Agreed on the Clinton-bashing. After the Cole and African embassy bombings, nobody - not the government, media or general population - made Al-Queda a priority. That goes for both the Clinton and pre-9/11 Bush administrations. I just take issue with the suggestion that the War on Terror has been anything but a success so far, and we all knew (or should have known) that it was not going to be a quick and easy affair.
Yep, that's the only serious mistake made so far. I'm not sure whether it was Bush or the military who made that call.
It hasn't been perfect, but I wouldn't call it much of a failure either. In a perfect world (well, in a perfect world, none of this would've happened), OBL would be taken care of, and we'd be moving on to Iraq. Now, we've got to decide that Iraq is as much a threat or is part of the problem with OBL without knowing what OBL's future is. Sucks.
Bush has NOT declared war yet. Rumsfield has even said that Bush has not made an adequate case to go to war as he has not decided to do so yet. Remember if the threat is to be taken seriously it has to be believable. Powell is supposed to take evidence to the U.N. on Saturday. Let's see what he says. Also, Bush's talk is just that - talk. There have been no new shots fired (no fly zone actions but that's been going on for years before Bush came into office). You guys are all complaining that Bush is quick to pull the trigger but it sure seems like it's taking a long time for anything to happen. If Bush really were going to go to war regardless of what anyone says he'd have done it by now. Really you guys, admit that you just hate Bush and if he came out and did everything you wanted you'd still critisize him. This is not a rational discussion of policy this is just a "my team is better than your team" school yard argument. No different than all the "I hate the Jazz" threads.
AMEN! And stop the childish behavior of giving a standing ovation OR sitting on their hands for anything that is/isn't part of their party line. Every time the president (any of the recent past presidents) makes a point and they cut to the audience -- 1/2 cheering, 1/2 sitting with their arms crossed and a scowl, they remind me of Jr. High Kids. I half expect someone to stand up and say "I know you are but what am I!" I wouldn't be surprised if they don't leave dog poop in each other's offices, or give the independents wegies in the congressional gym. That and the "Opposing party" version of the state of the Union. They need to just listen to the speech, give a polite round of applause at the end, and go do their interviews for the morning papers/talk shows. If the Democrats and Republicans want to work together in a bipartisan manner (which they both claim -- and they'll applaud that statement) they need to start acting like adults.
Maybe it is a combination of words and actions. When he talks about healthcare, it may just be lip service until he proves it with action. But, when he talks about war, it is belligerence whether he acts on it or not. I'm not visiting to bash the boy, but I'm sure you can understand the difference in nature between what he says about war and what he says about healthcare.
Or worse... I've known aids to Senators and Congressmen who say that it can get downright nasty particularly when the incumbent leaves office and is followed by someone from another party. Some of the stuff they've done is pretty 3rd-grade-ish. I wish someone would write a book on that stuff.
I'm sick and tired of people defending 'their man' by showing the errors of another. Clinton screwed up, so did Bush at the start. So what? Clinton still screwed up. After multiple attacks from obl under Clinton, he did very little. He gave a 'Plan' to Bush? How many years does it take to make a Plan? My response to Worries was not Clinton-bashing. He said 'but Clinton did not declare war'. My pointing out that he did too little against obl was to argue that he was a little too conservative re. military reponses to use a benchmark for any subsequent Presidents. You don't need to jump on your horse everytime Clinton's name is mentioned, RM95.
what?? Kennedy walked and talked tough during the Cuban Missile Crisis...but he didn't declare war. How can you make that leap???? criticism of the president is fine...it's healthy in a democratic republic...but your obsession with this is bordering on ridiculous. you find a conspiracy at every turn...you take every word he says and give it it's most extreme meaning...you see war where there is not one. it's just getting silly now.
Thanks for the advice, Cohen. Like I'm the only one that does that here. This is one particular issue where Clinton bashing really pisses me off. Of course, my response is normally a response to what you chided me on. People criticize Bush, so someone criticizes Clinton for the same thing, then I respond, and you criticize me. Just cause what you said wasn't "Clinton-bashing" per say, it was still a criticism that I felt like I wanted to respond to.
If we want to discuss history, if Israel hadn't bombed Iraq's nuclear facility many years ago, we might not be going in because they would be another North Korea by now. Odd, the U.N. unanimously (and justly, per international law) condemned the Israeli action because it clearly violated Iraq's soverignty. Sounds like one of the same arguments being used against the US by the Europeans right now.
Originally posted by Rocketman95 Thanks for the advice, Cohen. Like I'm the only one that does that here. Perfect. Again..'others do that, so it's okay for me to' This is one particular issue where Clinton bashing really pisses me off. Of course, my response is normally a response to what you chided me on. People criticize Bush, so someone criticizes Clinton for the same thing, then I respond, and you criticize me. Just cause what you said wasn't "Clinton-bashing" per say, it was still a criticism that I felt like I wanted to respond to. Do you protect him from critical remarks, even when it's appropriate? Geez. Read my response. I don't care about bashing Clinton, he's history. Worries tried to draw a distinction between Bush and Clinton, and I pointed out that Clinton would not be a great benchmark under the circumstances. Think context.
Watchoo talkin' bout RM95? Last I recall he was dishing out more tv spots than George Foreman's late night lectures on his "lean mean fat-reducing machine". Its funny cause after the battle at Tora Bora we get nothing but old tapes and more recently an inconclusive audio tape. Don't you think the least bit if he were still around he would love to get out there in the public again and drop more of his "America is evil, America is the source of Islamic oppression smack?" We haven't seen a video tape in what, a year and a half? Two years?
Well, it's definitely been more recent than 18 months since the attacks haven't even been 18 months ago. I guess they could've created a tape that sounded like OBL talking about the Indonesia attacks, though.
I think Bin Laden, if he were capable, would cut more of those videos if he had the opportunity. Not only to just see himself on tv but to fortify the faith of the anti-American/anti-Israel movement.
