why the right wing base hates Obama so much they are willing to lie nonstop about him

[Guns Guns Guns]

Are you saying you can't comprehend?

Did I miss your replies? Point them out to me.

Why didn't you answer my questions, is it because you are a hypocrite?

Is it?

 

[Damocles]

Did I miss your replies? Point them out to me.

Twice I pointed out that the story is wholly predicated on what they say "could" happen but has never been suggested, are you saying you are incapable of understanding?

Is it?

By what measure do you think others may see it otherwise?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Twice I pointed out that the story is wholly predicated on what they say "could" happen but has never been suggested, are you saying you are incapable of understanding?

Maybe the part I'm missing was your evidence that the story was "made up". Where's that?

By what measure do you think others may see it otherwise?

You expect me to speak for "others"?

 

[Damocles]

The Italian cruise ship captain analogy?

Seriously?

Was Bush "like an Italian captain" because 9/11 happened on his watch?

Did Bush blame the attacks on a movie?

Did Bush take responsibility for "ignoring" requests for heightened airport security?

Let's see what you know...

Was there requests for more security at airports to Bush and was the Federal government responsible for security at airports before TSA became a reality on November 19th, 2001?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Did Bush blame the attacks on a movie?

Was there requests for more security at airports to Bush and was the Federal government responsible for security at airports before TSA became a reality on November 19th, 2001?Let's see what you know...

I know that you should have said "were" rather than "was", for a start.

I know that in the USA, passenger screening pre-9/11 was "privatized", just the way conservatives like things.

I know that the private enterprise screening companies were under the supervision of the FAA, which according to you, means Bush, since in your world, 'the buck stops here'... at least when the desk is occupied by a Democrat.

Here's some happy reading for you:


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13203-2005Feb10.html

 

[Damocles]

I know that you should have said "were" rather than "was", for a start.

True. Nicely pedantic!

I know that in the USA, passenger screening pre-9/11 was "privatized", just the way conservatives like things.

Then why did Bush sign the legislation?

I know that the private enterprise screening companies were under the supervision of the FAA, which according to you, means Bush, since in your world, 'the buck stops here'... at least when the desk is occupied by a Democrat.

Which regulation do you think he could have put in place that would have created more security at the airports in just over one month?

Here's some happy reading for you:


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13203-2005Feb10.html

Can you point out in either of these stories where the FAA asked for more security agents at the airports or is your attempt at analogy falling apart?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

True. Nicely pedantic!

I noticed you seemed a mite pedantic with Kenneth recently. Nice to see you're human.

Then why did Bush sign the legislation?

You claim to be the Bush critic. Don't you know?

Which regulation do you think he could have put in place that would have created more security at the airports in just over one month?

Perhaps "no box cutters"?

Can you point out in either of these stories where the FAA asked for more security agents at the airports or is your attempt at analogy falling apart?

Are you incapable of comprehension, or is your selective assignment of responsibility to presidents falling apart?

 

[Damocles]

I noticed you seemed a mite pedantic with Kenneth recently. Nice to see you're human.

Only when it is funny, and includes a nice joke too...

You claim to be the Bush critic. Don't you know?

So, you can't find one instance?

Perhaps "no box cutters"?

Was there something in the reports about box cutters or are you just making stuff up again?

Are you incapable of comprehension, or is your selective assignment of responsibility to presidents falling apart?

Not at all... So you are telling me you are incapable of finding one instance where the FAA asked for more security agents in the airports?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Only when it is funny, and includes a nice joke too...

Of course, you get to decide when those two conditions exist, don't you?

So, you can't find one instance?

I found 52, according to the links I provided. Didn't read them, did you?

[/QUOTE]Was there something in the reports about box cutters or are you just making stuff up again?[/QUOTE]

Again? Link up to a post where you've proven was "just making stuff up again".

The reports cited security concerns about the performance of private passenger screening firms, as you'd know if you'd read the linked article.

Bush's FAA ignored them (if the FDA is Obama's now, the FAA was Bush's then, right?), and the 9/11 terrorists used box cutters to take over three flights with historically tragic results.

Bush also ignored a classified report that Osama was planning an imminent attack.

What was that about comprehension issues?

Not at all... So you are telling me you are incapable of finding one instance where the FAA asked for more security agents in the airports?

Am I?

 

[Damocles]

Of course, you get to decide when those two conditions exist, don't you?

It is my post, so yes. How could you be that confused about who decides what somebody posts about?

I found 52, according to the links I provided. Didn't read them, did you?

Read the links, neither was a request for more agents at the air ports, are you capable of being honest enough to admit that or is this that reading comprehension thing spreading to different areas of your life?

Was there something in the reports about box cutters or are you just making stuff up again?

Again? Link up to a post where you've proven was "just making stuff up again".

So you admit you are making stuff up this time, but can't remember any other time I've said this today?

