Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on March 11, 2008, 10:13:08 AM
-
When they take over the white house, there has been 4 or 8 or 12 years of very heavy borrowing and very light taxing.
They can do 1 of 2 things....
They can continue the trend right into bankruptcy, or
They can stop the spending and tax people more to prevent bankruptcy.
I know we all hate Dems for taxing us, but if the Repubs didn't borrow so damn much and hand the dems a big hole to start in, they wouldn't have to. Thoughts?
-
I know we all hate Dems for taxing us, but if the Repubs didn't borrow so damn much and hand the dems a big hole to start in, they wouldn't have to. Thoughts?
yup
-
Very light taxing? Your crazy! That was an incorrect statement 240.
The borrowing is a valid point.
-
Very light taxing? Your crazy! That was an incorrect statement 240.
The borrowing is a valid point.
repubs tax less than Dems, I conceded that.
Obama will tax us more... but I'd prefer that to waking up one day and finding out we're bankrupt as a nation.
-
When they take over the white house, there has been 4 or 8 or 12 years of very heavy borrowing and very light taxing.
They can do 1 of 2 things....
They can continue the trend right into bankruptcy, or
They can stop the spending and tax people more to prevent bankruptcy.
I know we all hate Dems for taxing us, but if the Repubs didn't borrow so damn much and hand the dems a big hole to start in, they wouldn't have to. Thoughts?
Without going into specifics (because conservatives like myself and liberals like you will disagree on what money should go for) I think we can both agree that a great deal or possibly even a majority of our taxes are flushed down the toilet by politicians. A responsible public official should be able to dispense with funding useless and wasteful programs WITHOUT increasing taxes on an already overtaxes populace and still balance the budget. The fact that you only see those two options is testament to your true colors. Weren't you yourself complaining about the use of misleading scare tactics??
-
repubs tax less than Dems, I conceded that.
Obama will tax us more... but I'd prefer that to waking up one day and finding out we're bankrupt as a nation.
yup, either way we the people pay a heavy price, tell me the difference shootfigher.
-
A Nine trillion dollar debt with interest does not pay for itself.
I don't think anyone enjoys paying taxes yet they are an inevitable part of governmental operation.
-
A Nine trillion dollar debt with interest does not pay for itself.
I don't think anyone enjoys paying taxes yet they are an inevitable part of governmental operation.
It's not the principle of paying taxes .. it's the amount being demanded by the gov't, or else.
-
Without going into specifics (because conservatives like myself and liberals like you will disagree on what money should go for) I think we can both agree that a great deal or possibly even a majority of our taxes are flushed down the toilet by politicians. A responsible public official should be able to dispense with funding useless and wasteful programs WITHOUT increasing taxes on an already overtaxes populace and still balance the budget. The fact that you only see those two options is testament to your true colors. Weren't you yourself complaining about the use of misleading scare tactics??
boy, you don't get the way washington works ;D What's that fact testament of?
-
Without going into specifics (because conservatives like myself and liberals like you will disagree on what money should go for) I think we can both agree that a great deal or possibly even a majority of our taxes are flushed down the toilet by politicians. A responsible public official should be able to dispense with funding useless and wasteful programs WITHOUT increasing taxes on an already overtaxes populace and still balance the budget. The fact that you only see those two options is testament to your true colors. Weren't you yourself complaining about the use of misleading scare tactics??
The federal budget is what, a little over 2 trillion dollars?
The debt is about 9 trillion dollars with interest accruing.
Even if we eliminated all federal expenditures today, we'd still have a problem.
-
boy, you don't get the way washington works ;D What's that fact testament of?
Oh i do better than you realize.. that's a statement of the ideal not the reality.
-
It's not the principle of paying taxes .. it's the amount being demanded by the gov't, or else.
yea and in this case, who ran up the debt or else? Not dems bubba.
-
because conservatives like myself and liberals like you
You're an ignorant fvcker, arent you?
I'm liberal because I possess the moral backbone and honesty to admit when my repub party does something wrong?
-
Oh i do better than you realize.. that's a statement of the ideal not the reality.
yea, and you're shoving the "ideal" in 240's face as an "ah ha, you don't get it" ::)
-
You're an ignorant fvcker, arent you?
ah.. got your number, did I?
Who's angry now? ;D
-
ah.. got your number, did I?
Who's angry now? ;D
You know you were baiting it by calling him a lib... Don't play the innocent bullshit here, we see right past the crap.
-
ah.. got your number, did I?
Who's angry now? ;D
aside from dissecting BOTH parties' platforms, what makes you think I'm a lib?
honestly, answer this one...
i'm dying to see what obama's flaws are. I can't stop talking about clinton's evil. Mccain is bush 3.
I hate welfare, love my guns, live in rural FL, own a masters degree, and I'll be hit bad with obama's taxes too.
I'm a republican. I'm just not a neocon. ya know?
-
I'm a republican. I'm just not a neocon.
he's to young to know the diff. I think the neocons came in when he was a teen.
-
yea and in this case, who ran up the debt or else? Not dems bubba.
And tell me.. aside from Bush who has already not followed traditional conservatism, how much gov't waste goes to things like welfare, huge ineffecient gov't agencies, etc. Who ran that one up?!?! hmm...
-
he's to young to know the diff. I think the neocons came in when he was a teen.
Neocon is a term you guys throw around without really knowing where it came from. What it really meant years ago were American Jews who turned to the republican side in order to truly support Israel.
I'm a non-religious, libertarian/conservative.
-
aside from dissecting BOTH parties' platforms, what makes you think I'm a lib?
honestly, answer this one...
i'm dying to see what obama's flaws are. I can't stop talking about clinton's evil. Mccain is bush 3.
I hate welfare, love my guns, live in rural FL, own a masters degree, and I'll be hit bad with obama's taxes too.
I'm a republican. I'm just not a neocon. ya know?
brix,
I'm a repub. I debate all issues from all angles.
To call a lifelong repub a lib is insulting. That makes you a liar. You know who else lies?
Libs...
-
aside from dissecting BOTH parties' platforms, what makes you think I'm a lib?
honestly, answer this one...
i'm dying to see what obama's flaws are. I can't stop talking about clinton's evil. Mccain is bush 3.
I hate welfare, love my guns, live in rural FL, own a masters degree, and I'll be hit bad with obama's taxes too.
I'm a republican. I'm just not a neocon. ya know?
Let's start with every post from you between Sept 11, 2001 and about this time last year, huh?
-
And tell me.. aside from Bush who has already not followed traditional conservatism, how much gov't waste goes to things like welfare, huge ineffecient gov't agencies, etc. Who ran that one up?!?! hmm...
Oh Brother.... Pull your head out of whatever you learned from your highschool gov textbook on the 80's and get in the now will ya. You want to blame dems on bloated government agencies in the 2000's LOL that is funny knowing what Bush has done... and welfare, please, that's hasn't been an issue since the 80's/early-90's
-
Let's start with every post from you between Sept 11, 2001 and about this time last year, huh?
wanting a full investigation into what happened on 911 isn't a lib position.
It's about solving a crime.
ahhhh is this where your belief comes from? Youre' one of those brainwashed folks that believes questioning the official story means you're anti-repub, huh?
-
Oh Brother.... Pull your head out of whatever you learned from your highschool gov textbook on the 80's and get in the now will ya. You want to blame dems on bloated government agencies in the 2000's LOL that is funny knowing what Bush has done... and welfare, please, that's hasn't been an issue since the 80's/early-90's
Where the hell have you been? The only reason the gov't is anywhere near as overweight as it is is dems pushing for big gov't for the last 30 years. It's not even debatable.
-
Neocon is a term you guys throw around without really knowing where it came from. What it really meant years ago were American Jews who turned to the republican side in order to truly support Israel.
I'm a non-religious, libertarian/conservative.
HAHAHAH FUCKING HA!!!! 240, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE TERM NEOCON CAME FROM.... LOLOLOLOL....
WE HAVE A DETAILED HISTORY OF IT IN OUR LITTLE MEMORY BANKS BUDDY.
-
HAHAHAH FUCKING HA!!!! 240, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE TERM NEOCON CAME FROM.... LOLOLOLOL....
WE HAVE A DETAILED HISTORY OF IT IN OUR LITTLE MEMORY BANKS BUDDY.
i bet he has no clue what PNAC is.
-
wanting a full investigation into what happened on 911 isn't a lib position.
It's about solving a crime.
ahhhh is this where your belief comes from? Youre' one of those brainwashed folks that believes questioning the official story means you're anti-repub, huh?
No your conspiracy theories and rediculus accusations showed you for who you really are.. nothing but a shit stirrer with a very skewed reality. Lol.. you call me brainwashed and yet you harbor some insane ideas for those events.. yeah right!! ;D
-
i bet he has no clue what PNAC is.
I know full well where it came from.. it is where it was applied that made the difference.
-
No your conspiracy theories and rediculus accusations showed you for who you really are.. nothing but a shit stirrer with a very skewed reality. Lol.. you call me brainwashed and yet you harbor some insane ideas for those events.. yeah right!! ;D
I love to stir up debate, sure.
But let's look at facts. WTC7 was never hit by a plane, had some small fires. After BBC and CNN reported its collapse 45 min early and all the firefighters were told to move back, it was brought down in what resembled a textbook demolition, killing at least one person.
There has been no investigation into this building's collapse. I would like one. Does that make me a lib?
-
No your conspiracy theories and rediculus accusations showed you for who you really are.. nothing but a shit stirrer with a very skewed reality. Lol.. you call me brainwashed and yet you harbor some insane ideas for those events.. yeah right!! ;D
I just saw your little quote, you were in prison? Leavenworth? I thought you got out early, what happened?
-
No your conspiracy theories and rediculus accusations showed you for who you really are.. nothing but a shit stirrer with a very skewed reality. Lol.. you call me brainwashed and yet you harbor some insane ideas for those events.. yeah right!! ;D
you guys love to make things up about me.
rediculus accusations
Who did I accuse of anything?
-
you guys love to make things up about me.
rediculus accusations
Who did I accuse of anything?
u accused BB of many things :D
-
u accused BB of many things :D
well, didn't he used to work for planned parenthood or something?
-
well, didn't he used to work for planned parenthood or something?
lol
-
I love to stir up debate, sure.
But let's look at facts. WTC7 was never hit by a plane, had some small fires. After BBC and CNN reported its collapse 45 min early and all the firefighters were told to move back, it was brought down in what resembled a textbook demolition, killing at least one person.
There has been no investigation into this building's collapse. I would like one. Does that make me a lib?
I've never had a problem with another investigation. Do I feel that one is warranted in this case? Not at all. It's the ideas you DO believe that happened that I question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
-
I've never had a problem with another investigation. Do I feel that one is warranted in this case? Not at all. It's the ideas you DO believe that happened that I question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
5 of the 10 911 commissioners have already gone public and said they feel VERY STRONGLY that another investigation should take place.
They say much info was never given to them about who funded it, who trained the arabs, etc.
now, if 50% of the 911 commissioners have the guts to stand up and take the heat to admit their historical document is poor...
then yeah, we need another investigation. Unless you feel they're wrong?
-
5 of the 10 911 commissioners have already gone public and said they feel VERY STRONGLY that another investigation should take place.
They say much info was never given to them about who funded it, who trained the arabs, etc.
now, if 50% of the 911 commissioners have the guts to stand up and take the heat to admit their historical document is poor...
then yeah, we need another investigation. Unless you feel they're wrong?
I said I have no problem with another.. they are in a better pos to decide if one is warranted or not but I have yet to be convinced.
-
you guys love to make things up about me.
rediculus accusations
Who did I accuse of anything?
Well when you were on your 911 tantrum you accused everyone from Bush to Israel as to being responsible. Pretty much everyone but the terrorists.
-
I said I have no problem with another.. they are in a better pos to decide if one is warranted or not but I have yet to be convinced.
pos is short for "piece of shit," not position.
-
pos is short for "piece of shit," not position.
apparently you got it.. against all the odds I imagine. ;D
-
apparently you got it.. against all the odds I imagine. ;D
yea.... that's what you meant even though it reads the other way ::) Were you in prison or not, what happend?
-
yea.... that's what you meant even though it reads the other way ::) Were you in prison or not, what happend?
dont take it too seriously buddy.. "it's just getbig" ::)
-
Well when you were on your 911 tantrum you accused everyone from Bush to Israel as to being responsible. Pretty much everyone but the terrorists.
uh, no.
i was very clear those 19 pricks were to blame.
my problem was with the guys who called off NORAD.
Israel WARNED US, 6 weeks before 911. And bush was a deer in headlights on 911.
I am positive there were more than 19 pricks working that AM to hurt americans. As are the majority of americans, acc'ding to zogby.
-
uh, no.
i was very clear those 19 pricks were to blame.
my problem was with the guys who called off NORAD.
Israel WARNED US, 6 weeks before 911. And bush was a deer in headlights on 911.
I am positive there were more than 19 pricks working that AM to hurt americans. As are the majority of americans, acc'ding to zogby.
Hey you call pull whatever story you want now.. the point is that everything you were saying back then with the exception of "there should be another investigation" exposed you for the nut you are.
-
dont take it too seriously buddy.. "it's just getbig" ::)
Don't act like I threatend to come after you :D You're right, we're just shooting shit here, I don't think I've done anything to elude otherwise.
-
I just saw your little quote, you were in prison? Leavenworth? I thought you got out early, what happened?
yea, looks like you hit a nerve Hugo :D
-
Hey you call pull whatever story you want now.. the point is that everything you were saying back then with the exception of "there should be another investigation" exposed you for the nut you are.
when you were 5, you believed in santa claus.
it was completely impossible by the laws of physics, 1 man hitting a billion homes, but you bought that shit hook, line and sinker because your parents, who you trusted, told you it was so.
today, you're 25 or 35 or whatever, and you believe WTC7 fell from fire. Same logic.
If I'm a nut because I agree with 5 of the 10 911 commissioners, well, so be it. They never addressed WTC7 in the report, so there's no official account for me to disagree with ;)
-
when you were 5, you believed in santa claus.
it was completely impossible by the laws of physics, 1 man hitting a billion homes, but you bought that shit hook, line and sinker because your parents, who you trusted, told you it was so.
today, you're 25 or 35 or whatever, and you believe WTC7 fell from fire. Same logic.
If I'm a nut because I agree with 5 of the 10 911 commissioners, well, so be it. They never addressed WTC7 in the report, so there's no official account for me to disagree with ;)
Fire and structural damage. The latter they believe to have been to a larger extent than they realized.
That is not why you are a nut.. for the third time I wouln't disagree with another investigation.
-
when you were 5, you believed in santa claus.
it was completely impossible by the laws of physics, 1 man hitting a billion homes, but you bought that shit hook, line and sinker because your parents, who you trusted, told you it was so.
today, you're 25 or 35 or whatever, and you believe WTC7 fell from fire. Same logic.
If I'm a nut because I agree with 5 of the 10 911 commissioners, well, so be it. They never addressed WTC7 in the report, so there's no official account for me to disagree with ;)
zero way he's 35. His pics from a little while back looked very young.
-
for the third time I wouln't disagree with another investigation.
why say it when you think there isn't a case for it?
-
zero way he's 35. His pics from a little while back looked very young.
I'm 24.
Just because I don't feel it necessary for another investigation that doesn't mean I would object to it either.
-
for the third time I wouln't disagree with another investigation.
in that case, we're in agreement!
-
The claim that modern Repubs desire small government and Dems want it to be even larger is simply that........a claim. Both parties are statists. The number of lobbyists under the Bush administration has doubled from 17k to 34k. The Defense budget is severely bloated due to the wars we run. The US Department of Education continually receives increasing amounts of funding, despite the well known fact that US education languishes far behind even less developed countries. Unemployment and welfare benefits are ever on the rise.
Half of all Americans receive some sort of paycheck from government. That is unacceptable.
-
Exactly, thats precisely why I voted for Ron Paul. The bulk of his ideas make sense and are similar to the basic founding principles of our country.
-
The claim that modern Repubs desire small government and Dems want it to be even larger is simply that........a claim. Both parties are statists. The number of lobbyists under the Bush administration has doubled from 17k to 34k. The Defense budget is severely bloated due to the wars we run. The US Department of Education continually receives increasing amounts of funding, despite the well known fact that US education languishes far behind even less developed countries. Unemployment and welfare benefits are ever on the rise.
Half of all Americans receive some sort of paycheck from government. That is unacceptable.
It's not a claim.. it's a historical fact. I concede that Bush has deviated from conservatism in that area.
And I agree whole heartedly with your last statement.
-
I'm 24.
Just because I don't feel it necessary for another investigation that doesn't mean I would object to it either.
No, it just means you were a kid when the shit hit the fan ;) When you were getting grounded by daddy, we were voting and following politics and here you are telling me I don't know what a neoconserative is ::) You were 8 years old when I was an active Marine casting my vote for Bill Clinton. :D
-
I wondered if your chart was skewed since it only showed data since 1975. Appears from the chart below that the trend is pretty constant since World War II. So much for Republicans being more fiscally responsible.
(http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/USDebt_files/image001.jpg)
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm (http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm)
"For the mathematically inclined, if you take the first derivative of the data presented to find the slope of each President’s debt increase, you will find that the Republican slopes are consistently more positive than the Democratic slopes. For everyone else, this just means that unbiased mathematical proof exists to support the claim that since 1945, Republican presidents have borrowed more than Democratic presidents regardless of the inflation rate."
-
No, it just means you were a kid when the shit hit the fan ;) When you were getting grounded by daddy, we were voting and following politics and here you are telling me I don't know what a neoconserative is ::) You were 8 years old when I was an active Marine casting my vote for Bill Clinton. :D
Congrats.. you voted for the guy who let the 19 terrorists into the country. Good job! ::)
You and I both took the same oath yet you voted for a president who did so much to destroy our nations security.
-
Congrats.. you voted for the guy who let the 19 terrorists into the country. Good job! ::)
wow! please explain.
-
Congrats.. you voted for the guy who let the 19 terrorists into the country. Good job! ::)
You and I both took the same oath yet you voted for a president who did so much to destroy our nations security.
just when you debate like an adult for 30 minutes, you return to blind ignorance.
please exlpain that.
-
Congrats.. you voted for the guy who let the 19 terrorists into the country. Good job! ::)
You and I both took the same oath yet you voted for a president who did so much to destroy our nations security.
Yeah! How dare Bill Clinton not stand guard on each and every border crossing & point of entry into the U.S. and make sure personally that no one bad gets in.
Be serious. If you are going to post blaim, Bush and his administration are just as much at fault for 9/11. (http://archive.democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=911 (http://archive.democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=911))
-
Congrats.. you voted for the guy who let the 19 terrorists into the country. Good job! ::)
You and I both took the same oath yet you voted for a president who did so much to destroy our nations security.
::) in your ABC fakumentary.
-
wow! please explain.
ABC had the fakumentary that pretty much blamed Clinton for everything. Rightwing morons globbed onto it like gospel. The production was traced back to an extreme rightwing source. I'm not a huge Clinton fan anyway but when it comes to justifying my vote against Bush Sr. I got no problem there :)
-
I like it how Brix makes it sound like Clinton arranged for the terrorist's to come in ::) jeez, the fakumentary didn't even go that far :D
-
Some people need to accept what they know deep down is a lie or a emotional belilef to help them justify supporting something else.
