yes, it is the size that is the issue. There never would have been support for ground invasions over the other attacks.

everytime you state this, I will point out that we will never know, since we werent asked to support it.

To suggest that he would have gotten support is very wrong. Either you don't remember the mindset then, or you are applying the current mindset to then.

The president had the ability to set the mindset. our mindset would be much different today if Bush hadnt rallied our support.

I am surprised that you didn't back Pat Buchanon. He is the one guy who wanted to secure our borders. He also was the only one concerned about terror to the degree that we are now. That is why I don't think that you are being honest. You were so worried about terror then that you didn't vote.

I thought I explained that before 2000 since the president had never made terrorism a serious issue, I simply didnt see it for what it was.....a true threat. also I wasnt nearly as interested in politics. 2004 was the very first election I ever voted in......I could care less if you believe it or not.

We don't even know who the cadidates will be and you have a good idea of how you are voting. That makes me cringe.

the democrats record on national defense is an absolute abomination. if one emerges that I believe will be tough on terror, he has as good a change as anyone to get my vote.

you can continue to try and paint me as a partisan on this issue. you will continue to be wrong. I am for WHOEVER WANTS TO PERSUE TERRORISTS WHEREVER THEY GO. period.

Yeah, you are great, I am terrible. You are pretty, and I am ugly. You are smart, I am stupid. I'll see you at the monkey bars after school.

ok....but I still caught ya on that assumption deal didnt I?

 

[ProudAmerican]

I just don't get this argument. AQ had attacked 2-3 times in the late 90s, including a month before Bush was elected president. bin Laden was "determined" to attack America, but Bush is excused from paying attention to any of this because the nation hadn't yet been attacked while he was president.

Ive made it clear that I spread the blame for this equally among our government officials.

however, I do believe that the nonsense Bush went through during the election, and the delay in organizing his administration had a lot to do with it.

the fact can not be denied that he acted IMMEDIATELY after the first attack on his watch. Clinton basically NEVER acted in a serious fasion.

The Bush admin knew the danger of the threat better than Clintnon did through 95% of his administration.

lol....you think this HELPS your argument?

 

[Iriemon]

Ive made it clear that I spread the blame for this equally among our government officials.

however, I do believe that the nonsense Bush went through during the election, and the delay in organizing his administration had a lot to do with it.

the fact can not be denied that he acted IMMEDIATELY after the first attack on his watch. Clinton basically NEVER acted in a serious fasion.

You think that is a fair assessment? I think its a fair assumption that Clinton would have acted IMMEDIATELY if 3000 had died in multiple attacks like on 9-11. To say Clinton "basically NEVER acted in a serious fasion" is unfair also, IMO.

I've asked other people given the climate and environment what Clinton should have done. What is it you think he should have done that would have prevented 9-11, without applying the benefit of hindsight. And in answering that question, and to apply the same standards to both, did Bush do what you think Clinton should have done? And if not, why should he be excused for something you hold Clinton responsible for not doing?

 

[Navy Pride]

You think that is a fair assessment? I think its a fair assumption that Clinton would have acted IMMEDIATELY if 3000 had died in multiple attacks like on 9-11. To say Clinton "basically NEVER acted in a serious fasion" is unfair also, IMO.

I've asked other people given the climate and environment what Clinton should have done. What is it you think he should have done that would have prevented 9-11, without applying the benefit of hindsight. And in answering that question, and to apply the same standards to both, did Bush do what you think Clinton should have done? And if not, why should he be excused for something you hold Clinton responsible for not doing?

If Clinton had been president after 9/11 he would of asked the corrupt French and Germans for permission to defend this country....

He did very little when he was president after attacks like WTC1, The Kobar Towers and the attack on the USS COLE.........

 

[Iriemon]

If Clinton had been president after 9/11 he would of asked the corrupt French and Germans for permission to defend this country....

Errr ... Bush after 9/11 asked the "corrupt French and Germans" for permission to defend this country....

And those corrupt French and Germans did.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1640829.stm

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/01/02/ret.france.peacekeepers/index.html

 

[Navy Pride]

Errr ... Bush after 9/11 asked the "corrupt French and Germans" for permission to defend this country....

