Yeah, the Hypocratic Oath at work...

Yeah, going to the emergancy room for a hangnail is a little extreme... but it happens...

Well, that's about the truth of it... And a prime reason why the health care system needs to be overhauled. I agree with AK, I'd much rather see my tax $$$ supporting a health care system that all CITIZENS can benefit from instead of funding this insane war...

The problem with this is if you don't own anything you have free health care. If you own anything (your house) you are not eligible. That is the problem with unaffordable health care. There is no middle ground.

I never thought you a 'truther'. Now I know.

WTC 1993. If was taken seriously then three thousand wouldn't have died on 9/11 and you wouldn't be blaming the Bush administration now. Eight years of talk didn't stop them did it?


For the record Mr. Berger took the documents from the National Archive and to this day hasnot complied with his plea which included taking a lie detector examination.
Why hasn't that been pushed by the Bush justice department?

Read it here. The terrorists were darn busy during Clinton watch.

http://store.nationalreview.com/arch...%0929%09%09rel

You keep thinking that.:roll:

WTC 93 - People went to jail.

I suggest you read these. You'll notice the umm support the GOP provided in these efforts. The terrorists were darn busy during Clinton watch in your opinion because of the help the GOP gave them which seems to be forgotten now. You will notice that Clinton had more problems fighting terrorism with the GOP then fighting actual terrorists.

When terrorists first tried to take down the World Trade Center with a truck bomb in February 1993, there was no organized outcry of recrimination against George Herbert Walker Bush, who had left the Oval Office a scant six weeks earlier. Nobody sought political advantage by blaming Bush for the intelligence failures that had allowed the terrorist perpetrators to conspire undetected for more than three years…

Operating on limited intelligence -- at that time, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Tazikistan refused to share information on the terrorists whereabouts inside Afghanistan -- U. S. strikes missed bin Laden by only a couple of hours.
Even so, Clinton was accused of only firing missiles in order to divert media attention from the Lewinsky hearings. A longer campaign would have stirred up even more criticism.
So Clinton tried another tack. He sponsored legislation to freeze the financial assets of international organizations suspected of funneling money to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network -- identical to orders given by President Bush this month -- but it was killed, on behalf of big banks, by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas…

http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/...dTerrorism.htm
Myths Debunked - Clinton Didn't Fight Terrorism

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
Urban legends.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...lumenthal.html
"The Clinton Wars" Excerpts: How the GOP Undercut Clinton's Efforts to Fight Terrorism

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/516805.stm
The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has announced a major reorganisation, with a greater emphasis on the prevention of terrorist attacks against American interests.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.t...ill/index.html
The original House bill, passed last month, had deleted many of the Senate's anti-terrorism provisions because of lawmakers' concerns about increasing federal law enforcement powers. Some of those provisions were restored in the compromise bill
The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terroris...eet_10_96.html
WHITE HOUSE FACT SHEET ON COUNTER-TERRORISM MEASURES

http://nsi.org/Library/Terrorism/policy.html
Nevertheless, as strong as the bill was, it should have been stronger. For example, President Clinton asked the Congress to give U.S. law enforcement increased wiretap authority in terrorism cases. But the Congress refused. After the President proposed that the Secretary of the Treasury consider the inclusion of taggants in explosive materials, so that bombs can be traced more easily to the bomb makers, the Congress exempted black and smokeless powder -- two of the most commonly used substances in improvised explosive devices.

Good follow up bradclark! As I stated a few posts back the buck just gets passed to the next in line. Clinton really did not do much about it IMO and the buck got passed again. This time there was a whole bag of bucks when the trade centers were attacked. Bush could not sit on his thumbs. The country would have looked weak. In my previous posts everyone was gunho and now that we are losing, Bush is the idiot. It is a huge situation that is changing constantly. I suspect we will be there another 5 years. The region is just volatile to not have our presence there.

Bush did not address one terrorism issue until 911. Thats seven months that he just ignored the problem totally. Thats not passing the buck. Thats throwing the bank in the garbage.
Because of the impact and extent of 911 Tiny Tim could have been president and the same thing would have happened, we would have invaded Afghanistan. Who the actual president was didn't matter. There was only one action that was acceptable.

Sevens months in the White House and your feet are not wet as yet. I would suspect that terrorism was not forefront in the first seven months. His campaign promises were at the forefront.

I agree on the Tiny Tim and no matter what it would have happened. You stated there was only one action that was acceptable. What was that action? You lost me there.

Me too... Are you referring to Bush's "War on Terrorism" and it's encompassing of "the Axis of Evil", WMDs, and the Invasion of Iraq?

I meant that invading Afghanistan was the only action acceptable.

Each incoming administration is fully briefed on national security. If you had of read this link http://archive.salon.com/politics/fe...01/09/12/bush/ you would see that a bipartisan congressional study on terrorism had spent a lot of time and money and were trying to give the report to Bush but it was ignored because Bush wanted Cheney to do his own study. What a waste of time when that information is in his face. The VP never got around to it. It's unfortunate but terrorists weren't going by this administrations schedule.
Those excuses about wet feet and campaign promises are just that, excuses. I'm not trying to ride your butt but I noticed that when I showed you the myth's of Clinton inactivity you make excuses that terrorism wasn't a Bush priority. Obviously it wasn't but it sounds like you are trying to make excuses for him.

Gentlemen, the Japanese have a saying: "The Japanese fix the problem, Americans fix the blame". What has happened, has happened. Now, we are embroiled in an "open ended" war that goes well beyond "terrorism"... Our current Presidential leadership is a "lame duck", and we're confronted with trying to elect a leadership that will rectify the situation.

Excellent Wikipedia citation concerning Afghanistan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

From the citation (and recent history is certainly bearing this out):

"Since the invasion, Afghanistan has become less stable due to increased warlord and Taliban activity, growing illegal drug production, and a fragile government with limited control outside of Kabul."

IMO, all the US has done in the Middle East, other than the successful execution of Saddam Hussein for crimes against Humanity (which incidentally had NOTHING to do with Osama bin Laden and the War on Terrorism), is to destabilize the region further, compromise US Foreign Policy, generally p*ss off people and dig another multi-billion dollar hole to throw US $$$ into.... :damn:

Meanwhile, private US interests get fat on lucrative contracts, US military men and women continue to die as do the Iraqi civilians, and the Iranians are now a more significant nuclear factor... :damn:

From your quote:



and:

Kind of misleading to blame Bush for not getting it done in just 7 months in office what your boy didn't get it done in 6 years, dontcha think Brad?

In my opinion Clinton was not adamant enough during his 8 years concerning the warning signs. I make no excuses for Bush. He is not my favorite guy. What I was attempting to get across and perhaps passing the buck was not the best way to explain it, what I meant was the torch of terrorism has been passed on since Bush Sr to Clinton and then onto 'Dubb-ya'. It was his watch that the walls came crashing down via the trade centers. That what I was attempting to get across. Clinton did not pursue it as much as he should have and Bush did like wise. Although you can brief all you would like and who really knows what was told as the Clintonists decided to spend their time clearing out government property up to and not excluding taking the 'w' keys from the keyboards in the White House. Fun and games it was in the 8 years of renting out the Lincoln bedroom. Both are plausibly responsible in the matter.

It does not matter at this juncture as we are still faced with what to do in Iraq. I think we should keep a presence there.

Not really, 'my boy' did not ignore terrorism for seven months. In December and January Bush's team were briefed on Al Qaeda posing the worst security threat facing the nation. Could 'my boy' have done more? Hell yes. Was he sitting on his butt with terrorism? No, as I've shown. Did Bush ignore the pre-briefing? Yes. Did Bush ignore the May security briefing? Yes. Did he ignore the congressional study that spent an hour and a half briefing Rice in favor of the VP doing a study when he got around to it.? Yes. All three together is a flashing light. Could presidential attention on these have prevented 911? We'll never know. So no I don't think what I've said is misleading at all. Your boy ignored terrorism for seven months.

Hindsight 20/20 not to mention the GOP fighting him on every security issue that came to the houses.

I'm sure that had a bearing on things.:shifty:

Say what you like but people do not understand how it works. OK, for todays goverment problem, SoCal is blazing away. Dubb-ya said federal aid is on the way:roll: Sadly, I handle transportation for FEMA. Guess what, they have no funding to make this federal assistance happen. :o Hmmmmm....more beauracracy grinding to a stop? You bet! It happens with every presidency. So yeah, hindsight. I'm talking the here, now, today. Not looking over what we know at our leisure. Got to go bro, folks in SoCal need help.

And why are there no funds for domestic emergencies? (Does Katrina ring a bell?)

Because our flippin' government too too busy "protecting" us from "terrorists"...
We are spending so much time, money and attention to the Global Community that we are short-changing our own citizenry.

The Iraqi War isn't working and Bush can't flippin' reconcile himself to failure... There are other ways of dealing with the "terrorist" threat that don't include occupation of another sovereign nation... and spending BILLIONS of $$$ doing it...

SoCal is going to be a huge mess and we won't have the $$$ available for our OWN citizens... I go to SoCal once a month (I drive a semi for a living now) and I'm going to tell my dispatcher, "find someone else"... I drove in Louisiana after Katrina and it was very scary in places. There were a LOT of desparate people... And all they wanted was help...

And frankly, I don't give a rats a** if it's "business as usual for American bureaucrats" for whatever Adminstration is in office. The problem is not being addressed and it's not being changed to something more positive.

Katrina has nothing to do with it. The fiscal year of 2008 and monies available just clicked last month. This is how funding from year to year happens. They do not wait until January 1st. They need to make some calls to have FEMA moved to the head of the line with an open checkbook. Unfortunate it takes numerous calls to get it done.



Katrina is a whole different thread and perhaps looking at the Governer and Mayor who refused federal help needs to be read up on. Devastation there was MASSIVE! Know one knew were to start. I'm not on FEMA side as this wing is still screwed up. Nothing was learned at all.



Nor will it be in your and my lifetime. We have fallen into an abyss of status quo generated over the years. Red Tape as it were.