I have a burning desire to be counted among the “serious political debaters.” To whom should I submit my credentials?
Also if you really want to claim that lefties all support each other and save their vitriol for the small, lonely group of scapegoated conservatives, try asking the two above posters for their opinions of me. Or doesn’t that count, somehow?
Actually, this one single statement, IMO, proves the point about how hard it is to stop something.
Despite the Clinton Administrations excellent efforts to try to prevent attacks, and working against AQ in other countries, the only reason that attack was stopped was because a customs agent thought the attacker was a drug smuggler, and caught the attacker with bomb supplies.
So that doesn’t count?
Given that the Clinton Administration had no part in preventing that particular attack, no it doesn’t count as an attack that they prevented.
Who was president? I forget.
Why is that important? I forget.
Customs was a division of the Treasury Department (at that time), which fell under the executive branch of government. Remind me, who was chief executive at the time?
I think in order to give a president credit for a customs agent catching a dude with a bomb, you’d have to show that the president had something to do with that. If it was the result of a new directive in customs that the president had some control over, or a new focus, then the president can get some credit. If it was just a continuation of previous policies that would have run under any president, then no.
I don’t know this particular story, so I’m not trying to comment on the actual facts, just the way I would approach giving credit.
So if Clinton had not continued the Customs policies of the Bush administration, and the bomb had come through, would he be held accountable for the resulting terrorist attack?
You have to be non-partisan. That’s the ticket, right there. As everybody knows, partisanship is stupid, because partisans say stupid things. Therefore, it follows that the best way to avoid being stupid is to be non-partisan, an independent thinker who recognizes the blind folly of partisanship.
One side struggles for freedom and justice for all personkind, railing against oppression. The other opines that the crushing dominance of the rich and powerful is the natural order of things, what has been, and always shall be, shit without end, amen.
Clearly, these two positions are little more than the opposite sides of the same coin! On the other hand, I could be wrong about that.
The most intelligent minds on the Board are clearly non-partisan. We have this on the very best authority, precisely those persons whose mental clarity is free from partisan prejudice. One side screams “Peace! Freedom!”, the other shrieks for “War! Authority!”, the blessed few take note that chicken noodle soup is quite tasty, if well prepared.
Let us all take a moment to be grateful for the independent, non-partisan thinker! OK, that’s enough, no need to overdo it.
Feh! as they say in Lubbock. Non-partisanship? Straight to the quarry, says I!
Again, why does that matter?
Larger context:
1)The Clinton Administration was given credit (in a previous post) for “preventing” a terrorist attack.
-
Giving credit implies some action taken by the Clinton Administration played a part in the detection of this particular attack.
-
The attack was thwarted by a customs agent thinking the person was behaving strangely and probably a drug smuggler. Acting on her own and from no information or any action by the Clinton Administration, she checked him out and discovered he was carrying something she thought was drugs but turned out to be bomb supplies.
Where in that sequence did the Clinton Administration play any part in preventing the attack other than continuing the customs inspection process that had been in place for a long time?
If the customs policies had been in place for decades and he decided to end them for some stupid reason, then sure, he would probably have been held accountable.
To me, it makes sense for you to get credit, or blame, for changes you make not for the status quo.
I think it’s possible to be partisan without being “My party, right or wrong!” There’s nothing wrong with assessing the sides and choosing between them (and there’s everything wrong with not assessing the sides and then claiming there’s no difference).
Here’s the more important point, and the one I was making to RT:
Despite all of Clinton Admins good efforts at preventing terrorism, they played zero part in preventing this attack.
The larger point being this:
- Attacks are tough to prevent even if you are being proactive like Clinton
- Stating that Bush would have prevented 9/11 if only he had continued doing what Clinton did is very questionable given that Clinton Admin, despite excellent efforts, made zero difference in preventing this attack
Uh… the terrorists?
Your credentials need to be reviewed by Shodan. Note that if you have ever made a humorous comment, or if you have ever been less than sycophantic towards any towering intellects such as Sarah Palin or the Newtster, you will be classed as “one of the usual suspects”, and he will be free to mock, troll and insult you at will.
I would absolutely LOVE to see a Gingrich-Palin ticket on the Republican side for the White House.
Well, I’ve made a number of statements expressing disappointment about Palin, which I guess started soon after she began making speeches and undermining all the positive anticipation I’d had…
So does that disqualify me? So, Shodan, what are you looking for in a serious debate opponent?
You have no point.
The question is, would the Clinton administration’s all-hands-on-deck approach to the Millennium plot have had a real chance to be effective against 9/11, given that local FBI offices knew about all these Middle Eastern guys taking flight training but not learning to land, and given that Moussaoui’s laptop fell into what would have been their laps if they’d been the ones running the show?