Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010643179_airlineprez31.html" target="_blank">http://seattletimes.nwsource.c...z31.html</a> >>Eight years ago, a terrorist bomber's attempt to blow up a trans-Atlantic airliner was thwarted by passengers and revealed gaping holes in airline security only months after the Sept. 11 attacks. But President George W. Bush, then on vacation, made no public remarks for six days about the so-called shoe bomber, Richard Reid, and there were virtually no complaints from the media or Democrats that Bush's response was sluggish or inadequate. That stands in sharp contrast to the Republicans' withering criticism of President Obama — and some in the media — for his reaction to the Christmas Day incident on a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight.<< Obama could find a cure for cancer and Republicans would denounce it - probably claim it was a plot to keep liberals alive longer to defeat conservatives. Anything the man does, no matter how trivial, will be attacked. What's next - going after him for using a teleprompter? Oh, wait....
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Yep, it's blatantly obvious what's going on. It didn't work in the last election, and I think 4 years of this non-stop attacking on even the tiniest thing is going to wear awfully thin.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Yep, it's blatantly obvious what's going on. It didn't work in the last election, and I think 4 years of this non-stop attacking on even the tiniest thing is going to wear awfully thin.<< This behavior by the opposing party has been going on since Pres. Clinton took office....
Originally Posted By Mr X And yet, William, ecdc right there in post one provides an example of how the left didn't nit-pick Bush on this completely comparable issue (not to mention having to finish up "The Happy Little Bunny" in the midst of an all out terrorist attack with hijacked planes still in the air)... I will agree though, it started with Clinton. I will certainly admit to some level of "push back" when it comes to Bush, but he was such an out and out failure (come on, you HAVE to admit it...most right wingers do even if they don't want to) that it's pretty tough to separate out the legitimate vitriol from the partisan stuff with him. You might argue this, but I find it completely different with Obama, considering he was being attacked viciously before he even took office for jeepers sake; "the Obama recession", the birthers and deathers, the teleprompter "issue", and all that similarly ridiculous crap that has no parallel whatsoever compared to what Bush was accused of (in comparison to what he actually *did*. Isn't that interesting.
Originally Posted By dshyates I really enjoy watching the leadership of the GOP guiding the vitriol into the trivial stuff instead of where there are legitimate concerns with some of the stuff Obama has done. You don't see the GOP all up in arms at the fact that in regards to the wall street melt down, Obama gave the foxes that caused the mess the keys to the hen house. As in putting Goldman Sachs Alum in charge of overseeing the bail-out. That to me is a real "WTF?" decision. But since Goldman Sachs is a GOP fortress they would rather talk about ANYTHING else.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Obama gave the foxes that caused the mess the keys to the hen house. As in putting Goldman Sachs Alum in charge of overseeing the bail-out. That to me is a real "WTF?" decision. But since Goldman Sachs is a GOP fortress they would rather talk about ANYTHING else.>> The bailouts will be the single worst thing this country ever does. Let them fail.
Originally Posted By Labuda Hey, don't go confusing arguments br bringing out facts, Mr X! You stop that right now!
Originally Posted By DAR <<Bush did the bailouts, DAR. You know that, right?>> Yes they were a bad idea from Bush and they'll be a bad idea from Obama. They shouldn't have happened.
Originally Posted By andyll Also Reid was tried in Federal courts. Don't you remember the outcry from the right about that?
Originally Posted By dlkozy >>>" They shouldn't have happened."<<< And yet they continue. >>>"You might argue this, but I find it completely different with Obama, considering he was being attacked viciously before he even took office for jeepers sake;"<<< O was involved in the Senate for years before becoming Pres-he had first had knowledge and helped create the situation. Too bad he missed so many meetings.
Originally Posted By Mr X Uh huh. Because first term junior Senators hold so much power and sway in Washington...always have. *yawn*
Originally Posted By dlkozy Most first term Senators actually show up and are not spending the majority of their time running for Pres. *yawn*
Originally Posted By dlkozy O certainly had a running start that most Pres don't have-he had all that info at his disposal-some of which he voted for, if he was there to vote for it.
Originally Posted By dlkozy >>>"hold so much power and sway in Washington...always have."<<< yeah-never said that. Said that he had "he had first had knowledge and helped create the situation."<<<
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <he had first had knowledge and helped create the situation.> Boy, is that a reach. Helped create the financial crisis? a.) That crisis had roots that stretched back at least 10 years, far before Obama reached the senate. In some cases the roots stretched back farther than that. b). The senate actions most responsible for the crisis, like Gramm-Leach-Bliley, had already been voted in before Obama even got there. c). At most, one could say that the senate in general didn't foresee the crisis and thus didn't do anything to stop it. But that would be all 100 senators, including those that were there a lot longer (like, oh, McCain), those on the relevant financial committees, and those who actually voted for the things that brought the crisis on. If you're going to give blame to the Senate, Obama would get thus less than 1% of that blame. So saying something like "he had first had knowledge and helped create the situation" is a stretch based on blind ideology, and nakedly so.
Originally Posted By dlkozy >>>"a.) That crisis had roots that stretched back at least 10 years, far before Obama reached the senate. In some cases the roots stretched back farther than that."<<< Before Bush too. Did the Dem Senate fail to take the action it should have-yup. Did I say that O was responsible for everything himself-nope. I said that he helped create the situation-as all that were in power did. Was he spending, as a Jr Senator, a LOT of time away from his paid job-yup. So for anyone to claim that O did not have the info before he became Pres as the status of things-is not true. He was privy to the info. >>>" If you're going to give blame to the Senate, Obama would get thus less than 1% of that blame."<<< Uh,no-don't know where you get your math from. If he was less than 1% of the problem he was also less than 1% of any kind of solution. But maybe you are right in regards to my statement that "he had first hand knowledge" -because he was not in Washington but on the campaign trail.
Originally Posted By dlkozy >>>"You enjoying that little conversation you're having with yourself?"<<< You should know what a kick it is X. You do it all the time.
