[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Pakistani Tiger: *
Being President is hard work.
In case you missed that.
4 More Weeks.
At Camp David.
The President Deserves it.
The war on terror is, you know...
Hard.
It's hard.
Did I mention that the war on terror is hard work?
It is.
It's hard.
And we won't quit, even though it is hard.
Really hard.
[/QUOTE]
......you forgot to mention...
" I know how the world works..... said, Bush."
I have been following multiple polls since Thursday night. These range from extreme right wing to ultra liberal. The consensus seems to be that not only Kerry won the debate, but more importantly it actually managed to remarkably shift the poll numbers. This was kinda unexpected as most pundits were saying before the debate that there are few swing voters and either candidate will not allow any major hiccups to influence the polls. Unfortunately for Bush, that wasn't how it turned out. And this has given Kerry a pretty interesting boast.
The next two debates, therefore, are extremely critical for Bush. If he stumbles again, he is toast. On the contrary, the expectations from Kerry are sky-high now, and realistically it will be tough for him to maintain that same lead in the next two debates.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
I have been following multiple polls since Thursday night. These range from extreme right wing to ultra liberal. The consensus seems to be that not only Kerry won the debate, but more importantly it actually managed to remarkably shift the poll numbers. This was kinda unexpected as most pundits were saying before the debate that there are few swing voters and either candidate will not allow any major hiccups to influence the polls. Unfortunately for Bush, that wasn't how it turned out. And this has given Kerry a pretty interesting boast.
[/QUOTE]
Time for Tom Ridge & John Ashcroft to go on the TV and raise terror alert level. All these leads of Kery will evaporate in this air.
I am absolutely certain Bush will win, If Kerry wins I will stop posting from the nick “underthecross”.
UTD: cross your fingers.:)
UTD,
"I'm really surprised OG that you would try and pass off such pathetic excuse for Bush's inaction because he was only in office for 7 1/2 months"
You obviously have never worked for government. It is completely and totally impossible to do anything in less than 6 months in a large government. By the time Bush was sworn in, most of the key players in 9/11 were already in the country and learning to fly aircraft. It was a fait accompli unless somebody stumbles onto one of them and connects the dots. It is like a new pitcher coming into a baseball game with the bases loaded and no outs. Only a miraculous performance prevents a run from scoring. It was absolutely Clintons screw up.....
There were many warning signs Condoleeza and the Bush adminstration ignored. While Bush was not the starting pitcher in the leadup to 9/11, his relievers allowed the grand slam into the WTC. It was not soley Clinton's responsibility. Iraq, however, was definitely Bush's screwup - from start to current fiasco (Kerry will bring in the relief pitchers to replace the Bush league staff in January.) Even his daddy knew better then invading and imposing a 'democracy'. And we though George I was out of touch with reality!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
It is completely and totally impossible to do anything in less than 6 months in a large government.
[/QUOTE]
Obviously you are mistaken. Presidents are often judged after their first 100 days in office, they're expected to do things and set their agenda. Bush had the same terror information Clinton had as well as additional information coming in, it's not as if the CIA, NSA, and FBI were shutdown during Dubya's first 7 1/2 months in office and yet Bush set no anti-terrorism plan to deal with Bin Laden. How you can blame Clinton for Bush's failure to set up an anti-terror plan is beyond rational reasoning and that’s why you won’t find such blame displacement from the Republican camp, they know it's poppycock.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthecross: *
I am absolutely certain Bush will win, If Kerry wins I will stop posting from the nick “underthecross”.
UTD: cross your fingers.:)
[/QUOTE]
I'll match you, I'll stop posting from the nick 'underthedome' if Bush wins. :)
Man! We are going to have a multinick galore come November 
UTD,
Most administrations are lucky to get half of thier appointees docketed for Senate approval in the first 100 days. The "first 100 days" that you refer to is generally the setting of a legislative agenda. I repeat, it takes most bureaucrats at least 100 days to find their arse with one hand. The second hand requires up to a year.....
OG, The Bush administration did not think terrorism was an urgent matter despite repeated warnings from Bush's counter terrorism chief. They were warned, *Bush's own * counter terrorism chief mentioned Bin Laden by name. Bush was surrounded by political personalities, this excuse of 'they didn't have time’ is insane.
