Seven houses of mccain!

[SENATOR-FOGHORN]

Suh,
A US Senator makes around $126,000 a year.The Senator from Arizona has been on the Hill 26 years...
Now,real estate is a very good investment.So,if a presidential candidate takes his $4.25 mil salary and PUTS IT TO WORK FOR HIMSELF, the Democrats think that is a SHAME? HELLO!
People that think these things through see Mr Mccain as a better choice BECAUSE of his financial accumen.
(Course, spending all those years in the "Hanoi Hilton" and US Navy pilots back pay,writing books and lecturing,house rents,etc, we can see SEVEN HOUSES MIGHT BE TOO FEW! HAH!)
Anyway, all this talk about Virginia(God bless Her!) going BLUE (i.e. Democrat) in the coming election makes me wonder...Maybe my re-election will work out! VIRGINIA CAN BE DUPED!!!

Yours for Political Partys(BYOB)
Senator Filibuster Foghorn
Member at Large:rolleyes:

[jay b]

He a rich guy that owns a lot of properties that are probably managed just like the rest of his assets.................by someone other than him. :rolleyes:

So who cares if he can name or remember all of the things he owns. I think it's a pretty weak argument to state that gaffe that he made and try to turn it into their slam campaign by saying that he's too rich to take care of the common man that the Dems are supposedly looking out for.

Once again national politics has sunk to the lowest level of mud slinging BS before most folks even know who the canadates are. I feel sorry for the folks who haven't made their minds up yet and actually look at the TV advertisements to decide who to vote for.

[lil red jeep]

I don't think the fact that he has so many houses and can't remember them is that big an issue at all. His wife is the money bags in the marriage anyway.

What does interest me is the fact that McCain is on the record saying that anyone who makes less than $5,000,000.00 per year is "Middle Class"!:eek: Well that must put me and my wife and kids below skid row! Seven houses, ten houses, who cares. The point is he and the Republican party have lost touch with the average american today. I like a lot of their conservative ideals, but they have lost touch with reality.

[sprtsracer]

Last time I checked, we still practiced Capitalism in this country. The Democrats all want to say that they will prop up the poor and give them a better life (at our expense). What do they have to look forward to if they start out poor and end up making something out of themselves and eventually being able to afford 7 houses??? They will be condemned, that's what! These very liberals who say they "are looking out for them" DO NOT want to see them succeed because then, they won't have a constituency. They talk big...but they don't fool me.

[jcreamer]

Last time I checked, we still practiced Capitalism in this country. The Democrats all want to say that they will prop up the poor and give them a better life (at our expense). What do they have to look forward to if they start out poor and end up making something out of themselves and eventually being able to afford 7 houses??? They will be condemned, that's what! These very liberals who say they "are looking out for them" DO NOT want to see them succeed because then, they won't have a constituency. They talk big...but they don't fool me.
I do not care if he owns 10 houses or is on welfare all that I want is him to satisfy me that he can do his job.

[BubbaHoTep]

Last time I checked, we still practiced Capitalism in this country. The Democrats all want to say that they will prop up the poor and give them a better life (at our expense). What do they have to look forward to if they start out poor and end up making something out of themselves and eventually being able to afford 7 houses??? They will be condemned, that's what! These very liberals who say they "are looking out for them" DO NOT want to see them succeed because then, they won't have a constituency. They talk big...but they don't fool me.

Agreed 110 percent. Well said, sprtsracer. If individual success was truly their desired objective and everyone achieved it, they'd have nothing left. They have a stake in perpetuating the system as it is. But remember, they care. Oh, they really, really care, to hear them tell it. :--|

Now by saying that, I realize that some folks may immediately pigeon-hole me as a "rightie," but I think it is possible to see through one side without coming down squarely in the court of another. Both "sides" in the forefront of our nation's political debate have a way of making it "all or nothing," and each wants you to swallow the "agenda." I like to think we are too smart to be led around by the nose by either "cons" or "lib" pundits.

