We call our cat “Brock,” but his given name is really “Barack.” So there.
As for me, I won’t use any structure with Ronnie’s name on it.
Wait, weren’t you arguing that Clinton didn’t take action against bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Now, you’re arguing that even if he did, so what?
Have I got that right?
No, now he’s arguing that he did but that he shouldn’t have, since he just made things worse. And I’ll bet that Obama’s attacks have really emboldened bin Laden.
Now bin Laden has Obama right where he wants him!
I’m arguing INEFFECTIVE action used as a distraction from a sex scandal actually made matters worse.
How about instead of doing a showy missile strike, you send out a CIA hit team to get this guy. If Johnny Walker Lihnd could get next to this guy, a CIA hit team could have.
But the Goal of “Wag the Dog, part 1” was never to get Bin Laden. It was to quickly change the subject of the 24 hour news cycle from “I just spent the last eight months lying to you” to “eeeeeek, Terrorists!”
And then he never talked about it again.
The effect it had on the Middle East, however, was different. It said to every disaffected dirtbag looking to get 76 virgins in the afterlife, “Wow, he stood up to the US and lived. The Hand of Allah must truly be on him!”
Now, I’m a fair guy. I criticize Reagan for arming these maniacs in afghanistan to start with. I criticize Bush for not finishing the job once he started it. But Clinton deserves some of the blame, too.
This is just the break that the [del]McCain[/del]bin Laden campaign has been looking for.
You kinda missed the point that the Afghanistan camp had been abandoned a few HOURS previously. Military strikes take a bit of planning. Bin Laden got lucky.
For someone who insists that they’re a “recovering Republican” you sure do spout the party line verbatim. You criticize Clinton for not doing enough, then you criticize him for doing too much, then you criticize him for doing the right thing for the wrong reasons (because you were there and know exactly what his motivations were). Clinton could have punched bin Laden in the face personally and you’d be complaining he used the wrong kind of brass knuckles.
No, he took a more cautious approach to the intelligence he was receiving to avoid any more failed military strikes, precisely to avoid more of this:
Yes, it’s too bad we didn’t take the feelings of the Muslims into consideration before we started bombing them.
Whoa. I think we’ve gone throught the looking-glass here.
How about criticizing the Republicans in Congress for pulling this “Wag the dog” bullshit? Then as now, they were more interested in hobbling a Democratic president than actually considering what’s best for the country. I don’t see anything different in the current crop of GOP candidates, who are running on the “It’s Obama’s recession, they’re Obama’s wars, vote for us because we’re not him!” ticket without presenting any alternative plans at all for how to fix the mess that the administration BEFORE Obama’s got us into.
I’m going to explain this to you one more time.
Recovering from the REpublican BS does not mean that I swallow the Democratic BS whole. It’s like saying I gave up drinking but now I’ve become a full blown coke freak, like that’s an improvement. I DID very specifically criticize Reagan and Bush’s handling of Bin Laden as well as Clinton’s.
He did it the WRONG WAY for the wrong reasons. He did it in a way where he ignored a lot of his top brass, who said it wasn’t going to work.
Let’s be blunt and honest here. Better men than Clinton have had to resign for the same thing. Both parties. Clinton decided to tough it out because hey, it really is difficult to get rid of a president. So he dragged a legal process out, and then tried to change the subject.
Actually, the best thing for the country at that point would have been for Clinton to resign, let Al Gore finish out his term. Come on, guy, Ensign, Weiner, Sanford, Spitzer, and those are only the recent examples. Once you become the punch line for a dirty joke, you’re done. It’s not a written rule, but it’s usually accepted in politics and business. Except Clinton decided, “Naw, screw that. They’re going to have to impeach me, and I’ll send out Larry Flint to dig around their garbage. And I’ll launch a few futile, pointless military attacks to change the subject once in a while.”
