GWB, the better terror fighter?

ASRomatifoso said:


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.
Click to expand...

So you're a hypocrite who has no real use for individual or civil rights. It's good of you to admit that.
 
subgenius said:

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.
Click to expand...

It's nothing personal really, good posts just stand out.

I'm not at all sidetracking the issue, it's just that from what your posts and opinions were before this goes in completely opposite direction.

Yes the article you linked to is interesting and I don't know the reasons for why they did not attack and neither do you. This incident doesn't change the fact that Bush had a very good track record on the war on Terror.

Please, however, now answer my question on whether or not you reversed your position on the aforementioned by me issues.
 
Grammatron said:


It's nothing personal really, good posts just stand out.

I'm not at all sidetracking the issue, it's just that from what your posts and opinions were before this goes in completely opposite direction.

Yes the article you linked to is interesting and I don't know the reasons for why they did not attack and neither do you. This incident doesn't change the fact that Bush had a very good track record on the war on Terror.

Please, however, now answer my question on whether or not you reversed your position on the aforementioned by me issues.
Click to expand...

There were three specific articles I've posted here on three specific failings. So he "had" a good track record, other than these major errors?
Frankly I don't understand your statement of my position so I'd prefer not to respond, in favor of not derailing the thread. I will say that from my admittedly feeble memory I don't recall any comment on a non-relationship between AQ and Iraq. If I did make such a statement, the article obviously refutes it.
Mug me in another dark alley, another day. I'm not up to a scrap right now.
 
subgenius said:


There were three specific articles I've posted here on three specific failings. So he "had" a good track record, other than these major errors?
Frankly I don't understand your statement of my position so I'd prefer not to respond, in favor of not derailing the thread. I will say that from my admittedly feeble memory I don't recall any comment on a non-relationship between AQ and Iraq. If I did make such a statement, the article obviously refutes it.
Mug me in another dark alley, another day. I'm not up to a scrap right now.
Click to expand...

Regarding other articles, yes they should spend all the money needed to protect those labs.

As far as killing Osama before 9/11 that's a bit unfair and is nothing but a "hind-sight is 20/20" argument. Bill Clinton had a chance too --chance to arrest him no less -- should we join with some people on the right and blame him for not doing it too?

Sorry for continuing derail of the thread.

If you want me to accept this article as fact, than everything in it has to come as being fact as well. That there WMDs in Iraq, that Iraq had ties with al-Queda and that there were known terrorist harbored in there.
 
Tony said:


So you're a hypocrite who has no real use for individual or civil rights. It's good of you to admit that.
Click to expand...

My, how quickly people throw the charge of hypocrisy around. I would submit to you that on highly complex issues with many viewpoints such as free speech, civil liberties, gun control, abortion, etc., many of us may feel conflicted, i.e., hypocritical. Perhaps you have the clarity of vision and singlemindedness that allows you to never feel "conflicted". Congratulations on that! I acknowledge that I pick and choose which civil liberties to champion and that is wrong. However, if by championing gun control and also championing the denial of free speech to people who spread hate through word or deed, makes me a hypocrite, then okay, I am quite comfortable with that.
 
ASRomatifoso said:


My, how quickly people throw the charge of hypocrisy around. I would submit to you that on highly complex issues with many viewpoints such as free speech, civil liberties, gun control, abortion, etc., many of us may feel conflicted, i.e., hypocritical. Perhaps you have the clarity of vision and singlemindedness that allows you to never feel "conflicted". Congratulations on that! I acknowledge that I pick and choose which civil liberties to champion and that is wrong. However, if by championing gun control and also championing the denial of free speech to people who spread hate through word or deed, makes me a hypocrite, then okay, I am quite comfortable with that.
Click to expand...

Then it's disingenuous of you to complain when Bush does the same.

If you want to infringe on a person's harmless right to own a gun, you're no better than Bush when he wants to infringe on a person's right to marry who they want.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GWB, the better terror fighter?

Tony, I answered your question about taking Bush for his word, so it's only fair that you answer the questions I asked:

clk said:


The President of the United States admitted that a war he started was harmful to 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? :p
Click to expand...
 
He traded Sammy Sosa and fired Bobby Valentine.
He killed a protected bird called a killdeer and paid a fine (1994).
He ran 3 oil companies into the ground.
He pled guilty to a DWI.
He's the current record holder for most executions by a governor.
He has poor reading skills.
After meeting British PM Tony Blair, the press asked him if they had anything in common and he said, 'Yes, we both use Colgate Toothpaste.'
His grammar is horrible, he says 'Me and Laura' and extends words to non-valid parameters (i.e. 'common sensical').
He got so excited while watching an NFL playoff game, that he choked on a pretzel and fainted (January 13, 2002).
Although both he and his father declared war, not one of his twenty plus children or nieces or nephews have served in the armed forces.
http://www.amiannoying.com/(dv3rla55pfhlcpfmnxr1qmf0)/view.aspx?ID=66
 
corplinx said:
The problem with Kerry is that he we don't know how he will deal with america's foreign interests based on his voting record.

Whereas you would feel comfortable with Joe Lieberman in charge during a crisis, how would you honestly feel with John Kerry?

Its not the Bush is the "bettter" terror fighter. Its that Bush has a record.

He said that terrorists and the states that sponsor terrorism would go down.
-Taliban, check
Click to expand...

Not quite, and Afghanistan as a whole is still a complete mess. If you meant that it poses no threat to the US, you would be correct, but it's own citizens are still subject to a reign of terror from all sides.


