Yet Republcians blame the first WTC attack on Clinton who was less then 6 weeks into his first term. USS Cole also was in the last month of his term. Could you image the feedback by Republicans in 2000, if Clinton would have acted with the Cole, while all that election mess in Florida was going on. 8 months is not a long time, but they like the adminstration before them had their faults with this, no doubt about it.

 

Take care when you generalize about an entire political party, when you probably mean "right wingers". Perhaps the party leaders did point the finger of blame at Clinton (an unproven, politically motivated and kneejerk accusation same as blaming Bush for 9/11) which is what the nation sees on the news, but not generally the case imo. I personally know a LOT of Republicans and have never heard any of them even mention blaming Clinton for the 93 WTC attack.

Take care when you generalize about an entire political party, when you probably mean "right wingers". Perhaps the party leaders did point the finger of blame at Clinton (an unproven, politically motivated and kneejerk accusation same as blaming Bush for 9/11) which is what the nation sees on the news, but not generally the case imo. I personally know a LOT of Republicans and have never heard any of them even mention blaming Clinton for the 93 WTC attack.

Have you asked any of them? How often does the 93 attack come up???

And the merry-go-round is still spinning...

 

Been spinning for about 8 months now, which is really not enough time to get it to stop if you think about it.

Have you asked any of them? How often does the 93 attack come up???

 

Yes it has come up and the discussion has NEVER drifted toward blaming anybody other than the terrorists, who it just so happens are the same ones to blame for 9/11.

Exactly. The "Democrat Playbook" reference implies otherwise.

 

No it does not. Having a "Democratic playbook" (or "Republican playbook") implies that politicians have standard responses to events and issues that they use over and over again because they think it will play with their constituency. Maintaining that a "playbook" does not exist for either party implies that there is no consistency to a political party's rhetoric. Even a short study of politics would reveal that Democrats consistently respond to certain issues in certain ways as do Republicans. A lone Democrat or lone Republican going his own way doesn't mean that a playbook doesn't exist any more than it means a football team doesn't have a playbook if the QB turns the wrong way and decides to keep the ball himself.

 

Obviously, my little extract from the "Democratic Playbook" was sarcastic but there's enough truth in it to sting.

 

I don't know that they were necessarily "charges" ... but if they are, you're certainly entitled to try and debunk them.

 

That's not the way it's supposed to work. There should be substantial evidence of serious moral or legal wrong doing before one levies such a serious charge. Given that the charges are totally baseless, there is no need to debunk them other than point out the recklessness of making baseless accusations.

Have you asked any of them? How often does the 93 attack come up???

 

I don't ever recall anyone blaming Clinton for not preventing the 93 attack. I have heard people criticizing Clinton for failing to respond to the 93 attack appropriately.

I was responding to a previous post that said he did respond because of the feedback he would have received from the Republicans. Which to me is a bad reason the thing I don't get is the election was 3 weeks after the attack, why didn't he respond within that period?

As LC99 stated, it's always been my understanding that the investigation into the Cole attack and who was responsible for it wasn't completed until after the election, by which time we were mired in the Florida mess.

 

I wonder, too ... had Clinton responded to the Cole attack, would he have been accused of doing so for political reasons, perhaps even trying to influence the election? I think he would have, at least by those on the right who were all too willing to attribute sinister motives to anything he did.

For the record I am no Clinton fan but I don't think 9/11 was his fault. Could he have done things differently? probably so but Bush could have also and I feel certain that if either would have know what was going to happen they would have done anything necessary to stop it.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

Until 9/11, the idea that such a catastrophic terrorist attack would happen in our country was almost unthinkable. It was a wake-up call for us all, and it's much easier to see what should have been done with the benefit of hindsight.

I don't ever recall anyone blaming Clinton for not preventing the 93 attack. I have heard people criticizing Clinton for failing to respond to the 93 attack appropriately.

I have read some right-wingers blaming Clinton for the 1993 bombing ... not on this board, but a similar one.

 

To me, the logic is simple ... if Clinton is responsible for the WTC bombing, then Bush is responsible for 9/11. Those making the accusation can't have it both ways.

 

For the record, I believe neither premise is true.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the response to the 1993 bombing was handled approriately ... the perpetrators were arrested, prosecuted and convicted under the laws of the land. Any criticism of that as being "not enough" is made with the benefit of hindsight.

 

I don't know that we knew there was a bin Laden connection in 1993 ... even a couple of years later, I don't think we had officially linked him to any attacks against the USA.

And the merry-go-round is still spinning...

 

So you noticed that to huh...

I've just read about half this thread..

Tuning it out doesn't change the facts of Democratic behavior.

 

Agreed :thumb:

It sounds like both sides have things in this report to spin their own way. One thing I wonder about, is this the same group that provided the information on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/27/iraq.poll/index.html

 

More fuel for the fire.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/27/iraq.poll/index.html

 

More fuel for the fire.

 

 

Interesting. This will certainly add to the debate about whether U.S. forces should be pulled out of Iraq. One thing's for sure: we can't leave until Saddam is "handled".

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/27/iraq.poll/index.html

 

More fuel for the fire.

 

In an article on the Yahoo home page its' reported that 6 of 10 Iraqis think that it is OK to fire on U S led troops. Maybe that's why the right says they want us there.

Iraq would make a nice parking lot.