The Bush administration

[NBVegita]

I want to hear an opinion about a question I asked myself just recently. All of the blame is being construed onto president bush, but do you believe that it is mostly President Bush's fault? The fault of his advisors/appointees? or a joint endeavour.

[SeVeR]

Bush makes the decisions, its his fault. I seriously do not think you can p!@#$%^&* the buck onto intelligence agencies if you happen to select reports based on minority opinion. If 95% of the intelligence community (including the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency) is telling Bush that Iran aren't purifying weapons grade plutonium while 5% say they are then you are either a liar or an incredible doofus to act on that 5% that BTW still needs to be scrutinized and proven before threatening another nation. We don't want either of those people in charge of the greatest country in the world. No liars and no idiots, whichever is true.

 

However its certain that Bush hired Hoekstra to write this report, the man is afterall appointed by Bush to do this sort of thing. Oh and btw, Hoekstra is the same guy who said that 500 WMDs had been found in Iraq, a claim he announced on (you guessed it) Fox News.

[SVS]

Remember, President Bush is the "decider"

[AstroProdigy]

I think Cheney and Rumsfeld have done their share of sending the world to !@#$%^&*. President Bush is the decider, but he's swayed by his cabinet, especially in this administration where Cheney and Rumsfeld are like second and third presidents we didn't vote for. It's not all Bush's fault for making stupid decisions. Some of it is Bush's fault for letting power hungry madmen on par with Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il make decisions.

[SVS]

You can't help but make fun of him JUST for the "I'm the decider" line. I am a Republican and I think it is just GREAT!

[Confess]

You guys have to remember...a lot of the crap that happens, is do to other Presidents either leaving it to the point that another President must deal with it, or one President taking over at the direct time when something happens...President Bush has gotten stuck inbetween both of those. Clinton had the chance to get rid of the terrist that have !@#$%^&*ed up America, but instead didnt, leaving Bush to have to deal with them.

[AstroProdigy]

No Clinton didn't have that chance, but I like how your so willing to buy into anything you're told. I think this is the campaign idea for Republicans in 2006. Say it's Clinton's fault so people ignore the GOP's complete and utter incompetence. Republicans take things to new lows. President Bush had 9 months of loud warnings about September 11 and chose to play golf instead.

[Aileron]

That at!@#$%^&*ude is at heart, arrogant and underestimates the abilities of our enemies. Neither Bush nor Clinton had any "loud" signs of attack, or atleast any louder than the usual background noise of false threats from misc. fools.

 

We may be a superpower, but we don't know everything that goes on in the world drastically moreso than any other place. I mean, we are a little better at identifying threats than most, but ultimately we can only do so much.

 

For instance, as a superpower our infantry are better equipped, trained, and strategically managed than most, but still at the end of the day our soldiers are as mortal as any other. Our intelligence agencies are similar. We have superior technology and training, yet at the end of the day it is and will always be possible to blindside us.

 

To say either president could've taken steps to predict and prevent 9/11 defensively is just an underestimation of the sneakiness of Al Queda.

 

Now, Clinton did have an effective opportunity to pre-emptively invade Afghanistan, which would've worked. However, that opinion is strictly out of hindsight and Clinton never would have been able to garner support in pre-9/11 America for such an invasion.

 

 

But, back to the topic, it is ALWAYS in politician's rights to bash their opponants. Such statements are merely business as usuall and don't "stick" often.

[NBVegita]

well put

[AstroProdigy]

Sounds exactly like the speeches they make. The fact is the facts were there and every day it was getting louder and louder, but Bush chose to ignore it. Granted, it was hard to believe something like that could actually be done, but to blame it on Clinton is just pre-election partisanship. This kind of stuff does stick and it affects election as with the attack on McCain's prisoner of war time and Kerry's swift boat attacks. Rove knows how to get things done and then Bush can deny involvement. That's how Republicans manage to eek out their slim majorities despite their corruption.

[NBVegita]

First off you act like democrats don't have just as much corruption as republicans. Just read cnn.com and there is a new story today. There is always corruption in every party no matter what. And of course near election time is time for both sides to dig up as much dirt as possible.

 

To say either president could've taken steps to predict and prevent 9/11 defensively is just an underestimation of the sneakiness of Al Queda.

 

Now, Clinton did have an effective opportunity to pre-emptively invade Afghanistan, which would've worked. However, that opinion is strictly out of hindsight and Clinton never would have been able to garner support in pre-9/11 America for such an invasion.

 

He is not blaming Clinton at all. Simply put, looking back on it, it would have been a great idea for Clinton to invade Afghanistan. Notice: Looking back. At the time, as Aileron states, Clinton did the right thing because he would never have gotten the support needed to invade Afghanistan, even with all the signals our government had.

[AstroProdigy]

Of course there is corruption in both parties, but Republicans are taking it to extremes. I would think that when it's a fabrication then the public would havea backlash on what's said. It's not digging up dirt when your making up bull!@#$%^&*. True Aileron put Clinton's predicament well, but don't forget Confess's comment which was very obviously just spewing out a forged ABC "historical film".

