• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

No attacks during Bush's watch?!

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I know that for some politicians (on both sides) a strategy is that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth ("There are WMDs in Iraq!")...

Lately, some in the GOP camp are saying on talk shows that there was never an attack on America during Bush's Presidency.

The most recent -- if you can believe it -- was Rudy Guilaini who usually can't say a sentence without uttering the phrase "9/11." Apparently he has forgotten on whose watch 9/11 happened.

I mean, you don't have to be an Obama supporter to see how untruthful all of this is. I would hope that truth is more important than ideology.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,498
Reaction score
51,368
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Do you have some examples? I have heard "no attacks post 9/11", but never no attacks.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Yeah. Are you really saying people are claiming 9/11 didn't happen?
 

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yeah. Are you really saying people are claiming 9/11 didn't happen?
No one is actually saying that. The problem is that the press is not asking them that as a follow up. I mean, seriously, you'd think the next question from the media interviewer would be "WTF?"

What they are doing is saying that there were no attacks under Bush, ignoring 9/11, the shoe bomber, the anthrax envelopes, the SUV attacker, the LAX shooting, and a bunch of other smaller incidents...
 

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
There are many who "conveniently" try to overlook that the worst failure of domestic defense occurred during GWB's Presidency.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Sure, here's a link to Guiliani on today's Good Morning America:

Giuliani falsely claims "[w]e had no domestic attacks under Bush" | Media Matters for America

then there was former Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino saying the same thing back in November:

Dana Perino No ?terrorist attack? while Bush was President

And a few months ago, I recall Mart Matalin trying to blame 9/11 on Clinton...
OK, that's kind of amusing considering Media Matters' poo-pooing of reportage saying the Ft. Hood spree was "terrorism."
 

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
OK, that's kind of amusing considering Media Matters' poo-pooing of reportage saying the Ft. Hood spree was "terrorism."
Ah, I see. Because I linked to a Media Matters page instead of the Good Morning America page, you get to ignore it completely.

It must be nice to be able to ignore facts because you don't like the messenger.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,498
Reaction score
51,368
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
In watching both videos, it seems clear to me that they both made the implicit "post 9/11". In other words, they where referring to during the war on terror(Giuliani is more clear on this). They phrased things badly trying to emphasize their political point, and it's still factually wrong, but I don't think they are hoping people won't remember 9/11 and lying in that aspect.
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,596
Reaction score
22,537
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Ft Hood is like Va Tech, This bombing attempt is like the shoe bomber.

If we weren't attacked under Bush's watch after 9/11, then we haven't been attacked under Obama's watch either.

If we were attacked under Bush's watch after 9/11, then we have been attacked under Obama's.

It's very simple. Compare the apples to apples, oranges to oranges.

The shoe bomber thing and this most recent thing are pretty comparable in the fact that the flights both originated overseas for domestic locations.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Ah, I see. Because I linked to a Media Matters page instead of the Good Morning America page, you get to ignore it completely.

It must be nice to be able to ignore facts because you don't like the messenger.
I didn't do that at all. I said I found it "amusing," and I do, considering Media Matters is apparently the ONLY ones trying to make some kind of hay out of this. No one else appears to care, or to be so pedantic as to bring it up.

Didn't you get in a huff about me twisting your words?

I, personally, agree with Redress AND Tucker on this.

Where do you stand on the substance of the issues? Were there post-9/11 attacks on American soil? If so, do Ft. Hood and Detroit qualify? If they don't, while the other events do, why not?
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,498
Reaction score
51,368
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I didn't do that at all. I said I found it "amusing," and I do, considering Media Matters is apparently the ONLY ones trying to make some kind of hay out of this. No one else appears to care, or to be so pedantic as to bring it up.

Didn't you get in a huff about me twisting your words?

I, personally, agree with Redress AND Tucker on this.

Where do you stand on the substance of the issues? Were there post-9/11 attacks on American soil? If so, do Ft. Hood and Detroit qualify? If they don't, while the other events do, why not?
We have got to stop agreeing like this. People will talk.

