BF2S Forums Sarah Palin used notes?

Did Bush do anything to stop the attack?
Even after being told Bin Laden was planning to hijack aircraft and attack inside the US?
No wait, he did absolutely zip.

Still, Clinton did rather more than Bush re AQ, and got a blowjob in the Whitehouse.

Doesn't matter, the threat was there, Bush did nothing and its all Clinton and Saddam's fault?
The juicy intel was given to Bush, not Clinton, not sure what point it is you're failing to make

Dilbert_X wrote:

Has any incoming President had that much to deal with before? Two wars, near economic collapse and ongoing severe terrorist threat?
Obama hasn't failed yet, and he is trying to fix the financial fiasco handed to him by Bush, maybe he's not doing it well but we'll see.
Better wait a bit more than a year though before we start getting excited and calling it.

I'd say antagonising the entire muslim world, attacking a country without a WMD program or links to terrorism and ignoring a country which does have extensive WMD programs and definite extensive links to terrorism could well be a big picture thing.

Clinton did pretty well economically though didn't he?

Economy boomed in the 90s due to end of cold war + main stream computing and internet.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Doesn't matter, the threat was there, Bush did nothing and its all Clinton and Saddam's fault?
The juicy intel was given to Bush, not Clinton, not sure what point it is you're failing to make

i didnt say all anyone.  but 8 yrs clinton and 8 months bush....clinton gets the biggest slice of the pie ya dig?

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-02-12 02:48:31)

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Has any incoming President had that much to deal with before? Two wars, near economic collapse and ongoing severe terrorist threat?
Obama hasn't failed yet, and he is trying to fix the financial fiasco handed to him by Bush, maybe he's not doing it well but we'll see.
Better wait a bit more than a year though before we start getting excited and calling it.

I'd say antagonising the entire muslim world, attacking a country without a WMD program or links to terrorism and ignoring a country which does have extensive WMD programs and definite extensive links to terrorism could well be a big picture thing.

Clinton did pretty well economically though didn't he?

Economy boomed in the 90s due to end of cold war + main stream computing and internet.

Presidents generally have very little to do with the economy.

Turquoise wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Under Bush, we had 9/11 right at the start of his presidency and guess what, the terrorist were ALREADY living here in the US, planning this out months, probably years before Bush even became president. So somehow Bush could stop this? Give me a break. Now, I could be wrong, but America was not attacked again after 9/11 during Bush's watch, I could be wrong but I don't recall any major attacks.

No major successful attacks other than 9/11 occurred during Bush's reign.  However, we probably will never know how many attempts were made.

The tricky part about intelligence work is that most of it is kept under wraps for obvious reasons.  If we told the public about all of the attempts that have been foiled, people would be even more paranoid than they already are.

While it is true that Bush hadn't been in office for very long before 9/11, one key member of his administration dropped the ball big time -- Rice.  She had plenty of forewarnings about what was likely to occur, but she didn't do much to deal with them.

Granted, I'm not blaming Bush for 9/11.  Blaming any president for a terror attack is illogical considering how most of the legwork done to protect national security isn't performed by the president but by intelligence agencies, law enforcement groups, and the Cabinet members connected to them.

So, other than the terrorists themselves, the majority of the blame for 9/11 goes to the lax TSA at Boston Logan Airport and to the FBI, CIA, and NSA not communicating like they should have.

By the same token, blaming Clinton for not getting Bin Laden isn't logical either.

The point of my post was to point out that no matter who is president, we are not going to stop everything, large or small, even with a lot of intelligence. As far as blaming Rice for dropping the ball....did you see the report? I dont believe anyone here in this forum in privy to the reports that were circulating at that time. From what I understand, it was a general threat with no real names or targets associated to the threat.

Even now, I am sure there are threats of this or that happening...but which ones do they pursue, which ones do they take MOST seriously. If anyone is that smart, then we would never have attacks. As far as threats like the one Rice had about planes being used, that is a very old tactic that has been discussed for many years, even as early as the 1970's. It is not a new type of threat and didn't just appear out of nowhere when Bush became president. I wonder where all the warnings about all the stuff happening before Bush became president were. Someone other than Rice didn't drop the ball??????  It was a series of missed intel that wasnt linked together and that happens and will always happen. But to blame Bush is so ignorant on so many levels.

Also, I believe it says a lot about the security we had during the Bush years that we were not SUCCESSFULLY attacked. Don't you think? I think it is pretty telling that about 8 major attacks happened under Clinton and 1 major one under Bush during the same time spans of presidency. Now, in one year under Obama, there have been one major attack and one failed attack. Failed, not because we stopped it, because the device failed itself.

I still stand by my post, to come into this thread and bring up one major attack under the Bush watch and some how connect everything to that, regardless of the history before Bush or after Bush is absolutely moronic. That is what is wrong with our country, always looking to attack the other side, picking and choosing and changing actual history and forgetting that nothing will get done the way this country is run, regardless of Democrats or Republicans. It is sad to see the state of our government but I will not blame one man for everything, that is nonsense.

Page 1 OMG!!! Palin writes on her hand...
Page 5 Bush Clinton is responsible for 9-11...  .  .   .

m3thod wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Page 1 OMG!!! Palin writes on her hand

....while mocking O for using a teleprompter....

the bitch is thicker than 2 short planks.

Reading a speech is different than using a cue word.  We all know how stupid the O sounds when he goes off script.

rdx-fx wrote:

Personally, I'd take Palin over that 1st-term senator

you are joking, right? O may be a clown, but at least he looks sane. Palin on the other hand...

DBBrinson1 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Page 1 OMG!!! Palin writes on her hand

....while mocking O for using a teleprompter....

the bitch is thicker than 2 short planks.

Reading a speech is different than using a cue word.  We all know how stupid the O sounds when he goes off script.

i dont doubt it.  But really if you're going poke fun at someone for use a telepromter dont scribble notes on your hand and while we're raggin on her, is it so hard to remember 4 words?!

rdx-fx wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

wtf

Let me put it another way;

If I absolutely have to choose between 'country simple, bible banger' and 'corrupt as hell, connected to all the wrong shady people - I'll take the 'country simple' girl.

Note:  Ideally, neither one of them would be even considered for public office in D.C.

Do you really think Sarah Palin is country simple bible banger and not connected to anything or that sort of shit like all other politicians. This is how they get you. Fucking lies and fronting

Mekstizzle wrote:

Do you really think Sarah Palin is country simple bible banger and not connected to anything or that sort of shit like all other politicians. This is how they get you. Fucking lies and fronting

She's pretty equal-opportunity in pissing off the political machines of both parties.

As Governor of Alaska, she was pissing off the Big Oil politicians, the Republican party, and the Pork n' Spend Democrats - in pretty equal measure.

In that respect, she is connecting with the center of the American voting public.

Same center of the voting public who has been disenfranchised by the Bush/Cheney right-wing shift of the Republican party, disillusioned by the left-wing shift of Pelosi/San Francisco style extreme Democrats, and lied to by the manufactured political talking head puppet from the Chicago corruption machine.


Compared to all the shady connections Obama has, in comparison, yes, Palin is a political independent.


And, I'll say it yet again:  NEITHER of them should hold political office in D.C.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-02-12 15:55:38)