Iraq undertakers: Feeling the Pinch

[Joe Schmoe]

I posed a few questions in my post #12.
I suppose we're not going to take a stab at those?

The fact that I've asked questions that you can't answer.
Doesn't mean I like Bush, or any war.

I am not aware of any connection between 9/11 and the first WTC bombing (different groups responsible.) Since there is no evidence that Bush's "Homeland Security" measures are effective, similar measures on Clinton's part are unlikely to have prevented it.
Improving the Levees could have been done anytime by any president. Clinton was neither more nor less lax than Bush in that regard.
Meanwhile, Bush is destroying the budget that Clinton balanced and undoing decades of environmental protection, among other misdeed.

 

[stratman]

A lot of things are Bush's fault. He is the worst president in US history. (Worse than even Nixon, and that is saying a lot.)

Ever heard of Jimmy Carter? My friend he takes the cake (and prize) as the worst president in modern times.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Ever heard of Jimmy Carter? My friend he takes the cake (and prize) as the worst president in modern times.

Carter was merely ineffectual. Bush is actively bad (perhaps even evil.)

 

[stratman]

Carter was merely ineffectual. Bush is actively bad (perhaps even evil.)

You know Joe for being so compassionate (as you guys on the left like to think you are) you seem pretty acrimonious for such an enlightened and progressive soul. Evil is a pretty strong word, you might not like the president, but I'm sure you don't know the man personally.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Evil is a pretty strong word.

True, that is why I gave him the benefit if the doubt by adding "perhaps".

 

[Highlander]

Evil is a pretty strong word, you might not like the president, but I'm sure you don't know the man personally.

I didn't know Hitler personally but I'm fairly sure he fell into the 'Evil' category.

 

[gmichael]

I didn't know Hitler personally but I'm fairly sure he fell into the 'Evil' category.

So now George = Hitler?

 

[Highlander]

So now George = Hitler?

Hahahaha! Not at all gmichael. All I'm saying is that you don't necessarily need to know someone personally to appreciate that they're evil.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

So now George = Hitler?

Bush is not as bad as Hitler. That is the nicest thing I can think of to say about him.

 

[Rickster71]

I am not aware of any connection between 9/11 and the first WTC bombing (different groups responsible.)

The conections would be:

1. The huge car bomb was detonated by Islamic terrorists.
The 1,500-lb (680 kg) urea nitrate-fuel oil device was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into Tower Two, bringing both towers down and killing 250,000 people.

The 1993 attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, El Sayyi Nosair, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Ahmad Ajaj, and Abdul Rahman Yasin.

2. They received financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle.

 

[OttoMatic]

I posed a few questions in my post #12.
I suppose we're not going to take a stab at those?

The fact that I've asked questions that you can't answer.
Doesn't mean I like Bush, or any war.

...

Aren't many of the things that are blamed on Bush, just 'Leftovers' from the Clinton administration?
For example: The 'First' 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Maybe if Clinton did more in his eight years, it wouldn't have been dropped in the next president's lap?(In 2001)

Yeah, blaming Clinton is always a popular ruse. Sure, he could have done more, and maybe things would have been better. It's easy to say these things with hindsight.

This all could've been Al Gore's problem. Would you still be as critical?

I can't imagine that Al Gore would have run things so "well." However, if he had, I would be similarly critical. Just as some GOP types are of GWB.

Maybe, if in the eight years Bill Clinton was in office, he had fixed the levees around New Orleans that problem would've ended on his watch? Maybe the inept Louisiana Governor should've been more vocal 'before,' not after the fact, and made sure her state was safe.

Sure. Still doesn't make Bush any good.

I wonder what some of the Fanboys on this forum would've done, if all the previously mentioned, was dumped in their laps?

Being a Fanboy is never a good thing, for one loses all objectivity.

Me? Fanboy of who? Who are the Fanboys of George Bush?

What we need is real leadership. Not "yes men." Not "stay the course."

There's a reason GWB and the war are at all time lows (again). What we need are real thinking and real progress.

