Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
The CIA isn't partisan. Information they provided to Clinton, they also had to provide to Bush.
struckpx said:
since i disagree with you on nixon, i have a bad track record. every time someone does not agree with you, you give them a negative view. great way to live life.
Glad to see you incorporating some kind of structured analysis into your critiques, and using someone else's writings (in this case Byron York's) to do so is fine; but when you do that, you should cite your sources.struckpx said:good source, Richard Clarke. Let's decipher the critiques he makes of the Clinton administration in his fine book about the lack of organization they used towards combatting al-Qaeda.
struckpx said:
how so? there have been no terrorist attacks here since he became president. 9/11 is directly related to clinton and his failures to do anything about it. i would call that a huge success. have you not read about the different plots that have been foiled? or are you to high to read anything positive about bush?
Illumination70 said:I feel the only legacy GW Bush will leave is the reputation of being the worst president the US has ever had.
Earnie Shavers said:
At the very least he'd have to be the least respected President. Certainly internationaly.
I actually think he hates the job, and has done for a long time, and it shows. There's a gazillion questions over his intelligence, and for the record I don't actually doubt that he's a bright guy, I just don't think he's that interested in 'stuff'. Can anyone here actually see the guy being engaged in debate and showing passion for ideas etc? I seriously can't. I think he fucking hates it. Loves to act Presidential when he can, would love all the ceremony and everything, but hates that he's supposed to be involved in shit. I think that's why he's always so quick to defer decisions to others, which is how he's ended up in this foreign policy mess - defer to the strongest opinion because you have none of your own - and it's why he's not just the worst US President I've seen behind a mic, but perhaps the worst communicator of any world leader I've seen from anywhere, ever.
The world just points and laughs at the guy.
Earnie Shavers said:
Can anyone here actually see the guy being engaged in debate and showing passion for ideas etc? I seriously can't. I think he fucking hates it.
The world just points and laughs at the guy.
Earnie Shavers said:
At the very least he'd have to be the least respected President. Certainly internationaly.
I actually think he hates the job, and has done for a long time, and it shows. There's a gazillion questions over his intelligence, and for the record I don't actually doubt that he's a bright guy, I just don't think he's that interested in 'stuff'. Can anyone here actually see the guy being engaged in debate and showing passion for ideas etc? I seriously can't. I think he fucking hates it. Loves to act Presidential when he can, would love all the ceremony and everything, but hates that he's supposed to be involved in shit. I think that's why he's always so quick to defer decisions to others, which is how he's ended up in this foreign policy mess - defer to the strongest opinion because you have none of your own - and it's why he's not just the worst US President I've seen behind a mic, but perhaps the worst communicator of any world leader I've seen from anywhere, ever.
The world just points and laughs at the guy.
phillyfan26 said:
Yes, let's base the success of the presidency on whether we've had major attacks against our country. That's the only basis we need. [/sarcasm]
Give me a freakin' break.
It's not like I hated Bush. In fact, in the 2000 election, I supported him over Gore. Why? Because I was not a particularly big fan of Bill Clinton, and I saw Gore as coming from that vein of rule. But his handling of the presidency has been awful. He deserves this criticism. I see any defense of him as blind faith to the republican party, because I can't think of another reason to look upon his presidency, and say with a straight face, "He did a good job."
To say, "Oh, he didn't have any terrorist attacks on his watch, so he was great" is ridiculous. What about Iraq? Complete failure, bad idea from the start. The War on Terror? Not a bad idea, horrible execution. No Child Left Behind? Horrible system. I could go on and on and on. The bottom line is, he's done horribly. They're corrupt now too, with the cover-up of Cheney's CIA leak.
