Should Bush and company be held accountable?

[zeus3925]

I thought the thread was about Bush and Co breaking the law and whether they should be held accountable?

Maybe. But, I am not going to spend my time and money to purge his demons. Do you think the Milosovich family might pony up?

[smillerdvm]

We read quite well. Thanks for asking. We're saying that had William Jefferson Clinton had the guts and his priorities in the right place, and made the decision when he had the chance, 9/11 would have been avoided altogether in all probability.

kg

This seems to be a common default excuse for the neo con Bush apologists......

" Intelligence shows that Clinton could have eliminated the whole problem if he would have taken out Bin Laden when he had the chance"

This line of reasoning is suspect on more than one front

First the Bush administrations record on "Intelligence" reports is suspect to say the least

Second, there is no guarantee that had Clinton acted on said "Intelligence" that they would have been succesful in taking out Bin Laden. Remember the Bush administration has spent the better part of his 8 years in office and committed thousands of troops, billions of dollars, countless raids and air strikes on caves or areas that "Intelligence" reports stated were Bin Laden hideouts; and they haven't gotten him yet. This slime ball has proven to be kind of hard to pin down, in spite of their "reliable intelligence". Once again review part one {above} on Bush's "Intelligence" record

Third, if we were succesful in getting Bin Laden don't you think that there would have been a successor to take his place. I can't think of how many times they have bragged that they have caught the supposed "second in command" of Al Queada. That would seem to show that there are plenty of these radicals to step up and fill the void.



I also love it that when you neo con Bush apologists are asked to list what Bush has done well, you always state that he "kept Ameica safe". You certainly can't brag on the economy; unless you approve of his bailouts and socialization of our banking, financial, auto and insurance sectors. He has completely abandoned free market principles. Brilliant

Well call me stupid...{and I'm sure you will} but I thought that 9-11 occurred on Bush's watch; despite "actionable intelligence" [cuts both ways don't it] that if acted upon could have "eliminated the whole problem"

His response was to eventually invade Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, and where Al Queda didn't exist. Remember they sold us on the war because their "intelligence" showed that they had WMD's, were sponsors of terror etc. Additionally their "intelligence" indicated that the war would be relatively short and inexpensive, as we would be "welcomed" as liberators; further it could be paid for with oil revenues.

Do you remember when Robert Gates was asked if America was safer because of our military actions in Iraq & Afghanistan. His answer was NO.

That was his appointment. I bet he got chastised, in private for that honest response; as honesty seems to be anethma to this administration. That may explain the attraction of the apologists!!!

"Mission Accomplished" regards

[Gun_Dog2002]

This seems to be a common default excuse for the neo con Bush apologists......

" Intelligence shows that Clinton could have eliminated the whole problem if he would have taken out Bin Laden when he had the chance"

This line of reasoning is suspect on more than one front

First the Bush administrations record on "Intelligence" reports is suspect to say the least

Second, there is no guarantee that had Clinton acted on said "Intelligence" that they would have been succesful in taking out Bin Laden. Remember the Bush administration has spent the better part of his 8 years in office and committed thousands of troops, billions of dollars, countless raids and air strikes on caves or areas that "Intelligence" reports stated were Bin Laden hideouts; and they haven't gotten him yet. This slime ball has proven to be kind of hard to pin down, in spite of their "reliable intelligence". Once again review part one {above} on Bush's "Intelligence" record

Third, if we were succesful in getting Bin Laden don't you think that there would have been a successor to take his place. I can't think of how many times they have bragged that they have caught the supposed "second in command" of Al Queada. That would seem to show that there are plenty of these radicals to step up and fill the void.



I also love it that when you neo con Bush apologists are asked to list what Bush has done well, you always state that he "kept Ameica safe". You certainly can't brag on the economy; unless you approve of his bailouts and socialization of our banking, financial, auto and insurance sectors. He has completely abandoned free market principles. Brilliant

Well call me stupid...{and I'm sure you will} but I thought that 9-11 occurred on Bush's watch; despite "actionable intelligence" [cuts both ways don't it] that if acted upon could have "eliminated the whole problem"

His response was to eventually invade Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, and where Al Queda didn't exist. Remember they sold us on the war because their "intelligence" showed that they had WMD's, were sponsors of terror etc. Additionally their "intelligence" indicated that the war would be relatively short and inexpensive, as we would be "welcomed" as liberators; further it could be paid for with oil revenues.

