2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread-Part 11

[Dreadsox]

Dread, do you know who was president of the United States on 9/11? Bill Clinton? Nope. Al Gore? Nope. Bozo the Clown? Close. But no, it was George W. Bush, who had BEEN president of the United States for a full nine months before the attack. It happened ON HIS WATCH. Even though he constantly likes to say things like "Not on my watch". Therefore, it was HIS responsibility to have prevented the attack. The buck stops here, as Reagan used to say. He was in charge. He was briefed a month before that Al Queda was a threat and was trying to use airplanes and fly them into buildings. Did the president put the country on a red alert? Nope. Did he step up the inteeligence agencies to do everything they could to find the suspects? Nope. Did Bush do ANYTHING regarding Al Queda nine months before the attack? NO.

Did Bill Clinton try to do anything about Al Queda during his presidency? Read for yourself:
t r u t h o u t | Clinton, 9/11 and the Facts

But I digress. Would ANY U.S. President roll over in a 9/11 event and do nothing. Of course not. But let me just remind you of what GWB HAS done:
Started two wars in two countries and yet has NOT CAUGHT Bin Laden.
Mission accomplished.
DO you want me to keep going on this? Because after listening to republican horse manure for the last eight years, I've got plenty.

I think you are quite rude. If I thought for a moment you were up for a debate that would result in anything more than rude comments like this, then I would take you up on it.

Instead I will point out that I was participating in a discussion about Al Gore, the sitting president prior to the 2000 election who gave up power in January 2001.

So yes, if I were to examine the hypothetical question about how a Gore President would have responded to 9/11, the historical evidence counts, and not just the "evidence" that you are making your case with. There is plenty of evidence that there was not an effective response to the terrorism issue from the first attack on the trade center. If their responses were effective, then 9/11 may not have happened.

I would also say to you, that when dealing with the hypothetical question, I included a statement about the Bush Administration as well, do you need me to read it to you?

The question was about Gore, not Bush... disagree with my points all you want, your response was uncalled for.

 

[BVS]

It's an actual concern. Al Qaeda looks at the U.S. as a country that doesn't finish what it starts. I'm talking about what the enemy thinks. People on this board are expecting Iraq to fall apart into 3 countries.

You've told me how I think, you've told us how liberals think, you've told us how Bono thinks, you've told us how rich people think, and now you are telling us how Al Qaeda thinks. Unless you have any shred of evidence as to how someone thinks, why don't you stick to just telling us what and how you think and let everyone else speak for themselves.

You've been wrong every time, at least this way you can't get it wrong.

 

[corianderstem]

I'm not Diemen (duh), but I'm going to give my two cents anyway.

As far as I'm aware, mods are able to have opinions and participate in discussions. Yolland participates in discussions as well. Diemen might be a little more sharper with the sarcasm, but that's all he's doing, too.

I'd say he's being a mod when he's warning people about behavior or locking threads. Anything else is just him participating in discussion.

And if he were going around only handing out warnings or whatever to conservative posters and allowing similar behavior to continue from liberal posters, then there'd be an issue.

But I'm surprised some people are acting like he's not allowed to have opinions or participate in discussion (even with a mildly sarcastic comment) just because he gets to step in to close threads or break up a pile-on as a mod.

 

[martha]

But I'm surprised some people are acting like he's not allowed to have opinions or participate in discussion (even with a mildly sarcastic comment)

Some of the conservative posters are a little touchy about that, aren't they.

 

[Dreadsox]

Where the differences lie in my mind is in what would have happened concurrently with that, and what would have happened after that.

Well, I cannot guarentee that Gore would have gone into Afghanistan given there were attacks over an eight year span that were responded to with strategic bombing.

If Gore did decide to go in, I am willing to bet that he would not under any circumstances have brought us into Iraq and then maybe we would have completed the job in Afghanistan.

I truly believe that Bush had determined the correct course of action with Afghanistan at the start. Sadly, the influences in the administration brought us to Iraq before finishing the job.

 

[Diemen]

I'm wondering how we know when you are a regular poster, and when you are a moderator?

With respect, of course.

- Bluer White

Maybe I should've added a smiley.

My inference there was not that he's a terrorist, of course. But it does seem odd that he's telling us "what the enemy thinks." and then later on telling us what FYM posters' expectations are.