 

[Rickster71]

Wrong as usual. What you quoted is simply being a Democrat. A "fanboy" would rave about how great the first president Clinton was.

Being a Fanboy swings both ways.

One can be ultra negative about what they perceive as their competition in this case, Republicans.

Or

One can be fanatical and very positive about their perceived cause, or group.

Deep down, we all know both sides have faults.

Fanboys don't see it that way.

 

[Rickster71]

Yeah, blaming Clinton is always a popular ruse. Sure, he could have done more, and maybe things would have been better. It's easy to say these things with hindsight.

OK fair enough.

My looking in hindsight, and your and Joe's negativism isn't helping or fixing anything.

So, I ask again.
What would you have done, if this whole leaky bag was dropped in your lap?

 

[OttoMatic]

So, I ask again.
What would you have done, if this whole leaky bag was dropped in your lap?

I'd most likely have skipped the Iraq war. As far as I could tell, we had our foot on Saddam's throat (via Hans Blix and company). I would have continued to pursue Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda directly, as they were the ones responsible for Sept 11. Even if Saddam is a "bad guy" (no question there), he is a secondary or tertiary concern. I would also have portrayed myself as intelligent and conscientious, working with other world leaders. I would surround myself with people more intelligent than myself, and those people would represent varied aspects of thought (rather than only agreeing with my point of view).

For starters, and off the top of my head...

 

[OttoMatic]

Oh, I almost forgot -- perhaps most importantly, I would evolve my opinion and approach based on the evidence at hand. I would always be looking to learn from my mistakes to 1) make things better and 2) not make the same mistake again.

 

[Tomorrow]

Oh, I almost forgot -- perhaps most importantly, I would evolve my opinion and approach based on the evidence at hand. I would always be looking to learn from my mistakes to 1) make things better and 2) not make the same mistake again.

Okay, Otto.

You're the Big Cheese. You get national and international intelligence that tells you that the leader of a country has WMD's AND has used them in the past. He has violated countless requests for outside/neutral investigation, then demands from the U.N. regarding the issue. Oh yes, you also get intelligence that bin Laden's cronies have met with this country's leaders. Do you just ignore that and go off on your merry chase of bin Laden?

Tell us what you'd do so that all of us don't sit around computers with 20-20 hindsight ragging on you and calling you the Big "O" and blaming you for what would likely be a staggering result of homeland INsecurity...especially if that intelligence had been correct (which of course you wouldn't know if you hadn't invaded that country)?

 

[OttoMatic]

Hi tomorrow,

I don't suppose to have all the answers. I'm not the leader, and I don't want to be. If some of you think that the path the US has taken is the right one, then great.

To me, our current leadership seems to implement one bad decision after another.

What we need is real leadership with insight and intelligence. Just my opinion.

 

[majorloser]

The Answer to All of Our Problems

Don't worry! Cheer up!
We'll get some "real leadership with insight and intelligence."

 

[Tomorrow]

Hi tomorrow,

I don't suppose to have all the answers. I'm not the leader, and I don't want to be. If some of you think that the path the US has taken is the right one, then great.

To me, our current leadership seems to implement one bad decision after another.

What we need is real leadership with insight and intelligence. Just my opinion.

Thanks for the honest reply, OttoMatic. It's a tough job these guys have to do. Yes, they all have agendas (unfortunately for us) and yes they all make mistakes that are easy to see from an historical point of view. But I think we need to focus on the future and learn from our mistakes more than harping on what a screwball President XYZ is/was. All politicians by definition are power hungry...they want to exercise that power and do. But that is the way of our entire civilization, not just our country.

I purposefully didn't identify Iraq in my question to you because that is sort of the scenario the next U.S. Prez will face with Iran, North Korea, and maybe even Syria. We REALLY need to get it right the next time.

EDIT...I just posted the above and saw the just posted picture. THANKS for ruining my dinner, Majorloser, you...you....you.....you-you.

 

[stratman]

Don't worry! Chear up!
We'll get some "real leadership with insight and intelligence."

I'm so HOT for her, oooh she makes me drool all over my fur.