And those corrupt French and Germans did.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1640829.stm

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/01/02/ret.france.peacekeepers/index.html

The BBC and CNN huh:rofl why not just cite moveon.org. It has the same creditability........:roll:

 

[Iriemon]

The BBC and CNN huh:rofl why not just cite moveon.org. It has the same creditability........:roll:

LMFAO! Now you are denying the French and Germans sent troops to defend us in Afghanistan because you just called them corrupt?

Doesn't the complete disconnect between perception and reality make you dizzy sometimes?

 

[Navy Pride]

LMFAO! Now you are denying the French and Germans sent troops to defend us in Afghanistan because you just called them corrupt?

Doesn't the complete disconnect between perception and reality make you dizzy sometimes?

You may not know this but we have troops there too......

When you and your liberal friends wanted to get the permission from the corrupt germans and French was in the security council in the UN and they could not do it because they were getting billions in kickbacks from Saddam in the oil for food program..........

Glad to educate you anytime........

 

[Thorgasm]

everytime you state this, I will point out that we will never know, since we werent asked to support it.

Ok, let's drop the hypothetical then. It would be an exercise in futility.

The president had the ability to set the mindset. our mindset would be much different today if Bush hadnt rallied our support.

I think a blind chimpanzee could have rallied usafter 9/11. Actually the highjackers get more credit for this than Bush does. What did he say or do that was so inspiring?

I thought I explained that before 2000 since the president had never made terrorism a serious issue, I simply didnt see it for what it was.....a true threat. also I wasnt nearly as interested in politics. 2004 was the very first election I ever voted in......I could care less if you believe it or not.

How much less could you care? It's "couldn't care less". I do believe you. I believe that you weren't that interested in politics in 2000. I also believe that if Bill Clinton had said that we must invade Afghanistan during the impeachment, the majority of Americans would have agreed the he was wagging the dog. Imagine if he wanted to go after Iraq's WMD's that weren't there. I was interested in politics then and I remember very well. I do not believe that Newt Gingrich's congress would give Bill Clinton as much leeway and unchecked power as Bush has gotten.

the democrats record on national defense is an absolute abomination. if one emerges that I believe will be tough on terror, he has as good a change as anyone to get my vote.

Who are you getting your facts from? It's hard not to call you a partisan when you overdramatize "absolute abomination". It sounds like the partisans on the various mediums. Coulter comes to mind. Can't you see her eyes getting big while she says the first sentence?

you can continue to try and paint me as a partisan on this issue. you will continue to be wrong. I am for WHOEVER WANTS TO PERSUE TERRORISTS WHEREVER THEY GO. period.

But it sounds like you think only one party wants to do that. The only people who really think that dems don't want to persue terrorists wherever they go are the partisans. Objective people realize that the difference is in the how, not the what.

ok....but I still caught ya on that assumption deal didnt I?

I honestly wasn't assuming, I was asking. If I were to assume, I wouldn't have asked, I would have stated such. There is a difference. I had an angle for any answer. :2wave:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Me? I blame not only Clinton and Bush for not catching him, but Reagan for installing him. It's an impotent circle jerk of blame though, let's just get the job done.

Prove it there is no evidence whatsoever that OBL was ever a CIA asset and while we did fund certain segments of the Mujahadeen there is no evidence that we had any direct contacts with OBL.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

So you do equate 9/11 with the earlier, miniscule in comparison, attacks? You are not being honest if you think that Bush would have gotten permission from congress to go to war from any of those previous attacks.

Are you saying that the African Embassy bombings were miniscule attacks? They were two coordinated bombings that happened in separate countries at the same exact time and totally destroyed two buildings each on their own would be equivalent to the Federal Building Bombing in Oklahoma by Timothy Mcveigh but put together they dwarfed any terrorist attack by comparison in history to that time.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

This is a fact some people fail to see. They think Clinton could have just ordered Sudan to give him Bin Laden. Sudan of course made Bin Laden run to Afgan in the mid 90's.

LMFAO no the Sudan just offered to hand him over instead.

 

[Thorgasm]

Are you saying that the African Embassy bombings were miniscule attacks? They were two coordinated bombings that happened in separate countries at the same exact time and totally destroyed two buildings each on their own would be equivalent to the Federal Building Bombing in Oklahoma by Timothy Mcveigh but put together they dwarfed any terrorist attack by comparison in history to that time.

The embassy bombings were a more significant than the others. But juxtaposed against 9/11 I would still say that it is dwarfed. Also, Africa was not our soil. I know, embassies are technically American soil. I was actually refering to inside our 50 states.