Welcome to PatsFans.com

Bush Blamed More Than Clinton for Failure to Capture Bin Laden

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Sep 27, 2006.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,093
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +270 / 11 / -11

    Most Americans aren't fooled by the right wing propaganda machine, at least when it comes to who is more responsible for the failure to catch bin Laden.

    http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24733

    "According to a recent Gallup Panel survey, the American public puts the primary blame on Bush rather than Clinton for the fact that bin Laden has not been captured. A majority of Americans say Bush is more to blame (53%), compared with 36% blaming Clinton."

    If you take partisanship out of the question, and just go with independents, Clinton also holds a sizable advantage:

    "Clinton's strong advantage among the general public on this question comes more from the fact that political independents are closer to the Democratic side in their attitudes, with a solid majority blaming Bush more than Clinton (58% vs. 31%)."
     
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,633
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +516 / 13 / -12

    #24 Jersey

    Now I would agree with that. No doubt.

    However if the question were "who should be blamed more that Bin Laden wasn't captured before 9/11/01" then my answer undoubtedly would be Billy Boy.
     
  3. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Amen to that. And I think it is very telling that he went into a purple faced tirade when confronted with the truth. I guess the truth hurts even ex-presidents who were more interested in receiving fellatio than in protecting and defending the United States from all threats, foreign and domestic.
     
  4. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,154
    Likes Received:
    224
    Ratings:
    +539 / 6 / -2

    People are funny. Instead of trying to figure out what we're going to do as a nation to combat the threat of global terrorism, these stupid azz politicians, and there mentally challenged followers, are arguing who's done a shiittier job. How about this, everyone sucked prior to 9/11.
     
  5. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,093
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +270 / 11 / -11

    Actually, Clinton said nothing about it until the other day. I guess he just got tired of all the attempts -- by Bush apologists, ABC, Fox, etc. -- to rewrite history. Perhaps the righties should follow your advice and stop trying to blame Clinton for everything that goes wrong during Bush's presidency. I'm not saying that you do that, but you well know that a number of people in this forum do that on a regular basis. Your comment probably would have come across as more sincere had you made it anytime before Clinton spoke up. Right now, it smacks of political convenience.

    I also think that Clinton commented as a means of keeping the Iraq war and bin Laden as central election issues. They're important issues for rallying the liberal Democrats even when on other issues the Democrats are mostly taking the middle ground.
     
  6. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,633
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +516 / 13 / -12

    #24 Jersey

    Bullsh!t, Patters. If the (D)s can blame Bush for not doing something in 8 months, the (R)s can certainly blame Clinton for not doing something in 8 years. Now, the time since 9/11/01 is a different issue. But if Bush f*cked up before that then Clinton did even more.
     
  7. Hawg 73

    Hawg 73 On the Roster

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    8 months. It's been 6 years!!!He hasn't done a damn thing in 6 years!
     
  8. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,154
    Likes Received:
    224
    Ratings:
    +539 / 6 / -2

    Personally speaking, I think Clinton dropped the ball with respect to Al-Queda and UBL. I'm not sure anyone really saw it coming, 9/11 that is, but in hindsight, remember it's hindsight, he was in control when we were attacked repeatedly throughout the 90's, and therefore he hould have understood the sincerity of the threat. Just my 2 cents. As for GW, although he was only on the job for 8 months, he does deserve blame. Ultimately, it is his, and his administrations responsibility, to do their due dilligence when assuming control. I don't think pointing figures toward the past serves any purpose. It doesn't change what happened. Thankfully messures have been taken to assure that information is properly shared amongst the intell agencies that serve to protect our nation. Had those messures been in place prior, who knows what would have happened, or not happened.

    As long as you admit that it is both sides who are politicizing this crap. Shameful to them both. Reinforces my belief that party politics is aweful. Each side lies, or twists the truth to fit there agenda.
     
  9. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,633
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +516 / 13 / -12

    #24 Jersey

    Read the f*cking thread. I have said that I agree Bush has f*cked up since 9/11/01. The issue is Clinton's BS about Clinton doing everything he could and that Bush did nothing BEFORE 9/11/01.

    8 months vs. 8 years, Clinton.

    Now, in the time since, I have blamed Bush including in this thread.
     
  10. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,154
    Likes Received:
    224
    Ratings:
    +539 / 6 / -2

    I think that's a little inaccurate. We've been zapping Al-Queda leaders and members all over the world. We just thwarted a terror attack that was designed to blow up 10 passenger planes, or about 4,000 people. I remember it distinctly cuz I was in Europe when it happened. I think that is progress.
     
  11. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,093
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +270 / 11 / -11

    What steps did Bush take to combat Al Qaeda during his first 8 months? That kind of terrorism was not listed among his priorities.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40697-2004Mar31?language=printer

    "After his first meeting with NATO heads of state in Brussels in June 2001, Bush outlined the five top defense issues discussed with the closest U.S. allies. Missile defense was at the top of the list, followed by developing a NATO relationship with Russia, working in common purpose with Europe, increased defense spending in NATO countries, and enlarging the alliance to include former East European countries. The only reference to extremists was in Macedonia, where Bush said regional forces were seeking to subvert a new democracy."

    As Clinton acknowledged, he tried and failed to get bin Laden. That of course is no excuse since a President, like it or not, is measured by a lot of things out of his control.

    But the real issue is that righties are now saying Clinton did not do enough, but when he did stuff, they accused him of wagging the dog, and meanwhile the righties are not accusing Bush of not doing enough prior to 9/11. If the righties were so prescient, why didn't they demand Bush go after Al Qaeda immediately upon taking office?
     
  12. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,633
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +516 / 13 / -12

    #24 Jersey

    Blah, blah, blah. Democrats keep saying "9/11 happened on Bush's watch". Fine. It did. In that case the failure to get Bin Laden for 8 years happened on Clinton's watch. You say he tried, I say he didn't try very hard.

    Has Bush screwed up by going light since 9/11/01 ? Yes. But the issue of the day is what Clinton did or didn't do and he screwed up for 8 years just as badly as Bush has for 6.
     
  13. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,884
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +242 / 8 / -13


    Since you apparently haven't been following the GWOT here is a link documenting the guys we have captured killed.

    http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/terroristscorecard/index.html

    I would also point out the lack of attacks on America since the US went on the offensive after 9-11.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>