Only Fox News...

[Boogahz]

Well, you DID use both words in the same sentence and close together at that.

Also, dictionary.com tells me that fault can be:
Responsibility for a mistake or an offense; culpability.

[Llaffer]

was his fault, since he's responsible

I can't believe you people can't distinguish between fault and responsibility. Amazing.

Do tell - what is the difference.

[Silvarel Mistmoon]

Him being a fucking idiot and going into a preschool to read with little kids AFTER he was informed about the first plane, and continuing to smile and bullshit with little kids after he was informed about the SECOND attack is a whole seperate issue

He was already in the classroom with those children when he got the information. He read the book and left.
Now of course he could have stood up and walked right out on those children and teacher with no explantion which would have really impressed those around him.

Personally I think he did the correct thing. #1 there was still information they were getting in, they needed to know as much as they could. #2 There was nothing with in those short minutes he could have possibly done that would have made a different outcome.

Now me not being the man who is in charge of the US I don't know what he felt at that moment but seeing the pictures of him and concern he had on his face and his body language I saw a man with a lot of strength.
I know what was going through my mind that morning as I picked up my car and heard and saw on the TV what was happening to my country.

My first thought ..........Well it finally has happened. Then my nerves were completely shot for weeks.

Remember its easy to sit at your computer now and say what he should have done or how this admin could have stopped it from happening. The only thing that could or maybe would have had a chance at stopping it would have been the president at the time of those threats to have taken action at that time. AH but at last we had a spineless SOB in office that was busy getting blow jobs from a intern BECAUSE HE COULD!

[Avestan]

What is really funny about everyone who posts here is that we are all preaching to the choir. I am a moderate Republican and will be voting for Bush (I even gave money to the Campaign, yay me). Reading the current event boards is something I can only do about once a week cuz it makes me tired. So many people on both sides who can spin anything and everything so their candidate "did the right thing".

Sure, Bush has made mistakes. Every president has and I think his willingness to actually cause change domestically and abroad (Please. . .lets not get into another 2 page flamefest over this comment. . .I know exactly what you all think and do not need to hear it again). Overall, I feel we have a president in office who gets shit done.

I really believe that this election will be determined by the economy. . .not talking about the Dow Jones Average. . .but the real economy. If jobs continue to grow as they are now, Bush will win. The stock market is influences by things such as interest rates and is a very poor indication of the state of the economy, but numbers like a diminishing export deficit and new jobs are what I am going to pay attention to.

I do not know if anyone remembers about 5 months ago when job growth was anemic and the Democrats were shouting that the tax cuts were not working. . .now I hear chants that ok. . .we are getting new jobs. . .but. . .they are not the kind of jobs we want! BS. If the economy continues to grow, Bush wins, otherwise Kerry and Miss Ketchup (who is really a huge liability for him) will be in the White House.

[kyoukan]

haha, you are one of those loonies that is buying generic ketchup now because you think that buying heinz is supporting terrorism, aren't you? seriosuly, what kind of a fucking idiot would vote for Bush? I don't even know many lifelong republicans that are voting for that lying moron. he has categorically failed at every single thing he's attempted in both his term as president and his entire life.

[Zaelath]

I just wish voting republicans had to wear a star of David so I could avoid you insane fuckers.

[Avestan]

This lifelong Republican voted for Clinton once and then came to his senses when he learned a little bit about economic policy.

What I love most about reading these boards is that the majority of posters do not even live in the US (yes, it matters).

[Truant]

This lifelong Republican voted for Clinton once and then came to his senses when he learned a little bit about economic policy.

Now if Bush could just learn something about economic policy we might not be headed for rock bottom.

[kyoukan]

This lifelong Republican voted for Clinton once and then came to his senses when he learned a little bit about economic policy.

HAHAHA you are high. and you need to go back to fucking school (maybe a real one that actually requires their atheletes to, you know, learn) if you think bush's economic policies are superior to anyone's other than possibly reagan.

What I love most about reading these boards is that the majority of posters do not even live in the US (yes, it matters).

why does it matter? do you think that I am less informed about US politics than the average american? if I immigrated would my opinion somehow magically be more relevant?

[Zaelath]

This lifelong Republican voted for Clinton once and then came to his senses when he learned a little bit about economic policy.

What I love most about reading these boards is that the majority of posters do not even live in the US (yes, it matters).

I lived there long enough, thanks. Never fear, I have no intention of darkening your doorstep again. You couldn't get me into the US to judge Miss Nude Teen USA now.

Perhaps when your leaders stop representing your national bipolar disorder, but I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.

