Not party but the person...

cat's meow · #11 (**permalink**) 07-02-2007, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenianforever1689

I don't know...I distinctly remember you criticizing both.

Who cares if you like the party or the person of the party you consider opposition?

Whoa dude, try and find where I have said specific things about the Republican party like they should 'go to hell'...I have picked out a number of very good Republicans to include past presidents. Neo Cons are not part and parcel to Republicans first of all. Second there are plenty of individuals in the Democratic party I don't agree with or like also.

All Republicans and Democtrats don't do a group think. Jim Webb from Virginia is so close to thinking more like a conservate/Republican I have a hard time calling him a Democrat, and I like the guy a lot. John Danforth is the opposite and I like him a lot too.

cat's meow · #12 (**permalink**) 07-02-2007, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluedog

Page 66 thru 68....pointing to government reports to defend their own inaction? Why does it not surprise you....that politicians...are quick to point out...."US...HELL NO....WE ARE NOT TO BLAME"....what else did you expect them to espouse?...Yes it was our fault...now fire us? Please. BD

Please tell who was to write the report?

cat's meow · #13 (**permalink**) 07-02-2007, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justme

Not being a "far rightie", I can't answer for them. But I do get tired of the "Bush is bad" rhetoric because it seems so simplistic to me.
To be honest, it doesn't really bother me when it comes from those that don't seem to have any agenda other than to demean the man and the party. If you're honest, you will have to admit there are some of those here.
Just as I will admit there are those that refuse to admit the man has made any mistakes.
It does bother me when seemingly intelligent people use the blame game while ignoring the 60 years (and beyond) of history that has contributed to some of todays problems. Problems no doubt made worse by the invasion of Iraq. But problems that have been festering for years.
Bush has made some terrible appointments. He's also made some good ones that are attacked for no reason other than their party affiliation. Roberts and Bolton are two that come to mind.
Roberts was imminently qualified for his appointment by most accounts. It was even grudgingly admitted that Bolton had done a good job.
I won't play the "what if" game. There are probably always better alternatives and it goes for both parties. If the dems had provided better alternatives, the whole game might be a moot point.

I am at least glad you have made some of the admissions you have. Again, I tried to compare Republicans to Republicans and my critizism has been of the man himself and you do agree the appointments he has made are problematic (way more than the last two Republican presidents). I am not so blind to not understand that we are very lucky to have GHWB in office at the time of the First Gulf War, he took all the right steps. But that is one example, there are other examples of Republican presidents doing the right thing at the right time and that is in sharp contrast to our current person in the White House.

bluedog · #14 (**permalink**) 07-02-2007, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

Please tell who was to write the report?

Its not writing the report that concerns me....it is the process....why not have a panel of "private sector" members....of course all qualified....to be able to request information under the freedom of information act of the 70s....and see "exactly" what led up to this happenstance on 9/11....it was obvious to all that many on that panel were placed there from both parties....just for misdirection and mis-information...as all the facts where not presented....some were in fact held back or not even allowed to be considered. BD

cat's meow · #15 (**permalink**) 07-02-2007, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluedog

Its not writing the report that concerns me....it is the process....why not have a panel of "private sector" members....of course all qualified....to be able to request information under the freedom of information act of the 70s....and see "exactly" what led up to this happenstance on 9/11....it was obvious to all that many on that panel were placed there from both parties....just for misdirection and mis-information...as all the facts where not presented....some were in fact held back or not even allowed to be considered. BD

Honestly, I consider it Monday Morning Armchair QBing as much as people do this with the Warren Commission report; there is no difference. The Warren Commission report continues to be definitive to this day with JFK and I think history will tell us the 9/11 reports will be the most definitive for that incident. Two interviews with Stephen Breyer and Sandra Day O' Connor helped with this (for me) a lot lately. They both said that many, many people to included people (clerks) from the Supreme Court were assigned to help with is stuff and they found nothing beyond what is in the reports. They said there is a good bit of speculation and conspiracy theory that is out there and they really tried to go after it and answer any questions. They also said the conspiracy information is far better (continually) publicized/pushed and that is why people continue to believe the stuff.