daffey's Comments (799)

“Well said. A single train moves so much for so little fuel. A single train (with more access of course) could move so many and save so much fuel consumption. Yes, it would take a lot to rebuild the infrastructure that was dismantled over the years. It would need to be more convenient than it is. Right now, I would have to drive 200 miles, get on a train, and travel about 800 miles out of the way to visit my in-laws. But with an initial investment, the long term benefits could far outweigh the costs. Both in money, and in environmental concerns.”

“Well, Clinton deserves much of the blame, for it has been pointed out that most of the problems we have faced in the 00s were hatched in the 90s. The 9/11 attacks were no different. Did the Bush administration drop the ball? Sure. But no less did the Clinton administration. If you want to give this amount or that, that’s up to you. For me, and for a growing number of folks, understanding that blame had best be placed where it needs to be, including on Obama, is becoming the best route possible. And not a travesty in the least.”

“OK, one more time here gabemill. We’re not saying that Clinton was responsible for the rise and growth of al Qaeda. We are saying that after the first attacks on the WTC, Clinton and his administration did nothing significant to overhaul the approach to the growing magnitude of objectives behind global terrorism. He was obviously aware of the threat of bib-Laden, but again, failed to stop/capture/thwart - or whatever you want to say - bin-Laden, or discover the growing plans being hatched to launch the 9/11 attacks. Again, Clarke and co. are not without criticisms themselves, and have not been able to clear Clinton no matter how hard they have tried. But if you want to say Clinton was always right, never wrong, and it’s always the ‘rethug’s’ fault, then go ahead. For me? I prefer to say we need to blame where and when it is due to hope for any safety in the future: be it Bush, Clinton, or Obama. For the facts seem to point to many different faults rather than the notion that it has all been one, big, vast Right Wing Conspiracy (TM).”

“gabemill, I can see I’ll get nowhere here. Party-of-one beat me to the bleedin’ obvious: that Clinton nonetheless failed to do his part to uncover and prevent bin-Laden from carrying forth with his planned attacks. If you want to say that Clinton deserves no blame whatsoever for what was done under his administration, go ahead. What cracks me up is that I - the one saying both Bush and Clinton deserve their share of blame for the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks - am being called biased. Yep. It’s those types who are willing to criticize both parties that you have to watch out for!

By the by, Clark is one of many who pointed out the failings of the Bush administration. But he is not without criticism himself, and has not been able to acquit the Clinton administration its role in missing the planning of the attacks. Take that as you will, or support Clinton all the way. It’s up to you.”

“The fact is, 85% of the 9/11 attacks were planned under the nose of the Clinton administration. The well known fact that he tried (and failed) to get bin-Laden makes it worse, since obviously he saw bin-Laden as a threat, but failed to do everything he could to stop him, seize him, or investigate just what he was up to. Partisan attempts to say one side is always right and one is always wrong is probably the biggest threat to our national security. Again, and again, I have no problem saying Bush and his administration failed. I just wish some folks would concede the same level of failure also belongs to the eight long years of the Clinton administration’s stewardship under which the 9/11 plans were sewn and nurtured.”

“OK. How hard is this? Clinton SHOULD have had something in his administration that said ‘bin-Laden is going to attack us, or more to the point, is planning on it this very minute.’ Had he revised his approach to the issue after the first attacks, he may have done just that. But he didn’t. Fighting terrorism was never something Clinton’s administration was identified with. Most of his presidency was spent keeping his poll number up, doing whatever it took, avoiding controversy, and compromising to make as many people happy as possible. That a report was given that bin-Laden is planning to attack the US is fine, and more should have been done apparently. But that doesn’t take away Clinton’s culpability for not picking up on the lion’s share of the planning during his administration. I have no problem blaming Bush where it is due. Would that more would be willing to blame other presidents, we just might finally get to a point where we begin to feel safe in the face of such constant threats.”

“Overall a good article. Some may take exception to this or that, but finally someone is admitting it’s been bad for some time. Both sides blame the other. Neither side admits blame itself. But I remember it the way the article says. GOP unfair to Obama? Look at Bush. You think that was justified? So did the GOP with Clinton. And so did the Dems with Bush Sr., or Reagan. And on it went. Economy collapsing now? Doesn’t surprise me. I heard economists in 1998 (I remember because it was the first year I had cable) being interviewed saying this very thing would happen - that the so-called ‘greatest economy in the history of the universe’ was, in fact, very superficial and built on a frightening level of increasing personal debt. And the debt? Both sides complain now when the other one increase it, insisting it must be done when they increase it. Where’s the logic there? Thank you for pointing out that not all was 100% rosy and cheery in January, 2001, then everything fell apart. Problems were aplenty, and in many ways, we paid in the 00s for the follies of the 90s. IMHO, we have had two bad presidents back-to-back, that due to various circumstances, were both reelected, giving us 16 years of poor presidential leadership. We can only hope that the tide has turned. But it will only turn if we look at things with perspective, not partisanship (and that goes both ways).”

