| 14th September 2006 02:31 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
jb wrote:
I would love to bang Republican strategist Karen Hanrity.
Can you say that about Estrich? JOIN US NOW! |
| 14th September 2006 02:34 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
"Haven't been hit in 5 years...successfully fighting terror..."
Be careful. Take a look at AQ history before y'all start getting too cocky. I hope you're right but I fear you're not. |
| 14th September 2006 02:35 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
AQ has become a huge bust! Wide open. I hope, anyway... |
| 14th September 2006 02:44 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Now you're getting it Raspy. Or are you denying that this happened. Because I'd be happy to link the exact speech where Bubba said all these things. You're sheer unadulterated blind partisanship is more than a little amusing. You even deny what your hero has admitted to in his own voice.
Riffy
? My "that's it" comment was referring to Glenny. But, what the hey, if you're referring to the Sudan thing, Newsmax is really a great site. I've heard it, heard his explanation and read the 9/11 Commissions findings on it. No credible evidence. Thanks.
That being said, I'm more than willing to say that Clinton should have completely ignored the Republican witchhunt over a blowjob and have done more. Although, when he did do something, like bomb the Sudan, send missiles into Afghanistan and stop the Millenium bombing plot, all he did was incur the wrath of the Republicans. If only he had more time to devote to his job rather than be forced to defend himself for years over a blowjob and some real estate... |
| 14th September 2006 02:46 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
His corruption did irreparable harm to his Presidency. I'm glad he's gone. I just hope that shrewish wife of his stays quiet for a decade or so. |
| 14th September 2006 02:47 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
The Millenium bombing plot was stopped by an alert federal employee. Clinton ahd NOTHING to do with that. |
| 14th September 2006 02:48 PM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
glencar wrote:
His corruption did irreparable harm to his Presidency. I'm glad he's gone. I just hope that shrewish wife of his stays quiet for a decade or so.
Here I disagree with you....Clinton was an outstanding President. Nixon , despite watergate, was also an outstanding President. |
| 14th September 2006 02:49 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
Although it will never be admitted, it is clear that is the case...but he is far from alone in that regard...it doesn't stem so much from ill-will as it does sour grapes...which makes it all the more fucked up...IMO
I don't know. I tend to think that MM is a cool guy that can dissagree without lowering the level of the argument to pure partisan hackery. It is true though that Dems have tried(thus far in vain) to shoot down every aspect of the war. Within the next few weeks we will be seeing Harry Ried's assinine quote,"We killed the Patriot Act!"(to thunderous Democrat applause!) This will be on almost every Republican ad soon.
They have deemed the terrorists with US Constitutional rights! They have demanded protection of terrorists rights under the Geneva Convention even though the terrorists are not eligble for a treaty that they have never signed,and violate on a daily basis! Dems have screamed bloody murder about the NSA program even though we know for a fact that more than one attack has been prevented because of this program. So,yes,I often ask just exactly what part of the war on terror do the Democrats plan on actually agree with?
Riffy |
| 14th September 2006 02:51 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
jb wrote:
Here I disagree with you....Clinton was an outstanding President. Nixon , despite watergate, was also an outstanding President.
I don't think either were anything better than average because of their corruption. Nixon could have been great if he weren't so damned paranoid. |
| 14th September 2006 02:55 PM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
I tend to agree with you about monkeyman -- he does seem like a good guy -- that question, though, was loaded.
This Congress has fought tooth and nail to discredit the Administration's tactics at every turn. They can't wait for the next attack so THEY can claim victory (which in their mind is not taking out the terrorists, but taking out Bush). It's insane.
There is a real threat out there -- maybe not as funded and organized as it was on 9/11 -- but a threat nonetheless. You don't need to listen to the Administration -- listen to the leader of Iran -- look at what he is doing. Listen to the leader of Syria. Listen to the Zawahiri. Just listen. These aren't some imagined boogey men!! These are people that want a clash of civilizations -- they long for it. And once they get nukes, they will force it!
|
| 14th September 2006 02:56 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
MM is no FPM... |
| 14th September 2006 03:17 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
Who said that this Administration's policies and tactics were the only way to fight it?
You make it sound like the left has this great counter-proposal that the Administration has ignored.
I haven't heard it yet.
Reid, Murtha, Pelosi, etc. have nothing -- NOTHING!
