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.