The reports cited security concerns about the performance of private passenger screening firms, as you'd know if you'd read the linked article.

So, you are saying that there was nothing in there that would have told him it would be a good idea to add box cutters to the list of things that cannot be brought on a plane?

Bush's FAA ignored them (if the FDA is Obama's now, the FAA was Bush's then, right?), and the 9/11 terrorists used box cutters to take over three flights with historically tragic results.

Had his appointees been actually voted on by the Senate yet? It may not have been "his" yet. It took until August 20th to get the Congress to vote on all of his appointees. Unlike Obama, who has had his appointees in place for well over three years now...

Although I would say it was still Bush's responsibility, like a captain that has just taken over a ship, can you relate a realistic idea of what regulation you think he could have put in place from the time of August 6th when you have already read the process taken to add new regulations? So far your suggestion was "no box cutters" but could not provide one story that noted anything warning about box cutters and avoided my question on that didn't you?

Bush also ignored a classified report that Osama was planning an imminent attack.

Evidence and meetings of principals scheduled on his calendar (one September 4th and the next on the 12th) to discuss and act on warnings from Richard Clarke speak to the reality that Bush didn't ignore the warnings, don't they? Considering the same recommendations that they were working on getting into effect were presented to the previous President 2 years before that but punted on to the next President as he didn't have enough time it seems that Bush was working at near break-neck speed, don't you think?

What was that about comprehension issues?

So you really are saying you cannot comprehend what you read rather than are just pretending?

Am I?

Are you, in fact, incapable of presenting one time where the FAA asked then President Bush for more security agents in the airports?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

It is my post, so yes. How could you be that confused about who decides what somebody posts about?

Who's confused? I just wanted you to admit it. You did.

Read the links, neither was a request for more agents at the air ports, are you capable of being honest enough to admit that or is this that reading comprehension thing spreading to different areas of your life?

Who said there was "a request for more agents at the air ports"?

So you admit you are making stuff up this time, but can't remember any other time I've said this today?

Am I?

And I notice you didn't link up to any of my posts where you supposedly proved I was "making stuff up".

Can you?

So, you are saying that there was nothing in there that would have told him it would be a good idea to add box cutters to the list of things that cannot be brought on a plane?

Am I?

Had his appointees been actually voted on by the Senate yet?

You don't know? I thought you said you waited for information. How much time do you need?

It may not have been "his" yet. It took until August 20th to get the Congress to vote on all of his appointees. Unlike Obama, who has had his appointees in place for well over three years now...

So you're excusing Bush from acting on the reports he got on the grounds that his appointees hadn't been voted on?

Although I would say it was still Bush's responsibility, like a captain that has just taken over a ship, can you relate a realistic idea of what regulation you think he could have put in place from the time of August 6th when you have already read the process taken to add new regulations? So far your suggestion was "no box cutters" but could not provide one story that noted anything warning about box cutters and avoided my question on that didn't you?

My suggestion and the reports the FAA and Bush failed to act on are two different things.

Evidence and meetings of principals scheduled on his calendar (one September 4th and the next on the 12th) to discuss and act on warnings from Richard Clarke speak to the reality that Bush didn't ignore the warnings, don't they? Considering the same recommendations that they were working on getting into effect were presented to the previous President 2 years before that but punted on to the next President as he didn't have enough time it seems that Bush was working at near break-neck speed, don't you think?

LOL, so Bush gets a pass for all the casualties , but Obama is to blame for the meningitis outbreak caused by compounding pharmacies which are largely unregulated by the FDA?

So you really are saying you cannot comprehend what you read rather than are just pretending?

I confess I'm having difficulty with that particular statement. How many beers did you drink today?

Are you, in fact, incapable of presenting one time where the FAA asked then President Bush for more security agents in the airports?

I am capable of citing a report that the FAA got 52 security warnings while Bush was president, before 9/11.

 

[Damocles]

Who's confused? I just wanted you to admit it. You did.



Who said there was "a request for more agents at the air ports"?

Somebody here, named Charlie Brown Shirt, brought up the FAA security as analogous to the Libyan Consulate who did consistently ask for more security according to testimony before Congress, it seems logical that you were implying that they had requested more agents like the Consulate doesn't it?

Am I?

I was asking, is that indeed what you are saying?

And I notice you didn't link up to any of my posts where you supposedly proved I was "making stuff up".

Can you?

I'm happy with you actually admitting to it in the one post, and although you pretend you can't remember it being said in the other thread I'm good enough with one instance of you admitting you are just making up nonsense. Thanks.

You don't know? I thought you said you waited for information. How much time do you need?

How much time do you need to provide it?

So you're excusing Bush from acting on the reports he got on the grounds that his appointees hadn't been voted on?

No, I am pointing out that acting on suggestions from Clarke made on August 6th by September 4th is amazing speed compared to when the same suggestions were made to the previous President two years before but he pushed them to the next President saying there wasn't enough time to enact them, don't you think that less than a month is faster than two years?

My suggestion and the reports the FAA and Bush failed to act on are two different things.

And my questions are on two different things.

LOL, so Bush gets a pass for all the casualties , but Obama is to blame for the meningitis outbreak caused by compounding pharmacies which are largely unregulated by the FDA?

No, Bush gets some kudos for being able to act on something in less than a month that was too difficult for the previous President to do in two years.

I confess I'm having difficulty with that particular statement. How many beers did you drink today?

No beer, I don't drink, haven't in a while. Although I am concerned, previously I thought you only pretended that nothing could pass a thick skull, but now I'm thinking that there really may be a problem, are you saying you cannot comprehend what you read rather than just pretending you cannot comprehend?

I am capable of citing a report that the FAA got 52 security warnings while Bush was president, before 9/11.

But you are clearly incapable of citing a single one that stated that regulating box cutters would make a difference (it wouldn't have, they would have simply used something else) or asked for more security agents, which you suggested was analogous to ignoring requests for security at a consulate that the current Administration pretends were never asked for.

Which of the 52 security warnings cited specific information that they could have acted on if Bush had just regulated them more? Are you saying that the FAA ignored those warnings? Which agency provided those warnings to the FAA, and under which branch are they? (I'll give you a hint, it's an agency)...

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Somebody here, named Charlie Brown Shirt, brought up the FAA security as analogous to the Libyan Consulate who did consistently ask for more security according to testimony before Congress, it seems logical that you were implying that they had requested more agents like the Consulate doesn't it?

Doesn't "seem logical" to me. I don't know of anyone named "Charlie Brown Shirt". Are they in the member list?

Bush's FAA got 52 warnings before 9/11. How many did Obama's State Department get? Cite some evidence, like I did.

I was asking, is that indeed what you are saying?

And you claim that I have comprehension issues? Awesome.

I'm happy with you actually admitting to it in the one post, and although you pretend you can't remember it being said in the other thread I'm good enough with one instance of you admitting you are just making up nonsense. Thanks.

Why are you thanking me? Quote the post where you think I'm "actually admitting to it".

How much time do you need to provide it?

Want me to post the link again?

No, I am pointing out that acting on suggestions from Clarke made on August 6th by September 4th is amazing speed compared to when the same suggestions were made to the previous President two years before but he pushed them to the next President saying there wasn't enough time to enact them, don't you think that less than a month is faster than two years?

So Bush acted on the 52 warnings the FAA got prior to 9/11?

And my questions are on two different things.

I gave you two answers, so you can stop pretending I said the reports mentioned box cutters.

No, Bush gets some kudos for being able to act on something in less than a month that was too difficult for the previous President to do in two years.

His prompt action sure saved a lot of lives, didn't it? Oh, wait....

BTW, is this an example of your harsh criticism of Bush? Just wondering.

No beer, I don't drink, haven't in a while. Although I am concerned, previously I thought you only pretended that nothing could pass a thick skull, but now I'm thinking that there really may be a problem, are you saying you cannot comprehend what you read rather than just pretending you cannot comprehend?

No, why would you think I said that?

But you are clearly incapable of citing a single one that stated that regulating box cutters would make a difference (it wouldn't have, they would have simply used something else) or asked for more security agents, which you suggested was analogous to ignoring requests for security at a consulate that the current Administration pretends were never asked for.

Why pretend I said the reports concerned box cutters, when we both know I did not?

Which of the 52 security warnings cited specific information that they could have acted on if Bush had just regulated them more? Are you saying that the FAA ignored those warnings? Which agency provided those warnings to the FAA, and under which branch are they? (I'll give you a hint, it's an agency)...

I'll give you a hint.

I don't think Bush could have prevented 9/11 any more than I think Obama could have prevented Libya or the meningitis outbreak.

You're giving Bush a pass and holding Obama to a higher standard.

 

[Damocles]

Doesn't "seem logical" to me. I don't know of anyone named "Charlie Brown Shirt". Are they in the member list?

Bush's FAA got 52 warnings before 9/11. How many did Obama's State Department get? Cite some evidence, like I did.



And you claim that I have comprehension issues? Awesome.

LOL. Awesome, Charlie Brown Shirt ( (/\/\/\/\/\/\/\) ), indeed I do think you have comprehension issues...

You provide links to warnings to the FAA from another agency (also under that same branch) and ask why Bush didn't act on them, that was the "act"... It's like calling up the police and saying that MS-13 is planning something soon in Denver then saying you didn't "act" on the information.

That is one circular argument that shows a decided ignorance of who is responsible for what portion of our government.

Why are you thanking me? Quote the post where you think I'm "actually admitting to it".

