Its fucking absurd. The crap that makes the headlines. The shit that we're fed. The shit we focus on is all shit.

I don't like any of these motherfuckers right now. They all suck. BO isn't ready, he keeps fucking up and truthfully, I'm not sure he does know the details about his health plan and all that other shit. He's fucking green.

Hillary if a fucking lying cunt. She's a fucking bitch and isn't worth 2 squirts of piss and she's actually in the running to be prez. Its fucking absurd.

McCain is fucking retread of retreads. Older than fucking dirt and can't give a speach (inspire) anyone to save his ass.

And to watch the 2 dems last night pandering to the fucking religious peeps for votes was laughable. Talk about McCain kissing up. That was plain fucking uncomfortable to watch.

And another thing... Every time somone fucks up, the next person throws all this fucked rationale bullshit that doesn't mean shit. Its a crock of fucking shit. These fuckers none of these fuckers are worth a shit. They all suck.

This is the best we have to choose from?

All these lil misteps by a candidate is all we focus on cuz thats all the fucking piece of shit media gives us.

Hillary, BO and JM should have to get white boards and do a show and tell on why their health plan is the best without all the stupid fucking insults and shit. And do the same for the fucking economy and what the fuck their going to do with Iran.

And fucking Iran is going to get nukes when any of these 3 pussies are Prez. So we'll put that on Israel to deal with I guess, cuz none of these 3 women will do anything about it.

Fuckin cocksuckin son of a bitch.

Yes, BO mixes his words up once and a while, but I think he has the best chance at united the people behind him to make change. He also gets much better as he gains experience.

So Tahoe, I hear you've taken a slight interest in the presidential election.

I counted 20.

truthfully, I'm not sure he does know the details about his health plan and all that other shit.
On what do you base this particular remark?

He's not promising as much, so he doesn't have as much to go over. I've seen no concrete evidence suggesting he doesn't get the particulars of his health plan, and much evidence to the contrary. His argument is that, by committing to less, it's more likely to get accepted by the people than an overall mandate, and make it through Congress. It's not "what's best for the American people" but "what the American people are likely to accept given the rules to date", and that's a huge difference. Obama and Hillary have said at various times that if they were starting from scratch, it'd be single-payer.

We have a health care mandate in place today, called seat belts and "buckle up". The history of seat belt mandates should be required reading for anyone who thinks a general mandate is appropriate. Seat belts weren't mandatory in cars until the late '60s, but it took 20 years -- a generation -- for the general use just to START to be mandated, and the quest for seat belt mandates and issues of compliance is still relevant today.


This is the best we have to choose from?
Let's turn this topic into something other than a rant. Pick someone to run that people would know, who you think would be suitable for the Presidency. Most of them are smart enough to not be politicians, or have other fatal flaws. Maybe Big Swami would be a great choice... but God damn him for he is an atheist or Buddhist or some such shit. :) What about Warren Buffet? Too old. What about John McDonough, an uberhealthcare expert? John who? And a Wiggum ticket has obvious problems:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/i/4/simpsons_warpresident.jpg


Hillary, BO and JM should have to get white boards and do a show and tell on why their health plan is the best without all the stupid fucking insults and shit.
Did you vote for Perot, out of curiosity?

EvilTahoe sez...

Why should I name anyfuckingbody? And its not about knowing someone. There are tons of fuckin peeps that aren't household God damn names that could do a better fucking job of running this fucking country then the fuckin thieves that are up there now.

And it isn't about mixing up a fuckin word. he fuckin said it. Thats his fucked up sentiment. Small town peeps cling to guns and religion. Holy fuckin shit. That ainn't gonna get you any fucking votes.

What I'm fucking saying is that his knowledge about the issues is really fuckin shallow. My opinion (however fucked up you think it is) has been formed over lots of speeches and shit. He makes rookie fucking mistakes. He's green. He'll be great in 4 years, but he aint fuckin ready now.

These 3 fuckin douche bag senators are the best this country has to fuckin offer? Jesus Christ..what a fucking mess.

Hmmm, EvilTahoe.

This has potential.

I don't think your opinion is fucked up, Tahoe. I think it's valuable, even when I don't always get where you're coming from. You brought up the health plan thing, so I'd like to hear more.


