Bush White House Was Deaf to 9-11 Warnings.

[Adam W]

That's actually not worse.

Not at all, but BT is very into the false equivalency thing.

Nothing "false" about it.  That article and your version ... are typically one sided.  The truth is... the "blame" for this attack falls excusively on obl and his minions.  I suppose if you insist on blaming Bush for 9-11 you can also go ahead and blame FDR for Pearl Harbor as there were plenty of indications that was going to happen also.

I don't think we know yet (and may never, ever know completely) what the Bush administration knew in advance of 9/11. I think it's charitable to assume they knew something and either discounted it or underestimated it. In hindsight it would appear they were, at the very least, negligent.

I would say it's a false analogy because failing to assassinate a military commander in the field is different than failing to prevent the massacre of US civilians on US soil (assuming you knew about it in advance and didn't do anything).

So it's not the same. But that doesn't mean Clinton didn't drop the ball.

[ben says]

Long story short, it's just not a partisan issue, as much as we want to make it one. 9/11 was blowback from American foreign policy, which has been in perpetuation for decades by both parties...some sort of 9/11 would have happened at some point regardless of whether Clinton or Bush killed OBL.

[Adam W]

Long story short, it's just not a partisan issue, as much as we want to make it one. 9/11 was blowback from American foreign policy, which has been in perpetuation for decades by both parties...some sort of 9/11 would have happened at some point regardless of whether Clinton or Bush killed OBL.

True. We have Carter (and Reagan) to blame. And if we didn't end up with OBL and Al Qaeda, we'd eventually end up with something else equally bad at some point. We spent a lot of time and money destabilising the region - and it goes back to the end of WWII.

We're still dealing with Iran and that really has to do with us overthrowing their democratically-elected Prime Minister. You reap what you sow.

If we don't like all the Islamist groups in the middle east, we really have only ourselves to blame - we spent decade undermining and destroying all the leftist, secular groups. The Islamists arose in the resulting vacuum.

[ben says]

^ Yes!! Exactly!!

The preeminent scholar on Blowback theory, Chalmers Johnson (now dead)...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson#The_Blowback_series

We've been breeding anti-Americans and terrorists for the past 100 years.....and we wonder why they hate us!?!

[Adam W]

^ Yes!! Exactly!!

The preeminent scholar on Blowback theory, Chalmers Johnson (now dead)...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson#The_Blowback_series

We've been breeding anti-Americans and terrorists for the past 100 years.....and we wonder why they hate us!?!

They hate us for our freedom.

[Adam W]

^ Yes!! Exactly!!

The preeminent scholar on Blowback theory, Chalmers Johnson (now dead)...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson#The_Blowback_series

We've been breeding anti-Americans and terrorists for the past 100 years.....and we wonder why they hate us!?!

Thanks for that link. I am going to look those books up and see if I can get them for my Kindle.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Long story short, it's just not a partisan issue, as much as we want to make it one. 9/11 was blowback from American foreign policy, which has been in perpetuation for decades by both parties...some sort of 9/11 would have happened at some point regardless of whether Clinton or Bush killed OBL.

This sounds like a Ron Paul quote.

[ben says]

^ Yes!! Exactly!!

The preeminent scholar on Blowback theory, Chalmers Johnson (now dead)...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson#The_Blowback_series

We've been breeding anti-Americans and terrorists for the past 100 years.....and we wonder why they hate us!?!

Thanks for that link. I am going to look those books up and see if I can get them for my Kindle.

They're on Kindle. Three of the most important books I've ever read. Read them in order...they build on each other.

First one: http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Edition-Consequences-ebook/dp/B003JH8MAG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1347456354&sr=8-2&keywords=chalmers+johnson+kindle

[ben says]

Long story short, it's just not a partisan issue, as much as we want to make it one. 9/11 was blowback from American foreign policy, which has been in perpetuation for decades by both parties...some sort of 9/11 would have happened at some point regardless of whether Clinton or Bush killed OBL.

This sounds like a Ron Paul quote.

The idea of blowback predates Paul's comment by over 50 years...(originally a CIA idea)

[ben says]

I'd also recommend (After reading the Blowback series, of course): http://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-ebook/dp/B000Q67L00/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1347456580&sr=8-2&keywords=overthrow+america%27s+century+of+regime+change+from+hawaii+to+iraq

[BridgeTroll]

That's actually not worse.

Not at all, but BT is very into the false equivalency thing.

Nothing "false" about it.  That article and your version ... are typically one sided.  The truth is... the "blame" for this attack falls excursively on obl and his minions.  I suppose if you insist on blaming Bush for 9-11 you can also go ahead and blame FDR for Pearl Harbor as there were plenty of indications that was going to happen also.

yes.  it was a completely false equivalency, Bridge, which you are indeed very into.  As long as something is covered by the blood of jesus (in your case, a democrat was somehow in a sentence using some of the same words) then that seems to vindicate the republican being discussed.

Bush ignored the intellgence and took a lot of vacations.  He just wasnt concerned about it, and up to that moment was one of the least popular presidents in our history (and the only one to be booed and have his motorcade egged as he drove to the white house) as a result of his fraudulent supreme court selection to the presidency.

I take no issue with your distortion regarding Bush"ignoring and distorting".  But you cannot... in fairness... say that, while ignoring Mr Clinton's "ignores and distorts".  That said... I certainly realize that "fairness" while discussing history is not your preferred method.  Partisan revisionism is...

What is really sad... is the efforts by finehoe to take a day of victims remembrance... and turn it into a partisan finger pointing fest.  I wish I could say I was surprised...

[finehoe]

What is really sad... is the efforts by finehoe to take a day of victims remembrance... and turn it into a partisan finger pointing fest.  I wish I could say I was surprised...

Oh, please.  You know what you can do with your shallow moralizing.  I note that you were so concerned with showing your respect that you refrained from commenting as well.

[BridgeTroll]

What is really sad... is the efforts by finehoe to take a day of victims remembrance... and turn it into a partisan finger pointing fest.  I wish I could say I was surprised...

Oh, please.  You know what you can do with your shallow moralizing.  I note that you were so concerned with showing your respect that you refrained from commenting as well.

Right back atcha babe...

[ben says]

What is really sad... is the efforts by finehoe to take a day of victims remembrance... and turn it into a partisan finger pointing fest.  I wish I could say I was surprised...

Are you serious? I highly doubt finehoe was "taking" anything "away" from any victims...let's not be melodramatic.

Let's not forget there are more victims than just those that died on 9/11, both past and present. Let's not get tunnel vision. We've have one tragedy of this magnitude over the past decade and a half...what about the people who experience tragedy everyday?

Continue on, finehoe!

[ben says]

So, the president who was in office when America was attacked, who had been handed warning specifically about the kind of attack which actually took place, by the individual named in the warning gets criticized.

You helpfully try and make some belabored point about how a previous president of a different party was actually responsible for this gross negligence, and you think finehoe is being partisan?

Maybe you should back that projector up there, Bridge Troll.

Agree.

BT, by your own logic, if Clinton is "more responsible" than Bush, than Bush I was more responsible than Clinton, and Reagan was more responsible than Bush I, and Carter was more responsible than Reagan...you see where this leads? Nowhere.....