Wait, the Cole bombing happened a MONTH before the 2000 election. That means that the Clinton Administration had a whopping THREE months to “do something” before he left office. That strikes me as an awfully short deadline for any operation to accomplish something so complex, especially considering the distractions of the Florida controversy. I mean, I’m sure if you asked most people at the time which of the two events would impact their lives more, most would have said “Florida” without much hesitation…
Er, hang on… am I a biker or a hippie in your “moment”?
Because, I may, or may not, wish to beat you with this chain I’ve made out of daisies.
Could you have picked a less-significant 9/11 Strawman than the cockpit door? You should at least have had the intellectual courtesy of mentioning the security screeners.
The attacks on September 11, 2001 would have happened if a Democrat had been in the White House. There’s been nothing I’ve seen that reasonably proves the attacks were a direct assault on the Bush Administration’s policies.
Our American approach to the world – in its current system – is to blame for the attacks.
Sorry for the hijack.
Again, I ask: in what “big way” was Clinton “on it” that Bush was not? What policy did Clinton follow that Bush did not that allows you to reasonably place blame for 9-11 at Bush’s feet but not at Clinton’s? What measures were in place under Clinton that were not in place under Bush?
That’s a fair question. I’m not sure how much to believe reports that Clinton officials briefed Bush officials on terrorism, but were completely ignored, and I don’t know if claims that antiterrorism budgets were “slashed” are true. Certainly I don’t think there was enough time for that to be done in a serious way.
However, I believe Stoid was reacting to a post that implied, if not outright stated, that September 11 was entirely Clinton’s fault, and that Bush was fully blameless. So while your question is good, I think it might be just as well served asked of the poster Stoid was replying to, but reversed.
And cedric45’s post to which Stoid was replying was itself replying to an exceptionally stupid post by minty that heavily implied that if only Clinton was still in the White House, 9-11 would not have happened. Cedric45’s post is clearly not stating that 9-11 was “entirely Clinton’s fault;” it is saying that the Clinton administration is not entirely blameless and that it is spurious to suggest that the Bush adminstration bears unique responsibility for that tragedy.
In case you haven’t noticed, Leaper, it’s quite easy to go back and read earlier posts on this message board. Attempts at revisionist history such as what you wrote above are quite ineffective.
From the inciteful post:
I don’t blame Stoid for reacting the way he did. We get a lot of that “you’re not supposed to think that way” kind of stuff around here. The Brain Police context of the above quote is pretty twisted.
Anybody seen Scylla?
Mr. B: Stoid is a woman. Just for future reference.
Speaking of which, thanks for that defense, Stoid. It’s very much appreciated.
Whoops. Sorry, Stoid.
Mr. B: Yes, and the “Your assertion” refers to minty’s implied assertion that Bush bore sole responsibility for 9-11. And that statement was without merit or morality.
Respectfully, Dewey, this:
is a pretty big leap to this:
By your own words, it was not a statement. It was implied.
Further, how is a thought ever grounds for moral judgment?
Excuse me? It was comrade elucidator who brought up the cockpit door, not I.
Mr. B: minty’s original quote reads thusly:
If that doesn’t mean that Clinton is totally absolved of all responsibility for 9-11, and that Bush thus bears sole responsibility for allowing it to happen, then what do you suggest it means?
And whether or not “immoral” is the correct descritor of that sentiment is a mere quibble. That sentiment reflects a kind of base partisanship that is both corrosive and blind. It deserves condemnation.
What part of “in large part” escapes you, Counselor?
Nothing. Those are weasel words, designed to preempt the obvious objection that Mohammad Atta, et al, bear primary responsibility for the attacks. That does not change the fact that the quote in question, taken in full, clearly indicates that Clinton bears zero responsibilty, and Bush bears all responsibility insofar as the government’s national security efforts vis-a-vis 9-11 are concerned.
Well, for starters:“in large part” does not mean quite the same thing as “sole responsibility”. For a lawyer, your nitpicking skills seem rather limited. My man Spavined, The Iowa Matlock, would eat your lunch. Nonetheless, I concur with your condemnation of blind and corrosive partisanship. I only regret I do not share your utter innocence of such. Alas.
No, but perhaps you missed the other sentences in the quoted selection. You know, the ones that say Bubba made a “huge priority” out of fighting terrorism and that strongly imply that 3,000 people would not have died if only he had remained at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Read the whole paragraph, not just selected phrases.
And don’t ever challenge my nitpicking skills again. I’m a hopelessly anal pedant, and you know it.
Read it again yourself. Note the presence of all those qualifiers you insist are meaningless in your obsession to exclude the middle. Really, Dewey, you’re making quite the ass of yourself with this, you know.
Spare me. The quoted language says Clinton “fucking succeeded” in fighting terrorism, as evidenced by the absence of 9-11 on his watch. If that isn’t a grant of absolution to Clinton, then I don’t know what is. And since Bush is the only president to follow Clinton, it follows that only Bush bears responsibility insofar as government action is concerned.
The only asses here are those of you who keep insisting words mean something other than what they plainly say.
Dewey: How’s about you answer the specifics of the charge, as it seems to have hit some kind of nerve with you. The specifics are here:
Those are the specifics. Here’s a juicy quote from the last cite:
“I’m coming to this briefing to underscore how important I think this subject is. I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.”
— Clinton National Security Adviser SANDY BERGER, to Condi Rice, January 2001
Of course, it’s possible Condi thought those words meant something other than what they plainly say. Could be.