I did when I thanked you and said, "finally you are admitting it"... Seriously, this constant "quote the post" crap is just an attempt at distraction.

Want me to post the link again?

It is a waste of time, the link is worthless, the FAA received warnings from agencies under the same branch of government, it actually was one of the few things Bush's admin had actually done acting on information from those agencies.

So Bush acted on the 52 warnings the FAA got prior to 9/11?

Again the warnings the FAA got were provided by one of the agencies under his purview (remember agencies are part of the executive branch, link provided in the other thread). He didn't act, he was responsible for the agency that provided the warnings... Are you saying that the FAA didn't act? I believe that they did, they just didn't know from where the attack was coming.

I gave you two answers, so you can stop pretending I said the reports mentioned box cutters.

It was again the only suggestion you had of regulation that would have solved this, since your point was that "less regulation" is the cause of the problems it seems to suggest you would have an idea of what regulations would have stopped it. I am not "pretending", it was literally the only thing you came up with, my question is how would he have known to begin to suggest such regulation without such a suggestion or request?

His prompt action sure saved a lot of lives, didn't it? Oh, wait....

BTW, is this an example of your harsh criticism of Bush? Just wondering.

No, my criticism of Bush is in his stupid Pill Bill, two unfunded and undeclared nation-building wars that he promised never to start, his overspending like a drunken Democrat, his stupid attack on Iraq which destabilized the region... My criticism of Bush doesn't include that he wasn't fast enough implementing Richard Clarke's ideas, especially considering that he was in office 8 months and was working to implement ideas that were too onerous for the previous President to do in 2 years.

Basically, you picked one of the rare areas that I think Bush did a decent job, even with the attacks that came.

No, why would you think I said that?

I am asking you which it is, do you in fact not comprehend what you read or do you just pretend you don't comprehend what you read?

Why pretend I said the reports concerned box cutters, when we both know I did not?

Because it was the one regulatory solution you provided in this thread.

I'll give you a hint.

I don't think Bush could have prevented 9/11 any more than I think Obama could have prevented Libya or the meningitis outbreak.

You're giving Bush a pass and holding Obama to a higher standard.

You are conflating two different things. A report sent to the FAA from another agency saying "something could happen, be careful" is not the same thing as a direct request for something that was refused.

I'll try some analogies for you: If I'm at work and I ask my manager for access to a certain application so that I can do my job but he doesn't give me the access should it be relevant that I cannot then do my job properly?

Then:

If my boss tells me to watch out for something coming, but doesn't tell me what it is, is it the same thing as when I requested access to an application I needed to do my job?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

So Obama is to blame, but Bush gets a pass.

Like I said.

 

[Damocles]

So Obama is to blame, but Bush gets a pass.

Like I said.

Again, incorrect, and yet another sign that you either refuse or are incapable of understanding what you read.

If the State department under Bush refused to send security to a consulate that was requesting it for good reason they too would have blame and I absolutely would speak out, just as I did against them not getting a declaration for Afghanistan and starting another undeclared mess in Iraq at the same time.

You simply picked something that Bush hadn't received my ire over, much like I don't go after Obama for things that he's done that I think are good (such as letting gay people openly serve in the military, or supporting gay marriage).

This is a case where the Administration didn't do something, then tried to deflect responsibility from themselves when they are where the buck stops in this case. Had this been Bush the left would be on this like white on rice, and they'd have me with them.

Do I know that more security would have solved it? No, but I do know that refusing it was incomprehensible and trying to pass the buck is unforgivable.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Do I know that more security would have solved it? No, but I do know that refusing it was incomprehensible and trying to pass the buck is unforgivable.

Who was guilty of "refusing it"?

 

[Damocles]

Who was guilty of "refusing it"?

Good question. I'd also add... Where does the buck stop? Take responsibility, lead, act and ensure it never happens again, stop trying to find a scapegoat first then obfuscate and confuse things by blaming causes that have nothing to do with it... It is unconscionable that the mother of the State Dept. official in Benghazi has yet to get the information promised as to the how and why of this...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ation--won-t-tell-died.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Good question. I'd also add... Where does the buck stop? Take responsibility, lead, act and ensure it never happens again, stop trying to find a scapegoat first then obfuscate and confuse things by blaming causes that have nothing to do with it... It is unconscionable that the mother of the State Dept. official in Benghazi has yet to get the information promised as to the how and why of this...

His name was Sean Smith.

The other men killed were J. Christopher Stevens, Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

BTW, I'm sure you criticized the Bush administration severely for the Pat Tillman debacle....right?

 

[Damocles]

His name was Sean Smith.

The other men killed were J. Christopher Stevens, Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

BTW, I'm sure you criticized the Bush administration severely for the Pat Tillman debacle....right?

Yup. And for that stupid crap following the woman soldier taken captive in Iraq.