They want to pull out of Iraq because it is not part of the war on terror. That's it? That's their plan?
They obviously don't like the NSA listening in on suspects.
They didn't like imprisoning combatants without giving them their "rights"
And they didn't just rubber stamp renewal of the Patriot Act provisions.
You say you aren't trying to lay blame for 9/11, but your question is sure loaded to assign blame when the next hit comes. I don't think this Administration can be faulted for trying to prevent further attacks.
[Edited by nankerphelge]
Whoa buddy don't put words in my mouth! I am not sitting around waiting or hoping for another attack. I have a problem with JB's willingness to roll over and repeat the oversimplified talking point that Dems are weak on defense and that Republicans are the only one to keep us safe. The motivation for my post is that many on this board can't handle criticism of the President or his policies. The DHS is a pathetic joke; doling out anti-terror funds to the most politically advantageous areas rather than to the most likely targeted areas. Decreasing the amount of funding that NYC and DC receives because their paperwork wasn't filed properly?!?!?! This tells me that these people are incompetent or don't really care about securing the most likely targets in this country.
The 9/11 commission came up with 41 recommendations. The recommendations have seen very little follow thru from this administration. How does that make us safer?? |
| 14th September 2006 03:22 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
The Administration is fighting the left on every front in order to try and prevent further attacks-- and so far, successfully!
You make it sound like the administration needs to fight the left to get the votes it needs to pass it's legislation. Last I checked the President's party had the majority in both houses. |
| 14th September 2006 03:25 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
monkey_man wrote:
Whoa buddy don't put words in my mouth! I am not sitting around waiting or hoping for another attack. I have a problem with JB's willingness to roll over and repeat the oversimplified talking point that Dems are weak on defense and that Republicans are the only one to keep us safe. The motivation for my post is that many on this board can't handle criticism of the President or his policies. The DHS is a pathetic joke; doling out anti-terror funds to the most politically advantageous areas rather than to the most likely targeted areas. Decreasing the amount of funding that NYC and DC receives because their paperwork wasn't filed properly?!?!?! This tells me that these people are incompetent or don't really care about securing the most likely targets in this country.
The 9/11 commission came up with 41 recommendations. The recommendations have seen very little follow thru from this administration. How does that make us safer??
You make some good points here. At the current time, the administration is attacking federal employees. Not a bright idea in an election year anyway but especially not when we're the ones who keep the country safe. |
| 14th September 2006 03:26 PM |
|
|
| Egbert |
Would someone please explain why we (USA) have not gone after OBL with the same force that we exerted in rooting out Saddam? Wasn't OBL responsible for 9/11? |
| 14th September 2006 03:28 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
Egbert wrote:
Would someone please explain why we (USA) have not gone after OBL with the same force that we exerted in rooting out Saddam? Wasn't OBL responsible for 9/11?
Those MOAB's should be used in that border area. |
| 14th September 2006 03:39 PM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
Egbert wrote:
Would someone please explain why we (USA) have not gone after OBL with the same force that we exerted in rooting out Saddam? Wasn't OBL responsible for 9/11?
Are you suggesting we invade Pakistan?...If so, please go on record and say that you have no qualms with the invasion of any country harboring terrorists regardless of the consequences...if not, shut your politically opportunistic pie hole |
| 14th September 2006 03:39 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
I tend to agree with you about monkeyman -- he does seem like a good guy -- that question, though, was loaded.
This Congress has fought tooth and nail to discredit the Administration's tactics at every turn. They can't wait for the next attack so THEY can claim victory (which in their mind is not taking out the terrorists, but taking out Bush). It's insane.
There is a real threat out there -- maybe not as funded and organized as it was on 9/11 -- but a threat nonetheless. You don't need to listen to the Administration -- listen to the leader of Iran -- look at what he is doing. Listen to the leader of Syria. Listen to the Zawahiri. Just listen. These aren't some imagined boogey men!! These are people that want a clash of civilizations -- they long for it. And once they get nukes, they will force it!
