Bush Covered it!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

BB, with respect to this…

However, if you look back at that time, Clinton did a horrible job of making the argument to Congress that it was necessary at that time.

I don’t think it is fair to blame Clinton per se. Congress was not exactly under his control – it probably wouldn’t matter what he argued prior to an event such as 9/11, what Republican would even hear his words?

Seriously, think on that. Party lines would have stopped Clinton from being able to take more effective actions against terrorism until something like a 9/11 event united politicians on a cause.

Now, before you dismiss what I’m trying to say, I’m not supporting Clinton or bashing Bush, I’m just trying to highlight how decisions drawn on party lines can have disastrous decision making consequences with respect to what is good for America.

Party line politics are self-serving politics from the point of view of the politicians and the public. They aren’t about doing what is best for America or the American people. They are about getting the other party out of office instead.

Realistically, they limit the ability of the president, from whatever party, to be effective except in extreme circumstances where rare agreement can be achieved. Limits are of course appropriate, but probably under control of free thinking reasonable people. Party line dogma spouting politicians do not qualify as reasonable.

What we really need is for the public to wake the fuck up and stop electing the radical right and left party line following feckless dorks over and over again. We have to stop rewarding these country damaging assholes by giving them votes.

Until then, get out the popcorn, the show is endless…

22

It doesn’t matter what a president does really, because he is always wrong. Somebody is always going to be pissed off. Every decision affects something else and someone is going to call him an idiot! Why can’t the citizens of the worlds greatest country agree on one damn thing!?!?!? Can we please for once come together to actually do something for the good of the United States of America and focus less on why the president indirectly affected the price of Legos. Presidents are not the enemies. Those who wish to kill Americans and destroy our country and way of life are the REAL ENEMIES! Lets bitch about THEM and do something about THEM!!

23

Amen to that!

I really don’t see what the big deal is and why people think Bush is so wrong for trying to protect U.S. citizens. I’ts simple really. We have many enemies. We had enemies before we even were officially a country and today we have even more. There are those that dedicated their whole life to plotting against us and finding ways to express their hate and are literally religious about it. So rather than waiting for peace to miraculously appear or back down and play dead everytime someone calls him a “war-monger”, Bush is doing his duty and accepting his responsibility as the President by doing all he can to prevent another war-scale attack on us.

In the words of Rambo, “they drew first blood”. Call him whatever you want, but he’s doing his job when it comes to this matter. He’s trying harder than Clinton ever did

24

The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.
Correction, A van was driven through the gate past the marines and was heading up the driveway unopposed for a repeat of the previous year. As luck would have it the British ambassador had arrived a few moments before. When his SAS bodyguards saw what was happening they immediately took action and saved the day by killing the driver. After that the american embassy was closed.

25

He’s trying harder than Clinton ever did.

How could you know that? The only thing we were ever told about was what he was doing with his dick…

26

Boston if “they” knew all this then why has the military been scaled down and why hasn’t any blame been given to Saudia Arabia?

27

Regardless of your political ideology or your support for or against our current President, I’m curious just how many people on this forum are of draft age.

I’m 22. And I’m against this war because I wouldn’t be willing to risk my own life to fight in it; how can I ask that others do it for me?

This isn’t to say I don’t support our troops (my dad is a 20 year army veteran) but I’m sick to death of hearing people my age talk a bunch of shit about how we need to kick ass, etc. I don’t see them stepping up.

I can’t judge who f*cked up worse, Clinton or Bush. Clinton was a draft dodger, yes, but he also had the good sense to realize this limited his ability as a Commander in Chief.

This isn’t an attack on anyone per se, but most Americans don’t personally know anyone fighting over in Iraq of Afghanistan, and yet all I hear is false bravado. We should reinstitute the draft, because America has gotten soft and you’d better believe we’d need a hell of lot more than Bush and Cheney’s word before we’d start sacrificing our youth.

That’s it, really.

(if this constitutes a hijack, my bad. just tell me and i’ll go punch my balls)

28

The draft would be a mistake, we don’t need it now. Right now we have an army of professionals, who chose to join the army. What we gained in numbers we would loose in quality.

29

[quote]vroom wrote:
BB, with respect to this…

However, if you look back at that time, Clinton did a horrible job of making the argument to Congress that it was necessary at that time.

I don’t think it is fair to blame Clinton per se. Congress was not exactly under his control – it probably wouldn’t matter what he argued prior to an event such as 9/11, what Republican would even hear his words?