Look Groucho, it's like this. Republicans give us plenty of good ammunition to use against them. let's stick to that. Something like this makes us look desperate and petty. It's like people who complain about Bush's initial reaction to 9/11, to continue what he was doing. Instead of making a point, it makes us look bad. It's like people who bitch about Obama bowing to the Japanese emperor, it makes them look petty and bad. Let's let the other side do it, and keep ourselves on real issues. We come out ahead by doing so.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Besides, Groucho, you said this in your OP:

The most recent -- if you can believe it -- was Rudy Guilaini who usually can't say a sentence without uttering the phrase "9/11." Apparently he has forgotten on whose watch 9/11 happened.
Now, it appears to me, as it does to others (at least Redress), that you're saying they're including 9/11 in their statement of "no attacks." If that's not what you're saying, that's really, really sloppy language.

(And, of course disneydude agrees with the sentiment that they're including 9/11 in what they're saying, but disneydude is not you.)
 

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I didn't do that at all. I said I found it "amusing," and I do, considering Media Matters is apparently the ONLY ones trying to make some kind of hay out of this. No one else appears to care, or to be so pedantic as to bring it up.

Didn't you get in a huff about me twisting your words?

I, personally, agree with Redress AND Tucker on this.

Where do you stand on the substance of the issues? Were there post-9/11 attacks on American soil? If so, do Ft. Hood and Detroit qualify? If they don't, while the other events do, why not?
Why does everyone start post- 9/11? We had terrorist attacks before that as well, including one of the very same World Trade Center.

It's like the defense is "Well, except for the most serious attack ever on American soil..."

I'm sure if a Democrat was in office when 9/11 had happened, we would never have heard the end of how the Democrats were completely responsible.
 

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Besides, Groucho, you said this in your OP:

Now, it appears to me, as it does to others (at least Redress), that you're saying they're including 9/11 in their statement of "no attacks." If that's not what you're saying, that's really, really sloppy language.

(And, of course disneydude agrees with the sentiment that they're including 9/11 in what they're saying, but disneydude is not you.)
No, I think they are trying to downplay it. I'm sure had a reporter asked them about it, they would not have said "Oh, 9/11 never happened." I think they're just not mentioning it because they don't want to remind people that it did indeed occur on Bush's watch.

And, of course, even if you say "except for 9/11" it's still a wrong statement.
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,596
Reaction score
22,537
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Why does everyone start post- 9/11? We had terrorist attacks before that as well, including one of the very same World Trade Center.

It's like the defense is "Well, except for the most serious attack ever on American soil..."

I'm sure if a Democrat was in office when 9/11 had happened, we would never have heard the end of how the Democrats were completely responsible.
Because even though we had the first WTC bombing and and Oklahoma city etc before 9/11, we never had a singularly more preventable attack than we did on 9/11, nor one as catastrophic.

9/11 was perhaps the most easily prevented attack in history, to be honest. Why the **** were people allowed to carry knives on planes back then?

George Carlin of all people commented on how friggin' retarded that was just a year or two before 9/11.

But was that Bush's fault? Nah. Everyone before him had the same opportunity to amend that **** up, but nobody had the common sense (besides George Carlin, of course) to do it.

But since 9/11 people are more fearful of terrorist attacks, and security is supposedly "tighter" so attacks after 9/11 are used by partisans as talking points.

Quite frankly, I think we're going to get hit again, regardless of what precautions we take, because it's just a matter of time before some other, equally retarded oversight is taken advantage of.

I don't bother blaming the party in power for a screwup that was just a byproduct of human stupidity.

And just because we got attacked really bad on 9/11 doesn't mean we aren't just as stupid as before. WE've been trying to prevent another 9/11 since 9/11, but in all honesty, it won't be that type of attack that'll get us next time. It'll be something else we hadn't considered.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Why does everyone start post- 9/11? We had terrorist attacks before that as well, including one of the very same World Trade Center.
Probably because that's what your own chosen topic is about . . . ? "Bush's watch" . . . ?