McCain's wife is a rich heiress, and I don't find it that unbelievable that he doesn't know right off how many houses they have (agree with jayb there). I do find it unbelievable that $5 million is the upper end of "middle class" in his view. If he said that, there is a reality problem somewhere between the ears, I agree.

[sprtsracer]

Agreed 110 percent. Well said, sprtsracer. If individual success was truly their desired objective and everyone achieved it, they'd have nothing left. They have a stake in perpetuating the system as it is. But remember, they care. Oh, they really, really care, to hear them tell it. :--|

Now by saying that, I realize that some folks may immediately pigeon-hole me as a "rightie," but I think it is possible to see through one side without coming down squarely in the court of another. Both "sides" in the forefront of our nation's political debate have a way of making it "all or nothing," and each wants you to swallow the "agenda." I like to think we are too smart to be led around by the nose by either "cons" or "lib" pundits.

McCain's wife is a rich heiress, and I don't find it that unbelievable that he doesn't know right off how many houses they have (agree with jayb there). I do find it unbelievable that $5 million is the upper end of "middle class" in his view. If he said that, there is a reality problem somewhere between the ears, I agree.

Actually, he said that on the "Tonight Show With Jay Leno" and I was watching that night. He was not serious. He said it as a joke and nothing more in response to Leno "ribbing" him. At the same time, he said, "That will probably be mis-construed." He was right...it was!

[jay b]

Actually, he said that on the "Tonight Show With Jay Leno" and I was watching that night. He was not serious. He said it as a joke and nothing more in response to Leno "ribbing" him. At the same time, he said, "That will probably be mis-construed." He was right...it was!

As you can see that doesn't stop folks from using it against him as a 'quote'. He said it and that's all that matters, not context or anything else. Personally I'd rather he forget about his money and let someone else take care of it so he can concentrate and focus on doing his job in our government.

[jcreamer]

As you can see that doesn't stop folks from using it against him as a 'quote'. He said it and that's all that matters, not context or anything else. Personally I'd rather he forget about his money and let someone else take care of it so he can concentrate and focus on doing his job in our government.
Doesn't something like that happen should he become president?

[J_Lannon]

I don't think the fact that he has so many houses and can't remember them is that big an issue at all. His wife is the money bags in the marriage anyway.

What does interest me is the fact that McCain is on the record saying that anyone who makes less than $5,000,000.00 per year is "Middle Class"!:eek: Well that must put me and my wife and kids below skid row! Seven houses, ten houses, who cares. The point is he and the Republican party have lost touch with the average american today. I like a lot of their conservative ideals, but they have lost touch with reality.


He was joking.

[BubbaHoTep]

Actually, he said that on the "Tonight Show With Jay Leno" and I was watching that night. He was not serious. He said it as a joke and nothing more in response to Leno "ribbing" him. At the same time, he said, "That will probably be mis-construed." He was right...it was!


Ahhh I'm glad y'all cleared that up! I was thinking, "HUH?!?!" :)

[saltandsand]

I'm getting sick of hearing about the rich. And am no longer interested in supporting their agenda... trickle me this, trickle me that... their brains trickles with the gibberish that they talk...

Facts are that the country was established by a bunch of rich so-called English criminals. Besides that the law of THIS LAND worships the alienability of wealth. THAT MEANS YOU CAN'T BE A BUNCH OF GREEDY BASTURDS AND THAT THINK YOU CAN HAVE IT ALL AND KEEP IT FOREVER.

The robber barons, elitists, lobbyists, media and other anti-American cartel owners who seem fit to ply their greed upon the average citizen are no better than the wayward ingrates that our founders so galantly fought and defeated.

Today the average American looses immensely through the expatriated taxes of corporate entities. Time has come for Corporations to pay tribute to this great land, stop paying lavish salaries and perks to those who do not produce, provide a THRIVING wage to the worker and build this great Nation through a tax paying base that can provide for the needs of all citizens.

