See, there's a difference between cause in fact and proximate cause. An almost infinite number of "causes" exist for any event, but that doesn't make it proximate or blameworthy. If I'm driving and notice I'm running low on gas and take a detour off the interstate and get sideswiped by a drunk driver as I'm entering the gas station, then my brother who didn't fill up my gas tank when he borrowed the car yesterday may have caused the accident, but to blame him is moronic.

I think blaming Clinton for "causing" 9/11 is more like the latter ("moronic") because 9/11 wasn't foreseeable.

(06-14-2012 02:28 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I think blaming Clinton for "causing" 9/11 is more like the latter ("moronic") because 9/11 wasn't foreseeable.

Except for the USS Cole

I think it would be more like blaming the bartender, who knew that the drunk was wasted and kept serving him.

No it wasn't foreseeable. I mean, like, they hadn't attacked WTC before.

Nobody saw 9/11 coming you morons. The USS Cole bombing in Yemen clued people into the possibility that al Qaeda would hijack planes to take down the WTC, Pentagon and whatever else? Are you kidding me? Nobody, liberal or conservative, considered them a serious threat.

(06-14-2012 02:47 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Nobody saw 9/11 coming you morons. The USS Cole bombing in Yemen clued people into the possibility that al Qaeda would hijack planes to take down the WTC, Pentagon and whatever else? Are you kidding me? Nobody, liberal or conservative, considered them a serious threat.

You obviously missed Paul's post, or are 20 years old.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX3ikm5LlSE

So they looked incompetent next to Timothy McVeigh. Nobody took the threat from al Qaeda seriously, Republicans (who were much more isolationist back then) included. It was certainly a mistake in hindsight not to spend resources in capturing bin Laden but nobody foresaw those consequences.

(06-14-2012 03:15 PM)Max Power Wrote:  So they looked incompetent next to Timothy McVeigh. Nobody took the threat from al Qaeda seriously, Republicans (who were much more isolationist back then) included. It was certainly a mistake in hindsight not to spend resources in capturing bin Laden but nobody foresaw those consequences.

In 1993, we had the Blackhawk Down incident, which we knew was lead by A.Q. trained forces. Bin Laden was expelled the Sudan around 1995. We knew when his plane left and tracked him all the way to Afghanistan. We could have taken it down, but didn't. Clinton made that call. Clinton had a solid reason to kill him then and he didn't.

Bush also had the memo "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" but I certainly don't think he caused 9/11...truther's be damned!

Bryson has decided to resign to focus on his health. Prayers be with you John!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21...86026.html

(06-21-2012 11:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Bryson has decided to resign to focus on his health. Prayers be with you John!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21...86026.html

Probably so he didn't have to listen to these rightwing putz's drag him through the mud and try to destroy him like they normally do to people they don't agree with.

(06-14-2012 02:12 PM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  

(06-14-2012 09:51 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  On what planet does not capturing Bin Laden cause 9/11 to happen?

You do know that Bin Laden was the mastermind behind 9/11 and leader of the Taliban, right? Mastermind means it was his plan.

I can't tell if you're really mentally handicapped or you're just messing with me.

Actually Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the mastermind behind 9/11 and the attack had been in planning stages for five years. Even if Bin Laden had been the mastermind, if you think capturing Bin Laden would have prevented his followers from going through with the attack, you're nuts.

Funny that you're accusing someone else of being mentally handicapped and you don't even have your facts straight.