sharkman

So the MSM is once again trying to 'help' the Dems, eh? Typical, probably still ticked off that one of their own went down (Rather) when trying to ruin Bush during the last election. Oh, and this just in: Bob Woodward has a new 'tell all' book coming out with less than two months before voting day. And it's critical of the Bush administration!!! (No duh) Hoping to sway public opinion and get those idiot Republicans out of power, no doubt. The anti- Bush books dovetailing with the MSM reporting anything they can get their hands on to smear the administration hasn't worked since before 2000, but there's still hope! I wonder if Larry Flynt has any ads in The National Enquirer offering to pay for dirt on Republican politicians this time? What a pathetic thing politics has become.

They say jfk was, but I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As far as our PMs go, we'll have to see what Harper could do with a majority before passing judgement. In some circles, if he hasn't delivered on his five priorities in the first 6 months, why he's just like all the rest! The truth is it takes a majority to be able to deliver or to really screw up.

Nice to see the facts spelled out for the tin foil hatters, not that something like the facts will change their minds...

In an opening address to the summit, Harper said only one sentense in english, made several important points, and impressed Chirac enough he was quoted as saying,"I'ts unanimous, we were all blown away by your speech and your french." The National Post had this quote, but so far none others I could find thought to include it, I wonder why? Besides France, Canada is the major player at the summit, a group of nations who are mostly former French colonies. Harper stressed that the international community must do more to help countries like Sudan, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Haiti. I say it's a nice change to have a PM who doesn't embarrass Canada like Chretien used to, but is a good statesman and ambassador for Canadian influence internationally. Chretien used to be more interested in ensuring everybody knew he didn't like the U.S. than doing anything of substance at such meetings and summits. It's still early, but Harper is again doing nothing to shoot himself in the foot when opportunities present themselves.

Excellent post, the whole thing was obviously a put on. And it appears to be needed with the good news of lower gas and oil prices that has improved Bush's ratings lately.

That is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of the "law enforcement" approach. Bush is treating the GWOT *only* as a military exercise, but he's doing NOTHING, NO THING, to do basic police work which can help target terrorists and stop acts of terror prior to their commission. The (questionable) plot to blow up planes with liquid explosives was foiled SOLELY by law enforcement means. You must be kidding. If you think national security organizations and military organizations weren't collecting data from sat/cell phone communication and web chatter as well as other sources to foil this plot, you are off your rocker.

You got to be joking. You think Bush and Chaney are in the position to second guess Clinton given their record to date? Where have you been. Actually, you have it about 180 degrees backwards. I'm saying Clinton is in no position to blame Bush since he had EIGHT years to deal with the problem before 9/11 happened, and Bush had eight months. Shady, I agree. Treating terrorism with law enforcement is quite useless, you might as well sue Osama. At the same time, even Clinton wandered from this philosophy when he sent cruise strikes at bin Laden in '98 before he had been tried and convicted of any crime. (No one seems to understand the hypocrisy of it) Oh, and Clinton sent strikes whenever it would divert attention away from his skirt chasing ways, but he was a man of principles, damnit!

Thanks Geoffrey. I'm trying not to blow this "way out of proportion", but it truely amazes me that Harper did not deal with this in a quick and transparent way and take the lumps if laws were broken - as it appears they were. This, from the OP, is all accurate: Let's see: you've told anyone who would listen(and some who would rather not) that Harper is the devil. Yet you say above you are 'truly amazed' that he hasn't dealt with this already. Don't you think someone as evil as Harper supposedly is would hum and haw and eat a few babies before dealing with it? Really, it doesn't add up except in gerry math, I suppose. Oh, and you need to get out more. Ricki Bobbi is the name of the character Will Ferrell had in his latest movie, a send up of the nascar culture. You can't get more blue collar than that. Will plays a man. Just FYI.

And if Bush had continued military plans already in place, Osama bin Laden might have been dealt with and the plot uncovered. The 9/11 Commission keeps saying the blame game won't work. The mid-term elections is making the Republican desperate so they are blaming Clinton for September 11. Anyway, I thought Clinton looked rather over the top for a guy who has done nothing wrong, during the Fox interview. Some say the reason he did it was to rally the Dem troops for said elections, as they have been having bad news lately. Oil prices have come way down, gas prices have dropped off nicely, and Bush's ratings have begun their bi-annual climb. It's going to be an interesting election season. The Dems have probably lost Leiberman's contest, since he didn't dry up and blow away like they thought he would.

Those buildings would still be standing if the CIA had not assisted Bin Laden and other Islamic extremists in the 80s. If you are interested in dishing out blame for past actions that are mistakes in hindsight then the Regean administration deserves tons of it.Clinton's argument was that in 1996 Bin Laden was a theoretical threat because no Americans had died. After the embassy bombings the threat was no longer theoretical so Clinton was able to take direct action. IOW, the actions that were impossible in 1996 were possible in 1998. And like many more before me and after me much closer to the issue than us, I can say that Clinton made a bad decision. We can go on back to the English and French to get to the root of the blaming if you like, but in the context of the '96 decision to not accept Osama from Sudan, Clinton screwed up. Clinton never said Osama was a theorectical threat either, but his underlings found out in '95 that Yousef was linked to Osama and the '93 trade center bombing. And six Americans died in the '93 bombing. He screwed up plain and simple. And like I've said previously, the operation to knock down the towers was well under way by the time Bush came to power, they may have already started their 747 training.

The 9/11 Commission said there was no direct link to Osama bin Laden in 1996 that could have led to an arrest and an indictment. That commission was composed of Republicans, Democrats and Independents. Even Bush doesn't make the claim that you do because the 9/11 Commission report is quite clear. Perhaps Bush is too polite to blame Clinton, but I am not. They may not have had enough to bring Osama into a U.S. court, but as I've pointed out, they didn't really need to do any such thing. Clinton tried to murder him with cruise missiles later, without enough evidence to bring him into a court of law. The commission is simply giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt. But if Clinton simply would have allowed the CIA to accept Osama on the down low from Sudan in '96, question him and then kill him, the embassies would still be standing as well as the twin towers. They wouldn't be in Afghanistan or Iraq, and thousands of lives over the globe would have been spared. All of that stems from one decision. Clinton admits he tried and failed, and his failure reverberates to this day.

I think I at least showed some evidence on the question of what they could have charged Osama with in 96. In '95, when Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds of the -93 WTC bombing, was arrested, searches of his property showed links to Osama. It's Obvious Clinton didn't think that was strong enough to do anything with, and he was proved wrong with the '98 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Clinton's response? Lobbing cruise missiles at terrorist training camps and a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum. US senior administrative officials admit on Sept. 23/98 that they had no evidence that directly linked bin Laden to the factory. Here's hypocrisy for you: Clinton wouldn't accept Osama from Sudan in '96, claiming they didn't have enough to bring him in under U.S. law. He then authorizes cruise missile strikes about 2 weeks after the U.S. embassies are hit. There is no way they had enough evidence to arrest him at that point. But he doesn't even try to arrest him, he just lobs missiles at him. The thing is, a terrorist who commits acts of terror should not be tried in the judicial system as a U.S. citizen would. This is something Bush changed and rightly so. And Clinton believed this at least at the time he sent a cruise missile strike, even though he ignores it now when he admits refusing Osama from the Sudanese. Did Bush have a plan? If you listen to Richard Clarke, Bush did until the 9/11 commission, when Clarke changed his tune after his employment ended with the administration.

The Liberals never miss a chance to shoot themselves in the foot these days.

Our economy is just running full tilt. Poor people can get better jobs if they try. There are Canadians who leave their province and make tons of money in Fort McMurry. Once they get there, recruiters hire them away from the company they haven't even even worked for yet, with a bonus to boot. Here in B.C. there are help wanted signs in windows everywhere. As far as programs to boost skills go, the best way to get skills is on the job every time. I work in a trade, and the trades are just crying out for recruits. Point is, these programs aren't as needed when your economy is red hot.

Well, his credentials seem impressive, don't they. What concerns me is the way he flung dirt as he left the Bush administration. A guy with an axe to grind is not so objective as you assume. He is on record in 2002 stating that there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton to the Bush administration. At the 9/11 Commission after he was let go he stated he told Bush there was a plan ready since before Bush was inaugurated. One of the statements is a lie. Someone who is willing to lie to damage an administration is not trustworthy. But believe whomever you choose. Meanwhile Clarke wants to blame Bush, who was in power for eight months before 9/11. The operatives were probably already in the U.S. and trying to get training for 747s by then. Clarke had 8 or 9 years to work on the terrorist problem as he was chair of the counter terrorism security group. On you other assertion that the Clinton administration did not have the case for extradition, Osama was plenty busy blowing up buildings and financing others by '95. Here's a summary, by PBS of all things: '92 - Osama claimed responsibility for a bomb attempt on 2 U.S. soldiers. Others died, but the soldiers had left early. '93 - World Trade Center bombing investigation shows links with Osama when the mastermind, Ramzi Yousef is captured in '95. '95 - Osama is financing terrorist camps and even the New York Times says so in '96. The whole problem was Clinton insisting he had to be tried like a U.S. citizen would, in the judicial system. He wouldn't give the CIA permission to take him out, or face a military trial. A terrorist who is committing acts of terror should receive a bullet, not a trial with lawyers whining about browbeating the witness. Clinton's claim that they didn't have enough on him is just more blame shifting, when he had two terms to deal with this problem, and blames Bush for not solving it in eight months.

