President Bush says he takes responsibility for the federal government's failures

well thats true,but maybe things would even get worse If he resigns.....some other fool would be president or something,wh would you suggest to be the new president stern?
 
Lemonking said:
well thats true,but maybe things would even get worse If he resigns.....some other fool would be president or something,wh would you suggest to be the new president stern?

This slippery slope is retarded, especially when it has nothing to back it. "WHAT IF BUSH RESIGNED AND THEN A GIGANTIC WORM FROM AN OUTER SPACE BLACK HOLE AT THE PLANET? BOY, YOU'D BE A SORRY BASTARD, WOULDN'T YOU."
 
back off you ****,all Im saying is people should think it thrue bfeore he resigns
 
I think you should think things through before say more stupid shit.
 
Cool it. Dont rip each others heads off cuz you are so cuaght up in this argument wich amounts to nothing.

Well he admited it, wtg him, but it means nothing to me.
9/11 HUGE mistake #1, he was warned of Osama using planes to attack the US 1 month before it happened. He stayed on his vacation and didn't think twice about the warning. Nobody was fired eventhough he blamed our intelligence and he never admitted he made a mistake when he ignored the warning.
What was he supposed to do? Rember, every terroist organization hasd a made threat on the US before at least once.
 
Kebean PFC said:
What was he supposed to do? Rember, every terroist organization hasd a made threat on the US before at least once.
Well gee wiz, maybe if this administration wasn't so set on doing everything the opposite of Clinton they would have had daily, or at minimum weekly, briefings on terrorism:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html

The terrorism briefing was delivered by Richard Clarke, a career bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush Administration and risen during the Clinton years to become the White House's point man on terrorism. As chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security Group (CSG), Clarke was known as a bit of an obsessive—just the sort of person you want in a job of that kind. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen on Oct. 12, 2000—an attack that left 17 Americans dead—he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. The result was a strategy paper that he had presented to Berger and the other national security "principals" on Dec. 20. But Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up. With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. "We would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office on Jan. 20," says a former senior Clinton aide. "That wasn't going to happen." Now it was up to Rice's team to consider what Clarke had put together.
 
Yes, sure a terrorist briefing. What good woud that have done? They could NOT have said, the 9/11 was going to happen. This WAS NOT BUSH's FUALT. I cannot stress this enough. Yes Iraq was and so was the lugish response to Katrina but 9/11 could not have been prevented, face it.
 
who says they wanted to prevent it?


"A transformation strategy that solely
pursued capabilities for projecting force
from the United States, for example, and
sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American
policy goals and would trouble American
allies.
Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor
."

in other words they're saying that the road to imperialism and process of militarization may alienate america's allies ...only a catastropic event such as pearl harbor would speed up the process and give them the excuse to build up their strength.

9-11 anyone?






source


you should probably read this as well
 
Ah yea...glad someone finally put that to good use. *cough*thanks to me*cough*
 
Back
Top