Feb.26,1993 (5 WEEKS)....Sept.11,2001 (233 Days)

[underpants]

The first date is the date of the first WTC attack and the second is the date of the second.

Apparently their focus groups have told them that "233 days" sounds better than "8 MONTHS" so they are going with that.

But here are my questions:

Did you EVER hear one Clinton official try to blame Bush I's administration for the first attack at all?

Have you EVER read in the press linking Bush I to WTC1 or even mentioning the date of the first attack so you can do the math?

EVER?

BTW-Accroding to everything I have read there was almost NO transition meetings between BushI and the Clinton administrations. Poppa and his crowd were quite upset at losing.

[Richardo]

1. My point too, U.P.... 36 days vs 233 days

And answering your question: no Clinton admin official (not even Richard Clarke) tried to pin that on Poppy.

Who are the REAL adults?

[underpants]

2. Another thread?

Sorry if I stepped on it.

:shrug:

[Richardo]

4. No thread - I've been making that point off-line

I just liked seeing it from someone else...it's validating! :)

[underpants]

5. I validate parking too

:bounce:

[Richardo]

8. It's the 1993 Infiniti G20, my good man. Be sure not to bring GOPisEvil's

I'd miss my aftermarket cup-holder!

[underpants]

10. Uh...yeah.......

the detail guy says he needs to talk to you about something....


:bounce:

[RobertSeattle]

3. Good spin detection

I've noticed that lately - apparently they think "233" days sounds better than 8 months. But they use "8 months" when they want to do a "Clinton-blameshift" by referring to Clinton's 8 years.


Here's a spin: Bush Administration had over 5592 hours to stop 9/11 attacks!

[Gasolinedream]

6. This...

is magnificent.

Thanks!!

[mojo2004]

7. Did anyone blame Clinton though?

There were never any investigations or finger pointing that Clinton could have prevented the WTC bombing, so I am not sure it is a good analogy. I am not sure all this hindsight finger pointing is gonna help make this country safer. Right now all it is is a pissing contest to see who cared the most. There is little or no discussion on what we should be doing now and in the future to prevent this.

[underpants]

9. Then"ON HIS WATCH!" Now-"in his 8 years...."

The answer to your question is YES.

They continue to try to compare their record to his. BTW-67 Americans died at the hand of foreign terrorists (doesn't include OKC) in Clinton's 8 years.

[Toucano]

12. It's the size that matters

Had the towers fallen in 1993 and thousands of people been killed it would be a different matter. People would have been looking to assign blame.

I think the analogy works because it speaks to RESPONSIBILITY.

The Clinton administration never tried to shift responsibility to Bush-41.

Knowing what happened and who did what DOES matter for preventing attacks in the future. Condi says it's perfectly appropriate that there wasn't a principles meeting regarding terrorism.

Future administrations will have to learn from this whether there should be principles meetings or not. The investigation is a referendum on which process is more effective, so we have to understand what the processes were.

Bush-43 doesn't want to accept ANY responsibility for ANYTHING. They started blaming Clinton, and Clinton has to defend himself.

[TahitiNut]

15. The Bush/Cheney/Perle cabal is NOT guilty of benign neglect;

they're guilty of malicious neglect. We're now hearing their inner defense: "We cared."

The Nit-witted Narcissist has now said, on several recent occasions, "If I'd known what was coming I would've done everything in my power to prevent it."
:wtf:

This now puts them squarely in the cross-hairs. They're playing the very old (corporate) game of "plausible deniability." It is the very game that resulted in the enactment of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This repeated litany of "gee, we didn't know" is how, for many decades, corporate executives have been kept deliberately "sterile" with regards to the atrocities committed by their companies at their direction. Any and all record of their knowledge or direct involvement was eliminated and prevented. That's why the FCPA wrote into law the affirmative responsibility of those executives to have a system of controls that assured they were responsible for all acts on behalf of their corporations. It's a legal duty.

The Busholinis are using the same old robber baron playbook. That's why people in the FBI and CIA were blockaded. That's why they reduced funding. They knew it. They're guilty, at an absolute minimum, of deliberate and malicious neglect.

I have never worn tinfoil. I am not an alarmist. I've managed corporate internal audit functions for five years during my career. Of the above, I have no reasonable doubt. None whatsoever.

[TahitiNut]

11. Both WTC-1 and Waco occurred earlier in Clinton's administration.

Even more significantly, Waco was planned and staffed by Bush41 people, yet the reichbots continually froth at the mouth and blame Reno/Clinton. It's appalling hypocrisy, imho.

[underpants]

13. What's odd is that I have heard/read them blame Ruby Ridge on Clinton

On more than one occassion too.

Yes Waco was planned during BushI's administration. To be fair you can't blame the President for every single action of every fed employee "oh his watch"....at least you used to not be able to :eyes: or aren't again.

[TahitiNut]

14. Yes, I hve too. And that happened on Bush41's watch (1992).

This is obviously NOT the party of "responsibility" ... except in blaming others.