You can choose to believe who you will, but there are dozens of recent books out there that discuss the Clinton years, you've chosen one that is friendly to Clinton. My memory was a little off, it was Sudan that offered to hand over Osama to the U.S. under Clinton's watch, he said no. So, you've heard absolutely nothing about this? This was one of the many times when Bill needed to 'set the record straight'.

I'd say something went wrong with that order, wouldn't you?

The reason Black started the NP was the Liberals were facing little in the way of opposition in the press. A businessman found an opportunity and provided jobs for 100s of people. Chretien, who everyone knows is a bitter grudge holder, interfered in the Lordship matter plainly out of spite. I can't blame Black for what he did, and hopefully the system will allow it.

Not so fast. Bush is not a financial conservative. Look to his father and Reagan for that. Remember Voodo Economics, a phrase coined by the Dems when faced with Reagan tax cuts? And those were bad times during the early eighties. The interest rate skyrocketed (as mentioned by previous poster) which shrunk government revenue in a huge way. Many nations around the globe had to run deficits until things improved. Mulroney was in no way alone. As long as Liberals can lose track of a billion dollars (under Chretien) there will be people harping about it and rightly so.

Hey, I've seen Bill repeatedly 'set the record straight' since he left office. Books like the one you mentioned are from fans, they're not going to ask the tough questions. What was telling about this latest round of 'setting the record straight' was his protesting too much, which might as well be an admission of guilt. I say again: Yemen offered Osama to Clinton and Clinton refused. To now blame it on the CIA is passing the buck. Again, Clinton had 8 years, and yet he has the gall to castigate Bush for not solving the terrorist problem in 8 months. That's the definition of a hypocrite. On top of it all, Clinton passed legislation that lessoned the ability of the CIA if not the FBI as well. He can bluster all he wants, but all he did was lob missiles at terrorists during the U.S. embassy attacks and the U.S.S. Cole attack.

In this video clip, Clinton claims he did all he could to get Osama but failed. No mention about Yemen's catch and release of bin Laden after asking the U.S. if they wanted him. Plenty of finger pointing and over the top defensiveness, however, and blaming others, like the CIA and FBI. In another clip I couldn't find, Clinton actually says with a straight face that the Bush administration had eight months to do something about bin Laden but did nothing. Maybe his memory was confused as during the Lewinski affair, but he had EIGHT YEARS to to something. Kind of sad to see him so wild eyed and old. Edit: For some reason my link to youtube.com says the cllip is unavailable, but when I keyword search clinton smirk on their page it shows up and plays. My apologies.

Wow, I can't believe there are people who think if Iran wants nukes, they should have them. A guy who has kooky hatred for Jews and wants them wiped off the map should never have nukes. If we were talking about a white leader who hates blacks and wants nukes to blow up an African nation, me thinks there would be more unity in response. Are blacks better than Jews? (Hnt: No.) Why is the reason given for allowing Iran to have nukes that another war would be bad? I promise you there will be a war after Iran strikes Israel, and it won't be of the limited tactical strike variety. It would also have the high risk of escalation to world war status. All because the Iranian president hates Jews and wants nukes. Is that a stupid cause for a war or what? Let him have nukes and there will be a very messy war that he starts.

You think possible Liberal voters don't base their voting decision on fiscal performance? If Harper had a deficit of 6 billion, me thinks you'd be playing a different tune. Rae can argue what he likes, other premiers managed to do better during the same time. Making excuses will make himself look worse.

The original decision to send troops to Afghanistan was made under Martin. So to be blaming Harper now, while convenient for Harper haters, is like blaming the driver you hit while running a stop sign. You've got the wrong guy.

And how many do the Tories need to pick up to form a majority? Rae's biggest liability is his record. If it comes down to it, Ontarians will be comparing it to Harper's term in office and with a now reported surplus of 6.3 billion since the May budget, he's looking pretty good.