Dolt, what is revisionist is your interpretation of the events. Basically, no matter what Bush does, it all feeds into your skewed belief that it was all for Halliburton, oil, and contracts. As for the name calling, a review of this thread will show that you fired the first shot. Which of course you will deny and revise to "Halliburton and hapa...in league together to take over the world's oil resources and secure nation-building contracts." ROFLMAO
i'm flexible in my interpretation of established facts, especially with others capable of doing the same. it's not even that i believe the facts implicate him as much as they merit true public discourse, especially when assembled as a complete picture. you want to wash the subject into the conspiracy bin and under the absurd notion that Clinton was somehow responsible in the months prior to 911, but your generalizations of fact as 'moonbat' and diarrhetic spamming of partisan tabloid punditry betray any glimmer of objectiveness on your part. add constant hyperbole and name calling ... and you have a provocation. big deal, you knowingly ask for it namecalling, generalizations, pundit regurgitation. none of it is in the spirit of intelligent debate. i still don't think you've produced a single fact in rebuttal
Well said, but verbal fecal coliform nonetheless. When bin Laden is offered on a platter to Clinton more than once, for example, and he doesn't take the opportunity, then yes, I think he is somewhat responsible. That you refer to that as "partisan tabloid punditry" is your problem, not mine. "Intelligent debate" is clearly, in your point of view, following the Lib line hook line and sinker and blaming it all on Bush and his masters at Halliburton. For you to use the term "objective" is beyond laughable. I have posted links and quotes to sources that rebutt Clinton's red-faced and cowardly allegations, but undoubtedly you will be as unphased by them as I would be of you posting a quote of some DailyKos, moveon.org, or Michael Moore excretia that are the bedrock of your own beliefs. So keep on with your antics. Watching moonbats further immerse themselves in hysterics is most entertaining. Have a nice day.
I think it's a fair, objective assessment. I'm sure that you would then label me as a left wing liberal moonbat too...huh.
admittedly i didn't study every word of the punditry you posted. you're free to interpret hard facts any way you wish, but you're fighting history if you wish to ultimately exculpate George Bush. history will examine facts first when studying Bush's failure to protect the US in the months, days, and minutes preceeding 911. you have a great day too
What "hard facts"? That Bush didn't immediately jump up at the school like a panicked moonbat who'd been told his welfare benefits had been cut? That "bin Laden determined to strike America" should have resulted in Bush ordering an anal cavity search of every passenger in the US? That Halliburton is behind 9/11 and Iraq? That Clinton did everything he could to kill bin Laden? Puhleeze.... Anyway, glad we're both having great days.
lol if it were all a big comedy i'm sure you'd get hired to satirize your opponents, but the whole thing is real. if i had seen it on tv, or if i had voted for bush, or if it were some distant incomprehensible drama maybe i'd see it your way. the whole thing was very real, as in plane 100 feet over your head and smell it in your bedroom for the next year real, and it's hard not to take our president's management of and any perceived conflicts of interest personally if it was your neighborhood, you'd want serious fucking answers from your leaders, whoever they were. i took the whole thing as one giant personal warning shot lol i'm happy to truce with you, at least until we piss each other off again
Look, if you honestly believe I think this a big comedy and not real, well, to use the phrase of one of your fellow ideologues, to do so would be boneheaded. I didn't have one of the planes flying 100 feet over my head, no. I wasn't in NYC that fateful day. But, let's be frank, one did not need to be there to understand the hate behind it, and which still drives those who would repeat such an event or far worse. I'm afraid I must disagree with you on one other point: I don't think it was a warning shot at all. We had had several of those all ready in the preceding years. And tragically, neither Clinton nor Bush heeded those warning shots carefully enough. Perhaps individuals at various levels and assorted agencies did, but, for whatever reason, their voices were lost amidst the bureaucratic shuffle, Chinese walls, and the other terms that have been entrenched into our lexicon to describe the ways communication is hindered - or ignored - by government. Sounds good!