Thread: Ping

wow, he really said that, when it was electing a REPUBLICAN that got us attacked in the first place, he is about the stupidest red neck cousin fucker i have ever seen, a pretzel would not do well enough

Christ, do people still believe the words coming out of his mouth?

^No

Originally Posted by steven

wow, he really said that, when it was electing a REPUBLICAN that got us attacked in the first place, he is about the stupidest red neck cousin fucker i have ever seen, a pretzel would not do well enough

Yeah, because there was a Republican in office in 1993.

January 21, 1993 is when Clinton came into office. February 26, 1993 is when the World Trade Centers were bombed. He had one month and no warning from the previous administration, there was no memo titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US". (GW) Bush didn't cause the attacks, but he didn't do anything to stop them.

I realized that and even checked the dates to ensure the accuracy of my statement, somewhat misleading as it was.

I was pointing out the fact that it's flawed logic to say that the party of the leader is the sole reason for an attack.

Originally Posted by AlphaZero

I was pointing out the fact that it's flawed logic to say that the party of the leader is the sole reason for an attack.

By that rationale, it is flawed logic for the commander in chief to say that electing a democrat will lead to further attacks. I'd suggest that continued involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan will lead to future attacks regardless of the political alignment of the President. Anyone disagree with this?

Of course Bush is wrong. Both sides are using flawed logic.

And staying in Iraq and Afghanistan will bring more attacks. Leaving will too. Because nothing we do will be good enough for the extremists. They'll attack us no matter what we do.