Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

A textbook 'I told ya so'

2456710

Comments

  • VemoiVemoi Member Posts: 1,546
    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by keltic1701

    Originally posted by Rayx0r


    Hes starting to remind me of Carter  /facepalm

    Ya mean the same Carter that brought a lasting and ongoing peace between Egypt and Israel? And did it all through negotiations. That Carter?



     

    I was actually thinking of the Carter that gave away the Panama canal...and now it's owned by the chinese government.  Let's hopt that works out.  I thought Israel kicked Egypt's ass in '67 ...scared the hell out of them...Carter just got the photo op. (edit)



     

    I was thinking the same thing about Eqypt. You usually have peace after haveing your butt handed to you.

    We are generally talking about the Carter with the double digit inflation, unemployment, interest rates and out of this world tax rates. The president who let our citizens rot forever in Iran. The president who told the troops to wear a sweater for a holiday message. The president who still flies all over the world kissing up to dictators.  Too bad the young didn't have a chance to live through Carter's disasterous presidency. I did see of the news today that he did sign a bill, making brewing beer at home, legal. Guess he wasn't all bad.

  • XeximaXexima Member UncommonPosts: 2,696
    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by popinjay


    I'm a conservative, but I don't really have a problem with him talking to Iran.
    Could you gents explain the main problem you have with it?



     

    The problem is that you think REASON and CIVILITY will actually reach through madness and resolve something.  NO.  ALL THEY SEE IS US BLINKING.  ALL THEY WANT IS YOU AND ME DEAD. PERIOD.

    There is no attempt by them to get along.  They made it clear they want Israel wiped off the map.  there is no plan B or compromise...that's all OUR side's talk.  We keep drawing lines in sand and they keep laughing and erasing the line and coming on with a gun in their hand.

    Liberals actually believe that you can reason with someone who wants you dead.  Conservatives want to pull the trigger before they do.  It's so clear but political correctness and propaganda by the liberal media have us thinking there is a HOPE of actually getting along and living alongside these people.  Guess what?  In the IRanian version of the constitution, they actually have it stated that Israel and her allies must be destroyed.  So...you tell me libs...  How do you spin this one?

     

    Does anyone else find a hint of irony in this post?  "Liberals actually believe that you can reason with someone who wants you dead. Conservatives want to pull the trigger before they do."

    Yeah, that's irony..  They want us dead so we want them dead and there is no use reasoning with each other because we want each other dead.  That is an epic cycle of down syndrome.  Just because you don't believe that people are able to be reasoned with - because you cannot be reasoned with- does not mean that you are correct.  There are just as many idiots over there as there are here in America.  Our  last president  "did not negotiate with terrorists" and we all saw how that worked out (in case you didn't know, it did not work out).   Maybe its a possibility that not killing everyone who wears a towel on their head will work out for the better.  But according to you, it is COMPLETELY irrational to attempt to be rational people.

  • FaxxerFaxxer Member Posts: 3,247
    Originally posted by Xexima

    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by popinjay


    I'm a conservative, but I don't really have a problem with him talking to Iran.
    Could you gents explain the main problem you have with it?



     

    The problem is that you think REASON and CIVILITY will actually reach through madness and resolve something.  NO.  ALL THEY SEE IS US BLINKING.  ALL THEY WANT IS YOU AND ME DEAD. PERIOD.

    There is no attempt by them to get along.  They made it clear they want Israel wiped off the map.  there is no plan B or compromise...that's all OUR side's talk.  We keep drawing lines in sand and they keep laughing and erasing the line and coming on with a gun in their hand.

    Liberals actually believe that you can reason with someone who wants you dead.  Conservatives want to pull the trigger before they do.  It's so clear but political correctness and propaganda by the liberal media have us thinking there is a HOPE of actually getting along and living alongside these people.  Guess what?  In the IRanian version of the constitution, they actually have it stated that Israel and her allies must be destroyed.  So...you tell me libs...  How do you spin this one?

     

    Does anyone else find a hint of irony in this post?  "Liberals actually believe that you can reason with someone who wants you dead. Conservatives want to pull the trigger before they do."

    Yeah, that's irony..  They want us dead so we want them dead and there is no use reasoning with each other because we want each other dead.  That is an epic cycle of down syndrome.  Just because you don't believe that people are able to be reasoned with - because you cannot be reasoned with- does not mean that you are correct.  There are just as many idiots over there as there are here in America.  Our  last president  "did not negotiate with terrorists" and we all saw how that worked out (in case you didn't know, it did not work out).   Maybe its a possibility that not killing everyone who wears a towel on their head will work out for the better.  But according to you, it is COMPLETELY irrational to attempt to be rational people.



