Well, pals, the matter is that Bush together ...

I have read most of the posts on many of the treads about Iraq. I have commented once or twice, but have given up when the personal ataacks (from one side or the other) got too wearisome. Does anyone know of a site, or could this be the site, where folks will be civil to each other?

Real John - Sure. Come on in. This is a perfectly civil place to discuss politics.

(snort)

You want to discuss politics...and be civil.

Why bother???

I agree with you somewhat as far as not being responsible for future terrorist attacks that are yet to be planned. However, that's why we have intelligence departments that are supposed to know about what IS being planned. If we know it's being planned, the president/ administration is responsible for stopping it. Who else would be? No one else has the information.

We can't just let it happen and then do something about it. I don't think it's equivelant to the law enforcement we are used to, such as taking a DUI drivers license after a first or second offense. There can't be three strikes and your out when it comes to terrorism. We have to be proactive.

Clinton did have information and DID act to the best of his ability. That's what the attempted strikes to take out OBL were about, though it got spun into being a "wag the dog" attempt to get peoples minds off Monica. Obviously, it wasn't a twisted attempt to divert attention despite what was claimed by republicans. We know that now.

Clinton pushed hard for legislation that would allow him to do what the Patriot Act finally did. He was trying in '95 to get legislation that would shut down funding, allow for the holding/deporting of possible terrorists, etc. He was doing what he could within the laws he had to abide by, as was Gorlick who has been blamed for putting up a "wall" between agencies. That is also a false claim by the right.

I say this not to defend Clinton, but rather to correct misconceptions and misinformation that has been put out.

Bush was handed information and told in strong terms that OBL was a serious threat when he took office. Rather than continue with the committee already working on the threat of terrorism, he disbanded the committee and said he was going to start over with Dick in charge. (I believe this was Feb. or March of 2001) Cheney had already been tasked with several other MAJOR items and was busy with the Energy policy people (remember that? Enron, California crisis and all?) So Bush had the information, was told it was serious and ignored it. Bush even ignored it when he was handed a memo titled "OBL Determined to Strike in US." But they knew something was up, and even had information indicating it would be with planes.

So, having the information he had, how can Bush not have some responsibility for ignoring the danger? He's the leader. He has the information. He does nothing about it.

That is quite different from not having the information, or even a hint. If it is completely out of the blue, (Oklahoma City) I'd agree that one administration can't be held accountable. The problem is that 9/11 and the threat of OBL wasn't out of the blue

I reckon, Frank and squinney, that I would express my point in this way. Yall can argue about who did what or didn't do what. Is it all about Mr Bush, or Mr Clinton, or Mr Reagan or some mix? Who knew what when and acted or failed to act appropriately? All well and good for civil or uncivil debate, I guess.
But where does that leave us. What will happen next week if the people of Iraq, united it seems in name only, fail to agree on a constitution.
1800 American dead so far with serveral times that many wounded or scarred. August looks bad. And among the people of Iraq? How many have died since March of 2003?
Johnboy is gently suggesting that we look ahead and stop bashing each other about who did what in the past. Perhaps I am being naive.

How are we going to get ourselves out of this?

I found this posting that I made to au on 3/17/2003:
"Mr Bush and Mr Blair have made a decision that many, many oppose. So be it. My prayers and best wishes go out to the soldiers who, like I thirty years ago, have to execute the command to fight.
I fear the backlash...A lot of people are going to hate us a lot. I fear that we are going to pay for this action that Mr Bush is going to embark us on in about ten minutes."

Thank you for reading this. -rjb-

Naive?
No, just idealistic. I had attempted to maintain a sense of calm and quasi-neutality on this board, but they make ya crazy up in here.

IMO many of the verbal lashings are barbed-academic and retaliatory...but I think they are harmless.
I'm pretty new around here and definately not the wisest of men, but you play the game--that's what makes it fun.
I don't think that anyone here really hates one another, we just all think that everyone else is a narrow minded and bullheaded, without really looking in the mirror.

It's not truly "us" that's the problem, it's what's "out there"...the pseudo news, the contradictory interpretations of historical events, etc.
You believe what you believe and this site makes you figure out what you truly believe.
I'm still figuring that out.

Point noted. Sorry to poop on the parade. (the rest of the post is deleted, but perhaps some of you saw it)