Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 36 of 36
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    What does cromulent mean? Or are you indulging in sesquipedalian obscurantism?
    You should know what Cromulent is PB!! It's what you are after you drink gallons of Tea and eat those friggin' rock hard buscuits they serve there in the UK. At the end of a marathon session you have to pee and you are Cromulent.
    "Do the Chickens have large talons?" Napoleon Dynamite
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    But to blame the current administration on the intelligence situation does not make sense. We must keep in mind that Clinton saw the degradation of our military and its subsequent reliance upon its resersve forces. We also saw it reduce its reliance upon real people in the world of intelligence and instead rely upon electronics. Put that together and nothing really good happens. Put that on the previous democratic president, not Bush. It takes time to rebuild. As for the Commission, it really was not what it was suppose to be. Bipartisan? Maybe, but not at all friendly to the Administration. Recommendations? He chose to take some and not others. Reorganization is in the works. Would you accept all of the recommendations if you were in his position? No. Dragging feet? Dang, not everything can be done at once. Recommendations have to be reviewed and assessments made.

    Incidentally, has CBS ever said anything positive about Iraq?
    It is easy to just blame Clinton for every thing, but the post cold war decrease in our military during Clinton's first term was a bipartisan decision, hey **** Cheney voted for these decreases. In the second Clinton term, defense spending increased every year. And Clinton's people were onto bin ladin, and it was the Bush people who dropped the ball on him, during the summer prior to 911.

    Anyway, the real issue is, what has Bush done to improve our intelligence? This is one of the most effective tools we have to fight terrorism. Post 911 our intelligence was revealed to be **** poor and what has Bush done about it? First he opposed a 911 commission, then he said he would not talk to it, then he said he would only talk to it if **** Cheney was holding his hand. Then he said he would not follow their recommendations, now he is dragging his feet on following their recommendations on improving our intelligence. You know why this commission took a long time? Its because people like Bush have been doing their best to slow it down!

    What he should have been doing from the start, before waiting for the commission report, is training a whole lot of people to speak arabic languages, and building up our CIA, reorganizing it and making it much better. Instead Bush is using our bad intelligence as a cover for him to give him an excuse why he was wrong on WMD and the al-queda-Irag connections.

    It is unexcuseable that less people on working on bin ladin now than before 911. inexcuseable!
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 09/19/2004 at 09:56 AM.
  3. #23  
    CellMatrix, wow on the above post. Clinton's people were onto him? Keep up the words. The 9-11 commission report does not support you. Nothing supports you. Clinton had 8 years to deal with the situation and according to the report did not. Bush had 8 months and played catch up. Bush though did not do the followup we all would have like to have done. **** Cheney voted for these decreases? **** Cheney voted? How? Military spending went up? They sure had to go up when you look at the conflicts he got us into. He decreased the size of the military, closed bunches of bases, and increased its spending to pay for the conflicts, which most WERE NOT SANCTIONED BY THE UN. They were sanctioned by those who wanted to get Monica off of America's back.

    It seems like you are one person who says that Albright was the solution to America's plight. Albright was very ineffective with an ineffective President who sought to please the world. To think that Kerry says she will be there if he takes office. Damn, the 90s revisited.

    You speak fo having to hold Cheney's hand - hey, now, look at Clinton. Let's be fair, something you are not being. Dragging feet? Hardly. Knee jerk reactions are what you are for and frankly, that does not work. Had Bush done what you are proposing with nothing to back his actions up, then the left would be yelling at the top of its lungs that the right was over reacting.

    You speak of WMD - you just seem to conveniently forget that Clinton said for 8 years that they were there. You just seem to conveniently forget that Putin stated publically that he had told Bush they were there. You seem to forget that the dude who said the yellow cake from Nigeria was forged and yet he later fessed up that it was true. You see to forget lots of othings. The WMD issue is really a dead issue. Dead. The latest release from the guys investigating it state that Iraq was in a position to reactivate it and that it was also working on increasing the range of its missiles beyond allowable limits. You seem to forget......

    Frankly, from the view point of the center of the road people, there is nothing Bush could have done to please the people of the party that left me a bit over a decade ago. I am so tired of people who just like to babble on and on and on about issues that are just plain partisan. This one is an example of an issue that has just gone wild.

    Take care! It's a beautiful day in Paradise. Ben
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    CellMatrix, wow on the above post. Clinton's people were onto him? Keep up the words. The 9-11 commission report does not support you. Nothing supports you. Clinton had 8 years to deal with the situation and according to the report did not. Bush had 8 months and played catch up. Bush though did not do the followup we all would have like to have done. **** Cheney voted for these decreases? **** Cheney voted? How? Military spending went up? They sure had to go up when you look at the conflicts he got us into. He decreased the size of the military, closed bunches of bases, and increased its spending to pay for the conflicts, which most WERE NOT SANCTIONED BY THE UN. They were sanctioned by those who wanted to get Monica off of America's back.