 

[Diemen]

But I'm surprised some people are acting like he's not allowed to have opinions or participate in discussion (even with a mildly sarcastic comment) just because he gets to step in to close threads or break up a pile-on as a mod.

Thanks for explaining it better than I probably would have.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Why it it that people think Bin Laden is remotely relevant to the discussion? Or that any "war on terror" begins and ends with Al Qaeda? Or that the Vice President that knew that Saddam had WMD and established links with Osama bin Laden would have reacted dramatically differently?

At least the solid anti-war crowd recognises that both parties backed the Iraq War (and brutal sanctions before that) and the lines put out by Bush matched those of the Democrats during the 1990's (and the insider knowledge that Hillary, Kerry etc. had in 2002).

It will be interesting when Obama is able to pull troops out of Iraq because of conditions on the ground, I wager that the narrative will be that he ended the war without leaving behind a bloodbath. If this is able to occur it will be in no small part because Bush was a second term president who made some very unpopular decisions after listening to his generals that a first term president probably wouldn't make. A narrative of defeat may be required to win an election, but it will change once Obama is in the White House, and frankly that is a good thing.

 

[corianderstem]

Thanks for explaining it better than I probably would have.

Glad I could speak for you.










zomg, please don't ban me for daring to speak for you!

 

[Dreadsox]

Diemen is probably one of the more vocal posters in FYM over the years. I do not envy him transistioning to the Mod Squad. I think that can be a tough position to be in. Conservative posters will respect the mods that show respect in their use of power. Yolland has done it. Pax used to do it and Angie used to do it. It is when people see someone abusing power to further their cause that concerns most. Diemen has done nothing to show otherwise that he cannot be a stand up mod.

 

[Diemen]

Well, I cannot guarentee that Gore would have gone into Afghanistan given there were attacks over an eight year span that were responded to with strategic bombing.

I see what you're saying. But I think the magnitude of 9/11 is the game changer here. It was such a huge shock to the country, and brought us all together, especially in looking for our government to respond, that I believe that Gore would have gone.

If Gore did decide to go in, I am willing to bet that he would not under any circumstances have brought us into Iraq and then maybe we would have completed the job in Afghanistan.

I truly believe that Bush had determined the correct course of action with Afghanistan at the start. Sadly, the influences in the administration brought us to Iraq before finishing the job.

I agree with all of this.

 

[Diemen]

zomg, please don't ban me for daring to speak for you!

Touché.

 

[corianderstem]

It is when people see someone abusing power to further their cause that concerns most.

Are you suggesting Diemen is abusing his power? If he were banning conservative posters, scolding them publicly or closing their threads for no good reason but doing the same for liberal posters, then I would agree. But he's not doing that.

 

[Dreadsox]

Are you suggesting Diemen is abusing his power? If he were banning conservative posters, scolding them publicly or closing their threads, then I would agree. But he's not doing that.

Did I say that? Did you read the last sentence? Or are you taking one thing out of context to really piss me off?

 

[A_Wanderer]

You've told me how I think, you've told us how liberals think, you've told us how Bono thinks, you've told us how rich people think, and now you are telling us how Al Qaeda thinks. Unless you have any shred of evidence as to how someone thinks, why don't you stick to just telling us what and how you think and let everyone else speak for themselves.

You've been wrong every time, at least this way you can't get it wrong.

He seems to be pretty much on target, Islamists constantly make the point that America is a paper tiger that can be defeated by wars of attrition, that by inflicting casualties it breaks your weak spirit. Mogadishu and Lebanon are two examples of this pervasive weakness, America is too soft and all a religiously inspired gang has to do is blow a few of them up and they get to keep whole countries under their thumb.

And yes the stated goals of the butchers like Zarqawi was to divide Iraq, to plunge it into a civil war which would end with the extermination of heretical Muslims and the conditions where the people could turn to religious fundamentalists for stability, a situation whereby they could start redrawing the map of the Middle East under a God-sanctioned government. That doesn't seem too out of left field, its one of the reasons behind the Anbar Awakening (something which seems to have happened in plenty of FYM posters until after a certain candidate acknowledged it - if you want names I'm thinking of Irvine and others who maintained that there was no way a military push with changed ROE could reduce violence).