Once again it gets down to the same issue, what should an American pay for... is worldwide democracy worth costing our country by sending our money overseas to our enemies? Is it worth the lives of our military? The cost of our military and post-war humanitarian aid?

Here's a decent plan... http://www.pickensplan.com/ (I think Carter tried that too, but it may take a good second try... are you willing to pay the price for this improvement??)

[SENATOR-FOGHORN]

Suh,
Have you noticed the NEW CAMPAIGN AD for Biden/Obama? They are calling themselves "MOVE ON". I trust that after the present National Election they will heed their own advice.Move on into some other part of show buisness.
Well, how do a boy get rich? I guess he could try getting into ANNAPOLIS, then maybe pass through the NAVY Flight School, go into COMBAT and get hisself shot down. Then spend,oh,say five and a half years being tortured in the "HANOI HILTON". Come back to the US of A and get a job that pay pretty good(US SENATOR in 2006 payed about $126K)and hold that job for 26 years. Yeah,that ought to about do it. America is the land of oppourtunity,and John McCain has taken that oppourtunity.

But,Fair is FARE,so somebody gotta pay it.

[OBX_Nomad]

The fact that people are more worried about how many homes McCain owns than how many service members Dubya has killed shocks me.

[sprtsracer]

The fact that people are more worried about how many homes McCain owns than how many service members Dubya has killed shocks me.

Let's get THIS straight RIGHT NOW!!! "Dubya" hasn't killed ANY service members. Insurgents sponsored by IRAN, SYRIA, and other terrorists have, as well as the Taliban and Al Quaeda fighters (You remember them don't you...Twin Towers...Pentagon...9/11???) Using that analogy is akin to blaming Roosevelt for all the deaths in WWII. Some folks like to stick their heads in the sand and feel that if things are ignored, they'll go away. I'm here to tell you they won't. These butthole fanatics have done it before, and are planning to do it again and again until American women are all wearing burkhas and we are facing East and praying to Allah several times a day!!! We can all ignore it and eventually suffer the consequences or we can face it and fight it. Take your pick.

[BubbaHoTep]

Let's get THIS straight RIGHT NOW!!! "Dubya" hasn't killed ANY service members. Insurgents sponsored by IRAN, SYRIA, and other terrorists have, as well as the Taliban and Al Quaeda fighters (You remember them don't you...Twin Towers...Pentagon...9/11???) Using that analogy is akin to blaming Roosevelt for all the deaths in WWII. Some folks like to stick their heads in the sand and feel that if things are ignored, they'll go away. I'm here to tell you they won't. These butthole fanatics have done it before, and are planning to do it again and again until American women are all wearing burkhas and we are facing East and praying to Allah several times a day!!! We can all ignore it and eventually suffer the consequences or we can face it and fight it. Take your pick.

What sprts said.

[shaggy]

Well today it occurred to me that I have not seen or heard Jimmy Carters statement about obama in the major media calling obama the black boy.

Amazing how the press picks and chooses what to report :--|

Oh and what about that obama Christ superstar openning :spam::--|:--|http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umCo4qUJiOQ

[Al Kai]

Let's get THIS straight RIGHT NOW!!! "Dubya" hasn't killed ANY service members. Insurgents sponsored by IRAN, SYRIA, and other terrorists have, as well as the Taliban and Al Quaeda fighters (You remember them don't you...Twin Towers...Pentagon...9/11???) Using that analogy is akin to blaming Roosevelt for all the deaths in WWII. Some folks like to stick their heads in the sand and feel that if things are ignored, they'll go away. I'm here to tell you they won't. These butthole fanatics have done it before, and are planning to do it again and again until American women are all wearing burkhas and we are facing East and praying to Allah several times a day!!! We can all ignore it and eventually suffer the consequences or we can face it and fight it. Take your pick.
This is a fact.

[Mark G]

Let's get THIS straight RIGHT NOW!!! "Dubya" hasn't killed ANY service members. Insurgents sponsored by IRAN, SYRIA, and other terrorists have, as well as the Taliban and Al Quaeda fighters (You remember them don't you...Twin Towers...Pentagon...9/11???) Using that analogy is akin to blaming Roosevelt for all the deaths in WWII. Some folks like to stick their heads in the sand and feel that if things are ignored, they'll go away. I'm here to tell you they won't. These butthole fanatics have done it before, and are planning to do it again and again until American women are all wearing burkhas and we are facing East and praying to Allah several times a day!!! We can all ignore it and eventually suffer the consequences or we can face it and fight it. Take your pick.

Let's get this straight right now- as Commander in Chief he bears sole responsibility for where he sends troops. If you want to argue that it's necessary for soldiers to die in order to protect
America's freedom, that is a whole different issue and argument.

To say he isn't responsible for deaths is paramount to saying a general can lead his troops into an ambush and bear no blame.

As Commander in Chief he bears the ultimate responsibilty for decisions he makes- you can not argue your way around that fact.

[shaggy]

Let's get this straight right now- as Commander in Chief he bears sole responsibility for where he sends troops. If you want to argue that it's necessary for soldiers to die in order to protect
America's freedom, that is a whole different issue and argument.

To say he isn't responsible for deaths is paramount to saying a general can lead his troops into an ambush and bear no blame.

As Commander in Chief he bears the ultimate responsibilty for decisions he makes- you can not argue your way around that fact.

Actually he also had support of congress, so their blame has plenty of people to spread it around. Umless I am mistaken, and that wont be a first time or a last, he had backing of congress. I dont recall they voted against it, and with his power as the president overrode their decision. But then it was a long time ago.

[BubbaHoTep]

Actually he also had support of congress, so their blame has plenty of people to spread it around. Umless I am mistaken, and that wont be a first time or a last, he had backing of congress. I dont recall they voted against it, and with his power as the president overrode their decision. But then it was a long time ago.

Yup. Actually, he ALSO had the support of the vast majority of Americans when the decision was made.

[Mark G]

Actually he also had support of congress, so their blame has plenty of people to spread it around. Umless I am mistaken, and that wont be a first time or a last, he had backing of congress. I dont recall they voted against it, and with his power as the president overrode their decision. But then it was a long time ago.


Understood- the issue is whether he carries the responsibility for his decisions, not whether the people support those decisions.

[shaggy]

Understood- the issue is whether he carries the responsibility for his decisions, not whether the people support those decisions.

Didnt say anything about "the people" I said congress supported and voted in favor

And yes this may bring us to the "evidence" that went to their support, and then the Bush administrations false claims, but we should remember, the claims were also supported by the Clinton administration and various world organizations, so that blame should be spread around too

[sprtsracer]

Let's get this straight right now- as Commander in Chief he bears sole responsibility for where he sends troops. If you want to argue that it's necessary for soldiers to die in order to protect
America's freedom, that is a whole different issue and argument.

To say he isn't responsible for deaths is paramount to saying a general can lead his troops into an ambush and bear no blame.

As Commander in Chief he bears the ultimate responsibilty for decisions he makes- you can not argue your way around that fact.

As long as you will agree that Roosevelt was responsible for the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, I'll agree with you...but I suspect you won't. The Generals are held accountable for their actions as well as everyone else. It's a well-oiled fighting machine. Even Truman had to unleash the atom bomb...not once but TWICE, and killed many civilians, but at the same time, shortened the war and saved many US Lives when an invasion of Japan was avoided. The "surge" in Iraq worked, which the democrats fail to acknowledge, and there has been nothing but negative comments from the democrats about every facet of Bush's administration. I don't pretend to think that everything GW has done is 100% correct...but to liken him to McCain is a BIG mistake. I have yet to hear ANYTHING from Obama, Biden, or anyone else on the democrat side about what THEY are going to do about "CHANGE". Other than a change of parties, I don't hear any solutions coming from their side. So far, I have heard nothing from them other than negative crap about how bad we are, how we have no respect in the world, how the war is wrong, how the economy is bad, how people don't have health care, how high the unemployment is, etc. Essentially...what they are saying is: Hey...this is GREAT for us!!! We can capitalize on this, get elected, and then continue to keep these people down so we can get re-elected!!! I want top hear some damn solutions from them, and so far, all I have heard is condemnations and empty and hollow promises. "Change" my BUTT!!!

[Mark G]

As long as you will agree that Roosevelt was responsible for the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, I'll agree with you...but I suspect you won't.

Actually I will, I'm only arguing facts, not the rightness or wrongness of a decision, which is based on opinion.

The decison to act, as well as a decison not to act, can be shown to directly contribute to deaths.

It can surely be stated in a better manner, and I understand why supporters would find it offensive, but to say "w" caused deaths is not far off the mark-it is a simple conclusion based on logical arguments.

Know what I find offensive? The fact that we have mentioned politicians in this thread finds them plying their attempts at getting our vote; tho I'll admit it is a public forum. Don't know what I'm getting at? Take a look at the right side panel (may change according to further comments)

[shaggy]

Actually I will, I'm only arguing facts, not the rightness or wrongness of a decision, which is based on opinion.

The decison to act, as well as a decison not to act, can be shown to directly contribute to deaths.

It can surely be stated in a better manner, and I understand why supporters would find it offensive, but to say "w" caused deaths is not far off the mark-it is a simple conclusion based on logical arguments.

Facts are he had the vote of congress, so, there is no sole responsibility. If he had vetoed congress OK to go ahead, and we had another terrorist attack, he like Clinton would have been blamed for thousands of innocent people being killed by terrorists(wait clinton wasnt blamed), Clinton had his chance, Bush took the other road.

Guess its yer damned if you do, and no comment or blame if you dont.

[Mark G]

The decison to act, as well as a decison not to act



Guess its yer damned if you do, and no comment or blame if you dont

Now yer getting it !


I'm sure Hitler had the support of a few Germans, that doesn't absolve him of the responsibility of his decisions, and NO I am not comparing our elected officials to Hitler, I am simply making an analogy.

[sprtsracer]

Actually I will, I'm only arguing facts, not the rightness or wrongness of a decision, which is based on opinion.

The decison to act, as well as a decison not to act, can be shown to directly contribute to deaths.

It can surely be stated in a better manner, and I understand why supporters would find it offensive, but to say "w" caused deaths is not far off the mark-it is a simple conclusion based on logical arguments.

Know what I find offensive? The fact that we have mentioned politicians in this thread finds them plying their attempts at getting our vote; tho I'll admit it is a public forum. Don't know what I'm getting at? Take a look at the right side panel (may change according to further comments)

Saw a McCain AND an Obama ad on the right on two different visits. Unfortunately, that's "Google" and not the candidates, although the campaigns pay Google. It's a fact of life until after November 4th...kinda like "yard signs" up and down the street that look like...for lack of a better term...TRASH from a Yard Sale"!!! Can't figure out where the "Cocoons" sunglasses ad came from though...unless it was the few Obama supporters looking at the world through "rose colored" glasses, LOL:D

[shaggy]

Now yer getting it !


I'm sure Hitler had the support of a few Germans, that doesn't absolve him of the responsibility of his decisions, and NO I am not comparing our elected officials to Hitler, I am simply making an analogy.

But what U R doing is putting sole accountability on Bush, forgetting it took a vote of congress. Now if he had vetoed congress and said no, and another terrorist attack occurred, U would (or would it be, would U) still blame him, poor guy with u was in a lose lose situation

[Mark G]

Saw a McCain AND an Obama ad on the right on two different visits. Unfortunately, that's "Google" and not the candidates, although the campaigns pay Google. It's a fact of life until after November 4th...kinda like "yard signs" up and down the street that look like...for lack of a better term...TRASH from a Yard Sale"!!! Can't figure out where the "Cocoons" sunglasses ad came from though...unless it was the few Obama supporters looking at the world through "rose colored" glasses, LOL:D

Now that's perty funny, at least someone still recognizes this is a fishing site (sunglasses) :)

[Mark G]

But what U R doing is putting sole accountability on Bush, forgetting it took a vote of congress. Now if he had vetoed congress and said no, and another terrorist attack occurred, U would (or would it be, would U) still blame him, poor guy with u was in a lose lose situation

Yes, at some point push comes to shove, and in this case Sh$%t falls uphill. Only you have it wrong, I'm not laying blame, I'm laying responsibility. I can argue correctly from an unbiased opinion that decisons cause death, nothing more, nothing less.

[shaggy]

Yes, at some point push comes to shove, and in this case Sh$%t falls uphill. Only you have it wrong, I'm not laying blame, I'm laying responsibility. I can argue correctly from an unbiased opinion that decisons cause death, nothing more, nothing less.

So since clinton did nothing there is no responsabilty? So no action is the course we wanna take, so we can be free from responsibillty


And as was proven in the 9/11 attacks, lack of decisions can "cause death"

[BubbaHoTep]

Now that's perty funny, at least someone still recognizes this is a fishing site (sunglasses) :)

What I'm wondering is what Palin would look like in those sunglasses! Not Michael, of course. :)

Seriously, I am enjoying reading these posts here. Based on my observations, I think the words "blame" and "responsibility" might be being viewed interchangeably. They are intertwined, no doubt. However, it's very difficult for me to comprehend how exactly to separate "responsibility" from "blame" or "judgment" (as SC says based on opinion) and to see one as wholly independent of another.

[shaggy]

Yer right blame is either the democrats or republicans, and responsabilty the other party, but so far soo good this is a calm thread when it comes to politics

[Mark G]

"blame" is what comes fr0m an opinion that a decision that was made is "bad"

"justification" is what comes from an opinion that a decision that was made is "good"

When it comes to war or not to war, the decision is what leads to death.

Shaggy- I've repeatedly made a point that the decision "not to act" is just as responsible as the decision "to act" - for deaths.

[shaggy]

Shaggy- I've repeatedly made a point that the decision "not to act" is just as responsible as the decision "to act" - for deaths.

K so, how many died on 9/11 due to the fact of the decision not to act, one day, one moment in time. And since the decision was made, how many died in one day "here in America"

Thank God and those who do Serve and protect

[Mark G]

K so, how many died on 9/11 due to the fact of the decision not to act, one day, one moment in time. And since the decision was made, how many died in one day "here in America"

Thank God and those who do Serve and protect

You tell me, what was the death toll- that is the number of deaths attributable to the act of "doing nothing"
Unfortunately it appears you may be mixing apples and oranges- under who's watch did 9/11 occur?


I get it- we all like to "blame" our problems on the previous administration- as long as we are not affiliated.

[shaggy]

You tell me, what was the death toll- that is the number of deaths attributable to the act of "doing nothing"
Unfortunately it appears you may be mixing apples and oranges- under who's watch did 9/11 occur?


I get it- we all like to "blame" our problems on the previous administration- as long as we are not affiliated.

According to most, wasnt under the "watch" but "lack of action", which you say is the same as, and that lack of action took place under bill clinton

Oh and for years I was independent, went rep, when everytime a democrat got elected taxes increased.

[Mark G]

According to most, wasnt under the "watch" but "lack of action", which you say is the same as, and that lack of action took place under bill clinton

Oh and for years I was independent, went rep, when everytime a democrat got elected taxes increased.

no problem :) doing my best to keep opinions out of it, which of course is impossible when you say, "according to most".

