c'mon man... my post was ignored?

spending a little time on the opposing viewpoint and honestly reflecting upon the words would not only give me some credability and make my momma proud -- but it'd also strengthen your own validations, were you able to counter them.

i mean, to me, it appears that part of your argument's strength is clarke's statements on bush, which you'll readily accept ... but you just as readily filter out his identical criticisms on clinton.

that, again to me, instantly devalues the point, because it can't be both ways.

you referred to it as "clarke's 1-2 punch" and you're exactly right in that phrasing.

on a related note, today's headline is 9/11 Panel Cites Clinton, Bush Inaction.

Quote:

The Clinton and Bush administrations' failure to pursue military action against al-Qaida operatives allowed the Sept. 11 terrorists to elude capture despite warning signs years before the attacks, a federal panel said Tuesday.



that statement, i feel, is a little more fair, and a lot closer to what really happened.

in my thoughts, as much as you hate george bush, and as bad a job you think he's done, there's no way you could possibly believe the entire government, national security, and political status of our nation went to shit within 9 months. absolutely no way.

there's also no way you could possibly believe a major terrorist organization, and known threat, was created, developed, trained, planned, and carried out the 9-11 mass-murder within 9 months (the above article speculates it probably started circa 1995; 6 years earlier).

that said, i'd think there'd be significant blame for president clinton. and, unlike what you appear to think, i don't feel the presidential blame or criticism is an "either or" scenario. there's plenty to go around.

i'd like to see your side, and i'd like to hear you out, but... its honestly difficult sometimes to see your posts as anything but angry

giant picture