It amazes me still that hard core conservatives even the ones who call people out for hating BUSH, in their own hatred of Clinton would actually blame him for 9/11.
It really boils down to classic programming. The masses in this country have been programmed to be set in political opposites in way the playing field is pre-determined, some examples:
- Abortion
- Government spending
- Weak or Strong on Defense
- Universal Health care equating to socialism
- Social issue vs religious issues
- Libs hate America
- Conservatives are war mongers
-
Brix is 24yrs old. Lifes gonna be kicking him in the balls for awhile before he comes around.... 8)
-
The national debt has to be paid off.
Once the economy is going well again (and it will, sooner or later), a congress and a president has to be fiscally responsible enough to not spend too much, rather try to slim the military, which costs a third of every tax dollar. :o
The taxes also needs to be raised, in order to curb any overheating of economy.
But that is not a very popular message.
Seems like many people prefers a bankrupt nation.
Obviously, you can't raise taxes and start paying off on the national debt when the economy is going slow.
That would hurt both private and corporate economy.
But a politician has to be bold enough to raise taxes when the economy heating up. Then it's all about being able to communicate why it is necessary to the "Tre's" of the worlds (no offense Tre ;)).
-
just when you debate like an adult for 30 minutes, you return to blind ignorance.
please exlpain that.
You must be pretty riled up.. since I called you ignorant earlier you have been calling me nothing but ;D
-
::) in your ABC fakumentary.
Never saw it.. and I wouldn't need it to show how Clinton allowed 9/11 to happen.
-
Yeah! How dare Bill Clinton not stand guard on each and every border crossing & point of entry into the U.S. and make sure personally that no one bad gets in.
Be serious. If you are going to post blaim, Bush and his administration are just as much at fault for 9/11. (http://archive.democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=911 (http://archive.democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=911))
Not even close
-
Brix is 24yrs old. Lifes gonna be kicking him in the balls for awhile before he comes around.... 8)
Welcome to the party.. don't forget to bring your life partner. ;D
I'd venture to say my life is pretty damn good.
-
Congrats.. you voted for the guy who let the 19 terrorists into the country. Good job! ::)
You and I both took the same oath yet you voted for a president who did so much to destroy our nations security.
And you support a guy who let those 19 terrorists crash planes into the towers.
-
I know the truth hurts ;D ;D
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/4/03534.shtml
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/9/120750.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18972-2004Mar23.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/billC.htm
http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/clintonhunt.html
-
you are comparing apples to oranges now... ::)
-
I know the truth hurts ;D ;D
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/4/03534.shtml
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/9/120750.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18972-2004Mar23.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/billC.htm
http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/clintonhunt.html
When you can post something besides opinion and hindsight i suppose it might hurt.
If Clinton knew what they were going to do 9/11 and had them in custody that's one thing. Like a murderer telling the police chief he will murder the mayor of town and the police chiefs let's him free then you can say it's his fault.
But that;s not the case with Clinton who order an assassination on OBL
All you've posted there is a bunch of spin blathering by neo-con writers to keep the hounds loyal.
Fact is, 9/11 security break downs and incompentecy occured on BUSH's watch with his administration.
Why do you think he stalled 9/11 investigations? Why do you think he doesn't want another one?
-
And you support a guy who let those 19 terrorists crash planes into the towers.
Ah .. another hateful idiot.
Not even close..
-
When you can post something besides opinion and hindsight i suppose it might hurt.
If Clinton knew what they were going to do 9/11 and had them in custody that's one thing. Like a murderer telling the police chief he will murder the mayor of town and the police chiefs let's him free then you can the truth is it's his fault.
But that;s not the case with Clinton who order an assassination on OBL
All you've posted there is a bunch of spin blathering by neo-con writers to keep the hounds loyal.
Fact is, 9/11 security break downs and incompentecy occured on BUSH's watch with his administration.
Why do you think he stalled 9/11 investigations? Why do you think he doesn't want another one?
Read the links I posted and then offer me a better argument than "they happened just after Bush took office."
I could sit here all day and give you links but in the end you'll have to read them and respond to the facts they contain.
Your objectivity is very thin Ozmo.
-
Ah .. another hateful idiot.
Not even close..
you're begging the question...
-
Brixy, your not the brightest bulb in the closet......and im sure its a closet.
-
Read the links I posted and then offer me a better argument than "they happened just after Bush took office."
I could sit here all day and give you links but in the end you'll have to read them and respond to the facts they contain.
Your objectivity is very thin Ozmo.
What facts?
I get it, Clinton should have......blah blah blah.
Hindsight is 20/20
BUSH did not just take office, he was there 9 months ........19% of his first term as president had already passed.
To blamed Clinton for 9/11 is monster subjectivity and avoidance of responsibility.
In addition to security break downs across the board from Defense protocols to air port security broke down that day or just weren't prepared for that kind of event.
Add that to the reports that other world leaders and Intel was available at the time that showed something was going to happen and BUSH did what BUSH was good at then....... doing nothing.
You can argue BUSH wasn't directly at fault, but to even believe Clinton was at fault..... Well that's just stupid and shows how much your programming in some areas has taken hold (not all areas becuase you show some good libertarian and conservative values). Sorry.
-
Brixy, your not the brightest bulb in the closet......and im sure its a closet.
More nonsense and insults from someone with nothing else to offer.
-
More nonsense and insults from someone with nothing else to offer.
well, now you're just being defensive. ::)
-
More nonsense and insults from someone with nothing else to offer.
Ive been offering my 2 cents since you were shitting in youre diapers, lil boy. :o
-
What facts?
I get it, Clinton should have......blah blah blah.
Hindsight is 20/20
BUSH did not just take office, he was there 9 months ........19% of his first term as president had already passed.
To blamed Clinton for 9/11 is monster subjectivity and avoidance of responsibility.
In addition to security break downs across the board from Defense protocols to air port security broke down that day or just weren't prepared for that kind of event.
Add that to the reports that other world leaders and Intel was available at the time that showed something was going to happen and BUSH did what BUSH was good at then....... doing nothing.
You can argue BUSH wasn't directly at fault, but to even believe Clinton was at fault..... Well that's just stupid and shows how much your programming in some areas has taken hold (not all areas becuase you show some good libertarian and conservative values). Sorry.
It's not "blah blah"... Various attacks happened during his term and he did just what you're accusing Bush of doing.. NOTHING!
How many tips do you think Bush/DOD/CIA/NSA etc get everyday.. if one came in with credibility they wouldn't know until after the fact. I've seen intel. There's only so much you can do and so much you can act on. The point is Clinton had the confirmation needed to act and did nothing while Bush had no reason to take one threat more seriously than another because he didn't have that assurance.
This is why the action taken after the fact is so important. Bush has done everything possible to prevent more attacks. Clinton did nothing even AFTER allied forces were attacked the world over.
In addition.. Air security at airports has always been inadequate. It is better now after 9/11 but still no where near perfect. I will blame neither prez for that.
-
9-11 was clearly Christopher Columbus's fault. Had he not came to America, none of this shit would have happened.
-
Fact is, 9/11 security break downs and incompentecy occured on BUSH's watch with his administration.
not at all. those were clintons boys. that was his cia, his fbi. completely fucked up when bush took office. do you think when bush took office, he just fired every fed in the country and hired his own?
-
Ive been offering my 2 cents since you were shitting in youre diapers, lil boy. :o
My shitty daiper holds more water than anything you've posted on GB. ;D
-
It's not "blah blah"... Various attacks happened during his term and he did just what you're accusing Bush of doing.. NOTHING!
This is why the action taken after the fact is so important. Bush has done everything possible to prevent more attacks. Clinton did nothing even AFTER allied forces were attacked the world over.
wrong. Clinton tried to get OBL. He failed...but he did try.
-
Brixy, your not the brightest bulb in the closet......and im sure its a closet.
-
not at all. those were clintons boys. that was his cia, his fbi. completely fucked up when bush took office. do you think when bush took office, he just fired every fed in the country and hired his own?
I would.
-
wrong. Clinton tried to get OBL. He failed...but he did try.
Yeah.. that's the story you bought when he was trying to turn the media away from his antics in office.
-
not at all. those were clintons boys. that was his cia, his fbi. completely fucked up when bush took office. do you think when bush took office, he just fired every fed in the country and hired his own?
Don't you have someone to taze or something?
;Djk
-
9-11 was clearly Christopher Columbus's fault. Had he not came to America, none of this shit would have happened.
LMAO ;D Gawddamn columbus >:(
-
What facts?
I get it, Clinton should have......blah blah blah.
Hindsight is 20/20
BUSH did not just take office, he was there 9 months ........19% of his first term as president had already passed.
To blamed Clinton for 9/11 is monster subjectivity and avoidance of responsibility.
In addition to security break downs across the board from Defense protocols to air port security broke down that day or just weren't prepared for that kind of event.
Add that to the reports that other world leaders and Intel was available at the time that showed something was going to happen and BUSH did what BUSH was good at then....... doing nothing.
You can argue BUSH wasn't directly at fault, but to even believe Clinton was at fault..... Well that's just stupid and shows how much your programming in some areas has taken hold (not all areas becuase you show some good libertarian and conservative values). Sorry.
its nobody's fault. most of you guys need to turn off cnn because your brainwashed that bush is responsible for everything bad.
if a fight breaks out in a classroom, is it the principal of the schools fault?
-
I would.
it takes years to train and hire feds
-
Yeah.. that's the story you bought when he was trying to turn the media away from his antics in office.
You really are stupid. Clinton's "antics" in office have nothing to do with any of it.
-
You really are stupid. Clinton's "antics" in office have nothing to do with any of it.
Poor brixy. Everywhere he goes on this board, they call him stupid... :-[
-
You really are stupid. Clinton's "antics" in office have nothing to do with any of it.
oohh.. touched a nerve did I?
Funny how the only real action he committed to was a pathetic and unsuccessful Thawk attack right when the whole Monica nonsense was going on. C'mon.. and you're callin me dumb?!? hahaha.. ok ;D
-
Poor brixy. Everywhere he goes on this board, they call him stupid... :-[
My shitty daiper holds more water than anything you've posted on GB. ;D
lol! Keep it coming..
-
oohh.. touched a nerve did I?
Funny how the only real action he committed to was a pathetic and unsuccessful Thawk attack right when the whole Monica nonsense was going on. C'mon.. and you're callin me dumb?!? hahaha.. ok ;D
Apparantly, you are against women giving you blowjobs?? ??? Did prison turn you into a republican... :-[
-
Apparantly, you are against women giving you blowjobs?? ??? Did prison turn you into a republican... :-[
Okay, after this one you don't get to call me stupid anymore since you obviously can't see my point.
And don't assume I don't like blow jobs just because I've turned you down everytime Neuro leaves for work. ;D
-
There's a lot of blame to go around for 9/11. Clinton spent over a billion dollars on anti-terror measures in 1996. He ordered the assassinatin of OBL. But he failed to get him.
Bush completely ignored terrorism as an issue when he took office. He failed to catch OBL as well. Then he did the unthinkable:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
"I don't know where he is. I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
"Deep in my heart I know the man's on the run, if he's alive at all...I just don't spend much time on it, really, to be honest with you."
And President Bush disbanded the CIA unit dedicated to finding bin Laden.
-
There's a lot of blame to go around for 9/11. Clinton spent over a billion dollars on anti-terror measures in 1996. He ordered the assassinatin of OBL. But he failed to get him.
Bush completely ignored terrorism as an issue when he took office. He failed to catch OBL as well. Then he did the unthinkable:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
"I don't know where he is. I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
"Deep in my heart I know the man's on the run, if he's alive at all...I just don't spend much time on it, really, to be honest with you."
And President Bush disbanded the CIA unit dedicated to finding bin Laden.
You know exactly what that means. OBL is one man of a leaderless network. Getting him is not nearly a priority when compared to get to the network itself.
Clintons shortcomings go beyond Osama, but that's really not the point. Bush has done more to stop terror in his first term than Bill did in both of his.
-
You know exactly what that means. OBL is one man of a leaderless network. Getting him is not nearly a priority when compared to get to the network itself.
Clintons shortcomings go beyond Osama, but that's really not the point. Bush has done more to stop terror in his first term than Bill did in both of his.
Yeah. We had constant news of terrorist reports on T.V everynight. We saw the death toll of soldiers climb into the thousands............ ::)
-
You know exactly what that means. OBL is one man of a leaderless network. Getting him is not nearly a priority when compared to get to the network itself.
Clintons shortcomings go beyond Osama, but that's really not the point. Bush has done more to stop terror in his first term than Bill did in both of his.
No, a thousand times no. You are saying that the man that helped orchestrate the 9/11 attacks isn't worth arresting?
That's nonsense.
Battling Al Qaeda is not an 'either/or' proposition. Either get Bin Laden or battle Al Qaeda. That's sophistry.
Bush completely ignored terrorism and Al Qaeda until after 9/11.
Here's what Clinton did before 9/11 with his '96 Omnibus Anti-terrorism deal:
Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
Passenger Profiling: $10 million
Screener Training: $5.3 million
Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
million
Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million
Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million
Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million
Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million
Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million
Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million
Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million
Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million
Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million
Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself.
Source: William Rivers Pitt
Does that look like nothing to you?
-
No, a thousand times no. You are saying that the man that helped orchestrate the 9/11 attacks isn't worth arresting?
That's nonsense.
Battling Al Qaeda is not an 'either/or' proposition. Either get Bin Laden or battle Al Qaeda. That's sophistry.
No I'm saying it's pales in comparison to the overall objective. Don't try to twist my words around.
Bush completely ignored terrorism and Al Qaeda until after 9/11.
Here's what Clinton did before 9/11 with his '96 Omnibus Anti-terrorism deal:
Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
Passenger Profiling: $10 million
Screener Training: $5.3 million
Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
million
Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million
Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million
Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million
Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million
Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million
Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million
Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million
Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million
Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million
Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself.
Source: William Rivers Pitt
Does that look like nothing to you?
Hmm.. all that and 9/11 (among others) still happened.
ONE BILLION DOLLARS!!!! lol, relatively small by todays standards, nice try.
Bush legislated and funded far more efforts to combat terror and so far they have paid off.
There's so much more than just this but you get the idea:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa071702a.htm
-
No, a thousand times no. You are saying that the man that helped orchestrate the 9/11 attacks isn't worth arresting?
That's nonsense.
Battling Al Qaeda is not an 'either/or' proposition. Either get Bin Laden or battle Al Qaeda. That's sophistry.
Bush completely ignored terrorism and Al Qaeda until after 9/11.
Here's what Clinton did before 9/11 with his '96 Omnibus Anti-terrorism deal:
Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
Passenger Profiling: $10 million
Screener Training: $5.3 million
Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
million
Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million
Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million
Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million
Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million
Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million
Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million
Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million
Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million
Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million
Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself.
Source: William Rivers Pitt
Does that look like nothing to you?
Decker. Please do not clog up the debate with facts. Brixy would like to keep within his comfort zone of assumptions, inuendo's and outright lies. This will make for a more spirited discussion.
Yours Sincerely, Warhorse :D
-
No I'm saying it's pales in comparison to the overall objective. Don't try to twist my words around.
You are agreeing with Bush that OBL is not that important. Tell that to the 3000+ families grieving the deaths of loved ones on 9/11. "There killer is just not important any more...."
Hmm.. all that and 9/11 (among others) still happened.
Yes, 9/11 still happened b/c of almost inexplicable failures.
ONE BILLION DOLLARS!!!! lol, relatively small by todays standards, nice try.
That's a billion more dollars than Bush spent on fighting terrorism before 9/11.
Bush legislated and funded far more efforts to combat terror and so far they have paid off.
There's so much more than just this but you get the idea:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa071702a.htm
Of course he spent more on terrorism--he was president of the US when the country was attacked. The man had a blank check and a clear enemy after the attacks.
Thank god he invaded Iraq illegally. I agree with others that, not only is that the single worst strategic blunder in US history, but that he undercut the battle with Al Qaeda to divert resources to a needless war in Iraq.
-
Decker. Please do not clog up the debate with facts. Brixy would like to keep within his comfort zone of assumptions, inuendo's and outright lies. This will make for a more spirited discussion.
Yours Sincerely, Warhorse :D
Haven't lied yet.. just as you have yet to say anything true, lol.
-
You are agreeing with Bush that OBL is not that important. Tell that to the 3000+ families grieving the deaths of loved ones on 9/11. "There killer is just not important any more...."
Yes, 9/11 still happened b/c of almost inexplicable failures.
That's a billion more dollars than Bush spent on fighting terrorism before 9/11.
Of course he spent more on terrorism--he was president of the US when the country was attacked. The man had a blank check and a clear enemy after the attacks.
Thank god he invaded Iraq illegally. I agree with others that, not only is that the single worst strategic blunder in US history, but that he undercut the battle with Al Qaeda to divert resources to a needless war in Iraq.
OBL has been made completely impotent by our efforts in Afghanistan and we are fighting him by fighting his network. He's still one man and he's lost a lot of influence thanks to us.
Bush was in office 9 months, Clinton had 4 years. ::)
Not only was it not a blunder, it was the next best thing to his father failing to finish the job the first time.
Although its BS you libs keep saying there was no AQ in Iraq before we went. Well that means you concede that it's there now and we're slaughtering them by the thousands.. so tell me again what we're undercutting?
-
we dont need more taxes. we need more fiscal responsibilty and oversight.
we have PLENTY of money. we just dont know how to spend it...
look at our health care system for christ sake... we can and should have universal healthcare ala canada, but better, with how much money we put into it. we dont have to repeal the bush tax cuts in order to pay for healthcare, we just have to go into our existing porgram and tear it apart..
-
OBL has been made completely impotent by our efforts in Afghanistan and we are fighting him by fighting his network. He's still one man and he's lost a lot of influence thanks to us.
Bush was in office 9 months, Clinton had 4 years. ::)
Not only was it not a blunder, it was the next best thing to his father failing to finish the job the first time.
Although its BS you libs keep saying there was no AQ in Iraq before we went. Well that means you concede that it's there now and we're slaughtering them by the thousands.. so tell me again what we're undercutting?
Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the invasion. So what. It had no working relationship with Hussein. Al Qaeda was in the US prior to the 9/11 attacks. The terrorists lived and trained in the USA.
What do you make of that?
So you are saying, much like Bush, that arresting OBL is not important any more? That's unbelievable.
Bush has had almost 8 years to catch the world's most wanted man and he's failed. He's even given up looking.
That's deplorable.
-
Yes, 9/11 still happened b/c of almost inexplicable failures.
your wrong. every single guy on those planes set off metal detectors. they didnt get screened, they were sent through. they were acting nervous and suspicious, but were sent through. i studied every one of there moves so i know. if they tried to go through a tsa checkpoint today they wouldnt have a prayer.
-
It's not "blah blah"... Various attacks happened during his term and he did just what you're accusing Bush of doing.. NOTHING!
He didn't do anything? He didn't let the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.. do their jobs? He didn't launch a missle strike into Afghanistan? He didn't go after any of them?
