defenseless against missiles

[I_luv_saber]

FIRE ZE MISSILES!

Dude, WTF, mate?

lol

[fencerchica]

Again: credit where credit is due. It's surely not totally his fault the crash happened, just as it's not all to his credit we were doing well. You can't hold Clinton up on a pedestal with "Look! We were doing WELL then, he was an awesome Pres!" and then turn around and say, "Well, but it wasn't all his fault..." when it's pointed out that some of his policies led to the crash, regardless of if it actually happened on his watch (not to mention some of his other policies which get overlooked).

He did good, and he did bad. I give him credit for both when it's due (my parenthesis in the last post was meant to point out that it's not all his fault, just that he had a hand in it).

Speaking as a Democrat, I surely do wish that the Dems had collectively dug in their heels and forced the Republicans to 100% own the deregulation that caused the subprime disaster. BUT there is a big, huge, gigantic difference between being the originators and the primary muscle behind such a huge mistake, versus being complicit in it through lukewarm support or lack of resistance. As you said, credit where credit is due. And it sure wasn't a Democratic presidential candidate who held up the author of the entire debacle as the guy who was the guiding force behind his policy platform!

[chase]

I want to, but I can't.



Here's p. 2 of the PDB: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/t...80601pdb2.html

So, they knew that there were hijacking plans, and they new that NY federal buildings were a potential target. Saying "let's find out more about this, I want another report next week" or even "next month" would have been appropriate. Maybe it wouldn't have stopped it, but you certainly can't stop something when you don't even try to make getting more intel a priority.



We don't kill everyone who is bad. We don't attack every country we don't agree with. And please please PLEASE tell me which terrorists that attacked American citizens on American soil on 9/11 had ties to Iraq??? And even if we assume that Iraq always was a bed or terrorism against the US, why would we want to make it EASIER for them to kill Americans?



................... So 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack????

No. If you read it carefully it says that hijackings OR other types of terrorist attacks. It is also talks about explosives (aka bombs). Both hijackings and bombings are standard terrorist procedures, and nothing new. Nobody ever thought of running planes into buildings.

There may not have been ties to Al Quaeda before the war (although nobody knew for sure that the relationship didn't exist), but after the start of the war, the terrorists flooded into Iraq. In essence, it FORCED them to engage our military rather than sucker-punching our civilians. Next time you see someone who fought in Iraq, you better thank him for saving your butt.

Way to exaggerate a straw man out of a typo. I meant since 9/11.

[Bayou Bum]

Speaking as a Democrat, I surely do wish that the Dems had collectively dug in their heels and forced the Republicans to 100% own the deregulation that caused the subprime disaster.

And the Republicans should also own 100% of slavery, killing millions in world wars, causing Aids, the slaughter of native Americans, the election of Obama, and all other great disasters throughout history. Republicans, the party of evil!

[fencerchica]

And the Republicans should also own 100% of slavery, killing millions in world wars, causing Aids, the slaughter of native Americans, the election of Obama, and all other great disasters throughout history. Republicans, the party of evil!

Let me share some words of wisdom with you, Bum. Before you offer such scintillating contributions as the above to our discussions on f.net, consider the following: "Will what I'm about to say improve on silence?"

In your case I'm afraid the answer is rarely in the affirmative.

[Philistine]

{snip}
Nobody ever thought of running planes into buildings.

Sure. Nobody knew Al Queda could plan something like that. Or warned the Feds. Or even practiced how to stop this type of attack

Heck, it was so odd that a TV show wouldn't think to put a plane intentionally flying into the World Trade Center in its pilot episode and an author would never use a plane intentionally flying into the US Capital it as the concluding scene in a best-selling book.

To be fair--I really don't think there was anything Bush could have realistically done to prevent 9/11 in response to the memo. But to pretend that no one could conceive of using a jet airliner as a weapon is silly.

--Philistine

[migopod]

To be fair--I really don't think there was anything Bush could have realistically done to prevent 9/11 in response to the memo. But to pretend that no one could conceive of using a jet airliner as a weapon is silly.

--Philistine

Well, he could have done something pre-9/11 to address the terrorism issue and not completely ignore the "chatter" as opposed to having his counter-terrorism task force meet once in 9 months and to not even implement a domestic counter-terrorism strategy until Sep 4th 2001. Taking "chatter" seriously is how the Clinton administration stopped the millennium bomb plot, and he didn't even have to authorize torture!

[Inquartata]

2. Nothing has changed except for many Americans (ahem) forgetting that Russia is our natural enemy. That doesn't change the fact that they are still our enemy, no matter how much we want them to be our friend.

We have no "natural enemies"...or natural friends. Relationships between nations shift as their interests shift. Do you also think that Germany, Italy and Japan are our natural enemies, or does your thesis only go back to the Cold War? And if so, how can it be considered "natural"?

Meanwhile, France helped us during our Revolution. I wonder what you think of the French?

Russia now may be our economic opponent, but that's not the same as "enemy".

Chase missed the part about how thanks to his boy W., we po' now.

