Political News, Issues & Talk

[kammieoh]

Yeah, Kay, I think a shout-out to the individual units alone would have been not only sufficient, but appropriate...not to mention, much more classy. Let someone else praise you. That works out better.

I agree, debi.

*write this down...it doesn't happen very often*


Rita

[Kay K]

Phew... I really was hoping that wasn't what you were saying. Then care to clarify?

-Agi

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ism/byron-york


It was well known during the Clinton years that he was not aggressive toward terrorists, and his presidency was poll driven. The economy hummed along really well and he was not going to upset the applecart. Who knows if 9/11 would have happened if he had not been so passive. I've heard him say that himself. No one wants to point fingers and lay blame though.

[debi]

It's written down, Rita, with lots of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

debi

[LorettaH]

I saw some clips of Obama speeches after killing bin Laden, and in every single one, he gave credit to the Navy Seals. I don't understand how much more you guys need or want from him. Bush took credit for the overthrow of Saddam, when the Mission was certainly not Accomplished! Who knows if Clinton could have done better, but since the Republicans are so adamant on blaming things on Obama that Bush clearly did, then 9/11 was indeed solely Bush's fault and nothing to do with Clinton.


Loretta

[Guilford78]

I blame 9/11 on Loretta H. There, I said it.

[reddog742]

Because being on a losing ticket can hurt your own chances of winning the nomination in a future election. These guys think they will have a better chance of winning four years from now when there is no incumbent to run against. They don't really think Romney is going to win this election.

You're basing this assumption on?

I'm not HonGirl, but I can vouch for some of what she said. As treasurer for two local campaigns, over a three year span, the final result is much more attainable when a candidate is running against another candidate, not against an incumbent. The reasons are obvious.

As for her assumption Romney isn't going to win this election, I feel she's correct. My feelings are not based on party preference, but on what I've read and seen, as well as talking with others about the upcoming election. I've found (in my little corner of the world) the people who are behind Romney are behind him because he's a Republican ticket, not because he/she likes him and/or agree with his political views. That said, very few voters agree 100 percent with a candidate's political views anyway.

I've also found people who are behind Obama are there because he's already been in office - he knows the ropes (incumbent) - not necessarily because they like and/or agree with his politics. Or they're behind him because he's a Democratic ticket.

(I know. I'm really not enlightening you on anything you didn't already know yourself.)

Tracey

[LorettaH]

Oh, Guilford, you whacky guy. On 9/11, I barely knew who George Bush was. On those first few days, I actually was impressed and sympathized with him. It didn't take long to dash those thoughts.


Loretta

[pelenka]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ism/byron-york


It was well known during the Clinton years that he was not aggressive toward terrorists, and his presidency was poll driven. The economy hummed along really well and he was not going to upset the applecart. Who knows if 9/11 would have happened if he had not been so passive. I've heard him say that himself. No one wants to point fingers and lay blame though.

Thanks for explaining, Kay. The thing is, the article you linked as well as the report detailed in it are from 2006, which means that they both fall into the “hindsight is always 20/20” category. If 9/11 happened on Clinton’s watch, it’s guaranteed that he wouldn’t have been so passive, especially if he was a poll-driven president. The public was out for blood.

Keep in mind that all those counter-terrorism measures by Bush to keep us safe weren’t enacted either until after the attacks.

9/11 was a big deal! It changed the way the U.S. operates. Because of it, a Republican president enacted a bunch of legislature that normally would have gone completely against what conservatives stand for, but he is still hailed by some as a great president simply because the circumstances dictated more government involvement. To compare attitudes of presidents toward terrorism before and after 9/11 is kind of pointless.

-Agi

[songbird]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ism/byron-york


It was well known during the Clinton years that he was not aggressive toward terrorists, and his presidency was poll driven. The economy hummed along really well and he was not going to upset the applecart. Who knows if 9/11 would have happened if he had not been so passive. I've heard him say that himself. No one wants to point fingers and lay blame though.

Well said Kay.

I blame 9/11 on Loretta H. There, I said it.

Ha!

[meinmaryland]

Mrs. Romney may be a little bit out of touch with the general public...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-off-the-rack/


Pia