<p>
[quote]
First of all, there was his deer in the headlights initial reaction.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am sure that anyone, even the almighty Al Gore, would have initially responded with a "deer in the headlights" reaction. The very idea of such a terrorist attack is difficult to comprehend at first.</p>
<p>
[quote]
they also managed to let the party responsible for planning 9/11 get away.
[/quote]
</p>
<pre><code> Although the Bush Administration failed to find Bin Ladin (although I feel that he no longer is living), many Al-Quaida leaders were compromised by the US military. You may recall the deck of cards featuring the faces of many terrorist leaders. In response to the Iraq War, the original premise of attacking Iraq by the Bush Administration was
</code></pre>
<ol>
<li>WMDs</li>
<li>Seizing Hussein, a man who funded terror programs</li>
<li>Form a democratic government in Iraq</li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
The Clinton White House, when they were passing the keys to the Bush administration, stressed anti-terrorism should be a number 1 priority, and the Bush administration chose to ignore that in favor of spreading what turned out to be lies about the Clinton staff trashing the White House.
[/quote]
</p>
<pre><code> You honestly can't blame 9/11 on George Bush. By doing so is like blaming Herbert Hoover for the Great Depression. When 9/11 occurred, Bush was still attempting to organize his cabinet and settle into his job as President. Once a President arrives at the White House, he doesn't merely begin to pass and veto bills and try to pass legislation. There are so many logistical aspects needed to be completed. As a Republican, I firmly believe that the Clinton Administration allowed 9/11 to occur. From the destruction of the USS Cole, to the WTC bombings of the early 90s, to terrorist activities in Africa and the Middle East, Bill Clinton failed to carry out an anti-terror plan. Bush, not Clinton, formed the department of Homeland Security. Bush attempted to launch attacks against Al-Quaida after 9/11. After experiencing three attacks either at home or abroad, the Clinton Administration failed to do anything to counter terrorism.
</code></pre>
<p>
[quote]
Not some C-student whose administration and brother cheated him into the White House.
[/quote]
</p>
<pre><code> A President shouldn't be judged based upon his GPA in college. Quite frankly, I judge a candidate or President upon his motives and plans for this country.
</code></pre>
<p>Robert E. Lee, the '93 WTC attack happened within 60 days of Clinton's inauguration, and the men responsible were arrested and prosecuted and found guilty. By your logic, we can't hold Clinton responsible for the attack, but at least his administration caught the guilty party! Personally, I think if you can't get your administration in order in 9 months, when you have a majority of your own party in the Congress and a majority of your own party in the judicial branch, you have no business doing the important job of leading a nation.</p>
<ol>
<li>WMDs
which turned out not to exist, and were sold in a hyped up campaign built on cherry-picked evidence that was not supported by the intelligence community at large.</li>
<li>Seizing Hussein, a man who funded terror programs
I have no problem with Hussein being removed from power. I question why we had to go to WAR and bomb the heck out of an entire country to do so. In addition, destabilizing Iraq has opened that country up to civil war, improved recruitment for our enemies the deaths of over 3000 American soldiers, and the deaths of countless Iraqi civilians, people who could have become our allies in achieving goal #3, but will probably instead associate us with death and civil war, because the Bush administration didn't want to come up with a better solution., and </li>
<li>Form a democratic government in Iraq
First of all, this was not the stated intention at the outset of the war, this was a justification (one of many), which the adminstration settled on as they were pitching their case for war. And which is clearly going oh so well. </li>
</ol>
<p>The Department of Homeland Security was initially proposed by the Democrats under the Clinton administration, but our Republican majority Congress was busily engaged in spending taxpayer money to go on a fishing expedition to impeach a president not for his actions as president, but for his failings as a man - failings which, while unsavory, were not illegal and did not hurt America. </p>
<p>Clinton also tried to seek action against al Qaeda, and even specifically against Osama bin Laden, but he was denied.</p>
<p>
[quote]
By your logic, we can't hold Clinton responsible for the attack, but at least his administration caught the guilty party!
