|
Post by peanutfan on Mar 17, 2009 14:18:58 GMT -5
Since I specifically requested foreign terror attacks, I don't count Timothy McVeigh. His actions were undeniably terrorist, but he was a domestic terrorist, which (correct me if I'm wrong here) I think would be much harder to detect and defend against.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 17, 2009 14:46:29 GMT -5
"And I am glad that we no longer have an administration that uses that kind of argument." ;D Also I thought they only accused Saddam of the WTC attack before the Iraq war. And they stopped using WMD's as an excuse after they coulnd't find any. Maybe he ran out of excuses so he just went back to the beginning of the list... In one of his last speeches as President, Bush did very loudly profess the threat Saddam was to us. While he didn't explicitly say "WMDs," it was enough to make me think he might be trying to argue it.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Mar 17, 2009 17:03:10 GMT -5
Astonishing.
The question is about the economy...and this arsehole can't answer it without either A) admitting that the Republican party under Bush was a dismal, utter failure...or B) voicing a lie so obvious that a deaf man could hear it at 400 yards...so he immediately starts yelling 9/11!!! 9/11!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Mar 17, 2009 17:53:07 GMT -5
Also I thought they only accused Saddam of the WTC attack before the Iraq war. And they stopped using WMD's as an excuse after they coulnd't find any. Maybe he ran out of excuses so he just went back to the beginning of the list... Fox News likely didn't spend too much time on how every single reason given for Iraq turned out to be a complete lie, so the pig-ignorant morons who think they're a reliable news source still think there were WMD's.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 17, 2009 19:31:08 GMT -5
"And I am glad that we no longer have an administration that uses that kind of argument."...
That was subtle: he looked like he wanted to openly contradict him.
Also, what these types of people are doing is not historical revisionism, which is a legitimate review of history in light of uncovered or new evidence after a cooldown period. It is purely political, and, as history stands now, it eventually will become a form of historical negationism, akin to denying the Holocaust.
|
|
|
Post by BenderBRodriguez on Mar 17, 2009 23:22:18 GMT -5
Well, they've conned a lot of people into believing it. People still believe Saddam was behind 9-11. People still believe we found WMDs in Iraq. People still believe Bush kept us safe (I guess 9-11 doesn't count). People still believe that we "won" in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. My "favorite" right now is the whole "Obama's recession" thing. You know, because of the whole four year cycle, Bush inherited his recession from Clinton. But wait! This recession is Obama's fault, even though it started before he took office! Same with the first WTC bombing. It happened roughly 20 days after Clinton took office, yet these assholes blame it on him without mentioning that 9/11 happened EIGHT MONTHS after Bush took office. These people need to be continually slapped upside the head nonstop.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 17, 2009 23:42:40 GMT -5
Same with the first WTC bombing. It happened roughly 20 days after Clinton took office, yet these assholes blame it on him without mentioning that 9/11 happened EIGHT MONTHS after Bush took office. These people need to be continually slapped upside the head nonstop. And 9-11 was something we were actively and aggressively warned about. It wasn't just about time, there was no excuse to be that uninformed.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Mar 18, 2009 7:02:38 GMT -5
Same with the first WTC bombing. It happened roughly 20 days after Clinton took office, yet these assholes blame it on him without mentioning that 9/11 happened EIGHT MONTHS after Bush took office. These people need to be continually slapped upside the head nonstop. And 9-11 was something we were actively and aggressively warned about. It wasn't just about time, there was no excuse to be that uninformed. August 7th, 2001. President Shrub briefed on CIA report titled "bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." At the end, tells the briefer "Ok, you've covered your ass" and goes on vacation in Texas. Should have been thrown out of office for that.
|
|
|
Post by szaleniec on Mar 18, 2009 12:01:41 GMT -5
I was under the impression that bin Laden's opinion of Saddam wasn't much higher than his opinion of the US. Oh, and how dare people say something that's self-evidently true to anyone who can read a calendar? Wanker.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Mar 18, 2009 22:12:30 GMT -5
Since I specifically requested foreign terror attacks, I don't count Timothy McVeigh. His actions were undeniably terrorist, but he was a domestic terrorist, which (correct me if I'm wrong here) I think would be much harder to detect and defend against. Eh, I was just tossing that out there as i've only heard of three or so of anything like it in the existance of the US on home soil...there's been a few foreign issues, but i blame that more on our "Fuck you" foreign policy
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Mar 19, 2009 17:19:15 GMT -5
I was under the impression that bin Laden's opinion of Saddam wasn't much higher than his opinion of the US. Oh, and how dare people say something that's self-evidently true to anyone who can read a calendar? Wanker. Bin Laden was no fan of Saddam. Saddam was the worst thing imaginable in Bin Laden's reality: a Muslim head of state who refused to rule according to Islamic law.
|
|