How many tips do you think Bush/DOD/CIA/NSA etc get everyday.. if one came in with credibility they wouldn't know until after the fact. I've seen intel. There's only so much you can do and so much you can act on. The point is Clinton had the confirmation needed to act and did nothing while Bush had no reason to take one threat more seriously than another because he didn't have that assurance.
If Clinton had the confirmation so did BUSH. For the same reasons BUSH didn't see the them as threats can be argue that Clinton did the same. That's why it's plain silly to say it's Clinton's fault. He was not the man on the watch, BUSH was. It wasn't his fault directly. But he shares some responsibility in the same sense you could say Clinton does. So in that respect they are both to blame, but again, to say it was Clinton's fault is just propaganda blabber regurgitated.
This is why the action taken after the fact is so important. Bush has done everything possible to prevent more attacks. Clinton did nothing even AFTER allied forces were attacked the world over.
This is another example of where you are not thinking objectively. BUSH has done everything possible to prevent more attacks? Are you kidding me? do you sit there and call your self a true conservative and actually believe what you are saying? for as little as few thousand dollars total one person could close down air traffic again in this country for few days.
And Cliinton did nothing? He just sat there and said go ahead and attack i will not do anything? com on.
What happen on 9/11 was in a totally different class of things to do versus attacks on the US millitary prior. Hell, if anything, Reagan didn't do a whole hell of a lot after what happen in Lebanon. And that was a lot worse thananything that happen on Clinton's watch. I guarantee you BUSH would have done similar things as clinton did. It's only relevent now because of the magnitude of 9/11, but when you compare it to those things in Clinton's era, it's easy to sit and think Clinton didn't do enough. That's another example of hindsight being 20/20 and then basing your beliefs on it.
In addition.. Air security at airports has always been inadequate. It is better now after 9/11 but still no where near perfect. I will blame neither prez for that.
You should be blaming BUSH right now. Because Airport security has been shown to be much more important because of 9/11 and what has BUSH done? I travel all the time. Since 2001 i've put between 30k and 50k in frequent flyer miles each year. Airports are not even close to where they should be.
And you don't blame BUSH? Sounds like you are a BUSH sympathizer .
-
not at all. those were clintons boys. that was his cia, his fbi. completely fucked up when bush took office. do you think when bush took office, he just fired every fed in the country and hired his own?
So you believe that the people who are responsible for security were incompetent and put there by Clinton?
Think about what you are saying.
And weren't these the same people who assigned some 200 agents to watch Clinton?
So they are under his control and he cuased them to be lax on security but couldn't stop them from watching him?
None of that makes sense.
-
Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the invasion. So what. It had no working relationship with Hussein. Al Qaeda was in the US prior to the 9/11 attacks. The terrorists lived and trained in the USA.
What do you make of that?
So you are saying, much like Bush, that arresting OBL is not important any more? That's unbelievable.
Bush has had almost 8 years to catch the world's most wanted man and he's failed. He's even given up looking.
That's deplorable.
is bush in the middle east chasing him around? he's the president for christs sake. he's not the one looking for him
how about when clinton had OBL in custody but let him go. is that diplorable in deckers world?
-
How many tips do you think Bush/DOD/CIA/NSA etc get everyday.. if one came in with credibility they wouldn't know until after the fact. I've seen intel. There's only so much you can do and so much you can act on.
9 of our allies gave us very direct intel in early august.
FBI director flew to crawford on red eye in middle of night with the 'osama determined to attaack' which contained serious details. Plus germany and ISR both told us that day as well. It's the day that all our allies found out at once.
FBI director handed the report (containing targets, date, and 5 of their names) to condi, who then forgets who she gave it to, ashcroft or rummy, and neither of them remember either. that big of a deal - flight in middle of night, arrive with sirens lit, and you don't even read it? lol... come on.
yes, we get a lot of intel. but when you have 5 names, and it comes from all these sources directly, you check it out. instead, the FBI investigation in hollywood FL was instantly FROZEN until after 911. You explain that. Clinton did that one too, huh? ;)
-
how about when clinton had OBL in custody but let him go.
date and location, please?
-
is bush in the middle east chasing him around? he's the president for christs sake. he's not the one looking for him
how about when clinton had OBL in custody but let him go. is that diplorable in deckers world?
Clinton never had OBL in custody.
And it was Bush that disbanded the CIA unit in charge of hunting down OBL.
-
Clinton never had OBL in custody.
how about when clinton had OBL in custody but let him go.
Two hugely conflicting statements here.
Which man is correct?
-
date and location, please?
excuse me. the saudies had him and offerd him to clinton. close enough
-
9 of our allies gave us very direct intel in early august.
FBI director flew to crawford on red eye in middle of night with the 'osama determined to attaack' which contained serious details. Plus germany and ISR both told us that day as well. It's the day that all our allies found out at once.
FBI director handed the report (containing targets, date, and 5 of their names) to condi, who then forgets who she gave it to, ashcroft or rummy, and neither of them remember either. that big of a deal - flight in middle of night, arrive with sirens lit, and you don't even read it? lol... come on.
yes, we get a lot of intel. but when you have 5 names, and it comes from all these sources directly, you check it out. instead, the FBI investigation in hollywood FL was instantly FROZEN until after 911. You explain that. Clinton did that one too, huh? ;)
can you show us these unclassified documents please?
-
can you show us these unclassified documents please?
nah, but congress is releasing a whole bunch of things in jan 2009. i'll keep ya posted!
-
excuse me. the saudies had him and offerd him to clinton. close enough
You are repeating a tired right wing fantasy about Clinton and OBL. It's been discredited multiple times but here we see you offering it up as proof again.
The Duelfer Report discredited your tale:
"[F]ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States.We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."
-
How many tips do you think Bush/DOD/CIA/NSA etc get everyday.. if one came in with credibility they wouldn't know until after the fact. I've seen intel. There's only so much you can do and so much you can act on. The point is Clinton had the confirmation needed to act and did nothing while Bush had no reason to take one threat more seriously than another because he didn't have that assurance.
How many tips do you think Clinton got every day while in office? If Clinton had confirmation while in office, and did nothing, as YOU claim to know...then surely someone in government had that same information. If WE ( meaning our government) had info before Bush took office, AS YOU CLAIM, then that information was available to Bush as well...They aren't going to keep it a secret from the new President if they KNOW of a legit threat..
You can't have it both ways...if Bush isn't supposed to follow up on every tip then How can you say Clinton should have? You contradict yourself.
I also like it how a person who was just a kid when Clinton was in office knows Clinton's short comings. You know what you have been fed by the media for the most part. I have never known a 14 or 15 year old kid who payed too much attention to our foreign policy and what our President did or did not do to stop terror.
In all honesty I don't think it is Bush's fault... I think it is the fault of the scumbags who murdered all those people...that's who you blame...not Clinton...Not Bush. Nothing like that had ever happened before.....it's easy to point the finger now 7 years later. Bush responded very well to the attacks and he did what he needed to do...but he still failed. OBL is likely still out there.
I think we all were so angry and shocked we had to blame someone...I think that is just human nature. What happens when a football team sucks? Usually people blame the coach.Sorta the same thing in a way.
-
How many tips do you think Clinton got every day while in office? If Clinton had confirmation while in office, and did nothing, as YOU claim to know...then surely someone in government had that same information. If WE ( meaning our government) had info before Bush took office, AS YOU CLAIM, then that information was available to Bush as well...They aren't going to keep it a secret from the new President if they KNOW of a legit threat..
You can't have it both ways...if Bush isn't supposed to follow up on every tip then How can you say Clinton should have? You contradict yourself.
I also like it how a person who was just a kid when Clinton was in office knows Clinton's short comings. You know what you have been fed by the media for the most part. I have never known a 14 or 15 year old kid who payed too much attention to our foreign policy and what our President did or did not do to stop terror.
In all honesty I don't think it is Bush's fault... I think it is the fault of the scumbags who murdered all those people...that's who you blame...not Clinton...Not Bush. Nothing like that had ever happened before.....it's easy to point the finger now 7 years later. Bush responded very well to the attacks and he did what he needed to do...but he still failed. OBL is likely still out there.
I think we all were so angry and shocked we had to blame someone...I think that is just human nature. What happens when a football team sucks? Usually people blame the coach.Sorta the same thing in a way.
Good post, well said.
-
You are repeating a tired right wing fantasy about Clinton and OBL. It's been discredited multiple times but here we see you offering it up as proof again.
The Duelfer Report discredited your tale:
"[F]ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States.We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."
You mean it's all a bunch of BS so that they don't have to blame their hero and instead put the blame on an adulterer?
-
You mean it's all a bunch of BS so that they don't have to blame their hero and instead put the blame on an adulterer?
It's hard enough to discuss this stuff without injecting fantasies into the mix. It would be so convenient and gratifying to lay this all at Clinton's feet b/c he was just a horrible president.
It's pure revisionism.
This however is not:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
"I don't know where he is. I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
"Deep in my heart I know the man's on the run, if he's alive at all...I just don't spend much time on it, really, to be honest with you."
And President Bush disbanded the CIA unit dedicated to finding bin Laden.
-
It's hard enough to discuss this stuff without injecting fantasies into the mix. It would be so convenient and gratifying to lay this all at Clinton's feet b/c he was just a horrible president.
It's pure revisionism.
This however is not:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
"I don't know where he is. I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
"Deep in my heart I know the man's on the run, if he's alive at all...I just don't spend much time on it, really, to be honest with you."
And President Bush disbanded the CIA unit dedicated to finding bin Laden.
What a bunch of hypocritical contradicting bioytches.
So they blame Clinton for 9/11 becuase he "allegedly" let OBL go and their beloved keeper of the war monger faith makes statements to OBL's irrelevance.
What a bunch of twisted brainwashed folk.
-
its like someone who says "its your fault your car was broken into, because you forgot to lock it"
we have a habit of taking the blame off the person who is responsible. we like to put blame on the victim.
911 is nobody's fault but the people who executed it. not bush, not clinton.
-
its like someone who says "its your fault your car was broken into, because you forgot to lock it"
we have a habit of taking the blame off the person who is responsible. we like to put blame on the victim.
911 is nobody's fault but the people who executed it. not bush, not clinton.
I agree.
So why do we hear people say it's Clinton's fault 9/11 happened?
-
He didn't do anything? He didn't let the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.. do their jobs? He didn't launch a missle strike into Afghanistan? He didn't go after any of them?
It was a pathetic and fruitless attempt from the getgo. Any conservative president (or any caring prez for that matter) would have taken khobar towers as an act of war. AQ could have been dessimated years ago.
If Clinton had the confirmation so did BUSH. For the same reasons BUSH didn't see the them as threats can be argue that Clinton did the same. That's why it's plain silly to say it's Clinton's fault. He was not the man on the watch, BUSH was. It wasn't his fault directly. But he shares some responsibility in the same sense you could say Clinton does. So in that respect they are both to blame, but again, to say it was Clinton's fault is just propaganda blabber regurgitated.
Wrong. I'm referring to Clintons actions AFTER an attack. How come none of you are getting this?
This is another example of where you are not thinking objectively. BUSH has done everything possible to prevent more attacks? Are you kidding me? do you sit there and call your self a true conservative and actually believe what you are saying? for as little as few thousand dollars total one person could close down air traffic again in this country for few days.
And Cliinton did nothing? He just sat there and said go ahead and attack i will not do anything? com on.
Yes he has. If it's so easy than why hasn't it happened yet? Obviously they still have the same intentions. Fighting them with soldiers in Iraq is 1000 times better than letting another hit kill another three thousand civilians on the homefront.
Clinton put on nothing more than a show just so people like you can point to it like he did something.
What happen on 9/11 was in a totally different class of things to do versus attacks on the US millitary prior. Hell, if anything, Reagan didn't do a whole hell of a lot after what happen in Lebanon. And that was a lot worse thananything that happen on Clinton's watch. I guarantee you BUSH would have done similar things as clinton did. It's only relevent now because of the magnitude of 9/11, but when you compare it to those things in Clinton's era, it's easy to sit and think Clinton didn't do enough. That's another example of hindsight being 20/20 and then basing your beliefs on it.
I think Bushs personality would force him to do quite a lot more than Clinton. As I said earlier.. khobar was reason enough to go after AQ years ago.
You should be blaming BUSH right now. Because Airport security has been shown to be much more important because of 9/11 and what has BUSH done? I travel all the time. Since 2001 i've put between 30k and 50k in frequent flyer miles each year. Airports are not even close to where they should be.
And you don't blame BUSH? Sounds like you are a BUSH sympathizer .
Only as much as you hate him for no good reason ::)
Bushs actions since being attacked, while not perfect, are far more than I can see coming from a Clinton/Kerry/Gore.
-
It was a pathetic and fruitless attempt from the getgo. Any conservative president (or any caring prez for that matter) would have taken khobar towers as an act of war. AQ could have been dessimated years ago.
6 and 1/2 years of war, 500 billion dollars, invading 2 countries, 10 of thousands dead and AQ is still alive and well and you are contending it could have been taken out years ago? ::)
Wrong. I'm referring to Clintons actions AFTER an attack. How come none of you are getting this?
So what? did he do nothing? Or did he NOT do what you in your wealth or experience and knowledge of all the facts would have done?
Yes he has. If it's so easy than why hasn't it happened yet? Obviously they still have the same intentions. Fighting them with soldiers in Iraq is 1000 times better than letting another hit kill another three thousand civilians on the homefront.
Clinton put on nothing more than a show just so people like you can point to it like he did something.
Do you really think that the same insurgents fighting in Iraq are the same ones who have the skills to infiltrate the USA and carry out terrorist acts? We haven't had an attack becuase the threat is not as bad since Afghanistan as we have been led to believe. If it was, a fence would have been put up at the Mexican and Canadian border with in 2 years. Air ports would have secure fences put 1 mile from their run ways. Terminals would be re-modeled.
I think Bushs personality would force him to do quite a lot more than Clinton. As I said earlier.. khobar was reason enough to go after AQ years ago.
That's becuase you are a BUSH sympathizer and in many ways he's represents what your anger would want him to do.
Only as much as you hate him for no good reason Roll Eyes
Bushs actions since being attacked, while not perfect, are far more than I can see coming from a Clinton/Kerry/Gore.
My biggest criticism of BUSH is Iraq. Everything he did up to Iraq was a great IMO. Take Iraq out of the equation, and our security in the USA is better, we are not 500 billion in debt and stuck in Iraq. Take Iraq out of the equation and all i'm faulting him on now is this messed up economy which probably wouldn't be as bad.
And Clinton/Kerry/Gore, would have done what was done in Afghanistan but not took there eye off the target like BUSH has done.
-
6 and 1/2 years of war, 500 billion dollars, invading 2 countries, 10 of thousands dead and AQ is still alive and well and you are contending it could have been taken out years ago? ::)
Yes, war has a price tag. A big one. Of course every anti bush lib who hates the war is going to say it's too expensive/taking too long/too many deaths, etc. Look at how lopsided the casualties are. We are annihilating these assholes and we've suffered the lowest casualties of any war. AQ is very weak compared to 2001. We could have had those results in as early as 96 or 97 if Clinton had acted.
So what? did he do nothing? Or did he NOT do what you in your wealth or experience and knowledge of all the facts would have done?
What he did amounted to nothing.. ;D
Do you really think that the same insurgents fighting in Iraq are the same ones who have the skills to infiltrate the USA and carry out terrorist acts? We haven't had an attack becuase the threat is not as bad since Afghanistan as we have been led to believe. If it was, a fence would have been put up at the Mexican and Canadian border with in 2 years. Air ports would have secure fences put 1 mile from their run ways. Terminals would be re-modeled.
Terrorists use people as human gunpowder. The ones we fight in Iraq are not just coming from that country but congregating there from other areas. They could just as easily been sent our way if their leadership had not felt it crucial to their survival to fight our presence in Iraq.
Not necessarily although those are all good ideas. One of the many areas where Bush disappointed me personally was border security. He's done just about nothing about it. Of course, he is also fought every step of the way by democrats.
That's becuase you are a BUSH sympathizer and in many ways he's represents what your anger would want him to do.
Ok.. I sympathize with a prez I voted for and agree with on a great many issues. You got me.
Everyone should be angry that people like yourself would rather not bother and sit around with your thumbs up your asses while our enemies get stronger and continue to encroach on our allies and the rest of the world and all the while destroy their own people on a daily basis.
And you would do nothing.. shamefull.
My biggest criticism of BUSH is Iraq. Everything he did up to Iraq was a great IMO. Take Iraq out of the equation, and our security in the USA is better, we are not 500 billion in debt and stuck in Iraq. Take Iraq out of the equation and all i'm faulting him on now is this messed up economy which probably wouldn't be as bad.
And Clinton/Kerry/Gore, would have done what was done in Afghanistan but not took there eye off the target like BUSH has done.
Everyone knew back in 2000 and 2004 what kind of people Kerry and Gore were.. their efforts toward fighting terrorism would have been similar to launching nerf darts at an M1 tank.
Funny how even the dems felt that way back then and yet everyone has forgotten now.. hmm.
-
Yes, war has a price tag. A big one. Of course every anti bush lib who hates the war is going to say it's too expensive/taking too long/too many deaths, etc. Look at how lopsided the casualties are. We are annihilating these assholes and we've suffered the lowest casualties of any war. AQ is very weak compared to 2001. We could have had those results in as early as 96 or 97 if Clinton had acted.
What he did amounted to nothing.. ;D
....My biggest criticism of BUSH is Iraq. Everything he did up to Iraq was a great IMO.
...
Iraq is irrelevant to the operations of Al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda is best handled as a police problem.
Bush's brilliant Iraq military solution has done nothing to address battling terrorism.
The only thing accomplished in Iraq is that the US military was used to kill tens of thousands of men, women and children that did absolutley nothing to the us.
-
Iraq is irrelevant to the operations of Al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda is best handled as a police problem.
Bush's brilliant Iraq military solution has done nothing to address battling terrorism.
The only thing accomplished in Iraq is that the US military was used to kill tens of thousands of men, women and children that did absolutley nothing to the us.
And it pissed off millions more gave them an incentive to hate this country.
-
Yes, war has a price tag. A big one. Of course every anti bush lib who hates the war is going to say it's too expensive/taking too long/too many deaths, etc. Look at how lopsided the casualties are. We are annihilating these assholes and we've suffered the lowest casualties of any war. AQ is very weak compared to 2001. We could have had those results in as early as 96 or 97 if Clinton had acted.
Well no doubt, but that's in western warfare terms brix. This isn't a traditional war. Do your understand the difference? do you understand our slicing through the iraq military was inconsequential to what's been happening int he 6 and 1/2 years since? Your assertion was that AQ could have been taken out before 9/11 and that's silly because even though we have done all this it hasn't been taken out. So it's meaning less what you just said in relation to your assertion about taking out AQ.
So your assumption that Clinton screwed it up is false and is another example of believing an untruth to support a belief in something else.
Furthermore everything that was done to weaken AQ significantly was done in Agh\Afghanistan. Since then Iraq terror incidents have increased and AQ has had up to now free reign for 6 years to strengthen up thanks to poor incompetnet judgement of BUSH and as you has indicated now Afghanistan is getting worse again.