[/quote]
</p>
<pre><code> Since the people who carried out the attack died in the hijacked planes, Bush could not "catch" the guilty party. Surely, though, that since WTC 93 was given the "go ahead" by Bin Ladin and the AL-Quaida organization, Clinton failed to compromise any Al-Quaida leaders or Bin Ladin himself. Would it not seem logical that Clinton, president for eight years, KNEW about Bin Ladin and KNEW the threat that he posed? Why didn't Clinton attack the terrorist group? Why did Clinton refuse to pursue the terrorist who destroyed the USS Cole? Although Bill Clinton was successful in capturing the people who planted a bomb in the basement of the WTC, he still did not pursue Bin Ladin or Al-Quaida, the main threat at that time, and the eventual leader who lead the attacks on 9/11. Had Clinton taken these terrorist threats seriously, we may not have experienced 9/11, the War in Afghanistan, or Operation Iraqi Freedom. The very course of the past six years may have been altered completely. Thousands upon thousands of lost lives may have been averted.
</code></pre>
<p>
[quote]
I question why we had to go to WAR and bomb the heck out of an entire country to do so.
[/quote]
</p>
<pre><code> Simply because Saddam Hussein was the leader at that time. I doubt that Hussein would have graciously welcomed us into his country, allowing himself to be arrested and prosecuted. We couldn't have waltzed in and peaceably taken Saddam. War was inevitable.
</code></pre>
<p>
[quote]
but our Republican majority Congress was busily engaged in spending taxpayer money to go on a fishing expedition to impeach a president not for his actions as president, but for his failings as a man - failings which, while unsavory, were not illegal and did not hurt America.
[/quote]
</p>
<pre><code> I'm most certain that our Democrat majority Congress would love to impeach our President upon the premise of "lying about WMDs in Iraq", (which by the way was incorrect intelligence given to the President but interpretated as an unmitigated lie by the President) Unfortunately, this is politics, a dog eat dog world.
</code></pre>
<p>I just wish that politics weren't as centered around campaigns... as soon as a political issue comes up and a politician takes a stance, people don't seem to think about "is this good for the country?" first but "how could this help or hurt a possible presidential bid?". I really don't know how politics can be accomplished like this.
What really annoys me about elections in the US is that they get so personal. Why does it matter if one inhaled Marihuana in college? What does it say about you as a politician and leader if your daughter is homosexual? I would vote (unfortunately I can't) for any candidate who puts the country first and who refuses to stoop down to that personal level. This fall, I was stunned by a speech by now-governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick after he had just been attacked by Kerry Healy over the whole rapist issue and his polls started to fall... he refused to say anything against her as a person, and he stuck to it. Obama was at a rally and spoke on his behalf, and from what I can gather, he too takes a firm stance against using personal issues in politics - that, for me, is a true uniter, and this is why I want him to run, because I think that he has a chance to seriously change the face of American politics. And, yes, Patrick did win his campaign!</p>
<p>but...just because Kerry's GPA was lower than Bush's doesn't mean anything, considering that the poster didn't say that it Kerry would've handled things better compared to Bush. It was about Gore.</p>
<p>It's not like two random men from both parties and their GPAs can speak on the intelligence of the entire respective parties.</p>
<p><em>edit</em></p>
<p>I wish everything was not so much about campaigns too. It seems like everyone is so set on finding a good candidate for their party, someone who will do well getting ELECTED, then doing well actually in office. That's why there's all the talk about getting a moderate democrat, someone who's from the midwest or the south, someone who's not blue-blood, because it will appeal to a base that the democrats don't typically have. That's so stupid, because it doesn't effect his or her actual political and leadership abilities. And seriously. Alot of Americans have tried marijuana. What's the big deal? I understand if someone's image is that of a traditional, Christian family man but is in reality gay and takes young prositutes off the streets...because that's hypocritical on their social politics. But honestly... people say Russ Feingold wouldn't win because, amongst other things, he's divorced and Jewish. SO WHAT????</p>