     

    oh my bad, i guess i'll start teaching my kids to be suicide bombers then so that your argument can be right.

  • EronakisEronakis Member UncommonPosts: 2,227

    What is funny is, we are screwed either way. It doesn't matter if Obama or McCain to get in. They just have two parties to divide and conquer. I mean, come on, McCain wanted Henry Kissinger in his office. Bah that move!

  • XeximaXexima Member UncommonPosts: 2,696
    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by Xexima

    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by popinjay


    I'm a conservative, but I don't really have a problem with him talking to Iran.
    Could you gents explain the main problem you have with it?



     

    The problem is that you think REASON and CIVILITY will actually reach through madness and resolve something.  NO.  ALL THEY SEE IS US BLINKING.  ALL THEY WANT IS YOU AND ME DEAD. PERIOD.

    There is no attempt by them to get along.  They made it clear they want Israel wiped off the map.  there is no plan B or compromise...that's all OUR side's talk.  We keep drawing lines in sand and they keep laughing and erasing the line and coming on with a gun in their hand.

    Liberals actually believe that you can reason with someone who wants you dead.  Conservatives want to pull the trigger before they do.  It's so clear but political correctness and propaganda by the liberal media have us thinking there is a HOPE of actually getting along and living alongside these people.  Guess what?  In the IRanian version of the constitution, they actually have it stated that Israel and her allies must be destroyed.  So...you tell me libs...  How do you spin this one?

     

    Does anyone else find a hint of irony in this post?  "Liberals actually believe that you can reason with someone who wants you dead. Conservatives want to pull the trigger before they do."

    Yeah, that's irony..  They want us dead so we want them dead and there is no use reasoning with each other because we want each other dead.  That is an epic cycle of down syndrome.  Just because you don't believe that people are able to be reasoned with - because you cannot be reasoned with- does not mean that you are correct.  There are just as many idiots over there as there are here in America.  Our  last president  "did not negotiate with terrorists" and we all saw how that worked out (in case you didn't know, it did not work out).   Maybe its a possibility that not killing everyone who wears a towel on their head will work out for the better.  But according to you, it is COMPLETELY irrational to attempt to be rational people.



     

    oh my bad, i guess i'll start teaching my kids to be suicide bombers then so that your argument can be right.

     

    Yeah, because every single person in the middle east is a terrorist and deserves to die.  There are absolutely no people over there who are decent human beings.  Good perspective sir.  I love how everyone here speaks through their ass.  "ALL ISLAMIC PEOPLE WANT YOU DEAD!!! ARRGHHH!!! 9/11!!! 9/11!!! ATTACK IRAQ!!!  TERRORISTS!!!"  That is all you people are saying, thinly veiled by calling yourselves "conservative."  It is perfectly possible to be conservative and think negotiations are the most logical way to not get our asses into a third "war."  We don't have the money to keep our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, what the hell makes you think we have the money to go into another country?

  • PrecusorPrecusor Member UncommonPosts: 3,589
    Originally posted by Xexima
    negotiations

     

    Carter and Clinton tried and look how that ended.

  • FaxxerFaxxer Member Posts: 3,247
    Originally posted by Xexima

    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by Xexima

    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by popinjay


    I'm a conservative, but I don't really have a problem with him talking to Iran.
    Could you gents explain the main problem you have with it?



     

    The problem is that you think REASON and CIVILITY will actually reach through madness and resolve something.  NO.  ALL THEY SEE IS US BLINKING.  ALL THEY WANT IS YOU AND ME DEAD. PERIOD.

    There is no attempt by them to get along.  They made it clear they want Israel wiped off the map.  there is no plan B or compromise...that's all OUR side's talk.  We keep drawing lines in sand and they keep laughing and erasing the line and coming on with a gun in their hand.

    Liberals actually believe that you can reason with someone who wants you dead.  Conservatives want to pull the trigger before they do.  It's so clear but political correctness and propaganda by the liberal media have us thinking there is a HOPE of actually getting along and living alongside these people.  Guess what?  In the IRanian version of the constitution, they actually have it stated that Israel and her allies must be destroyed.  So...you tell me libs...  How do you spin this one?