What he did amounted to nothing.. Grin
More hindsight that lends into believing an untruth to support a belief in something else.
Terrorists use people as human gunpowder. The ones we fight in Iraq are not just coming from that country but congregating there from other areas. They could just as easily been sent our way if their leadership had not felt it crucial to their survival to fight our presence in Iraq.
This shows just how naive you are while at the same you have some astute insight into things. So they're sent our way how? Over our open border? What do you think is more impacting: IED in Iraq or a terrorist act in New York? Use you head brix. It takes training in infiltration and it takes resources and funds to get people into this country. they haven't done that becuase they don't have the capability and our intelligence, special ops forces etc.. have done a great job taking them out and preventing it. But all you allow yourself to hear is the "threat" and how libs are soft on defense. also, The people they use as fodder in Iraq aren't worth much more than that.
Not necessarily although those are all good ideas. One of the many areas where Bush disappointed me personally was border security. He's done just about nothing about it. Of course, he is also fought every step of the way by democrats.
the man has priority problems. And your reasoning for going into Iraq was the basis of his sales pitch and you bought it hook line and sinker.
Ok.. I sympathize with a prez I voted for and agree with on a great many issues. You got me.
Everyone should be angry that people like yourself would rather not bother and sit around with your thumbs up your asses while our enemies get stronger and continue to encroach on our allies and the rest of the world and all the while destroy their own people on a daily basis.
And you would do nothing.. shamefull.
Another great example of believing an untruth to support another belief. You completely believe people like myself: A. Hate America, B. don't want to fight back C. give money to people who are unwilling to work for it. All of which does not represent 99% of libs.
This is what's so similar to facist Germany when Hitler convinced everyone the Jews were evil. They got young people just like you to accept untruths as reality as part of supporting some other belief.
You have completely convinced your self that a dem in office would not have done anything and you use the false premise of not going after OBL and starting a war and the hindsight of 9/11 as the basis for this belief to support that belief.
Classic.
It really is, classic, i hope you wake up from that someday.
Everyone knew back in 2000 and 2004 what kind of people Kerry and Gore were.. their efforts toward fighting terrorism would have been similar to launching nerf darts at an M1 tank.
Funny how even the dems felt that way back then and yet everyone has forgotten now.. hmm.
"Everyone"? I don't think i need to explain another perfect example.
-
Well no doubt, but that's in western warfare terms brix. This isn't a traditional war. Do your understand the difference? do you understand our slicing through the iraq military was inconsequential to what's been happening int he 6 and 1/2 years since? Your assertion was that AQ could have been taken out before 9/11 and that's silly because even though we have done all this it hasn't been taken out. So it's meaning less what you just said in relation to your assertion about taking out AQ.
Destroying both the Iraqi gov't and the civil infighting were necessary and that's what we're doing. Unforeseen.. maybe. Impossible and unhelpful to our cause.. not at all.
So your assumption that Clinton screwed it up is false and is another example of believing an untruth to support a belief in something else.
You're telling me his immigration standards didn't let AQ into the country? You're telling me he made every effort to go after and deal with even the threat of Islamic terrorism? You're telling me that he DID enough with his response to terrorist acts?
So far Bush's record on those subjects is far better.
You don't even have a good argument here. You just call it an "untruth" and go on your merry way. Classic liberal.
Furthermore everything that was done to weaken AQ significantly was done in Agh\Afghanistan. Since then Iraq terror incidents have increased and AQ has had up to now free reign for 6 years to strengthen up thanks to poor incompetnet judgement of BUSH and as you has indicated now Afghanistan is getting worse again.
More hindsight that lends into believing an untruth to support a belief in something else.
...While Iraq is improving. The surge is working. The efforts are paying off. If we have to expand our efforts in Afghanistan we will. I know someone who recently returned from there and he says we've made progress in leaps and bounds.
Still no lack of truth to any of that.
This shows just how naive you are while at the same you have some astute insight into things. So they're sent our way how? Over our open border? What do you think is more impacting: IED in Iraq or a terrorist act in New York? Use you head brix. It takes training in infiltration and it takes resources and funds to get people into this country. they haven't done that becuase they don't have the capability and our intelligence, special ops forces etc.. have done a great job taking them out and preventing it. But all you allow yourself to hear is the "threat" and how libs are soft on defense. also, The people they use as fodder in Iraq aren't worth much more than that.
Yeah.. like they've used ONE IED. More liberal spin.
You said earlier how easy it would be to attack us again and now you're saying it's oh so difficult. It's BS and you know it. We're fighting the enemy where it has a stronghold and it's paying off.
the man has priority problems. And your reasoning for going into Iraq was the basis of his sales pitch and you bought it hook line and sinker.
I didn't buy it.. I watched it.. I know it.. and I know just how justified we are for having done it. In the coming years more information will be declassified showing just how wrong you and the left is about our reasoning for going.
It should have been finished the first time but Bush 1 was too soft and didn't finish the job. Going back when we did is far better than if we had not gone at all.
Another great example of believing an untruth to support another belief. You completely believe people like myself: A. Hate America, B. don't want to fight back C. give money to people who are unwilling to work for it. All of which does not represent 99% of libs.
Not an untruth.. especially since liberals consistently support D. "All of the above" and aren't shy about it.
This is what's so similar to facist Germany when Hitler convinced everyone the Jews were evil. They got young people just like you to accept untruths as reality as part of supporting some other belief.
You have completely convinced your self that a dem in office would not have done anything and you use the false premise of not going after OBL and starting a war and the hindsight of 9/11 as the basis for this belief to support that belief.
Their stance regarding most wars and their records speak for themselves.
Still no "untruth," lol.
Classic.
It really is, classic, i hope you wake up from that someday.
"Everyone"? I don't think i need to explain another perfect example.
Yep.. absolutely. Exactly why they pretended to be strong on the military, nat'l defense, and the war on terror and even the average American democrat knew better. For christ sakes even the MEDIA agreed.
Still no "untruth" ;D
-
Destroying both the Iraqi gov't and the civil infighting were necessary and that's what we're doing. Unforeseen.. maybe. Impossible and unhelpful to our cause.. not at all.
Not helpful at all. Facts are terrorism increased and we've been close to over extending ourselves. The invasion was poorly planned and thought out also. At the time Saddam was the best person to be in Iraq because he was willing to do what we are not willing to do to keep us from having any reason to invade him which would be his support of AQ.
You're telling me his immigration standards didn't let AQ into the country? You're telling me he made every effort to go after and deal with even the threat of Islamic terrorism? You're telling me that he DID enough with his response to terrorist acts?
So far Bush's record on those subjects is far better.
You don't even have a good argument here. You just call it an "untruth" and go on your merry way. Classic liberal.
A. the threat of Islamic terrorism was not the near the same in anyway prior to 9/11. there is no way anyone could have known that, even taking into account the intelligence BUSH received prior to 9/11
B. Are you suggesting BUSH has made every effort to combat terrorism? ::)
C. Bush's record only look better in your eyes becuase you confuse pre-9/11 with post 9/11 and apply the same standards. That's called self-brainwashing...lol
...While Iraq is improving. The surge is working. The efforts are paying off. If we have to expand our efforts in Afghanistan we will. I know someone who recently returned from there and he says we've made progress in leaps and bounds.
Still no lack of truth to any of that.
When have we talked about the surge? Great idea, 4 years too late, 400 billion too late, thousands of lives too late, hundreds of suicide bombers too late, all from the guys you say have the wisdom to make the hard decisions. ::)
And now you have attempted 2 times to run away from your original statement:
AQ could have been dessimated years ago.
This is the untruth I'm talking about since you conveniently forgot. ::)
Yeah.. like they've used ONE IED. More liberal spin.
What are you talking about. Re-read what i wrote. You say we are keeping them there. You said becuase we are there (iraq) instead of attacking the USA they attack us there. That's dumb, if they had choice attacking in iraq with IED's or attacking us on our soild which do you think is more effect and impacting for them?
Common sense here.
You said earlier how easy it would be to attack us again and now you're saying it's oh so difficult. It's BS and you know it. We're fighting the enemy where it has a stronghold and it's paying off.
You really cannot grasp this can you?
first off:
We created the strong hold for them in Iraq with our irresponsible handing of the invasion.
Next:
- Our borders are wide open. At some point, they will be crossed if they haven't already.
- We dealt them a good blow to their capabilities in Afghanistan
- Since then, the threat is not as great as the gov is making you believe otherwise we'd been attacked by now
- But, we are still vulnerable, very
- The people fighting in Iraq are not of the same ilk of the same skill sets, training etc... as those who have the ability to come to the USA.
- Conducting terrorist operation in Iraq require bodies, operations in the US require skill form a few people.
So that brings us to 2 conclusions:
1. The threat isn't as great
2. We did good job in kicking the crap out of them in Afghanistan but did not complete it, nor could we stamp them out 100% anyway.
therefore:
No reason to be in Iraq in the first place, but it's too late for that, because we cannot leave now, because we created a new place for AQ to grow.
that's why i don't like BUSH.
It has nothing to do with voting for or against him.
I didn't buy it.. I watched it.. I know it.. and I know just how justified we are for having done it. In the coming years more information will be declassified showing just how wrong you and the left is about our reasoning for going.
It should have been finished the first time but Bush 1 was too soft and didn't finish the job. Going back when we did is far better than if we had not gone at all.
I agree with your statement about the first time. But i think you are unable to understand the dynamics of the situation and opportunities we had in 2002 and use the 1st war as the basis to justify the second.
Not an untruth.. especially since liberals consistently support D. "All of the above" and aren't shy about it.
The most consistently liberal people i know are on this board. Ask them point blank. This is something, AGAIN! for the X amount times that you are making yourself believe. But be careful, you have to actually read there answers carefully and objectively ;)
Their stance regarding most wars and their records speak for themselves.
Still no "untruth," lol.
Really? Dems in office in ww2, Korea, & Vietnam. And are you comparing trying to settle things without going to war with just going to war irresponsibly like in Iraq?
Look Brix, you are young, like i said somewhere else, hopefully you'll wake up from your programming some day and see how brainwashed you've allow yourself to be.
Until then talking with you about this is beyond your understanding or ability to see things for what they are.
-
Not helpful at all. Facts are terrorism increased and we've been close to over extending ourselves. The invasion was poorly planned and thought out also. At the time Saddam was the best person to be in Iraq because he was willing to do what we are not willing to do to keep us from having any reason to invade him which would be his support of AQ.
-Of course the violence in Iraq was going to get worse before it got better. That was inevitable. The point is that Saddam had to go for there to be any chance for an improvement in the future.
-We are nowhere near over extending ourselves. Our military is still very present in Afghanistan and could be increased if necessary. In Iraq the surge has been working and the leadership have been looking very seriously at plans to start bringing units home.
A. the threat of Islamic terrorism was not the near the same in anyway prior to 9/11. there is no way anyone could have known that, even taking into account the intelligence BUSH received prior to 9/11
The point I am forced to make, AGAIN, is that it's not what was done before an attack that showed what needed to be done. It was the actions taken after an attack. Clinton did what amounted to nothing when responding AFTER Americans had been attacked. Bush did far more.
B. Are you suggesting BUSH has made every effort to combat terrorism? ::)
With the exception of border security (on which he shares equal blame with every other president who did nothing) absolutely.
C. Bush's record only look better in your eyes becuase you confuse pre-9/11 with post 9/11 and apply the same standards. That's called self-brainwashing...lol
Oh ok ::)
Are you saying Americans were not victems of terrorism before 9/11? Bush was given the chance and took terrorism seriously and head on. Clinton pissed away his.
When have we talked about the surge? Great idea, 4 years too late, 400 billion too late, thousands of lives too late, hundreds of suicide bombers too late, all from the guys you say have the wisdom to make the hard decisions. ::)
Every lib who despises Bush and hates the war tries to say "too little!! too late!!" War takes time; war takes money; war takes lives. Get over it! Any time/$$$/or lives is too much for those like yourself.
And now you have attempted 2 times to run away from your original statement:
This is the untruth I'm talking about since you conveniently forgot. ::)
Not at all. Clinton fucked every gaping opportunity he had to deal with the problem before it got bigger. Bush did exactly that regarding AQ and Iraq after his father lacked the spine to do so by following through the first time.
What are you talking about. Re-read what i wrote. You say we are keeping them there. You said becuase we are there (iraq) instead of attacking the USA they attack us there. That's dumb, if they had choice attacking in iraq with IED's or attacking us on our soild which do you think is more effect and impacting for them?
You really don't understand thier priorities do you? They HAVE to fight us there. If they lose there they are in far more trouble than if they lose a cell or ten cells here in the states. We now fight them where they actually have something to lose. They know this.
Common sense here.
You really cannot grasp this can you?
first off:
We created the strong hold for them in Iraq with our irresponsible handing of the invasion.
Whatever you say..
Looks to me more like we have taken the offensive whereas that would be impossible simply playing defense here at home.
Glad you bought right into the standard media party line on that one. ;D
Next:
- Our borders are wide open. At some point, they will be crossed if they haven't already.
- We dealt them a good blow to their capabilities in Afghanistan
- Since then, the threat is not as great as the gov is making you believe otherwise we'd been attacked by now
- But, we are still vulnerable, very
- The people fighting in Iraq are not of the same ilk of the same skill sets, training etc... as those who have the ability to come to the USA.
- Conducting terrorist operation in Iraq require bodies, operations in the US require skill form a few people.
Wrong.. the skill sets and resources are of the same type. Numbers are the only difference. No terrorist needs to complete another 9/11 to inflict massive casualties. And nice try changing your story.. You just got finished telling me how easy it would be to attack us again yet apparently they need the equivalent of terrorist green berets to kill us here versus fight us there.
And in addition.. isn't that exactly how we are fighting this war? Massive inter-agency investigations and manhunts using an absurd amount of resources and intel against hidden cells, even individuals here at home while we conduct a slaughter by seek and destroy tactics there agianst thier numbers of human explosives.
Hmm.. maybe there is a method to our madness afterall!! Despite what every "pull-out" democrat would have you believe.
So that brings us to 2 conclusions:
1. The threat isn't as great
2. We did good job in kicking the crap out of them in Afghanistan but did not complete it, nor could we stamp them out 100% anyway.
I know downplaying terrorism as "not such a big problem" is necessary for your arguments so I'll let you off the hook for this one.
therefore:
No reason to be in Iraq in the first place, but it's too late for that, because we cannot leave now, because we created a new place for AQ to grow.
that's why i don't like BUSH.
It has nothing to do with voting for or against him.
Many reasons to be there although I would have preferred them handled before they got as big as they did. But this a good case of better late than never.
All we did was create a theatre to fight in. The alternative is far more troubling.
I agree with your statement about the first time. But i think you are unable to understand the dynamics of the situation and opportunities we had in 2002 and use the 1st war as the basis to justify the second.
You mean like the opportunities pissed away in 96 or 97? How bout finishing off what proved to be a bigger and growing problem in Saddams Iraq from 91? But no.. your side would rather say "well we didn't do it right the first time so lets just forget about it".. great idea. : P
The most consistently liberal people i know are on this board. Ask them point blank. This is something, AGAIN! for the X amount times that you are making yourself believe. But be careful, you have to actually read there answers carefully and objectively ;)
Ok, show me otherwise.. this is what spews forth from liberals on this board and elsewhere everyday. It's MORE than obvious.
Really? Dems in office in ww2, Korea, & Vietnam. And are you comparing trying to settle things without going to war with just going to war irresponsibly like in Iraq?
Dems and Repubs before the 60's were very different than what we have today. The Vietnam era was a transitional period and honestly I don't feel I should speak on it since I am not as familiar with the players as I should be.
Regardless, modern democrats have shown themselves to be almost pacifists and they consistantly avoid military conflict even when completely warranted. (Unless the UN says it's "ok")
Whether or not we went to war "irrisponsibly" is a matter of opinion. Has it been difficult? Yes. Are there things we didn't anticapate? Yes. We knew and accepted both of those facts from the get go. Niether of which mean we don't go and accomplish the objective. Frankly less than 5000 casualties is unheard of considering how many of the enemy we've killed, the size of our operation over there, and what we have the opportunity to accomplish, and have been every day.
Look Brix, you are young, like i said somewhere else, hopefully you'll wake up from your programming some day and see how brainwashed you've allow yourself to be.
Until then talking with you about this is beyond your understanding or ability to see things for what they are.
Classic liberal move Ozmo.. marginalize and debase your opponent instead of sticking to the issues.
Typical.
Brush up on the subjects of War, radical islam and associated terrorism, and the capabilities and missions of the US military and get back to me when you have a more thorough understanding of the conflict.
-
Clinton Says He Warned Bush of bin Laden Threat
Reuters
Thursday 16 October 2003
NEW YORK - Former President Bill Clinton warned President George W. Bush before he left office in 2001 that Osama bin Laden was the biggest security threat the United States faced, Clinton said on Wednesday.
Speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the History Channel, Clinton said he discussed security issues with Bush in his "exit interview," a formal and often candid meeting between a sitting president and the president-elect.
"In his campaign, Bush had said he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and a national missile defense," Clinton said. "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden."
The U.S. government has blamed bin Laden's Al Qaeda network for the Sept. 11 attacks.
Time magazine reported last year that a plan for the United States to launch attacks against the al-Qaeda network languished for eight months because of the change in presidents and was approved only a week before the Sept. 11 attacks.
But the White House disputed parts of that story, which was published by the magazine in August 2002.
"The Clinton administration did not present an aggressive new plan to topple al-Qaeda during the transition," a White House spokesman, Sean McCormack, said at the time.
The White House was clearly irritated by the report, which appeared to suggest that the Bush administration might not have done all it could to prevent the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
At Wednesday's luncheon, Clinton said his inability to convince Bush of the danger from al Qaeda was "one of the two or three of the biggest disappointments that I had."
Clinton said that after bin Laden, the next security priority would have been the absence of a Middle East peace agreement, followed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
"I would have started with India and Pakistan, then North Korea, and then Iraq after that," he said. "I thought Iraq was a lower order problem than al Qaeda."
Clinton's vice president Al Gore, who ran against Bush in the 2000 election, did not make the threat from al Qaeda a major focus of the presidential campaign, which both candidates kept focused mainly on domestic topics.
-
Condi getting action memos that say Bin Laden determined to attack in US, it gets blown off, Clinton's warnings get blown off, and it's Clinton's fault. I can blame a lot of shit on Clinton, but this made up crap to move the blame completely out of the hands of Bush and onto Clinton pretty much goes with everything Bush/Rightwingers did... Blame Clinton for EVERYTHING... It doesn't matter that you didn't see the factumentary, the crap that was bogus circulated the rightwing and you've spewed straight from the rightwing propaganda machine Brix.
-
-Of course the violence in Iraq was going to get worse before it got better. That was inevitable. The point is that Saddam had to go for there to be any chance for an improvement in the future.
-We are nowhere near over extending ourselves. Our military is still very present in Afghanistan and could be increased if necessary. In Iraq the surge has been working and the leadership have been looking very seriously at plans to start bringing units home.
Sorry, this shows just how detached and just how un-informed your are. I have a good military back ground and current contacts in the military. We are over extended, and budget cut backs are running rampant in many areas.
The point I am forced to make, AGAIN, is that it's not what was done before an attack that showed what needed to be done. It was the actions taken after an attack. Clinton did what amounted to nothing when responding AFTER Americans had been attacked. Bush did far more.
Again you are comparing a bucket of apples to 1 orange. You are applying the impact and response of the worse attack on US soil with small (in comparison) terrorist attacks and the responses and then gaging that to your bias against dems in office. exactly, again, what i've been talking about with untruths.
Keep telling yourself these things, becuase exposing you is easy.
Oh ok Roll Eyes
Are you saying Americans were not victems of terrorism before 9/11? Bush was given the chance and took terrorism seriously and head on. Clinton pissed away his.
EXACTLY where am i saying that? exactly where am i saying Americans where not victims of terrorist attacks? show me. You can't becuase i didn't say that. But you HAVE TO SAY I DID in order to perpetuate the lie you tell yourself to justify your bias against anything non-BUSH. You keep showing yourself over and over.
Every lib who despises Bush and hates the war tries to say "too little!! too late!!" War takes time; war takes money; war takes lives. Get over it! Any time/$$$/or lives is too much for those like yourself.
You are so programmed you can't even acknowledge the how stupid the war had been handled and how the current solution as easy as it was, was done far too late. And you actually think you are objective? hilarious.
Not at all. Clinton fucked every gaping opportunity he had to deal with the problem before it got bigger. Bush did exactly that regarding AQ and Iraq after his father lacked the spine to do so by following through the first time.
Still avoiding the stupidity of the original statement i see. Don't worry, even if you admit it to yourself, which i wonder if you have the capacity to do so, you can still be a BUSH fan.
You really don't understand their priorities do you? They HAVE to fight us there. If they lose there they are in far more trouble than if they lose a cell or ten cells here in the states. We now fight them where they actually have something to lose. They know this.
Explain why they "ONLY HAVE" to fight us there. The only reason they are fighting us there is becuase it's an opportunity for them, to kill Americans and destabilize a country and grow AQ.
Whatever you say..
Looks to me more like we have taken the offensive whereas that would be impossible simply playing defense here at home.
Glad you bought right into the standard media party line on that one. Grin
It looks like that to you becuase you are very simple minded. You think that fighting terrorists is like fighting the Germans in france.
Wrong.. the skill sets and resources are of the same type. Numbers are the only difference. No terrorist needs to complete another 9/11 to inflict massive casualties. And nice try changing your story.. You just got finished telling me how easy it would be to attack us again yet apparently they need the equivalent of terrorist green berets to kill us here versus fight us there.
And in addition.. isn't that exactly how we are fighting this war? Massive inter-agency investigations and manhunts using an absurd amount of resources and intel against hidden cells, even individuals here at home while we conduct a slaughter by seek and destroy tactics there agianst thier numbers of human explosives.
Hmm.. maybe there is a method to our madness afterall!! Despite what every "pull-out" democrat would have you believe.
Skill sets are not the same. Do they all know how to fly 757's? do they all know how to blend into America culture? Do they all know how to get jobs in places that are vulnerable? do they all know how to get into Mexico? It does some effort and skill above the basic grunt with an AK47
I know downplaying terrorism as "not such a big problem" is necessary for your arguments so I'll let you off the hook for this one.
And becuase this it makes you wonder...as vulnerable we really are ...that maybe the threat isn't as bad a we are led to believe.
Ok, show me otherwise.. this is what spews forth from liberals on this board and elsewhere everyday. It's MORE than obvious.
I guess you are afraid to ask becuase if you know you'll get the answers that conflicts with the lie you've told yourself.
Dems and Repubs before the 60's were very different than what we have today. The Vietnam era was a transitional period and honestly I don't feel I should speak on it since I am not as familiar with the players as I should be.
Regardless, modern democrats have shown themselves to be almost pacifists and they consistantly avoid military conflict even when completely warranted. (Unless the UN says it's "ok")
Whether or not we went to war "irrisponsibly" is a matter of opinion. Has it been difficult? Yes. Are there things we didn't anticapate? Yes. We knew and accepted both of those facts from the get go. Niether of which mean we don't go and accomplish the objective. Frankly less than 5000 casualties is unheard of considering how many of the enemy we've killed, the size of our operation over there, and what we have the opportunity to accomplish, and have been every day.
Based on what you just said i think you just called Reagan a pacifist.
Classic liberal move Ozmo.. marginalize and debase your opponent instead of sticking to the issues.
Typical.
Brush up on the subjects of War, radical islam and associated terrorism, and the capabilities and missions of the US military and get back to me when you have a more thorough understanding of the conflict.
Let's see you the one who stated AQ would have been dessimmated and have avoided it ever since. You also have stated now that we are no where near over extended and that every lib is "d" all of the above and that i think there were no Terrorist attacks on Americans before 9/11 and have implied that any of the terrorist in iraq can't go over here and attack us but can't becuase they "have" fight us there....
and you are talking about me sticking to the issues and not understanding war? ::)
What a joke.
-
We are nowhere near over extending ourselves
This goes against what quite a few generals have said in the past year.
-
We are nowhere near over extending ourselves
This goes against what quite a few generals have said in the past year.
Not to mention the "we are not near over extended" so much so that tour of duties had to be extended in Iraq by 4 months.
It's amazing how brainwashed people can get to the point they actually live outside of reality.
He probably think the liberal media dubbed those statements into those Generals.
-
no kidding.
I wish I had a room full of military men and could read the statement to them.
"nowhere NEAR over extending". I mean, you can destroy the statement on so many levels with so many examples... but why bother? In his mind, Clinton is pure evil, bush is pure good, and if you disagree with 1% of what he says, you're a piece-o-shit lib. It's that simple.
-
no kidding.
I wish I had a room full of military men and could read the statement to them.
"nowhere NEAR over extending". I mean, you can destroy the statement on so many levels with so many examples... but why bother? In his mind, Clinton is pure evil, bush is pure good, and if you disagree with 1% of what he says, you're a piece-o-shit lib. It's that simple.
Yeah.
Add that to:
"We could have decimated AQ years ago" when Clinton was in office in face of 6 1/2 years of war, billions spent, thousands dead, and a forced commitment in a country who will have terrorists problems to some degree or another as long as we there. And AQ is still not decimated! ::) In fact reports have it at prewar strength last i heard.
This guy makes the village idiot look like Einstein.
-
Sorry, this shows just how detached and just how un-informed your are. I have a good military back ground and current contacts in the military. We are over extended, and budget cut backs are running rampant in many areas.
I was in the military. My family is all military. Most of my friends are military. I have discussed these issues with everyone from every level of enlisted to colonels and even a one star. Just like every other political issue there are people on both sides of the argument within the military. But the ones you hear the most about in the media are the ones touting the line that we are over extended.
Again you are comparing a bucket of apples to 1 orange. You are applying the impact and response of the worse attack on US soil with small (in comparison) terrorist attacks and the responses and then gaging that to your bias against dems in office. exactly, again, what i've been talking about with untruths.
Keep telling yourself these things, becuase exposing you is easy.
That's just what you say so you don't have to face the truth. Clinton was ineffective. He's not completely at fault despite what you accuse me of holding against him, but he WAS ineffective. This judgement comes from his pathetic response to the level of terrorism we did face during his term.
You haven't exposed anything more than your own bias.
EXACTLY where am i saying that? exactly where am i saying Americans where not victims of terrorist attacks? show me. You can't becuase i didn't say that. But you HAVE TO SAY I DID in order to perpetuate the lie you tell yourself to justify your bias against anything non-BUSH. You keep showing yourself over and over.
I didn't say you said that. I'm posing a question based on your assertion that I confuse pre and post 9/11 threats. What I am saying is that we could see how different administrations respond to terror since we had examples of both. Stop trying to twist my words, liberal. ;)
You are so programmed you can't even acknowledge the how stupid the war had been handled and how the current solution as easy as it was, was done far too late. And you actually think you are objective? hilarious.
Why, because the media has been repeating that line for the last 4 years? And you bought into it? No one is claiming it was perfect but a biased and angry person like yourself is going to make any difficulty as too much and any price at too much no matter what. I make my judgment based on my experience, the people I've spoken with, and the news I've sifted through without any bias or preconcieved notions. You, on the other hand, will feed off of anything and anyone that goes along and strengthens your ideal without even considering the other viewpoint.
Still avoiding the stupidity of the original statement i see. Don't worry, even if you admit it to yourself, which i wonder if you have the capacity to do so, you can still be a BUSH fan.
Ha! You were wrong to feel that way the first time and you're wrong now. But keep repeating yourself instead of trying to prove me wrong. ;D
Explain why they "ONLY HAVE" to fight us there. The only reason they are fighting us there is becuase it's an opportunity for them, to kill Americans and destabilize a country and grow AQ.
Yet another instance of you putting words in my mouth. I said that they "HAVE," not "ONLY have" to fight us there. I has to be thier priority because of what it would mean for them if they lost there. You see it as creating terror which is a falsehood. The reality is that it's bringing terror from behind thier stronghold.
It looks like that to you becuase you are very simple minded. You think that fighting terrorists is like fighting the Germans in france.
You sound like a 4 year old. You don't know what I think, what I know, and all that your missing. Don't pretend to and tell me it's not better to seek the enemy than be sought.
Skill sets are not the same. Do they all know how to fly 757's? do they all know how to blend into America culture? Do they all know how to get jobs in places that are vulnerable? do they all know how to get into Mexico? It does some effort and skill above the basic grunt with an AK47
That's why I said another 9/11 is not necessary to inflict mass casualties. THOSE guys DID have that training for THAT mission. But bombs in public places and the like require EXACTLY the same skill sets. It is not at all hard to get by in this country without fully integrating into the culture. Live in the inner city? You should know this.
And becuase this it makes you wonder...as vulnerable we really are ...that maybe the threat isn't as bad a we are led to believe.
There really isn't a good way to tell that accurately. And I'm sure you have no idea whatsoever it just happens to support your point of view. This is why we have to take it so seriously.. it wouldn't take too much for them to score another victory whereas our efforts have to be flawless in order to prevent it.
I guess you are afraid to ask becuase if you know you'll get the answers that conflicts with the lie you've told yourself.
Ask a bunch of ignorant, media fed, internet junkies with no reason to take anything objectively? Ask liberals with a massive agenda? ASK WHAT!?!? LOL..
Based on what you just said i think you just called Reagan a pacifist.
Reagan wouldn't have used diplomacy past its effectiveness.
Let's see you the one who stated AQ would have been dessimmated and have avoided it ever since.
I didn't avoid it.. I conceded that we might not have been able to destroy all of it or end the threat completely. My point was that SOMETHING that would have had a very significant impact wasn't done when it should have. (A point you then avoided as much as possible.)
You also have stated now that we are no where near over extended
I guess it depends on who you ask. Our capabilities are strong in all areas we are present and we are approaching a point where less troop involvment may be possible. That doesn't sound like over extended to me but since it's something else that doesn't support your side I guess you won't accept it.
and that every lib is "d" all of the above
Absolutely.
and that i think there were no Terrorist attacks on Americans before 9/11
Didn't say that.. stop spinning everything.
and have implied that any of the terrorist in iraq can't go over here and attack us but can't becuase they "have" fight us there....
No, I said it wasn't priority. More spin.
-
I was in the military. My family is all military. Most of my friends are military. I have discussed these issues with everyone from every level of enlisted to colonels and even a one star. Just like every other political issue there are people on both sides of the argument within the military. But the ones you hear the most about in the media are the ones touting the line that we are over extended.
My information isn't form the media. Try again. My information is from the military. But that's easy to dismiss as hear say from your point of view that's why i brought up statement by the generals themselves.
Who ever your friends are they are meat-heads or classic "yes" men disguised as officers sucking some other Generals nut sack above them.
It only stands to reasons considering how you come to your conclusions that you friends might draw the same conclusions.
That's just what you say so you don't have to face the truth. Clinton was ineffective. He's not completely at fault despite what you accuse me of holding against him, but he WAS ineffective. This judgement comes from his pathetic response to the level of terrorism we did face during his term.
You haven't exposed anything more than your own bias.
So now you've settled for "ineffective?" OK, again in hindsight, that's easy to say. But i can agree with it only form the point of view of hindsight.
I didn't say you said that. I'm posing a question based on your assertion that I confuse pre and post 9/11 threats. What I am saying is that we could see how different administrations respond to terror since we had examples of both. Stop trying to twist my words, liberal. Wink
You inferred it by asking the question. Please let's not get into the tedious nature of your childish attempts at trapping me.
Stand by what you said.
My assertion is valid. you are confusing the 2 issues and applying the conclusion to your bias.
Why, because the media has been repeating that line for the last 4 years? And you bought into it? No one is claiming it was perfect but a biased and angry person like yourself is going to make any difficulty as too much and any price at too much no matter what. I make my judgment based on my experience, the people I've spoken with, and the news I've sifted through without any bias or preconcieved notions. You, on the other hand, will feed off of anything and anyone that goes along and strengthens your ideal without even considering the other viewpoint.
LMAO. You don't have the mental capacity to see past your emotions.
It took them 4 years to figure out they needed an additional 20k. ::)
Ha! You were wrong to feel that way the first time and you're wrong now. But keep repeating yourself instead of trying to prove me wrong. Grin
Don't have the integrity to stand by your statement i see.
Yet another instance of you putting words in my mouth. I said that they "HAVE," not "ONLY have" to fight us there. I has to be thier priority because of what it would mean for them if they lost there. You see it as creating terror which is a falsehood. The reality is that it's bringing terror from behind thier stronghold.
they didn't have Iraq to begin with. They can't lose something they don't have. The only they can lose is the opportunity to create in Iraq. And opportunity we gave them.
It is not such a priority that they cannot divert a few dozen men for operations in the USA.
It take one man to commit a terrorist act. It takes thousands to fight conduct an insurgency.
You sound like a 4 year old. You don't know what I think, what I know, and all that your missing. Don't pretend to and tell me it's not better to seek the enemy than be sought.
What you think and what you know are so loud i can't hear what you are saying. It doesn't take long reading how you come up with your conclusions and how your beliefs are formed to see how naive and manipulated you are.
That's why I said another 9/11 is not necessary to inflict mass casualties. THOSE guys DID have that training for THAT mission. But bombs in public places and the like require EXACTLY the same skill sets. It is not at all hard to get by in this country without fully integrating into the culture. Live in the inner city? You should know this.
lol what are you inferring I'm from the inner city? That's funny.
Nope, they don't, not in this country with HS and the FBI.
There really isn't a good way to tell that accurately. And I'm sure you have no idea whatsoever it just happens to support your point of view. This is why we have to take it so seriously.. it wouldn't take too much for them to score another victory whereas our efforts have to be flawless in order to prevent it.
We have wide open borders and our airports are vulnerable to terrorists attacks and it hasn't happened. It's not becuase we are in Iraq.
Ask a bunch of ignorant, media fed, internet junkies with no reason to take anything objectively? Ask liberals with a massive agenda? ASK WHAT!?!? LOL..
Like i said, you lack the courage to find out. Keep trying to deflect. ::)
Reagan wouldn't have used diplomacy past its effectiveness.
Really? Like in lebanon where 234 marines died and he didn't do jack shit other than invade Grenada to distract the public.
::) What a soft ass pacifist.
I didn't avoid it.. I conceded that we might not have been able to destroy all of it or end the threat completely. My point was that SOMETHING that would have had a very significant impact wasn't done when it should have. (A point you then avoided as much as possible.)
Oh so now you've change your statement ::)
So what should have we done then Brix, who should have we invaded?
I guess it depends on who you ask. Our capabilities are strong in all areas we are present and we are approaching a point where less troop involvment may be possible. That doesn't sound like over extended to me but since it's something else that doesn't support your side I guess you won't accept it.
It's a fact. We are in serious trouble if another major conflict comes up. Our troops are being told TOD's last longer, Generals are making statements, budgets are cut all over the military, there are shortages, etc... Only an ostrich wouldn't think other wise.
-
Every soldier ive talked to is praying he doesnt have to go back. They are exhausted and most have been on 2 tours or more.
Their kids are growing up without them, and they dont see the point......stretched beyond belief ........exhausted.
-
Every soldier ive talked to is praying he doesnt have to go back. They are exhausted and most have been on 2 tours or more.
Their kids are growing up without them, and they dont see the point......stretched beyond belief ........exhausted.
Those are lib soldiers who have no back bone to do what's needed to be done. ;) ;D
-
Those are lib soldiers who have no back bone to do what's needed to be done.
True. I called em a bunch of pussies, kicked em in the head and said get the fvck outa here you cryin bitch.. 8)
-
Since it is obvious that nothing will change anyone's opinion on this issue...I will now resort to the classic getbig debating style....
George Bush sucks cock. :)
-
Kids, you know it's time for.....................! ;D The USA is FUCKING AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AWESOME DOLLAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YEAAHHHHHHH!
-
My information isn't form the media. Try again. My information is from the military. But that's easy to dismiss as hear say from your point of view that's why i brought up statement by the generals themselves.
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=15875&archive=true
Like I said. Depends on who you talk to. And, of course, only one side of this argument recieves any media attention. A good cross section of the military greatly disagree about this.
Who ever your friends are they are meat-heads or classic "yes" men disguised as officers sucking some other Generals nut sack above them.
Lol.. when you say things like this you prove everything I've said about you.. hilarious!!
So now you've settled for "ineffective?" OK, again in hindsight, that's easy to say. But i can agree with it only form the point of view of hindsight.
Ok.. I'll live with that. But in "hindsight" where might the world and Iraq have been in another 20 years with Saddam in power and stronger than ever?
You inferred it by asking the question. Please let's not get into the tedious nature of your childish attempts at trapping me.
Stand by what you said.
My assertion is valid. you are confusing the 2 issues and applying the conclusion to your bias.
Ok since you don't want to clarify this and expose your bias..
LMAO. You don't have the mental capacity to see past your emotions.
It took them 4 years to figure out they needed an additional 20k. ::)
With people like yourself fighting them when they realized we DID need it. Hard to call out someone else when you're part of the problem, isn't it?
Don't have the integrity to stand by your statement i see.
I don't have the patience to repeat myself to someone unable to grasp it.
they didn't have Iraq to begin with. They can't lose something they don't have. The only they can lose is the opportunity to create in Iraq. And opportunity we gave them.
They never "had" Iraq although they were there in a greater capacity and role than what most believe. That's not what my point is. We we defeat terrorism in Iraq we will have a solid opportunity to destroy middle east terror and possibly even radical islam in a big way. We become hugely more dangerous to them. This is what they know and this is why they fight there.
It is not such a priority that they cannot divert a few dozen men for operations in the USA.
It take one man to commit a terrorist act. It takes thousands to fight conduct an insurgency.
What you think and what you know are so loud i can't hear what you are saying. It doesn't take long reading how you come up with your conclusions and how your beliefs are formed to see how naive and manipulated you are.