I would certainly understand if Clinton was in office one day, and Bush took over the next, and we were under attack the day Bush took over, as to "who" caused us to be under attack, which again, is more a matter of laying blame. When did Bush take over ? If he was suspicious of the former administration leaving us vulnerable to attack, when exactly did the allegations get raised ? What was done by Bush before the attack to intervene from it happening?

Hindsight is great.

[saltandsand]

This story about Johnny Snowwhite-head and his Seven little dwarfs....ha ha... :D

Remember what was said: “There’s nothing fairy tale about his campaign,” Mr. Clinton said. “It’s real, strong and he might win.” http://www.abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=4102345 Watch Bill's nose grow line he's Pinochio...
http://i35.tinypic.com/30adr8i.gif

[sprtsracer]

This story about Johnny Snowwhite-head and his Seven little dwarfs....ha ha... :D

Remember what was said: “There’s nothing fairy tale about his campaign,” Mr. Clinton said. “It’s real, strong and he might win.” http://www.abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=4102345 Watch Bill's nose grow line he's Pinochio...
http://i35.tinypic.com/30adr8i.gif


Was that picture taken at the convention during his statements that he and Hillary were supporting Obama??? :D

[saltandsand]

I think it happened when he met Monica, or sometime shortly thereafter. IMO it would be better to ask Hillary.

[wolfva]

You tell me, what was the death toll- that is the number of deaths attributable to the act of "doing nothing"
Unfortunately it appears you may be mixing apples and oranges- under who's watch did 9/11 occur?


I get it- we all like to "blame" our problems on the previous administration- as long as we are not affiliated.


It started under Clinton's watch. The first attack on the WTC was in 1993, when Usama bin Laden attempted to destroy the building with ANFO bombs. It failed, and he swore he would destroy the WTC. I beleive it was Ayman Zawahiri who then spent 10 years working on the plan to fly planes into the WTC. By the time Bush was elected the plan was all but complete, the actors were almost in place. This does not excuse Bush's culpability, however I WILL point out that 911 happened because the FBI worked under the constraint of law and did NOT open the laptop they had taken Zacarias Moussaoui.

Here is how one father who lost a son in Iraq feels about Bush. The letter isn't to long, but I found it illuminating about the man. Especially when you know about other examples of him going out of his way to comfort the family members of those who died under his command.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/08/the-reason-to-d.html

[Mark G]

It started under Clinton's watch. The first attack on the WTC was in 1993, when Usama bin Laden attempted to destroy the building with ANFO bombs. It failed, and he swore he would destroy the WTC. I beleive it was Ayman Zawahiri who then spent 10 years working on the plan to fly planes into the WTC. By the time Bush was elected the plan was all but complete, the actors were almost in place. This does not excuse Bush's culpability, however I WILL point out that 911 happened because the FBI worked under the constraint of law and did NOT open the laptop they had taken Zacarias Moussaoui.

Here is how one father who lost a son in Iraq feels about Bush. The letter isn't to long, but I found it illuminating about the man. Especially when you know about other examples of him going out of his way to comfort the family members of those who died under his command.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/08/the-reason-to-d.html

Terrorism had been around a long time before Clinton took office, but I would agree that the perception is that it started under Clinton's watch.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

Hmm, now let's see, Who was in office then? :p

[wolfva]

Where did I, or anyone else, say that terrorism started under Clinton? That would be ludicrouse. Heck, just look up the anarchists of the 1920's. I stated that the plan to destroy the WTC started under Clinton. Which it did. Your point is...what exactly?

In any case, if you want to point at major acts of terrorism under presidents other then Clinton you'd've done better to have addressed the Hizb'alla attack on the US Marine baracks in Beirut under President Reagan. An attack which led to us ignobally fleeing Lebanon with our tails between our legs and is one of the predicates that Usama bin Laden attributed to his belief that the US is a 'paper tiger'. Had Reagan reacted strongly then, instead of retreating, the WTC might still be standing. It's all interconnected.

