[quote]lucasa wrote:
Would you really stand behind the idea that Bush would be as responsible for global warming as Kennedy would be for the hypothetical holocaust? Would you really stand behind the idea that any single person is responsible for or capable of changing global warming? Or do you just defecate on your keyboard and if it spells some words you hit “submit”?[/quote]
Lucasa,
If you step away from whether or not global warming is a concern, or whether we should combat it, and the associated politics.
Then, it is easy to imagine that if Bush had endorsed Kyoto (assuming Kyoto was something that could be implemented and that it would stop global warming) he could have made it work. Basically, is there or is there not one man who could have made a swing decision to make this “work” or “not work”?
Now, again, I’m not arguing that Kyoto should have been done or that it is workable or whatever, but with two minor assumptions it is quite easy to put the fate of global warming on Bush.
Doubly so if you happen to buy into the fact that he had a science advisor changing government press releases to reflect views different than the scientists who published them in an attempt to control public opinion on the matter.
Now, on with your regularly scheduled program. Try not to let what you believe in get in the way of your logic process.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
I agree – but the question is who’s playing whom? lol[/quote]
That’s not really a question… Why?
What would happen if I printed out some of your more personally insulting posts and showed them to your pastor? I’m pretty sure I could gather a nice little binder with some of your highlights and make a nice presentation of your behavior over here in the past few months and mail it to him. I’m also pretty sure he’d immediately pick up and phone and call you to a nice little chat with you for a couple of hours, sharing his concerns about the state of your soul.
And before you ask the same of me: some of my superiors and peers have quite often walked in into my office while I was posting, and they know my alias and know I post here. They have also seen a lot of my posts – they know very well what I’m doing here, including when I take the gloves off. Academics are quite catty, most of us have been around Bulletin Boards and Newsgroups for a couple of decades, and we all know the drill. After all, we came up with the whole thing…
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
pookie wrote:
What are your views on what Richard Clarke says in his book? (Against All Enemies)
He claims that Clinton got quite the wake up call from the first attacks on the WTC in '93 and from then on had regular briefings from all his security advisors.
He claims that once Bush took office, he got rid of those briefings about terrorists, because he was looking for dirt on Iraq. I think the expression was that he was tired of “swatting at flies.”
Clarke was an insider on both administrations; didn’t he have better access to the actual facts, more so than anyone with an asshole and an opinion (which, of course, are proclaimed “facts”) on this board?
Good post Pookie.[/quote]
You have to remember Clarke was forced out by the Bush admin. He was taken out of the loop because he was deemed to be inadequate.
He was given a nice little send off by Bush but that was just being nice.
Clarke was deemed not good enough to be kept around.
He was not around for most terrorist briefings. His pretending since he wasn’t there that they did not happen is bullshit.
[quote]vroom wrote:
…Doubly so if you happen to buy into the fact that he had a science advisor changing government press releases to reflect views different than the scientists who published them in an attempt to control public opinion on the matter.
…[/quote]
Just as the IPCC changed the scientists report in 1996 to drum up fear of global warming.
Just as CNN recently changed the latest report from saying global warming is plausible to global warming is likely in their stories on the subject.
[quote]pookie wrote:
…
He claims that Clinton got quite the wake up call from the first attacks on the WTC in '93 and from then on had regular briefings from all his security advisors.
…
[/quote]
I think Clinton’s briefings on the subject didn’t get the job done.
Bush has committed the resources of our nation to go after these guys all over the world.
Clinton should have at least tried to do something similar rather than take briefings and let the courts handle it.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Just as the IPCC changed the scientists report in 1996 to drum up fear of global warming.
Just as CNN recently changed the latest report from saying global warming is plausible to global warming is likely in their stories on the subject.[/quote]
Zap, I think you are letting your personal opinions get the best of you here. The topic at hand was not identify everything you dislike that someone allegedly did concerning global warming.
It was, identify everything the Bush administration allegedly did that you dislike…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush has committed the resources of our nation to go after these guys all over the world.
Clinton should have at least tried to do something similar rather than take briefings and let the courts handle it.[/quote]
I am always surprised by this. Clinton would never have received authorization to launch a war from congress. It was 9/11 that represented a sea change and had the congress cede it’s authority to declare war.
