"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it." - Edward R. Murrow
Excuse me. The first World Trade Center bombing, which you listed earlier as "happened before the current administration", took place on February 26, 1993. Bill Clinton was put into office on January 20, 1993. That's 36 days that Clinton was serving as the President of the United States when the first WTC attack took place. Clinton was President just over one month. These are your words: "More of the blame for 9/11 should fall on who was handling things from the time of the first WTC attack for 7 years not on the administration that had been in place for less than 8 months at the time of the attack." So according to your way of thinking, Bush gets a pass because he was President for "only" 8 months at the time of 9/11 but Clinton doesn't get a pass for the 1993 WTC bombing even though he was in office less than 2 months???? "I tend to counterbalance so since the media is biased I would tend to try to balance that out." Isn't the comparison between the two WTC attacks you just did extremely biased???
Nice fact based response... You should have added this to the end: "tbarr60, here's your sign"... <-- from that redneck comedy show, get it? jeez, I crack myself up...
So you are saying Clinton had about 2890 days after the WTC bombing to improve our intelligence and military and take out al Queda so we could avoid an attack like 9/11, right?
She was a mod on that board. She also told them not to refer to themselves as Freepers so as to not have a problem with trademarks of a big paper in Detroit.
It's true that our troops are volunteers, but those of us that enlisted before 2003 volunteered to serve our country, not to fight in an ill-conceived, mismanaged, partisan war that is not benefiting our country, but benefiting only the contractors and big business. Volunteer to serve our country? Yes Volunteer to fight in this unnecessary war? No
Look, if you don't want to debate this topic seriously using the facts that you and I both gave, that's your choice. I pointed out that you appear to be injecting personal bias into your claims. You chose to give Bush a pass for any responsibility for the 9/11 attacks yet you assign blame to Clinton for the WTC bombing that took place 1 month and six days after he came into office. If you don't want to address the incongruity and choose to deflect the question I guess you're conceding the point...in other words you don't have anything to add and you are using personal bias. It's your choice.
You didn't consider what you quoted from me. Let's put it this way, of the 3290 days between the WTC bombing and 9/11, only 200 were under Bush's watch. Bush can be assigned some blame but Clinton did little to take out Osama.
And that last parenthesised bit is so important, because if you plow into someone when f'ed up, and splatter their brains on your windshield, it is imperative that you be blasted on a legal substance, and not marijuana, by God. The dead guys family is going to feel much better if they know you were able to buy the intoxicant openly. -Michael
Now you're just trying to distract me from what you originally said. I think you have some egg on your face and trying to get me to look at something else so you can quickly wipe it off! Maybe it's time for you to make an omlette?
Are you the pot, or the kettle? Or perhaps you forget the one-way arguments you make every now and then down here? Interesting thread. I was about to point out that if this had been a Bush offspring, the thread would be very different. As I read through some of the comments, the usual suspects wasted no time taking it there anyway. One way outrage at it's finest
For speeding and/or toking he won't get much at all. For being a pharmer, he can be in much more trouble since illegal possession of prescription drugs is a felony.
This post is insane. With the same path, you could go to the year, when Osama was borned and try to compare the US actions in "days" since then VS 200 days of Bush. aggression will cause aggression, that's what Clinton did not do, he wasnt aggressive that much as Bush.