Oh, by the way, September 11th happened on his watch. His administration, as was pointed out, admitted they had the information. I can't believe you can reasonably state that he has no fault in handling of the info.
struckpx said:
how so? there have been no terrorist attacks here since he became president. 9/11 is directly related to clinton and his failures to do anything about it. i would call that a huge success. have you not read about the different plots that have been foiled? or are you to high to read anything positive about bush?
ramblin rose said:
Are you that delusional? I understand you're young but come on. How in the world can you blame 9/11 on Clinton?
The only thing I'm still left wondering about is what would have happened on 9/11 if the Clinton administration would have still been in power and had been given the same informtion that the Bush administration seemed to have before the attack.
Maybe the attack would have still been successful, maybe not. I'm still not sure.
As far as I'm concerned, Bush is one of the worst (if not the worst) President this country has ever had.
As just so that we're clear, I've voted both Democrat and Republican in past presidential elections.
The only thing that gives me hope is that most of the staunch Bush supporters and lifelong Republicans that I know and that supported Bush in the last two elections are now backing various Democratic candidates in 2008.
struckpx said:
how can you not? Clinton's administration did nothing to stop the advance of al-Qaeda, when it could have ended it.
BonoVoxSupastar said:Wow. Just wow...
struckpx said:
i know. i am amazed at clinton's administration as well. pathetic regarding our national security.
struckpx said:
i know. i am amazed at clinton's administration as well. pathetic regarding our national security.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
No, I'm just amazed that you think it just popped up out of nowhere during Clinton's admin. You seem to have forgotten that we armed them at one time during the 80's, and that W didn't take any threat seriously either until after 9/11.
But yeah, let's blame it all on Clinton. Short sightedness is one step away from blindness.
struckpx said:
Why then should we blame Bush for the 8 months that he was in office. All of us know that it takes months to get new policies in place from old ones. Almost everyone here is blaming Bush, yet he had only been on the job 8 months. Very little can be done in that amount of time. Clinton had 8 years.
Irvine511 said:
and very little is what was done during those 8 months. i'm not going to let Clinton off the hook, not at all. but the record clearly shows that when the Bush team took over, they were disinterested in terrorism and wanted to focus on Russia and China. Condi Rice was one of the foremost experts on the Soviet Union.
and we still can't get around the August memo of "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the US."
do you have any criticisms of Bush? or just rationalizations disguised as Clinton criticisms?
ramblin rose said:The only thing that gives me hope is that most of the staunch Bush supporters and lifelong Republicans that I know and that supported Bush in the last two elections are now backing various Democratic candidates in 2008.
struckpx said:
how so? there have been no terrorist attacks here since he became president. 9/11 is directly related to clinton and his failures to do anything about it. i would call that a huge success. have you not read about the different plots that have been foiled? or are you to high to read anything positive about bush?
Bluer White said:
But Bush isn't running in '08, obviously.
Are your solid Republican friends supporting Hillary/Obama as a protest vote? Do they feel like Hillary will sort out the war mess much differently than Giuliani/Thompson/Romney? Maybe your GOP buddies are just waiting for Newt Gingrich to jump into the race
Zoomerang96 said:
this is the most genuinely stupid post i've read here since i first started posting 7 more than seven years ago.
Irvine511 said:
maybe you could expand your reading and plagiarize from other sources?
Irvine511 said:
and very little is what was done during those 8 months. i'm not going to let Clinton off the hook, not at all. but the record clearly shows that when the Bush team took over, they were disinterested in terrorism and wanted to focus on Russia and China. Condi Rice was one of the foremost experts on the Soviet Union.
and we still can't get around the August memo of "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the US."
do you have any criticisms of Bush? or just rationalizations disguised as Clinton criticisms?
BonoVoxSupastar said:
No, I'm just amazed that you think it just popped up out of nowhere during Clinton's admin. You seem to have forgotten that we armed them at one time during the 80's, and that W didn't take any threat seriously either until after 9/11.
But yeah, let's blame it all on Clinton. Short sightedness is one step away from blindness.
Over the line.Zoomerang96 said:this is the most genuinely stupid post i've read here since i first started posting more than seven years ago.