     

    Does anyone else find a hint of irony in this post?  "Liberals actually believe that you can reason with someone who wants you dead. Conservatives want to pull the trigger before they do."

    Yeah, that's irony..  They want us dead so we want them dead and there is no use reasoning with each other because we want each other dead.  That is an epic cycle of down syndrome.  Just because you don't believe that people are able to be reasoned with - because you cannot be reasoned with- does not mean that you are correct.  There are just as many idiots over there as there are here in America.  Our  last president  "did not negotiate with terrorists" and we all saw how that worked out (in case you didn't know, it did not work out).   Maybe its a possibility that not killing everyone who wears a towel on their head will work out for the better.  But according to you, it is COMPLETELY irrational to attempt to be rational people.



     

    oh my bad, i guess i'll start teaching my kids to be suicide bombers then so that your argument can be right.

     

    Yeah, because every single person in the middle east is a terrorist and deserves to die.  There are absolutely no people over there who are decent human beings.  Good perspective sir.  I love how everyone here speaks through their ass.  "ALL ISLAMIC PEOPLE WANT YOU DEAD!!! ARRGHHH!!! 9/11!!! 9/11!!! ATTACK IRAQ!!!  TERRORISTS!!!"  That is all you people are saying, thinly veiled by calling yourselves "conservative."  It is perfectly possible to be conservative and think negotiations are the most logical way to not get our asses into a third "war."  We don't have the money to keep our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, what the hell makes you think we have the money to go into another country?



     

    you sure jumped into genocide pretty quick.  I said nothing of the sort. 

    Our enemies over THERE are pretty well defined.  they announce who they are.  I said nothing about killing every islamic person, nor did i label every middle eastern person a terrorist.  

    Talk about a problem with perspective, look in the mirror.

  • keltic1701keltic1701 Member Posts: 1,162
    Originally posted by Precusor

    Originally posted by Xexima
    negotiations

     

    Carter and Clinton tried and look how that ended.

    As did Reagan and Bush I. Funny how you always seem to have a selective memory or at the very least a faulty one.

  • FaxxerFaxxer Member Posts: 3,247
    Originally posted by keltic1701

    Originally posted by Precusor

    Originally posted by Xexima
    negotiations

     

    Carter and Clinton tried and look how that ended.

    As did Reagan and Bush I. Funny how you always seem to have a selective memory or at the very least a faulty one.



     

    Clinton's attemp was truely epic fail compared to the rest.  not bothering to show you proof as it's like sending a cherry pie into a brick wall.

  • keltic1701keltic1701 Member Posts: 1,162
    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by keltic1701

    Originally posted by Precusor

    Originally posted by Xexima
    negotiations

     

    Carter and Clinton tried and look how that ended.

    As did Reagan and Bush I. Funny how you always seem to have a selective memory or at the very least a faulty one.



     

    Clinton's attemp was truely epic fail compared to the rest.  not bothering to show you proof as it's like sending a cherry pie into a brick wall.

    Ok. So now we're back to the old "it's all Clinton's" tactic again. One that was torpedoed ages ago. You boys are worse than a broken record. You keep saying the same old tired lines by the same old cantankerous sore-losers over....and over...and over....

    Here's your cherry pie back.

    Clinton anti-terror policies

    -- sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.

    -- sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

    -- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.

    When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, President Clinton:

    -- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

    --Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.

    -- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

    -- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.

    -- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.

    -- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

    -- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.

    -- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries

    -- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.

    -- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"

    -- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "

    -- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."

    Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001:

    -- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.

    -- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.

    -- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.

    -- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.

    -- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.

    -- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.

    -- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.

    -- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.

    -- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.

     

  • FaxxerFaxxer Member Posts: 3,247
    Originally posted by keltic1701

    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by keltic1701

    Originally posted by Precusor

    Originally posted by Xexima
    negotiations

     

    Carter and Clinton tried and look how that ended.

    As did Reagan and Bush I. Funny how you always seem to have a selective memory or at the very least a faulty one.



     

    Clinton's attemp was truely epic fail compared to the rest.  not bothering to show you proof as it's like sending a cherry pie into a brick wall.

    Ok. So now we're back to the old "it's all Clinton's" tactic again. One that was torpedoed ages ago. You boys are worse than a broken record. You keep saying the same old tired lines by the same old cantankerous sore-losers over....and over...and over....

    Here's your cherry pie back.