But, if you don't want to answer the question, germane to your own topic and within the parameters that you set, that's fine -- but you're simply changing the subject.
 

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Probably because that's what your own chosen topic is about . . . ? "Bush's watch" . . . ?
Um, that's because that's what Guiliani said?

Oh wait! It's Harshaw! :lol:

I forgot! Harshaw's way of "debating" is to change the subject, pretend I said something else, and then argue against that. This is the third thread in which he has done that exact same thing!

So, as I did in other threads, I will now ignore Harshaw.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
No, I think they are trying to downplay it. I'm sure had a reporter asked them about it, they would not have said "Oh, 9/11 never happened." I think they're just not mentioning it because they don't want to remind people that it did indeed occur on Bush's watch.
Or, you're simply unfairly reading something into what they're saying, which no one else except possibly Media Matters sees -- and I'm not even sure they go that far.


And, of course, even if you say "except for 9/11" it's still a wrong statement.
I did ask you a direct question pertaining exactly to that, but you chose instead to go on a tangent about what happened before 9/11, so . . . what exactly is it you're trying to say with all of this?
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Um, that's because that's what Guiliani said?

Oh wait! It's Harshaw! :lol:

I forgot! Harshaw's way of "debating" is to change the subject, pretend I said something else, and then argue against that. This is the third thread in which he has done that exact same thing!

So, as I did in other threads, I will now ignore Harshaw.
Good grief. First, you complain that I'm accusing you of saying things you didn't say, and now you're whining because I kept my responses entirely within what you did say.

Which is it, dude? You changed the subject, I didn't. I'm pretty sure everyone's going to see that plainly enough.

Are you simply not used to having what you say challenged? Sure seems like it to me.
 

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
We have got to stop agreeing like this. People will talk.

Look Groucho, it's like this. Republicans give us plenty of good ammunition to use against them. let's stick to that. Something like this makes us look desperate and petty. It's like people who complain about Bush's initial reaction to 9/11, to continue what he was doing. Instead of making a point, it makes us look bad. It's like people who bitch about Obama bowing to the Japanese emperor, it makes them look petty and bad. Let's let the other side do it, and keep ourselves on real issues. We come out ahead by doing so.
You make a good point. I didn't notice your post here until later.

I just get so tired of this kind of "Nothing Bush did was bad" attitude. And, as I pointed out, it's not the first time people tried to claim there were no attacks under Bush (even if you discount 9/11) when we had the shoe bomber, the LAX shooting, the anthrax scares, the SUV attacks, and other smaller ones.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I just get so tired of this kind of "Nothing Bush did was bad" attitude. And, as I pointed out, it's not the first time people tried to claim there were no attacks under Bush (even if you discount 9/11) when we had the shoe bomber, the LAX shooting, the anthrax scares, the SUV attacks, and other smaller ones.
Are you going to answer the question I asked you about that, or are you going to hide behind your transparent little tantrum so you can ignore it?
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Hey, Groucho --

If you don't want to debate what you say, within the terms you said it, why do you bother to post?
 

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No, Harshaw, I'm just ignoring you. Life's too short.

I love to debate politics, of course, or I wouldn't be here. I also like to play softball. But you know, if there was someone who insisted on changing the rules of the game in the middle and then kept accusing me of doing so, well, I'd probably just find someone else to play with.

Back on target: In an interview with Larry King, Guiliani insisted that the shoe bomber attacks came before 9/11 and thus shouldn't count against Bush for some reason. He, of course, was wrong on that, which is a bit surprising given that he has a business advising people about terrorism and proclaims himself as an expert in these things.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Well, if Giuliani said that, then he's obviously wrong.

Do you have an answer for my question, or is it outside the fragile and ever-shifting boundaries you've set for what's a fair response to what you type?
 
Top Bottom