I wouldn't trust people who saw AQ in Mesopotamia as a peoples liberation front to make decisions of consequence, not that there are any of those here, on that issue I think George Bush will be proven right in the long run and that his policy decisions from 2006 - 2008 will be judged in a better light than those earlier on.

 

[corianderstem]

Did I say that? Did you read the last sentence? Or are you taking one thing out of context to really piss me off?

... or maybe I just misunderstood you. I'm certainly not out to piss you off.

 

[Dreadsox]

... or maybe I just misunderstood you. I'm certainly not out to piss you off.

Maybe I am not typing clearly. Diemen has done nothing to make me think that he cannot do a good job.

Comments and digs like this

Some of the conservative posters are a little touchy about that, aren't they.

Do nothing to make people feel welcome.

 

[corianderstem]

Then I definitely misread you. Sorry about that.

 

[Dreadsox]

Then I definitely misread you. Sorry about that.

I am pretty damn cranky tonight anyway...probally all my fault...so says my better half.

 

[corianderstem]

No worries - not your fault at all. I went back and read your initial post and yes, I completely misread the last sentence you wrote. Let's just say I read it to say the opposite of what you actually did say.

 

[A_Wanderer]

If they found Bin Ladens very decomposed corpse tomorrow (the man is dead) would it change anything?

Fault for these definitions of victory rest on the administration who were ham fisted enough to label it a war on terror and declaring that getting Bin Laden and those behind 9/11 was the be all and end all.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Biden handled that interview well. There’s a part near the end where he gives a little “WTF is this?” look off to the side of the camera that cracked me up. Can you image someone in 2000 or 2004 asking Dick Cheney about George Bush wanting to turn America into a totalitarian state? Both Cheney’s reaction and the right wing reaction to the interviewer/station? Just as ridiculous a line of questioning, and I don’t know how Cheney would have handled it, but you could bet the station would have been banned in the same way, with far more ‘outrage’ rather than “what the hell?” humour from the reaction/commentary on it.

 

[Dreadsox]

No worries - not your fault at all. I went back and read your initial post and yes, I completely misread the last sentence you wrote. Let's just say I read it to say the opposite of what you actually did say.

I am not sure it says what I meant now that I have read it. I am going to sip my scotch and take a break.

Besides it is almost cuddle time

 

[corianderstem]

Both Cheney’s reaction and the right wing reaction to the interviewer/station?

... must ... not .... make joke about .... Cheney shooting someone in the face .... or saying ..... "go fuck yourself" ........ nope, not gonna make the joke. Not gonna do it ..... not gonna do it!

 

[Utoo]

I'm wondering how we know when you are a regular poster, and when you are a moderator?

With respect, of course.

- Bluer White

With respect, of course, you may notice that nearly every moderator who actively posts on Interference does so with their own personality. Sicy has been shown to have quite the biting sarcasm. I've seen Khananda get into a pretty ugly discussion now and then. No one dares to question or mock them.

Seems to me like Diemen's having to put up with more than a share of "let's challenge the new guy."


ETA: I see that Cori has said something pretty similar

 

[corianderstem]

I am going to sip my scotch and take a break.

I'm developing a taste for scotch myself these days.

Take a break, you say? ...... does not compute. I'm not sure my computer even has an off switch!

 

[BVS]

He seems to be pretty much on target, Islamists constantly make the point that America is a paper tiger that can be defeated by wars of attrition, that by inflicting casualties it breaks your weak spirit. Mogadishu and Lebanon are two examples of this pervasive weakness, America is too soft and all a religiously inspired gang has to do is blow a few of them up and they get to keep whole countries under their thumb.

What people say and what people think are often two entirely different things when at war, of course you are going to say your enemy is weak.

 

[Utoo]

FYM----the uglier, more addictive side of the Blue Crack.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It strikes me more like an opinionated and biased poster (and most posters are, myself included) has been given mod privileges and continues to behave to other posters such as diamond, financeguy and the slew of Rush-lites as he used too, the only problem is that now he has a big stick in his hands which forces one to be extra-judicious in response.

 

[U2isthebest]

Not gonna do it ..... not gonna do it!

You're welcome. I will go out of my mind with joy if he shows up on the SNL election special November 3rd to do one last Daddy/Son Bush sketch with Will Ferrell.ray: