Ahh, the BLAME-AMERICA'S-EX-PRESIDENTS-FIRST argument. Blatant Anti-Americanism.
Hey that line of argument is good enough for the dems to use why not the other way around? It is a dirty trick used in politics. You just have to be smart enough mot to fall for it no matter who it comes from.
It means what I have claimed from the beginning. That Dean would have acted no different than Bush. Dean gives himself the convenience of hindsight while condemning everyone else. He does this on the left with war votes as well.
My argument has been all along that Dean's contention that he would have acted differently or better than Bush did is bunk.
I'm not willing to say Dean did everything he could, or should, have done but I don't think the two situations are similar enough to make the leap of faith you're making.
Does anyone have any 'stats' on Texas? I would compare Bush's track record as Governor not president. Of course, I don't know if a Governor in Texas has the same freedom or is regulated in the same fashion as a Vermont Governor.
Regardless, after 9/11 Bush as president wasn't as limited to act as Dean was prior to 9/11.
I'm not willing to say Dean did everything he could, or should, have done but I don't think the two situations are similar enough to make the leap of faith you're making.
Does anyone have any 'stats' on Texas? I would compare Bush's track record as Governor not president. Of course, I don't know if a Governor in Texas has the same freedom or is regulated in the same fashion as a Vermont Governor.
Regardless, after 9/11 Bush as president wasn't as limited to act as Dean was prior to 9/11.
How can Bush not be limited? As you saw even with Dean, most of these agencies work in partnership. It is very hard to demand something from a partner with a hypothetical. I say that of Dean and Bush, and it made it harder for them to do their jobs. Dean was willing to make demands (like a no fly zone) after 9/11 and so was Bush. It is the environment that enabled them. The difference though is Dean claims he would have acted differently without that environment. Yet his own actions show different. When Dean wanted to make it happen, it happened with regard to security. The point is until 9/11, he didn't make it happen.
He can claim hindsight. He should stop trying to claim foresight.
Dean was willing to make demands (like a no fly zone) after 9/11 and so was Bush. It is the environment that enabled them.
And the different pre-9/11 environments that make their situations different. You're glossing over the fact that prior to 9/11 these two people had different capabilites to enact positive change within their spheres of influence.
Re-read what I said. Bush AFTER 9/11 wasn't as limited as Dean was PRIOR to 9/11. As you say it is the environment that enabled them. The environment prior to 9/11 wasn't as enabling as the environment after 9/11. You can't compare the two. The environment the president works in is different than the environment that a governor works in. You can't compare these situations.
And the different pre-9/11 environments that make their situations different. You're glossing over the fact that prior to 9/11 these two people had different capabilites to enact positive change within their spheres of influence.
Re-read what I said. Bush AFTER 9/11 wasn't as limited as Dean was PRIOR to 9/11. As you say it is the environment that enabled them. The environment prior to 9/11 wasn't as enabling as the environment after 9/11. You can't compare the two. The environment the president works in is different than the environment that a governor works in. You can't compare these situations.
I am trying to start an argument, however, why do keep defending wrongdoings, by simply dumping on bush? No matter what you say is wrong on this earth it seems to fall on bush or someone that he knows or is associated with. Maybe I am just misreading, but that is the way it seams to me. Please tell me I am wrong.
What wrong doings? Wanna blame Bush for poor airport security before 9/11 too? More can always be done in the name of better security... but then we could live in a police state too.
And the different pre-9/11 environments that make their situations different. You're glossing over the fact that prior to 9/11 these two people had different capabilites to enact positive change within their spheres of influence.
Re-read what I said. Bush AFTER 9/11 wasn't as limited as Dean was PRIOR to 9/11. As you say it is the environment that enabled them. The environment prior to 9/11 wasn't as enabling as the environment after 9/11. You can't compare the two. The environment the president works in is different than the environment that a governor works in. You can't compare these situations.
I'm not comparing the two in regard to the direct actions taken by one against the actions of another. I am saying Dean did NOTHING while claiming he would have done something. Bush did very little to combat terrorism as well. You just don't get it, your view has become too limited. Doing NOTHING when you could do something has nothing to do with limits. Dean didn't request a no fly zone and had it turned down. He didn't place national guard troops there and was called paranoid and wasteful. He didn't do anything. He then claims that he would have done something with even more capabilities. You are claiming he would have done more with more abilities. He didn't even do anything within the powers he had.
I am trying to start an argument, however, why do keep defending wrongdoings, by simply dumping on bush? No matter what you say is wrong on this earth it seems to fall on bush or someone that he knows or is associated with. Maybe I am just misreading, but that is the way it seams to me. Please tell me I am wrong.
First, I think you meant to say 'I am NOT trying to start....'
Second, I'm not defending Dean or dumping on Bush. The thread starter made a comparison between the two that I felt was incorrect. I'm arguing against that comparison. The situations described are not related enough to support the claims that Trumptman made.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Goodness knows he should have premptively killed him right?
Where's your condemnation for Clinton who was actually offered Bin Laden?
Nick
Ahh, the BLAME-AMERICA'S-EX-PRESIDENTS-FIRST argument. Blatant Anti-Americanism.
Originally posted by Northgate
Ahh, the BLAME-AMERICA'S-EX-PRESIDENTS-FIRST argument. Blatant Anti-Americanism.
Hey that line of argument is good enough for the dems to use why not the other way around? It is a dirty trick used in politics. You just have to be smart enough mot to fall for it no matter who it comes from.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Hey close this shitpile of a thread too!
I'm so tempted to say "In Before Lock!" but I'll refrain. Sort of.
Originally posted by trumptman
It means what I have claimed from the beginning. That Dean would have acted no different than Bush. Dean gives himself the convenience of hindsight while condemning everyone else. He does this on the left with war votes as well.
My argument has been all along that Dean's contention that he would have acted differently or better than Bush did is bunk.
I'm not willing to say Dean did everything he could, or should, have done but I don't think the two situations are similar enough to make the leap of faith you're making.
Does anyone have any 'stats' on Texas? I would compare Bush's track record as Governor not president. Of course, I don't know if a Governor in Texas has the same freedom or is regulated in the same fashion as a Vermont Governor.
Regardless, after 9/11 Bush as president wasn't as limited to act as Dean was prior to 9/11.
Good day sir.
I said, Good Day!
Originally posted by bunge
I'm not willing to say Dean did everything he could, or should, have done but I don't think the two situations are similar enough to make the leap of faith you're making.
Does anyone have any 'stats' on Texas? I would compare Bush's track record as Governor not president. Of course, I don't know if a Governor in Texas has the same freedom or is regulated in the same fashion as a Vermont Governor.
Regardless, after 9/11 Bush as president wasn't as limited to act as Dean was prior to 9/11.
How can Bush not be limited? As you saw even with Dean, most of these agencies work in partnership. It is very hard to demand something from a partner with a hypothetical. I say that of Dean and Bush, and it made it harder for them to do their jobs. Dean was willing to make demands (like a no fly zone) after 9/11 and so was Bush. It is the environment that enabled them. The difference though is Dean claims he would have acted differently without that environment. Yet his own actions show different. When Dean wanted to make it happen, it happened with regard to security. The point is until 9/11, he didn't make it happen.
He can claim hindsight. He should stop trying to claim foresight.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Dean was willing to make demands (like a no fly zone) after 9/11 and so was Bush. It is the environment that enabled them.
And the different pre-9/11 environments that make their situations different. You're glossing over the fact that prior to 9/11 these two people had different capabilites to enact positive change within their spheres of influence.
Re-read what I said. Bush AFTER 9/11 wasn't as limited as Dean was PRIOR to 9/11. As you say it is the environment that enabled them. The environment prior to 9/11 wasn't as enabling as the environment after 9/11. You can't compare the two. The environment the president works in is different than the environment that a governor works in. You can't compare these situations.
Originally posted by bunge
And the different pre-9/11 environments that make their situations different. You're glossing over the fact that prior to 9/11 these two people had different capabilites to enact positive change within their spheres of influence.
Re-read what I said. Bush AFTER 9/11 wasn't as limited as Dean was PRIOR to 9/11. As you say it is the environment that enabled them. The environment prior to 9/11 wasn't as enabling as the environment after 9/11. You can't compare the two. The environment the president works in is different than the environment that a governor works in. You can't compare these situations.
I am trying to start an argument, however, why do keep defending wrongdoings, by simply dumping on bush? No matter what you say is wrong on this earth it seems to fall on bush or someone that he knows or is associated with. Maybe I am just misreading, but that is the way it seams to me. Please tell me I am wrong.
Originally posted by bunge
And the different pre-9/11 environments that make their situations different. You're glossing over the fact that prior to 9/11 these two people had different capabilites to enact positive change within their spheres of influence.
Re-read what I said. Bush AFTER 9/11 wasn't as limited as Dean was PRIOR to 9/11. As you say it is the environment that enabled them. The environment prior to 9/11 wasn't as enabling as the environment after 9/11. You can't compare the two. The environment the president works in is different than the environment that a governor works in. You can't compare these situations.
I'm not comparing the two in regard to the direct actions taken by one against the actions of another. I am saying Dean did NOTHING while claiming he would have done something. Bush did very little to combat terrorism as well. You just don't get it, your view has become too limited. Doing NOTHING when you could do something has nothing to do with limits. Dean didn't request a no fly zone and had it turned down. He didn't place national guard troops there and was called paranoid and wasteful. He didn't do anything. He then claims that he would have done something with even more capabilities. You are claiming he would have done more with more abilities. He didn't even do anything within the powers he had.
Nick
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am trying to start an argument, however, why do keep defending wrongdoings, by simply dumping on bush? No matter what you say is wrong on this earth it seems to fall on bush or someone that he knows or is associated with. Maybe I am just misreading, but that is the way it seams to me. Please tell me I am wrong.
First, I think you meant to say 'I am NOT trying to start....'
Second, I'm not defending Dean or dumping on Bush. The thread starter made a comparison between the two that I felt was incorrect. I'm arguing against that comparison. The situations described are not related enough to support the claims that Trumptman made.
Originally posted by trumptman
[Dean] didn't do anything.
This just isn't true. Did he do enough? Maybe not. Did he do nothing? No. Did the NRC do what they were supposed to do? No.
Who's responsibility was security at the plant in Vermont?