The Democrat Thread

[Y2HH]

Right, but the story that's come out in the years since 9/11 is that his administration basically ignored those threats despite Clinton's team's warnings. They focused on Iraq and their PNAC project instead.

 

 

 

How is criticizing Bush's foreign policy and intelligence blunders even remotely like birtherism? How is their obsession with Iraq that blinded them to anything else not an "actual" issue? What is more important than how their administration viewed foreign policy and intelligence about domestic threats?

 

I edited my post. Re-read.

[StrangeSox]

I disagree, and for the reasons I've already stated.

 

This is entirely weak minded reasoning in hindsight.

 

You haven't given any reasons, just claimed that it is so.

 

What is weak-minded about reviewing the CIA memos and talking to inside sources? What is weak-minded about reviewing the information released from within the administration that indicated their policy priorities? It seems to me that you're essentially saying that it's impossible to criticize what they did pre-9/11.

[Y2HH]

You haven't given any reasons, just claimed that it is so.

 

What is weak-minded about reviewing the CIA memos and talking to inside sources? What is weak-minded about reviewing the information released from within the administration that indicated their policy priorities? It seems to me that you're essentially saying that it's impossible to criticize what they did pre-9/11.

 

It's weak minded because you make it sound like GW was in office for 5 years, concentrating on Iraq, and ignoring AQ...when that's simply not true. As a matter of fact, it's a complete and totally dishonest twisting of reality.

 

He was in office a WHOLE 8 months before 9/11. Enough said.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

I disagree, and for the reasons I've already stated.

 

This is entirely weak minded reasoning in hindsight. IE, it's easy to blame them now, but this happened so early on into his administration, it's as if you're pretending they ignored threats from AQ for YEARS because they were focused on Iraq...it's just twisting reality to suit your agenda. GW was hardly in office when 9/11 hit...you make it sound the exact opposite. It's fabrication and stretching of truth, and like I said, weak.

 

Where is the fabrication or stretching of truth? They were briefed on the seriousness of AQ by Clinton's outgoing team. They ignored it and focused on Iraq.

 

Could they have reasonably connected the dots? Maybe. But they sure as hell weren't going to be able to if they were conjuring up such bizarre scenarios as Bin Laden running false-flag operations for Saddam. That didn't make a damn bit of sense pre- or post-9/11, and it appears that many in the CIA were exasperated that they were being so ridiculous.

 

Is there any possible criticism of Bush for his pre-9/11 policies that would not be weak-minded?

[Y2HH]

Where is the fabrication or stretching of truth? They were briefed on the seriousness of AQ by Clinton's outgoing team. They ignored it and focused on Iraq.

 

Could they have reasonably connected the dots? Maybe. But they sure as hell weren't going to be able to if they were conjuring up such bizarre scenarios as Bin Laden running false-flag operations for Saddam. That didn't make a damn bit of sense pre- or post-9/11, and it appears that many in the CIA were exasperated that they were being so ridiculous.

 

Is there any possible criticism of Bush for his pre-9/11 policies that would not be weak-minded?

 

Because he was in office a grand total of 8 months before 9/11 hit. That's why.

[StrangeSox]

It's weak minded because you make it sound like GW was in office for 5 years, concentrating on Iraq, and ignoring AQ...when that's simply not true.

 

He wasn't in office long at all when 9/11 hit...it's stretching the truth to suit your agenda...and that's pretty damn clear...and petty.

 

He was in office a WHOLE 8 months before 9/11. Enough said.

 

A WHOLE 8 months they ignored AQ and focused on Iraq because they were a bunch of incompetents. Enough said.

 

Is there any possible criticism of Bush pre-9/11 that isn't "weak-minded?"

[Y2HH]

A WHOLE 8 months they ignored AQ and focused on Iraq because they were a bunch of incompetents. Enough said.

 

Is there any possible criticism of Bush pre-9/11 that isn't "weak-minded?"

 

Wow, 8 months!

 

For a new president, it takes about a year to even settle into the job, let alone sift through wads of information like this.

 

You're being purposefully dishonest in order to further your anti-Bush agenda...that's pretty damn apparent. And it's still weak minded. You're smarter than this/better than this IMO.

[StrangeSox]

Because he was in office a grand total of 8 months before 9/11 hit. That's why.

 

A grand total of 8 months of ignoring reports and warning signs and pissing off the intelligence community with stupid s*** like saying OBL cooperated with Saddam in false-flag operations. Amazingly negligence because they were hyper-focused on their policy goals and couldn't fit anything else into their world view.

 

It seems weak-minded to dismiss any and all criticism of Bush pre-9/11.

 

[Y2HH]

A WHOLE 8 months they ignored AQ and focused on Iraq because they were a bunch of incompetents. Enough said.

 

Is there any possible criticism of Bush pre-9/11 that isn't "weak-minded?"

 

When you come up with some, I'll let you know. But what you have right now is weak minded. You're saying that in 8 months, with everything that job entails, from domestic to international, that he had the time to make perfect decisions on some threats that may or may not have been true?

 

Give me a break.

[southsider2k5]

A WHOLE 8 months they ignored AQ and focused on Iraq because they were a bunch of incompetents. Enough said.

 

Is there any possible criticism of Bush pre-9/11 that isn't "weak-minded?"

 

And yet four years isn't enough to take responsibility for an economy...

[Y2HH]

A grand total of 8 months of ignoring reports and warning signs and pissing off the intelligence community with stupid s*** like saying OBL cooperated with Saddam in false-flag operations. Amazingly negligence because they were hyper-focused on their policy goals and couldn't fit anything else into their world view.

 

It seems weak-minded to dismiss any and all criticism of Bush pre-9/11.

 

Right, because in that 8 months, he had NOTHING else to do but sift through those reports. Because apparently that's what you're saying.

 

You won't give Bush 8 months to settle into office and make huge tactical decisions like this...

 

But you want everyone to give Obama more than 4 years in order to make a dent in the economy.

 

Like I said.

 

You're agenda is pretty f***ing clear.

[Y2HH]

And yet four years isn't enough to take responsibility for an economy...

 

Awesome.

 

I JUST posted that as you did, without seeing this.

 

Like I said, it shows his biased agenda.

 

And I maintain, it's weak.

[StrangeSox]

Wow, 8 months!

 

For a new president, it takes about a year to even settle into the job, let alone sift through wads of information like this.

 

You're being purposefully dishonest in order to further your anti-Bush agenda...that's pretty damn apparent. And it's still weak minded. You're smarter than this/better than this IMO.

 

What on earth am I being dishonest about? I did not ever say or imply that he was in office for 5 years before 9/11. I said he and his administration were incompetent. They were. His record over 8 years bears that out. This most recent revelation, about their bizarre scenarios to jettison their cognitive dissonance, only adds one more layer to many that are already there.

 

I'll ask again, is there any possible criticism of Bush pre-9/11 that you would feel is legitimate? Or is it entirely off-limits? Should terrorists and state enemies plan their attacks for every President's first year since apparently that's a free pass year?

[Y2HH]

What on earth am I being dishonest about? I did not ever say or imply that he was in office for 5 years before 9/11. I said he and his administration were incompetent. They were. His record over 8 years bears that out. This most recent revelation, about their bizarre scenarios to jettison their cognitive dissonance, only adds one more layer to many that are already there.

 

I'll ask again, is there any possible criticism of Bush pre-9/11 that you would feel is legitimate? Or is it entirely off-limits? Should terrorists and state enemies plan their attacks for every President's first year since apparently that's a free pass year?

 

I think judging a new president on 8 months in office is weak, whether it be about Obama or Bush, or anyone else.

 

8 months isn't a long time to acclimate for a job of that magnitude. Overall, I think Bush was a failure...that's based on both his full 4 and 8 year tenure...

 

But 8 months...weak.

[StrangeSox]

When you come up with some, I'll let you know. But what you have right now is weak minded. You're saying that in 8 months, with everything that job entails, from domestic to international, that he had the time to make perfect decisions on some threats that may or may not have been true?

 

Give me a break.

 

I've said that? I'll ask for a quote.

 

What I've said is that they were incompetent and hyper-focused on Iraq. What the article I posted said is that the CIA couldn't believe their hyper-focus and went to lengths to try to dissuade them of it. I've explicitly said that it still may not have been possible to connect all of the dots but their incompetence guaranteed that they would not.

 

How is that not legitimate criticism? Do you think their focus on Iraq was justifiable? Their crazy scenarios?

[Y2HH]

I've said that? I'll ask for a quote.

 

What I've said is that they were incompetent and hyper-focused on Iraq. What the article I posted said is that the CIA couldn't believe their hyper-focus and went to lengths to try to dissuade them of it. I've explicitly said that it still may not have been possible to connect all of the dots but their incompetence guaranteed that they would not.

 

How is that not legitimate criticism? Do you think their focus on Iraq was justifiable? Their crazy scenarios?

 

I don't believe 8 months into a term is a long enough time to blame or legitimately critique a sitting president. They've barely gotten started.

 

Like I said, you won't give Bush 8 months to TAKE blame.

 

But you've given Obama 4 years to GIVE blame.

 

You have an agenda, whether you see that or not. It's pretty damn clear.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Right, because in that 8 months, he had NOTHING else to do but sift through those reports. Because apparently that's what you're saying.

 

That's what I'm saying? Link please.

