ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
The righties aid that 8 months into Bush's term, Clinton owned 9/11. In other words, Bush was not responsible for what happened during his term. At what point is Obama responsible? If there's an attack on American soil by September 11, 2009, is it Bush's fault? My view is that Obama is responsible for what transpires after 30 days in office. There is no excuse for him to be fully up and running in 30 days. He's a liberal Democrat, so perhaps I hold him to a higher standard than that to which conservatives held Bush.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
And the Lefties said "it happened on his watch" - which means it starts today. Change, baby, let's see the change.
I think Obama takes the fall for what goes wrong after 30 days. I think that's reasonable. I would even add to that the fact that Obama at least shares responsibility for the first 30 days, since obviously Bush is not in a position to do anything. But, you ignored my question, Are you giving Obama the same grace period of 8 months that the righties gave Bush?
But, you ignored my question, Are you giving Obama the same grace period of 8 months that the righties gave Bush?
I didn't really agree with your point. I never blamed Clinton for 9/11; although I didn't blame Bush either. It's something that happened that could only have reasonably been stopped by Clinton killing Bin Laden when he had the chance; Bush had the chance later and also failed. Obama's "grace period" would depend on what happened and whether it was reasonable to be stopped.
The righties aid that 8 months into Bush's term, Clinton owned 9/11. In other words, Bush was not responsible for what happened during his term. At what point is Obama responsible? If there's an attack on American soil by September 11, 2009, is it Bush's fault? My view is that Obama is responsible for what transpires after 30 days in office. There is no excuse for him to be fully up and running in 30 days. He's a liberal Democrat, so perhaps I hold him to a higher standard than that to which conservatives held Bush.
You don't plan and execute an attack like 9/11 in 8 months, the Muslims were down in Florida learning how to fly a plane but not land it while GW Bush was down in Texas drinking Jack Daniels and playing baseball.
If the Muslims attack us this year on 9/11 I will blame GW Bush "unless" got that, "unless" unless the Messiah gang lowers security standards that Bush has in place, especially Wiretapping, a good President has to know what his enemy is talking about Clinton didn't and look what happened.
DEMOCRATS LOVE JESUS THEY WERE ALL PRAYING TODAY.
Tonight My Head Is Bowed In Sorrow
I Can't Keep The Tears From My Eyes
The Dingobats will Now Run The Country
And Trouble May Fall Down From The Skies
.................................................. ..............
Harry Boy Jan 20, 2009 A Day That Will Go Down In Infamy
__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)
In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself
I didn't really agree with your point. I never blamed Clinton for 9/11; although I didn't blame Bush either. It's something that happened that could only have reasonably been stopped by Clinton killing Bin Laden when he had the chance; Bush had the chance later and also failed. Obama's "grace period" would depend on what happened and whether it was reasonable to be stopped.
By the same token, 9/11 could have been stopped had Reagan not chosen to arm and train the Taliban, bin Laden's key allies. And, we go even further back. Had Truman chosen not to recognize Israel, perhaps 9/11 would have been prevented.
The righties aid that 8 months into Bush's term, Clinton owned 9/11. In other words, Bush was not responsible for what happened during his term. At what point is Obama responsible? If there's an attack on American soil by September 11, 2009, is it Bush's fault? My view is that Obama is responsible for what transpires after 30 days in office. There is no excuse for him to be fully up and running in 30 days. He's a liberal Democrat, so perhaps I hold him to a higher standard than that to which conservatives held Bush.
I think there's no excuse for Obama not to be ready right now.
Bush had to deal with a dysfunctional information service.
Supposedly the FBI and CIA were not in sync ... well who knows where the truth is there.
Obama has been better briefed than any President before him ... he should be ready now.
BTW ... I think he is ready ... because heads have rolled
over this issue, it's in their best interests that Obama is ready.
By the same token, 9/11 could have been stopped had Reagan not chosen to arm and train the Taliban, bin Laden's key allies. And, we go even further back. Had Truman chosen not to recognize Israel, perhaps 9/11 would have been prevented.
Blah, blah, blah, it was much more direct for Clinton.
To answer your question, Obama would bear a lot more responsibility given some similar attack as we as a country and government should take terrorism much more seriously now.
He became responsible at noon today, as Bush became responsible on the day of his inauguration.
Problems naturally have (and had) preceding events; the economy's course seems constrained to some non-ideal outcomes, for example. But he will be judged by an ability to make some progress under the proposals he seems focused on pushing early and with great vigor.
The effects of Bush's contributions are well documented, and his most ardent partisans continue to say that despite the ruinous results of Bush's actions, that each of his failures trace back to a democratic predecessor or a democratic congress.
These are not serious voices to be taken seriously.
A president is responsible from the day he takes office, for his choices and the effects they have.
At what points is Obama responsible?
Linear Mode
