The "New Republican" is responsible for 9/11

[jj]

Indirectly, of course.

Do we all recall when the New Republican attacked Bill Clinton, accusing him of trying to distract the country from their own deliberately engineered Starr chamber distraction, because he dared to launch some weapons at Osama?

What we will eventually realize is that, to the extent that a defensive side is ever responsible (in other words, NOTHING justifies the offensive side, binLaden in this case, no way, no how), the New Republicans are exactly to blame.

Unwittingly (onehopes) they gave their partner in extremist religion Osama the chance to survive and the opening to operate. After 'W' came to office, looking weak, they thought they could get away with it.

The result? Osama has been successful beyond imagination. He's destroyed an economy, caused extensive, intrusive loss of civil liberties, created laws that have yet to have begun to be abused, and managed to turn the USA on the path to becoming a totalitarian religious state like he, himself, evisioned.

And but for the lack of honesty that allowed the New Republicans to continue the Starr Chamber even after it failed to come up with a single, solitary bit of evidence, but for their use of their majority, and their campaignfunding threats to control their Senate members, and but for their attempt to commit coup via false color of law, we would have the WTC standing, an economy that was functioning, and we would not have lost civil liberties built into the Constitution.

I submit that it's time for Republicans to take back the Republican party.
(edited for typokinesis)

[Skeptic]

Of course, if the "New Republican" at the time had SUPPORTED Clinton attacking Bin Laden, you could just as equally say that they are "responsible" for 9/11 because it was "unjustified agression" that had finally pushed him over the edge into taking a direct act such as 9/11 against the US.

When you want to blame somebody for something, there's always a reason to be found...

[jj]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Of course, if the "New Republican" at the time had SUPPORTED Clinton attacking Bin Laden, you could just as equally say that they are "responsible" for 9/11 because it was "unjustified agression" that had finally pushed him over the edge into taking a direct act such as 9/11 against the US.

When you want to blame somebody for something, there's always a reason to be found...

Exactly, just as Kenneth Starr proved so clearly.

On the other hand, the fact that FIRST they attacked him for doing, and now for NOT doing, that's a different story, and your suggestion of contradiction is not germane.

The fact that they STOPPED the process by applying political pressure, and now portray people who want to STOP the process as "commie pinkos" or "unAmerican" is more to the point, and revealing of their blatant, overweening hypocracy.

[Baker]

Originally posted by jj

Anecdotes do not equate to evidence.

Evidence would be nice, but I haven't seen any credible evidence. When we see something like (no, this isn't your doing or your particular peeve, I think) that horrid homeopathy experiment, we get right into 'n rays'. :(

This is from a message you posted in the "An excellent link here regarding the myths of skepticism" thread to bad you don't take this same approach in your political views.

I don't see how they tried to stop the process by applying political pressure Clinton's aim was to try to kill Bin Laden.
As far as out side political presser stopping him from his task I see no proof to the claim.

[jj]

Originally posted by Baker


I don't see how they tried to stop the process by applying political pressure Clinton's aim was to try to kill Bin Laden.
As far as out side political presser stopping him from his task I see no proof to the claim.

Really?

If so, you have to account for the after-the-fact gloating.

If they didn't stop the process, what was the gloating about?

It proves a point either way, you know.

[Baker]

Originally posted by jj


Really?

If so, you have to account for the after-the-fact gloating.

If they didn't stop the process, what was the gloating about?

It proves a point either way, you know.

Can you explain the gloating I don’t know what this is in reference to?

[peptoabysmal]

When is the world going to place a fair amount of the blame on the people who actually committed the act?

[jj]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
When is the world going to place a fair amount of the blame on the people who actually committed the act?

Is there a reason you didn't acknowledge that I did exactly that? I quote:What we will eventually realize is that, to the extent that a defensive side is ever responsible (in other words, NOTHING justifies the offensive side, binLaden in this case, no way, no how), the New Republicans are exactly to blame.

Happier?

[jj]

bump

[Cain]

Of course, if the "New Republican" at the time had SUPPORTED Clinton attacking Bin Laden, you could just as equally say that they are "responsible" for 9/11 because it was "unjustified agression" that had finally pushed him over the edge into taking a direct act such as 9/11 against the US.

Of course that's total nonsense. Osama Bin Laden had sorta kinda attacked two U.S. embassies.

Substantive and serious commentary against Clinton's heinous "counter"-measures -- destroying a pharmecutical factory that produced desperately needed medicines for a country in shambles -- came directly from those opposing Bush's most recent aggressions (i.e. war protestors).

Republicans and others didn't really mind how many innocents Clinton killed; they only opposed Clinton's actions because they came from Clinton. Remember, he was diverting precious attention from those all-important blowjobs.

Hypocrisy runs rampant. Eric Alterman in his new book _What Liberal Media_ makes a meaningful comparison to how Bush handled the spy plane that went down over China.

If either Clinton or Gore were in charge, Republicans would have surly accused them of failing to recover the plane. Remember how Bush said he was sorry twice, but later explained that he was "sorry" it happened? Well, that would have been your typical "slick willy" Clintonism coming from a Democrat. Even then, Bush didn't play really play a major role, but aides assured us he was involved, asking the probing questions that matter: "Do they have Bibles? Do they want Bibles? Can we get them Bibles?" Confirming he's a fundamentalist fitness freak, Bush wanted to know if they were exercising.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj
The result? Osama has been successful beyond imagination. He's destroyed an economy, caused extensive, intrusive loss of civil liberties, created laws that have yet to have begun to be abused, and managed to turn the USA on the path to becoming a totalitarian religious state like he, himself, evisioned. I was against the Clinton investigations. Though a registered Republican I am libertarian when it comes to social issues. I want very much for the party to become the "big tent" that it should be.