    It seems like you are one person who says that Albright was the solution to America's plight. Albright was very ineffective with an ineffective President who sought to please the world. To think that Kerry says she will be there if he takes office. Damn, the 90s revisited.

    You speak fo having to hold Cheney's hand - hey, now, look at Clinton. Let's be fair, something you are not being. Dragging feet? Hardly. Knee jerk reactions are what you are for and frankly, that does not work. Had Bush done what you are proposing with nothing to back his actions up, then the left would be yelling at the top of its lungs that the right was over reacting.

    You speak of WMD - you just seem to conveniently forget that Clinton said for 8 years that they were there. You just seem to conveniently forget that Putin stated publically that he had told Bush they were there. You seem to forget that the dude who said the yellow cake from Nigeria was forged and yet he later fessed up that it was true. You see to forget lots of othings. The WMD issue is really a dead issue. Dead. The latest release from the guys investigating it state that Iraq was in a position to reactivate it and that it was also working on increasing the range of its missiles beyond allowable limits. You seem to forget......

    Frankly, from the view point of the center of the road people, there is nothing Bush could have done to please the people of the party that left me a bit over a decade ago. I am so tired of people who just like to babble on and on and on about issues that are just plain partisan. This one is an example of an issue that has just gone wild.

    Take care! It's a beautiful day in Paradise. Ben
    Ben,
    I was saying that Clark from Clinton's NSC was not successful in getting Rice and her group focused on BinLadin until it was too late.

    You bash the UN in about twenty of your last posts, now you are so concerned about the UNs approval of base closings. One might call that a bit hypocritical?

    Its been three years since 911, what has our "leader" done to improve our intelligence? I think it is not knee jerk to think he might have actually shown some leadership to do something about improving our intelligence, at least putting forward a proposal over the course of the last three years. Thats simply what I am talking about here.

    I think middle of the road people would have been quite pleased if Bush had done something in this regard. And Bush HAS been dragging his feet on everything about the 911 commission everyone knows it.

    You can attack my words as babbling if they seem threatening to you, but I have taken extra time to add references and documentation as much as anyone else in this forum. What you say about me is no concern to me anyway. I do not take it personally, I know you have your own views and sometimes get caught up in them. Actually I agree with some of what you say, just for the record.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 09/19/2004 at 01:07 PM.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Ben,
    ....
    You bash the UN in about twenty of your last posts, now you are so concerned about the UNs approval of base closings. Quite hypocritcal one might say.
    ..
    Ben was HARDLY talking about UN approval of base closings. Try reading the sentence again.

    Quote Originally Posted by bclininger
    He decreased the size of the military, closed bunches of bases, and increased its spending to pay for the conflicts, which most WERE NOT SANCTIONED BY THE UN.
    He was clearly refering to the conflicts mentioned.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  6. #26  
    OK conflicts, base-closings, it was a little ambiguous in my reading of the phrase. My point here is I am surprised that Ben shows so much concern for UN approval here, while bashing the UN every chance he gets in other posts.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 09/19/2004 at 01:24 PM.
  7. #27  
    I show concern for UN approval here only because you insist I show it. The US has consistently asked for UN approval and not gotten it and in your eyes, that means the US must not take action when it deams it appropriate. I "bash" the UN only when others insist it is the answer - it is not the answer. Other countries bulk the UN when it is not to their advantage. Heck, the UN bashes Israel for its attempts to defend itself by building a wall to keep people out, not to keep them in. My suggestion is to have the leadership of Europe move to Israel and live under those circumstances. Would you live under those circumstances? I believe not.

    As for the budget cuts, (9-11 report) ...Expenditures at the end of the Cold War led to budget cuts in the national foreign intelligence program from fiscal years 1990 to 1996 and essentially flat budgets from fiscal yars 1996 to 2000...Now, you speak of rebuilding. It took years to cut and it takes YEARS (more than than cutting) to rebuild. What you are asking for is more than the left would ever allow. More than Kennedy, Kerry and their buddies would ever allow. They are more concerned about allowing the murder of our unborn than the protection of the living (and good luck defending against that statement). Immediate rebuilding - heck when Regan rebuilt the US military after the Carter presidency (the wost president we have ever had), the left SCREAMED and YELLED for years. So do not go there. You are just wasting your time.

    Richard Clark? You gotta be kidding me. This man has been discredited completely. If you rely upon him to do anything, then do not rely upon yourself to get up in the morning.

    As for facts, please read the 9-11 commission report in detail. I even carry it on my Treo. Let's leave the UN to take care of the human side of life, not our defense. In fact, be careful with it taking care of the human side of life. It has not done too well in the medical care field on its own. Frankly the rest of the world needs to stop relying upon US money to carry the programs through. Take care of America first...well, that is not right either.

    I am far from ambiguous - I can be very detailed when the need arises. As for facts, if necessary they can be presented; however, everything I have stated is in the public eye and available from public sources that you and I have access to. Everything.

    As for being babbling being threatening to me - nope, not at all. What I fear is this country loosing the intitative it is trying to regain after years and years of loosing self respect. The Clinton years were feel good years that accomplished little of importance. Maybe I would still be a democrat if Clinton were not elected or the party had not left the center of the road.

    Ben
  8. #28  
    OK well you took us back to Clinton Carter Reagan, I guess you want me to defend every action of every democrat for the past 30 years? The point I made is that our intelligence is in a sorry state. And yes, Bush actually used it to his advantage in getting us into Iraq. Obviously, the intelligence failure is not Bush's fault, nor Clinton's and Bush Sr. before him. It is an older system based on the cold war, not on the current terrorist threats we have today. Once we had 911, it was clear that we needed to fix our intelligence system. What I am saying is I wish we would have been better off to focus on improving our intelligence and making al queda job one, rather than making Iraq job one. That is my simple point, all of what you said in your replies, some of it I agree with some I disagree with, does not dissuade me from this belief. And this is a belief which I think is quite reasonable to have and I think a lot of people feel this way.
  9. #29  
    We did go back a lot of years to look at what us to the state we are currently in. Both parties hold blame, some more than others. Bipartisan - yes to some extent, but more so on the democrats when it came to the real heavy cuts, cuts that have never been so deep in a republican administration. As for making one or the other job one, our current situation requires we clean up one before the other. It is going to take time and lots of money to build back what took years to destroy. Literally destroy. The reliance on electronic systems versus real live people is not the same. As for fixing the system after 9-11, you know as well as I do the infighting that this has involved. The name calling this has involved. Down right disgusting. We need to get over the "issues" and on with resolving the issues. Being constantly pounded and having to respond to the pounding is counter productive. The joining together you want has been a tearing apart by the democratic party, a party that I was a member of until...As Reagan pointed out, he did not leave the party, the party left him and frankly, that is exactly how

    I feel. It is now so liberal and so far different than the values I was brought up with.

    Ben
  10. #30  
    Ac Diver .... Well said...
    (I think ......)
  11. #31  
    No plans to call up anyone after the election huh????

    U.S. Plans Year-End Drive to Take Iraqi Rebel Areas
    By DEXTER FILKINS
    BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 18 - Faced with a growing insurgency and a January deadline for national elections, American commanders in Iraq say they are preparing operations to open up rebel-held areas, especially Falluja, the restive city west of Baghdad now under contol of insurgents and Islamist groups.

    A senior American commander said the military intended to take back Falluja and other rebel areas by year's end. The commander did not set a date for an offensive but said that much would depend on the availability of Iraqi military and police units, which would be sent to occupy the city once the Americans took it.

    The American commander suggested that operations in Falluja could begin as early as November or December, the deadline the Americans have given themselves for restoring Iraqi government control across the country. .....

    Don't worry reservists... I am SURE we can get this done with the exsisting forces we have there already, since they need able to hold off the insurgency since "Mission Accomlished"
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by TrySpammingMe
    No plans to call up anyone after the election huh????

    U.S. Plans Year-End Drive to Take Iraqi Rebel Areas
    By DEXTER FILKINS
    BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 18 - Faced with a growing insurgency and a January deadline for national elections, American commanders in Iraq say they are preparing operations to open up rebel-held areas, especially Falluja, the restive city west of Baghdad now under contol of insurgents and Islamist groups.

    A senior American commander said the military intended to take back Falluja and other rebel areas by year's end. The commander did not set a date for an offensive but said that much would depend on the availability of Iraqi military and police units, which would be sent to occupy the city once the Americans took it.

    The American commander suggested that operations in Falluja could begin as early as November or December, the deadline the Americans have given themselves for restoring Iraqi government control across the country. .....

    Don't worry reservists... I am SURE we can get this done with the exsisting forces we have there already, since they need able to hold off the insurgency since "Mission Accomlished"
    You need to refer back to Alli's post, #13, and you'll see it's no mystery
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    well if thats the case what is Kerry crying about?

    Civillians didn't know.
  14. #34  
    Thats all fine and good with the troop rotation, and I hear what you are saying, but if we don't have enough on the ground right now to "hold the lines", how are we going to take back those cities when we will be in hand to hand combat?

    This is the kind of fighting we expected when taking Baghdad and fortunately never happened.

    I don't know the details of the "rotation", but I hope for the safety of our troops it is enough to do the job right, or not at all.
  15. #35  
    Civilians did not know? It has been in the papers for some time now. If someone does not know this then they just are not taking the time to read the papers in detail. Ben
  16. #36  
    No, it has not been in the papers for quite some time that the rotation has been set in stone for the past year through the next year. There has been speculation, but the information was never released through channels, ie "official pentagon spokesman."
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions