Wow. Not only did you not see this for the BS it is, but you actually think it's brilliant? Amazing...
Quote:
The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama bin Laden before 9/11.
The Bush administration had 8 months. By the time they got there OBL was already hiding out in Afghanistan and protected by the Taliban.
Quote:
The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors.
Ignored? What evidence? The same evidence was available during the Clinton administration. In fact, the decisions as to what to do with those pieces of evidence were made during his administration. It's not like the FBI and CIA were handling "evidence" about OBL as top priority before Bush took office and suddenly stopped when he arrived.
Quote:
The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."
They understood it perfectly. There wasn't enough information there to take any sort of action though. Saying "There might be an attack and it might involve planes" is not exactly actionable. As opposed to, say... "Hey! There's OBL right there in Sudan for anyone to deal with as they wish...".
Quote:
The Bush Administration did not try.
Didn't try what? Run around like chickens with their heads chopped off because there was some guy that Clinton mentioned a whole bunch but didn't apparently take very seriously (not enough to even mention him in the security report his administration passed on to the Bush administration) wandering around somewhere and he might do something someday? Um... What were they supposed to do?
Quote:
Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks, the current administration, and in particular the President, has been given the greatest “pass†for incompetence and malfeasance in American history!
Ok. Let's measure incompetance. Clinton ignored the WTC bombing, treating it as a purely criminal matter even after it became apparent that it was part of a broader series of attacks. He ignored the attack in Saudi Arabia, even after OBL took credit for it and told him that it was aimed at the US and part of an attack on the US. He reacted to embassy bombings in Africa by dropping a handful of bombs nowhere near where OBL was. He failed to pursue the matter *at all* after that point. When the US Cole was hit, he did nothing because apparently, despite OBL telling him in two fatwas that he was behind all of these attacks and that his organization would keep attacking him, the CIA and FBI didn't certify that he was involved in anything against the US? Huh!?
Clinton put no boots on the ground in Afghanistan. He expended zero effort to gain any intelligence in the country or even in the region. What little effort was spent was not continued in any actual effort to take out OBL (despite what Clinton claims). Clinton apparently prefered using airstrikes on large targets rather then actually going after OBL himself. I can only assume because he wouldn't have been able to put images of a predator drone taking out OBL in a precise strike on the evening news and using it for media manipulation. Big airstrikes on buildings make for great news though...
That's not incompetance, but apparently, coming into office at the tail end of all of this, and failing to completely change the approach to OBL and prevent attacks which had already been planned and were already in operation prior to Bush taking office is "incompetance".
Wow. Biased a bit? Yeah. I think so...
Quote:
President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs—some of them, 17 years old—before Pearl Harbor.
President Roosevelt was in office for the entire time period that these warnings arose. I'm pretty sure that if all those warning signs appeared between 1935 and 1940, and he took office in 1941, most people would have blamed the previous administration and not him.
Quote:
President Hoover was correctly blamed for—if not the Great Depression itself—then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the Stock Market Crash.
Sure. Because they were decisions he made in reaction to an event that occured while he was in office. Again. Had the crash and poor economic decisions occured before he was in office, he would not be blamed for the economic problems experienced after the fact.
Quote:
Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War—though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.
But not this president.
Of course. Because he choose to engage in warfare to resolve the situation. You can't blame him for the secession attempt, but you can blame him for the war itself. He could have chosen differently. He didn't. Bush didn't make any decision that caused 9/11 to happen. That attack was already in progress before he took office.
Quote:
To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been president on September 11th, 2001 -- or the nearly eight months that preceded it.
Or the 8 years before that? Hehe.
Look. While you can certainly place some blame on Bush for not preventing 9/11 (it did happen on his watch so to speak), you absolutely must place the blame on Clinton for the attack happening in the first place. When he took office, OBL was not planning any attacks against the US. When he took office, Al-qaeda was still relatively inactive. When the time frame for Iraq to comply with the terms of the cease fire agreement came and went (during Clinton's first year in office), Clinton made the decision to keep giving Iraq more time and too keep troops in Saudi Arabia to enforce the inspections and no-fly zones. That decision was the triggering point that led OBL to activate Al-qaeda and turn it towards the US. Period.
The 9/11 attack occured 100% as the result of Clinton's foreign policy. That's just an inescapable historical fact. OBL had no plans to attack the US prior to Clinton taking office. As a direct result of Clinton's decisions, he conducted a "war" against the US, which resulted in a series of increasingly violent attacks, culminating in the 9/11 attacks. Clinton must bear the brunt of the responsiblity for that attack as a result.
Again. You can blame Bush for not preventing the attack, but he would not have needed to if Clinton hadn't screwed up his foreign policy so badly.
nice 