Lucius Posted September 29, 2006 Author Share Posted September 29, 2006 Politician looking for excuses? That shouldn't come as a surprise. It is in a politician's nature to protect his image. What Clinton pointed out is that the right wing is not only looking for excuses for their mistakes but also wrongfully shifting their blame onto their predecessors. It didn't matter who ought to shoulder more blame for 9/11 between Clinton and Bush since both are guilty of failing to protect the country. Yet, the right wing and their henchman from Fox News have been constantly trying to paint the picture that 9/11 was inevitable since the Clinton administration. Now when Clinton makes the counter-argument and they blame him of playing politics. What hypocrisy! At least, focus your attacks on his arguments and not his mannerism. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Neither Bush nor Clinton have accepted responsibility for 9/11, even though both can take their own share of the blame. But Bill Clinton did not make things any better during his time in the oval office. Bill Clinton had criticized Bush for not doing enough to prevent 9/11. He had more of an opportunity than Bush did at first to get bin Laden. He had the reason and the opportunity. What if Bush had decided to go after bin Laden right off the bat when he first came into office? It probably would not be much different than what you see today with Iraq. All these cries of American aggression and an unprovoked, unjust war. You would probably have many people accusing him of just trying to finish what Clinton started. Bill Clinton could have avoided that if he had chosen to actually aggressively pursue bin Laden after he initially attacked the U.S. He had an opportunity, and he squandered it. Thanks to him, it probably was inevitable. The plans for 9/11 were concieved as early as 1999. Nobody would have guessed that terrorists were planning on flying planes into buildings. With the warnings the BA recieved, everyone expected a typical hijacking, which the report seemed to indicate. Clinton however, did not make bin Laden a big issue during his final years as a President. Then he tries to blame Bush for not doing enough. That is hypocrisy. And yes, he is playing politics. Both sides are playing politics. But don't try to make it seem like one side is more guilty than the other. Bill Clinton is just as, if not more guilty than Bush for 9/11. The people have every right to place the blame on his shoulders. Of course, ultra-liberals won't do that, neither will the vast majority of the media. The media has always been liberally biased. And when Fox News comes around, everyone accuses it of bias. They don't do it because of facts, mind you, they do it because they present an alternate viewpoint. So many liberals simply dismiss it as mindless conservative bullcrap propaganda without actually trying to prove how or why it is so. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I love the hypocrisy here, I think I'm going to go make a thread painting a conservative politician in a good light so I can see the other side of it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsingham Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I can best describe my feelings about FOX by saying that watching it makes me feel as if my skin is dying to go outside for a quiet smoke. And I don't smoke. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenghuang Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 christ hades... if you weren't such an... as if we knew back then, doing what we ALWAYS did, that someone like osama would happen. sometimes, idiocy is your forte. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> TORENO - Listen, Carl. We've got a problem. Some traitors from another department think they can help the 'overseas situation' by financing militaristic dictators in exchange for arms contacts. CJ - Hey, ain't that exactly what you do? TORENO - Well, kind of, but we get to pick our dictators. Degenerates that we can control. We try to stay the hell away from these guys with principles, because that just--muddies the waters. Heh. RIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsingham Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 What caused the ball drop with Osama Bin Ladin was when we, the United States of America, supported him and Al Qaeda through funds and training back when Bush Sr. was head of the CIA. If we never gotten involved and placed him in a position of power Osama and his organization would have never reached the power it came to know. Osama threat was there before both Clinton and Bush Jr, and those in power did nothing but encourage and supported the terrorist. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'd be a lot happier if people didn't throw this accusation around like a delicious cheese and ham crepe. What 'we' did was fund people hitting the Soviets. We started out funding everyone the same, but the fundamentalists were the ones who actually got the job done. The moderates spent as much of tehir funding on nice offices and waffling endlessly, instead of hoofing across the borders and blowing up BMPs. What would YOU have done? Ignore the whole business of the Soviets literally invading a foreign nation? Go to war? "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 What would YOU have done? Ignore the whole business of the Soviets literally invading a foreign nation? Go to war? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> besides, bin laden wasn't a terrorist at the time. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Moth Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 To answer your question, yes he would ignore the whole Soviet invasion. To my knowledge, Hades seems to be an advocate of isolationism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted September 29, 2006 Author Share Posted September 29, 2006 And you seem to be an advocate of Bushism, which is worse!?! DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Moth Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Goodness! That seemed a little uncalled for. Though I guess from you that's to be expected. And to answer your question, I'm an advocate of truthism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xard Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 There is no truth How can it be a no ob build. It has PROVEN effective. I dare you to show your builds and I will tear you apart in an arugment about how these builds will won them. - OverPowered Godzilla (OPG) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nartwak Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Yes, actually, there is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musopticon? Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 And the truth is that there is no truth. kirottu said: I was raised by polar bears. I had to fight against blood thirsty wolves and rabid penguins to get my food. Those who were too weak to survive were sent to Sweden. It has made me the man I am today. A man who craves furry hentai. So let us go and embrace the rustling smells of unseen worlds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xard Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Truth is out there eh? How can it be a no ob build. It has PROVEN effective. I dare you to show your builds and I will tear you apart in an arugment about how these builds will won them. - OverPowered Godzilla (OPG) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nartwak Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Don't be dumb****s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted September 29, 2006 Author Share Posted September 29, 2006 Goodness! That seemed a little uncalled for. Though I guess from you that's to be expected. And to answer your question, I'm an advocate of truthism. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You know me Bushie DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xard Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Don't be dumb****s. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How can it be a no ob build. It has PROVEN effective. I dare you to show your builds and I will tear you apart in an arugment about how these builds will won them. - OverPowered Godzilla (OPG) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 (edited) christ hades... if you weren't such an... as if we knew back then, doing what we ALWAYS did, that someone like osama would happen. sometimes, idiocy is your forte. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We got ourselves involved in a situation that we shouldn't have gotten into in the first place. Its not a failure of Bush, or Clinton, or any individual administration but a failure of our government as a whole. We interfered and the world suffered for it. Edited September 29, 2006 by Judge Hades Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 To answer your question, yes he would ignore the whole Soviet invasion. To my knowledge, Hades seems to be an advocate of isolationism. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Isolationism? No. Self-sufficiency? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calax Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Goodness! That seemed a little uncalled for. Though I guess from you that's to be expected. And to answer your question, I'm an advocate of truthism. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> so what happnens when Clinton says one thing, GW says another, and the next pres says that a third thing happened? who do you believe to give you the truth? Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition! Kevin Butler will awesome your face off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nartwak Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 (edited) Oh, I can't stay mad. Edited September 29, 2006 by Nartwak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Goodness! That seemed a little uncalled for. Though I guess from you that's to be expected. And to answer your question, I'm an advocate of truthism. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> so what happnens when Clinton says one thing, GW says another, and the next pres says that a third thing happened? who do you believe to give you the truth? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> None of them. All of them. Each of them has thier own bias and agenda. Remove that bias and agenda and look for the similarities. That is where you will find the truth, or as close as you are going to get to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Moth Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 (edited) Goodness! That seemed a little uncalled for. Though I guess from you that's to be expected. And to answer your question, I'm an advocate of truthism. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You know me Bushie <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, I do. And that is that you could not hope to argue your point without resorting to personal attacks to save your soul. What's with the name-calling, anyway? Geez, it's not as if I go around calling you 'homo' or 'dutchie'. And no, I will not cyber with you. Stope PMing me. Goodness! That seemed a little uncalled for. Though I guess from you that's to be expected. And to answer your question, I'm an advocate of truthism. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> so what happnens when Clinton says one thing, GW says another, and the next pres says that a third thing happened? who do you believe to give you the truth? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Whichever is most truthful. Edited September 29, 2006 by Dark Moth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarna Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Keep it cool guys. Ruminations... When a man has no Future, the Present passes too quickly to be assimilated and only the static Past has value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted September 29, 2006 Author Share Posted September 29, 2006 (edited) Goodness! That seemed a little uncalled for. Though I guess from you that's to be expected. And to answer your question, I'm an advocate of truthism. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You know me Bushie <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, I do. And that is that you could not hope to argue your point without resorting to personal attacks to save your soul. What's with the name-calling, anyway? Geez, it's not as if I go around calling you 'homo' or 'dutchie'. And no, I will not cyber with you. Stope PMing me. Goodness! That seemed a little uncalled for. Though I guess from you that's to be expected. And to answer your question, I'm an advocate of truthism. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> so what happnens when Clinton says one thing, GW says another, and the next pres says that a third thing happened? who do you believe to give you the truth? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Whichever is most truthful. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Aww fundie, call me whatever you like, I don't mind And I'm not Dutch, but Danish. Not that one such as you would ever know the difference, we're just from Foreignenia, right? ) Edited September 29, 2006 by Lucius DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calax Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Goodness! That seemed a little uncalled for. Though I guess from you that's to be expected. And to answer your question, I'm an advocate of truthism. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> so what happnens when Clinton says one thing, GW says another, and the next pres says that a third thing happened? who do you believe to give you the truth? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Whichever is most truthful. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Really? how would you tell? Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition! Kevin Butler will awesome your face off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Moth Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 (edited) Aww fundie, call me whatever you like, I don't mind And I'm not Dutch, but Danish. Not that one such as you would ever know the difference, we're just from Foreignenia, right? ) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, I won't call you whatever I like, because that would be wrong and probably lower me to your level of childish prattling. I don't know why I even responded to your little plea for attention in the firsts place, seeing how provoking me is probably the only thing you meant to do in your little attempt to be smart. And I'll have you know, while I may be fuzzy on the Dutch/Danish differences, I am well-learned in geography and I know all about Foreignenia and its culture. Really? how would you tell? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What? You have a brain, don't you? Sort out the truth for yourself. As much as I hate to admit it, I do agree with Judge Hades. Don't look at what just one person says, but look at an issue from all sides and then determine what you believe is the truth. Edited September 29, 2006 by Dark Moth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts