doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Presidential candidate supports INDIVIDUAL RKBA

Larry --
There is enough blame to spread around if you look hard enough. But the hard fact remains that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and the PDBs, I'm given to understand, are not idle e-mails but contain some of the most important information a President has to deal with each day. There were any number of warnings, and even if you can't bring yourself to accept Richard Clarke's rendition of things, it's hard to overlook such vacuous comments as Rice's, "No one ever dreamed someone would use an airplane ..."
Am I trying lay 9/11 entirely on Bush's shoulders? No. But I don't think you can give him a pass, either.

My comments on the comments above by Will S are that this country always needs solid kick in the ass before acting becomes becomes acceptable to the general public and has proved so historically. Look at the Lusitania, The USS Maine,Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Unfortunately, monumental loss of life has acompanied those historical events If GWB were to have made preemptive strikes he would have been crucified by the opposition as a war monger and one that was afraid to "negotiate" with our adversaries. I am sure you all know what I mean. There is no easy answer, when it is your ass in the Oval office. I can not imagine the pressure or how easy we all think it is to "pull the trigger" on any decision. This ain't like shooting pheasants or skeet....... There is tremendous pressure by advisors and adversaries alike. The pressure must be very, very difficult to bear. I also feel that they are receiving more information than we can ever imagine, such information that is still classified and some that has no place (in my opinion) in the public domain. We as a nation bear responsibility no matter how minute an idividual's part may be.

My humble 2 cents

There is some speculation,albiet in the very preliminary stages, that if McCain gets the Republican nomination he may select C. Rice as his running mate. This IMO would have a negligible effect with black voters since she is considered to be an "Oreo" and in the same category as Clarence Thomas. However; I think sho could potentially have a tremendous effect in influencing the womens vote.
Jim

Just so you can rub my nose in it come November: Clinton and Obama beat hell out of each other, race trumps at convention, the notion of Clintons back in the White House propels McCain to the presidency.

A good observation and also a good bet. There are more than a few Dem. men who will give McCain a serious look and choose him over the other two.

Can't help laughing at this!

Right now, under the management of private health insurance companies, we Americans have higher infant mortality, lower life expectancy, fewer people covered, and pay twice as much per capita for health care as any other major industrial nation. For this, we're ranked 37th in the world by the World Health Organization.

Oh, yeah, we Americans have to pay twice as much money for US-made pharmaceuticals as everyone else, too. Administrative costs for America's multiplicity of private health plans eat up 1 out of 4 health care dollars - 3 times as much as Medicare or the VA. Ironically, the national health plans proposed by Hillary and Obama will perpetuate the HMO stranglehold on America's health care!

Although the Spaniards and French and Germans and Brits and Italians enjoy better health care outcomes today at half the cost, we Americans have been suckered into believing that national health care doesn't work. P.T.Barnum sure had us pegged!

Health care . . . we should probably ask some of our Canadian and British posters to comment on their experiences with their respective national health care systems.

Will, obviously 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, so he doesn't get a "pass". However, we do have to remember how long he'd been in office, and what happened during the previous administration. Which means we can't give Clinton a pass for not taking action in response to the PDB that told him--2 YEARS before Bush took office--that AQ was planning to hijack aircraft. Think what might not have happened on 9/11 if cockpits had been hardened by then. AQ might not have even attempted the attack in the manner they did. Or think what might not have happened on 9/11 had Clinton ordered the CIA to go after Bin Laden, aggressively--to include assassination--after the African embassy attacks. Again, over 2 years before Bush took office. Then there's also the fact that the CIA's training program for operations officers--the guys that collect intelligence and engage in counterterrorism operations abroad--had been cut to its lowest level EVER under Clinton. That's something Bush could not correct in 8 months in office, since it takes a few years to produce a fully-trained, language qualified ops officer. There were also significant cuts in the military under Clinton.

Comparing Bush to FDR, the latter had already taken significant steps to build up our military prior to Pearl Harbor. But he'd also been in office for 9 years by the time we were attacked. Still happened on his watch--and he didn't have a bunch of damage to his military and intelligence assets to undo, as Bush did. In summary, while I don't blame either FDR or Bush, given the different circumstances, there are far more places to spread the "blame" in Bush's case than there are in FDR's.

Well then Jack, how about you stop laughing long enough to educate us all on how it will work, and who is going to pay for it????

GunPlumber, national health care has worked for half a century in Europe, paid for by the taxpayer - and what they pay in health care taxes is about half what we pay in insurance premiums. This is thoroughly documented.

Health care is accessible for everyone, without charge or with minimal charge, throughout the EU and Japan and many other countries. No one asks for your insurance card, or sends you a whopping bill. No one puts off treatment because they can't afford it. And the quality of health care is excellent.

I'm not going on hearsay, GunPlumber; I am an EU citizen as well as an American. I have experienced emergency health care in Scotland, England and France. My wife had elective surgery in Scotland. In central London I was able to walk unscheduled into a hospital emergency room and be examined by an MD and X-rayed within 45 minutes. There was no charge for the treatment. In Paris I was treated within 20 minutes. In both places I was given prescription drugs that cost less than $20. Good luck having that prompt treatment in an American ER (unless you're having a heart attack).

In Scotland, I could always see my doctor within a week - in Minnesota I have to wait anywhere from 3 to 5 weeks for an appointment. My wife has had to wait as long as 3 months to see her gynecologist. Meanwhile, we have American citizens getting sicker, or sometimes even dying, because their insurance company won't approve needed treatment. Isn't there something weird about a health care system where the insurers who pay for medical treatment make more money if they deny your claim?

We don't need to invent national health care - there are many successful working models already out there that are delivering better health outcomes than ours does, and at half the cost. Unfortunately, our politicians in both parties get so much cash from the health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies, they're afraid to do anything for America's health without protecting the profits of those industries.

Health care in Çanada is a long way from being as efficient as citizens expect from a public system paid by taxpayers but definitely preferable to the American where some 40-million are without coverage. Everyone is covered and it is considerably less expensive than the US system.

I had a serious illness 40 years ago that would have ruined me financially under the US system. Imagine the relief of not getting a bill. A friend's child required years of treatment in hospitals---no bill. A hunting buddy had open-heart surgery---no bill. No one complains of paying into a health system they don't use.

To reduce wait times, private clinics paid for from public funds are proliferating. If service is not available in Quebec province, patients are treated at public expense in the United States. I think the Canadian system will evolve along these lines over time, drawing from the European experience.

It's difficult for me to get a handle on the Democratic aspirants' plans but from the sound bites Obama's seems abominable and Clinton closer to a universal system. I don't understand why they don't come out and say, look, the public pays one way or another, private or public, so we're taking the best of the best systems in the world and going with it to cover every man, woman and child.

Health care isn't something that can be covered adequately here. I can tell you---and I'm trying not to be partisan---that Canadians consider their system as the distinguishing difference between Canada and the United States. It's not baseball and hockey, different systems of governance, your omnipotence and our very modest role in world affairs, it's universal care as a sacred trust---and a right.