Obama '08?

Now, now. Enough with this foolishness.

Cycloptichorn

He doesn't have to make that assertion. All you have to do is read his defense and championing of Obama now for a very long time, and I cannot recall any instance where he has criticized Obama to any extent. Maybe it exists, but I don't remember it, but if you can find them, let me know.

No; you have made a conclusion not evidenced by his posts. You are an dumb-shit idiot.

ci, I think I am coming to the conclusion you are kind of losing it. Seriously, I don't think we should debate anymore, I am seriously concerned that you need to take a break. I have thought your sarcasm was kind of humorous, but you seem near a breaking point, sort of stressed out, and sort of obsessed with what you do here, and your posts show more incoherence than previously. Take a break, ci, I am serious.

C.I. isn't "losing it" any more than you are, Okie. An accusation that someone is losing touch with reality sure is ironic coming from someone who is trying to assert that Bush championed the idea of troop withdrawal moreso than Obama.

So I guess that means you are willing to blame the entire economic crisis on Bush, okie. Right? After all Bush deserves all the credit and Obama hasn't done anything to cause it.

So.. Bush is responsible for:

the sub prime mortgage meltdown
the lack of oversight on the derivatives markets
the liquidity crisis
the current recession
the present federal deficit that is out of control
the current states budget crises
the 40% drop in the stock markets
the drop in home values
the increase in mortgage defaults
etc
etc

We wouldn't want any spin meisters to say otherwise okie, would we? Bush deserves all the credit and no one else.

Bush championed the withdrawal of troops before they went in.
O boy is just twisting words and ideas in a feeble attempt to make them his own.

The mind reels.

And yet you have no problem with O boy twisting words and ideas in a feeble attempt to make them his own.

Let's deal with your problems first. They're much more formidable.

Obama did champion troop withdrawal, but in my opinion he championed it before it was feasible as it is now, due to the success of the surge. Whether success can be entirely attributed to the surge, that is another debate, but whatever all the factors were - it doesn't matter, they were brought about largely by Bush and the people he had working for him, top to bottom. If we had started committing to withdrawal when Obama was calling for it, I do not think it would have been wise, I agree with Bush and the logical strategy. Of course when we actually withdraw troops when we are managing victory, not losing, then timelines are mandated by necessity, by the Iraqis. Bush has always advocated leaving Iraq.

I give Bush credit because he deserves it, and it is ludicrous to try to give Obama any credit whatsoever for our success in Iraq, including successful withdrawal. That is a crock, snood. Obama never advocated toppling Hussein with the war, and if we had followed Obama's judgement, we would have never seen the succcesses that we have, and Hussein would still be terrorizing his own people, and playing cat and mouse games with the international community, and with us. It has cost life, freedom does not come without a price, and no telling how many lives have been saved both up until now and in the future, only God knows. Whether you were for the war or not, you must credit Bush for being committed, he took the job seriously, and he has perservered.

Plus, whether you like Bush or not, surely even you must admit that Bush has earned the reputation of being tough, a man of his word, and interested in protecting America, something Obama does not have, in fact terrorist organizations are overjoyed that he has been elected. Nobody knows what Obama will do, perhaps he will prove to be a viable protectant of this country, but I don't know that, and I have not much confidence in that so far.

Bad lending policies, propping up failed institutions by government, and overspending by government, driving business offshore by unions, over taxing and over regulation, encouraged by Democratic liberal policies, lie at the root of much of this problem, Parados. Fannie and Freddie, created way back in the 30's has created one part of this. And Democrats in Congress said there was no problem whatsoever when Republicans tried to reform Fannie and Freddie, everybody should be able to buy a house, whether they can pay for it or not.

So Obama is not to blame so far, and Bush inherited a recession and kept the ship afloat until the chickens are coming home to roost due to decades of factors as mentioned above. But the fact remains the markets are not responding favorably to Obama and the anticipated policies. Fear and instability abounds with the incoming administration.

I would add one other fact, the president has alot more direct control over a war and national security than he does the economy.

Really? And you know this how? Perhaps they called and told you?



You somehow seem to forget that Bush failed to protect the country as well.

9/11 happened on his watch. Nobody else's. I know you bunch like to blame it on Clinton, that's fucking stupidity from stupid people.

If AQ attacks within the first year of Obama's term, will you blame Bush? Obviously not.

Cycloptichorn

Blame falls upon the terrorists themselves for 9/11. It could possibly have been prevented by Clinton, or Bush, I lay blame for lack of prevention, 80/20 Clinton/Bush. Clinton failed to take custody of Osama Bin Laden, and he had a policy of the "wall" which prevented agencies to communicate about evidence of terrorists, and this was a prominent factor in those guys being able to get as far as they did. Other factors too, but those two were huge, and Clinton was at fault.

Uh, you don't blame your enemies for attacking you; that's what enemies do.

We're discussing the necessity of defending the nation, not our enemies' guilt for sneak attacking.

If AQ attacks America in Obama's term, will you blame Bush? After all, he also failed to get Bin Laden - after swearing to do so. By your logic that will be the correct person to blame, no matter what Obama does or doesn't do. Even if Obama is given a specific briefing, a month in advance, outlining exactly what AQ is trying to do - you won't blame him? B/c that's what happened to Bush, and yet you assign him almost no blame at all.

