|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 7, 2008 19:39:53 GMT -4
In the past, we've had presidents who could do TWO or even THREE things at one time. I don't believe I've suggested anywhere that President Bush should have dropped everything in favor of going after al Qaeda. The United States government is powerful and has many, many resources.
Is all of your information based on one book?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 7, 2008 19:54:23 GMT -4
In the past, we've had presidents who could do TWO or even THREE things at one time. I don't believe I've suggested anywhere that President Bush should have dropped everything in favor of going after al Qaeda. The United States government is powerful and has many, many resources. So then where is your critisim for Clinton for not making OBL a number one priority after the 1998 bombings, which did have solid evidence of responsibility for them and between the two killed over 220 people as well as injuring over 4000. You seem to think that Bush should have done it on the "strong circumstancial evidence" he was given, well why didn't Clinton do it 3 years earlier? Perhaps because both thought that the attacks were limited and overseas and they could deal with AQ slowly while a rogue nation like Iran, Iraq or North Korea developing and using a nuclear missile could kill millions. Again I'd note that Bush DID respond to the threat of AQ and activated the CIA's wish for a covert war against him, more then Clinton did. And I still don't know what you would have done about that memo that Bush didn't considering that the FBI and CIA were already doing what they thought was necessary and so asking them what they needed to do about it would have been totally pointless. No, it comes from various sources and news articles, however, Ghost wars is extremely well researched and detailed (it also won a pulitzer prize in 2005) so is very good as a reference to give knowledge about what was happening in the CIA and US politics at the time, hence why I keep suggesting you read it. It might open your eyes a bit.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 7, 2008 20:04:37 GMT -4
I can disagree with you without claiming you are ignorant or that you need to "open your eyes." Do you want to try returning the favor?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 7, 2008 20:07:55 GMT -4
So you are saying that "All right. You've covered your ass, now" was the best the president could do?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 7, 2008 20:22:49 GMT -4
I can disagree with you without claiming you are ignorant or that you need to "open your eyes." Do you want to try returning the favor? This coming from the person that called me a dick about 4 posts back.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 7, 2008 20:25:51 GMT -4
So you are saying that "All right. You've covered your ass, now" was the best the president could do? What else was he supposed to be doing? He'd already authorised a covert war, the FBI and CIA were sending out terror threat notices left right and centre, there were numerous security increases at what were considered targets. Do you expect him to have rushed about fisking every single plane passanger? You seem to think he should have done something else, but as of yet you have failed to explain what. You are critical of him not doing something else, but you can't even say what he didn't do. Until you at least have that figured out, you don't have a leg to stand on.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 7, 2008 20:50:17 GMT -4
I can disagree with you without claiming you are ignorant or that you need to "open your eyes." Do you want to try returning the favor? This coming from the person that called me a dick about 4 posts back. You've repeatedly called me ignorant on this and other threads. In response, I called you a dick. I stand by my claim.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 7, 2008 21:04:20 GMT -4
This coming from the person that called me a dick about 4 posts back. You've repeatedly called me ignorant on this and other threads. In response, I called you a dick. I stand by my claim. Well since you seem to have decided to resort to personal abuse, please show everyone how terrible I am by linking to any post in which I call you a name or ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 7, 2008 21:22:02 GMT -4
I'm resorting to personal abuse, mister "I'll repeat it again just to get it into your head?"
Give me a break.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 7, 2008 21:33:58 GMT -4
I'm resorting to personal abuse, mister "I'll repeat it again just to get it into your head?"Give me a break. How is that a personal insult? Perhaps if I had said "thick head" you'd have a case, otherwise you merely have a sentence implying I was having to repeat myself to make a point you kept ignoring.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 7, 2008 23:50:28 GMT -4
How about rather than arguing over who insulted who first you do give us some idea of what you expected President Bush to do about this memo, Wdmundt? At this point it sounds very like an "if I ran the zoo" argument.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 8, 2008 10:38:57 GMT -4
I answered this yesterday. By the way, wdmundt, I asked you earlier what you would have done about that memo, strangely you haven't answered. Why not? Because I didn't get to it. I can only type with two hands on two threads at once. My answer -- given that I knew by this time that al Qaeda was responsible for, at the very least, one attack that killed 17 US sailors -- I would have called in my best experts on terrorism, the CIA and the FBI and asked "what can we do?" And I would have listened. I would not have brushed off the CIA agent with, "All right, your ass is covered." I'm not particularly enthusiastic about continuing this discussion.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 8, 2008 11:45:08 GMT -4
Would that be because you've lost again?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 8, 2008 12:15:35 GMT -4
I (again) hope you are kidding. You always demand a pretty high standard of evidence from me. Others can just make unsupported claims, and that seems fine with you as long as the unsupported claims agree with your position.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 8, 2008 12:35:30 GMT -4
I demand a high standard from you because you have demanded equally high standards from me in the past. For example, you started a whole thread on the subject of what evidence there was for the existence of Jesus and then proceded to reject everything that anyone could reasonably expect for the existence of a religious leader in a relatively obscure corner of the world 2000 years ago. When I compared the evidence for the existence of Jesus to that for the existence of Alexander the Great you wouldn't acknowledge his (Alexander's) existence either. Considering how much you seem to value evidence and the rigirous standards you wanted to hold me to I would of course expect you to have evidence ready to present for any serious opinion you voice. I was only half kidding about the losing part. PhantomWolf was a little less tactful towards you than he should have been, but he did present a better case. Of course Al now wins all debates, but that doesn't mean there can't be degrees of losing.
|
|