    Clinton anti-terror policies

    -- sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.

    -- sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

    -- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.

    When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, President Clinton:

    -- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

    --Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.

    -- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

    -- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.

    -- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.

    -- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

    -- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.

    -- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries

    -- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.

    -- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"

    -- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "

    -- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."

    Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001:

    -- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.

    -- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.

    -- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.

    -- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.

    -- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.

    -- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.

    -- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.

    -- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.

    -- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.

     

    you lost credibility with "bush knew" BS

     

  • keltic1701keltic1701 Member Posts: 1,162
    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by keltic1701

    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by keltic1701

    Originally posted by Precusor

    Originally posted by Xexima
    negotiations

     

    Carter and Clinton tried and look how that ended.

    As did Reagan and Bush I. Funny how you always seem to have a selective memory or at the very least a faulty one.



     

    Clinton's attemp was truely epic fail compared to the rest.  not bothering to show you proof as it's like sending a cherry pie into a brick wall.

    Ok. So now we're back to the old "it's all Clinton's" tactic again. One that was torpedoed ages ago. You boys are worse than a broken record. You keep saying the same old tired lines by the same old cantankerous sore-losers over....and over...and over....

    Here's your cherry pie back.

    Clinton anti-terror policies

    -- sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.

    -- sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

    -- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.

    When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, President Clinton:

    -- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

    --Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.

    -- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

    -- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.

    -- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.

    -- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

    -- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.

    -- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries

    -- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.

    -- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"

    -- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "

    -- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."

    Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001:

    -- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.

    -- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.

    -- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.

    -- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.

    -- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.

    -- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.

    -- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.

    -- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.

    -- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.

     

    you lost credibility with "bush knew" BS

     

    Your right...Bush was clueless. As he was through most of the past 8 years. But I bet Uncle Dick sure new what was going on since he was Bush'e puppetmaster

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by keltic1701

    Your right...Bush was clueless. As he was through most of the past 8 years. But I bet Uncle Dick sure new what was going on since he was Bush'e puppetmaster


    Truth right there.

    Cheney knew. Rumsfeld knew. Wolfowitz knew. Rove knew. These guys were dressed up as conservatives, when they are nothing more than war profiteers. There is nothing at all that screams "patriot" about any of those names. Every last one of them is tied into the industrial military complex for profit.


    Cheney used to run Halliburton, the largest company that gets a blank check of US taxpayer money... a "no bid" contract award in Iraq. Think about your local town where your mayor says the road is about to collaspe any minute, but looks okay to you as you look out your window.


    Your mayor and town council award a non-competing bid to the biggest roadpaver in town, who won't/doesn't tell you how much the job will cost to finish. Other roadpaving companies are completely shut out from bidding and not even considered, even though they say they can do the same job for tons less. Then this company starts work and immediately overcharges on every single piece of equipment and lies about work it claims its doing. Then you find out that the current sitting deputy mayor of your town used to be the PRESIDENT of this same company that got the contract and is doing all this shoddy work. Would that make you mad? Sound corrupt right? Welcome to the world of Dick Cheney, Iraq and the world of Halliburton and the US government of Bush.


    You then go to Iraq and the guy who is pushing the war and then later given total control of the war, is the same guy Donald Rumsfeld, who was then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983. He was meeting and pressing the flesh in photos with Saddam during this time, while this was going on:


    Declassified U.S. government documents show that while Saddam Hussein was gassing Iraqi Kurds, the U.S. opposed punishing Iraq with a trade embargo because it was cultivating Iraq as an ally against Iran and as a market for U.S. farm exports.

    According to Peter Galbraith, then an idealistic Senate staffer determined to stop Hussein from committing genocide, the Reagan administration "got carried away with their own propaganda. They began to believe that Saddam Hussein could be a reliable partner."



    People with no clue still think Iran is trying to wipe us out because we love "freedom" because of idiots like Rush Limbaugh, who fail to provide this DEclassified and easily obtainable data along with their hate rhetoric.

    That's right. Saddam was gassing the Kurds while he was friends with the US government run by Ronald Reagan and the pointman was Donald Rumsfeld. This is what's called 'tying up loose ends', you commit a crime then create some huge diversion while you try and erase your fingerprints from the scene while you are the one leading the investigation into the crime in the first place.


    We were so surprised Saddam gassed Kurds? The US gave him the gas. The US gave him the money and the US gave him the support. Then when it was found out, the US prevented action from being taken and years later, claim its the "moral" thing to stop our own guy.

