You Democrats just won't accept responsibility for anything you did now will you? :dead:

Why don;t you man up a little?

Bush was in office for nine months before 9-11 that's hardly time to get settled in, especially after 8 years of Democratic foreign policy mismanagement. The intelligence and political failures that led to 9-11 and the two subsequent happened long before he ever took office.

Could you elaborate to foreigner what you mean with those "intelligence and political failures"?

He means the decision to invade Iraq was down to the democrats and their made up intelligence which they sent Powell to the UN with, and then it was the democrats who went ahead with their pushing on plan after the UN said "meh" and the french said "thats made up bollox not intelligence".
Get with the program kraznji and man up, the 2 wars after 9/11 are down to the democrats especially the one that had absolutely nothing to do with anything remotely connected to 9/11

No, he doesn't mean that at all. The Clinton administration had Osama at one point but let him get away.

There were Republicans on those committees as well. Team R likes to forget that. Team D likes to point the whole mess at Bush 43. This is the problem with modern politics. 9/11 represented a failure of the entire system. Every foreign policy entity. Every intelligence service. Every aspect of American leadership. For the past 30 years they have failed the people.

Ahem, yet they still happened under Bushes watch and it was the bush adminstration who pushed for them, not that it matters :yawn: - since the Dems would have done no different anyway, When it comes to the big issues like foreign policy, monetry policy, national security etc the Dems and Reps hardly differ at all.
I cant believe people still buy into these petty partisan theatrics.

Look at the 2012 election its Goldman sachs vs Goldman sachs, oh sorry I mean Romney vs Obama. kindly explain to me what is the difference? as best i can tell they agree on just about everything.
Both candiates are hollow men, serial flip-floppers who seemly dont have any conviction or a solid opinion on anything, Obama will likley win - his only real advantage being that his flip-flop track record isnt quite as long as Romney's.
America is on a fixed course and has been for well over a decade, Weather its Reps or Dems at the helm is just apples and oranges. Two wings of the same bird.

but but but I have to be able to blame the opposing political party don't I?

How can my side be better than your side if you insist that it was everyone's mistake????

Someone has to be the point of blame and it better be on the other political party's side. Get it?

What kind of an American are you anyway?????

It is ALWAYS "their" fault. :D

Of course there were. I was just clarifying August's statement. Everybody likes to point the finger anywhere but at themselves.

And not one of them got so much as slap on the wrist, i hear alot of them got promoted though!

No, the two subsequent actions are the attempt to do Afghanistan on the cheap and the entirely unrelated waste of time in Iraq.
One can be linked as it involved trying to get to Bin Laden, but since he includes both he cannot have meant that.

There are many, they are bipartisan and they go back to the 1970's. To blame either side is hypocrisy.

This has all the makings of a typical CT-er post:

• Closed mind: predetermined conviction that his claim is "the truth".
• Poisoning the well by painting anyone who challenge his view as "blind" or "narrow-minded". See above.
• The "I was a sceptic at first, too" gimmick.
• The red herring tactic: pulling in various unrelated topics as if they somehow constitute evidence of the CT claim.
• "Argument by YouTube" in place of actual discussion.
• Cherry-picking: taking quotes that seem to support the CT out of context; cherry-picking expert statements.

Firstly, one could argue that dumping such a huge crisis in the lap of an incompetent leader isn't a good thing for him. If I was in charge of something right now and felt I wasn't doing a good job, an emergency would be the last thing I wanted.

Sure, someone benefited. Someone always does, whenever something bad happens. The anti-nuclear lobby has benefitted tremendously after the tsunami hit Japan and caused one of the Fukushima reactors to melt down. But do you see anyone claiming that Greenpeace was behind the tsunami:yawn:?

As you said yourself, it's not evidence. In fact, it's completely irrelevant.

We did. All of the CT-er claims were shot down almost as soon as they were thrown out. Rational answers to every single CT-er argument are a google search away to be scrutinized by those with a true open mind. The movement has nothing new to contribute. The crap has stopped, which in a way is a detriment to the 9/11 "truth" movement. Had they had anything new to contribute in place of the same old jargon and misconceptions and lies, they'd actually serve a function.

Instead we get endless reruns, which is worse by far.

You then proceed to ask questions that have been answered over a decade ago. So much for your "open mind".

I'm glad, despite your ignorance, that you're able to see this. Good on you:up:.

This is the initial post that made me search for evidence of either kind - in german :
http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/35/35438/1.html

They call it "debunking of the debunking" - there is so much desinformation by now.

I'll just leave this here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4/videos

Read this again from end to the beginning...skip the bull part about RC planes and it will all make sense.