Bush kinda good president, sad but true

[wolfstrike]

now when i vote for a president , i look for massive reforms.
Bush is not that , he is staus quo.

i got my 600 bucks.
such a chinsey move

i challenge you to name one freaking thing, that any recent president has done, that's better than 600 bucks.

what is more important?
a president who speaks perfectly , or 600 bucks?


now you will say, 'that's ignorant, because Bill Clinton (allegedly) balancing the budget is something that effects everyone in the county'
balancing the budget is good, but how much did it really effect the average person? , it didn't.
you will tell me it will lead to higher taxes.
taxes will go up in the future anyways , until we toss these people out on their ear and return to Constitutional politics.
the government has greatly overstepped their bounds with how much they collect.
you aregoing to tell me we owe them?

then you will say , 'Bill Clinton payed down the National Debt'
once again paying off the National Debt is good (or even better , just telling them to screw theselves)
Bill Clinton paying a few hundred million to a National Debt that is in the trillions was a publicity stunt.
it's like trying to sweep away the ocean with a broom.

the budget and the National Debt is nothing more than a big vortex, where they tell stories and we get screwed.
...and it gets larger every year.
the next Democrat President will have a larger National Debt, anything else is just politics.

you will say 'Bush started a war'
that whole arguement is fruitless, the Democrats have backed everything Bush has done.
i'd rather have 600 bucks then a Democrat President who says ' well i was elected to stop the war but i can't because blah blah blah,but i'm running it better'

so who is better than 600 bucks? Reagan?



my challenge is open to anyone.

[cehs]

The only thing I would add, at this point, is Bush went after the men that attacked the world trade center, Clinton did not.....

:D

[The Doctor]

now when i vote for a president , i look for massive reforms.
Bush is not that , he is staus quo.

i got my 600 bucks.
such a chinsey move

i challenge you to name one freaking thing, that any recent president has done, that's better than 600 bucks.

what is more important?
a president who speaks perfectly , or 600 bucks?


now you will say, 'that's ignorant, because Bill Clinton (allegedly) balancing the budget is something that effects everyone in the county'
balancing the budget is good, but how much did it really effect the average person? , it didn't. He balanced te budget by screwing the Social Security recipients by introducing geometric weighting for CPI, among other things. Check this article here (http://www.futuresmag.com/cms/futures/Templates/website/PrinterFriendly.aspx?{BE64E59B-F8FC-4722-911D-347AF9B78CBC})for how all the POTUS are busy screwing the retirees

you will tell me it will lead to higher taxes. It leads to inflation.

taxes will go up in the future anyways , until we toss these people out on their ear and return to Constitutional politics.
the government has greatly overstepped their bounds with how much they collect.
you aregoing to tell me we owe them?

then you will say , 'Bill Clinton payed down the National Debt'
once again paying off the National Debt is good (or even better , just telling them to screw theselves)
Bill Clinton paying a few hundred million to a National Debt that is in the trillions was a publicity stunt.
it's like trying to sweep away the ocean with a broom.

the budget and the National Debt is nothing more than a big vortex, where they tell stories and we get screwed.
...and it gets larger every year.
the next Democrat President will have a larger National Debt, anything else is just politics.

you will say 'Bush started a war'
that whole arguement is fruitless, the Democrats have backed everything Bush has done.
i'd rather have 600 bucks then a Democrat President who says ' well i was elected to stop the war but i can't because blah blah blah,but i'm running it better'

so who is better than 600 bucks? Reagan?



my challenge is open to anyone.

Ron Paul, but he dropped out. So you'll have to get on board the campaign for liberty (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/)

[Remodeltdt01]

Actually Clinton did try to get Osama. He had the military bomb his training camp after the American embassy bombings in Africa (1998). He also warned GWB that Osama Bin Laden was America's biggest security issue during his "exit interview" in 2001. GWB was fixated on Iraq and didn't listen.

I shake my head whenever I hear about the economy stimulus. The government borrows money (mostly from China) and then gives it to the taxpayers who then go and spend it on Chinese electronics. That's smart.

[RoBoTeq]

Actually Clinton did try to get Osama. He had the military bomb his training camp after the American embassy bombings in Africa (1998). He also warned GWB that Osama Bin Laden was America's biggest security issue during his "exit interview" in 2001. GWB was fixated on Iraq and didn't listen.