Your childish insults do not mask the fact that you are 100% wrong. A great deal has been done to prevent another terrorist attack although there is still more to be done. Bush has made it much harder on them to hit us hard but you will continue to argue otherwise. You will see.. In another few years the fruits of our efforts will be more evident.
lol what are you inferring I'm from the inner city? That's funny.
Nope, they don't, not in this country with HS and the FBI.
Considering how vulnerable you say we are I find it hard to accept that even you believe that. By the way, who started HS? hmm..
I wasn't saying you live in the city. I was saying that if you did you would see how easy it is for foreigners to get by unnoticed in this country without assimilatiing.
We have wide open borders and our airports are vulnerable to terrorists attacks and it hasn't happened. It's not becuase we are in Iraq.
Like i said, you lack the courage to find out. Keep trying to deflect. ::)
Please share with my why it HASN'T happened?
It might not be completely because we are in Iraq or other places but combine our efforts world wide with those here at home and we start lessening the likelyhood a great deal. And Bush was the man behind it.
Really? Like in lebanon where 234 marines died and he didn't do jack shit other than invade Grenada to distract the public.
::) What a soft ass pacifist.
Completely agree.. I guess terrorism won in that instance and Wienberger under Reagan didn't do thier job. I don't believe Bush would have reacted so ineffectively.
Oh so now you've change your statement ::)
So what should have we done then Brix, who should have we invaded?
I'm not going to know the full extent of what Clinton should have done but it is obvious (especially now) that he didn't do jack shit compared to what had been needed.
I certainly would have had a better opinion if he would have sent our military into Afghanistan during his term after we were attacked on his watch.
It's a fact. We are in serious trouble if another major conflict comes up. Our troops are being told TOD's last longer, Generals are making statements, budgets are cut all over the military, there are shortages, etc... Only an ostrich wouldn't think other wise.
We'll just have to wait and see. Until then I suggest you seek out some servicemembers with other viewpoints to get an idea of the opposing issues.
-
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=15875&archive=true
Like I said. Depends on who you talk to. And, of course, only one side of this argument recieves any media attention. A good cross section of the military greatly disagree about this.
Wow an article form the Stars and Stripes. ::)
"Depends on who you talk to"
And then you offer up an article from the news paper the US milatary publishes?
You are really a stupid person. And I'm not trying to insult you. Really. If you don't think so i can link you to a web site managed by me that has an article in it saying I'm not insulting you.
Lol.. when you say things like this you prove everything I've said about you.. hilarious!!
It is what it is. The idea of you even talking to a general is funny anyway. combined that with your reasoning in all the posts in this thread including this thing with the Stripes and i'd say i was dead on. Classic yes men. The Military is full of them. How else do you get promoted? By going against the grain? lol. So we have the "yes" men and fools who follow them.
Ok since you don't want to clarify this and expose your bias..
You don't even know what we are talking about here do you?
Oh ok Roll Eyes
Are you saying Americans were not victems of terrorism before 9/11? Bush was given the chance and took terrorism seriously and head on. Clinton pissed away his.
If you really think i was saying that then you are a danger to the public becuase you are so stupid you are likely to harm someone becuase of your ignorance. Or it was just basic stupid attempt to put words in my mouth, (trapping)
With people like yourself fighting them when they realized we DID need it. Hard to call out someone else when you're part of the problem, isn't it?
Part of the problem? I've maintain since i've been on this board they needed to more troops. I've maintained that the plan was arrogant and over confident. At what point did the brilliant "yes" men think there was a problem that warranted a surge in troops? When the Iraqi's were ripping down the infrastructure? when IED's were every where? when suicide bombers were killing hundreds in public markets?
You are such a blind little obedient pawn that you lack the courage or sight to fault anything by your masters.
I don't have the patience to repeat myself to someone unable to grasp it.
only ignorant people or cowards are unwilling to test their beliefs.
They never "had" Iraq although they were there in a greater capacity and role than what most believe.
You get that one form the stars and stripes or from the recent pentagon report? ::)
We we defeat terrorism in Iraq we will have a solid opportunity to destroy middle east terror and possibly even radical islam in a big way. We become hugely more dangerous to them. This is what they know and this is why they fight there.
If they weren't Iraq to begin with there was no need to for us to be there. We were already in Afganistan. What other countries were they in? By your thinking we should have gone those coutries where we were sure they were. We should have destroyed them in tora bora.
Your childish insults do not mask the fact that you are 100% wrong. A great deal has been done to prevent another terrorist attack although there is still more to be done. Bush has made it much harder on them to hit us hard but you will continue to argue otherwise. You will see.. In another few years the fruits of our efforts will be more evident.
Still not addressing your ignorant statement about anyone fighting in Iraq has the skills to infiltrate and conduct terrorist operatiions in the USA.
Meanwhile, you are resorting to the "you'll see" tactic.....What's next calling me un-American? ::)
Considering how vulnerable you say we are I find it hard to accept that even you believe that. By the way, who started HS? hmm..
I wasn't saying you live in the city. I was saying that if you did you would see how easy it is for foreigners to get by unnoticed in this country without assimilatiing.
There is much more to it than that. Otherwise all we would need is local police. And yes, HS was started, out of necessity and response. Not a very remarkable thing considering the rivalry each agency has had with each other since the beginning of time so to speak.
Please share with my why it HASN'T happened?
It might not be completely because we are in Iraq or other places but combine our efforts world wide with those here at home and we start lessening the likelyhood a great deal. And Bush was the man behind it.
It is not because we are in Iraq at all, which is what i've been telling you. That's a different animal fighting there. It hasn't for 2 reasons:
1. We've done a great job fighting them. Hat's off to special ops and intelligence.
2. Because of that the threat isn't what's it's still made out to be. (not that we need to stop any of our efforts including strengthening security here.)
Completely agree.. I guess terrorism won in that instance and Wienberger under Reagan didn't do thier job. I don't believe Bush would have reacted so ineffectively.
So basically, we got one republican president who acted appropriately in your eyes? Reagan is a pacifist, Clinton was weak and did nothing, Bush Sr. couldn't finish the job, Carter was a wussy for letting Iran get away with it, since the Vietnam war the only guy that has done what you think would be done is BUSH.
Why don't you just admit it right now. You are war monger.
I'm not going to know the full extent of what Clinton should have done but it is obvious (especially now) that he didn't do jack shit compared to what had been needed.
I certainly would have had a better opinion if he would have sent our military into Afghanistan during his term after we were attacked on his watch.
So you think he should have invaded Afghanistan after the cole was attacked? So we invade every country that has people in it that attacked us?
We'll just have to wait and see. Until then I suggest you seek out some servicemembers with other viewpoints to get an idea of the opposing issues.
I don't need to ask a service man. I only need to ask a person who is involved in logistics at high level. ;)
-
Wow an article form the Stars and Stripes. ::)
And then you offer up an article from the news paper the US milatary publishes?
Straight from the horses mouth my friend. Just goes to prove that not only are there two very large sides to this opinion but only one of them has been recieving attention. Of course, you ate that up without batting an eye.
You are really a stupid person. And I'm not trying to insult you. Really. If you don't think so i can link you to a web site managed by me that has an article in it saying I'm not insulting you.
Lol.. Next you'll be telling me you hate me while slowely enlarging your font size and typing in all caps. :D
It is what it is. The idea of you even talking to a general is funny anyway. combined that with your reasoning in all the posts in this thread including this thing with the Stripes and i'd say i was dead on. Classic yes men. The Military is full of them. How else do you get promoted? By going against the grain? lol. So we have the "yes" men and fools who follow them.
Yeah, there you go buddy! Because if you took that fact that I've done my homework and know who I've been talking to seriously you might actually have to deal with it. Don't be so afraid to be wrong Ozmo.
You don't even know what we are talking about here do you?
Sure do.. you accused me of applying the same standard to our pre versus post 9/11 stituations regarding how we rate and combat the threat of terror, specifically in regard to the presidents actions. Something you would like to add to that?
If you really think i was saying that then you are a danger to the public becuase you are so stupid you are likely to harm someone becuase of your ignorance. Or it was just basic stupid attempt to put words in my mouth, (trapping)
I didn't.. I was using it as a example to prove a point... that we have examples to go on regarding how a previous president dealt with terrorist action against americans. You seem to see them as different entirely while I regard them as smaller previews of what was to come.
Part of the problem? I've maintain since i've been on this board they needed to more troops. I've maintained that the plan was arrogant and over confident. At what point did the brilliant "yes" men think there was a problem that warranted a surge in troops? When the Iraqi's were ripping down the infrastructure? when IED's were every where? when suicide bombers were killing hundreds in public markets?
You are such a blind little obedient pawn that you lack the courage or sight to fault anything by your masters.
Even if they had more troops in the beginning you would be here saying Bush is oh so awful for any number of other reasons you want to believe. In fact the entire point of this is not who's right about the war and terror and who isn't but simply that you and those like you on this board have such a personal vendetta against Bush that you will never accept the good things that will result from his presidency (or the conservatism he respresents for that matter). You're just another angry, hateful, liberal who buys directly into the media portrayal of people on the other side of the isle. (Your last sentance is one of many examples of this, btw.)
Minimal American casualties, astronomical enemy dead, Saddam and his regime destroyed, first Iraqi elections, a war we are going to eventually win, a stronger and more influential US, and the world will be better off for it.
only ignorant people or cowards are unwilling to test their beliefs.
Why, because you can't get it the first three times I say something? Hardly..
You get that one form the stars and stripes or from the recent pentagon report? ::)
No, but my clearance got me into the room with that information long before that.
If they weren't Iraq to begin with there was no need to for us to be there. We were already in Afganistan. What other countries were they in? By your thinking we should have gone those coutries where we were sure they were. We should have destroyed them in tora bora.
They were. And aside from the fact that Bush used that information to sell the war (which he should not have) he had more than enough reasons to march on Baghdad.
The other countries AQ is in may very well become our targets when we get far enough in Iraq to start redeploying. We'll see. It will depend on how much is there and what those countries gov'ts do about it.
Still not addressing your ignorant statement about anyone fighting in Iraq has the skills to infiltrate and conduct terrorist operatiions in the USA.
Meanwhile, you are resorting to the "you'll see" tactic.....What's next calling me un-American? ::)
Ok, I'll go into that. The same guys being used in Iraq could easily be used in the USA. Flight training isn't a requirement if mass murder is the objective. I already pointed out where they could find a haven. Immigrants in the city aren't so far from the third world hell hole they left weeks or months ago and they even manage to eek out a living. Much less is involved if you simply want to bomb a busy place here in the US using your body as the vehicle. And since any of thier targets will be crowded and busy it is even more likely for them to hold up in NYC, LA, Miami, or DC.
And I don't know if you are anti american or not but you're not exactly an impressive example of anti terrorism either.
There is much more to it than that. Otherwise all we would need is local police. And yes, HS was started, out of necessity and response. Not a very remarkable thing considering the rivalry each agency has had with each other since the beginning of time so to speak.
Ok, now I KNOW you don't live in the city. Local police in the inner portions of any major city are SWAMPED and could in no way take on the extra responsibility of terror investigations.
At least give Bush credit for HS. The inter agency problems have been an issue for decades and could hardly be placed at the feet of any one president.
It is not because we are in Iraq at all, which is what i've been telling you. That's a different animal fighting there. It hasn't for 2 reasons:
1. We've done a great job fighting them. Hat's off to special ops and intelligence.
2. Because of that the threat isn't what's it's still made out to be. (not that we need to stop any of our efforts including strengthening security here.)
Both good points but they are directly ties to Iraq. Maybe not completely but it has had a major impact from day one whether you want to admit it or not.
So basically, we got one republican president who acted appropriately in your eyes? Reagan is a pacifist, Clinton was weak and did nothing, Bush Sr. couldn't finish the job, Carter was a wussy for letting Iran get away with it, since the Vietnam war the only guy that has done what you think would be done is BUSH.
Why don't you just admit it right now. You are war monger.
I am not. But I know that would be one more thing for you to cry about so I don't need to try and convince you otherwise.
I think Reagan was an outstanding president from what I have learned about him. (I was only born in 1984) Like any president he had his shortcomings and his action, or lack of, in Lebanon is a perfect example.
So you think he should have invaded Afghanistan after the cole was attacked? So we invade every country that has people in it that attacked us?
Depends on whether or not it would have had the impact similar to our invasion post 9/11. IMO I think it would have achieved similar results and the benefit of that happening 5 or so years earlier could have been huge.
I don't need to ask a service man. I only need to ask a person who is involved in logistics at high level. ;)
Suit yourself.
You should guard against becoming so emotional in your posts.. I might be inclined to listen to what you have to say..
.. but I doubt it. ;D
-
LOL at brix. Youthful internet knowledge. One day youll sit at the adults table at thanksgiving.
-
Straight from the horses mouth my friend. Just goes to prove that not only are there two very large sides to this opinion but only one of them has been recieving attention. Of course, you ate that up without batting an eye.
What's funny about this is that you take what the newspaper published by the US military as a valid side of an issue.
Lol.. Next you'll be telling me you hate me while slowely enlarging your font size and typing in all caps. Cheesy
You are what you are. The truth will sett you free. No need to caps things up.
Yeah, there you go buddy! Because if you took that fact that I've done my homework and know who I've been talking to seriously you might actually have to deal with it. Don't be so afraid to be wrong Ozmo.
You've done your homework? ::) This from the same guy who sights the Stars and Stripe as a valid source regarding our over extended army?
Also, who ever you are talking to are just as a stupid as you are. Birds of a feather flock together. You are like the guy on the Carls Jr. Commercial. Standing there there looking a vegetables not knowing what to do.
Sure do.. you accused me of applying the same standard to our pre versus post 9/11 stituations regarding how we rate and combat the threat of terror, specifically in regard to the presidents actions. Something you would like to add to that?
Of which you tried to accuse me or Clinton of thinking Americans were not attacked. Which again highlights the lies you need to make yourself believe in order to keep you other stupid believes intact.
Even if they had more troops in the beginning you would be here saying Bush is oh so awful for any number of other reasons you want to believe. In fact the entire point of this is not who's right about the war and terror and who isn't but simply that you and those like you on this board have such a personal vendetta against Bush that you will never accept the good things that will result from his presidency (or the conservatism he respresents for that matter). You're just another angry, hateful, liberal who buys directly into the media portrayal of people on the other side of the isle. (Your last sentance is one of many examples of this, btw.)
Minimal American casualties, astronomical enemy dead, Saddam and his regime destroyed, first Iraqi elections, a war we are going to eventually win, a stronger and more influential US, and the world will be better off for it.
The good things? (aside from the stupid move of Iraq) Like gas? Like home values ? Like unemployment? Yes, he did right by Afghanistan.
Even if BUSH had done it right in Iraq in the beginning I still would have been against the war a the time simply because it was a stupid move. But BUSH as stupid as he is did it anyway and sent in too few troops. He is quite possibly just as stupid as you.
At some point in your life you need to deal with truth or you can just go on avoiding it like a scared a little boy and not ask the questions to people you consider libs.
The fact is, I'm pretty sure now, is that any answer they give you is far too complicated for you to understand because chances are it will above playground rules for fighting.
No, but my clearance got me into the room with that information long before that.
Oh so because you went into a secure room you know the entire defense posture both tactically and logistically fo the united states? ::) ::) ::) ::) ::), go tell that to some dumb shit friend of yours who is too stupid not to be impressed.
Ok, I'll go into that. The same guys being used in Iraq could easily be used in the USA. Flight training isn't a requirement if mass murder is the objective. I already pointed out where they could find a haven. Immigrants in the city aren't so far from the third world hell hole they left weeks or months ago and they even manage to eek out a living. Much less is involved if you simply want to bomb a busy place here in the US using your body as the vehicle. And since any of thier targets will be crowded and busy it is even more likely for them to hold up in NYC, LA, Miami, or DC.
And I don't know if you are anti american or not but you're not exactly an impressive example of anti terrorism either.
There you go again thinking in simple terms thinking it is that easy......
BTW: You think i might not be anti-terrorist only because i don't agree to the answers you've accepted from your masters.
If you went back and read everything I've posted on this board regarding terrorism you'd think other wise. The thing is, BUSH is an idiot when it comes to doing what needs to be done. You can't accept that because your whole world would crumble and your hero might be shown to be perhaps the dumbest president we've ever had.
Ok, now I KNOW you don't live in the city. Local police in the inner portions of any major city are SWAMPED and could in no way take on the extra responsibility of terror investigations.
At least give Bush credit for HS. The inter agency problems have been an issue for decades and could hardly be placed at the feet of any one president.
I'm not blaming Bush for inter agency issues.... ::) I'm only saying that HS was created out of necessity and politics.
So it's no big thing as who ever was pres would have done it.
Depends on whether or not it would have had the impact similar to our invasion post 9/11. IMO I think it would have achieved similar results and the benefit of that happening 5 or so years earlier could have been huge.
Answer the question. The second one. (Again your answer is based on Hindsight....)
Suit yourself.
You should guard against becoming so emotional in your posts.. I might be inclined to listen to what you have to say..
.. but I doubt it. Grin
Nothing emotional about it. At some point while talking with you here, your lacking and absence of the desire to see the real truth beyond the propaganda your extreme alignment feeds you and molds you every day, just becomes too evident. I pity you. You are not inclined to listen to anything anyone says. You've proved that already when you refuse to ask a liberal those questions on this board.
-
What's funny about this is that you take what the newspaper published by the US military as a valid side of an issue.
So its not a valid side unless the brass in question disagree with the presidents policies and agree with you, huh? Please..
You've done your homework? ::) This from the same guy who sights the Stars and Stripe as a valid source regarding our over extended army?
Also, who ever you are talking to are just as a stupid as you are. Birds of a feather flock together. You are like the guy on the Carls Jr. Commercial. Standing there there looking a vegetables not knowing what to do.
So whoever I talk to must be stupid, general or not!!.. rrriiiiiggghhhhtttttt. ::)
Of which you tried to accuse me or Clinton of thinking Americans were not attacked. Which again highlights the lies you need to make yourself believe in order to keep you other stupid believes intact.
No, actually I pointed out that Clinton did jack shit even AFTER americans were very publicly attacked. Read it ten more times if you have to. No lies, no misinformation, and no spin about it... sorry :P
The good things? (aside from the stupid move of Iraq) Like gas? Like home values ? Like unemployment? Yes, he did right by Afghanistan.
Even if BUSH had done it right in Iraq in the beginning I still would have been against the war a the time simply because it was a stupid move. But BUSH as stupid as he is did it anyway and sent in too few troops. He is quite possibly just as stupid as you.
At some point in your life you need to deal with truth or you can just go on avoiding it like a scared a little boy and not ask the questions to people you consider libs.
The fact is, I'm pretty sure now, is that any answer they give you is far too complicated for you to understand because chances are it will above playground rules for fighting.
So you will blame a sitting president for ALL factors of the free market, even ones that are consumer driven such as the irrisponsible home buyers who signed adj rate mortgages not thinking that if the market changes they won't be able to afford their homes.