Do you remember when Robert Gates was asked if America was safer because of our military actions in Iraq & Afghanistan. His answer was NO.

That was his appointment. I bet he got chastised, in private for that honest response; as honesty seems to be anethma to this administration. That may explain the attraction of the apologists!!!

"Mission Accomplished" regards

So you blame Bush for the economy despte the democrat behaviors that sparked the whole mess? What else are you going to blame Bush for? Herpes, AIDS, 7-11 raising the price in slurpee's......Geez,

/Paul

[zeus3925]

And where was Bush when the Demo's were running amok. "Veto" was too big a word for him to understand.

[Gun_Dog2002]

And where was Bush when the Demo's were running amok. "Veto" was too big a word for him to understand.

So let me get this straight. Its ok for all those democrats to act like that but the republican president is suppose to stop them? What a hypocrytical thing to say. I can't wait for the next 4 years.

/Paul

[Hew]

This seems to be a common default excuse for the neo con Bush apologists......

" Intelligence shows that Clinton could have eliminated the whole problem if he would have taken out Bin Laden when he had the chance"

This line of reasoning is suspect on more than one front

First the Bush administrations record on "Intelligence" reports is suspect to say the least

Second, there is no guarantee that had Clinton acted on said "Intelligence" that they would have been succesful in taking out Bin Laden. Remember the Bush administration has spent the better part of his 8 years in office and committed thousands of troops, billions of dollars, countless raids and air strikes on caves or areas that "Intelligence" reports stated were Bin Laden hideouts; and they haven't gotten him yet. This slime ball has proven to be kind of hard to pin down, in spite of their "reliable intelligence". Once again review part one {above} on Bush's "Intelligence" record

What in the world do Bush admin intelligence reports have to do with Clinton kicking the bin Laden can down the road? The context of your screed above indicates that you have never read about the Sudanese offer to hand bin Laden over to us. Perhaps you'll believe your hero, Bill Clinton:

"At the time, 1996, he [bin Laden] had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it [the bin Laden issue] was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan".

Call me nutty, but when you're as stunningly ill-informed as you appear to be, I'm thinking it's probably not a good idea to come out blazing with invectives like you have. But that's just me...

[zeus3925]

So let me get this straight. Its ok for all those democrats to act like that but the republican president is suppose to stop them? What a hypocrytical thing to say. I can't wait for the next 4 years.

/Paul

Paul--Read the Constitution. That is exactly the function of the presidential veto. And if the President doesn't employ that tool, then the Senate Republicans had the strength to sustain a filibuster. (That isn't in the Constitution.)

If the Republicans had been more mainstream they would have prevailed in the last election. Instead they were too fixated on their brand of ideological purity to give a rip about the real world. They, more than anyone, are responsible for Congress's poor public ratings. The public responded in spades by increasing Pelosi's and Reid's minions.

[txbadger]

Paul--Read the Constitution. That is exactly the function of the presidential veto. And if the President doesn't employ that tool, then the Senate Republicans had the strength to sustain a filibuster. (That isn't in the Constitution.)

If the Republicans had been more mainstream they would have prevailed in the last election. Instead they were too fixated on their brand of ideological purity to give a rip about the real world. They, more than anyone, are responsible for Congress's poor public ratings. The public responded in spades by increasing Pelosi's and Reid's minions.

Not in this "fight" but I'd like to see a link to the Constitution that provides a Presidential Veto .....

[zeus3925]

Not in this "fight" but I'd like to see a link to the Constitution that provides a Presidential Veto .....

Here you go. You'll find it in Article I, Sec. 7-Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec3

[Gun_Dog2002]

Paul--Read the Constitution. That is exactly the function of the presidential veto. And if the President doesn't employ that tool, then the Senate Republicans had the strength to sustain a filibuster. (That isn't in the Constitution.)

If the Republicans had been more mainstream they would have prevailed in the last election. Instead they were too fixated on their brand of ideological purity to give a rip about the real world. They, more than anyone, are responsible for Congress's poor public ratings. The public responded in spades by increasing Pelosi's and Reid's minions.

Why should I? I got democrats to let me know I don't know squat, firmly convinced that their $hit don't stink, that are more than willing to explain to me that despite their actions it was someone's else's fault for letting them do it, and that they just happen to be experts on consitutional law, which strangely enough always supports their viewpoint. Its just one of the many problems mankind will has not been able to resolve, the complete lack of ownership and accountability for their own actions. Adam started it when he blamed Eve and liberals have made it an art form.

/Paul