Did you forget 2006 and 2008, where you guys didn’t offer any solutions either, other than to just criticize what Bush was doing? Sorry, man, everyone takes advantage of the other guy’s misfortunes. I think that was one of the first political lessons I learned in 1979 when Jane Byrne (who was considered a joke up to that point) beat Mayor Bilandic because he wasn’t effective in getting a record snowfall cleaned up.
The best antidote against this sort of thing is “Competence”.
But my point was that you are saying, word for word, what the GOP BS of the time was.
I don’t know about you, but I kind of assumed from before his election that he was a horndog. And I said at the time that I would have been neither surprised nor displeased to learn that Hillary was giving him regular kicks to the groin. But I wanted a guy in office who was focused on the economy and Bush had dropped the ball on that one (although he was likely just taking the fall for problems started under Reagan). Unfortunately the Arkansas Projectthought we should be focused on other things…
So Clinton should have completely ignored the terrorist threat and just quit? And that would have made him a better president? I don’t understand your criteria at all.
Have you been over to Politifact? I’m not arguing that “change” isn’t a common refrain in every election but they’ve got a very long list of actual campaign promises from Obama (including a larger-than-I’m-comfortable-with number of “Broken” and “Stalled” ones, but nonetheless). I think Bush Sr got elected on a campaign of “No New Taxes” and agreeing to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day, and he broke the first one (probably the second one too, but who cares?). If any of the Republicans currently in the race has offered any substantive platforms outside of tax cuts and gay-bashing (besides Ron Paul, who brings the same long laundry list to every election) it hasn’t made the papers.
Obama is incredibly competent. He hasn’t done a lot of things I’ve hoped for but he’s already got a long list of actual achievements while in office. He may not be doing things that YOU like and he’s certainly not Magic Jesus who can fix all the country’s problems with a wave of his wand, but he’s certainly getting more done than you’d think from what gets reported.
The best antidote to competence is smear.
Candidates have come and gone, favorites have been dethroned, and the end is not yet in sight.
Obviously, Perry will self destruct before Iowa. He’s the Fred Thompson of 2012.
The others are all boring. There is a very remote chance that Palin will offer a brief burst of interest. Probably won’t happen.
And now there’s (enter clown on unicycle with sign board) Christy, a Tony Soprano look alike from the state that gave us Spiro T. Agnew. That’s a DOA candidate.
So, what’s the choice - is it Romney by default?
Crane
Agnew was from Maryland.
Thank you - I stand corrected. All these years I thought it was New Jersey, but Maryland is kind of Baja New Jersey.
So, it’s Christie, the Tony Soprano look alike from New Jersey. He’s a fat, loud mouth East coast establishment politition. He’s a non-starter in the primary.
Crane
Well, it’s a cinch that he isn’t actually going to “run” for much of anything. Other than a cheeseburger.
:dubious:
Maryland doesn’t even touch New Jersey.
I wouldn’t either!
Crane
Obama facing Snow White and the 7 dwarfs. They got plenty of nothing.
I’ll play, which one is Snow White?
Something like:
The Prince; Romney
Snow White; Palin
Witch; Bachmann
Dopey; Perry
Doc; Paul
Grumpy; Gingrich
Bashful; Huntsman
Happy; Johnson
Sneezy;
Sleepy;
Cain seems to be getting a bit of a bump at the moment for some reason. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him in serious consideration for Veephood after all, unless Bachmann gets the nomination. I can’t see the GOP running a woman/minority ticket, but there’s still a long way to go.
I’ve been reading the descriptions of the candidates over at fivethirtyeight and Johnson intrigues me. Libertarian in a socially moderate, economically conservative way. Is there a Paul-esque streak of crazy that’s not being reported there?
Winning Florida Straw Poll plus strong placing in Fox News, Gallup, and Zogby polls.
That and Perry channeling George W. Bush at the last couple of debates.
Fun fact: the Florida P5 straw poll winner has taken the Republican nomination every year since 1979. Cain might actually be the guy!