Quote:
Originally Posted by {OF}Blong
no instead it was those before him that ignored the threats of terrorism etc etc etc.
|
Assuming that "those before him" means Bill Clinton and not Bush I and Reagan: I think Bill did what was reasonably appropriate for what we knew at the time. Nearly 7 years after 9/11 we still don't have secure ports or borders. Bush feels Afghanistan (real terror threat) is only 1/7th as significant as Iraq (faux terror threat boondoggle) considering troops and money.
Check out Bill's side of the story
here.
On the general election:
I'm not sure that having a Washington insider with 20 years of experience is a positive thing. To McCain's credit he has a fairly decent record (better than most-Clinton and Obama included) of voting with his heart rather than with lobbied interests (although he was reprimanded in the late 90's). I would prefer to see someone closely related to my beliefs heading up the Executive Branch and appointing Supreme Court Justices. At the least, I am glad to see McCain as the republican nominee since it means we won't get a total neo-conservative nutjob in office for another 8 years even if they win the general election.
On the debate(finally on-topic):
Hillary is making the last attacks that she can muster and so far Obama has deflected them quite well and eloquently which is good to see. Having a well-composed speaker lends some credibility to his platform rather than having a speaker that can't pronounce "nuclear" correctly tell us how we should direct our energy policy
I can see Obama speaking to other world leaders in a direct and non-condescending way and help re-establish some of our clout on the international scene.
GWB was a trainwreck from start to finish. I have higher hopes for McCain, Clinton or Obama.
Al Gore for President
