Why there isn't a new republican revolution...

So if the attacks happen today, the fault is Clinton II?

You guys are like watching a monkey fucking a football...

Bush could have changed anything Clinton had done...he had plenty of time before 9/11 to make any changes that made us "unsafe."

Quote from Fractals 'R Us:

It's Clinton II... recall that we had 9/11 because the FBI and CIA were not allowed to talk to each other. Clinton mandated that.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

So if the attacks happen today, the fault is Clinton II?

You guys are like watching a monkey fucking a football...

Bush could have changed anything Clinton had done...he had plenty of time before 9/11 to make any changes that made us "unsafe."
More...

One thing is certain.
If we are attacked again, it will prove that Obama's attempt to "change the tone in the middle east" Did Not Work.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

So if the attacks happen today, the fault is Clinton II?

You guys are like watching a monkey fucking a football...

Bush could have changed anything Clinton had done...he had plenty of time before 9/11 to make any changes that made us "unsafe."
More...

You said earlier in this thread that Bush wasn't responsible for our nations safety.

Are you now saying he was?
 
The whole middle east attacked the US before?

Really...

And Saddam was behind 9/11 so we had to invade Iraq...

Any other fantasy stories you want to share?

Quote from fhl:

One thing is certain.
If we are attacked again, it will prove that Obama's attempt to "change the tone in the middle east" Did Not Work.
More...
 
I am saying that the buck stops at the president's door...

Quote from bugscoe:

You said earlier in this thread that Bush wasn't responsible for our nations safety.

Are you now saying he was?
More...
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Obviously, none of us is in a position to state with certainty why there were no followup attacks. There are only two possible explanations however. One, Osama bin ladin and al qaeda decided not to try to attack us again. Two, the Bush administration thwarted potential attacks.

I choose to believe the latter. Intelligence officials have stated that they used information gained from coercive questioning of high level terrorists to prevent attacks, and I find that highly credible.
More...

I find this to be pretty dubious. The obvious reason is that the Bush Administration wasn't particularly adept at anything, and I don't see why counter-terrorism should be an exception. It took seven years to crack the anthrax-mailings case, for example, and even now we're not completely sure of the perp's identity.

The second is that the government regularly informed us that they'd prevented this or that attack - but there was something "wrong" with every case. The plots were absurd, often there seemed to be entrapment involved, and in any case the conspirators had very little to do with Al-Qaeda.

My own view is that a few basic measures were sufficient to cut AQ's attack options to near zero: don't let Middle Easterners into the country and rigorously enforce immigration laws against the ones here. Destroy the safe havens in Afghanistan. Get the Saudis to crack down. None of this actually requires an even vaster national-security apparatus with unconstitutional powers.

Obama is taking a big gamble in appealing to the left wing of the democrat party. If anything happens, whether or not it could have been prevented, he will be severely criticized for dismantling the security system that kept us safe.
More...

...except there's no evidence that any of this is happening, or that Obama has any intention of making it happen. He's changing the rheotic and closing gitmo, which is fine with me. The "war on terror" was always a stupid concept and Guantanamo is a PR disaster. On the other hand, he launched missiles into Pakistan the other day...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:



You guys are like watching a monkey fucking a football...
More...

What you do with your mother , is pretty much your business but please don't share anymore personal exploits.

Thanks
 
Quote from Specterx:

....



...except there's no evidence that any of this is happening, or that Obama has any intention of making it happen. He's changing the rheotic and closing gitmo, which is fine with me. The "war on terror" was always a stupid concept and Guantanamo is a PR disaster. On the other hand, he launched missiles into Pakistan the other day...
More...

We'll have to agree to differ. I see a return to the Clinton-era law enforcement mode of combating terrorism. Eric Holder basically said that during his confirmation hearings.

Obama and Holder have basically ruled out any sort of coercive questioning, which means we will get nothing out of any terrorists that are captured. Closing gitmo means that some number of the detainees there will be freed, eg by Saudi Arabia, and will return to terrorism, as some already have. It also appears obvious that we will be less willing to imprison terrorists or insurgents that are captured in iraq or afghanistan or elsewhere.

There is also the question of the effect on CIA agents. Who in his right mind is going to act aggressively now, knowing that Holder and a band of leftwing lawyers are looking over their shoulder, anxious to make an example of them?
 
The simple answer to the question posed in this thread:

Q: Why isn't there a new republican revolution?

A: Because the old one failed, and the faith given to republicans when they had their "revolution" was squandered by Bush...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top