Why Republicans make sore losers

[Pirate]

I certainly don't think he shares the blame equally, no I do not, because he wasn't in charge, presumably aware of the current threat of the moment, and in a position to do something about it. The events of 9/11 happened in a flash, and could have been stopped just as quickly regardless of past history. It's a distraction and a diversion to look back at the years preceding the event and pin the blame on someone who might very well have been cognizant of the situation in the summer of '01 and acted on it had he been president. We will never know.

The events of 9/11 certainly did not happen in "a flash" as you claim, but I do agree that Clinton should not share the blame equally. Clinton and congress deserve 90 percent of the blame. Clinton and his cronies destroyed the intelligence community and created a bureaucracy impossible to wade through. This bred an environment that was sure to miss the signs which signaled what was coming. The policies that many point to for inciting anger from other nations and the extremists weren't created by a president that was in power for 6 months. Which make you wonder how most posters here blame Bush policies for all of the worlds issues with American foreign policy. I am not saying his policy was wonderful, I am simply pointing out the fact that it is not the single cause of foreign relations issues as many would hope.

Maybe you're right, Chickpea. I wonder what our foreign policy should be because we've 'been there' and we 'haven't been there.' We support Israel (Democracy) financially, but she never needs us militarily.....we are the biggest provider of the weapons, however.

We just set up refugee relief for Palestinians and we pour billions into other nations......now promised $1TR. Nations have pushed us away and don't want our help.

Clinton has been ridiculed as having horrible foreign policy, yet Bush was strong in the beginning and then his popularity faltered gravely.

What is Obama's foreign policy? He set the date for us to vacate Iraq. That's good. But, will we still provide them billions each year (well, not billions, since we only give Israel $100MM), but where are we headed in foreign policy?

Just out loud thoughts......I really don't know where we are headed.

Obama is drawing down troops in an unstable region which is ridiculous. The death toll and instability of course are both rising. His foreign policy is to tuck tail, kiss feet and try to manipulate countries through veiled empty back door threats. He will be another president like Clinton that simply goes by the polls of the day. Anyone who thinks he is different than another politician in any way other than wanting government to grow in scope really is dreaming.

I wanted to add here that I am no fan of Bush and I did not think it was a good idea to go into Iraq. Once we went though, we should have gone 100 percent and not lost our momentum and support from the people there. If the troop level would have been higher from the start we could have stabilized the area much quicker and had the hearts of the people to train for future defense of the region. When this war started Bush had close to 80 percent approval, where did all those people go? The operation went too slow and the public lost their nerve so the whole thing was half assed. Now we are stuck there for years unless the Liberals just decide to bail on the Iraqi people. I think when the death toll and violence continues to build Obama will do what he is becoming known for and back pedal leaving a substantial number of troops there.

 

[LuciferSam]

The events of 9/11 certainly did not happen in "a flash" as you claim, but I do agree that Clinton should not share the blame equally. Clinton and congress deserve 90 percent of the blame. Clinton and his cronies destroyed the intelligence community and created a bureaucracy impossible to wade through. This bred an environment that was sure to miss the signs which signaled what was coming. The policies that many point to for inciting anger from other nations and the extremists weren't created by a president that was in power for 6 months. Which make you wonder how most posters here blame Bush policies for all of the worlds issues with American foreign policy. I am not saying his policy was wonderful, I am simply pointing out the fact that it is not the single cause of foreign relations issues as many would hope.
t

The intelligence Bush received in his August of 2001 presidential daily breif, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." was sufficient to cause alarm. Bush just didn't possess sufficient intelligence to act on it. He essentially ignored it. Why clear papers off your desk when you could be on your ranch clearing brush?

YouTube - Hillary Clinton Defends Bill's FOX Interview

 

[Rita]

Why Republicans make the rest of us miserable when they lose. - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine Out of power, they're bigger babies than Democrats. Here's why.
By Timothy NoahPosted Wednesday, May 13, 2009, at 6:38 PM ET
As a Democrat and longtime resident of Washington, D.C., I've always found the capital more congenial when my party was out of power. Partly that's because I make my living as a journalist. Republican presidents tend to create a more target-rich environment, not just for liberals but (I think) for everybody. Mostly, though, it's because Republicans out of power go out of their way to make life unpleasant for the rest of us. When Democrats lose, they're pathetic. When Republicans lose, they're bitter and mean.


Former Vice President Dick Cheney's enthusiastic bashing of the Obama administration—for making the United States vulnerable to terrorist attack (even though the last one happened on his watch); for running up the deficit (even though Cheney once told then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter"); for shaking hands with Hugo Ch?vez (even though Cheney's mentor, Don Rumsfeld, was once photographed shaking hands with Saddam Hussein); and for extending government bailouts beyond the financial industry (even though, four months earlier, Cheney had chewed out congressional Republicans for refusing to bail out the auto industry)—is a case in point. It's been noted widely that Al Gore raised some eyebrows when he gave a speech criticizing the Bush administration's rush to war against Iraq and its doctrine of pre-emption. But this occurred a year and eight months into Bush's first term. Cheney, by contrast, was out of the gate a mere two weeks after Obama was sworn in.

.

David Brooks presents an interesting analysis providing some facts in this op-ed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/opinion/22brooks.html?emc=eta1

Cheney Lost to Bush by David Brooks

" ................ Cheney and Obama might pretend otherwise, but it wasn’t the Obama administration that halted the practice of waterboarding. It was a succession of C.I.A. directors starting in March 2003, even before a devastating report by the C.I.A. inspector general in 2004.

When Cheney lambastes the change in security policy, he’s not really attacking the Obama administration. He’s attacking the Bush administration. In his speech on Thursday, he repeated in public a lot of the same arguments he had been making within the Bush White House as the policy decisions went more and more the other way.

The inauguration of Barack Obama has simply not marked a dramatic shift in the substance of American anti-terror policy. It has marked a shift in the public credibility of that policy.

In the first place, it is absurd to say this administration doesn’t take terrorism seriously. Obama has embraced the Afghan surge, a strategy that was brewing at the end of the Bush years. He has stepped up drone activity in Pakistan. He has promoted aggressive counterinsurgency fighters and racked up domestic anti-terror accomplishments. ...................

.......................... Do I wish he had been more gracious with and honest about the Bush administration officials whose policies he is benefiting from? Yes. But the bottom line is that Obama has taken a series of moderate and time-tested policy compromises. He has preserved and reformed them intelligently. He has fit them into a persuasive framework. By doing that, he has not made us less safe. He has made us more secure."

.
I don't have a problem with the expression of dissenting views, but I do question Cheney's motives in his media blitz trying to put fear into the thoughts of the public regarding Obama not keeping us safe. Brooks offers some intelligent discussion points in the article.


.