Anyway, Jaim, “chickenshit baby” might be construed as a personal attack. I will only say that it’s the kind of attack that would never be made in person, and we know why don’t we ?

This post is about neither of those Presidents, so please stay on topic.

Also to Frank this is a Liberal blogger blog you are visiting, so if you are going to look for harsh criticism over a Obama photo(unless Oliver brings it up himself) please go to one of those crazy right-wing blogs for you daily dose, okay?

You’re the one who made a claim about historians. And you’re the chickenshit baby who can’t back it up.

You were the one who said you could show us a link that proved historians rated Bush higher than Clinton.

It didn’t.

I know what I know.

Is this an internet tradition? If not, shouldn’t it be?

“In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, AND THERE WAS NO POLITICAL CONSENSUS FOR BOLD ACTION, especially with an election just weeks away.”

There’s your answer. To be fair, it also takes the wind out of the argument, somewhat, that Bush should have had his hair on fire about the August 6 memo. Because if there was no consensus for bold action in 2000, there was even less in August 2001.

I’ve never held with those who fault Bush OR Clinton for “not preventing” 9/11. I was a cheerleader for fucking up the Taliban after it happened, but I doubt I would have supported a ground war in Afghanistan before. I still think 9/11 was a monster sucker-punch that nobody saw coming. It’s how Bush used 9/11 to further neocon wetdreams in Iraq that pissed me off.

You know, after we had already been attacked inside the United States.

Cut and paste idiot.

Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the U.S.

I also recall asking the people here who the second worst President was , Funny thing was, there were then about 10 different answers, from Fillmore to Nixon.