Cognitive dissonance - wrestling with the conflicting idea that 9/11 was a conspiratal cover up while approving of the message a former president offers that he did all he could to help prevent it.
A president saying that he couldn't lead the people he was under. It's like a CEO saying that his workers wouldn't do something. Lame excuse. If he wanted to make an excuse (if any), he could say that perhaps the intelligience agencies and military hated him because he split them in half. The way he excuses it now is that they wouldn't act...well, you're the boss, chief,...use your authority punitively.
I don't think he said that. I think he said that he tried and did not succeed. He accepted responsibility for the failure when he said "I tried and I failed." By the way, how are we doing on catching bin Laden now? Are we using our authority punitively on him?
When the special ops guy had Bin laden cornered, according to the show running on either A&E or Discovery, he asked for 400 troops and got 40. Bush is trying his best too... And failing.
Of coarse he didn't say that directly. It's an implication of his circumstance. As for catching Bin, I think George is trying (now), but he didn't do so well as he could have in the beginning. George has used his authority punitively on destroying the Al-Queda organization ie to say it exists but not as it once did. It's no-longer the robust/complicated organization it once was,...essentially a cell-driven organization w/very little hierarchal powers. Clinton had no reason to recongnize the Taliban Afganistan...it was a festering sore that should have been dealt with once they harbored Bin and/or when he first acted against American interests. Fuck the polls...he should have went in and took them out...that's the problem with how Clinton ran his ship...a fuckin populists. A leader has to offend assholes or he's catering to them. I'm sure George could have something for first eight months of his presidency, but it's fuckin stupid to blame him outright for something that was building-up for the previous year. It's like blamming Hoover for the stock crash of 29', even though he'd only been in office 6 months (I believe). Obviously Clinton didn't fly the plane into the towers (so he's not an evil guy), but I think he should have been daring, and actually committed to decesive action.... Rather than just doing what looked good.
The more I think back to how bad Clinton's foreign policy sucked, the more an angry white male I become.
Unfortunately I don't know that George really did that, especially in light of today's news that an official "U.S. report says Iraq war has fueled terror threat."
you could also say that it festered because the government before clinton gave bin laden, saddam, the resources to begin with ??
Agree with kkibak. W has fueled the terrorists. For every terrorist killed two new terrorists will stand up. Another great terrorist attack will follow within months or years but make no mistake about it; there will be a new attack. We are definately not safer. And when that day arrives everyone knows that Bush is to blame for. As National Coordinator for Counterterrorism Richard A. Clarke said; "Your government failed you".
You know it was nice having a smart articulate president wasn't it, can you imagine GW stammering thru a interview like that, trying to just repeat catch phrases over and over again. Its also pretty refreshing to see a politician actually admit errors and take responsiblity for mistakes, however later it is.
That's a separate context. I was speaking of Al-queda, and it's organization...not of people wanting to join the 'holy-war' in Iraq. If morons want to assemble against our military then they'll end-up under a world a hurt. It's not like these 'freedom fighters'/insurgents are any good at battle, as they merely rely on IED explosives for most of their carnage. They're far too much of a pussy to confront our military with arms.
And maybe we shouldn't have been allies with the russians...we do a lot of stupid shit, but let's not obfuscate the situation by limiting the perspective. We supported the russians because they fought the nazi's; we supported Bin so he could fight the Russians (even though they were negligible in the fight); we supported saddam because he was fighting Iran (whom just held our people hostage for a year)...........the right decesions? Probably not, but those presidents thought it was practical to think the 'enemies of my enemy are my friends.' Oddly this has been a concept shared by many in history...to have an ally that was an ally for war, but afterward they became an enemy.
That has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard, yeah its real "pussy" to fight a guerilla war against the largest super power in the world the reason they don't fight us straight on, is because we out match them and it would just be sucide, not because they are "pussy" they fight the way they do because its the best and most effective way they can
You give Clinton too much credit; he's nothing more than a Machiavellian-minded politician. I remeber once hearing him quote him. Anyone that looks at the man's behaviour and studies the art of power knows or rather they see right through the facade.
Yeah, all the mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, wives, husbands and so on must be relieved to hear a pussy with an IED was to blame for their loved ones death and not a real weapon of war.
Actually it was the other way around. He got all defensive and started getting mad like he did when questioned about Monica. He lost his cool big time. I think he would have been better off on Springer. Man is that a sore spot. I will give Clinton credit for remaining calm under pressure, but when you hit him with the truth, he cracks every time. Another mad little liberal. When he knew all was lost he resorted to pulling out that there Fox News card. Classic!
You say potato, I say potatoe... Guerilla warfare doesn't amount to setting IED's off only. Guerilla warfare is a matter of hit-and-run....on...off...on...off. It's still a matter of physically attacking the enemy. Perhaps the vietnam war was a good example of that. The vietcong still physically attacked us, and they technically won against the 'world super power'. Most of the attacks in Iraq are not near as sophistated as done in Vietnam (by real guerilla warfare)...they just plant a bomb and let it off when people pass by. Mostly killing their own people....how effective!?