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?
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."
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?
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 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?
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.)
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.
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" . . . ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?