Seriously, think on that. Party lines would have stopped Clinton from being able to take more effective actions against terrorism until something like a 9/11 event united politicians on a cause.

Now, before you dismiss what I’m trying to say, I’m not supporting Clinton or bashing Bush, I’m just trying to highlight how decisions drawn on party lines can have disastrous decision making consequences with respect to what is good for America.

Party line politics are self-serving politics from the point of view of the politicians and the public. They aren’t about doing what is best for America or the American people. They are about getting the other party out of office instead.

Realistically, they limit the ability of the president, from whatever party, to be effective except in extreme circumstances where rare agreement can be achieved. Limits are of course appropriate, but probably under control of free thinking reasonable people. Party line dogma spouting politicians do not qualify as reasonable.

What we really need is for the public to wake the fuck up and stop electing the radical right and left party line following feckless dorks over and over again. We have to stop rewarding these country damaging assholes by giving them votes.

Until then, get out the popcorn, the show is endless…[/quote]

vroom:

I’m not blaming Clinton per se. Clinton had a part, and Congress had a part, and none of them paid as much attention to the terrorist threat as, in hindsight, it seems that they should have. Hindsight is always 20/20 – the only reason to even bring this up is to highlight the situation that was reality for Bush when he took office. The focus should be on fixing the matter going forward, and taking pre-emptive actions to do our best to thwart anyone with hostile intent against Americans.

30

Team Clinton presented Team Bush their info and data on terrorism and Osama Bin Laden, when they made the transition between administrations.

However there was such a pathological hatred of all things Clinton among Team Bush, that they decided to ignore Clinton’s material, and gather their own intelligence.

Team Bush was still gathering all new intelligence when 9-11 hit us.

If you go back to the early Bush days, there was never any mention of terrorism by anyone on Team Bush. They didn’t take the terrorism threats seriously, until we got creamed on 9-11. Security adviser Condoleeza Rice was scheduled to make a speech on national security the day of 9-11. It was revealed that her report (which was postponed due to the attacks) had absolutely no mention of terrorism.

I repeatedly see people here refer to Clinton “doing nothing” about terrorism. The first attack on the World Trade Center occurred just 38 days into the first Clinton term. Unlike Team Bush, Team Clinton did not whine like a bunch of pussies that it was the fault of the previous administration. They caught the people responsible, and these people are serving life sentences in prison, and have been sources for anti-terrorim intelligence.

Remember the big terrorist attacks on New Years Eve 2000? (The big millenium attacks)? Me neither.

How about the attacks on the Holland Tunnel, or the Los Angeles airport? Me neither. Team Clinton protected us from known attacks.

As far as the bombing of the USS Cole, it happened 2 months before Clinton left office. He could have launched a war and then handed the situation to the new president. Instead, the CIA and FBI could not agree on the evidence that it was Al Qaeda related. By that time Bush had taken office, and he called US investigators home. If you want to blame a president for doing nothing about the Cole bombing, blame Bush.

Just curious, what did President Reagan do about the Beirut bombing of marine barracks? What did Reagan do when Syria blew up a commercial jetliner over Lockerbee Scotland?

What did Dubya do when China confiscated one of our spy planes, and wouldn’t give it back?

(Answer: nothing)

31

The focus should be on fixing the matter going forward, and taking pre-emptive actions to do our best to thwart anyone with hostile intent against Americans.

I’m not sure I agree with the above and you’ve skipped over the ills of a divisionist two party system.

How do you define hostile intent? What about if some country, such as China, turns into a world economic power and it isn’t overly friendly with the US. While not militarily hostile, perhaps, this could be “damaging”. Economic might can be pretty significant. Say they form strong trading relationships that damage America’s standing in world markets. Is that ok?

In general, I think it would be best to catch people in the act, before they can cause damage. Obviously, I’m talking terrorist plots. However, I think the innocent until proven guilty concept needs to apply to larger entities than individuals and it needs to apply to all people, not just your own citizens. People don’t stop being human because they are born in another country – they also don’t automatically become your enemy either.

Blanket preemption statements indicate a desire to have the US be the police for the world enforcing a new world order based on the ideals of the US. This isn’t going to be popular.

Fighting terrorism? Sure, no problem. Our way or the highway, not so good. This thinking will end up spreading divisionism outside of the states, clearly dividing the countries of the world into friends and foes. Sure, that has always been the case, but we don’t have to exacerbate it do we?

Standard disclaimer for the mentally deficient – I’m not a pacifist tree hugging liberal who is interested in appeasing anyone.