Well, Bush Jr didn't pay all that attention to OBL and Al-Qaida because he was focused on Iraq and how to revenge for Daddy. Had he taken a more objective view of the situation, rather then being obsessed with Saddam Hussain, he may have acted differently in the months leading up to September 2001.
UTD,
What would you have done? What recommendation was out there that was not implemented. Even Richard Clark could not name a recommendation that was not implemented. Read a book called "1000 Years for Revenge", a spectacualr review of FBI anti-terrorism efforts in the 90's, and you will see that the screwups in national security were epidemic, and systemic. it takes time to screw things up this badly...
The FBI was not oriented to search for terrorists, very little of the budget for the past 10 years was orieinted towards terrorism. The military had been cut by 1/3rd, and the CIA had been depleted over decades. The structure of the government was not oriented towrds the threat. That is Clintons doing, and HE did not generate any warnings either, as the Al Qaedda operatives were entering the country! And, by the way, starting in Jan of 2001, the FBI did issue 15 warnings that there may be hijackings, and by the summer of 2001, warnings had been sent to overseas locations, and non-essential overseas trvel was suspended. The government simply did not know that the hijackers were ALREADY in the country. It was a fait accompli...
Saying Clinton did nothing to combat terrorism is nothing but a blatant lie OG, here’s some items all back by documentation.
http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabotaged_Clintons_Anti-Terror_Efforts.shtml
So the truth is Clinton did combat terrorism, enough clearly not, but what has Bush done? He opposed making Homeland Security a cabinet position as well as the 9/11 commission (designed to find out how 9/11 occurred). Bush **cut grant funding ** to fire departments across the country by almost $300 million in the 2005 budget. Bush has **not secured ** airport security cargo bays nor has he secured the countries shipping ports. Under Bush less than 10% of U.S. boarders are currently secured and he has **cut $800 million ** from State and Local Homeland Security 2005 budget.
Maybe it’s time to stop questioning what Clinton didn’t do and time to start questioning what Bush is doing OG. Is it better to spend money to secure Iraq (now $200 billion) if it means spending less to secure America? Not in my book.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
UTD,
Seven and a half months may sound like a lot of time to you, but remember that the transition was delayed significantly by the Supreme Court challenge and the fouled up election. As a result, many of the appointees were severely delayed. And, by the time Bush got on board, Al Qaedda operatives were already in the country, and the organization was well funded and operating around the world, and the CIA was depleted over the last 8 years. You are hopelessly underestimating what any new administration could have done to change the course of events. by the time Bush arrived it was a fait accompli. A government the size of ours does not spin on a dime.... 9/11 was clearly a Clinton failure.
Of course we will avoid the transition problems this time by retaining the same administration. :)
[/QUOTE]
The 9/11 commison reports that an August 2001 paper suggests that airplanes might possibly be used as bombs...
Prior to 9/11 Osama Bin Laden was (I think) was actually interviewed by Meet the Press encouraging war on U.S.A. on Americans.
The Bush admisitration is guilty of ignoring threats made by Al Qaeda because the WTC suffered prior attack.
Placing blame on the Clinton administration for 9/11 you ignore the fact that Bush administration as well as the entire U.S. witnessed the earlier bombing.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Ali_R: Sorry but I really am not gettin your point.
I don't think GW or Kerry would have a very good answer for most questions that could have been asked about Israel/Palestine. A good questioner would have made both of them squirm. I would have enjoyed watching to see which candidate would pander more for the Jewish-American vote.
[/QUOTE]
Today it seems U.S voted against another resolution regarding Israel.
Yes, Israel has the right to defend itself...but doesn't Palestine have the same right?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by phoenixdesi: *
i thought it is not a bad idea to have some typical British perspective of last night's presidential debate....
Watching Henry Fonda outshoot John Wayne
[/QUOTE]
I always did like Henry Fonda.
Presidential Debate 2004 - Round TWO
I just can't wait to see Bush make a fool out of himself yet again tonight. It will be fun seeing him getting all defensive over his domestic policies and taxes.
I am hearing he will spend most of his 90 second slots on criticizing Kerr's plans since there is nothing to highlight in his four years in the office.
Sinse the debate is very close to my home..I'm thinking about being one of the uninvited guests............lol
Take me 10 minutes to get there...walking would help.
Not that I would tell anyone here....hey did ya see me on tv?
Is fungi still a mod? I thought he was too stressed?