Way to go buddy!! ::)
Oh so because you went into a secure room you know the entire defense posture both tactically and logistically fo the united states? ::) ::) ::) ::) ::), go tell that to some dumb shit friend of yours who is too stupid not to be impressed.
Did I say that? NOPE, lol.
I said I saw SOME information about CERTAIN subj which clearly showed things about ONE area of the world. I never claimed to be the friggin director of central intelligence, numnuts!! ah hahahahah!!.. wow.
Aw.. I know it hurts to realize that there are some things the american public won't know for a few years.
There you go again thinking in simple terms thinking it is that easy......
BTW: You think i might not be anti-terrorist only because i don't agree to the answers you've accepted from your masters.
If you went back and read everything I've posted on this board regarding terrorism you'd think other wise. The thing is, BUSH is an idiot when it comes to doing what needs to be done. You can't accept that because your whole world would crumble and your hero might be shown to be perhaps the dumbest president we've ever had.
I have masters? Is that like how you're information is from NY Times, Wash Post, CNN, MoveON, CBS/NBC etc. and you take it as gospel without even considering how biased and agenda driven to one side those sources are? Cause that's what it sounds like.
And the same goes for me having enough common sense not to look for acceptance or a fair judgement from a bunch of leftist, emotional, vengeful, and hate filled getbiggers who have gotten pretty good at ignoring facts and reason.
I'm not blaming Bush for inter agency issues.... ::) I'm only saying that HS was created out of necessity and politics.
So it's no big thing as who ever was pres would have done it.
Ha! Sure they would have. ::) Judging by the way Clinton handled the terror situation from his actions in office it's fair to say that only a liberal with a bone to pick with the next president would make that assumption.
..It would really suck to have to give Bush ANY credit for that, wouldn't it? ;D
Answer the question. The second one. (Again your answer is based on Hindsight....)
I did:
Q: So we invade every country that has people in it that attacked us?
A: Depends on whether or not it would have had the impact similar to our invasion post 9/11. IMO I think it would have achieved similar results and the benefit of that happening 5 or so years earlier could have been huge.
Say, for example, Syria had a similar concentration of a terror group or groups and recent activity supporting and harboring terror.. then absolutely. But again it depends on how similar every element of the situation is to Afghanistan, including our probably casualty rate, otherwise we couldn't expect similar positive results as we did from Afg.
Nothing emotional about it. At some point while talking with you here, your lacking and absence of the desire to see the real truth beyond the propaganda your extreme alignment feeds you and molds you every day, just becomes too evident. I pity you. You are not inclined to listen to anything anyone says. You've proved that already when you refuse to ask a liberal those questions on this board.
Your posts have gone from a fairly straight forward and rational statement of opinion (however wrong or misled) to outright hate, insults, and immaturity.. hilarious!!!
-
Were you saying something about the good things Bush has done? ;D
Abortion & Traditional Values
1. Banned Partial Birth Abortion — by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade.
2. Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy.
3. By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton's policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act.
4. By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services.
5. Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals.
6. Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004.
7. Supports the Defense of Marriage Act — and a Constitutional amendment saying marriage is between one man and one woman.
8. Requires states to conduct criminal background checks on prospective foster and adoptive parents.
9. Requires districts to let students transfer out of dangerous schools.
10. Requires schools to have a zero-tolerance policy for classroom disruption (reintroducing discipline into classrooms).
11. Signed the Teacher Protection Act, which protects teachers from lawsuits related to student discipline.
12. Expanded the role of faith-based and community organizations in after-school programs.
Budget, Taxes & Economy
1. Signed two income tax cuts, one of which was the largest dollar-value tax cut in world history.
2. Supports permanent elimination of the death tax.
3. Turned around an inherited economy that was in recession, and deeply shocked as a result of the 9/11 attacks.
4. Is seeking legislation to amend the Constitution to give the president line-item veto authority.
5. In process of permanently eliminating IRS marriage penalty.
6. Increased small business incentives to expand and to hire new people.
7. Initiated discussion on privatizing Social Security and individual investment accounts.
8. Killed Clinton's "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement; rules would have shut down every home business in America.
9. Passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account as a result of corporate scandals.
10. Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains.
11. Signed trade promotion authority.
12. Reduced and is working to ultimately eliminate the estate tax for family farms and ranches.
13. Fight Europe's ban on importing biotech crops from the United States.
14. Exempt food from unilateral trade sanctions and embargoes.
15. Provided $20 million to states to help people with disabilities work from home.
16. Created a fund to encourage technologies that help the disabled.
17. Increased the annual contribution limit on Education IRA's from $500 to $2,000 per child.
18. Make permanent the $5,000 adoption tax credit and provide $1 billion over five years to increase the credit to $10,000.
19. Grant a complete tax exemption for prepaid or college tuition savings plans.
20. Reduced H1B visas from a high of 195,000 per year to 66,000 per year.
Character & Conduct as President
1. Changed the tone in the White House, restoring HONOR and DIGNITY to the presidency.
2. Has reintroduced the mention of God and faith into public discourse.
3. Handled himself with enormous courage, dignity, grace, determination, and leadership in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 hijackings and anthrax attacks. He almost single-handedly held this country together during those searing days:
Just three days after the attacks, in his address at the National Cathedral, the President reassured the nation when he said: "War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing."
On Friday, September 14, 2001, President Bush visited Ground Zero. Standing on a crushed and burned fire engine atop the smoldering pile at Ground Zero, he put his arm around a retired firefighter who had volunteered to help, and began speaking to the crowd. Rescue workers shouted that they could not hear him. Someone handed him a small American flag and bullhorn. The President spontaneously shouted: "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." The crowd roared with cheers and chants of "USA! USA! USA!" Then he raised that American flag and rallied a nation.
Education & Employment Training
1. Signed the No Child Left Behind Act, delivering the most dramatic education reforms in a generation (challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations). The very liberal California Teachers union is currently running radio ads against the accountability provisions of this Act.
2. Announced "Jobs for the 21st Century," a comprehensive plan to better prepare workers for jobs in the new millennium by strengthening post-secondary education and job training, and by improving high school education.
3. Is working to provide vouchers to low-income students in persistently failing schools to help with costs of attending private schools. (Blocked in the Senate.)
4. Requires annual reading and math tests in grades three through eight.
5. Requires states to participate in the National Assessment of Education Progress, or an equivalent program, to establish a national benchmark for academic performance.
6. Requires school-by-school accountability report cards.
7. Established a $2.4 billion fund to help states implement teacher accountability systems.
8. Increased funding for the Troops-to-Teachers program, which recruits former military personnel to become teachers.
Environment & Energy
1. Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty.
2. Submitted a comprehensive Energy Plan (awaits Congressional action). The plan works to develop cleaner technology, produce more natural gas here at home, make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, improve national grid, etc.
3. Established a $10 million grant program to promote private conservation initiatives.
4. Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops.
5. Changed parts of the Forestry Management Act to allow necessary cleanup of the national forests in order to reduce fire danger.
6. Part of national forests cleanup: Restricted judicial challenges (based on the Endangered Species Act and other challenges), and removed the need for an Environmental Impact Statement before removing fuels/logging to reduce fire danger.
7. Killed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off all of the electricity surplus to California.
8. Provided matching grants for state programs that help private landowners protect rare species.
Defense & Foreign Policy
1. Successfully executed two wars in the aftermath of 9/11/01: Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom.
2. Saddam Hussein is now in prison. His two murderous sons are dead. All but a handful of the regime's senior members were killed or captured.
3. Leader by leader and member by member, al Maida is being hunted down in dozens of countries around the world. Of the senior al Qaeda leaders, operational managers, and key facilitators the U.S. Government has been tracking, nearly two-thirds have been taken into custody or killed. The detentions or deaths of senior al Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, the mastermind of 9/11, and Muhammad Atef, Osama bin Laden's second-in-command until his death in late 2001, have been important in the War on Terror.
4. Disarmed Libya of its chemical, nuclear and biological WMD's without bribes or bloodshed.
5. Continues to execute the War On Terror, getting worldwide cooperation to track funds/terrorists. Has cut off much of the terrorists' funding, and captured or killed many key leaders of the al Qaeda network.
6. Initiated a comprehensive review of our military, which was completed just prior to 9/11/01, and which accurately reported that ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE capabilities were critical in the 21st Century.
7. Killed the old US/Soviet Union ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses.
8. Has been one of the strongest, if not THE strongest friend Israel has ever hand in the U.S. presidency.
9. Part of the coalition for an Israeli/Palestinian "Roadmap to Peace," along with Great Britain, Russia and the EU.
10. Pushed through THREE raises for our military. Increased military pay by more than $1 billion a year.
11. Signed the LARGEST nuclear arms reduction in world history with Russia.
12. Started withdrawing our troops from Bosnia, and has announced withdrawal of our troops from Germany and the Korean DMZ.
13. Prohibited putting U.S. troops under U.N. command.
14. Paid back UN dues only in return for reforms and reduction of U.S. share of the costs.
15. Earmarked at least 20 percent of the Defense procurement budget for next-generation weaponry.
16. Increased defense research and development spending by at least $20 billion from fiscal 2002 to 2006.
17. Ordered a comprehensive review of military weapons and strategy.
18. Ordered a review of overseas deployments.
19. Ordered renovation of military housing. The military has already upgraded about 10 percent of its inventory and expects to modernize 76,000 additional homes this year.
20. Is working to tighten restrictions on military-technology exports.
21. Brought back our EP-3 intel plane and crew from China without any bribes or bloodshed.
Globalization & Internationalism
1. Challenged the United Nations to live up to their responsibilities and not become another League of Nations (in other words, showed the UN to be completely irrelevant).
2. Killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court.
3. Told the United Nations we weren't interested in their plans for gun control (i.e., the International Ban on Small Arms Trafficking Treaty).
4. The only President since the founding of the UN to essentially tell that organization it is irrelevant. He said: "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of UN demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" We all know the outcome and the answer.
5. Told the Congress and the world, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."
Government Reform
1. Improved government efficiency by putting hundreds of thousands of jobs put up for bid. This weakens public-sector unions and cuts undeserved pay raises.
2. Initiated review of all federal agencies with the goal of eliminating federal jobs (completed September 2003) in an effort to reduce the size of the federal government while increasing private sector jobs.
3. Led the most extensive reorganization the Federal bureaucracy in over 50 years: After 9/11, condensed 20+ overlapping agencies and their intelligence sectors into one agency, the Department of Homeland Security.
4. Ordered each agency to draft a five-year plan to restructure itself, with fewer managers.
5. Converted federal service contracts to performance-based contracts wherever possible so that the contractor has measurable performance goals.
Health
1. Strengthen the National Health Service Corps to put more physicians in the neediest areas, and make its scholarship funds tax-free.
2. Double the research budget of the National Institutes of Health.
3. Signed Medicare Reform, which includes:
A 10-year privatization option.
Prescription drug benefits: Prior to this reform, Medicare paid for extended hospital stays for ulcer surgery, for example, at a cost of about $28,000 per patient. Yet Medicare would not pay for the drugs that eliminate the cause of most ulcers, drugs that cost about $500 a year. Now, drug coverage under Medicare will allow seniors to replace more expensive surgeries and hospitalizations with less expensive prescription medicine.
More health care choices: As President Bush stated, "…when seniors have the ability to make choices, health care plans within Medicare will have to compete for their business by offering higher quality service [at lower cost]. For the seniors of America, more choices and more control will mean better health care. These are the kinds of health care options we give to the members of Congress and federal employees. What's good for members of Congress is also good for seniors.
New Health Savings Accounts: Effective January 1, 2004, Americans can set aside up to $4,500 every year, tax free, to save for medical expenses. Depending on your tax bracket, that means you'll save between 10 to 35 percent on any costs covered by money in your account. Every year, the money not spent would stay in the account and gain interest tax-free, just like an IRA. These accounts will be good for small business owners, and employees. More businesses can focus on covering workers for major medical problems, such as hospitalization for an injury or illness. At the same time, employees and their families will use these accounts to cover doctors visits, or lab tests, or other smaller costs. Some employers will contribute to employee health accounts. This will help more American families get the health care they need at the price they can afford.
Homeland Security, Border Enforcement & Immigration
1. *See Government Reform above. Under President Bush's leadership, America has made an unprecedented commitment to homeland security.
2. Has CONSTRUCTION in process on the first 10 ABM silos in Alaska so that America will have a defense against North Korean nukes. Has ordered national and theater ballistic missile defenses to be deployed by 2004.
3. Announced a 9.7% increase in government-wide homeland security funding in his FY 2005 budget, nearly tripling the FY 2001 levels (excluding the Department of Defense and Project BioShield).
4. Before DHS was created, there were inspectors from three different agencies of the Federal Government and Border Patrol officers protecting our borders. Through DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) now consolidates all border activities into a single agency to create "one face at the border." This not only better secures the borders of the United States, but it also eliminates many of the inefficiencies that occurred under the old system. With over 18,000 CBP inspectors and 11,000 Border Patrol agents, CBP has 29,000 uniformed officers on our borders.
5. The Border Patrol is continuing installation of monitoring devices along the borders to detect illegal activity.
6. Launched Operation Tarmac to investigate businesses and workers in the secure areas of domestic airports and ensure immigration law compliance. Since 9/11, DHS has audited 3,640 businesses, examined 259,037 employee records, arrested 1,030 unauthorized workers, and participated in the criminal indictment of 774 individuals.
7. Since September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard has conducted more than 124,000 port security patrols, 13,000 air patrols, boarded more than 92,000 vessels, interdicted over 14,000 individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally, and created and maintained more than 90 Maritime Security Zones.
8. Announced the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), an internet-based system that is improving America's ability to track and monitor foreign students and exchange visitors. Over 870,000 students are registered in SEVIS. Of 285 completed field investigations, 71 aliens were arrested.
9. This week, the US-VISIT program began to digitally collect biometric identifiers to record the entry and exit of aliens who travel into the U.S on a visa. Together with the standard information, this new program will confirm compliance with visa and immigration policies.
10. Eliminated INS bureaucratic redundancies and lack of accountability.
11. Split the Immigration and Naturalization Service into two agencies: one to protect the border and interior, the other to deal with naturalization.
12. Signed the workplace verification bill to prevent hiring of illegal aliens.
13. Established a six-month deadline for processing immigration applications.
14. Information regarding nearly 100% of all containerized cargo is carefully screened by DHS before it arrives in the United States. Higher risk shipments are physically inspected for terrorist weapons and contraband prior to being released from the port of entry. Advanced technologies are being deployed to identify warning signs of chemical, biological, or radiological attacks. Since September 11, 2001, hundreds of thousands of first responders across America have been trained to recognize and respond to the effects of a WMD attack.
Judiciary & Tort Reform
1. Is urging federal liability reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits.
2. Killed the liberal ABA's unconstitutional role in vetting federal judges. The Senate is supposed to advise and consent, not the ABA.
3. Is nominating strong, conservative judges to the judiciary.
4. Supports class action reform bill which limits lawyer fees so that more settlement money goes to victims.
Politics
1. His leadership resulted in Republican gains in the House and Senate, solidifying Republican control of both houses of Congress and the presidency.
2. Signed an EO enforcing the Supreme Court's Beck decision regarding union dues being used for political campaigns against individual's wishes.
Second Amendment
1. Ordered Attorney General Ashcroft to formally notify the Supreme Court that the OFFICIAL U.S. government position on the 2nd Amendment is that it supports INDIVIDUAL rights to own firearms, and is NOT a Leftist-imagined "collective" right.
2. Signed TWO bills into law that arm our pilots with handguns in the cockpit.
3. Currently pushing for full immunity from lawsuits for our national gun manufacturers.
4. *See Globalization & Internationalism.
Traditional Values, Compassion & Volunteerism
1. Endorses and promotes "The Responsibility Era." President Bush often speaks of the necessity of personal responsibility and civic volunteerism. He said, "In a compassionate society, people respect one another and take responsibility for the decisions they make in life. My hope is to change the culture from one that has said, if it feels good, do it; if you've got a problem, blame somebody else — to one in which every single American understands that he or she is responsible for the decisions that you make; you're responsible for loving your children with all your heart and all your soul; you're responsible for being involved with the quality of the education of your children; you're responsible for making sure the community in which you live is safe; you're responsible for loving your neighbor, just like you would like to be loved yourself."
2. Started the USA Freedom Corps, the most comprehensive clearinghouse of volunteer opportunities ever offered. For the first time in history, Americans can enter geographic information about where they want to get involved, such as state or zip code, as well as areas of interest ranging from education to the environment, and they can access volunteer opportunities offered by more than 50,000 organizations across the country and around the world.
3. Established the The White House Office and the Centers for the Faith-Based and Community Initiative — located in seven Federal agencies. The faith-based initiative supports the essential work of these important organizations. The goal is to make sure that grassroots leaders can compete on an equal footing for federal dollars, receive greater private support, and face fewer bureaucratic barriers. Work focuses on at-risk youth, ex-offenders, the homeless and hungry, substance abusers, those with HIV/AIDS, and welfare-to-work families.
4. The White House released a guidebook fully describing the Administration's belief that faith-based groups have a Constitutionally-protected right to maintain their religious identity through hiring — even when Federal funds are involved.
5. Issued an EO implementing the Supreme Court's Olmstead ruling, which requires moving disabled people from institutions to community-based facilities when possible.
6.Increased funding for low-interest loan programs to help people with disabilities purchase devices to assist them.
7. Revised the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 rent subsidies to disabled people, permitting them to use up to a year's worth of vouchers to finance down payments on homes. HUD has started pilot programs in 11 states.
8. Committed US funds to purchase medicine for millions of men, women and children now suffering with AIDS in Africa.
9. Heeding the words of our own Declaration of Independence, the president laid out the non-negotiable demands of human dignity for all people everywhere. On January 29, 2002, he said, "No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. We have no intention of imposing our culture. But America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity." As stated by the President, they are a virtual manifesto of conservative principles:
Equal Justice Freedom of Speech Limited Government Power Private Property Rights Religious Tolerance Respect for Women Rule of Law
-
No offense but many of those accomplishments are what's ruining this country.
-
Nice cut and paste job. You must be proud of yourself. I bet deep down you think that's quite a list and no other democratic president can match it.
So its not a valid side unless the brass in question disagree with the presidents policies and agree with you, huh? Please..
So whoever I talk to must be stupid, general or not!!.. rrriiiiiggghhhhtttttt. Roll Eyes
I don't know how many more ways i can explain it to you. but then again that's the problem with stupid people, they are too stupid to see how stupid they are.
But I'll try again.
Stars and stripes is a military publication. It's like the New England Patriots telling you about video taping. They won't acknowledge it unless they absolutely have to. Same with the military sponsored paper. What don't you get about that? Can you imagine the moral problems it would cause if the Stars and Stripes came out and said "we are close to being or are over extended"? Wait a second you can't think that deep.
The General. You really think a General is going to tell some E-3 what's really going on? Like i said, tell that garbage to your dumb ass friends.
No, actually I pointed out that Clinton did jack shit even AFTER americans were very publicly attacked. Read it ten more times if you have to. No lies, no misinformation, and no spin about it... sorry Tongue
No. He didn't do what you thought he should, in hindsight, and you or I don't know everything he did do.