 

You won't give Bush 8 months to settle into office and make huge tactical decisions like this...

 

This wasn't a tactical decision. It was a strategic one. He was able to make the huge strategic decision to ignore Clinton's outgoing team and focus on Iraq on Day 1.

 

 

 

But you want everyone to give Obama more than 4 years in order to make a dent in the economy.

 

Holy non sequitor, Batman! Global economic collapses aren't the same thing as whether or not to lend credibility to any threat evaluations that don't involve Saddam and WMD's.

 

Like I said.

 

You're agenda is pretty f***ing clear.

 

As is yours.

[Balta1701]

Wow, 8 months!

 

For a new president, it takes about a year to even settle into the job, let alone sift through wads of information like this.

 

You're being purposefully dishonest in order to further your anti-Bush agenda...that's pretty damn apparent. And it's still weak minded. You're smarter than this/better than this IMO.

To slightly switch topics...

 

You're right here. With the number of positions turning over, 8 months isn't all that much time.

 

This is why one of the 9/11 commission's recommendations was that the government needed to expedite the handover, in particular by reducing the number of positions in the Executive branch subject to Senate confirmation, so that people can actually get to work on January 21 rather than waiting until April/May when the Senate finally gets around to confirming the assistant to the undersecretary of whatever.

 

This part of their recommendations...was ignored by Congress.

[StrangeSox]

I think judging a new president on 8 months in office is weak, whether it be about Obama or Bush, or anyone else.

 

8 months isn't a long time to acclimate for a job of that magnitude. Overall, I think Bush was a failure...that's based on both his full 4 and 8 year tenure...

 

But 8 months...weak.

Why can't we judge his policy decisions from day 1? It didn't take him 8 months to acclimate and decide that regime change in Iraq was #1 priority in foreign policy. That excuse doesn't fly.

[Y2HH]

That's what I'm saying? Link please.

 

 

 

This wasn't a tactical decision. It was a strategic one. He was able to make the huge strategic decision to ignore Clinton's outgoing team and focus on Iraq on Day 1.

 

 

 

 

 

Holy non sequitor, Batman! Global economic collapses aren't the same thing as whether or not to lend credibility to any threat evaluations that don't involve Saddam and WMD's.

 

 

 

As is yours.

 

1) I said it's apparently what your saying...as if he had nothing else to do that 8 months BUT concentrate on reports from a previous administration.

 

2) This may or may not be accurate, and to what degree. Again, it was just 8 months of time.

 

3) You once again show your agenda. Thanks. You make this easy.

[Y2HH]

Why can't we judge his policy decisions from day 1? It didn't take him 8 months to acclimate and decide that regime change in Iraq was #1 priority in foreign policy. That excuse doesn't fly.

 

It took Obama more than 2 years to do anything. So...

[StrangeSox]

I don't believe 8 months into a term is a long enough time to blame or legitimately critique a sitting president. They've barely gotten started.

 

Like I said, you won't give Bush 8 months to TAKE blame.

 

But you've given Obama 4 years to GIVE blame.

 

You have an agenda, whether you see that or not. It's pretty damn clear.

 

Do you honestly think their obsession with Iraq was justifiable? Why can't incompetence like that be judged immediately? What reason do we have to believe that they would have changed their focus if the attack had been 9/11/02 instead?

[Y2HH]

To slightly switch topics...

 

You're right here. With the number of positions turning over, 8 months isn't all that much time.

 

This is why one of the 9/11 commission's recommendations was that the government needed to expedite the handover, in particular by reducing the number of positions in the Executive branch subject to Senate confirmation, so that people can actually get to work on January 21 rather than waiting until April/May when the Senate finally gets around to confirming the assistant to the undersecretary of whatever.

 

This part of their recommendations...was ignored by Congress.

 

Careful, SS is going to attack you with his anti GW Agenda.

 

It couldn't have been Congresses fault...it was all GW's!

[StrangeSox]

It took Obama more than 2 years to do anything. So...

 

Dealing with global recessions and deciding whether or not to take threats from AQ seriously are not exactly the same category. There is nothing that prevented Bush & Co from giving credibility to those threats instead of dismissing them out-of-hand. Aside from their incompetence.

[Y2HH]

Do you honestly think their obsession with Iraq was justifiable? Why can't incompetence like that be judged immediately? What reason do we have to believe that they would have changed their focus if the attack had been 9/11/02 instead?

 

No, I don't think their obsession with Iraq is justifiable. I don't think we should be there now, even...anywhere in that region.

 

That said, I also think it's unfair to say GW had enough time in office to go through the loads of information they had and what was given to them by the previous administration AND make sound decisions based on that.

 

I think it was just too much too soon.

 

And I repeat, GW, IMO, was a failure. But I'm not basing that on a whole 8 months of time like you are.