What I'm fucking saying is that his knowledge about the issues is really fuckin shallow.
On some issues, I'd agree with you. Provide:
1) a specific actual issue (e.g. his health plan, not "does he ask for orange juice or coffee with his breakfast")
2) how Obama specifically got it wrong, and
3) what specifically the right answer is


Why should I name anyfuckingbody?
Because you're the one saying "This is the best we have to choose from?" (or in Evil Tahoe-speak "This is the fuckin best we fuckin have to fuckin choose from?!") Oooh colors!

Provide a real human being's name that's better than the ones we have to choose from, and some idea of why you think they'd be better. Let's see if people agree with your choice, or have better choices. The only reason I specified known people was to make things interesting. If I told you that my brother would make a good president, that'd be a real short conversation since no one here knows anything about my brother.

Tell us about your brother Mxy. Was he an older brother? Did he beat you up a lot as a child? Does your love of politics stem from the fact that you feel they can protect you from brotherly abuse? Would you vote for McCain because he's a war veteran that can kick your brother's ass?

That's the great thing about living in a republic - we don't actually need our elected officials to be geniuses or saints. Truthfully as long as the Constitution is held in high regard, it doesn't matter much who leads us. It's not entirely idiot-proof, but it's close.

That's why the single most important characteristic of who I want my elected officials to be is: do they respect the Constitution in practice? This is the single question that makes me extremely reluctant to support any Republican who has been a Senator or Congressman over the last 8 years. The President has been asking everyone to ignore the Constitution's restrictions on the power of the Presidency, and his party's legislators have enthusiastically jumped on board. They do not respect the Constitution. They would rather have a system where decisive power is concentrated in the hands of a single person. History has been down this path before, and it leads to incoherent chaos.

If you want to say our Senate and House are full of lazy, rich, elitist, self-serving douches, I don't know what to tell you other than "you may be right." But as unpleasant as those people may be, the powers of the Congress MUST be respected no matter what you think of the people who run the place. They are the institution of democracy at work, and they serve to exercise the real wishes of the citizens of the states and districts that elected them, on a scale that a President can only pretend to do.

Tell us about your brother Mxy. Was he an older brother? Did he beat you up a lot as a child? Does your love of politics stem from the fact that you feel they can protect you from brotherly abuse? Would you vote for McCain because he's a war veteran that can kick your brother's ass?
No, not an older brother.

No, he couldn't beat me up while we were growing up.

No, but it's a leading question. I happen to "love" politics this year, in a trainwreck reality TV kinda way, but that's not generally true. The last time I really "loved" politics was 1992, when Perot was running. I've been uppity since 2004 because of Bush suckage, but this year has been different for me.

No, but it's another leading question. I doubt that even a prime 5'7" 130 lb. pre-torture John McCain could kick my brother's ass -- not in a fistfight. And I didn't mention whether or not my brother was a war veteran, did I? :)

That's the great thing about living in a republic - we don't actually need our elected officials to be geniuses or saints. Truthfully as long as the Constitution is held in high regard, it doesn't matter much who leads us. It's not entirely idiot-proof, but it's close.

That's why the single most important characteristic of who I want my elected officials to be is: do they respect the Constitution in practice? This is the single question that makes me extremely reluctant to support any Republican who has been a Senator or Congressman over the last 8 years. The President has been asking everyone to ignore the Constitution's restrictions on the power of the Presidency, and his party's legislators have enthusiastically jumped on board. They do not respect the Constitution. They would rather have a system where decisive power is concentrated in the hands of a single person. History has been down this path before, and it leads to incoherent chaos.

If you want to say our EXECTUTIVE, Senate and House are full of lazy, rich, elitist, self-serving douches, I don't know what to tell you other than "you may be right." But as unpleasant as those people may be, the powers of the Congress MUST be respected no matter what you think of the people who run the place. They are the institution of democracy at work, and they serve to exercise the real wishes of the citizens of the states and districts that elected them, on a scale that a President can only pretend to do.

I don't think your opinion is fucked up, Tahoe. I think it's valuable, even when I don't always get where you're coming from. You brought up the health plan thing, so I'd like to hear more.


On some issues, I'd agree with you. Provide:
1) a specific actual issue (e.g. his health plan, not "does he ask for orange juice or coffee with his breakfast")
2) how Obama specifically got it wrong, and
3) what specifically the right answer is


Because you're the one saying "This is the best we have to choose from?" (or in Evil Tahoe-speak "This is the fuckin best we fuckin have to fuckin choose from?!") Oooh colors!

Provide a real human being's name that's better than the ones we have to choose from, and some idea of why you think they'd be better. Let's see if people agree with your choice, or have better choices. The only reason I specified known people was to make things interesting. If I told you that my brother would make a good president, that'd be a real short conversation since no one here knows anything about my brother.

Well I"m not gonna name anybody. Its my thread, I make the rules. Its my opinion that there are 100,000 better peeps out there than these 3 (I'm not going to name them). But because of this fucked up process that has evolved in our picking a prez, they won't be drafter or will not apply because of it. 99,999 of them we prolly don't know. If you don't get where I'm coming from, so be it. But this isn't about a debate about a single person I name.

I say BO is green. So thats the fucking way it is. I form my opinion way different than you. So I'm not doing things your way. Like I said, its an opinion formed over time, reading, listening, concluding.

I don't think your opinion is fucked up, Tahoe. I think it's valuable, even when I don't always get where you're coming from. You brought up the health plan thing, so I'd like to hear more.


On some issues, I'd agree with you. Provide:
1) a specific actual issue (e.g. his health plan, not "does he ask for orange juice or coffee with his breakfast")
2) how Obama specifically got it wrong, and
3) what specifically the right answer is


Because you're the one saying "This is the best we have to choose from?" (or in Evil Tahoe-speak "This is the fuckin best we fuckin have to fuckin choose from?!") Oooh colors!

Provide a real human being's name that's better than the ones we have to choose from, and some idea of why you think they'd be better. Let's see if people agree with your choice, or have better choices. The only reason I specified known people was to make things interesting. If I told you that my brother would make a good president, that'd be a real short conversation since no one here knows anything about my brother.

Well I"m not gonna name anybody. Its my thread, I make the rules. Its my opinion that there are 100,000 better peeps out there than these 3 (I'm not going to name them). But because of this fucked up process that has evolved in our picking a prez, they won't be drafter or will not apply because of it. 99,999 of them we prolly don't know. If you don't get where I'm coming from, so be it. But this isn't about a debate about a single person I name.

I say BO is green. So thats the fucking way it is. I form my opinion way different than you. So I'm not doing things your way. Like I said, its an opinion formed over time, reading, listening, concluding.

T The President has been asking everyone to ignore the Constitution's restrictions on the power of the Presidency, and his party's legislators have enthusiastically jumped on board. They do not respect the Constitution. They would rather have a system where decisive power is concentrated in the hands of a single person. History has been down this path before, and it leads to incoherent chaos.


Wartime always provides a pretext to gather power under the executive. In the post-9/11 world we have war without end. With anyone. Or no one.

In the past, the draft and the budget served as natural checks which have been negated by a professional military and a national credit card. Now we can have a wartime president every term for a generation.

The two ongoing occupations are going to take at least another term or two to play out and the nebulous "war on terror" will have legs for at least as long as the war on drugs and the war on poverty. With similar results.

And BO not knowing the detail is not alone. I didn't mean to single his green ass out. HIll and JM don't know either.

Clinton knew his shit. He knew details. Before him Nixon knew his shit too. I don't remember that much about Johnson but from what I do he was pretty good too. Some of my Johnson recollection is from tape.

Carter, Reagan, Bush, Bush forget about it.

Wartime always provides a pretext to gather power under the executive. In the post-9/11 world we have war without end. With anyone. Or no one.

In the past, the draft and the budget served as natural checks which have been negated by a professional military and a national credit card. Now we can have a wartime president every term for a generation.

The two ongoing occupations are going to take at least another term or two to play out and the nebulous "war on terror" will have legs for at least as long as the war on drugs and the war on poverty. With similar results.

So you're saying your not going to vote for McCain?

This EvilTahoe fellow is kind of scary.

This EvilTahoe fellow is kind of scary.

You better watch it or I'll get a bunch of my nutjob rightwing peeps to join this site and take over the poli forum. You libs would be running for the hills.

So you're saying your not going to vote for McCain?

I'm saying that neither McCain, Clinton or Obama is going to undo the executive power grab of the last eight years.

Congress will restore its power when it is in a position to take it and they've got nothing to counter the "wartime" trump card.

Sworn to protect and defend. I support everything he did.

You couldn't have illustrated my point better if you'd tried.

