Something to ponder

[Rex Kickass]

I laugh at references to the blowhard Sandy Berger. He was a big wallflower on the issue of terrorism until the end of the Clinton regime. Face it Clinton and company sat on this hoping it would go away.

 

The airlines wanted to install a highly sophisticated computer program in the mid 90's that more than likely would have prevented the hijackers from boarding those planes. Critics called it "racial profiling" and 9/11 is the result.

Point 1: The FAA could have simply mandated the strengthening of cabin doors, improved airport security and installed bomb screening machines at airports across the country. They didn't. The airlines, knowing the bulk of the cost would be theirs, lobbied against extra security regulations. The congress did not allocate funding to improve airline security. The entire government has failed since skyjacking became a problem 30 years ago in this respect. BTW: Delta runs that program now. Has run that program since before September 11. Airlines can't afford to install it if they don't already have it.

 

Point 2: Clinton wasn't the only failure in the fight on terror. He deserves a lot of the blame. But what I'm saying to you is a Republican Congress that spent the better part of the Clinton presidency questioning his legitimacy rather than serving the American people, a Bush administration that squanders what goodwill we have in the regions which trouble us, and a willingness on the part of the US to do what is easy rather than what solves the problem is just as much to blame.

 

The blame doesn't fall squarely on one or two people's shoulders. The blame lies on the entire US government. The problem has been systemic. And it is still not being adressed.

[Rex Kickass]

Can I make a request?

 

Can we refrain from the term draft-dodger when describing Clinton, cause then I'll have to refer to Bush as AWOL which we was from 2 years from the National Guard. DeLay, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and most of the architects of this war never served in the armed forces.

 

There are draft dodgers all around.

 

And if we're talking about policy, could we leave the blowjobs out of it?

Please?

[bjmarte]

What I do not ever expect uniformity of opinion on anything, I will insist on facts being right.

 

And the initial post in this thread is ludicorus and unfactual.  Responses to all of those those things were taken, as has been posted.  One could make the same glib assertions about anything or anyone.  It has no substance.

I respect your desire for facts. It is too bad that you only demand the facts half of the time.

[cwsox]

What I do not ever expect uniformity of opinion on anything, I will insist on facts being right.

 

And the initial post in this thread is ludicorus and unfactual.  Responses to all of those those things were taken, as has been posted.  One could make the same glib assertions about anything or anyone.  It has no substance.

I respect your desire for facts. It is too bad that you only demand the facts half of the time.

I demand facts all the time, not unfair rhetorical questions.

 

People of good conscious and integrity can differ on interpretations and implications of course, but all of the assumption in the questions in the opening post of this thread are flawed and imply things that are not so. In any court, any judge would toss them for being misleading or assuming thinsg not in evidence.

 

The facts of what the Clinton administration's response were to anything - as Bush's - cannot be stated in a simple declarative sentence for the facts are far more complex, far too numerous, for the readers digest condensed reductionst version. When one overly simplifies, as has been done there it is not facts, it is ideology and mis-statement.

 

For example, I could ask:

 

Why does Bush support throwing entire families out of tax payer funded hosuing when only one member of the family uses drugs and doesn't then evict the Jeb Bush family from the Florida's governor's mansion - or allow his nieces into the White House, which also violates the standards for publicly paid hosuing under his admininistration. (Even drugging visitors albeit family are grounds for eviction.)

 

That is a simplistic reductionist presentation of the issue which leaves out many facts. That is thus unfair. As is the post that started this thread.

 

More to the point: since Condy Rice cast aside the Sandy Berger/Clinton administration's proposals for dealing with al queda, and never picked it up or did anything about al queda until September 11th, isn't Rice and her boss Bush directly responsible for the deaths on September 11th.

 

You would say that was very unfair and left out a lot of facts. And I would say it is as unfair as any of the rhetorical questions used to place blame on Clinton. Cheap shots and unfair.

 

Or we could play the assumption game: why do you support giving blow jobs to Marte? Your name suggests that so therefore you must be in favor of it. Sounds silly, but so do the many leaps in bad logic and no connections made other than the most far fetched in this and other threads.

[bjmarte]

Well first I just want to make clear that I am neutral on the issue of Marte receiving blow jobs.

 

 

I agree entirely with the rest of your post. My point was simply that there are many unfair statements being made that leave out facts on both sides of the issue. You only seem to get your knickers in a twist about it when it doesn't support your point of view. But then again maybe I'm wrong.