[Mark G]

Where did I, or anyone else, say that terrorism started under Clinton? That would be ludicrouse. Heck, just look up the anarchists of the 1920's. I stated that the plan to destroy the WTC started under Clinton. Which it did.
In any case, if you want to point at major acts of terrorism under presidents other then Clinton you'd've done better to have addressed the Hizb'alla attack on the US Marine baracks in Beirut under President Reagan. An attack which led to us ignobally fleeing Lebanon with our tails between our legs and is one of the predicates that Usama bin Laden attributed to his belief that the US is a 'paper tiger'. Had Reagan reacted strongly then, instead of retreating, the WTC might still be standing. It's all interconnected.

Your point is...what exactly?

That is a little easier to pinpoint responsibility for someone that "took" action than someone that supposedly didn't. Clinton and the Feds realized we were vulnerable to terrorism after (hindsight again) the Oklahoma city bombings, and legislation and Federal regulations were introduced in an attempt to thwart such activity.
Obviously it was not enough (Hindsight again).

The Pan Am incident was pointed to because it was considered the largest major act of terrorism against US citizens at that time, granted it didn't happen within our country, but did indicate Americans could be "gotten to".

I agree with your statement about had Reagan reacted more strongly- so instead of tossing up a political divide (not uncommon during an election) one simply can't toss all their woes upon a previous administration, reality is we have to look deeper to find out "who" didn't take action- and that's my point :)

Reagan could have done more, Papa Bush could have done more when he had the chance, and yes Clinton could have done more.

Hindsight is great, but we are a reactionary society, often only taking action when proved necessary.

[saltandsand]

It's called "causation". Show that not taking the proper action, or not acting at all, leads to the result. The nexus between the act/or non-action and the result.

Gee whiz... if the logic that is being employed here is that one thing leads to another then I suppose it all goes back to a man and a woman and a garden and an apple.

[wolfva]

Very good points Surf cat; I'd post a long winded rebuttal but since I agree with ya I can't...

[sprtsracer]

Very good points Surf cat; I'd post a long winded rebuttal but since I agree with ya I can't...

Why not??? That doesn't seem to stop SnS!!!:D

[Mark G]

Why not??? That doesn't seem to stop SnS!!!:D

That's because he loves being redundant. :D

And I mean that from the pure definition of the term, not the "repetitive" connotaion it is so often linked to. :)

[wolfva]

Easy Sprts...because I ain't SnS! Heck, I actually ANSWER questions people ask me!

Oh yeah, and as far as the blame question goes for 911.... I blame Usama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, Mohammad Atta and his 18 friends.

[sprtsracer]

Easy Sprts...because I ain't SnS! Heck, I actually ANSWER questions people ask me!

Oh yeah, and as far as the blame question goes for 911.... I blame Usama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, Mohammad Atta and his 18 friends.

I know that...it was a JOKE!!! As far as those you named, maybe Obama could sit down and negotiate with them with no pre-conditions...uhhhhhh...never mind, their DEAD!!! LOL!!! I hope when I die, I get to the "promised land" and those seven virgins have their a$$es tied up and bound and they're putting blow torches to their gonads!!!

[BubbaHoTep]

I know that...it was a JOKE!!! As far as those you named, maybe Obama could sit down and negotiate with them with no pre-conditions...uhhhhhh...never mind, their DEAD!!! LOL!!! I hope when I die, I get to the "promised land" and those seven virgins have their a$$es tied up and bound and they're putting blow torches to their gonads!!!

I hope I don't see gonads when I die. . . .all I'm sayin' :D

[sprtsracer]

I hope I don't see gonads when I die. . . .all I'm sayin' :D

LOL...me too, except in the above case...I'd be turning up the flame and laughing my a$$ off, LOL