[Shaerra]

Post-9/11, Americans everywhere were screaming, "Go into Iraq! MAKE him comply with the UN resolutions that he's been thumbing his nose at for 10+ years!"

Now the Democrats are screaming, "Why did Bush take us to war unecessarily? That bastard!"

Difference? Election year.

Now we fucktards saying "Well, I was lied to! I didn't have all of the information that Bush had!" Well, the information that Bush got was FROM the former staff of DEMOCRATS. He was surrounded by people who were telling him, "Saddam has WMD's right now and he's hiding them from UN inspectors and if we do not go into Iraq, he may use those WMD's on a neighboring country (again) or his own people (again)!" If ANY of you Monday Morning Presidents think that Bush's decision was not the most logical move given the information supplied BY THE DEMOCRATS, then you are a lost fucking cause, condemed to spew retarded Michael Moore lies until someone gives you your misinformed opinion about the next Presidential race.

They say that Hindsight is 20/20.
For Democrats, hindsight is 20/15.
For Thess, hindsight is 20/5 because she predicted everything that happened.

[Lynks]

Well, if the Dems had all this information, why didn't they invade Iraq? I'll answer my own question, its because Bush was looking for an excuse to blow something up, blow something up real good.

[Lalanae]

For Thess, hindsight is 20/5 because she predicted everything that happened.

Wow, that makes 3 threads in a row where you'd bashed Thess. LOL She really got to you huh?

[Sylvus]

Post-9/11, Americans everywhere were screaming, "Go into Iraq! MAKE him comply with the UN resolutions that he's been thumbing his nose at for 10+ years!"

Actually, I think that post 9/11, Americans were screaming "You fuckers better do everything in your power to protect us!"

Bush then went into Afganistan, which most people totally agreed with him doing. Then we were told that Iraq was a direct threat to our safety and the safety of the rest of the world. Those people, including myself, who were for action against Afganistan were a little more hesitant to believe that action against Iraq was the right thing to do, but we went along with it because we were told that Saddam had all kinds of WMDs or BLTs or whatever and that his anti-American views would surely have him manufacturing dirty bombs for Al Qaeda, or whatever it is that they told us 18-24 months ago.

Turns out that information was wrong. Did the intelligence come from someone in Bush's administration or Clinton's adminstration? I don't really care who it came from. What matters is who acted on it. Whose people were incompetent enough or duplicitous enough to use bad intelligence in an inaccurate or deceitful way? I don't know what the motivation was, I just know that someone needs to be held accountable and I'd prefer it doesn't happen again in the future.

People keep saying "oh well, it's Clinton's fault" and that kind of bugs me. Not because I'm a big Clinton fan (I never voted for him, probably still wouldn't unless he was running against Bush), but because they are missing the point: Clinton never read that information and decided to invade Iraq. He didn't ask for the UN's approval and then plug his ears when they gave him a different answer than he wanted to hear. He didn't alienate us from many of the allies that we've had for over 50 years.

[Thess]

For Thess, hindsight is 20/5 because she predicted everything that happened.

Wow, that makes 3 threads in a row where you'd bashed Thess. LOL She really got to you huh?

lol

[Rekaar.]

Turns out that information was wrong. Did the intelligence come from someone in Bush's administration or Clinton's adminstration? I don't really care who it came from. What matters is who acted on it. Whose people were incompetent enough or duplicitous enough to use bad intelligence in an inaccurate or deceitful way? I don't know what the motivation was, I just know that someone needs to be held accountable and I'd prefer it doesn't happen again in the future.

We got the information largely from the international community. Information is not right or wrong until tested, no? If all signs point to "holy shit we'd better get in there" then why do you feel it's deceitful in some way to act on it? When's the last time you knew everything about a situation before making a decision? Never happens.

Clinton never read that information and decided to invade Iraq. He didn't ask for the UN's approval and then plug his ears when they gave him a different answer than he wanted to hear. He didn't alienate us from many of the allies that we've had for over 50 years.

My dear Sylvus, I think that's exactly the point. He had opportunities to act and didn't. Maybe he took a private poll beforehand and based on that, decided to not decide.

You will never please everyone. France and Germany (both of whom had officials profiting from the Oil For Food scandal right?) and what other allies have we officially aliented? Who else?

Details and semantics aside we did the right thing going to Afghanistan and we did the right thing going to Iraq.

You disagree? Here's one for you: Do you think it was the right thing or the wrong thing for the US to engage in WWI?

[Lynks]

Here's a question for you. Was Saddam trying to invade all of Europe?

[Rekaar.]

First, answer the question.

Second, tell me why the geographic area is relevant.

Third, tell me what his grand plan was.

[Lynks]

1. Yes the US was justified.

2. the geographic area is irrelevant.

3. His plan was to bring joy to all the boys and girls around the world.

Now, let me rephrase what I said so you don't weasel out of this one. Was Saddam trying to invade another country? No. well, not at this moment. If he was invading other countries, then yes, the US had full rights to go in and kick some ass, but he wasn't.

[Sylvus]

We got the information largely from the international community. Information is not right or wrong until tested, no? If all signs point to "holy shit we'd better get in there" then why do you feel it's deceitful in some way to act on it? When's the last time you knew everything about a situation before making a decision? Never happens.

And we collected a lot of it through our internal agencies. We also ignored a lot of the information that the international community presented against going to war. Off the top of my head I can think of the discredited contact that the CIA or whoever nicknamed Curveball and the bad intelligence that he provided us even though at least Germany had warned us that his information was suspect. I'm not saying that I always expect everyone to know everything about a situation before making a decision, I'm saying that you should know something about a situation before making a decision.

My entire post was in response to Shaerra's claims that everyone was singing a different tune before election year rolled around. My contention is that for at least myself, I initially supported war in Iraq because I was led to believe that it would make us safer, and I (naively?) trusted that the President was acting in my best interest. For me at least, it has nothing to do with partisan slander of the current administration, as I'm decidedly non-partisan. I gave Bush a chance to impress me and he did just the opposite.

My dear Sylvus, I think that's exactly the point. He had opportunities to act and didn't. Maybe he took a private poll beforehand and based on that, decided to not decide.

You will never please everyone. France and Germany (both of whom had officials profiting from the Oil For Food scandal right?) and what other allies have we officially aliented? Who else?

So since they had officials profiting from Oil for Food, that automatically waives their right to be in the right? Does the fact that we have officials and/or friends of officials profiting from both the war in Iraq and the rebuilding of Iraq waive our officials right to be in the right?

It's not just France and Germany, do you honestly believe that a good portion of the world has not been alienated by our actions in Iraq? Sure it might not be 60% of the countries but it sure as hell is more than two.

Clinton decided not to decide, and that was the right decision. He didn't have enough compelling evidence to feel that Saddam was enough of a threat that we had to remove him from power. Or he didn't have enough information that was just shaky enough to mislead the public into believing that Saddam was a credible threat so that he could start a war that would make him and his cronies even more money. Or he didn't have incompetent advisors who took shaky evidence so seriously that they caused him to start a war for the wrong reasons. I'm not saying that either of the previous two possibilities are the absolute truth, just that it's bad that Bush not having rock-solid proof allows those questions to be raised.

You can bet that if I follow some bad information or outright lie in my job or just plain fuck up, I'm going to have to answer to the people that control whether I have a job or not. I'm one of those people for President Bush and in my opinion he's not doing a satisfactory job.

Details and semantics aside we did the right thing going to Afghanistan and we did the right thing going to Iraq.

In your opinion. I disagree.

You disagree? Here's one for you: Do you think it was the right thing or the wrong thing for the US to engage in WWI?

Nice foresight in predicting that I'd disagree. I apologize for avoiding this final question, but I feel that it doesn't merit answering. Compare it to WWI or WWII and call Saddam "the next Hitler" all you want, it's totally apples and oranges. He hadn't even looked across his border in over a decade.

[Llaffer]

Now, let me rephrase what I said so you don't weasel out of this one. Was Saddam trying to invade another country? No. well, not at this moment. If he was invading other countries, then yes, the US had full rights to go in and kick some ass, but he wasn't.

So if he was killing 100s of thousands of a neighboring country's population it's a bad thing, but we're supposed to let it slide if he kills 100s of thousands of people in his own country?

[Lalanae]

Now, let me rephrase what I said so you don't weasel out of this one. Was Saddam trying to invade another country? No. well, not at this moment. If he was invading other countries, then yes, the US had full rights to go in and kick some ass, but he wasn't.

So if he was killing 100s of thousands of a neighboring country's population it's a bad thing, but we're supposed to let it slide if he kills 100s of thousands of people in his own country?

We let it slide when other countries do....

[Thess]

None of the countries neighboring Iraq went to war with Iraq with us.

[Winnow]

None of the countries neighboring Iraq went to war with Iraq with us.

Iran would have gladly jumped in, occupied the country and slaughtered a few thousand Iraqis. If we really wanted to see Iraq wiped out, we'd leave it right now. Iran would swoop right in if they knew we wouldn't mind.