"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...

I don't know what he could have done differently based on what was known
at
the time.
With hindsight being 20/20 I'm sure we can think of things but that's
not
really fair.

As a factual matter it's possible to point out mistakes without saying
they shouldn't have been made. If you are unable to do this, that
would show an unreasonable bias toward Bush.

Not if I would hold the same standard for Democrat President or any other.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message link.net...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...

I don't know what he could have done differently based on what was known
at
the time.
With hindsight being 20/20 I'm sure we can think of things but that's
not
really fair.

As a factual matter it's possible to point out mistakes without saying
they shouldn't have been made. If you are unable to do this, that
would show an unreasonable bias toward Bush.

Not if I would hold the same standard for Democrat President or any other.

That's very generous of you, but it was a Republican and not a
Democrat that was president. This allows you to blame a Democrat,
Clinton, and hold a Republican blameless, Bush. This is a double
standard and a bias that also doesn't make any sense from an empirical
view. Whether he make mistakes or not is an empirical question, not a
moral question. That you are unwilling to observe the mistakes he has
made is a very clear indication of your bias.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...

I don't know what he could have done differently based on what was
known
at
the time.
With hindsight being 20/20 I'm sure we can think of things but
that's
not
really fair.

As a factual matter it's possible to point out mistakes without saying
they shouldn't have been made. If you are unable to do this, that
would show an unreasonable bias toward Bush.

Not if I would hold the same standard for Democrat President or any
other.

That's very generous of you, but it was a Republican and not a
Democrat that was president. This allows you to blame a Democrat,

I wouldn't blame anybody for 9/11 unless there was clear intel that was
ignored.
There wasn't

Clinton, and hold a Republican blameless, Bush.

I don't hold Clinton at fault for 9/11 nor would I if he were president at
the time.
My beef with Clinton in this is that he let OBL slip through his fingers.
Having OBL in custody would not have prevented
9/11 in any case but it certainly would have been a demoralizing blow to Al
Quaeda.

This is a double
standard and a bias that also doesn't make any sense from an empirical
view.

It doesn't make sense because it is not my view. I can't say it any more
clearly than I have repeatedly done so.
The person(s) to blame for 9/11 are Al Quaeda and Bin Ladin, not anyone from
the U.S. governent. It would
have been nice if we had followed through on the recomendations made by the
Comission that Gore headed up,
but neither administration did.

Whether he make mistakes or not is an empirical question, not a
moral question.

I think it's both.

That you are unwilling to observe the mistakes he has
made is a very clear indication of your bias.

What mistakes do you think Bush made that led to 9/11?
Clearly you think there were some, but just ask yourself if
Clinton or any other Democrat wouldn't have made the same ones.
Remember the PDB that everybody was so excited about didn't contain any real
evidence
that was new or that a reasonable person wouldn't think were already been
handled.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ink.net...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...

I don't know what he could have done differently based on what was
known
at
the time.
With hindsight being 20/20 I'm sure we can think of things but
that's
not
really fair.

As a factual matter it's possible to point out mistakes without saying
they shouldn't have been made. If you are unable to do this, that
would show an unreasonable bias toward Bush.

Not if I would hold the same standard for Democrat President or any
other.

That's very generous of you, but it was a Republican and not a
Democrat that was president. This allows you to blame a Democrat,

I wouldn't blame anybody for 9/11 unless there was clear intel that was
ignored.
There wasn't

Clinton, and hold a Republican blameless, Bush.

I don't hold Clinton at fault for 9/11 nor would I if he were president at
the time.
My beef with Clinton in this is that he let OBL slip through his fingers.
Having OBL in custody would not have prevented
9/11 in any case but it certainly would have been a demoralizing blow to Al
Quaeda.

You don't blame him but you blame him. This is a clear contradiction.

This is a double
standard and a bias that also doesn't make any sense from an empirical
view.

It doesn't make sense because it is not my view. I can't say it any more
clearly than I have repeatedly done so.
The person(s) to blame for 9/11 are Al Quaeda and Bin Ladin, not anyone from
the U.S. governent. It would
have been nice if we had followed through on the recomendations made by the
Comission that Gore headed up,
but neither administration did.

And furthermore it's not your view that you blame him but don't blame
him.

So you're saying Bush should have implemented some of Gore's
recommendations?

Whether he make mistakes or not is an empirical question, not a
moral question.

I think it's both.

It may have moral implications but those shouldn't stop you from
making an empirical observation. That you are unwilling to do so
reveals your deeply partisan understanding of fact.

That you are unwilling to observe the mistakes he has
made is a very clear indication of your bias.

What mistakes do you think Bush made that led to 9/11?
Clearly you think there were some, but just ask yourself if
Clinton or any other Democrat wouldn't have made the same ones.
Remember the PDB that everybody was so excited about didn't contain any real
evidence
that was new or that a reasonable person wouldn't think were already been
handled.

This is a hook designed to divert attention from your own
unsupportable bias to something you can make your silly little
arguments against. I have no interest in arguing about the specific
failings of the Bush administration with you because you have shown no
willingness so far to admit the possibility of even one failing. From
the start that rules out the possibility of a meaningful discussion.

That said, I haven't found much in the staff reports of the 9/11
commission to disagree with.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements.htm

These reports are highly readable, incredibly well researched, and
highly detailed. There were ****-ups too numerous to count at every
level of the Bush administration from the INS to the FBI to the CIA to
the cabinet and Oval Office. This was the most serious national
security failure in the history of the United States and calls not
only for serious restructuring of the government but also throws into
question the competence of much of the personnel in place.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...

I don't know what he could have done differently based on what
was
known
at
the time.
With hindsight being 20/20 I'm sure we can think of things but
that's
not
really fair.

As a factual matter it's possible to point out mistakes without
saying
they shouldn't have been made. If you are unable to do this, that
would show an unreasonable bias toward Bush.

Not if I would hold the same standard for Democrat President or any
other.

That's very generous of you, but it was a Republican and not a
Democrat that was president. This allows you to blame a Democrat,

I wouldn't blame anybody for 9/11 unless there was clear intel that was
ignored.
There wasn't

Clinton, and hold a Republican blameless, Bush.

I don't hold Clinton at fault for 9/11 nor would I if he were president
at
the time.
My beef with Clinton in this is that he let OBL slip through his
fingers.
Having OBL in custody would not have prevented
9/11 in any case but it certainly would have been a demoralizing blow to
Al
Quaeda.

You don't blame him but you blame him. This is a clear contradiction.


Not if you string a couple of neurons together. I don't blame Clinton for
9/11.
Capturing OBL would not have prevented 9/11.
OBL is a terrorist, therefore when he was offered up by the Sudanese, the
responible thing to do would have been to take him.
They are separate issues, no contradictions.

This is a double
standard and a bias that also doesn't make any sense from an empirical
view.

It doesn't make sense because it is not my view. I can't say it any
more
clearly than I have repeatedly done so.
The person(s) to blame for 9/11 are Al Quaeda and Bin Ladin, not anyone
from
the U.S. governent. It would
have been nice if we had followed through on the recomendations made by
the
Comission that Gore headed up,
but neither administration did.

And furthermore it's not your view that you blame him but don't blame
him.

Do you think it was a responsible thing to do, to let OBL get away?
I don't, so on that issue I can find fault. I've said it at lest 3 times,
capturing OBL would not have
stopped 9/11, but he should have been taken into custody.

So you're saying Bush should have implemented some of Gore's
recommendations?

I'm saying both Clinton and Bush did not implement them.
Do try to follow along, won't you?

Whether he make mistakes or not is an empirical question, not a
moral question.

I think it's both.

It may have moral implications but those shouldn't stop you from
making an empirical observation. That you are unwilling to do so
reveals your deeply partisan understanding of fact.

That you are unwilling to observe the mistakes he has
made is a very clear indication of your bias.

What mistakes do you think Bush made that led to 9/11?
Clearly you think there were some, but just ask yourself if
Clinton or any other Democrat wouldn't have made the same ones.
Remember the PDB that everybody was so excited about didn't contain any
real
evidence
that was new or that a reasonable person wouldn't think were already
been
handled.

This is a hook designed to divert attention from your own
unsupportable bias to something you can make your silly little
arguments against. I have no interest in arguing about the specific
failings of the Bush administration with you because you have shown no
willingness so far to admit the possibility of even one failing.

I have no interest in playing your blame game.
I don't know what could have been done to prevent 9/11 that would have
not been opposed by the Democrats who would have filibustered it, and by the
ACLU
who are still trying to get the patriot act thrown out.

From
the start that rules out the possibility of a meaningful discussion.

You're the one dancing. I don't have a problem with the Bush administration
over 9/11. I wouldn't
be blaming any other administration for it no matter who was in office. The
correct theing to do is fix what can be fixed to prevent
it from happening again and kill or bring to justice those who had anything
to do with perpetrating it.

That said, I haven't found much in the staff reports of the 9/11
commission to disagree with.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements.htm

These reports are highly readable, incredibly well researched, and
highly detailed. There were ****-ups too numerous to count at every
level of the Bush administration from the INS to the FBI to the CIA to
the cabinet and Oval Office.

Of course there were, he's a Republican.

This was the most serious national
security failure in the history of the United States and calls not
only for serious restructuring of the government but also throws into
question the competence of much of the personnel in place.

It also calls into question the hypocrisy of the left, since they would have
fought tooth and nail and have done, on anything that benefits national
security.
They have systematically voted against every weapons system, budget increase
or rule change that would help the U.S. gather intelligence or defend
itself.
Then they have the ****ing nerve to call those who choose to do something
about it, blood thirsty philistines.

On Sun, 02 May 2004 00:17:45 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
. com...

So you're saying Bush should have implemented some of Gore's
recommendations?

I'm saying both Clinton and Bush did not implement them.
Do try to follow along, won't you?

What suggestions of Gore's should Bush have implemented?

--

Jacob Kramer

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 02 May 2004 00:17:45 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
. com...

So you're saying Bush should have implemented some of Gore's
recommendations?

I'm saying both Clinton and Bush did not implement them.
Do try to follow along, won't you?

What suggestions of Gore's should Bush have implemented?

--

I don't believe they were Gore's per se, but the commission recommended more
airport security, among other things, which the airlines balked at and so
the Clinton administration did nothing about it. We'll never know if given
time, the Bush administration might have.