“What? That’s the point. Before 9/11; rather, before January 2001, it was the Clinton administration’s responsibility to be aware of such things. That the first World Trade Center bombing happened at the dawn of the Clinton administration, and that Clinton did nothing major to change his approach to the new level of terror attacks, not to mention his continued philosophy regarding both terror and American presence in the post-Cold War world that failed to pick up on the planning, is what allowed such a well coordinated attack to come to light. Now, Bush’s administration deserves some blame as well. But remember, Bush was only in office for a about eight months when the attacks hit. Compare that to those who are saying Obama has only been in for about a year. It can’t be one way for one and another for another. I’m just saying partisanship has no place in our nation’s security. I’m fine with supporting whoever can help us, but criticizing anyone who’s dropping the ball. This ‘it’s his fault, His Fault, HIS FAULT!’ garbage has got to go. If a ball is dropped, the one dropping it deserves to be held accountable.”

“I fully agree that the response was botched. Not because we should only have gone after Bin-Laden. Was a time, shortly after 9/11, when Americans seemed to want all terrorism, and anyone aiding it, done away with before the next 9/11 took place. Again, saying it was somehow obviously ridiculous (ala John Kerry) to have invaded Iraq since it was bin Laden who was behind the 9/11 attacks is like saying obviously it was obviously ridiculous that we went after Germany as a priority in WWII because Japan is the one that attacked us. Strategies need not work out on paper like a flawless flow chart. My problem with Bush and co. is that they botched it on almost every level, from the reasoning for the invasion turning out to be bogus, to the actual strategies and tactics used, to the general feeling we got that Bush really didn’t have an idea what to do. But that is beside the point. The point is, we should hold the president accountable, and that’s all of them, whether Reagan or Carter or Bush, Sr., or Clinton or GW Bush or - yes - Obama. We should never again allow partisanship to stand in the way of supporting, or criticizing (or both) the president at this stage in history.”

“That’s because the 9/11 attacks were planned and carried out all but the last few months under the Clinton administration. Bush deserves his share of the blame, sure. But so does Clinton, whose entire presidency sat upon one planned attack on New York after another. And yes, Obama deserves the blame for the crumbling efficiency. God save us from those who only care about their side winning or the other side losing, instead of trying to find out how to really solve the problems and threats that face us.”

“For a few days maybe. A couple weeks perhaps. But the partisan attacks began in haste within the month. Some started the very day, letting their biases and agendas dictate what was being said. Then it did settle down. But then it roared up again by the end of November. Democrats went into supporting the war because they were scared there might, might mind you, be weapons. After all, when we went into Afghanistan, there were plenty who complained that we had no right, that there was no proof Al-Qaeda had anything to do with the attacks, that they were planning any others, that the Taliban was behind them. Well, turned out those things were true, so neither the Dems, nor the media, wanted egg on their face again. Of course the second time around, they would have been right in believing so. But by then, not just the wars, but accusations were flying (Bush was initially blamed for the attacks until it was discovered most of the planning occurred during the 90s). So bi-partisanship, not so much. But both side dreadfully wrong whenever they needed to be right. In that, at least the fault is quite bi-partisan.”

“In looking at our current state of affairs, it would be difficult to consider America, c. 2010, the good guy. But that’s not a Left/Right appraisal. Nonetheless, nothing America did warranted the 9/11 attacks. As nothing should. If the French Resistance was anything, it was picky. It aimed at German Soldiers and parts of the German military structure. The 9/11 attacks were squarely aimed at innocents. Nothing in America’s policy should ever come close to being seen as validating such things. Because once it does, expect more. That’s not to say, like you point out, that we can’t be the good guys. But it will take a whole lot of soul searching by everyone - on both sides of the aisle. But even then, as imperfect as we are, there should be no problem in seeing the difference between our culture and many of those who are now at odds with us.”

“I think I understood. Part of the problem is we've lost the ability to believe there is a good guy and bad guy. Today, would we be supporting the French Resistence? Would we be examining the wrongs done to Germany? Would we be interviewing Hitler and Goebbels and giving them a chance to state their claims? Would we be chastising ourselves over our part in the unfair Versailles Treaty? Would we grind to a halt, ignoring any other wrong doing, and collapse in a pile of finger pointing and insisting that the wrongs of Europe and America make them partly to blame for Germany's current strategies? If it were today, I don't think what you said about then would be true. For what we are doing now is something that never would have stopped the horrors of the past. Because we would have first stopped to find where we were to blame, and then did what we are doing today: nothing but infighting.”

