GWB, the better terror fighter?

[Evolver]

Re: Re: Re: Re: GWB, the better terror fighter?

Either you're lying or your pig ignorant. Which is it?

If those are the choices, I'd say my pig is ignorant. Let me ask him:
Soooooeeeee, here Tony... here boy... are you ignorant?

Tony: Those liberals want to take our guns!

I guess my pig IS ignorant.

 

[gnome]

Re: Re: GWB, the better terror fighter?

(quoting his article)

The record shows that Kerry opposed the key weapons systems vital to American victory in the war against terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism: the B-2 stealth bomber, the Tomahawk cruise missile, the Apache helicopter, the M-1 Abrams tank, a wide range of fighter jets and other combat aircraft.

Kerry's voting record also shows he opposed the Patriot missile defense system, and voted nine times against a missile defense system to protect American citizens from missile attack. He voted six times in the past decade to freeze or reduce spending on defense. And he voted to allow our country's enemies to buy dual-use technology to build high-tech weapons.

According to the Times, "for the most part, Mr. Kerry has failed to address many of his Senate votes on defense and intelligence matters."

I am not familiar with his voting records on the first paragraph, or his reasons for voting the way he did, so I will leave that to another to address.

Regarding the second paragraph, are you familiar with the reason the NMD program was opposed? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't lack of concern over nuclear weapons, or a desire to make us vulnerable.

Regarding spending on defense, is it your position that spending on the military should always increase? Is our post-Cold War battle against terrorism more expensive than trying to drive a rival superpower into bankruptcy? Maybe it is, I just think it's worth discussing, rather than dismissing those that bring it up as unpatriotic or soft on defense.

 

[gnome]

More info on Kerry's "anti-military" votes here:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/

It is instructive, however, to look at the footnotes. Almost all of them cite Kerry's vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. Do a Google search, and you will learn that S. 3189 was the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically.

On a couple of the weapons, the RNC report cites H.R. 5803 and H.R. 2126. Look those up. They turn out to be votes on the House-Senate conference committee reports for the defense appropriations bills in October 1990 (the same year as S. 3189) and September 1995.

In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty.

With this information in mind, Rikzilla, do you still stand behind your comments?

If you do, may I ask which of these alternatives lead you to that stance:

1. The information in the article I quoted is inaccurate.
2. The conclusions drawn by the article are inaccurate.
3. Your comments refer to votes besides what this article is discussing, and are not of the same character.
4. Some other reason I didn't mention here.

 

[clk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: GWB, the better terror fighter?

Either you're lying or your pig ignorant. Which is it?

Bush admitted it himself:

Russert: The Bush-Cheney first three years, the unemployment rate has gone up 33 percent, there has been a loss of 2.2 million jobs. We've gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit. The debt has gone from $5.7 trillion, to $7 trillion — up 23 percent.

Based on that record, why should the American people rehire you as CEO?

President Bush: Sure, because I have been the President during a time of tremendous stress on our economy and made the decisions necessary to lead — that would enhance recovery. Let me review the bidding here. The stock market started to decline in March of 2000. That was the first sign that things were troubled. The recession started upon my arrival. It could have been some say February, some say March, some speculate maybe earlier it started, but nevertheless it happened as we showed up here.

The attacks on our country affected our economy. Corporate scandals affected the confidence of people and therefore affected the economy. My decision on Iraq, this kind of march to war, affected the economy, but we have been through a lot. And what those numbers show is the fact we have been through a lot.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/

(Emphasis mine)


Actually, I'm not sure if he meant to say the part in bold. I think what he was trying to do was blame the faultering economy on CNN, like he did before. But who knows what he meant to say...

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GWB, the better terror fighter?

Bush admitted it himself:

And you take Bush for his word?

 

[clk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GWB, the better terror fighter?

And you take Bush for his word?

LOL! The President of the United States admitted that a war he started was harmful to the economy. From what I've seen, I'd say he's right. I think the economy was starting to pick up until Bush started his march to war. I think the war stalled the economy. Do you take Bush for his word? Or was he lying? If you think he was lying, then maybe you should vote for Kerry. After all, why vote for a liar, right?

 

[Zep]

Redux of my opinion: Vote for ANYBODY BUT The Shrub and Cheney. Their stupidity deserves its reward - pick someone with real brains instead. And that leaves lots of others of all political stripes to choose from, folks.

 

[subgenius]

Redux of my opinion: Vote for ANYBODY BUT The Shrub and Cheney. Their stupidity deserves its reward - pick someone with real brains instead. And that leaves lots of others of all political stripes to choose from, folks.

But if your goal is regime change then that may not accomplish your mission (voting for someone other than Kerry).

 

[Tmy]

Re: Re: GWB, the better terror fighter?

Well, here's some pertinent info on John Kerry's past as relates to war-fighting.




THE LINK

Sounds to me that JFK will be the enemy's best friend if we foolishly elect him.

-z

What does that have to do wh fighting terror??? WE keep hearingteh mantra that its not a conventinal war, so what good would all those conventional weapons do.

Gee, you know what would really useful in stopping Al Queda? Another 1/2 dozen Triton Nuke Submarines.

