COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF fails to protect his people, Congressional hearings on the way

[RyanH]

Just once I would like to see RyanH post something besides 'Republicans are evil' threads. Just once! If someone could provide a link to a thread by him(?) that does not involve politics, I would really appreciate it.

o.k. why don't we talk about something else that won't have quite the significance that politics has on our lives? maybe your tan? your favorite band? LOL.

 

[BackDoc]

I think Nordrstom has actually said it best----everyone bears some of the blame. My point is that putting the blame on President Clinton's shoulders is not only unfair it's just simply wrong--the Republicans are just as culpable.

A very far cry from your opening post.

 

[mekannik]

Ryan, before you further escalate the dialogue with your heavily slanted viewpoint - take a moment to consider your statement.

RyanH
Let's talk about President Clinton's respectable actions to prevent terrorism:

--spending on counter-terrorism doubled under his watch.

so what you are saying, in effect, is: throw enough money at a problem and you might stop it a little/try and correct it after the fact. Also, would it not further give you "ammo" if Bush DOUBLED what Clinton spent to fight terrorism? More taxes? More government spending (but not on your Democratic programs).

I would think that this would just further infuriate you and the rest of the Democratic Party on the subject of Bush jr.

 

[RyanH]

A very far cry from your opening post.

not at all....I think the President should be investigated and have his actions scrutinized by the American people as well as Congress, in the same way that President Clinton had his actions scrutinized for 8 years (and even to this day).

 

[BackDoc]

not at all....I think the President should be investigated and have his actions scrutinized by the American people as well as Congress, in the same way that President Clinton had his actions scrutinized for 8 years (and even to this day).

Then you should have changed the topic heading to CommanderS in Chief (plural) rather than singling out one solitary president solely on the basis of being a Republican. Oh don't worry all the scrutinizing in the world will take place. That you support an investigation is a matter of feeling and party alignment. However, stating that something could have been done by 1 president shortly after taking office (on the heels of the work done by opposite partisan Commander-In-Chief) is ludicrous when the EXACT same thing could have taken place under former administration.

Your first post did NOT reflect equal blame.

 

[bigmean]

o.k. why don't we talk about something else that won't have quite the significance that politics has on our lives? maybe your tan? your favorite band? LOL.

My tan is coming along nicely, I haven't had much time lately to get out in the sun. You know how it is, sunny all week and then rain on the weekends. But it's coming along, slowly but surely. I guess if I had to pick a favorite band, it would be Jane's Addiction, but I don't really want to discuss them. But if it would distract you from posting threads that seem to be meant to get a rise out of the masses I would be glad to discuss them. No disrespect intended, I just think there are better things to do than argue over politics, because it dosen't get anyone anywhere. By the way, how's your tan?

 

[RyanH]

Then you should have changed the topic heading to CommanderS in Chief (plural) rather than singling out one solitary president solely on the basis of being a Republican. Oh don't worry all the scrutinizing in the world will take place. That you support an investigation is a matter of feeling and party alignment. However, stating that something could have been done by 1 president shortly after taking office (on the heels of the work done by opposite partisan Commander-In-Chief) is ludicrous when the EXACT same thing could have taken place under former administration.

Your first post did NOT reflect equal blame.

I've never attributed all the blame to one person, I've only highlighted and emphasized the blame for the most current attacks...Bush is the one that had the warning, not Clinton.

However, on a general level for all terrorism---most everyone in Washington shares some blame.

 

[Milhouse]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[p0ink]

how was bush supposed to know about the attacks when the own hijackers did not? don't you recall from one of the osama videos him stating that most of the own hijackers did not even know the full extent of their mission. they didnt even know they were going to die in the first place.

 

[aurelius]

Congressional hearings are finally on the way, and the Bush Administration critics were correct afterall---the President did know about the attacks prior to September 11

I hope this doesn´t turn into another witch hunt like it did with Clinton.