“Rock band. Van Halen. Led Zeplin. KISS. Aerosmith. Queen. The Rolling Stones. And on and on and on. The term is used in pop music for any group of individuals, playing instruments themselves, even if accompanied by other instruments at times. And in that, the Beatles were the first, the first self-contained musical group, or band. Before that pop groups were either vocal groups, or individuals backed by musicians (such as the Everly Brothers, or the Four Seasons, Bill Hayley and the Comets or Elvis, etc).”

“The problem behind the 'but America must be to blame' is that it assumes only victims who are pure, perfect, and flawless are without some of the blame. So, either American Indians were perfect, pure, loving, and never, ever did anything wrong - or they share some of the blame of what happened to them. I know, it's pretty silly when you go that way. But you must go that way. You can't just say suddenly only America - because it does things wrong and isn't always the good guy - deserves what it gets (even when it's innocent people getting it), but that only counts for America, never anyone else. It either applies across the board at all times to everyone, or it shouldn't be measured. That's like saying the woman walking down a street at night dressed provocatively deserved to be raped. Maybe there's something to be said about the wisdom of her decision to walk there dressed in such a fashion, but to say she deserved what she got? Or that she's a hypocrit for only blaming the rapist? Yeah, it sounds that bad for blaming America for the 9/11 attacks.”

“Please point me to other religions that are behind modern terrorism (The Irish conflict being as much a political as religious conflict). Also, please explain away radical leftist and secular based political groups who are behind terrorist activities. Any Christian groups on college campuses behind modern terrorism? And Jewish? Hindu? Any? Bueler? Oh, and there is no link between McVeigh and religion. At best, he was an agnostic. But he himself said it had nothing to do with faith, and no study of the events has concluded otherwise. That's one of those cases where it's been said so often by certain groups, that many have taken it to be fact (like Bogart saying 'play it again Sam'). Never happened in the movies, and didn't happen at Oklahoma City.”

“That’s been ‘there on the Left’. Just in case any editors are out there.”

“Are you kidding? It’s just spread over the large swaths of it in a greater amount of media outlets. Sort of the whole bed of nails trick. Conservatives have talk radio, Fox, and, well, that’s about it. Liberals have the bulk of the MSM, most cable news, most major papers, most Higher Education, the bulk of the entertainment industry (including, but not limited to, TV, Movies, Music). So while it seems more shrill coming from the same sources day after day, it’s been their on the Left all along. There’s nothing I’ve heard the Right call the Left that I haven’t heard the Left call the Right (albeit, in varying forms - naturally, Republicans called Nazis, Democrats called Communists, etc.). The notion that one or the other is entirely to blame is the problem.”

“Blogging. Just typing off the top of the old head, not going back and editing. Farther will due in this case, though further would have been better if I went back to edit. Now, for the rest. The post you responded to suggested we go and try to do something about the tyrannies and dictatorships of places like Venezuela, Korea, and others. You then said why don’t we start at home. My point was, as bad as problems may be, we are a far cry from many of the other places in the world, like N. Korea or Venezuela.

By the way, by 'sease', I assume you meant 'sense'. : )”

“The POV of someone who lived through it and watched it happen. Who had his jaw drop the first time Carville let fly with a full blown broadside at Bush. The first time I heard Right Wing pundits throwing charges of treason at Clinton. The first time I watched a movie speculating on the assassination of Bush and heard journalists and Liberal pundits say it’s all in the name of free speech. I heard Reagan blasted for having jelly beans on his desk. I watched Dan Quayle be mauled by the media and Left Wing pundits. I stood by and saw Right Wing pundits attack Bill and Hillary’s marriage long before there was a Monica. In short, I watched both sides become worse, more brutal, more disrespectful. The thing that allows them to continue is, of course, the willingness of each side to pardon and justify such behavior as long as it’s the other side getting hit. Until that stops, expect things to get worse.”

“One would have thought 9/11 would do the trick. It didn't. How long before the finger pointing and partisanship began? Weeks? Days? I'm afraid even something worse won't do it. After all, if iconic landmarks destroyed and thousands dead doesn't do it, I doubt anything else will.”

“I take exception to the fact that they would not have opposed him so strongly. I’ve been following politics since 1980, and I have yet to see that happen, for presidents on either side of the aisle. The thought that one side is to blame, or deserves what it gets (simply for being on that one side), is the problem.”

“So you slept through the 92 campaign, did you? You don't remember the Ragin' Cajun's interviews during the 92 campaign? You don't remember the full out assaults against Bush/Quayle as people, not just politicians (compare that to when Reagan caught flack for the disrespect behind his rather famous ‘Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his job’ remark)? Or are you one who says 'my side's always right and can do whatever it want's, but the other side's always the problem because no matter what it does, it's wrong!'? Which, by the way, is the greater problem today, FWIW.”

“Hardly. It's been going on for some time, and it's been a problem both sides have embraced.”

“Glad to see the 20th century didn't teach you anything.”