 

[DaChew]

Kerry is already fighting terrorists and has been for several years. In 1996, he called the Republicans terrorists for holding the country hostage. He has therefore, in his mind, been fighting terrorists for longer than Bush.

I think it's difficult to know whether Kerry would fight actual terrorists any differently than Bush. We know how Bush fights terrorists because we've heard what he has said he will do and then seen his actions. We don't know how Kerry would have fought terror because he hasn't said how he would fight it. The only thing that I can find that he has said is that he would rebuild our relationships and work towards a coalition and other such vagueries. To me, this suggests that he would have attacked Afghanistan since Bush was able to build a coalition for that but not Iraq.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Redux of my opinion: Vote for ANYBODY BUT The Shrub and Cheney. Their stupidity deserves its reward - pick someone with real brains instead. And that leaves lots of others of all political stripes to choose from, folks.

Now you know why we haven't given Aussies the vote

As we internationalize the work in Iraq, we need to add 40,000 troops – the equivalent of two divisions – to the American military in order to meet our responsibilities elsewhere – especially in the urgent global war on terror. In my first 100 days as President, I will move to increase the size of our Armed Forces. Some may not like that. But today, in the face of grave challenges, our armed forces are spread too thin. Our troops in Iraq are paying the price for this everyday. There’s not enough troops in the ranks of our overall armed forces to bring home those troops that have been in Iraq for more than a year.

Where's he going to get these troops during wartime? Reinstate the draft? I will laugh my a$$ off if Kerry gets voted in by a bunch of "anti-war" youngsters and Kerry reinstates the draft.

Then again, it's Kerry. Maybe he will do it and maybe he won't, who knows?

Link to quote: http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1216.html

 

[clk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: GWB, the better terror fighter?

Oh, and Tony, you might want to apologize to Evolver for insulting his pig, now that it's been proven that Evolver was right.

Either you're lying or your pig ignorant. Which is it?

 

[subgenius]

The results are in: GWB a lousy terror fighter:

With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.
.....
And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601

Let's see, had a chance to get Osama, and blew it. Had a chance to get this guy and blew it.

If he gets the credit when our soldiers do something right, he should get the responsibility when he and his brass foul up.
Fair?

 

[Grammatron]

The results are in: GWB a lousy terror fighter:

With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.
.....
And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601

Let's see, had a chance to get Osama, and blew it. Had a chance to get this guy and blew it.

If he gets the credit when our soldiers do something right, he should get the responsibility when he and his brass foul up.
Fair?

So you're saying there were WMDs in Iraq, interesting.

 

[subgenius]

So you're saying there were WMDs in Iraq, interesting.

Interesting conclusion. Avoids and distracts from the point, but interesting. In a clinical way.

 

[Grammatron]

Interesting conclusion. Avoids and distracts from the point, but interesting. In a clinical way.

Look at it from this point of view, your position on this forum has been no WMDs in Iraq (as far as I remember), and that intelligence was poor. Now you quote an article critical of Bush with critique based on his inability to act to stop a terrorist with ties to Al-Queda in Iraq (and I thought there were no Al-Queda in Iraq) making WMDs all based on our good intelligence. I'm not going to go as far to call it hypocritical, yet. But that's quite a reversal on your position.

 

[ASRomatifoso]

I think that Bush did what any President, Republican or Democrat, would have done in the aftermath of 9/11. I don't see where that makes him a particularly skilled "terror-fighter" (a howlingly laughable term BTW).

I do think that Bush is very skilled at spending lots of money, increasing the deficit (actually I should say blowing the surplus that he inherited and then creating a new, gigantic deficit), lying about the amount of jobs being created, cutting funding for social programs and education (check out this month's issue of Government Executive), boosting the NRA (deplorable), and calling for Constitutional Amendments to dictate human liberties on the grounds of some outdated, Draconian moral, and saying and doing things that most of the rest of the civilized world poke fun at or disagree with.

Every night I watch the news and every night I get angrier and more disillusioned.

 

[Tony]

boosting the NRA (deplorable)

It's deplorable to "boost" a group which champions the constitution? Do you feel the same way about the ACLU?

 

[subgenius]

Look at it from this point of view, your position on this forum has been no WMDs in Iraq (as far as I remember), and that intelligence was poor. Now you quote an article critical of Bush with critique based on his inability to act to stop a terrorist with ties to Al-Queda in Iraq (and I thought there were no Al-Queda in Iraq) making WMDs all based on our good intelligence. I'm not going to go as far to call it hypocritical, yet. But that's quite a reversal on your position.

Quite a leap. But I'm flattered that you're watching me so closely, and dismayed that you're avoiding the issue. Remember what it is? You wouldn't be trying to sidetrack the discussion would you?
The three cited articles I've presented have some bearing on the question.

 

[ASRomatifoso]

It's deplorable to "boost" a group which champions the constitution? Do you feel the same way about the ACLU?

Yes, deplorable, that we have so many guns, so many gun deaths and all because it's written in our Constitution that we should have assault rifles, submachine guns, etc. available to all. so we can stand by at a moment's notice to defend our homes. Very funny! And no I don't feel the same way about the ACLU, except maybe when they defend some ignorant, hatefull KKK member's right to free speech.