Originally posted by Coolridr
So you think the President stops working just because he isn't in Washington?
Is there a law saying he can't do his job from somewhere else?
If I could wield my power from somewhere else I would.
D.C. sux
way to miss the point.
you barely missed that one.
the point is Bush says even though 9/11 happened on his watch that Clinton's lack of response was to blame. while the truth is Clinton did respond to previous attacks. the fact is that Bush was in office when we knew who attacked the Cole, HE is the one who allowed it to go un-answered. maybe he's right and the 9/11 attacks weren't caused by a lack of diligence but the terrorists lack of fear of reprisals, but if thats true it would seem that his lack of any response to the Cole would send more of a message that we are now a prime target, than the Clinton responses he said didn't send a strong enough message.
I also find it odd that Bush somehow works up the nerve to bring up Kerry's attendance record on the intelligence committee, while himself being the most absent president in history and continuing with his every word to re-enforce my belief that he wouldn't know intelligence if it bit him on the prettythang.
another interesting thing that I find sad is the republicans logic in general (definitely not limited to Bush). they would have you believe that while they happened on his watch Bush wasn't responsible for 9/11 or the crippling of the US economy, and loss of jobs. not his fault because the stage was set before he had a hand in it, the course already determined and we're lucky he was here or it would have been worse.
these same people would have you believe that in spite of 40 years of cold war and all of the efforts of our military, diplomatic, and espionage communities and the internal problems of their own making that it was Ronald Regan who single handedly rid the world of the soviet union.
he also, some how, in the first 5 minutes after he was sworn into office managed to free the hostages that Carter couldn't. 5 minutes, damn thats some kinda magic.
the argument gets made (when you point to the absurdity) that it was the fear of how he would run things that caused the captors to spontaneously surrender their hostages.
however the same people who make this argument can't seem to see as remotely feasible that one of the factors that could have contributed to our economy's failing (before 9/11 dealt the final shove) is the fear of how Bush would run things, the lack of confidence (upon finding he would be president) that the American economy would thrive under his leadership, and the resulting removal of investments to a safer venue.
why do they continue the absurd claims that anything that finishes well on their watch got done because they seceded to do what those before them had failed, and anything that finishes badly was just the natural and unstoppable result of their predecessors policies? my guess is that they continue to get about 50% of this countries citizens to fall for it, no need to change to a more logical stance when so many are buying this one.