I think Osama was succesful but not to the extent that you think and certainly not for the express reasons that you cite. There is a ring of truth to what you say but the factors are complex and not as simple as the self serving propoganda that you offer.

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
I think Osama was succesful but not to the extent that you think and certainly not for the express reasons that you cite. There is a ring of truth to what you say but the factors are complex and not as simple as the self serving propoganda that you offer.

So, then, why was he successful? Why did the New Republicans support the usurpation of civil liberties? Why is there a ring of truth if it's "not for .."? (to some extent of course)

Why do you propose that I don't think this is a complex problem? Just like Baker, you seem determined to suggest that my position is opposite what I said?

Why is this self-serving propaganda? The New Republican has presented itself as the saviour of the nation, and that's not?

You make serious accusations.

Why don't you back them up?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Re: Re: The "New Republican" is responsible for 9/11

quote:



So, then, why was he successful?

What are you talking about? Osama did bomb embassies and such before Bush came into office.

Also how succesful is Osama really? The man's main goal was to get the US out of the middle east, that worked brilliantly :rolleyes:.


Why did the New Republicans support the usurpation of civil liberties?


There is hardly an usurption of civil rights, nothing to really interfere with your daily life or political expression.

True some things prohibited in the constitution were changed though, but the constitution is not absolute. That is an 18th century document made by an 18th century society. We are a 21st century society, and it is necessary for us to change policy in order to survive and prosper.



Why is this self-serving propaganda? The New Republican has presented itself as the saviour of the nation, and that's not?

Every political party, new and old does this. It's not right but it's not a terrible wrong either. Many republicans blame democrats for everything bad that ever happened in america. Many democrats do the same thing. Liberals/conservatives ditto. This isn't something new.

[American]

1) Bubba should have behaved.

2) A real leader would not defend himself at all, or spin anything whatsoever. He would ignore the alienation and get on with the tasks at hand. He cared more about his image, of course.


But your logic is sound. Then you could say that their parents are responsible for having them, their hair dressers are responsible for making them look good, their janitors are responsible for giving aide.... Where does it end? With the man in charge. Nobody else is held accountable but him.

[jj]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

What are you talking about? Osama did bomb embassies and such before Bush came into office.

Also how succesful is Osama really? The man's main goal was to get the US out of the middle east, that worked brilliantly :rolleyes:.

Really? I guess you can only see the short term effects. He did just what he would have wished for short of having the entire USA vanish overnight, he set the USA very far and well on the path to a Taliban-Like state. The way that dissenters have been treated publically and on this board is concrete proof. It's ironic that the McCarthy papers just came out, because they're probably going to serve as nothing more than a "how to" for the New Republicans anti-freedom-of-speech campaign.

There is hardly an usurption of civil rights, nothing to really interfere with your daily life or political expression.

Really? I can be stopped at the border for purely political language, that's what it says in the homeland security act, well, that among other things. That's a very serious, major change, something that McCarthy never actually achieved to that extent. I must note that nobody has, yet, tried to use that power, perhaps because it's wise to lie in wait a while until people get accustomed to living without freedom before squeezing down farther.
True some things prohibited in the constitution were changed though, but the constitution is not absolute. That is an 18th century document made by an 18th century society. We are a 21st century society, and it is necessary for us to change policy in order to survive and prosper.


Then you don't support the bill of rights? You're willing to give it up?




Every political party, new and old does this. It's not right but it's not a terrible wrong either. Many republicans blame democrats for everything bad that ever happened in america. Many democrats do the same thing. Liberals/conservatives ditto. This isn't something new.

It's wrong whoever does it, and it's a terrible, divisive wrong.

[jj]

Originally posted by American
1) Bubba should have behaved.
Or caught something in his zipperl

2) A real leader would not defend himself at all, or spin anything whatsoever. He would ignore the alienation and get on with the tasks at hand. He cared more about his image, of course.

Indeed, as any politician must do these days. It's no longer the facts that matter, it's the spin. That's what I dislike so much about the new republicans.


But your logic is sound. Then you could say that their parents are responsible for having them, their hair dressers are responsible for making them look good, their janitors are responsible for giving aide.... Where does it end? With the man in charge. Nobody else is held accountable but him.
Sorry, no, you're trying to ski down a slippery slope that I didn't set up.

[crackmonkey]

I utterly reject the premise of this thread. Some Republicans did accuse Clinton of 'wagging the dog', some did not. Some Democrats did, some did not. Some citizens did, others did not. There was never a unified Republican resolution to consider Clinton's bombing as distraction.
In fact, many Republicans criticized Clinton for not going further against bin Laden. Many criticized Clinton for launching a few missiles and then forgetting about bin Laden.
You seem to be implying that Clinton didn't take further action against bin Laden due to Republican accusations about dog-wagging...
you seriously think that the Republicans set Clinton's foreign policy? Is it really that easy? Clinton wouldn't dare to go against the wishes of the Republicans? Wow.