Good, glad to help you out.

If he did anything wrong the Dems would impeach him. But these are the types of things that gets you guys all riled up. It makes sure you come out and vote. Keep gobling up those talking points.

FYI, there are a lot of steps between impeachable and infalliable. The current president has landed squarely on incompetent.

Well I"m not gonna name anybody. Its my thread, I make the rules. Its my opinion that there are 100,000 better peeps out there than these 3 (I'm not going to name them).
Out of 300 million people, that's ~.03%. That's not really "common man" governance. That's what I was getting at. Someone who has enough aptitude to be President is usually smart/wise enough to not want the job. There's usually some other interest that drives them, even before you consider the fucked up process to get to where you're in the running.


But because of this fucked up process that has evolved in our picking a prez, they won't be drafter or will not apply because of it. 99,999 of them we prolly don't know. If you don't get where I'm coming from, so be it. But this isn't about a debate about a single person I name.
I get where you're coming from.

sN_h9bWZuuk

After eight years of a C student forrest gumping his way through the presidency, I'm more than ready for someone uncommon.

This is a really good article, from the Washington Post editorial page.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/14/AR2008041402449.html?nav=rss_opinions/columnsandblogs?nav=slate


Shot and a Chablis
by Eugene Robinson

Hillary "Shot-and-a-Beer" Clinton has given us the perfect illustration of what's so insane about American politics: the philosophical dictum that could be summed up (with apologies to Descartes) as "I seem, therefore I am."

Clinton spent the weekend bashing Barack Obama for not seeming to be enough of a regular guy -- not for any actual deficit of regular-guyness, mind you, but for giving the impression that such a deficit might exist.

The former first lady, whose family has made $109 million since her husband left the White House, then made a show of demonstrating that she's actually just a regular gal. The point wasn't really to convince anyone that she, Bill and Chelsea commute between their two lavish mansions in a five-year-old Ford F-150 pickup with a gun rack and a "Jesus Rocks!" bumper sticker. Her aim was to prove to the nation -- or at least to Democratic primary voters in Pennsylvania and Indiana -- that she's better at feigning regularness than Obama.

This is how we pick a president?

This whole sideshow began when Obama committed what she portrayed as the apparently unforgivable sin of trying to describe the resentment felt by some working-class Americans, venturing that "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

This seemed "elitist . . . and, frankly, patronizing," Clinton charged. Never mind whether it actually was elitist, patronizing or, for that matter, inaccurate. No, the eagle-eyed Clinton took dead aim at a different target: the impression Obama might have given.

As if to show her opponent how it ought to be done, Clinton -- a longtime advocate of gun control laws -- spoke of her lifelong reverence for the Second Amendment. "You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl," she said. "Some people have continued to teach their children and their grandchildren. It's part of culture, it's part of a way of life."

Clinton also made a point of telling audiences about her deep religious faith. The topper -- or the chaser -- came at Bronko's Restaurant and Lounge in Crown Point, Ind., where Clinton threw back a shot of Crown Royal whiskey and followed it with a beer.

Clinton bristled, though, when a reporter had the temerity to ask at a news conference when she last attended church or fired a gun. "That is not a relevant question for this debate," she said. "We can answer that some other time. This is about what people feel is being said about them. I went to church on Easter. I mean, so?"

Um, so the issue isn't whether you regularly sit in a church pew or even occasionally go hunting, but whether you can manage to seem like the sort of person who does? I think I need a shot and a beer, too. Just give me whatever the lady's drinking.

Obama has apologized for using the word "bitter" to describe some frustrated voters, but managed to have a bit of fun with Clinton's new persona. "She's talking like she's Annie Oakley," he said, adding that she gives the impression of spending every Sunday in a duck blind.

But I think Clinton is serious at some level. She argued Sunday night that Democratic candidates Al Gore and John Kerry lost because they seemed elitist -- not because they actually were, but because they seemed to be. In reality, she said, they were "good men, and men of faith." So is Obama, she allowed. But they didn't measure up in the seeming department.

As you've guessed, I have a couple of problems with Clinton's seeming-is-being theory of campaigning for the nation's highest elective office. First, given the urgency and complexity of the problems the next president will face, who's going to think it's a good idea to elect Joe or Josephine Sixpack? I realize that Gore was deemed inferior to George W. Bush on the "Who would you rather have a near beer with?" question, but the 2000 election took place at a time of peace and prosperity. Oh, and Gore did win the popular vote.

Here's my other problem: Clinton's argument assumes that "regular" is a synonym for "unsophisticated" -- that to communicate with voters who have not attained a certain income or education level, a candidate has to put on an elaborate disguise and speak in words of one syllable.

So tell me: Who's being patronizing?

Out of 300 million people, that's ~.03%. That's not really "common man" governance. That's what I was getting at. Someone who has enough aptitude to be President is usually smart/wise enough to not want the job. There's usually some other interest that drives them, even before you consider the fucked up process to get to where you're in the running.


I get where you're coming from.

sN_h9bWZuuk

See I didn't even name anyone and you say I'm wrong. Look, I know you much better read than me, you have more links than me and all of that, but you can't take away my life experiences that form my opinion.

I stand by what I said. The process is fucked up. We don't have the best choices in these 3. Dem and Reps control who gets elected. The media sucks. The peeps have been fed this shit for so long, they go along.

And with all of that...'democracy is the worst form of gov't there is, cept for all the others'

After eight years of a C student forrest gumping his way through the presidency, I'm more than ready for someone uncommon.

I think he had better grades, or at least comparable to Kerrys.

Kerry acts like an elitist.

See I didn't even name anyone and you say I'm wrong. Look, I know you much better read than me, you have more links than me and all of that, but you can't take away my life experiences that form my opinion.



Huckabee 08!

I'm voting for someone who is NOT a rep or dem this year...and prolly for the foreseeable future

This is a really good article, from the Washington Post editorial page.



I don't agree with ER all the time, but this is a pretty god damn good article if you ask me.

See I didn't even name anyone and you say I'm wrong. Look, I know you much better read than me, you have more links than me and all of that, but you can't take away my life experiences that form my opinion.
I agree with you about a lot of things.

You said somewhere else today "But my larger point is that we need more common men/women to get involved in politics." and I figured that is what you were talking about here.

My point is simply that if 100,000 people were better than the 3 main choices, that still would be in the upper 99.97% of America. 100,000 sounds like some big-ass number, but it's not, and it's not likely to be in the realm of "common men/women". At that %, it's unlikely that the collective of people here know personally one person who'd qualify. :)

I think it's hard to find someone who'd be better at the job than those three who'd actually want it, and what you're saying agrees with me.


I stand by what I said. The process is fucked up. We don't have the best choices in these 3. Dem and Reps control who gets elected. The media sucks. The peeps have been fed this shit for so long, they go along.
I agree with you 100% on all these things.

Yes, the process is fucked up.

Yes, we don't have the best choices.

Yes, Dems and Reps control who gets elected. We have winner take all in too many areas, and Dems and Reps can agree that third parties suck.

Yes, the media sucks.

Yes, the peeps have been fed shit for too long.

See I didn't even name anyone and you say I'm wrong. Look, I know you much better read than me, you have more links than me and all of that, but you can't take away my life experiences that form my opinion.

I stand by what I said. The process is fucked up. We don't have the best choices in these 3. Dem and Reps control who gets elected. The media sucks. The peeps have been fed this shit for so long, they go along.

And with all of that...'democracy is the worst form of gov't there is, cept for all the others'

So the word bitter was way off huh? :)

And BO not knowing the detail is not alone. I didn't mean to single his green ass out. HIll and JM don't know either.

Clinton knew his shit. He knew details. Before him Nixon knew his shit too. I don't remember that much about Johnson but from what I do he was pretty good too. Some of my Johnson recollection is from tape.

Carter, Reagan, Bush, Bush forget about it.
Carter knew details. He was nothing if not a micromanager as President. He just couldn't see the forest from the trees in a lot of ways.

Carter knew details. He was nothing if not a micromanager as President. He just couldn't see the forest from the trees in a lot of ways.

The same could be said for Bush 41.

G.H.W. Bush was pretty much a bureaucrat through and through. Mind like a bureaucrat. He wasn't a total sleaze like a lot of other politicos. Doesn't mean I think he was a great president, but he was at least a man I could respect.

Carter knew details. He was nothing if not a micromanager as President. He just couldn't see the forest from the trees in a lot of ways.

Carter was a incompetent buffoon.

G.H.W. Bush was pretty much a bureaucrat through and through. Mind like a bureaucrat. He wasn't a total sleaze like a lot of other politicos. Doesn't mean I think he was a great president, but he was at least a man I could respect.

:cogent:

Bureaucrat is a good word for him. His presidency always seemed kind of "custodial" or "administrative" ... kind of like an interim coach just keeping things tidy for the next guy. Even if you couldn't always agree with him and didn't expect greatness from him, he did always seem intelligent, well informed and a capable manager... what the hell happened to his son?

Dubya definately failed conservatives on issues like smaller gov't and spending but he did keep the country safe.

Failed on 2 of 3.

Dubya definately failed conservatives on issues like smaller gov't and spending but he did keep the country safe.

Failed on 2 of 3.
Didn't 9/11 happen on Dubya's watch?

Carter was a incompetent buffoon.
??

Even if you couldn't always agree with him and didn't expect greatness from him, he did always seem intelligent, well informed and a capable manager... what the hell happened to his son?
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/6/64/Pyschoactive_Drugs.jpg

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/HPM/HM36~Drugs-Are-Bad-Posters.jpg

??

I hate when this happens. egg on face. Carter was a fucking idiot.

Didn't 9/11 happen on Dubya's watch?

Yes it did. My statement is incorrect. I can always count on you to correct me with facts, your opinion or your rationale. :(

But once we were blindsided with 911, he defended this country. Can you correct me on that?

Yes it did. My statement is incorrect. I can always count on you to correct me with facts, your opinion or your rationale. :(

But once we were blindsided with 911, he defended this country. Can you correct me on that?


ANTHRAX!

Yes it did. My statement is incorrect. I can always count on you to correct me with facts, your opinion or your rationale. :(

But once we were blindsided with 911, he defended this country. Can you correct me on that?
In much the same way that I don't blame Bush for 9/11, I don't credit him with success in keeping us safe afterwards. Since 9/11, Bush has said he's truly not worried about Bin Laden, and let North Korea get nuclear materials while getting us into a war on Iraq that's fomenting the next generation of terrorists. We've extended ourselves and have less of an ability to deal with the next big threat.

Of course, safety is how you feel about it. Safety is as much about peddling emotion as it is about concrete issues.

In much the same way that I don't blame Bush for 9/11, I don't credit him with success in keeping us safe afterwards. Since 9/11, Bush has said he's truly not worried about Bin Laden, and let North Korea get nuclear materials while getting us into a war on Iraq that's fomenting the next generation of terrorists. We've extended ourselves and have less of an ability to deal with the next big threat.

Of course, safety is how you feel about it. Safety is as much about peddling emotion as it is about concrete issues.

^ your rationale. The facts are, we haven't been attacked. And by you not giving him credit, is partisan.

"haven't been attacked" and "safe" often turn out to be different things. Lots of people have gone through the crappy parts of downtown Detroit and not gotten attacked, but that doesn't mean they think they're safe. And, that perception of safety (or lack thereof) may have little to do with how likely they are to be attacked, or get swallowed by a pothole.

As far as "not getting attacked" during his term, I'd give the folks who do the day-to-day enforcement and grunt work more credit than the President. This isn't partisan spin. Under Clinton's terms, attacks on us were limited (off the top of my head -- Oklahoma City, the U.S.S. Cole, the first World Trade Center attack), and I've never attributed that sort of thing to Clinton.

"haven't been attacked" and "safe" often turn out to be different things. Lots of people have gone through the crappy parts of downtown Detroit and not gotten attacked, but that doesn't mean they think they're safe. And, that perception of safety (or lack thereof) may have little to do with how likely they are to be attacked, or get swallowed by a pothole.

As far as "not getting attacked" during his term, I'd give the folks who do the day-to-day enforcement and grunt work more credit than the President. This isn't partisan spin. Under Clinton's terms, attacks on us were limited (off the top of my head -- Oklahoma City, the U.S.S. Cole, the first World Trade Center attack), and I've never attributed that sort of thing to Clinton.

^ Partisan spin, to me.

I guess you aren't into the everything changed on 911 camp.


Of course the Prez isn't on the front lines, but he supports them. And when he tries to wire tap for peeps over seas the Libs come with calls of impeachment.

When the terrorists attacked the WTC the first time, Clinton called it criminal. When they attacked the 2nd time, Bush called it an act of war. Bush did the right thing. The world leaders that have been elected in the last few years know it and understand it.