I shake my head whenever I hear about the economy stimulus. The government borrows money (mostly from China) and then gives it to the taxpayers who then go and spend it on Chinese electronics. That's smart.
And I shake my head every time I read the drivel you post. President Clinton had the oportunity to get Bin Laden http://www.prisonplanet.com/us_missed_three_chances_to_seize_bin_laden.htm but he did nothing. President Bush went after Bin Laden first when we went into Afghanistan. Securing out military in the middle of our world enemies in the Middle East by invading Iraq was secondary.

[Slatts]

The only thing I would add, at this point, is Bush went after the men that attacked the world trade center, Clinton did not.....
:D
Um... Wasn't Bush in power when the twin towers came down?
Clinton should have what? Raised an army using his authority as an ex-president?
How about Bush senior? or Regan? or maybe Nixon? I think they were all still kicking back then?

[behappy]

it's like trying to sweep away the ocean with a broom.

the budget and the National Debt is nothing more than a big vortex, where they tell stories and we get screwed.
...and it gets larger every year.



Wolf, follow the money trail...
Who does the U.S. owe all that money to?

It's no wonder we hear of what seems to be stupid stuff like the Dubai port deal. Where we are giving the country away. Remember the news story awhile back where China was going to cash in. The story went away didn't it?

If you owed me this type of money, I would have a LOT of influence over you!

[bootlen]

Um... Wasn't Bush in power when the twin towers came down?
Clinton should have what? Raised an army using his authority as an ex-president?


Slick Willie was in office when the FIRST attack was made on the Towers. Maybe you were still in diapers at the time and don't remember.

[Slatts]

Slick Willie was in office when the FIRST attack was made on the Towers. Maybe you were still in diapers at the time and don't remember.
Ya got me boot. that was the car bomb in the parking lot attack as I recall. lots of smoke and noise, not much damage. Yeh, I was only in my mid 30s then if I remember rightly.
The 9/11 attack sticks in my mind for the obvious reason and because I'd fallen asleep with the TV on and woke up just after the first plane went in. I thought it was a movie. By the time the second plane flew into the second tower I knew the world had changed.:mad:
Took me years before I could watch a jet coming into the local airport without a twinge. I hated Bin laden for that as much as anything else he did.

[mrs reb77]

car bomb in the parking lot attack

Well, consider the fact that the parking lot was beneath the towers...then it's a little more serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing
The bomb exploded in the underground garage at 12:18 pm, generating a pressure estimated over one GPa and opening a 30-meter-wide (98 foot) hole through four sublevels of concrete

[bootlen]

Ya got me boot. that was the car bomb in the parking lot attack as I recall. lots of smoke and noise, not much damage. Yeh, I was only in my mid 30s then if I remember rightly.
The 9/11 attack sticks in my mind for the obvious reason and because I'd fallen asleep with the TV on and woke up just after the first plane went in. I thought it was a movie. By the time the second plane flew into the second tower I knew the world had changed.:mad:
Took me years before I could watch a jet coming into the local airport without a twinge. I hated Bin laden for that as much as anything else he did.

That's the one...parking lot under the Towers.

As to the 2nd attack, the whole thing was surreal. Difficult to accept as reality. Sure weighed heavy on my heart to see it happen, knowing many people lost their lives needlessly. I'm still very angry about that. Sadly, too many are not.

[Remodeltdt01]

Um... Wasn't Bush in power when the twin towers came down?
Clinton should have what? Raised an army using his authority as an ex-president?
How about Bush senior? or Regan? or maybe Nixon? I think they were all still kicking back then?

Swatting flies -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html

The administration had warnings, but didn't take them seriously:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/04/b44925.html

and

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/politics/08RICE-TEXT.html?pagewanted=12&ei=5070&en=d18b7fe18130b5a0&ex=1215835200

[Remodeltdt01]

And I shake my head every time I read the drivel you post. President Clinton had the oportunity to get Bin Laden http://www.prisonplanet.com/us_missed_three_chances_to_seize_bin_laden.htm but he did nothing. President Bush went after Bin Laden first when we went into Afghanistan. Securing out military in the middle of our world enemies in the Middle East by invading Iraq was secondary.

See my post above on Bush's stellar concern over the safety of the US.

If you feel the truth is drivel, go for it.

Personally, I feel pursuit of the truth is a true test of patriotism.

[bootlen]

See my post above on Bush's stellar concern over the safety of the US.

If you feel the truth is drivel, go for it.