I appreciate you guys keeping the discourse civil. I agree with all of you that keeping nukes out of extremist's hands is one of the most important jobs that our government has. I don't necessarily believe that using the military in large force numbers is going to help uncover plots. All of the plots that have been discovered in England and Canada etc have been the result of intelligence and police investigation's. I don't think our presence in Iraq is uncovering any plots. Pulling out of there now immediately seems like a sure way to insure civil war. The only practical way to get out of Iraq is to split the country into 3 parts; Kurds, Sunni and Shia. This is going to require a shitload more troops than we have. A military draft is really the only way to finish it. |
| 14th September 2006 03:41 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
No way we can have a draft. |
| 14th September 2006 03:45 PM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
monkey_man wrote:
The only practical way to get out of Iraq is to split the country into 3 parts; Kurds, Sunni and Shia. This is going to require a shitload more troops than we have. A military draft is really the only way to finish it.
Not sure about your position on estimated troop levels needed...I think you're wrong in that regard...but, this has occurred to me since day one...and it should have occurred to Churchill and gang when they parceled the country in the first place...this, however, does not seem remotely possible...militarily, it could be done quite easy...much easier than trying to police the peace amongst a bunch of emotionally immature retards...however, "world opinion", particularly the europeans, would never be on board with this...they would side with the sentiments of Turkey who have no intention of seeing a free and independent Kurdistan
[Edited by Fiji Joe] |
| 14th September 2006 03:55 PM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
I certainly didn't intend to put words in your mouth monkeyman. I was just reacting to your question the way I interpreted it.
You know as well as I do that there is no lack of liberals out there that actually would use another attack so they could point more fingers at this Administration.
There is no question that there are many things that could have been done differently and in many cases better since 9/11. Hindsight is a dangerous thing in the hands of partisan politicians, especially in the polarized political landscape that is the United States these days.
|
| 14th September 2006 03:58 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
I just saw an ad that thanks the USA for what we've done. It was from "The Kurds of Kurdistan"! |
| 14th September 2006 04:08 PM |
|
|
| Egbert |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
Are you suggesting we invade Pakistan?...If so, please go on record and say that you have no qualms with the invasion of any country harboring terrorists regardless of the consequences...if not, shut your politically opportunistic pie hole
I am merely suggesting that we could've applied more force/resources on going after OBL/AQ than we did on Saddam. If invading Iraq was a necessary step in taking out AQ then I'd like to know why - I don't follow the news nearly as much as most here and was interested in hearing others opinions on the matter.
By the way, who are you to dictate what RO members can post on this site? |
| 14th September 2006 04:10 PM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
glencar wrote:
I just saw an ad that thanks the USA for what we've done. It was from "The Kurds of Kurdistan"!
That was really kinda forced...those Swift Boat like groups are funding a lot of PR to close the gap-and it is working. |
| 14th September 2006 04:11 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
I don't think it's unreasonable to want us to actually go after UBL with everything we've got. It being that part of the world, it's unlikely we'll ever know how intense the search was. I agreed with the initial entry into Iraq but I want to see results sooner rather than later. |
| 14th September 2006 04:12 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
jb wrote:
That was really kinda forced...those Swift Boat like groups are funding a lot of PR to close the gap-and it is working.
Kerry says he's going to kick some Swift Boat ass next time around. Unfortunately for him, there are many questions about his dubious service that remain. |
| 14th September 2006 04:14 PM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Kerry says he's going to kick some Swift Boat ass next time around. Unfortunately for him, there are many questions about his dubious service that remain.
He served, was wounded, and the thanks he gets is attacks from right wing zealots-be fair, atleast he was over there-unlike you know who.. |
| 14th September 2006 04:15 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
He was there for such a short time yet got 3 Purple Hearts & a Silver Star? Highly, higly questionable. Those guys don't hate him for partisan reasons. There's real anger at him & his huffing & puffing won't disperse that.
[Edited by glencar] |
| 14th September 2006 04:16 PM |
|
|
| gypsy |
quote:
glencar wrote:
I just saw an ad that thanks the USA for what we've done. It was from "The Kurds of Kurdistan"!
I saw that commercial a couple of days ago. I laughed my ass off.
"Kurdistan: The Other Iraq" |
| 14th September 2006 04:16 PM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
Egbert wrote:
By the way, who are you to dictate what RO members can post on this site?
Not sure why you would ask that...Perhaps you haven't been paying attention...I always speak to Al Franken talking point posting chuckle heads like that...Some of us are spending a little energy in this discourse...so it pisses me off a bit when you add nothing to the equation other than an over-used, short-sighted platitude...Your simplistic statement had no place in the midst of some of the weighty ideas that were being thrown about by some of the esteemed posters here... |
