By 2011 the pundits were saying, and are saying now that it is the Obama economy. If it is the Obama economy, it is the Obama Kill.

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

Who is saying it's not the Obama kill? We're simply debating whether Bush deserves some credit for it.

The bolded seems reasonable on the surface level. Do you have anything to back up your belief? Reports from senior intel folks saying that had we not invaded Iraq, we would have had the resources to get OBL earlier?

 

The intel gathering, sharing and analysis capabilities were in such a shamble (from what I've read), I'm not totally convinced that not invading Iraq would have made a difference. One could feel that our country's resources are deep enough for one to believe that once the country set it's sights on OBL, it wasn't the lack of resources or inattention caused by the Iraq invasion that delayed getting OBL; rather it was simply the time needed to rebuild the intel community that caused the delay. Help convince me your belief is the correct one.

 

And for the record folks, I'm not saying President Obama does not deserve his just credit; rather, I'm wondering if the historians out there are already beginning to temper their thoughts on President Bush's presidency and whether they should.

 

Just my take Leatherneck and an observation by me. (surface level or not)

 

Just my opinion. Iraq was a country with an army and a terrain built for a quick campaign to take and declare victory. Afghanistan was/is not. I think Military leaders and advisors wanted a quantitative victory to keep America behind the war effort and easily followed intel that told them what they wanted to hear.

 

When we began to move on Iraq, I believe we lost the World Support we had in Afghanistan vs. the Taliban and Osama. Had we stayed the course (IMO) and sent the same amount of material and troops there we sent to Iraq, we could have choked off our original target over time.

 

Just my take Leatherneck and my convictions. I think the one thing these wars have revealed is that our resources are NOT limitless in men or money. We have taken our military to the edge with the number of months and years of front line service on the same people over and again. Again, JMO.

I think he should get just as much as bill clinton gets.

 

If he gets credit for something that happens 2 years after he left office because of the ground work he laid (although he himself said UBL was not that important to him) then he has to also get credit for the miserable economy that was occurring 2 years later.

 

 

Perhaps, although one can find many critics (inside and outside of the intelligence community) of Clinton's decisions to dramatically cut the CIA's budget (I believe it was by 25%), institute a hiring freeze at the CIA and dramatically degrade the human intelligence capability. From what I've read, morale at the CIA during the Clinton years was low. Part of it had to do with the whole Ames situation no doubt; but part of it, from what I understand, had to do with Clinton's decisions affecting the CIA. I'm pretty sure I've read that a 1,000 agents/operatives retired or left during the Clinton years. Whether it can all (or even partially ) be blamed on Clinton or not, the intel gathering, sharing and analysis capabilities of the US prior to 9/11 was pretty poor from what I've read. Necessity is the motherhood of invention as they like to say (or in this case, provide the impetetus needed to reform the intel community) , so perhaps Clinton would have made the strong moves that Bush made after 9/11 that laid the foundation for our much better intel community today. But again, from what I understand, Clinton degraded not improved the intel capacity (in particular but not limited to human intel gathering resources) of the US during his years in the WH.

 

Is it your conclusion or opinion that Clinton strenghened the intel capacity of the US? If so, could you provide links to supporting articles. I'd like to read them as it differs from what I understand. Always willing to learn more. Thx.

By 2011 the pundits were saying, and are saying now that it is the Obama economy. If it is the Obama economy, it is the Obama Kill.

Excellent point. If Bush supporters want some credit for helping to nail bin Laden, shouldn't they also take some blame for the economy?

Excellent point. If Bush supporters want some credit for helping to nail bin Laden, shouldn't they also take some blame for the economy?

 

But he does take blame for it, and rightfully so. Granted, there are some hardliners who can't acknowledge this, but I think most sensible people who voted for Bush (like me) acknowledge his economic failures.

Well this turned into exactly what I thought it would and by the usual suspects... :walk:

Well this turned into exactly what I thought it would and by the usual suspects... :walk:

 

Hey, I stayed out of this one so I cannot be blamed for this one. :lol:

 

Well, I did say 'good point' to ace but I haven't nor will I offer up my opinion on this. I want no parts of being blamed for this thread turning into partisan warfare. Some people just don't like dissenting opinions sometimes so I'll just read and click 'like' when I get the feeling.

Hey, I stayed out of this one so I cannot be blamed for this one. :lol:

 

Well, I did say 'good point' to ace but I haven't nor will I offer up my opinion on this. I want no parts of being blamed for this thread turning into partisan warfare. Some people just don't like dissenting opinions sometimes so I'll just read and click 'like' when I get the feeling.

Didn't mean you.

Didn't mean you.

 

I know. :lol:

 

Couldn't resist. In a good mood today.

But he does take blame for it, and rightfully so. Granted, there are some hardliners who can't acknowledge this, but I think most sensible people who voted for Bush (like me) acknowledge his economic failures.

I'm glad he does, and I'm glad you feel that way. Unfortunately, there are some that insist the economy is all Obama's fault. They can't have it both ways.

By 2011 the pundits were saying, and are saying now that it is the Obama economy. If it is the Obama economy, it is the Obama Kill.

 

And they are right on both counts.

Perhaps, although one can find many critics (inside and outside of the intelligence community) of Clinton's decisions to dramatically cut the CIA's budget (I believe it was by 25%), institute a hiring freeze at the CIA and dramatically degrade the human intelligence capability. From what I've read, morale at the CIA during the Clinton years was low. Part of it had to do with the whole Ames situation no doubt; but part of it, from what I understand, had to do with Clinton's decisions affecting the CIA. I'm pretty sure I've read that a 1,000 agents/operatives retired or left during the Clinton years. Whether it can all (or even partially ) be blamed on Clinton or not, the intel gathering, sharing and analysis capabilities of the US prior to 9/11 was pretty poor from what I've read. Necessity is the motherhood of invention as they like to say (or in this case, provide the impetetus needed to reform the intel community) , so perhaps Clinton would have made the strong moves that Bush made after 9/11 that laid the foundation for our much better intel community today. But again, from what I understand, Clinton degraded not improved the intel capacity (in particular but not limited to human intel gathering resources) of the US during his years in the WH.

 

Is it your conclusion or opinion that Clinton strenghened the intel capacity of the US? If so, could you provide links to supporting articles. I'd like to read them as it differs from what I understand. Always willing to learn more. Thx.

 

i was being facetious.

I'm glad he does, and I'm glad you feel that way. Unfortunately, there are some that insist the economy is all Obama's fault. They can't have it both ways.

 

I think the election of 2006 proved the dissatisfaction people had with the George W. Bush administration.