Speak for yourself. Dave Chappelle and I are doing just fine.

Again, you completely missed the point. No one is talking about conspiracy theories; the simple fact is that 9/11 happened while Bush was in charge. He had 9 months in office, multiple warnings from the previous administration, and multiple warnings from the intelligence community.

Do you blame FDR for "letting" Pearl Harbor happen? Just wondering...

Targeted tax cuts can be good for an economy. I'm not really that into economics, but logic dictates that tax cuts that result in an estimated $1.8 trillion in lost revenue over ten years while simultaneously trying to fund two wars is unsustainable.

Strictly speaking tax cuts are net stimulative whether targeted or not, but like changes in spending they are blunt instruments wielded by a blindfolded child. Sometimes he swings and hits the pinata, but more often he misses. If we're unlucky he beans a bystander.

However, yes, one can cut taxes and "fund two wars"...if one is not also spending like a drunken sailor on everything else as well. No, that's unfair to drunken sailors---they only spend what they have on them. Say rather like drunken politicians, who spend money they don't have, and it's not even their own, it's taken from others...

So it could have been done---by reducing spending in other areas.

The argument has been advanced that the Bush tax cuts were meant to starve government of revenue, thus forcing it to downsize and do less. That's consonant with old-style Republican values; not so much with modern ones, alas. But given Bush's spending sprees on other priorities, not just defense, it's hard to reconcile with that strategy.

I'm always harping on this, and no one ever wants to believe it: Presidents, Congresses and governments do not control the economy, which utterly dwarfs it in dollar terms, in terms of personnel and organizations involved, and in any other terms one can devise. Government can cause good or harm, but seldom does it get the result it wants. Mostly the good and harm depend on the luck of timing and circumstances...

[GypsyScot]

Here are your questions:
2. Nothing has changed except for many Americans (ahem) forgetting that Russia is our natural enemy. That doesn't change the fact that they are still our enemy, no matter how much we want them to be our friend. We maintained the "coldness" of the Cold War by one-upping each other. Now Obama wants to let them get a leg up on us, and that's a mistake.

I started school in the last days of the Cold War, and because it was "safer" I was sent to a Catholic School run by Nuns who fled to the US for asylum. It was beat in to my head every day that the Soviets were evil, they wanted to kill me, because I live in the US and that we must stop the spread of communism at all costs because it threatened democracy. At the same time my cousin Alec grew up in Leningrad being told the same thing America is evil, that they must stop capitalism at all cost as it was a threat to communism. Clashing ideologies man, nothing more. Russia isn't our best friend, but it isn't our natural enemy.

[Hauptman]

Do you blame FDR for "letting" Pearl Harbor happen? Just wondering...

Good question... did FDR have clear advanced warning to which he did nothing?

Hell, if they had just paid attention to that damn radar operator on the islands the whole thing could have turned out differently!

But seeing as you ignored the point of my original post, let me spell it out for you; I was highlighting the absudity of giving Bush credit for protecting us from terrorism when the greatest terrorist attack of all time occurred on his watch.

He either takes responsibility for the successes AND the failures, or takes credit for neither; you can't have it both ways since it is established fact that he did receive advanced warning.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

No. If you read it carefully it says that hijackings OR other types of terrorist attacks. It is also talks about explosives (aka bombs). Both hijackings and bombings are standard terrorist procedures, and nothing new. Nobody ever thought of running planes into buildings.

I believe that it's better to prevent terrorist attacks, and I believe that it's better to have as few deaths as possible (including suspects, because corpses usually don't answer questions.) You seem to think that the PDB couldn't possibly have warned about specific attacks. Well then, what should Bush have done? Should he have invaded Afghanistan? Should he have tried to find bin Ladin? Should he have asked for more intel? Should he have made sure the CIA head (or whoever else he was partial to) updated him on terrorist threats more often? Or is there nothing he could have done? If there's nothing he could have done to prevent 9/11, why do you think there's something he/anyone else could do in the future to prevent terrorism? Why do you credit him with future successes?

I do not think we can prevent every attack ever. I do not think intelligence, forsight, communication, etc can ever be perfect, and they only have to succeed once. But I do think that we would have stood a better chance if Bush had said "I want more information on this" instead of "I don't want to hear more about this".

There may not have been ties to Al Quaeda before the war (although nobody knew for sure that the relationship didn't exist), but after the start of the war, the terrorists flooded into Iraq. In essence, it FORCED them to engage our military rather than sucker-punching our civilians. Next time you see someone who fought in Iraq, you better thank him for saving your butt.

You may have ties to al Qaeda. After all, we don't know for sure the relationship doesn't exist. : P

Way to exaggerate a straw man out of a typo. I meant since 9/11.

In order for it to be a straw man, I have to misrepresent your viewpoint. Sadly, in this case, you misrepresented your viewpoint. Also, as Telk mentioned, go look up "post hoc ergo propter hoc" so that you'll know what it means when we put it on your tombstone.