<p>I think our newly Democratic Congress has some members who would eagerly like to impeach Bush, but I don't think it's going to happen. I think there is a qualitative difference between the actions of Clinton and Bush, though - at the very least, with the most generous interpretation, Bush misled this country. I sincerely doubt any Republicans would be so kind as to let that slide if a Democrat was in the White House. </p>
<p>Interestingly, you mention the hijackers who died on 9/11 - in an attack planned by Osama bin Laden, who no one in the administration likes to talk about these days - none of those men were Iraqis, yet that is the country where we focused our attack. </p>
<p>The Clinton administration did pursue Osama bin Laden and al Queda, Robert E. Lee. Clinton actually wanted to have OBL assassinated. Richard Clarke? Anti-Terrorism guy for the Clinton administration? He was downgraded by the Bush administration because they didn't make anti-terrorism a priority until <em>after</em> we were attacked. The Cole was bombed shortly before the election, and can you imagine the outcry from the Republican Congress if he attempted to start a war before he left office? It never would have happened. </p>
<p>Clinton took the threats seriously, Bush didn't, and I'm always amazed by people who are so willing to give Bush a pass for his responsibilities as president. I made another whole human being in 9 months, but Bush couldn't get his adminstration in order? </p>
<p>Another thing about Gore being president- we would probably be spending some money to be at the forefront of alternative energy, which would reduce our dependence on foreign oil - and that would help us in the battle against terrorism, because it would reduce our dependence on the very countries the 9/11 hijackers came from.</p>
<p>but...just because Kerry's GPA was lower than Bush's doesn't mean anything, considering that the poster didn't say that it Kerry would've handled things better compared to Bush. It was about Gore.</p>
<p>It's not like two random men from both parties and their GPAs can speak on the intelligence of the entire respective parties.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My point was obviously to show how college GPAs of candidates don't really matter. Democrats will bash Bush for his college GPA when John Kerry (oh so eloquent) had a lower one.</p>
<p>9/11 can't be blamed on a single person. And the fact of the matter is that 9/11 was NOT the greatest tragedy in the history of humankind. A string of presidencies can be blamed, from Reagan's arming of Iraqi fighters to CIA idiocy during the Clinton years. Nobody said, "Hey Osama, here are some planes. Why don't you wipe out the Twin Towers?"</p>
<p>
[quote]
big-government globalists who could care less about adhering to our Constitution.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>huh? You are describing bush!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am sure that anyone, even the almighty Al Gore, would have initially responded with a "deer in the headlights" reaction. The very idea of such a terrorist attack is difficult to comprehend at first.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're kidding, right? Ha, the idea of Gore EVER having a "deer in the headlights" is laughable! It's just not possible!</p>
<p>this thread turned into Barack Obama into an argument about bush!!</p>
<p>back to obama:</p>
<p>The weakness of Obama is that since he only has 2 years of experience in the Senate, people can't get a general idea of his voting trends and plans. When I hear Hiliary or Edwards, I have an idea of what their agenda is going to be. The only thing we know about Obama is that he is anti-war. Obama needs time to gain experience and aim for a run in 2012/2016.</p>
<p>He's also peaking at the wrong time. Kerry was a late boomer in 2004 and won the nomination despite the fact that everyone was hyped up about Howard Dean.</p>
<p>Let's get this straight now everyone, Barack Obama is not Black or White. He is an American. He is equally part of two races and he does NOT play the race card, ever.</p>
<p>Read his books, he is human, and has good and bad habits like the rest of us. He does not have to lie about his background at all because it is all out there already ( I hope).
I say that we back him now, before he becomes tainted like too many good people that got caught up in the power game of the US Senate and forgot why they got into politics in the first place: to make our county/city/state/country a better place for all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let's get this straight now everyone, Barack Obama is not Black or White. He is an American. He is equally part of two races and he does NOT play the race card, ever.
[/quote]
So, he's not black....even when he considers himself a black man?</p>
<p>American, black, biracial, whatever. One thing's for sure: if Obama becomes prez, he'll be blacker than all of the other WASPs (except for Kennedy) before him.</p>