What I can’t understand is how you’re still starving. Have the goats stopped crossing at your bridge?
Which explains the excellent chemical plant security requirements, the screening of all containers entering the U.S., the screening of all air cargo carried on passenger planes, the stepped-up security for train shipments of lethal chemicals through urban areas…
…oh, my bad. Bush has done none of these things, despite their being on the obvious governmental to-do list since 9/12/01. I guess it was more cost-effective to invade Iraq.
BWAHAHAHAHA…
So, it’s finally come to this, has it? A simple statement in support of Bush results in an accusation of trollery.
No big surprise, though, now that I think about it.
:rolleyes:
Oh boo hoo hoo. Try being told you’re a terrorist sympathizer when you don’t support Bush or his policies. Try being told that you’re helping the enemy. Try being accused of being a traitor to America.
Cry me a fucking river, asshole.
If and when you shower, remeber to scrub real hard. For it’s because of brainless assholes such as yourself that countless innocent people keep dying in Iraq – thus, scrub those bloodstains real, real hard.
Problem is, history won’t wash them. Just look back at your “glorious” intervention in Vietnam.
No, I was laughing.
That’s what BWAHAHAHAHA means, you see…it’s a laugh.
And it’s a laugh based on the fact that things have apparently degenerated around here to the point that any positive remark at all made about Bush is regarded as trollery.
So much for reasoned discourse, huh?
Now, apart from that, how does this little screed of yours have anything at all to do with what I said?
Now, in closing, I’ll refrain from calling you a bitch – though you richly deserve it – as we righties do tend to be a mannerly lot.
Why would that be rude? It’s merely the truth. I AM a bitch. I’ve never said otherwise.
For the same reason that it would be rude to tell a homely person that they’re homely.
Still, it’s nice to know we’ve found some common ground for agreement.
And Clinton didn’t? But somehow or other, nothing is Bill’s fault, even when he had the chance and did nothing. Odd, that.
The trouble being that you are saying that the first eight years of a President’s term don’t count - if he is a Democrat.
Clinton had two years and a perfect opportunity to response to the embassy bombing. Result: nada. But by golly Bush better fix the problem within seven months.
And again, Clinton had years of time and a better chance to do something, didn’t do it - and you instantly try to shift the blame onto Bush.
Why is it that two and a half years of “doing nothing” OK from a Democrat, but seven months totally unjustifiable for a Republican?
Oh, that’s right - I forgot - IOKIADDI.
Regards,
Shodan
Cite?
It’s fun to say, but please explain.
Oh really? Once again, cite? It’s fun to throw around allegations, but I don’t see evidence of this “perfect opportunity.”
I don’t expect him to fix every problem, but I expect him to be aware, even before he gets the 8/6/01 PDB, that terrorism is a real threat, and that bin Laden in particular has bombed two of our embassies and one of our naval vessels in the past three years. And once he gets the PDB, I expect him to respond to it in some fashion - but doing nothing at all is unacceptable.
I personally believe the Bush Administration should have responded to the PDB by “shaking the trees” in the way that Clinton’s people did in response to the millenium threat, and I further believe that if they had, the various pieces of information about Maussaoui’s (sp?) laptop, and guys learning to fly but not learning to land, and so forth, would have percolated to the top in time to prevent the attacks of 9/11.
But I think that’s a question with two sides to it, and it’s legitimate to hold that (a) it’s not reasonable to expect Bush’s response to be that extensive, and (b) even if it was, it might well have failed to prevent the attacks.
But I don’t see that there is a viable argument that he shouldn’t have had the level of awareness, pre-8/6/01, that I outlined in the third paragraph preceding, and I don’t think there’s a viable argument that it was reasonable for him to have done nothing in response to the PDB.
Where do you see that?
Didn’t say it was. We’re talking Strawman City here. I was responding to the arguments presented by you and SA, which due to the fact that I was arguing that Clinton was less culpable than you suggested, and Bush more so, apparently got filtered through your brain as a claim that Clinton was blameless and It Was All Bush’s Fault.
But if you notice, I’ve also been asking questions. If we can agree on (a) what each President knew, or should have known, at various times, (b) what they actually did with that knowledge, and (c) at least try to get some semi-agreement on what opportunities they had to do more, and when, we might be able to have a real conversation.
But this whole “Clinton knew, or should have known, that bin Laden was a serious threat ever since the first WTC bombing, but Bush had every reason to blow off the 8/11/01 PDB” business is for the birds.
I’m glad to see that you seem to be backing away from the 'first WTC bombing = bin Laden" allegation, since I, for one, don’t see a lot of support for it out there. Maybe we can get to a point where we can talk.
I think I’ll do you a favor and assume this stupidity is just an act.
But if you are pretending not to be able to read, it’s not worth much more of a response. If you care to address the discrepancy of Clinton not doing much for years and getting a pass on it, and Bush not doing much for months and getting condemned, feel free. Otherwise, get back under the bridge.