[NBVegita]

I am not at all talking about that film as I have not seen it, and I know it was greatly exaggerated. I'm just talking about the day to day controversies, like the repubs and the pages, and the dems and this land/money fraud thing. And I did not think you were talking about confess's post too.

[AstroProdigy]

I was referring to the lies Confess was buying because it was shown on a film and probably repeated by his priest.

[Greased_Lightning]

Hey hey hey, dont bring Catholicism into this plz.

[NBVegita]

ownt.

[AstroProdigy]

Sorry I mean minister confess is probably protestant from my experience with him. Nevertheless he has no credible argument and had to have been using blind sources like the ABC "historical film" or what politicians or politicians in holy clothing (all those conservative ministers with an agenda) tell him.

[Bad Company]

You guys have to remember...a lot of the crap that happens, is do to other Presidents either leaving it to the point that another President must deal with it, or one President taking over at the direct time when something happens...President Bush has gotten stuck inbetween both of those. Clinton had the chance to get rid of the terrist that have !@#$%^&*ed up America, but instead didnt, leaving Bush to have to deal with them.

ROFL Connie ...BUSH is an idiot . Terrorism has a history it goes all the way back to WWII after the Germans lost. And don't forget the Reagan(republican) when the Hezbollah killed over 200 marines in Lebanon. He had his chance. I remember him saying how Hezbollah would pay for their actions. GUESS WHAT? we pulled out of Lebanon. So before you do finger pointing think of what Ronnie could have done in Lebanon.

[Aileron]

Well, as for ABCs' "docudrama", I hate it. There are works of fiction and ther are works of non-fiction, but writers really should avoid going back and forth. The First Amendment was never meant to take this kind of abuse, and if allowed to continue it is clear that future writers will use "fiction" to get around such inconveniences as the facts.

 

I think the "libel and slander" restriction in the first amendment should apply to such docudramas, and only ask that whatever is done to "Path to 9/11" is also done to liberal docudramas like "Fahrenheight 9/11"

[Bad Company]

Well, as for ABCs' "docudrama", I hate it. There are works of fiction and ther are works of non-fiction, but writers really should avoid going back and forth. The First Amendment was never meant to take this kind of abuse, and if allowed to continue it is clear that future writers will use "fiction" to get around such inconveniences as the facts.

 

I think the "libel and slander" restriction in the first amendment should apply to such docudramas, and only ask that whatever is done to "Path to 9/11" is also done to liberal docudramas like "Fahrenheight 9/11"

Well what I mentioned earlier is fact. A very very brief description on terrorism. Nothing to do with ABC which is very biast aswell as Fox or writers. This adminstration had made a mockery of all our Amendments .

[Aileron]

Um, that would be quite a resume, especially how Bush simultaneously made a mockery of the Prohibition amendment AND the amendment that removed the Prohibition amendment.

 

Please don't exaggerate. The only amendment Bush has ever been accused of violating is the fourth, and putting someone's phone number on a list just doesn't count as a "search and seizure".

[AstroProdigy]

Uh 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 15th (so Bush could win Florida).

[PoLiX]

I find myself agreeing with Aileron on some points here, which is kind of scary.

 

Now as I've stated before long ago, it is a family hatred of the bush family in my case. My grandfather's family grew up living near the Bush family, and watched what they did to the people around them, and the town itself. So I always grew up hearing how bad that family was.

 

But putting that aside. I'd honestly say some parts of Bush's cabinet have done the best that they could under the cir!@#$%^&*stances. Others, are just not holding up, and yet continue to be allowed to not hold up. To this day, I can not say I have ever heard nor seen a true solid plan for us finally getting out of Iraq. Rumsfield (sp?) just can't seem to ever give a straight answer, and their last timeline seems to have fallen apart. Iraq is considered by many on the brink of chaos, and we keep our men over there going through !@#$%^&*.

 

Yes, some are there by choice, and want to be. Others think what we are doing are wrong, but feel it is their duty to serve their country. I mean, how can you fight full heartedly if you feel what is going on is endless, and is not the right solution. The only solution with that area, is to let it be. It has been war struck land for as long as history writes, and will continue to be so for years to come. I don't see why this administration thinks it is going to do something noone has ever been able to do, and settle everything. Yes, someone has to try, but it's going to take far too many years if we do it alone as we really have been now.

 

I agree we can't just say !@#$%^&* it, and pull out, we've made too big of a mess to do that now. But we need to try to work with other countries more and try to get more support in that area. Until man steps above religion, there is no way to make permanent peace in the middle east. We may accomplish getting Iraq settled, but there is going to always be conflicts in the country, and between other countries around it. So we're now permanently involved, and have made Iraq our little step child who we have to take care of to keep the rest of the world happy, and them safe.

[scopene]

I'm not supporting Bush.... but it's easy to make bad decisions when issued with false information with which to make that decision with. I think the whole administration is at fault from top to bottom.

[11___________]

I dont think Bush was really smart enough to make it to president without Daddy's help. He is embarrasing the US. Let him run out of his presidency, and go back and be a mayor.