    If this was a movie script, no studio would make it because they know the average American is too stupid to read up on this and would think its impossible.

  • VemoiVemoi Member Posts: 1,546
    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by keltic1701

    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by keltic1701

    Originally posted by Precusor

    Originally posted by Xexima
    negotiations

     

    Carter and Clinton tried and look how that ended.

    As did Reagan and Bush I. Funny how you always seem to have a selective memory or at the very least a faulty one.



     

    Clinton's attemp was truely epic fail compared to the rest.  not bothering to show you proof as it's like sending a cherry pie into a brick wall.

    Ok. So now we're back to the old "it's all Clinton's" tactic again. One that was torpedoed ages ago. You boys are worse than a broken record. You keep saying the same old tired lines by the same old cantankerous sore-losers over....and over...and over....

    Here's your cherry pie back.

    Clinton anti-terror policies

    -- sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.

    -- sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

    -- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.

    When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, President Clinton:

    -- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

    --Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.

    -- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

    -- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.

    -- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.

    -- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

    -- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.

    -- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries

    -- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.

    -- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"

    -- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "

    -- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."

    Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001:

    -- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.

    -- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.

    -- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.

    -- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.

    -- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.

    -- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.

    -- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.

    -- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.

    -- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.

     

    you lost credibility with "bush knew" BS

     



     

    Most of the list IS complete BS or cherry picking. Bottom line. Clinton failed to stop terrorist attacks on WTC, Cole, Embasies and newtered the CIA intellegence gathering. Failed to stop Saddam from shooting at US forces in Iraq. Diverted military to the world threat in Kosavo. All the praise from the underlings doesn't match the failures.

    -- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice. No SH**! As opposed to what?  Slapping their hands and telling them not to do it again.

  • frodusfrodus Member Posts: 2,396
    Originally posted by Vemoi

    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by keltic1701

    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by keltic1701

    Originally posted by Precusor

    Originally posted by Xexima
    negotiations

     

    Carter and Clinton tried and look how that ended.

    As did Reagan and Bush I. Funny how you always seem to have a selective memory or at the very least a faulty one.



     

    Clinton's attemp was truely epic fail compared to the rest.  not bothering to show you proof as it's like sending a cherry pie into a brick wall.

    Ok. So now we're back to the old "it's all Clinton's" tactic again. One that was torpedoed ages ago. You boys are worse than a broken record. You keep saying the same old tired lines by the same old cantankerous sore-losers over....and over...and over....

    Here's your cherry pie back.

    Clinton anti-terror policies

    -- sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.

    -- sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

    -- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.

    When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, President Clinton:

    -- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

    --Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.

    -- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

    -- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.

    -- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.

    -- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

    -- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.

    -- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries

    -- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.

    -- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"

    -- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "

    -- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."

    Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001:

    -- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.

    -- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.

    -- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.

    -- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.

    -- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.

    -- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.

    -- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.

    -- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.

    -- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.

     

    you lost credibility with "bush knew" BS

     



     

    Most of the list IS complete BS or cherry picking. Bottom line. Clinton failed to stop terrorist attacks on WTC, Cole, Embasies and newtered the CIA intellegence gathering. Failed to stop Saddam from shooting at US forces in Iraq. Diverted military to the world threat in Kosavo. All the praise from the underlings doesn't match the failures.

    -- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice. No SH**! As opposed to what?  Slapping their hands and telling them not to do it again.

    Sudan offered Ben laden to Clinton...

     

    Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.

  • keltic1701keltic1701 Member Posts: 1,162
    Originally posted by Vemoi

    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by keltic1701

    Originally posted by Faxxer

    Originally posted by keltic1701

    Originally posted by Precusor

    Originally posted by Xexima
    negotiations

     

    Carter and Clinton tried and look how that ended.

    As did Reagan and Bush I. Funny how you always seem to have a selective memory or at the very least a faulty one.



     

    Clinton's attemp was truely epic fail compared to the rest.  not bothering to show you proof as it's like sending a cherry pie into a brick wall.

    Ok. So now we're back to the old "it's all Clinton's" tactic again. One that was torpedoed ages ago. You boys are worse than a broken record. You keep saying the same old tired lines by the same old cantankerous sore-losers over....and over...and over....

    Here's your cherry pie back.

    Clinton anti-terror policies

    -- sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.

    -- sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

    -- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.

    When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, President Clinton:

    -- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

    --Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

    -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.

    -- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

    -- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.

    -- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.

    -- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

    -- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.

    -- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries

    -- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.

    -- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"

    -- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "

    -- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."

    Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001:

    -- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.

    -- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.

    -- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.

    -- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.

    -- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.

    -- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.

    -- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.

    -- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.

    -- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.

     

    you lost credibility with "bush knew" BS

     



     

    Most of the list IS complete BS or cherry picking. Bottom line. Clinton failed to stop terrorist attacks on WTC, Cole, Embasies and newtered the CIA intellegence gathering. Failed to stop Saddam from shooting at US forces in Iraq. Diverted military to the world threat in Kosavo. All the praise from the underlings doesn't match the failures.

    -- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice. No SH**! As opposed to what?  Slapping their hands and telling them not to do it again.

    I NEVER said that Clinton didn't make ANY mistakes. In hindsight both the Clinton AND the Bush Administrations made severely bad decisions regarding bin Laden and al Qaeda. But writing of Clinton accomplishment as "Cherry picking" or "total BS" and falling back on your blatant Clinton bashing is a sign weakness in your argument. Hell! A "cherry picked" list could be made for the Bush admin. Admittedly it would much shorter than Clinton's but that can't helped... not as much material to "pick" from.

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by frodus

    Sudan offered Ben laden to Clinton...



    Washington Post, October 3, 2001:

    The government of Sudan, employing a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.

    The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at a Rosslyn hotel on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later. Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.

    Sudan expelled bin Laden on May 18, 1996, to Afghanistan.

    OR:


    The New York Times, May 26, 2002:

    "The White House said tonight that President Bush had been warned by American intelligence agencies in early August that Osama bin Laden was seeking to hijack aircraft but that the warnings did not contemplate the possibility that the hijackers would turn the planes into guided missiles for a terrorist attack.

    "It is widely known that we had information that bin Laden wanted to attack the United States or United States interests abroad,'' Ari Fleischer, the president's press secretary, said this evening. ''The president was also provided information about bin Laden wanting to engage in hijacking in the traditional pre-9/11 sense, not for the use of suicide bombing, not for the use of an airplane as a missile."

    Clinton had no evidence. Bush had plenty of evidence. Who's worse?


    Stupid U.S. Constituion always getting in the way of justice...

    Maybe we should do what Rush suggests and just burn the friggin thing, then Clinton could have snatched up Bin Laden lickity split. Or maybe Bush should have just done his job when given actual evidence.

  • keltic1701keltic1701 Member Posts: 1,162
    Originally posted by popinjay


     

    Originally posted by frodus
     
    Sudan offered Ben laden to Clinton...

     



    Washington Post, October 3, 2001:

    The government of Sudan, employing a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.

    The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at a Rosslyn hotel on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later. Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.

    Sudan expelled bin Laden on May 18, 1996, to Afghanistan.

     

    OR:

     



    The New York Times, May 26, 2002:

    "The White House said tonight that President Bush had been warned by American intelligence agencies in early August that Osama bin Laden was seeking to hijack aircraft but that the warnings did not contemplate the possibility that the hijackers would turn the planes into guided missiles for a terrorist attack.

    "It is widely known that we had information that bin Laden wanted to attack the United States or United States interests abroad,'' Ari Fleischer, the president's press secretary, said this evening. ''The president was also provided information about bin Laden wanting to engage in hijacking in the traditional pre-9/11 sense, not for the use of suicide bombing, not for the use of an airplane as a missile."

     

    Clinton had no evidence. Bush had plenty of evidence. Who's worse?



    Stupid U.S. Constituion always getting in the way of justice...

    Maybe we should do what Rush suggests and just burn the friggin thing, then Clinton could have snatched up Bin Laden lickity split. Or maybe Bush should have just done his job when given actual evidence.

    You do realize you're gonna get the old and tired "liberal media" argument again?

  • VemoiVemoi Member Posts: 1,546
    Originally posted by keltic1701


    I NEVER said that Clinton didn't make ANY mistakes. In hindsight both the Clinton AND the Bush Administrations made severely bad decisions regarding bin Laden and al Qaeda. But writing of Clinton accomplishment as "Cherry picking" or "total BS" and falling back on your blatant Clinton bashing is a sign weakness in your argument. Hell! A "cherry picked" list could be made for the Bush admin. Admittedly it would much shorter than Clinton's but that can't helped... not as much material to "pick" from.



     

    When I say cherry pick, I mean taking someone's opinion in an interview or a column. There are whole websites with cherry picked statemants pointing to a US conspircy on 9/11.  Then a bunch of just BS bullet statements. I know you said you have been around awhile but I seriously have my doubts.  