Anyway, the resources of the CIA and FBI and so forth were on terrorism prior to the Bush election. What other resources did Clinton have at his disposal?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Just as the IPCC changed the scientists report in 1996 to drum up fear of global warming.
Just as CNN recently changed the latest report from saying global warming is plausible to global warming is likely in their stories on the subject.
Zap, I think you are letting your personal opinions get the best of you here. The topic at hand was not identify everything you dislike that someone allegedly did concerning global warming.
It was, identify everything the Bush administration allegedly did that you dislike…
[/quote]
No opinion, just the truth.
Since you are trying to criticize Bush for spinning/changing global warming reports I just wanted to show he is in good company with the IPCC (UN) and CNN among others.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush has committed the resources of our nation to go after these guys all over the world.
Clinton should have at least tried to do something similar rather than take briefings and let the courts handle it.
I am always surprised by this. Clinton would never have received authorization to launch a war from congress. It was 9/11 that represented a sea change and had the congress cede it’s authority to declare war.
Anyway, the resources of the CIA and FBI and so forth were on terrorism prior to the Bush election. What other resources did Clinton have at his disposal?[/quote]
Clinton could have done far more than he did and still not invade Afghanistan.
The resources of the FBI and CIA were not focused on terrorism. It was way down the list.
Clinton took a few meetings and launched a few missles during the Lewinsky fiasco. Not at all impressive.
Im fairness I believe the story of Osama being offered to him is not true, but I also believe Clinton did not do as much as he should have.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
My point was simply that Clinton failed to stop this which was possible since he presided during much of the plotting and moving toward 9/11/01.
What Bush was responsible for was the response due to the attacks which I believe he has done an excellently in so doing.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s one way to see it.
Another way would be that during Clinton’s presidency, there was too much pressure to put the plan into action. When Bush came into office and got rid of the “swatting flies” meetings; the pressure came off the terrorists and they where able to execute.
We’ll probably never know which scenario is closer to the truth; but to blame Clinton and praise Bush for something that happened on Bush’s watch is a bit one-sided.
Since Clinton had only been in office for a short time before the '93 attacks, are those attributable to GWB’s dad?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Clarke was deemed not good enough to be kept around.[/quote]
He seemed competent enough. Maybe he simply got the boot because he disagreed with the way the administration was going about handling security.
He served with Reagan and Bush the father; so he was apparently competent enough for them.
[quote]He was not around for most terrorist briefings. His pretending since he wasn’t there that they did not happen is bullshit.
His bitterness towards the admin is obvious.[/quote]
He might have an axe to grind, I’ll grant you that. But there has been no lawsuit for his book; so I guess he’s not lying when he makes those various claims. Wouldn’t he get sued for libel or diffamation or whatever else if he had published complete fabrications?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Clinton could have done far more than he did and still not invade Afghanistan.
The resources of the FBI and CIA were not focused on terrorism. It was way down the list.
Clinton took a few meetings and launched a few missles during the Lewinsky fiasco. Not at all impressive.
Im fairness I believe the story of Osama being offered to him is not true, but I also believe Clinton did not do as much as he should have.[/quote]
Zap,
Before 9/11 it was a very different world. There was only so much Clinton could realistically do.
I don’t think it is fair to judge someone on post 9/11 knowledge when their actions were before 9/11. Things change.
Neither do I think it is fair to say that resources were not allocated to it. Before a strike, such as 9/11, the rules could not easily be changed to allow different internal agencies to share information.
It sounds like you are trying to blame Clinton for 9/11 and terrorism. You will hopefully note that I’m not trying to blame Bush for 9/11 and terrorism. The only thing I do have a problem with is the way in which the war on Iraq occurred.
I’m not even against the war, I just feel the populace needs to approve it, on good information, not through the manner in which it did occur.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Here is who Ivan Eland- of The Independent Institute - has picked for his nomination of the worst president post WWII.
In all fairness, regardless of party affiliation, no President should be compared to any past President in terms of legacy until his term is up.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush has committed the resources of our nation to go after these guys all over the world.
So where’s Osama?
