Bush1 vs. Bush2

[Titanic]

From the 9/11 Report, Commission Chair Thomas Kean indicated that both President Clinton and Bush II were "not well served" by the FBI and the CIA. So, does this mean it was President Bush's fault, President Clinton's fault or both?

The CIA totally screwed up during both administration, thats a given.

The difference between Clinton and Bush, at least Clinton tried to something. He was actively seeking to stop bin Laden whilst Bush and his team sat around and did absolutely nothing for 9 months whilst the intelligence and warning poured in thick and fast. The PDB from August, Vladimir Putin personally ringing up the White House, the intelligence warning of an attack using commericial jets etc... and they still did nothing. Clinton may not have suceeded but he was not guily of gross negligence.

[thegreekdog]

From the 9/11 Report, Commission Chair Thomas Kean indicated that both President Clinton and Bush II were "not well served" by the FBI and the CIA. So, does this mean it was President Bush's fault, President Clinton's fault or both?

The CIA totally screwed up during both administration, thats a given.

The difference between Clinton and Bush, at least Clinton tried to something. He was actively seeking to stop bin Laden whilst Bush and his team sat around and did absolutely nothing for 9 months whilst the intelligence and warning poured in thick and fast. The PDB from August, Vladimir Putin personally ringing up the White House, the intelligence warning of an attack using commericial jets etc... and they still did nothing. Clinton may not have suceeded but he was not guily of gross negligence.

So because President Clinton said in an interview that he tried to do stuff, he's the good guy and Bush is the bad guy.

Look, here's the deal, stop being partisan. If you're going to attack Bush for 9/11, you should attack Clinton too. There's no reason not to, except because you don't like President Bush.

[The Fuzzy Pengui]

Bush Jr was the most destructive president in history. He was absolutely horrible.

Hehe - this post made me chuckle.

Both had their faults, both had their strengths. I, for one, would choose either over some of our other presidents.

[Titanic]

From the 9/11 Report, Commission Chair Thomas Kean indicated that both President Clinton and Bush II were "not well served" by the FBI and the CIA. So, does this mean it was President Bush's fault, President Clinton's fault or both?

The CIA totally screwed up during both administration, thats a given.

The difference between Clinton and Bush, at least Clinton tried to something. He was actively seeking to stop bin Laden whilst Bush and his team sat around and did absolutely nothing for 9 months whilst the intelligence and warning poured in thick and fast. The PDB from August, Vladimir Putin personally ringing up the White House, the intelligence warning of an attack using commericial jets etc... and they still did nothing. Clinton may not have suceeded but he was not guily of gross negligence.

So because President Clinton said in an interview that he tried to do stuff, he's the good guy and Bush is the bad guy.

Look, here's the deal, stop being partisan. If you're going to attack Bush for 9/11, you should attack Clinton too. There's no reason not to, except because you don't like President Bush.

Believe me I'm taking it from much more then that interview. I saw that interview pretty much as soon as it was posted on Youtube a couple years back, its hardly new information to me.

As for Bush I'm probably more leniant to him then most people who don't like him, I really rate him after he cast off Cheney and Rumsfeld and towards the end of his presidency he started doing a lot of good stuff.

As for Clinton, I'm not letting him off the hook but to me its good to know that he at least tried. He probably could and should have done more but the context of the environment he was in at the time is also important.