Personally, I feel pursuit of the truth is a true test of patriotism.

Problem, remodel, is that Slick Willie had dismantled the intelligence community and the military. You don't rebuild that stuff in 9 months. It takes years.

[Remodeltdt01]

Problem, remodel, is that Slick Willie had dismantled the intelligence community and the military. You don't rebuild that stuff in 9 months. It takes years.


Rice's testimony was (other than ignoring some prior administration warnings) that domestic laws prevented the CIA/FBI from developing good knowledge on what was happening here. She and Bush were warned by Tenet that all the info they had indicated an attack was imminent and that it would be big.

Could they have done anything to prevent it? Even if they tried, the results probably would have been the same. US laws effectively tied their hands as far as what they could do here. The result of all this is the Patriot act, which takes away some rights (much to the angst of some) but does give the government more powers to pursue terrorists here. As with any new power, it could be abused. Will it? Maybe, maybe not. It will probably take a decade or more before the various parts go through the inevitable legal challenges.

[bootlen]

Agree.

[crackertech]

Rice's testimony was (other than ignoring some prior administration warnings) that domestic laws prevented the CIA/FBI from developing good knowledge on what was happening here. She and Bush were warned by Tenet that all the info they had indicated an attack was imminent and that it would be big.

Could they have done anything to prevent it? Even if they tried, the results probably would have been the same. US laws effectively tied their hands as far as what they could do here. The result of all this is the Patriot act, which takes away some rights (much to the angst of some) but does give the government more powers to pursue terrorists here. As with any new power, it could be abused. Will it? Maybe, maybe not. It will probably take a decade or more before the various parts go through the inevitable legal challenges.

Dang Remod thats the first time I ever seen a post from you that I can
agree with.Are you starting to drift to the right?:D:D

[Remodeltdt01]

Dang Remod thats the first time I ever seen a post from you that I can
agree with.Are you starting to drift to the right?:D:D

No, but I do try to understand what happened and why. The Bush administration ignored some good warnings from the prior administration. Some of this undoubtedly happens at each administration change and it's sad that our politcians are more concerned about partisanship that doing what is right for the american people.

[bootlen]

No, but I do try to understand what happened and why. The Bush administration ignored some good warnings from the prior administration. Some of this undoubtedly happens at each administration change and it's sad that our politcians are more concerned about partisanship that doing what is right for the american people.

So we should have gone into Afghanistan BEFORE 9-11?

[Remodeltdt01]

So we should have gone into Afghanistan BEFORE 9-11?

Depends on one's point of view. Yes, if you subscribe to the preemptive action even if we're wrong line of thought. If we were to fully go with that philosophy then we'd be in a lot of other countries than just Iraq.

Personally, I wouldn't agree to a preemptive invasion unless it could be proven that a true and imminent threat existed.

[bootlen]

Depends on one's point of view. Yes, if you subscribe to the preemptive action even if we're wrong line of thought. If we were to fully go with that philosophy then we'd be in a lot of other countries than just Iraq.

Personally, I wouldn't agree to a preemptive invasion unless it could be proven that a true and imminent threat existed.

What proof would you want? The guy's word he is going to attack? Maybe we should not invade if we have his word he is NOT going to attack.

How about our own intelligence reports? Apparently, we cannot trust our own agencies.

Oh, I know. Just sit back and wait to be attacked. We know from experience that works. But wait...now you're unhappy because the "warnings" were not heeded.

Well, which is it?

[Remodeltdt01]

What proof would you want? The guy's word he is going to attack? Maybe we should not invade if we have his word he is NOT going to attack.

How about our own intelligence reports? Apparently, we cannot trust our own agencies.

Oh, I know. Just sit back and wait to be attacked. We know from experience that works. But wait...now you're unhappy because the "warnings" were not heeded.

Well, which is it?

Some leader making a speech is not neccessarily a proven and imminent threat. In the case of Osama Bin Laden they were an imminent threat which the CIA took seriously and the administration ignored.

Should we have invaded when the CIA warned the president's administration? Why would we need to? The US has a lot more ways to hobble an enemy than just "sending in the marines".

[bootlen]

Some leader making a speech is not neccessarily a proven and imminent threat. In the case of Osama Bin Laden they were an imminent threat which the CIA took seriously and the administration ignored.

Should we have invaded when the CIA warned the president's administration? Why would we need to? The US has a lot more ways to hobble an enemy than just "sending in the marines".

