Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Gop 2012
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GolfWhiskey" data-source="post: 733117" data-attributes="member: 8068"><p>Blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11 is seriously asinine. George W. Bush had 9 months to prevent the attacks, but he was on vacation 40% of the time. Coincidentally, Bush set a Presidential record for vacation taken during 2001.</p><p></p><p>During that time he held literally zero cabinet meetings on the threat of terrorism. Richard Clarke tried to warn Rice and Bush about the threat of Al Queda and was patently ignored. On August 6, 2001, he was warned via daily briefing that Bin Laden was determined to attack the American homeland in the very near future.</p><p></p><p>Could the attacks on 9/11 have been prevented? It's possible, but I don't put the responsibility on Bush's shoulders. I don't think placing the blame on any one person is constructive or even really possible. However, <strong>if</strong> one is looking for someone to blame, he is by far the person who bears the most responsibility. The attacks happened 9 months into his watch and he wasted 40% of the year NOT taking steps to make the country safer.</p><p></p><p>It's the height of partisan hackery to blame Bill Clinton for something that occured 9 months after he left office. Ask yourself, if terrorists attacked the US right now, would you be consistent and blame Bush? After all, Obama still has 2 months until September.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GolfWhiskey, post: 733117, member: 8068"] Blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11 is seriously asinine. George W. Bush had 9 months to prevent the attacks, but he was on vacation 40% of the time. Coincidentally, Bush set a Presidential record for vacation taken during 2001. During that time he held literally zero cabinet meetings on the threat of terrorism. Richard Clarke tried to warn Rice and Bush about the threat of Al Queda and was patently ignored. On August 6, 2001, he was warned via daily briefing that Bin Laden was determined to attack the American homeland in the very near future. Could the attacks on 9/11 have been prevented? It's possible, but I don't put the responsibility on Bush's shoulders. I don't think placing the blame on any one person is constructive or even really possible. However, [b]if[/b] one is looking for someone to blame, he is by far the person who bears the most responsibility. The attacks happened 9 months into his watch and he wasted 40% of the year NOT taking steps to make the country safer. It's the height of partisan hackery to blame Bill Clinton for something that occured 9 months after he left office. Ask yourself, if terrorists attacked the US right now, would you be consistent and blame Bush? After all, Obama still has 2 months until September. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Gop 2012
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom