Who Thinks the US Might Collapse?

[fordtruckin]

I'd be more worried of North Korea collapsing at this time!

[swforge]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Oko. Are you really going to hang the terrorist attack on Bush? AND the recession? It's been a while, but it seems to me the 911 commission did not hang the blame on Bush, I think it was due to an institutionalized lack of communication among different federal (and maybe even state) enforcement and intelligence agencies.

As to the recession. What part of the recession was caused by Bush??? Who deregulated investment rules... http://dangerousintersection.org/201...-accomplished/

and who warned of the impending crisis on numerous occasions? I already posted the timeline video of Bush and McCain warning of the impending crisis.

I know many people think the President of the US is an all powerful entity, like a Canadian PM, but I think you know better than that Oko. The Pres can help to guide certain things, and veto bills, but Bush's political capital was pretty much spent and he had little power to affect congressional legislation by the time his second term was well underway.

You cannot deny that under Bush the economy was largely sound and robust, despite America being involved in two wars (whether you agree with them or not). Although I will grant you that part of that robust economy was being built on a housing bubble financed in large part by bad loans) Bush tried to do what he could to steer America clear of the coming crisis, but he is only one part of the leadership in America. (And by the way, I do hold republicans and democrats responsible for their inaction, and in the case of many Democrats (Frank, Dodd, et al) their actions that lead to the recession)

Obama's actions have pretty much been precisely what was needed to turn a recession into a depression and if America does happen to avoid collapse it will be in spite of Obama's policies and not because of them.

Whether the Pres at the time was Republican or Democrat really wouldn't have mattered. If a democrat had followed Bush's actions I would have equally cheered them (and lambasted some of the excessive spending policies as well that Bush pushed through). I could care less if it's a liberal or con that brings about tax cuts, anyone that cuts taxes is moving in the right direction...etc etc...If an NDP member advocated conservative policy, I'd say kudos...and then ask to have his temperature checked.

seems to me that they tried to blowup the world trade center the first time in 1993 under clintons watch. The saudis were ready to hand osama over to clinton and he turned them down.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by swforge

seems to me that they tried to blowup the world trade center the first time in 1993 under clintons watch. The saudis were ready to hand osama over to clinton and he turned them down.

clinton wasn't president on 9/11.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

clinton wasn't president on 9/11.

He's not talking about 9/11, He's talking about the time they tried to blow it up in 93 when Clinton was president. Clinton turned down the offer to have Bin Laden turned over to the US.

[swforge]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

clinton wasn't president on 9/11.

He was in 1993.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

He's not talking about 9/11, He's talking about the time they tried to blow it up in 93 when Clinton was president. Clinton turned down the offer to have Bin Laden turned over to the US.

bush sr and reagan worked with bin laden against russia.

[swforge]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

bush sr and reagan worked with bin laden against russia.

So ????

[ofelas]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

clinton wasn't president on 9/11.

But he was Prez during several attacks over the years on US interests & US soil by UBL's outfit.

And did nothing about it. That only emboldened UBL & his cronies.

9/11 was planned during his terms as well, yet his pretty much dismantling field intelligence ensured that nothing was done to thwart it.

Before he ended his term, regime change in Iraq was doctrine for various reasons.

When Bush 43 came into the Presidency, the stage was already set for 9/11, and as you probably know, happened a few months into his first term.

It is commendable that within a few short months, he had revamped the intelligence agencies that Clinton had neutered, and it is a testament to his resolve that not one further attack on US soil took place for the next 8 years.

UBL's killing was a direct result of the successful Bush policies & intel gathered from KSM in the tank. The current apologist Prez did not want to go after UBL in case it upset the Islamic world, but had no choice as the intel agencies didn't give him one.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by swforge

So ????

so what about clinton?

they all have fault in dealing with him, they used him to their advantage against russin in the 80's, then he turned against the us when they didn't leave saudi arabia after gulf war 1, then he struck the trade centre the first time, and eventually the cole, clinton tried to get him and failed, but the bulk of the blame goes to w bush because he was president on 9/11 and was warned about bin laden determined to strike inside the us, the captain of the ship gets blamed for it's sinking and w bush was captain on 9/11 not anybody else.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by ofelas

But he was Prez during several attacks over the years on US interests & US soil by UBL's outfit.

And did nothing about it. That only emboldened UBL & his cronies.

9/11 was planned during his terms as well, yet his pretty much dismantling field intelligence ensured that nothing was done to thwart it.

Before he ended his term, regime change in Iraq was doctrine for various reasons.

When Bush 43 came into the Presidency, the stage was already set for 9/11, and as you probably know, happened a few months into his first term.

It is commendable that within a few short months, he had revamped the intelligence agencies that Clinton had neutered, and it is a testament to his resolve that not one further attack on US soil took place for the next 8 years.

UBL's killing was a direct result of the successful Bush policies & intel gathered from KSM in the tank. The current apologist Prez did not want to go after UBL in case it upset the Islamic world, but had no choice as the intel agencies didn't give him one.

clinton explains himself here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DI7u-TytRU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L251...eature=related

[ofelas]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

clinton explains himself here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DI7u-TytRU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L251...eature=related

Yes, Clinton's the paragon of truth, I'm sure you realize that.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by ofelas

Yes, Clinton's the paragon of truth, I'm sure you realize that.

all president are very truthful.

but don't attack him attack what he says and prove him wrong.

[ofelas]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

all president are very truthful.

but don't attack him attack what he says and prove him wrong.

There's nothing to attack; one can't disprove what didn't happen, especially when recounted by a proven liar with a history of credibility problems.

Tell me - what're your views on 9/11, and who perpetrated it?

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by ofelas

There's nothing to attack; one can't disprove what didn't happen, especially when recounted by a proven liar with a history of credibility problems.

Tell me - what're your views on 9/11, and who perpetrated it?

so you give clinton crap for not getting bin laden, do you do the same for bush? he was president only 8 months when 9/11 happened, he had another 7 years and 4 months and he didn't get bin laden, have you given him at least as much trouble over not getting him as you have clinton?

as far as what happened on 9/11 I am no conspiracy theorist.

[eastcoast]

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

No offence there eastcoast, but you really have to do some research. This has all been hashed out a hundred times before. Since it's Xmas, I'll try and bring you up to speed.

The difference between Clinton not getting Osama, and Bush not getting him is that Clinton had at least a couple chances to get him, http://www.scribd.com/doc/5782252/Bi...sama-Bin-Laden

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by rugatika

No offence there eastcoast, but you really have to do some research. This has all been hashed out a hundred times before. Since it's Xmas, I'll try and bring you up to speed.

The difference between Clinton not getting Osama, and Bush not getting him is that Clinton had at least a couple chances to get him, http://www.scribd.com/doc/5782252/Bi...sama-Bin-Laden

bush never had any chances to get him? tora bora?

[chasingtail]

If they elected Ross Perot instead of Clinton for President they wouldn't be in decline. Now Ron Paul is the only one that could get the fiscal house in order, but the media ignores him.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by chasingtail

If they elected Ross Perot instead of Clinton for President they wouldn't be in decline. Now Ron Paul is the only one that could get the fiscal house in order, but the media ignores him.

that I totally agree with.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

that I totally agree with.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...etters/250206/

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by rugatika

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...etters/250206/

I have heard that and seen it before, im not sure it's something he knew about or had first hand knowledge, and even if he did it was 20 plus years ago, and I believe people can change.

[IR_mike]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

bush sr and reagan worked with bin laden against russia.

Seeings how bin laden BY ALL ACCOUNTS has always been a very pious fervent islamist and always a virulent anti anything un islamic he never "worked" with Bush or Reagan.

He was never a well known commander like Heckmatyr, Rabbani, or Massoud.

Your makeing it sound like the 3 of them humped supplies over the Khyber pass together and broke bread at the same table.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by IR_mike

Seeings how bin laden BY ALL ACCOUNTS has always been a very pious fervent islamist and always a virulent anti anything un islamic he never "worked" with Bush or Reagan.

He was never a well known commander like Heckmatyr, Rabbani, or Massoud.

Your makeing it sound like the 3 of them humped supplies over the Khyber pass together and broke bread at the same table.

im not sure about the exact personal relationship, but the us helped the mujahideen who bin laden was high up in, there has been talk about bin laden being a cia operative at one time.

I am just looking for a little fairness is all, people on the right slam clinton for now getting bin laden, they don't however do the same for bush when he had the same ammount of time to do so, it's selective criticism and political hackery at the highest rate, the same people blame clinton for all of bush's failures but never blame bush for anything that obama has done, everything bush did was someone else's fault, everything he did was great. it's a rediculous argument.

[chasingtail]

Originally Posted by rugatika

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...etters/250206/

You believe the media spin?, I know your smarter than that. Is there anything in those writings that are false by the way. All the post I have seen of yours I thought you would be a supporter of Ron Paul.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by chasingtail

You believe the media spin?, I know your smarter than that. Is there anything in those writings that are false by the way. All the post I have seen of yours I thought you would be a supporter of Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is a very smart man, and there are a lot of things I agree with him on, and many things I don't (mostly his foreign policy, even Jefferson realized the need to go abroad and attack those that would harm American interests). When you align yourself with people like Alex Jones, truthers etc, it is kind of a spoiler for me. I'm not sure where the "spin" comes in. There is definitely some pretty racist and anti-semitic things in those newsletters and they have Ron Paul's name on them. What part of that is spin??

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

im not sure about the exact personal relationship, but the us helped the mujahideen who bin laden was high up in, there has been talk about bin laden being a cia operative at one time.

I am just looking for a little fairness is all, people on the right slam clinton for now getting bin laden, they don't however do the same for bush when he had the same ammount of time to do so, it's selective criticism and political hackery at the highest rate, the same people blame clinton for all of bush's failures but never blame bush for anything that obama has done, everything bush did was someone else's fault, everything he did was great. it's a rediculous argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegat...sama_bin_Laden

America supplied arms to the Afghan people to repel the USSR from taking over Afghanistan. As I stated in my earlier post, the difference between Clinton and Bush, is that Clinton had several chances to get Bin Laden. The amount of time he had to get him is irrelavent. By the time Bush was after Bin Laden the game had dramatically changed.

Incidentally, here's the actual story of Tora Bora...it's not like Bush had Bin Laden in his sights and made the decision to let him go. It was a tactical error that in HINDSIGHT proved to have been a bad decision and likely led to the escape of Bin Laden from Tora Bora.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

The facts are stubborn things.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by rugatika

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegat...sama_bin_Laden

America supplied arms to the Afghan people to repel the USSR from taking over Afghanistan. As I stated in my earlier post, the difference between Clinton and Bush, is that Clinton had several chances to get Bin Laden. The amount of time he had to get him is irrelavent. By the time Bush was after Bin Laden the game had dramatically changed.

Incidentally, here's the actual story of Tora Bora...it's not like Bush had Bin Laden in his sights and made the decision to let him go. It was a tactical error that in HINDSIGHT proved to have been a bad decision and likely led to the escape of Bin Laden from Tora Bora.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

The facts are stubborn things.

I know the facts and im not saying clinton had no fault in the whole thing, like you are trying to do with bush, clinton has admitted fault and testified to the 9/11 commision in open about it.

in the end of the day the president is like a captain of the ship, bush was president on 9/11 and he deserves and should go down with his ship, nowhere else on earth does a guy get to blame his predecessor after having the job for 8 months.how would that go for you at your job?

[ofelas]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

I know the facts and im not saying clinton had no fault in the whole thing, like you are trying to do with bush, clinton has admitted fault and testified to the 9/11 commision in open about it.

in the end of the day the president is like a captain of the ship, bush was president on 9/11 and he deserves and should go down with his ship, nowhere else on earth does a guy get to blame his predecessor after having the job for 8 months.how would that go for you at your job?

It was a result of the Clinton administration's failed dissemination of Intel that led to UBL's emergence as a key player, and the repeated terrorist attacks, leading up to 9/11.

It was absolutely the result of the Bush administration's solid reshuffle of the various Intel agencies that prevented any subsequent attacks, AND it was a direct result of revamped analysis, like enhanced interrogation, that led to UBL's negotiation.

Obama merely happened to be Prez during the latter - no credit to him; much like Bush 43 merely happened to be Prez during 9/11 - no fault of his, and he didn't point the finger at Clinton, he buckled up & retaliated successfully.

Since you spoke of pointing fingers & the blame game - isn't that what's been happening with Dear Leader for the past 3 years? Everything's Bush's fault? This usually happens with an unqualified media creation who finds that he can't deliver on empty promises.

I understand you're trying to present an alternative view by playing Devil's advocate, but it's pointless to gloss over the facts, and gets to be a bit crass after the same old repetitious statements.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by ofelas

It was a result of the Clinton administration's failed dissemination of Intel that led to UBL's emergence as a key player, and the repeated terrorist attacks, leading up to 9/11.

It was absolutely the result of the Bush administration's solid reshuffle of the various Intel agencies that prevented any subsequent attacks, AND it was a direct result of revamped analysis, like enhanced interrogation, that led to UBL's negotiation.

Obama merely happened to be Prez during the latter - no credit to him; much like Bush 43 merely happened to be Prez during 9/11 - no fault of his, and he didn't point the finger at Clinton, he buckled up & retaliated successfully.

Since you spoke of pointing fingers & the blame game - isn't that what's been happening with Dear Leader for the past 3 years? Everything's Bush's fault? This usually happens with an unqualified media creation who finds that he can't deliver on empty promises.

I understand you're trying to present an alternative view by playing Devil's advocate, but it's pointless to gloss over the facts, and gets to be a bit crass after the same old repetitious statements.

so clinton get all the blame, bush gets all the credit and obama gets no credit for getting him?

gloss over facts? who was the president on 9/11?

[ofelas]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

so clinton get all the blame, bush gets all the credit and obama gets no credit for getting him?

gloss over facts? who was the president on 9/11?

Exactly; you're beginning to see the facts, it'e never too late to learn.

Not sure about you, but I'm glad Bush was Prez on 9/11; imagine the empty posturing & non responses if it were Clinton or Obama.

Have yourself a Merry Christmas, and don't get caught up in the whole blame Bush thang - it will soon go the way of faux hawks, man-capris & V-necks.