Although I did not see the hearings yesterday about the 9-11 inteligence what I heard of it amazed me.
There was no partisan finger pointing at all, Clinton people did not blame the Bush people at all, nor did the Bush people blame them! They were all in concurrence that there was no one administration to blame. Bush's folks said that the data given Clinton in regards to Bin Ladens where abouts to kill him was incomplete at best and inaccurate also. They also said that even if we had killed Bin Laden that 9-11 would have still happened because the terrorist were already in place. Clintons folks were in full agreeance with Bush's on everything and vice versa!
Absolutely amazing.
__________________
The Tazman aka Martin Price
Proud father of a Devil Dog
I caught part of it in the afternoon. What I found disturbing is all the "What If" questions.
Fine, if they want to learn from this act of terrorism but lets not play silly games. The one in particular " What if 9/11 had not happened? What would the current administration done to deal with terrorism?" (or words to that effect) Now I have no problem analyzing what we did right or wrong and how can we improve in the future. Even, was anyone overly neglectful in their duty? Have at it with that but spare me the BS. There are no right or wrong answers to that question and to prove it , when Rumsfeld did attempt to answer it with a puzzled (like you stupid asre asking such a dump question) look on his face, the guy used his answer to contradict and earlier answer on actual occurrences.
This is a very fruitful field for the Demmies. Clintoon and his people are not running for re-election. No one is going to attempt to tansfer that administrations errors to kerry. In turn, the only ones to lose here are or is the Bush Administration. The long term effect will be lost in history much like the reviews of Pearl Harbor. The short tern effect will have impact in this November election.
I think the timing of this entire event, the way it is being run and some of the questions being asked will detract from any usefulness it could have served.
__________________
Now you have to picture a combination of PeeWEE Herman and Wally Cox but with less muscle tone, trying to be intimidating None of this is funny! Message edited by Cougar Mag -- 1/7/2005 1:16:42 AM >/b]
I think Bush is a one timer, they will tell him like Clinton told his father , hey it's the economy . stupid..... One year ago I was remodeling a bedroom for a friend and Ibought particle board for $5.97 a sheet , this year that same sheet is selling for $16.29 a sheet, because it is all going to Iraq and the Gov;t is paying for it,,,, hey George , HELLO
Well from what I have heard so far of these hearings, they are not going to hurt Bush or help Kerry!
If Bush loses it will be because of the economy, the major difference between Bush and his dad is that unlike his dad who did nothing to stimulate the economy, Jr. is trying to stimulate it. It may or may not be working, only time will tell, but he is trying. I am just hoping that the silent majority will turn out to vote to re-elect Bush because of his fight against terrorism, unlike Kerry who would make Clinton lool like a war monger!
__________________
The Tazman aka Martin Price
Proud father of a Devil Dog
I'd like to think there are enough intelligent people in this country to see past the momentary issue of "their pocket book", (which is actually a red herring.....economic indicators are pointing to an improving economy), and do what is best for the long term health of this nation. And their individual best interest as well, though not as transparently obvious.
But the truth may well be that there are more myopic, self-serving interest seekers than there are with enough long term vision to do what is best for the country. And indirectly is best for themselves in the long run!
Time will tell!
Dave
__________________
You can live life, or simply grow old!
The commission report said U.S. officials, in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, feared a failed attempt on bin Laden could kill innocents and would only boost bin Laden's prestige. And the American public and Congress would have opposed any large-scale military operations before the September 2001 attacks, the report said.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld (search) and Secretary of State Colin Powell (search), in a strong defense of pre-Sept. 11 actions that have become a major campaign issue, told the federal commission Tuesday that the plot was well under way when the Bush administration took office in January 2001.
"Killing bin Laden would not have removed Al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan," Rumsfeld said. "Moreover, the sleeper cells that flew the aircraft into the World Trade towers and the Pentagon were already in the United States months before the attack."
If you read this whole article you will not find one democrat blaming Bush, nor one Republican blaming Clinton.
__________________
The Tazman aka Martin Price
Proud father of a Devil Dog
well its typical politics and akbound i agree but the problem is the president main job the first four years is to see how to get re-elected
Taz i also agree kerry will do nothing for national defense or on terrorism, but i am tired of hearing about our soldiers coming home in body bags every night for a country that doesnt give a damn. Look at what we have done for them and we pay the price best example is GAS prices, Its like a personal vendetta and this is all bush is concerned about is Iraq and Bin Loden
History was made yesterday!
