Gingrich video: Bush should have allowed some 'reminder' attacks

[Larry]

9-11 did happen 5 months after GW took office, If you have any idea how slow the government works, GW's national security policy at that time was left over from the Clinton years.

Uh,

1) Bush took office in Feb. 9/11 was in Sept (duh). 9-2=7.

Granted, W was on vacation for two of those months. That may be what's confusing you.

2) Most Presidents actually start working on things like their policies before they get sworn in. That way they can get started right away.

For example, by the time 9/11 happened, W had had time to disband the unit at CIA that was charged with keeping track of OBL. And he'd set up his special intel office in the Pentagon, who's job was to grab any incoming intel about Iraq, and send it directly to Bush (so that Bush could bypass those irritating people at CIA who examine incoming intel, and see if it's bogus or not before sending it along.)

Although it is true that in August, when the CIA was saying that "Ossamma determined to strike within the US", and when the FBI was getting reports about Arabic men taking pilot training, but who didn't want to learn how to land, that during that entire month Bush was too busy (at the ranch) to meet once with his National Security Adviser, or with the head of CIA or FBI.

[Larry]

Dude, I suck, absolutely suck with dates. When interviewed, I even said remembering dates is one of my biggest weakness. I am not sure why, but I have a hard with dates. Hell I got one of my sisters b-days mixed with my moms once even though they are 2 days apart. I have four older sisters and I still get thier birtdays mixed up. Hell I have even worked at innaugural balls in downtown, you would think I should know. For some reason I was thinking it was late Febrary.

Shoot me.

I forgot my Father's birthday once.

My Father and I were born on the same day.

[GoSkins561]

I forgot my Father's birthday once.

My Father and I were born on the same day.

:laugh:

I am sure if I focused on dates, I could figure them out. I am not worried about dates what so ever. I am surrounded by people who are constantly planning stuff/dates etc, they drive me nuts.

[DCsportsfan53]

1. No, he isn't.

2. Ummmm, his reply will include something about a straw man, not knowing what you're talking about, republicans being evil, democrats being good, and generally dodging and wiggling his way out of the accusation, unscathed in his mind.

I agree with the thinking dividing the country. It's silly for both sides to think that it has to be their way or the highway. Thats not how things get negotiated, thats not how things get accomplished and thats an illogical and ignorant way of looking at things.

Saddest thing is that the divide in this country is being split further and further apart, no one wants to work together to make things right. No one is willing to concede anything on any level.

I agree. Was politics always this bad? I don't understand how people are so obstinate. It's one thing to have strong beliefs and principles, everyone should. At the same time, everyone should be able to understand that doesn't make them the end all be all and that compromise is a good thing. It's really like politics has turned into a sport. The only thing that matters is winning. Not the people, not the country, the most important thing is for things to happen YOUR way and to demonize the other side. Oh, and to find bull**** ways to layoff blame, never accepting any responsibility. It's sad, really, and is a huge obstacle to getting anything accomplished. The onus is on the next President, in a big way, no matter who he/she (..... :laugh: ) is to bridge some gaps and make some concessions. To me, that's one of the most important things to look at when deciding who will be the next President, who you're going to vote for. Not so much the party or principles, will that person finally be someone who can cut through the posturing, propaganda and bull**** and actually work towards solutions with the other side of the aisle?

Attitudes like the one that launched this thread, from either side, only serve to mire us down and hold everyone back. I'm ****ing tired of party fanboys. :2cents:

[Smoot Point Really]

I might add that if Obama had said something as prone to misconstruction as this, Rush Hannity and the rest of the attack dogs would not let up for months, years. But that would be bull :pooh: also.

Yes, but Gaffeman gives us plenty of material to work with... Mount Gingrich only erupts only about once every year.

[Larry]

I might add that if Obama had said something as prone to misconstruction as this, Rush Hannity and the rest of the attack dogs would not let up for months, years. But that would be bull :pooh: also.

I'd change that to "If a substitute teacher who was filling in for Obama's second-grade teacher . . . "

[Predicto]

Yes, but Gaffeman gives us plenty of material to work with... Mount Gingrich only erupts only about once every year.

That's only because you interpret every single thing that Obama (or anyone near him) says in the most hysterically negative light possible.

Witness the recent hysteria over the Auschwitz-Buchenwald comment, or the suggestion that he was a hypocrite for encouraging college graduates to enter public service, or his misspeaking about how many states are in the US. You call all of those major gaffes, but every single one of them is totall bull :pooh: and you know it and you don't care because to you, a mountain of bull :pooh: is effective propaganda for influencing the weaker minded voters (and posters on ES).

Truth is, this complaint about Gingrich is not very substative to me, but at least we liberals don't have an army of guys like Rush and Hannity and the rest making up new bull :pooh: "concerns" every single day.