Maybe it should be "Bill 'Strawman' Pathetic"?

Post #39,820 by Brandioch 5/24/02 12:24:07 PM Reply	Maybe it should be "Bill 'Strawman' Pathetic"? Brandioch claimed the former administration never issued non-specific warnings. Now, shall we take a look at what I ACTUALLY posted? [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=39647\|So why cut off the drone ops?] Yet I don't recall many (any?) announcements during his terms about how there may be unspecified attacks. So, Bill "Strawman" Pathetic claims that I said Clinton NEVER issued non-specific warnings. When what I actually posted was that I didn't RECALL any issued. Now, this is the reason why LINKS and REFERENCES are so important to a discussion. Well, they're important unless you prefer to use strawmen and lies as your only means of "discussion".
Post #39,838 by Simon_Jester 5/24/02 2:26:12 PM Reply	However, Brandioch... regardless of whether you remembered Clinton's warnings or not, the fact is that he made them. How this is supposed to strengthen BePatient's case is beyond me, however. I suppose that BePatient feels that this somehow confirms that this entire issue is political in nature and therefore can be discounted. But...does it matter that it's politically driven? It certainly isn't the first time a President has had to deal with issue backed by politics. Egads, more than half of Clinton's issues were politically driven. Presidents are expected to be able to deal with it. And...just because an issue is political in nature...does that mean it's unimportant?
Post #39,843 by Brandioch 5/24/02 3:01:48 PM Reply	Yup. However, Brandioch... regardless of whether you remembered Clinton's warnings or not, the fact is that he made them. Yep. And I didn't say he didn't make them. Just that I didn't recall them. The reason I stated it in that fashion is that I did not KNOW that he hadn't made them. How this is supposed to strengthen BePatient's case is beyond me, however. Simple. It proves that Clinton did it first. And that I don't recall every event. But Clinton did it first. But...does it matter that it's politically driven? Yes. I think it does. If it is political in origin, the solution will tend to be political also. Not that it must end that way. An example is the political investigation of Whitewater that resulted in an essay about oral sex. ON THE OTHER HAND, the cover-up could be political in origin and the investigation would be non-political EXCEPT that one side would refuse to support it so it would APPEAR to be political. whew And...just because an issue is political in nature...does that mean it's unimportant? :) Actually, I think ALL the issues a President has to deal with are political (to a degree). He has to keep the factions somewhat happy while taxing people to pay for programs that not everyone will support. The key (and what I think you meant by "political") is whether an issue is being used SOLELY (or almost solely) to gain political capital or to reduce your opponent's political capital. When it is phrased in THOSE terms, having Congress investigate WHY there was a failure (and propose solutions for the problem) would NOT be "political". -BUT- If the WHY turns out to be (as I have said before) that Bush was incompetant and SOFT on terrorism, THAT FINDING could be used in political capital games. So, you have a political blocking of a non-political investigation because the party blocking the investigation believes that the findings could be used against them in political maneuvers. Hmmm, sounds like business-as-usual in D.C., eh?

Welcome to IWETHEY!