[Hauptman]

Strictly speaking tax cuts are net stimulative whether targeted or not, but like changes in spending they are blunt instruments wielded by a blindfolded child. Sometimes he swings and hits the pinata, but more often he misses. If we're unlucky he beans a bystander.

I would disagree with this sweeping statement. As tax revenue, and since you can count on the gov't to spend every dime, that money is guaranteed to have a stimulative effect.

However, if you cut taxes there is no guarantee that the money will be spent and have a stimulative effect. Granted that instead of spending it could be used for investment, but again there is no guarantee of stimulative effect; the money could easily end up in a bank account or a bad investment (or a bank that has cut back on their lending).

[tchwojko]

In order for it to be a straw man, I have to misrepresent your viewpoint. Sadly, in this case, you misrepresented your viewpoint. Also, as Telk mentioned, go look up "post hoc ergo propter hoc" so that you'll know what it means when we put it on your tombstone.

Here's the simplified version for chase: [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ1a0ymGCKA[/YOUTUBE]

[Bayou Bum]

Let me share some words of wisdom with you, Bum. Before you offer such scintillating contributions as the above to our discussions on f.net, consider the following: "Will what I'm about to say improve on silence?"

In your case I'm afraid the answer is rarely in the affirmative.

I just wish you would occasionally include a shred of truth in your posts.

[lindajdunn]

Nobody ever thought of flying planes into buildings.

Tom Clancey. Debt of Honor.

He wasn't the only author who thought of it but he is the best known.

I also fixed the sentence so I no longer visualize a fleet of 747s wearing jogging shorts and sweatbands running towards a building.

[chase]

To be fair--I really don't think there was anything Bush could have realistically done to prevent 9/11 in response to the memo.

I'll just leave this the way it is.

[chase]

We have no "natural enemies"...or natural friends. Relationships between nations shift as their interests shift. Do you also think that Germany, Italy and Japan are our natural enemies, or does your thesis only go back to the Cold War? And if so, how can it be considered "natural"?

Meanwhile, France helped us during our Revolution. I wonder what you think of the French?

Russia now may be our economic opponent, but that's not the same as "enemy".

Do you blame FDR for "letting" Pearl Harbor happen? Just wondering...

I'm always harping on this, and no one ever wants to believe it: Presidents, Congresses and governments do not control the economy, which utterly dwarfs it in dollar terms, in terms of personnel and organizations involved, and in any other terms one can devise. ...

Germany, Italy, and Japan underwent "corrective surgery." They were devastated after the war, and were rebuilt to be civil societies by us and our allies. After the fall of the USSR, we were not able to significantly reshape Russia. In addition to being our economic competitor (just like they were back in the Cold War), their government is failing and so its going to look for a common enemy to unite it's people against: America. They have sold and are selling dangerous weapons to America's enemies, just like in the Cold War (ever hear of Hugo Chavez?). Really, name ONE thing that has changed that makes you think that they are now magically going to be our allies?

Even though it is full of cowardly, militaristically inept, whiney, corrupt, liberal, snobs, I would still consider France to be our ally.

Lol. FDR. That crippled moron was a terrible president. Its funny how people thought he saved us from the depression despite the fact that he CREATED it from a small economic downturn. One would hope Harvard would require people to learn American history, but apparently Obama got by without learning that lesson.

Yes, they do control the economy, it just has a delayed effect. LBJ/Kennedy's big spending caused us to go into the recessive 1970s. Ronald Reagan laid the foundation for the prosperity of the 1990s. Clinton's spending and encouraging unqualified homeownership caused the two recessions in the 2000s. Obama's unprecidented spending not only jeopardizes our future, but it had the very rare effect of making things immeadiately worse.

[Philistine]

Lol. FDR. That crippled moron was a terrible president. Its funny how people thought he saved us from the depression despite the fact that he CREATED it from a small economic downturn. One would hope Harvard would require people to learn American history, but apparently Obama got by without learning that lesson.

Speaking of learning history--two history questions for you:

1. When did the Great Depression start?
2. When was FDR elected?

And a bonus, physics question--what method did FDR use to travel back in time to create a world-wide depression that began over three years before he became president?

--Philistine

[jessicasimpson]

However, yes, one can cut taxes and "fund two wars"...

But Bush is the only leader in history that has ever cut taxes durring a war, and it did not work. Where does this theory get any historical backing? It seems to have a 100% fail rate.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

One would hope Harvard would require people to learn American history, but apparently Obama got by without learning that lesson.

He went to Law School at Harvard. History is not one of the topics one takes in law school. If you go to one of the most conservative law schools, George Mason, one is required to take a couple classes that border on "A Conservative Lawyer's view of basic Econ" and "A Conservative's view on Colonial History", but even there you're not really going to learn much about FDR/the Great Depression, if anything. Most law schools don't require classes like that.

If someone went to Med School would you expect them to learn history there? If they got an MBA?

What degree, other than (I guess) a degree in American Studies, should every student be required to take an American History class that covers the Great Depression?

What else should have Obama gained from his Harvard Law degree? Nuclear physics? Obstetrics? The Flute?

I do not think you understand colleges and universities.