Another attack?

[Hotwire]

I think it would depend on wether or not the next persident got a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The United States" like Bush did.

 

[maxwell's demon]

And you're dodging the question.

i've dodged nothing. you've simply not been able to deal with the answers i've already given. The sooner you realize not everything can be answered with a yes or a no, a black or a white, the better you'll be.

good luck, my man. good luck.


but if you absolutely need an answer, fine. here's an answer:

give to Bush the blame that is Bush's, give to future-democrat the blame that is the future-democrats.

 

[SpiderJerus]

I see. So asking you to be courteous on a public message board system is asking you to be my parent or to be patronizing to me?

What grade are you in anyway? I assume you're a child with that kind of attitude.

And while being courteous isn't a requirement of this board, NOT insulting people is. You may want to keep that in mind.

Yes sir. Thank you for educating this unruly newb, sir. Save your tears. It doesn't take someone floating around these boards long to figure out that you're full of it, lazur. Just because you extend me courtesy hardly means I'm to act like I don't know the purpose of this thread and your "I know the Dems are gonna blame Bush" sillyness.

 

[lazur]

i've dodged nothing. you've simply not been able to deal with the answers i've already given. The sooner you realize not everything can be answered with a yes or a no, a black or a white, the better you'll be.

good luck, my man. good luck.


but if you absolutely need an answer, fine. here's an answer:

give to Bush the blame that is Bush's, give to future-democrat the blame that is the future-democrats.

Well, that's a neutral way to say it, I guess. But answer this one question: Do you give Clinton ANY fault at all for 9/11 or do you blame it all on Bush?

 

[lazur]

Yes sir. Thank you for educating this unruly newb, sir. Save your tears. It doesn't take someone floating around these boards long to figure out that you're full of it, lazur. Just because you extend me courtesy hardly means I'm to act like I don't know the purpose of this thread and your "I know the Dems are gonna blame Bush" sillyness.

Full of it? How so? Care to elaborate on that opinion of yours? What, because I ask people to be FAIR about their criticism of ALL politicians, I'm "full of it"?

And I never said "Dems are gonna blame Bush" (incidentally, if you're going to use quotes, be sure it's something someone actuall said, eh?) - what I ASKED was a question.

But tell me, now that we're on the subject. Who will you blame if another 9/11 happens on a democratic President's watch - the current President or Bush? Hmm?

 

[maxwell's demon]

Well, that's a neutral way to say it, I guess. But answer this one question: Do you give Clinton ANY fault at all for 9/11 or do you blame it all on Bush?

I gave to Clinton the fault which was Clinton's, I gave to Bush the fault which was Bush's.

 

[HellOnEarth]

We are going to be attacked under the new president. It's a given.

 

[bored]

So ... assuming that a democrat takes office after Bush, and that we're attacked again (9/11 style) under the new President, my question is ... would you blame the current, sitting President at the time, the way democrats now blame Bush because it happened "during his (or her) watch", or would democrats blame former President Bush, the way republicans now blame former President Clinton (and for similar reasons) for "letting Osama get away" and because 9/11 was being planned during Clinton's Presidency?

I ask because I will refer back to this post when another President is elected, particularly if a democrat, and if we're attacked again not under Bush, but under the new President (god forbid).

Well, yeah. Happens under his watch, then it doesn't matter what party he ran with. It still happened under his watch. I'd kind of prefer that it just didn't happen, though.