I know some are going to like this because of who is saying it but
I think this hits the nail on the head.
The idea of trying to cast blame on President Clinton is just wrong for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don't think he deserves it," Giuliani said in response to a question after an appearance with fellow Republican Charlie Crist, who is running for governor. "I don't think President Bush deserves it.
The people who deserve blame for Sept. 11, I think we should remind ourselves, are the terrorists — the Islamic fanatics — who came here and killed us and want to come here again and do it."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/...uliani_clinton
All you have to do is find a quote from Rush Limbaugh at the time.
Congressional republicans were limited in their derision at the time, as they had to work with the president. You can bet double or nothing on the federal debt that they said very different things behind closed doors.
The funny thing is that the administration, through Rice's testimony said that it didn't get a "plan" from the Clinton administration, who if Yoni is to be believed was completely ignoring the whole issue.
It got a "series of ideas" and "actionable items", also know to anybody with common sense as a "plan".
The blame game continues 'round and 'round, and is nothing but a smoke screen that Yoni and other politicos are hoping is a big distraction from how poorly our "war" on terror is going.
Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't supposed to mention that. I guess I am just giving the non-administration-cheerleading media, er "liberal" media a nod.
Clarke presented a plan, basically what he had developed under Clinton, on 25 Jan 2001.
( Giulani's quote is way beyond stupid. Does he think he talking to dubya's kindergarten class? )
...and Clarke was a vehement defender of the Bush administration in '02; saying they had continued with all operations regarding Al Queda, and had a 5 fold increase in funds scheduled to be iimplemented ~10/01/2001; he cast NO blame on the Bush adminstration.
You're like Clinton; citing Clarke doesn't help your position.
(now call me some names)
All of which supports the thesis that terrorism wasn't an overwhelming priority before 9-11, for either President.
"for either President."
Except there was only one president/Exec that igored all the warnings in July/Aug 2001, doing nothing, as the PC/watered-down 9/11 report made extremely clear.
A theory which is very legitimate and defensible because 9/11 ACTUALLY HAPPENED!
"overwhelming"
pejorative. Clinton actually took action, tried to kill terrorists.
Enough? no, as he admits.
dubya took no action against terrorists.
Playing bureaucratic s games is not taking action.
Ignoring the extremely high chatter in jul/aug 01 is not taking action.
The Repugs KNOW they ed up bad in months before 9/11.
That's why they are lying their asses off NOT to get pinned with the responsibilities the failed to discharge. Absolute derelection of duty.
Then the Repugs lie that USA is safer with Repugs in charge of NatSec.
Richard Clark disagrees with you. He says that the Bush White House was increasing funding, but the new budget year hadn't begun yet; the Bush White House, was running under Clinton's budget until October, when priorities WERE going to change.
It's easy to know that all of the chatter now meant something, but then it wasn't so easy; especially since Clinton had made damn sure the different branches of the intelligence community and law enforcement were completely out of the habit of sharing information; there's only so much bureacratic mess than can be cleaned up in 7 short months - especially when the first several days in office were spent replacing all of the "W" keys on the White House computers because of the very childish behavior of the previous occupants.
Boutons, you are WRONG on this. BOTH administrations have culpability for these attacks; but primarily the ridiculous bureacracy of our overblown government is to blame - because it hampers EVERYTHING regardless of who is "in charge".
"BOTH administrations have culpability for these attacks;"
but only one admits it.
The one that doesn't admit any culpbaility is lying.
None of the Repug principals (pres, vice, state, NSA, defense) addressed terrorism and al Quaida AT ALL before 9/11. Nothing stopped them except their own lack of interest and concern. They were extremely motivated as their first priority to push through tax cuts. Apart from that, they accomplished nothing before 9/11
Clinton, his NSA, etc, etc were concerned with and trying to kill terrorists.
The two Exec branches simply are not comparable on terrorism.
Last edited by boutons_; 09-28-2006 at 10:16 AM.
On this we agree.
One of them did something to begin solving the problem after we were attacked on their watch.
"after we were attacked"
too late. The Repugs were lackadaisical on terrorism and Al-Quaida before 9/11.
When they "woke up", they exploited terrorism to start a phony, unncessary war that has seriously compromised US security.
No moreso than the previous administration, as do ented in this thread....and repeat...
I mean, you do realize that Clinton had to work with a Republican controlled Congress for 6 out of 8 years, 3 of which they spent trying to find out if he banged some intern.
Amazingly, the current President is receiving no Congressional equivalent for possibly lying to Congress (obviously he wasnt under oath) in an effort to start a war. That, you know, costs lives.
Yet no investigation, no hoopla...nothing. God help him (or not) if the Dems get majority in Congress this November.
I agree; in fact, with the current partisan climate, god help ANY president who has to deal with a congress controlled by the opposition party. 'Probably better that way, actually.
Yeah, I think it's no coincidence the retroactive war crimes immunity was brought up when it looked like the Democrats had a chance of winning Congress.
Clinton had him in his sights on at lease one occassion, after the 1998 PDB in which he was informed that bin Laden was planning to use hijacked planes to commit a terrorist attack on the United States. I doubt he would have a) consulted the Republican-controlled Congress before making the decision to pull the trigger and, indeed, he didn't, and I doubt the Republican-controlled Congress would have raised a stink...particularly after reading Speaker Gingrich's comments on when he "wagged the dog" in the Afghani desert.
I guess you missed the NBC program that showed bin Laden filmed by a Predator Drone in 2000. All Clinton had to do was give the order and a second volley of Tomahawks could have been on the way. Of course, there weren't any court appearances coming up so, no distraction was needed at the time I guess.
Which lie is that again? And, please, do be specific as to when and where this lie took place. Quotes would be nice. Thank you.
I really hope Americans are paying attention to the Democrat platform for the upcoming elections.
We will abandon Iraq.
We will raise your taxes.
We will immediately start impeachment proceedings against President Bush.
And, we will do all of this before we develop a cogent plan to prosecute the ongoing war against global terrorism or ensure homeland security.
Yeehaw! Now, that's a winning strategy!
Actually, we all knew he banged the intern, what they were investigating is if the president lied about banging the intern to save his ass in a law suit from a woman who he waved his in front of when he was her employer.
(Just to get Boutons riled up)
Pretty much sums it up, as far as I can tell.
But, Yoni, you do realize that when the democrats take office, and we pull out of Iraq, there won't be any more terrorists, so they won't need a plan.
Oh, I almost forgot!
We will socialize all medical care in America.
And, we will further socialize retirement plans.
Last edited by Yonivore; 09-28-2006 at 11:24 AM.
The Repugs don't have plan for Iraq, not now, and not before or after the invasion.
"stay the course" is very deep thinking for dubya.
He refuses to admit that "staying the course" is failing miserably.
The Repugs broke Iraq.
The Repugs don't want put the several 100K more troops in there to fix it.
The Repugs are losing Iraq.
Iraq will be lost by the time dubya leaves office,
and the Dems will have had nothing to do with losing Iraq.
mmm So many straw men, so little time.
This guy is like the instructions for shampoo.
[work yourself into a] lather, spin, repeat.
and he wonders why I don't take him seriously...
Fallacy: Straw Man
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and subs utes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not cons ute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Heh... I don't take him seriously either. I mean, how can you?mmm So many straw men, so little time.
This guy is like the instructions for shampoo.
[work yourself into a] lather, spin, repeat.
and he wonders why I don't take him seriously...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
