![]() |
Quote:
My "complaints" against Bush are based on his policy desicions, the consequences of those decisions, the people he has chosen as his cohorts, and his general ideaology. I have a list somewhere of nearly 1,000 reasons why I disagree with Bush policy/ideology/cohorts ranging from economics to foreign policy. I don't hate him and I dont blame him either, and as much as you would rather change the subject from Bush's shortcomings to the people who notice them, I now could careless if you call me a Bush-hater. I'll simply refute that as a giant red herring, smoke and mirrors and a big dodge of the real issues at hand. So go ahead and try to paint a general picture of Bush critics as a bunch of haters lacking mental faculties. Your wrong, its obvious- and thats is that. Assigning blame is pointless- assigning responsiblity and holding people accountable is what really counts. All the evidence is valid, and I await the 9-11 commissions final report. I don't disregard evidence Bush wasn't on point with regards to pre-9/11 counter-terror and I dont dis-regard any evidence that Clinton wasn't on point either. Here I'll try my hand at it: Why is it Bushies feel the need to invoke Clinton whenever a little bit of critisim, a wee call for full disclosure and accountabiltiy is pitched their guys way? You would think the Bush administration could stand on it's own without compare to the last one. |
Quote:
In fact, while it's a single tragedy of awesome proportions, even the 3000+ that died during 9/11 are minor blips on the "social health and welfare" radar when compared to the people who die from pollution, car wrecks, smoking, etc. What makes it so much more important now, is the terror itself has a widespread effect on the population, over and above the deaths of individuals. |
Quote:
It was always important - it's just that with the previous and more vigilant presidents at the helm, it was kept at bay to such an extent that no-one else in the US realised the extent of the threat. It was only when the current President failed in his duty to give it due consideration that Americans began to fully appreciate the sterling efforts of previous Presidents to protect them. </font> |
Quote:
I hope your post was a tongue-in-cheek remark, because it really makes me doubt your overall capacity to debate these issues. |
I have to mostly agree with TL on this one Skunk (cough cough splutter ;) ). The other presidents were lucky to avoid this and Bush was not as fortunate.
I support the opinion that is coming through from Clarke and O'Neill that Bush was obsessed with completing Daddy's War and that this took much of his focus, but in regard to the twin towers you can't pin that on the unfortunate schmo who happened to be in office at the time. Mind you, I am betting the repugs would have gone just as hard after Slick Willie if it had happened on his watch, and that some (not all) of the repug debaters on this thread would be arging different and more aggressive approaches in that case. |
Quote:
I hope your post was a tongue-in-cheek remark, because it really makes me doubt your overall capacity to debate these issues. </font>[/QUOTE]For EIGHT WHOLE MONTHS the country was left wide open to attack - and thus the attack on domestic soil became inevitable. You provide the points that counter your own arguments so I hope your post was a tongue-in-cheek remark, because it really makes me doubt your overall capacity to debate these issues. |
*bangs head on desk*
I'm done with you for a while. Wide open? You're wrong, and so wrong that it's not worth my time to try to explain it to you. This is a mistake at the remedial level. Which I don't understand because you say some smart things. Never mind, if you don't get it, you don't get it. |
Quote:
Here's the main difference twix me and thee: I don't give damn about who's at fault, I give a damn about fixx'n it. We can play the blame game all the way back to Adam & Eve, because if Adam hadn't bumped uglies with Eve none of us would be around to even debate this. ;) Because the Clintonnestas ingor their boy's role is matters while trying to focus only on President Bush's role. |
Skunk you said you were in the military right? So the intire time you were in the military every exercise you were on was done immedietly(sp?) every war game you were in was started as soon as the words left the commanding officers mouth? Or did all those have to be planned and have logistics gather everthing first? If the exercises had to have logisics first how long did that take? Unless you are saying you had a teliportation device, that could instantly transprot the resources and personnel to where they were needed, it took time to get them there, AFTER A PLAN WAS FORMED!!!!!. In forming the plans are you saying it was instantious(sp?)? no working out of problems , no looking for potinial problems? everything was correct and right in the very instant the thought of a possible plan entered the comanding officer's mind?
|
Tell me John, what is your summation of Bill Clinton as President and otherwise?
Mark |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved