DeLay Indicted

[scaeagles]

What do you consider to be passing the blame?

If we are talking about Osama bin Laden and 9/11, is it valid to talk about Clinton, in his own words, saying that he could have taken bin Laden from the Sudan, but decided not to? Or how they military had Osama in the sights of a predator drone armed with missiles, and he wouldn't order taking him out, even though he knew the man was responsible for the Embassey bombings?

My goal is not to start a discussion about terrorist, 9/11, or whatever, but simply to ask i that is passing blame, or bringing something relevant to the table.

[wendybeth]

Look, you want to blame anyone about Bin Ladin and his ilk, you'd best start with the Saudis. And their friends. While you're at it, find out why the Saudi government is inflicting even harsher treatment on women and other religions, despite the fact that they promised to be more tolerant. They were told that there would be sanctions if they didn't clean up their act, and now they are getting yet another pass from the USA. Lots of people, including Bush, passed up opportunities to nail Bin Ladin. Hell, Bush has started two frikken wars on the pretense of trying to get the guy, but he just keeps slipping through our grasp. Our entire military and intelligence units can't catch up to him, and apparently it's Clinton's fault because he didn't go after him when he wasn't as good at hiding. (Never mind the fact that it would have been against then-current laws, and his political opponents would have screamed bloody murder. Look how they reacted when he bombed Tripoli).

Give me a break.

[innerSpaceman]

I suppose what would have been better than Clinton having a 9/11 crystal ball when he could have nailed bin Laden in the Sudan would be for Reagan (or was it Bush Sr.?) to have had a 9/11 crystal ball when training bin Laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.


Anyways, I think the bit about Clinton having the chance to have taken out bin Laden is a perfectly legitimate topic of missed opportunity and misguided reluctance. But the great majority of Clinton blaming is of a far more juvenile nature.

[scaeagles]

WB - you're missing what I'm after here. I'm not trying to start a discussion on anything other than whether or not bringing up history is relevant to discussions of the present day.

We disagree on the subject I used as an example, and I am certain will never agree. My point is simply that the mere mention of the name of Clinton is typically met with opposition because he is not the President at present. However, what he did or didn't do in a lot of areas is very relevant to what we deal with now. As it is with Bush I, Reagan, Carter, etc.

I agree with ISM that a lot of the Clinton stuff is juvenile. That doesn't mean that there are not real and valid points of criticism related to present circumstances.

[CoasterMatt]

I blame penguins... They brought this all upon us.

[Prudence]

But penguins are so sensitive to my needs.

[scaeagles]

Tell us about your needs, Prudence. I want to feel your.....pain.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

WB - you're missing what I'm after here. I'm not trying to start a discussion on anything other than whether or not bringing up history is relevant to discussions of the present day.

We disagree on the subject I used as an example, and I am certain will never agree. My point is simply that the mere mention of the name of Clinton is typically met with opposition because he is not the President at present. However, what he did or didn't do in a lot of areas is very relevant to what we deal with now. As it is with Bush I, Reagan, Carter, etc.

I agree with ISM that a lot of the Clinton stuff is juvenile. That doesn't mean that there are not real and valid points of criticism related to present circumstances.

I get what you're saying, Scaeagles, but history didn't begin with Clinton either, now did it? It's not necessarily over-sensitivity that precludes mentioning Clinton, it's over-use. As in Godwinism. I read through some of those examples I dredged up and I realise why I react the way I do when it's brought up yet again. It's usually just a tired attempt to deflect criticism, and it only succeeds in derailing a topic. Like now.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

I get what you're saying, Scaeagles, but history didn't begin with Clinton either, now did it?

Not in the least. This is why recent mentions of Reagan pulling out of Beirut are also well within what I consider to be rational debate - it was a mistake, and showed weakness to a group of people you shouldn't EVER show weakness to.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Let's examine some examples:

Example #1
Claim: "Bush and his administration is at fault for 9/11 because of the failure of intelligence under his administration.
Response: "Much of that intelligence originated under Clinton, who, by the way, failed to take the opportunity to capture Bin Laden when he had it"

Salient response, valid point.

Okay, example #2:
Claim: "The war effort has failed to produce on it's #1 stated goal (at least at the beginning), namely capturing Bin Laden and bringing him to justice. Instead, it's been used as an excuse to incite more war. And worse yet, the person who should be held accountable for these failures has shirked all responsibility and was rewarded with a second term in office.
Response: "Oh yeah, well, Clinton didn't capture Bin Laden either."

Red hering thrown out to distract from the real issue of accountability in this adminsitration.

Subtle difference, but important. And when so much of the Clinton rhetoric has been of the second type, yeah, people get testy when he's brought up repeatedly.