So you will blame a sitting president for ALL factors of the free market, even ones that are consumer driven such as the irrisponsible home buyers who signed adj rate mortgages not thinking that if the market changes they won't be able to afford their homes.
Way to go buddy!! Roll Eyes
When we are spending 12 billion a week on an unneeded war and problems stack up domestically, yes, i will blame the man in charge.
That's the difference between you and me, you support BUSH in the face of all this incompetence becuase not to do so would make you a liberal in your eyes. For me. It doesn't matter who's in office, if they stink they stink.
Additionally, i don't use hindsight to gauge the effectiveness of a president's actions the way you do with Clinton regarding OBL and then translating that conclusion to blaming Clinton for 9/11. That's just ignorance.
Did I say that? NOPE, lol.
I said I saw SOME information about CERTAIN subj which clearly showed things about ONE area of the world. I never claimed to be the friggin director of central intelligence, numnuts!! ah hahahahah!!.. wow.
Aw.. I know it hurts to realize that there are some things the american public won't know for a few years.
So now, you have some General telling you things are ok combined with the Stars and Stripes and SOME info you saw.... and this is why you said:
"We are no where near over extended"
::)
I have masters? Is that like how you're information is from NY Times, Wash Post, CNN, MoveON, CBS/NBC etc. and you take it as gospel without even considering how biased and agenda driven to one side those sources are? Cause that's what it sounds like.
And the same goes for me having enough common sense not to look for acceptance or a fair judgement from a bunch of leftist, emotional, vengeful, and hate filled getbiggers who have gotten pretty good at ignoring facts and reason.
I take statements from Generals, the fact that ToD's have been extended for nearly everyone at one point or another, Personal high level contacts involved logistics, and the media. I could dig up much more. What's funny however is your comments about the media bias and you using Stars and Stripes as you sole publication example. You really have highlighted your stupidity and brainwashing there.
Fact is, we'd probably be at war with Iran right now, but we don't have the capability to do it safely.
Ha! Sure they would have. Roll Eyes Judging by the way Clinton handled the terror situation from his actions in office it's fair to say that only a liberal with a bone to pick with the next president would make that assumption.
..It would really suck to have to give Bush ANY credit for that, wouldn't it? Grin
So you are suggesting a dem president wouldn't have created the HS after 9/11? ::)
More brain washing.
I did:
Q: So we invade every country that has people in it that attacked us?
A: Depends on whether or not it would have had the impact similar to our invasion post 9/11. IMO I think it would have achieved similar results and the benefit of that happening 5 or so years earlier could have been huge.
Say, for example, Syria had a similar concentration of a terror group or groups and recent activity supporting and harboring terror.. then absolutely. But again it depends on how similar every element of the situation is to Afghanistan, including our probably casualty rate, otherwise we couldn't expect similar positive results as we did from Afg.
So basically you'd just invade them all?
War monger. Just admit you are. It's cool. No need to hide it.
Your posts have gone from a fairly straight forward and rational statement of opinion (however wrong or misled) to outright hate, insults, and immaturity.. hilarious!!!
Just a statement of fact Brix. It's only viewed as an insult to you becuase you don't agree or cannot recognize your stupidity. The truth shouldn't hurt you it should enlighten you. I mean look at the things you said:
We are no where near over exteneded
We could have decimated AQ years ago
A General told me.....
The Stars and Stripes.....
9/11 is Clinton's fault
You living in your own little "conservative" dream world where the evil libs are trying to wake you up from it. Awe poor guy.
-
Ozmo. You have obliterated this lil boy. He is lying in a pool of his own blood while protecting his president (as hes kicked in the head repeatadly, by bush himself).......
Sadly, we must move on, for this pony wont drink water.... :'(
-
Nice cut and paste job. You must be proud of yourself. I bet deep down you think that's quite a list and no other democratic president can match it.
You asked what good things Bush has done. From the conservative perspective that list is pretty complete.
Quote from: OzmO on Today at 11:54:18
I don't know how many more ways i can explain it to you. but then again that's the problem with stupid people, they are too stupid to see how stupid they are.
But I'll try again.
Stars and stripes is a military publication. It's like the New England Patriots telling you about video taping. They won't acknowledge it unless they absolutely have to. Same with the military sponsored paper. What don't you get about that? Can you imagine the moral problems it would cause if the Stars and Stripes came out and said "we are close to being or are over extended"? Wait a second you can't think that deep.
The General. You really think a General is going to tell some E-3 what's really going on? Like i said, tell that garbage to your dumb ass friends.
First off, I left the service as an E-5.
Second, it doesn't matter what rank I was because the 0-7 I talked to was a friend of the family and would have talked to me anyway much like all of the other officers my family is in contact with.
The point of posting the S & S article was not to change your mind since no matter where it came from you would just ignore it and insult me just like your response to every other point I've made. The point was to illustrate the opposing story and one you rarely hear since it isn't in the interest of YOUR sources to present both sides of the issues. Most of the talk of our military being over extended refers to the unwillingness of troops to serve more time in Iraq (which I can understand). That does NOT mean our military capabilities our over extended anywhere in the world and that is precisely why we aren't near it.. because we can still accomplish any of the missions we are currently engaged in and could take on somewhat more if absolutely necessary.
Quote from: OzmO on Today at 11:54:18
No. He didn't do what you thought he should, in hindsight, and you or I don't know everything he did do.
Well based on what I DO know I have to say he didn't do enough... hindsight or not.
Quote from: OzmO on Today at 11:54:18
When we are spending 12 billion a week on an unneeded war and problems stack up domestically, yes, i will blame the man in charge.
That's the difference between you and me, you support BUSH in the face of all this incompetence becuase not to do so would make you a liberal in your eyes. For me. It doesn't matter who's in office, if they stink they stink.
Additionally, i don't use hindsight to gauge the effectiveness of a president's actions the way you do with Clinton regarding OBL and then translating that conclusion to blaming Clinton for 9/11. That's just ignorance.
Complete BS.. you just hate Bush and you are determined to place as much blame on him as possible, plain and simple.
I didn't place the entirety of blame from 9/11 on Clinton. I stated that there were things he should have done and he didn't do them. There is a difference to objective people like myself but liberals like you with an agenda to paint like to twist everything slightly to support your opinion. Very low, Ozmo.
Quote from: OzmO on Today at 11:54:18
So now, you have some General telling you things are ok combined with the Stars and Stripes and SOME info you saw.... and this is why you said:
"We are no where near over extended"
::)
Actually I was referring to the information I was exposed to while in the military and I was talking about the terrorist involment in Iraq before our invasion... pay attention to the order of my posts. Do I need to slow down for you to follow this?
Quote from: OzmO on Today at 11:54:18
I take statements from Generals, the fact that ToD's have been extended for nearly everyone at one point or another, Personal high level contacts involved logistics, and the media. I could dig up much more. What's funny however is your comments about the media bias and you using Stars and Stripes as you sole publication example. You really have highlighted your stupidity and brainwashing there.
Fact is, we'd probably be at war with Iran right now, but we don't have the capability to do it safely.
Once again.. the "media" you use for sources only illustrates one side. Without searching the net for an hour I only wanted to find an article which shows an ACCURATE assessment of how over extended or not we are. S & S hit the nail on the head.
Quote from: OzmO on Today at 11:54:18
So you are suggesting a dem president wouldn't have created the HS after 9/11? ::)
More brain washing.
I doubt Kerry would have and Clinton might have had a 50/50 chance of doing something along those lines. Any conservative is far more likely to take terror and Nat'l security more seriously.
Quote from: OzmO on Today at 11:54:18
So basically you'd just invade them all?
War monger. Just admit you are. It's cool. No need to hide it.
"WAAHH!!! WAAAHHH!!! WAR ISN'T THE ANSWER, GOSH DARN IT!!!! WAAAHHH!!!"
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! Oh man.. Actually I am not, but you've proven that you don't really pay attention to facts and logic so you can go on believing whatever you want.
Quote from: OzmO on Today at 11:54:18
Just a statement of fact Brix. It's only viewed as an insult to you becuase you don't agree or cannot recognize your stupidity. The truth shouldn't hurt you it should enlighten you. I mean look at the things you said:
We are no where near over exteneded
We could have decimated AQ years ago
A General told me.....
The Stars and Stripes.....
9/11 is Clinton's fault
You living in your own little "conservative" dream world where the evil libs are trying to wake you up from it. Awe poor guy.
We could have decimated AQ years ago Yep.. or close to it. But your guy thought it would be better to leave it for the next guy.
A General told me..... You must really hate that I know what I'm talking about.
The Stars and Stripes..... .. was right.
9/11 is Clinton's fault More spin? Not surprised.
-
Brix...
can you and Ozmo have this argument without the patnetic use of labels?
Lib, spin, words like that. I listen to glen beck and rush almost daily... I'm well aware that these words are used to demonize a group, not dissect their position. When you yell "you're a lib using spin", you might as well say "you're evil using evil" or other nonsense. It's vague, and it is a poor substitute for a well-supported argument.
Instead of using 'lib', 'spin', and 'the media', please cite specifics and give us real evidence. Otherwise you just sound like another brainwashed fool, and both the far right and left have enough of those. Don't be one.
-
I am tired of both Democrats and Republicans. I am neither. We have a shit two party system.
How about an individual and unique independent or a libertarian?
Not going to happen because most Americans like American idol too much to pay attention to subtlety. ::)
-
You asked what good things Bush has done. From the conservative perspective that list is pretty complete.
Well good for you. unfortunately, our country gets to live with his bad decisions and well as his good ones. I wouldn't expect a president to only making bad ones even Carter. but, in this instance we are dealing with a president who has quite probably made the worse foreign policy decision in the history fo the office.
Second, it doesn't matter what rank I was because the 0-7 I talked to was a friend of the family and would have talked to me anyway much like all of the other officers my family is in contact with.
The point of posting the S & S article was not to change your mind since no matter where it came from you would just ignore it and insult me just like your response to every other point I've made. The point was to illustrate the opposing story and one you rarely hear since it isn't in the interest of YOUR sources to present both sides of the issues. Most of the talk of our military being over extended refers to the unwillingness of troops to serve more time in Iraq (which I can understand). That does NOT mean our military capabilities our over extended anywhere in the world and that is precisely why we aren't near it.. because we can still accomplish any of the missions we are currently engaged in and could take on somewhat more if absolutely necessary.
We are over extended in that another major conflict would cause serious problems. I'm not suggesting any current mission isn't being accomplished. for you say we are no where near over extended is false becuase of the things I've brought up. If another major conflict can put us in a problem situtation then that's over extended. That being said, it is so bad in our military that budgets across the board have been cut, people have been let go (DoD & civilian employees), departments have been downsized etc... Brix, if there wasn't problems they wouldn't have imposed extended duty for troops that are there. And generals more than one like your "friend" ::), have come out and said there are problems and we will have big problems if we get engaged in another conflict. This is one of the reasons BUSH's decision making is in question. He ran into Iraq with a plate full of assumptions and it got thrown in his face.
Stars and Stripes. I understand you are citing it as part of another view point or source. what you fail to consider the credibility of the source in regard to the issue. Imagine the S&S saying in a headline: "The US military dangerously close to being over extended and may not be able to adequately respond to another major conflict." Thge S&S will not say anything that would damage the military unless to was force to do so. that's why your offering of the S&S is juvenile at best.
Well based on what I DO know I have to say he didn't do enough... hindsight or not.
Based on your display of thinking, what you think you do know is laced with your personal bias against anything non-Bush. So basically it's meaningless.
Complete BS.. you just hate Bush and you are determined to place as much blame on him as possible, plain and simple.
I didn't place the entirety of blame from 9/11 on Clinton. I stated that there were things he should have done and he didn't do them. There is a difference to objective people like myself but liberals like you with an agenda to paint like to twist everything slightly to support your opinion. Very low, Ozmo.
You've never said 9/11 was Clinton's fault? You just think he let it happen but it's not his fault it happened?
Actually I was referring to the information I was exposed to while in the military and I was talking about the terrorist involment in Iraq before our invasion... pay attention to the order of my posts. Do I need to slow down for you to follow this?
doesn't change the lack of evidence and reason to go in there all of which has been pretty much brought out in the open
Once again.. the "media" you use for sources only illustrates one side. Without searching the net for an hour I only wanted to find an article which shows an ACCURATE assessment of how over extended or not we are. S & S hit the nail on the head.
refer to above on the S&S thing. I predict however that you will still not get it.
I doubt Kerry would have and Clinton might have had a 50/50 chance of doing something along those lines. Any conservative is far more likely to take terror and Nat'l security more seriously.
If that isn't an ignorant bias belief i don't know what is. ::)
"WAAHH!!! WAAAHHH!!! WAR ISN'T THE ANSWER, GOSH DARN IT!!!! WAAAHHH!!!"
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! Oh man.. Actually I am not, but you've proven that you don't really pay attention to facts and logic so you can go on believing whatever you want.
Hey, it's ok that you graduated form the WWF school of problem solving.
-
Hey its day 1,801 of "Mission accomplished" in Iraq.... :D
-
Brix...
can you and Ozmo have this argument without the patnetic use of labels?
Lib, spin, words like that. I listen to glen beck and rush almost daily... I'm well aware that these words are used to demonize a group, not dissect their position. When you yell "you're a lib using spin", you might as well say "you're evil using evil" or other nonsense. It's vague, and it is a poor substitute for a well-supported argument.
Instead of using 'lib', 'spin', and 'the media', please cite specifics and give us real evidence. Otherwise you just sound like another brainwashed fool, and both the far right and left have enough of those. Don't be one.
What spin stereo types and labels have i been using?
-
Brix...
can you and Ozmo have this argument without the patnetic use of labels?
Lib, spin, words like that. I listen to glen beck and rush almost daily... I'm well aware that these words are used to demonize a group, not dissect their position. When you yell "you're a lib using spin", you might as well say "you're evil using evil" or other nonsense. It's vague, and it is a poor substitute for a well-supported argument.
Instead of using 'lib', 'spin', and 'the media', please cite specifics and give us real evidence. Otherwise you just sound like another brainwashed fool, and both the far right and left have enough of those. Don't be one.
Sure..
Does that mean you are done doing the same as well? Are you saying the word "neocon" has left your table? I doubt it.
One example would be claiming that I blame the entirety of 9/11 on Bill Clinton. That's not what I said.. it's an example of "spin" to twist my points and paint a more negative light of my position. This is a common liberal tactic and exactly why I made a point to mention it whenever things like that are used against me. I haven't yet needed to twist anyone's words in order to argue.
Becoming emotional, angry, belligerent and immature are also poor substitutes for a well supported argument, OZ. hint hint.
-
Sure..
Does that mean you are done doing the same as well? Are you saying the word "neocon" has left your table? I doubt it.
One example would be claiming that I blame the entirety of 9/11 on Bill Clinton. That's not what I said.. it's an example of "spin" to twist my points and paint a more negative light of my position. This is a common liberal tactic and exactly why I made a point to mention it whenever things like that are used against me. I haven't yet needed to twist anyone's words in order to argue.
Becoming emotional, angry, belligerent and immature are also poor substitutes for a well supported argument, OZ. hint hint.
I'm continually developing my opinion.
i've voted lifetime repub.
I was upset when the 911 commissioners came out and said the investigation was a sham, and when WMD turned out to be not there.
Then I heard Bush and cheney admit it's about the oil.
And I grew up a little bit and realized lies are necessary for getting the tough stuff done.
I'm a realist. I don't like the neocon borrowing, but the aggressive US action, I'm okay with. Just so long as it doesn't cripple the economy. So yeah, I've been emotional in the past, but I'm starting to figure out things.
Weird that in the 2008 election, we have 3 liberals running. What can I do? Stay home on election day?
-
I don't like the neocon borrowing
I'll take that as a "no."
I suggest you either vote for McCain and hope he takes to the conservative element a bit more once in office or vote for Hillary just to avoid the uber liberal Obama from gaining more influence and destroying the country faster than any Clinton.
But then again I'm just a brainwashed neoconservative dimwitted baby war monger.. ;D :P
-
I'll take that as a "no."
I suggest you either vote for McCain and hope he takes to the conservative element a bit more once in office or vote for Hillary just to avoid the uber liberal Obama from gaining more influence and destroying the country faster than any Clinton.
But then again I'm just a brainwashed neoconservative dimwitted baby war monger.. ;D :P
LOL... it has to be mccain or hilary.
Comparing their military positions - very similar. I think hilary would bomb a villiage a tad faster than Mccain would. her decision making power and cut-throat coldness - that's an awesome thing. Mccain is great but just seems out of it sometimes. Right now, things aren't stressful for him yet - he's just visiting and hanging out - and making these mistakes. I worry the job might be tough for him. Hilary, as much as I dislike her, will be one organized, cold, direct and focused leader. Take no shit.
-
LOL... it has to be mccain or hilary.
Comparing their military positions - very similar. I think hilary would bomb a villiage a tad faster than Mccain would. her decision making power and cut-throat coldness - that's an awesome thing. Mccain is great but just seems out of it sometimes. Right now, things aren't stressful for him yet - he's just visiting and hanging out - and making these mistakes. I worry the job might be tough for him. Hilary, as much as I dislike her, will be one organized, cold, direct and focused leader. Take no shit.
Can't say I disagree with any of that. But all that she has is designed to benefit one person, which is her.
Do you really want to help elect a liberal into the presidency? I certainly don't even if I don't like the Rep candidate.
-
Can't say I disagree with any of that. But all that she has is designed to benefit one person, which is her.
Do you really want to help elect a liberal into the presidency? I certainly don't even if I don't like the Rep candidate.
yeah, bill clinton certainly served his own interest, and she'll probably do the same.
I don't like any of the options. I dont like having to choose mccain because "he's the LEAST liberal".
If Kerry and Teddy kennedy was running, who would you pick?
-
yeah, bill clinton certainly served his own interest, and she'll probably do the same.
I don't like any of the options. I dont like having to choose mccain because "he's the LEAST liberal".
If Kerry and Teddy kennedy was running, who would you pick?
Teddy.. since at least every one knows what he's about. Kerry is wishy washy from almost every perspective and that is really dangerous. Similar to Obama.
-
How many tips do you think Clinton got every day while in office? If Clinton had confirmation while in office, and did nothing, as YOU claim to know...then surely someone in government had that same information. If WE ( meaning our government) had info before Bush took office, AS YOU CLAIM, then that information was available to Bush as well...They aren't going to keep it a secret from the new President if they KNOW of a legit threat..
You can't have it both ways...if Bush isn't supposed to follow up on every tip then How can you say Clinton should have? You contradict yourself.
In all honesty I don't think it is Bush's fault... I think it is the fault of the scumbags who murdered all those people...that's who you blame...not Clinton...Not Bush. Nothing like that had ever happened before.....it's easy to point the finger now 7 years later. Bush responded very well to the attacks and he did what he needed to do...but he still failed. OBL is likely still out there.
I think we all were so angry and shocked we had to blame someone...I think that is just human nature. What happens when a football team sucks? Usually people blame the coach.Sorta the same thing in a way.