-Iraq Baath Party, check
-Philipines, being supported
Click to expand...

As did Clinton.


-Libya, turning over nukes
Click to expand...

Libya has been in negotiations for years on terrorist issues, they have nothing to do with the recent war.


-Iran, more open negotiation than ever
Click to expand...

Don't be so sure. The more liberal elements of Iran were looking pretty good for a while there, with broad, popular backing. However, the conservative extremists who hold a veto over everything are holding on for all they are worth.


-Syria, inroads being made, hezbollah offices being shut down
Click to expand...

Syria has been slowly changing for years now. These changes predate the arrival of Bush


-Saudi Arabia, high ranking folks pointed out, most of them dead
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with Bush. The 'royal' family that runs the place has suddenly realised that maybe keeping their own private serfdom based on religious ignorance may not be a good idea after all


Bush has a track record now of being tough on states that sponsor terror and helping support states that combat terror.

Simply put, Republicans will play a FUD campaign on Kerry. FUD= Fear Uncertainty Doubt. The only person to blame is the issue however is Kerry. Look at Joe Lieberman, he has never mixed words on fighting terrorism. Kerry has opened himself up to this attack by talking in vague language about police action and such.
Click to expand...

Look at the ROI the Bush has achieved. In terms of $/terrorist, I would say he is doing pretty badly.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GWB, the better terror fighter?

clk said:
Tony, I answered your question about taking Bush for his word, so it's only fair that you answer the questions I asked:
Click to expand...


Ok, You question was...

The President of the United States admitted that a war he started was harmful to 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?
Click to expand...


I don't know who I'm voting for, or if I am even going to vote at all. This year's candidates are the scum of the toilet. But, would you vote for a liar?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GWB, the better terror fighter?

Tony said:



Ok, You question was...




I don't know who I'm voting for, or if I am even going to vote at all. This year's candidates are the scum of the toilet. But, would you vote for a liar?
Click to expand...

So I have to choose between two liars? Damn it! This happens every single election. I think I'll vote for the one who didn't start a war on lies, the one who isn't Kenny Lay's best friend, the one who wouldn't sacrifice over 500 US troops, 10000 Iraqi civilians, hundreds of billions of dollars, plus the entire US economy on a war against a country that posed absolutely no threat to us. I don't really like Kerry all that much, either...he's too much of a politician. He probably would have gone into Iraq too...but I think he would have been much more diplomatic.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GWB, the better terror fighter?

clk said:


I think I'll vote for the one who didn't start a war on lies, the one who isn't Kenny Lay's best friend, the one who wouldn't sacrifice over 500 US troops, 10000 Iraqi civilians, hundreds of billions of dollars, plus the entire US economy on a war against a country that posed absolutely no threat to us.
Click to expand...


That doesnt make sense, you wont vote for the guy who started the war ect., but you'll vote for the guy who supported the guy who started the war. Hmmm partisan politics are alive and well.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GWB, the better terror fighter?

clk said:
Oh, and Tony, you might want to apologize to Evolver for insulting his pig, now that it's been proven that Evolver was right.
Click to expand...
VERY funny! I was wondering if that went unnoticed.

varwoche
 
Hey, Rikzilla... as long as you're posting again in other threads, would you care to respond to my rebuttal of your comments on Kerry's voting record?
 
Bump... still out there Rikzilla... ? I'm calling you out !
 
Polls suggest that a reputation for being tough on terror is just about the only remaining political strength George Bush has. Yet this reputation is based on image, not reality. The truth is that Mr. Bush, while eager to invoke 9/11 on behalf of an unrelated war, has shown consistent reluctance to focus on the terrorists who actually attacked America, or their backers in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

This reluctance dates back to Mr. Bush's first months in office. Why, after all, has his inner circle tried so hard to prevent a serious investigation of what happened on 9/11? There has been much speculation about whether officials ignored specific intelligence warnings, but what we know for sure is that the administration disregarded urgent pleas by departing Clinton officials to focus on the threat from Al Qaeda.

After 9/11, terrorism could no longer be ignored, and the military conducted a successful campaign against Al Qaeda's Taliban hosts. But the failure to commit sufficient U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape. After that, the administration appeared to lose interest in Al Qaeda; by the summer of 2002, bin Laden's name had disappeared from Mr. Bush's speeches. It was all Saddam, all the time.

This wasn't just a rhetorical switch; crucial resources were pulled off the hunt for Al Qaeda, which had attacked America, to prepare for the overthrow of Saddam, who hadn't. If you want confirmation that this seriously impeded the fight against terror, just look at reports about the all-out effort to capture Osama that started, finally, just a few days ago. Why didn't this happen last year, or the year before? According to The New York Times, last year many of the needed forces were tied up in Iraq.
....
Some of the administration's actions have been so strange that those who reported them were initially accused of being nutty conspiracy theorists. For example, what are we to make of the post-9/11 Saudi airlift? Just days after the attack, at a time when private air travel was banned, the administration gave special clearance to flights that gathered up Saudi nationals, including a number of members of the bin Laden family, who were in the U.S. at the time. These Saudis were then allowed to leave the country, after at best cursory interviews with the F.B.I.
....
So when the Bush campaign boasts of the president's record in fighting terrorism and accuses John Kerry of being weak on the issue, when Republican congressmen suggest that a vote for Mr. Kerry is a vote for Osama, remember this: the administration's actual record is one of indulgence toward regimes that are strongly implicated in terrorism, and of focusing on actual terrorist threats only when forced to by events.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/o...Opinion/Editorials and Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom