Ironworks Gaming Forum

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   I told the liberals not to hang their hats on Mr. Clarke (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76874)

Chewbacca 04-16-2004 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John D Harris:


The problem I'm having with these blame Pres. Bush crowd is they ingor the Fact that by 1996 the Clinton administration had the intel outlining the Exact plan that was used, and did little for at least 4 years!!!!!!!!!!!!
But they want to blame Pres. Bush who had just been in office for 8 months! I'm not a math wiz but 4 years=48 months 8 months=8months, so in order to Blame Pres. Bush they must place 6 times the blame on Pres. Clinton. That's just on a time basis, not even taking into account that there was an administration change and the Bush White House had to form a new cabinet, appoint people to positions, review what info was left them by the Clinton White House, in short come up to speed. "Hale" Pres. Clinton wrote a 45,000 word memo and NOT ! SINGLE WORD mentioned Al Queda and any threat from them.

IMHO These Bush haters can not see clearly enough to admitt things like that because their desire to prove Pres. Bush is wrong is greater then their desire think logicly. They will complain about being called a Bush hater, instead of addressing why their complaint against Pres. Bush is valid using their evidence. But evidence against Pres. Clinton is not Valid!!!

I'll take the bait.

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.

Timber Loftis 04-16-2004 10:18 AM

Quote:

Getting back to the real world that the President is supposed to be living in, hijacking is a commonplace crime which rarely ends without severe loss of life and economic disruption and can never be corrected after the act
Getting back to the real real world, prior to 9/11, the way I saw it, I'd rather have my gummint spend time trying to make decisions regarding the economy, environment, etc. that affect thousands every day rather than spend a ton of money just to stop a terrorist from killing 20, 40, or 60 people. Prior to 9/11, terrorism really was, quite rightly, seen as something that was less important than most other things by several magnitudes.

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.

Skunk 04-16-2004 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:

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.

<font color="#C4C1CA">
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>

Timber Loftis 04-16-2004 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skunk:
<font color="#C4C1CA">
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>

What utter BS. You post so many thoughtful things, and then you reveal your underlying premises which are so shoddy they are laughable. The other presidents skated by on luck. Just luck. Bush was doing no more or less than they were. He was in office for 8 whole months.

I hope your post was a tongue-in-cheek remark, because it really makes me doubt your overall capacity to debate these issues.

Davros 04-16-2004 11:17 AM

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.

Skunk 04-16-2004 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Skunk:
<font color="#C4C1CA">
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>

What utter BS. You post so many thoughtful things, and then you reveal your underlying premises which are so shoddy they are laughable. The other presidents skated by on luck. Just luck. Bush was doing no more or less than they were. He was in office for 8 whole months.

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.

Timber Loftis 04-16-2004 06:11 PM

*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.

John D Harris 04-17-2004 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chewbacca:
I'll take the bait.

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.

Chewbacca, in your reply there are approx. 50 of the words, that could be said to explain your difference with President Bush. The next approx. 195 words are addressing the Bush hate, a ratio of 4:1 you make the call, I calls'em like I sees'em. I don't care if anybody hates President Bush because they think his eyes are to close together, don't like the way he walks/talks, parts his hair/etc. I eagerly await the 6:1 words about not being on point for the previous administration, to what has been posted so far for the current one. [img]smile.gif[/img]

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.

John D Harris 04-17-2004 11:51 AM

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?

skywalker 04-17-2004 12:05 PM

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