W. and the damage done

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

Wrong. Read the the 9/11 Commission Report.

I did. Other than labeling terrorist acts as "criminal"...nothing got done to alleviate more attacks. Truth is, Clinton Democrats simply did not choose to fight these radicals. More than one attack occured against U.S. interest in the 90's with no real response. Also, the Clinton administration helped Muslim fanatics gain an empowered leverage in Bosnia.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Enigma

I have similar feelings towards your posts on this thread....

Of course you can't defend your own stupid trash article.

[Aramike]

You know, a few weeks ago I was filling my tank at the local gas station I was behind a car that had two bumper stickers proudly displayed. The first was an Obama/Biden one. The second was one that stated that gas was only $1.46/gallon when Bush was elected.

I had to chuckle as I filled my tank for $1.39/gallon.

I guess it's just so easy to blame Bush for everything, that certain people refuse to stretch their brains to find REAL problems.

Oh, and when Clinton was elected gas was $1.04/gallon. What does that mean?

Nothing at all.

[Morts]

Originally Posted by Enigma

I have similar feelings towards your posts on this thread....

:rotfl: :rotfl:

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

The Left doesn't seem to know or understand that Islamic terrorism actually precedes the Bush administration by many years.

Do you actually mean this or are you making things up?

Also this article seems to believe that Mr. Bush can snap hurricanes into existence. Or the aftermath is his sole responsibility.

Bush appointed a man with no emergency management experience to the post of FEMA Director, an agency that failed to deal with the Katrina situation. Surely this act of gross incompetence makes him somewhat responsible for the aftermath.

Nowhere does it say that Bush has sole responsibility. The article is is an assessment of Bush's management, a comparison of two situations - 2000 and 2008. His management role in Katrina was to ensure that the government agencies were capable of response. They were not. His most personal involvement with FEMA was the naming of Michael Brown, a man with no experience of emergency management. Bush's role in this episode was a failure.

[Enigma]

Of course you can't defend your own stupid trash article.

Geez, settle down there, champ.

A) I didn't write it. I posted it. It's not "my" article/

B) I agree with most of it. Not all of it. I think this parroting of all of Bush's F up's being created by democrats is an old and tired one. Do I really want to spend my time in a chasing tails argument with someone who hates me for my political beliefs? Not really. Although it can be fun....

The man has been President for 8 years. You blame democrats for his failures. It took 8 years for him to wreck the countries confidence in Republicans, as the elections have demonstrated. I think it speaks for itself.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Do you actually mean this or are you making things up?

If the left truly believe in the "peace and prosperity" angle of this article, I guess they don't know that Islamic terrorism precedes Bush's presidency. There was simply no peace in the 90's. They only pretend there was. Or perhaps you also think like them and don't know about some of the death and destruction of the 90's where the response to it was nothing.

Nowhere does it say that Bush has sole responsibility. The article is is an assessment of Bush's management. His management role in Katrina was to ensure that the government agencies were capable of response. They were not. His most personal involvement with FEMA was the naming of Michael Brown, a man with no experience of emergency management. Bush's role in this episode was a failure.

True. And I agree with this. I however think that the dolts who wrote this article forgot that the Governor of that state, and the mayor of that city have a huge responsibility in this instance. To lay this disaster solely at the federal level is intellectual dishonesty in the largest extent.

[AntEater]

I think Bush simply misunderestimated the size of these problems....
:rotfl:

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Enigma

The man has been President for 8 years. You blame democrats for his failures. It took 8 years for him to wreck the countries confidence in Republicans, as the elections have demonstrated. I think it speaks for itself.

Absolute hogwash. I challenge the Democratic misconceptions of everything bad started and ends with Bush. It's alluded to in the article, and it's BS. If you buy this trash, I feel sorry for you. You haven't experienced much. Don't remember anything. And are easily fooled. Nor have you served in the Clinton military. The audience this article is meant for is the drones.

[Aramike]

It's funny how the Presidency is akin to "God" to certain people on the left. Maybe that's why they consider Obama their Messiah.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

If the left truly believe in the "peace and prosperity" angle of this article, I guess they don't know that Islamic terrorism precedes Bush's presidency.

What parts of the article? I can only see the first segment airing this sort of view, and nothing in it referring to the presence or lack of Islamic terrorism in the 1990's. You seem to believe that Islamic terrorism is the only component of peace or war. That is not the case.

As I've already stated, this is a comparison piece. The authors take the view that the US in 2008 is a considerably more warlike and less peaceful nation that it was in 2000. I agree, and I think many others would.

There was simply no peace in the 90's.

Again, do you mean peace in a general context or peace as relating to the rather idiosyncratic and particular presence of Islamic terrorism? We certainly saw less of it in the 1990's.
There was also peace in those years, notably in Northern Ireland.

Or perhaps you also think like them and don't know about some of the death and destruction of the 90's where the response to it was nothing.

That's a rather ignorant statement.

To lay this disaster solely at the federal level is intellectual dishonesty in the largest extent.

Well, yes. But the article does not do that, so it's not a valid or logical criticism. It deals with Bush's role in the disaster.

[Enigma]

I feel sorry for you.

And I you, sunshine.

[Onkel Neal]

President Bush inherited a lax and unguarded America.

Fixed.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

I did. Other than labeling terrorist acts as "criminal"...nothing got done to alleviate more attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...n_(August_1998)

Something was done. If bin Laden was at one of those camps, we might not be talking about this now. You can say the response was ineffective, but don't say there was no response.

[SteamWake]

Hrm... no one mentions the event where Bin Laden was handed to Clinton on a silver platter yet Bill dident want to stir things up.