Cycloptichorn

Chances are good the attack on Sept. 11th would not have happened if Clinton had done his job instead of getting a blow job.

Clinton spent all of his time protecting his ass instead of his country and I fear O boy will do the same.

"Even if Obama is given a specific briefing, a month in advance, outlining exactly what AQ is trying to do - you won't blame him? B/c that's what happened to Bush, and yet you assign him almost no blame at all."

And just how do you know that President Bush received a specific briefing a month prior to 9/11 detailing what was going to occur? The intelligence community had been warning every President from Regan on that radical Islamic organizations were increasingly dangerous and that at some point an attack on the U.S. homeland by Islamic terrorists was almost inevitable. The tempo and seriousness of Islamic terrorism around the world steadily increased from the early 1990's onward, and even failed attacks on American soil were widely known. The problem was and remains that specific information as to targets, timetables, and operational plans are extremely difficult to obtain, and even then more often than not fail to materialize in the form we believed was intended. In the absence of specific and highly reliable information, Presidents and politicians often chose to discount the warnings they are given. Presidents and politicians want to focus on their own agendas, not the negative nor the actions that will derail their own expectations. Hey, that's a common human trait.

9/11 was not preventable by anyone, save those who made the decision to highjack airliners to be used as flying bombs. Al Queda decided, on their own, to attack the United States on, or about 9/11, with the purpose of gaining world-wide publicity. The destruction of the Twin-Towers and highly symbolic federal buildings in Washington brought a certain legitimacy and notoriety to Al Queda with the Radical Islamic Movement, and that was their purpose. The United States and our way of life is an anathema to the Radical Islamic Movement, and they are determined to destroy us absolutely in the name of God.

Only conspiracy nuts believe that FDR plotted with the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor, or that the Moon Landing was staged on a back lot in Hollywood, or that Bush and Israel together blew up the Twin-Towers to justify invading Iraq.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html



Most people would consider that to be a specific briefing detailing what was to occur. Bush reportedly laughed it off and did nothing. I don't believe that he could have sprung into action and stopped it, but he didn't even try.

Keep your conspiracy shit to yourself; that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The President is tasked with defending the country and Bush failed to do so. He had at least a partial warning that the attack was coming, and chose to do nothing about it. It's fair to say that he only had limited options in response, but it's also fair to say that it happened on HIS watch and HE carries responsibility for failing to defend America - and an even greater responsibility for failing to catch Bin Laden when he has had ample time and resources to do so.

Cycloptichorn

So you are saying that Truman was responsible for the Korean War. FDR was responsible for Pearl Harbor? That President Wilson was responsible for the sinking of the Lusitania? That Lincoln became responsible for the Civil War by running for the Presidency? All of those Presidents knew, or should have known that there was immanent danger of the nation being drawn into bloody conflict, yet they "failed" to prevent it.

Far from being specific, the intelligence briefing cited has no information that could be reasonably acted upon. Aircraft high-jacking was a common terrorist act. Our experience, at that time was that the high-jackers would commandeer a plane, make unacceptable demands in return for releasing the kidnapped victims, and then blowing the aircraft up. There was nothing to indicate that high-jacked aircraft would be used as flying bombs, and even if there were, what could be done to prevent it when there was no specific dates, locations, or airlines indicated? That Bin Ladin was behind many terrorist operations, and radicals in the Islamic Terrorist networks were openly calling for attacks on the United States. No intelligence briefing was needed to know that, but knowing that an attack is being called for and being able to do anything about it is a very different thing. After the failed first attempt on the Twin-Towers most folks knew they were near the top of the terrorists hit-list, and increased security was in place against car bombs like those used earlier. An attack from high-jacked aircraft came as a surprise to many even though in retrospect it seems obvious.

That there were only 70 open investigations into Al Queda cells operating within the United States demonstrates how marginal they were regarded at the time. Many of those "investigations" consisted little more than scattered and often unsubstantiated reports of suspicious activity. Should the FBI have taken them more serious? Damn right, but that's hind-sight operating again. The FBI has limited resources, and prior to the Patriot Act how those resources were utilized were tightly constrained. The focus of the FBI prior to 9/11 was more on organized crime than on internal security. The FBI had gotten a very bad reputation for infiltrating social, political, and religious organizations between its inception and the death of Hoover, and the FBI was very careful to doing anything to remind people that informers and clandestine investigations were being carried out. In any case, nothing in any of those investigations pointed toward the events of 9/11 ... except in retrospect.

Many of us have expressed a concern that radical Islamic terrorists would take advantage of an Obama victory to mount one or more major operations. Is Obama responsible for Mumbai because he won the Presidency, or is Bush responsible for that attack? If the day after Obama is sworn in there is an nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India, will you blame Obama? What if Israel strikes independently Iranian nuclear sites two months after Obama takes office? Will Obama be responsible if a major terrorist attack is made on the Port of LA, or New York? These are all "predictable" events that might happen anytime between now and 2012, or beyond.