And what would you have had W do with those warnings? (Be sure it ispossible to do those things. Remember, Slick Willie had dismanteld the military as well. So we'd be stuck with those other ways to hobble a guy who has survived in a cave for a very long time.)

[Remodeltdt01]

And what would you have had W do with those warnings? (Be sure it ispossible to do those things. Remember, Slick Willie had dismanteld the military as well. So we'd be stuck with those other ways to hobble a guy who has survived in a cave for a very long time.)


I cannot say what I would have done. I don't have the inside knowledge to know what tools are available to the President.

[bootlen]

I cannot say what I would have done. I don't have the inside knowledge to know what tools are available to the President.

Hmm. Couldn't tell that from your posts.

[Remodeltdt01]

Hmm. Couldn't tell that from your posts.

:cool:

[mrs reb77]

She and Bush were warned by Tenet that all the info they had indicated an attack was imminent and that it would be big.


Hindsight aside, this is like stating that the offense in a football game is going to try to get the ball down field. Yeah. We all know that. Exactly who, how, when, where, etc. is the info we would need in order for our defense to intercept the football. We only have so many players to use--they can't cover everything.
Someone somewhere is always going to be planning something, something big even. Unless you know the W's (who, what, where, when) you don't know jack.

[daytonafan]

now when i vote for a president , i look for massive reforms.
Bush is not that , he is staus quo.

i got my 600 bucks.
such a chinsey move

i challenge you to name one freaking thing, that any recent president has done, that's better than 600 bucks.

what is more important?
a president who speaks perfectly , or 600 bucks?


now you will say, 'that's ignorant, because Bill Clinton (allegedly) balancing the budget is something that effects everyone in the county'
balancing the budget is good, but how much did it really effect the average person? , it didn't.
you will tell me it will lead to higher taxes.
taxes will go up in the future anyways , until we toss these people out on their ear and return to Constitutional politics.
the government has greatly overstepped their bounds with how much they collect.
you aregoing to tell me we owe them?

then you will say , 'Bill Clinton payed down the National Debt'
once again paying off the National Debt is good (or even better , just telling them to screw theselves)
Bill Clinton paying a few hundred million to a National Debt that is in the trillions was a publicity stunt.
it's like trying to sweep away the ocean with a broom.

the budget and the National Debt is nothing more than a big vortex, where they tell stories and we get screwed.
...and it gets larger every year.
the next Democrat President will have a larger National Debt, anything else is just politics.

you will say 'Bush started a war'
that whole arguement is fruitless, the Democrats have backed everything Bush has done.
i'd rather have 600 bucks then a Democrat President who says ' well i was elected to stop the war but i can't because blah blah blah,but i'm running it better'

so who is better than 600 bucks? Reagan?



my challenge is open to anyone.

I am going with Ronald Reagan. Although he never mailed me a check, he inherited the mess peanut head left behind. The prosperity and growth that followed was amazing. He also stood up to bullies and put Gorbie in his place too.

My hats off to Lincoln also. Both are interesting and intelligent men.

The stimmy check was nice (I have 6 children) Think we might go on a little Vacay!!!

[Remodeltdt01]

Rice's testimony was (other than ignoring some prior administration warnings) that domestic laws prevented the CIA/FBI from developing good knowledge on what was happening here. She and Bush were warned by Tenet that all the info they had indicated an attack was imminent and that it would be big.

Could they have done anything to prevent it? Even if they tried, the results probably would have been the same. US laws effectively tied their hands as far as what they could do here. The result of all this is the Patriot act, which takes away some rights (much to the angst of some) but does give the government more powers to pursue terrorists here. As with any new power, it could be abused. Will it? Maybe, maybe not. It will probably take a decade or more before the various parts go through the inevitable legal challenges.



Hindsight aside, this is like stating that the offense in a football game is going to try to get the ball down field. Yeah. We all know that. Exactly who, how, when, where, etc. is the info we would need in order for our defense to intercept the football. We only have so many players to use--they can't cover everything.
Someone somewhere is always going to be planning something, something big even. Unless you know the W's (who, what, where, when) you don't know jack.

It's pretty apparent Tenent and the outgoing administration knew who (Al-Qaeda), where (the US), what (an attack) and warned the incoming administration. What they didn't know is exactly where, exactly when, and if the threat was credible and that would never be known (unless Al-Quaeda decided to tell us exactly what they were doing before they attacked ;) ).