<p>well what if the bum were crazy and nobody took his threats seriously because he made them all the time just like Bin Laden?</p>
<p>"Dont we have intelligence to track down these terrorist activities?"</p>
<p>Yes and yet we have had this "intelligence" for such a long time...why not have tracked them down when Clinton was in office?</p>
<p>Okay so I'm pretty sure none of you guys read the 9/11 Commssion Report. Here is a summary for you:
Both Clinton and George W. Bush missed at least a half a dozen opportunities to kill Bin Laden. While Clinton had more time to get the job done, his administration left warnings that went unheeded by the Bush Administration. The report basically destributed the culpability equally. (Granted, it was deliberately commissioned to be bipartisan, so theoretically you have a group of people who may be predisposed toward such a conclusion. However, if you read the document, you'll find that it is a thorough examination of the attacks and the years leading up to them.) Also, institutional failures were cited, thus you have the reallignment of the intelligence departments.</p>
<p>From now on, can we all please refrain from stupid posts defending the political parties our parents told us we should like?</p>
<p>who are we referring to there mw05?</p>
<p>We have the intellegence to track down many potentially harmful individuals, but the point is, we don't have the jurisdiction to do anything about it without coercion/opposition from our allies. If there is no obvious imminent threat, there is a 99% chance that the UN and NATO will not support our efforts, and it will go against constitutional law. Furthermore, there's a big $$$ issue...the problem with any government is, it must solve present priorities...it cannot look too far in to the future, because the future is uncertain, and there are so many present priorities that must be dealt with in order to maintain a stable governance...you cannot blame a President for being skeptical...it's a very difficult job...Presidents must deal with tens of thousands of matters within a single week....if you got someone tellin him..."hey there's the possibility of a terrorist attack," then hell!...there's a possibility the whitehouse could randomly go up in flames!...there's a possibility that the economy could suddenly collapse!...there's a possibility of a nuclear attack any second.</p>
<p>Here is what has been established during the course of your debate:</p>
<p>Quote:
the news is extremely liberal and biased so it would not make a difference even if i do (watch it) which i do</p>
<p>The perspective of the news, which is currently quite varied, does not change the fact that mistakes were made by both parties.</p>
<p>Quote:
Please dont try to be like Dubya. Dubya is an idiot, but you are getting close!!</p>
<p>Quote:
(Bush) is an idiotic drunk frat boy in office toying with our treasury and spending us bankrupt.</p>
<p>Good points. Well reasoned. Mature.</p>
<p>Quote:
We are still killing terrorists and hurting Al Qaeda, so it may not be at an "all time low" but we are weakening them and it has to be done whether its through Iraq, Iran, N. Korea I dont care.</p>
<p>Well Bin Laden certainly wasn't working in concert with Saddam Hussein,
which was never the true reason we went to war, just the insinuated reason that this administration floated out through veiled fear tactics and hoped would eventually catch on (apparently it did, judging from your post.) This post also shows a reckless regard for human life.</p>
<p>Quote:
Bush? An aggressive President? He doing zilch with N. Korea. He looks kinda aggressive when he chokes on pretzels! hahaha </p>
<p>This kind of attitude does much to bridge the disconnect with middle America that the Democrats find themselves staring across.</p>
<p>Quote:
And America is going to get attacked no matter who is President; so far Bush has done a good job of preventing those attacks. I don't see how you can dispute that point.</p>
<p>Wow, we're setting the our standards for the leaders of the greatest nation in the history of the world pretty high, aren't we? America is going to get attacked no matter what, so we better just pick the guy who's not gonna let gays get married.</p>
<p>Quote:
Looks like somebody needs history lessons.
Looks like you need a GEOGRAPHY lesson.</p>
<p>served... served... SERVED.... </p>
<p>Quote:
shut up primitive now ur just being a b^$%# </p>
<p>Quote:
not quite as much an idiot as your lib ass. How bout you go wave your kerry banners some more.</p>
<p>And the level of debate has risen yet again...</p>
<p>Thousands of people died on September 11, and this is certainly a very emotional event for all Americans. A commission was formed to study the events leading up to these attacks, and concluded that the blame fell (relatively) equally on the shoulders of both the Clinton and Bush Administrations, as well as on the well-entrenched intelligence community. Politicizing the tragedy and pointing fingers isn't helping anything. Debate the merits of how the commissions recommendations are being implemented, such as Bush's hesitancy to create a cabinet level official with oversight over all intelligence information, or his decision to cut security at our borders to avoid raising taxes. Isn't our security at home worth paying for? Obviously it is worth hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American and British and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives to get rid of a dictator who might have (but didn't) have weapons of mass destruction. And why are the Democrats jumping onto the Iraq was a mistake bandwagon after vehemently supporting the war in the first place?</p>
<p>I was in NYC on 9/11. We could see the buildings and smell the smoke from my hs. I blame this solely on BUSH. That dumb piece of sh!t was vacationing for the month before the attacks and his administration didnt even have the effort to open up the security briefings which were handed to him. Condi said that she just looked at the title and didnt bother to read it. Bush's priority on that day was trying to catch gophers instead of terrorists which were in the country planning the attack. I place the blame on his shoulders. Because, after all, the buck should stop with the president.</p>
<p>btw. what disgusts me even more than his inaction and ignorance of the numerous warnings which were given to him is his exploitation of this for his political gain. that DISGUSTS me. Apparently, people want to rally towards the "tough guy" bush who will protect them from terrorists. But, in reality, Bush can only protect you against gophers and gays.</p>
<p>Top presidents (in no order):
LBJ
FDR
Woodrow Wilson</p>
<p>Most overrated: JFK
Most underrated:Wilson</p>
<p>Ronald Reygan, the one who destroyed USSR!!</p>
<p>Reagan....he didn't destroy the U.S.S.R., he just helped it along....overspending on weaponry and construction of nuclear missiles was what destroyed the U.S.S.R...and then Gorbachev's perestroika...i.e. don't try to dissemble certain parts of something very fragile, because chances are, it's going to fall apart.</p>
<p>"That dumb piece of sh!t was vacationing for the month before the attacks and his administration didnt even have the effort to open up the security briefings which were handed to him."</p>
<p>Woah there...just a little too much Michael Moore eh? Thats greeeattt.....well you know what sempitern555 I bame the attacks on people like YOU.....</p>
<p>And what's you reason? None? I though so.</p>
<p>whats his reason for blaming BUsh?? Like YOU said he could not have stopped the attacks!!!!</p>
<p>"That dumb piece of sh!t was vacationing for the month before the attacks and his administration didnt even have the effort to open up the security briefings which were handed to him"</p>
<p>THAT WAS HIS REASON!!! CAN'T YOU READ?</p>
<p>That Has Nothing To Do With It. There Have Been Plenty Of Plots Before...besides Thats Why The Intelligence Agencies Are For. What Would You Want Bush To Do?????? Go Running In Their Like Rambo And Kill The Terrorists Himself????</p>
<p>Guys, guys...you're both wrong, okay? None of us know for sure all the pertinent facts surrounding 9/11, because much of it is classified. Instead of arguing about something that recent, go argue something for which you have enough facts to back up a claim. Otherwise, you're just engaging in punditry, and nobody likes a pundit.</p>
<p>Go Running In Their Like Rambo And Kill The Terrorists Himself????</p>
<p>thanks for the laugh!</p>
<p>"sempitern555 I bame the attacks on people like YOU"</p>
<p>really, then maybe you should have been where I was that day wondering whether my parents had made it to work on time</p>
<p>you make me sick</p>
<p>No offense to any of you, but if serious analysts and experts on foreign policy and domestic security have yet to settle the debate over 9/11, what are you guys going to accomplish?</p>
<p>Let's get back to the subject at hand, and stop with this crap. This is all so incredibly petty, uninformed, and stupid.</p>
<p>I've got to agree with Nahrafsfa... While Reagan did help along the fall of the U.S.S.R, it would have more then likely come apart sooner or later as it... There is no doubt that it was a nation in crises for a while before the eventual fall...</p>
<p>As for my list of presidents.</p>
<p>Best:
1. FDR (Faced some of the biggest problems this nation has ever seen)
2. Washington (Came along at the perfect time in History!)
3. Teddy Roosevelt. (Changed the United States economically)
4. Eisenhower (He did very little, but honestly was what this nation needed at the time)
5. Lincoln (A bit reluctent to put him on here, but he did face a major national crisis)</p>
<p>Worst Presidents:</p>
<ol>
<li> Buchanan (A complete disaster, lost control of the Union)</li>
<li> Hoover (Attcked veterans in Washington)</li>
<li> Hayes (Very clearly lost the election, should never have been president)</li>
<li> Nixon (A very strange president who used some questionable tactics in elections well before watergate)</li>
<li> Taft (Just came in at the wrong time)</li>
</ol>
<p>"but if serious analysts and experts on foreign policy and domestic security have yet to settle the debate over 9/11"</p>
<p>but at least they bother to read the security briefings handed to them</p>
<p>bush just ignores them and goes to chop wood</p>