    Bottom line is Clinton played defense and we all payed for it. Bush finally went on the offense... Zero attacks. Now we are going back to defense and putting more lives in danger.

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by keltic1701
    Originally posted by popinjay  

    Originally posted by frodus
     
    Sudan offered Ben laden to Clinton...
     

    Washington Post, October 3, 2001:
    The government of Sudan, employing a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.
    The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at a Rosslyn hotel on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later. Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.
    Sudan expelled bin Laden on May 18, 1996, to Afghanistan.
     
    OR:
     

    The New York Times, May 26, 2002:
    "The White House said tonight that President Bush had been warned by American intelligence agencies in early August that Osama bin Laden was seeking to hijack aircraft but that the warnings did not contemplate the possibility that the hijackers would turn the planes into guided missiles for a terrorist attack.
    "It is widely known that we had information that bin Laden wanted to attack the United States or United States interests abroad,'' Ari Fleischer, the president's press secretary, said this evening. ''The president was also provided information about bin Laden wanting to engage in hijacking in the traditional pre-9/11 sense, not for the use of suicide bombing, not for the use of an airplane as a missile."
     
    Clinton had no evidence. Bush had plenty of evidence. Who's worse?

    Stupid U.S. Constituion always getting in the way of justice...
    Maybe we should do what Rush suggests and just burn the friggin thing, then Clinton could have snatched up Bin Laden lickity split. Or maybe Bush should have just done his job when given actual evidence.



    You do realize you're gonna get the old and tired "liberal media" argument again?

    Lol yeah.. I guess that goes with the territory of being an informed citizen. Lots of people here on this site are really good at playing computer games, but reading about things in their world that actually mean something and connecting the dots? They fail pretty badly even with facts and statements right there.

    I mean, its not that hard to look up released government documents through the Freedom of Information Act or to find reputable sources that already did the work for you. It doesn't have to be a fansite of Clinton or Bush or whoever. Plenty of neutral media sources that only print actual documents.

    I'd always ask those knuckleheads "Define a liberal and define a conservative." They usually can't because most of them who use those tags to label folks have no idea what they really mean other than as a rallying cry for some political jihad.

  • popinjaypopinjay Member Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by Vemoi

    Bottom line is Clinton played defense and we all payed for it. Bush finally went on the offense... Zero attacks. Now we are going back to defense and putting more lives in danger.


    Clinton had to follow U.S. law. In 1996, it was illegal for a US President to just go and snatch someone up because you think he might do something. The court of law says you have to have proof before you nab people. The Clintons wanted to grab Bin Laden and then give them to our supposed allies, the Saudis, to hold until we had a case possibly. This because the Saudis have no such provision in their "laws" against violation of rights. Saudi Arabia is a muslim monarchy... there are no "rights".

    Our staunch "anti-terror ally" flatly refused to hold one of its own citizens. It may have had something to do with the BinLaden family doing major business with the US companies at the time, but whatever the reason, we had no legal place to hold Bin Laden.

    Of course now after Bush, it's perfectly legal to wiretap any suspected terrorist or U.S. citizen without warrants for your listening pleasure and to snatch and hold people for years without access to a lawyer, evidence against you or a trial.


    That's not modern progress. That's medievil regression.

  • keltic1701keltic1701 Member Posts: 1,162
    Originally posted by Vemoi

    Originally posted by keltic1701


    I NEVER said that Clinton didn't make ANY mistakes. In hindsight both the Clinton AND the Bush Administrations made severely bad decisions regarding bin Laden and al Qaeda. But writing of Clinton accomplishment as "Cherry picking" or "total BS" and falling back on your blatant Clinton bashing is a sign weakness in your argument. Hell! A "cherry picked" list could be made for the Bush admin. Admittedly it would much shorter than Clinton's but that can't helped... not as much material to "pick" from.



     

    When I say cherry pick, I mean taking someone's opinion in an interview or a column. There are whole websites with cherry picked statemants pointing to a US conspircy on 9/11.  Then a bunch of just BS bullet statements.

    Repute them if you can.

    I know you said you have been around awhile but I seriously have my doubts.  

    Your doubts about me are irrelevent since I am who and what I say I am. I know this but you still seem to be in the dark about me and many other things it seems.

    Bottom line is Clinton played defense and we all payed for it.

