Clinton in Denial

Why would the smartest man who ever came through DC admit to anything wrong? He is the only man I know of that knows what is is! My Hero.

signed;
Monica

 

Clinton is entirely right about this. The 9/11 commission showed that Bush had dismantled most of the efforts the previous administration set up against terrorists.

The FBI agent in charge of the programs angrily quit before 9/11, accusing the Bush people of protecting the terrorists. Another testified that he nearly fell off his chair when he discovered that they had taken terrorism off the list of priorities.

There's more. Does anyone need more?

The American people don't. They are catching on, that Bush dropped the ball before 9/11.

 

They didn't know the exact form the attack would be in, then time ran out.

 

It would be a shame to lose a voice of reason here.

 

I don't think so as Bush's current poll results indicate.

 

I don't see any danger of that here.:wavey:

Joseph Botwinick

 

He did, although never as low as Bush's have been. In the spring of his first year in office, one poll had his approval rating down to 43 points. In his second term, he did much better, with the lowest major poll numbers at 51, and an average close to 68 percent approval. In fact, following the Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment failure, his approval rating was 68 percent.

Bush started out low, got a gigantic boost from 9/11, and then gradually squandered it so he's ending up much lower than he started.

 

Nasty, nasty.

 

Bush didn't do anything about continuing Clinton's anti-terrorist efforts. In fact, he deemphasized antiterrorism before 9/11. That's a proven fact. Then he mostly pulled out of the place where the terrorists were known to be, Afghanistan, to invade a place where they were not. The CIA just released a study which said that the war in Iraq has made the terrorist situation much worse than if we had never invaded.

 

Well at least he shakes his finger. Bush just comes to the microphone and says heh heh heh, well they all got them thar weapons of massive destruction, I seed tham while I was a riding on my ranch. You see, I got this horse called "tony" and he is a tall horse and you can see for miles and I seed them for sure. Cheney was with me. It was right after he shot that thar liberal while they was hunting ground moles.

 

I'm picking up your sarcasm. I think it's a little over the top, don't you think? Making our President out to be a country idiot is not the answer. While I respect your right to question his decisions, I think the method which you choose to use here is a little mean.

 

You entitled to your opinion even after all the remarks about our previous President which kindles the fire don't you think. If you think we should just sit back like good little boys and keep our mouths shut then your return sarcasm does not get the job done.

 

I guess I am entitled to my opinion, too, if that's what you mean by that.

I didn't say you couldn't share your opinion. I said you were mean, as is evidenced by your return post to me. BTW, I left NO remarks about our former President (if you'll go back and look) and if you must know, while I disagreed with Clinton on alot of things, I respected his authority as POTUS. No return sarcasm was intended. I'm sorry if I offended you, as that was not my intent.

 

I never said you left any remarks about Clinton. I said there were negative remarks made about Clinton. You say my post has sarcasm and when I reply, then you say I am mean.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but when you confront me on my post then be prepared for a response without saying it is mean. I never made no remarks about you at all until you attacked me. When someone calls me "mean" just out of the blue, then I think it deserves a response.
If I called someone "mean" then I certainly would expect them to respond to that. Seem logical to me. So now you have called me mean twice. I don't recall saying that about you at all.

 

Gee whiz, BB. I could go through it all again, but I see now that would be pointless. Please accept my apology, and know that my remarks were not intended to "attack" you. As far as the original issue at hand, never mind. It's a fruitless discussion.

 

Bob's comments were a sadly misguided caricature of hte president as a country hick who cannot use proper English and who has no judgment or ability to be president. It was clearly a lack of a substantive charge.

Most of the comment made about Clinton were about substance, particularly the substance of the terrorism handling during his eight years, and the substance of his unwarranted outrage against Wallace.

Clearly, these are two different things.

 

English is not his forte. "Rarely is the question asked; is our children learning." Dubyaonics, I guess.

He makes Carter and Nixon look good. Bush dropped the ball on terrorism, left Afghanistan undermanned, which allowed the Taliban to come back, and now as his own intelligence people say, actually aided terrorism by invading Iraq. The kindest thing you could say was that he didn't know what he was doing.

No one could credibly accuse Bush of being an intellectual giant, or of being a competent president.

More important than all the things Clinton did to fight terrorism, is the fact, as the 9/11 commission uncovered, that Bush dismantled most of it, apparently under the impression that terrorism wasn't much of a threat.