Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You must be in love with him [Bush] i guess. Why doesn't he get all the blame for allowing the attacks of 9/11 to take place?
I think I just heard my 3rd grade niece say something like that yesterday, "You love it? Why don't you marry it?"
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he was only in office 8 months at the time of the attacks, unlike Clinton who was there 12 times longer just prior to that... I don't blame either one, but let's look at the larger picture for a moment and see who was in power while the attacks were being masterminded (obviously there were years of planning for these superbly coordinated attacks) - if you really want to point a finger at someone.
I think I just heard my 3rd grade niece say something like that yesterday, "You love it? Why don't you marry it?"
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he was only in office 8 months at the time of the attacks, unlike Clinton who was there 12 times longer just prior to that... I don't blame either one, but let's look at the larger picture for a moment and see who was in power while the attacks were being masterminded (obviously there were years of planning for these superbly coordinated attacks) - if you really want to point a finger at someone.
This is sort of like going into a new office and turning on the PC (operational with sophisticated level of firewalls, anti-virus, spyware and all sort of protective softwares )and working with it for around 8 months or so but when a virus somehow manages to intrude the operating system......let me guess - you wanna blame that on the previous user. That kind of thinking is so backwards my friend. And keep in mind that the US government doesn't operate like your local McDonalds
You must be in love with him [Bush] i guess. Why doesn't he get all the blame for allowing the attacks of 9/11 to take place?
Pretty simple, becuse he had just taken office, and it was your god, Clinton who allowed the attacks. Big Bill was too busy with his pig poke to bother with protecting the country...
Because there should have been EIGHT years with no attacks! There are only two reasons I can think of why the Bush Admin. ignored the warnings that we were going to be attacked. Either a. they're just that stupid and careless or b. they wanted us to be attacked to start their "master plan", meaning the PNAC (Plan for a New American Century) which spelled out that they needed another "Pearl Harbor" to rally the country behind the idea of invading Iraq.
It's obvious the facts have no meaning to you. You read too much left wing garbage. Believing such trash makes you look, well,.... not to very smart.. that's how demos are made...
Why credit him? There is NO DIRECT CONNECTION between anything done since 9/11 and the lack of attacks.
I never hear anyone praising Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I or Clinton for the same results. And they did it without invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or violating the US Constitution.
golfgod
Exactly! You know their whole argument will go to pieces if Obama wins and we don't have another 9/11. In fact, we might see some plotting being done right here in the U.S. to maintain this flawed theory that it's because of Bush that we haven't had another incident which probably took 10 years+ to plan in the first place and statistcally would be hard to repeat so soon. It's like saying we haven't had another (replace it with largest bank robbery of all time, largest car pile up of all time, worse bridge collapse, etc.) Those things don't happen every year either.
Funny stuff. The implication being that Bush's Homeland Security- the most disfunctional agency in our government - has done something to stop any potential attacks. All that taking off of our shoes and leaving behind our shampoo and contact lense solutions on flights was what really did it.
Or the extra vigilance we all showed every time the national terror code flashed red or orange.
Maybe it had more to do with the fact that we sent Americans over to the Middle East to drive over their terrorist explosive devices on a routine basis for the past 6 years. So they could get scoreboard and still make it home to roast a goat and sell off a daughter or two.
It's been 7 years since the events of 9/11, and since that day, we have not had a single terrorist attack here on American soil. And yet, Bush gets no credit for this?!?! It kills me how so many are quick to blame him for so many things, yet don't give him an ounce of credit for the safety we've enjoyed all these years.
If bush gets credit for seven years of us not getting attacked, then he should be held responsible for not defending us from those attacks in the first place in 2001.
He's had 4300 soldiers killed needlessly. And spent 500 Billion, 750 Million per day.
And your bragging that we haven't paid any cost at home????
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
