The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[The Juan Percenter]

Not at all, he was making a comparison, and I pointed out that I thought it was flawed.

Hab

How is it flawed. Both were attacks by Bin Laden on US interests.

[Spidey-Man]

Not at all, he was making a comparison, and I pointed out that I thought it was flawed.

Hab

A comparison to say our guard was not up then either.

He wasn't talking civilians/not civilians.

[habitual]

How is it flawed. Both were attacks by Bin Laden on US interests.

Scale. The main reason that I brought up Oklahoma City was due to the fact that it is the only recent attack that's had the same impact domestically in the U.S.. The U.S.S. Cole and the first attack on the World Trade Center where barely blips on the radar in comparison.

I agree, in hindsight, that a larger push should have been made prior to 9/11 to go after Bin Laden, but, in no way do I think it's a fair statement that the Clinton administration has handled the situation anywhere near as poorly as the Bush administration.

Hab

[The Juan Percenter]

I agree, in hindsight, that a larger push should have been made prior to 9/11 to go after Bin Laden, but, in no way do I think it's a fair statement that the Clinton administration has handled the situation anywhere near as poorly as the Bush administration.

Hab

9/11 was planned during Clinton's second term. The USS Cole was conducted in Clinton's second term. Clinton's lack of response to the Cole could have very well emboldened OBL. Clinton's dismantling of the defense budget was probably another factor. Bush just happened to be president when the attack happened. How do you give Clinton a pass on this? Is it because there is a (D) by his name? I'm not absolving Bush of any blame, BTW.

[habitual]

9/11 was planned during Clinton's second term. The USS Cole was conducted in Clinton's second term. Clinton's lack of response to the Cole could have very well emboldened OBL. Clinton's dismantling of the defense budget was probably another factor. Bush just happened to be president when the attack happened. How do you give Clinton a pass on this? Is it because there is a (D) by his name? I'm not absolving Bush of any blame, BTW.

Because there is a big difference between failing to stop someone from planning something and responding to an actual attack. I'm not saying that Bush could have done any more than Clinton could have to stop the planning of the event but it's that exact reasoning that I think it's a poor comparison, even more so in light of the conjecture you propose in the above quote.

Hab

[The Juan Percenter]

Because there is a big difference between failing to stop someone from planning something and responding to an actual attack.

Both of which Clinton failed at - 2 times in the attack dept.

[habitual]

Both of which Clinton failed at - 2 times in the attack dept.

If they were comparable you could have a point if it weren't a straw man argument to begin with.

Hab

[The Juan Percenter]

If they were comparable you could have a point if it weren't a straw man argument to begin with.

Hab

They were all terrorist attacks, they were all against US interests, they all could have been stopped with good intelligence. There is no straw man here, other than undying devotion to Clinton.

[habitual]

They were all terrorist attacks, they were all against US interests, they all could have been stopped with good intelligence. There is no straw man here, other than undying devotion to Clinton.

Except that I didn't bring up Clinton. Clinton has nothing to do with the reason why gas prices are so high. It just seems to be something that conservatives retreat towards when confronted with how the current administration has failed to deal with the threat of Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden since 9/11, hence why it's a straw man.

Hab

[The Juan Percenter]

Except that I didn't bring up Clinton. Clinton has nothing to do with the reason why gas prices are so high.

And the current president does???? If you want to blame any government body, blame Congress

It just seems to be something that conservatives retreat towards when confronted with how the current administration has failed to deal with the threat of Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden since 9/11.

Hab

It's a valid argument since 9/11 was planned during Clinton's watch, the first Bin Laden attack happened under Clinton's watch, and we had no response to Cole.

[habitual]

It's a valid argument since 9/11 was planned during Clinton's watch, the first Bin Laden attack happened under Clinton's watch, and we had no response to Cole.

It's not a valid argument at all. Like I said there is no comparison between a President preventing someone from planning an attack and a President responding to an attack that has already taken place. That's exactly where the comparison, which is definitely a straw man argument, fails.

Hab

[The Juan Percenter]

It's not a valid argument at all. Like I said there is no comparison between a President preventing someone from planning an attack and a President responding to an attack that has already taken place. That's exactly where the comparison, which is definitely a straw man argument, fails.

Hab

Okay - then Clinton's response to Cole (ie do nothing) was worse than Bush's response to 911 (invade Afghanistan)

If you want to see an argument fail, then look to Bush and high gas prices comparisons.

[habitual]

Okay - then Clinton's response to Cole (ie do nothing) was worse than Bush's response to 911 (invade Afghanistan)

If you want to see an argument fail, then look to Bush and high gas prices comparisons.

Your first statement is a comparison (again) that's flawed.

Your second statement I'm in complete agreement with with the caveat that Bush's response to high Oil Prices is exactly like Clinton's response to the Cole attack.

Hab

[The Juan Percenter]

Your second statement I'm in complete agreement with with the caveat that Bush's response to high Oil Prices is exactly like Clinton's response to the Cole attack.

Hab

Bush can't do anything about high oil prices - it's market based not government based. Clinton could have done something about Cole if he had enough intelligence assets.

[kingbobb]

9/11 was planned during Clinton's second term. The USS Cole was conducted in Clinton's second term. Clinton's lack of response to the Cole could have very well emboldened OBL. Clinton's dismantling of the defense budget was probably another factor. Bush just happened to be president when the attack happened. How do you give Clinton a pass on this? Is it because there is a (D) by his name? I'm not absolving Bush of any blame, BTW.

What response should Clinton have ordered following the Cole attack? Or the first WTC attack? The WTC bombing by accounts at the time was conducted by a pretty small group with large, specific financing that was not connected to any government. The cole attack, attributed to Al Qaeda, which at that time had declared war on us, at least internally, was very limited in scope. What response should have been approriate then? Should we have invaded Afghanistan in late 2000 for the attack on a single US ship before we had a clear idea of who had attacked us? Clinton only had 3 months left in office after the Cole attack, and there are reports that Clinton left a prett large amount of information for Bush about who was responsible for the Cole attack, and where to start looking for him.

Bush, taking office nearly 3 moths to the day after the Cole bombing, by most reports disregarded it because it targeted Bin Laden, not Hussein.

Clinton didn't fail to respond. He didn't have any solid evidence, nor did he feel that he had the justification, to engage in any kind of overt response because the people responsible were in hiding. After 9/11, we knew that the Taliban were letting Al Qaeda use their territory to train and recruit terrorists. The Taliban refused to allow the US to enter their soverign land and conduct retaliatory action, so we had no choice but to invade Aghanistan...but that justification to violate the soverign borders of another country was not presented after the WTC bombing or the Cole attack.

It was Bush, then, not anyone named Clinton, that decided to use recently awarded special powers to launch an offensive against Iraq...a country which at the time and to this day continues to have no ties to Al Qaeda other than those generated by our invasion.