Originally posted by NaplesX
No wrath here. Just trying to be fair.
Truth is no-one is perfect. Not Bush, not Clinton and not Kerry. I am so sick of the "Blame Bush/Blame America" garbage.
The problem is that that's not what you said. At all. You seem willing to blame the previous administration for whatever is convenient, while you insist that the current administration ought to be cut slack.
You know if you applied the same type of logic, you could actually put a heap of blame on Kerry, since he has been a representative on a national level for 30 years.
He's only one Senator out of 100. Unless he has some kind of super-vote I'm not aware of.
Some seem to give him a pass, forgetting that he was involved in many national security and intel issues over the years.
Again. One Senator. Don't forget the others on the various committees.
He has some responsibility as to the direction this nation is taking.
Yes. Because he was involved.
Arguably more so than Bush.
No. Bush started this war all on his own. He didn't have to. Kerry wasn't standing behind him, poking him with a pointy stick. This war is Bush's war: he wanted it, the Congress granted him the authority, ultimately, to do it, and he did. And now it's horribly screwed up because a) the NeoCon theory seems to have failed on all accounts and b) Rummy is trying to cram institutional changed down the throat of the military, and those don't seem to have worked, either.
Although really my point is, blame is a never ending game.
That's a far cry from "the buck stops here." I swear to God, as I said in another thread, I can't figure you conservatives out. The cognitive dissonance is absolutely palpable. You hated Clinton for the dissembling and refusal to take the blame. And you give Bush a pass for what is TANGIBLY worse. Make up your minds.
Let's just fix problems as they come up or work to prevent them, that is what Americans have been good at in throughout history.
Yes. And by the way, welcome to politics: we disagree about how they ought to be fixed or prevented.
I think that Clinton, Bush, and Kerry all are good men and want what is best for their country. I also believe that one of those men has the broader vision of a leader, beyond some lifelong dream to be president or the desire to attain enough power to get the adoration of young women, not that those are bad goals, though. Just that I am not sure that they can coexist in that office post 9/11.
I was going to attack this (you can imagine how), but I'll refrain. I think you're right, in some ways. I think Bush is certainly a man of vision. This makes me unpopular among my lefty friends. The problem with Bush's vision is this:
1) It doesn't seem to work.
2) When it doesn't work, he is so determined to be "consistent" that he will not modify it.
Those are your options, if you're a conservative, I guess: you can vote for a flip-flopper who modifies and responds to change and nuance or you can vote for someone so stubborn he doesn't see the quagmire until he's up to his eyeballs in it.
Hey thanks for the kind thoughts. Though my place was generously spared by Charley but it rapidly gets worse as you go north. [/B]
I'm seriously glad to hear it. I used to live close to the Gulf Coast (60 miles north of it, actually) and I've seen what hurricanes can do. I hope the cleanup isn't too bad.