    We also played defense against the USSR and we are still paying for at was well. The only difference is that our defense payed off. I don't hear you complaining about that.

    Bush finally went on the offense... Zero attacks. Now we are going back to defense and putting more lives in danger.

    Why should terrorist waste time, money and resources attacking Americans at home when Bush was more than happy to ship them to Iraq. Bush's "cowboy diplomacy" has done nothing but wrecked our economy, soiled our reputation with our allies, made  fools of us and endeared those who oppose us to act against us. Yeah....really good job there!

     

  • VemoiVemoi Member Posts: 1,546
    Originally posted by keltic1701

    Originally posted by Vemoi




     
    When I say cherry pick, I mean taking someone's opinion in an interview or a column. There are whole websites with cherry picked statemants pointing to a US conspircy on 9/11.  Then a bunch of just BS bullet statements.
    Repute them if you can.
     

     



     

    Your the one coming up with BS statements with no links. The airlines shot down bill?  The NRA shot down bill? Doubled money for fighting terrorism or for bonuses and raises? I am not going to research 8 years of bullet statements with no links. I can see they are just biased BS.

    Point me to link showing the thousands of US citizens Russians killed during the cold war. Guess you don't see the difference.

  • JosherJosher Member Posts: 2,818

    Our economy was going to go in the same direction regardless of a war or not.  War?  This war is a joke compared to real wars.  What does Iraq have to do with bad mortgages and their trickle down anyway, which BUSH had zero responsibility for.  THATs the problem.  CEOs playing Monopoly  with real people.  Gas prices mean didly squat.  You think the war even had much to do with that?  China had more to do with gas prices than we did.  I'll take a defiicit over US citizens being blown up weekly if we did nothing.  Maybe someone in your family needed to be killed during 9-11 to see that you don't  let a war come to your shores.  You keep it on THEIRS.

    Want to see a crisis?  Imagine if we did nothing like the libs wanted and our schools and malls started blowing up instead of HumVs over in Iraq, which is exactly what would've started happening if we sat on our hands with our heads in the sand.  Check that.  The Libs wanted us to go in just like everyone else, ya hypocrites!!  You want to see a recession?  How about an Apocalypse?  Imagine no kids in schools, no one willing to leave their homes?   Enjoy tanks in the streets going house to house after Muslims, innocent or not.  You wouldn't be so happy then would ya, hippy?  People in the middle east are used to a life like that growing up in it.  You think the average American could handle it?  We're far too soft.  Thank the libs and MS media for turning us into cookie dough. 

    The sad thing is, we probably need another 9-11 to wake people up again...god forbid.  But the libs will probably want to go sing kumbaya and hold hands with people who danced in the streets as our towers were crumbling down or talk with a man thats stated time and time again that the Holocaust NEVER happened and wants every Israeli DEAD.  You think talking to a man like that matters?  How clueless are you? 

  • keltic1701keltic1701 Member Posts: 1,162
    Originally posted by Vemoi

    Originally posted by keltic1701

    Originally posted by Vemoi




     
    When I say cherry pick, I mean taking someone's opinion in an interview or a column. There are whole websites with cherry picked statemants pointing to a US conspircy on 9/11.  Then a bunch of just BS bullet statements.
    Repute them if you can.
     

     



     

    Your the one coming up with BS statements with no links. The airlines shot down bill?  The NRA shot down bill? Doubled money for fighting terrorism or for bonuses and raises? I am not going to research 8 years of bullet statements with no links. I can see they are just biased BS.

    BS to you and the clique of other grumbling malcontents on this forum. Facts to the rest of the real world.

    Point me to link showing the thousands of US citizens Russians killed during the cold war. Guess you don't see the difference.

    In war people die. Be it a cold war or hot one. The difference is they died to prevent a cold war from becoming hot war and possibly a nuclear war. Just as hot wars (Korea and Vietnam) and proxy (Afghanistan during the 1980's) wars sprung up during the Cold War it was sound, stable political leadership that kept these wars from escalating into the unthinkable. Ultimately it was the defense that you decry that ultimately helped us survive long enough to find ways to end the Cold War. The same thing will probably happen again with al Qaeda and Islamic extremists. It will be defense, good diplomacy and deterrence that will eventually defeat them. Running our military all over the world with half-cocked policies of "shock and awe"r has been nothing but a complete and utter failure, a drain on our manpower, our resources and our economy.

     

     

Sign In or Register to comment.