Republicans forgot Gingrich used "Plantation" before Hillary

I don't see you making that same argument when all those on the right defend Bush by saying "Clinton did it." You seem to have a glaring double standard.

Isn't what Clinton did years ago irrelevant and can't be used to justify Bush's actions today?

parados wrote:

I don't see you making that same argument when all those on the right defend Bush by saying "Clinton did it." You seem to have a glaring double standard.

While I agree that all comments on her comments are the mountains from molehills, this is still a nonsensical argument. "Clinton did it" is frequently a sound rebuttal, reason or even excuse for Bush depending on the context.

parados wrote:

Isn't what Clinton did years ago irrelevant and can't be used to justify Bush's actions today?

I'm not sure you could draw a more false conclusion. It could easily be argued that most of the biggest problems in the Bush presidency were inherited from his predecessor. It could certainly be argued some were, thereby making your assumption patently false.

That being said; I do think it absurd when people are offended on behalf of people who obviously weren't offended themselves... and it is kind of a strange thing to see that brand of PC finger pointing coming from the right. Think it through guys.

So then you think the argument that "Gingrich did it" is a good rebuttal? Why didn't you mention that in this post? This is the "Gingrich did it too" thread.

There is a pretty big difference between "Clinton CAUSED it" and "Clinton DID it too" If Clinton did it is not really a valid reason for Bush to do it.

Isn't what Clinton did years ago irrelevant and can't be used to justify Bush's actions today?

The statement below will remain patently false until you retract it. :wink:

parados wrote:

Isn't what Clinton did years ago irrelevant and can't be used to justify Bush's actions today?

No. Case closed.

Example 1. Since Clinton largely ignored Saddam at the end of his Presidency, Bush did too at the beginning of his. Presidents set precedents that take time to change.

Clinton Ignored 9/11 Warning

By Dick Morris
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 19, 2005

The recent publication of some once-censored parts of the 9/11 Commission report reveals that, in 1998, federal intelligence sources had shared their concern that al-Qaeda could be planning to use passenger airplanes as missiles on suicide raids against prominent targets in the United States. This is the first time we've heard that that the possibility of such a suicide mission was raised at the federal level during the Clinton years.

[continued at, ]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19525

Excerpt from:
Al Franken's book: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

Bill Clinton's far-reaching plan to eliminate al Qaeda root and branch was completed only a few weeks before the inauguration of George W. Bush. If it had been implemented then, a former senior Clinton aide told Time, we would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office." Instead, Clinton and company decided to turn over the plan to the Bush administration to carry out. Clinton trusted Bush to protect America. This proved, nine months later, to be a disastrous mistake - perhaps the biggest one Clinton ever made.

[continued at, ]

http://www.avatara.com/operationignore0.html

One question,which is sort of a side point.

Why does the left say 9 months for Bush,as in..."This proved, nine months later,"?
The President gets sworn in on Jan 20.
Until he takes the oath,he has no power to implement or do anything.

Now,Sept 11 actually happened less then 8 months after he was sworn in.
Granted,thats a small point,but I wonder why the left constantly uses the figure of 9 months.

wasn't there some sort of flap about how the new bush administration was doing the super gear up so that they would hit the ground running on january 20 ?

Quote:

wasn't there some sort of flap about how the new bush administration was doing the super gear up so that they would hit the ground running on january 20 ?

There might have been,to be honest I dont remember.
But still,why is the left adding a full month and more when they talk about how long Bush had to do anything.
It actually happened 9 days short of 8 months after he was sworn in.

Like I said,its a small point,but something I have always wondered.

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

wasn't there some sort of flap about how the new bush administration was doing the super gear up so that they would hit the ground running on january 20 ?

There might have been,to be honest I dont remember.
But still,why is the left adding a full month and more when they talk about how long Bush had to do anything.
It actually happened 9 days short of 8 months after he was sworn in.

Like I said,its a small point,but something I have always wondered.

Hey MM.. tell us why the Right always tells us Clinton had 8 years to get Bin Laden.

Shouldn't the 4-5 year difference there be as relevent as the 1 month in the case of Bush? I am all for accuracy. But if you want to complain then complain about both sides.