Why are you in Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia? 15 or so of the 19 hijackers where Saudi nationals… not a single one was Iraqi.
Osama is rumored to be hiding in the mountains at the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan; where are the ressources to go after him?
[/quote]
so pookie (that just sounds wrong) who told you we weren’t in saudi arabia ???
you seem to be behind the power curve but there are resources going after osama this is coming from someone who was actually in afghanistan not going off of bs from cnn or some other media outlet
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
There are a thousand examples of things that should have been done and were not.
[/quote]
It’s too easy to apply todays standards in hindsight… looking with eyes that none of us had at that time.
Clinton certainly had his failings, but I don’t believe he was soft on terror. I would imagine the scope of the issue was simply not understood in the same way that 9/11 has made it clear to most people.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Then, it is easy to imagine that if Bush had endorsed Kyoto (assuming Kyoto was something that could be implemented and that it would stop global warming) he could have made it work. Basically, is there or is there not one man who could have made a swing decision to make this “work” or “not work”?
Now, again, I’m not arguing that Kyoto should have been done or that it is workable or whatever, but with two minor assumptions it is quite easy to put the fate of global warming on Bush.[/quote]
So, without belief in the fact that Kyoto would work to ‘fix’ global warming, you ascribe blame to Bush for global warming based on the fact that he didn’t actualize Kyoto? And you believe this to the point that his responsibility would be as great as Kennedy during the Cold War? Yeah, that makes sense.
What about every Pres. since the birth of the industrial revolution, any responsibility/ blame there? How about all the leaders of all the industrialized naitons in the world, esp. the ones who signed Kyoto and aren’t meeting their goals, any there? What about the leaders of the developing ones who didn’t sign? How about the people actually consuming the power and driving the cars? How about the next person to live in the White House? Fixing global warming would require an unprecedented level of international cooperativity which a) no single man could claim responsibility for and b) even if one could, would you want it to be Bush?
Only a handful of people could’ve pressed the button to start a nuclear holocaust. You might blame people for building the bombs or discovering the technology, but there is no button for global warming. If we’re responsible for catastrophic effects from global warming, I won’t let my share be ascribed to one leader how about you?
As I’ve said before, I haven’t sat down and made my list of best/worst Pres. post-wwII but, Bush is definitely towards the middle. However, to say his misdeeds cast nuclear holocaust in a lesser light is nothing but folly.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
So, without belief in the fact that Kyoto would work to ‘fix’ global warming, you ascribe blame to Bush for global warming based on the fact that he didn’t actualize Kyoto? And you believe this to the point that his responsibility would be as great as Kennedy during the Cold War? Yeah, that makes sense. [/quote]
Dude, slow down and think a bit. I outlined the concept for you, that is all. I did not make the claim and I am not making the claim.
Look, you are missing the point. Either the US is a world leader like people around here like to claim or it isn’t. If it is a world leader, and a world issue arises, then there could be some responsibility. Especially if action was taken to shoot down initiatives based on policy desires or lobbyist demands instead of reality.
Again, get it through your head, I’m pointing out the thought process, I am neither proposing it nor promoting it. Your argument is not with me, per se, in this issue.
You are wrong. Leaders can sway the actions of millions, so they get much more responsibility than those individual millions. With leadership comes responsibility.
Again, let me restate, I’M NOT ARGUING THAT BUSH ACTUALLY HAS RESPONSIBILITY, people in the future can determine that, once more knowledge about global warming becomes evident.
Oh, you aren’t doing your share to combat it then?
[quote]As I’ve said before, I haven’t sat down and made my list of best/worst Pres. post-wwII but, Bush is definitely towards the middle. However, to say his misdeeds cast nuclear holocaust in a lesser light is nothing but folly.
BTW- Bought any fluorescent lightbulbs lately?[/quote]
LOL. Reread what I wrote and realize that I was outlining the thought process, not adopting it. You sound foolish.
LOL. Reread what I wrote and realize that I was outlining the thought process, not adopting it. You sound foolish.[/quote]
Sorry, thanks for outlining Wreckless’ thought process for me, I was clearly the fool. The ‘Bush’s wreckless attitude towards global warming makes him responsible’ version was totally confusing and your rendition cleared it right up.