The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[BDBopper]

Rubber Duckie '08 He's the One!

When should I start printing the T-shirts, buttons, and bumper stickers?

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

This article, along with Clintons own voice, might suggest he did.

Any ideas on why the 9/11 Commission rejected that assertion?

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

What absurd LewisCarollian logic.

Not only absurd, but also incorrect. Again, Scaeagles- I beg of you to actually read the damned report (which is co-authored by many of your con pols) and then write about it. They were actually pretty fair in their assessment that Clinton's hands were tied- the Repubs had him on the ropes about the Tripoli shelling and were accusing him of using that as a distraction from his domestic 'affairs'- to go after Bin Laden would have been (and was) not only a bit illegal at that point, but misconstrued purposefully by the very people that are now using terrorism as a threat against their own citizens. (Vote for us or you'll die!) Besides, there are no guarantees he could have been taken out- Sudan is notorious for lying to us and subsequent events in that region have not born out any better reason to trust them. Bush has had ample time, resources and the go- ahead from the world community, and he's failed.

Sheesh.

[Alex]

Well, using this part:

They were actually pretty fair in their assessment that Clinton's hands were tied- the Repubs had him on the ropes about the Tripoli shelling and were accusing him of using that as a distraction from his domestic 'affairs'- to go after Bin Laden would have been (and was) not only a bit illegal at that point, but misconstrued purposefully by the very people that are now using terrorism as a threat against their own citizens.

would support the position of the billboard guy. If a Republican had been president, Clinton's reasons for not taking out Obama wouldn't have existed.

Not that I agree with him or think this is the way in which he means the point.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

Any ideas on why the 9/11 Commission rejected that assertion?

I have my thoughts on the 9/11 commission, but don't have the time to go into them now.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

(Vote for us or you'll die!)

What amazes me is this is exactly the argument the DEMS are using! Saying that the Iraq war breeds more terrorism, that the Muslim world hates us more, that out policies in support of Isreal and demonizing Ahmadenijad and whatever else they accuse the republicans of have made us less safe! It is an argument of ideas - the republicans think that they have the better strategy for dealing with terrorism, and the dems do as well. Don't pull this crap of the republicans are the only ones doing it!

I see what is out there and that it is a republican strategy. Don't tell me that it isn't a dem strategy as well to say Bush and republican policies has made us less safe.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I have my thoughts on the 9/11 commission, but don't have the time to go into them now.

Understood

Perhaps you could come back to that on a slow Obama news day.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Not only absurd, but also incorrect. Again, Scaeagles- I beg of you to actually read the damned report (which is co-authored by many of your con pols) and then write about it. They were actually pretty fair in their assessment that Clinton's hands were tied- the Repubs had him on the ropes about the Tripoli shelling and were accusing him of using that as a distraction from his domestic 'affairs'- to go after Bin Laden would have been (and was) not only a bit illegal at that point, but misconstrued purposefully by the very people that are now using terrorism as a threat against their own citizens. (Vote for us or you'll die!) Besides, there are no guarantees he could have been taken out- Sudan is notorious for lying to us and subsequent events in that region have not born out any better reason to trust them. Bush has had ample time, resources and the go- ahead from the world community, and he's failed.

Sheesh.

Exactly. It wasn't until the investigation into the Cole attack that we had the evidence that would have made going after bin Laden in earnest acceptable and legal.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by Alex

Well, using this part:



would support the position of the billboard guy. If a Republican had been president, Clinton's reasons for not taking out Obama wouldn't have existed.

Not that I agree with him or think this is the way in which he means the point.

Lol! Too true. Well, I think McCain has a worse track record in that arena than Obama does- so far as we know, anyway.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

What absurd LewisCarollian logic.

You know of course that Lewis Carol was a logician? I even have his book on symbolic logic in my philosophy collection - a bit more dry that the Alice tales, but quite logical - I assure you