Staredit Network

Sorry but i had to do this :

The Clinton administration didn't have time to do anything about it.
Clinton was going to be impeached, he was tried but in the end he wasn't. The whole thing was also about him lying about his sex life ., so I don't think that's relevant.

Thanks for repeating what I said.

mmm Clinton had plenty of time..... He sent 2 cruise missiles, both missed, one hit an asprine factory and other hit an abandoned camp.....

Clinton had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush had plenty of time, if your storys are correct. You say he was tipped off. Why didn't he do anything about it? Did he think that the towers were indestructible?

Hey Im not the presidents, I don't know what they were thinking but the facts say this, both Clinton AND Bush had time to prevent 9/11 and for one reason or another both didn't do anything/enough....

What the hell?

Clinton didn't have blam to do with 9/11. It was all the Bush Administrations perogative to stop the threat.

What are you talking about!?! Clinton's administration/intelligence discovered Al Quada's plan and were tipped off. Clinton did zero to stop Bin Ladon, but when Bush was elected Clinton's administration told him about Bin Ladon, then 9/11 happened. Both presidents knew about Al Quada's plan, both didn't do anything to stop it.

Nope. Clinton shouldn't be blamed for letting the first World Trade Center attacks go nearly unanswered?

Someone's a partisan.

Old boss: Since I'm gonna retire and since you're the new boss now, make sure you feed the fish, ok?

New boss: No problem, "boss". lol

Old boss: lol, gonna be kinda hard getting used to that.

New boss: where you moving?

Old boss: florida. Gonna take it easy, I've done my time.

New boss: well, don't worry about things here. I got it all covered.

Old boss: Gotcha. See ya later Frank.


(2 months later)


Old boss: Hey Frank, I was in town and I decided to stop on by, and...where's the fish?

New boss: They died.

Old boss: They what?


New boss: They died, some one was supposed to feed them.

Old boss: I told YOU to feed them.

New boss: You did?

Old boss: Ya.

New boss: No you didn't.

Old boss: Yes I did. I clearly remember saying that to you right before I left.

New boss: ......hmmmmmmmm....Oh ya, you did....Heh....my bad.

Feeding fish is a poor analogy.

A better analogy would be killing weeds.

Clinton had the opportunity to kill those weeds (after the first attacks on the World Trade Center). He didn't. He could have done so throughout his entire term (especially after the other attacks on American interests), but he didn't. Then, as he left office, he tells Bush, "You might want to kill those weeds".

Sorry, but ignoring Clinton because he's a Democrat is weak.

Blamming him because he was an isolationalist is weak.

You see, bush didn't have the ability to stop them when he was in office. I mean, the taliban's army was just too large for the entire US of A.

Blaming clinton is just down right retarded. It's not like it happened 2 weeks after Bush became president.

Wait a second here.

Clinton is allowed to ignore Al Qaeda, but Bush isn't? Google "partisan".

Give me a link for partisan. If I google it, I'll get a million diff sites.

Wait a second here.

Bush is allowed to share half the blame because clinton was busy doing other stuff? Osama was not a major threat at the time clinton was in office. Ask yourself these 2 simple questions.

WHEN did bush become president? And WHEN did the whole world trade center thing happen? No matter which way you want to swing it, it sure hell was more than enough time for any president.

Stop being dense.

Under Clinton, we were attacked several times (including at the WTC, which is often forgotten). What did he do? Next to nothing. He continued to do next to nothing throughout the 8 years of his term. Then, Bush was in office for about 7 months before the attacks, and you give him the blame! As I've been saying, you're being a partisan.

I'm a partisan, and you're not? Google the word hypocrite.

I don't give bush the blame on the attacks of clinton's. I give clinton those, simply because....bush wasn't president at the time.

I give bush the blame on the attacks of 9/11, simply because....bush WAS president at the time.

I don't like either guy! I'm putting your feet to the fire because you were (are) being outrageously unfair and biased.

Think about what you are saying. How retarded can that statement be?



You should be banned from the Serious Discussion Forum for saying that.

Clinton ignored Islamic terrorism (let alone Al Qaeda) for the entire 8 years of his term -- despite terrorist attacks such as the first World Trade Center bombing -- and he gets no blame for the Al Qaeda attacks just 7 months into Bush's term?

Leftists really need to get more creative.

Now you're attacking me personally? You've been here for weeks, I've been here for months. I don't want to even get into a personal argument, so I'll let that one slide.

Hey, I don't like either guy either. But I'm putting your feet into the fire, because you are being ourageously unfair. Look at some of these statements.



If you're gonna say it was clinton's fault too, you mind as well throw in almost every other president in the last hundred years. Cause they all would've done the same.

Clinton's chances of stopping 9/11 are about the same as bush, but it's not HIS fault for 9/11. Bush had 7 entire months to stop it. Although he might've done the same thing as clinton, doesn't mean it's clinton's fault for 9/11. If a kid steals out of the a cookie jar, then 7 months later, another kids steals out of it, it's not the 1st kid's for both incidents. Get the picture now? Don't let this be a stupid personal argument, seriously. There will be no resolve what so ever.

You are very poor at constructing analogies (cookie jars have no meaningful tie in with Al Qaeda).

A much better analogy would be the following:

A fireman sees a fire burning next to someone's house. He stands there for 8 minutes, watching it grow out of control. He then walks away. Another fireman walks up, and within seconds of arriving, the house bursts into flames. Alpha(MC) comes along, and blames the second fireman.

That analogy is perfect.

No it isn't. It wasn't even a fire when the 1st fire man was there. And the 2nd fireman had a lot more time than just a few seconds.

Wow, you create aweful analogies and then critique good ones.

First of all, there was a fire. We were attacked several times. Perhaps the people that dies in those weren't good enough for you?

Second, the time was scaled from the metaphorical fire to an actual fire. From 8 years to 8 minutes, from 7 months to a matter of seconds.

And you told ME to get off the serious discussion forum.

I mean, your self proclaimed analogies are a lot better than mine. What do I know? I mean, I'm new to the serious discussion forum. I never admit I'm wrong. I'm always right, and I'm completely dense. And I actually said bush had months to put out the fire instead of secs. When I could've actually said, he had about one to one and half minutes instead of just seconds. But I'm too stupid to imply such a thing.

You aren't convincing anybody with that nonsense.

Well, you sure convinced me.

Convinced me you're an arrogant wonderful friend. Seriously, do you actually look at both sides? Or just the one you're on?

How about you just come back a little later. When you grow up or something.