Just a thought...
Post 9-11, liberals everywhere were complaining because Bush did not do enough to stop the attack. They also said that we need to work harder to prevent attacks before they occur. If I recall, almost everyone in the government was for preventative measures. After all, there was FBI knowledge and a few warning. But, no one acted on these warnings. In the end this attack was basically blamed on Bush - even though we all know who really dropped the ball.
The lesson... if there are even a few slight inconsistancies in intelligence we need to act on them.
Post Iraq, liberals everywhere are pissed at Bush because he actually followed through with their doctrine. It was the liberals in government that blamed Bush for not preventing 9-11 even though there was 'limited' knowledge of the attack. 'He had information and should have acted', was the mantra.
Well, when he had information that someone in the world could be a credible threat, he acted. The new criteria for judgement (as laid out by liberals) was that if there WAS ANY chance of something happening, someone should act. In order to prevent future disasters any trigger was good enough.
So, what is the point. Well, you can't have it both ways. This is in essence why no one trusts a liberal, they use everything as a political attack. The ends justify the means. Which is BS. If they were ethically superior they would understand that the paradigm had shifted, that the very policy they supported now required preventative measures.
After all, what would they have said if Saddam lingered and attacked down the road. They would have hailed the Bush policy as a monumental failure. Much as many hail Clinton's appeasment of N Korea, Iraq, India, Pakistan, and Palastine (Arafat) as huge foreign policy blunders.
Post 9-11, liberals everywhere were complaining because Bush did not do enough to stop the attack. They also said that we need to work harder to prevent attacks before they occur. If I recall, almost everyone in the government was for preventative measures. After all, there was FBI knowledge and a few warning. But, no one acted on these warnings. In the end this attack was basically blamed on Bush - even though we all know who really dropped the ball.
The lesson... if there are even a few slight inconsistancies in intelligence we need to act on them.
Post Iraq, liberals everywhere are pissed at Bush because he actually followed through with their doctrine. It was the liberals in government that blamed Bush for not preventing 9-11 even though there was 'limited' knowledge of the attack. 'He had information and should have acted', was the mantra.
Well, when he had information that someone in the world could be a credible threat, he acted. The new criteria for judgement (as laid out by liberals) was that if there WAS ANY chance of something happening, someone should act. In order to prevent future disasters any trigger was good enough.
So, what is the point. Well, you can't have it both ways. This is in essence why no one trusts a liberal, they use everything as a political attack. The ends justify the means. Which is BS. If they were ethically superior they would understand that the paradigm had shifted, that the very policy they supported now required preventative measures.
After all, what would they have said if Saddam lingered and attacked down the road. They would have hailed the Bush policy as a monumental failure. Much as many hail Clinton's appeasment of N Korea, Iraq, India, Pakistan, and Palastine (Arafat) as huge foreign policy blunders.
for your thought, you were starved and obviously needed it. :laugh:
Facebook
Twitter