I’m not sure that it is possible. (Fighting your ignorance, that is.)
When read the OP I was impressed that the poster managed to say “President Gore” twelve times, while mentioning “President Bush” exactly none. Then again, this is his rant.
But as I read on, I became somewhat depressed that not a single poster, on either side of the issue, said, “President Bush”. President Miss Cleo, President Harrison Ford, and President Tom Daschle were all granted the title, but not our sitting president.
Totalling things up, Al (still not the president) Gore was granted the title 15 times, and mentioned by last name 31 more. President Bush was never mentioned by title, by was called by last name 29 times, and referred to as “Dubya” 7 more.
Like it or not, George W. Bush is the President of the United States and will be for the foreseeable future.
Next topic: “Ashcroft” is capitalized not out of respect, but out of the rules of grammar.
Ah. Now I see where rjung was coming from. Apply my argument from his previous point to that one: This is a whole new world. I know it sounds trite, but comparing Congressional approval of Bush’s activities post-September 11th to Congressional disapproval of, say, Clinton’s activities in Bosnia is apples and oranges.
Ahem. As the poster of President Cleo and President Ford, I take exception to being included. I didn’t mention President Bush, directly or otherwise, in that post, and when I mentioned Al Gore, it was just like that, with no “President” tag at all.
I see where you’re going, but don’t tar me with that brush.
Neither did I. I didn’t mention President Bush at all, with or without the honorific.
And, for the record, I didn’t consider Bush or Gore to be the lesser evil, which is why I did not vote for either of them for the presidency. I threw my vote away on a third, or really fourth, party.
This source claims that Bill Clinton’s FBI Director Louis Freeh knew about the terrorist threat, but took no action, escept to warn Ashcroft. Supposedly, Freeh continued to take no action during the first half of 2001, while he continued to head the FBI.
First of all, I don’t believe that Freeh had key terrorism knowledge which he failed to act on. That’s a horribly serious accusation to make without evidence.
Second, if the accusation were true, I don’t see why Ashcroft would deserve the blame. Freeh would deserve the blame.
Why no, I have lead a life completely devoid of any kind of negative feedback. My entire existence has been one of constant adulation. :rolleyes: yourself.
I didn’t vote for either Bush or Gore so what’s the fucking point?
Enjoy the armchair politicians that sit back and say that this could have been better, that could have been different. But you will forever be pitting them against each other as long as one or the other is in office.
Holy shit. Only a democrat would post an ‘insightful’ article from a site called ‘Media Whores Online’. What, not even the frigging NY Times can give you better tripe?
What Gore would or would not have done is meaningless. It is Gore’s daddy Klinton that fucked things up for us. While Gore may just be an automoton for the leftists, even I wouldn’t blame him, coming in after 8 years of clinton.
Gee fucking whiz, why is the CIA and FBI chock full of nitwits? It couldn’t have anything to do with the politically correct gobblers that clinton put in there over the course of 8 years, huh?
Oh, you know better then that. The problem is systematic, sure, but top-bottom, not bottom-top.
I am hopped up on espresso right now, but I will try:
1)Clinton gets elected.
2)Clinton appoints the new heads of the FBI, CIA, etc. Clintons high-placed cohorts will also place people, but in lesser positions. So…
a)His buddies populate/influence promotion in the lower ranks (still talking about upper-management, but stuff like 'assistant deputy this or that)
3)Since Clinton is a screaming fuck-tard, it only follows that the people he appoints will also be screaming fuck-tards. Furthermore, Clintons cohorts are screaming fuck-tards, who will appoint yet more screaming fuck-tards.
The FBI (for example) now has Clinton, then Reno, then Freeh in its very upper ranks. THREE LAYERS OF FUCK-TARDEDNESS ALREADY!
5)Fast forward 8 or so years. The idiocy at the top-level of the agencies has promulgated itself down to the mid-levels of the agencies, since management tends to promote like-minded individuals.
Something like that. That is how Clinton clobbered our various agencies (which were pretty jacked up to begin with!) The military is not excluded. Remember, we actually had a general call a lawyer and ask whether or not M.Omar was a valid target. Fuck-tardedness abounds, even to this day.
Had he been elected by the Supreme Court, President Gore would have immediately gone on television and made a 2 hour long speech pointing out that the attack had violated ordinance 3.14159sub[/sub] of the EPA regulations for dumping waste without a permit.
He would have explained page by page the full provisions of the Goode-Green-Cox bill and why that did NOT apply, although Dingell-Boxer did. Mostly, the address would focus on Lott-Crapo.
You continue to demonstrate your ignorance. As anyone who has watched any of the various Federal agencies can explain to you (if you stop screaming loudly long enough to listen), the civil servants within the organization are masters at ignoring things that they believe are “imposed” on them from cabinet-level positions. Occasionally, a cabinet officer can screw up a department (briefly) by refusing to authorize any large projects that they oppose. (Can you cite a single large project in the FBI or CIA that has been opposed at the cabinet level?) However, the rank and file in day-to-day activities are rarely affected by actual politics–certainly not in a mere eight years, given the length of service that the civil servants tend to have.
(Note that with twelve years to work on them, the Reagan-Bush team was unable to create a crew to detect and destroy terrorists–or even to recognize that the U.S.S.R. was crumbling as quickly as it did, a specific goal claimed by Reagan-Bush. It would have been the Reagan-Bush inspired and directed team that performed so admirably in Waco in '93, even though Reno gets to take the blame for it.)
Basically, you have simply shown (once again) that you are as hysterically partisan and as phobic of facts as the source cited in the OP.
I used to work with an ecomomist who called this the “galloping meatball” theory. I never found out if that was his personal joke, or whether it’s in some economics text.
tomndebb, sorry, but when you have political appointees of the nature that Clintons and Congress did in those organizations, it fostered a very bad attitude in the FBI and CIA where agents were not following up on leads because they feared that any mistakes, no matter how minor would lead to the end of their careers.
My father took early retirement because of similar problems in the Civil Service, and my mother is constantly struggling with them in doing her job. The current enviroment in the Civil Service is one of Total Zero Tollerance*, where a single small mistake will ruin your career, and most of the people running the organizations are allways looking for a scapegoat who made said small error to place the blame for the failings above upon. Very few of the appointed level people are willing to standup for their lower downs because to do so is to ask for the end of their current political positions. Thus the lower downs are even worse about it. Do I place the blame for this problem on the Clintons shoulders? Not entirely, the problem started before the Clintons, but they majorly increased the problem with their appointments.
***** As opposed to Zero Tollerance, which is the idea that one does ones best not to repeat mistakes, ie. One learns from ones mistakes. The current enviroment only lets you learn that a single mistake will be your last.
