Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on May 12, 2011, 10:54:04 pm
-
I f******king knew it. (http://www.businessinsider.com/schultz-bin-laden-bush-msnbc-video-2011-5)
-
That video is a retired Colonel giving his opinion; nothing there to indicate it was official policy. As for the quote above the video, I didn't even see Powell, nevermind hear him say that.
The colonel is saying what a lot of people think, but it's all opinion at this juncture.
-
This just looks like an opinion piece.
-
out of office for 2 years and everything is STILL bush's fault. :rolleyes:
-
Well, he did kinda drive the country into the ground and let Osama escape from Tora Bora while taking us on a slight detour into a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 beyond the manufactured reasons that Bush forced down our throats and diverted a trillion dollars and six thousand lives that could have been used to hunt down Osama.
But yeah, blaming Bush for problems that Bush is responsible for is so immature.
-
That video is a retired Colonel giving his opinion; nothing there to indicate it was official policy. As for the quote above the video, I didn't even see Powell, nevermind hear him say that.
The colonel is saying what a lot of people think, but it's all opinion at this juncture.
Given that very few resources were actually put on the ground at that time to go find him, and given that Bush himself stated that finding Bin Laden wasn't a priority.
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
Seems like a pretty strong correlation to me.
-
Well, we got him and the wars aren't over, so I guess we can discount that part.
I suppose it might have been a bit harder to go into Iraq, but given that it was trivially easy for the administration to sell the public on the war, a bit harder wouldn't have mattered at all.
-
out of office for 2 years and everything is still bush's fault.
Fixed this for you :P
-
out of office for 2 years and everything is STILL bush's fault. :rolleyes:
go by that logic and you can blame the clinton administration as well. they more or less had osama in their sights and didnt take the shot, granted 9/11 handnt happened yet. sometimes i think bush was more interested in saddam than he should have been, and perhaps allocated resources away from osama to get him, but thats about as far as my anti bush sentiment goes. bush would have acted on intel about osama if only to bolster his reputation or the reputation of his party, because thats how politics works. obama certainly is gonna use the killing of bin laden to his benefit when he comes up for re-election.
-
out of office for 2 years and everything is STILL bush's fault. :rolleyes:
go by that logic and you can blame the clinton administration as well. they more or less had osama in their sights and didnt take the shot, granted 9/11 handnt happened yet. sometimes i think bush was more interested in saddam than he should have been, and perhaps allocated resources away from osama to get him, but thats about as far as my anti bush sentiment goes. bush would have acted on intel about osama if only to bolster his reputation or the reputation of his party, because thats how politics works. obama certainly is gonna use the killing of bin laden to his benefit when he comes up for re-election.
you know why dont you, Iraq was his dad's war which Bush senior ballsed up, between that, OIL and hindsight it was inevitable Bush Jr would try it
-
Bush Sr. didn't balls up the first Gulf War, he just knew when to stop so that he didn't get drawn into a bigger cluster****.
-
out of office for 2 years and everything is STILL bush's fault. :rolleyes:
go by that logic and you can blame the clinton administration as well. they more or less had osama in their sights and didnt take the shot, granted 9/11 handnt happened yet. sometimes i think bush was more interested in saddam than he should have been, and perhaps allocated resources away from osama to get him, but thats about as far as my anti bush sentiment goes. bush would have acted on intel about osama if only to bolster his reputation or the reputation of his party, because thats how politics works. obama certainly is gonna use the killing of bin laden to his benefit when he comes up for re-election.
you know why dont you, Iraq was his dad's war which Bush senior ballsed up, between that, OIL and hindsight it was inevitable Bush Jr would try it
its not a stretch of the imagination to say that bush jr was merely trying to settle a score for bush sr. but thats beside the point. nothing gets a politician huge brownie points more than killing a national enemy. bush did it to saddam, and obama did it to osama. politicians love brownie points.
-
bush jr was spam trolled by the neo cons, who "explain'd" bush why 911 happened, and it all had to do with the lack of democracy in the ME. If you want to place guilt in iraq's war, do it on Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Darth Vader, et al. Bush jr was just giving you a stupid face to divert your attention.
-
go by that logic and you can blame the clinton administration as well. they more or less had osama in their sights and didnt take the shot
When?
-
when i read it in the ****ing news years ago.
-
Clinton has said it himself, that he had a few chances to get Bin Laden before he was big.
-
problem is during the Clinton years bin laden was a pita but not enough to take action like that. The only reason the Pakistan raid hasn't resulted in the US getting politically clobbered is because of the profile of Bin Laden after 9/11.
-
Clinton has said it himself, that he had a few chances to get Bin Laden before he was big.
I'd be interested in knowing exactly when and how considering that Clinton is also on the record as saying that unlike Bush at least he was trying to find him during the last year or so of his presidency.
-
it was a few years before, for instance when the Saudis kicked him out they offered to give him to us, but at the time we didn't have a solid legal case to tie him to the crimes he had committed so Clinton let him go.
-
Clinton has said it himself, that he had a few chances to get Bin Laden before he was big.
I'd be interested in knowing exactly when and how considering that Clinton is also on the record as saying that unlike Bush at least he was trying to find him during the last year or so of his presidency.
The 9/11 Commission and Richard Clarke's book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_All_Enemies) covered Clinton's involvement in going after bin Laden and confirmed that Clinton wanted Osama dead. Clinton also went on air shortly after the 1998 Embassy Bombings and said his priority was hunting him, but this was about the same time that Republicans were busy trying to impeach him. He also said similar things after the USS Cole attack in 2000.
He also sums it up pretty in this interview. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L2513JFJsY&feature=related)
-
Yeah I remember this shenanigan. When Clinton talked about Bin Laden, the rethuglicans framed it as a "distraction" that Clinton was doing in order to the public "forget" about Monica Lewinsky. 'Coz, dontchaknow, a blow job is waay more important than a terrorist that had already killed hundreds and was able to bomb the twin towers.
****ing politics, always in the way of real business.
-
****ing politics, always in the way of real business.
In it's purest form democracy is a good system, but as usual human flaws break it and we end up with systems like in the UK and america where anything short of perfect is the greatest sin and sod the fact that the person being brought down is often the better person for the job than the detractors.
-
In it's purest form democracy is a good system, but as usual human flaws break it and we end up with systems like in the UK and america where anything short of perfect is the greatest sin and sod the fact that the person being brought down is often the better person for the job than the detractors.
You could say the same thing about just about any type of government. If we didn't have "human flaws" it wouldn't really matter anyway. :)
-
Yeah, pure my ass. The arian vision was the only "pure" thing that I recognize in the 20th century. And it sucked.
-
We should put benevolent supercomputers in power.
-
Yeah, that worked out so well with AM.
-
Yeah, that worked out so well with AM.
I said benevolent. AM really hates us.
-
You could not begin to comprehend how much he hates us.
-
What the hell is "AM"?
-
What the hell is "AM"?
I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream
I was reading Bush's memoir 'Decision Points' today. It was surprisingly sympathetic. Obviously I do not agree with many of Bush's large decisions, but it seemed to provide genuine insight into what he was thinking.
-
i still maintain that being president is more about balls than brains. thinking should (theoretically, though never in actual practice) be what the legislative branch is supposed to be good at. the executive branch is about action, because if you let the intellectual legislative branch (also in theory since this trait doesn't actually apply to any politician) decide how to act, they will debate whether they should act for years and never do anything. so its up to the president to step up and decide what to do with the information he has in hand. because in that position inaction is worse than stupidity.
-
Well the thing is that the US President, allegedly 'the most powerful man in the world', actually has surprisingly few powers. It's a very limited office in terms of breadth.
-
Well the thing is that the US President, allegedly 'the most powerful man in the world', actually has surprisingly few powers. It's a very limited office in terms of breadth.
president has the power to go to war. granted they have to have a reasonable cause to do so, less they fail to get re-elected (or worse impeached). i admit that by itself is hardly enough to make the president the "most powerful man in the world", just somone who could potentially do a lot of damage before he can be stopped. its something he has to answer for. but my original statement still stands, being president is about balls, not brains, reguardless of what (or who :lol: ) youre allowed to use them on.
-
Well the thing is that the US President, allegedly 'the most powerful man in the world', actually has surprisingly few powers. It's a very limited office in terms of breadth.
Except that during the Bush years something extraordinary happened, the executive and legislative branches more or less merged. If you look at the veto rates, Bush had only a handful which is rather telling. So little was vetoed because so much of the legislation was his to begin with.
-
Well the thing is that the US President, allegedly 'the most powerful man in the world', actually has surprisingly few powers. It's a very limited office in terms of breadth.
president has the power to go to war. granted they have to have a reasonable cause to do so, less they fail to get re-elected (or worse impeached). i admit that by itself is hardly enough to make the president the "most powerful man in the world", just somone who could potentially do a lot of damage before he can be stopped. its something he has to answer for. but my original statement still stands, being president is about balls, not brains, reguardless of what (or who :lol: ) youre allowed to use them on.
The President actually can't declare war. :nervous: He's able to deploy troops though.
-
Well the thing is that the US President, allegedly 'the most powerful man in the world', actually has surprisingly few powers. It's a very limited office in terms of breadth.
president has the power to go to war. granted they have to have a reasonable cause to do so, less they fail to get re-elected (or worse impeached). i admit that by itself is hardly enough to make the president the "most powerful man in the world", just somone who could potentially do a lot of damage before he can be stopped. its something he has to answer for. but my original statement still stands, being president is about balls, not brains, reguardless of what (or who :lol: ) youre allowed to use them on.
The President actually can't declare war. :nervous: He's able to deploy troops though.
The democrats and republicans surrendered this when they gave him a blank check to go into iraq.
-
Well the thing is that the US President, allegedly 'the most powerful man in the world', actually has surprisingly few powers. It's a very limited office in terms of breadth.
president has the power to go to war. granted they have to have a reasonable cause to do so, less they fail to get re-elected (or worse impeached). i admit that by itself is hardly enough to make the president the "most powerful man in the world", just somone who could potentially do a lot of damage before he can be stopped. its something he has to answer for. but my original statement still stands, being president is about balls, not brains, reguardless of what (or who :lol: ) youre allowed to use them on.
The President actually can't declare war. :nervous: He's able to deploy troops though.
The democrats and republicans surrendered this when they gave him a blank check to go into iraq.
Congress actually passed an authorization for the war on Iraq.
There's a much better historical argument for the point you're trying to make - look back and see if you can spot it!
-
Hmm.
Wild guess.
Grenada?
-
Hmm.
Wild guess.
Grenada?
Even earlier!
-
Mexico to go hunt for Pancho De Villa?
-
Hmm.
Wild guess.
Grenada?
Even earlier!
Vietnam!?
-
Hmm.
Wild guess.
Grenada?
Even earlier!
Vietnam!?
Might be. The first big 'screw Congress, let's start a war' incident I was thinking of was Truman and Korea.
-
Well at least he didn't let Doug nuke China.
-
Vietnam!?
Well, Vietnam is what forced Congress to say that, without even a declaration of war, the President can commit troops for up to 60 days (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act) before they have to either vote to authorize military force or declare war.
-
well if you commit troops to a conflict and the other side declares war, then you dont really have much of a choice.