Regards,
Shodan
Since this is the Pit, I don’t mind telling you that you’re either willfully ignorant or a mental midget. You’ve not only shielded your eyes from the truth, you haven’t even applied kthe tiniest amount of logic in examining the issue. You’ve completely disregarded the mounds of evidence that’s shown that Clinton at least tried to prevent terrorism, even when it wasn’t in fashion. At the very least, he addressed it and showed that he was serious about it. Secondly, you have yet to explain why, even after the warnings given to him about the terrorists intentions to harm the US, that Bush basically sat on his hands. He never even addressed the issue until 3,000 people were murdered. Take comfort in the fact that you’re not alone. In fact, this country re-elected a president who is very much like you.
Regards.
As to your first assertion, we were discussing the fact that Clinton had a chance to prevent 9/11, and didn’t take it. And his “wag the dog” against Iraq and his failure to take any substantive action after (at least) the Cole attack makes it quite clear that, as with every other action he ever took or contemplated, his alleged commitment to the war against terror was as shaky as his commitment to the truth.
As to the second, you have yet to address the basic inconsistency. Clinton had years (and at least one clear opportunity) to act against bin Laden, and didn’t. Bush had months, and no such opportunity (except a lot of talk from people who had already showed they couldn’t be trusted to tell the truth on anything).
And yet all the bashing is Bush. Because, as I mention, and as practically every political thread devolves eventually, IOKIADDI.
Ever sprain anything tying yourself into these ethical knots?
Regards,
Shodan
With Shodan, it’s not an either/or proposition. Of course, that’s probably Bill Clinton’s fault too.
I notice you keep repeating this, when citations by others in this thread show that this simply isn’t true. Dude, you need to stop watching Fox News.
What “wag the dog against Iraq”? You mean this?..
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/
Clinton had the mental strength to ignore his personal issues and lead the country effectively. He was a true leader, and the right wing hated him for it. It was the Republicans who couldn’t get past their puritanical obsession with his personal life.
Again, stop watching Fox News. The mere repetition of a lie doesn’t make it true. I see that your commitment to the truth is depths below Clinton’s.
I can just imagine Bush in his first year saying: “The previous adminstration tells me that there is a very good chance that we might be attacked and that I should take appropriate measures. I’m just gonna go ahead and ignore these warnings. The guy lied about a blowjob, so he must be lying about this too.”
So you admit that Bush should’ve responded to the warnings, but he didn’t because he felt Clinton was a liar. Now if he would just get on the air and tell us this. I’m sure the families of the victims of 9/11 will be so relieved to hear this.
Could it be that he deserves the bashing? I mean, he’s fucked up everything that he’s touched. He’s like the opposite of Midas, with the same outcome. But at least gold sparkles; shit doesn’t.
There are no ethical dilemmas as far as my opinion on this subject is concerned. Please explain where you see one. Clinton did what he could to prevent terrorism, even while facing all kinds of abuse from the right wing. Meanwhile, Bush was given a head start on dealing with terrorism. And he did nothing. Didn’t even mention it. In fact, he broke the record for most vacations by a president in his first year. It’s like he felt that his work was complete once he “won” the election.
I guess I do have a reading impediment of some sort. I’ve repeatedly asked you for a cite to support your claim that Clinton had this ‘perfect opportunity to take out bin Laden’ and chose to pass it up. I still haven’t read any such cite.
I apparently am unable to read cites that you don’t provide. Seems like I’m not the only one with that problem; I expect it’s a widespread disability here.
And I guess I should shelve my brief hope that maybe we could possibly get to a point where we could talk in a sensible manner.
I provided a lengthy cite on what Clinton was doing about terrorism in post 58; you’re welcome to explain how that constitutes ‘not doing much’ but you haven’t. And I outlined in post 70 what I thought were minimum reasonable expectations for GWB re terrorism in his early months in office, and you haven’t responded to that either.
So it seems like I’ve addressed both sides of that issue. Your response? To pretend I haven’t addressed any of that, to demand that I do so, and to claim I’m a troll because I haven’t.
When come back, bring apology about the troll stuff, and respond to posts 58 and 70. Otherwise, I don’t have the time for you.
Again?
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, I forgot what a worthless, pathetic jerkoff you are. Thanks for reminding me.
Fuck off asshole.
Does anybody really remeber whenj Clinton launched missles against Ben Laden in Afghanistan? I follow politics pretty closely and am a democrat. I was shocked when it happened. Launching into a soverign country was a big surprise .I has heard of Laden and El Quaida but the training camps were not well known. Very few people backed it. Now Shodan implies it was not a political risk or a dangerous act.Everybody knew it was a good thing. A bigger action would have met a huge American resistance.Dont rewrite history.