(02-24-2009 02:53 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  So let me get this straight, your contention is that Clinton was at fault for an attack that took place nearly 2 years after he left office. But he's also responsible for an attack that took place 5 days after he took office, while the former administration of G.H.W. BU$H wasn't. That's fuzzy logic...

If you want to blame Bush I for the first attack, then you have to blame Clinton for the 2nd. These things DO take time to plan. If you want to blame Clinton for the first, then you can blame Bush 2 for the 2nd.... but you can't blame Bushes for both, at least not with any credibility.

None of that has anything to do with the half a dozen attacks you keep ignoring.

and Clinton was President 1/19/2001. the attacks were 9/11/01. Not QUITE 2 years, but you're close.

(02-24-2009 02:53 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  So let me get this straight, your contention is that Clinton was at fault for an attack that took place nearly 2 years after he left office. But he's also responsible for an attack that took place 5 days after he took office, while the former administration of G.H.W. BU$H wasn't. That's fuzzy logic...

you didnt get any part of it straight....

Quote:NORAD didn't respond

Try a book entitled - Touching History - by Lynn Spencer

Quote:and President BU$H, after hearing of the attack, continued reading children's stories to grade school children in Florida like nothing has happened

What was he supposed to do? Run out of the room like a madman - scaring the children. He was not under direct threat.

Quote:The WTC attack in 93 failed miserably

killing 6 and injuring 1042... and changed the way people live and work overnight... but you are correct, the buildings did not fall...

Quote:Nothing like that happened under Clinton

Nothing like that except 4 terror attacks on our sovereignty under his watch...

Quote:BU$H's brother had ...blah...blah....

again...reality. Your implying that the Bush family orchestrated the attack is tin foil material...

As much as it pained me, I read through this entire thread, yet I'm still perplexed at how a thread that started with a link to a story with the headline "Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half" turned into a p*ssing match about who was to blame for the 9-11 attacks.

(02-24-2009 03:23 PM)BGSUalum1987 Wrote:  As much as it pained me, I read through this entire thread, yet I'm still perplexed at how a thread that started with a link to a story with the headline "Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half" turned into a p*ssing match about who was to blame for the 9-11 attacks.

It all turned on post #15 by bitcruncher.

(02-24-2009 03:37 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(02-24-2009 03:23 PM)BGSUalum1987 Wrote:  As much as it pained me, I read through this entire thread, yet I'm still perplexed at how a thread that started with a link to a story with the headline "Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half" turned into a p*ssing match about who was to blame for the 9-11 attacks.

It all turned on post #15 by bitcruncher.

Yes, and I'll admit my part in it. I don't mind people with different ideas than mine, but when they just out-and-out lie... or tell something so far from reality so as to have the same effect... I respond.

(02-23-2009 11:31 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The failing banks, and all the shoddy bookkeeping that led to so many financial failures can be laid to rest on the business practices promoted during BU$H's term in office too...

Though CLEARLY all of the Enron mess which involved all of those banks took place after 1992 and before 2001... it was Bush's policies to blame.

(02-23-2009 11:31 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  And I left out the fact that America was never attacked under Clinton like it was under BU$H -

All evidence to the contrary

(02-23-2009 11:31 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I left out that the previous WTC attack took place under his father too.

um, yeah... though Clinton was in the White House...

(02-23-2009 11:31 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  But you wouldn't have listened to any of that either. You've got blinders on...

yeah, we're the ones with blinders.

(02-23-2009 11:31 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The original WTC attack took place in 1993, under President G.H.W. BU$H...

Yes... even though Clinton was sworn in, Bush was still the President??

(02-23-2009 11:31 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Also, the shoddy bookkeeping started with ENRON, one of the biggest corporate contributers to the BU$H campaign in 2000...

Yes... too bad the shoddy bookeeping started in 1997 or so under CLinton and LONG after Bush I was out of office...

(02-23-2009 11:31 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  But frankly, the blind hatred on both sides is stupid,

Yes it is... PLEASE take off the blinders. Nobody else in this entire thread is attacking anyone

(02-24-2009 01:00 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  9/11/01 - Then all Arabs in the U.S. were flown out of the country, at a time when all flights in the U.S. were grounded.

proven to be a lie

(02-23-2009 11:31 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Nothing like that happened under Clinton. The WTC attack in 93 failed miserably,

the other attacks notwithstanding, the 1993 attack killed many and injured more than 1,000. No, not nearly as bad as 9/11, but hardly a miserable failure.

(02-23-2009 11:31 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  and BU$H's brother had the contract for the security at both the WTC and the airport where the planes that crashed into the towers were hijacked...

Electronic security is not the same thing as "security"... It had nothing to do with people getting on or off planes, or what they did while on them. It only had to do with securing the financial and passenger data.... which helped us identify the perpetrators and where there financing came from... and he was a member of the BOD... not in management. Learn a little about corporate governance

(02-24-2009 02:53 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  So let me get this straight, your contention is that Clinton was at fault for an attack that took place nearly 2 years after he left office. But he's also responsible for an attack that took place 5 days after he took office, while the former administration of G.H.W. BU$H wasn't. That's fuzzy logic...

yeah... 9/11/01 is 2 years after 1/20/01... and 2/26/93 is 5 days after 1/20/93


Seriously... is there one single post by him in here that is factually accurate?

(02-24-2009 03:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If you want to blame Bush I for the first attack, then you have to blame Clinton for the 2nd. These things DO take time to plan. If you want to blame Clinton for the first, then you can blame Bush 2 for the 2nd.... but you can't blame Bushes for both, at least not with any credibility.

None of that has anything to do with the half a dozen attacks you keep ignoring.

and Clinton was President 1/19/2001. the attacks were 9/11/01. Not QUITE 2 years, but you're close.

I don't think he's exactly on the "genius" level when it comes to mathematics.

(02-24-2009 03:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-24-2009 02:53 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  So let me get this straight, your contention is that Clinton was at fault for an attack that took place nearly 2 years after he left office. But he's also responsible for an attack that took place 5 days after he took office, while the former administration of G.H.W. BU$H wasn't. That's fuzzy logic...

If you want to blame Bush I for the first attack, then you have to blame Clinton for the 2nd. These things DO take time to plan. If you want to blame Clinton for the first, then you can blame Bush 2 for the 2nd.... but you can't blame Bushes for both, at least not with any credibility.

None of that has anything to do with the half a dozen attacks you keep ignoring.

and Clinton was President 1/19/2001. the attacks were 9/11/01. Not QUITE 2 years, but you're close.

They don't understand your logic. I've been trying to explain it for months.